Once again, I will be part of a team that will be visiting Jesus in Prison. From April 16th through April 19t, I will be in the Coffield Unit in Texas visiting our Lord and spreading His message of love, reconciliation, and the call to be made new among 42 inmates.
For the people that may read this, I have a request. I know many of you are interested in things concerning the Episcopal Church. There are those who disagree with me and those who agree with me on what should happen in TEC and the Anglican Communion. I am asking that we set these things aside and commit to pray for the 42 inmates at Coffield that will be participating in the Kairos weekend.
If you will pray for the weekend, please leave a comment here with your actual name (first name is suffiient) and the city and country in which you will be praying.
We write the names on strips of paper and then form those strips into a "prayer chain." We wrap that chain around the place where we are holding the weekend as a visible reminder to the team that Prayer is what sustains and upholds us in ministry and to the inmates as a visible reminder that thousands of people from around the world are praying for them.
Please add your name to those who will pray for the men at Coffield.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A Break - with music
The last week and a half has been busier than most - thus the lack of blog posts. I had to prepare a Lay Eucharistic Minister (actually a Lay Eucharistic Visitor) retreat, prepare a sermon, do my normal work, get my son prepared for a Weblos Woods campout, gather charitas (letters of encouragement and evidence of prayer) for my Daughter as she went to her first Happening (like Cursillo or Walk to Emmaus, but for High School students).
So, I let the blog posting on the Seven Deadly sins subside for a bit.
In between time (and as a good Lenten break that reminds us that God's Grace is what saves us), I offer this rendition of Amazing Grace.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
So, I let the blog posting on the Seven Deadly sins subside for a bit.
In between time (and as a good Lenten break that reminds us that God's Grace is what saves us), I offer this rendition of Amazing Grace.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Deadly Sins - Pride (Part 1)
Perhaps the root of all sin is the sin of Pride. Pride is putting one's self in the place of God. It is making decisions as if you were God or acting as if God's plan and your plan are the same. When I am honest with myself, I will admit that all too often God's voice sounds like my own; God's plan is to make my happy now and God's will is just what I want.
Being the root of all sin; pride is, perhaps, the most deadly of sins. Like all sin, pride brings darkness to our lives and our souls so that we are no longer even aware of the extent of our sins. We may intellectually know of our sins, but we do not know them. We do not own them. We don't really feel that the "memory of them is grevious to us. The burden of them is intollerable."
Following St. Augustine's Prayer Book, Pride is putting yourself in the place of God as the center of our lives (or some part of our lives) or the object of our love. Pride refuses to recognize our status as creatures who are dependent on God for our lives and everything around us. Pride shows itself in several, often subtle, ways
Irreverence - Neglect of woship of God every Sunday in His Church or being content with a perfunctory participation in worship. Disregard of Holy Days or additional opportunities for giving God honor. Failure to thank God or to express our gratitude adequately. Disrespect for God or for holy things by deliberatly treating them (in thought, word, or deed) in profane, contemptous or an overly-familiar manner. Use of holy things for personal advantage or the attempt to bribe or placate God by religious practices or promises.
Sentimentality - Being satisfied with pious feelings and beautiful ceremonies withouth striving to obey God's will.
Presumption - Dependence on self rather than on God. Neglecting the means of Grace - sacraments, prayer, and study. Dispensation of ourselves from ordinary duties on the grounds that we are "above that." Satisfaction or complacency over our spiritual achievements (or even taking credit for our spiritual achievements). Refusal to avoid, when possible, immediate occasions of temptation. Preference for our own will, ideas, or plans. Foolish optimism. Failure to recognize our work as a divine vocation or to offer our work to God. Unwillingness to surrender to Jesus or to abide in him. Failur to offer to intercede for others - especially those who have asked our prayers.
Distrust - Refusal to accept God's wisdome, providence, and love. Worry, anxiety, misgivings, overly scrupulousness or perfectionism. Attempts to discern or control the future through any means. Supersticion is a form of distrust.
Over-sensitiveness. Expectation that otherswill dislike, reject, or mistreat us. Being too quick to take offense at others actions or words.
Timidity in accepting responsibility or cowardice in facing difficulty. Surrendering to feelings of gloom, depression, pessimism, discouragement, self-pity instead of fighting and praying for courage and hope.
When I look at this (partial list), I tremble at my own sin. I see myself far too often in this list. I plead with Paul "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" And, I rejoice with him in the answer: "Thanks be to God in Jesus Christ!"
The whole point of an examination of conscience is not to run ourselves down or to feel bad about ourselves, but to know our own sinfulness and then offer that to God and ask for forgivness and amendment of life.
Pride hide our sins from us. Pride leads to the dark and damp place in our souls in which sin grows like mold and mildew. Confession is the God's ultraviolate light shining on the mold and bringing it to nothingness. I urge you to make a private confession at least once during this Lent.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Being the root of all sin; pride is, perhaps, the most deadly of sins. Like all sin, pride brings darkness to our lives and our souls so that we are no longer even aware of the extent of our sins. We may intellectually know of our sins, but we do not know them. We do not own them. We don't really feel that the "memory of them is grevious to us. The burden of them is intollerable."
Following St. Augustine's Prayer Book, Pride is putting yourself in the place of God as the center of our lives (or some part of our lives) or the object of our love. Pride refuses to recognize our status as creatures who are dependent on God for our lives and everything around us. Pride shows itself in several, often subtle, ways
Irreverence - Neglect of woship of God every Sunday in His Church or being content with a perfunctory participation in worship. Disregard of Holy Days or additional opportunities for giving God honor. Failure to thank God or to express our gratitude adequately. Disrespect for God or for holy things by deliberatly treating them (in thought, word, or deed) in profane, contemptous or an overly-familiar manner. Use of holy things for personal advantage or the attempt to bribe or placate God by religious practices or promises.
Sentimentality - Being satisfied with pious feelings and beautiful ceremonies withouth striving to obey God's will.
Presumption - Dependence on self rather than on God. Neglecting the means of Grace - sacraments, prayer, and study. Dispensation of ourselves from ordinary duties on the grounds that we are "above that." Satisfaction or complacency over our spiritual achievements (or even taking credit for our spiritual achievements). Refusal to avoid, when possible, immediate occasions of temptation. Preference for our own will, ideas, or plans. Foolish optimism. Failure to recognize our work as a divine vocation or to offer our work to God. Unwillingness to surrender to Jesus or to abide in him. Failur to offer to intercede for others - especially those who have asked our prayers.
Distrust - Refusal to accept God's wisdome, providence, and love. Worry, anxiety, misgivings, overly scrupulousness or perfectionism. Attempts to discern or control the future through any means. Supersticion is a form of distrust.
Over-sensitiveness. Expectation that otherswill dislike, reject, or mistreat us. Being too quick to take offense at others actions or words.
Timidity in accepting responsibility or cowardice in facing difficulty. Surrendering to feelings of gloom, depression, pessimism, discouragement, self-pity instead of fighting and praying for courage and hope.
When I look at this (partial list), I tremble at my own sin. I see myself far too often in this list. I plead with Paul "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" And, I rejoice with him in the answer: "Thanks be to God in Jesus Christ!"
The whole point of an examination of conscience is not to run ourselves down or to feel bad about ourselves, but to know our own sinfulness and then offer that to God and ask for forgivness and amendment of life.
Pride hide our sins from us. Pride leads to the dark and damp place in our souls in which sin grows like mold and mildew. Confession is the God's ultraviolate light shining on the mold and bringing it to nothingness. I urge you to make a private confession at least once during this Lent.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Monday, March 02, 2009
Deadly Sins - Anger
For the next few days, I plan to discuss each of the Seven Deadly Sins. Because it is first in the list below, I will start with Anger. Note, for each of these sins, I will use, as a base, the Examination of Conscience found in Saint Augustine's Prayer Book (revised edition, 1967). That is the best resource I've found for an examination of conscience.
Many people confuse the sin of Anger with emotional anger and they make two mistakes. The first (and probably the most common) is to dismiss the sin of Anger by saying that you are simply experiencing the emotion and, after all, Jesus got angry and drove the money changers out of the temple. The second mistake is to refuse the emotion of anger and not deal with the causes - whether they are external or internal. This can cause significant emotional harm if done for some length of time. A person will often hide or swallow or ignore the anger and let it build until he lashes out at something rather minor - say getting cut off in traffic or having someone else take the parking spot you were waiting for first.
The sin of Anger is self-focused. It is open rebellion against God or other persons in order to remove obstacles (real or imagined) that come between our selves and our wills. It retaliates to any threat to our security, avenges insults and seeks redress of wrongs - normally in our favor.
There are different types of anger. Resentment is the refusal to discern, accept, or fulfill God's vocation for you. Resentment leads to dissatisfaction with your God-given talents, opportunities, or abilities. It can lead to unwillingness to face up to difficulties or sacrifices required by God to fulfill your vocation. Resentment leads to transferring blame to God, our parents, or families, our bosses or anyone else for the reasons behind our failures. Resentment shows itself in cynicism, profanity, grumbling and a desire to escape from reality.
Pugnacity is an attack upon another in anger. It can be physical, emotional, or spiritual. Murder by desire (and remember, that saying "you fool" or "raca" is murder by desire) or deed. Striking another, cursing another, insulting another, or damaging an other's reputation by words and deeds. Arguing, bickering, contradicting others to get your own point across, being rude or snubbing others are all forms of pugnacity. It is more than just hitting another, it is the desire or will to cause harm to others. It can be shown in praying for the ill of another person - even when in the form of praying to help others. One of Satan's favorite tricks with pugnacity is to rub the salt of injuries into your wounds even when you are on your knees. Does this sound familiar to anyone but me? "Dear God, please help XXX see the error of his ways. Let him know how much he hurt me by betraying me and lying to me. Let him seek your forgiveness for his sins."
Another form of Anger is Retaliation. It is vengeance (actual or planned) for wrongs real or imagined. It is giving excessive punishment out of a desire to hurt, not discipline. Hostility, sullenness, and rash judgment. Refusal to forgive or to offer or accept reconciliation. Unwillingness to love your enemies, to seek their good or to pray for them. Retaliation shows itself in ostracising others and getting others to join you in cutting someone off from the group to make you feel better. Putting others down so you can feel better about yourself. Refusing to join in the groups activities simply because you did not get your way. Feeling superior to others.
Now, how can we tell if we are experiencing the emotion of anger or the sin of anger. Close and honest examination is required. Normally if you are angry at a slight you have experienced, you are moving into the sin area. If you are angry at the plight of others, they you are probably not sinning as much.
Anger is a natural (fallen nature, of course, but still natural) emotion. We experience it all the time. What do we do about it? How can we stop at the emotion and not move into the sin?
The key to diminishing our anger is forgiveness. Refusal to take offense at the slights (real or imagined) and forgiving others when they do offend us is the best defense. When I am working in prison and discussing forgiveness with the inmates (and even team members) I always say that forgiveness is the easiest and hardest thing we will ever do. We often don't want to forgive. But God commands us to forgive and we ask to be forgiven in the same way we forgive others. Can you imagine how much trouble we would be in if God answered the Lord's Prayer "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" with "Yes, in the same way your forgive others, I will forgive you."
Forgiveness does not come naturally. It takes work and prayer. But it is also easy. All that God really requires us to do is say: "God, I am very angry at this person. I don't want to forgive him. But You ask me to and I want to be obedient to You. Please, Lord, help be to forgive. Help me to see XXX the same way you see him. Help me to love him as you love me."
During this period of Lent, make a list of all the people who make you angry. Write down their names. Then, pray the prayer above for each of them and offer them to God. Every day, ask for help in forgiving them. Ask God to take your anger and substitute His forgiveness and agape love.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The next sin - Pride (part 1)
Many people confuse the sin of Anger with emotional anger and they make two mistakes. The first (and probably the most common) is to dismiss the sin of Anger by saying that you are simply experiencing the emotion and, after all, Jesus got angry and drove the money changers out of the temple. The second mistake is to refuse the emotion of anger and not deal with the causes - whether they are external or internal. This can cause significant emotional harm if done for some length of time. A person will often hide or swallow or ignore the anger and let it build until he lashes out at something rather minor - say getting cut off in traffic or having someone else take the parking spot you were waiting for first.
The sin of Anger is self-focused. It is open rebellion against God or other persons in order to remove obstacles (real or imagined) that come between our selves and our wills. It retaliates to any threat to our security, avenges insults and seeks redress of wrongs - normally in our favor.
There are different types of anger. Resentment is the refusal to discern, accept, or fulfill God's vocation for you. Resentment leads to dissatisfaction with your God-given talents, opportunities, or abilities. It can lead to unwillingness to face up to difficulties or sacrifices required by God to fulfill your vocation. Resentment leads to transferring blame to God, our parents, or families, our bosses or anyone else for the reasons behind our failures. Resentment shows itself in cynicism, profanity, grumbling and a desire to escape from reality.
Pugnacity is an attack upon another in anger. It can be physical, emotional, or spiritual. Murder by desire (and remember, that saying "you fool" or "raca" is murder by desire) or deed. Striking another, cursing another, insulting another, or damaging an other's reputation by words and deeds. Arguing, bickering, contradicting others to get your own point across, being rude or snubbing others are all forms of pugnacity. It is more than just hitting another, it is the desire or will to cause harm to others. It can be shown in praying for the ill of another person - even when in the form of praying to help others. One of Satan's favorite tricks with pugnacity is to rub the salt of injuries into your wounds even when you are on your knees. Does this sound familiar to anyone but me? "Dear God, please help XXX see the error of his ways. Let him know how much he hurt me by betraying me and lying to me. Let him seek your forgiveness for his sins."
Another form of Anger is Retaliation. It is vengeance (actual or planned) for wrongs real or imagined. It is giving excessive punishment out of a desire to hurt, not discipline. Hostility, sullenness, and rash judgment. Refusal to forgive or to offer or accept reconciliation. Unwillingness to love your enemies, to seek their good or to pray for them. Retaliation shows itself in ostracising others and getting others to join you in cutting someone off from the group to make you feel better. Putting others down so you can feel better about yourself. Refusing to join in the groups activities simply because you did not get your way. Feeling superior to others.
Now, how can we tell if we are experiencing the emotion of anger or the sin of anger. Close and honest examination is required. Normally if you are angry at a slight you have experienced, you are moving into the sin area. If you are angry at the plight of others, they you are probably not sinning as much.
Anger is a natural (fallen nature, of course, but still natural) emotion. We experience it all the time. What do we do about it? How can we stop at the emotion and not move into the sin?
The key to diminishing our anger is forgiveness. Refusal to take offense at the slights (real or imagined) and forgiving others when they do offend us is the best defense. When I am working in prison and discussing forgiveness with the inmates (and even team members) I always say that forgiveness is the easiest and hardest thing we will ever do. We often don't want to forgive. But God commands us to forgive and we ask to be forgiven in the same way we forgive others. Can you imagine how much trouble we would be in if God answered the Lord's Prayer "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" with "Yes, in the same way your forgive others, I will forgive you."
Forgiveness does not come naturally. It takes work and prayer. But it is also easy. All that God really requires us to do is say: "God, I am very angry at this person. I don't want to forgive him. But You ask me to and I want to be obedient to You. Please, Lord, help be to forgive. Help me to see XXX the same way you see him. Help me to love him as you love me."
During this period of Lent, make a list of all the people who make you angry. Write down their names. Then, pray the prayer above for each of them and offer them to God. Every day, ask for help in forgiving them. Ask God to take your anger and substitute His forgiveness and agape love.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The next sin - Pride (part 1)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Deadly Sins
In Catholic theology, we talk about the Seven Deadly Sins. Human's love to catorigize and lable so that things are easire to deal with. Anyway, the seven deadly sins can easily be remember by a wonderful acronmyn (and being a computer programmer by trade and the son of an Air Force Officer by birth, I love acronyms). Fr. Doug Travis taught me this acronym: APESLAG.
Anger
Pride
Envy
Sloth
Lust
Avarice
Gluttony
I had often wondered what it is about sin that leads to death. We all know that the wages of sin is death. We all know that Sin do not coexist. So, why does God hate sin so much? What is it about sin that causes God to cast us away from Himself?
When I was in college, I often wondered about death and hell. What was just about God condemning a man to eternity of punishment for 70 or 80 or even 100 years of sins - no matter how heinous the sins were? How could I reconcile God's justice and love with this rather imbalanced equation (100 years of sin = eternity of punishment).
I prayed and asked questions. Perhaps the most important work for me on this subject was C. S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce. In it, Lewis sees people making the same choices that keep the from heaven and he sees a few leave hell. It is a wonderful book on the nature of time and eternity.
Another book that was instrumental to my image of sin and hell was Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Inferno. It is a "rewrite" of Dante's Inferno, but updated for the 20th Century. (As an aside, they have a sequel out, Escape From Hell, which is wonderful as well.) There is one scene that showed me a possible reason for hell. The protagonist of the story (Allen Carpenter, a science fiction author), sees a psychiatrist in the pit of Falsifiers and Counterfiters. The psychiatrist tells the story of putting a catatonic in a hot box until the catatonic reacted and when they got to box up to 130 degrees, the catatonic said his first worsd in sixteen years: "Get me the f$%# out of here!" The story continues:
I reasoned the same as Niven and Pournelle - that Hell was Heaven's insane asylum. Like Lewis, I thought it possible to leave Hell (at which point it becomes purgatory). Now I don't know if that is true or not and I have no real desire to find out personally, but I like the idea.
Now, what is it about Sin that causes us to enter Hell? What causes us to be judged?
When I think of sin as part of our nature - our ontology or our being rather than specific acts, I get a better idea. Sin is living or thinking as if God does not exist. Sin takes us away from God, not because God sends us away, but because It is virtually impossible to reach your destination by stearing away from it. Sin is not just rebellion against God, it is acting as if you are God yourself and God Himself does not exist. Sin is unreality. Sin is death because it takes us away from the Author of Life Himself - God. The Seven Deadly Sins are so labled because they cause us to deviate from the Path that God set for us to reach Him.
There are two correctives for sin. First, of course, is confession. Naming your sin and confessing it and taking responsibility for it and receiving God's forgiveness is a wonderful and freeing exercise. The second, and more permanent is to be made new. To be filled with God's grace and to have our new life operate within us so that we sin less and less.
Over the next several days, we will discuss each of the Seven Deadly Sins in more detail.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The First "A" - Anger
Anger
Pride
Envy
Sloth
Lust
Avarice
Gluttony
I had often wondered what it is about sin that leads to death. We all know that the wages of sin is death. We all know that Sin do not coexist. So, why does God hate sin so much? What is it about sin that causes God to cast us away from Himself?
When I was in college, I often wondered about death and hell. What was just about God condemning a man to eternity of punishment for 70 or 80 or even 100 years of sins - no matter how heinous the sins were? How could I reconcile God's justice and love with this rather imbalanced equation (100 years of sin = eternity of punishment).
I prayed and asked questions. Perhaps the most important work for me on this subject was C. S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce. In it, Lewis sees people making the same choices that keep the from heaven and he sees a few leave hell. It is a wonderful book on the nature of time and eternity.
Another book that was instrumental to my image of sin and hell was Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Inferno. It is a "rewrite" of Dante's Inferno, but updated for the 20th Century. (As an aside, they have a sequel out, Escape From Hell, which is wonderful as well.) There is one scene that showed me a possible reason for hell. The protagonist of the story (Allen Carpenter, a science fiction author), sees a psychiatrist in the pit of Falsifiers and Counterfiters. The psychiatrist tells the story of putting a catatonic in a hot box until the catatonic reacted and when they got to box up to 130 degrees, the catatonic said his first worsd in sixteen years: "Get me the f$%# out of here!" The story continues:
The mad eyes found me, and his face seemed to cae in. The cherubic
smile vanished. Urgently he said, "Get me the f$%# out of here!"
I reasoned the same as Niven and Pournelle - that Hell was Heaven's insane asylum. Like Lewis, I thought it possible to leave Hell (at which point it becomes purgatory). Now I don't know if that is true or not and I have no real desire to find out personally, but I like the idea.
Now, what is it about Sin that causes us to enter Hell? What causes us to be judged?
When I think of sin as part of our nature - our ontology or our being rather than specific acts, I get a better idea. Sin is living or thinking as if God does not exist. Sin takes us away from God, not because God sends us away, but because It is virtually impossible to reach your destination by stearing away from it. Sin is not just rebellion against God, it is acting as if you are God yourself and God Himself does not exist. Sin is unreality. Sin is death because it takes us away from the Author of Life Himself - God. The Seven Deadly Sins are so labled because they cause us to deviate from the Path that God set for us to reach Him.
There are two correctives for sin. First, of course, is confession. Naming your sin and confessing it and taking responsibility for it and receiving God's forgiveness is a wonderful and freeing exercise. The second, and more permanent is to be made new. To be filled with God's grace and to have our new life operate within us so that we sin less and less.
Over the next several days, we will discuss each of the Seven Deadly Sins in more detail.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The First "A" - Anger
Thursday, February 26, 2009
What a Difference a Comma Makes
I remember a story by John Neuhouse that I read in "First Things" several years ago. He walked into a Church and saw a banner that read
GOD IS OTHER PEOPLE!
Now, I affirm that we often serve God by serving other people. I am a deacon and find that the most fulfilling ministry I do is not at the Altar (although I love the Altar). The most fulfilling ministry I do is in the prison or at the Sunday School class. I find that I serve God best by serving His people - even if those people deny that they belong to God (especially if they deny they belong to God!). If you want to serve God, go among His people and serve them in God's name. Go to a homeless shelter, a prison, a soup kitchen, a resale shop. Teach Sunday School, help clean up after a church dinner. Join a yard team to keep the church grounds neat. Join a mobile yard team that cuts the grass of elderly or disabled people who cannot afford to pay someone to cut their grass. By looking in the face of the poor, the oppressed, the sick, prisoners, and the like, we see the face of God. To know God, know His people.
Fr. Neuhouse wanted to change the banner slightly. He wanted to put a comma in it.
GOD IS OTHER, PEOPLE!
This shows us that God is not like us. God is utterly Other. We are not God. To know God, know that you are not Him and neither is anyone else. To know God, know that you know nothing yourself. To know God, you must seek Him to reveal Himself to you. To know God, we must hear the "still small voice" the Elijah heard. To know God, we must wait for Him.
Now, as an Anglican, I affirm both statements. I know that serving other people is serving God. And I know that other people are not God. I am called to serve them. But they are not God. Only God is God. I cannot put their needs ahead of God's needs because they often don't know their need. They "need" power, drugs, money, affirmation, food, shelter. What they really need is Jesus (along with food, shelter, and God's love). This Lent I call you to seek God's face in the face of the poor around us. I also call you to seek God's face in prayer and meditation. Know God in other people and Know God as other, people!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
GOD IS OTHER PEOPLE!
Now, I affirm that we often serve God by serving other people. I am a deacon and find that the most fulfilling ministry I do is not at the Altar (although I love the Altar). The most fulfilling ministry I do is in the prison or at the Sunday School class. I find that I serve God best by serving His people - even if those people deny that they belong to God (especially if they deny they belong to God!). If you want to serve God, go among His people and serve them in God's name. Go to a homeless shelter, a prison, a soup kitchen, a resale shop. Teach Sunday School, help clean up after a church dinner. Join a yard team to keep the church grounds neat. Join a mobile yard team that cuts the grass of elderly or disabled people who cannot afford to pay someone to cut their grass. By looking in the face of the poor, the oppressed, the sick, prisoners, and the like, we see the face of God. To know God, know His people.
Fr. Neuhouse wanted to change the banner slightly. He wanted to put a comma in it.
GOD IS OTHER, PEOPLE!
This shows us that God is not like us. God is utterly Other. We are not God. To know God, know that you are not Him and neither is anyone else. To know God, know that you know nothing yourself. To know God, you must seek Him to reveal Himself to you. To know God, we must hear the "still small voice" the Elijah heard. To know God, we must wait for Him.
Now, as an Anglican, I affirm both statements. I know that serving other people is serving God. And I know that other people are not God. I am called to serve them. But they are not God. Only God is God. I cannot put their needs ahead of God's needs because they often don't know their need. They "need" power, drugs, money, affirmation, food, shelter. What they really need is Jesus (along with food, shelter, and God's love). This Lent I call you to seek God's face in the face of the poor around us. I also call you to seek God's face in prayer and meditation. Know God in other people and Know God as other, people!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
What does God want?
In Moral Theology classes (and in college bs sessions) we often asked ourselves what God was more interested in. Was God more interested in what we do or in why we do it? In other words, is it better to do the wrong thing for the right reason or the right thing for the wrong reason? Let's take these one at a time and see if we can some how solve this dilema.
It is it better to behave righteously because of selfish motives.
This thought says that God is more interested in what we do than why we do it. It acknowledges that our motives are almost never pure.
Let's take a specific case that is rather easy to resolved - one with both pure and selfish motives. When I go to prison, I often get my own needs met in addition to meeting the needs of others. I feel good about myself and the work I do. I feel pride in it and I get a boost of "self-esteem" when others say what a great or good man I am because of my prison work. I confess that part of the reason I am involved in prison ministry is because of the feelings and accolades I receive. I also am involved because I believe that God wants me there and because I see a great need to help the lost find what they are looking for in Jesus Christ. But my motives are not pure. Would God rather me wait until my motives are pure? I doubt it. I believe that God wants me to do the work and to offer my selfish motives to Him so that He can make them pure.
Now, let's take a slightly different case. I am a glutton. I love food and use food as a drug far too often. Now, I often will say "no" to dessert or seconds when I am with others - not because I believe that the excess food is bad for me but because I want the others to think I am trying to work on my weight. Is God pleased with my "no" when I say it only to look better to others? I do not believe so. I believe that God is not please with my relationship with food - even when I refuse.
I don't think we can always say that God is please when we do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
It is better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
This statement says that God is more concerned with motives than with actions. It states that God would rather we sin if that sin is what we were convinced was the right thing to do. The problem is that we never know the right thing to do. Our consciences are twisted by sin so that what seems right at the time can be very sinful. This leads to "he made me do it" actions. People have killed others or physically and emotionally abused other in the name of helping them. It leads to the idea "we had to destroy the village to save it."
Between these two ideas, I (if you hadn't guessed) come down to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. But. I don't think that God is as interested in what we do or in why we do it so much as in who we are.
God did not become incarnate, live, die on the cross, and rise to new life in order to change either our motives or our behaviors. God lived and died as one of use to change our nature. God came, not to make us nice, but to make us new.
Sinful behavior and sinful motives both flow from sinful being. God does not want to change our behavior so much as to change our being so that we are no longer sinful creatures. So to the original question - what does God want? God wants us to be new men and women. He wants us to have new life and to live from that live. The old life is one that is filled with sin and darkness. The new one is filled with God and animated by the Holy Spirit.
The sins we commit and the reasons we commit them are signs of how strong the old life is with us. So, next we will discuss the famous "7 Deadly Sins"
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Update - The Seven Deadly Sins
It is it better to behave righteously because of selfish motives.
This thought says that God is more interested in what we do than why we do it. It acknowledges that our motives are almost never pure.
Let's take a specific case that is rather easy to resolved - one with both pure and selfish motives. When I go to prison, I often get my own needs met in addition to meeting the needs of others. I feel good about myself and the work I do. I feel pride in it and I get a boost of "self-esteem" when others say what a great or good man I am because of my prison work. I confess that part of the reason I am involved in prison ministry is because of the feelings and accolades I receive. I also am involved because I believe that God wants me there and because I see a great need to help the lost find what they are looking for in Jesus Christ. But my motives are not pure. Would God rather me wait until my motives are pure? I doubt it. I believe that God wants me to do the work and to offer my selfish motives to Him so that He can make them pure.
Now, let's take a slightly different case. I am a glutton. I love food and use food as a drug far too often. Now, I often will say "no" to dessert or seconds when I am with others - not because I believe that the excess food is bad for me but because I want the others to think I am trying to work on my weight. Is God pleased with my "no" when I say it only to look better to others? I do not believe so. I believe that God is not please with my relationship with food - even when I refuse.
I don't think we can always say that God is please when we do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
It is better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
This statement says that God is more concerned with motives than with actions. It states that God would rather we sin if that sin is what we were convinced was the right thing to do. The problem is that we never know the right thing to do. Our consciences are twisted by sin so that what seems right at the time can be very sinful. This leads to "he made me do it" actions. People have killed others or physically and emotionally abused other in the name of helping them. It leads to the idea "we had to destroy the village to save it."
Between these two ideas, I (if you hadn't guessed) come down to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. But. I don't think that God is as interested in what we do or in why we do it so much as in who we are.
God did not become incarnate, live, die on the cross, and rise to new life in order to change either our motives or our behaviors. God lived and died as one of use to change our nature. God came, not to make us nice, but to make us new.
Sinful behavior and sinful motives both flow from sinful being. God does not want to change our behavior so much as to change our being so that we are no longer sinful creatures. So to the original question - what does God want? God wants us to be new men and women. He wants us to have new life and to live from that live. The old life is one that is filled with sin and darkness. The new one is filled with God and animated by the Holy Spirit.
The sins we commit and the reasons we commit them are signs of how strong the old life is with us. So, next we will discuss the famous "7 Deadly Sins"
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Update - The Seven Deadly Sins
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sin - what we do or who we are?
Today is Ash Wednesday in the Western Calendar. It is the beginning of the season of Lent. During Lent, we are to examine our selves and to practice fasting and self-denial to let God better prepare us for the Joy that is Easter. So, I thought a small series on Sin would be appropriate.
First, what is sin? In the West, we tend to focus on sins as things we do. I remember a t-shirt I saw in College:
First, what is sin? In the West, we tend to focus on sins as things we do. I remember a t-shirt I saw in College:
- When we drink we get drunk
- When we get drunk we fall asleep
- When we fall asleep we commit no sin
- When we commit no sin, we go to Heaven
- So, let's all get drunk and go to Heaven!
Aside from the gluttony involved in getting drunk, the basic idea "when we sleep, we commit no sin" shows how "action" focused we are when it comes to sin. Further, we tend to think of "sin" as those actions that are socially unacceptable. Both of these are, like all good lies, partially true, but not the whole truth.
We tend to think thought like "Well, I didn't worship at the Temple of Zeus today, so I guess I'm not guilty of idolatry." or "Well, I didn't have sex with someone who is not my wife (or husband) today, so I guess I'm not guilty of adultery." The fact that we decided it was more important to sleep in than to say our morning prayers (thus worshipping our selves and our needs rather than God) or the fact we ignored our spouse and spent time in "harmless flirtation" with the attractive neightbor seems immaterial to us. We narrowly define specific sins and then, since we didn't to that, we didn't sin.
The truth is much worse than that. The fact that we spend any time at all justifying our selves or trying to minimize our sins shows how far we are from God's righteousness.
Sin isn't just what we do. Sin is a part of who we are. Sin is part of our DNA if you will. Sin shows itself in the baby's cries when she is not getting enough attention. It shows itself in the young boy who picks on others to make himself feel more important.
Over the next few days, I intend to spend some time looking at sin, not just in what we do but in who we are. Perhaps when we better understand the pervasive nature of sin in our lives we will be more ready to repent of this and ask our Lord to come and make us new.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Inside and Outside Strategy
The Episcopal Church is broken. It may not realize its brokenness and I doubt that it realizes the harm it has done to Anglicanism specifically and Christianity in general. In the name of "Justice" it has begun to bless sins and to pursue a "schorched earth" policy against clergy, congregations, and dioceses that cannot, in conscience, remain within TEC.
This both saddens and angers me. I love TEC. I was raised in this Church. I learned to serve God in this Church. I received New Life in this Church. I was fed with the Sacraments by holy and unholy men and women in this Church. I have served (as lay-chaplain and as a Deacon) nine different bishops in four different dioceses. I received ordination as a Deacon in Christ's one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church in TEC.
TEC is sick and refuses to go to the doctor. She refuses to take the medicine that will make her well.
Since the 60s and 70s, there has been a steady left-ward march from TEC's leadership. The problems today are not new. They did not drop out of thin air. They are the direct result of the problems of decades ago. If I were to pick a starting point, I would pick the lack of discipline for Bishop Pike. Bishop Pike became apostate by denying essential doctrines such as the Trinity and the House of Bishops refused to discipline him. This led to more heresy and apostacy being practiced without consequences within the life of the Church. The culmination was not the consecration of Bishop Robinson. The culmination was the acquital of +Walter Righter in the famous trial where the bishops sitting in judgment of +Righter (many of whom had committed the same offense) made up the concept of "Core Doctrine" (something new to Anglicanism) and declared sexual morality outside of "Core Doctrine."
The whilwind we are reaping today is a direct result of the seeds we planted in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Along with each of the milestones along the way, there were people who left the Church to form their own Anglican body. The largest of these Exoduses was after the Ordination of Women and the approval of the new Book of Common Prayer in 1976. Each time people left, it made the orthodox groups politically more vulnerable. These "Continuing Anglicans" were not part of the Anglican Communion and they fractured into many different bodies - each with its own special take on Anglicanism.
It is this history which I fear is repeating itself with today's "Outside Strategy." The only difference (and this is a huge difference) is that today's version of the "Contuing Anglican" movement strongly desires to remain part of the Anglican Communion. That is the outside strategy's saving grace. But there are still way too many different bodies within the outside strategy group for my comfort. As I understand the Anglican Church in North America, ACNA, proposed constitution, each "group" (or "network" such as AMiA, CANA, etc.) will continue to have its own ecclesial and political structures - each being part of ACNA. So, there is an AMiA bishop in charge of the AMiA congregations around Dallas. There is a Southern Cone bishop in charge of the Southern Cone congregations around Dallas. There is a Kenyan Bishop and a CANA bishop with similar responsibilities. This is madness and not workable in the long run. Until there is a return to one bishop in an area for churches in communion with each other, I cannot support the Outside Strategy. If the persons and personalities involved in the outside strategies cannot empty themselves to the point that they submit to another authority, then I cannot submit to them.
But the inside strategy cannot work! The inside strategy will not reform the Episcopal Church.
As I said in an earlier post, reforming TEC is not my responsibility. It is God's. I am called to witness to the power of God to make all things new. I am called to show the joy of following Jesus Christ in my own life and I am called to witness to the Truth. If I am to fight, God will provide the weapons and armor. If I am to die, I will die willingly. I am not called to success, but faithfulness.
I long for a faithful Church. My heart desires to abandon TEC and be joined to a more faithful expression of Anglican Christianity. But, I cannot abandon my Bishop, my Rector, nor my congregation to follow my heart. If I have learned one thing as a Christian it is that my heart (like all human hearts) is faithless. My heart is not God's heart. So, I must trust that God will let me know what He wants me to do.
My prayer is that those pursuing the Inside Strategy and those pursuing the Outside Strategy will work together, pray together, worship together (when possible). Witness to God's strength inside and outside. Do not depend on political expediency alone. Do not trust to committees. Do not trust in courts. Trust in God. Trust in Him Alone. Let the inside strategy be the anvil and the outside strategy be the hammer that God uses to reform TEC.
One thing that both we one the Inside and and those on the outside need to do is to let go of anger. The insider feel anger at being abandoned in the fight by the outsiders and the outsiders feel anger at the insiders who are collaborating. Both feel abandoned in their time of need. Both are right. But both need to move past the need to be right. We need to empty ourselves of our agendas and desires and be filled with God's faithfulness. Only then can either of us be fit instruments for reforming Anglicanism in North America.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
This both saddens and angers me. I love TEC. I was raised in this Church. I learned to serve God in this Church. I received New Life in this Church. I was fed with the Sacraments by holy and unholy men and women in this Church. I have served (as lay-chaplain and as a Deacon) nine different bishops in four different dioceses. I received ordination as a Deacon in Christ's one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church in TEC.
TEC is sick and refuses to go to the doctor. She refuses to take the medicine that will make her well.
Since the 60s and 70s, there has been a steady left-ward march from TEC's leadership. The problems today are not new. They did not drop out of thin air. They are the direct result of the problems of decades ago. If I were to pick a starting point, I would pick the lack of discipline for Bishop Pike. Bishop Pike became apostate by denying essential doctrines such as the Trinity and the House of Bishops refused to discipline him. This led to more heresy and apostacy being practiced without consequences within the life of the Church. The culmination was not the consecration of Bishop Robinson. The culmination was the acquital of +Walter Righter in the famous trial where the bishops sitting in judgment of +Righter (many of whom had committed the same offense) made up the concept of "Core Doctrine" (something new to Anglicanism) and declared sexual morality outside of "Core Doctrine."
The whilwind we are reaping today is a direct result of the seeds we planted in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Along with each of the milestones along the way, there were people who left the Church to form their own Anglican body. The largest of these Exoduses was after the Ordination of Women and the approval of the new Book of Common Prayer in 1976. Each time people left, it made the orthodox groups politically more vulnerable. These "Continuing Anglicans" were not part of the Anglican Communion and they fractured into many different bodies - each with its own special take on Anglicanism.
It is this history which I fear is repeating itself with today's "Outside Strategy." The only difference (and this is a huge difference) is that today's version of the "Contuing Anglican" movement strongly desires to remain part of the Anglican Communion. That is the outside strategy's saving grace. But there are still way too many different bodies within the outside strategy group for my comfort. As I understand the Anglican Church in North America, ACNA, proposed constitution, each "group" (or "network" such as AMiA, CANA, etc.) will continue to have its own ecclesial and political structures - each being part of ACNA. So, there is an AMiA bishop in charge of the AMiA congregations around Dallas. There is a Southern Cone bishop in charge of the Southern Cone congregations around Dallas. There is a Kenyan Bishop and a CANA bishop with similar responsibilities. This is madness and not workable in the long run. Until there is a return to one bishop in an area for churches in communion with each other, I cannot support the Outside Strategy. If the persons and personalities involved in the outside strategies cannot empty themselves to the point that they submit to another authority, then I cannot submit to them.
But the inside strategy cannot work! The inside strategy will not reform the Episcopal Church.
As I said in an earlier post, reforming TEC is not my responsibility. It is God's. I am called to witness to the power of God to make all things new. I am called to show the joy of following Jesus Christ in my own life and I am called to witness to the Truth. If I am to fight, God will provide the weapons and armor. If I am to die, I will die willingly. I am not called to success, but faithfulness.
I long for a faithful Church. My heart desires to abandon TEC and be joined to a more faithful expression of Anglican Christianity. But, I cannot abandon my Bishop, my Rector, nor my congregation to follow my heart. If I have learned one thing as a Christian it is that my heart (like all human hearts) is faithless. My heart is not God's heart. So, I must trust that God will let me know what He wants me to do.
My prayer is that those pursuing the Inside Strategy and those pursuing the Outside Strategy will work together, pray together, worship together (when possible). Witness to God's strength inside and outside. Do not depend on political expediency alone. Do not trust to committees. Do not trust in courts. Trust in God. Trust in Him Alone. Let the inside strategy be the anvil and the outside strategy be the hammer that God uses to reform TEC.
One thing that both we one the Inside and and those on the outside need to do is to let go of anger. The insider feel anger at being abandoned in the fight by the outsiders and the outsiders feel anger at the insiders who are collaborating. Both feel abandoned in their time of need. Both are right. But both need to move past the need to be right. We need to empty ourselves of our agendas and desires and be filled with God's faithfulness. Only then can either of us be fit instruments for reforming Anglicanism in North America.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Monday, February 09, 2009
The "New Thing" and the Fruits of the Spirit
One thing we keep hearing regarding the issues of authority and sexuality is "The Spirit is doing a new thing."
Now this references Isaiah 43:19.
This chapter is rather interesting. The first part of the chapter (verses 1-21) talk about God loving Israel and bringing her in "from afar" and "from the end of the earth." They talk about the power and majesty of YWHW.
But, starting in chapter 22, God says:
I believe this is a wonderful passage to talk about sexual morality in the Church. The chapter ends:
Now this references Isaiah 43:19.
This chapter is rather interesting. The first part of the chapter (verses 1-21) talk about God loving Israel and bringing her in "from afar" and "from the end of the earth." They talk about the power and majesty of YWHW.
But, starting in chapter 22, God says:
Yet you did not call upon me, O Jacob; but you have been weary of me, O Israel! You have not brought me your sheep for burnt offerings, or honored me with your sacrifices. I have not burdened you with offerings, or wearied you with frankincense.
You have not bought me sweet cane with money, or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins, you have wearied me with your iniquities.
I believe this is a wonderful passage to talk about sexual morality in the Church. The chapter ends:
I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. Put me in remembrance, let us argue together; set forth your case, that you may be proved right. Your first father sinned, and your mediators transgressed against me.
Therefore I profaned the princes of the sanctuary, I delivered Jacob to utter destruction and Israel to reviling.
Now, I consider myself a "classic liberal." By that I mean I will be willing to discuss any topic and will change my mind when shown a better case than the one I hold. I am willing to admit that the Holy Spirit is leading us to bless same sex unions. I am willing to agree that homosexual relationships can be sacramental and that the life long union between two men and two women is blessed like the life long union of one man and one woman. But, I need evidence. Show me in Holy Scripture where this is true. Show me, out of the Apostles' Teaching where this is true. Show me the Fruits of the Spirit in this.
I am referencing Galatians 5:19-25
Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
In the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion, I see too many of the "works of the flesh." I see impurity, enmity, strife, anger, selfishness, dissension, and party spirit and I see them on all sides of this issue. I see this "new thing" bringing about schism and pain. I see it causing brothers and sisters to hate each other. I see too much name calling and personal attacks. I see the devil at work here, not the Holy Spirit of God. All of this was predicted when TECUSA started out on this course of action. We were warned of what would happen if we proceeded and we did it any way.
I ask my brothers and sisters on both sides of this issue: "Where is the gentleness in our lawsuits? Where is the patience in ACNA? Where is the self-control and the faithfulness?
John asks us to "test the spirits." In my testing of this spirit, I find it to be of the anti-christ for it breaks and tears the Body of Christ - the Church. If this "new thing" were of the Holy Spirit, I would expect to see more evidence of the fruit of the spirit rather than the works of the flesh.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
If
"IF" is a big word. I have often said: "If is the largest two letter word in the English language."
One thing I have struggled with my entire life is feeling loved and accepted by others - especially my peers. I know that others struggle with this as well. I believe that our society is so "self esteem" focused because, subconsciously, we recognize that we are fallen creatures and not "worthy" of love. So, we proclaim (loudly) that we are good and that we are worthy of all sorts of honors. I believe that we do this because we (secretly) suspect that we are not lovable. We work hard to earn the love and respect and acceptance of others because we need that affirmation that comes from love and respect.
The problem is that the world (and most of us if we are honest) say: "I will love you if...." "I will love you if you are strong enough, good enough, smart enough, good looking enough, rich enough, work hard enough, etc."
We waste a lot of our resources trying to get past "if." As a society, we spend untold millions on cosmetics and surgery trying to get "good looking enough." We spend more time at the office trying to get "rich/successful enough." We all spend too much on "stuff" trying to win the approval of either ourselves or of others. We hope the stuff will fill the void left by "I will love you if."
The problem is that we are trying to fill a hole that only God can fill.
So, what is the solution? The solution is staring us in the heart. It is to surrender to God and not seek affirmation elsewhere. We need to learn and trust (=faith) that God loves us. God does not love us "if." He simply loves us. God does not love use because of what we are or what we do or have done or will do. He simply loves us.
If the Creator of the Universe (who knows us better than we know ourselves) loves us and believes that we are worth dying for, then what does it matter what others think of us? If we know, both in our hearts and in our heads, that we are loved, then "if" becomes meaningless.
The path to knowing yourself and loving yourself is knowing God and being loved by God. The path to loving others without "if" is to know that God loves them (and you) without "if" and to ask God to help you get past "if" in your life.
Now, God loves us as we are. But the Love of God is not unconditional. Accepting God's love means accepting the New Life that comes with God's love. It means being transformed and changed. It means surrendering to God. It means that we will be killed and raised to new life.
Knowing and accepting Gods Love is the most challenging and frightening prospect I can think of.
It is also the only choice we can make if we want peace in our lives. If we want to be free of "if" and free to love ourselves and others in a way that doesn't depend on "if," then we need to respond to God's love in faith and ask to be changed - ask to be transformed - ask for help surrendering and ask to be killed so that we can be raised in New Life.
Are you ready to leave “If” behind?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
One thing I have struggled with my entire life is feeling loved and accepted by others - especially my peers. I know that others struggle with this as well. I believe that our society is so "self esteem" focused because, subconsciously, we recognize that we are fallen creatures and not "worthy" of love. So, we proclaim (loudly) that we are good and that we are worthy of all sorts of honors. I believe that we do this because we (secretly) suspect that we are not lovable. We work hard to earn the love and respect and acceptance of others because we need that affirmation that comes from love and respect.
The problem is that the world (and most of us if we are honest) say: "I will love you if...." "I will love you if you are strong enough, good enough, smart enough, good looking enough, rich enough, work hard enough, etc."
We waste a lot of our resources trying to get past "if." As a society, we spend untold millions on cosmetics and surgery trying to get "good looking enough." We spend more time at the office trying to get "rich/successful enough." We all spend too much on "stuff" trying to win the approval of either ourselves or of others. We hope the stuff will fill the void left by "I will love you if."
The problem is that we are trying to fill a hole that only God can fill.
So, what is the solution? The solution is staring us in the heart. It is to surrender to God and not seek affirmation elsewhere. We need to learn and trust (=faith) that God loves us. God does not love us "if." He simply loves us. God does not love use because of what we are or what we do or have done or will do. He simply loves us.
If the Creator of the Universe (who knows us better than we know ourselves) loves us and believes that we are worth dying for, then what does it matter what others think of us? If we know, both in our hearts and in our heads, that we are loved, then "if" becomes meaningless.
The path to knowing yourself and loving yourself is knowing God and being loved by God. The path to loving others without "if" is to know that God loves them (and you) without "if" and to ask God to help you get past "if" in your life.
Now, God loves us as we are. But the Love of God is not unconditional. Accepting God's love means accepting the New Life that comes with God's love. It means being transformed and changed. It means surrendering to God. It means that we will be killed and raised to new life.
Knowing and accepting Gods Love is the most challenging and frightening prospect I can think of.
It is also the only choice we can make if we want peace in our lives. If we want to be free of "if" and free to love ourselves and others in a way that doesn't depend on "if," then we need to respond to God's love in faith and ask to be changed - ask to be transformed - ask for help surrendering and ask to be killed so that we can be raised in New Life.
Are you ready to leave “If” behind?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bits of Broken Glass
One image or metaphor about the transformation that is to occur in the Christian life that has always stayed with me, is C. S. Lewis' image of a lead soldier becoming flesh and bone. How would the lead soldier, if given voice, react to the hard metal becoming soft flesh? Like that mythical soldier, we, too, complain about being changed by God.
Yesterday, I spent most of the afternoon at the Coffield maximum security prison. It was a Kairos reunion weekend. When I go, I normally make myself available for Spiritual Counselling and confession (I know I can't grant absolution, but these guys are often in extremis about their sins and need to hear that Jesus Christ forgives them.) Yesterday was no different.
Now, our reunions take place in the Chapel at Coffield. This chapel has a beautiful stained glass window with swirlling colors.
I've often used the image of broken glass and stained glass windows. A stained glass window is a beautiful work of art that is made with broken glass. Just as the artist in the window selects glass based in the artist's needs and not the glasses preference, so God selects us and the ministry He gives us based on His needs, not on our desires.
What if the glass could feel? What if the glass had a say in where it was placed or if it was placed in the window?
Brothers and Sisters, we are the bits of glass in God's stained glass window. God scores us and breaks us to fit where we are in the window. If we rebel, we are often broken more than if we hadn't rebelled. If we put ourselves in the hands of another artist, we may be malformed and need to be broken even more.
As pieces of glass, we have two functions. First we let the light shine through us. We are not the source of the light, but we do color the light by the shading given to us by God. Second, we fit into a pattern. We can't see the pattern from where we are, so we have to trust God - we have to faith - that God will place us where He wants and needs us.
While I can't see the pattern myself, I have the witness of others who have seen parts of the pattern. I faith that the Artist knows His mind and is creating something of utmost beauty.
Are you willing to be scored and broken? Are you willing to be heated and melted? Are you willing to let God prepare you for your place in the Great Stained Glass Window that is His Kingdom?
Pray that we will all have the grace to be scored, broken, melted, colored, and fitted into our place in God's designs.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Yesterday, I spent most of the afternoon at the Coffield maximum security prison. It was a Kairos reunion weekend. When I go, I normally make myself available for Spiritual Counselling and confession (I know I can't grant absolution, but these guys are often in extremis about their sins and need to hear that Jesus Christ forgives them.) Yesterday was no different.
Now, our reunions take place in the Chapel at Coffield. This chapel has a beautiful stained glass window with swirlling colors.
I've often used the image of broken glass and stained glass windows. A stained glass window is a beautiful work of art that is made with broken glass. Just as the artist in the window selects glass based in the artist's needs and not the glasses preference, so God selects us and the ministry He gives us based on His needs, not on our desires.
What if the glass could feel? What if the glass had a say in where it was placed or if it was placed in the window?
Brothers and Sisters, we are the bits of glass in God's stained glass window. God scores us and breaks us to fit where we are in the window. If we rebel, we are often broken more than if we hadn't rebelled. If we put ourselves in the hands of another artist, we may be malformed and need to be broken even more.
As pieces of glass, we have two functions. First we let the light shine through us. We are not the source of the light, but we do color the light by the shading given to us by God. Second, we fit into a pattern. We can't see the pattern from where we are, so we have to trust God - we have to faith - that God will place us where He wants and needs us.
While I can't see the pattern myself, I have the witness of others who have seen parts of the pattern. I faith that the Artist knows His mind and is creating something of utmost beauty.
Are you willing to be scored and broken? Are you willing to be heated and melted? Are you willing to let God prepare you for your place in the Great Stained Glass Window that is His Kingdom?
Pray that we will all have the grace to be scored, broken, melted, colored, and fitted into our place in God's designs.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What does being a "Fundamentalist" mean?
In my earlier post, I talked about what a "fundamentalist" is. While the connotation of "fundamentalist" is generally an unthinking reflexive believer that doesn't consider anything other than what is written in his scriptures. However, the denotation of a fundamentalist is someone who believes the following five fundamentals:
- Holy Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are inerrant because of this inspiration
- The Virgin Birth - such that Mary had no sexual relations prior to the conception of Jesus
- Christ's death on the cross atoned for our sins
- The physical resurrection of the dead for Jesus - the tomb is empty and Jesus' bones are not lying in a ditch somewhere.
- The miracles that Christ is recorded to have performed in Gospels are true and actually happened
In a comment, Andy asked what are the implications of being a fundamentalist (per the denotation).
Now libraries have been written about the implications of any one of the four and the topic is too large for the blogging format, but here is a high level crack at it.
1. If the scriptures are inspired by God, then we need to spend a lot of time in study of them and to pattern our lives after their timeless truths. That means that our definition of moral living should not contradict Holy Scripture's definition of moral living. It also means that our authority should not be internal, but external - the Holy Scriptures. Now the study of Holy Scripture is not just an individual affair, but it is something that should take place in community and, ideally, in multiple communities. There should be the community of the family, a group of friends, a Sunday school class, a congregation, a diocese, a province, the Anglican Communion and the Church Catholic.
2. If Jesus is born of a virgin, then it means that God, not man, is the ultimate source of life. We, who are grafted into the Body of Christ through our baptism, are not ourselves. We have a new birth - by the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, our new lives were also conceived by the Holy Spirit.
3. If Jesus death on the cross atoned for our sins, then they have been atoned for. Now, there are several metaphors used to describe the atonement. One is penal substitution where Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. One is called "Christus Victor" where Jesus defeated the power of death. Some are objective (something actually happened) and some are subjective (Jesus gave us a great example in his death). As an Anglican, I say "Yes" to all the above. Different metaphors will reach different people and may be more true at different times in our lives than at others. Regardless of the metaphor used, I accept that Jesus's death on the cross atoned for my sins and the sins of the whole world. If our sins have been atoned for, then we need only to repent and confess to receive the benefit of that atonement. We also need to realize that the price paid for our freedom is the death of Jesus.
4. If Jesus did rise from the dead, then the battle between life and death is over and live wins. All of our death focused living (sin) has been defeated. The implications of this are enormous. We are no longer captive to our sins. Sin and death have been defeated in the Cross. The powers of death did their worst to Jesus and he came out the other side. Because of this, we can confront the powers of death in our day and in our lives - but not with our own power, but with the power of Jesus - Risen from the dead and victorious over evil and sin and death. Will we choose to remain imprisoned by our death focused culture and lives or will we choose to live in the Victory that Jesus has won for us and wants to share with us?
5. If the miracles of Jesus actually occurred, then that implies that the creator has power over the creation and is not part of the creation. I would also say that the "miracles" such as healings and bring others back from the dead and the feeding of the multitudes are the undoing of the effects of sin in creation. By sin (whether Adam's or Lucifer's), death entered the world. Disease entered the world. Pain and suffering entered the world. Because of sin, man needs to work for his food and knows hunger. Because of sin, there is not always enough food. But because God entered creation, death itself dies. Sin is defeated. Hunger and suffering are alleviated. The Kingdom of God is proclaimed and we need to determine if we are going to be subjects of the King of Kings or the subjects of ourselves.
These are just some outlines on what I think the implications of being a "fundamentalist" are. Do the few people who read this blog have other ideas?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What is a Fundamentalist?
When I was in the beginning of the Ordination Process in the Diocese of Dallas, I was being interviewed to participate in the "Ministry Discernment Program" - where I would be posted to a congregation (not my home congregation) and a committee there would help me and the Church discern if I had a call to ordained ministry.
The interviews took half a day, but one interview stands out in my memory. It concerned our theology. The primary interviewer was a seminary professor. After the pleasentries were out of the way, the first question he asked me was "Are you a fundamentalist?"
To which I replied: "What do you mean by fundamentalist?"
The Professor responded: "I am asking the questions here."
So I anwsered: "Well if by 'fundamentalist' you mean someone who believes every work of Holy Scripture to be true such that God created the world in six 24 hour periods known as 'days,' then no. I am not a fundamentalist. However, if you mean someone who believes the fundamentals of the faith as contained in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and expounded in the Book of Common Prayer, then yes. I am a fundamentalist."
Everytime I hear someone call me (or another conservative Christian) a "fundamentalist," I think back to this story. To progressive Christians, there is no worse perjorative than "fundamentalist," but they very rarely define this term other than to say it is a term of disrespect and means someone who hold traditional Christian doctrine that they do not hold. To progressive Christians, a "fundamentalist" is someone who is not "progressive" or even not as progressive as the speaker. "Fundamentalist" has become a relative term, not an absolute.
Today, it seems to mean someone who takes the truth of Holy Scripture more literally and as more historically accurate than the speaker or person using the term does.
We need to recover the original meaning for the term "fundamentalist."
It came from the fight against modernity and originally meant someone who believed the following five items:
I guess according to that definition, I am a fundamentalist. How about you?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The interviews took half a day, but one interview stands out in my memory. It concerned our theology. The primary interviewer was a seminary professor. After the pleasentries were out of the way, the first question he asked me was "Are you a fundamentalist?"
To which I replied: "What do you mean by fundamentalist?"
The Professor responded: "I am asking the questions here."
So I anwsered: "Well if by 'fundamentalist' you mean someone who believes every work of Holy Scripture to be true such that God created the world in six 24 hour periods known as 'days,' then no. I am not a fundamentalist. However, if you mean someone who believes the fundamentals of the faith as contained in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds and expounded in the Book of Common Prayer, then yes. I am a fundamentalist."
Everytime I hear someone call me (or another conservative Christian) a "fundamentalist," I think back to this story. To progressive Christians, there is no worse perjorative than "fundamentalist," but they very rarely define this term other than to say it is a term of disrespect and means someone who hold traditional Christian doctrine that they do not hold. To progressive Christians, a "fundamentalist" is someone who is not "progressive" or even not as progressive as the speaker. "Fundamentalist" has become a relative term, not an absolute.
Today, it seems to mean someone who takes the truth of Holy Scripture more literally and as more historically accurate than the speaker or person using the term does.
We need to recover the original meaning for the term "fundamentalist."
It came from the fight against modernity and originally meant someone who believed the following five items:
- Holy Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are inerrant because of this inspiration
- The Virgin Birth - such that Mary had no sexual relations prior to the conception of Jesus
- Christ's death on the cross atoned for our sins
- The physical resurrection of the dead for Jesus - the tomb is empty and Jesus' bones are not lying in a ditch somewhere.
- The miracles that Christ is recorded to have performed in Gospels are true and actually happened.
I guess according to that definition, I am a fundamentalist. How about you?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Word of God?
A recent post on Stand Firm quotes the English Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stephens as saying:
This is a terrible heresy. When I was ordained, I took an oath that I believed the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God.
One thing that occurred to me when reading Validmir Losky's The Mystical Theology of the Easter Church, is that Jesus is the Word of God, incarnate and Holy Scripture is the Word of God, written.
Just as Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so is Holy Scripture. It was written by men and inspired by God. It is not partially human and partially divine.
So, if both are the Word of God, the heresies that apply to one could be applied to the other. The Christological Heresies that apply to the person of Jesus could also apply to the Holy Scriptures.
Just as there are those who see Jesus as more human than divine (if not all human and not divine)- the adoptionists, there are also those who see Holy Scripture as more human than divine (or all human and no divine).
Too many people are willing to split Holy Scripture into divine and human - this command is human; that command is divine. This story is human; that one is of divine nature. I find it odd that the stories and commands that people consider to be of divine origin are the ones they like and the stories and commands of human origin are the ones they don't like.
There is a heresy in the opposite direction too - the docetic heresy. This heresy states that Jesus only seemed to be human. He was divine and not really human. When applied to Holy Scripture, this brings about the wooden literalist translation and application of Holy Scripture. It does not take into account the person writing the book, his reasons for writing it or the culture in which it was written and received. I had one person tell me that Jesus was not making up stories when telling the parables - he was relating actual facts known to him.
All too often, we want to rule over scripture (the adoptionist heresy) or not wrestle with scripture (the docetic one). Holy Scripture is the Written Word of God. It contains all things necessary for salvation and it is our best record of the life and work of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
"For Christians ‘the word of God’ is the life of Jesus. The Bible is the product
of those who sought to understand the life of Jesus."
This is a terrible heresy. When I was ordained, I took an oath that I believed the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God.
One thing that occurred to me when reading Validmir Losky's The Mystical Theology of the Easter Church, is that Jesus is the Word of God, incarnate and Holy Scripture is the Word of God, written.
Just as Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so is Holy Scripture. It was written by men and inspired by God. It is not partially human and partially divine.
So, if both are the Word of God, the heresies that apply to one could be applied to the other. The Christological Heresies that apply to the person of Jesus could also apply to the Holy Scriptures.
Just as there are those who see Jesus as more human than divine (if not all human and not divine)- the adoptionists, there are also those who see Holy Scripture as more human than divine (or all human and no divine).
Too many people are willing to split Holy Scripture into divine and human - this command is human; that command is divine. This story is human; that one is of divine nature. I find it odd that the stories and commands that people consider to be of divine origin are the ones they like and the stories and commands of human origin are the ones they don't like.
There is a heresy in the opposite direction too - the docetic heresy. This heresy states that Jesus only seemed to be human. He was divine and not really human. When applied to Holy Scripture, this brings about the wooden literalist translation and application of Holy Scripture. It does not take into account the person writing the book, his reasons for writing it or the culture in which it was written and received. I had one person tell me that Jesus was not making up stories when telling the parables - he was relating actual facts known to him.
All too often, we want to rule over scripture (the adoptionist heresy) or not wrestle with scripture (the docetic one). Holy Scripture is the Written Word of God. It contains all things necessary for salvation and it is our best record of the life and work of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word of God
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Kudos to a Company
As part of our Christmas this year, my wife and I purchased a new computer for the family (primarily her and me). We are now going to let the kids use our four year old computer for their school and play. As part of this, we needed to get a new computer desk. We found this computer tower at Frys Electronics
(my favorite "toy" store. Well, during assembly, the bottom shelf broke. So I went to the company's website and ordered another part, expecting to pay shipping and for the part.
I called the company today to check on the status of my order and found that they shipped Monday (after taking off between Christmas and New Year) and that there is no charge for either the part of the shipping. If you need a computer desk or other "put it together yourself" furniture, I recommend Sauder (the parent company) or Studio RTA.
We like to complain about bad service and companies taking advantage of their customers. Once in a while, someone gets it right and I think they should be rewarded when they do!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Healthcare and Health Insurance II
First, let me state why I am writing on this topic. I normally write about the Episcopal Church or about faith in general. As a Deacon in the Episcopal Church, I am charged with making known to the Church "the needs, concerns, and hopes of the world." In the United States, health care is a big concern and as I stated earlier, I am employed in the healthcare IT world.
In the part I, I discussed Health Care as a scarese resource, the purpose of insurance to indemnify against unexpected and catastrophic loss, and the modern use of health insurance to pay for routine care. In this post, I will discuss some possible solutions for health insurance and some ways we can increase the efficiency of delivering health care in the United States.
First, we should not be using insurance to pay for routine medical care. Doctor's visits, well baby care, eye exams, and the like should not be covered by health insurance. To reduce transaction costs, these should not even be submitted to the insurance company, but should be paid out of pocket by the patients. We should reserve insurance for things like surgery, cancer, true emergency room visits and other unplanned events where the cost is prohibitive for most people. We can do this be limiting the procedures and services covered by insurance.
Next, we need a way to make insurance more portable. HIPAA (the Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) went a long way towards doing this. One of the problems with changing health insurance is the coverage of "pre-existing conditions." If we chance health insurance to cover only catastrophic items, it would bring down the cost of insurance (as well as the cost of delivering care) and people would be more able and willing to carry personal insurance. Because insurance covers so much today bridging the gap between jobs is very expensive. Five years ago, I took a leave of absence for 7 weeks to take a unit of CPE. My cost for insurance duing that 7 weeks was over $2400. I believe that we can get a catastrophic policy for significantly less.
Finally, we need to find ways to cover the uninsured for and to pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. That will be the subject of part III.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
In the part I, I discussed Health Care as a scarese resource, the purpose of insurance to indemnify against unexpected and catastrophic loss, and the modern use of health insurance to pay for routine care. In this post, I will discuss some possible solutions for health insurance and some ways we can increase the efficiency of delivering health care in the United States.
First, we should not be using insurance to pay for routine medical care. Doctor's visits, well baby care, eye exams, and the like should not be covered by health insurance. To reduce transaction costs, these should not even be submitted to the insurance company, but should be paid out of pocket by the patients. We should reserve insurance for things like surgery, cancer, true emergency room visits and other unplanned events where the cost is prohibitive for most people. We can do this be limiting the procedures and services covered by insurance.
Next, we need a way to make insurance more portable. HIPAA (the Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) went a long way towards doing this. One of the problems with changing health insurance is the coverage of "pre-existing conditions." If we chance health insurance to cover only catastrophic items, it would bring down the cost of insurance (as well as the cost of delivering care) and people would be more able and willing to carry personal insurance. Because insurance covers so much today bridging the gap between jobs is very expensive. Five years ago, I took a leave of absence for 7 weeks to take a unit of CPE. My cost for insurance duing that 7 weeks was over $2400. I believe that we can get a catastrophic policy for significantly less.
Finally, we need to find ways to cover the uninsured for and to pay for those who cannot afford healthcare. That will be the subject of part III.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Monday, January 05, 2009
Healthcare and Health Insurance
I work in Healthcare IT. I see my job as a ministry. My job helps to lower the cost of delivering health care to people. I've worked both in private insurance and in the Medicaid/Medicare fields for various clients.
As health care become more and more expensive we are approaching a crisis (some would say that we are already in a crisis) where "normal" healthcare is too expensive to afford without insurance. A large part of the problem is the use of insurance and the different models of how to best pay for health care.
Healthcare as a Scarce Resource
Let's start out with some basics. Healthcare is a scarce resource. There is a limited amount of healthcare to go around. So, it has to be rationed. In a "relatively" free market, scare resources are rationed based on the ability to pay. For example, automobile ownership is determined by who will pay what price for which car. People with more money generally drive nicer cars. Likewise food (particularly premium foods such as beef and fresh vegetables) is rationed based on ability to pay. The government does not give out free prime rib to its citizens.
So, we have to ration healthcare. There is not enough healthcare to meet the demand for it - particularly if the payment of services is divorced from the delivery of the service. But healthcare is a different form of commodity than premium foods. There are several cases where withholding of healthcare would result in death or permanent injury. No one ever died because he didn't get a medium rare prime ribeye steak. So, some basic services should be available to those who cannot pay.
The Purpose of Insurance
Second, insurance is designed to help people pay for unexpected catrastophic loss. We insure our homes (and our mortgage holders demand we do this) because no one (or very few people) can afford to purchase a new house if the current one burns down. In the healthcare arena, insurance started out paying for catastrophic loss.
Today's Health Insurance
Today, we have health insurance that pays for known and planned (or plannable) and routine expenses. Health Insurance pays for check ups, well baby care, routine doctor visits for sickness (such as colds and flu) and other knowable and plannable events. Today's market is moving towards a high deductible plan where the insurance starts to pay after a $1000 per person per year deductible. The problem is that, in order to reach this deductible, even routine doctor visits are still filed with the insurance. This increases transaction costs for the doctor's office and for the insurance carrier. Like all business expenses, these costs are borne by the customers - the patients.
The Genesis of Employer Provided Insurance
One problem in our society is that health insurance is normally acquired from your employer. This really started in WWII when the federal government imposed wage limits to help industries and reduce inflation during an inflationary period (war almost always brings inflation). To attract the best talent, companies could no longer compete on price (skilled labor is also a scarce resource), it had to find other ways to compete, so they started offering "perqs" like health insurance. Everyone who wanted talented labor had to offer health insurance and the health insurance industry was rather new, so this distribution method (employers providing insurance) became the de facto standard.
A Thought Experiment
Using insurance like this divorces payment for services from the delivery of services. Thus, there is no incentive to minimize or self-ration health care services. As an anology, imagine if your employer offered "Lunch Insurance." Your employer will pay 50-80% of the cost of your Lunch Insurance (LI). LI has an annual deductible of $200 per person and will pay 80% of the cost of your lunch after you reach that deductible. Now, what do you think will happen to the price of lunch in general? How would your own lunch eating habits change? Would you continue to bring your lunch to work or would you go out more often? Eventually, the cost of lunch would increase such that you had to have insurance to pay for lunch at all - unless your were independently wealthy.
What Should We Do?
I'll address that tomorrow or Wednesday. In the mean time, leave your own recommendations in the comments.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
As health care become more and more expensive we are approaching a crisis (some would say that we are already in a crisis) where "normal" healthcare is too expensive to afford without insurance. A large part of the problem is the use of insurance and the different models of how to best pay for health care.
Healthcare as a Scarce Resource
Let's start out with some basics. Healthcare is a scarce resource. There is a limited amount of healthcare to go around. So, it has to be rationed. In a "relatively" free market, scare resources are rationed based on the ability to pay. For example, automobile ownership is determined by who will pay what price for which car. People with more money generally drive nicer cars. Likewise food (particularly premium foods such as beef and fresh vegetables) is rationed based on ability to pay. The government does not give out free prime rib to its citizens.
So, we have to ration healthcare. There is not enough healthcare to meet the demand for it - particularly if the payment of services is divorced from the delivery of the service. But healthcare is a different form of commodity than premium foods. There are several cases where withholding of healthcare would result in death or permanent injury. No one ever died because he didn't get a medium rare prime ribeye steak. So, some basic services should be available to those who cannot pay.
The Purpose of Insurance
Second, insurance is designed to help people pay for unexpected catrastophic loss. We insure our homes (and our mortgage holders demand we do this) because no one (or very few people) can afford to purchase a new house if the current one burns down. In the healthcare arena, insurance started out paying for catastrophic loss.
Today's Health Insurance
Today, we have health insurance that pays for known and planned (or plannable) and routine expenses. Health Insurance pays for check ups, well baby care, routine doctor visits for sickness (such as colds and flu) and other knowable and plannable events. Today's market is moving towards a high deductible plan where the insurance starts to pay after a $1000 per person per year deductible. The problem is that, in order to reach this deductible, even routine doctor visits are still filed with the insurance. This increases transaction costs for the doctor's office and for the insurance carrier. Like all business expenses, these costs are borne by the customers - the patients.
The Genesis of Employer Provided Insurance
One problem in our society is that health insurance is normally acquired from your employer. This really started in WWII when the federal government imposed wage limits to help industries and reduce inflation during an inflationary period (war almost always brings inflation). To attract the best talent, companies could no longer compete on price (skilled labor is also a scarce resource), it had to find other ways to compete, so they started offering "perqs" like health insurance. Everyone who wanted talented labor had to offer health insurance and the health insurance industry was rather new, so this distribution method (employers providing insurance) became the de facto standard.
A Thought Experiment
Using insurance like this divorces payment for services from the delivery of services. Thus, there is no incentive to minimize or self-ration health care services. As an anology, imagine if your employer offered "Lunch Insurance." Your employer will pay 50-80% of the cost of your Lunch Insurance (LI). LI has an annual deductible of $200 per person and will pay 80% of the cost of your lunch after you reach that deductible. Now, what do you think will happen to the price of lunch in general? How would your own lunch eating habits change? Would you continue to bring your lunch to work or would you go out more often? Eventually, the cost of lunch would increase such that you had to have insurance to pay for lunch at all - unless your were independently wealthy.
What Should We Do?
I'll address that tomorrow or Wednesday. In the mean time, leave your own recommendations in the comments.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Friday, January 02, 2009
God's Only Exam
On Monday, January 5th, candidates for ordination to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church will begin to sit down to take the General Ordination Examination (GOEs) also known as "God's Only Exam."
This is a very stressful time for them. I remember when I took the GOEs almost five years ago and I am glad that I do not have to do that again!
The exams are a series of seven tests - six half day and one full day essay exams covering the "Seven Canonical Areas" - Systematic Theology, Litury & Worship, Holy Scripture, Ethics and Moral Theology, Contemporary Society, Church History, and the Theory and Practice of Ministry.
Please take some time this weekend and during next week, for those students who are writing their exams. Please pray for calm and for clarity of expression. Also pray that they may be guided by the Holy Spirit as they take the exams.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
This is a very stressful time for them. I remember when I took the GOEs almost five years ago and I am glad that I do not have to do that again!
The exams are a series of seven tests - six half day and one full day essay exams covering the "Seven Canonical Areas" - Systematic Theology, Litury & Worship, Holy Scripture, Ethics and Moral Theology, Contemporary Society, Church History, and the Theory and Practice of Ministry.
Please take some time this weekend and during next week, for those students who are writing their exams. Please pray for calm and for clarity of expression. Also pray that they may be guided by the Holy Spirit as they take the exams.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
