And in more juvenile news, according to this story, due to the Janet Jackson incident, there will now be an audio delay at the presentation of the SAG awards. If I were her, I'd complain about that one.

Mail Bonanza! Yesterday we somehow managed to get mail for 7 different people. We got three pieces for similar addresses, two people listed for our address somehow but not us, one letter which was properly addressed to us but actually a letter to someone in Ohio, and of course our actual mail.

Wonder if this is some kind of record.

One of the "candidates" becomes "mired" in the "episcopal" controversy, so to speak. (Perhaps I'm the only one who found this to be WAY funny)

I just got an email from a friend who has moved on from my church. He has had an abiding interest in the problems of Sudan and was spearheading a move to relocate a group of refugees to our area, a move which sadly was pre-empted when our gov't in its wisdom decided that refugees were some sort of threat to our national security (never mind that these are people who have had no concept of security of any kind in their lives).

The current situation over there has really become horrible beyond words. Do your own news search on Sudan or Darfur or Chad to see what I'm talking about. Here's the most recent Yahoo news story.

I'm not really even capable of knowing how to process things like this. Reminds me of Judges 19:29-30.

If your name is Mark Horne and you are looking for a reason to vote in November, click here. Others beware.

This is turning inta a verrrrryyyy looooonnnnnng weekend around here. I'm getting tired of sitting around. May have to go build a snowman just to get outside.

I think this can only mean one thing: Glenn received the joke while he was still up there.

Although I've said a lot, both on and off the blog, about the practice of music, I'm still not sure I'd want to live with this guy when he was practicing (long but worthwhile video clip).

Even more on church in scandinavia.

Once you get past item 1, there's a lot of good stuff in this Stossel article.

When I spent a couple of days in Stockholm last June, I was really struck by the absence of any detectable signs of religious activity. As a proper amaerican, I don't actually have much idea what's going on in the rest of the world, so it was hard for me to even have any context to put my tiny experience of modern scandinavia into. Well, it looks like Stanley Kurtz has done some research into at least one aspect of Nordic life today, one which should be of condsiderable interest here in the states--gay marriage. The scandinavian countries have apparently volunteered to be the lab rats for the effects of gay marriage on a culture.

Certainly the most interesting part for me of this is the role of the church. This also should serve as a sober warning for us here as well :

Norway's Lutheran state church has been riven by conflict in the decade since the approval of de facto gay marriage, with the ordination of registered partners the most divisive issue. The church's agonies have been intensively covered in the Norwegian media, which have taken every opportunity to paint the church as hidebound and divided. The nineties began with conservative churchmen control. By the end of the decade, liberals had seized the reins.

While the most public disputes of the nineties were over homosexuality, Norway's Lutheran church was also divided over the question of heterosexual cohabitation. Asked directly, liberal and conservative clerics alike voice a preference for marriage over cohabitation--especially for couples with children. In practice, however, conservative churchmen speak out against the trend toward unmarried cohabitation and childbirth, while liberals acquiesce.

This division over heterosexual cohabitation broke into the open in 2000, at the height of the church's split over gay partnerships, when Prince Haakon, heir to Norway's throne, began to live with his lover, a single mother. From the start of the prince's controversial relationship to its eventual culmination in marriage, the future head of the Norwegian state church received tokens of public support or understanding from the very same bishops who were leading the fight to permit the ordination of homosexual partners.

I don't want to make dire predictions about the future of scandinavia (well, I WANT to, but I won't), especially since on my two brief visits everything seemed so pleasant. I will just mention what I notice here. Many in the church wonder about how to "deal" with homosexuality. Some choose vilification; some choose soft-pedaling or silence; some think, "it doesn't matter--homosexuals don't come to (our) church and couldn't care less what we think." But here in this example --and there are numerous examples in our lives I'm sure-- homosexuals DO look to the church for its word. Of course they hope for a word of affirmation, as we all do. But if the church is to be the church, one of the things she needs to do is to tell the truth. To sinners of all kinds we say, "you are enslaved by your sins--come to Jesus to be set free." We just must, like the minority of the German churches in the 30's and 40's, resist the temptation to sell our blessing to the highest bidder.

But you already know all this.

I remember seeing this some years ago in the front of a hymnal. I thought it was wonderful then, and I'm not sure that it has been improved upon (anyone recognize it?):

Directions for Singing
I Learn these tunes before you learn any others; afterwards learn as many as you please.

II Sing them exactly as they are printed here, without altering or mending them at all; and if you hve learned to sing them otherwise, unlearn it as soon as you can.

III Sing all. See that you join the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weakness of weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.

IV Sing lustily and with good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.

V Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.

VI Sing in time. Whatever time is sung be sure to keep with it. Do not run before nor stay behind it; but attend close to the leading voices, and move therewith as exactly as you can; and take care not to sing too slow. This drawling way naturally steals on all who are lazy; and it is high time to drive it out from us, and sing all our tunes just as quick as we did at first.

VII Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing Him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when He cometh in the clouds of heaven.

This brings back memories, but not of the good kind. Makes me feel terrible just reading it.

In any event, I bet neither France nor England can boast something like this.

I imagine someone has something to say about this. Alastair? JB?

Wow. That's all I can say.

A short break from me telling you what I think. What do YOU make of this article on contemporary american ethics. I actually thought of about five things I wanted to say, but I'll spare you for the moment.

On a lighter note, if there's a better sign of divine justice than this, I'd like to know what it is.

I think I've mentioned a couple of times (way back) how much I've been enjoying Paul Tournier's stuff. I'm now working on one called Learn to Grow Old, and, as with everything else I've read of his, I'm sorely tempted to quote large amounts of it here were it not for my respect of copyright law. I'll just give you a little paragraph. I don't know precisely when this was written, but it was translated into English in 1971.

Contact between people of different ages used to be possible in the street, because people walked about peacefully on foot. They were able to greet each other, and stop for a chat. An old man would know who the child was he met, and he would chat to him about his parents whom he used to know well when they were little. He would talk of things he remembered, and so the child became aware of a living link between the past and the present. Nowadays the traffic makes it impossible for the old as well as the young to stroll in the street. We cram into buses or the underground, in solid, silent masses, in which the promiscuity of our bodies is equalled only by the solitude of our spirits. The old are not there, adn the children are stifled.

Art, nothing to get upset about there. I think the question I have is why polite society these days thinks everyone has to be as tolerant as possible, but allow artists to be as offensive as they wish. Seems like some kind of cruel game.