That Is I Think I Disagree

I received an interesting collection of thoughts at the end of a junk e-mail message, which proves that sometimes they may be worth reading. But I strongly disagree with what they're saying! Well, I don't know... maybe I agree. Here it is:

"For example, any associated supporting element is to be regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that this selectionally introduced contextual feature adds explicit performance limits to an abstract underlying order. Furthermore, any exponential Folklife coefficient presents a valuable

challenge showing the necessity for any deep configuration mode. Presumably, our fully integrated field program does not affect the structure of all deeper structuralistic conceptualization. On our

assumptions, the earlier discussion of deviance suffices to account for possible bidirectional logical relationship approaches. We have already seen that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort

is functionally equivalent to (though formally distinct from) problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

___________________________________________________________________________________

We shall nevertheless deny that initiation of basic charismatic subculture development recognizes the importance of other disciplines, while taking into account a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the systematic use of complex symbols necessitates that urgent consideration be applied to the structural design, based on system engineering concepts. On the other hand, the characterization of specific criteria must utilize and be functionally interwoven with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial seems to me to be weakly equivalent to the strong generative capacity of the theory. From the intercultural viewpoint, the

characterization of critically co-optive criteria necessitates that urgent consideration be applied to all deeper structuralistic conceptualization. In theory, the descriptive power of the base component does not affect the structure of Propp's basic formulation. Note that the independent functional principle adds explicit performance limits to the total configurational rationale."

Well We Tried

My brother and me went out to Lake Minnetonka last Saturday, hoping to get a few northerns before the season ends. But my auger had other ideas. I got one hole drilled and the dern thing quit on me. Rather than the two of us standing around watching one tip-up, we decided to hang it up and hop on his snowmobiles, as long as we had brought them along. It pretty much saved the day from being a complete drag even though hauling in big fish was our goal. Then again, spending a day on the lake with your brother could never be a complete drag anyway. Good times.

What Would I Give

I've been looking for a cd put out by a band (Pegtop) that our previous minister of music, Matt Patrick, was with. I Googled it and got his blog. He's been ministering in Slovakia for like, 174 days or something so I was surprised to run into him. So, there's one song in particular that I love and am hoping Matt will tell me how to get, called "What Would I Give". Here's the lyrics, which is all I've got right now.

"What would I give to be pure in heart,
And pure in flesh and bone?
What would I give to be pure in heart?
I’d give everything I own.

I’d rid my whole house of its demons of lust
And open the windows of trust
And out of those windows all fear will have flown
And I’d give everything I own

What would I give for the words of God
To come tumbling from the throne?
What would I give for the words of God?
I’d give everything I own

I’d open my head and they’d roll right in,
When I open my mouth they’d roll out again.
They’d uproot the weeds of the deeds I have sown,
And I'd give everything I own

What would I give for my children's strength
On the day they stand alone?
I mean what would I give for their strength to stand firm?
I’d give everything I own

I’ve wasted my life
In accomplishing things
Ignoring the giver of wings.
Lord teach them to fly to the foot of Your throne,
And I'd give everything I own

All I’ve accomplished and the titles I hold,
My passions, positions, possessions and gold.
To God they must look like a thimble of foam--
And it’s everything I own.
Dirty rags is all I own.

So I stand before God with my truckload of hay,
He gets asked, but says there is still a way.
Because “Father forgive” are the words Jesus moaned,
And He gave everything He owned.
When He gave everything He owned.

So what would I give to be pure in heart
For the known to be unknown?
I mean what would I give to be...
Born again?"

© Pegtop 1999 Stone Jetty Publishing/BMI

To Swear Or Not

I got a letter in the mail from the county the other day informing me that beginning the middle of February I'll be on call to serve as a trial juror. I've done that once before, about 13 years ago. Then, I had to go downtown each day for 2 weeks and hang around waiting to be needed. Man that was boring. This time I'm in a different county (or maybe it's just that times have changed?) so I only need to call in each evening to see whether I have to report the next day. If not, I go to work.

Anyway, the reason for this post is the whole idea of oaths. In Matthew 5, Jesus said approximately "don't swear at all, let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything more comes from evil." I'm not sure if I'm being legalistic or obedient, but last time I had jury duty that verse came to mind just before they began swearing people in, though it never occurred to me beforehand that I'd need to address that issue in court (duh!) I discussed it quickly with the clerk, who suggested a "Quaker's Affirmation", which eased my mind. I don't suppose that it's too far from an oath, but it's different enough to satisfy me. It just affirms that now, as always, what I say will be the truth.

Every Christian I talked to after my first jury duty said that they thought oaths in court were okay, that Jesus was only addressing frivilous oaths. But when I read Matthew 5 (and also James 5, where he says, "Above all, brothers, do not swear..." it seems clear enough to me that not swearing is the route to go. I think that come February, I'll be "affirming" my word again rather than "swearing".