i think i am becoming addicted to the Dave Barry blogg.

i just wanted to share this with the world.

I am Kong. Strong and passionate, I tend to be misunderstood, sometimes even feared. I don't want to fight, I don't want to cause trouble, all I ask is a little love, and a little peace. If I don't get what I want, I get angry, and throw barrels and flaming oil at whatever's stopping me. What Video Game Character Are You?

so sleepy! lots of work. and i go to blog and the little computer shuts down and all the well-conceived and thought out responses all got deleated like so much strong bad email. Rabbit Trail #3 (courtesy of Kelly): Isaiah talks about how all of our righteous deeds are still like bloody, smelly rags before the Lord...so does motivation matter? if we all suck because of our sin, do we worry about thinking about our actions, or just do them? I dunno. Lewis' point seems to be that there is a dichotomy between what we want and what we should want and that totally points that there is a moral imperative operating in the world. do you read him as directly speaking to christians on this point, or more of a comment on the way of the world in general? RT#2 (house church): i can't formulate my own thoughts even to state a "Top 5 Things I learned" list right now. I'll have to do more consideration and let you know after I get some sleep. i will add that once I return from L'abri (in april), that I should have more valuable things to say.... maybe

New York City: 24 hours of driving - a good 12 miles walked, no clothes to show for it...but some great conversations with my brother. That is what came from my visit to the city. He loved NYC...the big lights, the aromas exuding from the people, the places and the odd sewer rat. I have decided however that as much as I try to ocnvince myself that I am a city person...I'm not. White America...I am one of your kids. Kelly, what issues are really bothering you? Lets get to that...I suggest you write them on a piece of paper, bring it to the table with somebody you trust...pray through them...then burn the list :^) Or perhaps do what I have done inthe past....folded it in half and then stuck it in my journal. It is amazing to look back and see what has come up in your life over the years, I have 7 and a half years of journaling done now...and I am positively amused by what I read. Lars...you have some journaling of your own to do on this blogg site. We want "Erik's 5 Major Thoughts" on the weekend. As for me and my house, I dreamed last night that I got married after only knowing a girl for 4 days, and then remember second guessing and wondering how the Vineyard ever allowed it to happen. Sorry - this has turned into more of an email than a blogg...more to come.

p.s. humor and Christianity...... do the two go together? I really really want them to, but i wonder somtimes where the line is drawn on "idle talk"- as in the stuff paul says is not cool. Cause i know most of my humor is utterly pointless. But very entertaining for me and the little man who lives in my spleen and laughs at all my jokes.

can I post a rabbit trail? I am trying to figure out some stuff and work though some emotions that i think i know i need to deal with and work though in order to have them edventually be good emotions and not the kind that are clearly very self serving. Im thinking about how in the first few Mere Christianity chapters Lewis talks about how we often hold a moral standard for ourselves that we then attempt to force our emotions to come alongside, because we know that they should. If a person screams for help I will try to make myself feel brave in order to rescue them instead of running away which would be my first emotion. But i guess either way what matters more is that i save the screaming person, not that i feel good abotu it while i do it. But at the same time i struggle, because I think that if my feelings (perhaps "feelings" is a bad word choice- "motavations" maybe?) do not line up with what i do, even if what i do is "right" by the standards that i know rightness to be, I am walking in a gray area where i might be a hypacrite. This is confusing, im sorry. But, it even gets more confusing, cause if i "know" "somthing is right" then maybe the issue is mute. Because some feeling of authentic purpose comes with that and then I am not dealing with the issue that really bothers me. Maybe it is more when I really struggle to see somthing as "right" even though i know i should (i.e. it is biblical, and clearly so) and i want to honar that but my feelings are hyjacking the kelly brain. Like i keep trying to make them comply but i am just a jerk all the same. Is it better in some of these situations to deal with feelings, disect them and probe them for sources, or to just forget them alltogether as wrong without needing extra explanation and just move on with trying to "feel" the fight feelings? Which is healthy? Is either way unhealthy? Am i coherant? If i am not i really apoligise. And then i am still struggling to find out what i think about the idea of a universal moral law. Feel free to ask about touchy issues about any of this if you need them to understand what i am asking. I have little in my life you dont find out edventually anyway. I like it that way. I am excited to hear more about your weekend Erik. And Roger, im sure if i had any idea what you were talking abotu with the beer that i would think it was really cool.

happy st. patty's day! i went to a small church conference this weekend. i'll have to get back to you tomorrow about what i learned. keep on keeping on

Not that I made any sense yesterday while writing about shandy and lager tops, but I would like to clarify something. Nothing really makes sense - 'there is no spoon.'

So - why is it that everything - or most things about the post-modern church are things I like. My goodness...Im a PM! Yes I like some of the modernist trends...but essentially Im about people meeting in places (plural), living (and eating) to serve one another and the community. "Not that people would come to church, but that the church would be the community" was my thought from last week's group. Where are you both on the Modern / PM percentage. If I was a mix I would not be a shandy... but more like a lager-tops...(that is a full beer with a dash of sprite...as opposed to a half and half mix known as a shandy). While the shandy is refreshing...the lager-tops has more substance and flavor. All in favor of worship with beer glasses raised say I...

roger, kelly, you guys rock! good challenging stuff, dudes! Let me first say that (a) I'm not dissing Vineyard Columbus or Vineyards in general--I'm just processing these thoughts about accountability and the roles of the individual and the corporate body in church, and (2) I'm not sold on the whole idea of house churces/simple churches either, but they seem to answer issues that I sense in my own voyage with God and this crazy Bride o' Christ. Okay, onward: Rabbit Trail #3: men vs. women and the acceptance of gospel. Here's my take: men seem to have some strange independence issue to overcome. Jesus said he came for the "sick" (i.e., the weak, disenfranchised, hurt, lost, questioning, poor, those without hope) and men often seem to want to preserve a sense of autonomy through peer and elder approval, macho-ness, materialism, respect, authority. Having another master, other than oneself, means losing something. Men hate to have others see them as weak (this is a very general statement, BTW). Women seem to have less of a problem with having other people see them as strong and in control. There is less pressure societally for women to submit to God. On the other hand, women who do submit to God and join a church seem less able to be leaders co-equal w/ men--not because of themselves but because men can be afraid of "strong women leaders." Rabbit Trail #2: Small church/Postmodernism and church In the modern version of church, truth is propositional (an argument or set of beliefs) and someone is orthodox or unorthodox based on their expression and intensity of those beliefs. In my opinion, one of the trends of postmodernism is a move toward truth as experiencial rather than propositional. In other words, your experience is as valid as my propositional argument. This can be a really scary place--because everyone's experience is just as valid as everyone else's--but it can also be a really exciting and more Christ-like place. In a God-focused postmodern church, authenticity of experience and behavior become far more important. It might help me to write out like a little chart or something comparing a modern church with a postmodern church. This is totally me and my own thoughts, so don't think there's any authority here--so please disagree with it if you see weaknesses. Modern Church Values --- Postmodern Church Values Quantity (number of people attending) --- Quality (how are people growing with God) Performance (is it engaging? does it sound good?) --- Authenticity (are people being real with their faults as well as their successes? is there heartfelt anything going on even if it sucks?) Teaching (there should be an excellent preacher laying out propositional truths to the congregation) --- Narrative (let's see the truths of the gospel in action in individual lives) Worship (good singers, good band, excellent music) --- Worthship (does it matter how we approach God as long as we're approaching him?) Intimacy with others (important, which is why we have small groups) --- Intimacy with others (essential, which is why we do stuff outside of any structured group) Don't miss: Main Meeting (Sunday, Saturday) --- Don't miss: "Family" (Small groups at any time/space) Facilities (we can do tons of stuff with our buildings, and they need to be supported by tithes) --- People (we don't care about facilities, and therefore can't do as many things, but we use our money other ways) Full-time Staff (professionals specializing in serving the congregation) --- No full-time staff (everyone serves everyone else) Seeker sensitive (anyone can come in and observe anonymously) --- Communitarian (if you come, you'll be a part of the group immediately and can't hide) Most dependent upon: excellent staff -- Most dependent upon: interdependency (everyone has to play or we fail) Glaring weakness: brings you to Jesus, leaves you on your own -- Glaring weakness: great company but may get insular (us versus them) mentality these are just a few ideas.

Okay blogg 2- so lets get into the small church. All in favor say I. I....m still not convinced fully. I can understand a community of small home-church groups...who actively communicate with eachother to coordinate outreach events etc. However - how is the small house church seeker friendly? I mean - I feel weird inviting my brother to a small group as a non-christian because all we do is Christian stuff...and that is wonderful for the saved, but what happens when we invite unsaved friends and they say yes. Do we change the way we do group so that everything is explained, so that the gospel is explained...or do we have bible teachings and prayer...to the exclusion of the watcher who has no clue what is going on? The house church would forever be frustrated because of new people coming...things having to be explained etc, and what of people involved who choose only to come on a thursday night...in need of prayer and to share. It becomes a single moms group akin to that scene in 'about a boy'...whereby we come to share our weekly events, get prayer, sing...and then go out again. I can see home church working where the community is a regular part of the week, where our kids play together, where we play, pray and eat together...but I've yet to see people stick with it. We are so transient...moving here and there, looking for new jobs etc...community is not what we majestically want it to be. We, like our secular brethren, are just as concerned about provision, our jobs, our home and what is next. Perhaps we need to define what a community of believers means. There will be the few who draw very close but as to the majority...I have my reservations. I by no means want to seem authoritative...Im trying to work through this stuff and would appreciate your thoughts?

Friends - How is it that men and high school boys have a tougher time grasping the gospel? Perhaps those of us with 20% gay in us have a better chance than macho men? But lets get real - If your point is at all founded regarding women grasping the gospel better - is there any wonder why the gay church is thriving? Perhaps men - in homosexual paradigms would understand the gospel better and should be the deacons of all churches? Is this the reason for the wonderful homosexual breeding ground of the Catholic Church and its amazing growth, gospel message of salvation and spreading of godly love? I hope you detect the irony. To say women get it...and men struggle ignores the fact that men are idiots...something my grandmother could have told you years ago:^)

PS i apoligise that this english major cannot spell to save her life, her family's life, her cats life or even the shelf life of a carton of strawberry milk.

I understand your point, Erik, that size definately is not an indicator of how likely a church is to stray. It seems like you and Roger are coming at this from different places. Please help the young blogger to spell out what you are saying. I know this is simplifying a lot, but it seems like the idea of the small home church model is that all members carry an equal and critical responsibility to be actively seeking guidance, direction and correction from the Lord. These people would NEED to be active members of the body and active pursuers of the spirit's leading- feeling constantly the debt to God and each other. It would be less easy to "fake" much in this setting because without sincerity (and often even with sincerity) the group could die. I recall myself as a newer and more fearful christian feeling "safer" in the Vineyard because it seemed stable. It contained less of the rocky ups and downs that my previous church experiance had been consumed with. I felt stable in a big church possibily because i wasn't as necessary. I could serve and be blessed in serving others, but if i didnt step up someone else would. I was free to just enjoy the benifits of spiritual constapation without any situations that really forced me to break too much (laxatives- if you want the visual) . I also, in all honesty, felt safer because i felt in the back of my mind that God was unstable, and even if He didnt come through for a while, well, in the Vineyard we still would have this steamlined machine that would feel safe and people would still be there whom i could go to for advice and a "atta girl" (not that anyone actually says "atta girl" cause i would laugh at them) but anyways the point is that the big church made me feel safer. And, for me, this probibily wasn't a good thing. And, now that I say this, im a fool if i am gonna say i still dont struggle with this. Small churches scare me. I think I feel like if we have more people our odds are better at getting someone who is sincere enough to know how to seek after God. Cause shoot, i would screw it up. This is how i feel, and i wonder if i am not alone in carrying this fear and becoming a servent to it. Truth is quite a different matter. The truth is that we are a Body, and i never had a right to refuse to be whatever part I am, no matter how much i fear failure and inataquecy. And the second thing i see is that we know home churches are possible because we do see them in scripture as the seeds of all we are now and all that we should be. I personally never thought a lot of things were possible in christianity before i left my moms church that i now see are very much in reality and already are actively glorifying God. And it seems to me that a church, whatever the size, where all members were pushed to worship and live in spirit and in truth, there we are living closer to the will of God. And i know that a small interdependant group would feel this need more strongly then i did in the massiveness of the Vineyard. Sink or swim but no time to float. I am not saying that the Vineyard is a "bad" set up, only that it was easy for me to choose to live a "bad" faith when i was only one of 6000 or even 200 in godspeed. However, ovbiously there are many people more disiplined then i am. Saying this, if i had come straight into even a kinship as a nonbeliever i am not sure if i would have stayed long or if i would have felt like i was too ovbiously not like one of "these people". Erik, how do you think accountability could look over a citywide base of home churches? Do you both think it would be easier for small churches to stand alongside each other then it has been for the biggies? I am wondering about Roger's point about accountability. A big church like ours seems a nice thing for small group accountability in my eyes i guess. For instance, i knew as a high schooler that when i came to NEO, a kinship of Godspeed, that i was not gonna be greated by you and Brooke standing in your living room burning incence, sacrificing Seamus and leading a meditation group all in the name of Jesus Christ. I think i just kinda was very confusing seeing as to how my questions are coming from opposite directions. Sorry. You may have already covered some of this too and i have just missed it. In answer to your other question to me E, (and thanks for asking me a question : )) I guess i need to think about it, but i have another question to preface it- Is this characteristic unique to high school boys or do men also have more problems then women grasping the gospel? Cause if its simply high school boys then my answers would be different i guess. And i like the visual of rich crowing like a rooster. I think my mind's eye is smileing.

dude, tons of things to respond to! kelly: i love that you have significant memories of neo. i do too. one of which is the night we did confessional stuff and the guys were 'done' in 15 minutes while the girls never quite got 'done.' why do women grasp the gospel so much easier than men--in general? rjr: thanks for the MC questions. i'll consider. is it better, do you think, to do this at a distance, or is meeting still the best option? i would really like lisa or someone else perhaps to be a part of things.... rabbit trail 2 continued--> don't jump ahead: are house churches/small churches/groups/kinships different, or under different rules or ways of being the Body of Christ because of their numerical size? is there something inate about the smaller group that makes it more or less likely to go down the path to heresy? is there something about a large church that makes it more or less likely to go toward heresy? (I bring up heresy because of your comment "There are too many problems here for the model to be held to any sense of accountability".) In Titus, both Timothy letters, and both Corinthian letters, Paul emphasizes right following of the gospel versus wrong following. He does address general leaders (overseers/bishops and deacons) but never brings up the term "pastor", "minister", or "reverend". Nor does Paul ever say the size of the group these people should lead. We've seen enormous churches, even whole denominations, led astray by charismatic leaders at many different points in history and culture (Jimmy Swaggart and the PTL people in the 1980s, Joseph Smith with the Mormons in the 1800s, the Pope/antiPope controversy in the 1300s, Montanus with the duality heresy in the 3rd century AD). The point is, I'm not sure that the size of the group automatically makes it easier or harder for people to be led astray. But, I'm certain that if Rich Nathan got up in front of the congregation and started crowing like a rooster (an actual "Manifestation of the Holy Spirit" practiced at the Toronto Airport Fellowship--formerly a Vineyard) some would leave the church, some would confront him about it, and some would unconditionally submit to his example, suddenly having "crowing manifestations" themselves. See, the more people a leader is in charge of, the more likely people will ascribe authority and power and influence to that person. Billy Graham is much more influential than Rich Nathan, but that doesn't mean that Billy Graham is more or less godly. As far as "separatist movement[s] that had good intentions but strayed way out into the wilderness", I'm not sure that size is a good defense against straying. In fact, on an individual level, it seems much more possible that despite a leader's following of the Lord the congregation can go off and believe whatever nonsense it wants to. In a smaller group where people are interdependent and inter-accountable--involved in the day to day of each other's lives instead of simply listening to a "teaching" and walking away from it--it's more likely that conflict will arise ("iron sharpening iron") and people will have to go to Jesus seeking truth. All that being said, home church networks seek to go beyond the more limited approach of individual churches--even megachurches--by reaching out with a variety of expressions of Christianity in a geographical region (like a city). If there was a church of 10 people for every 500 people in the city of columbus, that would be at least 2,000 churches including 20,000 Christians of different ethnicities and worship styles--much larger than any single church, but all Christians united. I'm not sure how the leadership works in that instance. I'm planning on going to a bit of a conference on it this weekend, so maybe I can come back and say something different then....

Erik: On the notion of house churches and why we do not do them. Surely that is exactly what the small group model is about - small church groups with wide-scale accountability. Or, on a wider issue do you deem it a possibility that we should indeed tithe to the house church we are a part of? Beyond that, is each home church to select a leader? There are too many problems here for the model to be held to any sense of accountability. As much as the governance by a larger body may feel restrictive, it does none-the-less oversee the distribution of teaching, allocation of monies, and oversite of learning and ministry resources. In the home church model where does such accountability lie? I am called to reflect on the early church, realising that theirs was one where there were overseers, deacons etc. They made it work - but they surely had overseers who saw that their teachings were in line with the scriptures. I think i would benefit from some more oversight on where you are going with the model of a home church. Yes, one could lead one, and the teachings would be fair, administration of monies sound...but can you seriously consider it would do the Christian body any serious favors, especially when the Joe Schmoes come along with charisma, teach out of their arse, accepts monies in tithe etc, and end up leading a separtist movement that had good intentions but strayed way out into the wilderness?

Lars...we were scheduled to meet this morning, but after my brother rolled in late last night I was exhausted and needed to come to work extra early so I can be at home in the afternoons to show him the sights so to speak. However, I have the first set of points and questions for discussion regarding Mere Christianity and so I shall post them here. Book 1, Chapter 1: Q1) CS Lewis makes note of a tendency in humans of appealing to a standard of absolute truth in quarrels, calling it the Law of Human nature. This being said, what for you marks the standard of acceptable human behavior? What is your moral standard, how was it developed and who is responsible for its governance (making sure you adhere to it)? Q2) Do you go against your moral code, and if so what causes such a departure from grandiose "cell-fish-ness"? Q3) When quarreling, does the issue for you become irrelevent in comparison with the desire to obtain ascendency over the second quarelsome party? Q4) Do you want prayer for this? Q5) Different civilizations have had differing standards of moral law and acceptable behavior. This is a common point raised regarding human nature, to which Lewis argues against, suggesting that civilizations have always shared core societal standards. This being said, do you think that with the elevation of media influence since Lewis's time, that we truly have shifted the moral standard, and that the youth today (and us as young adults) are shown choices (deemed acceptable in the media) that have never been viewed as acceptable choices in any time previously e.g. sexuality & abortion? Q6) Is human sexuality our greatest concern, and does it in your opinion stand as the basis for which we judge the integrity of moral standard? Well they are my questions. I would like y'all to post your questions that have arisen from your reading of chapter one. Chapter 2 gets a bit more complicated - we'll do that next week. Blogg on.

hey guys, I am excited by what i am reading here. it reminds me very much of a neo that begain with E asking a group of high school persons the question "what is church?". And after blood sweat and trears trying to answer this question that we were sure we should have been able to answer easially (hadnt we been to raised in sunday school where this question had been covered in the cirrucleum?) anyway,,,, of course we never answered the question.. or at least not in the easy way we all expect answers, and we appealed to E at the end to solve the puzzle and put our questioning hearts at ease and Erik, in classic Erik fashion said "there is no set answer, you are just supposed to ask the question right now." Days like this i was very glad that i was in this kinship.( That was back when "kinship" was still a kosher term of course.) It was good to realize that Christianity, really living Christianity can look this real. That sometimes the answer is still in the pursuit of God and the breaking and the reaching and the finding and the painfully beutiful growth and the questions and the answers that are real in the soul. The answers are still in the journey and not simply in the reader i was given in my methodist sunday school with the rip out pages and the popsicle stick puppets. At least for me, i think i still have that memory of that night at Neo because it was a growth moment for me. It is when i realized Christianity was real enough to meet me on the level i wanted to live in realness.That it is not a religion, but a lifestyle i guess. That it is more real then i am, and therefore worth all these questions we ask now on this nifty website. Worth our lives and more. Anyway...look, my first blog and i have said really nothing to contribute to this conversation except my own neo memories..... i apoligise,,,, i will write more later. Hopefully i will edventually have a voice to say what i really want to abotu these subjects. Cause right now they just get me excited and i have nothing to say in words yet... So i just spew emotion unless i find a voice. I love you both and i am going to eat nasty college food. Ohh wait! its a good food day.. the perspective next year freshmen students are staying this weekend. You remember this i am sure. peace

The continuation of Rabbit Trail #2: roger: <> i guess i see the essence of the question one of structural composition. let me use a metaphor for the sake of clearing some stuff up.... for this metaphor we'll use water to represent the gospel/kingdom and glass to represent the human/church structure. surely, we all agree that both a 10 gallon aquarium and a 12 ounce cup hold water equally well. "But that aquarium holds a heck of a lot more water than the cup," one might say. And if your goal was to hold as much water as possible for the sake of keeping some fish alive, I'd say, choose that aquarium. If your goal wasn't to keep fish, but to take some water with you on a walk, suddenly that aquarium becomes inappropriate and the 12 ounce cup makes more sense. Both containers contain the same quality of water--though one might have some fish crap in it and the other some saliva. In this application, only one of the two containers really makes sense. Though, to be fair, you could have it either way, if you really wanted to lug around 75 lbs. of water and glass. Even though the essence of the water was not affected by its container, the delivery of the water was. some people will say that there's no reason to only have a bunch of cup-holders running around carting very small quantities of water when there can be gigantic 1,000,000 gallon aquariums out there teeming with life. And to that I would respond, "Very true. However, it's difficult to transport a million-gallon aquarium across town at a moment's notice." Really, wherever there is a very large aquarium, it becomes an attraction--a museum or theme park to come and visit every once in a while. The only people who stay there for any length of time are the workers and the fish. The fish can't leave the tanks either...... and here's where the metaphor gets really weird and starts to deal with coral reefs and that time i accidently caught an octopus in florida. As J. Cannell said the other day, "There is no model for church provided anywhere in the Bible." And, going off of that, my point is: if there's no model, then why do we only support one model and look askew at the other models? We don't condemn the idea of house churches, but we don't go and do them either. So, at least for me, the issue of "being fed" circulates around the supported structure of a body of believers. It seems more and more clear to me that there are some really excellent, excited, effective 12 ounce cups out there that are getting no or little help from the 1,000,000 gallon showcase aquarium museums.

Response to R2D2: I find the concept of individual needs being met to be very interesting. It seems that our vested interest in ourselves has been a prominent theme throughout time, considering ourselves entitled to things rather than being thankful for what is provided. However, I cannot dismiss the fact that the human desire to be fed and to feed others has contributed enormously to the growth of the civilization in which we live. I've tried feeding myself and find it altogether tiresome, lonely and full of junk food. Hence, as a young Christian I love the fact that I have guidance, not purely from the word but from people who show me (encourage more like) to apply the word to my life in a way appropriate to its intended application. Now PM's might suggest that there is no such application, and that it matters not that I apply but that I am. 'whatever' is the phrase I site now more than any other. Indeed a PM term itself, but I say it to indicate my disdain for the way one lump of BS is being substituted for another. Modern, post-modern...it matters not. BS is BS. E-dogg, the response seems to indicate extremes, that we sub community and inclusion for performance and productivity. Surely you do not believe this is the case. Even in Harry Potter they have the MUD Bloods. This is where I am...in the middle, wanting and desiring all these things in the community I serve. I see productivity as an essential product of labor, and yet I need community and inclusion to be at my most productive, whether it be social, professional or in the body. I say live it out...sticking it out is not an option for me as I have no choice in the grander issues. I either grow old or I grow old and get bored. I'd rather just get old with people around me, with work for my hands, people for my money, and brothers to share food with. I'm searching for brothers and sisters who, regardless of my situation, my global location and my anglo-american accent, will love enough to know that they too are loved. (Am i a post-modernin denial?)

mmmmm... flushing. whoa, lots of snow/ice today. wife still has to teach. okay, rabbit trail #2b: got an email from a guy interested in house churches and he had this to say: that was a response to my email: <...but i also don't want to upset the unity within this...body of believers just to "get fed" myself.> question: when is it time to disrupt the unity of the brethren to get to a place where you're "being fed." is "Being Fed" the wrong motivation? if we're in a place (meaning young christians) "that de-emphasizes postmodern questions of community, inclusion, and narrative in favor of performance, productivity, and structure" (from an earlier post), do we need to get out of that and into a place that meets us where we are? or do we stick it out, knowing that God finds a way to meet us there too?

E dogg. We meet next Tuesday morning at 730am...at a place to be determined. As yet I know not who is coming along for the ride. Anybody? I shall be speaking with two girls who may be interested...both very real ladies. We can go from there. Otherwise I shall be posting questions on this blogg site, and probably answering them myself seeing as only two of us actually blogg. I'd like to talk to you about something mentioned in The Karamazov Brothers...something about a Monastic cult (I forget the name). So many discussions to come - but first I must clean my room, pick up my brother form the airport in cincinatti on Monday and then arrange my collection of dead plant leaves for a flushing ceremony.

when when oh when do we meet? and is anyone else along for the ride?