Interfaith Charity Walk

I just got back from a two-hour charity walk. The temperture hovers about 71°F/50°C on a partly cloudy morning. An ideal morning for any outdoors activity.

The Last Episode of JAG

Once upon a time I was a JAG fan. That was many a season ago when the series was really about JAG lawyers. I drifted away after two or three seaons.

Tonight was JAG's final episode. The off-and-on romance between Mac (she) and Harm (he) was about to be tested. Harm was to be billeted in London, and Mac in San Diego. I watched to see if Mac and Harm finally got married or what.

What was more like it. After much hemming and hawing in "You know how I feel about you" and "Tell me when you are ready" flashbacks, the two JAG officers declared their true feelings for each other. They eked out a sort of engagement party at a local pub.

Once they made up their mind to marry, Mac and Harm were full of indecisions.

One would think lawyers like to tidy things up at the conclusion of the case - their case no less. Not Mac and Harm. These two brilliant military attorneys couldn't decide if they should cross the "t" and dot the "i", much less sign on the dotted line. They had to toss a coin to decide which one was going to resign his or her commission. The tossed of the JAG coin was suspended in midair, thus marking the end of the episode and series.

After nine years, the viewers are still not quite sure what's to become of this JAG couple. The conclusion of the series was not the ending I expected.

Nifty Firefox Extentions and Themes

I have been test-driving a number of FF extentions and themes. My overall impression of the add-ons installed thus far is: Very nice and useful.

If you are a FF browser user, spend some time to check out the extensions and themes.

The Psalms Part 2 of 4 - Standards for Hymnodies

In the New Testament there are 283 quotations from the Old Testament. Of these, 116 (41%) are from the Book of Psalms. Jesus loved the Psalms. Even while dying on the cross, Lord Jesus quoted two of His last seven words from the Psalms. It behooves us, therefore, to appreciate the relevancy and the enduring value of these "songs."( ff. Psalms in Metre for Christian Worship)

Three Biblical universalities threaded through both the Old and New Testaments are embedded in the Psalms.
1. One cannot save one self. Only God can.
2. God is always the central focus, and
3. God's children possess His love.

The Psalms of this sacred book have been widely used in worship and in public and private devotions in many Protestant denominations. The universalities of God's grace, truth, and glory exemplified in the Psalter have circumscribed the hymnodies across the ages.

A Grecian Holiday

Meis Looking Out from a View on Santorini, Greece, 2002

The clan saw one of its own (twenty-something) flew off from SFX on Air France for a two-week holiday in Greece. Last time this lass was abroad was her final year in college. She spent three months in Florence, Italy.

On this trip, she will cruise about the Greek islands and be in time for the Greek Orthodox Church Easter celebration. Her last leg of the trip will be spent on the Greek Isle Santorini.

It is on occasions such as this going-away gathering, we members of the clan shared a evening meal afterward to catch up on the goings on. That we did on this beautiful, and sunny day in San Francisco.

Unlocking Dreams

"What must I do, to tame you?" asked the little prince.

"You must be very patient," replied the fox. "First you will sit down at a little distance from me-- like that-- in the grass. I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings. But you will sit a little closer to me, every day..."

The prince who tames the fox also unlocks dreams.

I'm Back in the Saddle Again

The collective Internet gismos at my dwelling are working smoothly again - for now. My connection to Blogger.com via the desktop systems, or vice versa, is behaving nicely - for now.

It's time to chow down. I should be back later and do some blogging - providing I don't wander off to somewhere.

(I am really into hyphens with this post)

Firefox RSS Feed Feature Update

This message is sent from a WLAN.

Firefox has a more efficient RSS news feed update than Thunderbird. I am so impressed with the former, the latter has been removed.

Houston, We Have a Problem

This message is sent from a WLAN.

Something is rotten in Denmark, or rather in Blogger.com. Like last night, I couldn't access the server using either the desktop IE or Foxfire browser.

What irony. Blogger.com has no problem processing this email post (so I believe).

It Is Slow Like Molasses

This message is sent from a WLAN.

Murphy's Law is at work this evening. I could not logon to Blogger.com at all. On top of that, the broad band internet connection was very slow. Its connection speed was like that of a 24K baud moden of yore.

Fret Not

Fret not
In some yet distant spring
One shall come to
Unlock your dreams
He will call you love
You shall be his sweet and precious torment

The Psalms Part 1 of 4 - The Longest Running Musical

What is the longest running musical in the history of American theater?
Cats? The Phantom of the Opera?

The Fantastik. Forty-two years. Its last curtain call was in 2002. Those number of years is a life time for quite a few people in the world.
What is your point?

No matter how fantastic one's life is, or somewhere in between, it will all end some day. Only God's heavenly music lasts from here to infinity and beyond.
Okay, Buzz Lightyear, I'll bite.

Do you know the longest book in the Bible is also a musical?
Hmmm...

The Book of Psalms. It comes from the Greek Psalmoi. It means "songs." Interestingly enough, no matter what language or translation one reads, this book is almost always quickly found by parting the Bible in the middle.
Let me see. So it is...

Bible scholars will tell us the hows and whys for the arrangement for the 66 books of the Bible. The serendipitously placement of the Psalms in the middle of the Scripture is God's way of telling His children to "cut to the chase."
...to cut to the chase...?

The Psalms are the songs of our human emotions - the good, the bad, and the ugly. You name it, God blogged it. He is telling us in these songs who we are in our relationship with him 24/7.

In as far as our human heart yearns for comfort and safety, He says, read/sing Psalms 1 to 41. (e.g. Psalm 23)

In as far as our beings cry out for healing, assurance, and mercy in times of sickness and despair, He says, read/sing Psalms 42 to 72 (e.g. Psalm 46)

In as far as our wanting to be in close fellowship with Him, He says, read/sing Psalms 73 to 89 (e.g. Psalm 76)

In as far as our wandering heart and mind, our ups and downs, our transitory nature, He says, read/sing Psalms 90 to 106 (contrast Psalms 97 and 102)

In as far as we realize our helpless state relative to His omnipresence and omniscience, He says, read/sing Psalms 107 to 150. (e.g. Psalm 139)

I appreciate of your providing me an insightful and a much needed understanding on why God gives us -me- the Psalms. From now on, I shall read them with a thankful and prayful heart.

I have a sense already the Psalms are connected with music in worship. Tell me, then, your thoughts on this matter.

Things I Had to Endure This Afternoon

This message is sent from a WLAN.

I am sitting outside the too well insulated house under a sunny 72°F / 22°C sky. It's a quite Sunday afternoon (2:30 PM PDT). There is hardly any vehicle or pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood.

The honey locust trees on the front lawn swaying with enthusiasm to the rhymic teasing of the sunny breeze. Birds in antiphonal chorous calling each other. The quartet of tree roses lined the west fence let their aromatic secret be known to every breeze that roams near. Strangely absent are the sounds of lawn mowers.

This is not a conducive setting to writing the next post, considering the the things I have to endure.

Five Great Christian Spiritual Traditions

It is very time consuming to do HTML tables in an unconventional and unpredictable blogging application. The tables and and their associated tags do not behave normally as they would in a web page.

Case in point, I couldn't figure out why there is a wide gap between this introduction paragraph and the first table. I spent over three hours this evening and I've gotton only this far on writing the post. It's likely I will not continue with this approach, if I don't have control of the HTML formatting. This post is very much under construction.

Five Great Christian Spiritual Traditions

Evangelical	Charismatic	Anabaptist	Reformed	Roman Catholic
Personal Conversion, Piety & Witness	Body-Life Ministry Gifts, Signs & Healing	Covenant Community & Radical Counter-Culture	Corporate Transformation & Institutional Reform	Sacramental Imagination

Second Table: Some Distinctive Characteristics

Third Table: Some Practical Ministry Priorities

Merely Christianity

What or who are the Christian evangelicals? The designation evangelical is dervied from the Green term euangelion, or "gospel" in English. In the words of Richard Quebedeaux (author of the The Worldly Evangelicals Harper & Row, 1978) - "a person who is devoted to the good news that God has sent us a Savior and that we can be partakers of God's redemptive grace in Jesus Christ." It's not uncommon, however, there are Christians who see Evangelicals and Protestants as synonymous. On the other hand, they "feel" Catholicism is the antithesis to Evangelicalism. The twain shall never meet. C.S. Lewis, however, urges otherwise.

C.S. Lewis is no stranger to the catholic (i.e. universal) Christian community, especially among non-denominational evangelicals. His works are often quoted and expounded in sermons and in Christian articles to this day. In his preface to 'Mere Christianity', Lewis places the emphasis on the importance of being a witness to the faith , vis-a-vis denominational branding.

Preface to 'Mere Christianity'

"The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943) and Beyond Personality (1944). In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been. A 'talk' on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud. In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions and colloquialisms I ordinary use in conversation. In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don't and we've for do not and we have. And wherever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics. I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake - an undesirable hybrid between the art of speaking and the art of writing. A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his medium naturally lends itself to that method: but a writer ought not to use italics for the same purpose. He has his own, different, means of bringing out the key words and ought to use them. In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replaced most the italics by a recasting of the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the 'popular' or 'familiar' tone which I had all along intended. I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of my subject better now than ten years ago or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others. The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian 'denominations'. You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially 'high', nor especially 'low', nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls 'mere' Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.

So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters.

For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I am. There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think we have been told the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: 'What is that to thee? Follow thou Me.' But there are other questions as to which I am definitely on one side of the fence, and yet say nothing. For I am not writing to expound something I could call 'my religion', but to expound 'mere' Christianity, which is what it is and what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake. It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic - a Pagan. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about 'mere' Christianity - if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin's son is God - surely this is it.

Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point 'really matters' and the other replies: 'Matter? Why, it's absolutely essential.'

All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write; not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret. To quote Uncle Toby: 'They are written in the Common-Prayer Book.'

The danger clearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly 'vetted' because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.

So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or 'mere' Christianity. In that way it may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all. If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is a something, or a Someone, who against all divergencies of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

So much for my omissions on doctrine. In Book III, which deals with morals, I have also passed over some things in silence, but for a different reason. Ever since I served as an infantryman in the First World War I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissible and impermissible gambling: if there is any permissible, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.

Far deeper objections may be felt - and have been expressed -against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?' : or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - 'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentlemany once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

I hope no reader will suppose that 'mere' Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions -as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?'

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house."

Training Day

This message is sent from a WLAN.

Tomorrow is training day away from the HQ. The weather should nice - 72°F / 22°C.

On Evangelicals and Catholics

This following is a commentary I posted on another blog relating to "Evangelicals and Catholics working together"

As a non-Catholic Christian, for a long time I held an intellectual condescension that Roman Catholicism was on the fringe of Christianity, if not a cult.

The log in my eye was I got stuck on the Catholic's cultural construct (i.e. their way of worship and other practices) and not seeing the spiritual reality it carries. What I didn't see was God's way was and is higher than mine - everytime. The Catholic Christian faith still points and leads back to the person-God Christ Jesus. Who am I to say then, the Catholics are not members of Christ's body?

If evangelicals are critical about the "strangeness" of the Roman Catholic Church, then they must also frown upon the Lutheran, Episcopalian, or the Anglican churches. Because these orthodox churches carry the vestige - more or less - of some Catholic traditions.

When evangelical Christians engage in such a critical eye, they are the Pharisees of the faith. God forbids.

More on the five great Christian spiritual traditions later in my blog.

A Meng Haoran Moment

The weather this spring is uncharacteristic. Warm one day, cold and rainy the next. The temperture was about 42°F/6°C when I went to bed.

I slept through the rain last night. This morning the buffeted iris plants and the tulips flagged, and rose petals wasfted down in heaps on the green lawn. Buoyed by the respite from the night's rain, birds chirped and tweeted.

Looking out the bedroom window on this new morn, I undulated briefly in the reverie of a Meng Haoran's [夜來風雨聲,花落知多少] moment.

The Papal Funeral

Last last evening I watched Pope John Paul II funeral mass shown on C-SPAN. It was an edifying experience to this non-Catholic to witness the solemn pomp of a papal funeral. The world had a glimpse of an organic and vibrant Christian community as never before, represented by the Roman Catholic church.

Veritatis splendor

Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, asked "What is truth?" at the trial of Jesus in cira 33 AD (John 18:33-38). This utterance has become the ubiquitous cop out, a philosophical and sometimes cavalier retort of all time.

Nothing has changed in the ways and thoughts of the intelligentsia and the philistines since Pilate's judicial mockery of Christ. Truth is even more existential or relative in this 21st Century AD.

Toward the end of his life, Bernard Williams (1929-2003), the venerable British secular moral philosopher, was still engaged in a discourse on the tension between the pursuit of truthfulness and the doubt that there is any truth to be found.

John Paul II was Williams' contemporary. He was 9 years-old when Bernard Williams was borne. It was John Paul in today's Rome who articulated the splendor of truth that is Christ Jesus.

Bernard Williams talked and wrote about truth in the comforts of academia, sterile governmental chambers and political functions. At his death, he still did know what truth was or is.

John Paul lived the splendor of truth. He is now in the presence of grace and truth on the other side of eternity.


---
John 1:9-14 (NIV)

9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God–

13 children born not of natural descent,nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In Paradisum

In gratitude, thank you, Pope John Paul II, for your service to God and man.

In these moments of rememberance of John Paul's passing, the text of Gabriel Fauré's Requiem comes to mind. An appropriate text for this solemn occasion; the Latin words and a fitting King James Bible English translations are as follows:

In paradisum deducant angeli:
in tu adventu suscipiant te martyres,
et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Jeruslaem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat,
et cum Lazaro quondam paupere
aeternam habeas requiem.

(Archaic King James English)
May the angels receive thee in paradise:
at thy coming may the martyrs receive thee,
and bring thee into the Holy City, Jerusalem.
There may the choir of angels receive thee,
and with Lazarus, once a beggar,
may'st thou have eternal rest.


Thank you, Christ's body in the Catholic church, for giving us the non-Catholic members of the body, and to the world, Pope John Paul II.

Late Bloomers - Yellow/White Iris Plants

Yellow-White Iris, 2:38 PM PDT, 3 April, 2005

Foreground - Yellow/White Iris Plants
Middle - Greenland Tulips
Background - Rose Bush

Qigang Chen, the Chinese composer, has in his acclaimed musical allusion Iris Revealed, compared the Iris to nine female mood swings or personae. By contrast, Jean Sibelious (1865-1957) renders us a different impression of the Iris.

As for me, flowers are God's poetry to man regarding the circle of life on this side of eternity.

Back to the Default Comment Box

This entry had been sent earlier today via WLAN. As usual, the post went somewhere or nowhere.

Because of my confusion in matching replies to comments within the pop-up comment box environment, I have reset the reader comment facility back to default. With this original setting, I can be certain my reply to a reader's commentary will be correctly placed.