Mother Teresa’s Advent Light (by Becky Garrison)
When I went to check my post office box after Thanksgiving, among the pile of mail waiting for me were review copies of Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great about Christianity and Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light.
I first picked up D'Souza's bestseller. Throughout this book, he seems to possessed an amazing self-confidence that all the world's problems could be solved if only we would just become Christians. It reminded me of those books I read in my twenties back when I thought I knew all the answers. It's only been within the past few years that I've learned to start asking the right questions.
Yet, I have to admit that a side of me wished that I still possessed that absolute certainty about my faith. This year hasn't been an easy one for me on many fronts. In fact, I don't know where I'd be without my spiritual friends, who sometimes prayed on my behalf when I was too distracted to think straight.
When I picked up Come by My Light, I discovered a stark honesty that caught me off guard. Mother Teresa was not the woman the world thought we knew. As Shane Claiborne noted when I interviewed him for The Wittenburg Door, whenever people ask him about his trip to Calcutta, "they say, 'Oh, you met Mother Teresa,' like she glows in the dark or something."
While rest of the world put her on a pious pedestal, this seemingly simple nun from Calcutta spent most of her ministry wandering in the wilderness. She pours out her personal pain in private letters that she penned to her spiritual director and others in her life. These letters indicate that ever since she began her ministry to the poor, the voice of Jesus that guided her to start this work became silent. This silence continued throughout her entire ministry. She describes the darkness with a piercing honesty that brought me to tears.
Pray for me - for within me everything is icy cold - it is only that blind faith that carries me through for in reality to me all is darkness. As long as our Lord has all the pleasure - I really do not count.
As expected, atheists like Christopher Hitchens use her personal pain as further evidence that God does not exist. Hitchens gloats, "She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person."
Unlike this anti-God guru, Mother Teresa knew that just because God was absent from her heart, that didn't mean God had abandoned her. With a Job-like sense of determination, she learned to embrace this darkness as a part of her ministry.
Let Him do with me whatever He wants, as He wants, for as long as He wants. If my darkness is to light some soul - even if it be nothing to nobody - I am perfectly happy - to be God's flower of the field.
Just as I'm about to finish this book, Shane Claiborne just happened to arrive in New York City on the first Sunday of Advent. (For a recap of that visit, see "What Would Jesus Buy?") I'm not about to call him a saint because I know he'd just start to giggle and throw paper airplanes at me. This ordinary radical relayed stories of finding hope and healing through his work with those spiritual souls that society has discarded. I couldn't have asked for a better Advent candle to help illuminate my darkness.
During my interview with Shane, he remarked:
Someone asked me after she died, 'Is her work going to live on?' I actually think Mother Teresa died a long time ago when she submitted herself to Christ, and the thing that everyone loves about her was her work, that's Jesus. That's going to live forever. I've been to Calcutta since Mother Teresa died, and there were more people there than were ever there when she was alive. She's sort of like the seed that dies, and fruit is born.
For those who find themselves struggling in the darkness during this Advent season, I highly recommend reflecting on Mother Teresa's words. Through her prayers of pain, I pray that you can be reminded that you are not alone.
Becky Garrison's books include The New Atheist Crusaders and their Unholy Grail: Their Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith (Thomas Nelson, January 2008), Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church, and Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church.
Add to:
Category: Athiesm, Spirituality, Theology
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I like what Shane has to say about Mother Teresa, though I'm not sure why contrasting her book with D'Souza's is necessary.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 17, 2007 6:05 PM
I like what Shane has to say about Mother Teresa, though I'm not sure why contrasting her book with D'Souza's is necessary. Posted by: kevin s. |
She is stating what is reality for a lot of us- the utter lack of appeal of the smug self- assuredness of many Christian writers- an assuredness that borders on arrogance. That's why.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 17, 2007 7:29 PM
Becky,
Thank you for this grace-filled reminder that questions, doubt, and ambiguity are the mealy soil for holiness--and that Christianity isn't about answers but is, instead, a life of justice, beauty, and goodness. Winter's darkness may well be the way of sainthood for us all. Just right for Advent.
Your friend, Diana
Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | December 17, 2007 8:55 PM
Is there really a need to pit answers as an enemy to questions, paradox and ambiguity?
We all journey, sisters and brothers. The chapters of this way vary. Have you found God to be good, gracious and faithful through your chapters?
It seems to me one of the greatest temptations of the journey is to transform the latest chapter the Lord walks us through into the lesson that everyone else needs to understand.
Let us not be so certain about those that are 'certain.'
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 17, 2007 9:33 PM
"She is stating what is reality for a lot of us- the utter lack of appeal of the smug self- assuredness of many Christian writers- an assuredness that borders on arrogance. That's why."
Is that why? She doesn't say this (but then, you and Becky have different writing styles) and it would help to have an example of why this is so. Since you have read D'Souza's book, James, maybe you can point to what you consider smug.
Is Becky criticizing D'Souza for being arrogant? If so, she ought to provide evidence. As it stands, it sounds as though she is criticizing D'Souza for being assured in his faith. Mother Teresa was similarly assured. If she is going to point to a contrast, she should use specifics to do so.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 17, 2007 11:40 PM
If you always could see God and could always hear his voice and always had mystical experience....why would you ever need faith? Faith is the substance of the things NOT seen.
Along those lines, I've always liked Ann Frank's description:
I believe in the sun - even when it's not shining.
I believe in love - even when I don't feel it.
I believe in God - even when He is silent.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | December 18, 2007 2:17 AM
"Is that why? She doesn't say this (but then, you and Becky have different writing styles) and it would help to have an example of why this is so. Since you have read D'Souza's book, James, maybe you can point to what you consider smug." Kevin S.
I saw his interview on the Catholic Channel. I would say that his style and yours are very similar. Must you always mete out a backhanded slap when you review posts by the bloggers here?
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 18, 2007 6:01 AM
Becky was comparing D'Souza's self-assuredness with a similar chapter in her own personal faith journey, not with Mother Teresa's writings. I don't see how Kevin could have missed that.
D
Posted by: Don | December 18, 2007 8:08 AM
"I saw his interview on the Catholic Channel. I would say that his style and yours are very similar."
So you haven't read the book, then.
"Must you always mete out a backhanded slap when you review posts by the bloggers here?"
What was either backhanded or a slap about what I wrote? If she is obliquely calling D'Souza smug, is that not a backhanded slap?
"Becky was comparing D'Souza's self-assuredness with a similar chapter in her own personal faith journey, not with Mother Teresa's writings."
She is reviewing one book, in which the author is certain about his faith, and then reviewing another in which the author is less certain. In doing so, she insinuates that the first attitude is juvenile and (as James Martin indicates) smug.
I am asking why it is necessary to cast D'Souza's book in this light. If she didn't like it, that is fine, and she is free to tell us why. But this seems an implicit criticism of D'Souza's surety in his faith. Paul was utterly sure in his faith. Was Paul smug?
Posted by: kevin s. | December 18, 2007 11:59 AM
Don is accurate in his assessment - Some books such as D'Souza's led me to rediscover my faith as a young adult back in the '80s. So they had a definite role in my faith formation. But when I pick up these same books today, they leave me hungry. I wish they did feed me - the self-confidence I had in my twenties fueled me into doing a lot of very productive church projects.
Around the time I went to Yale Divinity School, I started wandering around in the wilderness -Mother Teresa's book was like an oasis in the desert that fed me. This post was written to help fellow wanderers know that I found a book that might refresh their soul as well.
Posted by: Becky Garrison | December 18, 2007 12:38 PM
I have to say that I find Becky's critique of D'Souza restrained and careful. Her comparison is apt and used sparingly to speak eloquently of the struggle of keeping faith while living in world where the evidence of God's plan and God's support for justice are painfuly hard to see, and in which personal spiritual comfort can seem to elude the most faithful and exemplary believers. I personally am unable to limit my vision of God to Christian orthodoxy, but deeply respect many within that faith tradition. .
At the risk of pushing the limits of the blog policy which I think fair and reasonable I cannot be so mild in my appraisal of Dsouza's work. I once shared many of his ideas, but now find them abhorrent. When I think of D'Souza my personal reaction is that this is one of the most obnoxious, arrogant, self righteous and historically blindered writers in print. Perhaps he is in fact a generous and loving Christian, but these are the qualities I find in his arguments. He has, in the guise of supporting "democracy", supported a lawless and massively destructive invasion which operated in complete disregard for the Geneva Accords and other international agreements to which America is legally committed. He somehow manages to minmize the offensiveness of the use of torture(who would Jesus sexully humilite, waterboard, or pulpify for his Heavenly Father?), and to blame the torture massively increased under Bush on "Liberal "social attitudes. . In his version of capitalism there is no Love Canal, no Bhopal,no Enron, no British East IndiaCompany ( first company to issue public stock)engaging in slave trade, drug dealing, mercenary invasions and privateering, no planet massively endangered by toxic chemicals, greenhouse gases, nuclear poisons, and plastic garbage.
His support for the role of Christianity ignores some of the greatest and most enduring crimes in history. And it is precisely DSouza's self righteous and culturally arrogant style of faith that has been the banner of the worst of these crimes. Christian culture has been at its most violent and avaricious when it is most willing to colonize the "unbelievers", and has all the answers.
I am not name calling here. I am honestly describing the traits I see In D'Souza's writing, which strikes me as nothing more than pompous propaganda for the Republican party. I would be willing to moderate my thoughts if anyone can supply 2 consecutive paragraphs of DSouza's writing that does not accord with my general critique.
Posted by: jonabark | December 18, 2007 1:02 PM
She is reviewing one book, in which the author is certain about his faith, and then reviewing another in which the author is less certain. In doing so, she insinuates that the first attitude is juvenile...
No, Kevin. The insinuation is yours, not Becky's. And I know I'm going to sound like the composition instructor, but here goes:
Becky did not write any "compare-contrast" transition between the two reviews, e.g., "In contrast, to D'Souza's self-assuredness, I found Mother Teresa's portrayal of faith to be..." Rather she merely reviews one, then the other. She begins the first review with, "I first picked up D'Souza's..." and then the second with, "When I picked up Come By My Light..." No compare-contrast transition at all. Just two separate reviews. The only connection is that she received the two books on the same day (see her first paragraph).
Kevin, your complaint is based entirely on your reading things into the juxtaposition of the two reviews, not on anything Becky Garrison wrote.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 18, 2007 1:22 PM
Maybe everyone has a point worthy of consideration. In a spirit of generosity, let us consider the possibility.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 18, 2007 2:33 PM
This is a great post. Thank you for those well-put words.
Another great book to check out is Mother Teresa: In the Shadow of Our Lady -- if you're interested in learning more about Mother Teresa and her dark night of the soul.
Posted by: Andrew Long | December 18, 2007 4:32 PM
Two comments in passing:
The quote about believing in the sun... was written by someone (probably a Jew) hiding from the Nazis, but not by Anne Frank. Most accounts agree that it was written by a fugitive on the wall of a basement in Cologne, Germany, and that it was found by Allied troops entering the city in 1945.
Regarding Mother Teresa's time in darkness, the (rather bleak) thought occurs that, once she had entered on her way in response to the divine call and as long as she persevered in it, what further need was there for "the voice of Jesus that guided her to start this work"? There is a slightly terrifying prayer of Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow (one of the most influential figures of the Russian Church in the 19th century) which includes the words "I dare not ask either a cross or a consolation. I can only wait on thee. My heart is open to thee. Visit and help me, for thy great mercy's sake. Strike me and heal me, cast me down and raise me up. I worship in silence thy holy will and thyine inscrutable ways. I offer myself as a sacrifice to thee. I put all my trust in thee." Although Mother Teresa was of Albanian parentage, and lived and died in the western tradition of Christian faith, she grew up in Skopje, a city where Eastern and Western Christians (and Muslims and Jews) mingled and mixed.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | December 18, 2007 5:41 PM
I am asking why it is necessary to cast D'Souza's book in this light. If she didn't like it, that is fine, and she is free to tell us why. But this seems an implicit criticism of D'Souza's surety in his faith. Paul was utterly sure in his faith. Was Paul smug? Posted by: kevin s.
In reality, she owes you no explanation whatsoever. Feel free to visit other blogs that more closely reflect your worldview. ;-)
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 18, 2007 6:14 PM
"Don is accurate in his assessment - Some books such as D'Souza's led me to rediscover my faith as a young adult back in the '80s. So they had a definite role in my faith formation."
Perhaps I sensed an implicit criticism that was not present, then. It just seems as though you are contrasting what you perceive to be a more authentic faith with a less authentic faith. Another poster here observed that you were calling D'Souza on the carpet for being smug, and yet another used it as a launching pad for a diatribe that essentially amounts to "Dinesh D'Souza is a big bad Republican".
If the meaning was so obvious to them, why is it unreasonable for me to draw the same conclusion?
"Kevin, your complaint is based entirely on your reading things into the juxtaposition of the two reviews, not on anything Becky Garrison wrote."
Juxtaposition insinuates comparison, by definition. Either way, is the fact that these two books were included in the same post is simply random circumstance? What do you make, then, of the title of the post?
"In reality, she owes you no explanation whatsoever."
Nor I, you. As such, you ought to feel privileged. Was that smug enough for you?
Posted by: kevin s. | December 18, 2007 9:11 PM
Mother wrongly assumed that hearing Christ's voice would elliminate the darkness she was in. There are plenty of us that hear his voice and are still in the same darkness. What makes Mother so great is that she lived faith and love. How many of us can say the same?
p
Posted by: payshun | December 18, 2007 10:46 PM
"Nor I, you. As such, you ought to feel privileged. Was that smug enough for you?"
Rod Dreher....;-)
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 5:30 AM
Another poster here observed that you were calling D'Souza on the carpet for being smug, and yet another used it as a launching pad for a diatribe that essentially amounts to "Dinesh D'Souza is a big bad Republican".
Considering that D'Souza is the author of paranoid literature like The Enemy Within, which asserts that the "liberal left" is responsible for 9-11, Jonabark's assessment of D'Souza's writings was restrained. (BTW, Rev Jim Wallis is on D'Souza's list of dangerous leftists. His list may be found in the aforementioned volume.)
...is the fact that these two books were included in the same post is simply random circumstance?
Re-read Becky's first paragraph.
What do you make, then, of the title of the post?
Becky liked the Mother Teresa book better than the D'Souza book, and the title reflects the fact that she spent more space and detail on the Teresa review.
Peace on Earth,
Posted by: Don | December 19, 2007 7:26 AM
"Considering that D'Souza is the author of paranoid literature like The Enemy Within, which asserts that the "liberal left" is responsible for 9-11, Jonabark's assessment of D'Souza's writings was restrained. (BTW, Rev Jim Wallis is on D'Souza's list of dangerous leftists. His list may be found in the aforementioned volume.)" Don
Don't you realize, Don, that when you are pointing out such facts, you are launching into an anti-Republican diatribe. Not that anti-Republican diatribes are good in an of themselves but at least they are only words and not despicable national policies advocated by some here.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 9:10 AM
I have not knowingly journeyed through these dark nights of the soul. I often wonder if they are impossible to have without a deep intimacy with God. It would seem to me that God's silence would be deafening once having experienced the intimacy.
Appreciate Tony's comments re: eastern/western spirituality and P's observation about those of us who 'hear the voice' but still live in darkness. That likely applies to all humanity--to some degree. But if reminds me of the OT prophet's question, "Why do you seek the day of the Lord?" As if the presence or visitation of God would necessarily be of great good for us. The writer of Hebrews also did not view falling into the hands of a living God to be anything pleasant.
So I am reminded to pray for eyes that see, with humility, the graces of God in and around me--and as P hints, to not choose darkness after having seen any bit of light.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 19, 2007 10:13 AM
"Re-read Becky's first paragraph."
Well, presumbaly she gets numerous review copies of books. Why these two? I'm not defending D'Souza's work (which I do not read), but you have conceded that you think she is making a comparison.
I simply wondered why this was necessary (she doesn't mention D'Souza's politics, only his confidence in his faith), and I questioned what I perceived to be an implicit basis for comparison.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 19, 2007 10:29 AM
Kevin S said
Another poster here observed that you were calling D'Souza on the carpet for being smug, and yet another used it as a launching pad for a diatribe that essentially amounts to "Dinesh D'Souza is a big bad Republican".
If the meaning was so obvious to them, why is it unreasonable for me to draw the same conclusion?
No such meaning was obvious . My reading of what Becky said was stated at the beginning as follows:
" I have to say that I find Becky's critique of D'Souza restrained and careful. Her comparison is apt and used sparingly to speak eloquently of the struggle of keeping faith while living in world ..."
My thoughts about D'Souza's writing are my own. Kevin, you love to negatively characterize other writer's words, but attack those who negatively characterize those policies and individuals you agree with as though they are using unfair tactics. At times you ask others for evidence but if they offer evidence you mock the quality of the evidence or fail to respond yourself with evidence-based argumentation.
So I take it Kevin actually thinks smug and arrogant are inappropriate descriptions of D'Souza's writing. Is he really saying that smugness and arrogance aren't evident, or just that they are appropriate for someone who has all the answers?
Remember that Osama Bin Laden, whom D'Souza once defined as “a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person.” is also confident in his faith.
Posted by: jonabark | December 19, 2007 10:30 AM
"My thoughts about D'Souza's writing are my own."
I didn't attribute the "smug" comment to you. But you also concede that you thought she was making a comparison.
"At times you ask others for evidence but if they offer evidence you mock the quality of the evidence or fail to respond yourself with evidence-based argumentation."
Evidence of what? Instances where I have negatively characterized someone's writing? I'm not sure what you are talking about.
"Remember that Osama Bin Laden, whom D'Souza once defined as “a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person.” is also confident in his faith."
You can generally tell a quote is taken out of context when it doesn't even reflect a complete sentence, much less a complete idea.
That said, your presume incorrectly about by view of D'Souza, whose work I have little interest in reading. I simply asked why it was necessary to make a comparison between his book and Mother Teresa's. Based on her descrption, I did not see why it should be so.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 19, 2007 2:25 PM
You can generally tell a quote is taken out of context when it doesn't even reflect a complete sentence, much less a complete idea.
Kevin, you're really grasping at straws here. Take a careful look at the sentence from Jonabark that you copied. You might note a typo: a period where there should have been a comma (after "deeply religious person"). Since when is what he wrote an 'incomplete idea'?
And you still miss the main point: Becky wasn't comparing D'Souza's book to the Mother Teresa writings. She was comparing D'Souza's expressed self-confidence in the faith to a similar time in her own life.
The comparison you allege--the one which you think shouldn't have been made--wasn't made in anything Becky wrote.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 19, 2007 2:37 PM
"You might note a typo: a period where there should have been a comma (after "deeply religious person")."
What I think you mean to say is that, if the excerpt were not the complete sentence, it would not have ended in a period. It would would not have started with a lower case 'a', would it? Jonabark is parroting a NYT book review that took the phrase out of context.
I'll agree that D'Souza is often inflammatory, but not for this reason.
"The comparison you allege--the one which you think shouldn't have been made--wasn't made in anything Becky wrote."
And she clarified this. I was simply pointing out that I wasn't the only one who caught the comparison.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 19, 2007 3:12 PM
"And she clarified this. I was simply pointing out that I wasn't the only one who caught the comparison." Posted by: kevin s.
You forgot to add that you're never wrong.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 19, 2007 5:45 PM
I just ordered “Come by My Light” from Amazon. Since I learned of Mother Theresa’s struggles with faith I’ve developed a simpatico with her. While she was alive she was regarded as a living saint – almost a cliché. Someone whose charity and devotion I could never approach. Now I have been deeply touched by her – a woman so devoted to the Lord, yet someone who felt Him to be so distant.
I love reading St. John of the Cross, the author of “The Dark Night of the Soul,” but to think of Mother Theresa and the pain she suffered feeling the absence of God brings the Dark Night to life for me.
This Sunday our priest mentioned Mother Theresa in his homily and tears welled up in my eyes, as they are now. My wife saw, but I’m sure she didn’t understand – I guess I should tell her.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | December 19, 2007 8:51 PM
"I have not knowingly journeyed through these dark nights of the soul. I often wonder if they are impossible to have without a deep intimacy with God. It would seem to me that God's silence would be deafening once having experienced the intimacy."
I have been in the second dark night for 2 years and the first night for over 7 years. It has not been pleasant but one learns joy through suffering if one can. Being in God's hands is not pleasant even though it is loving. It can be lite and simple or like being an inferno or somewhere in between but it is never easy.
Deep intimacy can only happen when one surrenders all even the unknown to God. No one would characterize Ezekiel's relationship w/ God as pleasant but the joy he eperienced being w/ God helped him to do amazing things for his God. That's the secret. Joy can be had in most circumstances.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 19, 2007 10:24 PM
"You forgot to add that you're never wrong."
When have you conceded that you were wrong?
Posted by: kevin s. | December 20, 2007 12:29 AM
Actually several reviewers have noted D'Souza's sentence about Bin Laden and the context is an argument that there is a natural alliance between conservative Islam and conservative America against the common enemy the "left", who are the cause of the world's problems.
Many people are so sure they are right and others are wrong that they are willing to kill many innocents in order for their ideas or religion to prevail. A wise man once said blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. There is no god in the sky who wants people to fight over their religions, choosing which armies to "bless"; no god who will finally do more violence than all the armies combined and prove who was right and who was wrong. Islam is no more or less satanic than capitalism or communism or imperialism or protestantism or catholicism or hinduism or judaism or scientific pragmatism.
Posted by: jonabark | December 20, 2007 12:39 AM
When have you conceded that you were wrong?
Posted by: kevin s.
I'll concede if you concede. LOL. Lighten up, Kev, life is too short and we're close to X-mas (uh, er, Christmas, I mean).
In any event, (and I do mean this), Have a Merry Christmas.
Jim
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 20, 2007 1:13 AM
For all the discussion of D'Souza, nobody has made a comment about the other author Becky mentions: Christopher Hitchens. So I will. He's an attention-seeking lush who was an embarrassment to liberals like myself for years, so I didn't mind at all that he followed David Horowitz over to the conservative sandbox following 9-11. Good riddance!
Posted by: I and I | December 20, 2007 8:40 AM
Jim and Kevin
I'll concede for both of you.
Or award both of you with the "I'm Right" award.
Your choice==but you have to agree.
Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush in 2008 Committee
Posted by: ChristmasCheers | December 20, 2007 10:47 AM
Whose right &whose left dpends onwhere you're standing!
You may be on my left and you may be on my right and maybe we're all right about some things, wrongs about others, and somewhere in-between on a lot else ...
For whatever lil' it may be worth my briefest summations :
Mother Teresa - remarkable and iconic woman. An inspiration to more than just Catholics and, yes, an imperfect human being too. Saint of the Gutters. Saintof tehGutters? Saint of the Gutters! Perhaps that all depnds where you stand again ... but see sentence 1 about her and there'll be little dispute.
D'Souza (spelling?) haen't read or heard about before really. From what I have heard / read here does sound too certain and not humble enough bjut I can't really say ... even tho' I just did! ;-)
Hitchens : Shrill, arrogant, deluded & egotistical.
So perhaps a bit - or a lot- like me? Or you?
God Knows. Or if you believe Hitchens (which I don't) doesn't.
Either way, Hitchens like Dawkins I find offputting and rude in his comtemptous treatment of well ..everybody except himslf and his followers.
& then there was the one who said something like :
Judge not lest ye be judged!
But, flawed as I am, I for one can't help but make judgements often based on all too little information .. Its my nature & Isuspect inmost people's natures.
Ah-yi-yi-ya, I've confused myself sufficently if no-one else! ;-) Time for bed! ;-)
Pray for me, pray for us all, please.
Love, Peace (Salaam, Shalom,) Hope, compassion, understanding, wisdom, the presnce of some Eternal Source & Giver of all Love, Justice, Forgiveness.
Amen.
Posted by: StevoR | December 24, 2007 10:04 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?