Basilica of St. Mary Takes out the Trash

The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul are a weird place to live sometimes. It's sort of a Village People meets Little House on the Prairie kind of place. Now that I am becoming Catholic, it is weirder than ever. From CatholicCulture.org:

The Basilica of Saint Mary in Minneapolis, which serves as the co-cathedral of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, has suspended its artist in residence after she announced that she is opposing Archbishop John Neinstedt’s efforts to defend marriage as an institution of one man and one woman. Lucinda Naylor wrote on her Facebook page: "n September 22, the archbishop sent Catholics in the Twin Cities a DVD warning that the sky will fall if Minnesota legalizes same-sex civil marriage. Donate your DVD and I will use it to create a piece of art that transforms that message of fear into one of hope … Let’s use the Archbishop’s DVD to change the message from one of division and fear into a piece of art about inclusion and the joyful Spirit that moves among us."

You see, there are a lot of people here who say they are Catholics with their mouth, but from that same mouth comes heresy and rebellion to basic, settled Church teaching. They are in the strange habit of thinking this kind of thing is OK for some reason. Well, I don't play that way. Your day is done. It is time for you to leave the Church. As a convert who after 15 years wandering in the fog of Protestantism is now falling to my knees in St. Peter's square, I am disgusted by these filthy heretics. You are not Catholics people! Just because you were baptised by a priest and were raised attending mass does not mean you get to make your religion up as you go and pretend it is Catholicism. Read Romans chapter 1 you sick degenerates. If you do not obey the Church on issues which are abundantly clear in Church teaching AND scripture like homosexuality and abortion then you are in danger of hell, pure and simple. Wake up and smell the brimstone. And if you keep insisting by your loud braying and fist pounding to have evil called good by godly bishops like John Neinsted, you really need to ask yourself why you really care what he says. You see, faithful Catholics care what he says because he is our Bishop. But heretics like you care only about your itching ears getting tickled with the latest social garbage spewed by the godless culture we live in the midst of. To Lucinda Naylor and any other heretics in the pews of Catholic parishes in the Twin Cities I say this: Why even call yourself a Catholic if your degenerate beliefs completely contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church? I don't claim to be a member of the local Mosque, because... news flash, I don't believe what they believe. So why pretend to be a member of a Church you fundamentally disagree with so much? Why not just become a mainline Protestant (I recommend the PCUSA or ELCA) where you can have all the abortion, homosexuality, and female clergy you can handle? If you refuse to repent and submit to the authority of your Bishop, the Magisterium, and the Pope, then get out. NOW. It is really that simple. If you do what I hope you will do, which is to repent and submit to the Church, then God be praised. Here are excerpts of an article from the Minnesota Independent each are followed by my comments.

With over a million anti-gay marriage DVDs hitting the mailboxes of Minnesota Catholics in the weeks leading up to Election Day, there’s been no shortage of ideas for what to do with them. OutFront Minnesota says that recipients should mark them “return to the sender” and drop them back in the mail to the Catholic diocese which sent them, while others have suggested leaving them in the collection plate at Sunday services. But Minneapolis artist Lucinda Naylor is encouraging Minnesotans to send her the DVD so that she can create an art project to counter the discriminatory message carried by the DVDs with one of “creativity and hope.”

OK. First off, if you disagree with the Archbishop's DVD then you can ask me and I will tell you just what you can "do with them". I will tell you precicely where you can shove them. What you need to ask yourself is this: "why am I pretending to be a Catholic still? I don't agree with the Church on a number of issues that are really important to me, so why am I still going through the motions and pretending to be a Catholic?" You fell away from the faith in college or whatever, and now you want the faith to conform to your twisted view of the world. Why not just leave the Church behind? Second, if I catch you disturbing mass at my parish by putting the disc in the plate or standing outside with a box, you will not be ignored by me, and I very well may silly string you from head to foot while loudly mocking you. (also stay away from my children you sick degenerate)

“I’m an artist who has been doing a lot of work for Catholic churches over the past 15 years, so coming up with an artistic way to deal with the DVDs was my immediate first response,” said Naylor of the 14-minute created by the national Knights of Columbus and distributed by Catholic bishops in Minnesota. “I feel that the archbishop is particularly bent in regard to this issue of same-sex marriage.”

This is a funny one. She is a self described "artist". The fact she wants to make her "art" out of DVD's says a lot. Chesterton said: "The artistic temperament is a disease that affects amateurs." I suspect this is what is going on with this lady. "On Eagles Wings" is probably her favorite song in church as well. It's so "artistic". You can see her version of the Stations of the Cross here. My 18 month old could do better with a box of crayolas and a full diaper to work with. This not art. It is an assault on and a mockery of great art. "Art" like this must be thrown out of the church root and branch and the great patrimony of Church art returned to the people who have been starved to death for decades by "artists" like Naylor for real liturgical art. Below is a picture of Station II: Betrayed by Judas. Ridiculous: Next she calls the archbishop "bent in regard to this issue". Well, it is possible for a Bishop to be bent. It has been known to happen. But the Church makes that determination, not you. What does the Pope say? What does the Catechism say? What does the magisterium say? It is not up for grabs, it is not debatable, it is not up to heretics to decide what they want to believe about it. The Church has spoken, submit to it or abandon the faith. Those are your choices. You are the one who is "bent" on this issue, not archbishop Neinsted.

Lucinda is asking anyone who receives a DVD from the Catholic church to send them to her for an art project. “I have ideas, but it really depends on how many DVDs I get. I’d love to make a large sculpture — probably something rather flame or water like–since both are important Catholic symbols of the Holy Spirit,” she told the Minnesota Independent.

Again, whatever monstrosity you make with these DVD's, your "art" will suck, my children will laugh at it and wonder what in the world it is. You should be ashamed to publicly call yourself a Catholic. Repent.

Naylor says that earlier this year, several of her friends, mostly mothers of gay children, wrote to the archbishop asking him to “open his heart” on the issue of homosexuality, but, she says, “these people received back form letters that called into question their very salvation!” “This alone made me want to act.”

God bless archbishop John Neinsted for caring about the sheep in his flock! He cares enough to tell them the truth. May his reign be long and prosperous in the Twin Cities.

She also said the focus of the election in November should be about justice issues like education, health care and jobs. “The whole gay thing seems to be [Archbishop John] Neinstedt’s personal vendetta and a red herring taking us away from the real important issues.”

Notice no mention of abortion. The all out attack on the family unit in our culture seems to be on the back burner for this heretic, where as "education, health care and jobs" are just so very crucial. How can minds become so twisted? If it was Poland in 1943 I guess she would say "The whole 'concentration camp' thing seems to be [Archbishop John] Neinstedt’s personal vendetta and a red herring taking us away from the real important issues.” Defeating the culture of death is the "real important issue". If you can't submit to the Bishops on that issue, then get out of the Catholic Church.

Sungenis White Debate

I love debates. This one is on papal infallibility. I just watched this dedate again and it is great. Of course I think Robert Sungenis wins it, but James White is certainly not a ringer. This debate was one of the last things I watched before deciding that there were no solid Protestant rebutals to the Catholic claims. The examples White gives of papal non-infalibility were evidence of the opposite as far as I could tell. My guess would be that both the Protestant and Catholic will each think their guy won. Either way, I learned a lot both times I have watched this debate. If you watch it and feel it was a waste of your time, for the Protestants I will dress up like Martin Luther for Halloween/Reformation day this year and preach sola fide up and down my block. For the Catholics, I will pray a Rosary for your intention.

"But what does the Bible say about X?”

This is my comment to "Lawwife" and Zoltan on Called to Communion concerning new converts asking the "But what does the Bible say about X?” question. In short, we still ask the question, but with different intent, and a different result! Lawwife: My conversion process for my heart took only a day. Once I saw the naked “sola scriptura” emperor parading down the street I was through with the reformation. For the mind to do the due diligence study took a few more months. I do still find myself asking the “what does scripture say” question. All the time! And the nice thing about asking that question now is that MY QUESTION GETS AN ANSWER! Then I can actually learn from the scripture, and plumb the depths of it’s truth instead of so many doctrines staying on a surface level. In #895 Zoltan makes this statement:

Problems arise I believe when we become too precise with these matters (as transubstantiation does in my view) … [] With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I believe we will discern much in this through the centuries. However, it seems unreasonable to me that a previous generation’s limited view of the sacraments will hold sway over the rest of Church history as though they have already plunged the depths of such mystery and we need only blindly affirm what they believed.

This thinking is what I am glad to leave behind. (no offence brother Zoltan!) Notice how Zoltan refers to transubstantiation as being too precice a doctrine in his view. I thought that as well as a Protestant. But I couldnt repress the nagging thought “what if i’m wrong that it is too precice? Perhaps this issue of the the Lord’s Supper is one of the most important issues?” The importance level of an issue is its own issue and in Catholicism, those importance levels are well defined. Contrary to the Church having “already plunged the depths of such mystery and we need only blindly affirm what they believed” it is the opposite. Someone that knows better than me here can explain doctrinal developement, but one thing I know is that it is not about blindly affirming OR some how fully explaining mysteries. The Church self consciously has not plumbed the depths of Christ present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. From what I have experienced in the Church so far, it is a profound mystery to Catholics! And contrary to blindly affirming, there is an ability to furhter plumb the depths of this inexhaustible mystery of faith when you have a starting point like the Real Presense to begin with. Scripture can then “come alive” and really speak with authority. But for the Catholic, it does not speak with a forked tongue, through Tradition it speaks univocally and with a richness and depth unfound in Protestantism. Protestants claim *mystery* concerning the Eucharist to the point of accepting opposing views as orthodox that are incompatible with each other. This is not somehow admirable or protecting the mystery of God. I know for me it was a cop out. I believed Calvin’s view but I knew it was more of a personal conviction of what scripture taught. Therefore I instinctively knew that someone who was a Zwinglian was probably in my same boat. They did the best they could to interpret the scripture but ended up with a different view. So in order to maintain MY prefered view, I claim the doctrine must be a *mystery* since two spirit filled believers came up with different interpretations. But disagreement of this kind is not the result of mystery. In my personal experience, the claim of mystery is an attempt to make the discord and schism seem not as bad as it is. Ironically my cry of “mystery” was a sort of blaming God for not being clear enough in scripture, where I knew instinctively He was/should be clear on such an important doctrine. What I love about Catholicism is the increased respect for the scriptures. I no longer say “where is that in scripture?” as a sort of litmus test or doubt, I say it because I want to plumb the depths of mysteries that are now true mysteries of faith, not mysteries of disagreement. And the scriptures have not disapointed this catechumen in any of his meager attempts so far! Peace, David Meyer

This was posted at Called to Communion by Ray Stamper (NOT Rat Stamper!). Great stuff:

The Catholic Church, the true home of all Christians, has a lot of vacant living space. We are missing enormous reservoirs of zeal and talent and evangelistic force that should naturally be found within the family of God. Why? Because many years ago, some of our Catholic forefathers behaved very badly, and quite naturally offended and alienated many of their sons and daughters in the faith. Those sons and daughters left home and built new houses to live in (some of them quite attractive), far away from their unholy relatives. Still, there is no place like one’s true home – no matter how bad or embarrassing some of the relatives may be. The winds of modernity are blowing very hard against some of those homes and outpost these day, in which the children of those first offended sons and daughters still live – just as it is blowing against the house built on the rock. It would be wonderful, if we Catholics could repent and humble ourselves at the most fundamental level before our estranged family members. And it would be more wonderful still, if those family members would consider coming home – with all their talents and holiness – so that we can share a meal – THE meal – and then go to work together with all the graces and gifts of God working as one!

I Crucified Thee!....

This would have been the birthday of our precious son Jude, who I held in my hands, stillborn on Divine Mercy Sunday of this year. God rest his soul and grant him peace. May his spirit, unstained by personal sin, intercede before the Father for his parents and four sisters who continue for a time here in the Church militant. See you soon Jude. The Divine Mercy Chaplet is a great devotion, please pray it with my family in mind if you wish. Our Father... Hail Mary... The Apostle's Creed... Then, on the large bead before each decade: Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Your Dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. On the ten small beads of each decade, say: For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. Conclude with (Say 3 Times): Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and on the whole world. On a lighter note, this is a wonderful hymn. I will now say that I am starting to miss the singing in my old Protestant church. This hymn has always for me brought tears as communion is being shared, which is when it is sung. Attending Mass now and not partaking, I am getting "hungry" for Jesus the longer I go without breaking the bread. This is an old Lutheran hymn, I am sure my mother would have memories of singing it in all the parts from her childhood in Mankato Mn. Herzliebster Jesu, text by Johann Heermann and melody by Johannn Crüger. This hymn is transcendant.

Burn the Gospel of Straw

Martin Luther called the book of James an "Epistle of straw" because he did not like what Saint James had to say concerning how faith and works relate to our justification. It would have been so much more convenient for Luther to just be rid of the epistle so he could more easily explain his *biblical* doctrine of sola fide. The problem for Luther, is that James has the authority and Luther does not. Luther's characterization of the Gospel according to the book of James amounts to a "straw man" argument in the debate on justification. Catholics have always affirmed that justification is the work of God from start to finish, the Holy Spirit going before us with us and behind us to help us on the journey, with all glory going to God. Here is a fun exercise: Walk up to any evangelical Protestant and ask them to define infusion and imputation, and how each of them relate to the ground of our justification. Now watch for the blank stare... There it is. Heck, I would give a blank stare most days. It is a complicated web of sins and merits flying around courtrooms, cloaks, snow on manure piles, and it is hard to describe coherently. Now describe the Catholic doctrine of justification by grace without naming it as such. Tell them it is salvation by Gods grace alone where he changes our heart from stone to flesh (infuses grace into our hearts) so that Christs love can work through us. And then He declares us righteous. Because He makes us righteous. NOT because of us, but because of Christ in us... "for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." Phil. 2:13 They will agree with this doctrine nearly every time, because it is the Gospel of God's free grace. Now tell them they just affirmed the Catholic doctrine, and they will probably puke. Protestants hate what they think the Catholic gospel is (Us working our way to God) and not what that Gospel actually is. I think Dr. RC Sproul may be the only man alive who understands and hates the actual Catholic gospel and not just the straw man "Gospel of works" one. It's high time you protesters throw down your "Sola Fide NOW!" banners and come on home to Rome. Hey, your leaders have long since walked away, you can't decide where the protest rally should even be located so you are scattered all over town, and most of you have forgotten what you're even protesting, and those of you that do remember have a much different looking Christendom than Luther saw. If Luther were here he would be in sackcloth and ashes to see the current state of the Reformation, and would crawl over broken glass to kiss the Popes ring. "search your feelings... you know it to be true!" (Gotta love the Star Wars reference.)

Discerning Theological Truth

I came across a sermon given at my former church the other day. The title was Discerning Theological Truth. It was given by Dr. Paul Helseth, who is one of the most mild mannered, nicest guys I have ever met. Dr. Helseth is Associate Professor of Christian Thought at Northwestern College, St Paul, MN. He has a Ph.D. from Marquette University, an M.A. and B.A. from Wheaton College, and has studied at Reformed Theological Seminary. I listened to the sermon on my lunch break yesterday and just have to respond. Here is an excerpt of the last couple minutes of the sermon:

“One of the great things about being a Presbyterian as opposed to being a Reformed Baptist is that Reformed Baptists at the end of the day are more at the mercy of the judgments of an individual person, at least as far as I understand it. Presbyterians on the other hand, can appeal to an authority that is greater than themselves. “ “O.K. we’ve recently had so some folks leave church over the whole question of authority. Well frankly that kind of confused me because it seems to me that Presbyterians DO have an authority to appeal to. We have the authority of our session, we have the authority of our Presbytery, we have the general assembly. So to bring it back to the issue at hand, how do we understand or determine what is true in matters of theology? Well I would suggest that that is not a call that we as individuals should make. When there is a question, we should ask our elders, who in turn will speak about these things among themselves, I assume, and if there are questions there they’ll kick it on up to the next level. Um, what you have in a group of elders, in a Presbytery, in the General Assembly, well at least as far as I understand things, you have people who have been appointed to be overseers who have the capacity to think spiritually. Who have the capacity to see spiritually, who have the capacity to make good, sound theological judgments. And their capacity to make good sound theological judgments exceeds the capacity of any one of the individuals. Again, for whatever it’s worth, it seems to me that at the end of the day for those of us who are Presbyterians when we have questions about what scripture says in relationship to some contemporary truth claim, whether its scientific or sociological or whatever, when we have questions, when it’s not transparently obvious what the answer is based on what the truth claim is and based on what scripture says, when there’s a tough judgment call to make, it seems like we should appeal to those who are in authority over us."

Paul, First off, I wish you and yours the best, please take nothing here personal. You are certainly my better in knowledge of philosophy and theology, so with that in mind I wish to try to point out a very basic error in your thinking. St. Thomas Aquinas said “an error in the beginning is an error in deed.” I will point out the error as I see it. I listened to your sermon and have some challenges for you. First a few questions.

1. The PCA was formed in 1973 because people within the Presbyterian church (PCUSA) saw the “authority” over them teaching things they didn’t like and ignored that authority (their elders, sessions, and general assembly) by leaving to make their own church (PCA). Were they justified in ignoring the authority over them? 2. Assuming you think they were right (which for a member of the PCA should be the case), does it not follow that the authority they originally had invested in their PCUSA sessions and general assembly was shown to be a secondary authority to their own theological judgments? 3. Does it not then follow that any church authority for the men who started the PCA was seen by them (proved by their actions) as being mutable, and able to be disobeyed if they felt necessary? 4. Is such a mutable authority the authority we should see in the church? You said (referring at least in part to myself): “we’ve recently had so some folks leave church over the whole question of authority. Well frankly that kind of confused me because it seems to me that Presbyterians DO have an authority to appeal to.” 5. Did this really confuse you? Really?

Respectfully I don’t believe you sir. You are to obviously smart to be so easily thrown off the trail of a very simple argument. Let me try to relieve your alleged confusion. First lets clear something up. You DO have authority. Yes. That is something I would never deny. And Presbyterian authority is better than the Baptist authority you mention, yes, but for the same reasons that a Republic is often better that a Monarchy. This is beside the point and it is odd that you brought it up. Denominational distinctives are interesting, but it is a straw man to say that this constitutes the “authority issue” people leave Protestantism because of. I think you have missed the point. It is not some generic authority people like me are seeking. If I wanted that then the PCA provides that ‘structure’ (session, presbytery, G.A.) of authority very well for someone already convinced of the Reformed faith. That is all beside the point. My point is that the authority that the church of Jesus Christ provides is a legitimate, divine authority that is guarded from error in certain circumstances. (the PCA does not claim this of its authority) It is an authority that is… well, authoritative. It is true. It must be obeyed by all Christians because it is from the Holy Spirit. There is ONE Faith. ONE baptism. Overlooking differences for the sake of a pretended ‘unity’ is not acceptable to the authority of the Church. This real authority can be seen anathematizing monothelites in the early church. Can you imagine modern Evangelicals anathematizing monothelites? Or even caring one iota what they are? No way. Truth gets flushed for the sake of a pretended unity. I will be blunt, Paul. In the end, you are your own authority as a Protestant. I do not accuse without proof. My evidence will be overwhelming and decisive. Let’s run through a scenario.

The year is 2040 and your PCA session has just approved funding for abortions from the tithes of the people and promoting gay marriage from the pulpits. You “have a question” (understatement!!!) as you put it, so you go to your elders, who “have been appointed to be overseers who have the capacity to think spiritually”. They “think spiritually” for about 10 seconds and shoot your objections down. You appeal up to Presbytery and to the general assembly. You get shot down.

What happens next is what proves that you do not believe a word of what you said from the pulpit in your sermon concerning your respect for church authority. You and I know exactly, precisely, and very specifically what you would do. You would ignore their “authority”, judging it to be false, and leave the PCA to put your family under the “authority” of a session that more closely fit your interpretation of scripture. This is definitive proof that YOU are the final authority.

6. Am I correct that you would leave in this situation?

Sure you can pick a session that already agrees with you (like I did when I chose the PCA) and pretend to submit to their authority, but that is a shell game. By submitting to them based on mutual theological agreement, you submit to yourself. If I only submit when I agree, the one to whom I submit is me. Sure you might be like I was and make a show of deferring some theological opinions to them and submitting to their will. I did this for Paedocommunion for instance and that made me feel good about my “submission.” And in truth, this attitude among the Reformed of a willingness to submit their will in some areas of theology is commendable, and is a better way than the typical Evangelical decides doctrine, but it is in principal the same. And of course it is always only in ‘less important areas’ (as defined by the individual Protestant) that this deferring of personal opinion ever occurs. You say (Bolding mine):

“When we have questions, when it’s not transparently obvious what the answer is based on what the truth claim is and based on what scripture says, when there’s a tough judgment call to make, it seems like we should appeal to those who are in authority over us.”

Forgive me for saying it but this sounds somewhat pompous. To say that you can determine if something is or is not “transparently obvious” in Sacred Scripture without a special charism is just subjective and silly. At the least it is naïve. I’m sure the open theism theology of devils like Greg Boyd is “transparently obvious” to them. But the millstone is around his neck. Christ having 2 distinct wills is not at all obvious to my mind from scripture. It is silly when some believers claim it is. But He has 2 wills and it should be a heresy to deny it because the teaching office of the Church declared it a heresy. Not because I agree it should be. The Arian heresy was shown from scripture and was honestly and conscientiously believed by Arius. I’m sure he thought it was “transparently obvious”. What is obvious on the one hand and what is more difficult on the other is the very distinction we need a theological authority to make for us! And if they are just men with a Bible (like you and I), why is their interpretation more valid than ours? Other that being the wisest and most learned men in the building; they are using their judgment just like you or me, and can make bad theological errors just like you or me. (And they will readily admit that fact!) So other than the pragmatism of a group deciding over an individual, why listen to them? Like I said, if it were 1972, you absolutely would not have listened to your session if they told you abortion is not forbidden in the scripture. You would disobey them in an instant, curse them (I hope) and walk out. Asking the advice of those more mature in the faith is always a good idea. NOBODY disagrees with that. But that is a pragmatic reality, not the basis for determining if something is true! The proof is in the pudding. Look around at the myriad branches of the Protestant tree. Now focus on just the Reformed ‘branch’ (‘twig’?). These are the ones with the ‘orthodox’ view of what sola scriptura means. These are the ones with the ‘high view’ of church authority. This is the branch that pounds its chest in obedience to church authority. But it is mere chest pounding because they have chosen the authority for themselves, and will submit if and only if that authority stays within the bounds of orthodoxy as they see it. When it strays out of those bounds, they will instantly disobey, preferring their private opinions, and split, split, split. Again, this is in no way submission. It is the worst kind of false submission because it can lull the believer into actually thinking they are submitting to the church (and Christ) when they are merely submitting to themselves! If the PCA had ever budged on any issues I thought were important to my personal theological understanding such as abortion or gay marriage, or justification, BOOM. I would have been out of there. And you would too. You said:

“how do we understand or determine what is true in matters of theology? Well I would suggest that that is not a call that we as individuals should make.”

This statement is great, and quite true. As individuals we should not determine what is true in matters of theology, the church should. But as I have shown, that individualism is exactly what (in principle) Protestantism is based on, and exactly what Protestants do every day they submit to self appointed church authority. As I have clearly shown, you as an individual ARE making the calls. Just because there are other people that agree with your personal judgment and you “submit” to them makes it no less a personal judgment call. At this point the tu quoque objection might be tempting. It does not apply to a Catholic (there is a way out!) because we submit to bishops in succession from the apostles that have divine authority to define theological truth, but that is a whole other discussion. Listen to this conversion story for an eye opener.

7. The point I have clearly made here is that you are your own theological authority. Another way to say it is that your authority is in practice greater than that of any authority in the PCA. Do you concede this point?

Peace, David

Classical Liberal Arts Academy

St. Thomas Aquinas Following a tip from Tim Troutman on his blog, I decided to enroll my school age children in this school. It is the Classical Liberal Arts Academy. It is only a year old, but looks great. After much searching for some great Catholic homeschool place, My wife and I hope this is it! Bridget and I are excited to try it out. It is rigorous, ubber classical and hey, I found out the creator of the program is a convert who used to write the Omnibus program for Veritas Press (We were using Veritas previously). Anyone into homeschooling (and you should be unless you have an amaaaaazing Catholic school near you) might want to check this place out. There are some great articles on the homepage to listen to or read. Pray for our homeschooling efforts that the arrows in our quiver would be sharp!