Christmas Cross

Dr. Mary posts about the Christmas Cross.  Some had apparently designated the cross as being politically incorrect in these parts during recent years.

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Thank for the link, Joe. I just got home today (my Thanksgiving comes a week late), and the Cross is now shining from my kitchen window.

[Joe Guarino]

You're welcome, Mary. I'm glad you found a place for it this year.

[Jim Langer]

I am happy for Dr. Johnson and other Christians who enjoy this type of Xmas display. It has a true energetic spark, and can be interpreted legitimately as a truly electrifying, envigorating symbol.

However, it is, like most if not every symbol, open to other legitimate interpretations. I can see why some truly committed, believing and even born-again Christians might well find the cross reminiscent of a burning KKK symbol. It isn't just lit like many crosses can be, it has a particularly "rayonnant" effect, undeniably. For some, that connotes majesty and glory; for others, threat of being burned like one's forebears, perhaps after lynching. You cannot tell someone with a consistent and well-founded discomfort linked to such crimes that they should just forget such associations. On the other hand,it is a free country, and if Christians wish to and enjoy these crosses, either for entirely innocent reasons or even for secretly nefarious ones, they are free to show them.

A more significant quibble:
For most Christians, I totally agree that the "Manger means nothing without the Cross". But for non-Christians who may find great wisdom and guidance in the story of the life and words of the man called Jesus (even accepting the reality of his historical human existence), the Manger alone can hold great beauty and meaning, even without the idea of Resurrection.

I will admit that the eventual description of his terrible death and the story of resurrection are also narratively and philosophically powerful, but I do not need them always visibly attached to the simple loving scene, filled with pathos in itself: the family turned away from the inn, to bed down near the silent animals, raised for use and slaughter, foreshadowing the escape shortly after from the murderous soldiers of Herod, leaving behind unspeakable carnage; the lowly shepherds, stunned by the visions of hosts on high, before the human event of the birth shown equal with the great Magi bringing gifts.

When my child visits the scene on Market Street, we talk about much of this. I do not think a blazing cross, nor the sight of a man crucified-- distended, disjointed, nearly physically destroyed beyond human recognition--- are necessary to evoke the importance I personally still find in the other parts of the story the child sees; I actually think such difficult sights would beg for explanations that would deeply scar the young mind and heart. One day, of course, we will go into more detail about those parts, too (I have briefly discussed how some people hated Jesus and killed him...Death itself is of immense interest to children....but when a child expresses the natural care and interest most children show toward babies, I would choose not to douse that fire with another.

But that is merely my American right, not a universal Kantian imperative.

Merry Christmas.

[Joe Guarino]

Jim, I appreciate your thoughtful post.

I suppose we might disagree on whether comparing the Christmas Cross to a KKK symbol is a "legitimate interpretation".

I agree with you about the poignant, powerful imagery associated with the Christmas story. But I think Mary's point is simple, and theologically sound. All the attention paid to that poignant, powerful imagery is for naught if He did not die for us.

[Jim Langer]

Well, I don't think it is for naught if he died for his powerful philosophy, either. Socrates died for his, and we are the better for that, too. MLK died for his. And both their philosophies served a greater good than merely their own lives.

But a beautiful and harrowing tale of the "golden child"/"miracle birth" (common to several important cultural traditions and religions) can and does hold importance for those within those faiths and traditions, and, for those of us who choose to see them as truths wrapped in swaddling metaphor, they can and do change lives and thoughts and hearts, even without the metaphysics.

I never metaphysician I didn't assimilate.

I never met a forest I didn't hike.

[bubba]

"I can see why some truly committed, believing and even born-again Christians might well find the cross reminiscent of a burning KKK symbol."

Some people work really hard to rationalize a pre-conceived conclusion in support of a particular counter religious worldview.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Jim, your post is indeed very thoughtful - and sounds like "intellectual" me during my days at UNC-G.

But I would submit that the problem with a lot of the people making the most noise two years ago it that they had no real connection to the crimes you bemoan. The "discomfort" was, in fact, not "well-founded" - or even "legitimate". They were just making noise for the sake of making noise - and attributing intent and notions to those displaying the Cross that simply were not there. I would also submit that a good deal of the noise had "nefarious" political intent.

I'm quite sure it broke the heart and darkened the spirit of the Winston-Salem woman who originally designed the Cross (several years before the politically-correct uproar) as an expression of her faith.

It bothered me enough back then to do blog-battle on several threads.

What Christ suffered on the Cross was indeed horrific. But Christians believe that He suffered and died for us - and that He chose to do it. It IS what gives so much signifcance to His Birth.

I have to agree with Bubba here. I think the rationalizations are over-wrought. And, quite frankly offensive and not-tolerant-at-all.

And Jim, I would submit that all children grow up. They see the ugly in the world, long before most of us choose to tell them about it.

The friend I cited in the post is a very wise woman, and I'm going to go with her advice. You see what you CHOOSE to see.

Merry Christmas.

[michele]

Re: "Well, I don't think it is for naught if he died for his powerful philosophy, either."

You are wrong. And you cannot imagine how much that statement offends me.

"FOR THE MESSAGE OF THE CROSS IS FOOLISHNESS TO THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING, BUT TO US WHO ARE BEING SAVED IT IS THE POWER OF GOD. FOR IT IS WRITTEN:
'I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE;
THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE INTELLIGENT I WILL FRUSTRATE.'"
~ 1 Corinthians 1:18-19

[Jim Langer]

I maintain, that, theoretically and, if there is a (especially African-American) born-again Christian who "chooses" to see such a symbol as (even unintentionally) refractive of the KKK, that is not necessarily a stretch for that person. I would not gainsay their discomfort. If someone chose, for example, to have a Yule Log in a large oven, I could see how a Jew might be reminded of the crematoria. Neither means the person displaying such symbols INTENDS dishonor or terrorism, of course. I don't even think they need be intending it subconsciously, either.

All meaning-making with signifiers are "over-determined", if not "over-wrought". It happens in our heads so fast, usually, that we don't notice the internal "work" that goes into it. Nothing is eminently as simple in a world fraught with thousands of potential associative contexts and every individual brings their own history and quirks to bear when creating the story that they read into whatever symbols they "choose" to work with.

Michelle, I did not say that for those who believe,Jesus did not choose to die for the salvation of others, over and above dying for his stances philosophically (the very notion of "Love thy neighbor" was a great thunderbolt of a threat to many). I would think believers in Jesus the Christ would be glad that those who may not (yet or ever) accept him as their saviour nonetheless are deeply moved to the point of trying seriously to adhere to many of his great teachings. Is that a bad thing? I am afraid it sounds as if my very Being is the offense, in that case, not merely the statement that he should be honored for his bravery in the face of persecution. It takes a very brave man to die without recourse to vengefulness, as it would destroy the meaning I find, at least, in his powerful call to "turn the other cheek". But that shows that I see him as a pacifist, which many do not, and they well be correct historically. What matters to me,personally, is how one chooses to live with one's own suffering and extending compassion to others in theirs. If, ultimately, my own paltry attempt at trying to think (not merely rationalize) through the entangled possible meanings of such a tremendously influential set of signs and symbols, stories and truths, is a cause of deep offense to those who choose to believe (a noble and fine choice), then, paradoxically, I suppose it is finally better that I don't share my thoughts and even my admiration for believers and for Jesus. Shalom.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Jim, as I alluded in my post, most of those doing the loudest protesting two years ago, grapsed the ugliest of the "possible meanings" of a Cross draped in Christmas lights that they could come up with . . . to further a political agenda . . . and held on to it very tightly, refusing to let go.

They extended no compassion, and zero tolerance.

As I am neither a "moron" nor a racist, it was not their "very being" I objected to. It was their INTENT.

I would submit that your admiration for believers in Jesus Christ might best manifest itself in not having us turn our cheeks so far away from Him and His message that we passively acquiesce to handing over the Cross to the Klan.

[Jim Langer]

Please do not "hand over" the cross symbol to the KKK. Their despicable abuse of it should be lambasted loudly. In fact, maybe by continuing to show the cross this way, you can counteract their image of the cross "burning brightly", by bringing the spiritual spark, metaphorically, like the Methodist logo incorporating a flame entwined with the cross. (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=methodist+logo&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

I remind you, also, I did not say Christians should not display the cross with any lights they like. I said exactly the opposite, that they ought to and have that right. I even agreed the effect is quite brilliant. I merely said it was not unthinkable that another Christian might see it as reminiscent of a cross on fire. Fire and light have been used to create similar effects in
stage productions. I do not doubt that the protesters from two years ago had ulterior motives. And I do not believe you or any given person displaying such a symbol using electric lights does.

[Jim Langer]

http://www.ehow.com/how_6556006_diy-stage-effects.html

[michele]

Jim, you asked: "I would think believers in Jesus the Christ would be glad that those who may not (yet or ever) accept him as their saviour nonetheless are deeply moved to the point of trying seriously to adhere to many of his great teachings. Is that a bad thing?"

Your choice to reject Him as God but accept Him as Teacher is absolutely nonsensical to me.

C.S. Lewis said it best, in Mere Christianity:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

[cheripickr]

"I would think believers in Jesus the Christ would be glad that those who may not (yet or ever) accept him as their saviour nonetheless are deeply moved to the point of trying seriously to adhere to many of his great teachings. Is that a bad thing? I am afraid it sounds as if my very Being is the offense,"

Jim, your elaborations in your 8:00 post are both eloquent and easy to understand. Michelle, the strength of your faith is admirable, but you say you are offended, to an unimaginable degree, if not by certain peoples' very being, then at least by the sincere expression of their beliefs.

What one believes, if it is truly sincere, is not a "choice" any more than being in love with someone is. To "choose" to believe something is to deceive one's own mind. It appears that you are offended by a majority of the worlds's population.

You should not be offended by people who are not as cocksure as you are about what is probably the most daunting challenge the human mind has faced throughout our existence.

[Brandon Burgess]

When I was younger and involved with Christianity, I never understood the obsession with displaying crosses. I always viewed at as disrespectful and that it detracted from the real message. Seemed like a lot of folks were more concerned with the image of being a christian rather than the action of being a christian.

Reminds me of all the noise being made over the christian flag in King. Imagine if all the energy being put into making sure that flag is displayed and bringing attention to the protesters' cause was used to do something christ might have done such as build homes and cook meals for poor folks, long as they don't feed them in public, of course ;)

[Joe Guarino]

Cheri, are you suggesting that choice has no contribution to the formation of beliefs? That would be surprising to me.

There is another question. Is it justifiable to squelch the display or production of a religious symbol because of the theoretical possibility that someone might be offended? It is a foregone conclusion that some people will be offended by what others say and do, at times, for various reasons. But do we want to get in the business of making religious symbols impermissible?

Michele, C.S. Lewis is cool.

Brandon, you are interpreting that people are concerned with the "image of being a Christian". Instead, I am interpreting that many devout Christians believe some forces are trying to deny them religious liberty.

[bubba]

"But do we want to get in the business of making religious symbols impermissible?"

In the case of Christian symbols, that is already the case advocated by the most obnoxious of the bigots.

I agree with Michele. I find Langer's several levels of apologia provided here condescending and obnoxious.

[Jim Langer]

Condescending? So, I am condescending to say how much the example of Jesus has meant and still means to me? To say that I endorse Christians displaying this particular AND the King images of the cross, in their homes and on other private property, at least? Is it only NOT condescending to say, yeah, go ahead, you are exactly right and Christian imagery should be directly supported to the exclusion of any other secular or religious imagery by our government, in fact?

I really enjoy reading Lewis. But I respectfully disagree with his conclusions. That's part of human discourse. I don't agree with Nietzsche, either.

You choose to be offended. The offense is NOT meant. Quite the reverse. Maybe that's what offends you: that someone does not hate your faith, yet doesn't embrace it as his own.

[Jim Langer]

And I AM supportive of multiple-religious display on public property, within the range of faiths, for example, that are practiced by members of the armed forces.

[bubba]

"I merely said it was not unthinkable that another Christian might see it as reminiscent of a cross on fire."

Langer, you sanction incredibly vaucous anti-Christian hysteria.

Period.

That type pf rationalization is absurd on the face of it.

[bubba]

"vaucuos"=vacuous

[cheripickr]

Joe, I would say that using choice as a primary means to arrive at one's beliefs implies a wishful shortcut to a particular outcome using selective input of all information available to one's own mind to arrive at said prechosen outcome. I wouldn't say it should have no role at all.

In general, I have always felt that the phrase "I choose to believe..." is an oxymoron.
A good example is when the spouse of a person accused of infidelity or some crime often "chooses to believe my husband's innocence" despite all evidence to the contrary. (Not trying to make a specific analogy to the topic of this thread)

Choice involves selectivity and desire. Honest belief is arrived at through the sum of all unfiltered input available to the mind. It often, uncomfortably, leads to messy or undesirable conclusions though, or even dead ends, and most people don't do very well with that, especially when it comes to spiritual or faith-requiring beliefs. It shouldn't cause anyone to be offended by those whose journey has honestly led them to a different place.
I am quite accustomed to Michele feeling sorry for or praying for such folks, but I've never before heard the kind of disdain expressed above. And so close to Christmas.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Jim, I appreciate you clarifying your position.

But Michelle's points are very well taken (C.S. Lewis IS the bomb). During a very emotionally and spiritually turbulent point in my younger days, I thought and sounded as you do (and Brandon does) . . . cheri-picking and choosing what "worked" for me from this philosophy or that . . . and what didn't . . . right up to excusing abortion as the "right" of a woman to chose to murder her unborn child. But eventually, I was compelled to choose. In my own case, "free will" brought me back (in a series of enlightening increments) to what I was (very thankfully) raised on.

That does not make me perfect in the practice of Christianity. For instance, turning the other cheek is still a bit of a sticking point.

Brandon says:

"Seemed like a lot of folks were more concerned with the image of being a christian rather than the action of being a christian."

First, Brandon, we who do believe capitalize Christian and any reference to Christ. I'm sure you know that. And, as a demonstration of tolerance and real respect for other's beliefs . . . since we Christians are supposed to tolerate everyone else's . . . to the point of being denied our own free speech and religious liberty (Joe's point is well taken) . . . perhaps you might try doing that here.

Moreover, in terms of displaying the Cross . . . in seeing its beauty and true meaning . . . I am not going to be passively lumped in with your "lot of folks" either. I, more than most in this ether, know about suffering real personal/professional hardship for one's moral/religious beliefs . . . a situation precipitated by a life-defining moment in the middle-of-the-night twelve years ago - when, in a matter of seconds, I had to make a choice that honored what I believed about the very basic tenets of life and medicine and how I fit into the great scheme of things (God's plan, if you will).

In terms of "turning the other cheek", the currently politically-correct notions that amount to "cheap grace" do not cut it. Being a Christian doesn't mean you take every baseball-bat swipe swung in your direction until you're a bloody pulp . . . including being told that draping a Cross in white lights is the equivalent of "burning a Cross for Christmas".

It IS offensive - on a very basic level. And despite some of the finger-wagging going on here, I'm really digging Michelle's ferocity in defending what she clearly truly believes . . . and telling others that perhaps they need to take a couple of steps back and really think about their arguments.

Don't get me wrong, Brandon, I do get what you're saying. For the people dishing out the most ugly in Asheboro have, over the years, put on a great show of being Christian . . . yet somehow those I accuse were able to put their hands on a Bible and swore a false oath to God (something we here on Earth are supposed to care about - and hold them accountable for). Despite all of their charitable trappings (conveniently propped up by the state), they've turned their nosed up and away from doing anything to atone for - or right - the great wrong they did . . . as have those charged with the job of holding them accountable.

And, of course, we know how some of our most enlightened, "progressive" folk in this blogosphere have treated me/my cause . . . in a classic example of "do what I say, no what I do".

They do not want me to "get over it" or "go away" because it's right or just . . . but because it's easier on them.

I'd say that's also true for anyone "offended" by a Cross draped in Christmas lights.

[Brandon Burgess]

"Maybe that's what offends you: that someone does not hate your faith, yet doesn't embrace it as his own."

--Not only do many christians take offense but they look down on one as if they understand some set of knowledge or facts that others don't, that those who don't see it their way are ignorant at best; maybe even evil.

Cheri, I feel that, regarding faith, one HAS to choose to believe. In fact, I've been told by many religious types that if you look for evidence, you will not find it as that would undermine the idea of faith.

[Jim Langer]

Bob, if using Christmas lights has been a time-honored trick on stage for making the illusion of sparks and flames, and you put lights in an intense array on a cross, and then a hypothetical Christian predisposed to interpreting the two combined as a ghost reminder of dark days of the KKK, I would say it is logical to assume said Christian could see it that way. They, too, would not be absolutely correct in having their interpretation be the sole one as absolute over and above any other, including, as I said, the Methodist use of stylized flame in their logos.

It also doesn't mean Christians who enjoy the display with a full and Christ-filled heart shouldn't do just that. But neither can we deny the experience of the hypothetical Christian I have admittedly constructed. Because no Christian has described seeing the connection between the electrically-lit cross and the KKK act, at least no Christian that conforms to some particular definitions you might personally accept, does not mean there isn't one out there, or ostensibly could be, who is still a Christian.

By the way, can we agree that the images of flames in the United Methodist logos are very flame-like in their abstraction, yet do not require one to find them KKK symbols? I do notice that, however, the AME Church does not generally use the same logo as the United Methodists. The AME logos incorporate fire differently, by showing an anvil, thus inferring the fire of the forge while not portraying it directly. Could that be because the more direct representation harbors too closely to uncomfortable connotations for at least a minority of their members, and they chose to be sensitive to that?

[Jim Langer]

Quick research seems to indicate the first pulpit of the first AME church was an actual anvil, by some accounts.

[cheripickr]

As chief finger-wagger, I would ask how Jim and others might avoid offending others here in the future? Just keep their "absolutely nonsensical" beliefs to themselves?

[Brandon Burgess]

Joe: "Instead, I am interpreting that many devout Christians believe some forces are trying to deny them religious liberty."

--Who and how? By some newspaper reporter blogging about how they interpret a lit up cross? That's an infringement on your liberty? Sounds to me like you'd like to infringe on THEIR liberty.

Dr. J.: "...since we Christians are supposed to tolerate everyone else's"

--By proclaiming that those who don't share your faith are going to burn in hell forever? lol.

"I, more than most in this ether, know about suffering real personal/professional hardship..."

--The tolerance thing goes both ways. Some of us don't blog about our hardships. And from what I remember from my own studying of the bible, we are all equally evil.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

John, Michelle spoke from her gut and her deeply-held convictions. If we are to accept the argument that Jim's hypothetical Christian should be excused their involuntary responses to a Cross draped in Christmas lights, perhaps, as grown-ups, we should extend a real woman who can quote C.S. Lewis the same consideration?

I would submit that it's not so much about people not expressing their beliefs, as it is about respecting the Faith of others without attributing malicious intent or mental deficit . . . which is exactly (Brandon) what a certain local newspaper reporter (that would be our Killian) did two years ago. And yes, it was offensive on a very basic level - no matter now much Jim may contort and try to philosophize it all away now.

That's how this all got started . . . when, several years back, a Christian woman wanting to remind people what Christmas really is all about, innocently and with purity-of-heart, strung some white lights on a Cross. In terms of religious liberty and free speech, what happened after that took political correctedness to a new and (to me) very frightening/disturbing extreme.

Brandon, at NO point in this thread have I proclaimed that anyone is going to Hell. What is it that Obama likes to say? Ah, yes. "That's above my pay grade". Moreover, as I've told you in the past, I really do not appreciate you selectively cutting quotes in mid-sentence to suit your purposes (which in this case, appears to be ridiculing what I/Michelle/others here believe).

As you also well know, I am in this blogosphere for several very good reasons - not the least of which is keeping others from enduring the hardships I have endured at the hands of those professing to be Christians. This will be my thirteenth Christmas since I put everything I held dear on the line for the sake of what I believed - and the life of a little girl.

One of these days, I'd like to give my own Mother the Christmas gift of justice for her own daughter. If it's not a bandwagon you can get on, at least stay out of my way.

These things being said, I think you might enjoy a book I read a long time ago . . . "Testimony of Two Men", by Taylor Caldwell. It's out-of-print, but you should be able to find it on Amazon.com. I blogged about it once:

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2007/02/testimony-of-two-men-and-new-friend.html

While I most certain concur with Biblical teaching that mankind is wicked/corrupt/evil from birth, the message and hope of Christmas/the Cross is found in the fact that God gave mankind an out . . . and a choice . . . and the free will to accept or reject the notion that we can be saved by Grace.

And/so, no, we are NOT all "equally evil".

Under the pretence of intellectualism and tolerance, you can reject, and laugh-out-loud at what I/Michelle/others here believe all you like.

But if you do that, don't protest too loudly if I take offense - in Michelle's case, strong offense.

[cheripickr]

But who in this thread was dissing or ridiculing someoneone else's belief system in the first place? Who was expressing intolerance? Jim Langer? I only perceived one person doing that. And who is "pretending" tolerance and intellectualism here and on what basis are you accusing them of such insincerity?

[Spag]

If faith is based on choice then it isn't faith at all. It would be easy. We could all just SAY we believe because we choose to believe. Personally, I can't do that as an intellectual endeavor. But I do admire those who can find real faith despite the logical obstructions.

[cheripickr]

Sam, I think you just said a mouthful to which I can strongly relate. I usually stay out of these types of conversations because rarely do I know exactly what it is I want to say.

[Joe Guarino]

I highly recommend "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel.

I think believers ultimately do choose to believe, because they were not eyewitnesses of the events that occurred 2000 years ago. That faith has considerable basis, if one takes the time to study the issue. But the great evangelical ministers, including Billy Graham, refer to the process, in part, as a "decision", because it is, in fact, just that. It is an active decision, intentionally made, and as such, is a choice. Faith is not inherited. It is acquired by volition.

[bubba]

"It is an active decision, intentionally made, and as such, is a choice. Faith is not inherited. It is acquired by volition."

Indeed.

Each of us individually chooses to proclaim our faith and our relationship with Jesus Christ.

[Spag]

Joe, I actually have that book. I bought it a long time ago. Strobel also has some documentaries based on his books that I plan on watching.

My greatest difficulty with faith is based on my understanding of the universe and physics. Of course science can't yet answer the questions of "why" and "how" when it comes to the origins of the universe. That's my hesitation before I even delve into the questions regarding the specifics of any religion.

Some find faith very easy. In contrast, I find it very difficult.

Michele and I have talked about this before.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Back at work. Very busy the last two days. Have not had time to check in.

Cheri, there is a difference between challenging someone's argument and "dissing" or "ridiculing" them. Moreover, if I've been "intolerant" of anything it's been intolerance.

HOW did this conversation get started? Allow me to refresh your memory (kind of the point of my post at Housecalls). It was when a local newspaper reporter/some lefty bloggers had a politically-motivated field day comparing a Cross draped in Christmas lights to "Burning a Cross for Christmas". Those of us who displayed the Cross were "morons" and "racists" (I believe it falls under the realm of dissing and ridicule).

We needed sit down and shut up and hide. That's not tolerance. It's not freedom.

You CANNOT defend or excuse that - I don't care how many philosophical/hypothetical contortions someone makes. Moreover if you expect me (or Michelle or anyone else) to turn our cheeks to the point that we hand that Cross over to the Klan without a fight - if you expect us to, in effect, DENY the real message of The Christ who died on that Cross - think again.

I DO know what I want to say about that.

I have no doubt that Jim is sincere in his beliefs, and have not said otherwise. I certainly understand where he's coming from. But I'm not in that place any more.

Sam is right. Faith is hard. Very difficult. A huge leap. I was raised in the Baptist faith, and part of our tradition is that Baptism does not take place without a personal conversion and public profession of Faith - something I did as an adolescent. But I drifted away. Returning to the fold was a choice (after many years of plowing through philosophies that always seemed to come up short) to make the leap.

I realized there is a point where "the universe" is a massive void if He is not there.

But once that leap is made, you're there - with Him - and there's no other place I'd rather be.