He Abolishes the First in Order to Establish the Second

I’ve read the same view (soul/actions), which was around even when I was in college, and I never saw the validity of the separation. If you judge someone’s actions you are judging his or her soul. Jesus didn’t say your actions are a “brood of vipers” he said those people were. All spiritual judgment is a head to head confrontation between souls. The Bible is a litany of face-to-face judgments without separation. (Nathan to David – “Thou are the man”) Their actions simply indicate the type of soul you’re dealing with (you’ll know them by their fruits) then the judgment is rendered to the soul.

Christians have just thrown in some psychobabble in an attempt to eat their cake and have it too. Dan’s phrase “hate with a mask” comes to mind. So you can rip someone’s actions apart but you should go on being happy Christian friends because I’m not judging YOU. Right. The world hates judgment and that’s what the Church should be all about. The world has simply laid their view on the Church and they’ve bought it, like in so many other areas. And the separation between actions and soul doesn’t soften the blow one whit. In fact it’s magnified because now you’re supposed to think it doesn’t hurt. “What are you getting uptight about, I’m not judging you.”

The church presses everything to obtain and retain membership. Not every church is the same but generally the church seeks to drag people into their numbers by establishing marriage, baptism etc as requirements for eternal life. Indulgences of the Reformation period were a straightforward extension of this attitude. You need to pay the church to stay out of purgatory. (a complete fabrication from end to end) The spiritual people whom I’ve know and read about never do this. They simply preach the gospel and people are drawn to Jesus through them. Marriage, baptism and confirmation all take a back seat to the person who gives them significance, Jesus.

My questions regarding Brittany are not because I don’t think she’s having sex with Dave. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t. But Christian interaction with anyone is a “plugging in” to where they’re at. To do this requires the plugger to know what they’re plugging into. That’s why cold testimony to complete strangers is so valuable because you learn to do it on the fly. At first you blunder into their worlds and they rightly tell you to go fuck yourself. But after some banging around you learn to tie into any and every shred they give you without turning them off. I probably mention Jesus 5-10 times per day at F&P. Mitch calls me Jesus and I call him Moses. Mitch sat me down in a room the other day and wanted to know everything I knew about the Magi, which wasn’t much, but we’re engaged. And without that engagement of the other party I don’t believe there’s honour in what’s being done and it will not serve to raise Jesus up. I don’t believe Jesus engaged with people who didn’t do the same. He may knock once, but if no one comes to the door he leaves… wiping the sand off his feet. In this day and generation very few people engage because it’s all explained to them. This generation’s heart has grown cold. It doesn’t stop me knocking but it determines what happens next.

So if Brittany isn’t biting then she’s not interested. And if she’s not interested then she’s not interested. She will answer to Jesus for she how she responded to what she was given and you will answer for the same. People are at where they are at. You can feed them but that will not cause them to eat and grow. And if you feed them when they don’t want to be fed it causes things to go sour. When Jesus went to a town and saw little response he didn’t do much and quickly left. He went and stayed where the receptivity was the strongest.

When Nee says “You will do nothing more for God”, as I remember it, there were no qualifications. Nygren says the same type of thing in his Commentary on Romans. It doesn’t mean you can’t do anything to help him. It means don’t do anything for him, period. I think when you say that he invites us to work with him it’s just a backdoor for doing things for him. When Jesus said it is finished, it really is. He did all the work that was necessary. I’m only quoting one phrase while Nee writes one of the best treatise’s I’ve seen on it. Chapter 9 in The Normal Christian Life is called the “Meaning and Value of Romans Seven”. I haven’t read it in a while but it was an initial corroboration of Dave’s unique testimony. You can read the complete version here: http://www.planetholy.com/books/normallife_9.asp

You won’t be able to see in your own words what I am saying I see in them. I simply say what I think, you say what you think and if Jesus chooses to show something to us then so be it. It’s also difficult, given the context of our relationship that we would learn well from one another. The phrase “a prophet is not without honour, except in his own country” applies to our entire family. It’s simply that natural familiarity can sometimes hinder the normal objectivity you’d give a complete stranger. Not that we can’t keep taking shots off the bow.

Paul didn’t struggle the way you suggest although a great many commentators would agree with you. Nygren would be a big exception. Since his book is a commentary on Romans he dissects this passage word by word. Paul is talking about a Christian who is attempting to live by the law. I wrote an essay on this in college and read reams of Biblical experts who interpreted this a number of ways but were pretty much the same, except Nygren. His was the only interpretation that made sense. And some just simply excluded what follows after this cry of anguish because it didn’t fit with their version of life. Paul calls himself wretched but in the end thanks God for delivering him from his body of death. His life experience was not doing the very thing he hates and my statement to those who would suggest so is to reread the gospels. Paul served God in the spririt and the struggle he describes is hardly his day to day condition. It is the situation a Christian seeking to serve God via laws and rules will find himself in, whether they’re Holy or not. Through death with Christ he is freed from the law and serves in the new spirit of life. If you glance backward and say, “well the law is a reflection of God’s spirit and now that I have the Spirit in me I can fulfill it” you drag the law back into your life and sin will use it to make your life more sinful. I analogize it to Lot’s wife turning around just to have a peek and boom, pillar of salt. It’s just a way of thinking to bring the law back in but has nothing to do with what Paul is testifying.

When you say people still sin and ignore the voice that tells them it’s wrong, it resonates with me that it’s the law you are referring to. And I’ll grant you it’s an interpretation but it’s based on my experience of the Spirit. He’s not like that. You give the inner workings of a human being a level of consciousness that can only come via the law. (external criteria for lifestyle) The law is as plain as the nose on your face and you talk about sin as though it’s a kind of common knowledge that’s to some degree quite obvious. I don’t believe the Spirit is like that. He’s very subtle and exceptionally personal. He puts his finger on the strangest things that in the end turn out to be what’s dear to your heart but didn’t even know. The law is a joke compared to him. The spirit once told me I didn’t need to look in the mirror after I got ready in the morning. It was a habit I’d developed that I wasn’t even aware of until he pointed it out. It was amazing difficult to drop but amazing freeing to do so. And it drew me much closer to Jesus who I now relied for the security I lost with my mirror checks. The Spirit separates between bone and sinew not crunch you on the head with a log. The law is like a written paragraph of who someone is as opposed to meeting him and living with him. The law is a minimum snapshot and if you glance at it, sin will use it. “The law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” Hebrews 10:1

I’m not saying Brit is free from the law. At this stage in her life it’s not even on the table. It’s completely irrelevant to her. I deal with Brit from how I see her. She’s not interested in what I’m about. She likes the benefits and does appreciate who I am but isn’t interested in how I came to be this way or whether she should be digging into the same things. Ruth is much closer, has all the more opportunity, but has never made it her business to dig into what Jesus is about. (Brit comes by her aversion naturally, as everyone does) So I don’t excuse or condemn her. She will answer to Jesus for everything she is doing and I will answer to Jesus for everything I am doing. I’ve made it exceedingly clear what I’m about and have never ended a conversation at my end except in a couple of circumstances which I can count on one hand compared to the thousands I’ve had in my life. (And in those cases I know any more discussion will do harm rather than good) Dave was like that for me until I found the bottom of the well. But I wanted to know.

I may have missed this but did you ever come down on when you think someone is married and what exactly causes that to happen? You jumped to what Brit thinks in her last post, which is speculation, but I don’t see where you’ve qualified your position. And really, if you’re criticizing others, it really matters what you think because you’re seeking to convince them of the wrongness of their position and the rightness of yours. It’s especially relevant in your criticisms of me because I don’t have an issue with it based on my understanding of what constitutes marriage.

The Law is holy

My comments about the church (building or people) have definitely been confusing. I have obviously substituted the meaning I wish, depending on the point I chose to make. I’m sorry you had to wade through that.

I read in a book recently that we have no right to judge a person’s soul but we have a right to judge a person’s actions. Logically, sinful action leads to hell so in a way I did say Britt was going to hell; I can see how she got that. I didn’t say it in condemnation (I'm not judging her soul), I said it in concern. I felt I should say what I thought and it would be wrong of me to say nothing (whether she’s in the church or not). I’m tempted to believe that it is the spirit inside her that causes her to regard my comment with great concern.

What advantage does the church gain by pressing the ceremony of marriage before becoming one? Just control? Too what ends? This discussion has definitely challenged me as to how much I know Britt, yet it still is my opinion that she does not consider the implications of having relations with someone. I don’t think she considered herself married at the point of first relations. I think the ceremony of marriage brings to the forefront the implications and commitment involved. You are more likely to regard it seriously rather than casually (though that is swiftly changing as well). We can’t rely on humans, especially young ones, to make the commitment God wants, every time we think we’re ready to have sex with someone. I must admit that I have no proof of anything I say about her relationship with Dave. (I should have e-mailed her because my comments probably needed further clarification as to what I thought, ie. scriptural evidence) but there is enought evidence for me to conclude that Britt and Dave became one in a casual sense.

What do you mean you heard indirectly? Britt told mom, mom told you?

When Nee says, “you will do nothing more for God”. Does he mean there’s nothing you can do to help him? Definitely true but he also invites us to work with him.

To judge the Christians in my church by my questions is wrong. I still see you taking bigger leaps than I with less evidence.

I had to study my words to see the legalist perspective that stares you in the face. Tell me if I’m right. You think the church subliminally gets us asking these questions so that we will turn to it (churh) for all our answers (rules) rather than God.

It was only last year that I came across the words, “For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do,” of Romans 7 and was blessed that Paul struggled as I do. Freedom from the law means that we don’t need written rules for the Holy Spirit will make us aware if we sin. But people still sin and ignore the voice that tells them it’s wrong. They even convince themselves (often with help) that it’s okay and that sin is not sin. This is why “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” verse 12. It confirms the spirit and denounces the sin.

From what I see, I feel like you’re saying in being free from the Law, Britt can do what she wants because that must be where God is leading her. I don’t trust that. When I first had sex I didn’t think it was wrong nor did I feel guilty.

Jesus is All, and in All.

It's interesting that you say you didn't tell them they were going to hell or even that it was implied because it is certainly the impression they got. In fact that's pretty much what she remembers and is predominantly what I was told. (not directly by her) My response is based on that information. I find it rather odd that for not being said or even implied that's the only thing they remember.

My questions regarding the church and your knowledge of Brittany's context are in regard to that issue. People are going to hell. I just don't think that can be said unless the person rendering the judgement is spiritually mature and the situation is fairly conscious to the hellgoers. As in Peter with Annanias and Saphira. If you didn't say or imply it then my statements don't apply.

As for who we judge, it's your opinion that Brittany is in the church? I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. My questions regarding the church are not meant to confuse and seeking to confuse someone is of the devil. Those are real questions that were intended to determine what your definition of the church is. Based on that comes how we deal with others in relation to it.

I don't have a problem with "virgin marriage" and I would say it's implied in the New Testament writings. I'm looking for Biblical support for what and when couples become "married". As I said, I believe it's when you have intercourse. The two shall become one. The ceremonies are nice but not necessary to constitute marriage. That's what I'm looking for biblical support for. And if there isn't any, and there isn't, you should wonder why does the church makes such a big fuss over it. And if you don't wonder then I wonder why you don't.

So hanging your hat on that kind of thing is what logically follows next. Without biblical support why make it necessary? Because it's another rule that can be used on the followers. The Roman Catholic church has made an entire code of behaviour not linked to the Spirit of God. Vitually every other church expression I've seen is a form of the same thing. I know you don't like generalities and I grant you I haven't been exposed to your church, but that doesn't negate the validity of my extrapolation. I've seen what it takes to get past it and I've seen the power of what holds mankind. Most never even get started. Jesus' statement support the view of few not many, hard not easy, many will say Lord, Lord... you never knew me.

As for following the ten commandments, it is, of course, never stated that way. It 1000 times more subtle than that. No different really than everyday culture that likes people to behave a certain way and puts pressure on you to do so. Recycle, don't smoke, stay in school, global warming..... goes on forever. In the Kingdom this is all hogwash. Jesus is all that justifies and there is nothing else. Thus the rendition "no external criteria for lifestyle." Watchman Nee says it's best to start out by saying "I will do nothing more for God" and never look back. The church doesn't know what that's about.

You're right that there's nothing you can say to convince me that God is working in your church. Although I have no doubt God is working in every church. If two or more are gathered in his name then he is there in the midst of them. I have great respect for God's church because it is the body of Christ on earth and he is everything. Now we're back to my questions that you interpret to confuse but I ask to clarify. We are in the same church. Christ's spriritual church. Just because I don't walk through the front doors of your building doesn't mean all believers are not part of the univeral body of Christ. My faith is what makes me part of that, not where I am or what I do.

Our discussions are on how the church is practically functioning. And that is definitely a different story than our overview perspectives of what the church is; although they are intertwined. I believe in the church and know what it is, but I don't know one where I would be at home with Jesus in. And that is where the rub is.

You think I made things up of my own construction and bias. Ha! Your last statement is the classic perspective of a legalist. I don't make it up, it stares me in the face. And I have little doubt this is an accurate representation of the perspectives of the Christians who come together in you building.

How do you know your reality is God’s way? How do you know that you sinful nature hasn’t burrowed in and caused you to think that sin is simply God’s freedom for you? How can we ever know if something is right or wrong?

I don't ask myself those questions anymore, I'm dead to them.
You need to answer them, not me.

Assumptions and post modern freedom

You started your last post asking me all these questions which suggests I am making many assumptions about Brittany. I was ready to respond hastily but decided to wait until I had thought it through a little. I think these questions are like strafe just to confuse me. You make it out like it’s a big stretch to assume Brittany’s sleeping with Dave just because she lives in the same house and sleeps in the same bed. I think it’s safe to assume that. I think you said it’s safe to assume some things (like its safe to assume that WWI happened even though I wasn’t there) maybe you think these two assumptions are different. I don’t.

I think your assumptions about the church are much more unfounded. You talk about hanging your hat on virgin marriage, following the ten commandments, and telling people they’re going to hell. These are all things that you’ve pulled from my words and given a meaning of your own construction and bias (I don’t know where it comes from?). Virgin marriage is not something you hang your hat on but it is what God desires. I told Britt I didn’t think you should have sex before you get married. I said this based on 1 Cor 5:12, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" I have told strangers this exact same thing. I don’t think it was harder, it was easier (I don’t love them like a sister and may never have to see them again). According to the above verse I shouldn’t be telling strangers anything but good news so I’ve stopped. I didn’t say they or Britt were going to hell. I don’t even think it was implied. I certainly wasn’t thinking that when I said it.

As to scriptural evidence to virgin marriage; I don’t think there is any chapter and verse I can cite. I think it’s implied though. Did not Jacob’s sons fume when Shechem had violated their sister?

I agree that actions speak louder than words. I heard a quote that went something like we should be evangelizing at all times. Sometimes we may even have to use words. I guess there’s little I can say that would convince you that I feel God working in the church I go to.

How do you know your reality is God’s way? How do you know that you sinful nature hasn’t burrowed in and caused you to think that sin is simply God’s freedom for you?
How can we ever know if something is right or wrong? Maybe God gave them that freedom.

The Church of Jesus Christ

How big is the church? Where is the church? How do you leave the church? What constitutes a church? When did you leave the church? If I'm "pastor" of the household, as you say, isn't that a church?

I didn't say anything to Dave or Brit, nor did they say anything to me. I don't know whether they're having sex or not. Do you know if Dave Birimcombe doesn't care whether God is real or not? Did you ask him? Do you know if they're having sex? What are Brittany's views of Jesus?

As for love being "fleeting" I would be interested in your definition. When you say Brit loves him and he loves her I don't see anyway that you could not be trivializing it. Love is all that is not fleeting. God is love. Of course if you mean their love is some kind of carnal whim I would get your context. Perhaps biblical references would be useful. Your discussion of marriage never references any scripture. (and frankly, not much else either) This only serves to confirm my previous statements that it's typically used by the church to screw people over.

I don't tell homosexuals they're going to hell. Never have. They are, but I wouldn't tell them that. Not much record of Jesus doing that either. He testified of his kingdom and what it's made up of. If you wanted to take part he welcomes you with open arms, if you don't he waves goodbye with a smile and a wave. He ain't heavy, unless you're a Pharisee or Sadducee and in his face. Then he has a few things to say.

If you think telling people they're going to hell is the way to deepen their spiritual walk and "bring them back to Christ" then you're mistaken. For starters, you don't know they're going to hell and seconders, tell it to people on street corners for a few years before you take the wide and easy road of your family. I've done it, but I don't see any evidence that you have.

The hard and narrow way is to live a life that others want to have. Not the same life, just the same spirit. Pull people to you by Jesus being raised up in your soul and others seeing him shine through. That's what I learned in my early walk with Christ and through my spiritual mentor.

As for how unique my gospel is or isn't, you haven't said anything that would bring me to question it. Fundamentally it's based on an interpretation of Romans Chapter 7 that is no longer prevalent. From that comes a relighting of all of the Bible and all of the world. Hugh White (Wycliffe Principal) said that revivals always coincide with a reiteration of freedom from the law. I think Dave said it best, "no external criteria for lifestyle". From what you're saying, we don't agree on that interpretation. Not a problem, but it permeates all of my theology and is the key reality upon which my gospel and therefore my lifestyle is based. And it's not just a bunch of words, it a way of looking at reality, not my way, God's way.

The "whole Bible" is about individuals and they're redemption through Christ. When they're in a group of TWO or more, he is their in their midst. And if you don't think it's about individuals, then I suggest you're making it into something it's not. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, John, Stephen ... you know the list. God killed off the entire Israelite Community having become tired of their relentless idolatry. Their constant disobedience and killing of prophets caused him to allow the temple to be destroyed and their land taken from them. The Christian community stayed spiritual while the disciples were around, but that lasted a few decades. The book of Revelations describes how weak many of them were, their lights about to be extinguished.

That's not to say the true body of Christ isn't where it's at. It was/is my life. My life is focussed on bringing that to fruition and me playing my part in God's body on earth. That's where every Christian's life should be focussed. Is there anything else?

How that comes to be, each Christian has to work out. You're admission of talking "under the veil of youthful idealism" and never knowing the purpose God has for me is not convincing. I don't think you think you're idealistic and I think you think you know quite well what God has for me, at least in a general sense. As in all things, time and experience will tell, unless he returns and that's all she wrote.

Jeremiah the brash, Jeremiah the uncautious

I have to say it's always a little distressing reading your posts. It reminds me so much of what I used to be. The strong philosophy on which I was raised on begins to be reconstructed and certain doubts I might have (with the church) are reinvorced by your words. Most of what you say doesn't surprise me though.

One of the key differences between you and me is that I have returned to church and you have stayed away. I think that is the heart of my distress (and when I say distress I'm not saying its weighing heavy on me, its just something I'm sorting through - ironing out wrinkles). My thoughts used to run parallel to yours and I was (for the most part) in complete agreement. Does that make me damaged? Only if I followed you blindly, and if I'm stupid enough to do that than I'm already damaged.

Children become their parents in many ways. There are individual choices, there are individualistic genes, but children learn so much from there parents just by example. There's no way to avoid that. I understand that you can't blame yourself everytime your kid screws up (far too many parents do) but you can't ignore that everything said and not said is going to have significance. And as for being held accountable; how much do you think a pastor is held accountable for his congregation? Take for instance Grandma's church where the pastor told the congregation that homosexuality is okay. I know you think there's a special place in hell for those people. But in your role as father you serve as the pastor of the household and if you tell Britt, "Don't worry Jer and Jenn don't understand you. It's okay that you merry someone who doesn't care whether God is real or not and it's okay that you have sex with him before you have declared before God and the church that you are commited to him for life." Than I think you will be held accountable for that. Also, I don't quite understand what you mean by "Law" age.

I don't know what you mean when you say I ignore the context of her life and soul? Maybe you don't understand the context of the life and soul of a homosexual. The context? I thought you were a black and white guy? Just because Britt loves him and he loves her doesn't make it right. God needs to be the focus before any of that matters. Love is fleeting, God isn't.

Let me be clear, when I say the church, I mean the body of Christ not the buildings that get errected. I know you've said that you went to school with all the future pastors and learned under the system that taught today's church but i still think you generalize far too much. You went to one school and one church and you say the church makes you puke. Is that from the news, TV evangelists?

I remember you saying to me once, "what if we (members of our family) are the last of the holy people" in which I replied, "what, we're like Noah's family".
I remeber having a hard time swallowing it then but now it seems rediculous. I know you were just offering the possibility but I think it's a clue into your viewpoint. I don't think you are aware of the powerfully lead Christ followers that walk this earth. I think you dismiss much of God's work before even taking a proper look at it. Certainly Satan has got his claws pierced into every man but the church are the outposts of heaven on earth. Like the Isrealites, I believe God works harder to keep these outposts holy, these gatherings of people are supposed to be representing him and because of that he will make the church holy. Like the Isrealites it has its troughs and peaks but God's hand is on it at all times.

The whole bible is about community in Christ. The OT is the Isrealite community, the gospels is Jesus and the decipals and Acts and letters are the community of the Christian church. God wants us to follow him in community. Ya there's some prideful pricks, and some weak ass whiners but all the more reason God wants someone like you among them. I think you need that. I don't think life is about waiting for something to happen. All this said I know I still talk under the veil of youthful idealism and I will never know exactly your purpose or what God has for you. None the less I've very confident you need church; a Christian community that will help you grow.

What to do, Who to be

I kind of covered it in the “Sex and the Sin City” post on Jan 9th. I consider Dave and Brittany married so my opinion is that I don’t have a problem with it. Even with Jordan I think Brittany’s view was that they would eventually be married. Her perspective on sex was always in the context of a long term “married” relationship, thus the breakup with Jordan was devastating. So her natural understanding of sex was akin to the biblical perspective, which I consider unusual and very positive considering the current world view she would be constantly exposed to.

The church makes me vomit, although they always have a point. But is the point worth listening to in the monstrously ugly context that comes with it. Jesus says the Pharisees made their disciples more fit for hell than before and I think the church in general is doing the same. The no sex before marriage is the law for the church. Might as well be one of the ten commandments. And if you think you’re following them you’re heading in the wrong direction. As well, if anyone is hanging their hat on the fact they haven’t had sex before marriage, they better check twice because there’s no coat racks in heaven.

I do have a relatively “free” parenting style, but as you know, there were limits in the strangest places and you never knew where you’d run into them. For that matter nor did I. I believe it was righteous indignation which has no rules but crops it’s head up when necessary. Of course that’s all mixed up in who I am so is no doubt tainted to a certain degree.

I totally believe in leading by example. I never focus on the result only on my direction. Not that I ignore what is happening around me and don’t accurately assess my part in all that is playing out. I just be careful not to let the impact determine the direction in a wrong way.

If I start to spout what I think you should do, and you begin to do it because I’ve said it then I think I’ve done some damage. I think it’s best to describe my overview, (testimony) then a person can take from that what they want. Kind of like speaking in parables. And I think a parable is an overview, focused on context, not content. I strongly think Jesus is not that big on detailed directives. And when he is there’s no doubt. He wants us to have his mind, then we will do his perfect will, and it will be seamless.

I think I had a difficult yet wonderful time raising children because the kingdom perspectives were brought to bear on the “natural” child rearing methods. Children are raised under “the law” but I was free from the law. So there were rules for children but at a certain point they’re on their own to decide for themselves what they want out of life. The only exception is if it impinged on my world, then I was “given” the opportunity to respond accordingly. So if you asked me what I thought then I would tell you I thought sex should be in the context of a marriage. If you took someone downstairs and screwed them, as long as it wasn’t in my face, that was up to you. I don’t consider myself an accomplice even though it took place in my home. Not unlike Jesus treating Judas as a friend although he was a thief, liar and ultimate betrayer. I don’t have to answer for anyone except myself. If you’re having sex with someone then in my view you were way past the “law” age. There is only a very short period where you guys were switching over and rejected our (my) directives when I still believe I’m accountable for your actions.

Yours and Jenn’s statements to Brit did make there way to my ears. Brit was very hurt by them because she can’t appropriate the context they’re being given in. And I do think they ignore the context of her life and soul. Just some rules tossed out that means she’s a very bad person and her and Dave will both be going to hell. Happy marriage though. Who would want to accept that? Not that I haven’t delivered the same message in my heyday. But things are what they are.

Perhaps this was my reference to “I know where you’re heading”. I see myself in what you and Jenn say. It’s a huge struggle to see the kingdom and the world as they are and relate to both appropriately. If I was a world ruler I would enforce the 10 commandments and much more with an unflinching strictness. In the kingdom I would do zip because everyone has the spirit to guide them. The more you/I discover about these realities the way we relate to them changes dramatically. Lots more to learn.