About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
Communal property is lovely, but the
Apostles did not insist that Rome take everyone’s belongings and redistribute them, the Apostles and their flock did it themselves.
I would argue that that was more an artifact of the hostile pagan Roman government than a theological statement.
I don’t want my tax money for the parents to put a down payment on Grand Cherokee or new stereo system.
I don’t want my tax money to do that either, but if it buys a birth (instead of an abortion), isn’t it money well spent?
I’m thinking of it more in terms of covering child care or necessary expenses, and believe me $5000 is chicken feed over the first few years. Perhaps it could implemented as an expanded WIC-like program and spread out over the first 5 years of life or so. My wife & I qualified (and utilized) for WIC while I was in grad school and, as far as it went, it was a fine program. But the benefit amounted to maybe $20-$30/wk reduction in grocery expenses to us. I’m talking about something much more powerful… an incentive in some cases to choose life over abortion.
But the question is: are we, as a Christian people, dedicated enough to forego our own enrichment, pleasure, financial dreams, to give life to others. I mean, we’re so rich in this country (even when we were on WIC), that our money seems worthless to us. But it CAN buy life; it CAN buy alleviation of suffering to someone somewhere. And this is what the conservative party line doesn’t seem to get. We say, “O that’s for the church to do, or that’s for private citizens to do, but not for the gov’t to do.” But we really want to just spend that money on our lusts (Jas 4:3f). Where the hell (no pun intended) is the follow-thru? I’m in (and treasurer of) a conservative Evangelical church that spends less than 2% of its gross intake annually on alleviation of economic burdens. And I can lay solid odds that my modest proposal to fight abortion from the demand side would meet with suspicion of lunacy in my church. (“So, Steve, when did you become a Communist?”)
I’m sure the RCC has a better track record and I give regularly to ecumenical and Catholic charities that DO put their $$ where their mouth is. But, hey, what if we could utilize the resources and power of the Federal Gov’t to fight abortion (demand side) in a broad, national, uniform way? Wouldn’t that be great? Wouldn’t it be worth a half-dozen B-2 Stealth Bombers? Wouldn’t it be worth a tax increase?
Cheers!
And again, I reiterate that I think that Christians should reexamine their lives and how their wealth controls them, not the other way around. I’ve discussed this with my wife, about how we are to manage our money and do right by God and His Church. I think, however, that government is not the central solution–far from it. It is part of it, for many important services, but Christians must remain Christocentric, and must remain rooted in their own relationship with Christ and their own service for Christ, His Church, and their fellow men, not trying to have a government act in their place to do good things on earth.
And while yes, the government does what we cannot do ourselves, people can live simpler lives with Sen. Kerry, Pres. Bush or whomever you’d care to name telling them. Christianity’s full of them. We cannot force Washington to do more charitable things, we can, however, with prayer and effort, reform our own lives. And what if the ideological balance of the country changes, Funky? Do you want corporate tax dollars pouring into sterilizing the poor in 3rd World Countries? As soon as a Dem gets elected president, the Mexico City Policy will be revoked again, just as surely as Bush reinstated it within a month of his inauguration. What about destroying embryos for research? Kerry’s gung-ho about that, and made public promises. Even if he never becomes president, a Democrat, as things stand now, would almost certainly do likewise. Look at the messes that people have made with socialism: even apart from the real doozies like the People’s Republic of China or the USSR, Sweden and Western Europe have intrusive governments and rampantly secular cultures. As my memory serves, Fr. Bryan could tell you about the deal with the devil that French Canadian Catholics made in securing public funding for parochial schools, and how that was a disaster.
As an aside, Bono of U2 (as Steve mentioned) helped get a lot of conservatives in Congress behind debt relief by appealing to the concept of a Jubilee year in the Old Testament (which the Catholic Church maintains as well, the year 2000 being the last Jubilee), where debts were forgiven and slaves freed.
So there’s hope for Reds, and there is plenty of common ground, it’s just using a clear common point of reference (like the Jubilee). A “red” politician would agree that we need to feed the hungry, etc. He may well contribute to charities generously (we can’t say for certain about anyone unless we ransack his bank records, and charity should keep us from prejudging a social conservative politician on this).
However, while you and this hypothetical red politician agree on this end, as defined in Scripture, there is the issue about the means. Just because Bill X aims to end world hunger means that opposing Bill X means you want people to starve. You may oppose it because it’s an expensive, unworkable plan that just may put food in the mouths of local warlords rather than the refugees you really want to help! And this is where Christians need to be careful with distributive justice on the national scale.
Emily says,
America has a great deal of nominal Christianity.
Ya know, I’m fairly certain (can’t dig up the links right how) that church attendance rates have never been higher in the history of this nation. Couple this with the fact that the only Churches that have grown over the past 30 years have been theologically orthodox (i.e., Catholics & Evangelicals). What should this mean? Christianity should be having a profound and positive impact on our culture. Alas, this seems to me to be quite far from the case.
If you measure Christian impact on culture by: preventing gays to “marry”, by letting people (especially the best off) keep more of their $$ for themselves, by foolhardy attempts to export “Democracy”, well then, okay, “we’ve” been having an impact.
But if you measure by a Biblical standard (“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Jas 1:27), then Christian Action (since 1980) has been a resounding and dismal failure.
Not only are we NOT “visiting” the fatherless & widows in their affliction, we are hardly keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world.” Rather than impacting our surrounding culture for good, we (and I speak of the general “we”) are instead allowing the culture of the world to totally remake Christianity. And I’m not here talking of mainline, old-line, liberal Protestantism–such denominations have been in decline for decades. I’m talking about us, the Orthodox (RCs, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox), the “keepers” of the True Faith.
The very thought that I should get to keep more of “my” money, is a temptation straight from Hell. We forget that every good & perfect gift comes from above. We soon forget that everything we have belongs to God. We too easily forget that the only reason God has given us control over the tiniest piece of wealth is to be a blessing to others (“but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” Eph. 4:28)
Interestingly, the RCC (in spite of my few, yet well-advertised, disagreements with its dogma) is really the only long-term hope I see in combatting the decline of social effectiveness of orthodox Christianity. The Evangelical Church(es) are too mesmerized by the thought, goals, practices, and motives of the “World.” This, coupled with a profound weakness of its intellectual life, virtually rule out any long-term ability to stave off corruption. On the other hand the gut-wrenching conservatism (resistance to change) of the RCC, which is one of its greatest liabilities, also turns out to be its greatest strength.
Long after the majority of Evangelical church(es) have (I fear) compromised on abortion, on gay clergy, on divorce, on entertainment-driven “worship,” on doctrinal essentials, the RCC will still be there zagging while ev
Fine, but that is still distinct (at least in principle) from trying to make people live an Apostolic life, per your citations of Scriptures. Jesus respected the rich man’s decisions in Matthew: he did not force him to do anything, just “looked at him with love” and told him what he should do if he wanted to follow Christ as closely as possible.
For those of us frustrated with corporate abuses, please let me know what you think of the materials in my post just above this one! The timing was quite fortunate. Again, I think that many “red” Christians would agree with you on these basic principles, and good things would happen if Democrats would not make abortion their centerpiece platform (they brook debate in every other field, but on the national level, abortion is the thing).
Here’s that Post article I mentioned:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26469-2004Nov4.html
I believe the government can do many things to help, but the “we spend X on these things, so why not spend Y more on something” argument leaves me a trifle cold. I like what you propose, mind, but that spending philosophy makes me ill. Your point on the 5K is well-taken, though.
However, before we think federally, these plans would be worth trying out on a local level. Start small, then work up, human beings being much more likely to intuitively grasp the effects of smaller projects. Witness how far the megalomaniacal building projects of socialist countries took China and Russia. Also, given that states have significantly different demographic and economic issues, it may help to compare a couple systems.
I don’t think consumerism behooves Christians… I just posted about this yesterday on my blog, actually.
I think American Christians have focused far too much on material goods than God. It’s all about getting more. If we get a raise, we automatically think: “Oh, good, now I can go buy ______ for myself.” We don’t think, “Oh, good, now I can go give more money to the church for that building project/school/mission.”
I think “Red Christians” may understand more than you think, though. There was a Post or NY Times article about the correspondence between charitable giving and voting patterns… The counties that gave the most (by percent of income) to charitable causes generally voted Republican. I’ll try to find the link.
Christians who are Democrats think that it is the government’s role to bring about justice. Echoing what Jerry said, those of us who lean more toward the Republicans believe that it is OUR job (the Church’s job) to bring about justice. Personally, I think we’re failing miserably at it.
I used to think that socialism was great. But then I realized that if I pay more taxes to cover universal health care, food for the hungry, etc., I would lose any say over how it is spent. I wouldn’t be able to abstain from supporting abortion with my money, for example. The problem with socialism (Swedish or Canadian style, for instance) is that Christians would lose that influence over their money. I’d prefer to give my money to causes I believe will help further the kingdom of God — not causes that are immoral.
That being said, I think American Christians are far too materialistic, just like the rest of Americans. I for one am sick of it! Arrgh. I’m not going to buy a Christmas tree this year. I just don’t feel like celebrating such a commercialized holiday.
I think many red Christians would agree with you on your points, but that they would argue that it is the Christian’s role, not the state, to do such things. Communal property is lovely, but the Apostles did not insist that Rome take everyone’s belongings and redistribute them, the Apostles and their flock did it themselves.
You ask why there aren’t more sermons against commercialization of Christmas–how many have you listened to? What’s your sampling besides the Oratory and the odd parish in Erie or Eastern PA? How do you know what a Pentecostal in Wisconsin or a Baptist in Alabama is saying?
I’d like to thank everyone for what’s an enlightening thread so far. It’s great conversations like these that fuel my belief that a blog without comments is only half a blog, if that.
Jerry, I’m not nearly so gung-hi socialist or communist as I may sound. I’m just trying to sort everything out and thinking aloud in the process.
Emily, don’t punish the poor, humble Christmas tree. I don’t think a beautiful evergreen, representing everlasting life, with strings of lights, representing the birth of the Light of the World, need be part of Consumermas.
I’m for faith changing government, too, but as I outlined before, policy, especially policy meant to establish new services, can get very messy and may well produce unintended consequences, so while faith can change government, we should be careful with what we changed, and remember that many faith-based charitable organizations may be better suited to some tasks than Uncle Sam.
If it was a product of a hostile government, are there cases where Christian governments instituted socialism and had it work? Moreover, do you want George Bush and Arlen Specter spending your charity money?!
For healthcare and education, public funding makes a lot sense. But if I were to make myself live a simpler life, I want my earnings to go to the Church, not to Harrisburg or D.C. Come on, Funky, you have a good libertarian streak, why this sudden desire for a strongly socialist government? Why not lead by personal example and draw people to follow Christ (who told the rich man in Matthew to sell all he had and to follow Christ; he did not tell the rich man to ask Herod to levy a new tax), rather than legislate a vow of poverty?
If you want a fight with a redder Christian, check out http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/, which I believe is run by the Curt Jester.
(BTW, I am a “purple Christian” in a loose sense of the word, so I agree with the principle of much of what is said by y’all, but things always get interesting when someone actually proposes a practical(?) way of ensuring corporate justice etc. That’s where bullet hits bone.)
Jesus respected his decision?!?
“And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?”
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Matthew 19:16-24
That doesn’t sound like respect for the man’s decision to me.
Okay… how ’bout this?
Wanna reduce the number of abortions? Here’s my plan:
Let the Gov’t offer complete pre-natal, delivery, post-partum care absolutely free to any woman who lacks insurance. Moreover, let the Gov’t pay all co-pays, deductibles, etc. for said services for all those who DO have insurance.
Let the God’t offer a $5000 “Happy Birthday” gift to all children born in this country whose household income is below… say… $50,000.
Total cost of program? I dunno but I GUARANTEE it is a HELL of a lot less than current military spending.
Estimated # of abortions prevented each year: 800,000.
I don’t think a complete nationwide ban on non-theraputic abortion could accomplish as much.
Will the program be abused? Probably. Will it encourage women to “have babies to get money”? Probably. Will some women buy drugs, lotto tickets, or cigarettes with the money? Maybe. My question is: How bad do you wanna stop abortion? Would you be willing to pay 10% more federal taxes for such a program? How bad do you wanna stop abortion?
Thots?
Perhaps I have represented myself poorly. Abraham Lincoln said that the job of government is to do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves. To me, that includes enforcing ethical behavior on the part of corporations. For too many politicians, market forces take priority over compassion. It’s a sort of captialistic utilitarianism. I expect better from Christian politicians.
Respected as in He let the man go, not as in He encouraged it.
Steve,
Yeah, I know I simplified it. But I think those are the basic arguments of many political liberals and conservatives, at their core.
I do agree with you. The Gospel is powerful, life-changing stuff — why should the Church not be powerful and life-changing? I think it’s a mistake to try to work only within the government (as liberals are sometimes wont to do) or outside the government (as conservatives are sometimes wont to do). Nor should we pick and choose which of Christ’s ideas we’d like to follow. You can’t just say: “Respect for life? Like that one. Feed the hungry, well, I don’t know about that.”
America has a great deal of nominal Christianity. I’ve often wondered what it would look like if we would truly follow the teachings of Christ…
Emily
Steve, I like what you said besides the b-day gift. I don’t want my tax money for the parents to put a down payment on Grand Cherokee or new stereo system. Healthcare would be great, and what you describe is preventative, basic medicine that would save us a lot in the long run, and has partial precedent via WIC (Women Infants Children) programs.
If you simply must give 5K to the kiddies, put it in a trust fund that may be accessed at 18 for college, or earlier if they want to do vo-tech training while still in high school
The endorsement did surprise me, but there were so many other issues flying here, I coudn’t address them all. 🙂
There was interesting article in the Post that focussed on some Evangelicals in Ohio. They were not doing well financially, but they still rallied behind Bush do to “moral values”. I agree that earning a basic livelihood is a moral imperative, but these people decided issues like gay marriage, etc. trumped that. So I think issues like outsourcing and whatnot are not considered unimportant, but are overshadowed by other issues in the “red” states, which is why the red/blue division can be dangerous.
This is another argument for getting more moderate (even Democratic) pro-life Christians out there, so we are not stuck with these unpalatable dichotomies (this coming from a citizen who reluctantly voted for Bush).
Though I am a bit surprised my soft glancing endorsement of the RCC didn’t pique a response.
Cheers!
Well, Funky, you threw down the gauntlet:
A lot of conservatives seem to disagree with me. Convince me.
and while it generated substantial, positive, and voluminous discussion, no one really seems to have picked it up. I think your readers must simply be too left-leaning. (Sigh) Though it would be nice to have a right-winger out of which to kick the Murgatroid once in a while, I guess one ought not complain too strenuously of civility and erudition. If you wanna real fight on your hands, I guess you’ll have to head over to Christian Conservative of Evangelical Outpost and pose as a Christian who thinks gov’t might be able to actually do some good–beyond merely banning “bad stuff”. Just be sure to keep all appendages safely away from the cage!
See ya!
[here’s the rest]
Long after the majority of Evangelical church(es) have (I fear) compromised on abortion, on gay clergy, on divorce, on entertainment-driven “worship,” on doctrinal essentials, the RCC will still be there zagging while everyone else is zigging.
Random thots….
[moving on to a more… (shall we say) family-friendly thread…]
I think Emily is very close to hitting the nail right on the head with:
Christians who are Democrats think that it is the government’s role to bring about justice. Echoing what Jerry said, those of us who lean more toward the Republicans believe that it is OUR job (the Church’s job) to bring about justice.
While these charactizations are rather crude, there is some truth to them. But the bottom line is that:
A) it is God’s will for individuals (and individuals in Churches) to pursue justice; AND
B) it is God’s will for governments (or the individuals that run them) to pursue justice
And what we (at least the Evangelicals) lack is a mainstream source of real political power, where none of God clearly wills is neglected. Falwell and his cronies are off trying to force the gov’t to do “our” bidding on “moral” issues. The hard left Christians (and yes they are legion) are off trying to force the gov’t to do “our” bidding on economic issues.
Christianity (and the thought that it inspires) is a single, comprehensive, radically life-altering package. It’s not a religious buffet where we get to pick and choose the stuff that… just… self-actualizes us the best (injesusnameamen). It’s a commitment to being the eyes and ears and hands and feet and heart of the Lord Jesus Christ in our various communities.
Peace!