Optimistic faith without gullibility

"You're very gullible." --Todd
"No Todd, I'm OPEN." --Cathy

As I was watching TV today, this quote struck me. The former was said because Cathy had mentioned occasionally consulting psychics, and wanting to have her cards read. Perhaps the writers were going for sarcasm, but I choose to take it as a very real debate on one of those fine lines that we tread in life. Cathy is a self proclaimed optimist, while Todd is a hard science MD who chooses "realism" over either the sunny side up or dark clouds abound ways of thinking. Some might say that realism is a nice happy medium between optimism and pessimism. In truth, I think that everyone is realistic in their own sense of reality, and that those who go with "realism" as a philosophy simply do it to either justify or temper their inclination to either extreme.

But where are the lines between reality and blind faith? Openness to being closed off? Optimism vs. Pessimism? Are any right? Is moderation always the key?

Optimists are by nature hopeful people who tend to be open to more possibilities than the average person. Many optimists are people of faith, because many religions preach hope... or pretend to. Interestingly enough, this is not a reverseable truth. You cannot say that most people of faith are optimists, nor that most people of science are pessimists. The reason? Neither science nor faith lends itself to optimism or pessimism. Pessmistic people of faith will always find the dark gloom of the religious doctrine. Optimistic scientists see excitement in the power of knowledge and it's progression.

But back to the original question, where is the sweet spot between the two? Many will say that it can be found, and those people who find it become the average and "realistic" middle. Of course, this is completely inaccurate. Though it is true that the average person is neither an optimist or a pessimist, this is neither realistic nor some great sweet spot. We are so often inclined to want everything in moderation, and to find the balance and the middle that we sometimes forget that we're not supposed to. Look at being smart. Is there a medium point we should hit? Of course not. Dumb is bad. Smart is good. The smarter the better. Of course we often overlook the fact that there are traits like that even when they would help us a great deal.

So first to tackle the "realism" issue, which is nicely illustrated in the original quote. Todd believes in only what can be proven. Cathy, it seems believes in a great deal, or at least the "possibility" of a great deal. Interestingly enough, in the end, according to history, Cathy will prove right... by science. That's right. The great tool of "realism" is historically that which proves people of faith correct. Let me note here that I am not using faith in a purely religious term. Lots of "religious" people have no faith, and lots of people of faith choose no religion. The people of faith that I refer to are those that somehow inherently know and believe that there is more out there. Of course we time and time again prove that this is true. Thousands of years ago those who had faith in great laws of the universe that governed all living things were men of faith. They may said these laws were governed by gods or by "magic" but it was the men of faith who believed that they existed.

I also would say that true people of faith, do not fight against science and facts. They simply believe that there are MORE facts that we don't know. Those who say that knowledge removes faith are those who are seriously lacking in... well... faith. It is totally plausible, and EFFECTIVE to believe the facts as fact, and to believe that there is more to it than we know. Some of the things that "realists" reject have strangely been around for a very very long time. Why is it that even in an age of mass information and science can we still sometimes be shocked at accuracy of "alternative" ideas and methods? Perhaps there is a reason these things seem to work a great deal. Perhaps we just aren't yet ready to figure out the science behind it all. Maybe our "reasons" for why something works isn't dead on, but maybe it works just the same. People of hope and of faith inherently understand this. People who destroy these ideas with no more proof than those who believe in them are only hindering their own possible knowledge.

On to the second issue of optimism vs. pessimism, this one should be as clear as the smart vs dumb argument, yet somehow it's not. When we're young we are born optimistic. We are called naive, and this is a derogatory statement. Innocent is slightly nicer, but in effect the idea is the more you know about the world, the more pessimistic you should be. Now most people would argue that we don't actually want people to be "pessimistic," just more realistic (there's that word again). People who are optimistic in love are "hopelessly romantic." Hopeless again such a derogatory term, and yet we use it in this context all the time. People who trust are suckers, people who don't run in fear are ignorant. You are allowed to be optimistic only until you fall flat on your face, have your heart broken, your trust betrayed, etc. and suddenly "know better."

So why is this bad? Shouldn't we temper the hope and light with some solid "protection" that a dash of pessimism can provide? NO. Why? What makes this seemingly reasonable idea bad? Because pessimism kills us and optimism gives us life. We are born optimistic for a reason. Science has proven time and time again that a good outlook on life increases your ability to fight disease, lengthens your life, and makes you a healthier person. Optimism provides for this in a way that pessimism never can. This is why there has never been a scientific study proving pessimists live longer. Ever. Yet time and time again the reverse is true. Despite all the "protection" and "safety" that pessimism and through it "realism" provides, those who choose this don't live as long as the optimists. Do optimists make mistakes? Do they trust when they shouldn't? Do they put themselves in harms way without always realizing it? Yep! Of course what is often forgotten is that so does EVERYONE. Who in this world, no matter how much "realism" they spout hasn't made errors in judgement, or taken the unsafe path? No one. This is the truth. We're all gullible at some point. We all assume we know more than we do. Pessimism doesn't protect you. No one has the ability to be infallible, and therefore any amount of protection will be imperfect. By choosing optimism, you create a happier situation to live in when trouble isn't on the horizon rather than living in darkness. Further, optimism gives you the strength, hope, and IDEAS to get back up again when you've been knocked down. An optimist is like a rubber ball. It'll hit the ground, but it will always bounce back. Realism is like a lead ball. When it falls, it finds it hard to ever move again, because it traps itself in the "reality" it finds itself in. Pessimism is more like an egg. It has this amazing shell that protects it. Unfortunately, that shell can't hold forever, and when it finally breaks, the soft insides just spill all over.

Everyone can choose what they will. I have always chosen to believe in more than what I know, and to know in my heart that things in truth are bright and good. The sun is always shining, even if we can't see it. Looking only at the darkness will only blind us to the light when it comes back out again.

Are we our future selves?

Last night I went to the reading of a play called "Billy Redden." While the reading itself went really well and was very entertaining, the thoughts that the play invokes run far deeper than the average performance, and its themes were vastly different than what one can normally see. I also saw "Falling for Eve" this weekend which was a new twist on the Adam and Eve story. Interestingly enough, both these plays touch upon the choices we make in our lives and in free-will.

While I will try not to ruin everything, I am not sure I can write out all my thoughts without spoilers. If you hate that, you may want to move along.

So the basic premise of the first play is this 13-year-old boy who is visited one night by his future selves from every 13 year interval going forward all the way up to a 78-year-old version. Each of these "selves" of course has also experienced this same night every 13 years, and based upon their current place in their lives have varied opinions on the night itself and what it means to "them."

The most moving character throughout most of the play is the 26-year-old (nicknamed "Red"). He is furious most of the night. He feels as though he is forced into areas of his life not by choice, but by the machinations of his older selves. He sees this night for him 13 years ago as a catalyst that took away his choice and he is determined to take it back. He encourages his younger self that he always has a choice, and pushes him to see that he can "break the cycle" and not become what he sees before him.

His anger really sets up the main issue within the play, and the foremost question I think about having left it. What choice do we have in our lives when looking at ourselves in the future. If you were able to meet yourself and see that you become a drunk, would you change it? Could you change it? Many of us believe absolutely in free-will, but when you're faced with yourself it is presumed that these are your choices. Does seeing what you will be allow you to change your future choices? Can you be something other than your current path will allow you to be?

This question often comes up when you wax philosophical about time travel or prophesy. While this may not seem as a pertinent line of thought in today's modern world, it allows us to look at things that have far more to do with who we are and the way we act than it does of the disbelief we may have over why this would ever come about. Religiously the questions are even more pertinent. If God is all-knowing, what choices do you have? Is it possible that you have the ability to make whatever choices you want, but God simply knows what they are? If that's the case, are there times where Divine intervention might not be implemented to encourage a different choice? Is there a such thing as fate? If so, how can you possibly actually have the free-will we seem to cling to so much?

Like many, I believe in free-will completely. I think that every choice I make is my own. That said, I also believe in fate (you could also say Divine plans if you're so inclined). How I reconcile this is that fate provides us with opportunities, and at times in our life may become more active in putting things in our way, or helping us out when we need it. The fact of the matter is that fate will only take us so far, and what we do when we get where we're going is our own choice. I think that history is full of those fated for great things that we will never hear about because they chose to ignore what was presented before them and denied who they could be. Such is the price of choice.

In "Falling for Eve" God realized the moment that He gives Adam and Eve the power of choice, that He can no longer control what they do. Despite this, he intervenes time and time again, testing their choices and putting obstacles in their way or helping them along to try and get what he wants. Time and time again, they surprise him. In one amazingly poignant moment, God sings something to the effect that she (Eve) is too much like God. The ability to make pure choice was something that once given, not even God could control, and only interference in the natural world could He effect His children and their choices.

So given our ability to make these choices, it draws us back again to how this might change if we saw the result of our choices. If you saw your 39-year-old self as a belligerent drunk, would you avoid becoming that? What if, you saw that by the time you were 65, your life would be completely turned around, and that you would have overcome incredible obstacles but end up wealthy and successful? One might assume that you would try to avoid being a drunk and still end up with success, but really, if you go against the first, you couldn't really ensure the latter. What if your experiences as a drunk allowed your future success? It is nearly impossible to tell what cause has what effect, even with hindsight. Would you take the risk of losing it all?

Another interesting thought that develops as one watches "Billy Redden" is how much of his life is the result of this knowledge. It is clear that each "version" of Billy has experienced this same night every 13 years. Given the conversations they have, is it those moments that truly shape his life? Would your life be different if you could talk to your future selves?

Speaking of talking to your future selves, one other interesting thing to ponder is what would you ask? At one point young Billy asks about his parents' deaths. His older selves refuse to answer. The reason? "Waiting is hell." This simple statement says an awful lot. On one hand, if you knew your parents would die at X time, you could live life with them to make it as meaningful as possible, in a way that you might not otherwise. On the other hand could you imagine how you would feel as that date got closer and closer? In some ways we can relate both positively and negatively. How do you feel as you approach an upcoming vacation? With excitement and happiness, mostly. The very thought of what is coming up allows us as humans to create those emotions without the event having happened yet. If we can see something awful coming on the horizon, we equally have the ability to create the sadness and despair long before the event has actually transpired. How much quality could their be in your life and your relationship with those people if you were already seeing their loss in your mind?

The final thing that both these plays bring to mind powerfully is: What would you change if you could?

In "Falling for Eve," Eve is given the option to return permanently to the Garden, and live forever as though she had never stolen the apple. A reset if you will. Would you make it never happen if you could? In "Billy Redden" all the versions of himself are faced with what would they do differently to help themselves, their closest friend, or the one they love. What if you knew that changing your life living for 40 years of sadness and loneliness would allow to to save the one you love? Would you go through with it? What if you knew that saving the life of your friend would lead you to pain, misery and possibly death? Would you still chose to save her?

We often look back at our lives as we look towards our future. Sometimes we say that we would change this that or the other. Knowing where we are in our lives now, sometimes we have to wonder if the bad decisions we made in our past are what led to a great future. Living with regret for the past can belittle the value of human error. We are incredibly powerful creatures, who often take the worst moments and make something incredible out of them. The greatest mistakes we have made my give us the knowledge that makes our lives truly amazing, or even open our eyes to a world we never would have seen without that mistake. I think that a life full of mistakes is a life that is fully lived. To remove our mistakes, no matter how great it seems, would probably destroy our future. It would rob us of our greatest selves, and the person that we can be. Make the mistakes, except the consequences, and your life may just end up exactly how you want it. Just ask Eve.

The OTHER sin of Pride

Given that it's Pride month, many writers have turned their pens towards LGBT issues, and Rev. Patrick Cheng is no exception. In his article, The Spiritual Significance of Pride, he addresses many different issues relating to Gay Pride and it's Spirituality. Being a Christian minister, he of course delves into things that I could care less about, most noticeably the hellish notion of Original Sin. Despite these differences, he makes an incredible point that I had to work with.


One thing that many faiths, but most notably Christians, regard as a high sin is PRIDE. Now if you have read nearly anything I have written or spoken to me for more than 20 minutes, you know that my views on this "sin" are not the same as many. That said, I do think that too much pride- like many things- can be a terrible thing in life. What Cheng mentions is that the LGBT population more often than not suffers from Pride's inverse sin: Self Loathing.

Given the long-standing historical condemnation of pride as the root of all sin in the Christian tradition, how can we understand LGBT pride to be a blessing and not a sin? As an openly-gay theologian, teacher of theology, and ordained minister, I believe that sin is not just limited to pride or inordinate self-love. Rather, sin -- defined as the way in which, despite our best intentions, we inevitably turn our backs on who God has created us to be -- can also take the opposite form of inordinate self-hate or shame, something that many LGBT people experience from a very early age.

Nice point there. Regardless of the religious implications, I believe that anything that makes us hide or turn our backs on who we are is a detriment to ourselves and to society. To think of it as the inverse evil of Pride I believe is perfect. I think that people often feel so good about being humble and self depreciating that they don't realize when they take it to far and make it something terrible in the form of shame or self-hate.


In fact, I would say that shame far more than pride is a serious problem today. Most of the people we see as prideful are exhibiting it in the moment. They may treat people poorly, be over arrogant, etc. While this is bad, I believe that the damage is rarely lasting. Self hate on the other hand has a constant negative effect on yourself and everyone around you. You tear yourself down. You limit your potential, which also means you are bringing less value into the world. You hurt the people around you by closing off, and inflicting unintentional pain both directly, and indirectly when you hurt yourself.


This kind of shame is not exclusively held by the LGBT community, but I would say that in our society, we have a larger portion of our population exhibiting it. No matter the source of your self-hate, I think that a healthy dose of pride and confidence that you truly embrace is mandatory for a successful life. During this month of Pride, we should all take time to be happy for what we have accomplished, and for who we are. Spend some of the great energy we have created to remove some of the shame that we can still carry around with us. The great thing about self-hate, is that like guilt, it is never so heavy that you can't just set it down. Take some of the Pride we are all sharing and do some good for yourself, and maybe even live with less "sin."


If anything I would say that "sin"is anything taken to the point where it excludes all else and/or inflicts pain. For all the publicity that pride gets in that department, I am pleased to see some in the religious community like Rev. Cheng who realize that the original ideas of sin as set down by Christianity are not necessarily the most damaging, nor are the only thing that can take us away from who we are, and if you are a person of faith, take you away from your Creator.

Moral Values

I hate hypocrasy. I think that is one of my main beefs with the average Christian. Apparently, others can feel the same. And you know, for once, I don't think I could have said it better myself:

What Are Moral Values?
by Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Mayflower Church, Oklahoma City

Updated August 10, 2005


As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, a church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by those who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian.

We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral value -- I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does. Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

When you start a war on false pretenses, and then act as if your deceptions are justified because you are doing God's will, and that your critics are either unpatriotic or lacking in faith, there are some of us who have given our lives to teaching and preaching the faith who believe that this is not only not moral, but immoral.

When you live in a country that has established international rules for waging a just war, build the United Nations on your own soil to enforce them, and then arrogantly break the very rules you set down for the rest of the world, you are doing something immoral.

When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching, or turn them on their head (you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like that we must never return violence for violence and that those who live by the sword will die by the sword), you are doing something immoral.

When you act as if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as the lives of American soldiers, and refuse to even count them, you are doing something immoral.

When you find a way to avoid combat in Vietnam, and then question the patriotism of someone who volunteered to fight, and came home a hero, you are doing something immoral.

When you ignore the fundamental teachings of the gospel, which says that the way the strong treat the weak is the ultimate ethical test, by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us so the strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker, you are doing something immoral.

When you wink at the torture of prisoners, and deprive so-called "enemy combatants" of the rules of the Geneva Conventions, which your own country helped to establish and insists that other countries follow, you are doing something immoral.

When you claim that the world can be divided up into the good guys and the evil doers, slice up your own nation into those who are with you, or with the terrorists -- and then launch a war which enriches your own friends and seizes control of the oil to which we are addicted, instead of helping us to kick the habit, you are doing something immoral.

When you fail to veto a single spending bill, but ask us to pay for a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight, creating an enormous deficit that hangs like a great millstone around the necks of our children, you are doing something immoral.

When you cause most of the rest of the world to hate a country that was once the most loved country in the world, and act like it doesn't matter what others think of us, only what God thinks of you, you have done something immoral.

When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters, and use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral.

When you favor the death penalty, and yet claim to be a follower of Jesus, who said an eye for an eye was the old way, not the way of the kingdom, you are doing something immoral.

When you dismantle countless environmental laws designed to protect the earth which is God's gift to us all, so that the corporations that bought you and paid for your favors will make higher profits while our children breathe dirty air and live in a toxic world, you have done something immoral. The earth belongs to the Lord, not Halliburton.

When you claim that our God is bigger than their God, and that our killing is righteous, while theirs is evil, we have begun to resemble the enemy we claim to be fighting, and that is immoral. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

When you tell people that you intend to run and govern as a "compassionate conservative," using the word which is the essence of all religious faith -- compassion, and then show no compassion for anyone who disagrees with you, and no patience with those who cry to you for help, you are doing something immoral.

When you talk about Jesus constantly, who was a healer of the sick, but do nothing to make sure that anyone who is sick can go to see a doctor, even if she doesn't have a penny in her pocket, you are doing something immoral.

When you put judges on the bench who are racist, and will set women back a hundred years, and when you surround yourself with preachers who say gays ought to be killed, you are doing something immoral.

I'm tired of people thinking that because I'm a Christian, I must be a supporter of President Bush, or that because I favor civil rights and gay rights I must not be a person of faith. I'm tired of people saying that I can't support the troops but oppose the war.

I heard that when I was your age, when the Vietnam war was raging. We knew that that war was wrong, and you know that this war is wrong -- the only question is how many people are going to die before these make-believe Christians are removed from power?

This country is bankrupt. The war is morally bankrupt. The claim of this administration to be Christian is bankrupt. And the only people who can turn things around are people like you--young people who are just beginning to wake up t to what is happening to them. It's your country to take back. It's your faith to take back. It's your future to take back.

Don't be afraid to speak out. Don't back down when your friends begin to tell you that the cause is righteous and that the flag should be wrapped around the cross, while the rest of us keep our mouths shut. Real Christians take chances for peace. So do real Jews, and real Muslims, and real Hindus, and real Buddhists--so do all the faith traditions of the world at their heart believe one thing: life is precious. Every human being is precious. Arrogance is the opposite of faith. Greed is the opposite of charity. And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith. And war -- war is the greatest failure of the human race -- and thus the greatest failure of faith.

There's an old rock and roll song, whose lyrics say it all: War, what is it good for? absolutely nothing. And what is the dream of the prophets? That we should study war no more, that we should beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Who would Jesus bomb, indeed?

How many wars does it take to know that too many people have died? What if they gave a war and nobody came? Maybe one day we will find out.

Time to march again my friends. Time to commit acts of civil disobedience. Time to sing, and to pray, and refuse to participate in the madness.

http://www.mayflowerucc.org/

What God Wants?

I have been meaning to write this since Sunday, but have been both busy and simultaneously slacking, so here it is Thursday before my thoughts become words.

This is another one of those rare instances where I want to chat religion. Fair warning that I am my traditionally brutally honest self in this post.

I recently attended and helped put on a Gospel Brunch in Kansas City for the HRC. The goal was to bring civil rights organizations of all types and religious organizations. As an outreach project, I thought it was great, the event was a hit, and fun to boot.

During the brunch we had several groups perform, including the Heartland Men's Chorus, the primary gay men's choir in KC. My friend Randy had a solo that he was both excited and nervous about. He had also just come from a very moving church service that coincidentally was very similar to what the brunch was all about. Anyway, Randy was going on about how he hoped that God would give him the strength to sing, etc. and lots of other people there were expressing similar thoughts about their own lives. At that point, it really struck me why I clash so violently with the average Christian religions.

I used to think that my more open view of the world is what separated me from organized religion. How can you believe in things like horoscopes, magic, spirits, etc and still believe in God? That never seemed to fit, because I more believe in everything than I believe in nothing, but I still never could align myself with one religion. Now I think I know why: They pray for the wrong things, and the wrong reasons.

I recently read a story that I loved sometime in the Middle Ages, a farmer was looking at his crop, and he got down upon his knees and thanked God for a good harvest. A religious man of some sort (I am still trying to get at what religion he was) said "Do not thank God for your harvest. Instead thank yourself for your heard work. If you want to thank God, thank him for making you in such a way that you have the ability to grow food for yourself."

Bingo. That's it. To me, God created me. He gave me all the innate abilities of who I am, and the potential of who I can be. He then set me free to make my own life on my own. It is not He that makes me laugh or cry, but He who gave me the ability to do both, and the chance to chose what things were in my life. Randy has a great voice. A God given talent if you will, but when he goes out there, it is not God that is with him, only himself. It is his hours practicing that made him ready. His desire to do well that pushed him.

I see so many religions hold people back because they think that nothing can be done without God, and that anything that happens is directly attributed to Him. No wonder no one feels they can stand on their own two feet. I would imagine that God hates the way many religions view his work. Everything is by God's hand, but we are made in His image, giving us the ability to be our best. Hiding behind divine intervention is a waste of a life, and to me that is the biggest travesty against God.

Just the same is doing things that are atrocities in the name of God. I mentioned this last time, but I think I have found the reasoning behind it now. When people think that God is guiding each man's life, he can justify anything without holding himself accountable. "God wants me to do this," or "I wasn't able to do that because God wasn't with me. He didn't want that to happen."

I think that what our job is, is to be the best we can be with what we are given. God may have made the rules, but WE play the game. We have the power to make the difference in our lives, not by prayer, but by action. By faith in ourselves as God's creations perhaps, but not his instruments. By taking credit for the good and the bad in our lives, and not hiding behind divine intervention.

Christians and Pagans

Yule has come and gone, and Christmas is right around the corner, and people are enjoying their holidays as befits their beliefs. Unfortunately this year, a lot of negativity has gone up about whether or not you should express your beliefs, so I thought I would take this moment to bring up a great song with smart lyrics. They pretty much speak for themselves:

Amber called her uncle, said "We're up here for the holiday,
Jane and I were having Solstice, now we need a place to stay."
And her Christ-loving uncle watched his wife hang Mary on a tree,
He watched his son hang candy canes all made with red dye number three.
He told his niece, "It's Christmas Eve, I know our life is not your style,"
She said, "Christmas is like Solstice, and we miss you and it's been awhile,"

So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able,
And just before the meal was served, hands were held and prayers were said,
Sending hope for peace on earth to all their gods and goddesses.

The food was great, the tree plugged in, the meal had gone without a hitch,
Till Timmy turned to Amber and said, "Is it true that you're a witch?"
His mom jumped up and said, "The pies are burning," and she hit the kitchen,
And it was Jane who spoke, she said, "It's true, your cousin's not a Christian,"
"But we love trees, we love the snow, the friends we have, the world we share,
And you find magic from your God, and we find magic everywhere,"

So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able,
And where does magic come from? I think magic's in the learning,
'Cause now when Christians sit with Pagans only pumpkin pies are burning.

When Amber tried to do the dishes, her aunt said, "Really, no, don't bother."
Amber's uncle saw how Amber looked like Tim and like her father.
He thought about his brother, how they hadn't spoken in a year,
He thought he'd call him up and say, "It's Christmas and your daughter's here."
He thought of fathers, sons and brothers, saw his own son tug his sleeve, saying,
"Can I be a Pagan?" Dad said, "We'll discuss it when they leave."

So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able,
Lighting trees in darkness, learning new ways from the old, and
Making sense of history and drawing warmth out of the cold.