A ghost and his dog once haunted Clark railroad tracks

It's been years since anyone has seen Henry Shieve walking his dog along the railroad tracks.

Shieve, a land owner with property on Westfield Avenue, and his dog were a regular sight on tracks between Terminal and Central avenues from the 1930s up through the 1950s. That's unusual if for no other reason than Shieve died in 1905.

Clark was a radically different place at the turn of the 20th century. Incorporated in 1864 at the height of the Civil War, local law enforcement in Clark was handled by a horse-mounted constable. The township itself was filled with wide, open spaces and a population that could be measured in the hundreds instead of the thousands.

In the Clark of 1905, there were no indications that in 40 short years the Garden State Parkway would be dumping cars into the streets. The township was a rural farming community visited daily by a train that brought its load of passengers, goods and news from beyond Clark's borders. For Shieve, a retiree in his late 70s, visiting the train when it stopped near Picton Street, was the perfect way to idle away the afternoon.

And so, on Oct. 5, 1905, Shieve bid his wife adieu and took his dog for a walk to the train station. He was never seen alive again.

"He and the dog disappeared," said Municipal Historian Brian Toal.

No one at the railroad station saw him that day, and for two weeks, Shieve's wife and others searched the area for some sign of what had happened.

"They eventually found his body in the woods, down near the railroad tracks," said Toal. Although there was some speculation that Shieve might have been hit by the train, authorities finally decided he had died of natural causes, probably heart failure.

The story includes a touching note about the depth of loyalty a dog has for its master. Unable to rouse Shieve, the dog stayed by his side, barking and baying for help that never came. When the train arrived, it hit the dog and killed it, throwing its body into the woods some distance away.

If that were all, the story would be a sad incident of too little note to warrant even a footnote in Clark's history. One of his daughters, Sue Shieve, had married Benjamin King, the son of former Mayor Benjamin King, but that was as close as Shieve comes to prominence in local history. His death does not even serve as a warning about walking along the railroad tracks, since he died of natural causes.

About 30 years after Shieve's death, people started seeing him again.

"The legend is that there was always a man and a dog walking by the tracks down near the Central Avenue bridge," said Toal, who also serves as 4th Ward councilman. "The people on the trolley, when they were going over the trestle, would always say, 'There's a man and a dog down there.'"

The first eyewitness accounts of Shieve that we know about today are from the 1930s. Those reports continued for the next two decades, and finally dried up sometime in the 1940s, during World War II.

Paige Deacy, a paranormal investigator who lives in Clark, considers the ghost story to be credible, given that Shieve died without, warning in the middle of something he loved to do.

"It could be it was such a sudden death that he didn't realize he had died," said Deacy. "He's walking his dog, doing his routine, and has a heart attack and dies. Maybe he enjoyed walking his dog so much that he 'stayed behind.'"

Sightings of Shieve's ghost stopped around the same time the Garden State Parkway connected Clark with its neighbors to the north and south.

Perhaps the increase in traffic along Central Avenue and Raritan Road has made Shieve feel out of place in a Clark he no longer knows, or perhaps with the demolition of the Picton Street train station, his destination is lost and he has gone to a final resting place.

Or maybe, some October evening, Shieve and his dog will walk the tracks, someone will spot them, and the legend will begin again

choosing masters

Check out this transcript of Bill Moyers' conversation last night with theologian Joe Hugh.

I think he's (mostly) dead-on, and his message in this case is a (mostly) prophetic one. The Bible is full of invective against those who make themselves wealthy at the expense of others, and I think here in America we've got a culture of runaway greed and materialism.

My own work place is a good example. I'll go with it because I'm more familiar with it than I am with others. I have to work between 40 and 50 hours a week to make $35,000 a year, before taxes. That's with a college education and eight years of experience in this field, plus two years' experience as a teacher, and a second language. I'm a managing editor, but to save money, I'm also required to do the work of a reporter and produce enough news copy to fill at least the front page. I take this money and use it to pay my mortgage, buy our groceries, and perform the other necessities of life. We live fairly simply, we don't carry credit card debt over from one month to the next, and so on. It's still tight, and we really don't have any money to put away for retirement or even for much of savings. I have two children, and they're growing.

The sad thing is, I'm actually one of the better-paid employees. Most managing editors -- that's my title -- at Worrall Newspapers make about $26,000 before taxes. Reporters make $20,000. This is more or less what those positions paid 10 years ago. A co-worker of mine who has more job responsibilities, a higher rank and more experience with the company makes only $28,000. He's 40 years old, has two kids who are older than mine, and has been losing weight because he can't afford to feed both himself and his kids.

The production department is in the process of being phased out because we've finally switched to computerized layout instead of paste-up, and pagination duties are being given to the editors, who will not receive any extra pay for this. Additionally, two of the branch offices were consolidated recently, as another cost-savings measure.

There are no raises in this company, not even cost-of-living adjustments, and even though the company is doing better this year than last, they recently eliminated two positions to reduce expenses. I recently was denied a promotion I had been told I likely would be getting because I had the gall to say that I would like more money for more responsibilities. The guy they gave it to will make only $28,000 (as compared to the $35,000 I make), and he will be replaced with someone else they can pay $26,000.

In the meantime, the owners are amazingly well off. They drive expensive cars, take off for trips to posh vacation spots and, while they might not be multimillionaires, don't seem to be hurting nearly as much as their employees.

Do I think they'll have to answer for this to God? Yeah, I do. I also pray that they'll get a little less penny-pinching and start showing more compassion to the people who are making them their money, and if the opportunity arises, I'm probably going to say something about why morale is so low and everyone is itching to leave.

The scene in the corporate world is even worse. Corporate executives get paid millions, receive millions more in stock options, and as recent history has shown, seem to feel little guilt over plundering the business, even if it destroys the company. Shareholders often are concerned more with stock dividends and earnings reports than they are with the quality or affordability of the product, which is one of the reasons health care has become so expensive.

Increasingly, it's virtually impossible to graduate from college without crippling college loans, and even as those loans are increasing, the amount of high-paying jobs in the U.S. is declining as more and more technical jobs move overseas to cut costs. That's good for those other countries, but it's a bad combination here.

Jesus said that we can't serve both God and Mammon. If you look around at America today, it's pretty obvious which of the two we as a culture have chosen to serve.

We don't hear this much in church, which is alarming, because it doesn't seem like James is mincing his words in a letter to Christians: "Now listen, you rich people. weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you."

Where I disagree with Joe Hough (surprise, surprise) is that I don't think the answer to our solution is a political one. (I do have to admit that it drives me crazy to hear Christians defending tax cuts that favor the wealthy and powerful, though.) In the final analysis, what we need in America is a change of heart, not of administrations. That change needs to begin in the church, and it needs to begin in me.

Practically speaking, it means:

* Never mind making sandwiches for the homeless. Church groups need to go out to the soup kitchens, meet the homeless and become personally involved with them. Let their needs become our needs, and meet them.

* Christians in business need to run those businesses not on a profit-driven basis, but on a basis that serves Christ and that leads them to a deeper relationship and understanding of his character. A developer can still make a good amount of money but sell properties at a much lower profit, making housing more affordable. Other business owners can find ways to reduce not costs but profits, and still live comfortably. As Marley told Scrooge, mankind, not moneymaking, is meant to be our business. When we do that, we're keeping what Christ called the two greatest commandments.

* Give more. I don't believe Christ calls us to a 10 percent tithe. What he calls us to is to give generously. That enables us to help those who are in need, and it drives us to greater dependence on God to meet our own needs.

* Get engaged with people around you. I mentioned a co-worker who outranks me but makes less than I do. Yesterday, on the way home from work, I stopped by his house and gave him several bags of groceries with the admonition that he needs to feed himself as well as kids, or he'll do them a disservice. I don't say this to boast; I say this because it's the only way I've been able to help him with this problem, and it's the only way we'll really start to change the direction of our country, our church or ourselves. The Kingdom of God is about people, and it grows like a mustard seed until it becoems a tree that provides shelter for birds, animals and people alike.

* Churches need to start doing more. Many churches are retreats for the righteous. There are Sunday morning and Sunday evening services, Wednesday night Bible studies, and maybe even Christian schools. Great stuff for the Christian community. Lousy service for the world around. We're not meant to be a retreat for the saved; we're supposed to be a haven for the lost. The Trinity Foundation in Dallas, Texas, some time ago instituted the Dallas Project. Their goal is to get churches and synagogues to take the homeless problem seriously, by having members of the church "adopt" the homeless and help them to get back on their feet. That won't help those with mental illness, but many homeless people are homeless for reasons that have nothing to do with mental illness, especially these days. I'd argue the same approach to crisis pregnancies will do more to end abortion than all the lobbying and screeching we can muster, ever will accomplish.

Not that I'm opinionated or something. It's just that the more I read the gospels, the more I realize that the disenfranchised of society are the people on God's heart the most.

"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

You know what pisses me off? I can't find any churches that actually believe this anymore.

politics and faith

What concerns me about the American church's efforts in politics is that we've essentially got it all ass-backward. We're trying to get people to be righteous by telling them where their sin is, where they fail to measure up to God's standards and so on. We're trying through political might to make America a Christian nation.

It's something I've given a lot of thought to lately, as I've struggled to understand what the Cross means to me personally, and what it should mean to the church as a whole.

Might is the opposite of the approach Christ took. He could have been born to Caesar, or he could have reclaimed the throne of David, but instead he took the route of a morally questionable birth in the podunk town of Nazreth, and made his ministry out of giving selflessly to other people. When Satan offered him the crown of Caesar, Jesus refused. He didn't seek power, or glory, or anything of the sort. What he sought was our hearts, and by seeking those, he made a revolution more profound than anything else I can think of.

That's no exaggeration either. The gospel literally has found its way to cultures so utterly removed from first-century Israel that there would appear to be no points of commonality, and yet it has found those points, established itself as a native religion, and transformed those cultures toward the likeness of Christ.

I've said before and I'll say again that there is nothing wrong with Christians being politically active. But the gospel is not political, and when political or legal changes become the thrust of our ministries and start taking priority in our attention and energies, we've stopped serving God and started serving ourselves. The power to transform society, to renew the mind and to reconcile men to God is just not found in a political program. Those things are found ONLY in Christ.

I suppose that's one of the reasons I find it annoying when the Religious Right acts as though God is on the side of the Republican Party, or tries to take ownership of Christ as a conservative based on the values we believe he had. The truth is that God is not on our side, he is on his own side, and we need to be with him. As for Christ, I'm convinced more and more that he isn't conservative or liberal. He's a social radical who worked outside the system more often than not.

spirituality and public morality

"America is not a Christian nation -- but I would argue that it's our job as Christians to encourage it to accept Biblical principles and values as true, because it'll be happier that way. Live closer to the way the Author prescribed, live happy; the more we diverge from that, the more miserable we're going to be."
- RBP

Isn't that missing the point of what we're called to do? We're not called to teach people the Rules for Right Living, and we're certainly not called upon to present some works-based initiative where if we behave in accordance to the designs of God, our lives will be better.

That reasoning essentially is works-driven, and it's what Paul rejects in Romans and Galatians as incapable of bringing us life. His thesis is that if any Law or prescribed behavior could bring us life and righteousness, then the Torah was the Law that could do it. But that's a false offer, because it's impossible for us to follow the Law even in part, because any violation of a part of the Law is a violation of its entirety.

Follow the Law, and encourage others to follow the Law, and you might see the results you're describing. But everyone will be further from God as a result. What God desires is that we live by the spirit, not seeking ways to experience his blessings (including a more righteous-seeming nation) but seeking new ways to experience *him.* That's done by interacting with other people and discovering God's image as it is stamped upon them, meeting their needs and loving them as Christ desires us to.

I don't see homosexuality as an issue worth even a fraction of the attention it's received from the church. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true, consider that the places Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians are actually rather lengthy and all-encompassing lists of human behavior, including greed, fits of rage, gossip, slander and boasting.

His point is that sin is universal and none of us has hope on our own merits, not that any particular group is guilty of an especially horrible sin. The language in the Torah is harsh -- toe'bah is only used to describe two sexual practices in the Torah, although the death penalty also is prescribed for adultery -- but even there, the injunctions against homosexual behavior are contained in a list of many other sins. The point, again, is that apart from Christ, none of us possesses righteousness.

Going a step further, when Paul addresses the issue of incest in the church -- a practice he calls so hideous that even unbelievers are disgusted by it -- he says, point-blank, "You know, if this were going on outside the church, I would say it's none of our business."

So if a man sleeping with his father's wife is none of our business when they're not Christians, why would we have the right to dictate the sexual morality of the world at large?

Jesus wasn't a moralist. He didn't campaign against prostitution, against homosexuality, or fornication, or other such behaviors. What he did was react with compassion to everyone. He ate with Pharisees when he was asked, and with low-lifes when they asked. He treated everyone with respect, and in the gospels at least, the sins he really went off on dealt with the legalists who made pleasing God a works-related business, religious hypocrisy, and denying justice. The lifestyle he had was one of inclusion and warm welcome to everyone who needed him.

So I agree with your statement that Christ calls us to encourage others to follow him and act as he would -- but I believe that's done by the example of selfless living, dying to ourselves daily, and an in a thoroughly personal way, not a political one.

In the shadow of death: Questions linger for bereft family of slain man

There are a number of questions Leslie Kiray has about his son's death, but the one that looms largest is, "Is that it?"

Kiray's son, James, 38, was killed Sept. 3 in a motor-vehicle accident at the Garden State Parkway Exit 135 traffic circle. Since his son's death, Kiray, who has lived on Blake Drive for 45 years, has been at a loss to understand why the other driver was charged only with careless driving.

And every time he drives through the traffic circle, he's forced to watch his son's death play out in his mind, again and again.

"Every time I go around that circle, my heart stops," said Kiray, 73. "Every time 1 go to that place where my son was killed, I see everything."

State Police accident reports indicate that the Corvette James Kiray was driving that night had stopped at the stop sign on the left side of the exit ramp. Joseph Ruggirello, driving a Cadillac, started down the right side of the exit ramp, toward Brant Avenue, but struck the concrete island between the two exit lanes and became airborne.

Ruggirello's Cadillac struck the right rear panel of James Kiray's Corvette. From there it continued its forward momentum, shearing the roof off the Corvette and killing James Kiray before striking the one-way sign on the far side of the road, about 3 feet from the ground. Propelled by the force of the impact, James Kiray's Corvette rolled forward about 40 feet, into the circle.

Ruggirello's Cadillac meanwhile landed on the grassy infield of the circle. Its left rear wheel, torn away by the impact, the car continued to slide along the grass. A little further than halfway across, the car began to overturn and again became airborne, losing its left front wheel in the process.

The Cadillac finally came to a complete stop on the far side of the traffic circle from where the initial collision took place, near the Valley Road exit.

A Westfield motorist listed as a witness to the accident said the Cadillac landed perpendicular to the road.

In a letter to State Police dated Oct. 17, Union County Prosecutor Theodore J. Romankow declined to file charges against Ruggirelio, citing a lack of evidence of speeding, substance abuse or recklessness.

Robert O'Leary, executive assistant prosecutor and public information officer for the County Prosecutor's Office, said such decisions are based on the reports of witnesses, police reports and forensic evidence gathered at the scene of the accident.

"Every time there's a fatal accident, they review the facts that are verifiable and determine what's appropriate," O'Leary said.

Accident reports by neither Clark nor State Police indicate how fast Ruggirelio had been going. The posted speed limit for the ramp is 25 mph.

Kiray said he was told the police believed Ruggirelio had been driving around 70 to 80 mph. That seems more likely to him than the possibility Ruggirelio was going the posted limit.

"The man flipped three times. If you're going 20 to 25 mph, you're not going to flip," he said.

Ruggirelio pleaded guilty to careless driving. A careless driving charge nets a fine of less than $100.

"That then was my son's worth," said Kiray. "I just want the truth. Why? Why is somebody who killed somebody else getting off with nothing?"

James Kiray's death devastated his family. His widow, Laura Kiray, unable to live in the home she had shared with her husband, sold it and took their children with her to Livingston, where her parents live.

And at the funeral the elder Kiray had to comfort his. grandsons, who were trying to understand what had happened to their father.

One grandson decided his father had just gone on a business trip. Another, only 5 years old, had an even harder time understanding.

"This was the saddest in my opinion. Because of the nature of the accident, the casket was not open," said Kiray. "1 knelt down with him and said a prayer, and he reached and touched the casket, and said, 'Grandad, can we open it to see if Daddy's stiil in there?'

"I almost fell apart," Kiray said, his voice choking up as he spoke. "Thank God the 5-year-olds don't understand it."

On Monday, Kiray and his second wife, Anna Kiray, sold the Blake Drive house where James Kiray and his brothers grew up. It was only last year that the elder Kiray — who spends about half of each year in Europe — had told his son that he was planning to sell the house because its upkeep was getting'to be too difficult.

"He said, 'Dad, don't sell the house. I want to keep the heritage. I want to buy it from you,' " Kiray recalled.

Instead of buying the house, James Kiray was laid to rest in a burial spot beside his mother's grave. It was where the elder Kiray had expected to be buried himself, but it has become one final gift from father to son.

"God is close to him and his mother is close to him," said Kiray.

With the house closing behind them, Kiray and his wife headed to Florida, where one of his other sons lives.

He hopes to move on, but he has his doubts whether healing will ever come.

"To me it's not closed," he said, "because in my heart I know it's not ever going to be closed."

telemarketing

I recently made a shocking discovery: It is now possible for me to eat an entire meal without the phone ringing even once.

It doesn't matter if I eat dinner at 5, 6 or 7 p.m. The phone stays blissfully silent, and when it does ring, I know I can pick it up without running into the living room and checking our caller ID to see who's calling. And to think I owe it all to the Federal Trade Commission and its do-not-call list.

Mixed with my immense relief is a twinge of sadness. Now that I have the FTC's muscle backing up my wish to be left alone, I've lost the opportunity to practice one of my favorite sports. It's called "Bait the Telemarketer."

This is a game where you do your best to throw the telemarketer off stride. AT&
T asks you to switch long-distance carriers, you tell them you don't have a phone. A contractor tries to convince you to renovate your home, explain that you have a deep-seated phobia of straight lines and flat surfaces, and ask if they can redo the house so it doesn't have them any more.

For a while I told telemarketers that I bill my time at $200 an hour, and if they wanted to continue the discussion under those terms, I would be happy to talk for as long as they wanted. Oddly, not one ever took me up on it.

My piece-de-resistance came a few months ago, when I received a call from a woman I'll call Sharon. I was at the point where I normally would just hang up, but for some reason I was feeling whimsical and decided to have fun.

"Doesn't this job get to you?" I asked after she had introduced herself and only just started her pitch. "I'm guessing that a lot of people hang up on you or just get really rude, don't they?"

"Well, yeah," Sharon admitted. Her voice had been lively and animated when she had started her pitch, but now it was more plaintive, what you would find from co-workers commiserating about an awful workplace.

"And I'm willing to bet you don't even like what you do," I added. "Most people can't stand to get telemarketing calls, and I'm willing to bet you don't either."

"Well," she admitted. "Not really."

"Do they pay you enough?"

The silence told me everything, even before she said, "No, they don't."

"So what you're telling me," I said, "is that you have a job where you're unhappy, you're doing something you don't like, and you get grief all the time from the people you call, and they don't pay you well enough to put up with it." I paused, and went for the throat. "Sharon, I think you and your co-workers should form a union and fight for better working conditions."

Sharon thanked me for listening to her problems, said she would have to consider it, and hung up.

I never did find out what she was selling.

Despite great moments like that one, I don't miss telemarketing calls enough to ask that my name be returned to the roster. Given its misuse of the First Amendment to annoy me at home four, five and six times a day, I doubt I'll shed a tear if I never hear from a telemarketer again, even if the product they're promoting really is as revolutionary as they say.

What troubles me is that a number of companies apparently are using telemarketing agencies from outside the United States. Labor is cheaper, and the FTC regulations apparently don't affect calls from abroad, even on behalf of a domestic company.

If that happens again, I already have the perfect solution. My 4-year-old daughter is at an age where she loves to talk on the phone.

I can only imagine the conversations she'll have.



Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.


Tweet

megan's law registry

If you live in Iowa and have small children like I do, you probably spent at least a little time recently on the computer checking the state's new online registry of sex offenders, at www.iosp.org.

For a parent, it's a dream come true. I have two daughters, one almost 4 years old, and the other almost 1. With a few clicks of the mouse, I was able to find the names, addresses and other pertinent information about all six sex offenders who live in the same town as I. One lives only two blocks from me.

Let me focus on him. He was convicted Aug. 15, 1997, of sexual assault involving a preteen girl, criminal sexual assault against a woman and aggravated criminal sexual assault against a preteen girl. The site doesn't provide any more information than that about the crimes.

I guarantee you that not only will I keep my children away from this man, but whenever I see him, I'm going to be filled with revulsion for what he's done. If I were to meet him on the street while I'm walking my dog, it would be next to impossible for me to interact with him without words like pedophile, pervert and rapist running through my mind.

I find that troubling.

Whether it's intended to or not, this registry automatically has become an added punishment to men and women -- usually men -- who already have paid their debt to society through a jail term.

As a result of this scarlet-letter treatment, this man has now been given the 21st-century version of the stocks. I know where he lives. I know how tall he is, what color his eyes and hair are, and with a little digging, I could find out all sorts of other personal information about him. If there's one thing a reporter's good at, it's digging up public information that other people like to think is private.

What's worse is that if anyone molests a child in the neighborhood, I know exactly who I'm going to suspect right from the get-go.

I'd like to think that if someone hurt one of my daughters, my wife and I would have the self-restraint not to take matters into our own hands, but I don't know. It's too easy to imagine making a beeline for the man's door in such a situation. Our passions run deep where our children are concerned.

Despite the gravity of the arguments I'm making now -- arguments that have been made ever since Megan Kanka was killed nine years ago and the law that bears her name was first proposed -- a U.S. Court of Appeals last month overturned a U.S. District court judge's decision that the registry violates privacy rights.

Essentially, the appellate court ruled that the protection of citizens outweighs an offender's privacy rights.

I can't fault parents who check the Web site -- I've done it myself -- but I do think the appellate court was dead wrong in its decision. Information about sex offenders and their records should be public information, but it shouldn't be so easily accessible.

The state has taken a tremendous risk in presenting the sex offender information in this format and especially on the Internet. This just doesn't make sense for someone who's not considered a high risk for repeat offenses, and if people are considered high risks, they don't belong on the Internet -- they belong in an institution, getting treatment.

To its credit, the Web site reminds users on almost every page that they can't misuse the information in the manner I've described. Anyone who uses the registry's information to commit a criminal offense faces three to five years in jail and a fine of up to $15,000.

That's well and good, but it assumes that people are going to be rational about a volatile subject. That is not always a safe assumption, particularly after an assault has occurred.

Stiffer penalties, some offered by other states, are not the answer. That Web site has to come down, and the state needs to find a better way to disseminate the information, if it is to be disseminated like this at all.

'If I speak with the tongues of men and angels...'

I'm a former Pentecostal, and I have a confession to make. Even though I still believe in the gift of tongues, I still have no idea what the supposed scriptural basis is for a "prayer language."

This is a practice among Pentecostals and charismatics of praying in unknown tongues during private prayer time. The believers I've known who practice the karisma swear by it. They describe these prayers as effortless, tireless, and a direct line between their soul and God, unobstructed by the clumsiness of human speech.

The difficulty I'm having is that if Scripture is our guide to spiritual matters, it doesn't provide much guidance when it comes to having a personal prayer language. When the glossolalia first was manifest in Acts 2, it was with the express effect that Jews from all over the world heard the gospel proclaimed in their own native languages -- even though the speakers were virtually all from Judea and Galilee.

The believers weren't praying in unknown languages. They were praying in languages that they personally couldn't speak, but the onlookers could. It would be like going to Lisbon and speaking in Portuguese without ever studying a lick of it beforehand.

In other words, this was a reversal of the Babel curse; the purpose of tongues was to unconfuse human language and to make communication easier.

This is also what Paul suggests is the use of tongues when he writes to the church in Corinth. If people come into church and hear you worshiping in a language they don't know, it means nothing to them. But if they hear you worshiping in their own language -- which you don't know -- they stand convicted that God is in the church (1 Corinthians 14:22).

That certainly was the impact of the crowd who heard Peter's sermon early in Acts.

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul does say, "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a tinkling cymbal or resounding brass." But one verse in isolation is a poor prooftext for  doctrine, and since every language has idiomatic expressions, I'm inclined to consider "the tongues of men and angels" to be one of those and nothing more until I hear a convincing argument otherwise.

In the meantime, I'm going to keep praying in the human languages that I know. They may not be a direct line from my soul to God, but they're all I've got, and they've worked all right for me so far.


Copyright © 2013 by David Learn, Used with permission.

the pressure's off

A book a friend of mine recently rurned me onto is Larry Crabb's "The Pressure's Off." It's a rather interesting and rather compelling book about the legalism that often ensnares us because we fall into the trap of means to an end, like "seven rules for a successful marriage" or "thirteen ways to raise godly children."

Crabb's point -- and I think it's an excellent one -- is that when we do this, we're going back to the Law, the very thing Christ freed us from and doing exactly what Paul warns us not to do. We don't improve anything by following the Law; we instead place ourselves under a burden we can't possibly carry.

job update redux

I found out tonight from a co-worker that he's not supposed to tell anyone, but he's going to be going up to our Bloomfield office for that position I mentioned four months ago. It's going to be his job to get the office into shape, oversee the other managing editors, and so on.

I'm happy for him, but I'm a little disappointed that they've shafted me like this after leading me to think I was the top contender for that post. Tim, our editor in chief, even went as far as telling in front of one of the owners that he considers me flat-out his best managing editor.

Actually, I'm not just a little disappointed by this arrangement. I'm furious. Nathan -- the guy they are moving -- is among other things, fairly lazy about his job, incredibly arrogant and know-it-all-ish, and the way he speaks about women, he's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

My best bet is that the decision was largely pecuniary. I already make $35K, and said I would need to make at least $40K if they were going to give me added responsibilities. Nathan on the other hand makes about $26K. He'll be making under $30K in Bloomfield office, and the reporter they've moving into his spot will probably make about $26K, while they'll replace her with someone they'll pay their dirt-cheap rate of $20K. If they figure I'll also get pissed off and quit, they can probably save another $15K when they replace me with a college graduate.

I don't want to be motivated just by money, and I don't think I am. But it's hard to feed a family of four on what I make here, the hours are brutal, and the work load keeps increasing. They're about to eliminate the production shop and have the managing editors handle all the pagination duties as well, as a cost-cutting measure. It's not like we don't already have to write four to six stories and four editorials a week, plus edit and lay out two whole papers.

I'm really sick of this. I sent out two resumes before I came to work today, on top of the two I sent out last week. I need another job, and I need it to be one where I can settle in for an extended period. Or I need my wife to find gainful employment so I can stay at home with the girls.

Something has to give. I just can't take this anymore.

job references

A co-worker of mine asked me if I would act as a reference for him in the event he needs one. (Like me, he's fighting desparately to leave the newspaper we work at.) Below are some of the references I told him I would be happy to give:

1. "As long as he remembers to take his medication and keeps away from sharp objects, Brian is a pleasant enough fellow to work with."
2. "I urge you to waste no time in considering Brian for a position with your company."
3. "I am moved to tears whenever I read something Brian writes."
4. "Brian one day will be remembered in the same breath as other great men like Napoleon, Genghis Khan and Idi Amin."
5. "Brian is a great guy to work with. True, he is dim-witted and rude, his table manners leave a lot to be desired, and he has a small, misshapen mind with a body to match, but he ... I'm sorry, I can't remember where I was going."
6. "Brian is a simple, down-to-earth sort of fellow, much like you'd expect from someone whose parents met at a family reunion."
7. "You might have doubts that Brian will be able to handle the responsibilities of the task he is applying for. I assure you that there's nothing to worry about; from everything I've seen here, he'll soon find someone else whom he get manipulate into doing the job for him."
8. "Brian is the only former death-row inmate I know who can handle this job."
9. "Well, I don't want to say too much in case he's got my line bugged, but Brian seems to know an awful lot about munitions and ordnance, and he's been interviewed by the FBI an awful lot lately..."
10. "My God! Pedersen is applying there? Hire him, you fools! The last three people to turn him down all were found three days later, floating face-down in the Hudson."

impact made

I had one of those odd, aw-shucks moments yesterday. A co-worker (also named Dave, which is why I call him Vandervecken) who works in the newspaper's production department told me he had read my column and it had changed his life.

I initially couldn't tell if he was serious or not, because we routinely razz each other, but he was dead serious. He's around the same age as me, and he said that reading my column on getting older was like a face full of cold water: refreshing and bringing startling clarity. He commented on how the American dream often drives us to succeed and "make our mark" no matter what the cost, and said my column showed him there's another, better way.

He really seemed to appreciate it, and seemed intent on changing his focus from being career-driven to focusing more on the people in his life.

Kind of humbling, you know?

no more mr. nice guy

The book "No More Mr. Nice Guy" was highly recommended by a friend of mine. Although it does not affect me as much as it did him, I must concede that books that deal with abstract issues such as this one does, with its psychoanalytical subject, often can leave the reader feeling confused and left in the dust. I feel this is particularly true when the books address a need the reader does not personally feel very strongly, as is the case with me and this book.

That is not to see the book is without merit or features that appealed to me. For starters, the publishers of "No More Mr. Nice Guy" wisely chose an aesthetically pleasing bookbinding where the pages are neatly collated and evenly trimmed. The glue also holds the pages together very admirably.

I especially was pleased with their use of a Serifs font. (I believe it was Garamond, a font that revolutionized print media with the facility with which the eye absorbs words printed in it.) The point size also was appropriately chosen; I did not need a magnifying glass to make out the words, nor did I feel like I was reading a "moo-moo" edition of a big with overlarge type.

Although I cannot comment on the book's long-term durability, I will say that the print edition was pleasantly free of the glare that accompanies the electronic edition.

In short, if you are looking for a book to help you understand how to express your emotional, mental and social needs as a male -- and most of all, if you want a book that is pleasing to the eye -- I must recommend "No More Mr. Nice Guy."

new amazon review

I just added a review of "The Hobbit," addressing Tolkien's party-animal nature and how it helped to shape the book. That review should be up in a few days.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/AFFWAUAXJMUON/ref=cm_aya_bc_aya/102-3195399-8899364

In the meantime, there are still reviews of Harry Potter, the Wizard of Oz, the Bible and Jane Eyre. More positive votes are eagerly desired.

letter

Dear Byron:

So I'm dying to know ...

If Cats had explained that the 20-ton weight materialized through a hyperspatial conduit that was connected to a warehouse on the other end of the world, stocked with 20-ton weights, and that it had failed to destroy the ship because the HMS Naked Glittery Squirrel is actually made of neutronium (the neutron-star-like gravitational effects of which are effectively neutralized through a fusion-driven gravity field), would you have reacted as negatively as you did to her use of the phrase "magic?"

I ask this because she said "magic," not necromancy, not a Satanic pact, not divination, not kartomancy, not witchcraft, not spiritism, not conjuration, not blood sacrifice, and not any other recognized branch of the occult. Just "magic," a generic fantasy term that shows up in the works of Christian authors like J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Stephen Lawhead, Charles Williams and G.O.K. who else.

The argument I expect you're inclined to use is essentially the slippery slope fallacy used against fantasy works like Harry Potter, that although the books are hopelessly fantastic and not at all realistic, their present the danger of enticing innocents into attempting actual witchcraft and trafficking with the Devil.

I call it a fallacy because that's what it essentially is, based as it is in a faulty assumption that most or many people are incapable of telling the difference between a literary or imaginative vehicle and the real world. (There are a few who can't, it's true, but they're either very young or in some way mentally impaired.)

In reality, you could argue that science fiction is much more dangerous to people than fantasy. While each can fire imagination and offer valuable insights into the human condition, fantasy includes at least a nod in the direction of the supernatural and stirs the heart to consider the existence of a world that ours operates within but often is unaware of. Science fiction on the other hand quite typically envisions an utterly naturlistic viewpoint, suggests that all things can and will be neatly explained once we have attained a sufficient amount of naturalist knowledge, and either ignores God or treats him as a contemtuous idea. Its treatment of God's natural laws of physics also is pretty contemptible, and since it has the same effect (plotwise) as magic, one could argue that it could lead impressionable readers down a parallel path of scientific-seeming witchcraft

So, while I perhaps am being a teensy bit facetious about the whole thing, I do wonder why you feel it's necessary to have yourself rescued by an angel -- I would have just jumped out of the way -- and warn Cats so sternly about the dangers of practicing nondescript magic upon a Christian.

Just curious. :-)

'the hobbit' reviewed

J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" is perhaps one of the best-written books about the advantages of having parties. Written relatively early in his days as an Oxford don, "The Hobbit" is a strongly autobiographical novel about Tolkien and his status as a party man. His reputation as a party enthusiast was so secure, in fact, that Tolkien regularly was the host to impromptu parties as other Oxford and even Cambridge professors would appear uninvited at his home with the expectation of a good meal, some beer or wine, and rousing party games.

It is such experiences that form the basis for "The Hobbit." A sedentary fellow, much like Tolkien, Bilbo Baggins finds himself the unassuming host of a party of dwarves (more established professors) and the wizard Gandalf (the president of the university).

Wooed by promises of great wealth, and strongly encouraged by Gandalf, Bilbo joins the dwarves on a quest to regain their lost ancestral gold, an action that represents Tolkien's own quest for tenure, a position that, once secured, would guarantee him employment, a place to live, social status, and ultimately a healthy retirement package.

The story follows Tolkien-as-Bilbo's journey to the heart of the Lonely Mountain, where he must confront the dragon Smaug (the experience of teaching undergraduate and graduate students) and be swept up in the dramatic Battle of Five Armies, a situation not unlike peer review.

And in the course of the story, Bilbo acquires a magical Ring that secures his reputation with the dwarves, much as Tolkien's literary and liguistic prowess, developed through education, secured his position in academia.

A thoroughly fascinating and enchanting book, "The Hobbit" will have you wishing again and again for the opportunity to attend more parties and, even more, to host them yourself.

'no more mr. nice guy'

The book "No More Mr. Nice Guy" was highly recommended by a friend of mine. Although it does not affect me as much as it did him, I must concede that books that deal with abstract issues such as this one does, with its psychoanalytical subject, often can leave the reader feeling confused and left in the dust. I feel this is particularly true when the books address a need the reader does not personally feel very strongly, as is the case with me and this book.

That is not to see the book is without merit or features that appealed to me. For starters, the publishers of "No More Mr. Nice Guy" wisely chose an aesthetically pleasing bookbinding where the pages are neatly collated and evenly trimmed. The glue also holds the pages together very admirably.

I especially was pleased with their use of a Serif font. (I believe it was Garamond, a font that revolutionized print media with the facility with which the eye absorbs words printed in it.) The point size also was appropriately chosen; I did not need a magnifying glass to make out the words, nor did I feel like I was reading a "moo-moo" edition of a big with overlarge type.

Although I cannot comment on the book's long-term durability, I will say that the print edition was pleasantly free of the glare that accompanies the electronic edition.

In short, if you are looking for a book to help you understand how to express your emotional, mental and social needs as a male -- and most of all, if you want a book that is pleasing to the eye -- I must recommend "No More Mr. Nice Guy."

revolve

Remember discussion about the TNIV and whether it was worthwhile? As makeovers of the Bible go, that was mild. Check out Revolve!

I've been giving this way more thought than it deserves, and what it's boiling down to for me is the question of whether this is marketing or presentation.
I'm all for presenting timeless truths in a ways that can be understood by each generation. That's why I prefer churches that use contemporary services, with modern music, dramas, video clips and so on. They're using popular artistic expressions as a way to engage the people of their target generation with the gospel. In a good church that practices these things, the substance is rich, the meaning is real, and the timeless stories the Bible contains about jealousy, fratricide, love, sacrifice, resentment and betrayal, and most of all redemption gain new resonance with an audience that might never hear or understand these things otherwise.

Without a doubt we could do some things to present the Bible better.

The problem for me is when we come into marketing. Marketing is generally as phony as a three-dollar bill and, when done this way, has about as much currency with Gen X as that bill. (I'll let members of Gen Y and subsequent generations say for certain what works for them.)

We're past the point with our culture that celebrity endorsements and attractive faces will sell Bibles. That comes across as pure hokum because everybody knows the Bible isn't cool. About the only people who are going to buy these Bibles are Christian teens who want to be be cool within Christian circles. Maybe my imagination is too small, but I don't see this topping bestseller lists.

Marketing like this, while it is well intentioned, is not the way Christ models for us to draw people to God. He also met people where they were at, but in a decidedly personal, nonmarketing way. He never acted cool, and when you get down to it, the gospel is as fundamentally uncool as you can get. It tells us things like this: "Sell all you have and give it to the poor, and then follow me." Or: "If you have two cloaks, give to the one who has none." Or: "Don't resist an evil person; if he sues you for your tunic, give him your shirt also; and if he strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer him your other one also."

It's about not trying to control everything that comes your way, and accepting that some really unfair sh*t happens from time to time.

Last year around this time, you may recall I was in a pretty desparate situation. My son -- I still think of him that way, even though he wasn't born to me -- was about to be taken away from me and returned to the people who he had been born to.

A well-connected politician who knew the situation offered to intervene. Although he couldn't guarantee anything, he seemed to feel it was pretty certain that if he were to step in, Isaac would not return to his biological parents. Other colleagues of mine had ideas on how I could use media leverage or other connections to stop Isaac from heading back into an abusively neglectful situation.

Would Isaac have stayed if I had put up a legal fight and let the politicians who offered to do something to keep him here? Maybe. And you could even argue that I would have been saving him from the heartache of what's happened to him since, not to mention the grief it caused Evangeline when he moved out.

That's not the way of the Cross, though. The way Christ teaches and models for us lies not in fighting tooth and nail to protect our rights or to keep others from hurting us, but in going to the Father in prayer, and sometimes in just dying.

That's a religion for TOTAL LOSERS. Oddly enough, when we make that our practice, that does a lot more to draw people in than marketing the Bible and its inner beauty strategies probably ever will.

growing in contentment

As I write this, my 33rd birthday slowly but surely is slipping further and further into the past.

Thirty-three doesn't seem like a particularly significant milestone. For one thing, it lacks that ending zero we usually associate with landmark ages and anniversaries. Additionally, while it's too far up to be considered truly young, it's also shy of what we generally consider middle-age, and nowhere near old.

Still, it's definitely something. When he died at the age of 33, Alexander the Great had conquered most of the ancient world, spreading the Greek language across three continents and seeding civilizations from Egypt to India with pockets of Hellenistic thought.

By the time of his death in 323 B.C., Alexander the Great had lain the foundations for what eventually would become modern Western civilization. In contrast, I'm the managing editor of two weekly newspapers and like to make fun of inspirational e-mail. Somehow, that just doesn't seem all that impressive by comparison.

Three years ago, when I turned 30, I made an ironic list of ways I would live m life differently if I were given the chance. Two of my favorite regrets were that I had tried to do something self-fulfilling rather than making millions of dollars, and that I had engaged immediately in trying to make the world a better place rather than saving such altruism for my retirement years.

Three years later, I'm still not very close to making it big. As any career journalist will admit, this is not a profession that pays especially well. The salary is hard to quantify, but it's somewhere between "diddly" and "squat." Nor do I see this as likely to change, since by my nature I don't seek jobs where the principal reward is pecuniary.

The truth is that I know what my future will bring. In the next 40 or 50 years, assuming I live that long, I'll probably enjoy moderate success as a writer. I'll write and publish a few books, possibly tour a little bit to promote them, and then I'll die. Within a few years, no one aside from family members and a few close friends will remember me.

I not only know that, I'm content with it. At the moment, the chief joys in my life are my wife, Natasha, and our two daughters, Evangeline and Rachel. They are more important to me than any career ever could, and the time I spend with them is more exciting than any news story, no matter how hard-hitting or exclusive it is.

Evangeline is almost 4, and the evenings I spend with her are the highlights of my work week. They're a nonstop whirlwind of playing hide-and-seek, holding ticklefests and all-around commotion before we settle down for a bowl of ice cream, stories and bedtime.

On weekends, whatever we can do together, we do. She has helped me to do everything from baking cookies, to turning compost and opening presents for Christmas.

Rachel is just shy of her 10-month mark. She lightens the load on my shoulders as soon as I come in the front door and she greets me with her wide, grinning toothlessness. One of the great joys of being a father is to watch her grow, as she slowly unfolds her language skills and takes her first, tottering steps into the world

History tells us that Alexander the Great built one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. Ruling the ancient world without descending into the barbarism other emperors were known for, he united the city-states of Greece before conquering Turkey and Phoenicia, subduing Egypt and building an empire that reached as far east as India.

That's impressive, but what we often forget is that when Alexander the Great died among the ziggurats of Babylon, it was after a night of carousing. He had conquered the entire world, and found it to be a desolate and empty thing because there were no challenges left. He died in despair.

In many ways, he's a great prototype for today's professional. Many men, including my own father, lament that they spent too much time at the office and missed the best years of their lives with their children. I hope one day to quip that I spent all my time with my family and missed the best days of my career.

That would be a good life.

no time for glibness

One of the observations that struck me when I read a friend's journal, as I shared with my wife today, is that Christians often make glib or overquick statements concerning homosexuality and how thoughtless we are when we do that.

My friend presented two of those on her site, the "Homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord; yea, gays and lesbians are pimples upon his face, and he shall pop them" view, and the "Well, it's a sin, but it's no worse than any other sin" attitude.

The first, while it neatly sums up the traditional view of homosexuality, fails to do anything but rudely say "I disapprove of you and what you do and so does God" while the other dismissively equates a very basic and driving part of a person's nature -- their sexuality -- with practices and behaviors that are less deeply rooted in who a person is, such as a person's inclination to fib on their taxes or a disrespect for authority. Those latter things, and other practices like them, while they may be deeply ingrained in a person and difficult at times to deal with are nowhere near as fundamental to a person's psyche as their sexuality.

In each case, the response indicates a failure to connect with another person as another person, to see their inherent worth and to love them in the true, personal sense that Christ calls us to. It made me stop and wonder how I had treated my friend, and whether I had shown her the same unconditional love Christ has, or if I had treated her as less than a person in herself, and just as a gay Christian (as though that were all she is) or if I had treated her in either manner so described, or in some other way that I haven't described yet.

And that of course inspires any number of other thoughts, including the oft-stated observation that Christianity is a very simple religion to "get" -- that accepting Christ's death on our behalf reconciles us to God -- but also one that is impossibly hard to follow in truth. This whole idea of loving other people and being part of a community is just impossible to get.