When I first encountered the Friends' Way, there was so much that spoke deeply to me of Truth--the peacemaking, equality, honest, purity, open worship, non-dogmatism.. but the testimony I couldn't understand was plainness, the original emphasis on drab clothing.
I'm not talking about John Woolman and others who chose to wear un-dyed clothes because dyed cloth was made by slaves. On the contrary! What a mighty testimony for Woolman, a tailor and clothing store owner, to refuse to wear fashionable clothes if it meant he would be wearing what the slave system had produced. I hope I would have done the same.
Rather, I am speaking about what Margaret Fell/Fox complained against--the rigid testimony of wearing plain clothes as a central outward sign of being a Friend. Such a focus seems simplistic, not simple. Indeed, she called such an outward display a "silly poor gospel. We must all be in one dress and one colour; this is silly poor gospel. It is more fit for us to be covered with God's Eternal Spirit, and clothed with his Eternal Light" 1700. After all the word "simple" literally means 'single" and has to do with innocence--as in simple beauty.
But Quakers became obsessed early on with what had originally been an outward sign of witness against inequality and pride. Finally, George Fox and Edward Perot even verbally fought over exactly when one should take his hat off and when not during Meeting--talk about superficial, outward, and simplistic!
As the charismatic Quaker movement gradually changed into a peculiar sect the emphasis on such outward plain forms hardened into codified rule. Strangely, a religious movement which originally emphasized the inward Spirit came to emphasize outward forms. Rather ironic. Nor do I understand the recent interest of some modern convinced Friends to return to such plain dress, not at all.
The main reason I am against plainness is that I am heart and soul--to the deepest innermost--an artist, a poet, novelist, and photographer. I love all things creative, all things colorful, all things beautiful.
The early Friends came out of the Puritan revolution--a movement that wanted to 'purify' Christianity of much of art, considering it pagan and idolatrous. The latter fanatics smashed stained glass windows, defaced artwork, tore doewn prayer railings, and condemned the festive and bright. Friends generally didn't involve themselves in such destruction but they did join in the revolt against the showy aspects of religion because too often the show had no real Life within. Church of England ministers were often hypocritical, lacked spiritual vision and passion, and sometimes were only in it for money.
When religion becomes superficial, when people focus obsessively on fashion, when the arts become an expression of extravagance, pride, and even evil, then a return to the simple is necessary. Plain speaking is needed, and I suppose even plain dress as a witness against the surface gaudiness of corrupt culture. But surely that doesn't mean one has to hate an illumined stained glass window by Marc Chagal or the poetry of Gerald Manley Hopkins.
Yet as so often happens among humankind, when people revolt against one wrong extreme, they too often end up at the other. Thus for many years Friends didn't become artists or writers (except in their journals).
Another factor in the lack of creative arts was that Friends were banned from advanced educational institutions in England. So they primarily focused on business enterprises and excelled there because of their honesty. And then during the Quietist period, many saw creative and intellectual pursuits as 'creaturely activity' contrary to God's Light.
In contrast, I don't think God is primarily interested in the plain--the drab, the lackluster, the outward. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus refers to the beauty of plants in the natural world, saying "Think of the flowers of growing in the fields; they never have to work or spin; yet I assure you that not even Solomon in all his regalia was robed like one of these."
While it is true, God doesn't want us to be obsessed with the temporal, certainly not the ostentatious or gaudy, God is vividly desirous of us to seek Beauty-- to be innovative, creative and bright.
What God wants are not outward efforts of denial anyway but an inner singleness of spirit, our heart wholly for truth, for goodnesss, for true beauty.
Plain beauty!
Daniel Wilcox
10 comments:
Hi Daniel: for what it's worth, I've always read Margaret Fell as saying that berating other people to be plain was the silly gospel. She was referring to Matthew 6, of course, just before the lilies of the field, where Jesus say we should worry more about our own faults than others and that we shouldn't worry about what we wear. I myself have found that one way to do that is to dress more-or-less the same every day and in my liberal Quaker world I do feel led to be outwardly plain and Christian. I've been to too many Quaker functions where people instantly start oohing and ahhing about some dress or earrings or cool gadget and it's good to remember that these don't mean anything compared to our walk with God. Being plain also helps remind me not to be fetishistic about possessions and that's enough of a reason.
I'd encourage you to look up some old Faith and Practices to see what they say about plain witness. They weren't quite as two dimensional as the whole "they got too rigid" history claims and knew well the dangers of fetishizing plainness. I've know Friends, especially some younger Friends, who jumped in to plainness with an alarming speed and quickly burned out. That's never good. But read old journals and you'll see that a major turning point of most fledgling ministers was a conscious and obvious turn away from fashion. It can be a way we grow, but like everything the Tempter can twist it around. As in all life, we need to hold close to God's direction if it's to be real.
Good evening Martin,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll check out the background of Margaret's quote.
Notice in my own post I quoted Jesus from the Matthew passage as well--how God is concerned about beauty, but that we shouldn't obsess or worry about clothes.
And I do encourage you to follow the leading that you received from God. I think testimonies are universal, but how we are led to express them are individual.
Your last point speaks to me: "Being plain also helps remind me not to be fetishistic about possessions..." I think that is a very good reason to de-emphasize clothing.
I haven't noticed any Quakers oohing/ahhing about fashionable clothes, but then I've been a Quaker-at-large for much of my life, not living near any Friends Meeting. Thankfully, now I live only 45 minutes away from meeting, am a member of Central Coast Friends/Pacific Yearly Meeting.
Keep in mind too, I am very anti-Puritan (because of their negative predestination and low view of the arts), so I tend to think any influences in Friends which may be hold-overs from the Puritan movement aren't good.
As to your comment about turning away from fashion, I could see the goodness of that if it doesn't include a turning away from artistic color and brightness.
I'm inclined to think variety ought to be the spice of Friends' life. Uniformity in dress seems to negate inwardness as does following fashion formally.
Thanks for the dialogue; and thanks for creating Quaker Quaker.
Daniel
When I was a child, my father was a Congregationalist minister serving small, country churches. He used to ask the children in the church to come to the front of the sanctuary to look at small gifts he carefully wrappped the night before. Some were brightly wrapped in cheerful, colorful paper. Other packages were wrapped in brown paper cut from grocery bags. The gift wrapped packages were much more appealing to the children. However, what we found was that inside the drab, brown packages were colorful lollipops and inside the bright packages was just drab cardboard. The point, of course, was not to assume that we can judge the gift inside by looking at the wrapping. For Christians, it is the soul and not its wrapping that counts.
Does this mean that bright, beautiful, artistic things should be shunned? By no means! Natural beauty and human art deserve our thanksgiving and praise. My father, who took us to art galleries wherever we journeyed taught me to appreciate not only the beauty, but the message and meaning arising from our creative impulses. But what he wanted most to teach me (and all the other children in the church) was that whatever the exterior, whether bright or beige, whether delicious or dull, it is the inner message, the inner soul, the inner light, the inner gift that matters.
I maintain that plain dress, when undertaken in answer to a calling allows the inner soul to shine brightly. I also maintain that beautiful, artistic dress, when worn in answer to a calling, allows the inner soul to shine brightly, but when we put on garments for vanity, for convention, or for pride, we are only wrapping cardboard in shiny paper.
In our diversity, let each of us choose dress, pretty or plain, that best allows the gift inside us to shine.
Hi Hystery,
Thanks for your powerful "gift" example and reflection--worth more than all my posts.
Secondly:
When I see such passion for ethical Truth (yes with a capital T), in your post, it disheartens me to remember that your father is now an atheist, and you too, if I understood your post of December 19on your site.
Maybe this is what I call the "Camus Effect"? from Albert Camus who wrote The Plague, who denied any Meaning to Existence, as in his book The Rebel, yet who later in his life demonstrated more passion for compassion and justice than whole boatloads of theists and Christians.
I don't understand your, or your father's, intellectual negation of All Meaning, but contradictorily your passionate action for ethical Truth of the kind Jesus spoke and lived.
Thirdly:
Consdering that your own website is called 'Plainly Pagan," and you have spoken for wearing plain clothes, in contrast, your prose certainly is beautiful--nothing plain about it:-)
(For that matter, Hystery, is not very plain as a name either;-)
Maybe, in my opinion, better terms would be "simple" and "single."
To me "plain" connotates drab, lacking in creativity and zest, even bordering on ugly. So part of this dialogue is a question of semantics too.
But as you know, I am not a fan of Atheism, Paganism, or Puritanism.
However, if I were to be an atheist, I would certainly be of your (and your father's) kind.
Thanks for the dialogue,
In the Light,
Daniel
An interesting discussion all around. Nevertheless, I hate to see "Beauty" and "Plainness" assumed to be opposites. I hope you won't mind if I throw in my own poem "Plain Things" (it's not very long).
Plain Things
The Sun Light at Dawn
Falling on Gray Pavement,
Old Houses,
New leaves, New Grass.
Raw peas pushed from the pod
With a thumb,
Snapping between the teeth,
Squirting juices in the mouth.
All raw fruits,
Blemished and pure
Sweet, tart, ripe,
Broken from their stems
By human hands.
A washed pane of glass
Passing Light
Between bright days
And this dark room.
A Bald head a gray beard.
A bare throat, no pearls.
A smile made of real teeth.
A human face like yours
With colors, flushes, pallors,
Expressions
Of its own.
Hello Rich,
Yeah, that's why I ended my original post with "Plain beauty."
And thanks for sending your vivid poem.
I like it because it describes
things--not "plain" at all except in the sense of not gaudy or "artificial" in the bad sense of the word.
Originally from a small village of 350 people in Nebraska, I certainly remember vividly eating raw peas while unpoding them with my little sister, and eating beautiful tree and vine-ripened fruit...
I especially like your stanza "A washed pane of glass, passing light between bright days and this dark room."
And the consonance/allteration of "yours with colors, flushed, pallors, Expressions.."
Sometime you might want to check out my poetry website where I post a few of my poems and links to published poems:
http://seaquaker.com/poetry/
And here's a poem about a spiritual time in my youth dealing with glass:
Reflection in Glass
Inside the white framed village church
Cornered southeast in Nebraska
Back in '63
I sat in a hardwood pew along with
The small farming congregation
While my father, preached the text,
But my mind wandered a field to the wall behind
Up at the under-glass painting of Jesus a shepherd
Leading lambs along a green path,
But strange the reflection--
Due to the slant of the
Noon sun through the back windows
On the church sidewall,
Another picture
On the angled wall,
One of children of all colors
And nations and cultures,
Reflected onto the glass
Over the sheep of the Shepherd
And I felt this refractory coincidence
Of double images
Visually echoed a light of transfiguration,
A spiritual reflection
For my coming future.
Thanks for the dialogue.
In the Light,
Daniel
Umm... I don't see anywhere on Hystery's site the statement that she is an "atheist". On the contrary, what I am reading is that she is a deeply spiritual woman with a multi-dimensional connection to the Divine (a dual-gendered word for God in case you didn't realize it). I do, however, find your subtle yet clearly prejudicial "digs" to be somewhat offensive. May you find Peace.
Dear Reader,
I much admire Hystery for the sensitive individual she is in her writing, for some of her brilliant prose, for her deep ethical concern.
Several places I understood Hystery to say that she no longer trusts in God. For instance on December 19 in her post she said,
"I also have lost my faith in "God" (go ahead and read sarcastic dismissal in the quotation marks. It's in there.)"
That deeply sadden me.
I am not sure what you mean by "your subtle yet clearly prejudicial 'digs' to be offensive."
Where did I do this?
I seek to be honest and sensitive when sharing with others.
As far as God being both male and female--I agree with Genesis 1, that God made human--male and female in God's image.
So I don't know why you are questioning my trust in equality.
I would ask for clarification on this.
Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I needed to be.
In the Light,
Daniel
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for your reply. I decided to create a google account in order to further our discussion.
In your reply to Hystery you state: "But as you know, I am not a fan of Atheism, Paganism, or Puritanism." That's a fair and honest statement of where you are coming from, and it naturally shapes your perceptions of everything you read.
From what I read in Hystery's blog, she has stated that she is a Pagan, actually a Neo-Pagan. This does NOT mean she is an "atheist". To label someone an "atheist" when they have already stated that this is what they are, is one thing. I maintain that to do this to someone when they haven't made that statement about themselves, and are clearly in a spiritually challenged and emotional difficult place, is uncalled for, unsupportive, and not speaking in the Light of Christ.
Of course it saddens you when you read her December 19th post: It makes any caring person feel sadness to hear somebody struggling with what many of us think of as the "dark night of the soul", which indicates a time of spiritual growing pains, as she seeks to expand and assimilate into herself greater depths of connection to the Divine Light that she is still clinging to (this is how I read her post).
If you have never struggled in your spiritual life, then I am truly happy for you that you don't know this kind of pain. Many of us, however, can relate or have related to what Hystery was/is feeling as she seeks to connect more deeply to the Divine.
Perhaps the word "God" is troublesome for her now because of the limited connotations it once held in the minds of people like, say, the Puritans. Perhaps there is a need to move away from her Congregationalist past by finding more expansive terms for God. I can't say for certain why she might find the term troublesome because I am not her, and I won't presume to know something I haven't asked her personally.
Perhaps you should ask her, my friend, before you label her an "atheist" in the midst of her pain and interior struggles?
Concerning the Paganism aspect -- In her blog I read of coming to understand God as also being Goddess, and a gradual inclusion of the feminine aspect of Divinity as well as the masculine we were all brought up to be focused on. She also, in several instances, refers to God as Truth and Reality. I read her "Truth" as not only the ethical truth you describe, but as spiritual and universal Truth (yes with a capital "T" -another description for what we know as God). This is very far from being an "atheist" - the logic isn't even present for me in that labeling.
Your admission to "not being a fan of" Paganism (and her writing reflects Neo-Pagan concepts among others) shows through here. You have a right to your own likes/dislikes, and certainly to your own opinions, but again, I maintain that it crosses a line to label someone when they haven't told you this is what they are. Strong blanket statements only serve our own personal prejudices, and not the minds and spirits of those who are brave enough to express their struggles openly to others who can perhaps relate in some way.
Personally, I feel we are not all created to perceive God in the same way. The Light comes to us in myriad colors and faces, and yes, for some that includes the female aspects of the Divine. For instance, on February 10th I see questions and answers about her beliefs, and the one about "Do you believe in God" she answers very clearly. Maybe (okay, definitely) not in YOUR way. But she most certainly does connect to the Living Presence of the Light, and I will not say that is not God.
No, she is not traditionally Christian in her perceptions. But who are you or I to say that she is not embracing Jesus Christ? If you would read her February 17th post with an open mind and heart, perhaps you would see this in a clearer light.
The statement you refer to: "I also have lost my faith in "God" (go ahead and read sarcastic dismissal in the quotation marks. It's in there.)"
But do you not see the inner pain and struggle here? And who of us has not said that, many times, in hours of loneliness and disconnection? Does this then mean we are to be called "atheists"? I would be deeply offended if anyone had called me such in the midst of my fight to stay close to the Light of the Holy Spirit.
You take this one sentence and decide she is telling us she is an "atheist", but if you really read her other writings in the Light of the Christ and the Holy Spirit, you might see that the reason "God" is in quotations is because she is perhaps fed up with the way she feels His Light has been limited in people's minds.
Perhaps, then, this is a question of semantics and misunderstanding another person's statements? I would hope so, and I've answered you in the best way I know how as we all seek greater communion within the Light.
In Friendship,
Mary B.
Hi Mary B.,
>>Thanks for your reply. I decided to create a google account in order to >>further our discussion.
Do you wish me to send my response to your google account? (Also, I sent this post to Hystery since we are talking so much about her and her views.)
>>In your reply to Hystery you state: "But as you know, I am not a fan of Atheism, Paganism, or Puritanism." That's a fair and honest statement of where you are coming from, and it naturally shapes your perceptions of everything >>you read.
I sought to use an "I" message to let Hystery know where I was coming from. I am not post-modern by any stretch of the imagination, but a follower of the Enlightenment. Some of this comes out of my analytic nature, my rationalistic-oriented background, and my college years (in anthropology, philosophy, and comparative literature). I do think there is only One Truth, and we seekers are being sought by that Truth which is Love.
>>From what I read in Hystery's blog, she has stated that she is a Pagan, >>actually a Neo-Pagan.
Yes, I saw that, though at the time I wrote a couple of my comments it was still unclear to me for sure what she meant by such terms. For some of her powerful statements seemed contrary to the denotative meaning of those words. (But keep in mind, back when I read a lot of C.S. Lewis, the main aspect I couldn't understand about him was his fascination and admiration of Paganism. Lewis once wrote that one needs to be a good Pagan to become a good Christian.
In contrast, I have a deep grounding in the Jewish prophets, for whom Paganism is anathema. Also, as a student and later a literature teacher for years, I came across so much in Pagan literature that was ethically abhorrent--human sacrifice, etc.
>>This does NOT mean she is an "atheist". To label someone an "atheist" when they have already stated that this is what they are, is one thing. I maintain that to do this to someone when they haven't made that statement about >>themselves,
I wasn't trying to label Hystery. (Hystery, if you are reading this, I am trying to understand your perspective.) Based on a number of her statements, I honestly thought she was an Atheist. For example she said in her post "Hypenated >>Spirituality "It strikes me that in order to be hyphenated as I am, I must start with an assumption of subjectivity. If I believed that a divine presence akin to anything Abrahamic orthodoxy celebrates (fears?) actually existed, then I couldn't play around with the concepts as I do. I'm a polythesist mainly because I don't >>believe in gods at all so I can play with their names at will.
When she made statements such as this and the one in her December 19th post, I thought she was asserting that there is no real Objective Ultimate Personal Reality (God).
But maybe (contrary to her statement about her father's views on objective Reality) what she was stating about herself was emotional, not objective and denotative.
>>and are clearly in a spiritually challenged and emotional difficult place, is >>uncalled for, unsupportive, and not speaking in the Light of Christ.
I am sorry I didn't accomplish what I tried to do--to write a positive honest response. My intent wasn't to be "unsuportive" nor to block the Light of Christ.
Based on your two responses, I can see I need to write Hystery again and clarify my own words.
>>Of course it saddens you when you read her December 19th post: It makes any caring person feel sadness to hear somebody struggling with what many of us think of as the "dark night of the soul",
What saddened me was her loss of faith in God and Jesus.
I also empathized with her "dark night of the soul," --I could sense she was struggling with great loss, but I did think (contrary to your perception) that she no longer thought God is real.
>>which indicates a time of spiritual growing pains, as she seeks to expand and assimilate into herself greater depths of connection to the Divine Light that she >>is still clinging to (this is how I read her post).
Thank you for writing me an eldering email. It has made me realize I need to be even more clear and careful in my comments.
>>If you have never struggled in your spiritual life,
No, I've struggled deeply. Probably, that is a factor in why I worry about Hystery. I hold her in the Light and wrote to her because her own journey seems to be in very difficult times.
>>then I am truly happy for you that you don't know this kind of pain. Many of us, however, can relate or have related to what Hystery was/is feeling as she seeks to connect more deeply to the Divine.
As I said above, it was my understanding from reading her posts (which I found both inspiring and troubling), that she no longer thought there was any real Divine to worship, but that religion was only subjective words: "I'm a polythesist mainly because I don't >>believe in gods at all so I can play with their names at will."
This is so tragic since when a teen she told of how her deepest passion been to worship and live for God.
>>Perhaps the word "God" is troublesome for her now because of the limited >>connotations it once held in the minds of people like, say, the Puritans.
As an American literature teacher I certainly would agree with her on this. I used to have to teach the Puritans every four months--such as "The Day of Doom" by Michael Wigglesworth which talked of how many infants who die are pre-damned to Hell to be tortured forever. I took American Intellectual History in at university with a prof who got his PhD. on Jonathan Edwards.
I hate the Puritan concept of God as I explained in my own blog (The Nature of Reality Step #2). Indeed, the central reason I am a Friend is because Friends trust God is love, not a Almighty Sovereign who has hidden decrees wherein he predestines many humans to Hell before the beginning of time.
>>Perhaps there is a need to move away from her Congregationalist past by finding more expansive terms for God. I can't say for certain why she might find the term troublesome because I am not her, and I won't presume to know >>something I haven't asked her personally.
I agree. I need to dialogue with her more to understand her view.
>>Perhaps you should ask her, my friend, before you label her an "atheist" in >>the midst of her pain and interior struggles?
As I said above, I thought she had chosen the label. Her anti-theistic words were very strong. But maybe you see that she was venting not being academic in her statement.
>>Concerning the Paganism aspect -- In her blog I read of coming to understand God as also being Goddess, and a gradual inclusion of the feminine aspect of >>Divinity as well as the masculine we were all brought up to be focused on.
As I said above, I find Paganism very troubling since I come from a deep grounding in the Jewish Bible, especially the prophets who very strongly condemn all forms of Paganism.
Seeing God a both masculine and feminine--I agree completely with that. And I agree that too much focus has been put on the masculine in Christian faith.
>>She also, in several instances, refers to God as Truth and Reality. I read her "Truth" as not only the ethical truth you describe, but as spiritual and universal Truth (yes with a capital "T" -another description for what we know as God). This is very far from being an "atheist" - the logic isn't even present for me in that labeling.
My understanding of Hystery's view are different. To me she seems to be in a crisis of faith having lost real hope. I am going to send this post to her so as to get her own thoughts.
>>Your admission to "not being a fan of" Paganism (and her writing reflects Neo-Pagan concepts among others) shows through here. You have a right to your own likes/dislikes,
? My statement has nothing to do with my "own likes and dislikes." I do not think Truth has anything to do with personal preferences or subjectivity.
>>and certainly to your own opinions,
One reason I seek dialogue is that I might have less and less of my "opinions" and more and more truth.
>> but again, I maintain that it crosses a line to label someone when they haven't told you this is what they are.
As I said above, I thought Hystery had stated very strongly repeatedly she didn't think there was any real God.
>>Strong blanket statements only serve our own personal prejudices, and not the minds and spirits of those who are brave enough to express their struggles >>openly to others who can perhaps relate in some way.
From your statements, I see I need be more careful in my writing. I thought I had avoided "personal prejudice."
>>Personally, I feel we are not all created to perceive God in the same way. The Light comes to us in myriad colors and faces, and yes, for some that >>includes the female aspects of the Divine.
Well, we probably part company here. I think Jesus is the image of God as the NT, George Fox, etc. said.
>>For instance, on February 10th I see questions and answers about her beliefs, >>and the one about "Do you believe in God" she answers very clearly.
Hystery said: I believe in the concept that many liberal Christians and other spiritual people call "God."
By using the term "concept," I understood her to mean that she didn't trust in God as real and transcendent, but as a linguistic term of human subjectivity.
>>Maybe (okay, definitely) not in YOUR way. But she most certainly does >>connect to the Living Presence of the Light, and I will not say that is not >>God.
The fact that you see her as having faith that I thought she has lost, means I certainly need to go back to Hystery and ask her if she wishes to clarify this to me. (Maybe she won't however. My relatives and wife think I am way too philosophical and preoccupied too much with theology:-)
>>No, she is not traditionally Christian in her perceptions. But who are you or I >>to say that she is not embracing Jesus Christ?
I got the understanding that she personally embraces Jesus Christ, but Life and the Church, etc. destroyed her trust and intellectual understanding.
>> If you would read her February 17th post with an open mind and heart, >>perhaps you would see this in a clearer light.
I think I've read all of her posts and some of them twice. I do appreciate her deep honesty and complexity of thought and spiritual passion.
>>The statement you refer to: "I also have lost my faith in "God" (go ahead and read sarcastic dismissal in the quotation marks. It's in there.)"
>>But do you not see the inner pain and struggle here?
I sure do! That is one reason I wrote her, and to thank her for sharing, and why I pray for her and her family, holding them in the Light (as I would hope they will do for me).
>>And who of us has not said that, many times, in hours of loneliness and disconnection? Does this then mean we are to be called "atheists"? I would be deeply offended if anyone had called me such in the midst of my fight to stay >>close to the Light of the Holy Spirit.
My understanding of her words is that she doesn't think there really is any Spirit.
>>You take this one sentence
Well, actually I took all the posts I read by her. I only selected out a couple of statements by her because you questioned why I thought she was an Atheist.
>>and decide she is telling us she is an "atheist", but if you really read her other writings in the Light of the Christ and the Holy Spirit, you might see that the reason "God" is in quotations is because she is perhaps fed up with the way she feels His Light has >>been limited in people's minds.
I can understand that as I hate the "god" of Reformed/Calvinism.
>>Perhaps, then, this is a question of semantics and misunderstanding another >>person's statements?
I don't think it is a question of semantics. However, based on your own statements toward me, I realize my own comments weren't clear or sensitive enough in my wording.
>> I would hope so, and I've answered you in the best way I know how as we all >>seek greater communion within the Light.
Thanks for caring and for the sharing.
May you be blessed in God,
In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox
In Friendship,
Mary B.
February 18, 2009 10:36 AM
Post a Comment