Everything Changes

one of the main thoughts in postmodernism is doing away with tradition. the thought is, "if it's been done like this before, why do it this way again? why not do something new?"

and so they do. some in a very misguided way, but that is where their hearts are at.

this is why people who try to speak to postmodern youth about tradition cannot get across. it's not so much that, the youth's "minds have been blinded!" as we so readily like to say so we may put the blame on them. rather, i think they can't understand us because we don't speak their language.

we spend a lot of time criticizing their language, but very few of us bother to learn how to speak it so that we can preach the gospel to them. we just like to blame them for being so hard to reach.

they're WAY over there and they're just not coming on their own. this means we actually need to get up and GO.

and as any good missionary knows, you can't just plow your way into a tribe without learning the language and then have the audacity to try to change everything about their lifestyles overnight.

but yet, how many times have i, who had not for so long considered myself a missionary, committed this same kind of folly in relation to the tribes i have been sent to? just because we both speak english doesn't mean we're speaking the same language.

these people speak through music and film and television and the word 'fuck'. sure it's messy, but we need to know this. we need to be unafraid of this. christ died for our sins. now, can we move on?

can we get past the sacrifice without being afraid that we're going to lose the amazing power of the cross? and actually start using all of the amazing power that comes with it to do some of the things jesus really asked us to do? like get close to those who need him. can we stop being afraid that there is somewhere we will go and the cross will fail us. that suddenly it's saving power is going to run out. as if we can hit it a few times and then conclude the batteries are dead.

in christ, we can go anywhere and do anything. but he has asked to do a few things along the way. and i don't remember legislating morality or being up in arms about gay marriage as being on his list.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW TRUE OR ELOQUENT OUR SPEECH! in their language, all they are hearing is judgement and hate. "...i am but a clanging gong..."

it's not fair for us to shoot back that they just don't have "ears to hear". i think we need to own up to our part of being too difficult to work with. we are supposed to be the servants here. if these people go into strip clubs, then by all means i think we should go meet them there. be unafraid of being common with them. that's what made jesus so radical. tax collectors and sinners. strippers and homosexuals.

so am i willing to break with tradition and do the things that jesus taught? not what i was TOLD he was teaching, but what i get straight from the word of god? am i willing to help him do something new?


and that's what postmodernism (from the perspective of a christian) is all about, charlie brown.    

sorry. word vomit.    

Thanks for your thoughts (here and through your email). They make me ask some questions:

1. Should a so-called traditionalist learn the postmodern language, etc., to stay relevant, in order to share the gospel? Or does that become awkward for both parties involved?

2. What does "you are to be holy" [I Peter 1:16] mean to postmodern youth and young adults? Is holiness one of the things that falls along the wayside in the name of doing away with tradition?

3. Who, if anyone, legislates individual morality if anything goes? Did the Bible ever do that in the eyes of the postmodernist, and if so, is the Bible no longer our moral guide?

I don't ask these questions because I disagree with you, in fact, you spoke clearly and in agreement with much that I am learning about postmodernism. In fact, when I came upon the moms mentioned in my blog, I wanted to learn their language and become relevant - because my heart was so full of compassion.

The fear that remains for me, as one who feels like I losing touch with the postmodern reality, is that things like respect (for those in the world who still believe that partying and cursing is an unGodly thing) is being lost.

Yes, I can still love those people, but it seems challenging to break into a postmodernist's world with the gospel - because they seem open to hearing it, only because they embrace the beliefs of others, even though they don't believe them.    

So who decided that this is the "postmodern" world. The definition given in the original post was "An age in which all principles are questioned, all opinions and beliefs are proclaimed equally valid - if not equally true - and everything is considered relative but hasn't that been the case forever? There has always been people questioning principles and beliefs. There always will be. Correct me if I'm wrong but questioning opinion and beliefs seem to be a good thing. Questioning stimulates conversation and conversation stimulates learing. Maybe it's you (Not anyone in particular. "You" pertains the reader) and maybe it's the person that you are carrying on the conversation with but everybody get's their piont across and that's a good thing. If everybody went along with the same mindset, would that really be a good thing? Getting people to think differently is what stimulates people to do and try new things. And yes I am aware that those new things that people try aren't always a good thing. Just because one has the knowledge to build a bigger bomb doesn't meant that they should. But I remember a point in my life when I was told that God created the world in 7 days and I accepted that theory for quite some time. Then all of a sudden I'm told about the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. All of sudden I got a bunch of questions and I was looking in the family bible and I wasn't exactly finding the answers to the questions that I had. So I have three ways I can look at this. I can accept one belief (God created all life)or the other (Life evolved from a single celled organism) or I can continue to question both theories until I have the answers that I'm lookin for. Now this is just one example of questioning principles and common belief and there are many more out their but my entire belief system was changed because of a few simple questions. Is everything exactly as it seems? Can everything in life be chalked up to a higher power? Or can I believe that all existence came from instant primordial soup mix? I have no idea personally but I've been tryin to find answers to this since about 1989 or so.

Now about the questions that Paul had (These are always fun, and I always look forward to them) I personally think that it would be awkward to both personalities involved. I believe that if you want to change somebody's opinion about something, all you can do is explain what you know. You can walk a person to the door but they have to walk through themselves. And I don't believe that young adults have a connection to the bible anymore. In this MTV generation none of those stories seem to apply. Stories of the Immaculate Conception, the Resurecction of Christ and such are just plain hard to take. I believed them because I was told to. I know that it's a leap of faith but where does one draw the line between a leap of faith and plain gullibilty? What's the difference between Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins and somebody throwing themselves into the grand canyon claming the same thing.

Once again lots of questions....Lot's of questions    

gentleman. excellent to hear from you today. kyle, good to hear from you. i haven't 'seen' you since the whole f shot ordeal and the subsequent dear jon letter. i hope all has been well for you.

and paul, as always, the gracious host. excellent to be with you again as well. it always is.

let's go in chronological order, shall we?

paul -
1. - i think we should do what we are called to do. there are several conservative ministries that i think are legimate arms of christ's body. there are many who are traditional who also need to know about jesus.
i just don't think that those who are more traditional should start warring with those who are not. this is the pomo's(POstMOdernist's) argument.
and yes, i think it would be awkward. at first. as with any foreign place. it's hard to have both parties feel comfortable when one of them is reading every phrase out of a guidebook and sometimes has an accent so thick that you only get every eigth word. but the longer you are there, you pick up on the nuances of the societal functions. begin to not only speak the language, but also begin to recognize dialects. that's when things get really interesting.
that was my point about the cross. down here in the trenches is a dirty place. i get dirt on me all the time. that's why i am thankful that i have one who washes me. and teaches me. so i have the room to go and learn how to live in the place he wants me. surely there are failings, but that is what the cross is for. to cover over my failures as i seek to learn how to be the person god wants me to be in this world.
so i think it would get less awkward over time if we were able to get comfortable in these places.

2. - the pomo question that is given is, "what does 'holy' mean?"
if god is spirit, and we are to be holy as god is holy, why do we tend, in the western world, to think of "holiness" in terms of physical purity?

i see "holy" (which means set apart) as being a spiritual thing more than a physical thing. yes, there is the truth that when the spirit is changed, actions change as well. but that's the thing. which actions?

i think we deny ourselves far more than god ever has. nowhere in his word does it say not to cuss. (and before you quote it, the pomo question is, "what constitues 'unwholesome talk' and who decides it for me?") nowhere in his word does it say not to drink. but because we are taught these things from a young age as being "proper" behavior, we have a hard time feeling comfortable in a place where these things that are taboo are not taboo. where these things are common and every day.

this is where i think we start going back to being under law. having some sort of picture of "proper" behavior for everyone, everywhere, all the time. i think we humans are too limited to be able to judge one another's hearts when it comes to our actions.

so...holiness doesn't go away, it just looks different in each one according to their relationship with god and where god wants them to be and doing what god wants them to do.

if god asks one, "please don't drink any alcohol for the sake of your life among these i have given to you"; and then asks another, "go and ask that guy if you can buy him a drink, and then start talking with him. he really needs my love." we then cannot each one look at the other and think that they are disobeying god because they are not abiding and doing all of the disciplines we are asked by god to adhere to personally. god was the engineer of both situations and each one was serving him equally. "All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines."

3. - i think god legislates morality for each one. after all, IN TRUTH, it is he and he alone who is our judge.

i think the bible ABSOLUTELY does this. but we should recognize that we are no longer under law. "it was for freedom that christ set us free."

in the NT we have not so much a set of commands for phsyical actions as commands for character traits and actions that result from the transformed character traits.

so, in the pomo mind, the bible can still be authoritative. more so now than ever before. for when we are told to be abundant in fruit, we see things like, "love."

now, i can talk to people about love and what they think it means to have "love." but at the end of the day, "love" is a very intangible thing. only you and god know what was done out of your heart in "love", as best you understood that to be from reading his word and studying his life.

you must be in constant communication with him to learn what is pleasing to him in your heart and what needs to "go", out of your heart. and this place, this "heart", (as god prepares one for each child as we give him opportunity to say what stays and what goes) will look different than any other one.

each will be unique. but, beneath the unique shell, we will be able to recoginize each other from what's underneath. love. joy. peace. patientce. and so on.

isn't that how jesus told us to recognize one another. not by our actions, but rather our fruit?

and then of course, in order to learn to hear god's voice, we need to ingest his word, and spend much time listening to his voice.

and, unfortunately, this is all trial and error. trial and error. and error. and error.

but good news! a sacrifice has been made on our behalf that has made amends with god for us forever and for always! so i think we have the freedom to mess up as we seek to hear and obey.

and many times, this can look the opposite of holiness. but it's only what god sees, which is the inner man, that really matters.

if he is pleased, no one else's opinion matters at all. period. ask any one of the martyrs. they'll tell you.



wow. sorry about getting word vomit all over your blog again. was not intending all of that. but there it is.

kyle, i have not forgotten about you. my response to paul took my time for this evening. i promise i will be back tomorrow. i would like to discuss your response as well.

gentleman, it has been a pleasure as always.

much love.    

Kyle - thanks for your thoughts - I wholeheartedly agree: questioning people's thoughts and beliefs is a good thing. A necesary thing. Which is why I think your comments are valid and help me to understand other points of view.

I must add here, I am not rejecting the postmodern way of thinking [and I know that Kyle doesn't think we should label it that] I am just trying to understand it. But I do think there are elements of this thinking that are very different than previous thought.

I was a youth pastor for over 10 years. I never struggled with being relevant or able to relate to the issues at hand while dealing with the kids I was pastoring. Yes, there were times that I was "surprised" or caught off guard by some of the things I saw or heard, but I always seemed to find a way to relate - even if I couldn't relate at all to the youth's actual experience.

Today I find there are times that not only have I not experienced the things I'm seeing, but I can't even find a way to relate to it because it is so foreign to my way of thinking. And that's okay, just scary for me. Mostly because it "seems" that the postmodern way of thought is an "everything goes and jesus still love you" mentality. And personally, I don't believe that is the truth of God's word.

I know, I know... QUESTIONING what I think is the truth of God's word is the whole POINT here, right? But how do we ever KNOW God's truth then? Or don't we? And is the "truth" I "know" simply relative to my experience?

For example, you've heard people say "God loves the sinner, hates the sin" - well, I don't think I believe that! [Hey! Maybe I'M a postmodernist!] I used to. But when I read God "hates all who do wrong" [referring to the wicked in Psalm 5:4-5] I think there is room to believe that our God of love [who IS love] hates it when people do wicked thing.

Which brings up the question, "what is wicked" then.

As Kyle said, lots of questions...

[...and a good dialogue - thanks Jon for your thoughts too - they are always inspiring, yet challenging.]    

tonight my apartment smells of vicks vapo rub as erin and zaavan have both fallen ill with a bad cold. hence the lateness of my response. i apologize.

kyle - your first statement is so postmodern that the irony of what you said made me laugh out loud. it is the postmodern mind in a nutshell.

no, things have not always been this way. but, yes, they have. there have always been those who have questioned. the difference is that before, everyone thought of truth as being absolute. so if they disagreed, they assumed that everyone else was wrong. postmodernism would assert at its core that two people can be right at the same time. that "a" can indeed equal "b". if you do a study of "thought" from the present backwards, you can find relatively "new" ideas proposed by philosophers and scholars like kierkegaard, satre, freud, and the like as ideas that younger people take for granted as "the way its always been" because it has been that way as long as you have had life.

paul and i have seen a radical shift in thought over the course of our lives. imagine how someone who is 80 must feel!

but i agree with you wholeheartedly that the questioning brings about great conversation. and learning. and growth.

if you are really interested in the origins of life on our planet, i would offer you a question. (since i know you love them) this is one that went through my head a few years ago and i have not found a satisfactory answer to it yet.
if we came from single celled organisms, where did gender come from? from what i understand about evolution, the systems we have in our bodies came about from necessity. if we were always asexually reproductive beings, why would gender have become necessary? and how could a non personal concept like "natural selection" even "decide" something like this? much less make the jump, in what would have to be ONE generation, from asexually reproductive beings to two different genders with fully functional and compatable reproductive systems?

and i also agree with you that the stories from the bible, or rather, the ways in which those stories are communicated to us are out moded and not relevant. when they are told, i find it hard in most instances to find myself anywhere in the story. but the longer i am alive and the more i read for myself, i find myself in more and more of the stories. i am able to identify more and more with different people and get into their lives and their minds and wonder what it would have been like to have been them. the way you read anything worth reading. forget your preconceived notions about how the bible is supposed to be read and just read it and see what it says. it talks. i promise.

your last question about the difference between jesus and the guy and the grand canyon would take me too long to fully extrapolate on here. but i will say that at the very least, the most base, the difference between the two is the way the death came about.
in the grand canyon scenario, you have a man willingly walking up to a cliff and jumping off, ending his own life.
in jesus' case, his life was forcably taken from him. for doing nothing more than speaking to crowds in such a way that the power sturcture of the day and culture were challenged.


paul -
as i speak about the postmodern mind, understand that this is only what i think. that's the thing about postmodernism. everyone will have a different definition of what it is. and that's about the only definition there is. everyone questions everything and comes up with whatever answers they desire.

but within the christian context...

as i said at the start. the two sides miss each other. one by saying that "all truth is absolute." the other by saying, "nothing is absolute." yes, these two sides are diametrically opposed to each other.

yet, as with most things in my life, i find the answer in the balance. some things are absolute. some things are relative. and you need to figure out for yourself which is which. scripture says there is no other god. this is a truth i believe to be absolute. then we also see statements about conscience. i'm not going to reprint them here, but paul's talk in romans chapters 12-14 is pretty blatant about the christian life being different for every single individual and that the things we believe and the things we act out on are going to be different as well.

then 1 cor. 12, and his talk about the body. taken literally, each body part has a radically different look, shape, size, texture, smell, and function. to see all of the body parts laid out and stumble upon them, you would never guess what they would become if you put them all together, or that they would even go together at all.

i do not see postmodernism so much (when it is held with MUCH prayer and MUCH searching of the scriptures with obedience to them being the focus) as being an "EVERYthing goes and jesus still loves you" mentality. but rather, an "ANYthing goes and jesus still loves you" mentality. i may just be splitting hairs here, but i think there is a difference. i see the former as being more centered on me and myself being allowed to do whatever i want to whenever i want to. the latter i see more as the entire scope of human existance being open to me through christ and allowing him to tell me what can stay and what can go without limiting him and what i will allow him to do through me.

this is what i mean when i say that if the lost hang out in strip clubs, we should meet them there. i think that when we set up our own rules and say things like, "strip clubs are evil and should be avoided at all costs" we limit what the spirit can do through us. if he asks me to, i can go in there with the knowledge that i am secure in my relationship to him. because i am following him instead of man made rules.

now, once again, THIS IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE THING, and should NOT be practiced by just anyone. yet, i believe, in truth, that it is for everyone. (how pomo is that?)
i think it is the relationship god wants to have with us.

when applied to the untrained and undisciplined life, you have the chaos we see around us. when applied to the spirit filled life, you go places and do things that bring you closer to people you would NEVER, EVER come in contact with if you played it "safe." and you can do it without fear that you are going too far. but if you do go too far, you can be sure that if you are always listening, the spirit will convict when needed. and the cross will always be there to help you pick up the pieces.

this is why i have adopted the pomo mindset for myself, and why so many others have as well. at its core, it is about stark raving bald faced HONESTY. "THIS IS WHO I AM AND I DON'T WANT TO BE ASHAMED OF THAT!"

it reminds me much of the statement cs lewis made in mere christianity that a young man who doesn't believe in god, professes it and means it from his heart, is closer to god at that moment than at any other in his life. because he is being brutally HONEST. it is satan that is the father of lies. there is no truth in him. let's say that again, shall we? because it sounds vaguely important!

"When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." in context, this is part of a statement jesus is making to the religious of his day and how they are truly the children of the devil.

i think the devil is the father of "nicety" that is so pervasive in church culture. when young people go to most churches, they get a sense that something about the proceedings is not quite honest. people are not quite themselves. and they know this because when they go, they can not fully be themselves but have to hide part of themselves away in order to go. so when they have the choice, they seek out places "where everybody knows your name, and they're always glad you came." places where they can be comfortable being themselves. places where they can be HONEST.

and that is the tragedy, that in a place that claims that it champions "truth", people feel the most ill at ease being honest.


man. there is too much to this. this is where the blogging fellowship falls short. i wish i could see you face to face. have you over for dinner and discuss for hours on end. in the end, i write so much and i don't want it to be TOO long, but i don't want to leave you confused either.

this is enough for now, i think. i hope this goes on as it is helping me as much as it is helping you. rechecking myself and asking about holiness in my life. yes, in pomo thought and theology, it can easily take a backseat if you are not vigilant.

it is a very short trip from "god is asking me to do something radical" to "i'm just doing what i want to and pinning the responsibility on god." but unless you are open to new things, how do you ever get to the point where dressing up in camel hair and baptizing and preaching on a river bank seem like a sane choice for your life?

next time i'll talk about language
and communication with the pomo mind as it is in the world. if you would prefer, we can continue this by e mail if it is not interesting to anyone but us. you know where to find me.

much love.    

stirring - my head is swimming - thanks for putting this out there boys - it is challenging my thoughts    

Conversations like this keep me awake at night...Well that and being really really hungry.

About that whole "Jesus and the Grand Canyon" comment. What I should have said was this; What's the difference between Jesus dying for the sin of man and a person throwing themselves into the Grand Canyon who believes that he's doing the same thing? Why is one person different from another? If that guy is standing at the edge of that cliff Honestly believing to himself that he is sacrificing himself because he was asked to by God, who is anybody to tell him different? That is probably the way I should have worded that. I blame lack of sleep or too much caffiene for that mistake in words. Glad to see my words keep everybody amused. That's what I'm here for!

And I wouldn't say that I'm for or against labeling things. There are arguments why you should or shouldn't do that. On one hand if you label something some way then you tend to box your mind into thinking that's the way something is and that's the way it will always be. On the other hand putting a label on things will help people see where you stand. Take calling one's self a Christian for example. When you tell somebody that's what you consider yourself to be then you are pidgeon-holed into what that person thinks a Christian is and that's where you will remain until there point of view is changed. On the other hand not telling anybody you consider yourself to be Christian, but leading your life as you think a Christian should might seem weird to the outside viewer until you explain why you do the things you do (If of course you feel the need to explain yourself. If you don't then ignore that part and continue with the rest of this little... I don't know what to call it. Rant isn't the right word but it's the closest thing that I can think of). Any religion, group or anything will do here. Christianity just popped into my head first, but all of a sudden I'm thinking that if I would have said Voodoo instead this woulda been a whole lot funnier to try and type out. This all made sense upside my head when I thought it out. Writing it out on the other hand just seems be confusing the crap out of me. If somebody can make sense out of this please feel free to inform me. If not, back to the drawing board I go to explain this one.

Of course that's just my opinion....I could be wrong    

Ah... so is this what our men were always sitting at the city gates and chatting about? POMO vomit....
Over the many centuries I know there have been many POMO vomit discussions. "There is nothing new under the sun." LOL Ecclesiastes somewhere.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." That takes care of almost all of Paul's concerns...LOL
Just use your sword, man .... and you won't have any problem speaking to these people. The Lord will do the rest.
As far as legislating holiness... Weird combo of words....holiness comes from a heart in love with the King of Kings .... holiness grows from our "relationship" with the Lord of Lords.... we begin to become like Him the more we hang out with Him. Amen?
Legislating .... hmmmm I think you leaders in the church are supposed to be shepherding.... didn't know you really wanted to be government officials. Jokes :-)
And I agree wholeheartedly with you Jon. The present day church only accepts and embraces those who know how to walk the walk and talk the talk and are lookin' good on the outside. They can totally be white washed graves on the inside...but hey, who cares....
And this is nothing new and the word Fshot lol sorry, I'm a prude... has been around for longer than the POMO people... the drug culture has been using it heavily for a long, long time... I know.... used to hang out there and had to slap myself to stop saying it when I met the Lord.. and walked out of that culture into the church culture.... and although it is better than the drug culture LOL better food for sure .... Only Jesus matters... He calls us to love... first an all out sell to Him alone and then to each other .... then and only then will we be able to obey His word.
Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Kyle.... you are the cutest ....
I love your comments and I'm so glad you didn't go away as luggage.... "Well skin me alive and call me luggage".... that made me laugh out loud when I read that after Paul taught you about Xmas.
goodnight gentleman and a big hello to Cheryl :-)    

Oh yea, Jon,
Stay away from those strip clubs. LOL
Praying for Erin and Zaavan to be well soon.

Much love to you as well ..... :-)    

cheryl! great to see you here in the great white north. a pleasure to be with you as always. i applaud your willingness to come, sit, read, and contemplate all of our ramblings here. it shows an eagerness and depth of thought not commonly displayed openly.

kyle -
i get you. as i said before, it would take a long time to truly flesh out the differences between the two deaths. literally MILLIONS of pages have been written about the subject of "christology" and what it means (or at best, what the writer thinks it means)
simply, i think the difference between the two, as you have described it in your second comment, is this: nothing at all. if this person has TRULY been charged by god to fling themselves into the grand canyon to atone for our sins, then his obedience is the same as jesus'.

the troubling thought for me is this, however. whether this man was convinced in his mind he was being called of god to do this... was he really?
my brother told me something several years ago when i was a teenager that has proved true over and over again. "perception is fact." what a person perceives to be the truth is in fact, for them, true. but does it make it true in the real sense? i am paraphrasing c.s. lewis when he said that a madman in a cell who scribbles the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell does not by any means blot out the sun.

that is to say that just because we believe something to be true does not make it so. HOWEVER, if this man truly believes this to be the case in his heart, i think god is a fair judge and that he will be treated fairly when he comes face to face with the maker. to fling oneself off of the top of the grand canyon to what will most certainly be an agonizing and extraodinarialy painful death shows more strength and courage than i have.

and i agree very much with your thoughts on labeling things. especially in the realm of the word "christian". the concepts that i have associated with this word from my experiences in this life have caused me to want to run away from that word and being associated with it. because what i think of when i think of the word "christian" is something that i generally don't want to be associated with.

wendy -
as always, i love hearing from you. you have this way of agreeing with me and then trying to bring balance into my way out thoughts. i need this and deeply appreciate it.

yes. let us love the lord our god with all our heart mind and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves.

and i agree that we need to open our mouths and let the sword do it's work. yet, in my own heart, i feel a burning passion to make sure that it is in the language of the person i am speaking to.
1 cor. 14:16 "If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?"
1Co 14:23 "So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?"

too often, i find that i have championed people's misunderstanding of me and my words to be proof that i was speaking god's word. i am beginning to question that.
1Co 14:9-11 "So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me."
and this is the rub. trying to find a balance in knowing that i am communicating with people who indeed speak english in a way they can understand. but also recognizing that just because they understand me does not mean they will respond. but always trying to make sure my speech is indeed relevant and truth filled.

if you all are still here and i am not talking to an empty room, i am loving this. it is helping me more than you know. i do not want this to be too long (again), so i will leave it. but i would like to go into more thoughts on language and get feedback from y'all if you are willing. thanks for your time again.

much love.    

I was really hoping that my "Skin me alive and call me luggage" line was gonna get some laughs. Gotta love Tiny Toons. But enough of my love for Saturday morning cartoons. I'm gonna have to go and agree with Jon about his "Just cause we're both speaking english doesn't mean you understand what I'm saying (At least that's what I pulled from what was said). Reminds me of a quote I once heard in a movie "Yeah, you heard me but your not listening to me. Your eyes are glued wide shut". When trying to teach people, I find it's easiest to learn, their mannerisms and way of thinking so I can easiest get across to them. Get that part figured out and your in.

Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

P.S hope your family is feelin better soon Jon. Meant to mention it earlier but it completely slipped my mind. From me and mine to you and yours, all the best