I was brought up short once again by an article by Mortimer Carr (otherwise unknown to me) in the May 1946 Journal, "Protection and Defense". Perhaps I alone have too often let my mind drop into a rut when attempting to do my duty as required in Article VIII, Sect. 6, "Alertness to Duty", in the Church Manual. Mrs. Eddy there demands, in fact, that each member of the Mother Church "defend himself daily". It was easy for me to interpret this as donning, or at least clattering around vigorously with, an armor of truths daily. Somewhat to my chagrin--well, ok, a lot to my chagrin--Mr. Carr points out that would be protecting, not defending, myself.
He quotes "a dictionary" which states: "the inmates of a fortress are defended by its guns, protected by its walls, and guarded by sentries against surprise." Hosing ourselves down daily with a shower of the letter isn't defending ourselves daily against aggressive mental suggestion. I find the definition of defend in the Students Reference Dictionary (unfortunately no longer available, it seems, from The Bookmark or anywhere else) stronger than those in my desk dictionary. It (SRD) reads, in part, for defend: "To drive from; to thrust back; hence, to deny; to repel a demand, charge, or accusation; to oppose; to resist . . . . To drive back a foe or danger . . . . . To secure against attacks or evil; to fortify against danger or violence . . . . " One certainly doesn't do that with a feather duster of words or a sprinkling of politive thoughts.
Protection is defined, in part, from the SRD: "shelter from evil, preservation from loss, injury, or annoyance . . . How little are men disposed to acknowledge divine protection. That which protects or preserves from injury."
This article of the Church Manual is much too important to handle with butterfingered notions of what the word defend means, and Mrs. Eddy tells us that each by-law in the Church Manual obeyed and lived will contribute to our growth in grace and worthiness to be called genuine Christian Scientists.
Note: I am sorry if I keep giving the false impression that I do not want to write poems and post them here. To the reasons already given for my seeming unwillingness, I would add that when I sit down pen in hand to listen to the inspired whisperings of Euterpe or Polyhymnia I become instead a Quasimodo tormented not by "the bells, the bells", but those legions of cherished verses which come crowding in with their mellifluous elbows flying. It is too easy in such circumstances to end up with a poetic bricolage or pastiche, which I obviously do not desire. Then there is Shakespeare in all his overwhelming glory.
Finally, as to the cryptic, probably Chinese, "comments" I know not what, whence, or to where.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Culprits, Correction, and Coiffures
One culprit that can send the healing process into seemingly endless and unnecessary innings or overtimes is a misapprehension of what it is that needs healing. One cruelly puckish aggressive mental suggestion of mortal mind is the red herring that it should even be obvious to a dolt that it is matter that needs healing when the body is in revolt, whereas we learn in Christian Science that it should be plain to a Mortimer Snerd that there is no something in nothing (matter) eligible for healing despite a seemingly vivid, but vacuous, melee of affliction.
An eraser does not correct a botched computation. Computation and correction are mental processes, which may be expressed on a sheet of paper, but those visible numbers, correct or incorrect, are not realities. It is always wrong thinking that needs correcting, i.e., healing, not sensory evidence. An errantly directed pencil point (I know, nobody uses pencils any more, but work with me on this, as Ross Perot used to say) is innocent as a newborn babe, though the flawed human thought guiding it via the hand is not and needs to profit from the salutary effects of the operation of the Christ, Truth, in consciousness.
Corner cutters should not, moreover, delude themselves that a superficial mental combover, outre or otherwise, will "beat the devil", notwithstanding Mr. Trump's bravura coiffure.
An eraser does not correct a botched computation. Computation and correction are mental processes, which may be expressed on a sheet of paper, but those visible numbers, correct or incorrect, are not realities. It is always wrong thinking that needs correcting, i.e., healing, not sensory evidence. An errantly directed pencil point (I know, nobody uses pencils any more, but work with me on this, as Ross Perot used to say) is innocent as a newborn babe, though the flawed human thought guiding it via the hand is not and needs to profit from the salutary effects of the operation of the Christ, Truth, in consciousness.
Corner cutters should not, moreover, delude themselves that a superficial mental combover, outre or otherwise, will "beat the devil", notwithstanding Mr. Trump's bravura coiffure.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Escaping Error's Euroclydon Experiences
Sometimes just remaining afloat on the turbulent ocean of material existence is a victory and cause for rejoicing, but eventually a vigorous effort will need to be made to get to the shore and the "Rock of Ages . . . Safe above life's raging sea." (Hymns 293-95) Some humble, receptive students of Christian Science may surf in on a wave hanging ten, if that's the correct term, with maddening ease while others may flounder and half drown for a time before being cast up like grateful Jonahs upon "Life's shore".
One way to speed up the journey to the beach is to begin thinking much more deeply and prayerfully about every word and sentence in Science and Health. Mary Baker Eddy's rich and precise vocabulary was not a prideful display of erudition. She knew the difficulty of expressing pure metaphysics and Science in human language and therefore chose her words with the inspired foresight and exactness necessary to permit the spiritual sense thereof to be revealed to the diligent and receptive student. A failure to properly discern these shades of meaning and let them lead one on in their "kindly Light" may leave him adrift on the frothy whitecaps of opaque or meaningless expressions and sentences.
Another potential maelstrom awaiting the striving Scientist is the sometimes brazen, sometimes subtle, "vanity sizing" of a number of important standards and requirements, one of which was mentioned in a recent entry, and it doesn't take a green eyeshaded accountant to ferret out others. To allow oneself to be happily deceived into a false sense of security about the requirements of obedience and way-marks of real progress is to risk being abandoned on the becalmed and dispiriting waters of that "Ancient Marriner" of whom Coleridge wrote. "Water, water, every where,/ Nor any drop to drink."
I cannot resist adding as a postscript those wonderful lines near the end of this great poem, which I have quoted before:
He prayeth best who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.
One way to speed up the journey to the beach is to begin thinking much more deeply and prayerfully about every word and sentence in Science and Health. Mary Baker Eddy's rich and precise vocabulary was not a prideful display of erudition. She knew the difficulty of expressing pure metaphysics and Science in human language and therefore chose her words with the inspired foresight and exactness necessary to permit the spiritual sense thereof to be revealed to the diligent and receptive student. A failure to properly discern these shades of meaning and let them lead one on in their "kindly Light" may leave him adrift on the frothy whitecaps of opaque or meaningless expressions and sentences.
Another potential maelstrom awaiting the striving Scientist is the sometimes brazen, sometimes subtle, "vanity sizing" of a number of important standards and requirements, one of which was mentioned in a recent entry, and it doesn't take a green eyeshaded accountant to ferret out others. To allow oneself to be happily deceived into a false sense of security about the requirements of obedience and way-marks of real progress is to risk being abandoned on the becalmed and dispiriting waters of that "Ancient Marriner" of whom Coleridge wrote. "Water, water, every where,/ Nor any drop to drink."
I cannot resist adding as a postscript those wonderful lines near the end of this great poem, which I have quoted before:
He prayeth best who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
A Note That Burgeoned
As I scribbled on diligently with what started as, if not a baby, an adolescent note I thought of Woody Allen and the instant pudding, or instant whatever it was, in "Sleeper", though I resisted the temptation to subdue it with a broom. Feel free to pass on by, welcome visitor, if you are now chary of the prospect.
Some housekeeping matters. There have been a couple of recent requests--Supporter (Southwest) and Anonymous (I think)--for some personal healings. I feel it wise at present to keep this blog as impersonal as possible and not draw what would possibly be undesirable attention to me. I also do not wish to chance that anything in this blog would be post- or pre-validated or invalidated by some perception regarding or reaction to a healing. Additionally, I need to avoid any inadvertent disclosures which could jeopardize anonymity and loose from their kennels the salivating bloodhounds. Read instead the testimonies in the Sentinels and Journals of the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Some are staggering, humbling evidence of what God and even a limited understanding of Christian Science can do. This verbiage may seem a lot like an unconvincing song and dance response, but at present I feel it best to stick to my chosen last.
The use in a comment to a previous entry of the word "demonstration" for "healing" deserves a comment of its own. By a timely coincidence I recently read a first-rate article in the June 1945 Journal by Emma Easton Newman, CSD, "To Demonstrate 'This Living Vine'". She writes: "However, some of the testifiers [at Wednesday evening meetings], not yet versed in the true and spiritual meaning of demonstration, speak of physical improvement, or an increase in salary, or the obtaining of a house, or some other human objective, as a demonstration. . . . If we ask ourselves, Am I demonstrating the 'living Vine', the Christ? we shall use the word 'demonstration' less frequently, but more accurately. It is impossible to assert the nonexistence of matter and material projects and recognize that the mortal, the material, the carnal mind is a dream, utterly unreal, and then expct to demonstrate or prove anything in this dream. We demonstrate our at-one-ment with God through claiming and utilizing the Mind of Christ." Further on she continues: "He [the student of Christian Science] needs to be shown that his necessity is to demonstrate his oneness with the Father, to demonstrate divine Principle, Life, and Love, to demonstrate life in Christ. He sometimes thinks of the healing that is the fruitage of demonstration as being the demonstration itself, whereas the higher meaning of demonstration is the fuller realization of the Christ, Truth." My trusty Student's Reference Dictionary gives, in part, this definition of demonstrate: "To show and prove to be certain; to prove beyond the possibility of doubt". This exerpt from Mrs. Newman's excellent article, which needs to be read in full, does not do it justice.
I have hemmed and hawed before on requests for poetry. For me, poetry is not motivated by a desire or need to put an arrow in a bull's eye, i.e., to make a point. It comes more from spontaneous inspiration (though that might be a self-flattering word to use) and can eat up scads of valuable time. Additionally, I think I detect that many kind readers of this blog are not irresistibly drawn to the sunlight dappled glades and dells of poesy. This isn't a "No and don't bring up the subject again", but rather to say that as time and the sputtering fires of the muse permit, we'll see.
Finally, I noticed after my last entry that I was not alone with limpets, not Georgia, on my mind.
Some housekeeping matters. There have been a couple of recent requests--Supporter (Southwest) and Anonymous (I think)--for some personal healings. I feel it wise at present to keep this blog as impersonal as possible and not draw what would possibly be undesirable attention to me. I also do not wish to chance that anything in this blog would be post- or pre-validated or invalidated by some perception regarding or reaction to a healing. Additionally, I need to avoid any inadvertent disclosures which could jeopardize anonymity and loose from their kennels the salivating bloodhounds. Read instead the testimonies in the Sentinels and Journals of the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Some are staggering, humbling evidence of what God and even a limited understanding of Christian Science can do. This verbiage may seem a lot like an unconvincing song and dance response, but at present I feel it best to stick to my chosen last.
The use in a comment to a previous entry of the word "demonstration" for "healing" deserves a comment of its own. By a timely coincidence I recently read a first-rate article in the June 1945 Journal by Emma Easton Newman, CSD, "To Demonstrate 'This Living Vine'". She writes: "However, some of the testifiers [at Wednesday evening meetings], not yet versed in the true and spiritual meaning of demonstration, speak of physical improvement, or an increase in salary, or the obtaining of a house, or some other human objective, as a demonstration. . . . If we ask ourselves, Am I demonstrating the 'living Vine', the Christ? we shall use the word 'demonstration' less frequently, but more accurately. It is impossible to assert the nonexistence of matter and material projects and recognize that the mortal, the material, the carnal mind is a dream, utterly unreal, and then expct to demonstrate or prove anything in this dream. We demonstrate our at-one-ment with God through claiming and utilizing the Mind of Christ." Further on she continues: "He [the student of Christian Science] needs to be shown that his necessity is to demonstrate his oneness with the Father, to demonstrate divine Principle, Life, and Love, to demonstrate life in Christ. He sometimes thinks of the healing that is the fruitage of demonstration as being the demonstration itself, whereas the higher meaning of demonstration is the fuller realization of the Christ, Truth." My trusty Student's Reference Dictionary gives, in part, this definition of demonstrate: "To show and prove to be certain; to prove beyond the possibility of doubt". This exerpt from Mrs. Newman's excellent article, which needs to be read in full, does not do it justice.
I have hemmed and hawed before on requests for poetry. For me, poetry is not motivated by a desire or need to put an arrow in a bull's eye, i.e., to make a point. It comes more from spontaneous inspiration (though that might be a self-flattering word to use) and can eat up scads of valuable time. Additionally, I think I detect that many kind readers of this blog are not irresistibly drawn to the sunlight dappled glades and dells of poesy. This isn't a "No and don't bring up the subject again", but rather to say that as time and the sputtering fires of the muse permit, we'll see.
Finally, I noticed after my last entry that I was not alone with limpets, not Georgia, on my mind.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Adhering To Our Jealous Father-Mother God
To my (perhaps flawed) perception there has been a desire on the part of those nominally in charge of affairs at the MC to try to proffer Christian Science as an all-inclusive clubbable, to use Dr. Johnson's word, religion. Whether one feels an impulse to rush to the defense of, toss brickbats at, or simply let Islam be, Scientists shouldn't forget Paul's injunction: "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing".
As Christians and Christian Scientists we have a duty to love all mankind, but a foolish or naive camaraderie with those who have not a particle of love or respect for Christian Science is to create an inviting opening for the hagfish Antichrist. Christian Science is not a choice melange of tidbits from other religions, nor is it just a poor relative among the family of faiths dwelling in the great monotheistic tent oaisised in the midst of the vast desert of human misery. We must love all men, yes, but we should not feel compelled to tuck them in with us cheek by jowl at night.
Unless firmly and constantly resisted, the steady pull of aggressive mental suggestion and animal magnetism can and will draw us to the event horizon of the black hole of the Antichrist, and without clear spiritual reference points to orient and guide us we can drift amiably toward it unawares. To achieve the necessary spiritual and metaphysical escape velocity from the illusion of error and mortal mind requires pure, steadfast, and unadulterated commitment to the Christ Truth, not to an ecumenical, hail-fellow-well-met bonhomie with other religions, no matter how compatible with or friendly toward Christian Science they may seem.
As Scientists clinging limpet-like to our heavenly Father-Mother God, should we not, like Hardy's darkling thrush, express our heartfelt adoration and inspiration "Upon the growing gloom" in joyful carolings of "Some blessed Hope, whereof [we know]/and [mankind is] unaware"? ("The Darkling Thrush")
As Christians and Christian Scientists we have a duty to love all mankind, but a foolish or naive camaraderie with those who have not a particle of love or respect for Christian Science is to create an inviting opening for the hagfish Antichrist. Christian Science is not a choice melange of tidbits from other religions, nor is it just a poor relative among the family of faiths dwelling in the great monotheistic tent oaisised in the midst of the vast desert of human misery. We must love all men, yes, but we should not feel compelled to tuck them in with us cheek by jowl at night.
Unless firmly and constantly resisted, the steady pull of aggressive mental suggestion and animal magnetism can and will draw us to the event horizon of the black hole of the Antichrist, and without clear spiritual reference points to orient and guide us we can drift amiably toward it unawares. To achieve the necessary spiritual and metaphysical escape velocity from the illusion of error and mortal mind requires pure, steadfast, and unadulterated commitment to the Christ Truth, not to an ecumenical, hail-fellow-well-met bonhomie with other religions, no matter how compatible with or friendly toward Christian Science they may seem.
As Scientists clinging limpet-like to our heavenly Father-Mother God, should we not, like Hardy's darkling thrush, express our heartfelt adoration and inspiration "Upon the growing gloom" in joyful carolings of "Some blessed Hope, whereof [we know]/and [mankind is] unaware"? ("The Darkling Thrush")
Monday, September 6, 2010
Department Of Amplification (Q And A Desk)
Question. You keep repeating like jungle drums that some sinister influence is, and has been for years, slowly and surreptitiously insinuating itself into the Church and the consciences of many of its members, but what evidence do you offer that such an alarming activity is actually taking place?
Answer: I'm glad you asked. The most vicious argument many Christian Scientists are being subjected to--and in unguarded moments submitting to--is that Christian Science does not heal, or if it does it takes more time to reach a conclusion than "Lost" did and one that isn't any more satisfying. The inspired "Christian Science Standard of Healing", which originally appeared in the November 1957 Journal and oft reprinted, was given a sellout Ken and Barbie makeover in tweedledum and tweedledee versions, though tweedledum, or was it tweedledee, was hastily sent to detention for bad behavior, i.e., for still asking too much of what was already much too little. Those who found the original 1957 V-12 engine too souped-up and demanding for their limited metaphysical budgets got as a response to their complaints a sporty 4-cylinder put-put that promised all the power and performance of the 1957 model without its onerous "costs".
The apostate notion that Christian Science is just another mind/body healing system securely corseted in the bone stays of musty Victorian rules unfortunately seems to have gained footing. Christian Science is not some spinster wallflower at the mind/body healing cotillion, nor is it like the child's game of tiddlywinks, where only he who somehow gets the most prayer chips in the cup gets the healing, like a winner at the pool of Bethesda.
There has also been, I believe, a subtle and very harmful effort for years to wean Scientists away from their textbooks and encourage them to venture into an up-with-the-times Brave New World and its soma of contextless exerpts. Without limpet-like adherence to the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy, Christian Scientists could allow Science to disappear for a time or lapse into obscurity.
Then there are the recently discussed attempts to relegate Mrs. Eddy, our Leader, and her superannuated Church Manual to the rumble seat of the Mother Church roadster, where they can ride along out of sight and out of mind. And kudos to the Gill book, which was a terrific opening kickoff in this ongoing enterprise.
Several other unfortunate "progressive" initiatives could be added, but space does not permit, and they have been highlighted in many previous entries.
Question. I'm tired of all that cat and mouse about who the villian is and what the clue is in that dopey poemlet. Is it Mr. Plum with the pipe wrench in the conservatory or who or what?
Answer. Remove the indentation of lines 2 and 4 and align them to the left with lines 1 and 3. I don't surrender easily--but neither does the Adversary alluded to.
Answer: I'm glad you asked. The most vicious argument many Christian Scientists are being subjected to--and in unguarded moments submitting to--is that Christian Science does not heal, or if it does it takes more time to reach a conclusion than "Lost" did and one that isn't any more satisfying. The inspired "Christian Science Standard of Healing", which originally appeared in the November 1957 Journal and oft reprinted, was given a sellout Ken and Barbie makeover in tweedledum and tweedledee versions, though tweedledum, or was it tweedledee, was hastily sent to detention for bad behavior, i.e., for still asking too much of what was already much too little. Those who found the original 1957 V-12 engine too souped-up and demanding for their limited metaphysical budgets got as a response to their complaints a sporty 4-cylinder put-put that promised all the power and performance of the 1957 model without its onerous "costs".
The apostate notion that Christian Science is just another mind/body healing system securely corseted in the bone stays of musty Victorian rules unfortunately seems to have gained footing. Christian Science is not some spinster wallflower at the mind/body healing cotillion, nor is it like the child's game of tiddlywinks, where only he who somehow gets the most prayer chips in the cup gets the healing, like a winner at the pool of Bethesda.
There has also been, I believe, a subtle and very harmful effort for years to wean Scientists away from their textbooks and encourage them to venture into an up-with-the-times Brave New World and its soma of contextless exerpts. Without limpet-like adherence to the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy, Christian Scientists could allow Science to disappear for a time or lapse into obscurity.
Then there are the recently discussed attempts to relegate Mrs. Eddy, our Leader, and her superannuated Church Manual to the rumble seat of the Mother Church roadster, where they can ride along out of sight and out of mind. And kudos to the Gill book, which was a terrific opening kickoff in this ongoing enterprise.
Several other unfortunate "progressive" initiatives could be added, but space does not permit, and they have been highlighted in many previous entries.
Question. I'm tired of all that cat and mouse about who the villian is and what the clue is in that dopey poemlet. Is it Mr. Plum with the pipe wrench in the conservatory or who or what?
Answer. Remove the indentation of lines 2 and 4 and align them to the left with lines 1 and 3. I don't surrender easily--but neither does the Adversary alluded to.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
"The only incentive of a mistaken sense . . . ."
"The only incentive of a mistaken sense is malicious animal magnetism,--the name of all evil,--and this must be understood." (My 357: 8-10) Incentive: "That which kindles or inflames; . . . That which moves the mind or operates on the passions; that which incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action; that which prompts to good or ill; motive; spur." (SRD)
I apologize to those of you who have grown weary of the subject discussed, however briefly, in the past few entries, but I am more convinced than ever that Christian Scientists ignore it at their peril. However, one's weariness with the topic could be an indication of the secret and invisible influence of this malicious opiate. If you are a loyal, pure, sincere, and diligent student of Christian Science who is unreservedly loyal to Christ Jesus, Mary Baker Eddy, and the Church Manual this malignant evil wants you out of the way, as in, not to put too blunt a point on it, dead, or at least mentally dead. If one is not most watchful and wise he could very well find himself serving unconsciously an error which he would not dream of serving consciously. Color me barmy if you wish, but post a double watch just in case.
There is a sentence relevant to this ongoing monologue, with feedback of course, in Miscellany which is so short--and pungent--that it can easily be overlooked in a distracted blink of an eye. "That error is most forcible which is least distinct to conscience." (My 197: 2-4) Exerpts from the Student's Reference Dictionary (SRD) definitions of two words in that sentence show something of the depth and importance of that simple statement. Forcible: "Powerful; strong; mighty. Violent. Efficacious; active. . . . acting with force; impressive." Conscience: "Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power, or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. . . . Conscience is called by some writers, the 'moral sense' . . . ." As I write this I have not had time to check if any commenters to the previous, and doubtless thoroughly intriguing, entry found my trifle there thought provoking. It has been said that every tub must stand on its own bottom, but if the corrosive effects of stealthy, insinuating aggressive mental suggestion has eaten it out one's present condition could be far dicier than he supposes.
Note: Have read comments to the previous entry. I appreciate the interest in the poemlet, but I think I overstated the clue's running through it. The little verse is really a stalking-horse of sorts for four carefully placed bread crumbs. Though as I said before, I may be in the minority feeling they lead to a credible threat, but don't be too quick to say it isn't.
A friend (Southwest) gave a pretty good summary of the source of this blog's title, which really goes back to the New Testament, of course. I would say the title has relevance individuals as well as to the movement as a whole.
I apologize to those of you who have grown weary of the subject discussed, however briefly, in the past few entries, but I am more convinced than ever that Christian Scientists ignore it at their peril. However, one's weariness with the topic could be an indication of the secret and invisible influence of this malicious opiate. If you are a loyal, pure, sincere, and diligent student of Christian Science who is unreservedly loyal to Christ Jesus, Mary Baker Eddy, and the Church Manual this malignant evil wants you out of the way, as in, not to put too blunt a point on it, dead, or at least mentally dead. If one is not most watchful and wise he could very well find himself serving unconsciously an error which he would not dream of serving consciously. Color me barmy if you wish, but post a double watch just in case.
There is a sentence relevant to this ongoing monologue, with feedback of course, in Miscellany which is so short--and pungent--that it can easily be overlooked in a distracted blink of an eye. "That error is most forcible which is least distinct to conscience." (My 197: 2-4) Exerpts from the Student's Reference Dictionary (SRD) definitions of two words in that sentence show something of the depth and importance of that simple statement. Forcible: "Powerful; strong; mighty. Violent. Efficacious; active. . . . acting with force; impressive." Conscience: "Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power, or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. . . . Conscience is called by some writers, the 'moral sense' . . . ." As I write this I have not had time to check if any commenters to the previous, and doubtless thoroughly intriguing, entry found my trifle there thought provoking. It has been said that every tub must stand on its own bottom, but if the corrosive effects of stealthy, insinuating aggressive mental suggestion has eaten it out one's present condition could be far dicier than he supposes.
Note: Have read comments to the previous entry. I appreciate the interest in the poemlet, but I think I overstated the clue's running through it. The little verse is really a stalking-horse of sorts for four carefully placed bread crumbs. Though as I said before, I may be in the minority feeling they lead to a credible threat, but don't be too quick to say it isn't.
A friend (Southwest) gave a pretty good summary of the source of this blog's title, which really goes back to the New Testament, of course. I would say the title has relevance individuals as well as to the movement as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)