Our favorite worship experience...

Dogma Part 2 - Cherry Picking Theology

Let’s look at the word dogma. First, you need to understand that it doesn’t appear on my favorite word list. I see dogma as the misguided efforts of the corporate Body of Christ and some educated but confused individuals to drag the nature of mystical divinity down to levels of human understanding. Dogma results from a creature need to define the indefinable Creator and to conform everyone to approved doctrine, to validate and protect church polity, and to corral everyone by fencing them into systems of acceptable belief and practice. 

Someone defined dogma as Deadly orthodoxy”, a definition I warm to in my soul. Sadly, the fear of rocking the theological boat causes many to either adopt the shallow, rote answers they have been told are correct, or they ask the right questions but fear the answers will alienate them, and cause their brothers and sisters to cast doubt on their spirituality.

The Bible is the most obvious target for questioning, but before a serious debate can take place, canned or proof-texted answers are used to bludgeon the truth-seeker back into orthodoxy.  For example, many use the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality to prove that the condition is a sin, an abomination to God, and they quickly jump to Paul’s words in 1 Timothy to validate that position. The problem with that is that homosexuality is in both cases one item in a longer list of sins or approbations that carry the same weight of scripture, but some are ignored, or overlooked. For example, the same book that speaks against homosexuality in the Old Testament prohibits wearing mixed fibers in clothes, yet that, and many other laws, are not embraced.

In Timothy it says women should not speak in church, but it also says they should not wear jewelry or have their hair done. Most denominations have complete theologies against the ordination of women, even the use of women in worship, yet few say anything to their ladies who wear jewelry, nice clothes or make-up. (1 Timothy 2:8-15). 

This type of cafeteria theology is what causes confusion, and repels those who are unlike us, away from us. 

The irony is that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God, a phrase that has four fundamentally different meanings and creates the maze of denominations that confuse and divide the Body of Christ. The fundamentalist claim that God literally dictated every word. (Verbal Inspiration). The problem with that view is far too complex to address now, and if I did, I fear I would be hailed upon with names and accusations of heresy, or worse, pity, by my brothers and sisters in Christ. (Maybe some other time).

The point is not about that single verse, but the book itself which many scholars consider to be a letter written in Paul’s name by one of his followers. The practice of surrogate writers, for the record, was not unusual in that era with men who had significant followings. The point is that If there is any doubt about the veracity of the book that prohibits women in ministry, speaking in church, or wearing jewelry, there may also be questions about other things it says. 

So, if you put all your eggs in the basket that the Bible is Verbally Inspired, and it does prohibit the ordination of women and homosexuality, why do mixed fibers and jewelry get a pass? How about the use of alcoholic beverages? The ban on pork? Taking your neighbors grapes and grain without permission? 

Clearly, not every word in the Bible is to be taken as literal universal truth, some is regional by nature, some is time-bound, other is culturally relevant and much is metaphorical or allegorical in nature. While some will not admit it, we all “cherry pick” what we believe is the truth, an discard that which is not relevant to us. The problems come when we center in on that which supports our dogma, and ignore that which doesn’t. 

Taken as a whole, I see the Bible as the finger that points to God’s truth, the story that reveals His nature, and the guide that teaches us how He works with people. The Bible is not an object of worship, but is a revelation that can lead us to an inspirational knowledge of the truth that underpins it, Jesus, the Christ.

I finish with a story. One Sunday I reached for the pew Bible at church and noted that someone, probably a child, wrote the word “God” on the top edge of it. I was so moved that I bought that Bible and it sits in front of me right now on my desk, reminding me that the book is not the point, but the One who lives in it is. The beauty of a child, without pretense, deciding that while they can’t understand most of what’s in there, they know Who is in there. It’s the the story and the message of God. Simply put. In fact, enough said...for now. 

What's so bad about Christian dogma?

• Let’s look at the word dogma. First, you need to understand that it doesn’t appear on my favorite word list. I see dogma as the misguided efforts of the corporate Body of Christ and some educated but confused individuals to drag the nature of mystical divinity down to levels of human understanding. Dogma results from a creature need to define the indefinable Creator and to conform everyone to approved doctrine, to validate and protect church polity, and to corral everyone by fencing them into systems of acceptable belief and practice. 

Amazing prayers of the New Testament

Go to this link:

http://www.beliefnet.com/iLoveJesus/Features/Amazing-Prayers-of-the-New-Testament.aspx?b=1&nlsource=10&source=NEWSLETTER&utm_campaign=Inspiration&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=NL&utm_term=comcast.net

It's Up To You

It’s Up To You . . .

Unknown Author

If a free-thinker doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

If a block-head doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a free-thinker is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.

If a block-head is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned or regulated for everyone.

If a free-thinker is homosexual, he leads his life.

If a block-head is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a free-thinker is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a block-head is down and out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a free-thinker doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

If a block-head doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that he/she be taken off the air.

If a free-thinker is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

If a block-head is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a free-thinker needs health care, he shops for it, or finds a job that provides it. If a block-head needs health care, he demands that the rest of us provide it.

If a free-thinker reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can reflect on it. If a block-head gets it, he will delete it because he's "offended".

A block-head can’t think for himself, but insists on thinking for everyone else!

A bucket full of thoughts for today...

"I ask no dream, no prophet ecstasies;
no sudden rending of the veil of clay;
no visitant, no opening of the skies;
but take the dimness of my soul away."

George Crowley
"Spirit of God Descend" Verse 2
1869 - Galatians 5:25

When loving yourself isn't easy...

I want to post a few blogs relating to the Old and New Testament commandments regarding loving our neighbors and loving ourselves. I immediately start the process by asking some elementary questions about the words used in those simple sentences. What is love? What is a neighbor? How do I love myself properly? None of them are easily addressed, but I'd like to begin with a sampling of Mere Christianity where C.S. Lewis muses about loving himself.

Later we can look at what Jesus said about neighbors, who they are and how ought we to love them.
It's not as easy at it sounds. Here's a great start:

"How exactly do I love myself? Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently love your neighbor does not mean feel fond of him or find him attractive. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of the person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous  relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate  some of the things my enemies do.

Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate the bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.  For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did but not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life–namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit agreed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I love myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is any way possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.”

I admit I have a hard time thinking in loving terms about some of the people in my past to have gone out of their way to hurt me with slander, innuendo, or outright lies. I also have a hard time thinking in loving terms about leaders who were unwilling to allow me to face my accusers. Granted, I have done enough wrong in my life to warrant discipline, but trying to love church leaders who opted out of the biblical tenants of discipline in favor of personal punishment, is still a challenge for me. As a wise counsellor once told me, sometimes the best we can do is hold our enemies in forgiveness until we can gather the grace to completely forgive them. The same holds true regarding how we think about ourselves.

Anyone who has ever disappointed themselves, and those they love, will experience a period of time when finding self-love is impossible. Self-love is often closely associated with how we perceive what others think about us so when we fail openly and spectacularly must begin anew by restructuring our lives by making amends, seeking forgiveness, and reestablishing valued friendships - or starting new ones. This is not easy work, and it takes a great deal of time before we can be sure that people we associate with either graciously look past our failures, or never learn about our past failures and treat us strictly at our face value.

Stephen Covey says the way to reestablish broken trust is by making and keeping small promises.  There's a tendency for broken people to want to make grand statements and reestablish trust by using promises that are difficult to keep. For example, when an alcoholic promises "I will never take another drink as long as I live”, they set themselves up for failure because they can't speak for the rest of their lives. But if they say "I will not drink today” their chances of success increase greatly.  Making and keeping small promises speaks to a pro-active and manageable commitment that is not found in grandiose promises.

 Simply put, self-love must grow out of a sense of self value, and that can only come out of the mind and heart that believes in and has experienced grace. Once we understand, and embrace the notion that despite our failures, we are still loved by both God and the special people in our lives, we can begin a new life–not sidestepping the consequences of our bad choices–with a sense of regeneration and hope.

Those who have experienced grace in times of their own failure are capable of giving grace to others in their times of brokenness. That supposed to be what Christians do: They love themselves because they know they are loved by God, and thereby are enabled to love others without strings attached,
just like God.

Occupy What?

Maybe this is too political for some, but I want to say something that is on my heart.

I'm reading a biography about Mao, you know the Chinese Communist tyrant who is said to be responsible for the killing (a euphemism for murder) of about 70,000,000 people, outside of war. His story is interesting, to say the least, but the early years of communism in China reminds me of some things I see today that many will say is unrelated and harmless. 

The Russians (Stalin in particular) were the bankroll and the military/political support behind the birth and spread of Communism in China. Mao was a fringy player at first who made a name for himself by being power-hungry, self-centered, elusive, resilient and very brutal. Since I'm still reading the book, I can't say much more about him until I'm finished.

In short, the communist Russians sought to spread their revolution, using anyone they could to foment discord in the masses of people around the world. Their technique was quite simple, make villains of anyone who owned anything, call out people who were "wealthy" as dangerous, hunt down and confiscate their wealth so it could be redistributed to the poor, and create systems of dependency in the masses, giving false hope in order to gradually gain complete control over literally everyone. All the while, the revolutionary leaders lived in luxury themselves.

I don't know but that all sounds familiar to me today. Isn't Occupy Wall Street a movement designed to convince the masses (99%) that they are victims and that they deserve a bigger piece of the pie? Call anyone who has achieved wealth (1%) a villain. Find ways to make them pay more of their filthy money to support the millions (40%) who pay no income taxes at all.  Restructure  and socially engineer society so that the government controls wealth and determines who gets what share. Create dependencies on the government's elite, all of whom live like kings and queens, so they can keep their power at the ballot box. Finally, look for ways to erode the Constitution so that it becomes more helpful to those on the dole, all the while demonizing capitalism as the reason for all our woes.     


Occupy Wall Street? Same tactics. Same rhetoric. Same goal?


I recently read something that strikes home for me. In the wild, we are told not to feed wild animals lest we create a dependency in them. They need to learn to eat by their own efforts, ideally, they forage for their own food and survival, allowing the system of natural selection to work.

While everyone agrees that's a good system, why don't we do the same for people who have greater capacities than animals. We are now creating a dependency on government that actually discourages capable people from making their own way. Should I find a job or collect food stamps and unemployment for another year? Given the choice, I'm not sure what I would do, but I suspect it would include asking for as little help as possible. (Actually, when I was set out to pasture five years ago,  I didn't apply for unemployment. We cut the budget and continued to seek ways every day to improve our situation.) Helping the indigent is good, necessary and critical to many, so it's not hard-hearted conservatism that makes me wonder about the hundreds of millions of able-bodied people who opt out of the work force to collect what they deserve from the government and those damn rich people.

For me, this is not about compassion or a perceived lack thereof,  but it's about finding a balance for the long-term good for our society, not short term fixes that allow politicians to keep their cushy life style while keeping us divided and at each other's throats.

If wisdom reigned, not expedience, we would all feel better about the future than we do.

Bramwell Tripp - Big Themes in Small Portions

The following is a chapter from Bramwell Tripp's book of short essays on the various aspects of the Christian life. For those who don't know, he was a remarkably insightful leader who impacted the lives of many generations of young people who sat under his tutelage both when he was the principle of Chicago's Salvation Army training school, and later as a leader in the Eastern United States. Using today's  catchwords 25 years ago, like inclusion, he still speaks to us, and motivates me.

This short article reveals his simple yet brilliant nature, and serves as my personal homage to him, a big man who befriended and helped build a young man who idolized him.  

                                          Say Our!

 “The best things in life are universal: music, art, science, Christianity. We should beware of any doctrine which tries to isolate a man from his fellows or one group from another. Be inclusive, not exclusive.

Those oft–repeated words  we call the Lord's Prayer emphasize the oneness we should feel and express. Jesus said, 'when ye pray, say, OUR' (Luke 11:2). I know that what follows is extremely, eternally important. But will you concentrate on those 5 initial words: 'when you pray, say, OUR'?

To say this determines the nature of our religion. Our religion embraces all the world. Our Father is the Creator who gave life to all 'and hath made of one blood all nations of men' (Acts 17:26). He gave his son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world. He is the One to whom we all pray, from whom we all received grace. The same gospel unites us in a common fellowship.

We do not need to repudiate the differences which distinguished the varying denominations, but remember the injunction to 'receive ye one another, as Christ also received us' (Romans 15:7). How did he receive us? By grace, graciously.

To say this determines the nature of our relationships. Having been received through Christ, we are part of the family of God, members of the household of faith. Again: OUR father! The brotherhood and sisterhood which result must reach beyond our family, our class, our nation, our race. Every world crisis emphasizes our interdependence. The unrelieved hunger of millions of people should confront us every time we quote give us our daily bread'. It is for US, all of God's human family; it is OUR bread.

 To say this determines the nature of our responsibilities. The first element in that word is response. This is sensitivity plus action. Responsible living is reciprocal action. The manner of our response to each other expresses the quality of our lives. To whom am I responsible? First to my Father; then to my brothers and sisters. 'all ye are brethren… for one is your Father, which is in heaven' (Matthew 23:8, 9).

 Don't struggle with words. “Our,” “we,” “us,” “father,” “brother,” “sister”… these are easy to say and are always appropriate. Not me: US! Not mine: OUR”


* Any typos are mine, not his!

Council of Nicea

http://www.christianity.com/ChurchHistory/11629650/?utm_source=This%20Week%20in%20Christian%20History%20-%20Christianity.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=05/25/2012/

Defending Scripture. Literally. | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Defending Scripture. Literally. | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

A Profile of Prophets

(Not just about those in the Bible, but about us, today.)

Jack C. Getz

1. Prophets speak truth to power.
2. Prophets are called upon to Forth-tell the truth more than to Fore-tell the future.
3. Prophets have a divine commission, not a self-generated calling.
4. Prophets speak God’s word to move people and/or situations Godward.
5. Prophet’s motives are never about their personal profit. :=) Often they experience great personal losses. (Dealing with truth is always costly!)
6. Prophets are commanded by God to speak to immediate and necessary changes (Some achieve their work in a relative short period of time others take a lifetime).
7. Prophets integrate the values of Honor, Honesty and Humility
8. Prophets ultimately find their courage to obey, through faith alone.
9. Prophets operate according to the “proportion of their faith”. (Romans 12:6)
10. Prophets today must do all in the spirit of love. (I Corinthians 13:1-2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haggai and Zechariah were commissioned by God to stir action in the leaders of post-exilic Jerusalem. The initial rush of joy expressed by the holy celebrations and the laying of the Temple’s foundation by the newly returned exiles (described by Ezra) was replaced by self-indulgence, apathy and possibly sloth. Twenty years after their arrival back home, there was no further progress on the Temple. So, God asked two men to bear His words of instruction and order to the leaders of the nation. (Ezra 5:1; 6:14) 


A brief overview of these two very MAJOR MINOR prophets:

Haggai (lit. "My Feast") made four prophetic statements to Zerubbabel:

A Call to Construct - 1:3

A Call to Courage - 2:1

A Call to Cleanliness - 2:10

A Call to Confidence - 2:20

Zechariah (lit. "Yahweh Remembers") spoke both simple truths (1:3 and 8:9) and shared:

8 visions (1:7 -6:15),

Teachings (7:1 - 8:23)

2 Christological Oracles (9:1 -14:21)

A) 9:1-11:1

B) 11:18- 14:21

Moving Beyond the Boundaries

Moving Beyond the Boundaries
Dr. Colin Harris - Atlanta, GA
May 6, 2012
Acts 8: 26-40

Continuing Luke’s narrative of the expanding Christian community during its first generation, our lesson text for this week provides another snapshot of an experience that pushes the Christian family still further from its familiar moorings.  It is an account that is full of symbolism and no doubt became a memorable part of the Christian story.

After the stoning of Stephen in chapter 7, the apostles scattered into the regions of Samaria, sharing the gospel message with all who would listen; and there were many who embraced it. This expansion sets the stage for the new level of inclusion reflected in our story.

Our text begins with a messenger of the Lord speaking to Philip, one of Stephen’s “deacon” colleagues, telling him to go to the highway that led from Jerusalem down to Gaza, the main artery from Judea to Egypt.  Then the Spirit tells Philip to intercept a chariot traveling south, containing an Ethiopian eunuch, who had been to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh.  He was the CFO of an Egyptian queen, reflecting the particular custom of having a gender-altered man in a position of trust over a queen’s property.

The eunuch is reading from the book of Isaiah one of the “suffering servant” poems (Isaiah 53: 7-8), and is puzzled as to what it means, to which Philip responds with the gospel story, connecting it with what he has been reading.

The features of this story communicate important parts of Luke’s intention in telling it.  First, while the other disciples head back to Jerusalem to share the good news that Samaritans are receiving the gospel, Philip (not one of the original twelve, but one of the seven ordained later to help with the distribution of resources) is told to go farther out and connect with one who is both an “insider” and an “outsider.”  The man he meets in the chariot is evidently a “God-fearer” – one who worshiped Yahweh in the Temple but was not a “proselyte” – one who had officially converted to Judaism.  His “mutilated” state would have prevented him from becoming a Jew.

In several ways, this Ethiopian government official represents the spreading of gospel into new territory – his ethnic difference, his sexual abnormality, and his citizenship of a foreign country were three things that point to the nature of the new community the gospel seeks to create.  Earlier, Paul had written, “In Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, bond nor free” – pointing to the transformation of the human family that comes with the embrace of the gospel.  The gospel of Jesus Christ points toward inclusion rather than exclusion – it’s hard to miss that point.

We don’t know from the text the details of the conversation between Philip and the man from Ethiopia, but from the passage in Isaiah that he is reading, it is reasonable to assume that a connection was made in his mind between the image of the mutilated and humiliated servant of the poem and his own life as something “less than a man.”  Evidently the connection between the powerful poetic image of servant Israel reflected in the poem, and the early church’s embrace of that image as a way of understanding what had happened to Jesus, and the eunuch’s seeing of his own experience reflected in this picture was strong enough to bring him to the place of thinking, “This is who I am , and I want to be a part of this community of people.”  So he asks to be baptized, and Philip baptizes him, no doubt doing something he would not have anticipated earlier in the day.

Luke’s masterful storytelling has put clearly before us that the call of the gospel is to go beyond the boundaries of the distinctions we make among ourselves, and on which we base much of our security, to see and to listen to the stranger who may be an agent of the Lord able to teach us something that we have not thought of.  Philip may have held his tradition’s prejudice toward Ethiopians, and he certainly would have had opinions about eunuchs, but he was willing to follow the guidance of the Spirit to embrace and include this “alien” (racially, nationally, and sexually) into the Christian family.

The question for us from this account is naturally where the call of Christ might be inviting us to go to encounter those who have to this point been outside the boundaries of our lives.  I suppose we could say, “Well, I would certainly be glad to welcome an Ethiopian eunuch if I ran across one;” but that would not really be the point, would it?  If Luke were writing his account of the spread of the gospel in our generation, who would the characters of this part of the story be?

The prelude to the story tells us that there was great rejoicing that the Samaritans were receiving the gospel, but then there was a new boundary to cross.  We have done some great things in sharing the gospel both here and afar – what is  next boundary the Spirit is inviting us to cross?

Always grateful for your companionship in the journey.

Colin Harris
Atlanta, GA

Irony and Reality Strike Again!

Yesterday I passed a woman sitting outside Walmart at Cofer Crossing. Her plaintive eyes, heightened by a cowering, head weaving, painful countenance, would have melted even the hardest heart. It melted mine.

The moment was worthy of a Dicken's novel/movie, and she played her role perfectly. The scene was completed with a rather sloppily hand-written message on a bright yellow/green poster board that said something about 5 hungry children at home and no money. I smiled, indicating I would see her when I came out. This is nothing new for us. We always give something to people asking for help, so all I needed was a chance to get a few bucks in change and hand it to her when I left.

While inside, I thought about the message Sunday morning that called on us to do more than pass by people in need, but to get involved, speak, smile and send love vibes - with our gifts. The idea almost came across that needy people want our love more than our money, but the preacher didn't go quite that far. So yesterday, I decided to do more than smile and hand her a couple of bucks. In fact, I shifted from giving her a dollar or two to parting with a precious "fiver", a Lincoln not a Washington.

Then I decided to do something creative and fun for her. I bought her a gift card for Walmart, figuring they had everything she needed. I have always believe in giving choices to people we help, even if they abuse the gift on something frivolous. That's their problem, not mine. I want to give them both a gift and the dignity to spend it however they choose.

When I went outside to leave,  she was still there, and a convenient cement stoop enabled me to sit down to chat and be warm and fuzzy. I asked her name. She answered, smiling while feverishly digging for something in her purse. I figured it was pictures of the children. Instead she whipped out a wrinkled yellow form, pointing to a number that was, I suppose,  her balance due on something. It was around $135.00. I acted interested, hoping she would feel my gringo warmth and be blessed.

She kept bobbing and smiling, anticipating my gift, and since she spoke virtually no English, and I no Spanish, I decided to give her the card and be gone. Written on its small envelope was a simple witness that I hoped would do wonders for Jesus: "From a  Christian friend".

Just as I was handing her the card, using my improvised sign language to say it was for Walmart, she exposed that she knew enough English to ask: "How much?" I held up five fingers and said 5 dollars... credit... inside".

Here's where the fun starts. At that very meaningful minute, the bestowal of the actual gift,  a young suburban-type anglo woman swooped by, and almost tossed a 20 dollar bill her way, without comment, and mysteriously disappeared into the traffic flow, almost like an angel. The lady with the bright sign, spotting the twenty, immediately forget all about me and my measly little gift card, and began scrambling and shouting: "Thank you! God bless you! God bless you!"

Convinced the big fish was gone,  she turned back to me, pointed a the card, almost disappointed and asked a second time, "How much?" I sheepishly held up my five, suddenly embarrassed fingers,  and said: "5 dollars". She looked at me like I was a piker and softly mumbled, "Thank you. God bless you." - in her best five dollar tone and volume.

I know the point of giving isn't to receive shouted, "Thank you! God bless you! God bless you!'s" for everyone to hear. Nor should we be overly concerned about what others do.  I did the right thing so I ought to feel good etc. Truthfully, I wasn't upset. In fact, I was amused. And, from that encounter, I immediately learned that an impersonally tossed Jackson always trumps a warm fuzzy Lincoln. I can't wait to tell the preacher.

I will continue to try following my "spiritual" leadings, but they don't always turn out like the sermons and story books say they ought to. Sharing myself, and my wonderfully warm smile, didn't move this lady's emotional meter-needle when compared to a briskly tossed, impersonal twenty from a fleeting, completely uninvolved woman who did't stop, smile or say a boo!

Irony and reality strike again!