Subscribe to Posts
Is there an awakening to creation?
I was changed by an old book many years ago: On the Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards, a leader in the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century, spoke of the need to have the “affections”–the emotional, affective, feeling regions awakened. He described the hard heart of Ezekiel’s prophecy as an unfeeling, inert, unresponsive heart. And he had a very physical understanding of the affections, using words like humours, fluids, and the like to refer to them. The bodily effects of feeling: weeping, tears, a stirring in the pit of the stomach, flushing of the face, warmth.
All the great revivals touch the heart, the affective-feeling capacity of the human being. Wesley’s heart was “strangely warmed.” Charles Finney felt “waves of liquid love” flow over him. Pentecostals and their offspring wept and laughed and moaned.
There is a work of the Holy Spirit to awaken, soften, tenderize the human heart toward creation. God is being revealed through his creation. The earth is the Lords, the work of his hands. He touches it all–all the time and were he to separate himself even for an instant it would cease to exist.
How do feel toward creation?
O Lord, you preserve both man and beast, the psalmist said. Is that meant to affect how we feel toward creatures other than ourselves? We’re in one of the greatest periods of species extinction ever known, much of it driven by the way we use and abuse the creation. Does this bother us? I mean distress us emotionally? Or could we not care less because we already care so little?
The psalmist urged the creatures to praise. Isn’t that odd? To us, that is. It is a poetic nicety. Or is it? Praise him sun and moon, praise him all ye shining stars. Clap your hands all trees. Sea creatures and creeping things, give praise. The psalmist is addressing the creation, as though he has a feeling for it. A feeling of connection. A feeling of comraderie. A feeling of standing together with the rest of creation before the God of wonder, wondering.
I have a friend who has a feeling for cars. He has a three car garage with an attached house. He names some of his cars. I admire his feeling for cars. I wish I could feel what he feels toward them–I think I’d be more alive, and I’d also take better care of my car. The car is is the work of human hands and the robot made by human hands, but the human hands are the work of God’s hands. And the metal and plastic and oil of a car is also the work of the creator’s hands ultimately. His hands working through our hands to create this thing out of the stuff, directly or indirectly, which is the work of his hands.
How do we feel about the way beef cattle are treated? Honestly, for years, I laughed at people who cared. Only because my heart was hard, inert, unfeeling.
And no I don’t think caring is a zero sum game. As if there is only so much caring to go around, so if we care for the way the beef cattle are treated we care less about human distress. I think the same heart does the caring for both–so if the Spirit softens the heart to care about one thing, it’s in a better position to care about the other.
But we’re embarrassed, many of us, to say, I care about the way the beef cattle are treated. In certain settings, that is. Feeding these creatures corn because it’s cheap even though they are meant to ruminate on grass. As soon as they switch to a corn fed diet, they become sick. But it marbles the fat in a tasty manner.
What do we care if they suffer? They’ve just been placed on the planet so that we can have cheap burgers. They don’t belong to anyone but us, for our use, and if we wish and its economically beneficial, for our abuse. As though we are their creators and they have no other.
Is this the heart that has been softened, awakening, tenderized by the Holy Spirit?
I open myself to ridicule with a post like this, I know. The ridicule is in my own head, the vestigial voice of a younger me. A voice with many echoes among my fellow believers.
But what does that say about us?
It says we’re still in a fog. We’re still in a daze. We’re still only partly awake. We’re still living as though it were night, even though a new day is dawning.
Come, Holy Spirit awaken us. Remove from us our heart of stone and give us instead a heart of flesh.
Tags: affections, awakening, cars, cattle, Charles Finney, creation, emotion, ezekiel, feeling, Great Awakening, heart, holy affections, Holy Spirit, jonathan edwards, renewal, revival
April 27th, 2010 at 11:31 am
We have to care about creation, because “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it.” The argument that animals don’t belong to anyone, or that they belong to us to use as we see fit flies in the face of this fundamental understanding. The Psalmist knows something about the created order that we seem to have forgotten, that it exists because of, and for someone in particular, and that someone is not us.
We if empathy for the cow is not enough, we should show some respect to it’s owner.
April 27th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Did not know about the corn and ‘marbling’ connection.
I know the old testament has areas that talk about the sabbath being a day of rest even for the animals an observant jew would own. So there is something to this idea of God’s care for animals.
One of the issues I always had with the old testament was the idea of animal sacrifice. I think (and hope) that the ‘burnt offerings’ meant that the animal would be killed, then burnt, not the other way around.
This is probably a mistery, but is always seemed to me a waste of life that the O.T. Jews had to sacrifice so many animals in some of their feasts.
I looooove beef, but would never have the heart to kill a cow. Then again, if hunger hit….
April 27th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Being that worldwide somewhere around 45 million children are aborted each and every year, I find all the concern for the cows to be a little troubling, not to mention a tad bit annoying.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Brian
I think one can walk and chew gum at the same time…meaning one can be concerned about children being killed thru abortion AND have a conscience about the mistreatment of animals.
Also, I even entertain a third concern…seeing people who don’t know Jesus get to know Him.
April 28th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Brian, ir is more then just a concern for cows. What has been done to our food in the name of profit could have the same over all effect. 16000 children die every day from hunger related issues, that is 5.8 million a year. Which is 232 million deaths in the same period as abortion has been legalized in the US.
While I agree with you that abortion is bad, What we are doing to our food in the name of economy and convenience in the US is contributing to this.
To simply say it is an issue of cows vs. kids would be annoying. In the US we discard 33 million tons of food a year. It is a much much larger issue. Cows being fed corn is just the tip of the iceburg.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Check out “Food, Inc.,” to see what a corn-fed diet does to cattle and ultimately to us, and how the entire market is manipulated for profit, and who cares about health.
Overall, people of the West are disconnected from nature, God’s world. The hatred expressed for “endangered species” reveals our failure to see the interconnectedness we have (after all, we’re as much dust as we are spirit) from God’s world. That all of life is interconnected (the very nature of God and the Trinity), and that our well-being and that of our grandchildren is connected to the tiniest form of life.
I don’t think we can substitute our spiritual connection to God for our physical connection to this earth.
Coleridge said it well in the “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” -
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner – “He prayeth best, who loveth best; All things great and small; For the dear God who loveth us; He made and loveth all.”
Christian prayer, when disconnected from the creatures, devolves into aggressive self-centeredness.
Anyway, thanks for these timely thoughts … keep up the good work.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Jaoa,
I often agree with what you have to say on here. The walking and chewing gum comment is a little condescending though. Surely you didn’t really take my comment to suggest a person can only care about one thing.
I could agree with all of you (more than just a concern for cows, etc) except that the concern expressed on this blog and by those who respond to it seems tilted much more toward the cows (and plants and trees) than the kids. Not just in this once instance, but in post after post after post.
People who can’t bring themselves to prioritize kids above cows and trees do concern me. By all means, care about the cows and trees and plants, but prioritize the kids.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Paul,
I think I hear a ‘cordial’ tone from you and I have the same toward you. If you want to compare death rates, though, you need to have and present the whole picture. Obviously the 232 million deaths you site over the past 40 years (or nearly) are horrific. But do you realize there have been that many deaths due to abortion in just the past 5 to 5.5 years?
I can assure you I care about born children as much as I do unborn children, but as staggering as your statistic is, the stats on abortion are even more staggering…and yet many people don’t even want to talk about abortion anymore.
April 28th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Ken, another good article showing your heart for nature. Though your concrete example involved ethical issues (human uses of cattle), my feelings took a different direction because of your lead questions about awakenings to nature ala the “awakenings” Edwards and Finney.
Awakenings? – to nature?
Your ethical examples expose where our hearts are. My wonders focused more on questions about how to get our hearts awakened elsewhere, that is, how to get awakened hearts toward nature in the first place? – can this happen?
I’ve often wondered (there are no empirical measures on this yet) how much of the church’s real rejection of biology (Darwinian science – I’m a Ken Miller kind of guy) arises less because the church gets angry because neo-Darwinian science rejects the biblical creation accounts, and instead, I’ve wondered how much more the church may subconsciously and viscerally reject biology because of the sheer aesthetics of nature as painted by science – nature as red in tooth and claw. Ugly.
The problem here is not really Darwinism. Darwinism is a smoke-screen here. The real problem is that any fifth-grader can make many of the same natural observations which Darwin made about not so heart-awakening violence in nature (superfecundity and the death of offspring; natural selection leading to the death of the non-fit; to some extent the violence of observable congenital diseases, even if microscopic harmful mutations aren’t directly observable to children; and so on). Anyone can have an “awakening” to the many not-so-heartwarming facts of nature.
Children raised in believing and non-believing families may have every reason to naturalize humans too, that is, to make the human selfishness which you observe in your cattle example into a part of the natural order: i.e., humans as animals too. And, why not? – especially given the fact that any child can see how we adults spend so much toil and effort hedging ourselves against nature (again, Darwin isn’t the issue here)?
In other words, just what kind of “awakening” toward nature do natural facts generate? – and how? – what would an awakening to nature really mean?
I don’t have the answers. I felt such awe the first time I studied the Krebs cycle that I fell into a state of awe-struck prayer. The mechanisms of metabolism in stepwise order made me yearn in conscious prayer to search lifelong for any sort of logical decision-tree for how to convert natural science statements into theological ones. The inner heart “awakenings” to do this kind of move from nature to faith seem so strong. As teasers. But, alas: there are also ugly natural facts. Darwinian ones. The real problem with “awakenings” related to nature is how not to trick our hearts into a pollyannaish “awakenings” by filtering out the ugly natural facts – by filtering out natural facts that don’t fit our romanticized version of nature, or worse, our romanticized versions of “awakenings.”
Cheers,
Jim
April 28th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Brian,
You are correct I am cordial. I am pro life. Being pro life to me means I am pro all life. Life is a gift from God it is He who gave us life in the garden. Life is precious; this includes inmates on death row, people at war and people dying of hunger and babies in the womb. All life.
However many millions die from abortion or hunger, they are still dead. However counting dead folks will not bring them back. We must focus on the living.
As Christians we can drive for an end to legalized abortion. Will that eliminate abortion in America? Perhaps yes, perhaps not. Will it end abortion in the world? Perhaps. If made illegal It will just change how abortions are done. We can educate folks about our moral values. That will eliminate a few more. I don’t believe we can eliminate abortion with law any more then we can stop folks from using drugs or any more then prohibition stopped speakeasies. This is not suggesting that we stop our efforts to end abortion. This is suggestion that we take a different tact. Perhaps folks don’t talk about abortion because of what some have done to others as a result.
Abortion is part of a much larger problem. Like child prostitution, abortion is largely an economic choice. While it is true in the US abortion is at times a convenient method of contraception. In a large part of the world it is an economic choice. In order to solve these problems we Christians must stop playing the blame game and work on eradicating economic issues that lead folks to make that choice.
I might be a tad idealistic (actually more then a tad) but I believe if we put our money and energy where our mouths are we will make more then a dent in it.
Ezek. 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Ken’s statement about feeding cows corn is only part of a much larger economic, social and moral issue involving the world food supply. For the first time in a long time the average life expectancy of a child in the US is going down, in a large part as a result of what has been done to the food supply to make it convenient for the larger food companies to sell. I know Ken I know his views on abortion; I know his views on the issue of injustice. This is no longer a liberal or conservative issue, what is going on in the world today extends way beyond which camp we reside. Christians must wake up. I may not be able to keep a woman form having an abortion in the world but I can feed the kids she has.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Jim, Thanks for noticing that the main point of this post had to do with my primary interest: awakening to the presence and work of the Spirit. There’s something much deeper here than views on “issues.” I’m asking the question: is there a genuine work of the Spirit to awaken us to God’s revelation in creation–to shift our posture toward nature from one of indifference, consumption, entitlement, to engaging creation with awe and reverence–as the pslamists do. I’m really not interested in engaging the back and forth on the relative evils of abortion and mistreatment of animals. But is there something fundamental about our relationship toward the creation that is powerfully influenced by the Spirit? Is there a tenderizing-softening of the heart that goes beyond the hard heartedness toward nature that is part of the modern perversion or distancing from God’s creation? Something that is meant to be experienced such that it shifts one’s priorities and perspectives. Jesus wept at the sight of Jerusalem. Today would he weep at the sight of the way we abuse nature? HIs father’s house is meant to be a house of prayer for all nations but we’ve made it a den of thieves. In addition to our inhumanity to our fellow human beings. How does Jesus FEEL about how we’re connected or disconnected, tending or abusing so much of the creatured order?
[Hello out there! Is there anyone else who has experienced what I'm talking about?]
And yes, you bring up a very important aspect of Darwin’s disillusionment. There was a romanticized view of nature prevalent in his day, and he had eyes to see the price–the struggle and suffering and competition and death that is woven into the creation. In a strange way it was part of breaking his heart, maybe even his spirit especially in combination with the suffering in his own family with the loss of children to disease. He felt the groaning of creation in bondage to decay.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Brian, It’s never been my intention in this blog to present a perspective on a wide range of issues. I’m blogging about things that I’m exploring and working out–things that I’m willing to do in this more public venue. There is so much vitriol, fear and anger on some issues these days–I’m not likely to press those out here. (You should see the comments I don’t publish–they are so angry.) So I’m exploring things I feel the Lord is dealing with me over. Things I’ve been led to pursue as one member of a big body of Christ. Gosh there are so many things I don’t blog about that are immensely important. The categories represent the themes I’m exploring and they are quite limited. I’d like to ask you to cut me a little slack.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Ken,
It just seems to me that your ‘things I feel the Lord is dealing with me over’ are largely issues of justice. I don’t understand blogging on issues of justice and leaving one of the most significant justice issues unaddressed.
And if you’re already getting the vitriol and anger without addressing it, what would change if you did address it? Vitriol and anger coming from a different direction, possibly?
But hey, I don’t want to wear out my welcome (probably too late for that), so starting now I’ll honor your request for slack.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Brian, All I can do is repeat: there are some issues that I’ve chosen not to address in this blog because the blogosphere can be a very mean spirited place generating more heat than light. And, pastor-to-pastor, I’ll take you up on that offer of more slack. Thanks.
April 29th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Ken wrote (@ April 28th, 2010 at 11:05 pm) – “But is there something fundamental about our relationship toward the creation that is powerfully influenced by the Spirit? Is there a tenderizing-softening of the heart that goes beyond the hard heartedness toward nature that is part of the modern perversion or distancing from God’s creation?”
Awesome questions. Sign me up. For life. Questions worthy of another book. With haste.
As I wrote, I don’t have the answers.
I can’t see how these questions can be answered outside of starting with testimonies (like a William James, “Varieties” approach), that is, a compilation of individual and maybe group testimonies. Direct testimonies to the inner movement of the Spirit.
Ken, I love Vineyards. And attend regularly. But for my money, the Quaker historic witness to the “Inner Light” has long (centuries now) produced individuals hailing to the Inner Spirit’s immediate communion and the power-torque of the Spirit directly motivating hearts to: anti-slavery, suffrage, environmental justice.
I often wonder whether (and how much) grandpa Wimber studied scholarly histories of the Quakers, and their variegated current mess of theological antagonisms and inter-nicene divisions into tribes, that is, whether Wimber hoped his own creedal formulae and church polity for Vineyards might mitigate against these historic kinds of Quaker fractures (assuming the Spirit alone isn’t enough to keep the church together) – while Wimber hoped simultaneously to retain all the intense charismatic and Pentecostal (third wave) immediacy of the Holy Spirit stirring up Spirit-gifts to radical/liberal social justice stuff – including Spirit-inspired care for nature – as a direct and charismatic gift of the Spirit! I don’t know. Just wonder.
For now, I sincerely know of no other way to register such a direct and immediate charismatic gift from the Spirit except by giving vent to testimonies about the Spirit working exactly this way. For starters.
I know this inner work of the Spirit is true for me. Big time. My environmentalism is stereoscopic: 1) Spirit-inspired immediately and intimately in my heart by direct charismatic movings – plus – 2) scientifically informed, and rigorously so – demanding serious peer review – and not those faux-science Kiplingesque “just-so” scientistic stories that alienate scientists. The stereoscope of the Spirit plus science creating in me a unified vision. Or, so it feels. Consonance (not quite holism – consonance is good enough).
One other note: this isn’t quite the same as a full-blown “natural theology.” But, it could go there. If I worked it hard enough (not interested). I’ll stay with my felt-consonance between the Spirit and science. Yeah, sure, I admit that this is an error in favor of the scientific side by avoiding claims to holism and Kiplingesque “just-so” stories. But, I do know my Master’s Voice. I know. And I know that I know because I obey. So I don’t care to justify the Spirit scientifically. Nor scientistically. Consonance – like grace – is good enough. So too with most scientists.
Besides – get real – the systematic theology (epistemology) doesn’t matter much when I’m picking up trash on BLM land.
But, hifalutin theology may matter to others. And be valid.
Still, it seems to me that others must first testify to this inner heart-work of the Spirit moving them to love nature. Testimony first. Simple.
If you ever get the time, compare William James’ notion of “ontological emotion.” Curious twist of words. Which could serve as a springboard for further empirical study for your questions (questions: of Spirit immediately motivating love/care for nature?). Simple testimony could lead beyond itself to further empirical studies, say like product-moment surveys of the Spirit’s inspiration and of human responses in practical care for nature. And other empirical measures. If you wanted to go there.
For my two-cents, I’m far more interested in practical and down-to-earth obedience to the Spirit – practical obedience – like picking up trash in Great Basin deserts or in the Sierra – more interested in obedience than interested in teasing out the internal mechanisms and the theological descriptions of the Spirit’s inner movings … alas.
But, your questions are dead-on. Just dead-on.
Enough.
Cheers,
Jim
April 30th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Brian – more individuals like yourself need to speak up. Where are they in the Vineyard movement? I wholeheartedly agree – the life of the unborn remains in the back corner of discussions these days. To say you are pro-life, but not stand up for the unborn and make them top priority in discussions is hypocritical. To twist this terminology with a euphoric ideological statement that to be prolife is all prolife is an escape and excuse from standing up for the unborn. Jim Wallis’ outfit, Sojourners & company, is a perfect example of promoting that motto, yet, in its blogs and writings, no where are they holding pro-life rallies for overturning Roe vs. Wade.
Environmentalists caused an entire fertile food growing basin to become a desert through huge man-forced droughts all to save a little minnow. Liberal media paid little attention to the plight of 100,000+ farmers and communities totally displaced by this action. Not only have these family-owned farms become totally desolate, and the land turned into dust bowls and desert, but children of these families have suffered severely. The domino effect on the entire food supply not only to the US further has been negatively impacted. The US has been among the strongest donors of food aid and development to other nations. So, the loss of crop after crop and the increased drought caused by the closing of the spring of water supplying this entire valley in California has caused far more damage environmentally than the plight of this one little minnow. Instead of coming up with a plan to transplant these minnows, or create two streams out of one – one for irrigation and one for the minnows, the environmentalists pushed through the stopping of the water flow to the farmers. Congress did nothing to reverse this when they had the power to do so. I’d say this is “creation care” to an extreme that has gone amuck…..
Regarding the church being against biology – that’s such a broadstroke stereotype being perpetuated through the decades by evolutionists. God created science – He created the universe – and believers recognize this. And, If this were the case (the church being against biology), then there would be no Christian doctors, no Christian scientists, no Christian astronauts, no Christian nurses, no Christians working in biological fields. Many a discovery has been done because Christian scientists pray and ask God to reveal the mystery of this or that plant or ask God for wisdom in their discoveries and inventions (ex: Washington Carver and the peanut).
One final caution: we are not called to worship creation, but the Creator. Creation care theology leans towards the former, verging on heresy.
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Mary,
Good post. However this is not an us vs. them life we are living, according to the bible, we win. It is at the end of the book.
There are Christian abortion Dr’s (George Tiller for example), Christian murderers, Christian environmentalists, Christian gay people, and all sorts of folks who love and serve Jesus. We are here to bring the Kingdom and Rule of the Living God. We are in Him and He is in us. We are known by our love. John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We have a bit of reconciliation to do. I think.
I personally have voted pro life, written letters and worked for an end to abortion, I am a member of the Vineyard movement. I know folks in my church who have done jail time for their work in the pro life movement.
So I respectfully disagree with you.
I am also a reluctant environmentalist. Primarily because of the effect I see happening in the food systems as a result of factory farming and it’s effect on the environment.
peace
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
There’s something I sense in Ken’s blog that I need God’s spirit to put more of in my life. Mostly when people talk about “caring” about this, that, or the other thing, especially about this, that, or the other issue, I feel overwhelmed. I either feel overwhelmed with “compassion fatigue” or I feel that proof of “caring” about something is being strident, angry,riled. If that’s so, I can’t live like that! That certainly means I can’t care about very many things. I know God cares about very many things–everything! What I sense from Ken, partly from watching his life,is that God can make us care more about more things, love more in way that brings more of the fruit of the Spirit,more love, more joy, more gentleness etc. Yes, Lord, bring it on! We have a finite amount of time and attention and God will need to call different people to do different things about different issues–but maybe, just maybe by a work of grace and God’s Spirit, love really isn’t finite. I’m getting just a whiff of this–can’t quite pin it down or put it in practice…yet…
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:11 am
“the anger of man against those who care for the environment does not work the righteousness of God for the unborn”
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Ahh… the tactics of a true liberal – label and corner and villify. I accept your compliment, I must have hit a nerve.
FYI, I am not into villifying…but merely calling for sound Biblical teaching and a theological accountability for the philosophies and teachings you are promoting in this blog. (For those commenting – do not comment on how much you like to admire nature – this is NOT what I am talking about – I love nature, love hiking, love the stars and enjoy’s God’s creation).
So – Let’s go back and get at the fundamental underlying thread here – pantheism and worship of mother earth. Open discussion on these should be a prominent discussion – to ensure that many are not taken captive by vain teachings. A groundwork of what these religions and belief systems should be laid, with the Bible as the standard of Truth. If you cannot do this or refuse to do this and allow honest open theological debate – then, Ken, there is no more fair and open discussion on your blog. It will merely continue to be a place for likeminded persons to make themselves feel good with teaching that itches their ears.
And, if you want, you can hug all the trees you want, – but don’t build a new theology around this, which is what is happening.
Unfortunately, I thought this was an open blog, but I do detect smugness and anger against those in the Vineyard movement who preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and who care more for the unborn and the salvations of those who are dying and going to hell without Christ. And, who care more for healing the sick, delivering individuals from bondages, and setting the captives free.
Again, where are other Vineyard pastors who do not agree with you and the direction you have been heading? A challenge goes out to them – start standing up and contending for the faith…don’t let a regional leader intimidate you – don’t let national leaders intimidate you – stand up for Gospel of Jesus Christ – and do something!
May 8th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Mary.
How does an attempt to see Jesus through creation or to value creation more than it has been traditionally valued by western believers constitute pantheism?
Sure, maybe some words or expressions used about nature may sound flaky or hippy like or new agey, but aside from knee jerk reactions to them (believe me, I have jerked my knee quite often, as a someone who actually enjoys Rush Limbaugh’s mocking of environmentalists)
But look at the word ‘meditation’, for example. I still have visions of ‘maharashi yogi’ when I hear it, but isn’t that because the word has been sort of hijacked by folks who appreciated TM when it’s actually a biblical word?
I tend to be and have met many Christians who utterly despise anyone who calls themselves environmentalists.
But if there is one thing I have been, reluctantly and kicking every step of the way, learning, is that perhaps there is a disconnect between traditional Western Evangelicals and nature.
And like you, I have a high view of scripture, but really have not seen anyting preached at the AA Vineyard that discounts scripture or Jesus as the center of it all.
I do not feel any smugness of anger against those who don’t love nature in the same way.
I sure don’t, preferring to spend the day under an old atmosphere polluting car as opposed to walking though the woods. Yet, I have always felt welcome on this blog. (See my other posts).
No intimidation felt here.