Recommendations:

Music: "Why We Build the Wall" by Anais Mitchell
"Nothing Wrong" by Jimmy Eat World
TV: "Dreamworker" - Xena: Warrior Princess
Podcast: "How to Pray and Thrive" - Hot Nude Yoga
Quote: "God'll forgive them, I guess. But who's side are you on?" - Night Reconnaissance/The Dresden Dolls

I had a moment of disillusionment today. Perhaps disillusionment is strong - it had the makings of an epiphany. It was disappointment, self-realization, and humility wrapped in one short hour. And it happened in church, which seems a very appropriate place to have such a moment.
Anyone familiar with evangelical style churches will be familiar with the wide gate/narrow gate parable.

^{Matthew 7:13-14
13} “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. ¹⁴ Because^a]">[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

The general idea, for those who are not so familiar, is that most people in the world follow a secular path (in other words, follow the crowd), and that a select few follow a harder path that bears more moral fruit (in a Christian connotation, Jesus). It's pretty straight-forward, and has a lot of philosophical depth.
When you're a small child in a small Southern Baptist church, you have this verse beaten into you. The basic idea they put into it is that the world is evil, and that the church is good. More precisely, your way of worshiping is good (correct, righteous, etc.), and that other churches are bastions of Satan, corrupting the gospel and straying far from God's words.
It's normal, old-fashioned, hell-invoking hermeneutics, and, I thought, restricted mostly to evangelical churches. Which is why I was surprised to hear similar speech invoked during a sermon given by a priest at my friend's Anglican church.
I have very positive associations with the Anglican church. They're rather conservative, the but the two I have attended assure beautiful music, interesting rituals, and eloquent prayers. The sermons I have previously experienced have been insightful, and I have enjoyed my time spent there.
Today's sermon was no less insightful. Just not for the reasons that the priest meant for it to be.
He said all the normal things that I could see reason in and agree with. Most people of faith are not devout and do not put a lot of effort into their service. Devout spirituality takes pain and dedication. You can be ostracized for being different. Etc.
What I found interesting is when he began pointing fingers at Christians who had started taking an easy and permissive road: specifically, he started pointing fingers at the Episcopal church and at "mega churches", both of whom have doctrine the Anglican church disagrees with.
Now, it is perfectly fine to disagree with doctrine. Churches do it all the time. That is not my complaint with most "narrow path/wide path" speeches. My complaint is that it too often ends in self-congratulating boasts of righteousness. When the sermons were given at my parent's church, when I was growing up, we were told that we were the only ones that were following the will of the Lord. Today, the priest spoke about how very few people followed the ways of the orthodox, doctrine-following churches.
It was in that moment, of remembering prior services, that I realized the folly that can creep in, even in a temple I consider sacred.
People are arrogant. They are self-righteous. And they believe their ways to be the best ways, even when touting a sermon that says "we follow God's ways, and they follow their own".
And I am not immune from back-patting behavior. But maybe the point of those verses was not to point fingers at other people you believe might be doing it wrong, but to focus on how you might achieve moral behavior. And if you're congratulating yourself on how good of a job you've done, then perhaps it's time to make sure you truly are as righteous as you believe. I personally believe none of us are never done self-correcting.
Human pride follows us everywhere. I forgot for a moment. I hope I never forget again.

Introductions...

I know a lot of people skip introductions. Some people prefer their readings to be without elaborations or initial greetings. I've even known a few people who read the introductions after they have finished the work, which to me seems to be an interesting concept. It has the same connotations in the world of literature as getting to know someone thoroughly -- intimately -- before introducing yourself or allowing them to extend a handshake and offer their name.
So, in effect, literary voyeurism.
For the peeping toms out there who wish to hurry on to the next window, I will extend the offer of continuing to the next (and, really, first) post. For those who will allow me to extend my hand, I will offer a small explanation. A momentary pause in which to lists my intents and purposes.
I am a slave to consumerism. Not in the traditional way it's understood. I in no way believe that buying 12 dozen baskets of Harry and David fruit will bring happiness (though it may bring fiber). I am wary of large corporations, am not a particular fan of shopping, and do not clamor to purchase the latest fashions and trends.
But still, I am a consumer slave, when it comes to certain choice markets. I am a slave to "free" culture. Information, wherever it can be obtained freely, thrills me. I have been held tightly in the shackles of libraries across America since my youth, and use late fees as a way to bribe my way out of servitude. My Netflix queue is full -- both on instant watch and the "to be mailed" sections. Podcasts destroy the majority of my hard drive. I have been wrecked by a storm of availability.
This is the outlet of an addict. A person who has become infused in the system. I am permanently plugged in.
I'm embarking on a mission to document my experiments with information overload. And I'm taking all of you with me.
Maybe you'll find it easier to resist. But if not, perhaps I can make it a pleasant experience.