Philadelphia’s John Wannamaker Christmas Light Show Collection

One of my favorite things to do over the Christmas holidays is to go to Center City Philadelphia to the John Wanamaker Building (now Macy’s) to see the Light Show. The Light Show is a Philadelphia tradition dating to 1955 that is set in the Grand Court of the Wanamaker Building. Of course, as he is in the grandest of all Philadelphia department stores, the Santa Claus there – as all traditional Philadelphians know – is the real one. The Light Show has changed over the years, adding some elements and subtracting others, and even featuring a water show at one point. Of course, as John Wanamaker’s eventually went out of business, and the building was then assumed by Lord & Taylor, followed by Hecht’s, then Strawbridge’s, and ultimately by Macy’s, the Light Show went in to disrepair and became highly abbreviated. Thankfully, several years ago, Macy’s has tried to restore the Light Show to its previous grandeur, despite the fact that it has eliminated some long running elements to it. Although the 9th floor toy department, with children’s monorail on the ceiling, is long gone, Macy’s brought the Charles’ Dickens village from the Strawbridge and Clothier in the Philadelphia Gallery over to the Wanamaker Building, to create a wonderful Christmas experience.

As a great lover of the Light Show, I have collected some pretty good versions of it over the years, which can be found below. Needless to say, I have a special affinity for the versions from 1983 and 1996. These videos now seem especially important given the fact that, due to the corona virus, there is no Light Show in 2020 (only the lights are on, there is no music or show). This is the first Christmas of my life (and hopefully the only) that I have not seen the Light Show.

Enjoy and Merry Christmas:

• Circa 1983
• Circa 1996
• Circa 2002
• Circa 2007
• Circa 2013

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN MINIMUM WAGE AND SUICIDE

Raising the minimum wage by One ($1) Dollar may prevent thousands of suicides, according to a study published earlier this year in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. When I read this statement it affected me powerfully, but it has even greater significance since the onset of Covid-19, which has caused major disruption of people’s lives, their physical and mental health, and their livelihood.

Interestingly, discussions about raising the minimum wage are usually considered to be wage and hour labor issues. But it appears that the topic is also a significant health issue. When many of us are wondering what we can do to enhance our lives, assist others, and even survive, here is something we can all support. What a difference a $1 makes, especially when unemployment is high and finding jobs is difficult. If increasing wages by a $1 or more an hour appears to have a protective effect in preventing suicide, supporting a minimum wage increase is the least we can do to help our fellow citizens.

Tens of thousands of people who died of suicide in the last 25 years could have been saved. Between 1990 and 2015, raising the minimum wage by $1 in each state might have saved more than 27,000 people between the ages of 18-64, with a high school education or less, according to the study. An increase of $2 in each state’s minimum wage could have prevented more than $57,000 suicides.

The lead author of the study, an epidemiology doctoral student at Emory University, John Kaufman, said “[T]his is a way you can, it seems, improve the well-being of people working at lower-wage jobs and their dependents.”

When it’s harder to find a job, the same $1 increase may be even more crucial in reducing the suicide rate. Less-educated adults are most at risk as they would tend to earn minimum wage, and this group is also at a higher risk of developing depression and having suicidal ideation. This group is also less food secure and victimized by violence.

This study is part of a surge in interest in the link between health and minimum wage within the past five years. So, let’s not wait for big business to let their advantages, perks, and good fortune “trickle down” to the average worker.

Let’s rise up the average worker by enhancing their salary, dignity and self-esteem. The side effects of this action will create economic stability for children, reduced domestic violence and child abuse. What a difference a $1 can make for our society as a whole.

If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-888-273-8255 or the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME To 741741.

Faye Riva Cohen is the founder and managing attorney of the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., located in a historic brownstone in Philadelphia, PA. She represents clients in labor, discrimination, family law, real estate, and estate litigation issues. She writes a blog called “Tough Lawyer Lady” which can be found here: https://www.fayerivacohen.com/blog/. Faye can be reached at 215-563-7776 or at frc@fayerivacohen.com.

9th Circuit Orders Injunction Against Nevada’s COVID Limits On Churches

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, (9th Cir., Dec. 15, 2020), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Nevada’s COVID-19 restrictions on worship services violate the Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese compels us to reverse the district court. Just like the New York restrictions, the Directive treats numerous secular activities and entities significantly better than religious worship services. Casinos, bowling alleys, retail businesses, restaurants, arcades, and other similar secular entities are limited to 50% of fire-code capacity, yet houses of worship are limited to fifty people regardless of their fire-code capacities.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Values and Virtue–the Difference

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Values and Virtue–the Difference”

See also:

• Grounds for the Project
• The Biblical Foundation – Apology
• Apology in the New Testament II
• Apology in the New Testament III
• With Gentleness and Respect
• Elect Exiles of the Dispersion – the Importance of Identity
• The Present Cultural Environment in America
• Flannery O’Connor’s ‘Push Back’
• Saint Paul’s Civility
• Unbelievers
• Christ, Culture, and Christians
• Jesus and His Opponents in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew
• The Holy Spirit as Apologist
• On Listening to God and One Another
• Deep Conviction and Commitment
• Questions Unbelievers (especially Atheists) May Ask in Dialogue
• Waning Faith and Yearning Heart
• The Apostle on Mars Hill (Areopagus)
• A Fire, a World of Unrighteousness
• Civil Blood Makes Civil Hands Unclean
• Examples of Uncivil and Civil Speech
• Of Self-Control
• Humor in Dialogue
• Utopian Dreams
• Do we understand each other?
• When We Differ
• Dialogue and Personality
• Of Anger
• Discipleship and Apologetics
• Nurturing Christian Disciples
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics I
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics II–Wise as Serpents and Innocent as Doves
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics III–Endurance
• Discipleship and Apologetics IV–Family Conflict
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics V–Doing the Will of the Father as Peacemakers
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XII–“The Tree is Known by Its Fruit”
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics VI–A Sword, Not Peace
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics VII–Repentance and the Forgiveness of Sins
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics VIII–Mission to the Gentiles
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics IX–The Parable of the Sower
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics X–“Fear not, do not be afraid
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XI–“Come to me, . . . and I will give you rest
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XIII–Humility
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XIV–Woes Turned to the Wisdom of Christ and the Blessings of the Kingdom
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XV–The Sign of the Cross
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XVI–The Resurrection
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XVII–The Judgment
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XVIII–The Vision
• Templeton Project: Inside the Heart and Mind of an Atheist
• Spare, Knowledgeable, and Wise Speech
• Truth as the Only Solid Foundation for Inquiry and Dialogue
• What is Bigotry
• What is Bigotry? Part II: Ideology
• Establishment and Distortion of the Facts
• Confused Mind and Inconstant Heart
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–John the Baptist
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–The Mother of Our Lord
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–Nicodemus
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–The Samaritan Woman
• The Need for Self-Control
• Self-control and American Culture
• Is Transformation Possible?

_____________________________

The fundamental difference between values and virtue is a matter of where they originate.  God defines virtue, called fruits of the Spirit in Paul.  People choose values that may be good or bad.  Virtue is always good.  Christians are always to choose what is good. They are always to choose virtue.  Our values should always conform to what is good, right, and true.

The cardinal virtues that derive from classical philosophy are justice, temperance (self-control), prudence, and courage.  The theological virtues are faith, hope, and love, derived from Saint Paul. Moral guidance in the Christian tradition includes the virtues.  Other aspects of moral guidance are God’s commandments, Christ’s teachings and example, and a form of ethical evaluation that is critical of utility and personal advantage at the expense of the right.  Something that may be regarded as useful is a flimsy criterion for morality.

The utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number is rejected.  Utilitarian views exclude a concern for the minority and the weaker members of society.  Moreover, determining the greatest good for the greatest number may lead to highly immoral conclusions.  The ends do not justify the means. For example, it could be determined that the greatest good for the greatest number justifies mass murder, e.g. the holocaust. Admittedly, this is an extreme example; but, hopefully, it drives home the point. Attempts to base ethical decision-making on the consequences of an action are based on their indeterminate quality and ignores the duty that we have in any given situation.   Situation ethics, made popular by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960’s, is nothing but utilitarianism.  Love becomes what I feel is right without any other moral guidance and looks toward the uncertain ends. Love is to be determined by what the Lord teaches, not what I feel at any given moment.  Our duty is informed by God’s commandments, biblical moral admonition, Christ’s teachings, and the virtues. Deontological ethical reasoning, based upon our Christian duty in any particular situation, conforms to a Christian view.  It is a form of reasoning that rejects utilitarianism.

Despite this ethical richness, moral reasoning is required, especially in complicated ethical situations. Social issues, for example, may require some difficult and demanding thought to come to the most satisfactory conclusion.  This reasoning is dependent on the criteria one uses to make an ethical decision.

For Christians to support abortion, the gay lifestyle, euthanasia, and any number of other cultural favorites is simply to ignore the moral authority embedded in our tradition.  One may value a certain cultural view and live accordingly, but it may not conform to authoritative Christian ethics.

We must evaluate what we think is true and right in relationship to the virtues and other criteria to obtains a Christian ethical perspective.  Anything less does not hit the mark. Church leaders must defend our moral views and, where things are murky, help guide us to Christian moral conclusions. Anything else is unfaithful to the Office Christ has given them.

Always remember that even in virtue ethics, the source of empowerment to do the right comes from the Holy Spirit. In Galatians Paul calls certain virtues the fruit of the Spirit.  They are joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5). No manner of works righteousness has a place in Christian ethical thinking.

When you hear in the media about what people value, beware.  What they value may not be virtuous.  American culture stands far from any sort of Christian moral thinking. When we witness and defend the faith, we are also showing forth the Christian way of life that has much to do with ethics and moral thinking and action.

Michael G. Tavella

March 5, 2020

Yessource: Big Generator Singles, Edits, and Remixes

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

• Various versions of “Love Will Find a Way”
• Various versions of “Rhythm of Love”
• Yes Remixes: 1987 – Big Generator (remix)
• Yes Remixes: 1987 – I’m Running (remix)
• Yes Singles: 12/7/87 – City of Love (from 9012Live) – Rhythm of Love B-Side

SUPER SPOOFER Professor uses ‘feminist buzzwords’ to get entire passage from Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ published in academic journal

Peter Boghossian and his colleagues said they were stunned by how easily the joke papers were published in what he described as ‘grievance studies’

 

A PROFESSOR is facing the sack after using “feminist buzzwords” to get an entire passage from Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” published in an academic journal.

Peter Boghossian helped create a series of spoof academic papers to satirise a number of fields including what he describes as the “grievance studies” – including fields on gender, obesity and homosexuality.

The assistant philosophy professor at Portland State University in Oregon penned a total of 20 “intentionally broken” and “nonsense” papers with the help of two collaborators.

Each of one was deliberately ridiculous – but astonishingly seven were accepted by peer-reviewed journals, The Times reports.

One, “Our Struggle is My Struggle: Solidarity feminism as an intersectional reply to neoliberal and choice feminism”, was a rewrite of chapter 12 of Hitler’s 1925 autobiographywith feminist “buzzwords switched in”.

All the spoofs featured “very shoddy methodologies including incredibly implausible statistics”, as well as “ideologically motivated qualitative analyses” and “claims not warranted by the data”.

 

Hundreds of students at Portland State University appear to be backing their Professor in the wake of the scandal.

 

The deliberately provocative hoax included a rewrite of chapter 12 of Hitlers Mein Kampf.

Further bizarre passages includes one published under the fake name Helen Wilson in the journal Gender, Place & Culture, owned by Taylor & Francis, the British publisher.

This was supposedly an investigation of the “rape-condoning spaces of hegemonic masculinity” and had involved examining “10,000 dogs’ genitals” in public dog-walking parks.

The paper suggested that men should be trained, like canines, to prevent “rape culture”.

Another wrote: “It is suspicious that men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys, and that this is probably due to fear of being thought homosexual (“homohysteria”) and bigotry against trans people (transphobia)”.

Another letter of support. This one from @RichardDawkins. Thank you.

 

Dr Boghossian and his colleagues said they were stunned by how easily the joke papers were published.

“We wanted to see if these disciplines that we called ‘grievance studies’ are compromised by political activism that allows for the laundering of prejudices and opinions into something that gets treated as knowledge,” he said.

World-renowned scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins was one of a number of leading academics to write to the university in support of Boghossian, saying that his first response to the “brilliant hoax” was “to let out a howl of incredulous mirth”.

“Do your humourless colleagues who brought this action want Portland State to become the laughing stock of the academic world?” he wrote.

Leading academics including Richard Dawkins have given their backing to an ‘elaborate’ hoax.

“Or at least the world of serious scientific scholarship uncontaminated by pretentious charlatans of exactly the kind Dr Boghossian and his colleagues were satirising?””

A student of Boghossian’s, Austen Holmberg, added: “I firmly believe that Peter’s actions are extremely valuable in that they have made crystal clear the disheartening corruption and pseudo-scholarship that has taken a foothold in academia.

 

“We now know that arbitrary and potentially harmful ideas will be welcomed with open arms by some of today’s scholars if they are made politically fashionable.”

An official for Portland State University said that Dr Boghossian had studied “human research subjects” without proper ethical approvals, The Times reports.

A further charge regarding the falsification of data is under review.

By Phoebe Cooke and published in The Sun on January 10, 2019 and can be found here.

 

 

NBI Seminar: Divorce Procedure & Settlement Agreements – Client Screenings & Case Strategy

I  recently had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal education seminar hosted by the National Business Institute (a.k.a. NBI, see here).  The subject was “Divorce Procedure & Settlement Agreements” and I had opportunity to speak on four main topics in particular: Client Screenings & Case Strategy, Filings & Pleadings (with Sample Language), Discovery, Lay Witnesses & Experts, and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Copied below are the materials I wrote for the section entitled “Client Screenings & Case Strategy.”

Thanks!

__________

            The first step in almost any lawyer/client interaction is the initial client interview.  This initial interview is to allow the lawyer to meet and get to know his client and obtain necessary information.  While clients may like the face-to-face meeting, a more effective way to secure important data and information from the client at the beginning of one’s representation is through a questionnaire, checklist, and/or an interview sheet.  This is an opportune time to gather information about financials, pre/post – nuptial agreements, personal property, bank accounts, and a general story of the case.

            The questionnaire or checklist is a good method to collect information for a few reasons.  First, if a dispute arises between the attorney and the client later in the course of representation, the attorney can point to the questionnaire as a justification for taking some actions or not taking others.  Second, it is a better use of a client’s time and money to take the time to prepare it as opposed to making the attorney a stenographer simply writing everything the client reports.  Third, it also helps the client to take the time to organize his thoughts and have everything in one place.

            Some information and documents to collect (for both parties if possible) when interviewing the client includes:

• names;
• contact information (mailing address and residential address);
• social security numbers;
• marriage and separation dates;
  • establishing these dates is critical as these dates frame how the value of marital property is calculated;
• the names and ages of the children of the marriage;
• employment history and income information (especially tax returns);
• assets:
  • real estate;
    • mortgage?;
    • value?;
    • who is on the deed?;
  • bank accounts;
  • investment accounts;
  • retirement accounts (note survivor benefits);
  • health insurances;
  • life insurances (note beneficiaries);
  • personal property (including collectables);
  • inheritances?;
  • automobiles, boats, etc.;
  • personal injury or workers’ compensation claims;
• businesses owned;
• liabilities;
  • credit cards;
  • mortgages;
  • loans;
  • timeshares;
  • student loans;
• ancillary custody and support issues;
• education background;
• medical limitations.

            Of course, the initial client interview also allows the client time to ask whatever questions he may have about the law or the process he is about to undertake.  This is a great opportunity to explain to the client the anticipated length of time the case will take and how property ownership works in the context of divorce.  For example, it is a common misconception among clients that property in one’s own name (and not in the other spouse’s name) is the exclusive property of that client in a divorce, and helping to clear that up – and other issues – helps the client have more realistic expectations as to how the case will unfold.

            After meeting with the client and gathering all the available information and documentation, the attorney can devise a strategy as to how to proceed.  Each case is unique and, therefore, needs a unique approach.

Some actions you may need to consider are the following:

• determine which property and assets are marital, pre-marital, post-marital;
• determine on a separation date;
• can the other spouse be found to perfect service of process?;
• freezing bank accounts;
• will custody or support need to be litigated as well?;
• freezing credit cards;
• is a PFA in play, or could one soon be filed?;
  • if so, how will this impact divorce, custody, and/or support?;
• is this a case that will go to a trial or will it settle?  Is an alternative method of resolution an option?;
• will the divorce be fault or no fault?;
  • fault divorce:
    • examples of faults: abandonment (one year or more), adultery, abuse (i.e.: cruel and barbarous treatment), etc.;
    • Fault divorces are rare.  They account for only about five to ten divorces per year in Pennsylvania;
    • it is worth noting that fault divorces are risky inasmuch as they can be lost.  In other words, the spouse claiming the other committed a marital fault bears the burden of proof to prove that fault.  If the court rules that the fault was not proven, then the divorce will be dismissed and the parties will remain married;
    • it should be noted that whether a divorce is fault or non-fault has no bearing on how the marital property is to be divided.  Choosing to pursue a fault based divorce is really only for personal reasons, as there is no legal benefit to pursue one as opposed to a no fault divorce.  The only possible effect a fault may have is to render a spouse ineligible to collect spousal support if it is proven that s/he committed a fault;
  • no fault divorces:
    • can one be secured via consent (i.e.: 3301(c)), which only requires a ninety (90) day waiting period after service of the complaint?;
      • sometimes delaying a client’s consent to a divorce can give that client leverage and/or negotiating power when negotiating a settlement.  Indeed, if one party is collecting spousal support, it may behoove that party to withhold consent in order to maximize support;
      • it is important to note that one cannot refuse to consent to one’s own divorce.  If someone files for divorce on the basis of consent, then one must file an Affidavit of Consent.  Refusal to do so could lead to the dismissal of the divorce complaint.  The reason for this is that one cannot benefit (e.g.: spousal support) from one’s own refusal to pursue one’s own case;
    • will the divorce be secured unilaterally based on a period of separation of one (1) year or more (i.e.: 3301(d))?;
      • no consent is required once the year of separation has elapsed;
    • as long as the legal grounds are established (i.e.: Affidavits of Consent are filed in a timely manner or there has been a one (1) year separation), no fault divorces do not require a hearing to determine, or justify, the grounds for the divorce (hence being “no fault”);
      • a hearing, if required, will determine what the separation date is and/or how marital property should be divided;
• practical issues:
  • are there substance abuse issues?;
  • are there physical abuse issues (is a PFA appropriate?);
  • should your client see a therapist?  What about the children?;
  • wre all the household expenses being paid?  By whom?;
  • what about insurance (e.g.: health, home owners, car, life)?;
  • does the client have to go back to work?;
• when did the parties separate?;
  • establishing a separation date is critical as it sets the end date (the marriage date is the start date) for the calculation of the value of much of the property at issue in a divorce;
  • the separation date also begins the countdown for the one (1) year separation required by Section 3301(d);
  • separation does not require physical separation.  Separation is when at least one (1) of the parties no longer believes s/he is living in a marriage relationship (i.e.: the “cessation of cohabitation, whether living in the same residence or not.”);
  • one way to establish separation is to look at the actions and behaviors of the parties.  Moving out of the marital home is an obvious indicator of separation, as is the cessation of sexual relations (but how do you prove this? It could be rather unseemly.), but there are subtler things are as well, like retaining a divorce lawyer, moving into another bedroom, opening up a new bank account in a single name, and/or using a maiden name again.  Of course, another way to clearly establish a separation date is for one party to declare/claim one in writing to the other party;
  • if there is a dispute as to what the separation date is, it will have to be resolved at a hearing in court.  As mentioned above, the separation date may have a significant impact on the value of marital property;
  • a clear and bright line separation date is the filing of the divorce complaint.  The filing of the divorce complaint is the default date for separation if no other date is ultimately chosen;
  • of course, separation can be reversed through reconciliation, which would, obviously reverse the indicia of separation: parties move back in with one another, resume having sex, and/or withdraw the complaint, etc.  As reconciliation reverses separation, if the parties separate again, the value of property is the recalculated according to the new separation date.  Again, whether reconciliation happened is a factual matter a court may need to determine.  A failed attempt at reconciliation does not necessarily qualify as a reconciliation that would lead to recalculating the value of marital property.  It is very fact dependent;
  • a separation date can be established by court, stipulation, or simply not contesting the date claimed by the other party;
• would the parties be amenable to a separation agreement (which is basically a post-nuptial or domestic relations agreement)?  Separation agreements are not common in Pennsylvania, but they may be helpful in establishing ground rules while the divorce is pending;
• there is no category of “legal separation” in Pennsylvania.  There is only married, single, and divorced.

            Discovery is an important part of virtually every divorce.  There are a variety of ways to secure the information necessary to adequately navigate the client through the property division process.  More on the discovery process is mentioned below. 

Supreme Court Holds That RFRA Authorizes Damage Actions Against Federal Officials

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Tanzin v. Tanvir, (Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2020), held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits suits for damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. In an 8-0 opinion (written by Justice Thomas), the court described the case as follows:

Respondents Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari are practicing Muslims who claim that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents placed them on the No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious communities. Respondents sued various agents in their official capacities, seeking removal from the No Fly List. They also sued the agents in their individual capacities for money damages. According to respondents, the retaliation cost them substantial sums of money: airline tickets wasted and income from job opportunities lost.

Focusing on RFRA’s authorization of suits seeking “appropriate relief” against the federal government or government officials, the Court said in part:

A damages remedy is not just “appropriate” relief as viewed through the lens of suits against Government employees. It is also the only form of relief that can remedy some RFRA violations.

Justice Barrett did not take part in the decision.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Templeton Project: Is Transformation Possible?

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Is Transformation Possible?.”

See also:

• Grounds for the Project
• The Biblical Foundation – Apology
• Apology in the New Testament II
• Apology in the New Testament III
• With Gentleness and Respect
• Elect Exiles of the Dispersion – the Importance of Identity
• The Present Cultural Environment in America
• Flannery O’Connor’s ‘Push Back’
• Saint Paul’s Civility
• Unbelievers
• Christ, Culture, and Christians
• Jesus and His Opponents in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew
• The Holy Spirit as Apologist
• On Listening to God and One Another
• Deep Conviction and Commitment
• Questions Unbelievers (especially Atheists) May Ask in Dialogue
• Waning Faith and Yearning Heart
• The Apostle on Mars Hill (Areopagus)
• A Fire, a World of Unrighteousness
• Civil Blood Makes Civil Hands Unclean
• Examples of Uncivil and Civil Speech
• Of Self-Control
• Humor in Dialogue
• Utopian Dreams
• Do we understand each other?
• When We Differ
• Dialogue and Personality
• Of Anger
• Discipleship and Apologetics
• Nurturing Christian Disciples
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics I
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics II–Wise as Serpents and Innocent as Doves
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics III–Endurance
• Discipleship and Apologetics IV–Family Conflict
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics V–Doing the Will of the Father as Peacemakers
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XII–“The Tree is Known by Its Fruit”
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics VI–A Sword, Not Peace
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics VII–Repentance and the Forgiveness of Sins
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics VIII–Mission to the Gentiles
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics IX–The Parable of the Sower
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics X–“Fear not, do not be afraid
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XI–“Come to me, . . . and I will give you rest
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XIII–Humility
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XIV–Woes Turned to the Wisdom of Christ and the Blessings of the Kingdom
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XV–The Sign of the Cross
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XVI–The Resurrection
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XVII–The Judgment
• Discipleship in Matthew and Apologetics XVIII–The Vision
• Templeton Project: Inside the Heart and Mind of an Atheist
• Spare, Knowledgeable, and Wise Speech
• Truth as the Only Solid Foundation for Inquiry and Dialogue
• What is Bigotry
• What is Bigotry? Part II: Ideology
• Establishment and Distortion of the Facts
• Confused Mind and Inconstant Heart
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–John the Baptist
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–The Mother of Our Lord
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–Nicodemus
• Encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John–The Samaritan Woman
• The Need for Self-Control
• Self-control and American Culture

_____________________________

People change, but can they be transformed?  Change in a human being may be for the better or worse.  Transformation, or conversion, is always for the better, and it is radical.  The most significant, if not the only transformation, has to do with conforming to Jesus Christ.  Only by God’s grace is this possible. The person is turned from following a wicked path to the way of the pilgrim headed toward the kingdom of God.  Those who are converted will shine like the sun in the kingdom. (Matthew 13: 43)

But, is it really possible?  People seem to languish in habits from one year to the next.  Negative character traits seem impossible to change.  As people grow older, they become confirmed in the disagreeable aspects of their personalities.  Are conversion and transformation impossibilities?  Is the power of the Holy Spirit weaker than our own sinfulness?

I have seen transformation, as much as one can see without perceiving the heart. It does exist. The Holy Spirit is at work. This transformation in a human being is the most epic of stories.  It is the specific story of each person who is transformed in the context of salvation history, the story of God’s saving work among human beings in the world.

Transformation does not mean perfection that is not possible in this life.  Even the one being transformed must confess sin everyday until he/she dies and is born into the kingdom.  But, transformation, or conversion, is a setting upon a certain path directed toward the New Jerusalem.  It reveals itself along the way by faithful worship of the Lord and fruits directed toward the neighbor.  It is born of God’s transforming power.  It is aligned with God’s work in the world.  While at times, a believer may grow weary, yet he comes through all things as a believer and disciple.

The Christian that serves the Lord as a disciple always sees his witness and defense as an opportunity for the conversion of others.  What we say is God’s Word as long as it conforms to the apostolic teaching, the rule of faith.  We must also behave in a way that reflects our faith and reveals faithfulness to the Lord.  Conversion of others is always a possibility in whatever context.  We are called to go about this work wherever we may be and in whatever circumstances.

Michael G. Tavella

March 3, 2020

Yessource: Vevey Collection

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

• Yes Studio Sessions: 1976 – Going for the One Sessions – Vevey (1/5)
• Yes Studio Sessions: 1976 – Going for the One Sessions – Vevey (2/5)
• Yes Studio Sessions: 1976 – Going for the One Sessions – Vevey (3/5)
• Yes Studio Sessions: 1976 – Going for the One Sessions – Vevey (4/5)
• Yes Studio Sessions: 1976 – Going for the One Sessions – Vevey (5/5)
• Yes Live: 8/29/78 – Buffalo – Vevey
• Yes Live: 8/31/78 – Boston – Vevey
• Yes Live: 9/1/78 – Providence – Vevey