On the Absurdity of Santa Claus

Upon considering the required attributes of Santa Clause, I am appalled at the number of people who actually appear to be ieve in him and yet deny the reality of Jesus Christ. I find the latter much easier to believe in. So let's take a look at what attributes Santa must have if he's to be remotely thought of as real:
Santa would have to be able to control and pilot an aerodynamic sleigh powered by 8 flying reindeer. The last time I looked it up, reindeer did not have the capacity of flight.
He would have to make an absolute circuit of the entire world, stopping at every dwelling of whatever sort in every inhabited community on earth, and that in one night (WHEW!) He would have to be able to come down a chimney, survive a landing in a fireplace, and after distributing the goodies for that residence, rise back up the chimney (in which case, what happened to the law of gravity?) His sleigh and pack would have to exceed the capacity of Noah's ark exponentially, and still be manageable by one short but morbidly obese man. If you can show me a man who can accomplish all the above and never miss a beat, I just might add Santa to what I believe in; meanwhile, I'll just stick to believing on the Son of God, who did everything the Bible says he did, and (according to John) a whole lot more to boot. For me that choice is a no-brainer.

The Case Against Intinction

Intinction is a method of serving Holy Communion by which the communicant dips the bread into the wine or juice and consumes it. This mode of administration has been around for quite some time, and is in general use in many mainline denominations. It appears to be an offshoot of an old Byzantine modality in which the priests first recieved the Eucharist, after which the bread fragments were tossed into the wine, and that was served to the congregation. The rational for this appears to have been a belief that Communion is a celebration of the Resurrection, and thus the "body and blood" should be mingled.
On the other hand, Scripture teaches (1 Corinthians 11) that as often as we receive Holy Communion we "show forth the Lord's death till he come." Under this view the "body and blood" should be separate because the rite brings Christ's death to remembrance. Indeed, Jesus gave the bread first, and then the cup (as shown in all three synoptic gospels and 1 Corinthians. In Luke 22 we're told that the cup (the Cup of Elijah in the Seder) was given after supper. By this it is clear that the bread was to be eaten, and then the cup was to bee drunk.
Thus Intinction is theologically inappropriate, first because it is contrary to the clear instructions in four major Bible passages, and additionally because it equates Communion with the sop given to Judas (John 13). In that passage we're told that when asked by John who it was that would betray him, he said, "The one to whom I give the sop when I have dipped it is he that shall betray me."
Historically speaking, I have never found any explanation of how intinction came into the western rite. Although several people have told me of its use in the Roman Catholic Church, a Sister Administrator once told me that intinction was not in any of their rubrics. Moreover, no United Methodist pastor with whom I've talked concerning this matter has ever been able to tell me how the practice got into the liturgy of the United Methodist Church. As a result I have personally come to the conclusion that intinction is popular with clergy and some laity because it is a quick means of conductiong the ritual, and it also saves cleaning or disposing of numerous small cups, to say nothing of saving the cost of purchasing the cups.
From the standpoint of good hygienic practice intinction is also a controversial matter. I know of at least one United Methodist pastor who refused to use the mode in his church because he considered it unhealthy. Certainly there is the potential for spreading pathogens by getting one's fingers into the juice when dipping the bread. Some clergy have attempted to deal with that problem by providing towelettes for sanitizing the hands prior to dipping the bread. I have no clear notion as to the effectiveness of that approach.
My final conclusion is that on theological, historical, and hygienic grounds it would be far wiser of all churches to discontinue the practice of intinction: on theological consideration because intinction runs contrary to all Biblical teaching on the subject; on historical consideration because there is no real historical base for intinction in the western rite, and because even if one points to the Byzantine origin, that is also contrary to Scripture regarding the purpose of Holy Communion; and on hygienic consideration because while the question of passing pathogens may be controversial, abandoning intinction would make the whole question moot.

It's Flu Shot Time

It's fall again, and the flu season will soon be upon us. Some clinics and even drug stores (e.g. Walgreen's) are already offering this year's version of the flu shot. This year's version will cover not only the seasonal flu strains, but also the H1N1 flu. By the beginning of October nearly all doctors and clinics will have the shots available, and they will definitely be available at local health departments and commissions on aging. A new wrinkle this year is the special version of the vaccine for senior citizens (65 and over) which contains four times the antigens of the normal version.
Some sources, including doctors, are erroneously telling patients that the shot is effective for only three months. The national Centers for Disease control and Prevention (CDC), however, states categorically that the shot is effective in persons with reasonably healthy immune systems for a full year. Most if not all state health departments will issue the same guidlines for the shot as those issued by the CDC, so you can consider the CDC's information most reliable For further information on the subject, log onto http://www.cdc.gov.
s

Standard Time Versus Daylight Saving Time

Throughout the history of mankind the sun has served as the reference for time-keeping. Thus, the earliest “time-pieces” were sundials. The Bible refers to “the sixth hour” based on twelve hours of daylight. Thus, the sixth hour was high noon (the zenith of the sun). In the days of the sundial nobody worried about time differences between villages, since everyone simply functioned on mean solar time.

It has only been in modern times (within the past three centuries) that we have had anical means of telling time, and only in the 20^th and 21^st Centuries that we have had electronic (and even atomic) clocks. It has also been within the modern era (from the industrial revolution) that commerce has become wide-spread, and a need for standardization of timekeeping has become essential.

Our current system is based on the zenith of the sun as noon at a meridian known as the prime meridian, which passes through Greenwich, England. This meridian was finally settled upon because it placed the international date line (180^o from Greenwich) completely over water. This was deemed necessary because at the international date line the day of the week changes.

With the prime meridian established, the time zones would be 15^o apart, since 15^o x 24 (the number of hours in a day) = 360^o (the circumference of the earth). This system has given us a standard for uniformity of time in each zone, thus eliminating chaos and confusion from city to city.

During the 20^th Century, a new-fangled idea came into play (although it is said that Benjamin Franklin first proposed it). The idea was that by arbitrarily setting our clocks ahead one hour we could “save daylight”, that is, have an extra hour of daylight in the evening for recreational and/or other purposes. It was also deemed useful during World War II as an aid in the war effort, and was in fact implemented for that purpose.

More recently, daylight saving time has been invoked on far more controversial grounds; namely, that it could save energy. Thus over the past half century it has been expanded from beginning on the last Sunday of April and ending on the last Sunday of October, to beginning on the first Sunday of Ap[ril and ending on the last Sunday of October, to finally beginning on the second Sunday of March and ending on the first Sunday of November.

While some “experts” in the energy field claim that daylight saving time indeed saves significant amounts of energy, many others, myself included, seriously doubt that claim. Indeed studies purportedly showing that expanded daylight saving time not only hasn't saved energy, but rather has actually cost energy, are reported to have been carried out.

Whatever the facts may be with regard to saving or not saving energy, it can be mathematically demonstrated that daylight saving time for more than half a year (from the vernal equinox to the autumnal equinox) is useless, since there are fewer than twelve hours of daylight during the period from the autumnal equinox and the vernal equinox, and thus nothing is really accomplished by setting the clock ahead during that period. This is true since moving the clock ahead during that period actually takes needed daylight away from people going to work and children going to school early in the morning. This is far less of a problem from the vernal equinox to the autumnal equinox because there are more than twelve hours of daylight, and moving the clock ahead has far less adverse effect in the morning.

But there are other problems with daylight saving time. The biggest of these is that (at least, temporarily) it upsets the human biological clock and circadian rhythm. A school teacher recently told me that the change to daylight saving time disorients her 4^th grade class for the rest of the school year. This might well be a valid point, since children are generally used to going to bed after daylight has, for the most part, ended. When we change to daylight saving time, the children must often go to bed and try to sleep while it is still effectively broad daylight.

Additionally, some years ago it was reported during a TV newscast that a study had been carried out showing that on the first Monday of daylight saving time the number of automobile accidents increased by 8-9%, while on the first Monday after the return to standard time automobile accidents decreased by the same 8-9%. If that study is valid and those figures are correct, one might wonder whether accidents in other places such as home and the work place fluctuate at anything like the same rate with the switch to and from daylight saving time. So far as I know no such studies have been carried out other than the one showing the fluctuation in the number of automobile accidents. I would suggest that such studies should be conducted to determine the effect of flipping the clock back and forth on accident rates in all areas of our lives.

It is my considered opinion that standard time should be in effect year-round, and that all of the states should be required to set their time according to their geographical time zones (a condition which is most definitely not in effect at this time). However, if we are going to implement daylight saving time for recreational purposes (and I can think of no other valid use for it), then we should consider invoking it from no earlier than the first Sunday of April to no later than the first Sunday of October for the reasons I have stated above. Personally, I think that if it is instituted only for recreational purposes, we might consider beginning it on the last Sunday before Memorial Day and ending it on the first Sunday after Labor Day, which would cover the traditional recreational season. In any case Daylight Saving time should not be continued on the winter side of the vernal equinox, and the so-called Upton Amendment should be repealed forthwith.

Controversy over Bach's Orchestral Suites

J. S. Bach wrote four suites for orchestra; number 1 in C Major, number 2 in B Minor, and Numbers 3 and 4 in D Major. There is no controversy with regard to the first two, but a debate has arisen over the last two with regard to whether trumpets and tympani were originally included by the composer, or whether they were added later by someone else. At least one recording of the suites has been issued in which the trumpets and tympani are omitted, and one must admit that the suites work quite nicely without those instruments. On the other hand, the presence of trumpets and tympani do add a decided touch of brilliance to the works which just isn't there without them. I would not consider myself qualified to make a valid critical judgment as to Bach's intentions with regard to these two compositions; however, I personally do prefer the more common version with the brilliance and festive atmosphere provided by the presence of the trumpets and tympani.

Thoughts on Performing Handel's "Messiah"

Handel's "Messiah" is somewhat unique among his several oratorios in that all recitative-aria sequences are scored for the same voice. For example, the recitative "Comfort Ye, My People" and the ensuing aria "Every Valley Shall Be Exalted" are sung by a tenor. This pattern is true even for the alto-tenor duet "O Death, Where Is Thy Stiong," since the preceding recitative "Then Shall Be Brought to Pass" is sung by the alto.
Over the past two or three decades, however, there has been a major controversy involving the bass recitative "Thus Saith the Lord" and the ensuing aria "But Who May Abide." Baroque purists have pointed to some performances during the 1750's in which, for whatever reason, Handel allowed an alto or a countertenor to sing that aria, while leaving the recitative with the bass. The purists insist that since these were the last performances, it was Handel's intention to always have "But Who May Abide" sung by the alto or countertenor. As mentioned above, however, this does not jibe with the structure of the work. Indeed, there are at least two solidly Baroque-style recordings of "Messiah" in which the sequence in question is given entirely to the bass. These are by the Amor Artis Chorale with orchestra under Johannes Sommary and by Musica Sacra under Richard Westinburg. Additionally, a fine recording which blends the Baroque style quite effectively with the "Grand Organ" style, featuring the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir and Toronto Symphony Orchestra under Sir Andrew Davis.
It is my considered opinion that the three above-mentioned recordings have done it correctly in accordance with Handel's true intentions and with the overall structure of the work. Of the three I recommend Westinburg to those who want a purely Baroque approach, but to those who would like a thrilling and overpowering reading of the work and are not mavens of style I strongly recommend the recording by Sir Andrew Davis.