Upon arriving at church this Sunday, I received official word my current care group was being disolved. It was a decision that I felt was a correct one for a couple of reasons. Our leader, being a full time pastor at the church, was unable to regularly spend time with group members outside of official meetings. This understandable situation was particularly detrimental to the male members of the group as they lacked neccessary guidance from the male half of the leadership team. Another rationale was that this now defunct group never developed the atmoshere of intimate Christian fellowship, which is the raison d’etre of care groups. That is not to say there were not certain subgroups within the main gathering that seemed to enjoy such a relationship. But certainly, there was never the general sense of acceptance and love that was so evident among another group whose one get-together I recently observed via a brief video clip. In this clip, a young man, fairly new to the church, felt not only perfectly comfortable to propose marriage to his girlfriend in front of his care group, but actually desired them to share in this most intimately wonderful moment of his life.
Perhaps, to ask why this lack of care existed in my group is now moot, and it is not the intention of this rumination to explore the reason or reasons for its regrettable exsistance. All I will say is that unconfessed sin is a likely candidate.
Still, despite the lack of ‘care’ in this care group, I cannot help but feeling a sense of loss at knowing that that particular group of people will no longer be meeting together on a regular basis. For I am haunted by the thought that the potentiality to develop some long-lasting friendships has been irretrievably lost, not only for myself, but for all my fellow former participants as well. Furthermore, I wonder if true Christian fellowship is a mere mirage this side of heaven?
Dan, I find it difficult to read your blog because you use big/unusual words that I don’t understand. I am however, excited to figure out what these words mean so that I can use them in my ever so extensive vocabulary. =0)
First off… what the heck is “moot”?
By: janetboylan on July 11, 2008
at 7:03 pm
Janet, first I want to thank you for taking the time to read my blog. It’s always great to hear from someone new.
As an avid reader and writer, I have developed a fairly voluminous vocabulary and sometimes use words that others find obscure. I have been told this is particularly true of my novel, “Cornfields of Steel,” where the language is Victorian in style, being set in mid-nineteenth century Baltimore. Anyway, when writing, I tend to make extensive use of a thesaurus because the english language, in its entirety, is actually very diverse. This is good because brevity is the soul of wit and it is always best to convey any idea in as few words as possible. Sadly, because the average American tends to be an aliterate (a person who is able to read but rarely does) much of the language is falling into disuse and often misuse as well. I find your desire to continually expand your vocabulary quite commendable and encourage you to continue on this valuable and edifying life-long quest.
In answer to your question, I’m using the word “moot” in accordance with Webster’s second definition: of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. The “purely academic” part of the definition is particularly applicable in the above referance.
By: ianmcleod on July 12, 2008
at 11:59 am
OK, It makes sence now! Ha-Ha. Thanks!!
By: janetboylan on July 15, 2008
at 12:42 pm