Importing SubTemplates in Ruby's ERB

I've posted a Gist showing an example of how to import sub-templates into ERB files.

Many people are familiar with the concept of "partials" in (RubyOn)Rails. This subtemplating ability is part of ActionView and is not part of ERB itself (the templating language included in every Ruby install).

There are many times when you may want to have the functionality of "partials" without all of the overhead of including ActionView into your code. At BlueHead Publishing, we are using this in our bookshop software, to have a templating structure for author's books.

The code example below shows how to create a method called import() which you can use in your ERB to import subtemplates (other .erb files) into your master ERB file, reproducing some of the "partials" functionality you may be used to in Rails.

Centering Text Block Vertically on Kindle

I've posted a Gist showing an example of how to vertically center a block of text on a blank page for Kindle.

Shirley Phelps-Roper Response

It has been almost two weeks since my initial letter to Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church, concerning our invitation for an Over Coffee Conversation. We recently received this note from Shirley:

I’ve been doing radio around the country all day and other media and a few high school class discussions. At first glance of the writing below, I have to say- someone should tell the lad that less is more! Here is a verse or two on that:

Job 11:2 Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?
Pr 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

You can hide sin in words.

Hold for more.

Thanks!

Shirley

And my response back:

I am very grateful for the response, given all of the media stir.

It's true. I confess, I tend to be a bit loquacious. Thank goodness 'brevity' isn't the standard for truth when it comes to the Apostle Paul's writings. Maybe it's me, but the letter he wrote to the Romans sure seems a bit wordy.

I am eagerly on hold, awaiting the continence of our fine conversation.

D.a.

Open Dialogue With Shirley Phelps-Roper from Westboro Baptist Church

Recently we began conversations with Shirley Phelps-Roper from Westboro Baptist Church (http://www.godhatesfags.com/), regarding the hosting of an Over Coffee Conversation event about gay partnership and conservative faith. Due to the nature of our correspondence, I asked Ms. Phelps-Roper for permission to make our dialogue open to the public. She has kindly agreed. Here is our correspondence so far.

Shirley Phelps-Roper (in response to my publicist's inquiry)

Good morning Ms. Arthur –

While I’m a never say die kind of person, and I’ll try anything at least once, there is a problem with the conditions – actually only one.

1. We will agree to make no conclusions.

The discussion you want to have is one wherein you bring together people in a “religious” setting to discuss in an “open” and “honest” and “save” environment a matter. That sounds so very good and fluffy and more.

However, when the question amounts to this: Can you fit what God calls ABOMINATION (two fags living together in a type of husband/wife relationship) into any notion whatsoever of serving God, and making your way eventually to heaven.

Paul instructed us in at least two ways about such a discussion, to wit:

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

AND

2Co 1:17 When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?

Further, CHRIST said that if we do not do that (RENDER an opinion and be prepared to defend it, as in a CONCLUSION and a DECISION) it is because we have an evil agenda.

Mt 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

This foolish nation sits around as you are being undone, piece by piece, that will not end till you have been fully vomited out of this land, discussion GOD’s commandments as if they are on the table to discuss. Looking at it this way and that way to try and find a way to get around plain words of instruction and commandment. It will NOT happen.

While I would engage in discussion, my conversation HAS a conclusion. God did not leave us walking in darkness about this matter. WE say NO, NO, NO! Sodom will destroy the nation and damn the soul to hell for eternity where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched and the smoke of your torment ascends up for ever and ever! NEVER ending!

So NO please. Thank you for the invite, but once I found your letter enclosed in the package, and saw the book and the fag saying that he is a “Gay” “Conservative” I realized what you are all up to! A filthy, disobedient, practicing pervert and rebel against God, by any other name and with any fluffy photo is still a filthy, disobedient, practicing pervert and rebel against God!

WE will not do that! We will NOT let anyone take our crown and we will not let anyone make us agree that there is no conclusion! The last chapter of the last book of the Bible says that the first category of rebels against God that will NEVER see heaven are the fags! That includes their enablers!

The entire Word of God from the first book (Genesis) to the last book (The Revelation) and all the words of Christ that touch upon the subject matter (see Luke 17, Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21 and more – just read the words) are ALL one way! BAD, BAD, BAD! Genesis 19 – God destroyed Sodom! Judges 19-21 – God almost wiped out the tribe of Benjamin – the prophets (Isaiah 1; more, more, read the words) warned and connected the filthy Sodomites (see Amos 3 and read it all, short and powerful and good) with the utter destruction of Israel and the Babylonian Captivity of Judah) and it is the sin for which this generation has brought upon themselves horrors of afflictions that have never been seen in this earth, nor ever will be, and that day is in sight now! WOE, WOE, WOE unto this nation and this generation! You should NEVER have put your hand to touch this subject matter! You should have FLED the other direction as fast as you could get there!

Anathema, Maranatha!

Thanks for writing.

Shirley Phelps-Roper
2/12/11

My response to Ms Phelps-Roper

Dear Shirley,

I am so very grateful for your well stated reply and truly appreciate the opportunity to converse with you in more detail. Moreover, thank you for also agreeing to allow for a publicly open dialogue. I am certain that the points of our conversation will serve to be very informative to many who have similar curiosities on this incredibly relevant issue in our Churches and our greater society.

To your first concern of the Over Coffee Conversation event, that we will agree to make no conclusions, I hope you will permit me to clarify. It goes without saying that almost every person has a very clear conclusion on the matter of gay partnership in the Church. The intention of our Over Coffee Conversations event is to provide an opportunity for leaders and fellow persons of conservative faith to feel like they can dialogue about gay partnership without feeling like they might be put on the spot or be forced to agree with my position, or any other position.

Thank you for your reflection on this condition. We are investigating a way to more clearly state this that better reflects our intentions. Currently we are considering: "We all agree to provide room for disagreement." What do you think? This may provide a better expression of our intentions for an open dialogue.

Regarding your concern about the question of "two fags living together in a type of husband/wife relationship" as being foolish, I would ask for a small liberty here to make a brief clarification of terms. As the word "fag" is not to be found anywhere in the entirety of Scripture, and as it is only principally used in our English language as a curse word, or a demeaning term, may I suggest we use the term gay, or even homosexual (which is at least in our English Bibles)? I'm sure you would agree with the apostle Paul in Col 3:8 "But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips." So in hopes of maintaining a context of Christ-likeness I would prefer to use the word "gay" or "homosexual" to more accurately talk about people who find themselves unable to be attracted to the opposite gender.

Onto the foolish and unlearned questions. I would certainly agree that unlearned questions are something to avoid. Generally speaking it doesn't do much good to entertain debate unless one has become learned on the particular subject matter. For instance, I would agree with you that it would be unlearned of someone to suggest that a conservative reading of the Creation story would suggest that God intended Adam & Steve. It seems very clear within a conservative interpretation that God separates Adam into two genders for the purpose of providing his relationship with Eve. In that 'Garden' state without the genetic or environmental consequence of the Fall (the unintended state of Creation) I would say the conversation should end there. But the reality is that we live in a world full of 'unintended' (to translate the greek word for sin) realities.

This moves me to the question, as you state it, "Can you fit what God calls ABOMINATION into any notion whatsoever of serving God, and making your way eventually to heaven?"

First, I must note where heaven is concerned, that I don't believe there is anything that we can 'do' to earn the free gift of salvation and reconciliation provided by the sacrifice of Christ. To continue with you in quoting Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians (2:8), "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." We are all imperfect and the only standard for heaven, as it were, is perfection. As you would no doubt agree, that perfection has already been met for us as a result of Jesus' death and intercession, a keystone tenant of our Christian faith. So I would agree with you that at some point it becomes a foolish and unlearned question to debate which person's unintended (sinful) condition is more imperfect than the others. Forgive the crass example, but it is a little like two cow-pies debating over who makes the pasture cleaner.

To reply to your question, I would say yes. Yes, in point of fact, Jesus in Matthew 19 fits what God 'hates' (in Malachi 2:8 - divorce) into a notion of serving God. But let us recall that Jesus is dealing with a situation where the ideal is no longer possible. In that case of infidelity in marriage, the ideal of the marriage has been made non-ideal. Since it is unlikely that a person would be unable to be celibate the remainder of their lives, Jesus seems to have permitted remarriage, even though it was imperfect, not ideal.

I would like to make a special note here that we are not talking about a world where decisions are made between perfection and imperfection. The only decision between perfect and imperfect was the first one that Eve and Adam made in eating the fruit they were forbidden to eat. So decisions after that point are made between the spectrum of imperfect or even-more-imperfect. In the case of a divorced man who comes to the church, we would not expect him to never marry. To do so would be to violate God's very first moral order that "man should not be alone." If he is gifted with the ability for celibacy, then he should consider that as an option. But just because his situation is imperfect, it does not mean that we should make matters worse (more imperfect) by setting him up for complete failure. No. Instead, we should equip him to be less imperfect and in-so-doing provide him a better ability to actually have a better chance for living a more right life.

Such is the case with persons who are only able to be attracted to the same gender. Even the most conservative group, NARTH.org, recognizes that this is an unchangeable condition for many gay persons. Why would we presume that they are somehow able to be celibate when we would never assume that of people who are attracted to the opposite gender. Jesus, in point of fact, was talking to all people when he suggested the gift of celibacy.

Last, please note what I am NOT suggesting here. I am not suggesting that the sacrament of marriage in the Church (as distinct from the secular, legal, and economic context of marriage) needs to include relationships of the same gender. I think there is something important about distinctly and sacramentally recognizing the creative intention of God's separation of humankind into opposite genders, there coupling being His initial purpose. This does not mean we cannot provide room on the pew for the very small percentage of relationships in our congregations between people who are actually incapable of attraction to the opposite gender and who are also not gifted for celibacy.

In closing, please allow me to reiterate that I am very hopeful that we can continue these conversations, eventually in person. As you so careful noted, "Anathema Maranatha," it is also my eager endeavor to protect those teachings of our faith. What is more, as one of the ninety-nine sheep (Luke 15), I hope to never say to the Good Shepherd, "We're glad you found your lost sheep, but we just don't like the color of his fleece."

Your Brother in Faith,

D.a. Thompson
3/3/2011

Osteen's Church Responds, Sort-Of (Third Letter)

This is my third letter to Joel Osteen. The first and second have gone without significant reply.

Due to Pastor Joel Osteen's recent shift in message on the gay issue, stating conclusively that he believes "homosexuality is a sin," I felt compelled to communicate with him and urge him to clarify his position.

We have shared this third letter with Pastor Osteen's team and await their reply.

#########

Dear Pastor Osteen,

This is my third open letter. The first and second having gone without significant reply.

Thursday morning we received a brief email from Cassie Malone, Media Relations on your behalf.

To re-iterate, here is Ms. Malone's response to my publicist (who has been graciously working tirelessly), Jenée Arthur:

Dear Jenee,

Thank you for contacting our ministry.

At this time we are unable to accommodate to your request.

God bless,

Cassie
Lakewood Church
Media Relations

My response back:

Dear Cassie,

Thank you for acknowledging, on behalf of Pastor Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church, after two weeks, that our attempts for communication are being received by your team. It is disheartening that Pastor Osteen has chosen to provide no reply, thought, or reflections, in any form, to the tremendous amount of work (by many concerned persons) that has been put into offering opportunity to converse, in any form.

I continue to offer my prayers and sincere requests for conversation, as a fellow person of conservative faith. We look forward to continuing our attempts for open conversation in hopes of Pastor Osteen's timely reply.

Again, as you represent a significant voice for our faith, it is my hope to assist you in clarifying your recent swing in position. Unfortunately your lack of response thus far continues to position you as a substantial representative of Christ who makes blanket, national statements singling out gay persons in our churches and your congregation as uniquely sinful. I'm sure you would agree, these statements ostracize gay persons as somehow unique in their particular human context, while not holding the same standard for all other persons in your congregation whose context is equally complicated. Additionally, I hope you would agree that Christ's Church-doors have no gay-detectors, and that the message of grace is available, without condition or cost to all persons.

We continue to offer opportunities for open conversation by way of an Over Coffee Conversation (http://overcoffeeconversations.com) event with Pastor Joel Osteen.

Your Brother in Faith,

D.a. Thompson

You may be aware that this last week, Shirley Phelps-Roper, an adamant nationally recognized anti-gay protester from Westboro Baptist Church, daughter of the founder Fred Phelps, has agreed to an open dialogue concerning an Over Coffee Conversation. I am excited for our conversation and am so grateful for her openness and willingness to converse. As such I must confess it disappointing that a minister such as yourself is not willing to converse at all and hope that you will open up a dialogue to clarify your unique isolation of gay persons in our churches and your congregation.

Your Brother in Faith,

D.a. Thompson

Second Open Letter to Joel Osteen Concerning His Statement on Homosexuality

This is my second letter to Joel Osteen. The first has gone without reply in any form from his team.

Due to Pastor Joel Osteen's recent shift in message on the gay issue, stating conclusively that he believes "homosexuality is a sin," I felt compelled to communicate with him and urge him to clarify his position.

We have shared this second letter with Pastor Osteen's team and await their reply.

#########

February 15, 2011



Dear Pastor Osteen,

Thank you for the opportunity to communicate with you once again concerning your recent statement and swing in position on the Piers Morgan Show Tonight: “Homosexuality is a sin.”

It has been a week since my initial open letter was provided to your team. Regrettably, we have received no communication from you or your team, in any form.

Whereas a lack of conversation may seem initially favorable in this context, holding to a message that alienates people based upon their unchangeable sexual orientation (again, even after reparative therapy) will for many, serve only as a proclamation of targeted discrimination. As such, your message and conversation thus far continue to further position you away from the message of welcoming-love and unconditional grace to which our faith and your message have held so strongly.

Again, I urge you to contact me so that we might discuss a fresh perspective of definitions, message, and our conservative faith where this volatile issue and these often-alienated persons are concerned.

Time is of the essence. This window of opportunity is a chance provided you sovereignly. It is a chance to distinguish yourself as a conservative faith leader who is open to conversation, within a conservative and biblical context, concerning persons of faith in your congregation whose sexual orientation is unchangeable. Rather than viewing this as an attack from the liberal media, I encourage you to view this as an opportunity to provide uniqueness to your message and ministry.

I look forward to your response to my Over Coffee Conversations invitation. Please know that I am available for your call should you desire to become more familiar with my message, position, and intent.

Your Brother in Faith,



D.a. Thompson

Open Letter to Joel Osteen Concerning His Statement on Homosexuality

Due to Pastor Joel Osteen's recent shift in message on the gay issue, stating conclusively that he believes "homosexuality is a sin," I felt compelled to communicate with him and urge him to clarify his position.

We have shared this letter with Pastor Osteen's team and await their reply.

######

February 8, 2011

Dear Pastor Osteen,

Recently, a friend passed me a hyperlink to your media spot on the Piers Morgan Tonight show, where you made a very clear statement that “homosexuality is a sin.” The link was passed to me from a conservative Christian friend who noted, “I had a lot of respect for him, until I saw that.” I hope you will permit me to express my concern for this swing in your position, and moreover, invite you to discuss this crucial issue in person.

Whereas it is not unusual for people to hear conservatives specifically delineating homosexuality as sin, what was unusual in this instance was the person making the statement. As you represent a significant voice for conservative faith, your position is important. Up till this point, your position has appeared fairly moderate and your non-alignment has allowed for a number of conservative individuals to feel a relative safety and welcome-ness in your message and congregation where gay persons are concerned.

Regrettably, your statement on the Piers Morgan Tonight show effectively moved your position, in many eyes, from one of welcoming and love, to one of dismissal and inconsideration for Christian believers whose sexuality is unchangeable (in many cases even after reparative therapy) and who are not able, nor gifted, to live a celibate life.

Additionally, many will see your statement as a gross example of double standard. For example, many will now point to your welcoming of divorced and remarried people in your congregation as being discriminatory of God’s grace, when you specifically do not allow gay individuals to also be enabled to live in less-than-perfect human contexts and still be members.

I would urge you to clarify your position and provide your listeners and congregation members with the opportunity to discuss this very important issue in a safe and welcoming event. I would like to invite you to participate with me in an “Over Coffee Conversation.” This is a stage-based event we have created to provide an atmosphere of safety and conversation on this issue, where we all agree to the following Rules of Engagement:

1. We will agree to make no conclusions

2. We will remain within a conservative faith context: accepting the Scriptures to be inspired and inerrant

3. We will agree not to discuss any current political, economic, or legal issues

I encourage you to learn more about this event at http://overcoffeeconversations.com/

Thank you for your consideration on this matter. I am grateful for your unending commitment to, as the author Jude compelled us, “to contend for the faith…”

Your Brother in Faith,

D.a. Thompson

######