Monday, 3 November 2008

PB visits Pittsburgh

Updated Tuesday morning

The Diocese of Pittsburgh reports: Presiding Bishop Visits Calvary Episcopal Church, and the full text of her sermon is available here (PDF file).

Press reports:

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Top Episcopal leader visits troubled members by Ann Rodgers

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Episcopal leader says exodus ‘tragic’ by Bonnie Pfister

There is a further diocesan announcement: Bishop Jones To Make First Parish Visit.

Update

ENS has a full report by Mary Frances Schjonberg All involved in Pittsburgh split are saints, Presiding Bishop tells Pittsburgh Episcopalians. Part of that report:

Many of the questions concerned the tensions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion that led to the October 4 vote. More than once, Jefferts Schori suggested that those tensions would ease in the next few years. She said that more bishops across the communion have a better understanding of the complexity of the issues. Those bishops have said “‘we don’t agree, but we recognize you are called to follow where you believe the Spirit is taking you, and we are called to try to understand that,’” according to the Presiding Bishop.

Others questions addressed theological matters, including the issue of whether Jefferts Schori had suggested there are ways to salvation other than following Jesus.

“That’s not what I said,” Jefferts Schori said, explaining that she has noted in the past that “most Christians believe Christ died for all, as savior for the whole world.”

She said she has also cited the Bible’s record of God’s promises to the Jewish people and other promises that “were not broken by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.”

“Therefore, Jews have access to salvation without consciously saying ‘Jesus is my Lord and savior.’ I didn’t do that; God did it. I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael, whom Muslims claim as their ancestor,” she said. “I don’t think God broke those promises when Jesus came among us.”

Jefferts Schori had touched on the question during her sermon, noting that “Episcopalians and other Christians wrestle with how broadly to understand the family of God, and whether non-Christians are included, for we can certainly point to holy examples who show us what God at work in the world looks like — people like the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi.”

She suggested that “it seems more fruitful to remember that Jesus’ saving work was and is for the whole world, and that our baptismal promises are about living holy lives, together, in community.”

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 3 November 2008 at 10:39pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Sometimes the Press does seem to get it right - at least, in the first few words of this snippet from the 'Pittsburgh Tribune-Review':

"The schism is playing out nationally, as conservative Anglicans resist the U.S. Leadership's support for keeping abortions legal and the 2003 openly-gay pastor V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire"

The word 'schism' is actually attributed here to the actions of the re-Asserters - and not to the leadership of TEC - which is what the conservatives would probably have preferred.

"Out of the mouths of babes ....."

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 3 November 2008 at 11:11pm GMT

I really am puzzled by the PB's assertions that God has entered into some sort of covenant with Muslims, based on promises supposedly made to Hagar and Ishmael. As far as I can see, the only thing that resembles a positive promise in the Hagar and Ishmael story is the promise that God would make a nation of Ishmael, because he was Abraham's offspring, and that Hagar would have more descendants than she can count. Not really a salvific promise, is it? Am I missing something?

Posted by: BillyD on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 12:35am GMT

BillyD:

And what promise did God make to Abraham and Isaac? The same one, right? With the addition that all of Canaan would be theirs. There's nothing in God's promise to Abraham about salvation...salvation is Jesus' promise to the whole world--including the descendants of Isaac, Ishmael, and everybody else.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 10:07am GMT

BillyD, re your comment on Bishop Katherine's
statement about covenantal relationships:

Remember that Jesus was a lineal descendant of the Patriarch David (through his foster-father Joseph's line). King David was guilty of adultery with Bathsheba, but this did not affect the salvific charism of the Jewish Jesus, who went on to include Samaritans and Gentiles into his loving embrace.

God's promise to Hagar was given - despite the fact that she was only a make-shift 'wife' to Abram. Remember also that, as Jesus said, "God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones".(Matt.3:9)

Cannot God then raise up chidlren for Abraham from all humanity? Jesus did die for all people - whether or not all humanity knows that fact. It is up to us Christians to convince them by preaching the Good News of God's love to ALL. It is only when Christians are being exclusive that we are denying Christ's salvation to all 'whom the Lord our God may call'. ("God so loved the world...")

If that makes me an "Inclusivist", then I can only claim that Jesus died for the world - not just the Church. That is what is so wonderful about the Christian Gospel, of which I am glad to be called a minister: not just to 'Christians', but to everyone.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 10:19am GMT

I welcome the trusting and generous words of our Presiding Bishop. My own belief is that just as God creats all people -- not just those who chose to call Hun Creator or even acknowledge their own dependence on Him -- even so in Christ all are Redeemed whether they call Jesus Savior and Redeemer or not.
I find support for that in John's prologue -- who lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.
[KJV used deliberately.]

Columba Gilliss

Posted by: Columba Gilliss on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 1:58pm GMT

“If that makes me an "Inclusivist", then I can only claim that Jesus died for the world - not just the Church. That is what is so wonderful about the Christian Gospel, of which I am glad to be called a minister: not just to 'Christians', but to everyone.”-- Fr. Ron Smith

Amen! Amen!! Amen!!!

Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 2:35pm GMT

"the only thing that resembles a positive promise in the Hagar and Ishmael story is the promise that God would make a nation of Ishmael"

That's a promise, isn't it? I don't see that she was implying there is anything salvific in the promise to Hagar. What about what she said about sainthood, justification by faith, the universality of Christ's sacrifice, etc.? Surely that's more important than acknowledging that God made a promise to Abraham's cast off slave woman that her descendants would become a gerat nation, a promise that has mainfestly been fulfilled. At the very least, her comments on the last point make clear that it is Christ who redeems us. I heard Don Harvey, of Pseudorthodox fame, make exactly the same point in a sermon preached at a confirmation service in our parish about two years before his reitrement, which might well come as a shock to his current "orthodox" companions. If asked about this, I would hope he would not be so hypocritical as to denounce her for making statements he himself has made as a bishop, though, as we say here, "live in hopes, die in despair!".


Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 2:36pm GMT

Father Ron,
I'm afraid I'm not understanding your comment about "exclusive" and "inclusive" Christianity. You bring up John 3:16, which does say God so loved the world, but finishes with "Whoseover believes in Him(Jesus) should not perish...."Doesn't sound "inclusive" to me.

Around here, when people are being "inclusive" it means they don't tell Jews or Muslims about Christ because they have their own way to god, no conversion is necessary and thus no evangelism, which is uncomfortable and pushy. They're the ones who liked Bruno's apology for converting Hindus in India, because evangelists are shoving an alien god on people. (How does Bruno feel about the Hindus and Muslims killing or driving away all the Christians?)They are the "there are many ways to god" folk and so Christianity is nothing special, just their own personal opinion. Is that what you meant?

I really would like to understand what you mean when you say "inclusive" and "exclusive" cause around here "inclusive" means "do whatever you want except tell people Jesus is THE way, etc..." And oddly enough in my world religion classes they made a point to show that all religions are "exclusive".

Posted by: Chris H. on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 3:45pm GMT

"They're the ones who liked Bruno's apology for converting Hindus in India, because evangelists are shoving an alien god on people."

I believe it was based on Christians having routinely considered coersion, threat, trickery, and bribery as valid, in many instances the only forms of "evangelism". You DO know what "rice Christian" means? And it isn't telling people the Gospel that people find pushy but an approach that threatens people with Hellfire and damnation if they do not believe, fear of what God will do to you if you don't believe in Him is a poor reason for becoming a Christian, after all. Besides, it borders on blasphemy to say that God Who "so loved the world" is actually willing to torture his beloved creatures for all eternity just because they didn't hear or accept a particular religious message. But then, if you accept the near blasphemy of PSA, I guess that makes sense.

"How does Bruno feel about the Hindus and Muslims killing or driving away all the Christians?"

And what do you think is the reason for that? I am a Christian, and I have enough resentment for the way that Evangelicals used their coercive scare tactics and trickery on me, I can't imagine what a Hindu must think, or what impression of the Gospel that kind of behaviour gives them. And don't forget the link between Conservative Evangelical Christianity and rapacious Conservative American foreign policy, not something likely to generate love of the Gospel in any place that comes under that particular boot.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 4:41pm GMT

"And what promise did God make to Abraham and Isaac? The same one, right? With the addition that all of Canaan would be theirs. There's nothing in God's promise to Abraham about salvation...salvation is Jesus' promise to the whole world--including the descendants of Isaac, Ishmael, and everybody else."

God promised much more to Abraham and his descendents. As an example, take a look at Genesis 17: "I will maintain my covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come." Or Genesis 28, when he says to Jacob, " I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac...All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendants." God promised to be in relationship to Israel, and that they would be a blessing to the peoples of the world.

Posted by: BillyD on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 5:07pm GMT

1 John 4:14 (New International Version): “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”

You see, Chris, Jesus is not simply the Savior of the Christians, (or, Savior of the evos!) but THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD!


Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 5:24pm GMT

Chris H: "They're the ones who liked Bruno's apology for converting Hindus in India, because evangelists are shoving an alien god on people. (How does Bruno feel about the Hindus and Muslims killing or driving away all the Christians?)"

What has one got to do with the other? Both are wrong; obviously one is far worse, but why do you link both together? Is this a weak attempt to besmirch the word "inclusive"?

Go and create your own exclusive religion and the only thing you'll ultimately be worshiping is yourself.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 9:36pm GMT

It is important to remember that all the way through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament one finds both exclusive and inclusive claims for God and responding to God in faith. The juxtaposition of Matthew's and Luke's telling of Jesus'words are only one small example: "Those who are not against us are for us" (Matthew) vs. "Those who are not for us are against us" (Luke). This tells us that God is both inclusive and exclusive. God claims everything from us - heart, soul, mind, strength - time, talent and treasure; and we are not to be dallying with other gods such as materialism, status, power, etc. At the same time, God's invitation is for everyone, and God longs to have all nations and peoples be in a saving relationship with him. And God has given all of us everything in the blessings of created life and in Jesus' self-offering on the Cross. What we know is that in Jesus God came to create a path for us to follow, and if we follow that path we will live a life in the depths of God - both now and in the next life. What we don't know is how God is using all the other religious expressions of God's goodness and loving-kindness in the world. I think ++Katherine is right that we can leave that answer to God. It may well not be for us to know (after all, we don't run the universe. But that doesn't take away the call for each Christian to witness to his or her faith in the life-giving love and work of Jesus. Evangelism is our job; conversion and salvation (however that happens for each person) is up to God, and arguing about whether the Gospel or the entire Biblical witness is either exclusive or inclusive is unhelpful.

Posted by: Vicki McG on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 9:51pm GMT

Chris, you may just not be up to date with the Gospel outreach by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Hindu Community at Diwali. If indeed Christ is the Saviour of All, we need to demonstrate by our love of ALL, that everyone comes under the grace of Christ's salvific action on rhe Cross. God redeems; we do not.

God has given everyone the gift of free-will - a very dangerous gift you might say, but a gift, nevertheless. God will never force anyone to believe in God. What God wants is for those who do believe in God to act so lovingly and kindly towards others (who may not know God, as well as those who do) that they want to know the God we believe in. If that sounds at all difficult, it is - but not impossible.

It was once said, by Mahatma Ghandi, that if only Christians would act like their Teacher, Jesus, perhaps there would be many more Christians in the world. This should alert us all; that what God wants of us is a welcoming attitude to all people - regardless of their religious status and place in society. We. personally, cannot convert one soul to belief in God. But by our actions, we may be given the grace to encourage others to believe in the God we know to be merciful and gracious. "By their fruits you will know them"! And, the words of Jesus: "They will know you're my disciples by your LOVE."

Remember, the Scribes and Pharisees were not anti-God, per se. But their actions belied their protestations of faithfulness to the God they saw as only interested in the well-being of their own. Jesus was crucified because he was prepared to welcome sinners and outcasts into his kingdom.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 10:00pm GMT

I believe a reading of KJS sermon reveals that she acknowledges the believer dilemma of discerning saints in a very broad sense. (People whose manner of life shows us something good, which to that extent can be discerned as something of God?).

Such saints may live and witness to us believers, outside of Christendom proper? Thus, KJS to my ears and heart and mind connotes a vivid sense that we can always entertain strangers, who might later be revealed as good angels to our understanding.

God already knows - indeed sponsors via the sheer mystical goodness of God's Trinitarian personhoods and divine being? - every possible good going on, inside and outside of church life?

Too many believers have haltingly, belatedly discovered - something or someone outside church that was revealed as God at work in their life and salvation? - some change feared (inside or outside) that turned out to be God?

I suspect that beneath all of this surface sound and fury about the alleged uniqueness of Christ that needs special defense and protection are two troubling, unfinished changes in believer life and following.

One, a possible gapping - even the slow-slow-slow fading? - of penalisms in salvation and atonement.
If we killed Jesus - because we rabid sinners who are always better than everybody with more power than everybody - needed yet again to sacrifice truth-beauty-love-incarnate, then the grounding and boundaries offered by typical penal beliefs are not compelling any longer. We no longer understand as saving, that penalistic Yahweh God demanding the best possible and cruelest sacrifice available of goodness in order to slake a divine bloodlust presupposed to be typical of many ancient near eastern deities. Our penal atonement theories have been peering through a glass, darkly, indeed, maybe.

We might have a whole lot of redos pending in our theologies, if the penalistic ground is actually swamp land mire. No one possible replacement approach will get it all right, right away.

More pragmatically, our planet is globalizing.

Either we accept as Anglicans with that special big tent charism, that we can relate peacefully with great gracefulness across our many, many differences. Adjusting our church life accordingly, always, always, always as Anglicans.

Or we have to pledge to some competition or war in which only one iteration of all this global variety must by presupposition, win, dominate, target and force, or utterly abolish and destroy all the rest.

Posted by: drdanfee on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 10:20pm GMT

I am struggling to find the words to say it eloquently but the reasons why I came to be drawn into Christianity through Anglicanism - that Church of childhood remembrance that was all cold walls, regimentation, and mounted banners of imperial and other wars - is all laid out here in glory.

Posted by: orfanum on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 9:15am GMT

"God promised to be in relationship to Israel, and that they would be a blessing to the peoples of the world."

Yes. But God also made a promise to Hagar. And again, the promise to Israel was of a covenanted relationship between God and His people, with the hope of salvation to come. It came, but it was for the whole of creation, not just Israel. I'm not sure what your issue is here, unless it's that you see +KJS as saying that the promise to Hagar was on a par with that of Israel and that it was a promise of salvation, neither of which I can see in her statements. If you do see those ideas, can you show me where?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 1:34pm GMT

"What God wants is for those who do believe in God to act so lovingly and kindly towards others (who may not know God, as well as those who do) that they want to know the God we believe in."

Based on experience here, I don't think any of the Evangelicals in our discussion group can understand this as Evangelism. It seems that, for them, Evangelism is about making people see they are sinners and far from God so that they will "accept Jesus" can go to Heaven when they die. They are also required to amend their lives in compliance with Law so as to be acceptable/to show the transformative power of God. I really don't think they can understand that example is better than condemnation, nor that amendment of life is a lifelong process, a result of a long slow operation of grace. My partner has a theory that people who so insist on Law are actually aware that they would not behave in a moral fashion without Law, and thus cannot understand that others do not need the same legal guidance to be good. It's probably rooted in concepts of the the Fall, actually, with "TULIP" Calvinist concepts thrown in. But I doubt the idea of showing the Gospel by the way we live our lives will meet with much acceptance by our Evangelical brothers and sisters here. It is not enough for the city to be builded on a hill, the city also has to proclaim loudly that those who are not inside the city are wicked, lost, and headed for eternal condemnation.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 1:41pm GMT

Ford, here's the quote from the PB:

“Therefore, Jews have access to salvation without consciously saying ‘Jesus is my Lord and savior.’ I didn’t do that; God did it. I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael, whom Muslims claim as their ancestor,” she said. “I don’t think God broke those promises when Jesus came among us"

I think that the juxtaposition of the Jews and Muslims can be viewed as putting the two promises on a par. It's also not clear what Jesus' coming among us would have to do with a promise to make Ishmael's descendants a great nation. I think my reading is a fair reading; at best, the PB's words are ambiguous.

It doesn't really bother me that much, since I don't expect any bishop, even the PB, to be an unfailing oracle of truth. Bishops say things that I disagree with all the time.

Posted by: BillyD on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 3:24pm GMT

Another thought:
What about Matthew 25.31ff? In this passage judgement depends on how we act towards those in need.
Columba Gilliss

Posted by: Columba Gilliss on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 3:28pm GMT

To continue Ford's arguments. Do a word search in the bible for nationS - there are far too many to cite here.

Jews were never meant to be the exclusively saved, they were always meant to be the vehicle for salvation of all the peopleS of all the nationS e.g. Zechariah 8:23 "“In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’ ” This passage explicity acknowleges that "others" will seek guidance from Jews, but not that they become Jews. God asks for friendship and appreciates souls who seek counsel, God does not require insincere flattery from opportunists.

On legalism. Consider Isaiah 51:7 "Hear me, you who know what is right, you people who have my law in your hearts: Do not fear the reproach of men or be terrified by their insults." Which is completely consistent with Romans 2:14-15 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts".

There are many Jews who are emphatic that conversion to Judaism is not required for salvation, and they recommend against conversion on grounds of opportunism. (If converting to a creed in order to save your soul from hell isn't opportunism, I don't know what is).

Read God's promises to the feminine Zion e.g. 49:6 “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

There are some who hero worship Jesus and Jesus' heaven exists. God is just and makes fair provision for all souls. Jesus' heaven is part of Creation, and Zion ensures that all souls have suitable dwellings - some in Jesus' heaven and others elsewhere. Egress between these dominions is easy except for the exceptionally aggressive who desecrate, accuse and violate. They are constrained for the protection of others, and there is no dominion that God can not enter to rescue abused souls (including Jesus' heaven).

After all, to say that God can not enter a space is to say that space does not exist. Nothing exists outside of God. God can choose how much of God's consciousness can be materialized at any time in any dominion, either in heaven or earth or elsewhere.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 3:46pm GMT

BillyD,
Fair enough, I see your point, though I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 4:32pm GMT

Some of the criticisms presented here regarding the Presiding Bishop seem to say that God does not (cannot?) work outside the Church - or at least outside the Christian revelation. Such arguments seem, to me, to be dangerously Manichaean. They also seem to forget about Paul's speech at the Areopagus, among other scriptural acocunts.

There is nothing in orthodox Christianity to suggest that God does not (cannot?) work outside the limits of Christian revelation. Indeed, Paul's comments seem to suggest that Athenian worship of the unknown god was, in fact, rooted in divine revelation.

Does that mean that "all religions are equal?" No.

But neither does it mean that all other religions are rooted in evil. Neither does it mean that our witness to those of other faiths should be disrespectful of their current beliefs.

Paul does NOT say, "Men of Athens, I see that you are worshipping stones. You are all fools and you're all going to burn foreverafter in Hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour."

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 8:42pm GMT

"Jews were never meant to be the exclusively saved, they were always meant to be the vehicle for salvation of all the peopleS of all the nationS" - Cheryl Va -

Cheryl,

Yes indeed, I believe you are right here. We can perhaps better understand this from the passage in the Gospel of Luke, where, in the words of the old priest Simeon (one of the Anawim, who were wating for the redemption of Israel) Jesus was greeted as The Light of the World: "Now, Master, you can let your servant (Simeon) go in peace - just as you have promised; because my eyes have seen your salvation (in the Infant Jesus) which you have prepared for ALL THE NATIONS to see; a light to enlighten the pagans and the glory of your people Israel".

Jesus was the Light to the nations, fulfilling the call to Israel to bring people to God. That was at the heart of Israel's calling - not the idea that they were the only object of redemption.

Our task as Christians, is to 'Let your light so shine, that people may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven'.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 10:01pm GMT

"There is nothing in orthodox Christianity to suggest that God does not (cannot?) work outside the limits of Christian revelation."

Is it not the case that, going back at least to Augustine, Christians have believed that God reveals Himself first in part to the pagans, then moreso to the Jews, then fully in Christ to the whole world? Wasn't it Augustine who said "There is nothing new in Christianity"? Wasn't it the case that the early Evangelism of Europe tried to see the glimpses of the Truth in the pagan traditions so as to expand on them to teach the Truth? Isn't that why there are very very few Celtic "Red Martyrs"? You really have to ask why certain Evangelicals seem so attached to derision, condemnation, reviling, coersion, and threats as tools of Evangelism, so much so that they don't seem able to conceive of other ways to preach the Good News.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 6 November 2008 at 4:37pm GMT

Ford writes: "Is it not the case that, going back at least to Augustine, Christians have believed that God reveals Himself first in part to the pagans,"

It goes back at least to the 2nd century, when Justin writes of seeds of the truth in all men, but the whole truth incarnate in Jesus, and Origen in the 3rd century writing of logic spirits and of the Logos. Platonism (as Goran will remind us!) understands reality in terms of a heavenly pattern and earthly sharings in that reality. Thus, pagans can have a share, however remote, in the Logos.

Some, Justin among them, held that the pagan philosophers plagiarised their best ideas from Moses. But that's another story...

Posted by: cryptogram on Thursday, 6 November 2008 at 8:16pm GMT

And, moreover, all scriptures may teach Gospel.

To Us...

Depends on us. NOT on the character/not of the scriptures in questions.

How is that for a suggestion?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 7 November 2008 at 4:00pm GMT

There's not a problem acknowledging that there were other religions and faiths before Christianity/Jesus/Judaism. Just as there is not a problem acknowledging there were dinosaurs before humans, or that there is sentient life on other planets.

God exists throughout all of Creation, and God can be found in all of Creation. It's just that some messages are clearer than others.

It is also important to remember that God comes from context. For example, both Moses and Jesus had such a big impact because that which they proposed was fundamentally relevant to the paradigms of their time that they were confronting.

Just like the wave of reforms that have rolled out since the 2004 SE Asian Tsunami.

There came a time in history where the collective consciousness needed a fundamental tweaking. For this generation it was necessary to confront selfishness, complacency, elitism and the belief that the ends justified the means and that any means are okay as long as you worship Jesus (or whatever god of choice).

It is important to understand Jesus and what Jesus is meant to be. It does not hurt to understand other faiths and forms of thinking, with the messianic requirements providing a filter to judge that which is helpful and that which would hinder.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Friday, 7 November 2008 at 6:59pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.