I am further offended and disgusted when Christians fight fiercely and unapologetically to keep their money at the expense of the suffering world. They hide behind economics and the convenience of a capitalist society, endorsing a system of global oppression. While discussing politics with a group of conservative Christian men last month I stated that America has 5% of the world's people yet is gobbling up at least 25% of its resources. These churchgoing men essentially said it was America's manifest destiny and that we are not responsible for fixing the world's problems. (Except for Iraq's, apparently...)
Why is it disgusting/wrong/sinful/dangerous for two men or two women who have loving, supportive, committed relationships to be legally married?
-BUT-
Completely acceptable for a single mother with three children to labor twelve to sixteen hours in a factory seven days a week for pennies an hour?
Some Christians I know would picket gay marriage but still shop at the Gap without a thought.
Christian or not, the real issues facing our country and the world today are not your stereotypical right wing fare of guns, gays, and fetuses. How about environmental destruction? Genocide? Civil war? AIDS? Poverty?
I have a love/hate relationship with the Bible. I believe there is truth in its pages but am not a literalist. When I last read it through I remember feeling a lot of frustration with some of the strong statements that can be found in the famous verses of Leviticus or the offputting rants of Paul. But, while the much cited references to "fornication" and "sodomy" certainly exist, they are trumped a thousand times over by the real theme of the Bible: justice, compassion, and generosity for the poor, downtrodden, ailing, and needy. While a verse about something like sodomy (gasp!) rarely pops up- any reader will find herself constantly tripping over references to the widows, the orphans, the outsiders, the oppressed, the forgotten, the desperate. The worst and most reviled villains of the Old Testament were the ones who cheated and stepped on their people in the pursuit of power and money. (Does this become less wrong in a free market economy?)
Interestingly, the sexual indiscretions of many famous biblical characters were largely spared the rebuke of the writers. Rahab, the prostitute, housed and protected Joshua's men when they were spying on Jericho shortly before overthrowing it. (A whole section of the Bible I take great issue with. George W must love the foolhardy Joshua.) But no one took Rahab aside and counseled her about her eternal damnation. She is, in fact, an ancestor of Jesus. Why aren't more right wing fundamentalists down on Rahab? Is it the whole Jamie Lynn Spears/Bristol Palin conundrum? Bristol Palin's on the holy rolling side, so she is spared the nasty and brutal right wing media attacks that her unmarried pregnant teen predecessor Jamie Lynn received only a few months before her? And Jesus didn't scream at Mary Magdalene and tell her she was going to burn in Hell for being a prostitute either.
Many Christians today ignore their own supposed biblical "history." The pages of the Bible are filled with stories of supposed religious zealots selling out their faith for greed and wealth, and ignoring the exploited and oppressed. The psalms are full of the laments of the abused and the disenfranchised, trying to make sense of their cruel fate. If Jesus Christ were a real dude today, would he give a shit about gay marriage? Do you think he would spit on a little girl who got raped and chose to have an abortion?
I think he would hold her hand while she had it.
Thankfully, I know many Christians and non-Christians who believe their faiths and/or ethics compel them to fight for social and environmental justice and strive for real peace and equity for others, bucking today's consumer culture and the purported virtuosity of capitalism.
Please check out Jim Wallis' blog on Sojourners. He writes about his priorities this election from a faith perspective and fully captures the issues that motivate me as a Christian and a global citizen.
5 comments:
Sister Rachael ~
This post of yours really put a bur in my boot. While I have no doubt that you mean well when it comes to those issues you’ve chosen to be concerned about, and while you do occasionally make statements with which I wholeheartedly concur, unfortunately, this post forces me to reassess my previous evaluation of where I believe you stand. (Not that this will or necessarily should matter to you.)
This post reveals what I believe to be many flaws in your spiritual understanding, but I will address only a few of them here. First, I find you to be an extremist, and sadly, even well intentioned extremism often leads to undesirable results, particularly when mixed with emotionalism, which is a particularly combustible formula. This idea is reflected in the words of Daniel Webster speaking about the U.S. Constitution: “Good intention will always be pleaded for every assumption of power ... It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”
You wrote:
><[I am a Christian that finds it offensive when other people of faith cite abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. as the top issues influencing their vote and compelling their political participation. ... I have a love/hate relationship with the Bible. I believe there is truth in its pages but am not a literalist. When I last read it through I remember feeling a lot of frustration with some of the strong statements that can be found in the famous verses of Leviticus or the offputting rants of Paul…]><
A love/hate relationship with The Bible? The offputting rants of Paul? Let’s see, would that be the very same Old Testament that Jesus honored and validated by quoting from so often (how many times did He say, “It is written...”?) and whose prophecies Jesus fulfilled with His very Life and Death and Resurrection? And is that the very same Paul who was personally chosen by your Savior Himself to bring God’s message to the gentile world? The very same Paul who was confronted by Jesus? Whose life was drastically changed by Jesus? Who sacrificed the comfort of his own life in order to remain true to the calling that he received from Jesus in a one-on-one supernatural encounter with his Lord?
And is this the same Paul whose actions testified to the authenticity of that calling? Whose writings form the primary doctrine of Christianity? Who exposed false dogma while bringing The Good News of the Salvation of Christ to a weary, warring world?
Let me suggest to you that until such time as you are able to teach Divine Truth in so powerful a manner that countless millions of sinning people embrace your message and alter their lives as a result; until miracle after miracle is wrought by your own human hands due to the activity of The Holy Spirit moving in you; until God is specifically using you as an agency of healing on behalf of your seriously ill brothers and sisters to such a degree that just pieces of your clothing laid upon the sick restores them to health – in other words – until such time as the fruit of your own life rivals the effects of Saint Paul’s life as described in The Word Of God, let me suggest to you that it would exhibit much greater wisdom on your part to spend your time attempting to understand, embrace and live the great Truths found in the writings of Paul, and less time judging them and publicly proclaiming them “rants.”
Let’s also remember that this same influential saint whom you have misjudged is the very same saint who said that a time would come when even Christians would reject sound doctrine and the result would be a great apostasy. I think you should examine some of your current beliefs and prejudices in light of these prophecies.
I openly acknowledge the Divine inspiration behind The Holy Bible; it is indeed, the Truth, “The Word Of God.” I have had the authenticity of Scripture’s Godly Source proven to me in no uncertain terms. But because I sometimes disagree with today’s “orthodox” [sic] interpretation of some of The Scripture (e.g., the concept of the Trinity), I do not presume to call myself a “Christian” as I feel that according to today’s definition, I would be giving others a misleading impression about my overall beliefs. Similarly, I would argue that a woman who claims to have a “love/hate” relationship with The Word Of God and who refers to the writings of Paul – the largest portion of what forms the bedrock of Christian doctrine – as “offputting rants”, that woman misrepresents her religious views when she professes to be a “Christian.” In my opinon, you misrepresent yourself even more so than I would be misrepresnting myself if I were to likewise try to claim the label of “Christian.”
As the authors wrote in their scholarly tome “One God And One Lord: Reconsidering The Cornerstone Of The Christian Faith”...
“Is the Bible the FINAL AUTHORITY or is it not? One ought not to give lip-service to Biblical integrity and then proceed to avoid or contradict it when it does not fit his theological presuppositions.”
[page 398]
In other words, The Bible is NOT like a box of chocolates: one cannot cherry-pick just the chocolate-covered cherries and discard the rest! To do so is to leave oneself in the conflicted state of mind in which you currently find yourself.
You wrote:
><[Why is it disgusting/wrong/sinful/dangerous for two men or two women who have loving, supportive, committed relationships to be legally married? –BUT- Completely acceptable for a single mother with three children to labor twelve to sixteen hours in a factory seven days a week for pennies an hour?]><
The former is an abomination because God says it is. As a self-professed “Christian” that should be ample answer for you. (Do not lean exclusively upon your own understanding. Unless, of course, you have not yet proven to yourself the authenticity of The Word Of God. But if that’s the case, neither should you be referring to yourself as “Christian” as it misleads people about your beliefs.)
And as for the latter question, let me urge you to meditate upon the Bible verse Matt. 23:23-24 and see if you don’t find it addresses your straw man scenario. Note: Jesus said, “These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” This answer applies to a significant portion of your angry post.
Have you ever read The Humanist Manifestos I & II and The Humanist Manifesto 2000? These are essentially modernized versions of The Communist Manifesto. Since you are made uncomfortable by so much of The Word Of God, have you considered adopting these Humanist Manifestos as your new scriptures? I believe you would find them much less challenging than The Bible and (other than their rejection of the belief in a transcendent Creator-God) more aligned with your political philosophy… as it appears to me based upon your Blog posts anyway.
You wrote:
><[If Jesus Christ were a real dude today, would he give a shit about gay marriage?]><
Well, first of all, I’ve got news for you: Jesus Christ IS a real “dude” today. The person who thinks that the living Jesus can’t or won’t interact with them is quite mistaken. A REAL relationship [“REaLATIONSHIP”] with Jesus is not only possible but to be expected! I’m not talking about just a faith in a living Jesus somewhere who might or might not hear your prayers; I’m talking about authentic interaction here and now.
Furthermore, Jesus cares about A LOT OF THINGS – His interests and His concerns and His Love are widespread and varied. He is capable of focusing on ALL injustice, ALL transgressions of God’s commandments. He does not cherry-pick just those issues that He wishes to concern Himself about; Jesus is concerned about everything that concerns His Father. Everything! And yes, you can bet the bur in my boot that Jesus gives “a **** about gay marriage”!
You wrote:
><[Do you think he would spit on a little girl who got raped and chose to have an abortion? I think he would hold her hand while she had it.]><
Jesus would certainly try to reach this girl’s heart, but if by “holding her hand” you mean that you “think” that Jesus would approve of her decision to have an abortion, then I “KNOW” that you are not only as wrong as you could possibly be, but I would have to conclude that your perception of the nature of Jesus (that is by definition, “the nature of God’s Love”) has been terribly distorted by your own world-view. If you think Christ would approve of the abortion, then in my opinion, your great misunderstanding of the message of Jesus indicates that your “REaLATIONSHIP” with Him has likely not yet been established.
In Matthew 26:6-13, Christ’s disciples become indignant when a woman pours some expensive oil on Him. They state that the oil should have been sold and the money given to the poor, but Jesus rebukes them: “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. For you have the poor with you always, but me you do not have always...” Does this wasted opportunity to do a good work on behalf of the poor - approved by Jesus Himself - mean that Christ does not care about the poor as much as Rachael does? The extremist might call this an example of useless consumerism, while missing the higher glory of the act.
One last Bible passage I wish to direct you to: In Matthew 14:14-21, Jesus miraculously feeds well over five thousand hungry people from the invisible spiritual food bank of God. There is a very profound interpretation of this passage that I fear many Christians overlook. I believe that the deepest meaning in this miracle has a very important message for you, Rachael. I strongly urge you to pray to Jesus, asking Him to bring The Holy Spirit to reveal the greatest meaning of His miracle to you. Pray for enlightenment; put aside your preconceived ideas; learn to listen; and wait. I feel directed to tell you this because I believe that the answer that will come to you (if you have the humility to acknowledge that you might have something to learn and if you are willing to receive instruction) will actually bring you a great measure of peace of mind and will alleviate much anxiety of heart.
I have attempted to convey these ideas to you in the spirit of brotherly loving correction. Rest assured, I will not be attaching comments to any of your future Blog posts as I will not be reading them: I’ve now seen enough of angry green Rachael’s humorless Red Rants. Nevertheless, my hope and prayer for you is that you will find The Truth Of God and that you will...
Bless And Be Blessed.
~ Brother Stephen
POSTSCRIPT [2008, Nov. 18]: 1) When I mentioned above praying on your behalf, those were not empty words; I have indeed prayed and will do so again. 2) The vast majority of what I wrote above was composed yesterday (Nov. 17), but I did not post it because I wanted to give Jesus a chance to alter anything I’d written or to instruct me not to post it at all. I prayed on it and waited for Word from Him. Other than the urge to change, add, or remove a sentence here or there, I was not told in meditation nor in dreams to edit my text or refrain from posting it, so there it stands. By the Grace of God and the Generosity of Jesus, The Son hears and responds to my prayers, and so I have posted this last message to you with confidence.
“There is no WAY to peace.
Peace IS the way.”
~Religious Society Of Friends
“Seek first the Kingdom of God and HIS (!) Righteousness....”
“....The Kingdom of God is within you.”
~Jesus
Wow!
Normally I would launch into a huge defense and respond quite thoroughly. However, I think in this case it is abundantly clear that we do not agree about the Bible, Christianity, Jesus, etc.
I am sorry that my views offend you so much. But then again, I'm not sorry. You call me an extremist- and from your perspective I am one. Well, from my perspective you are an extremist, too. And I find your views to be offensive to my interpretation of Christianity and human life, in general.
I am sorry that my interpretation of the Bible and my faith is so offensive to you. But just because we disagree doesn't mean I need to find a new "manifesto."
I don't look to the Bible to legislate my every view or opinion. Clearly, you found a lot more of your identity as a Christian and a literal approach to this book. I do not. We will run ourselves ragged arguing about this. But at the end of the day, you believe that the Bible is the Absolute Authority, the "word of God" and I do not. Sorry!
That's fine that you won't be reading my blog anymore. I never have read your blog myself because I do not agree with your views- so it seems the feelings are mutual between us.
Good luck.
I won't be praying for you- simply because I don't pray "for" people. Does God answer my prayers faster if a I get a quota of people to call in requests for me? Eh, I don't know if "He" (It/Whatever) works that way. (Angry green Rachael can feel Pious Stephen getting red just reading this...)
Peace! :-)
Sis R.K. ~
I have no desire to go back and forth, ‘round and ‘round with you, but because you appear to have either missed the crux of my comment or intentionally obfuscated it, I want to reiterate and clarify it here. Afterwards, if you feel you must get “the last word”, then have it.
If you had labeled yourself an atheist, or a humanist, or a secularist, or a Marxist, or if you had not labeled yourself as anything at all in that opening sentence of this Blog Bit, then I never would have posted a single word to you about it. But it was in calling yourself a “Christian” just before dismissing the importance of issues such as abortion and gay marriage, etc., and then proceeding to describe the epistles of Paul as “offputting rants” that really irked me.
I would expect that sort of viewpoint from atheists, humanists, secularists and Marxists, and so I would have nothing to say about it. Millions of non-Christians share your view and I guarantee you that I am not running around posting comments on every one of their Blogs and internet sites. Dismissing abortion and the opposition to gay marriage and denigrating the writings of Saint Paul as dogmatic ranting would be par for THEIR course, and they are welcome to their opinions.
However, although there are some minor differences of opinion between the various Christian sects, there are certain fundamental beliefs that one can expect a person referring to herself as a Christian to hold. Certainly God’s opposition to homosexual relationships and the Christian’s acceptance of the Scripture’s Godly authority (the majority of the New Testament portion of it having been penned by Paul) are two of those beliefs that would virtually be universally adhered to. There is room for some difference of interpretation of Scripture, but the authentic Christian considers most or all of it The Word Of God.
Nearly all Christians (as well as non-Christians such as myself) would consider a person holding some of the views that you do, but who also wishes to wear the “Christian” mantle, to be highly conflicted at best and hypocritical at worst. It was your wanting to have your cake and denounce it too that prompted my response. Until you have come to embrace the most essential aspects of general Christianity (which would certainly include a belief that The Bible was Divinely inspired and forms the basic playbook of Christian life) then I strongly feel you ought to be calling your religious beliefs (whatever they might be) something other than Christianity. To continue referring to yourself as “Christian” when some of your views are anathema to almost all of the Christian world, is to misrepresent your religious beliefs to other Christians and to reduce the term itself to near meaninglessness. If you are labeling yourself Christian, then I could just as well call myself a Hindu. Never mind that I don’t subscribe to any of Hinduism’s most primary tenets.
Christians have enough of a credibility problem now as it is (and rightfully so), without people who dismiss abortion as much ado about nothing, who promote the idea of homosexual marriage, and who denounce major portions of The Holy Bible as “offputting rants”, publicly claiming that they too are “Christians.” Bear in mind, I am not applying against you my own personal standard of what I think a “Christian” is; I’m speaking about what nearly the entire world expects that being a Christian means.
You wrote:
><[Clearly, you found a lot more of your identity as a Christian and a literal approach to this book. I do not.]><
I thought I had made it perfectly clear in my first post that I DO NOT identify myself as a Christian. Because I have certain beliefs that I find to be Biblically sound but unacceptable to nearly all Christian denominations, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do not attempt to co-opt the Christian name for myself. I do not find the concept of the Trinity in The Bible; I do find the concept of reincarnation throughout it. How then can I call myself a Christian knowing that almost universally, Christians believe in the Trinity and think the idea of reincarnation is demonically inspired?
Christians would not want someone with my beliefs calling himself Christian, and frankly, I don’t wish to be associated with what today is thought of as “The Christian Church.” It works for them; it works for me. And that is the principal point I was attempting to convey in my first post – that you too ought to label yourself something as unique as your beliefs. Make something up, I don’t care, but I feel you mislead others when you tell them “I am a Christian” and follow that up by saying you find most of their immediate political/life concerns to be “offensive.”
You wrote:
><[That's fine that you won't be reading my blog anymore. I never have read your blog myself because I do not agree with your views- so it seems the feelings are mutual between us.]><
Believe me, I couldn’t care less whether you did or didn’t, whether you will or won’t read my Blog. That’s really irrelevant to the issue at hand, isn’t it? But I understand: I said I would no longer be reading your Blog and so you felt you needed to “get even” with me, or even trump me if possible. Understood.
But in a general sense, let me just add that a woman who would not read the writings of others simply “because [they] do not agree with [her] views” is never going to see things from another perspective; she has imprisoned herself in her own current world-view. All I can say about that person is that “she” had better hope that she’s already got it all figured out exactly right. She’d better hope she was so intelligent that in just twenty-something years she managed to find The Truth somehow.
Personally, I sometimes found what I came to believe in by learning what others believed and then I sought the information that would either confirm their beliefs or prove them false. If I thought that I had it all figured out when I was twenty-something, and therefore stopped seeking new information, I would hold very few of the beliefs that I do today... and I would be wrong about much! When I was 24, I felt I knew it all, but fortunately for me, I was willing to keep looking, to keep learning, and most of what I then believed eventually had to go ‘Bye-‘Bye as The Truth presented Itself to me.
You wrote:
><[I won't be praying for you- simply because I don't pray "for" people. Does God answer my prayers faster if a I get a quota of people to call in requests for me? Eh, I don't know if "He" (It/Whatever) works that way.]><
This was another example of the straw man scenarios you set up. Who said ANYTHING about a “quota of prayers”? Do you need to put words in my mouth or ascribe beliefs to me that I don’t have in order to best me in discussion?
And I’m fine with you not praying “for” me, really I am. But again, let me point out that the very earliest Christians had no problem with praying “for” others. Acts 12:5-17 solidly endorses the idea of praying “for” others, but I guess this is just one more of those passages in Scripture that your personal brand of “Christianity” doesn’t accept.
You:
><[(Angry green Rachael can feel Pious Stephen getting red just reading this...)]><
Ha! Sister, at one time or another, I have been called nearly every name in the book by one “good-hearted, diversity-loving” Liberal or another, so my equanimity is not nearly so easily ruffled as you might think.
You:
><[Peace! :-) ]><
Yes! Piece O’Peace-uh! :o)
I won’t bother you anymore, Rachael, but I wish you well.
Bless And Be Blessed!
~ Bro Stephen
I am not the kind of person that needs to have a “last word”- but I must respond because you (knowingly) made a few inflammatory and provocative statements that I just can’t ignore.
The biggest problem I have with your thoughts is this notion of a universally accepted definition of a Christian. I don’t know about your background in theology but I attended seminary briefly- and even that short experience exposed me to a great VARIETY of different approaches and perspectives on Christianity. I went to seminary in Sydney, Australia- and have several friends at theological schools (of various denominations!) here in the United States- so it is clear that your assertion of a “universal” Christian standard is just not accurate. All over the world, many people (who call themselves Christians) do not share the belief that you hold about “God’s opposition to homosexual relationships” or even the allegiance to Paul’s writings that you also have maintained.
You wrote about the “authentic Christian.” Who is this “authentic” Christian? What is the standard? You talk about beliefs that “the entire world” hold about Christianity. This is just plain ridiculous! There are millions of Christians who do NOT agree about what the heart of Christianity is. And I’m sure that many, many people would not be so willing to sign onto your “One Size Fits All” assessment of “authentic” Christianity. I attend a “More Light” Presbyterian church. I’ll quote the “More Light” mission directly: “Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” My church is recognized by the greater Presbyterian Church and we (like hundreds of other “More Light” churches) do not believe that homosexuality is a sin and do not believe that a homosexual lifestyle should bar someone from ministry or participation in the church. It’s not just that we think that Jesus loves “all sinners” but that we believe that homosexual behavior is NOT inherently sinful. I guess that thousands of people who participate in “More Light” churches throughout the country are not “authentic” Christians, in your opinion? You need to get your ass to a “More Light” church and tell them quickly to stop calling themselves Christians!!!
Ultimately, we fundamentally disagree about what constitute “primary” tenets of Christianity. You seem to really take issue with the fact that some of my beliefs are radical, extreme, or “go against the grain” of the wider mainstream Christian church to which you are referring. I don’t know where the standard is for this “authentic” Christian church and I also do not know who the authority is for establishing what tenets of the faith are or are not “primary.” I feel like your distinction of the authentic and non-authentic Christian is just as dangerous as the distinction made in the wake of Jesus’ life between those who were circumcised and un-circumcised. In those days, that issue was blood boiling for many religious zealots. Circumcision was a “primary tenet” of the old faith; Jesus came to say, “It doesn’t matter!” I can think of a score of responses to this- you are probably thinking that my lack of allegiance to the authority of the Scripture and refusal to think of homosexual activity as sinful is not the same as circumcision. However, when all is said and done: we just DISAGREE about what it is to be a “Christian” in this world.
You are right. Many Christians would agree that the views I hold are NOT Christian. But I DISAGREE with those Christians. I don’t really CARE what the “generally accepted” tenets of Christianity are. I don’t really CARE what the mainstream church says about issues of homosexuality. I don’t really CARE about what a body of scholars thinks about the authority of the Scriptures. I grew up in a very conservative church and I spent years trying hard to believe what I was told was the “authentic” Christian way. I pretended that it resonated in my heart- but I knew deep down that what I was taught was not the “Truth” that so many hold it to be. I have searched the Bible and my heart- and I feel strongly that my approach is not invalid. I read the Bible and see that its message is not about the details of abortion or homosexuality- but a greater one of loving one another as a community of neighbors and seeking justice and peace for every person in the world. That is the message I feel that Jesus lived to reinforce. And THOSE are what I see as the “primary” tenets of Christianity. You DISAGREE. But, continuing to claim that I am inauthentic based on this ambiguous notion of a “universal” Christian doctrine is just weak!
You say that Christians have a credibility problem to imply that by calling myself a Christian I am further adding to it. Honestly, I feel that the real problem with Christianity stems right from the “authentic” Christian issues you have pointed out. I will yell my beliefs from a rooftop to try to change the perception that ALL Christians think homosexual behavior is sinful. I will keep yelling to try to change the perception that the Bible is the final, literal word of God. And if I “offend” some “authentic” Christians in the process- all the BETTER! It is this tone of intolerance that you are furthering (calling yourself a Christian or not) that is the main problem with Christianity today.
I have to stop here.
But I want to highlight the main point that:
I do not think there is any ONE way to God. And honestly, the only “authentic” approach to Christianity that I would ever heed is one that is completely founded on humility, self-sacrifice, and service to others.
Any Christians or non-Christians who take issue can just go to…Oh wait! I don’t believe in that either! YIKESSSSSSSSSSS! Christian credibility be damned!!!
{But at the end of the day, you believe that the Bible is the Absolute Authority, the "word of God" and I do not. Sorry!}
I think people can pretty much make up their mind on your belief system on that.
As far as homosexuality and the bible goes I think the bible is very clear on that. I also understand that people have varying views/interpretations on this. It is good to note that the old testament was a different time, and that we live in an age of grace. I'm not saying I believe the bible condones homosexuality (it doesn't), nor would I personally join a church that ignored those verses. However, just because we live in grace doesn't mean certain behaviors arn't self destructive. At the same time I want all men and women to come to a knowledge of Jesus. This may or may not lead to their change of heart in this regard.
As far as what you stated about seminary. I have met more than one individual who went to seminary, works in theology or not, and has absolutely ZERO belief in God. Therefore, seminary in and of it self doesn't impress me. There is a verse (I think it's in Micha) that discusses men who took on the role of a priest just as "a job."
Just my two cents for what thats worth.
God Bless,
Marc
Post a Comment