Growing up Baptist means, among other things, that the spirituality I learned contained very little art, poetry, symbolism, beauty, metaphor, or imagery. Spirituality (and Christianity really) was concrete, logical, clear, disciplined, and systematic. This brand of faith is common among evangelicals.
However, in there very little resonance for this kind of Christianity in the history of the church. Even in the scholastic period when theology and biblical studies were at their driest and most obtuse, imagery and metaphor played a major role in the church.
Not only this, but scripture is replete with this sort of thing. Jewish spirituality was almost entirely done in image, metaphor, and symbolic reenactment. Poetry and beauty mark not only the poetic books of the Bible, but find their way onto virtually every page. Imagery and metaphor were the standard tools of not only the prophets, but of Christ himself. Even Paul, the great theologian and logician, provides us with rich imagery and metaphor.
This weekend I attended a conference that developed the image of shepherding, Christ our Good Shepherd, we as under-shepherds ourselves, and we who help develop a future generation of shepherds. This is one of my favorite scriptural word pictures. The richness of it is astounding. Imagery and metaphor can capture our hearts and minds like little else.
How have you experienced (or not experienced) art, imagery, metaphor, symbolic reenactment, and other non-logic-based things in your spirituality? What are your favorite metaphors and images from scripture?
3.22.2010
3.15.2010
You Look Very Christian Today
That would be an odd comment to receive. How would you take that? Compliment or Insult?
I guess the real question is 'Are there Christian and/or un-Christian ways of looking?' Most would probably say 'no' but act as if the answer were 'yes.' As a society, we identify people and categorize them based on the way they look. Everything including their clothes, hair, demeanor, skin (tattoos and piercings), and facial hair help us determine what sort of person we are confronting.
Very few today overtly say, 'A Christian ought to look this or that certain way.' A few will use scripture to argue against tattoos, cross-dressing (women wearing pants in particular), women wearing make-up and jewelry, and hair length (long for men, short for women). Frankly, each argument is pretty flimsy. On a more covert level, however, many believers act as if a Christian ought to be clean, kept, neat, and have no tattoos or piercings (unless they got them before Jesus, Lord forgive them).
So what about it? Are there Christian appearance standards?
Issues to think about: Balancing cultural expectations with Christian freedom, The standard of modesty, matters specific to our culture vs. universal matters.
I guess the real question is 'Are there Christian and/or un-Christian ways of looking?' Most would probably say 'no' but act as if the answer were 'yes.' As a society, we identify people and categorize them based on the way they look. Everything including their clothes, hair, demeanor, skin (tattoos and piercings), and facial hair help us determine what sort of person we are confronting.
Very few today overtly say, 'A Christian ought to look this or that certain way.' A few will use scripture to argue against tattoos, cross-dressing (women wearing pants in particular), women wearing make-up and jewelry, and hair length (long for men, short for women). Frankly, each argument is pretty flimsy. On a more covert level, however, many believers act as if a Christian ought to be clean, kept, neat, and have no tattoos or piercings (unless they got them before Jesus, Lord forgive them).
So what about it? Are there Christian appearance standards?
Issues to think about: Balancing cultural expectations with Christian freedom, The standard of modesty, matters specific to our culture vs. universal matters.
3.07.2010
Of Killer Whales and Goring Oxen
Avoiding a Repeat of the Worst Mistake in Christian History
Here is a link to a story that illustrates for me that some Christians have still not learned one of the biggest lessons of Church history. For those who don't want to read the article, a theologian is suggesting that Tilly the killer whale should die based on the laws of the goring ox found in Exodus 21. This story about someone trying to apply scripture may seem innocuous at worst, and to some even laudable. To me it betrays both a deep ignorance of scripture and a failure to understand our past blunders.
The Scriptural Problem
This person's 'literal' reading of scripture fails to understand one of the most important features of the law. The law was given to a theocratic state where religion and government were essentially the same. Today we would call this the union of church and state. Unless Sea World, or the US is under theocratic rule, this argument holds no water.
The Failure to Understand Church History
Someone might argue that the union of church and state would be a good thing. I would respond that we already tried that in medieval Europe. The union of church and state was one of the the biggest mistakes in the history of the church. It was the root that gave birth to the two worst happenings in the history of the church: 1) the crusades, and 2) the exportation of culture and imperialism under the guise of missions. Both of these happenings were the fully grown fruit of the union of church and state. In both cases, Christians packaged the gospel with their own culture and government.The separation of church and state is a good thing for both the church and the state.
What do you think? Do you think this theologian has a point? Or do you think he is totally off base?
Here is a link to a story that illustrates for me that some Christians have still not learned one of the biggest lessons of Church history. For those who don't want to read the article, a theologian is suggesting that Tilly the killer whale should die based on the laws of the goring ox found in Exodus 21. This story about someone trying to apply scripture may seem innocuous at worst, and to some even laudable. To me it betrays both a deep ignorance of scripture and a failure to understand our past blunders.
The Scriptural Problem
This person's 'literal' reading of scripture fails to understand one of the most important features of the law. The law was given to a theocratic state where religion and government were essentially the same. Today we would call this the union of church and state. Unless Sea World, or the US is under theocratic rule, this argument holds no water.
The Failure to Understand Church History
Someone might argue that the union of church and state would be a good thing. I would respond that we already tried that in medieval Europe. The union of church and state was one of the the biggest mistakes in the history of the church. It was the root that gave birth to the two worst happenings in the history of the church: 1) the crusades, and 2) the exportation of culture and imperialism under the guise of missions. Both of these happenings were the fully grown fruit of the union of church and state. In both cases, Christians packaged the gospel with their own culture and government.The separation of church and state is a good thing for both the church and the state.
What do you think? Do you think this theologian has a point? Or do you think he is totally off base?
3.01.2010
He Said What?!
In my younger years, I had Sunday School teachers who not only taught against cussing, but even taught against using our Christian cussing alternatives. Anyone who grew up in Church knows the Christian cuss words: freakin', frappin', darn, crap, heck, shoot, dad-gum-it (huh?!), and a whole host of other creative terms. These were our acceptable alternatives where a cruder person would insert a cuss word.
In my later years, where I have had a broader exposure to varied types of Christians, I have encountered both those agree with the teaching of my youth, and those who freely insert cuss words where they are appropriate. Experiences in seminary brought this into stark contrast. On the stricter side, I had a fellow student tell me that one of the first things he tried to achieve in discipleship was cleaning up someone's language. This, he said, was one of the easiest and most tangible ways that a person can experience the transformative power of Christ. On the free side of things, I had a professor who, over the course of a semester used the word $#!t no less than 10 times. The first couple of times there was an audible gasp in the room.
Some issues that I think are pertinent here are balancing Christian freedom with Christian witness, the standard of Ephesians 4.29 (does this verse ban cussing as many claim?), and balancing our culture's expectations of Christians (non-drinking, non-cussing, family-values-oriented conservatives) with Christ's expectations of Christians.
So what do you think? Is it wrong for Christians to use words considered crude by our culture, or is it OK to use them when appropriate?
In my later years, where I have had a broader exposure to varied types of Christians, I have encountered both those agree with the teaching of my youth, and those who freely insert cuss words where they are appropriate. Experiences in seminary brought this into stark contrast. On the stricter side, I had a fellow student tell me that one of the first things he tried to achieve in discipleship was cleaning up someone's language. This, he said, was one of the easiest and most tangible ways that a person can experience the transformative power of Christ. On the free side of things, I had a professor who, over the course of a semester used the word $#!t no less than 10 times. The first couple of times there was an audible gasp in the room.
Some issues that I think are pertinent here are balancing Christian freedom with Christian witness, the standard of Ephesians 4.29 (does this verse ban cussing as many claim?), and balancing our culture's expectations of Christians (non-drinking, non-cussing, family-values-oriented conservatives) with Christ's expectations of Christians.
So what do you think? Is it wrong for Christians to use words considered crude by our culture, or is it OK to use them when appropriate?
2.24.2010
The 10 Reasons Christ is Coming Back in 2010
That list would be a lot easier to assemble than the 88 reason list assembled by Edgar Whisenant about why Christ would return on Rosh Hashanna 1988. End times obsession has been a major feature of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity for the last couple of centuries. It has given us such delights as Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth, the atrocious Omega Code, and the ever popular Left Behind series.
End times obsession was a key note of my upbringing. I remember 1988. I remember my pastor giving us the highlights of the 88 reasons and my mother copying them down on a scrap of paper from her purse. The first book of the Bible I ever read on my own was the Revelation. I had one of those small Gideon New Testaments that I would sit and read. When I was a teenager we spent the better part of a year going through Revelation as a youth group. That was good times.
End times obsession was a key note of my upbringing. I remember 1988. I remember my pastor giving us the highlights of the 88 reasons and my mother copying them down on a scrap of paper from her purse. The first book of the Bible I ever read on my own was the Revelation. I had one of those small Gideon New Testaments that I would sit and read. When I was a teenager we spent the better part of a year going through Revelation as a youth group. That was good times.
All of this end times focus had a very odd effect on me. I found that I regarded the return of my Lord with some mixture of fear and morbid curiosity. The book of Revelation was like a horror movie that I did not want to watch but could not look away from. As I have grown, I have learned that I am not alone in this response.
Should this be the case? Shouldn't the our response to the return of Christ be some mixture of joy and hope rather than fear and morbid curiosity?
What do you think? What is your experience with end time obsession? How do you think we should engage matters of the end times?
2.06.2010
The Secret Key That No One Has Ever Told You...Now Revealed!
This is a portion of a talk I will be giving to some Moody Bible Institute students this week.
I want to address the question for you all, ‘What does it take to sustain a life of mission?’Now I don’t mean what does it take to have success in ministry, or what does it take to see fruit in mission. No, I mean what does it take for me, for you to fulfill the calling to a life of mission. What does it take to sustain a life dedicated to mission over long days and weeks, and months, and years.
In seminary, we were required to attend 3-4 chapels per week. And different people would come and tell us all about the things we needed to know when we got out into the real world. All the secret “keys” they don’t teach you school. By the time I graduated, I had a key chain full, and I’m not talking about normal key chain, I mean one of those janitorial staff key chains that looks like an impossible knot of like 400 keys. Keys to being a good minister.
But I have found that there really is no “key.” There is not some special practice that no one has ever told you about, it’s not some magical ratio of the time spent in prayer to the number of hours spent with people that will sustain you. The only “key” is the most ancient, most widely practiced, most fundamental, simplest, clearest, and well-known thing you can imagine.
I have found that sustaining a life of mission takes an unyielding commitment to the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ. That’s right folks, the answer is Jesus. Now don’t confuse what I am saying here. We are not talking about the doctrine of Christ, although that is extremely important. And we are not talking about the text of the Gospels, although they are some of the most important documents in the history of our world. We are not even talking about the veracity of the historical Jesus, although the fact that the apostles give us reliable witness to the real Jesus is of crucial importance.
Now why do I say we must have an unyielding commitment? The problem that we face is our own tendency in ministry or mission of any kind, to confuse the means with the end.It should be clear from what I have said that the end I speak of is the very person of Jesus Christ himself. He is true end, or goal, or purpose, of everything we do in ministry and mission. What I am saying is that the means by which we reach this end are easily viewed as ends in themselves.
Probably the most insidious confusion of the means for the end happens with the Bible itself. Make no mistake about it, the Bible is a means, not an end. The Bible is the unique and inerrant witness to God’s actions. It is the specially appointed place where we can meet with the Lord, here his voice, experience his grace and love, and most importantly encounter our savior, Jesus Christ. The Bible is the primary means by which we come to know and commune with the very person of Jesus Christ.
But in my life, the Bible became an end in itself. When I went to seminary, I wanted to master the text of scripture. I don’t mean just to know a lot about it, I mean I wanted to be an exegete. Through my mastery of Greek and Hebrew, I wanted to become deeply acquainted with every detail of the text. Through my research, I wanted to become well versed in culture and literature of the Biblical world. Through my reading, I wanted to become aware of every possible perspective, interpretation, idea, or argument related to the text. I wanted to master the text. For me, knowing Jesus fundamentally meant knowing the text. It was a complete confusion of the means with the end.
Making the Bible an end in itself will leave you very knowledgeable about the text, but completely cut off from its living Author. But if we will see the Bible as a means rather than an end, if instead of seeking to master the text, we come seeking to submit to Christ, the Lord himself will meet us there. I will tell you that in sustaining a life of mission, there is no substitute for encountering Jesus Christ himself through the Bible.
The statement that the Bible is a means rather than an end may be striking to some. What do you think about that (or about anything else I said that struck you)?
1.26.2010
Preach It Brother
In my years of church going, I have heard some very good sermons, and some very bad sermons. I once heard a sermon on the story of Jacob's early life where the preacher argued that the Bible clearly teaches that boys should spend more time with their mothers than their fathers, and that it was OK for a boy to know how to cook! On my list of strange and inane things that I have heard from the pulpit, that may take top honors.
I get the opportunity to preach fairly regularly. In addition, I oversee our church's teaching ministry. I have the privilege of helping others become better teachers. This role has caused me to reflect on preaching quite a bit.
It seems to me that most preachers tend toward one of four styles:
1) Commentary Giver - this preacher gives the exegesis of every detail in the text. To him/her success is a thorough explanation of the text itself.
2) Story Teller - this preacher tends to string together stories that make a similar point to the preaching text. To him/her success is getting people to connect the text with their lives.
3) Comedian - this preacher tends to make humorous stories and jokes the staple of his/her preaching. To him/her success is keeping people entertained long enough to tell them about the Bible.
4) Emotional Plea Guy - this preacher tends to make things persuasive and heart wrenching. To him/her success is when people are responding to the sermon with weeping or dancing, grieving or rejoicing; really just any response of strong emotion.
Now, these are certainly four extremes. We all do a mixture of these things, but most preachers will tend toward one of them. I tend toward being a commentary giver. In my view the goal of teaching/preaching is to help people understand the Bible and its implications well enough that they can follow Jesus in love.
What about you? When you go to church, what are you hoping to hear?
I get the opportunity to preach fairly regularly. In addition, I oversee our church's teaching ministry. I have the privilege of helping others become better teachers. This role has caused me to reflect on preaching quite a bit.
It seems to me that most preachers tend toward one of four styles:
1) Commentary Giver - this preacher gives the exegesis of every detail in the text. To him/her success is a thorough explanation of the text itself.
2) Story Teller - this preacher tends to string together stories that make a similar point to the preaching text. To him/her success is getting people to connect the text with their lives.
3) Comedian - this preacher tends to make humorous stories and jokes the staple of his/her preaching. To him/her success is keeping people entertained long enough to tell them about the Bible.
4) Emotional Plea Guy - this preacher tends to make things persuasive and heart wrenching. To him/her success is when people are responding to the sermon with weeping or dancing, grieving or rejoicing; really just any response of strong emotion.
Now, these are certainly four extremes. We all do a mixture of these things, but most preachers will tend toward one of them. I tend toward being a commentary giver. In my view the goal of teaching/preaching is to help people understand the Bible and its implications well enough that they can follow Jesus in love.
What about you? When you go to church, what are you hoping to hear?
1.11.2010
Jesus I Like, You I Do Not
In A.D. 251 St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "He can no longer have God as his Father who does not have the church as his mother." You can't have Jesus without the church we might say. They are a package deal.
Yet it is not uncommon to hear people (especially people under the age of 30) say things like, 'I follow Jesus, but I don't think I necessarily need the church,' or 'I experience God more in nature than I do in the church.' Many such individuals have had negative experiences in the church that have left them wonder if they can have a Christianity with just the good parts. No intentional intimate community, no input from a pastor, no cheese-ball worship leaders, no committees, no buildings, no tradition, no creeds, no authority...just give me Jesus.
So here the question: Do we get to have Jesus without the church?
Yet it is not uncommon to hear people (especially people under the age of 30) say things like, 'I follow Jesus, but I don't think I necessarily need the church,' or 'I experience God more in nature than I do in the church.' Many such individuals have had negative experiences in the church that have left them wonder if they can have a Christianity with just the good parts. No intentional intimate community, no input from a pastor, no cheese-ball worship leaders, no committees, no buildings, no tradition, no creeds, no authority...just give me Jesus.
So here the question: Do we get to have Jesus without the church?
12.28.2009
Celebrating Jesus
We have already celebrated New Years. Not the January 1st New Years mind you, but the Christian New Year. With the beginning of Advent (11/29/2009) the Christian New Year began. We have passed from Advent to Christmastide now. Christmas will end after 12 days with the celebration of Epiphany on January 6th. Epiphany will give way to Lent and Lent will give way to Easter. Easter will culminate in the celebration of Pentecost.What follows is called Ordinary Time or Kingdomtide.
Why do I tell you all of this? If you are like the majority of Protestants, you celebrate Christmas and Easter with some vague awareness that Lent falls in there somewhere. However, the celebration of the traditional church calendar year takes the season from Advent to Pentecost to celebrate the entire life of Christ, to once again center ourselves on the greatest of great stories, the whole story of Jesus our Lord. It seems tragic to me that in a misguided attempt to be un-Roman-Catholic, many protestants miss the delight of walking with Christ through his time here with us.
The fear of being too Catholic has driven us away from many wonderful and rich Christian traditions. Instead of shying away from all things Catholic, we ought to reclaim them as Evangelicals and drink deeply of the great tradition in which we all stand!
Merry Christmas!
Why do I tell you all of this? If you are like the majority of Protestants, you celebrate Christmas and Easter with some vague awareness that Lent falls in there somewhere. However, the celebration of the traditional church calendar year takes the season from Advent to Pentecost to celebrate the entire life of Christ, to once again center ourselves on the greatest of great stories, the whole story of Jesus our Lord. It seems tragic to me that in a misguided attempt to be un-Roman-Catholic, many protestants miss the delight of walking with Christ through his time here with us.
The fear of being too Catholic has driven us away from many wonderful and rich Christian traditions. Instead of shying away from all things Catholic, we ought to reclaim them as Evangelicals and drink deeply of the great tradition in which we all stand!
Merry Christmas!
12.21.2009
Drunk Preacher
I hate it when I get lumped into a "we" that I want nothing to do with. Christians are especially bad about this. For whatever reason, believers are under the delusion that true faith in Christ necessarily leads to their position on all sorts of things. It is not uncommon to here things like, "Of course, we're all Republican here..." or "We believe the world was created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago..." or "Of course we all know that miraculous gifts have ceased..."
The "we" that concerns me now is "We as Christians don't drink." I cannot tell you how many times someone has said that and looked at me as if they were stating obvious blatant fact. Many Christians were raised to believe that the Bible flatly condemns the consumption of alcohol. I know I was.
However, as I grew into my faith, and read the scripture for myself, I discovered that the case against alcohol consumption is as flimsy as a wet Kleenex. I don't want to sound dismissive, but I cannot fathom how someone could read the NT and think that there was something innately wrong with drinking alcohol. If so, Jesus is a sinner, and Paul actually suggested that Timothy sin to cure his stomach ache.
Having said that, I understand the need for caution here. I understand why some people scared by the abuse of alcohol, or by the appearance of approving the abuse of alcohol abstain from it altogether.
So where are you on this issue? Those of you who know me know my position (and for those who don't, I am a bit of a beer connoisseur). What issues are important for you as you think about this?
The "we" that concerns me now is "We as Christians don't drink." I cannot tell you how many times someone has said that and looked at me as if they were stating obvious blatant fact. Many Christians were raised to believe that the Bible flatly condemns the consumption of alcohol. I know I was.
However, as I grew into my faith, and read the scripture for myself, I discovered that the case against alcohol consumption is as flimsy as a wet Kleenex. I don't want to sound dismissive, but I cannot fathom how someone could read the NT and think that there was something innately wrong with drinking alcohol. If so, Jesus is a sinner, and Paul actually suggested that Timothy sin to cure his stomach ache.
Having said that, I understand the need for caution here. I understand why some people scared by the abuse of alcohol, or by the appearance of approving the abuse of alcohol abstain from it altogether.
So where are you on this issue? Those of you who know me know my position (and for those who don't, I am a bit of a beer connoisseur). What issues are important for you as you think about this?
12.14.2009
Somebody Help Me!
In a course I was teaching, the topic of baptism came up. We discussed various passages dealing with baptism. Prominent among these in our discussion was the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8.26-40). During our discussion, it was noted that some of our Bibles contained v.37, "And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'" while other Bibles omitted it. One student promptly raised her hand and told us how the evil modern versions were "taking verses out of the Bible because they don't want us to know the truth." I proceeded to give a brief explanation of textual criticism and how that sentence was probably not original, but added later. Her response was, "Well you can't just skip a verse! You have to have verse 37!" I then proceeded to explain how editors of printed Bibles had added verse numbers in the 1500's and how they weren't actually original. Her eyes were as wide as if I had told her Jesus is just some guy who doesn't really matter.
In fact, verse numbers are one among many innovative helps that have been added to the Biblical text for our benefit. The original text contained no verse numbers, no chapter numbers, no system of capital/lowercase letters, no punctuation, no paragraphing, and no spaces between words. The OT did not even have a system of vowels.
THENTWOULDHAVELOOKEDSOMETHINGLIKETHIS
THOTWLDLKLKTHSEXCPTBCKWRDS
In addition to these innovations, modern Bibles contain section heading, red lettering for the words of Christ, cross-reference systems, footnotes, study notes, chain reference systems, maps, concordance, etc...
All of this raises the question for me, how many of these "helps" are really helpful? The anecdote above shows how verse numbering can cause difficulty. Similar arguments could be made about red lettering causing readers to value those words above other words, the insertion of letters in the text for a footnote or cross reference system making it difficult to enjoy reading, and others. Once, I actually had a teen say something like, "The Lord is our shepherd, I shall not F want." She read the letter pointing her to footnote F as if it were part of the text.
For me, I like a minimal number of helps. I am not going to try to argue against verse and chapter numbering, although I think offering editions of the Bible without these would be awesome. I do however, prefer a simple, unadorned paragraphed black letter text edition. I understand the need for study and reference Bibles, and I appreciate them. But for daily use, I prefer to simplicity of a text edition.
What kind of helps do you like in a Bible? Which ones do you think should be taken out?
In fact, verse numbers are one among many innovative helps that have been added to the Biblical text for our benefit. The original text contained no verse numbers, no chapter numbers, no system of capital/lowercase letters, no punctuation, no paragraphing, and no spaces between words. The OT did not even have a system of vowels.
THENTWOULDHAVELOOKEDSOMETHINGLIKETHIS
THOTWLDLKLKTHSEXCPTBCKWRDS
In addition to these innovations, modern Bibles contain section heading, red lettering for the words of Christ, cross-reference systems, footnotes, study notes, chain reference systems, maps, concordance, etc...
All of this raises the question for me, how many of these "helps" are really helpful? The anecdote above shows how verse numbering can cause difficulty. Similar arguments could be made about red lettering causing readers to value those words above other words, the insertion of letters in the text for a footnote or cross reference system making it difficult to enjoy reading, and others. Once, I actually had a teen say something like, "The Lord is our shepherd, I shall not F want." She read the letter pointing her to footnote F as if it were part of the text.
For me, I like a minimal number of helps. I am not going to try to argue against verse and chapter numbering, although I think offering editions of the Bible without these would be awesome. I do however, prefer a simple, unadorned paragraphed black letter text edition. I understand the need for study and reference Bibles, and I appreciate them. But for daily use, I prefer to simplicity of a text edition.
What kind of helps do you like in a Bible? Which ones do you think should be taken out?
12.07.2009
Must Read Now!
When I became a Christian, I hated to read. I actually got by in high school having only ever read one book all the way through (Catcher in the Rye). When I got to college, I met several Christians who were extremely dedicated to growing in the Lord. Every one of them read constantly. Not only this, but every one of them had a short list of books (besides the Bible) that "every believer ought to read." Common titles were Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, or Desiring God by John Piper.
Since that time, I have become a reader. I love to read. I love books. I love used book stores (that's more of an addiction than a love, but whatever). Those who know me now, know me as a guy with a lot of books. In my reading, I have developed some opinions about a 'must reads for every believer' list.
Here is my list in no particular order:
1) The Ragamuffin Gospel or Ruthless Trust by Brennan Manning (they overlap a lot, but they are both excellent)
2) The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (my first "deep" read, a classic that still has bite)
3) A good survey of church history (because if you don't know where you came from, you don't know who you are)
The IVP Pocket History of the Church by Jeff Bingham, and Pocket History of Theology by Roger Olson and Adam English are quite good as short surveys. For a more in depth look, I recommend The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez.
4) How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth by Fee and Stuart (actually lives up to the title)
5) The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the OT (Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc... Some of or brothers and sisters read these as scripture, we ought at least to know what they say)
6) My most recent addition, Life With God by Richard Foster (to my mind, Foster's most complete and helpful work)
I am sure you think I have either included something that should be left off, or left something off that should be included. What say you?
Since that time, I have become a reader. I love to read. I love books. I love used book stores (that's more of an addiction than a love, but whatever). Those who know me now, know me as a guy with a lot of books. In my reading, I have developed some opinions about a 'must reads for every believer' list.
Here is my list in no particular order:
1) The Ragamuffin Gospel or Ruthless Trust by Brennan Manning (they overlap a lot, but they are both excellent)
2) The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (my first "deep" read, a classic that still has bite)
3) A good survey of church history (because if you don't know where you came from, you don't know who you are)
The IVP Pocket History of the Church by Jeff Bingham, and Pocket History of Theology by Roger Olson and Adam English are quite good as short surveys. For a more in depth look, I recommend The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez.
4) How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth by Fee and Stuart (actually lives up to the title)
5) The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the OT (Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc... Some of or brothers and sisters read these as scripture, we ought at least to know what they say)
6) My most recent addition, Life With God by Richard Foster (to my mind, Foster's most complete and helpful work)
I am sure you think I have either included something that should be left off, or left something off that should be included. What say you?
11.30.2009
Creed and Councils, They're Not Just for Catholics!
Growing up, it was common to hear that our only creed was "We have no creed but the Bible."Of course that was not true. We believed in all kinds of things that the Bible does not describe, the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ most prominently. These things come to us from the great tradition of the church, of which we were largely ignorant. In my opinion this is sad. In an attempt to be un-Catholic many evangelical protestants cut themselves off from the riches of the great tradition.
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
11.16.2009
"If One Thing in There Isn't True..."
"...Then we can't trust anything it says." "Every word is true, or its all garbage." I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard that statement made about the Bible.
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
11.09.2009
Lost in Translation(s)
Another year, another new Bible translation. The Common English Bible is causing quite a stir in Christian community right now.There are roughly 15 standard translations in relatively common use among Christians: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NLT, HCSB, NASB, NJB, NET, NAB, & CEV. In my experience, most people have strong opinions about one or more of these translations whether positive or negative.
But what is the difference between all of these versions, really?
As I see it, 5 issues really seem to differentiate translations.
1) Theological Perspective of the Translators - Is it a Roman Catholic translation (NAB)? Protestant (Most)? Evangelical (ESV, NLT)? Or was it translated by a good mixture of people (NRSV, REB)?
2) OT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Masoretic Text faithfully (Most), or is it more willing to consider readings from the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and other sources (RSV, NRSV, REB)?
3) NT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV), or a more modern Greek NT (All Others)?
4) Literal vs. Dynamic Philosophy - Are the translators attempting to be as literal as they can be (KJV, NASB, ESV), or to make the text as readable as it can be (NIV, NLT, CEV)?
5) Gender Translation - Do the translators use man/men when the passage clearly includes women (NIV, ESV), or do they try to make it more neutral (NRSV, NLT, TNIV)?
I am an NRSV guy. On these 5 issues the NRSV is as follows: ecumenical team of translators, eclectic textual criticism in the OT and NT, literal translation philosophy, and more gender neutral.
If I had to pick one that I would not personally want to use, it would be the NKJV. I understand the spirit of the NKJV, but if I wanted a translation that followed the Textus Receptus, the original KJV is just so beautiful.
What about you? Which translation(s) do you like and why? Which translation(s) do you think should not be used and why?
But what is the difference between all of these versions, really?
As I see it, 5 issues really seem to differentiate translations.
1) Theological Perspective of the Translators - Is it a Roman Catholic translation (NAB)? Protestant (Most)? Evangelical (ESV, NLT)? Or was it translated by a good mixture of people (NRSV, REB)?
2) OT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Masoretic Text faithfully (Most), or is it more willing to consider readings from the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and other sources (RSV, NRSV, REB)?
3) NT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV), or a more modern Greek NT (All Others)?
4) Literal vs. Dynamic Philosophy - Are the translators attempting to be as literal as they can be (KJV, NASB, ESV), or to make the text as readable as it can be (NIV, NLT, CEV)?
5) Gender Translation - Do the translators use man/men when the passage clearly includes women (NIV, ESV), or do they try to make it more neutral (NRSV, NLT, TNIV)?
I am an NRSV guy. On these 5 issues the NRSV is as follows: ecumenical team of translators, eclectic textual criticism in the OT and NT, literal translation philosophy, and more gender neutral.
If I had to pick one that I would not personally want to use, it would be the NKJV. I understand the spirit of the NKJV, but if I wanted a translation that followed the Textus Receptus, the original KJV is just so beautiful.
What about you? Which translation(s) do you like and why? Which translation(s) do you think should not be used and why?
11.02.2009
Creation...Literally?
No one actually reads the Bible literally. Some people think they do. When it comes to the issue of creation, the 'literalists' insist that a six day creation and a young earth are the only truly biblical position. But six-day-ers and young-earth-ers do not actually read the Bible literally. Disagree? Let me show you what I mean.
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
10.26.2009
Of God, People, and Primates
You want to see a fundamentalist get red in the face? Ask him his opinion about evolution. Worse yet, tell him you don't the conflict between the Bible and modern science, you think they should peacefully co-exist. Then get ready for some fireworks!
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
10.19.2009
H, E, Double Hockey Sticks
HELL, that is.
Hell is a disturbing concept. Eternal punishment, where pain never ceases, no one ever dies, and there is no hope of improvement...forever. When I really pause and think about it, hell is downright terrifying. But then again, I guess that is the point. Preachers have been scaring people with hell for generations. "Turn or Burn," they say. I wonder how many people find their way to heaven out of the fear of hell.
In recent years, the concept of hell has come under fire. Two main objections are frequently raised: 1) the unbalanced scale of finite sin vs. infinite punishment, and 2) an all loving God would not do that to people. Objections like this have many to believe that instead of eternal punishment, unbelievers will simply cease to exist (a position called annihilationism). They argue that instead of eternal punishment, "hell" is missing out on an eternal paradise with the Lord. Others object that this takes the teeth out of the gospel. Concepts like the wrath and justice of God become rather mundane and docile.
What do you think? Is it ok for a Christian not to believe in hell?
What is gained by eliminating hell? What is lost?
Hell is a disturbing concept. Eternal punishment, where pain never ceases, no one ever dies, and there is no hope of improvement...forever. When I really pause and think about it, hell is downright terrifying. But then again, I guess that is the point. Preachers have been scaring people with hell for generations. "Turn or Burn," they say. I wonder how many people find their way to heaven out of the fear of hell.
In recent years, the concept of hell has come under fire. Two main objections are frequently raised: 1) the unbalanced scale of finite sin vs. infinite punishment, and 2) an all loving God would not do that to people. Objections like this have many to believe that instead of eternal punishment, unbelievers will simply cease to exist (a position called annihilationism). They argue that instead of eternal punishment, "hell" is missing out on an eternal paradise with the Lord. Others object that this takes the teeth out of the gospel. Concepts like the wrath and justice of God become rather mundane and docile.
What do you think? Is it ok for a Christian not to believe in hell?
What is gained by eliminating hell? What is lost?
10.12.2009
Holy-Ween, Fall Festival, Trunk-or-Treat, or Just Halloween?
Every year around the end of October children everywhere dress up as ghosts, witches, skeletons, soldiers, and a million other things. They band together and go knocking on the doors of total strangers. What are they seeking? CANDY! Candy of all kinds: Tootsie Rolls and Snickers, Gummi Bears and Suckers, Milky Ways and Airheads, Butterfingers and Reese's.
Around this same time Christian children everywhere don their Apostle Paul or Heavenly Angel costumes and head for the church parking lot! There they will find carnival games and open trunks. What are they seeking? The same CANDY, of course!
I have had the opportunity to celebrate Halloween in several different ways. When I was young, I went trick-or-treating, both in my neighborhood and in others. I distinctly remember one year when I was a soldier, I had a toy grenade that banged loudly if you threw it on the ground. I thought it would be funny to throw it at the feet of the people who opened the their doors to pass out candy. Not so much. While serving at a small church in Houston, I put on a church parking lot carnival. Of course, the games only started after my sermon on the evils of Halloween and subsequent gospel presentation. While in Dallas, my wife and I had the opportunity to take dozens of children to the biggest baddest fall festival I have ever seen. This thing would rival some state fairs. A wealthy church in north Dallas shuttled all of our kids up for the evening. It was a blast!
Because of its history, many Christians feel that celebrating Halloween is tantamount to participation in pagan religion.(Here is a quick look at the history of Halloween.) Others see no problem with it. Still others think it is fine to celebrate, but that it should be done in the safe confines of the church grounds.
Should Christians celebrate Halloween? Or should we celebrate Halloween, but call it something else? Or should we celebrate All Saints Day? Or should we let the end of October pass without acknowledging anything?
Around this same time Christian children everywhere don their Apostle Paul or Heavenly Angel costumes and head for the church parking lot! There they will find carnival games and open trunks. What are they seeking? The same CANDY, of course!
I have had the opportunity to celebrate Halloween in several different ways. When I was young, I went trick-or-treating, both in my neighborhood and in others. I distinctly remember one year when I was a soldier, I had a toy grenade that banged loudly if you threw it on the ground. I thought it would be funny to throw it at the feet of the people who opened the their doors to pass out candy. Not so much. While serving at a small church in Houston, I put on a church parking lot carnival. Of course, the games only started after my sermon on the evils of Halloween and subsequent gospel presentation. While in Dallas, my wife and I had the opportunity to take dozens of children to the biggest baddest fall festival I have ever seen. This thing would rival some state fairs. A wealthy church in north Dallas shuttled all of our kids up for the evening. It was a blast!
Because of its history, many Christians feel that celebrating Halloween is tantamount to participation in pagan religion.(Here is a quick look at the history of Halloween.) Others see no problem with it. Still others think it is fine to celebrate, but that it should be done in the safe confines of the church grounds.
Should Christians celebrate Halloween? Or should we celebrate Halloween, but call it something else? Or should we celebrate All Saints Day? Or should we let the end of October pass without acknowledging anything?
10.05.2009
My Dream Bible...
Over the past few months, I have become a fan of The Bible Design and Binding blog. The blog is not so much about the content of the Bible as it is the physical aspects of the Bibles we purchase. The author posts reviews of various Bibles in his quest to find his perfect Bible.
If I lived in an alternate universe, where publisher allowed people to design their own perfect Bible (instead of mass producing them in cookie-cutter fashion) here are some things I would request in my perfect Bible:
NRSV translation (my fav, yes we will discuss translation in a later post).
It would have a soft, flexible, but durable black leather cover with the words Holy Bible stamped on the spine, and no other words anywhere.
The dimensions would be roughly 5x7x1.5, small enough to carry, but big enough to read.
When you open the Bible there would be a real leather lining inside the cover.
It would have nice thick paper so you cannot see the words on the next page.
The text would be single column like a novel, black letter, and paragraphed but without section headings.
It would have a nice classic font at a readable 9pts.
The end of the Bible would contain the NET Bible maps (holy cow those are cool), and a handy concordance.
It would all be topped off with three thick dark red ribbons.
Perfect.
I actually had an NRSV Bible rebound by Leonard's Book Restortation. I attempted to incorporate many of the my 'dream' features. Here are a couple of pictures.
What would your dream Bible look like? If you have a Bible you love, what do you love about it?
Do you think the physical aspects of a Bible are worth discussing? Or do you think this is a frivolous discussion?
If I lived in an alternate universe, where publisher allowed people to design their own perfect Bible (instead of mass producing them in cookie-cutter fashion) here are some things I would request in my perfect Bible:
NRSV translation (my fav, yes we will discuss translation in a later post).
It would have a soft, flexible, but durable black leather cover with the words Holy Bible stamped on the spine, and no other words anywhere.
The dimensions would be roughly 5x7x1.5, small enough to carry, but big enough to read.
When you open the Bible there would be a real leather lining inside the cover.
It would have nice thick paper so you cannot see the words on the next page.
The text would be single column like a novel, black letter, and paragraphed but without section headings.
It would have a nice classic font at a readable 9pts.
The end of the Bible would contain the NET Bible maps (holy cow those are cool), and a handy concordance.
It would all be topped off with three thick dark red ribbons.
Perfect.
I actually had an NRSV Bible rebound by Leonard's Book Restortation. I attempted to incorporate many of the my 'dream' features. Here are a couple of pictures.
What would your dream Bible look like? If you have a Bible you love, what do you love about it?
Do you think the physical aspects of a Bible are worth discussing? Or do you think this is a frivolous discussion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
