|
| I must admit, the last few months I've been trying to decide what to
write about here. Last nights discussion with my friends left somewhat
of a pinprick in my brain. An itch, if you will. Apparantly, the
twentysomethings around the church are sometimes derisively referred to
as... well... "Bastard Children" I'll have to admit being a little
shocked. If that's how the elder generation thinks, then maybe it's
best if we go on our own.
"Why can't you...?" they cry.
"Why can't you just dress up once in a while?"
"Why do you have to wear a skull shirt?"
"Why can't you use traditional hymns?"
In reality... they might want to just ask:
"Why can't you conform?"
The problem is... it's Jesus versus the Pharisees all over again. But
then I started thinking... maybe we should wear this as a badge of
honor. Maybe we should realize that we are different. We aren't going
to be satisified until we have turned the traditional church upside
down. We don't need more pew warmers. We have talked about the gospel
in theory. We have debated for long enough the merits of eternal
security and whether it exists or not. We're tired of hearing the
gospel in theory. We want to see it in action.
The laws were nothing more than a foreshadow, if one believes Paul's
writings. If that were the case, then Jesus Christ was the good news in
practice.
But there's something far more interesting about Jesus Christ that most
of the previous generation DOESN'T get. Maybe it's been hidden from
their eyes, I don't know. But by calling us "Bastard Children" they
have unwittingly nailed one of the very terms that described and
followed Jesus Christ all of his life. Can you hear it? "Isn't this the
carpenter's son?" "Isn't this Mary's son?" "Can anything GOOD come from
Nazerath?"
Jesus Christ himself was considered a bastard son.
Think about it. Mary was pregnant. Joseph knew it... he wanted to put
her away quietly. To have a child out of wedlock in that day not only
courted death at worst, but the derision of the townspeople at best if
you were even thought to be an illegitimate son. Any GOOD Jew who was
worth his salt ever thought about having a child out of wedlock.
So... the next time the church wants to label us as Bastard Children... remember where you came from.
| | |
| In Defense of the
Bachelor
Great. Just great.
As I start to bother to consider the idea of dating someone. I have to read someone's drivellings AGAIN about how supposedly I'm sinning by choosing to be single. Here's the article by Debbie Makken:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001199.cfm
“It was not only the duty
to marry that was held sacrosanct, but also the proper and timely execution
thereof. With I Corinthians 7 intact in their Bibles, Christians used to
believe that extended singleness had no biblical warrant. The Westminster Confession, for
example, lists the "undue delay of marriage" as sin (Q. 139). Even
Scripture five times hearkens to the phrase "wife/bridegroom of your
youth," not your middle ages, youth
being the only season that allows one to enjoy the full bundle of rights and
privileges of marriage, and to accomplish its generational purposes.”
First of all… the Westminster
Confession was written by men. Men are fallible. This is not scripture,
therefore, it is not infallible. I like how people decry “the undue delay of
marriage.” These same people decry rock music, Dungeons and Dragons, etc, etc.
Sorry, you’ve already lost points. It’s kind of like the boy who cried wolf.
Yes, there is the idea of marrying young, but people FORGET the context that
most people died young in those days.
“The laws and practices of these former cultures likewise conveyed to
all what was normative and what behavior was expected. Throughout the ages, for
example, women enjoyed an infrastructure (their family or clan) to see them
into the safe harbor of marriage. From arranged marriages to courtship/calling,
all conspired to protect and guide women from squandering their best, most
fertile years in futility.”
Normal. Hmm, now THAT’S an interesting word. So in other words,
let’s just knuckle down to what culture dictates. Wonderful idea. Except this
isn’t the middle ages (sometimes known as the dark ages, where it seems that
grace was a lost art), nor a colonial period. Life expectancy is longer.
“In these earlier systems, those who were beholden to the bride through
either blood or other ties were given the responsibility to guide her into
marriage. This was primarily done by conditioning access of any prospective
suitor on demonstrable showings of worthiness. Men were kept on a tight leash
in these earlier systems.”
Leash. That’s
wonderful. I want to be on a leash. I want to be castrated. Yeah, that’s a
great idea. Here’s a better idea. Let’s get the men off their leashes and let
the wild ones begin the assault on the gates of hell.
“Also in these former cultures, there were consequences when behavior
fell below the expected societal standard. The Puritans, for example, actually
maintained laws that executed fines and imprisonment for single living. In one
case where a single man John Littleale was found living by himself, where he
was "subject to many sins, which are ordinarily the companions of a
solitary life," he was ordered to move in with a family, or be placed in
the house of corrections in the Hamptons.”
Then the Puritans were idiots.
Men are NOT housebroken. We are wild. Untamed. You ever try riding a stallion?
He detests anyone on his back and will try to buck them off. When you respect
his power his strength and his wildness… THAT is when you ride them and NOT
before. Granted, you can put a bit in his mouth, but he WILL resent you for it.
And there will be no end to how much that he tries to rid himself of it.
There again, I’m expected to
bend the knee to culture. I’m expected to attend a meat market, sit down, shut
up, smile and get hitched. Is it any wonder that I didn’t really attend a
singles ministry? Any wonder that I’m not part of a singles ministry?
Apparantly, men and women there are nothing more than breeding stock. I take
offense to that idea.
“Even as late as the 1950s, the bachelor was considered a freak for he
had avoided the mantle of adulthood in taking on the responsibilities of a wife
and family. He was considered "eccentric," a "late
bloomer," a man who never really could prove he was a man. An unwed woman
was pitied in terms such as "old maid," for she had been the victim
of poor opportunities in the unrelenting passage of time. And a few women were
rightly considered "spinsters," for their actions had frustrated any
potential suitors.”
*sigh* So that’s all I am to
you. A freak. Nice. Too bad I’ve gotten beyond the point of believing you or
anyone else who might say such a thing. Eccentric? Yeah. I happen to wear that
title as a badge of honor. A man who never could really prove I’m a man? Hmph.
Men are not slaves. Men are free. Real Men will not bow the knee to anyone but
Jesus Christ. Since you aren’t him, I think I’m safe for now by snubbing
marriage until the time has come.
“But this goes to the heart of the argument — accountability. John
Calvin intimated that any man who, without the gift of continence, failed to
marry was guilty of stealing a husband from a wife. He thought that if the two
sexes be separated they were like "mutilated members of a mangled
body." Martin Luther agreed, and believed that the male and female
ordering of Genesis mandated marriage for mankind. Marriage was not thought of
as optional.”
And again. We’re dealing with
FALLIBLE men. That doesn’t mean they’re right. Heck, that doesn’t even mean I’m
right. But I don’t agree with this idea that I’m sinning by not seeking
marriage. Sorry, it doesn’t seem to ring true to I Corinthians 7. It doesn’t
ring true to what I see in scripture. I simply don’t see ANYWHERE in the
scripture where not being married is a sin. And until you can provide me with
black and white evidence in scripture and IN CONTEXT of this idea, I’m not
buying.
Debbie would probably argue that
I’m taking I Corinthians 7 out of its context.
“Past Christians also read I Corinthians 7, and they understood that
Paul was writing at a time of "great distress," referring to the
famine in the Greek countryside and the percolating persecutions taking place
at the time. Because of these threatening circumstances, Paul advised that
marriage could temporarily be placed on the back-burner. They understood that
letter to convey expediency, nothing more.”
Huh? What Commentary is this?
That’s not the way I read Paul’s statement: “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give
my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the
present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be
loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have
trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is
short: it remaineth *, that both they that have wives be as though they had
none; And they that weep, as though they
wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that
buy, as though they possessed not; And
they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world
passeth away. But I would have * you without carefulness. He that is unmarried
careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things
that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a
virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be
holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things
of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own
profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and
that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.” I Corinthians 7:25-35 (KJV)
Seems to me that Paul has
finished talking about and dealing with the crisis at hand as he continues the
argument and has returned to talking in general terms. So, again, seems to me
that the argument does have some things going for it, but at the same time,
these are things taken out of context. *sigh* Presuming Debbie is correct, she
still has not given me adequate evidence in the scripture, that this is a
SCRIPTURAL idea. She has given an argument for the return to the old cultural
ways of marrying young. Please understand, I’m not entirely opposed to the idea
as long as the marriage comes from God himself. But that doesn’t mean those of
us who don’t marry young are outside the will of God, nor is that a sin.
Moving on to some excerpts of
Debbie’s book.
"I would often tell men I dated that because they
were over thirty and still unmarried, they lacked biblical leadership that
requires securing a wife. They should have to explain why they are still
single. Here's what's surprising: Asking these kinds of questions and demanding
this kind of accountability doesn't make them run. Sure, some of them will. But
when a man of thirty-five who hadn't dated for the past ten years asked my
thirty-two-year-old friend for a date, she confronted him about it. 'For every
guy like you, there has been some woman dying on the vine like me. What excuse
do you have for not pursuing a wife sooner?' This man did not run out of the
restaurant but actually confessed that indeed he should have sought marriage!
First of all,
Biblical Leadership DOES NOT necessarily include getting a wife. Period. End of
Discussion. You can’t TELL me that Paul showed lack of Biblical leadership. You
can’t TELL me Jesus lacked Biblical leadership. WHERE we got this idea from,
makes little to no sense to me. And why in the heck should I give excuses? Paul
didn’t make excuses and he was a guy. Am I your slave that I should offer an
explanation to you as to why I’m not married? Does it give you pleasure trying
to dominate a male like this? You’ll find pleasure with some other guy because…
I take severe exception to your words. Women like this do make me question why
the heck I should date any of them. It isn’t lack of leadership that causes
this thinking. It is a Proverbs 25:24 wife that makes me detest the idea.
"Single at the age of thirty-four, my friend Anna desperately wanted to be
married. Her boss asked if she'd be interested in dating 'a very godly
forty-five-year-old' lawyer. Her response? 'If this man is so godly, why isn't
he married by now?' She explained that she wasn't about to 'reward a slothful
forty-five-year-old man with someone eleven years his junior,' but that she
could recommend some woman who was well over forty, had lost the beauty of her
youth, and would have trouble conceiving. She explained that this was the kind
of candidate for this man since his inaction in finding a wife had caused this
outcome for some other woman.
*rolls eyes* First
of all, you don’t know the guy, so where the heck do you GET OFF judging him? Secondly,
if you do not know the circumstances, where do YOU get off becoming his judge
and his jury? Finally, I take severe exception with the idea that men should
shut up, be responsible and get married. It will happen when it is time and not
before. It’s on God’s clock. His is different than ours.
"While her response may seem harsh, it's fair. There was a time, not too
long ago, when women refused to go out with a man who had the reputation of
being a cad. We need to start thinking in terms of godly accountability, not
open-ended mercy." (p. 185)
Excuse me?!?!?! Fair? How in the name of all that is holy is
that fair? Explain to me WHY you think that’s fair? Allow me to be blunt: You
wouldn’t want a man. You want a wuss. You’d try to castrate a guy. A wuss has
already been castrated.
"Ultimately there are no sound reasons or legitimate
excuses why men--especially Christian men--are not getting married. Whatever
the excuse du jour--lousy parents, divorced parents, protracted educational
requirements, the high cost of living, fear of failure, misunderstanding the
opposite sex--every excuse to put off marriage is a decision to stay single.
Without accountability, nothing will change."
Sure there are.
Women like you are a very SOUND reason I didn’t want to be married. Proverbs
25:24 is a SOUND reason, not to be married. I do not want to dominate a woman.
Not my desire nor my bag. God assigned me a place of leadership. I can’t change
that. If you have issues with this, might I suggest taking them up with your
creator, because that’s where they belong. I didn’t MAKE the rules. I didn’t
want the position. But guess what? God had other ideas. So I accept this. *Sigh*
Besides. I don’t think you’d want my job.
“Remember what John
Calvin said? The man who chooses to stay single (without a specific call from
God) is guilty of 'stealing' a husband from a wife”
John Calvin is an IDIOT here, or you’ve taken him out of
context. I’m guessing the latter. Apparantly, people who argue this line of
logic either ignore or forget that Paul WAS SINGLE. So, was he guilty of this?
Was JESUS guilty of this? IF so, then we have far more severe issues than
simply being single to worry about.
"Erasmus said it well in his famous essay In
Praise of Marriage: '[W]hat is more hateful than a man who, as though born
for himself alone, lives for himself, looks out for himself, is sparing or
lavish for himself, loves no one and is loved by no one? Indeed, should not
such a monster be thought fit to be driven away from the general fellowship of
mankind.' In other words, he saw those who willfully choose singleness as
useless drones and fruitless burdens on this earth who have no sense of
obligation to follow the familial patterns of their parents or to sacrifice for
another." (p. 182)
Why do I get the feeling that you’ve again, yanked this guy
out of context. Useless, huh? I’d expect that argument from people who want to
take the mentally handicapped out and shoot them. Not from a “lets get married”
book. *Sigh* Again, singleness is a choice. It is not a requirement. NEITHER IS
MARRIAGE. Just because I don’t have a ministry, does not mean that I should
simply run off and get married. Might I remind people that there are far more
difficulties in marriage to day than there were even fifty years ago, let alone
500 or 2000! Of course, I'm sure that someone's going to say that because I'm offended, it means they're right. Not so much. Men do not get offended. Men just get ticked off.
(Edit: I hope that my friends who read this realize that I'm not changing my mind about Jada. The article is something I happened to have read while reading through a men's forum and it kinda set me off. Gah, hope that makes sense.)
| | |
|
I really wanted to take this response and give it the time
it is due…
“From what I can tell, the closing of the church has
absolutely nothing to do with the outreach the priests were doing in the parish.
Instead, it was based on liturgical and other abuses the priests themselves
were committing.”
1)"He said our liturgy is not Catholic and our teachings are
unorthodox,"
”That can mean a variety of different things, however, since the church is
still being shut down after the priests met with the bishop, we can infer a)
the teachings of the priests were faulty, and b) the priests refused to yield
to those in authority over them. To a Catholic, point b is a big deal. As such,
the Catholic church is well within its rights to discipline the priests.”
I suppose this is where I question whether the authority is
correct. I have my… misgivings, as most know about certain aspects of the
Christian faith. This is one of them.
First of all, God did not set a dictator over us. To be
frank, that’s God’s prerogative. I’ll talk more about that in the next section.
Liturgy. I find that to be a frustrating and non comforting
word these days. And it’s making a come back in the Protestant church.
Personally, I’m not so sure it’s a good thing. Tradition seems to get us stuck
in a rut, stuck in legalistic views and get us no where. Take Lent. Personally,
I feel no need to give up something for forty days. Probably because I think
surrender is a 365 day thing, not just forty or forty-six. There are things
that need to die, yes… but that is a moment by moment decision. There are other
battles I have to fight. Battles which… for a guy… aren’t easy. Especially when
you’ve been ripped to shreds because of your lack of need for tradition,
rituals, liturgy.
So unorthordox doesn’t bother me. Jesus was unorthodox.
Shall we put him in a box as well?
I suppose part of me wishes Litergy would stay dead. That’s
the honest truth. Tradition demands that I mourn the death of Jesus. Here’s my
problem… the cross wasn’t a tragedy. It was an accomplishment. It was the
culmination of what Jesus set out to do. Shall I mourn when Jesus Christ
fulfilled the scriptures? I think not. I suppose I do understand the mourning
argument more after the Good Friday service (which really felt… I dunno, dead.
Lifeless. And it left me feeling conflicted.) but at the same time, I feel too
little is made of that this was an achievement. I think we miss that.
2) The priests stopped wearing robes at the request of the "young
guys" because it reminded them of a judge's robes.
When taken into account that many of these "young guys" are drug
addicts that have been before a judge, it is easy to see why they dislike the
priest's robes. However, the priests should continue to wear their robes for
this reason. When we sin, we don't just sin against ourselves or our neighbor,
but against God himself. The priestly robes bring home this fact to the young
guys, which is precisely why they don't like them. Instead of changing the
robes to make the "young guys" feel better, the priests should be
preaching about the reality of sin, and the amazing grace provided for the remission
of sin through Christ's death on the cross. This approach is less warm and
fuzzy, but gives the parishoners more of what they really need-- the Truth.
Truth. Something that the church seems to have problems with
these days. The problem I have with priestly robes is that… well… you’ve more
or less take God’s spot as judge. That, I DO have a problem with. Might I
remind people that the only one worthy to judge according to John 8-9 (among
other passages) is Jesus Christ. Further, we are ALL Kings and Priests
according to Paul. That sets us as equal. (Not to mention the cross, which ALSO
sets us as equals… lest we so quickly forget.) It does not, however, give us
the right to judge believers. That was one of the points in Jesus’ sermon on
the mount. Yes, warm and fuzzy doesn’t cut it. But neither does fire and
brimstone. I do not see ANYWHERE in scripture, where Priests are permitted to
judge, furthermore, didn’t he call us to be the LEAST. If I’m setting myself up
as a judge, then that makes me superior.
Truth, we are all sinners and all are in need of God’s
grace. But it doesn’t mean you lord the fact over them. God didn’t tell us, “Go
drop a gospel bomb on someone.” And then we go out and yell, “God’s gonna kick
your derriere!” Grace? Foreign concept. And this church closing is a perfect
example of this, in my opinion. The church showed too much grace in ministering
to the people at their level… and the graceless come and close it down. If you
examine Jesus’ ministry, you find that his harshest words are reserved for the
RELIGIOUS and the kindest words for sinners. Notice he never tried to make an
issue of their sin. He forgave it… and moved on. He didn’t throw stones. So, if
Jesus didn’t throw stones… what gives us the right to?
3) The change from a wafer to cookies for the Eucharist.
This is the biggest problem with what the priests are doing, according to
Catholic tradition. The Eucharist is the centre of the mass- without it, the
mass really isn't a mass. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that the
wafer and wine really are the body and blood of Christ. For the priests to start
giving out cookies instead of the wafer because someone's mom wanted it that
way is heinous, because this ceremony is no longer the Eucharist. These priests
are being fradulent for misrepresenting the Eucharist. At the Last Supper, did
Christ break a cookie and tell his disciples, "This is my body"? No!
He broke unleavened bread. For someone who reads the Bible as literally as you
do, I think this point is pretty apparent to you, John. If you want cookies,
have them after service.
Again, to a point I see this. But then I go back to Jesus’
odd statement which essentially he’s railing at the Pharisees about them making
oaths on the altar vs. the sacrifice on the altar. What makes it holy? The sacrifice
itself, or the altar? I’d argue this seems pretty darn similar to Jesus’
argument over this same issue.
Here’s where I have a problem with the idea of transubstantiation:
1. It creates an issue where the blood was forbidden for the Israelites to
drink. Further, even if you say, “Well the law is dead and should not be followed…”
fine. You’ve still got an issue with the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where
believers are PROHIBITED in drinking blood. So, if this was the determination
of the council, then you’ve got issues with the scripture contradicting itself.
2. If you presume that in John 6, God is giving credence to the theory of transubstantiation,
then you’ve missed out on reading verse 60. It was understood that Jesus was
using a figure of speech. Notice that Jesus does not bother to correct them.
Fine, all of the doctrine of transubstantiation aside, I
still have to wonder… what is it that makes the Eucarist holy? We’re arguing
over the appropriate symbols, the right offerings, what you can and can’t do,
and it’s all a pile of dung! Are we no better than the Pharisees? We’ve
completely skipped over Chapter 15 of Acts if this is what Eucharist has come
down to. While we’re at it, rip Colossians out of the Bible… oh, and Romans too.
IF we’ve lost what the symbolism means, then we’ve completely
and utterly missed the point.
Further, there may well be a legitimate reason for cookies
over wafers. (allergic reaction, size, etc.) We don’t know all the facts.
Again, any rebuttals, other thoughts on the article are
welcome.
| | |
|  | Currently Watching
Alexander Revisited - The Final Cut (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)
By Anthony Hopkins, David Bedella, Jessie Kamm, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Fiona O'Shaughnessy, Connor Paolo, Patrick Carroll (III), Brian Blessed, Peter Williamson, Morgan Christopher Ferris, Robert Earley, Aleczander Gordon, Christopher Plummer, Gary Stretch, John Kavanagh, Nick Dunning, Marie Meyer, Mick Lally, Colin Farrell
see related |
Here you go. I'd like some people's thoughts on this article. Am I the only one bothered by this?
Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/05/news/spain.php
Spanish cardinal to close church that strayed too far
MADRID:
The three priests of the church of San Carlos Borromeo looked on calmly
as masked graffiti artists went to work on the facade, painting the
message: Don't close our church! Step inside the door!
The silver and black graffiti, painted Wednesday, form part of a
growing protest against a plan by Cardinal Antonio María Rouco Varela
to close the church, whose priests perform Mass in street clothes and
offer Holy Communion with donut-shaped buns or cookies instead of
wafers.
"He said our liturgy is not Catholic and our teachings are
unorthodox," said Javier Baeza, the senior priest at San Carlos
Borromeo, who met with Rouco, the archbishop of Madrid, last week,
along with his fellow priests, Enrique de Castro and Pepe Díaz.
The archbishop's antipathy has met with opposition in Entrevías, a
working-class suburb of drab housing projects where the local church's
role in helping the homeless, drug addicts, former convicts and
immigrants has earned it a powerful following. Dozens of neighbors of
all age-groups - some church-goers, some not - gathered at the church
each day this week in a show of support for the priests.
"If the bishops want to fight, they can come here and fight with
me", said Isabel Jiménez, a 70-year-old who was married at San Carlos
Borromeo in 1962 and whose children and grandchildren were baptized
there. "The Mass here is no different from Mass anywhere else." What is different is that the priests "talk to you about helping drug addicts," Jiménez said. "There's no sin in that."
Inside, San Carlos Borromeo looks like a combination of a community
center and church, with a scuffed tiled floor, wooden pews and neon
strip-lights. Its appearance is apt: While used for Mass on Sundays,
the church serves each morning as a job center, where unemployed can
drop off resumes and get help filling out application forms.
In the afternoons, it runs workshops for social workers and
volunteers who work with the needy of the neighborhood. For about 180
people who are homeless or have no fixed abode, the church serves as a
postal address that allows them to obtain social benefits.
"This is a place where they help you solve your problems," said
Jiménez, sitting on one of the wooden pews. "If we went to another
church - a rich people's church - they probably wouldn't even let us
in."
In a statement Monday, the cardinal's office said that the church
itself was to close and that Caritas, a Roman Catholic charity, would
take over the facilities. The priests can continue their social work,
the statement said, but parishioners would be assigned to two nearby
churches. The archbishop's office did not return calls requesting
further comment.
Supporters of Baeza and his fellow priests said the Roman Catholic
Church is out of touch with the needs and priorities of ordinary people.
"This is a real church, a church of the people," said Carlos López,
a 53-year-old who was drinking in the Prince of Asturias bar around the
corner from San Carlos Borromeo - "not one of those churches with all
its gold and bishops with hands dripping with rings."
The Roman Catholic Church in Spain is grappling with dwindling
numbers of church-goers and feels itself under siege from the
government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, which has legalized gay
marriage and taken steps to further unwind the ties between church and
state. A survey of Spanish priests, carried out by the Complutense
University in Madrid and published last week, showed 61 percent said
they considered Zapatero's government "anticlerical."
Baeza said the church needed to update its rituals in keeping with modern society.
The priests stopped wearing robes at the request of some of the
"young guys," he said, because they reminded them of the robes worn by
judges in courts of law. They offered cookies instead of wafers at the
suggestion of the mothers.
The conservative newspaper ABC wrote in an editorial Thursday that
San Carlos Borromeo's work in the community did not justify "flagrant
deviations from the liturgy."
"The daily work of thousands of priests, monks and missionaries in
some of the world's most inhospitable places shows that it is possible
for the church to transmit its message of faith and hope without
twisting or changing the essence the liturgy of the Eucharist," the
editorial said.
Baeza said the archbishop's decision was indicative of a crisis in
the church, which is reacting to its dwindling flock by becoming more
dogmatic rather than less.
"The church is going through a dark time. People are moving away
from the church, and, ironically, the church reacts by moving away from
the people," he said.
| | |
|
