The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

Am I a heretic? Maybe. If believing that God is all powerful, all loving, wiser than His creation and perfectly willing and capable of saving all of His children makes me a heretic, sign me up.


Life at Nexus  

0 comments

United Church of ChristImage by Aaron Michael Brown via Flickr

It's been a little while since I've written about Nexus.  My last post about the honeymoon being over drew some interesting and completely unexpected responses.  As you may know, Nexus is the start-up United Church of Christ I've been attending for about a year now.  The church is "progressive" (I'm learning that means different things to different people) and is open and affirming.  The first year at Nexus has been great.  Ty and I are heavily involved in what we feel is a worthwhile endeavor to bring a message of social justice, inclusivity and unlimited grace to a place where most people might thing progressive Christianity is an oxymoron.  I joined Nexus partly because I could get something out of it, but mostly because I believe a church like Nexus is desperately needed here in Southwest, Ohio.


I've been involved in church in one way or another for over 40 years. While I've never been ordained or paid for my work, I think I have a different perspective on church than your average congregant.  My grandfather was the pastor of a very large church that I attended until he died. And, I've  been heavily involved as a lay person in churches. The role of a pastor is a tough job.  In fact, it's almost impossible.  We ask pastors to be CEO, psychologist, marriage counselor, motivational speaker, music director, entertainment coordinator, etc., etc.  Even little Nexus, with what would seem to be a singular vision of "progressive" Christianity, we have already seen little cracks and splits as each of us brings a slightly different perspective of what church should be.   Some people seem to become outraged when these things happen and accuse the "system".  The only accusation should go to human nature.  Get more than one person in any organization and you're going to have some disagreement/conflict/strife.

When it comes to church, I think it's especially difficult to make an organization work.  Some come to be entertained. " Just give me a rockin'  band".  Some come out of guilt or obligation.  "Get me in, get me out and let me check it off my list."   Some come to get a Sunday school experience.  "Tell me what I need to know.".  Some come for the social experience.   "Let's skip the music and the sermon and just hang out and talk."    Some think the church should be about doing good in the community.  "Instead of having a meeting, let's go out and do something."  Even when it comes to those who are there for the music, some want to rock and some want to sing hymns.   Who can bring all of this together? 


Since my last post, a couple of things have happened.  Both were unexpected. I was invited to join the Nexus Marketing Group to help develop content and a marketing strategy to get the name of Nexus in front of more people.  I was also asked to join the Governing Council, the group at Nexus who helps set the direction for the church. I gladly joined both groups because I believe passionately in the vision of Nexus.  I will do what I can to help Nexus spread the message which I think is a vital part of Christianity that has been lost.  In addition to these "management" roles at Nexus, I helped serve soup (that's me in the background of the picture below) and I'm on the rotation to do the set up on Sunday mornings.


The Marketing Group has gotten off to a great start.  We have had an article published in the local newspapers. The article features our effort to raise a ton of food for local food pantries.  An interesting thing happened though. In one of the newspapers the article ran in, the caption said (in part)  "Pastor Gregg Brekke of United Church of Satan..."   That's right.  The person who typed the caption mistakenly put Satan in place of Christ in the caption.  Who knows why?   Did she associate us with Satan because we are adamant about being open and affirming?  Was it a legitimate mistake? IMO, there's no such thing as bad publicity.  If nothing else, this typo probably prompted more people to read the article and find out just what this "Church of Satan" was doing holding a Lenten Food Drive.  Click on the image to read the article.Nexus_church_of_satan



We have added several new attendees over the last couple of months.  That's good news.  We have a great new music leader. Chip has only been with us a few weeks but his passion for the music shows through each Sunday.  Chip is still putting his stamp on things.  But, he's off to a fantastic start.  He's got the "girls" in the band rocking and rolling and really drawing out their talents.  Today, Aaron Klinefelter was our guest speaker. He did a great job.  But, what I enjoyed as much as the job he did with giving us his words was the way he incorporated the "talk back" time right into the talk.  I got to hear perspectives from many people in the church who never speak up (including Ty). That was really cool.

Personally (after all this is my blog), I am still very enthusiastic about Nexus.  Sunday morning still isn't my cup of tea and probably never will be. This is one of those things I'll probably just have to accept.  On one of the Universalist email groups I'm on we're very split on the whole idea of church attendance.  I don't think any of us are adamant that anyone must attend church.  But, there are those who are almost violently opposed to the idea.  Many of those who have dropped out have educated themselves on the history and the corruption of the church (see my review of Pagan Christianity if you want to know a little more about that).  Knowing how we got where we are can make dropping out very tempting.  But, while I don't think anyone should attend church out of a sense of obligation, the idols that some people have made out of "freedom" and "individuality" are disturbing to me.  I think we all have an obligation to each other.  All of us should be "serving" in some sort of community for the sake of others and for our own sakes.  I don't care if that's called a church, a sangha (the Buddhist term for community) or some other setting.  I watched Sicko Friday night (finally) and one thing that that struck me and really hurt me was the fact that other countries in the world recognize that it's barbaric to allow people to die for lack of money.  The people interviewed were genuinely shocked that anyone would even charge for health care.  Yet, in America, we can't even agree that everyone should be covered by health insurance.  I know people who are just appalled at the idea that anyone should be "forced" to have insurance that could literally save their life.  I just don't get it.   But, again I digress...

So, yes, the honeymoon is over, as I wrote before.  But, as I wrote before, the relationship is still worth working on and I continue to look for ways I can help with the mission at Nexus.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



This Interviewer Picked the Wrong "Brother"  

, , 0 comments

OK.  I'll try to keep the Barack Obama support to a minimum on the board. But, the Ohio primary is just around the corner.  And this is just too good.  You know how interviewers look for reaction shots in a crowd?  Well, this guy's agenda seems to be that he was going to show how Barack Obama supporters are supporters based on emotions only.  See how his interview goes with Derrick, a young man in the crowd.  I wish I was as smart as Derrick.






Here is Derrick's response to the play the clip has been getting on YouTube


Exercise for those of us over 40  

0 comments

Potato (Aloo)Image via WikipediaBegin by standing on a comfortable surface, where you have plenty of room at each side.

With a 5-lb potato sack in each hand, extend your arms straight out from your sides and hold them there as long as you can. Try to reach a full minute, and then relax. Each day you'll find that you can hold this position for just a bit longer.

After a couple of weeks, move up to 10-lb potato sacks. Then try 50-lb potato sacks and then eventually try to get to where you can lift a 100-lb potato sack in each hand and hold your arms straight for more than a full minute. (I'm at this level.)

After you feel confident at that level, put a potato in each of the sacks.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Shack  

0 comments

Book cover of Book cover via AmazonBook cover via Amazon

"Everyone" on one of the boards I frequent has been talking about "The Shack". The Shack is a short novel by an unknown author that seems to be getting a lot of attention from the Christian world. It attempts to tackle the biggest question of life that is the problem of a loving G-d and the existence of evil. Doing that in a novel form is no easy task. But, William P. Young has pulled it off.

Without giving away too much of the story line, Mack, the main character in the book has had an unspeakable tragedy in his life and is burdened with a sadness that he can't shake. He's angry with G-d who his wife refers to as "Papa". Mack is getting by, but there's no joy in his life. One day he receives a note from "Papa" asking him to meet him at "The Shack", the very place where the tragedy occurred. When Mack shows up, he is able to confront "Papa" and Mack asks "Papa" all the questions you'd want to ask should you get the chance to come face-to-face with G-d. I think William P. Young did a good job with asking the questions we'd all like to ask.

It's difficult when reviewing a novel to know how much of the story-line to give away. Personally, I want to know the bare minimum when going to see a movie or picking up a book. So, I won't spoil too much for you. I do have to tell you that the G-d that Mack meets is a Triune G-d and one of the more interesting things about the book is the way in which it deals with the often boring and always confusing doctrine of the Trinity. Ironically, we were discussing it on a Christian-Buddhist message board and one of the guys began to explain it almost exactly the way it's presented in The Shack. (and he had not read the book).

The book reminds me of Conversations with God- only with a plot. It's also similar to Brian McLaren's fictional trilogy The author did a good job of packing a lot of dense theological concepts into a story that draws you along. Fundamentalist Christians may be surprised and disappointed with the lack of judgment (as in condemnation) coming from the G-d in The Shack. Frankly, it's still a teeny-weeny bit still too fundamentalist for me. But, I found several parts of the book really astounding and it prompted me to see G-d from new angles. Some have called The Shack the greatest book ever. I wouldn't go that far. The story line is not too well developed. But, that's OK because it's not a thriller type novel. The writing style is not the best I've read. Rarely would I say this, but I would have liked some more details about the characters before the big tragedy occurred. But, overall, the book is very good and is definitely worth a read. I found myself not able to put it down as I was being drawn along to see what new revelation Mack would get next. For many, I think The Shack might be life changing. At this point on my journey it wasn't earth shattering. But, I'm glad I read it to see what all the buzz was about. And, I think it's a great book for discussion.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Is Barack Obama An Empty Suit?  

0 comments

US Senator Barack Obama campaigning in New Ham...Image via Wikipedia

The race is nearing the end and it's getting nasty. Chris Matthews nailed an Obama supporter who wasn't ready to talk about Senator Obama's record and the Clinton campaign is jumping all over it.  One of my fellow bloggers asked (challenged?) Obama supporters to answer Matthews' questions.  Apparently, the Obama campaign did make a mistake by sending the wrong representative to speak for him (they should have sent Derrick Ashong).  The spokesperson from Ohio mopped the floor with the guy representing Obama.

Comparing senate records is looking at the past.  Barack Obama has detailed plans available on his website for how he will tackle a number of important issues, if elected.  But, when you have a strength (as Senator Clinton's experience is supposed to be), you play to it.  She wants to talk about the past. I've  been in marketing/sales my whole career. I know how this game is played.  Senator Clinton is trying to get the public to focus on what she perceives as Senator Obama's weakness.  Instead of wanting to compare the potential to actually enact significant change going forward (and beating McCain to get elected in the first place), she'd rather talk about their records.  Why? Simply because she's been around longer. She should have a more substantial record.  So, let's compare records.

First Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.  You be the judge of how they have impacted your life.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day .
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

These five of Clinton's bills are more substantive:

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Now Barack Obama

Here are some representative accomplishments of Senator Obama's.  Let's not forget he was in the Illinois senate prior to being elected to the United States senate.  Should those accomplishments be dismissed?

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

  • 233 regarding health care reform
  • 125 on poverty and public assistance
  • 112 crime fighting bills
  • 97 economic bills
  • 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills
  • 21 ethics reform bills
  • 15 gun control bills
  • 6 veterans affairs bills and others

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:

  • The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law)
  • The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law)
  • The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate
  • The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law)
  • The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill ( In committee) and many more

Let's focus on a few things that he's done tackling issues of importance to the American people.

  • In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state (economic accomplishment).
  • He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education (educational accomplishment), and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases (social justice accomplishment).
  • In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent (government accountability).
  • He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress (government accountability).
  • As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan (social justice)
  • Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world (national security).
  • And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars. (national security and economic)

Now, let's look at the charge that he lacks a detailed plan.  Several months ago Obama was being criticized as being too intellectual and not able to relate to people.  Since he's turned on the charm  and ratcheted up his public appeal, the complaint has become since he's so articulate he must lack any detail or substance behind the flowery words.   

I went to his website to check out his positions on the issues, expecting a few soundbites here and there.  Instead I found extremely detailed position papers on the economy, civil rights, healthcare, etc. Don't believe me?  Look for yourself : Barack Obama Issues

As I said, it's going to get ugly coming down the stretch. So, keep your B.S. Meters turned on.






Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Should Blacks Back Barack?  

, 0 comments

the 44th President of the United States...Bara...Image by jmtimages via Flickr

I had to add a new category to my blog today. "Politics". Normally, I'm fairly involved in the political process. Dutifully, each presidential election since I was 18, I trudge down to the polls and choose what is almost always the lesser of two evils in my mind. But, this time around has been very different in that I have to question the motivations behind my choice in ways that have never been an issue before. It all changed in February last year when a little known Senator, with a funny name announced he had the audacity to run for President.

I had seen Barack give a speech at the Democratic National Convention and that was about all I knew about him. It was an amazing, inspiring speech. I remember at the time all the talking heads were saying how he would be a force to be reckoned with some day in the distant future. When I heard Obama had announced his candidacy, I went to his website and listened to his speech. Somehow, I felt strangely attracted to him (in a purely non-homosexual way mind you). Was it the tone of his voice, the cadence of his speech which reminded me of my days in the Black Pentecostal church, the color of his skin or was it the audacity of his ideas? It was (and is) hard to separate.

What this go-round has me aware of, more than ever, is my choice is far from objective and is based on more than just a check-list of how the candidates' positions on my pet issues line up with mine. Not many of us create a spread sheet, weight the issues and choose a candidate based on a score. There's a lot of personality in there. Certain candidates I just like or don't like. I have to work hard to overcome that. Mitt Romney is too "slick". Ron Paul might be a brilliant man but he just seems out of touch. John McCain looks "presidential". Hillary's voice is annoying. Those things come to mind no matter how hard we try to push them aside. And this year, I have the added complication of having the choice of a Black man or a woman.

I've thought for a long time that it's about time for Black people, women and other "minorities" to stand up and take our place in the political process. Together, women, Blacks, Latinos, etc. far outnumber White men. But, we continue to allow them to dominate the political and economic systems in the United States. Women have had the vote for almost 100 years now. Blacks have had the vote for coming up on 150 years. Yet, neither group has been able to organize well enough to have the voice we deserve to have (based on sheer number) in the political process. We have had precious few people to support in elections. Many (most?) of us have never had the opportunity to even support a minority candidate for Senator. Having a Black candidate and a woman to support is a huge temptation put before us. What a treat! The temptation to support them simply based on the color of their skin or their gender is going to be overwhelming for many. But, that was not Martin Luther King Junior's dream. The dream is to judge a person based on the content of his character. That doesn't mean automatically throwing your support to the candidate that looks like you.

As I've been following the process, I've tried to keep an open mind (even considering Republican candidates. I've never declared as a Democrat). I've been studying the candidates' positions on the issues. I have a fondness for Hillary simply because Bill was the first Black president. I also have always liked her stand on universal health coverage. As I've continued to be drawn to Obama, I've scrutinized my choice- probably more so than ever. If anything, there may have been a little reverse racism going on there. I was going to support Hillary unless Barack could really sell me.

Race is a funny thing. Obama's mother is White. Yet, everybody calls him Black. Tiger Woods is a multi-racial guy. He tries to de-emphasize race and gets slammed by the Black community for it. One of the reasons Tiger is my favorite athlete (maybe of all time) is because of his de-emphasis on race. He will not allow it to define him. Barack is walking a fine line, trying to garner Black support (which he will need) without alienating Whites. If Whites perceive him to be the Black Messiah, they'll run from him in droves. He needs the advantage in the Black community to overcome the advantage the other candidates will have in the majority White community. The dream hasn't been realized yet.

OK. So, I admit it'd be cool to have a president who looks like me. It'd be cool to hear a State of the Union from a man who can give me goosebumps when he speaks. But, there is more to Barack Obama, for me. I gave myself this test to answer the question of whether I would vote for a candidate simply because he is Black. Would I vote for Jessie Jackson or (gulp) Al Sharpton for anything? The answer is "no". I wouldn't vote for Al for dog-catcher. To get my vote, the candidate must be qualified.

Last night in the exit polls, Americans said they wanted to vote for someone who shares their values. What I realized is Barack Obama does share my values. He's a member of the United Church of Christ, which I think has influenced his thinking on social justice and on the possibility of bringing G-d's justice to earth. I love his blatant enthusiasm and optimism and his we can do anything we set our minds to attitude. I love the fact he is encouraging people to believe in themselves. I love that he has who had given up on the political process fired up enough to get involved in it again.

Until yesterday, I was still on the fence. I was wavering back and forth between Barack and Hillary. I was still looking at McCain and sorry that Giuliani had dropped out. But, two things happened. 1.) I saw the "Yes I Can" video by Will.i.am. No. I'm not going to vote for someone based on a video. But, the way his speech brought people together was moving to me. and 2.) Super Tuesday showed the race is so close between Barack and Hillary. Personally, I think Democrats are blessed (finally) to have two very strong candidates. But, I do have a preference for Barack over Hillary. So, I will be supporting Barack Obama for president. But, not because he's Black.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Pagan Christianity?  

, 0 comments

pagan christianity cover“Pagan Christianity?” is a fascinating look at the history of the Christian church and the origins of the practices of the modern church. The book was written by Frank Viola and George Barna.  You probably recognize one or both of their names.  Frank is “an influential voice in the house church movement.  And, George is the author of Revolution (and several other books) and is listed as an influential leader in the Christian church.  “Pagan Christianity?” is a look back at the origins of many of the elements of the modern church and church service.  It explores the origins of the modern pastor, the origins of the sermon, the origins of the architecture of the church building, and several other things most of us take for granted.  Most people assume that all Christians for all time have done what we do now.   They assume our church “service” was done this way by Paul and the apostles, which gives it the weight of “tradition” and the feeling of being handed down by G-d.  But, the reality is most of what we do was developed well after the establishment of the church. IMO, the most important thing about this book is it gives us permission to question where we are today.  Why do we have a sermon? Why do we dress up on Sunday morning? Why do we have a choir?  Why is there a pulpit?  Because  most of us think things have always just been done this way, these are questions that don't enter most of our minds.
The title is a reference to the fact that many of our practices today originated in Pagan (secular) culture and came from outside the church.  This will shock most mainstream Christians.  My only criticism of the book is it does seem to appeal a little to emotion.  And, the premise seems to be New Testament practice good- Pagan practice bad.  In fairness to the authors, they point out, more than once, that just because something is pagan in origin doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad.  But, in spite of the disclaimers, I kept getting that feeling from the book. I think there may have been criticism of earlier editions of the book for not documenting the claims the authors made concerning origins.  You can't make that claim any more.  The book is chock full of footnotes.  I didn't read all of the footnotes.  I glanced through them.  To me, there were so many, reading them all would have interrupted the flow of the book. 

Personally, I don’t think the origins of a thing have much to do with its effectiveness or appropriateness.  As they point out, Christianity originally did not have the division between the “secular” and the “divine” that we find today.  So, if a thing is “secular” or “Pagan” in origin that does not mean it’s not appropriate for the church. But, the authors seem to be claiming the model of the New Testament church is somehow divinely inspired and the way things should be done today.  I don’t agree with this point of view.  If the church is a living, breathing organic thing, the church of today should be the church of today, not the church of the first century or the church of the 15th century.  But, what I do agree with the authors on wholeheartedly is we should examine the things we are doing today.  The New Testament model has some things we can learn from and take forward, as do the some of the things that have come along since then. A practice should not be accepted simply because it originated with Paul, nor should it be rejected simply because Pagans first used it.

A great chapter that is not directly related to the church or church service but which I think every Christian should read concerns how we read the New Testament.  The authors came up with a brilliant illustration of how absurd the ways we take Paul’s writings are.  Paul’s letters are one side of a conversation with several churches and people over several years. Churches that were in different circumstances than we are today (and than each other were even then).  We take those letters, divide them into chapter and verse and use them as “proof texts”.  We would never dream of doing that with say Billy Grahams’ emails to churches he has visited. 

I picked up this book because someone sent me a link to an article on the origin of the pastor, an article that I found very interesting. That is one chapter of the book.  It’s quite possibly the most important chapter since the modern church completely revolves around the pastor who acts as CEO, spokesperson for G-d (on Sunday morning), counselor and just about everything else in the church. It’s way too big a burden to place on one human being. Reading how at one time, people actually thought ordination made a pastor more than a man is amazing stuff.  We still do this to the pastor, expecting him to be superman and then marveling when he can't be all things to all people.

Another thing I found extremely important about the book is how the congregation in the church “service” has devolved from being an active participant to a passive audience.  Early church gatherings were church meetings, not church services.  Over time, most have become church services.  Of course, practically speaking, you cannot have a church meeting with 2,000 in attendance on a Sunday morning. (Another reason why I will never attend another megachurch).  Churches have grown larger and larger and practically speaking to have an orderly Sunday morning service, it has to be scripted, controlled and the audience must remain passive. But, is this the best way to equip people for G-d’s service and for us to edify one another?   The authors talk of a “priesthood of all believers” which is a vision of Christianity where all us are functional priests serving one another.  Most churches not only fail to promote this vision, the passivity they demand makes it difficult for people to grow into this role.

I don’t have any idea how well this book will sell or what impact it might have.  I love the fact that the authors have discouraged people from grabbing the book, running to their church and trying to draw people out of it.  Whether people are going to remain in the institutionalized church should be a personal decision.  Personally, I continue to remain involved in a denominational church. I see pros and cons to house churches (which the authors are active in establishing) and I see pros and cons with institutional churches.  Maybe someday someone will be able to blend the best of both.

I’m not much of a history buff.  I really only read history when it has a direct bearing on where I am today.  As I began to study universalism, it was important for me to know there has always been a thread of universalism in Christianity and that one time it was actually the prevailing doctrine of the church (until it was intentionally throttled by some church leaders).  As people like myself continue to explore how we are going to be involved with the church, a book like this is extremely valuable.  It helps us understand how we got where we are today.  And it helps us realize many of the things we may believe are “holy” and ordained by G-d as part of our “order of service” are not necessarily so.  I thank Frank Viola and George Barna for allowing us to question and to think outside of the box that the church has put so many of us in.

I hope this book has the impact of reviving the institutional church. We cannot turn the clock back to the first century, nor should we. We should take advantage of what G-d has spoken to us since then.  But, just as important, we should not remain mired in traditions that have somehow been given the authority of scripture and declared holy, infallible and unchanging.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]



Newer Posts Older Posts
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)