Dark thoughts have clouded our minds. For centuries, thanks largely to the Augustinian tradition that has so influenced evangelicals, we have been taught that God chooses a few who will be saved and has decided not to save the vast majority of humanity. God is planning (in his sovereign freedom) to send most of those outside the church to hell, and he is perfectly within his rights to do so. If as a result large numbers perish, theologians have assured us that God would feel no remorse and certainly deserve no blame. The result of such instruction is that many read the Bible with pessimistic control belief and find it hard to relate humanly to other people.
- Charles H. Pinnock
One really has to ask oneself how, given an eternally valid bifurcation of mankind like this, simple love of one's neighbor, or even love of one's enemy in the Christian sense, could still be possible. It should not remain unmentioned, however, that certain late Catholic Scholastics, for their part, had racked their brains about whether, assuming that God were to reveal to me privately that one of my fellow men was destined to hell, I should still love that person with Christian love or would, instead, have to treat him with politeness only."
-Hans Urs von Balthasar
23 December 2007
29 November 2007
The Golden Compass and His Dark Materials
As is often the case, I think that the Christian community is taking the wrong tack on the issues raised by the film The Golden Compass. Groups are springing up all over Facebook and my Christian college encouraging Christians (as usual) to boycott the film, to keep their children from the film, to warn others to do the same.
The book, they allege, is an atheist plot to teach kids that they should "kill God and do whatever they want."
I would like to argue three things. First, that this is a gross mischaracterization of the books. Second, that the movie is almost certainly several steps further from these allegations than the books. And most importantly, third, that regardless of the veracity of these claims, the worst response Christians can make is to isolate themselves from this ("to protect ourselves" from it), and that the most appropriate response is engagement and dialogue with the film, the issues it brings up and those who see it.
As to the first, the books do not purport to desribe what we would call the "real world." That is how science fiction and fantasy function, by commenting on our situations by describing situations in hypothetical worlds. C. S. Lewis described his own Chronicles of Narnia this way, saying that it is not an allegory, with Aslan "representing" Christ. Rather, he asked himself what it would be like if there was another world that was in need of redemption? What might that look like?
In His Dark Materials there is a corrupt church. There is a heirarchy of imposter "divine" beings worshiped by this church, going all the way up to "The Authority," who comes much closer to the Christian idea of Satan than to any conception of God. The Authority was the "first of the angels," who usurped some amount of power from the Creator-God. (The Bible refers to Satan as the 'Prince of this Age.' Hm.) For that matter, The Authority dies of natural causes. So not only does nobody "kill God," but nobody is "killed."
Is the church in The Golden Compass any one we'd recognize? Not really. Some elements of it clearly have analogues in churches that really exist, but it's overly simplistic to say that the church in His Dark Materials is Christianity, or the Catholic church, or anything else. In fact, in many ways the trilogy speaks very highly of the Protestant Reformation, as when Pullman was imagining this alternate-universe church, he asked himself what would it be like the the church was so corrupted that the Reformation never could have happened? What would that look like?
As for the movie, many devout fans of the book have been highly upset at the amount of changes that went into the movie. Pullman took a very hands-off approach to it, and took a lot of criticism from fans of the book who wanted to see a movie that looked something like its book counterpart. In any event, a major release in theatres simply won't endure the amount of thinking that goes on in the books. Only a film-festival audience would sit through a fair adaptation of the books.
But the most important aspect to look at in this debacle is the role of the church in the film's release. As I've said before, I believe that the church's engagement with culture stems in many ways from their understanding of the Kingdom of God. If you believe that someday Jesus is going to come back and bring the Kingdom with him, and that it's our job to stay as clean and safe as we can until then, then certainly we will avoid seeing any film with a hint of non-Christian teaching in it. (In fact, many such groups have avoided films altogether.) On the other hand, if you believe that the Kingdom of God is something that has to be enforced on the world through legislation and arms, then you will do everything you can to make sure that no non-Christian (let alone anti-Christian) film is available for anyone to watch.
But from where I stand the Kingdom of God appears to be in that scriptural tension between 'already' and 'not-yet.' The job of the church is to represent its citizenship in that Kingdom in clever, subversive and redemptive ways that will be attractive to the world (at least, to those in the world looking for such things). With that in mind, I believe that protesting or boycotting artistic projects like this is beneath us.
What Christians will do is engage with the points brought up by the film. What Christians will do is enter into dialogue with those who sympathize with the film. The film brings up points we have to admit. Churches have become corrupt, and that is a danger to the world. As Christians, we believe that there is an unseen realm, and while we have a different angelology than is presented in the film, the contrast gives us room to make clear what we do believe.
By entering into dialogue with critics of Christian presentation we will find ourselves sharpened, our message refined and our opportunities to advance the gospel of the true God multiplied.
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
-ND
The book, they allege, is an atheist plot to teach kids that they should "kill God and do whatever they want."
I would like to argue three things. First, that this is a gross mischaracterization of the books. Second, that the movie is almost certainly several steps further from these allegations than the books. And most importantly, third, that regardless of the veracity of these claims, the worst response Christians can make is to isolate themselves from this ("to protect ourselves" from it), and that the most appropriate response is engagement and dialogue with the film, the issues it brings up and those who see it.
As to the first, the books do not purport to desribe what we would call the "real world." That is how science fiction and fantasy function, by commenting on our situations by describing situations in hypothetical worlds. C. S. Lewis described his own Chronicles of Narnia this way, saying that it is not an allegory, with Aslan "representing" Christ. Rather, he asked himself what it would be like if there was another world that was in need of redemption? What might that look like?
In His Dark Materials there is a corrupt church. There is a heirarchy of imposter "divine" beings worshiped by this church, going all the way up to "The Authority," who comes much closer to the Christian idea of Satan than to any conception of God. The Authority was the "first of the angels," who usurped some amount of power from the Creator-God. (The Bible refers to Satan as the 'Prince of this Age.' Hm.) For that matter, The Authority dies of natural causes. So not only does nobody "kill God," but nobody is "killed."
Is the church in The Golden Compass any one we'd recognize? Not really. Some elements of it clearly have analogues in churches that really exist, but it's overly simplistic to say that the church in His Dark Materials is Christianity, or the Catholic church, or anything else. In fact, in many ways the trilogy speaks very highly of the Protestant Reformation, as when Pullman was imagining this alternate-universe church, he asked himself what would it be like the the church was so corrupted that the Reformation never could have happened? What would that look like?
As for the movie, many devout fans of the book have been highly upset at the amount of changes that went into the movie. Pullman took a very hands-off approach to it, and took a lot of criticism from fans of the book who wanted to see a movie that looked something like its book counterpart. In any event, a major release in theatres simply won't endure the amount of thinking that goes on in the books. Only a film-festival audience would sit through a fair adaptation of the books.
But the most important aspect to look at in this debacle is the role of the church in the film's release. As I've said before, I believe that the church's engagement with culture stems in many ways from their understanding of the Kingdom of God. If you believe that someday Jesus is going to come back and bring the Kingdom with him, and that it's our job to stay as clean and safe as we can until then, then certainly we will avoid seeing any film with a hint of non-Christian teaching in it. (In fact, many such groups have avoided films altogether.) On the other hand, if you believe that the Kingdom of God is something that has to be enforced on the world through legislation and arms, then you will do everything you can to make sure that no non-Christian (let alone anti-Christian) film is available for anyone to watch.
But from where I stand the Kingdom of God appears to be in that scriptural tension between 'already' and 'not-yet.' The job of the church is to represent its citizenship in that Kingdom in clever, subversive and redemptive ways that will be attractive to the world (at least, to those in the world looking for such things). With that in mind, I believe that protesting or boycotting artistic projects like this is beneath us.
What Christians will do is engage with the points brought up by the film. What Christians will do is enter into dialogue with those who sympathize with the film. The film brings up points we have to admit. Churches have become corrupt, and that is a danger to the world. As Christians, we believe that there is an unseen realm, and while we have a different angelology than is presented in the film, the contrast gives us room to make clear what we do believe.
By entering into dialogue with critics of Christian presentation we will find ourselves sharpened, our message refined and our opportunities to advance the gospel of the true God multiplied.
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
-ND
03 November 2007
Subversive Christianity
Last week I spoke at the "all-school devotions" at my school, which is a private Christian university of the sort that dot the Midwest like a pox.
I basically proposed three models which stem (I propose) from three different understandings of the Kingdom of God. The first was the reclusive/substitionary model, which presumes that we have to keep ourselves as untainted by the world as possible so that when Jesus returns and brings God's kingdom with him, we'll be prepared to receive it. I mentioned monasticism here, as well as fringe Christian groups like the Bruderhof, etc. The second model was the transformational/legislative model, which attempts to turn the broader society into a Christian one with or (more likely) without its consent, on the basis that Jesus left it up to us to create the Kingdom of God on earth. This is the medieval Catholic church, and this is liberal protestantism today.
Then I mentioned that the Evangelical church itself is difficult to qualify, because it shows elements of both of these. Trying to create a Christian subculture outside which we never need to step (Christian clothing lines, Christian bookstores, Christian coffee shops, Christian private schools/homeschool, etc.), while at the same time trying to legislate morality on the assumption that America is a Christian nation, etc. I didn't mention Focus on the Family specifically, but I think everyone caught my drift.
Then I proposed what I think is the best model, what I call the subversive/redemptive model, which sees the Kingdom of God as a present spiritual reality - being understood as the rule of God within the community of believers - that stands in contradistinction to the kingdoms of this world. The task of the subversive Christian is to present this attractive alternative through being a community defined by love, acceptance, redemptive storytelling, hospitality, etc., and to take these facets into the broader world with them.
What I wish I had time for then was to make a few concrete examples, which I will instead do over the next few days and post here:
In regard to sexual ethics the reclusive or substitutionary church has the stance that they will do everything they can to keep their members from unhealthy and immoral sexual behavior to avoid the issue altogether. If a member of the community does become pregnant outside marriage, for instance, she is sometimes cared for very well, with the community becoming her collective husband. Perhaps more often, she is sent away for the duration of the pregnancy and the child given up for adoption before she is quietly returned, and nobody speaks of it. Perhaps rarely, but certainly sometimes, she is excluded from the community altogether.
The transformational/legislative church may do any of the above actions when a member of the community is in such a position, but in addition attempts to reorder the wider society so that such situations are rarer across the board. They may lobby for an overturn of Roe vs. Wade and/or protest abortion clinics, or put pressure on agencies like Planned Parenthood who refer women who want abortions to clinics. They may put pressure on public schools and text-book publishers not to teach safe sex but rather to teach abstinence. They may put pressure on television stations and/or movie production companies to "clean up" the media, and make an organized effort to boycott the shows and films deemed too sexual.
The subversive/redemptive church will for the most part leave the broader society to its own devices, not because it believes that prostitution, promiscuity, abortion are all "just fine," but because it realizes that its task is to be salt and light on the earth, and realizing that "a little yeast will leaven the whole batch." To this end, the redemptive church welcomes those "living in sexual sin" to come and see the redemptive way that God works within and through their community. The redemptive Christian will not judge those outside the church, remembering the words of Paul in I Corinthians that, "It is for God to judge those outside the church," and in Romans, "Who are you to make yourself judge of another's servant? It is before their own master they will stand or fall, and their master can uphold them."
Therefore the redemptive church will focus its efforts not at changing legislation on abortion, but on creating a community that will make abortion a less necessary option for those the community is in contact with. When the burden of paying for medical costs, taking care of herself as she is pregnant, and raising a child without a father is supplanted by the community of God (without even forcing her to take a membership class!), much of the problem resolves itself.
(Clearly, this redemptive model requires a watchful eye and a nuanced understanding of socio-cultural motivations. Is abortion common because it is legal, or for some other reason, for instance? Clearly, I believe the failure of the family is a part of the reason, though my answer is not to re-strengthen the family through legislation, but rather to do what Jesus taught and to form a church that in many ways replaces the biological family.)
I basically proposed three models which stem (I propose) from three different understandings of the Kingdom of God. The first was the reclusive/substitionary model, which presumes that we have to keep ourselves as untainted by the world as possible so that when Jesus returns and brings God's kingdom with him, we'll be prepared to receive it. I mentioned monasticism here, as well as fringe Christian groups like the Bruderhof, etc. The second model was the transformational/legislative model, which attempts to turn the broader society into a Christian one with or (more likely) without its consent, on the basis that Jesus left it up to us to create the Kingdom of God on earth. This is the medieval Catholic church, and this is liberal protestantism today.
Then I mentioned that the Evangelical church itself is difficult to qualify, because it shows elements of both of these. Trying to create a Christian subculture outside which we never need to step (Christian clothing lines, Christian bookstores, Christian coffee shops, Christian private schools/homeschool, etc.), while at the same time trying to legislate morality on the assumption that America is a Christian nation, etc. I didn't mention Focus on the Family specifically, but I think everyone caught my drift.
Then I proposed what I think is the best model, what I call the subversive/redemptive model, which sees the Kingdom of God as a present spiritual reality - being understood as the rule of God within the community of believers - that stands in contradistinction to the kingdoms of this world. The task of the subversive Christian is to present this attractive alternative through being a community defined by love, acceptance, redemptive storytelling, hospitality, etc., and to take these facets into the broader world with them.
What I wish I had time for then was to make a few concrete examples, which I will instead do over the next few days and post here:
+++
In regard to sexual ethics the reclusive or substitutionary church has the stance that they will do everything they can to keep their members from unhealthy and immoral sexual behavior to avoid the issue altogether. If a member of the community does become pregnant outside marriage, for instance, she is sometimes cared for very well, with the community becoming her collective husband. Perhaps more often, she is sent away for the duration of the pregnancy and the child given up for adoption before she is quietly returned, and nobody speaks of it. Perhaps rarely, but certainly sometimes, she is excluded from the community altogether.
The transformational/legislative church may do any of the above actions when a member of the community is in such a position, but in addition attempts to reorder the wider society so that such situations are rarer across the board. They may lobby for an overturn of Roe vs. Wade and/or protest abortion clinics, or put pressure on agencies like Planned Parenthood who refer women who want abortions to clinics. They may put pressure on public schools and text-book publishers not to teach safe sex but rather to teach abstinence. They may put pressure on television stations and/or movie production companies to "clean up" the media, and make an organized effort to boycott the shows and films deemed too sexual.
The subversive/redemptive church will for the most part leave the broader society to its own devices, not because it believes that prostitution, promiscuity, abortion are all "just fine," but because it realizes that its task is to be salt and light on the earth, and realizing that "a little yeast will leaven the whole batch." To this end, the redemptive church welcomes those "living in sexual sin" to come and see the redemptive way that God works within and through their community. The redemptive Christian will not judge those outside the church, remembering the words of Paul in I Corinthians that, "It is for God to judge those outside the church," and in Romans, "Who are you to make yourself judge of another's servant? It is before their own master they will stand or fall, and their master can uphold them."
Therefore the redemptive church will focus its efforts not at changing legislation on abortion, but on creating a community that will make abortion a less necessary option for those the community is in contact with. When the burden of paying for medical costs, taking care of herself as she is pregnant, and raising a child without a father is supplanted by the community of God (without even forcing her to take a membership class!), much of the problem resolves itself.
(Clearly, this redemptive model requires a watchful eye and a nuanced understanding of socio-cultural motivations. Is abortion common because it is legal, or for some other reason, for instance? Clearly, I believe the failure of the family is a part of the reason, though my answer is not to re-strengthen the family through legislation, but rather to do what Jesus taught and to form a church that in many ways replaces the biological family.)
+++
Well, I don't want to overstate this all at once. (I'd rather take a long time to overstate it.) So more examples will be forthcoming.
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
23 October 2007
The Surprising Results of Postmodernism
Part of me is baffled by the overwhelmingly negative and fearful accounts of postmodernism in general that come from the conservative church sector. It makes no sense to me because the same sector that labels postmodernism the refuge of secular liberals labels the post-enlightenment liberal Christianity (e.g. Bultmann and his ilk) that postmoderns are (rightly) incredulous toward as secular humanists in Christian's clothing.
In other words, postmoderns and conservative Christians have 'enemies' in common. Or at least targets of incredulity in common.
---
What I personally have found is that the further I gravitate toward postmodern understandings (i.e. stories of understanding), the further I have gravitated away from Protestant liberalism (my implicit assumptions coming into all of this) and toward a comfortably conservative theology.
For instance, in a postmodern schema, a text has to be approached on its own terms. Unlike in liberal Protestantism, the Bible does not need to be dismantled and made to resemble Rationalist or Enlightenment ideals. Old-Testament narratives stand on their own - though by no means divorced in meaning from other books of the Bible or the Bible as a whole (or, for that matter, from the history of Biblical understanding and the way that that history and those narratives themselves have informed our own lives: intertextuality) - without a need to draw abstract propositional truths from them, or excise the 'Jewish' elements, or any other misguided Enlightenment project.
This is only one example, but my point is that postmodern studies always lead me back to a position that I think most conservative opponents of postmodernism itself and of the emerging church movement in general would be quite comfortable with. Hence my bafflement.
Comments? Ideas? Critiques? Thank you.
In other words, postmoderns and conservative Christians have 'enemies' in common. Or at least targets of incredulity in common.
---
What I personally have found is that the further I gravitate toward postmodern understandings (i.e. stories of understanding), the further I have gravitated away from Protestant liberalism (my implicit assumptions coming into all of this) and toward a comfortably conservative theology.
For instance, in a postmodern schema, a text has to be approached on its own terms. Unlike in liberal Protestantism, the Bible does not need to be dismantled and made to resemble Rationalist or Enlightenment ideals. Old-Testament narratives stand on their own - though by no means divorced in meaning from other books of the Bible or the Bible as a whole (or, for that matter, from the history of Biblical understanding and the way that that history and those narratives themselves have informed our own lives: intertextuality) - without a need to draw abstract propositional truths from them, or excise the 'Jewish' elements, or any other misguided Enlightenment project.
This is only one example, but my point is that postmodern studies always lead me back to a position that I think most conservative opponents of postmodernism itself and of the emerging church movement in general would be quite comfortable with. Hence my bafflement.
Comments? Ideas? Critiques? Thank you.
09 October 2007
Peace is the great venture
Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than [doing] too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sermon on II Cor. 12:9
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sermon on II Cor. 12:9
A thought experiment
This is how it works: You read a statement, a paragraph, an essay, a chapter, a book, a play, a movie*, or what-have-you. And then, no matter what it says, no matter how mundane or how preposterous, you say this:
"If this is true, then what?"
For instance, I just came across the line "Christian spirituality has developed as six traditions, each emphasizing certain themes: Contemplative, Holiness, Charismatic, Social Justice, Evangelical, and Incarnational," in the book Are You Sure You're Right?: Evangelicals and the Church of God.**
If this is true, then what tradition wd. I fall in? If this is true, then what am I missing from the other five? If this is true, then what shd. I do about it?
-ND
* Yes, this is proper terminology. You read a movie if you do more than watch it at the surface level, for sheer entertainment.
** Yes, it is interesting reading, and no, it is not for class. It is a criticism of the Church of God (Anderson) for falling away from its theological, political and other roots, and becoming simply another Evangelical group. Interestingly enough, it was published by Warner Press, official publisher for the Church of God (Anderson). This speaks volumes about the integrity of those there. As the acknowledgement puts it, "Publication of such a work is an act of courage on their part."
"If this is true, then what?"
For instance, I just came across the line "Christian spirituality has developed as six traditions, each emphasizing certain themes: Contemplative, Holiness, Charismatic, Social Justice, Evangelical, and Incarnational," in the book Are You Sure You're Right?: Evangelicals and the Church of God.**
If this is true, then what tradition wd. I fall in? If this is true, then what am I missing from the other five? If this is true, then what shd. I do about it?
-ND
* Yes, this is proper terminology. You read a movie if you do more than watch it at the surface level, for sheer entertainment.
** Yes, it is interesting reading, and no, it is not for class. It is a criticism of the Church of God (Anderson) for falling away from its theological, political and other roots, and becoming simply another Evangelical group. Interestingly enough, it was published by Warner Press, official publisher for the Church of God (Anderson). This speaks volumes about the integrity of those there. As the acknowledgement puts it, "Publication of such a work is an act of courage on their part."
07 October 2007
Jesus' teaching
What is the central teaching of Christ and the New Testament?
Well, it really depends on whom you ask.
I hear two main answers in the circles I run.
1. "Justification by grace through faith as a result of the death of Christ on the cross," usually accompanied by a lot of legal and monetary language.
2. "The announcement of the Kingdom of God," usually accompanied by a lot of narrative and ethical language.
---
The answer to this question seems pretty important to understanding what Christianity is, or at least what it is supposed to be.
So what do you think? Which one is it, if either, and why do you think that?
My thoughts coming soon.
-ND
Well, it really depends on whom you ask.
I hear two main answers in the circles I run.
1. "Justification by grace through faith as a result of the death of Christ on the cross," usually accompanied by a lot of legal and monetary language.
2. "The announcement of the Kingdom of God," usually accompanied by a lot of narrative and ethical language.
---
The answer to this question seems pretty important to understanding what Christianity is, or at least what it is supposed to be.
So what do you think? Which one is it, if either, and why do you think that?
My thoughts coming soon.
-ND
01 October 2007
Orthopraxy revisited
"The church is not the custodian of the culture - of any culture. The church is the custodian of her own narrative."
Orthopraxy is acting and living in ways that are true (or appropriate) to the ongoing story of the Kingdom of God.
In Pauline terms, it is putting off the old humanity and putting on the new one, living as a new creation, living in light of the resurrection.
In light of this, the duty of the church is not to support any political agenda (any agenda at all!), but to act and live in ways that sustain its central and self-defining story.
(It is true that at the moment I am not discussing either the acts/lifestyle, or the story. It is also true that at the moment I am not discussing how we come to an understanding of the story, or in what ways that again establishes belief over action. All to come.)
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
Orthopraxy is acting and living in ways that are true (or appropriate) to the ongoing story of the Kingdom of God.
In Pauline terms, it is putting off the old humanity and putting on the new one, living as a new creation, living in light of the resurrection.
In light of this, the duty of the church is not to support any political agenda (any agenda at all!), but to act and live in ways that sustain its central and self-defining story.
(It is true that at the moment I am not discussing either the acts/lifestyle, or the story. It is also true that at the moment I am not discussing how we come to an understanding of the story, or in what ways that again establishes belief over action. All to come.)
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
Thinking about the emerging church
The emerging church is often characterized solely on its rethinking of Christian story (which is taken as an affront to orthodox Christan belief, to the Bible as God's word, etc.) and on its hesitance to state its beliefs definitively. From those speaking within the church existing, all doubts, fears, concerns and attacks toward the church emerging focus around "belief-issues." Common accusations are:
I think that this is categorically unfair, insofar as the emerging church itself is not chiefly concerned with these theological statements (or lack of statements). What the church existing seems unwilling to do is look beyond these red flags into the real issues that the emerging churches are addressing.
Where Evangelical churches can look at emerging churches and protest, "You don't take the Bible seriously," and mean that they don't support a doctrine of inerrancy, emerging churches can look at Evangelical churches and protest, "You don't take the Bible seriously," and mean that they support a never-ending war in Iraq, that they ignore the 2,000 or so verses concerning the poor, that they equate Christianity with the NRA.
These are, if not the central issues of the emerging churches, at least more central than supposed statement of heresy - or the nonexistence of heresy.
And, no, Mark Driscoll isn't helping.
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
- They want to "redefine" Christianity
- They redefine certain elements as being "non-literal
- They question scripture
- They question absolute/propositional truth
- They value emotion over logic
I think that this is categorically unfair, insofar as the emerging church itself is not chiefly concerned with these theological statements (or lack of statements). What the church existing seems unwilling to do is look beyond these red flags into the real issues that the emerging churches are addressing.
Where Evangelical churches can look at emerging churches and protest, "You don't take the Bible seriously," and mean that they don't support a doctrine of inerrancy, emerging churches can look at Evangelical churches and protest, "You don't take the Bible seriously," and mean that they support a never-ending war in Iraq, that they ignore the 2,000 or so verses concerning the poor, that they equate Christianity with the NRA.
These are, if not the central issues of the emerging churches, at least more central than supposed statement of heresy - or the nonexistence of heresy.
And, no, Mark Driscoll isn't helping.
Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)