Tag Archives: Spirituality

Taking Religion Seriously

Do you ever get the sense that talking religion is something that’s not done in polite company?  It is easy to talk about religion at a distance, perhaps as a sociologist would, but talking about religious convictions–especially one’s own–is kinda a faux paux.  We don’t take religion seriously around here, so it is uncouth to bring it to the public square as if it was a serious matter.  Keep it where all hobbies belong–in your own closet.

At least that’s the feeling I get. It often turns out differently when I actually do have conversations about religion–most people I’ve talked with are quite willing and don’t find it offensive–its just a subjective sense I get and, judging by how other people, especially Christians, talk, I sense I’m not alone in feeling this…sense.

Sorry for all the vague speak so far.  All I’m suggesting is that many people feel somewhat uneasy when it comes to discussing religious claims on one’s life.  Why?

Well, there’s that whole “claims on one’s life” bit.  People don’t want to have their autonomy breached, and they recognize that the claims of many a religion do just that.

That’s true enough, and deserves to be confronted, but the reason I want to challenge today is that most believe there’s really nothing to say about religious convictions besides, “well, good for you.”  That is, we’ve gotten the notion in this culture that once someone has finished talking about their convictions, they can’t be evaluated.  All we have to do is nod, mumble something about it not being “my cup of tea,” and move on.  That’s all that can be said about a subjective choice from the smorgasboard, and that’s how we see religion–as an endless buffet of equally good, subjective, choices.

I want to challenge that.

Consider this: religions make claims that can be verified or falsified.

Are all religious convictions like that?  No.  Do all adherents of religion think of their beliefs like that?  Again, no.  Talk to many who sit in the pews on Sunday, and they’ll describe Christianity as the smorgasboard above, or at least they’ll describe it as something that cannot be evaluated by logic and reason.  More of a feeling than anything else.

Notice how many times people categorically assert, without hesitation, without thinking about it, that it is all about “faith,” and you can’t “prove” it?  Ask them what they mean by “faith” and “proof,” and they really struggle to put something sensible together….well, there you go.

However, the core claims of many religions can be evaluated by logic and reason, and science also has something to say about them.  This is why they should be taken seriously.

Take, for instance, the lynchpin of Christianity: the resurrection.  The Bible claims that at a time in our actual history in this world, a real man named Jesus a) claimed to be God, b) predicted His death, c) predicted that He would defeat death by rising from the grave three days after his execution, and d) He actually, truly pulled it off.

That is, the Bible claims that the empty tomb is a figment of history, not imagination.

This puts it in the realm of verifiability.  Not in the same sense as a claim from a biologist can be verified, granted, but verified nonetheless in that evidence and reason has something to say in evaluation.  It is possible to offer reasons for its truth, and vice versa.  This means that it, along with any other claims logically connected to it, are real players in the game that deserve to be taken seriously in the public square.

Other claims from other religions and worldviews are no different.  Mormonism and most forms of Hinduism, for example, are committed to an eternally existing universe (in the sense that matter is eternal for Mormons), and thus you betcha–science has plenty to say about that.

Islam is committed to the notion that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross, and history has plenty to say to that.

I could go on. The point: much can be offered in terms of evaluating religions for truth and falsehood, since they make claims about reality.  Arguments from philosophy can be offered pro and con, complete with premises defended from various other fields of knowledge–like science and history–that deductively lead to rational conclusions.  We don’t have to stop at “well, I’m glad you are happy (pat on the head).”  In fact, we shouldn’t even go there.  Treating religion like that is a radical category mistake.  Since religions make claims on reality, they should be treated like anything else in the public square.

They are not second-class belief systems.  They get a spot at the table.

Why Evangelicals Should Keep Evangelizing

…In short, because Jesus and His disciples did, and I have every reason to think both Him and the Bible writers expect us to as well.

I can see why folks like Carl Medearis would write books on the Art of Not-Evangelizing, and why guys like him encourage Christians to stop.   It’s hard to keep doing what’s unpopular, and evangelizing is definitely not popular in our postmodern age that tends to equate exclusivity (and evangelism is, of necessity, exclusive) with all that’s wrong with the world.

It’s almost like Medearis and friends are downright evangelical about not-evangelizing….at least when it comes to Christians.  Muslims, secularists, and new agers, go ahead.  Others may, Christians may not.

Which is weird, because Jesus, Paul and co. had no problem with it, and they had no problem encouraging disciples of Christ–that means us Christians…today–to do the same.

When Paul writes

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

and when Jesus said

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I don’t know how you could miss it.  Yes, I know, Paul was writing to Timothy, a pastor, but I don’t think it follows that we’re exempt from that.  Hey, when Jesus said “teach them to obey everything I have commanded,” that means everything. 

In addition, why would we want to keep the Gospel from others?  Put aside, for the moment, the fact that telling others about the Gospel, with its message about the universality of sin and need to be saved, and its message that only in Jesus is the proper solution found, is incredibly unpopular in our ear-itching age.  Gospel means, even though exclusive,  good news.  Hey, if a cure for cancer was found, that’d be exclusive too, but we’d unequivocably call that good news.  Why would it be any different for the cure to spiritual cancer?

I get that Christians might need to communicate that message differently in the twenty first century.  No need to rely upon sandwich sign and bullhorn, and you don’t need to share the whole gospel in every conversation, but we must be willing, able, and ready….communicate it we must.

Christians, think for a moment.  What if–just go with me here–the things that Jesus said are actually true–not just “true for us,” but true in every sense of the word?  (That’s part of it, right?  If this stuff isn’t truly true, then why be a Christian?  Just hang it up.)

We hold that humans are many times over criminals in God’s court.  Every day we break His law.  What we’ve earned for our rap sheet is hell.  Not nice, but it’s justice.  God, in His mercy, offers us a pardon, but its on His terms, not ours, and His terms are forgiveness through Jesus, who was not just a great leader, but God incarnate.  Take it or leave it.

What if that is actually true?  Then we’d better tell it to people, if we really love them.  Just like if a loved one had a fatal disease and was using ice cream to cure it…if you had the cure in your backpack and refused to give it to him, just encouragaing him to be a better “ice cream eater,” you could not lay claim to love him/her.  If we stick to seminars about how Jesus was a great leader, we are being derelict of our duty.

Some of what Medearis says sounds great, but the problem is that upon inspection, his words do not bring clarity, but confusion.

Here’s a sampling:

Even the Apostle Paul insisted that it’s faith in Jesus that matters, not converting to a new religion or a new socio-religious identity.

What if evangelicals today, instead of focusing on “evangelizing” and “converting” people, were to begin to think of Jesus not as starting a new religion, but as the central figure of a movement that transcends religious distinctions and identities?

Jesus the uniter of humanity, not Jesus the divider. How might that change the way we look at others?

When I used to think of myself as a missionary, I was obsessed with converting Muslims (or anybody for that matter) to what I thought of as “Christianity.” I had a set of doctrinal litmus tests that the potential convert had to pass before I would consider them “in” or one of “us.”

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Encouraging anyone and everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus, without manipulation, is a more open, dynamic and relational way of helping people who want to become more like Jesus — regardless of their religious identity.

A few thoughts.  First, yes, Jesus united people, but He united people around Him, God incarnate, the only solution to man’s problem.  He didn’t come to simply inaugurate a general, vague, content-less unity centered on human good will and interfaith dialogue.  He came to divide too: those who embraced His Father’s offer of forgiveness, and those who rejected it.  If you miss that, just ask the Pharisees; they were often at the receiving end of His division.

This does not mean that Christians circle the wagons and adopt an “us-vs-them” mentality.  It does not mean we make our love conditional or that those who disagree with us are dirty or unworthy.  I don’t know why anyone would think it does mean that.

Our invitation (aka, the “Gospel”) to embrace Jesus as Lord is to always remain open to all.  But this “rough side” of Jesus is one that needs to be reckoned with, not ignored.

Secondly, “doctrine” is another four letter word in our age, and Medearis treats it as such, but it need not be.  Doctrine is simply “belief.”  Everyone, including Medearis, has doctrines.  You cannot separate apprenticeship to Jesus from doctrine.

True, no need to obsess over infralapsarianism or make the Five Points of Calvinism a necessity for salvation…but you cannot divorce devotion to Jesus from beliefs about Jesus.  I can’t even do that with my wife.  If I tried, sooner or later I’d end up smooching the wrong woman, which wouldn’t go over well with her.  Doing the same with Jesus wouldn’t go over well with Him either.

Third, his comments reflect a false dichotomy.  Yeah, I know, “religion” is a dirty word these days, but it should not be.  A religion is simply a worldview or set of beliefs, often accompanied by certain rituals or disciplines, about ultimate questions such as “who are we?  How did we get here?  What is the problem with humanity and what is the solution?”  Did Jesus teach about answers to those questions?  Yep.  In that sense, did He start a religion?  Yes, centered around Himself.

Fourth, I don’t know what the big deal about “conversion” is.  Conversion is simply persuading someone to adopt certain beliefs, practices, etc.  Medearis’ beliefnet column is an effort in conversion…he wants me to drop by current beliefs/practices about Jesus, Christianity, and religion, and pick up his.  Why does he do what he wants me to stop doing?

Granted, some methods of persuading are better than others.  Jesus was not a fan of the sword, but He definitely was a fan of vocal proclamation about all He taught and represented.

Finally, though it sounds nice to think someone can be an apprentice of Jesus and still remain a member of another religion–say, Islam–that is a bunch of hooey.

While some beliefs in the Islam religion overlap with what Jesus taught, much of it conflicts.  For instance, the belief that Jesus is *only* a prophet, calling Him “God incarnate” is a grand sin, and He did not die on the cross.  All these are central to Islam, and any good Muslim believes them.  Any apprentice of Jesus who is worthy of the name will categorically reject them.

You just can’t get around these things.  Trying makes you an apprentice of someone other than Jesus…or perhaps it makes you an apprentice of a Jesus-made-in-your-own-image.  Neither will be ultimately helpful to you and your loved ones.

Why Church and Christians Suck (My Church in Particular)

…attitudes like that are all the rage these days, even within Christian circles.

You might have clicked on this post because you’re one of those disinchanted, used-to-go-to-church-but-now-am-anti-church folks, you judged a blog post by it’s title (not always a bad thing), and you’re seeking some confirmation of your attitude.

If that’s you, this blog post will disappoint.  Ha!  Gotcha.   Might as well keep reading, though, since you’re here anyway. 

This weekend I had plenty of time on my hands, so I read a book–Why we Love the Church: in Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.  I’m used to seeing titles like Everything Must Change (an actual title) or Why Your Church Sucks and Jesus Never Came to Start a Religion (a title I made up, but it’s probably out there).  The last ten years or so has seen a large proliferation of folks disengaging from their churches, “doing church on their own,” and such.  The book was written as an antidote to much of the anti-church rhetoric that is popular these days.  The book gave me much to ponder, and I found it the proverbial “breathe of fresh air,” something I don’t hear much these days.

The book was full of good theological and historical critique of the “anti-institutional church” side.  The authors did a great job showing how that movement makes their case based upon unbiblical views and false assumptions about history, and they did a great job pointing out the practical value of institutionalizing, which isn’t necessarily unbiblical.  But biggest payoff for me was on a more personal note.

I gotta admit up front, though I still faithfully go to my church–RockHarbor in Costa Mesa, CA–I count myself as one of those above who, at times, has been disenchanted with church.  Some, no doubt, in the anti-church crowd have been burned by a church and/or individual Christians–more on that later–but in my case, I sometimes just have a plain old sour attitude.

Frequently on this blog I’ve written posts critical of things I hear in Church and in my own church.  I stand by all that, partly because I happen to think I’m right, and mostly because my critique deals with beliefs and doctrine of the false kind.  Hey, if Paul and the apostles can do that, so can I. :)   

But herein lies the rub: oftentimes I get upset with Christians and church because, though I’d never explicitly admit this, I subtly expect perfection from my pastors and church staff.  I forget that no church is perfect and cannot deliver heaven on earth.  I exaggerate the faults and sweep the (many) good parts under a rug, giving much less grace than I give myself.

The authors, in the book, make this point: my generation is given over to utopian thinking, and this is where much of the anti-church attitude is coming from.  The church is full of “sinning saints and sinning sinners” (“saint” simply being the New Testament word for Christians, not the modern usage of the term denoting someone who led a pristine life–though you’d hope the two go hand-in-hand.), and everyone in the pews on Sunday–me, you, and those who have left the church in disgust–fit in one of those two categories. 

This week I have come into very intimate contact of my own sinfulness.  I am a fallen man.  Everyone in church is like that…it can be no other way.  Therefore, there are bound to be a few–nay, even many–rough edges.  This is the nature of the beast and it is therefore unfair to subtly expect the pews and pulpits to be filled with Mother Theresas and MLK jrs.

Secondly, yes it is true, Christians and the church often sin, and very public examples of grave failures in Church leadership are a dime a dozen.  We can admit that they are all over the place.  However, the utopian types (and I put myself in their number), somehow never get around to admitting that there is an awful lot the Church–and my church–is doing right.

As to RockHarbor, my church does a good job of combining deeds and creeds, which is all you can ask.  On any given weekend, you’ll see evangelism, classes in theology, ministry to the homeless, financial support of relief efforts overseas, missions trips to India, Taiwan, and Uganda, house building trips to Mexico, mentoring foster kids, and tutoring.  And that’s just off the top of my head.  The actual list is much, much longer.  Every week I get an email in my box detailing opportunities to give of myself to service causes, and let’s just say that the email is usually pretty long.

My church somehow does this with limited funds and utilizing much less than 50% of our membership.  Just think what it could do if everyone was involved!  I’m willing to bet my church isn’t the only one out there like this.

Yea, yea, there are a ton of things I wish RH was doing better, and false beliefs abound in the church that need confronting.  But the problem is that for guys like me, there’s always the “next thing” that I think the church should focus on, and then they’d be doing a great job.  I’m never satisfied! 

If not apologetics and evangelism–which, really, is lacking in most churches.  I will die on that hill–then it’s AIDS ministry.  If not AIDS ministry, then its freeing the Invisible Children in Uganda.  If not freeing the IC, then its urban invasion.  If not urban invasion, then its deep theology classes.  If not that, then classes on analyzing contemporary film through the eyes of a biblical worldview.  If not that, then its campaigning politically against this or that evil.  If not that, then its getting out of politics…and on and on and on.  The pinacle is always on the next hill.

Thus, with an attitude like this–which is popular–the church will always be failing.

I need to acknowledge that there’s an awful lot that’s right, and therefore a more balanced assessment is called for.

The pastors and elders are great leaders.  The last teaching pastor–Mike Erre–was about as genuine and authentic as they come.  For all the flack I gave him about isolated things in his teaching, he was an upstanding man of God and a great teacher…yep, it needs to be said: I’m glad I had the chance to be under his tutelage for 5-6 years.

And for the record, were I up there on stage, I don’t think I could get even close to doing as good a job as he.  I have my own blind spots, I tend to want to please people, and that combination would make for some real bad teaching.  And I don’t think I could handle the criticism either.  I’d crumble.

The current teaching staff is just as great.  I think they strike an appropriate balance between deed and creed, head and heart, and this balance is hard to find.

Another source of sourness in myself comes from another false expectation: I expect “revolutionary” experiences 24-7, when life, in fact, is more of a plodding along in the boring, simple life, day by day, hour by hour.

The authors make this point: which is more difficult–being a rockstar who travels to foreign countries, calling their governments out about their treatment of the poor and forgiving debts, or being a blue collar mechanic dad of four kids, who faithfully and famelessly works every day to provide for his family, and who serves in his church every week in the background, without reckognition, again without fanfare?

The point here is not really to suggest that one is more difficult than the other, but that our culture definitely lifts up the former and pays little attention to the latter.  The result is that utopian types get easily bored with the day-to-day doings of life.  We want to upset the apple cart, topple regimes of evil, and turn the world upside down, but we get church instead.  So we get disgruntled and leave.  The culprit is not the day-to-day life, but the false expectations of mountain top experiences placed upon life.

Another confession: I frequently am bored in church.  I think “geez, another week of insipid worship songs…another sermon…more worship…prayer…why does it have to be the same every week?  I’d rather be watching football.”

The problem isn’t the church service–the problem is me.  I forget that the Bible calls us to coorporate worship of God.  I forget that the teaching from the pulpit is a necessity in my life, for it has, on many occasions, corrected false attitudes in my thinking.  I forget that the songs of worship calls me to ponder a greater orbit than my own personal one.  I forget that organization is not diametrically opposed to the Holy Spirit’s agency (the Holy Spirit sometimes–often–works through excellently executed, organized human agency).  I forget all the benefits of weekly attendance at church. 

I am thankful that a team of knowledgeable men spend 20+ hours per week in study and research, preparing the week’s teaching.  I am thankful that there is an opportunity to worship through song.  I’m thankful that there is space for prayer.  I’m thankful there’s always an opportunity outside of the Sunday service to get involved and make a difference, and boy am I thankful that there’s always an opportunity for me to respond personally to the truth shared.

God calls each one of us to simple obedience and faithfulness.  For a select few–like Bono–that will mean a life of excitement and stardom, but for most of us, it will mean plodding along, in mechanic-dad-of-four-like fashion.  We should make peace with that.

So in conclusion–warts and all, I love the Church.  I love my church.

Post script: I sometimes wonder what would happen if all the anti-organized religion folks suddenly got together, formed a group, and organized.

Relationship, not Religion?

“Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”

If you’ve been around Christian circles for any length of time, you’ve heard that one, no doubt. I myself have said it…lots. That slogan was a main feature of the sermon on Sunday.

I have a tremendous respect for the pastor who said it, and he carries an authenticity, authority (in the sense of “speaking knowledgeably,” not the “power-authority” kind, which is usually perjorative), and conviction that few possess. As a pastor in India, he ministers to the weakest of the weak and the poorest of the poor. He provides for them both spiritually and physically, for the long haul. He unashamedly preaches Christ crucified and risen, the only solution to man’s universal sin problem. He gives hope, real hope–not faux-spiritual vague hopey hope–to tens of thousands of destitute people. He is tireless and rarely rests. His passion is matchless, something I am in awe of.

So when a guy like that says something, you listen.

I can understand why he would say “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion,” and I get what he’s trying to say. Think about the cultural context he comes from. The major religion in India is Hinduism, a hugely oppressive religion that deterministically marginalizes scores of people by labeling them “untouchable,” which is a caste supposedly cosmically assigned and not to be tampered with by do-gooders. It is the poster child of an oppressive system of rules. This guy was trying to distance Christianity from something like that, and for good reason…that’s not Christianity. Christianity is not a system of dead orthodoxy and ritual, performed mindlessly in the hope of impressing a finniky and distant god into letting you slide. At the heart of the Christian faith is not karma, but a person, One who is alive and well today and hence can be known as you and I can be known.

Ok…I’m on board with that message.

But (and you knew a “but” was coming, didn’t you?), I’m afraid that when that gets put into another cultural context–in this case, post-modern, individualistic, Oprah-ish pop -spirituality-drunk America–that the message gets lost in translation.

It really is unfortunate, for Christianity’s relational element is something that most other religions don’t grasp much. However, it is the case that most Americans–churched and unchurched alike–possess some awfully unbiblical thought patterns and categories. We’re pretty biblically illiterate, so that slogan, as sincerely as it is shouted from the rooftops, often gets twisted into something entirely alien to the Gospel.

Oftentimes, when an audience in America hears that phrase, even if the person saying it means it in a biblical way, the audience hears that Christianity is a low commitment, do-it-yourself, just-you-and-Jesus, design-it-yourself spirituality that’s unique to You and devoid of rules. The Christianity of the Bible is anything but those things.

First, there’s that whole “die to yourself and pick up your cross” thing. Then there’s submission to Authority–the Supreme Authority. God is holy, not a hang out buddy. There’s plenty of good old fashioned doctrine to go around, and yup, there are rules too. Now, those rules are not meant to be spiritual resume builders, as if you can get right with God simply by following them. We’re rebels against God, and thus can’t pay for our bad deeds with good deeds. But still, there are rules, and though they have a limited role and aren’t the main point, they have a role and they have a point.

Think of it this way: even every relationship has rules and ritual. Uh, take the rule, “don’t sleep with a woman that is not your wife.” If I break that rule, my relationship to my wife will be harmed. That’s a euphemism if I’ve ever heard one. Then why would we expect it to be any different with a relational God? He’s even said point blank, “if you love me, you’ll obey my teaching.” (John 14:23).

Same thing goes for ritual. My wife and I have a date night. We celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and such. We have routines that help us nurture our relationship. These are all rituals, after a fashion. Again, they aren’t the point–they are a means to an end–but they have a point. This applies to God too. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Same goes with the label “religion.” I know it sounds pithy and edgy to say Christianity is not a religion and that God hates religion, but really pause to think about this. I just went to the online dictionary and looked it up. Here’s definition numero uno: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Here’s definition numero dos: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”

Pretty standard, as far as definitions of “religion” goes. So how can Christianity be defined apart from that? Yes, Christianity is so much more than that, but Christianity includes that. Am I sounding like a broken record yet?

No matter what kind of Christian you are, whether a stodgy fundamentalist or hipster liberal, you’ve got beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe and ultimate meaning. You’ve got rituals (and admit it, meeting at Starbucks once a week with a buddy to engage in faux spiritual banter might not be high church, but it’s ritual.), you’ve got people that agree with you and join you in practicing, and you’ve got a moral code. For anti-institutionalized religion folks, it comes through loud and clear in the way they bash the church about its failings, both real and imagined.

I therefore find the whole “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” thing to be a huge false dichotomy. If well meaning folks want to communicate that Christianity is not a rote set of guidelines that’s superficially followed, they should just say that.

Kinda Convicting

This week my pastor told a really poignant story in his sermon, and the point he drove home with the story was powerful and right on:

He told of something he saw on the news a while back, where a woman had an asthma attack, but she had no inhaler with her.  Her husband thought fast and quickly brought her to a nearby CVS pharmacy.  They rushed to the pharmacy window and, presenting their urgent need at the desk, asked the clerk for an inhaler.

The clerk brought one to the counter, and gave the price: $21.50.

The husband produced a $20, and frantically searched for the other $1.50, but couldn’t find enough.  He told the clerk and asked if he could just have it; after all, his wife was in a serious condition, it would take too long for the paramedics to arrive, and time was of the essence–she could die.

The clerk, unfortunately, was obstinate: “I’m sorry, but it costs $21.50.  I can’t just give you something you haven’t paid for.”

The husband, surprised, attempted to plead, but to no avail: “you mean you’re gonna let my wife die for a buck fifty?  Come on!”

“Sorry, can’t do that.”

The paramedics arrived eventually and the woman was helped, but wasn’t the clerk a jerk? 

The point the pastor made with the story was that he was like that with the gospel.  People all around are dying and perishing without Christ, and he simply goes around with the inhaler in his pocket, cowing to silly cultural rules:

“Oh, I don’t want to be a holy roller.”
“Oh, I don’t want to shove the Bible down their throat.”
“Oh, I don’t want to be rejected.”
“Oh, I just want to love them in action rather than tell them.:

Oh…? and on and on and on.

That point stuck with me.  I’m familiar with the mindset because I’m like that too.  I’d rather withold life-giving spiritual medicine from people for a buck fifty of being well thought of.

Kinda convicting…

Why Study Theology?

“The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father…It is a subject so vast, that all of our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity.”–Charles Spurgeon

Yep…theology.

Religion in the Modern World

I found this skit funny: