Cross-Shattered Christ: Reflection Two on "The Second Word"

"Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

In this second reading from The Cross-Shattered Christ, Hauerwas looks at the unsettling words of Jesus to the thief on the cross . . . and the unsettling silence.

First, he says perhaps we're uncomfortable because of what is not said, what is not explained for us about this thief that gets off easy. "In the world as we find it--a world that seems to make belief in God some desperate irrationality, Christians are tempted to say more about what we believe than we can or should say."

Yet as Rowan Williams says in Christ on Trial: How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgment, "God is in the connections we cannot make" and Hauerwas further observes, "Our attempt to speak confidently of God in the face of modern skepticism, a skepticism we suspect also grips our lives as Christians, betrays a certainty inappropriate for a people who worship a crucified God."

So those who are "formed in the white heat of modernity" want to know more yet Hauerwas fears the knowing is wrongly motivated by a desire to live and die with significance. "As a result we live desperate, deadly lives in the hope we will not be forgotten."

Like the thief on the cross, we ask to be remembered, but perhaps the thief knows understands something we do not. Hauerwas drives at the center of our self-centered nature and says, "We desperately ask to be remembered, fearing we are nothing. In contrast this thief confidently asks to be remembered because he recognizes the One who can remember."

Through baptism we are given a new body, a body no longer isolated from the bodies that constitute Christ's body, and we are thereby made capable of remembering that we live through memory. Only Christ, on the Second Person of the Trinity, could promise to the thief and to us that today we will be with him. To be with Jesus, to be claimed by Jesus to be his friend, is paradise, for Jesus is the kingdom of God, the autobasileia, the kingdom of the crucified . . . Our salvation is no more or no less than being made part of God's body, God's enfleshed memory, so that the world may know that we are redeemed from our fevered and desperate desire to insure we will not be forgotten.

Hauerwas ends this reading by saying, "the only remembering that matters is to be remembered by Jesus."

The Kingdom Ethic

It's clear from the Ethic on the Mount (and many other scriptures) that Jesus wanted His kingdom to be a defining part of our lives:

• Redefine what gives you joy - not by self-seeking - but by relationship with others and God, and it's yours ( Matthew 5:1-12; Luke 6:20-26)


• Have a purpose in life, like light and salt do (Matthew 5:13-15)


• Give that purpose legs; put it into practice (Matthew 5:16)


• Exceed expectations (Matthew 5:17-20)


• Squelch anger (Matthew 5:21-22)


• Make peace with others (Matthew 5:23-26)


• Squelch lust (Matthew 5:27-30)


• Commit if you marry (Matthew 5:31-32)


• Keep your promises; don't "borrow" God's integrity by swearing (Matthew 5:33-37)


• Love your enemies (Matthew 5:38-43; Luke 6:27-29)


• Don't strike back; give back (Luke 6:29)


• Have perfection as your goal; don't settle for less (Matthew 5:48)


• Give for others' sake, not yours (Matthew 6:1-4; Luke 6:30; 38)


• Pray for God to hear you, not for others to hear you (Matthew 6:5-8)


• Pray from your heart your praise to God (Matthew 6:9)


• Pray for His will to be done, not yours (Matthew 6:10)


• Pray daily for what you need, not what you want (Matthew 6:11)


• Pray for a forgiving heart like God's (Matthew 6:12-15)


• Pray for His guidance and deliverance (Matthew 6:13)


• Fast for God to see you, not for others to see you (Matthew 6:16-18)


• Invest in the unseen and eternal (Matthew 6:19-24)


• Squelch worry (Matthew 6:25-34)


• Judge as you would want to be judged (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37; 41-42)


• Share wisely (Matthew 7:6)


• Be proactive: ask, seek, knock! (Matthew 7:7-11)


• Treat others as you'd wish them to treat you (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31)


• Think small and narrow (Matthew 7:13-14)


• You know truth by what it does; Jesus knows truth for what it is (Matthew 7:15-23; Luke 6:39-40; 43-45)


• Don't just hear; do! Build wisely on a solid foundation (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

It is an amazing ethic (Matthew 7:28-29) because of its authority ... the authority of a King who loves His subjects to death.

His death, not theirs ... so He could put to death what keeps them from Him.

The Math of Ethics

I'm helping my 12-year-old son with his math homework right now. I hated math when I was his age. I still do. But I get along with it pretty well now, considering.

I've also been reading and re-reading the ethics articles from this issue of New Wineskins. Lots of points of view. Lots of fields of interest from which those points originate: Biomedical engineering. Politics. Religion. Social justice. Medicine. Philosophy.

To name a few.

And my mind wanders, because I don't really want to think about the solution to the math question my son is asking me to clarify.

Do you suppose God fundamentally changed the way He communicated His ethic to man between the Old Covenant and the New? Were all the laws and precepts and commands too numerous and still insufficient? Did they not cover every given situation that mankind - with God-given creativity - could invent? Like the addition and subtraction and multiplication and division tables we must know before age 12, did they reveal truths that could be applied to lots of bigger problems? Wasn't the real problem that you could carry sin forward on an infinite asymptotic curve, but still never reach zero sin?

Did the New Ethic require simpler communication; just a few principles ... so that God-given creativity could be turned toward applying them to the next level of problems and questions? Wouldn't each one have to be dealt with individually, one problem at a time? Or could you use a blanket answer for every problem, taken from a test case? If 2+2=4, then 2+361=4? If we're stuck in the mine behind the large lady and we have dynamite, are "dying by suffocation" and "blowing her up" the only alternatives? Is the answer better expressed in decimals or fractions? Are there some problems which have answers that are undefinable? Do they just need clarification, restatement, a few hints from a Father who wants us to turn to Him and ask?

Aren't all of the answers reduced to simplest form when it's true that "sin X us / Christ = whole, positive"?

And "us / sin - Christ = 0"?

"Just a minute, son," I'm saying now; "I'll be right with you.

"I'm done with my questions."

All Who Are Thirsty

Brian McLaren had a great review of Hotel Rwanda recently. Check it out here.

Here are some lyrics to "All Who Are Thirsty" a song off our latest ZOE recording, "Desperate".

All who are thirsty,
All who are weak,
Come to the fountain!
Dip your heart in the stream of Life.
Let the pain and the sorrow
Be washed away
In the waves of His mercy
As deep cries out to deep.

And we sing--COME LORD JESUS, COME!

Do we mean it? All who are thirsty? All who are weak? We'd better be ready if we mean it.

I found this quote in my mom's "Spiritual Formation Bible" in the margin next to John 1. I thought it would encourage you today as it did me.

"You called, You cried, You shattered my deafness.
You sparkled, You blazed, You drove away my blindness.
You shed Your fragrance, I drew in my breath, and I pant for You.
I tasted...and now I hunger and thirst.
You touched me, and now I burn with longing for Your peace."
Augustine--from Confessions

Cross-Shattered Christ: Reflection One on "The First Word"

Hauerwas contemplates the first of the last words of Jesus, "Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."--Luke 23:24

The first challenge from this reading is to move from selfish reading and hearing of the text to a God-centered reading. Is it really only the Jews and the Romans who do not know what they are doing, or are we also implicated? Yes, we are there. We, too, know not what we do.

"I didn't mean to" doesn't fly in our family. It doesn't matter. We are people who constantly know not what we do . . . so let's move the focus off our supposed understanding of the kind of forgiveness that we need and listen in to the words of Jesus spoken intimately to the Father.

Hauerwas says, "Ironically, by trying to understand what it means for us to need forgiveness, too often our attention becomes focused on something called the "human condition" rather than the cross and the God who hangs there."

He continues later in the reflection " . . . it is a stark reminder that these words are not first and foremost about us, about our petty sinfulness. It is the Second Person of the Trinity who asks, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." The Son intimately addresses the Father. We look away, embarrassed by a love so publicly displayed."

Today, on "Valentine's Day," reflect on the relationship between the Father and the Son, the intimate words spoken that we get to hear, and in so doing learn something about this model relationship of all time.

Cruising

In a former life I sang for Norwegian Cruise Line. I was on a ship for almost a year. It was a seven day cruise with a port everyday. Did I mention it was in the Southern Caribbean? Rough life. I loved it. Mostly. It was almost like summer camp for adults.

Have you ever been on a cruise? The food is unreal. There is something to eat just about 24 hours a day. In fact, the most trusted statistic says that the average weight gain per passenger each week was about 7-10 lbs. Scary, huh?

I'm not sure who originated the whole metaphor about the church being like a boat...battle ships, cruise ships, tug boats, etc. I know Randy Harris has done a lot of speaking on that. The point is that most of our churches resemble one or the other. And, mostly, it's the cruise ship mentality. What can YOU do for ME? We go to a church service to be "serviced". (read Dan Kimball's book--Emerging Worship--pg.2-4.)

I was thinking about this yesterday. Many of our churches are doing their best to change course mid stream. We are realizing the need for all of us to be missional. Ministers, elders, leaders, and missional minded members are finding themselves frustrated by the difficulty in making such a change.

I was trying to think of it in terms of my experience on the ship and relating it to church experience. Imagine with me if you will--you're a passenger on a cruise. You've saved and spent a lot of money (maybe a bldg. program), you've gathered your friends or close family (you're surrounded by the people you love and want to be with), you've got delicious food at your disposal any time of the day (every program we offer to enrich or feed our own members), there's a cruise staff taking care of your every need and waiting on you hand and foot (we often do this for our church members instead of empowering them to be missional), you go on the occasional off shore excursion led by experienced tour guides which causes you to feel like you've actually experienced the island (we do this with evangelism. We placate our convictions by doing a small tour of duty to a foreign land or a nearby city to do VBS thinking we have done our "missional deed" for the year), and we do those blasted boat drills in our nightly formal attire--never really believing this ship could actually sink (we talk about Heaven and Kingdom while our hearts are dressed and thinking toward more satisfying events here on earth).

What if in the middle of that cruise, the ship's captain came on the speaker and announced that this ship was now going to become a battle ship? How would you feel if you were on your cruise? Put out? Incensed? Angry? Would you demand your money back? Would you say, "That's not the purpose of this ship"?

Isn't that sort of what we're dealing with as we are thinking through these missional convictions? It's more than a sermon series. We are going to have to do some serious "redecorating" and probably change our itinerary. It seems ludicrous for a luxury ship full of people dressed in formals to be a battle ship. Doesn't it?

Perhaps the starting place is at the core of who we are as the church. Perhaps the Queen Elizabeth 2 will never become a battle ship. Perhaps it's ridiculous to even try.

Perhaps there are those in formals who have "grubbies" ready just in case. Perhaps the rich, fattening food isn't tasting so good after all and there are those who would be ready for a change. I don't know. But as new churches start, isn't it important to take care of some of these things on the front end instead of trying to convict a room full of "cruisers" that it's time to serve others or lay down our lives for the sake of the Kingdom?

Are we light or lite?

My mom has this really cool lamp in her living room. It's very ornate with these wooden squares that have a design on each square and then are connected with wire to made a really cool lamp shade. It looked awesome in the store...very beautiful and put together--even ornate. Trouble is, we got it home and the thing doesn't give off much light. It was a great idea someone had. Just not practical. The little squares are all so tightly woven together that the purpose of the lamp seems to have been overridden. Even at night, it puts out little to no usable light. Hmmmm. I wonder how many of us are like that lamp?

We like to position ourselves, build a nice, clean world of church and family, and follow all the rules. However, sometimes I think we lose our aroma. We're so concerned with presentation that we aren't filling. Have you ever eaten at those really expensive restaurants where the presentation is great and after 2 bites it's gone? That's so annoying for people like me who love to eat!!

I don't what it will take for us to stop caring about the appearance and get to the core issues. I know Jesus told the Pharisees, "Your lips speak of me, but your hearts are far from me." Have we lost our ability to shine? Do we still taste like salt, or have we lost our saltiness? Do we have a voice that's trustworthy to the world? Can people really see Jesus in us or are we the biggest stumbling block to their belief in Jesus?

Lent and Cross-Shattered Christ

For the next 40 days occasionally I'll be offering some thoughts on Stanley Hauerwas's Cross-Shattered Christ, a book of meditations on our suffering savior. First, however, I want to explain for those of us who are recently learning about the movements of the yearly calendar what Lent is. Fortunately, John Ogren has already given a very good description in an article written for the Jan-Feb 03 issue of Wineskins. Here is how he describes Lent in summary:

And this is the purpose of Lent; to help us enter more fully into the suffering and death of Jesus, so that we can more richly appreciate Easter and enjoy his resurrection life. Lent is a reminder that our call to discipleship was a call to take up a cross, that our baptism was a burial into his death, and that our daily life with Christ is a sharing in his suffering and conformity to his dying. In Lent we seek deliberate and concrete ways of remembering this so that we can live it more faithfully. The disciplines of Lent (fasting, prayer, acts of service, sacrificial giving) serve to mortify our flesh, so that our flesh, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can be made to share in the life of Christ and experience the God-given exaltation of his resurrection. Much of this, we know, will only be complete in that final Easter morning of general resurrection and transformation when Christ appears. So the season of Lent signifies and equips us for the Lenten life we lead until that final Day of Redemption.

Please join us today and in coming days in Lent reflections of your own.

Church membership

I was talking recently with a group about the idea of church membership. Is it biblical language? What does it mean to be a member of a church? Or a member of the church? A question arose about what we do about a person who comes into our midst who is not baptized but wants to identify with the congregation.

My response was that the language of "membership" is not really biblical. Was I off base?

A person who was in the midst of the early church, for example, and wanted to be a disciple was taken through three years of catechesis (teaching) to teach them the way of life. I don't know if they had language of members and non-members. Someone help me here with that if you know. Often at the end of this long period the person was baptized. Was this person called a "non-member" during that time? Were they left out of meals or the Lord's Supper?

Because we make "membership" synonomous with baptism, we draw some artificial lines for those who come into our communities and want to learn and understand before making such a big commitment. We hold them as visitors until they are initiated, but is there a way to invite people into our fellowships while gently nurturing them as the early church must have done through months and years of teaching? And in that way they feel a part but realize they are being led and taught toward the end of being shaped in the image of Christ, and baptism is a culmination of this union with Christ.

Too often it seems we, on the one hand, passively let people who have not been taught our beliefs in Christ be called members or, on the other hand, we take them as betweeners or visitors until they are baptized. At Woodmont Church of Christ in Nashville we speak of "joining the journey." This allows a person to be on journey of seeking the Lord and a Christian to acknowledge that we are on that same journey together. We are all on a journey toward the image of Christ. This language itself does not solve all the problems, however, and we must still do the important work of nurturing new attendees to become part of the body and learn what it means to be shaped in Christ's image and be joined with him and the body in baptism.

Shaking the dust from their feet?

Regardless of your position on the role of women, the departure from Churches of Christ by Katie Hayes and her husband Lance Pape, is a sad one. It is, I think, a sign of something larger, a more deeply rooted problem that is facing our churches.

I can think of three instances where people who have been raised in, or been long-time members of, Churches of Christ have parted ways.

The first one is a man I know who didn't believe that we (I'll use this term to refer to "Churches of Christ" from now on) would ever be able to see past the "homosexual issue" and accept him as a fellow traveller on our mutual journey. Because of his perception of us (which, sadly, is probably accurate in too many places), he chose to leave us and begin worshipping with another faith family. Regardless of what we might believe about homosexuality, we should mourn his leaving.

The second one is a guy I knew in college, a pretty talented musician. He grew up being applauded for his musical gifts, putting them to use in various forms. He was encouraged to develop his abilities, but never for use in what he believed was their highest purpose: the praise and worship of our Creator and Savior. So, he took his musical ability and left our ranks, choosing instead to find a church home where his gifts and abilities were valued and used. No matter our personal beliefs about instrumental worship, we should be saddened by his departure.

Katie and Lance are the third instance that comes to mind. Because the majority of our churches refuse to accept Katie's speaking ability and giftedness, she and her husband are leaving us, trying to find a place where she can use her gifts. I know these are just three examples, and there are probably thousands of others like them; people who have chosen to split, rather than to stay and try to help us change, or at least learn from them.

In the case of the first guy, his departure has robbed us of his voice, calling us to be Jesus to people who need it. Calling us to accept people for who they are, and not expect a certain level of spiritual perfection before they dare darken our doorways. He has taken his ability to help us learn how to interact with gays and lesbians, to learn how to minister to them, to befriend them. His voice, once that of an insider, is now that of an outsider, which automatically decreases the volume of said voice, and the lowers the level of credibility attached to it.

The second guy, the music man, has stolen from us the conversation partner with which to discuss matters like tradition, the nature of worship, the use of gifts to build up the body. Whether or not he could have affected wide-spread change thoughout our fellowship, we'll never know . . . but now he's on the outside, speaking to us, asking us to look at his new ministry, and many will tune him out because he's an outsider.

And the third case, by shaking us from the soles of their shoes they have removed a large, powerful voice, one that might have influenced us greatly in the coming years and decades. Sure, the changes might not have been as numerous or as rapid as they had desired, but I predict their influence on us (as a whole) as outsiders will be much less than if they had remained.

So, there's the problem I see . . . over the past few generations there has been increased freedom to question traditions, or at least attempt to reinterpret them for today's context. This examination of our "sacred cows" has led some of our members to decide that there are some that are out-dated or just plain wrong. And so they have taken their leave.

Personally--and granted, this is the voice of a twenty-six-year-old semi-theologian--I think that it is impossible to bring about change from the "outside." Yes, there are many things I would love to see change about this fellowship I have been immersed in since I was ten days old. But the answer to the problem is not to run away, and yell loudly from the boundaries that "You people should change your ways!" (Not that any of the three examples I've mentioned are attempting that.) I think the quietest whisper from an insider ("We should think about this in a new way . . . ") is much louder than the loudest screams from outsiders.

I think I have laid out the problem, but I am a little stuck when it comes to offering solutions. Hopefully we can think up ways to creatively increase "member retention" (if we want to give it a nice modern label). One thing is clear, we need to realize that people are leaving, and that we as a body suffer because of this exodus.

One possible solution (and I am thinking of my family here), is for the church to act more like a family, and less like a country club. In my family we can disagree, we can argue, we can spit and scream and scratch . . . but leaving the family, breaking those bonds, is unthinkable. But in a country club, if I don't like the new members, or the greens are getting a little rough, I can always take my dues and find a better club that suits me more, or I can push members out or bar others from getting in.

The Religious Chicken and the Spiritual Egg

In "Christian" America, that fabled time in the days of yore when everyone was a Christian, people were first religious, and then some or many of those religious people became spiritual. In "post-Christian" America, the current age, in greater numbers people are spiritual first, and then some of them are becoming religious.

What's the difference? I mean, aren't spiritual and religious just two words that mean the same thing? Well, it depends on who is defining them. Here’s my crack at it:

A religious person associates or affiliates with a religious group and, to some extent, adopts their practices, belief systems (actually or theoretically), and name. The extent to which the person adopts the practices, beliefs and name of the groups determines how religious they are. A good Catholic goes to mass, listens to the Pope, follows the church teachings and is not afraid to be called a Catholic.

A spiritual person experiences, senses, and/or connects with the non-material or metaphysical world. Typically they believe in God or a god or some transcending power. A spiritual person is likely to respond to beauty by making mental or emotional connections between the beauty and the spiritual world. A spiritual person is humbled by their own smallness in comparison to the universe and their perceptions of the spiritual world.

For a religious person, there is nothing necessarily or inherently transcendent about life apart from the religious practice. A religious person can spend his or her whole lives being religious without ever being spiritual. The Pharisees of the New Testament are an example of extremely religious people who were not spiritual. Exceptions might be Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, and Nicodemus.

For a spiritual person, there is nothing necessarily or inherently useful in planned, choreographed, and rehearsed corporate acts. A spiritual person can spend his or her whole life being spiritual without ever being religious. "New Age" people might fit into this description.

At one time, when "everyone" in America went to church, the goal was to find a way to get these religious people more spiritual. Now, I believe that I am overly optimistic in saying what I just said because I really think that many religious types believed that if a person was religious (church 3 times a week, baptized, took communion, didn't cuss, smoke, drink or dance), that was all that needed to be done. But either way, religion came first and spirituality was some kind of bonus or extra if it were considered at all.

Now days (and probably in the next couple decades), people are frequently spiritual, but not religious. There exists a depth and appreciation for the divine in some perhaps vague, but certainly meaningful way.When a religious person meets a spiritual person, this situation can turn adversarial quick when religion is pitted against spirituality. It is very tempting for the religious person to discount, demean, or even mock the spirituality of the spiritual person merely for the fact that it is not contained in religion. On the other hand, the spiritual person may be tempted to respond in similarly unhelpful ways to the religious person.

What is needed is spiritual people who are religious and religious people who are spiritual. Neither is better than the other. Think about it this way: would you rather be a Pharisee or a New Ager? Would you rather know the name of God and use it to oppress people, or worship anything that seems kind of goddish?We need large doses of both. We need personal connection with the divine and we need a community of faith that has an identity. There is value in personal appreciation and there is value in corporate ritual. There is value in freedom and there is value in tradition.

What we do not need is for religious people to be against spiritual people. We do not need to determine which came first or which is most important. How can you be pro chicken and anti egg? Let's be pro chicken from egg to KFC. Religious people need to meet the spiritual where they are at. Make friends with them. Be there for them. Call on them when you need help. Learn from them. Appreciate their spirituality and connection to things divine. The goal is not to get them to shed their spirituality and become religious, but rather to be good news to them, love them, care for them, and make that relationship with them be the defining mark of your religion.

The power of a syllabus

A faint memory came back to me this morning. I was searching for comments on Samuel Well's book, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics (Brazos, 2004), and came across a syllabus for an ethics class taught by Dennis L. Durst, M.Div., Ph.D at Kentucky Christian University. This is a fine syllabus, and I remember receiving these in seminary (Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis) and how it would set me on a course of discovery.

I'm reliving this morning those moments of quiet reflection and those bursts of amazement that I couldn't wait to share with my fellow students on that lonely two-hour road between Searcy and Memphis. I'd always try to get those books on the syllabus from a used book store and sometimes could but most times couldn't. Each book led me to another and a well-chosen paper topic--which I found out the hard way is best chosen with the teacher's blessing and direction in a planned office appointment early on . . . I used to consider this goofy apple polishing but after a C and a D on a paper thought perhaps I'd better learn the difference between shining apples and humbling myself before a person who was the best person in the world right then to direct my studies.

So, with that little memory, I want to share this link with you. May it create in you the same effect that syllabi (that's a geeky correct grad school way of saying syllabuses) had on me in grad school . . . like a ticket to a passage way into a whole new world, one book and idea deserving and craving and leading to another . . . and ultimately and intentionally closer to God and shaped by His word and into His image.

Dr. Durst's syllabus

Improvisation by Samuel Wells

The title theme of the Jan-Feb 05 issue might be curious to some. What does "Christian Ethics: the drama continues" mean? First, the way we conceive of ethics is important. For instance, when I proposed this idea to Rubel Shelly and Mike Cope last Fall, I said, "What do you think of doing an issue that asks the question, 'What is morality?'" Rubel wrote back and said, "Yes, let's do an issue on ethics." Do you see the simile?

But that's also where we often get confused. Ethics does not mean morality in only the sense of clean sexual living. And morality, for that matter, doesn't mean only that either! Morality and ethics is a broad experience of understanding what is good and right in every endeavor, and in Christ the effort is not a selfish one where good is determined individually by how much one benefits. Instead, when we are doing ethics for the church we are called to a higher authority not for the sake of divining and cognition but for the sake of understanding who God is so that we can know who we are.

We have included several articles that explain this better than I can. Ron Highfield's and Lee Camp's articles help introduce these ideas. I'm reading a book right now called Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics by Samuel Wells. The book is about the process that we as Christians go through to understand who God is and what our Christian tradition is and in knowing those well, we can work on our feet through the changes that come our way in culture. The metaphor of improvisation is intriguing to me, and I'm in the process of deciphering it right now, so I'll not say much more but I'm curious if you've read it and want to talk about it with some of you. Perhaps you may want to order it and we can discuss here.

Have a great Thursday.
gt

Blog is long-time coming

After a long wait, it's finally here, thanks to Keith Brenton! Keith set up a blog that works with our Wineskins template.

The NEW WINESKINS Blog. Here we'll combine efforts from editors and contributors who weigh in on issues of the day and matters of the heart.

Now you can comment on articles in this area or below each article. In addition, this blog can take on issues that our themes are not currently covering, a daily mix of news and views and comment from a unique Christ-centered and kingdom-focused perspective.

Bookmark Wineskins.org and visit every day.

Just a Thought ...

"We do not ask that they give up their opinions, for they can hold their opinions as private property; we only ask that they not impose their opinions upon others as tests of fellowship." - Alexander Campbell, from his article in the Millennial Harbinger, 1830, p. 145.