A Resting Place

"It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me."

Friday, December 31, 2004

God and Tsunami

John Piper has put into good words a biblical answer to the many questions being asked about God's involvement in the tsunami in a recent "Fresh Words" article: Tsunami, Sovereignty, and Mercy. Here is point 2, probably one of the most difficult for many of us to accept:

God claims power over tsunamis in Job 38:8 when he asks Job rhetorically, “Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb . . . and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?” Psalm 89:8-9 says, “O Lord . . . you rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them.” And Jesus himself has the same control today as he once did over the deadly threats of waves: “He . . . rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm” (Luke 8:24). In other words, even if Satan caused the earthquake, God could have stopped the waves.

It seems to me that if tsunamis are outside of the control of God, we are more hopeless, for then Satan, or even creation itself, is able to act in such an awful way, and God does not care to stop it. To whom will you attribute this disaster, if not to God? Surely no "free will" explanation will do. Satan? Even he must receive permission from God to act. We must be careful not to make definitive statements about things God has not stated clearly. Many ask, "Is this a judgment from God?" I don't know. He hasn't told me or anyone else. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, but I will not presume to speak for God when He has not spoken for Himself. Piper's answer seems to be the best we can come up with for now:

This is true of all calamities. They mingle judgment and mercy. They are both punishment and purification. Suffering, and even death, can be both judgment and mercy at the same time.

Politics at the Cross

I have been advocating for some time now a theology that centers around and is found in Christ. Christ-less theology and preaching is a terrible plague in 21st century evagelicalism. But as I've tried to work through the difficult issue of Christianity and politics, I forgot to take my own advice and make Christ and His cross the focal point. Reading an article by N.T. Wright is setting me straight on the matter:

Jesus, I have argued elsewhere, believed two things which gave him an interpretative grid for understanding his own vocation as leading to a violent and untimely death. First, he believed himself called to announce to Israel that her present way of life, whose focal point was resistance against Rome and whose greatest symbol was the temple, was heading in exactly the wrong direction. Down that road lay ruin - the wrath of Rome, the wrath of God. Second, he believed himself called to take Israel's destiny upon himself, to be Israel-in-God's-plan. What happens as the story reaches its climax, and Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives looking across at the temple, and beyond it to an ugly hill just outside the city wall to the west, is that the two beliefs fuse into one. He will be Israel - by taking Israel's destiny, her ruin, her destruction, the devastation of the temple, on to himself. He will be the point where the exile reaches its climax, as the pagan authorities execute Israel's rightful King. Only so can the kingdom come on earth (in socio-political reality) as it is in heaven (in the perfect will and plan of the Father). From this perspective, to say that Jesus' death itself was a 'political' act cannot be to divorce it (against the grain of all first-century Judaism) from its 'theological' implications. On the cross politics and religion, as well as love and justice and a host of other abstractions, meet and merge. Only from the perspective of the cross, shattering as it was to Jesus' followers then as it should be now, can any view of politics, and hence of the 'state', claim to be Christian.

Thursday, December 30, 2004

The Blogger of the Night

Since, for the third or fourth night in a row, I can't sleep, I'm up blogging. I figured I'd share what is probably worthless info to some of you, but very important to me. Since Phantom of the Opera is in the news right now because of the new (lousy) movie, I'm here to dispel the myths and set things straight:

Colm Wilkinson, not Michael Crawford, was the original "Phantom of the Opera." Wilkinson created the role in Sydmonton in 1985. Andrew Lloyd Webber asked Colm to take the role before Crawford, but Colm was already contracted to do Les Miserables, so Crawford became Webber's second choice.

Now, I'm grateful this happened, because Colm was phenomenal in Les Mis (I got to see him in Toronto in '98). Les Mis is a much better show than Phantom, and furthermore, we ended up with Colm playing the Phantom in Toronto anyway (which I also got to see). The only unfortunate result of this particular sequence of events is all the hysterical Michael Crawford fans who blow a gasket every time someone suggests that he was a bit of a weenie pansy Phantom, and that Colm did a far better job with the role.

(See my review of the movie to discover why I inserted the word "lousy" above.)

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

The Trivialization of Truth

I try very hard not to go into Christian bookstores whenever possible, but every once in a while, I can't wait for something in the mail. So recently I ended up in one, and as I approached the counter, I found a horrible thing. There were "Christian" candy bars. There was a little phrase advertising the candy bar which read: Touch the soul, tickle the palate.

Are you kidding me? It is no wonder people aren't taking us seriously. We've trivialized the great truths of the Bible. I got back into my car, and the next track on the disc in my cd player was Ballad in Plain Red on Derek Webb's new cd. It's from the point of view of Satan, exposing his schemes for the 21st century in much the same way as C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters did. The following lyrics fell on my ears:

Keep selling truth in candy bars
On billboards and backs of cars
Truth without context, my favorite of all my crimes

Who can blame Derek Webb for railing against such nonsense, when people are actually buying crap like this? I'm all about finding ways to communicate the gospel to 21st century people, but trite little cliches and slogans for Jesus are not going to do it. It demonstrates a terrible lack of creativity as well as a disregard for the depth and profundity of the truth of Christ. How 'bout we try taking Jesus more seriously and ourselves less seriously, rather than trivializing His truth while so easily being offended by unbelievers?


The tsunami in Asia is a tragedy, no question about it. There are going to be a wide variety of Christian responses, some interesting, some appauling, and some right on. The problem of evil is right in our faces again.

There is time for theological reflection, and there is time for Jesus-like action. My thought is that the Jesus-like action should come first, while carrying the theological message with us. Demonstrating the compassion of Jesus in tangible ways is more important than using empty phrases that some don't even believe, like, "God has a reason."

Of course God has a reason. He's the sovereign God of the universe who works all things according to the counsel of His will. But the great lesson of Job is simply that sometimes the reasons are absolutely beyond human comprehension. The task before Christians at this point is to demonstrate the goodness of God, and the goodness of God is shown most clearly and powerfully in Christ. Demonstrating the compassion of Christ towards those in Asia is our first goal. We can talk about the sovereign plans of God once we're already showing His great mercy.

I was terribly disappointed at an email I received today from a ministry I usually respect. The writer of today's column speculated about what all the dispensationalists would say about this earthquake and the "rapture," and then took the opportunity to refute dispensationalism. He took this tragic event, barely two days old, and turned it into a discussion on eschatology based on what he figured pre-tribbers would be saying soon. I like to write against dispensationalism as well, but this tragic occurrence is not the time to do it.

Edit: Just thought it would be a good idea to add a link where you can donate to disaster relief. Another idea might be to head up a donation-gathering effort at your workplace and team up with your local Red Cross or some other organization.

Saturday, December 25, 2004

Christmas Writer's Block

What profound thing can one say on Christmas that has not already been said? I will not write much. I've already written a Christmas sermon that you can read if you want to know what I have to say about this day.

I wish you a Merry Christmas, and pray that the truth of the incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus will be truly profound and magnified in your mind and increase affection for Christ in your heart. Merry Christmas, and may the joy of Jesus reign in your heart today.

Friday, December 24, 2004

The Phantom of the Cinema?

I've been listening to the soundtrack to The Phantom of the Opera since I was about 10 years old. So when I found out, just a few days ago, that "Rochester, NY" was one of the "select cities" that the new Phantom movie was playing in, I had to go see it. Now that I've seen it, I'm going to try my hand at movie reviews.

One has to admit up front that director Joel Schumacher had both a lot to work with (well-loved story) and a great challenge on his hands (again, well-loved story). Some people will love this simply because it's Andrew Loyd Weber's Phantom, the-greatest-thing-ever-in-the-whole-world-ever. On the other hand - mess it up, and you've got a bunch of angry fans. This tension made it difficult, and ultimately contributed to the movie's failure, in my opinion.

Transitioning such a well-loved stage production to screen provides a myriad of opportunities, since the big screen allows for so much more mobility than the stage. Schumacher did not take advantage of this as he should have. Trying to keep close to the original, the only extra movement we really got from this was that the actors could now move from one room all the way into another one while singing a song. And much of the movement happened so quickly that we sort of lost the song in all the visuals (see "Notes/Prima Donna," for example).

The bombastic music throughout the movie was painful to hear. I like this score, but it was almost as if Schumacher was trying to make the Phantom scary by making the music louder, and it came off as a cheesy B horror movie at times.

And then there's the Phantom himself, Gerard Butler, who was by far the biggest mistake of the film. I couldn't really tell whether he was attempting to play a deranged opera ghost, a good-looking, romatic lover, or simply posing for GQ. We got a little bit of all three, which made for a "phantom" with absolutely no character depth. The Phantom is simply not supposed to be a model with a few scars on the right side of his face. He's not an overall well-adjusted, charismatic guy with a bad temper. He is an angry, messed-up, and love sick little man, rejected by the world and living in his own little dungeon.

At times, Butler's singing was almost a direct mimicking of Colm Wilkinson, in my opinion the best actor ever to don the white mask of the phantom. But he doesn't have the vocal power to do Wilkinson's Phantom. When Butler's voice should have been soft and painful, tugging at our hearts to feel sorry for the Phantom's plight, it was weak and lifeless, as was his facial expression. When it was supposed to be powerful, they tried to make it more so by adding cool, echo-like vocal effects, but these were too obvious, and there was no genuine intensity.

Not only did Butler get the phantom wrong, but the movie did as well. Probably my favorite scene from the stage production is the intense confrontation between Raul and the Phantom at the graveyard, to where Christine has gone to visit her father's grave. Raul confronts the Phantom, who mocks him and hurls fireballs at him from his staff, declaring war on both of them. The Phantom is clearly still in control of things at this point. The film, however, replaces this scene with a swordfight. Raul bests the Phantom and is ready to strike the final blow, when Christine says something to the effect of, "No! Not in this way."

The result of this is that we lose all the awe and mystery of the Phantom, and his strange, supernatural powers are taken away. In fact, in a later scene, Madame Giry explains that the Phantom is a magician. If the Phantom can be simply beated by a pansy like Raul in a swordfight, who's going to be afraid of him? Closely related to this is the point where we finally see his face when Christine pulls his mask off during a stage production. His "distorted" face looked more like a bad allergic reaction to a bee sting or poison ivy. I was more inclined to laugh than to recoil in horror.

I need not say much more. If you get the Phantom himself wrong, you get the whole show wrong. Despite Emmy Rossum's incredible voice as Christine, and Minnie Driver's show-stealing take on Carlotta, this film is a disappointment. My advice to anyone reading this is to spend the money for the movie tickets on the Original Canadian Cast Recording. You'll have a much greater appreciation for this musical if you do that instead of seeing Schumacher's version on the big screen.

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Return of the King, Extended Edition

Just a lighthearted post highly recommending the new release of Return of the King: Extended Edition. The added scenes were excellent; I was particularly impressed with "The Mouth of Sauron," as well as the way they completed the gathering of the cursed army.

It's long - about 4 and a half hours - but it's worth it. Set aside some time and watch this movie!

One Final Change

I have decided to make one final change to the blogs. From now on, "travisprinzi.blogspot.com" will be the url for "A Resting Place," since that is more my personal blog, while "godlylife.blogspot.com" will be the url for "A Fool's Hope," since that is my teaching blog. The changes will be reflected in the links on the right.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Sundry Things

I've decided to do an overhaul of my blogging. I have been finding that there's a lot to say about my Sunday School class, and there's a lot to say about other things as well, and I'm refraining from posting as much as I want to in order to avoid clutter on the blog. So, I've decided to create an entirely new blog devoted to my Sunday School class, which currently is studying "Historical Theology: The Early Church Fathers." So, a few notes:

To My Readers in General:

If you've enjoyed my biblical, political, theological, historical, and sometimes nonsensical ramblings, those will continue and will occur much more regularly (hopefully), uncluttered by stuff that pertains directly to my Sunday School class. Unfortunately, in the midst of the changes I was making, I lost all previous comments. But I will not let it happen again! Comment away! If you're not part of my SS class, you are still very welcome to head on over to my new blog, A Fool's Hope and join in on the discussion, since I will be spending more time commenting on the assigned documents rather than just assigning them.

To My Sunday School Students:

I hope you'll keep checking "A Resting Place" and reading my rantings. Your page for Sunday School assignments and discussion from now on is A Fool's Hope, and you will find a permanent link to that site in the right hand column of this blog. I'll be able to comment much more on the assigned readings from this point on, so please check the site often and add your thoughts and questions. Keep checking the new blog, because I'll be updating it regularly to make it a fully functional blog for the SS class.

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Remedies for Pharisaism

As I've been thinking through these "Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee," not only for this blog, but for a book I'm planning to write someday, I've also been thinking through the things that helped, and continue to help remedy my condition. One of the things that sort of shocked me out of Pharisaism was reading the rantings of Michael Spencer. Three articles in particular were helpful. So if you have some extra time and are looking for some enjoyable, yet soul-challenging reading, grap a cup of coffee, relax, and check out the following articles:

Wretched Urgency
Wretched Urgency II: My Not-So Guilty Pleasures
Dancing at the Fundamentalist Ball

Of course, the ultimate remedy for legalism is a good, hard, honest look at the death of Christ. And then you should go read Martin Luther. But Spencer's work is a good, modern day starting point for confronting the mess we've made of the church - what Andrew Peterson has called "the second coming of the Pharisees."

Monday, December 20, 2004

A Christmas Sermon

Follow the link below to a sermon I preached at First Baptist Church of LeRoy, NY, on Dec. 19, 2004, the Fourth Sunday of Advent. Here's part of the intro:

The Beginning of Christmas: John 1:1-18

This morning I would like to take us all back to the very beginning of Christmas. When most of us think of the beginning of Christmas, we think of angels. We think of a young woman, engaged but not yet married, pregnant with a child by the Holy Spirit. We think of a brave young man named Joseph, who followed God’s plan, even though it might damage his reputation. We think of the tax from Caesar Augustus and the town of Bethlehem, where no room could be found for Joseph and Mary. We think of a stable, a manger, some ragged shepherds in a field, and a heavenly choir of angels. It is a beautiful story, described by songwriter Randall Goodgame as “like a children’s tune, familiar as the moon.” This is a story that most people know, whether Christians or not.

But I want to suggest to you this morning that this is not the beginning of Christmas....

Continue reading "The Beginning of Christmas".

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Historical Theology Reading for 12/26

We're going to deal with the early heresy of Gnosticism, and a good representation of that is the Gospel of Thomas. Use the link to go the document. It looks long, but it's a quick read. Note three things:

1. Sayings of Jesus that come directly from the four gospels
2. Sayings of Jesus that sound like gospel sayings, but are changed. Think about why they might be changed.
3. Sayings of Jesus that do not appear in the gospels at all.

Again, print the document out and bring it to class. We'll talk about ancient gnosticism, as well as whether or not we have modern problems in the church that are rooted in gnosticism.

For more information on the Gospel of Thomas, as well as other translations, click here: The Gospel of Thomas.

Keep checking this site throughout the week, and I'll try to provide more links and info.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

"Obey your Bishop"

For those of you who just realized, "It's Saturday, and I haven't done my SS homework yet," or for those of you just checking the blog to see if I've added anything, I want to challenge you on a point or two before you come into class tomorrow.

It is highly likely that Ignatius' command to obey the bishop even as you would Jesus Christ is rather shocking to you. It was to me as well. I want to challenge you to think outside the box on this one. Remember, our goal in doing Historical Theology is not to first denounce a position that sounds foreign (or even scary) to us, but rather to try to understand it and challenge our own thinking first. Again, we do Historical Theology to help us get free from the trappings of our own modern way of thinking. Take into account Hebrews 13:17 while thinking on this.

Have fun tomorrow with Brad. I'll be preaching a Christmas sermon at 1st Baptist LeRoy. I plan to write out the sermon today, so if you're interested, check the blog regularly, and hopefully I'll have the text for it posted by Sunday evening.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

A Theology of Everything

Once again, the imonk (Michael Spencer) has put into words some thoughts I've been wrestling with for quite some time. Check out his newest blog post, A Theology of Everything.

It's a "Heart" issue

My job as a cardiovascular technician is preventing me from posting as much as I'd like to at the moment. I've finally entered the part of the training where I have homework every night on microbiology, heart anatomy, and hemodynamics. I am still checking comments daily, especially for those of you in my Historical Theology class. Let me know how your Ignatius of Antioch reading is going.

I'll get back to my regular posting ASAP. I've got more thoughts on postmodernism as well as a few more Recovering Pharisee Confessions I want to make.

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Historical Theology Reading for 12/19

This week's reading comes from St. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop who wrote seven letters on his way to martyrdom in the very early second century (around 117 AD).
While it would be best to read and discuss all seven letters, I know you're all very busy as I am, so we'll focus primarily on the Letter to the Trallians. In that particular letter, look for the following:

What do we learn about Ignatius?
What do we learn about his attitude towards becoming a martyr?
What are his views concerning church government? How do these views compare with our own church government?
What false teaching is he arguing against (Chapters IX-XI)?

We will primarily deal with issues of church government and martyrdom in class (Brad will substitute, as I will be preaching at First Baptist LeRoy), and the following week, we will discuss the false teaching which grew to be very prevalent in second century Christianity.

If you're interested in reading all of Ignatius' letters, use the following link:


It might be good to read one letter per day throughout the week.

Friday, December 10, 2004

Recovering Pharisee Confession #1

The Evils of "Secular" Music

I used to be thoroughly convinced that any music that was not written by a Christian with the expressed purpose of glorifying God was evil. No, seriously. I did. Even Rudolf. I also believed that music that did not come from a Christian perspective was bound to make me think and act like the world. Now, it is certainly true that there was a time in my life when music, and some which did have lyrics that had a negative impact on me, was a huge part of my life. I identified so closely with all the bands I loved, that in reality, my identity was not my own, but whatever reflected the point of view of this or that band. This happens to many teens, especially. Getting away from "secular" music for a time was good for me, but I began making its prohibition a biblical command in and of itself, when it is not. Let's look at my reasons:

1. Anything not done for the glory of God is wrong, right? And "secular" music was not written with that motivation.

Of course, I can't guarantee that the chair I'm sitting on was made for the glory of God, unless, of course, I call the company that made it and see if there's a bunch of Christians working there, and then make sure their repentance is up to date and that they are indeed doing their job for God's glory.

You get the point. Just because something was not made with the clear purpose of glorifying God does not mean it cannot be used for that purpose.

2. It might influence me in a negative way.

There's some validity here, but not across the board. "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer" has not likely caused anyone to commit sin. This is entirely a matter of personal conviction. Furthermore, I've noticed that most Christians who hold to this opinion, that secular music will influence them in a negative way, don't have the same problem with "secular" movies or "secular" TV shows. They may stay away from rated R or even PG-13 movies, but Gs and PGs are just as "secular" as the others, though they may not contain as much blatant sin.

These two points made, let me make one more. In my struggle with this issue (which involved convincing all my friends to throw away all their secular music, too), I listened to a lot of Christian music. You know what? Most of it is lousy. And it has bad theology. And I would rather listen to the honest music of a secular artist who's making no pretensions, than the supposedly "Spirit-anointed" ramblings of a Christian singer with bad theology, bad melodies, and cheesy music. Thankfully, some better Christian musicians have been emerging in the last 10 years or so. You just can't be certain they'll be popular in the CCM world.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee

From time to time on my little blog here, I am going to offer up some insight into the mind of a recovering legalist: me. I've spent years as a Pharisee, setting all kinds of rules around the moral commands of the Bible, and building all my personal fences onto my neighbor's yards. Whenever I make one of my "confessions," I'm certain to upset some evangelicals, because to some extent, I was the product of American Christian Moralism, modifying my behavior to fit what a "good Christian" should be, according to the flawless standards of American Christianity. I'm certain to fill the posts with sarcasm, not because I want to ridicule others, but because I was (and probably in many ways still am) the person I'll be writing to, and it was good, witty, and graceful sarcasm, combined with the powerful truth of our freedom in Christ, that began the transformation process in me. So I hope you enjoy my "Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee."

Monday, December 06, 2004

Historical Theology - 12/12

So far, we have covered the Jerusalem Council and very early persecutions against the church. In preparation for this upcoming week's class, it might be good to print out the Didache from your home computers and bring a copy to class with you. We will discuss its teachings and then move on to some of the very early church fathers and apologists of the second century. Hopefully we will be able to spend some time on the heresy of gnostic Christianity.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

Week One (Dec. 5-12) reading assignment: The Didache.
Please be prepared to discuss this early church document in class on 12/9, and feel free to post questions and comments throughout the week in the "comments" section below this post.

Church History Timeline

Covering church history in Sunday School, even over two quarters, will have the unfortunate result of missing a good deal of the important details. To help fill in the gaps, check out this helpful church history timeline.

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Historical Theology

I am starting a Sunday School class in Historical Theology at West Middlebury Baptist Church, and I am really looking forward to it. I intend to post resources, updates, and homework information (yes, I give homework for Sunday School) here in this blog. If you're in my class, check back on this regularly. If you are one of my far away readers, hopefully the posts concerning church history and historical theology will be interesting to you as well. And feel free to add info, resources, and perspective in the comments section! Hopefully together we can all get a handle on the great teachings of the church (as well as some of the heresy) down through the ages.

Friday, December 03, 2004

The Christians are coming!

As brave Paul Revere of old, America's left is sounding the alarm: "The Christians are coming!" The rampant fear of Christian influence is astounding, as can be seen by crazy websites like Jesusland and Theocracy Watch, and the general overall response to this year's election by the left. It's ridiculous enough that these people are afraid of simple moral values (you know, like the ones that make them think it might just be wrong to kill unborn babies), but add to that the fact that there are true religious fascists trying to dominate the world (namely, the terrorists we are fighting overseas), and you have an entire group of people in America that has plunged itself into delusion and lunacy. I'll let Christopher Hitchens, the atheist (did you get that? atheist.) sum this up for me:

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Colson on Lewis

Colson wrote:

The problem is not that modern evangelicals are less intelligent than Lewis. As Mark Noll explains in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, the problem is that our sharpest intellects have been channeled into biblical scholarship, exegesis, and hermeneutics. While that is a vital enterprise, we rarely give the same scholarly attention to history, literature, politics, philosophy, economics, or the arts. As a result, we are less aware of the culture than we should be, less equipped to defend a biblical worldview, and less capable of being a redemptive force in our postmodern society—less aware, as well, of the threats headed our way from cultural elites.

I was very glad to read this, since I inted to pursue graduate work in either history, politics, or philosophy. While I will never be C.S. Lewis, I agree with Colson's premise here. This is by no means to devalue biblical scholarship, and that must always be our foundation. We must remember, in addition, that our God is the God of History, and this entire world is His, not just one or two areas of study.

Down Through the Ages

Chuck Colson's column on C.S. Lewis has some excellent thoughts in it, a few of which I'll be commenting on today. The first is the following:

Lewis once wrote than any new book “has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages.” Because he himself was steeped in that “great body of Christian thought,” he quickly discerned trends that ran counter to it.

If we would simply take this bit of advice, we'd avoid a significant amount of error that presently exists in the church.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004