On Sin

I have been reflecting upon how notions of sin are changing. It has led me to some traditional writings that I have found helpful.

First, the Middle Ages developed a list of seven sins that it classed as the worst possible kinds of sin.  These the seven deadly sins were Pride, Greed, Anger, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth (laziness), Unfaithfulness (adultery).

A range of popular books on the Enneagram (from the Greek ennea, or "nine"), which is a symbol of wholeness, have been part of my life.  One such book is Helen Palmer's The Enneagram (Harper, 1988).  She uses the number nine for the seven deadly sins, previously mentioned, plus two more: fear, and deceit.  She uses the Enneagram model to show how spiritual transformation can occur through dealing with one's predominant compulsion in life.  This approach is based on the belief that each person has one primary drive, or "besetting sin," which is the principal force in determining that person's personality (though it does not mean that other sins are not present and active in the individual).   One example from Palmer's book is the sin of "sloth" or indolence.  These people major in minors--too much TV, food, trivial pursuits--neglecting their real needs.  They are good-natured, but undisciplined.  The gift of the risen Christ to this personality type does not destroy their good naturedness but places within them a new desire for action and responsibility. In each case (or sin), Palmer shows how each one can be transformed through abiding in Christ, thereby adding to the Body of Christ with ones own unique presence and being.

Second, consider that possibility that evil is banal. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher, attended the trial of Adolf Eichman in Jerusalem back in 1958.  Sitting through all the long sessions of the trial, the impression gradually grew on her, she said, that Eichmann's evil was rooted in something very banal ... in "thoughtlessness."  Eichmann, she concluded, felt no guilt, because he thought that all he did was part of "the fateful struggle of the German people," and along with others at the trial, viewed himself as "an innocent executor of some mysteriously foreordained destiny."  This kind of "thoughtless" behavior that Arendt saw as resulting from Eichmann's excusing of himself; can confuse anyone who looks upon sinful actions in an unrealistic way. 

Third, reflect upon the possibility that sin is an always-present human reality. Can a believer ever be free of sin?  Some notables thought not.  Martin Luther caved into our sinful nature and sighed, "Trust God and sin on bravely."  Augustine seemed to say something similar in an "anything goes" remark when he said a Christian should "love, and do what he wants."  

Yet, the epistle writer John says that no one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.  Here is one commentator's explanation on this, which seems on the mark: 

            When a boy goes to a new school, and does something out of keeping with the school's tradition or good name, he is told immediately, "That isn't done here."  A literalist might reply, "But obviously it is done; this boy has just done it"--but he would be deliberately missing the point of the rebuke.  The point is that such conduct is disapproved of in this school, so anyone who practices it can normally be assumed not to belong to the school.  So it is in belonging to the family of God; sin "just isn't done here."  Fellowship with the sinless One and indulgence in sin are a contradiction in terms.  Whatever high claims may be made by one who indulges in sin, that indulgence is sufficient proof that that one has no personal knowledge of Christ.[1]

A traditional hymn is, "The King of Love my Shepherd is."  I particularly love the verse that says, 

     Perverse and foolish oft I strayed, But yet in love He sought me,

     And on His shoulder gently laid, And home, rejoicing brought me. 

            Perhaps--like me--you have a past that includes sins of thought and action that you have come to realize were wrong.  And--also like me--you have found that God does willingly lay us on His shoulder and carry us home to the consciousness of His redeeming love.

Whatever the literary genre, Madeleine L'Engle upholds that a writer's responsibility is to radiate hope, to bring healing, to say yes to life. Her works wrestle with the unanswerable questions of life and death, God and darkness. Walking on Water is a book about how faith and art influence one another. She argues that there is a "chief difference between the Christian and the secular artist - the purpose of the work, be it story or music or painting, is to further the coming of the Kingdom, to make us aware of our status as children of God, and to turn our feet toward home."

Her stories accomplish this primarily through her characters, real or fictional. Readers develop relationships with them, discussing them with other L'Engle fans as if they were chatting about friends. As L'Engle proposes, "We all want to be able to identify with the major characters in a book - to live, suffer, dream and grow through vicarious experience." Readers can heal their own painful childhood moments just as the female teenage protagonists who are believable, ordinary girls struggle with their growing up years.[2]

 

---

[1] (F.F. Bruce, The Epistles of John, p. 90, Eerdmans)

[2] Suzanne St. Yves, "Into the Depths of the Human Heart: Madeleine L'Engle's Search for God," November 9, 1999, www2.ari.net/bsabath/950331.html.

On Parentage

I John 3:2 says that we are the children of God “now.” We are now what eternity will reveal us to be. The phrase raises the question of our parentage. I like to think of this as an analogy between the parents who raised us and our spiritual parentage. The picture is of my youngest son, his wife, his son, and his daughter. This was a good day. Some people see a resemblance, and some do not. What do you think? In any case, the point is that physically, we are like our parents.

We may also be like our parents in other, deeper ways.

In what ways are we like our spiritual parent? I have come across a few authors who have offered some interesting reflections. I simply offer them to you for your meditation and prayer. 

God carries your picture in his wallet.[1] 

When I was growing up, my surname was Rothschild. My grandfather used to say that we were the “Brooklyn branch” of the fabulously wealthy European bankers. If there is a family connection, we never found it, but people nonetheless made a lot of assumptions because of the name. I learned that it was useful for making restaurant reservations.[2] 

The church is very good at doing things for people, but we are not very good at proximity and partnership. There is a big difference between dragging folks into your soup kitchen and simply hanging out with them on the street corner. There is a difference between bringing others into the church so that they can be like you and becoming immersed in someone else’s struggle.

Things change for you when you hang out with people and become partners with them. Suppose you are tutoring children in a low-income neighborhood. When you begin to see that your pupils are gifted, bright, talented children, yet realize that many of them are flunking out of school, it pushes you to challenge and change the public school system. When you begin to know people’s hopes and fears, dreams and struggles, you move into the fight for justice.

            If you redefine everything in light of this new priority — being present with people and in partnership with them, being concerned with justice rather than just charity — everything changes. Children’s ministry becomes redefined as ministry with all God’s children — the children hanging out on the streets, not just those that an adult brings to church.[3]  

            Whatever the literary genre, [Madeleine] L'Engle upholds that a writer's responsibility is to radiate hope, to bring healing, to say yes to life. Her works wrestle with the unanswerable questions of life and death, God and darkness. In Walking on Water, a superb book about how faith and art influence one another, L'Engle argues that there is a "chief difference between the Christian and the secular artist - the purpose of the work, be it story or music or painting, is to further the coming of the Kingdom, to make us aware of our status as children of God, and to turn our feet toward home."

              Her stories accomplish this primarily through her characters, real or fictional. Readers develop relationships with them, discussing them with other L'Engle fans as if they were chatting about friends. As L'Engle proposes in Walking on Water, "We all want to be able to identify with the major characters in a book - to live, suffer, dream and grow through vicarious experience." Readers can heal their own painful childhood moments just as the female teenage protagonists who are believable, ordinary girls struggle with their growing up years.[4]

 

---

[1] —Sociology professor Tony Campolo, quoted by Jeanette Clift George, “Dad meets the messy baby,” Men of Integrity, January 18, 2000, ChristianityToday.com.

 

[2] —Nina Utne, “What’s in a name?” Utne, November-December 2002, 12.Used by permission.

[3] —Janet Wolf, “Ministry with all God’s children,” New World Outlook, gbgm-umc.org. Retrieved December 5, 2002.

 

[4] -Suzanne St. Yves, "Into the Depths of the Human Heart: Madeleine L'Engle's Search for God," November 9, 1999, www2.ari.net/bsabath/950331.html.

 

Taking Confession LIghtly?

What is the one thing you have done that nobody else can ever know about?

            Gulp. The mere thought inspires a hard swallow and a pounding heart. Rest at ease. There are now quick and convenient, anonymous and even aesthetic ways to deal with those nagging sins of yours: cyberspace confessions. Think of an online confessional booth as an electronic Post-it-Note. Those ever-present Post-its have brought a sticky, yellow-pad revolution to the absent-minded office worker. What might Post-a-Sin do for the busy and guilt-laden pilgrim in need of conscience cleansing? Have some slip-ups to shake loose and cannot make it down to the parish priest? No problem. Just have them absolved by posting them online at an e-confessional. You are just a few keystrokes away from a clean slate.

            What if you are more of the artsy type who needs to get something off your chest? Again, cyber-reality has a perfect solution for you. There is a Web site where you can submit a postcard-sized artistic rendering of your transgressions. Just include a statement of the issue that you need to reveal — and by all means — you must keep it anonymous. Then these ownerless mail-in confessions are posted on the site so others can read your acknowledgment and admire the way you aesthetically captured it. A comment from a regular of the site reads: “I love this Web site … makes me feel everything I’ve done is closer to human. I wish they would expand and update more often then once a week. I look forward to the new postings as they open up my eyes each time.”

            What a voyeuristic bonus! Would you like to hear some confessions? 

• I removed the book jackets from trashy novels so that I look more sophisticated.

• If something is hard, I give up and have a snack.

• I wish my daughter loved me.

• I was once so lonely that I mailed a letter to myself telling me I was great and signed it from Johnny Depp. 

      The rest of the world can get online and appreciate the splendor of your sinful actions. And consider the therapeutic benefits here. Others can go look at the hideousness of what you confessed and instantly feel better about their own minor mishaps and   peccadilloes. Who needs a priest or a time of prayer anymore? And why bother with an expensive therapist to improve self-esteem? No need to visit the local art gallery. We can get all of those needs met in one place. Anonymous, artistic, confessional and voyeuristic.

Oh, this is brilliant.

            It is no wonder that reality television dominates the Nielsen ratings. We love to wallow in other people’s garbage. It entertains us. It shocks us. It makes us feel better about ourselves. So why not bring the same benefits to confession? Quick. Easy. And tasty as well.

            Confession of sin is important, of course, and we must not make light of it.  One writer used this analogy.

 A few years ago, my wife and I discovered that we had termites in our house. We had just bought this house a short time earlier, and yes, as part of the purchase contract we had it inspected for termites. The inspector found no evidence of a problem at that time, so we bought it with confidence. Unfortunately, there were some uninvited guests moving in at the same time we did. We couldn’t see them. No one knew they were there. But hidden away in the darkness, an army of termites was busy invading that house ....

The areas of sin in my life are very much like the termites in my house. The sin was there when I came to Christ, but it was hidden. I looked okay on the outside, and no one would have thought I had a problem with sin. Even I didn’t recognize it. Just like my house passed its inspection a year ago, the people who knew me thought I was a pretty good person  — and I suppose by outward standards I was. But deep down in my soul, little bits of sin were there, gnawing away at me. One tiny termite doesn’t eat very much. Unless you leave it alone for a while, and it invites friends. Then it will destroy your house. My “little” sins were acting just the same.

Now that I am over being upset about the termites, I am actually glad that we found them. If they had not broken to the surface, we would not have known to call the exterminator. They would have just kept eating away until our house fell completely apart. It’s just the same with sin.[1]  

 

---

[1] —Steve Rogers, “Termites of sin,” steverogers.org. Retrieved October 18, 2002.

Easter and Emptiness

Mary Magdalene and two other women encountered a massive void when they showed up at the empty tomb, one that was as overwhelming as anything at the edge of the universe was. It was early when they arrived, and after meeting a young man and hearing about the resurrection “they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).

Can you imagine how empty Mary is feeling at this point? She has already suffered the crucifixion of her friend and teacher Jesus, and she is mourning his death deeply. Now she goes to his tomb to pay her respects. What does she find? Nothing. A huge cold spot. She did not know that you have to pass through some empty tombs on the way to resurrection life.

We know what this feels like, do we not? Each of us, at some time in life, comes face to face with a massive void, a big empty place. 

It happens …

• when you give your heart to someone who doesn’t accept the gift

• when you learn a sport, practice hard and still don’t make the team

• when you study and pursue a profession, only to find you hate your work

• when you create something beautiful, and discover that no one’s interested

• when you try to resist a temptation, but then give in to it again and again

• when you jump to a new job, then lose it in a downsizing

• when you put money into a home, only to see your equity disappear

• when you retire from a long career, and wake up with nothing to do

• when you lose a spouse to cancer, and find yourself all alone in the world. 

These are huge cold spots.

Massive voids.

Too often, we try to pretend that there are no massive voids in our lives, no empty places. Sociologist Jean Twenge, in The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (2009) observes that young adults in particular have been told things such as “believe in yourself and you can do anything” — which is not very good advice. The truth is, bad things can happen to good people, and not every goal in life is realistic. You may believe that you are going to earn a graduate degree and get a great job, along with a perfect family in a beautifully decorated home, but life does not always give you what you want. Twenge thinks that overblown expectations are largely to blame for the recent rise in anxiety and depression in young adults. She says, “It’s depressing to realize that your unrealistic dreams are never going to come true.”

We are all going to face some empty places in life, and we need to take them seriously. You cannot expect to step into a dream job right out of college. Most of us are going to endure a lot of heartbreak before we find a partner for life. Loss and rejection are a part of just about every life story you can imagine. You have to pass through some empty tombs on the way to resurrection life.

Mary and her companions make this journey as they flee from the tomb. They do not fall into the trap of thinking that if they believe in themselves, they can do anything. Instead, they feel a blast of alarm, terror, amazement and fear — and these emotions set them up for the surprising reality of the resurrection.

They quickly discover that Easter is not about them — instead, it is about God. In particular, it is about God filling the empty places in our lives with new and unexpected life.

 

Religious Freedom and Restoration Act

       

     Many of my United Methodist clergy colleagues have considered this law bigotry, comparing it to denial of service to black Americans in the south before the passage of Civil Rights legislation. Given that many of my colleagues among Indiana UM clergy have taken to harsh rhetoric on this matter, I would like to share a few things that are designed to bring some reasonableness and objectivity to the law as passed in Indiana. I suppose I would like the rhetoric to tone down. I think of Romans 12:9-21, a few isolated comments: Love one another with brotherly affection ... Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty ... If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all."

            The point in the links that follow is to offer information in the hopes that everyone can discuss matters before the public and religious communities in a reasonable way. 

            The federal act involved is relatively brief and easy to read and understand in US Code 42 paragraph 2000bb. It says nothing about sexuality.

            I invite you to read the article in Wikipedia. Another simple history is in the Indianapolis Star. The surprising thing here is that Representative Chuck Shummer introduced the bill in the House and President Clinton signed it in 1993. It became the law of the land. It still applies to the Federal Government. However, the Supreme Court decided that Congress did not have jurisdiction to apply it to the states. Hence, the move to have states apply its principles within the states. Religious Liberty Archive has posted the states who have past their version of the law so that it does apply to the states.

            The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has been a strong supporter. It has held symposiums, and one is relatively recent. If you have the time, its video discussion is still available. The Roman Catholic Church has been a strong supporter, as have Orthodox Jews.

            Briefly, the point of the law is that no other law in the state is to place undue burden upon individuals that inhibit the practice of their religious faith. Many uses of the legislation over the years have protected Muslims and Native Americans. It has protected the Amish and Sikhs. It has recently protected Hobby Lobby from supplying insurance for abortion. Constitution Daily has a brief article regarding some of this as well. Here is an interesting and brief article on ten Americans helped by various renditions of RFRA. Here is an example from the state of Washington regarding a flower shop owner. Here is an imagined interview by Ross Douthat that seeks to explain that America should be large enough tolerate people with differing values.

            Of course, recently, the focus has been upon the effect of the legislation in Indiana on same-gender unions. The concern is that religious persons, right now mostly Christian, but it would include Islamic businesses as well, might discriminate in this area. I have been asked if this law reinstitutes the segregation laws of before the 1960s. The answer is no. In fact, to ask the question is to fail understand Jim Crow laws, so I have found this article to explain it. Briefly, Jim Crow forced business owners to discriminate against African Americans, and many private business owners resisted this action of government. This law gives religious people standing in court to make decisions based upon their beliefs and values. Howard Slugh has written an article that explains why states need RFRAs. Daniel Conkle, an Indiana University professor, wrote a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star expressing his reasons as to why Indiana needs an RFRA. A lawyer from South Bend has offered his analysis as well on his blog. Here is a quick summary of what the Law is and is not.

           My conclusion is that the law is nowhere near the type of thing designed by segregation laws in the south in the pre-1960s ear of the USA. In fact, the law builds in restrictions that would not allow that. I commend political leaders as they recognize the danger that government can be to the free exercise of religion. My secondary conclusion is that the hateful rhetoric by many who oppose the act is misplaced and dangerous. I say misplaced because the presenting issue, sexuality, has not arisen in other states nor with the Federal Government. I say dangerous because, contrary to the intent of those who use such language, the rhetoric I have seen could lead to violence against Governor Pence and to those who voted for the legislation, which include members from both political parties. This sentence was in my original post. What I did not anticipate was the threat of violence against the owner of a little pizza place in southern Indiana. The Wall Street Journal has an editorial in which it refers to the new intolerance. My wonderment is if any of my clergy colleagues will see that their rhetoric is reaching its natural extension to this threat of violence.

           In any case, I find it disturbing that so many can be so hateful against their opponents, whom they accuse of being so hateful. People have turned against their state government quickly, and this reaction has the potential of hurting the state. A rational response would have been to give it a year and see if the fears of opponents become reality. Frankly, if such fears became reality, I would be in favor of its repeal. I also find it puzzling that suddenly in Indiana there is supposed to be this pent-up desire to discriminate against people, especially by conservative Christians against gays. My own view is that most Christians live with difference all the time. We love our family, co-workers, and neighbors, regardless of their what they believe or do. I have the concern that spreading such fear within the gay community through this heated rhetoric will hurt more than help. The rhetoric that spreads fear among certain groups, I suspect, has a political motive to discredit Governor Pence but, broadly, conservatives and Republicans. Those with a political agenda are agitating a situation for political benefit. It seems to me that pastors and churches need to do the hard work of bringing people together rather than driving a wedge. Is that going too far? In other words, the reason for the original federal law and the reason for its application in the states is due to a fear as well, the fear of the state placing an undue burden upon people who are following their religious convictions. This fear has its basis in actual case law, including a decision by the Supreme Court. I guess the question I have, especially for my colleagues, is whether we ought not to be on the side of bringing people together rather than contributing to division.

         Personally, I value individual liberty, and that includes respecting private property rights and freedom of association, as well as the free exercise of religious beliefs. I think America is large and diverse enough to allow for this. If someone does not want my business for whatever reason, I can go down the street and find someone who will. I suppose I have confidence that moral and economic considerations will eventually get to a good place if we allow people the freedom to work this out.

        I close with a few reminders from Paul.

I Corinthians 13:4-7

4  Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant   5  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;   6  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.   7  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.   8  Love never ends.

Philippians 4:8  Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

I Thessalonians 5:13b, Be at peace among yourselves.

Ephesians 4: 29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.

 

    
 

Beatles and Jesus

It is Palm Sunday, and on Palm Sunday Jesus was a huge hit with the crowds.

Jesus as a populist or popular person somehow does not seem to be what the gospel is all about. A generation ago, John Lennon of the Beatles thought Jesus was a popular fellow. Then in 1966, he infamously proclaimed that he and his Beatle mates were even “more popular than Jesus.” I was only 14 at the time. I would not be unique in my generation to say that they were my favorite band. I was attending a church in Austin, MN at the time. His statement made some uncomfortable times for me. It gave ammunition to adults who did not like the music or appearance of the Beatles. I am not sure if I just overlooked it or forgave John for it, but they remained my favorite band. They are still a favorite, although I liked much of their work after the band broke up. I had the privilege of being present when Paul McCartney was in Indianapolis, a gift from my two sons. After the Beatles, he led a band called Wings. I recall someone of the generation of Wings saying that he really liked Wings, but who are these “Beatles”? Fame is a fleeting thing.

In any case, I recall that the claim set off a storm of protest in a then more conservative post-war United States. Problem was that whether you were looking at things from Lennon’s perspective or from that of, say, the average churchgoer, there really was not a way to check the facts of the claim. Lennon was looking at packs of screaming fans every day, while hordes of teens did not overrun churches rabidly wanting to be close to Jesus.

Lennon’s comment, taken in context, was really more directed as a slap at Christianity than at Jesus himself (“Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”), but in the midst of all the hubbub nobody seemed to want to verify empirically if what he said was actually true or not.

These days, no rocker could pop off with such a statement without Gallup and a host of bloggers and pundits running the actual numbers. In fact, Internet search-engine giant Google offers a quick way for anyone to compare the relative popularity (or at least the number of Internet searches and news stories) between two celebrities or entities, called Google Trends. Type in “Jesus” and the “Beatles” in the Trends search engine and out comes a graph that compares the Google search history of both in the form of a graph. While we do not know what the graph might have looked like in pre-Internet 1966, as of 2012, in article by Nathan Smith in the Houston Press, Jesus has four times the number of web page hits as do the Beatles, who have a little over 200 million. Just speculating here, but it could be the result of the fact that the Beatles have not cut an album in decades and half its members have passed on, while Jesus is still the main subject of the world’s number one best-selling book and, according to Christians, is still alive and at work.

In the midst of his comments to The London Evening Standard on March 4, 1966, Lennon also said, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be proved right … I don’t know which will go first — rock ’n’ roll or Christianity.” Well, according to Google Trends, Christianity and rock ’n’ roll are both still around and, interestingly, running about dead even in search popularity.

If you type in “Jesus vs. the Beatles”, you can find out much more. While I find it amazing that the popularity of the Beatles remains as strong as it has been, I find it more amazing that the carpenter and rabbi from Galilee, after all these centuries, remains so high in web pages and web searches. Popularity is not everything. Most people probably have less problem with Jesus than they do with Christianity or church. In one way of looking at this, that is all right with me. I would much rather have people reflecting upon how God works in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You see, that is the focus of the church as well. As important as the church may be to me and to many others, it exists to point people to Jesus.

Here is a five minute video, a short life of Jesus. It is worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5-x-FWarNY

Tertullian on Martyrs

"The blood of Christians is seed," wrote Tertullian, a North African Christian, in about 197. "[It is] the bait that wins men to our school. We multiply whenever we are mown down by you."

Tertullian, of course, wrote with rhetorical exaggeration. Pagans hardly flocked to the church after witnessing the death of Christians. Martyrdom eventually made a large-scale impact on pagans but not before two centuries of sacrifice.

Ordinary citizens in Tertullian's day were not impressed with Christian deaths. In fact, they seemed to take pleasure in the persecution of Christians.

"Faggot-fellows" and "half-axle men" were nicknames of contempt for people who allowed themselves to be tied to a half-axle post or have faggots (wood chips) heaped around them in preparation for being burnt. Christians were viewed as only a sect or school that opposed the established order, dabbled in black magic and practiced incest and ritual child-murder. The Romans saw them as a dangerous cult, disliked and despised.

"Through trusting [in resurrection], they have brought in this strange and new worship and despised terrors, going readily and with joy to death," mocked one ancient. "Now let us see if they will rise again, and if their god be able to help them and take them out of our hands...."

From Tertullian's time, many Christians became "evangelists to the death." Only in the fourth century did martyrdom become a serious factor in the church's growth. So long as the empire flourished and the values of Roman civilization prevailed, Christians were seen as an illegal and disloyal minority. Martyrs merely displayed their zeal to a largely hostile or indifferent populace.

The Great Persecution seems to have flipped the scales. After the conversion of Constantine, martyrs became part of a "Golden Legend." In Rome, for example, the Spanish poet, Prudentius (d. 402) embellished the story of the martyrs with miraculous details of their legendary heroism against pagan governors.

So Tertullian was right after all, though his statements took time to become fulfilled. For him, the martyrdom of Christians was the supreme influence that drew people (himself among them) to Christianity: "For who that beholds [martyrdom] is not stirred to inquire what lies indeed within it?"

 

-William H.C. Frend, "Evangelists to the Death: It took centuries for Christian martyrs to impact pagan society," Christian History, September 23, 1998, www.christianity.net