Submission to authority I like

Or that looks like me or helps me ‘other’ people I don’t like

This morning's Morning Edition was full of great stuff! As I drove in I was particularly struck by a story about Evangelicals trying to soften hearts on overhauling immigration. (You can read and listen to the story here.) Hearing the reporter mention Romans as why Evangelicals have resisted comprehensive immigration reform stirred memories I’d forgotten. The argument has gone, from a religious perspective, that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be granted amnesty or given a path to citizenship because they’ve broken the law. They should be punished and believers must submit to authorities. Since these immigrants haven’t submitted, clearly they aren’t Christians.

I wonder, however, why this convenience of submission to authority is called on — by people in then pews, not just at the higher levels — when they like the call to submit to civil authorities, but not when they like it. The passage from Romans the reporter mentions is Romans 13.1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” (NRSV)

Growing up, the call to render to Caesar was one that was heeded and talked about. We were taught that we had to respect our civil authorities, even if we didn’t like them — which was certainly the case in my Southern Baptist church in Alabama during the Clinton Administration. I have heard, from religious conservatives, the argument about not passing comprehensive immigration reform because it rewards law-breakers, and so they can't support it on religious grounds of the law needing to matter.

Yes, laws need to matter, but where is the law not mattering because people don’t like it, particularly the same people who are willing to speak far too publicly about how their understanding of Christianity should dictate public life. I don’t see those opposed to immigration reform calling on Alabama Governor Robert Bentley to enforce portions of the Affordable Care Act that deal with consumer protection when he’s said he won’t.

For the last few years many Alabamians have rallied behind Chief Justice Roy Moore precisely because he wouldn’t submit to authority and was removed from office for it. He has his job back and hasn’t seemed to try to create any major actions, but my recollection of 2003 was that those who identified most with Chief Justice Moore as the true Christians were the ones who supported him the most — because they saw him standing up for what he believes in.

Standing up for what one believes in is a good thing. I support civil disobedience when it’s well thought out and not just doing what whatever you want, but working for an issue of justice. My problem with the “I’m just standing up for what I believe in,” argument is when it really hurts and impinges on others. Using a perceived non-submission to authorities by undocumented immigrants while tolerating elected officials of your own faith tradition’s non-submission to authorities is inconsistent.

I’m glad that some leaders in Evangelical circles are working for immigration reform and trying to tell their stories about how and why. I guess I don’t really understand how it’s taken this long, although I find the spokesperson from the Evangelical Free Church in the NPR article telling: people want to know how to get Hispanic votes, so now it’s a good thing to support immigration reform. I don’t think this is about seeing people as people who are different. Romans 13 has been used for othering in this conversation — “It's okay for Roy Moore because I like him, but it’s not okay for immigrants because I don’t like them and they’re different than I am.”

I grew up in the midst of the Evangelical culture and mindset. I am struggling as an adult to hear how the need for submission to authority in Romans related to a fear for amnesty for undocumented immigrants when grace is something that can be preached on ad naseum in these churches, as well it should be. Sermon series on the Lord’s Prayer have to deal with “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,” but that can’t seem to carry over to people who entered the country illegally (and there’s never any conversation about why or what might be wrong with the system).

Why is it okay to tolerate Roy Moore’s breaking the law (and even support) when Romans 13.1 is your foundation for rejecting comprehensive immigration reform from a faith perspective? If you're going to claim Biblical literalism for immigration, abortion (as related to portions of the Affordable Care Act), and LGBT (in)equality, you have to have a higher standard for your own leaders. It’s not okay to make the people you don’t like live by a standard you won’t hold people you do like to — particularly when you’re trying to force a great many of your standards on a whole lot of people not like you.

Reloading and Resurrection

This post has been at least in my head in process since I was driving from Alabama to California, the week after the shootings in Aurora, CO. During that time I saw many different people say many different things about gun control, how awful it was to be politicizing the tragedy so soon, how we can't help but politicize it because it is a political issue and our faith lives require us to engage our society's politics.

Most of the posts were from the same people over and over again, seeming to get louder and louder as they posted. However, watching my Facebook feed, I noticed some other trends around the Christian faith as it was indirectly related to gun violence in the US. While there were certainly those being explicit (usually arguing for more gun control as a life issue), there were those who drew no correlation between their desire to have their guns and their faith, but the trends of whose posts certainly link the two.

My observation of many of these posting was that the people who might claim to have a deeper faith because they regularly post prayers requesting miracles were also the ones who posted most from a place of fear concerning who can carry weapons. I felt a dissonance between expecting logic and reason to be defied as someone prayed for cancer to be poofed away, despite what medical professionals may be saying, in one posted and insisting they needed to be able to arm themselves to protect themselves from others.

This understood need to protect themselves from others seemed to stem largely from a fear of death. My understanding of much of the Bible is that Christians are instructed to not live in fear. A poster I used to see, and I have no idea if this is factual, said " 'Fear not' is in the Bible 365 times - one for every day of the year.' " If we can rely on God for miraculous cures for cancer, why do we feel as though we need rely on ourselves to protect us from death?

The perceived need to protect ourselves from death throws me some, too. While this isn't something I'll claim many people are happy to say that we're a "Christian Nation." Those are, at least among my Facebook friends, the same ones who are so insistent that we have guns to defend ourselves - from the bad guys (who, I'll point out, are still created in God's image, whether we like it or not). This fear of death does not resonate with one of the core tenets of Christianity: that dying Christ destroyed our death and rising Christ restored our life; Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life.

For a Christian Nation, we seem to be awfully scared of something that we believe doesn't have any power over us. We seem quite content to rest on these ideas, promises, thoughts, and beliefs when people have died, but how do we realize Easter while we're alive? I think that we're probably more likely to live fuller lives now (cf. John 10.10) if we aren't worried so much about holding on to it. Liturgical Christians at least annually acknowledge that they will die ("Remember that you are dust, and to dust you will return") but we don't sit in that.

Neither do I think that we should live only thinking about the afterlife. Rather than being a motivator for what we do now, I think the promises that those in the tombs have been given life should release us of fighting to stay alive by not taking risks and fearing that we're always about to die. Acknowledging that it's a possibility is probably a good thing, but fearing it isn't, I don't think.

How do we engage and realize Easter in our day-to-day living? Do we believe that in baptism we have been buried with Christ into his death so that just as he was raised we may be raised to new life (Rom. 6.4)? If we do, and we have faith that we will be raised, and have faith the cancer can be cured miraculously (which not all of us do), why do we fear for our lives? Why are we willing to rely on God for healing but not protection, particularly protection from something that Christ has already defeated and has lost its sting?

Does "Christian America" and its need for hand guns actually believe in the Resurrection?

When a Nobel Prize Isn’t Enough

Peter A. Diamond has written a piece about his nomination to the Fed. Way to keep it classy, Alabama:

Last October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market. But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve — at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination. How can this be?...The leading opponent to my appointment, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, has questioned the relevance of my expertise.

Be sure to read it all.

Heightening The Republican Contradictions, Ctd

Andrew Sullivan:

And so the notion of America as a unique nation in the eyes of God is a Christian heresy. And the rest of the current Republican agenda is also, extremely hard to square with Christian orthodoxy.

Read it all

How the Senate Should Vote

Kyrie eleison.  Lord have mercy on all those serving the military, and all those involved in war; as we approach the coming of the Prince of Peace, may we know peace on earth.

Speaking of Alabama....

From Towleroad

Pam Spaulding points out this clip from Alabama talk show DJs Rick & Bubba in which they mock LGBT people and Gay Pride, using Obama's LGBT Pride Proclamation as a jumping-off point, explaining to their audience that there's not "fornicator pride" day or "adulterer" appreciation day.

"There is, absolutely, no way, impossible, to biblically justify this lifestyle."

There is a Rick and Bubba Must Go Facebook page.

Is it any wonder that I've been trying to get out since I was 16?

Inverse Relationship

My charitable feelings toward the Roman Church's hierarchy are developing an inverse relationship to the continuing news breaking about sex abuse, cover-ups, and re-assignments that have gone on from centuries ago to today. I have for a few years made it a standard practice not to go to Mass because I can't receive, except with people or for respite from a hectic week and there is a Mass (whose structure will calm my nerves) being offered on a weekday. Now, however, that's intensifying. If the person I wind up spending the rest of my life is Catholic I won't be going to church with them.

Our children will not take part in that Church, and that's not even entirely about protecting them. I will not expose them in any way to a Church system that does not even try to give the appearance of true repentance, and I won't endorse it by any sort of participation. I am losing more and more faith in the management of that historic expression of Christianity. I don't even want to point a finger at someone to hang; I'm not looking for someone to blame or someone to get blamed or be a fall guy (and it's only guys in this case). I want to hear "We're sorry. This has been a problem. We are fixing it. What can we do to help?" Rather than "We're sorry, but this was someone else's jurisdiction," or "We're sorry, please don't talk about this, here's some money for damages," or "We're sorry, but these things happen. What can you do?"

What I don't want to hear is accusations and people's fury being dismissed as "petty gossip." I don't want to hear comparisons of uproar about abuse compared to anti-Semitism. And apologizing after the fact for saying it doesn't make it okay. When you posit yourself as the arbiter of truth, opposing gay marriage and reproductive rights and rallying thousands of dollars to those campaigns, and talk about things tearing the fabric of society but then are as corrupt, if not more so, than other large corporations, you've surrendered your self-indignation, particularly when the accusations are about some of the least of these, defenseless children who trust in authority.

"Trust us" is too late. The faithful have been trusting you...and are met daily with new accusations, more people coming forward. And rather than helping the people move forward, the Church is saying "Just trust us. We've got this under control. Don't listen to those people at the New York Times. They're trying to make us look bad because they just don't like Catholicism. Nothing really has gone wrong." Dismiss and deny isn't working out anymore. WE no longer live in an age where we just trust authority figured. And clinging to a bygone era just gets you left behind -- with everyone mad at you.

Pray for the Church

Grandmère Mimi keeps us updated on sex-scandals in the Roman church. As I read more and more headlines, I hurt for victims whose abusers have yet to face justice, and I pray for the church, for its wounds and its broken system that perpetuates hurting itself and others.

Today she linked us to a HuffPo article which concludes:

I wish the higher-ups could educate these girls without thinking about what methods the two women back at home use to trigger their orgasms. Their decision to the contrary smells of an obsession with homosexuality.

If that's not what this is about, then the Catholic Church should apply this Denver principle to others who violate its sexual doctrines. Do America's Catholic schools harbor any children whose parents had sex before marriage? Who use birth control? Who encourage their older children to use birth control? Who got divorced and remarried, or who married a divorced person?

Ban all their children. Then the bishops can sell the vacant schools to pay off the judgments in lawsuits by people who were molested by priests.

Be sure to read it all. And keep your eyes on Mimi. She has good stuff, and a lot of content.

No, You Can't

Watch it, tweet it, share it, favorite it, post it, blog it.

Advice to Republicans

h/t to Andrew Sullivan

Russell King offers some here

Some topics include
- An invitation
- Hypocrisy
- Hyperbole
- History
- Hatred

Read it all.

Glasspool Gets Consents

If you haven't heard the news, the Rev. Cn. Mary Glasspool, suffragan bishop-elect of Los Angeles, has received the required consents from bishops and standing committees and will thus be ordained in May. Fr. Scott has a great response to the people who have issued negative statements to this effect. Here's a snippet:

If one is going to object to the ordination of GLBT persons, the basis must be on grounds other than a (fictitious) fixed tradition. Any casual reading of church history reveals a slow-moving stream in which the waters of tradition are constantly refreshed. The essentials of the faith that we teach (e.g. Christ’s resurrection or the power of the Holy Spirit) ought not to change, but the church has constantly and slowly revised its teaching on any number of second-order matters. Surely the AAC could admit this, as they seem to on the issue of divorce.

Read it all

Responsibility

There will be a forthcoming entry with a little more thought on this shortly, but please read the following and submit your name.

Dear friends,
It's time to hold the Republican Party accountable.

You've probably heard about Tea Party members shouting "Nigger!" at Black Congressmen during a protest in Washington, D.C. last weekend. One of the protesters spat on Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, while another called openly gay Representative Barney Frank a "faggot" as the laughing crowd imitated his lisp.[1]

But Saturday was just the most recent example of the intolerance and hate coming from right-wing extremists this past year. At times it's been instigated by Republican leaders. When not, it's usually condoned and seen as part of a strategy to score politically. Either way, it's completely unacceptable and has to stop.

It's time to confront Republican leadership and force them to take responsibility for the atmosphere they've helped create. Please join me in signing ColorOfChange's petition confronting Republican leaders about hate and fear-mongering in their party, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/hate/?id=2061-230662

We're calling on RNC Chair Michael Steele, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to publicly do two simple things:

- Unequivocally condemn bigotry and hate among their supporters, and make clear that those who embrace it have no place in their party.

- Make clear that they will not tolerate fear-mongering and coded appeals to racism from officials in the Republican party, at any level.

Republican leaders publicly denounced Saturday's ugly scene, but they failed to acknowledge that this is only the latest incident in a pattern of violent rhetoric, racially charged imagery, and paranoid conspiracy theories at Tea Party rallies.[2] Many Tea Partiers aren't simply about dissent -- they use fear and hatred to assault the very legitimacy of our elected leaders. It's the worst America has to offer. Despite this, Republican leaders court the Tea Party movement while methodically supporting, exacerbating and exploiting their fear and anger for cynical political ends.[3] This is nothing less than a betrayal of American values, and it's up to us to force the Republicans to stop aiding and abetting this enterprise:

http://www.colorofchange.org/hate/?id=2061-230662

The Tea Party movement has been marked by racially inflammatory and violent outbursts since its inception a year ago. GOP leaders are trying to pass off this weekend's assaults on Congressmen Lewis, Cleaver, Clyburn and Frank as isolated incidents. But when so-called "isolated incidents" crop up again and again, a pattern starts to emerge. The examples are numerous.

At rallies held to protest tax day last year, Tea Partiers carried signs that announced "Obama's Plan: White Slavery," "The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's Oven," and "Guns Tomorrow!"[4] The Republican National Committee had endorsed the rallies, and RNC Chairman Michael Steele encouraged Tea Partiers to send a "virtual tea bag" to President Obama and Democratic Congressional leadership.[5] After reports of the fear-mongering signs surfaced, Steele did nothing to distance his party from the lunatic fringe. He has even gone so far as to say that if he didn't have his current position, he'd be "out there with the tea partiers."[6]

The Tea Party's venomous rhetoric picked up steam over the summer, when angry mobs flooded town hall meetings legislators had organized as sites for rational, civil debate on health care reform. After one meeting in Atlanta, a swastika was painted on the office of Congressman David Scott (D-GA), who had also received a flier addressed to "nigga David Scott."[7] Some protesters showed up at town hall meetings carrying guns, including at least one man who was armed at an event where the President was speaking.[8] Again, Republicans responded to these tactics with silence, doing nothing to denounce them.

Our country deserves better than this. No matter what party one supports, we should all take strong action to support civil, honest, and respectful public debate. Please join me in calling on Republican leaders to denounce racist rhetoric and fear-mongering, and reject it from their party. And when you do, please ask your family and friends to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/hate/?id=2061-230662

Thanks.

References

1. http://huff.to/atRmru
2. http://huff.to/9Sgf3S
3. http://huff.to/c4ZOH4
4. See Reference 2
5. http://huff.to/3nzZE
6. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31177.html
7. http://bit.ly/8YInIb
8. http://bit.ly/LV1wb

Tell Glenn Beck: I'm a Social Justice Christian

So, I wrote about Beck's words the other day. Now, Sojourners is responding with an action campaign. Click here to tell Glenn Beck that you're a social justice Christian.

Glenn Beck says Leave Church

On his show last week Glenn Beck said:

I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.

The Rev. James Martin, S.J has come great analysis of Beck's comment and what it means more broadly than just leaving local congregations.  Fr. Martin closes with this,

The attack on social justice is the tack of those who wish to ignore the concerns the poor and ignore the social structures that foster poverty. It's not hard to see why people are tempted to do so. How much easier it would be if we didn't have to worry about the poor!

But ignoring the poor, and ignoring what keeps them poor, is, quite simply, unchristian. For the poor are the church in many ways. When St. Lawrence, in the fourth century, was ordered by the prefect of Rome to turn over the wealth of the church, he presented to him the poor.

Glenn Beck's desire to detach social justice from the Gospel is a move to detach care for the poor from the Gospel. But a church without the poor, and a church without a desire for a just social world for all, is not the church.

Read it all here

Fatwa Against Terrorism

Please check out this link from the BBC. Please read it, pass it around, tweet it, and share it on Facebook. I have the sneaking suspicion that it won't get a lot of play in American media. Make sure your friends and family who say, "If there are Muslims who are against terrorism, they really should speak up" see this.

Islamic scholar Tahir ul-Qadri issues terrorism fatwa

(h/t to The Lead)

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Last night the President said the following in the State of the Union (in case you missed it)

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do."

Don't ask, don't tell policies are not limited to the military, and they are more about the idea of coming out, which is far more than saying, "I'm gay!" to your friends and everyone you meet on the street. While there is certainly an aspect of that (or at least having that freedom to do, should you feel compelled), it's really about being a whole person to whole people all around you. DADT policies inhibit that room, certainly. There are those who say "You shouldn't let one aspect of your personality define you, and that's what coming out does." I disagree with that.

Our identities are multifaceted, but certainly as sexual people, our sexuality is a part of that. As loving people, our relationships are very much parts of our identity. By not being able to come out to one's peers -- in any group, not just the military -- one has to constantly walk on egg shells about what they do in their spare time, which establishments they frequent, what movies they see, and which artists they listen to. Some of that is certainly stereo-types, but in a DADT construct, if one appears to be gay, s/he may be asked (even in violation of the policy).

If a queerperson finds him/herself in a relationship with someone of the same sex, DADT precludes their ever mentioning that. If someone is in basic or deployed and gets a letter from his boyfriend or from her partner of however many years, those two people have to say it's from a friend. During time back from deployment, those people have to say they're going to spend time with a friend. Meanwhile, their heterosexual counterparts can talk about the stress that distance is putting on their relationships and be honest about them as romantic relationships, can get excited about having gotten a letter from their wife that talks about ______.

Coming out isn't about saying, "Look at me, this is my identity, and it's the only thing about me!" It's about being fully honest and giving full disclosure. It's about a gay man being able to say "I'm getting to see my boyfriend after six months away," versus being shamed into hiding the truth, so telling a half-truth and misleading others by his silence. Or if not being shamed, being exactly who he is with enough between the lines to see if they want to, but sometimes working himself into a frenzy for fear that others will find out and ask -- and he won't be comfortable telling an outright lie. DADT limits people who want to be supportive, too. People who can read between the lines might want to say, "I know someone else who's done the coming out thing. You're safe with me," but would violate DADT and could border on sexual harassment.

And don't ask, don't tell policies aren't just existent in the military (although I know innumerable LGTB people who are serving, know veterans who talk of their experience as heterosexuals knowing that there was a gay bar right of post at almost off of their assignments, know people serving now who either have an atmosphere where their gay colleagues can be open or can read between the lines and want to be supportive). They exist in schools, particularly in systems that have discriminatory hiring/work practices. There are gay teachers who can't say anything to anyone (again, not an announcement to students, but bitching about relationships in faculty lounges during lunch) for fear of losing their jobs. There are people in discernment to be clergy in many Christian denominations where being gay is okay until you become "self-avowed," or it's okay for you to live your life, but it can't be talked about.

Do you fall into any of these categories? Friend or colleague of a closeted queer person in a system with a don't ask, don't tell reality? Person living in don't ask don't tell? If you won't be directly adversely affected by it (or if you will and are comfortable with that), what are you doing to change the system? Calling bishops, standing committees, school boards and congress people? Or watching your friends hide parts of their lives that are important to them while you take what's afforded to you as a heterosexual for granted?

Where Do You Get Your News?

Apparently Fox News [is] The Most Trusted Name In TV News. And that's based on polling data. From here

These numbers suggest quite a shift in what Americans want from their news. A generation ago Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in the country because of his neutrality. Now people trust Fox the most precisely because of its lack of neutrality. It says a lot about where journalism is headed.

There's a great documentary that I'd recommend that talks a lot about FoxNews and how it's cornered a lot of markets and gotten to be so popular, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. FoxNews makes me mad because I don't think that it does endorse democracy or dialogue. It's about shouting down your opponent, no matter how ignorant you may be, and dominating the other side. There is no desire to work together, and they're critical of anything they disagree with and play the "un-Amercan" card.

I get my news from NPR, which from my perspective is balanced based on the facts that it gives. Now, there is certainly slant, but the way it slants is by what it chooses to cover, not by the words it says in that coverage. I remember that clicking in high school when they were doing a piece about New Jersey prison conditions. They weren't slamming the New Jersey government, they were raising an issue that was critical of the entirety of government and a systemic problem in government. I realized that I would probably never hear that on Sean Hannity's show (to which I listened every day). Somewhere between then and now I've decided that I want news to be left-leaning, and not because I'm left -leaning. If news is going to spout party line or official statements from the government and get all riled up when people (exercise constitutional right/duty to) petition the government and then call them "un-Amercan" for doing so, what's the point of having a free press? I don't think the founders wanted any people but official spokespeople serving as government/party mouthpieces, or we wouldn't have the freedom of the press in the First Amendment.

Additionally, I check out BBC for news. Contrary to what most Americans believe, we aren't the center of the universe, we operate as part of an international community, and what we do at home and abroad affects us at home and how we're treated abroad. Even our most left-leaning news organizations are horribly myopic when it comes to international coverage. I've also decided to start reading Le Monde both to work on my French and to get yet another perspective on what's happening around the world and in the United States. I've also started to take in a smattering of DemocracyNow! but (maybe because I'm so caught up in what Ethan calls "corporate news") despite how much I want to believe it, I have to take it with a grain of salt.

Where do you get your news?

The Posting Rundown

I said that I'd post stuff over here that I was posting on Facebook, so here I go. This will be links to articles and videos just embedded. There is ONE video that I'm not going to post here as that it feature prominently in an upcoming entry. I haven't posted toooo much over there, but there are a few links that I'm going to put over here, and maybe do nominal commentary. I'm going to try to start making short posts rather than doing this kind of rundown thing.

Salvation's goal: returning all to right relationship - The Presiding Bishop does some follow up on her address the day before General Convention started. I liked what she said that the beginning. I like what she says now in her expounding on what she meant as that so many people only got snippets and commentary without looking at the fullness of the sermon. I have a lot of experience in what she's talking about, so hearing her say what she says rings True to me. Check it out.

Christians Against Healthcare for All? - Fr. Jake is great. He raises points and asks questions. And when he gets mad, he is willing to use emotion in his blogging, which is what I really like. I, of course, like his slant, but I really like his emotion. In this post he questions people, and he lambasts others for not caring for the poor and repeating lies about healthcare bills that have some support.

Myths and falsehoods about health care reform - Media Matters for America identifies and debunks 14 myths and falsehoods surrounding the health care reform debate. Enough said. Read and disseminate.

Mad Priest's Thought for Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - End of Argument - From the entry, "You cannot have a doctrine of Christian marriage that is based on scriptural precedent and instruction. All the marriages mentioned in the Bible were Jewish, Roman, Greek or from some other pre-Christian Middle-Eastern or Mediterranean culture. They would have been different from each other but all were recognised as real marriage by the writers of scripture." Check it out

Come, Beloved of God - Someone I read referenced this blog entry and all I can say is wow. I'm working on a post about salvation inspired by Derek Webb's "Take to the World" and some of the Rev. Scott A. Gunn's postings on salvation. I think this might come up in that entry.

There is one more thing that I didn't post in this rundown, but that's because I've decided to make a separate entry about it...and it's probably going to be a good, long one.

Keepin' it Real

The Other Pray-er at the Inauguration