MENU

Author

On September 19, 2013 By In Theology

Life Together

By Uri Brito

Bonhoeffer’s Life Together is an apologetic for community life. But it is also a rebuke to those who take for granted the life in the community. Bonhoeffer sees community life as a privilege. The martyred prophet spoke of life together as an honor secured by the death of Jesus Christ. While many suffer the effects of aloneness, Bonhoeffer urges us not to forsake this blessed fellowship.

Life Together, life in the messiness of human existence– but the experience of messiness with other believers– is a gift of grace. The Lutheran writer spoke of community as a foretaste of the life to come. “It is only by a gracious anticipation of the last things that Christians are privileged to live in visible fellowship with other Christians.” a Eternal life is the beautification and glorification of life together. Eternal life is the perfection of community life.

This common life is all of grace. It is a privilege that should not be forsaken. To live separate lives is to despise grace. “It is grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian brethren.” b “Do not forsake the assembly” (Heb. 10:25) is not only a call to gather for corporate worship–it is primarily this–but it is also a call to live together daily, dwelling together in unity (Ps. 133:1).

Life Together is life as God intended. It is the humanification of fallen creatures. Humans are most fallen when they live separated from others. They are most redeemed when they are together. They are most God-like when they enter into the communion of saints, participating in that Spirit-led body that the Father bought through the blood of the Son.<>mobile online games rpgпродвинуть в яндексе

  1. Bonhoeffer, Life Together, pg. 18  (back)
  2. Bonhoeffer, pg. 20  (back)

Read more

On September 13, 2013 By In Theology

What the Pope Really Said

by Uri Brito

Fellow KC contributor, Adam McIntosh, has already expressed some valid concerns regarding the pope’s words. Allow me here to deal with the broader question without delving into the specific exegetical details. Many are asserting that the pope has declared his universalistic theology, thus altering traditional Catholic theology. Is the pope a universalist? I doubt it. The pope was offering his thoughts on the Gospel lesson from Mark 9:38-40. The point of the leader of the Roman Church had to do with whether an unbeliever (an atheist) could do good works. a The famous remarks had to do with the possibility of good works, and not with soteriology, strictly speaking. Here is the statement:

“[A]ll of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can…”The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!…We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Here is the surprising conclusion of this story: the head of Rome does not believe in limited atonement. Shocking, isn’t it? As the Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.” — (CCC, 605)

Catholic writer Brandon Vogt observes that there is a distinction between redemption and salvation in Catholic theology. Whereas redemption for all allows even atheists to do good works, salvation, on the other hand, is not for all. In his letter to the Founder of “La Repubblica” he writes: “…and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart.” b The conditional here is something like faith. However Catholics understand faith is another matter which can be discussed later, but to assert that the pope is saying that no belief is necessary to come to God is a falsity. In fact, his language echoes that of repentance: “if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart.” One does not need to support Rome’s theology to see that at the very least bloggers have not been wholly charitable to his words. There is a lot to debate and disagree with in this letter c, but to assume the pope is giving a soteriological carte blanche to Sam Harris and Christopher Dawkins is rather naive.<>копирайтинг виды текстовкомпании по обслуживанию ов яндекс

  1. Obviously more clarification would have been helpful, thus avoiding this article altogether  (back)
  2. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-letter-to-the-founder-of-la-repubblica-italian-newspaper?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zenit%2Fenglish+%28ZENIT+English%29  (back)
  3. I disagree with much of it as a Protestant minister  (back)

Read more

On August 20, 2013 By In Scribblings

Uri Brito: I drink because I am a Christian!

The Associated Baptist Press writes that there are a number of Baptists wanting to return to wine for the Lord’s Supper. The entire debate is rather interesting and provides a rather sharp turn in the broader baptist culture in America. This article led to a piece by James Rogers at First Things who wrote about his daughter’s response:

“This brought to mind my daughter’s comment of a few months ago at a small dinner we hosted. We were chatting with our guests about some wines we liked. At one point Megan said, “I don’t like alcohol. I only drink because I’m a Christian.”

Here is an old piece I wrote with a Lutheran Minister a few years ago on this matter.

 <>создать favicon online

Read more

On August 13, 2013 By In Family and Children

Worship and the Act of Parental Discipline

Liturgy is grounded in acts. Every act leads to another act. In liturgy, skipping to a meal before being cleansed (washing of hands) is improper. Liturgy requires table manners. The liturgy shapes us. In particular, the Lord’s Day liturgy has a way of forming us into obedient children of the Most High God. The goal of biblical liturgy is to make us vessels of the gospel as parents and children. Liturgy is order and decency (I Cor. 14:40). This is one reason structure is so crucial to the Church, and more to the point this is one reason structure is so significant to the life of the home. A home that lacks structure is a home that lacks a well-thought out liturgy. I am not advocating perfection. Any parent who has been a parent for any amount of time knows that there is always work to be done. Parenting does not work within a 9-5 boundary marker.

This is why it is important to grasp the nature of liturgy. Its nature will indicate its purpose. The liturgy of the people of God is a holy one, and those principles which are generally fixed as we gather as God’s family are principles that can be applied to our homes also.

Worship establishes patterns of behavior. In general categories, we could summarize the nature of worship in three acts: First, we are a) cleansed, then we are b) taught, and finally we are c) commissioned. This is a synopsis of a covenant renewal model. When you apply this pattern to child-rearing you realize it is a sober method of disciplining.

First, children need to understand that they have sinned against God (Ps. 51) and against one another. Children need to confess and be cleansed. Children’s ability to understand sin is far greater than we can imagine. Part of this cleansing process is the presupposition that all sin is communal. No sin affects only self.  Children are born and baptized for the sake of incorporation. It is the individualist that prefers to see his sins as isolated. But sin in the home hurts the shalom of the house. When sins are individualized parents develop a faulty view of discipline. When a daughter sins, a father’s response should not be to simply discipline her and let it go, rather it is incumbent upon him to explain to the child (briefly) how her sins affect those around her; how her selfishness provided a poor example for her siblings; how her ungratefulness trivializes the generosity of God to our family. When a child sins he needs to see his acts in the context of his community. His sins are not merely exposed, but explained in a broader context than himself.

Secondly, the task of parenting then follows in teaching. This is didactic parenting. All parents are home-schoolers in one way or another. I am assuming here the role of nurturing and building up as part of the instruction.  As I mentioned above the act of discipline needs to be followed up by some explanation. Discipline and words of instruction need to go hand in hand, especially when dealing with little ones. The instruction needs to be age appropriate and biblically saturated, even if the verse is not quoted verbatim. Teaching needs to be done calmly and with great patience. The impatience of our children often reveals our impatience. In the same manner, our impatience in instructing our children reveals our impatience to instruct others as well. If we are not capable of explaining the consequences of sins to the least of them how will we explain the consequences of sin to those who are more maturely aware of them?

Under this training, parents need to be also aware of the need to communicate love to our children. The Christian faith is wholistic. If we end simply in the didactic, we may be training little machines to respond appropriately. But though it is often assumed under nurture, parents sometimes forget that physical affection is needed. A I wrote in The Trinitarian Father, children must feel our presence as well as our affection towards them. Jesus comforted his disciples when he commissioned them. He told them that his authority is sufficient for them to fulfill their task. Parents must hug, kiss, and reveal to their children that parental training includes more than mere words, but actions; actions that will leave a lasting impression as they are commissioned to fulfill their call day by day.

Finally, the parenting liturgy concludes with commission. The father/mother after having cleansed and instructed the child, the parent now sends the child out to go and sin no more. This commission stems from the previous steps. Commissioning is the call to be reconciled to the world, beginning with our households. When Jesus grew he grew in favor with God and man. When our sins are confessed we are not only made right with God, but we are called to be reconciled with others. Children are also called to be ambassadors of peace.

Parenting is always liturgical. A make-up-as-you-go liturgy will cause certain effects on the liturgy of the home. I argue that every child needs structure. This is not a never-adjusting structure, but a foundational structure. Liturgy is nothing more than the structure of life.<>siteпродвижение через интернет

Read more

On August 13, 2013 By In Scribblings

In Obama’s Name, Amen!

Out of the mouth of babes should come praise to the true God. But this type of theological monstrosity is what we are to expect of a people who make politicians the last hope of civilization.  The parents here are largely to blame. Their indoctrination is now becoming a generational curse. We are not to put out trust in princes nor in messiah-like politicians, Republican or Democrat. A nation that has lost confidence in the true God is a nation that turns to anyone as a their new god. This may be an insignificant reflection of the broader culture, but the fact that it is present at all is indicative of a larger problem.<>статьи на заказ ценакоэффициент конверсии это

Read more

On August 9, 2013 By In Theology

An Introduction to Revelation

If you are interested in an introduction to Revelation, here is my sixth introduction to the book focusing on the hermeneutical method called “Interpretive Maximalism.”

“The minimalist is often quite literal and focuses exclusively on the grammatical-historical interpretation. Though this method is necessary, our interpretation should not be limited to it. I am currently working on a project on the book of Ruth, and at first glance it seems like a simple narrative, but the more one digs into the meaning of the names of each character, the places mentioned, the theology of the land and of gleaning, the nature of Boaz and his relationship to Ruth, one is compelled to realize that Ruth is really a miniature picture of the entire gospel message from Genesis to Revelation.”

(Scroll down on the main page for all six lessons)

Originally posted here<>этапы раскрутки ареклама в поисковиках

Read more

On August 5, 2013 By In Politics

A Neo-Conservative Repents!

Repentance is the turning away from one view of the world to another. This theological definition may fit well this story. This is not the Onion reporting. This is not a Paleo-Conservative dreaming. There is actual news that a self-proclaimed Neo-Conservative has offered a form of apology. Neo-Conservatives have never been the type to offer apologies, so what is happening? A representative view of the Neo-Conservative philosophy comes from the lips of its greatest advocate in the last fifty years, George W. Bush:

Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well — a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

This high liturgical rhetoric is inspirational. But it lacks one component to it: truth.  Bush, who took the interventionist foreign policy to heavenly bliss in his eight years at the White House, is now long gone, but the “freedom voices” have continued in his footsteps. Or have they? Giuliani’s furious response to Ron Paul in the 2008 election was a symbolic echo of Bush’s foreign policy. In those days invoking 9-11 was a blank check to say whatever you wanted in the public arena. Giuliani used it well and often. In fact, even his close friends were getting tired of it.

But the times, they are a-changin’.

Ron Paul and his “wacko birds”–to use McCain’s kind description–have been on a tour. They have used the large sums of money that flowed continually during this past election season, and like good capitalists they have invested well. They travel and educate; preparing the next generation through an abundance of resources. Paul has since retired and his insanely accurate prophecies have virtually all come to pass. The nanny state has left America filled with orphans, as the old sage predicted. But though orphans, mommy still reserves the right to check up on them when convenient through one of her demons called The National Surveillance Agency. Be that as it may, the tide is changing.

And then enters Newt Gingrich, that old fox; lover of foreign interventions. He has come to the American public and made a confession. In an interview with the Washington Times, Gingrich says that U.S. military interventions in the Middle East geared to “export democracy” didn’t work and a better focus is on “American interests.”  “I am a neoconservative. But at some point, even if you are a neoconservative, you need to take deep breath to ask if our strategies in Middle East have succeeded,” Gingrich tells the Times, adding that countries where the religion and culture are not hospitable to Western values haven’t been the best breeding grounds for change.”  Is this a death-bed confession? Is this Gingrich’s last attempt at joining the winning side as 2016 nears? Is Gingrich hoping the American public hears his confession and bestows an indulgence? Whatever the answer, Gingrich has uttered the unthinkable; perhaps a mortal sin. He admitted that a) the Middle East is no friend to America’s democracy dreams, and b) that a country’s agenda is first and foremost to the interest of her own people.

Gingrich also took the time to compliment Rand Paul. The former presidential candidate sees Rand Paul’s cautious foreign policy as something to be considered. The Kentucky Senator sees foreign wars as a last resort. Neo-Conservatives have never pondered a last resort; they have always relied on the first. Whether Gingrich is seeking asylum from his failed policies or not, one thing is sure at least in word: a Neo-Con has repented! Time to slay the calf and party!<>siteраскрутка а оплата по факту

Read more

On July 29, 2013 By In Politics

Reza Aslan’s “Zealot” and the Jesus Seminar

The news of Fox News’ Islamaphobia has gone viral. And what is the proof of such hatred of Muslims? The proof is an interview with Professor Reza Aslan’s concerning his new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. 

The interview is supposed proof that Fox News orchestrated this interview as a further demonstration of its anti-Islam bias. The host seems intrigued that Professor Aslan is writing a book about Jesus when he is a Muslim. She implies that when a Muslim writes about Jesus there is then a definite agenda at play. Aslan responds incredulously:

I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.

If this is the case, is he then justified in making some of the claims in the book? One assertion made in the book, according to Aslan, is that Jesus was an illiterate Jew. a

In Chapter 4 he writes,

Whatever languages Jesus may have spoken, there is no reason to believe that he could read or write in any of them, not even Aramaic. Luke’s account[s of Jesus’s literacy] … are both fabulous concoctions of the evangelist’s own devising. Jesus would not have had access to the kind of formal education necessary to make Luke’s account even remotely credible. b

This is a rather comic observation, especially in light of the fact that Luke himself is committed to accurately writing from detailed witness accounts (Lk. 1:2). The same Luke concludes that Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, and in favor of God and man (Lk. 2:52). Another observation is that when Jesus opens the Isaianic scroll he not only reads it, but also explains it revealing his rabbinic reputation.

Further, as Alan Jacobs writes at the American Conservative, Aslan’s conclusions are nothing new. They are simply following the general outline of The Jesus Seminary guru, John Dominic Crossan. Crossan and others argued in the 80’s and 90’s that Jesus did not say the majority of things he claimed to say.  Part of this conclusion meant attributing certain colors according to degree of certainty. Red meant the sayings of Jesus were authentic. The other colors pink, gray, and black were used to claim whether a saying of Jesus was paradoxical or not said by Jesus.

But a more embarrassing fact for Aslan’s assertion is that they are false, especially as it relates to his repeated mention of his Ph.Ds in history. As Matthew Franck writes in First Things:

None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false.  Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

One must also conclude that though the Fox News host (Laura Green) did not appear to be particularly interested in the book’s content as much as the book’s author, she was right to challenge his credentials as a Muslim. As Kuyperians we know well that to expect a Muslim to represent Jesus accurately is an impossibility. Therefore, the author’s claim to neutrality concerning our blessed Lord is an academic sham and should be seen for what it is: another public attack upon Jesus, the Messiah.<> аренда 8-800

  1. Alan Jacobs writes: Aslan asserts that Luke was a conscious fabulist. Yet even if Luke were wrong about Jesus’s literacy — or about anything else — there is more than one way to explain those errors. For instance, Richard Bauckham’s important and much-celebrated book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses — which Aslan appears not to know — makes a strong case that Luke’s Gospel, like the others, is based on the testimony of those who claimed to be eyewitnesses. Especially since Luke places such emphasis on his attempt to gather reliable witnesses to the life of Jesus, wouldn’t it make sense to attribute his errors (if they exist) to his interviewees’ lively imaginations or poor memories, and to his own credulousness, rather than to intentional deception? Yet Aslan never considers any other possible explanation than the one he blandly asserts without argument.  (back)
  2. From Alan Jacob’s “More About Reza Alan’s Zealot”  (back)

Read more

On July 23, 2013 By In Culture

The Twitter Pope

popebanner1“The pope is not the head of the Church, but he is that Antichrist.” It is with that flowery language that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith describes the highest office of the Roman Church. a As a Protestant who cares deeply about preserving some level of catholicity with my Roman Catholic brothers, I take exception to that clause as does the congregation in which I serve. There are theological reasons to believe the early Reformers were a bit too quick on their assumption, however, it is no small thing to consider that were we in their circumstances that proposition would not look as foreign to 21st century Reformed Protestants.

If the papal office were the Antichrist it is safe to assume that the world is still not under his spell. If Twitter is any indication, the pope has a long way before reaching Bieber-esque popularity. b

Indulgences from Twitter

The Guardian summarizes:

In its latest attempt to keep up with the times, the Vatican has married one of its oldest traditions to the world of social media by offering “indulgences” to followers of Pope Francis‘ tweets.

The indulgences are granted to those who cannot attend the Catholic World Youth Day, in Rio de Janeiro, a week-long event starting on the 22nd of  July. But it’s not as easy as you think:

A senior Vatican official warned web-surfing Catholics that indulgences still required a dose of old-fashioned faith, and that paradise was not just a few mouse clicks away. c

It’s not simply about following the pope’s Twitter account, it’s about praying and accompanying the week-long youth event in Rio. So there are a few qualifications that would keep us from overly trivializing the actions from the Vatican.

New Times, New Methods

This social awareness of the Roman church is a result of a global decline in membership. Pope Benedict XVI stepped down in a time of tremendous turmoil as the well-publicized sex-abuse scandal resulted in an increasing distrust of Roman Catholic leadership. Overall, Roman Catholic churches in America have lost 5 percent of their membership during the last decade, and the decline would have been much steeper still if not for the offsetting impact of Roman Catholic immigrants from Latin America. d These drastic measures taken by the Roman church are a sign that new times require new methods, and that entails seeking new followers.

Pope Francis may prove to be the right man for the right time. He has re-energized the Roman Catholic faith in a short period of time more so than did Benedict in his entire papacy. Francis, who has been referred to as an “unconventional pope,” has shown himself to be savvy politician. He shakes hands and kisses babies with tremendous ease. Gone is the day of the inaccessible Holy Father. Francis cracks jokes and delivers unscripted remarks, much to the occasional dismay of staffers scrambling to keep up. e He knows that his church is overwhelmed with bad PR and he appears to have a clear, albeit unconventional plan to rescue her from  herself. His success is likely to turn the negative perception of the papacy.

“Like a spiritual rock star, he routinely packs St. Peter’s Square for his weekly appearance to bless the faithful. Hundreds of thousands of devotees, perhaps millions, are expected to turn out to see Francis, the first Latin American pontiff, during his trip to Brazil, the world’s most populous Roman Catholic nation.” f This is the new face of Roman Catholicism in the world. The pope may be far from dominating the Twittersphere, but for the catholic youth indulging in the pope’s latest tweet may be the quickest way to improving the church’s reputation.<>продвижение ов яндекс и google

  1. WCF, XXV.6  (back)
  2. Justin Bieber has the largest twitter following in the world with over 42 million  (back)
  3. Ibid.  (back)
  4. Pope Bedict and the Decline of American Catholicism  (back)
  5. Pope Francis the Unconventional  (back)
  6. Ibid.  (back)

Read more

On July 15, 2013 By In Politics

Is the Christian Divorce Rate Really 50%?

“Getting married is dangerous,” writes Rich Lusk. a Marriage is an intrinsically risky endeavor. And as laws in our culture reflect more and more a debased understanding of this sacred covenant, entering into marriage becomes even riskier. It does not take long to realize that ideas have consequences, and those consequences become a reality quickly in a marriage.

Whether a marriage implodes catastrophically or deteriorates slowly over time, it is no sight to behold. It is painful, and if children are involved, the pain is doubled.  But is this the picture we are to expect in the local church? Should divorce no longer shock us? In other words, have our expectations become the same as the expectations of those outside the covenant community?

Divorce

Famous Divorce Statistics

I lost count of the dozens of times that I have heard pastors and parishioners alike quote the famous statistics on the Christian divorce rate. These numbers are used to put the fear of God on young couples contemplating marriage, or to enforce the time-tested method of guilt manipulation to get men to get their act together. Sometimes, of course, these are just numbers thrown out to indicate just how far the Church has been corrupted by the present culture.

“50% of all Christian marriages end in divorce” is the claim I’ve often have heard for the last 15-years. While the numbers can sound alarming, I just simply cannot believe they are true. And I have reason for my skepticism.  The first reason is that I do not believe the famous Barna numbers are theologically accurate. Notice I said “theologically.” They may be accurate, if you wish to accept the Barna Group’s categories, but if you dig deeper you may not begin with the same assumptions.

Barna defined a “born-again” Christian as someone who has “made a personal commitment to Jesus and believe they will go to heaven because they have accepted him as their savior.” The definition is purposefully vague; it says nothing about baptism, church attendance, or Bible reading. Another important detail is that Mormons are also added to the mix among Catholics and evangelicals. Orthodox Christians have rejected any non-Trinitarian expression as legitimately Christian in the creedal sense. According to another poll by the same group:

 15% of born again Christians deny the resurrection of Christ; 28% believe that Jesus committed sins during His life on earth; 34% believe that if a person is good enough he can earn a place in heaven; 26% believe that it doesn’t matter what faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons; and 45% believe that Satan is a symbol of evil rather than an actual being. In other words, many of these “born again Christians” are not born again at all. b

I understand that Barna’s purpose was not to theologize over the definition of a “born-again” Christian, but by not differentiating he left a gigantic door open to abusive generalizations that skew the dependability of the final data sample.

When the pastor of an evangelical church, who affirms the basic tenets of the Christian faith, decides to employ the Barna Group as a source for an anecdotal illustration, he is applying the statistics to the wrong audience.

Bradley Wright, who did extensive research over these numbers, concluded that the number was actually around 42%. c He also added that “worship attendance has a big influence on the numbers. Six in 10 evangelicals who never attend had been divorced or separated, compared to just 38% of weekly attendees.” The 8% drop may not seem much, but it does bring down the magnitude of the 50% number.

Barna’s number may prove accurate if we are to make the “born-again” category to include Mormons and Jesus-Seminar followers, and the vastly un-churched “born-again” population in America. d However, were Barna to treat “born-again” believers as adherents to the Apostle’s Creed, my suspicion would be that those numbers would decline dramatically. These footnotes are rarely, if ever mentioned in these discussions. If pastors knew these facts it would alter the way they apply these numbers.

Is marriage in good shape in America? No. Have churches failed to protect and defend marriage as a sacred covenant between man and woman? Yes. But to use these numbers and assume that the Christian population is just as prone to divorce as the non-Christian population is a misguided conclusion.

Uri Brito is the founder of Kuyperian Commentary. He blogs regularly at uribrito.com

<>интернет объявлениянаружная реклама киев авто

  1. Edited by Uri Brito. The Church-Friendly Family, 81  (back)
  2. John MacArthur, More Divorce Among Believers?  (back)
  3. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-divorce-christians_N.htm; that is an 8% drop  (back)
  4. The Jesus Seminar followers have a long tradition of denying just about every claim made by Jesus in the New Testament, especially as it concerns his physical resurrection from the dead  (back)

Read more