March 25, 2017

June 21, 2010


Dispatches from the HoB/D: The Marriage Sham

Remember what the HoB/D-L is: It’s the House of Bishops and Deputies Listserv - an email list maintained by Louie Crew, subscribed to by bishops and deputies, the contents of which can be viewed by anyone else wishing to subscribe in “audit” or “read-only” mode.

In other words, these are the people who make the decisions about what happens in the Episcopal Church: Bishops, and Deputies to General Convention.

I’ve been following the latest thread about the sacrament of marriage, and even in the fever swamp of the HoB/D, what’s been offered is loopy almost beyond belief.

It’s pointless to trace the whole discussion back very far, but just take a look at what’s been said over the past few days. Here’s Tom Fitzhugh, who simultaneously makes cogent and absurd points about marriage and the BCP:

The BCP is clear as is the service itself that marriage is between a man and a woman.  This isn’t just something the church made up a thousand years ago. Weddings have celebrated religiously for millenia, in one form or another.

The intermingling of the church with state authority to pronounce couples wed might have a shorter history than the religious blessing of or participation in weddings.  What is the Jewish tradition/history of rabbis at weddings? 

Whatever that history is, we have a problem (even before we get to the constitutional issue of the BCP) in that now some states have expanded what they define as “marriage” to be something other than a man and a woman. There’s no easy solution, but I proposed that we simply follow the rules of the state in which the formal relationship is recognized. If that’s a “marriage,” then we should be able to offer an appropriate blessing/ceremony to celebrate it. If it’s a “partnership,” ditto.  We bless buildings, pets, jewelry, so why not loving, state-sanctioned relationships?

Well, because, Tom… for one, “loving” and “state-sanctioned” have never been sufficient, or even necessary, reasons for the church to give its blessing to something. Not sure if you’ve actually read your Bible lately, Tom, but homosexual behavior - whether of the temple-prostitution variety or gussied up in whatever language or construct its advocates choose to use - is a sin. The Christian church, by definition, does not bless sin. For another, what will it take for it to sink in that “because we bless [insert inanimate object here], we must therefore bless behavior and arrangements that are specifically deemed sinful in the Bible”?

The C of E has tried to approach this issue with their clergy by simply ignoring reality. They say it’s fine if clergy want to enter into state-approved same sex relationships, but please, just don’t do anything in the bedroom (or anywhere else).

To accomplish this legitimately, we need to offer new services and adopt them at GC, and I think the SLCM is working on that, right?

Good conversation here - and I realize my Anglican compromise proposal is just that - a fudge - but we’re so good at fudge!

Tom Fitzhugh
L4, Texas

And to paraphrase George Will, no Anglican farce is complete without a cameo by retired bishop Walter Righter, who opines:

I don’t see how, if one reads the National Geographic issue this month - that one can say God established marriage at the creation!! Do tell?!
Walter Righter

Brad Wilson then responds:

I guess, Bishop, because I give a higher priority to the Scriptures than to National Geographic - altho I sure enjoy the pictures.

Brad Wilson+

That was pretty good, but don’t worry - the lunatic fringe returns immediately:

As I recall, “marriage” was a creation of the church a thousand or so years ago as mechanism to insure that property would pass to legitimate heirs (as opposed to illegitimate ones).  The examples of marriage in the Hebrew Scriptures are rather different from our current version.  They clearly involved polygamy and other arrangements we consider unacceptable.  Women were also “given over” to husbands by their fathers as property.

Perhaps we have romanticized a custom into something it isn’t and never has been.  The chronology of events at Cana seems to indicate that Jesus was more present at the reception than at the actual wedding. 

The church hasn’t had a stellar reputation about marriage over the years either, considering its participation in arranged marriages for political reasons. 

Sometimes one just has to shake one’s head in wonder.

Bruce Garner
Exec Council

Oh yes indeed, Bruce… one definitely has to shake one’s head in wonder.

A different Bruce - Bruce Robison - points out:

I sometimes get a little confused about what the argument is.

Some of my friends believe that the bond and covenant of marriage *was* established by God in creation, and that our Lord Jesus Christ *did* adorn this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at Cana of Galilee, but have come to the opinion that there are grounds in, say, the Pentecostal visions of Peter (don’t call unclean what I have called clean, etc.) to believe that the Church is being called now, with a fresh movement of the Holy Spirit, to an expanded understanding of marriage to include the faithful covenanting of gay and lesbian persons. 

I would call this a “progressive high” view of marriage, to make up a term, and I would say that while the wider body of the Christian family has not (or, perhaps, not yet) been convinced of this, it is something that Christian people can and should talk about, and with deep respect, taking each other seriously and meeting one another in love, as we consider together the scriptures, by the light of tradition and reason, in conversation with the whole Church. 

The discussion perhaps then is one largely about ecclesiology.  Should we come to a deeper clarity about something like this among as wide and catholic fellowship as possible, or should we say that this is one of those decisions that individuals or small groups or “local churches” should feel free to make and then act upon on their own?  Is our Episcopal Church to be understood as a “Protestant Denomination” with its own freedom of faith and order, fully empowered to discern substantial matters of Christian teaching, or are we a member of a body of “mutual responsibility and interdependence” on such matters, and so called to speak our piece but also to wait for the discernment of the larger body? 

Or, and this is what I wonder, are we saying that the Church has been entirely mistaken in its formularies—not just about “who can be married,” but about marriage itself?  That when we speak about “the purposes for which it was instituted by God,” we are in fact just using pretty ceremonial language that we really don’t mean?  That we don’t think God in fact has a purpose in marriage, but rather that it is a social institution of human design and for human purposes, and which we may feel free to adapt—or scrap all together, I suppose—if we discern a more efficient way to order things?

I actually hear both messages, and sometimes from the same people, at different times.  It seems to me, though, that they’re quite different, perhaps even contradictory.  For me personally the former position is a great deal easier to work with in conversation than the latter.  But it’s helpful to know just what it is we’re talking about.

Bruce Robison
Pittsburgh C-4 2009

Back to Bruce Garner, who really starts to bring the crazy:

Thanks, Bruce…similar feelings.

At times I have wondered something along the lines of:  Who married Adam and Eve?  Did God perform a ceremony?  Of course that leads to questions about where the spouses of Adam and Eve’s children originated…if indeed Adam and Eve were the first.  Somewhat tongue in cheek, somewhat whimsical, but also questions inquiring children might ask!

Yes, Dan [Martins, who inexplicably continues to try and engage these loons -G] I understand the procedures for changing our BCP, but that isn’t the real issue here.

As with most faith issues, there is the human aspect of the conversation. Two people are in love with each other, that “glowing” type of love where anyone watching them smiles to see how completely lost the two get in each other…even standing in line for a movie!  It makes no difference if the couple in love is of opposite genders or the same gender.  The issue is love and right relationship and how they and we can honor that relationship. Suffice it to say, it certainly appears that God has already honored it.

Maybe the church should really get out of the marriage business.  That is really a function of civil authorities anyway.  The priests include that caveat when pronouncing someone as married.  I can’t really see a reason for the church to be a part of a civil contract when the faith contract is what matters most to us.

Perhaps if the church just worked at blessing relationships that honor the love and mutuality the couple expresses that would resolve many issues. What we should be looking for is non-abusive, non-exploitive, loving relationships where neither party is using the other.  As Bishop Ed Salmon (retired SC) once noted during a discussion in the old Standing Commission on Human Affairs, the relationship should mirror the relationship found in the Holy Trinity:  complete mutuality, completeness, perfection in a relationship.

In retrospect, some of our “lovely ceremonial” words have created untold pain in the world.  Binding people until “death do us part” has kept marriages together for years past the time they should have been ended.  How many times did the death part come at the hands of an abusive spouse.  How much of our ceremonial words and actions are holdovers from the time when women were indeed property and an exchange took place between father and husband to create the marriage.  One has to ask who married whom here?  The contract seemed to be between the two men!  The woman had no say.

It’s a complex matter and provides much material for discussion. I would just prefer we avoid the romanticization that sometimes come from myths rather than reality.

Bruce Garner
Exec Council

Dan Martins counters:

Bruce, your arguments are moot for present purposes. It is a conversation worth having, but it’s not this conversation. The matter at hand is the normative authority of the Book of Common Prayer over the teaching and practice of the Episcopal Church, of which those in holy orders are vowed stewards, and to which even lay members of Executive Council have a fiduciary responsibility. If you wish to work through proper channels to change the Prayer Book, I encourage you to do so. But for the time being, the inescapable fact is that the Episcopal Church teaches that the bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation. That’s not just a nice piece of poetry, it’s a direct theological assertion. This is not merely the view of some cranky knuckle-dragging conservatives, it is the official teaching of our church. The burden of restraint is on those who dissent from it, not those who uphold it.

Dan Martins+
Northern Indiana

A sterling, brilliant, yet obvious point, which evidently sets Ann Fontaine’s crazy juices to boiling:

It is a dumb prayer that is based on prejudice not Bible IMO - God   did not establish a bond and covenant or marriage in Creation. The story has nothing to do with marriage - it has to do with procreation - which we no longer support with abandon. As to Jesus attending a wedding as a basis for holding marriage in esteem - also not much of a reason. I hope someday we have an opening to the marriage ceremony that is not so laughable.

Ann


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

27 comments

I think I know what the problem happens to be, Greg.  Evidently, when in the editing room shredding the parts they don’t like, they missed these parts:
Genesis 2:24   For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Now I know all that Old Testament stuff is considered so yesterday for the revisionist crowd, so let’s go see what Jesus had to say about marriage:  (And yes, he had something to say about it.)
Matthew 19:4-6 Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,‘and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

So, inquiring minds want to know if it is the two sided printing that is causing the problem.  You know when you cut one side out, you lose the other.  Could very well be the problem.

[1] Posted by Jackie on 6-21-2010 at 02:43 PM · [top]

Is there not an example or two of marriage in between creation and 1,000 years ago?

[2] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 6-21-2010 at 03:16 PM · [top]

A year of dedicated reading the HoB/D listserv should be part of the catechesis of prospective confirmands into TE”c”.  It should also be regular assigned reading for all vestry members.

Bruce Garner, Walter Righter, Ann Fontaine and a host of the other “regulars” on the HoB/D list were instrumental in convincing me I could not in good conscience raise my children in an organization with such leadership.  I owe them a debt of gratitude.  Would that more understood their perspectives.

[3] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 6-21-2010 at 03:48 PM · [top]

Fontaine says, “The story has nothing to do with marriage - it has to do with procreation - which we no longer support with abandon.”  What in the world does this mean? Is it the same point that PB Schori once made about the small number of Episcopalians being a good thing (reflecting various sophisticated controls of reproduction)?  No wonder the RCRC (once the “Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights”) found such a ready home in the Episcopal Church.  (Nevertheless, if this RCRC membership had ever been put to a really representative vote, it would not have prevailed in 2005.  Now that many have departed the church over this abortion issue, I still don’t know that it would have general approval if the pew-sitters understood it.) At least, it is still jarring to see such a blatant statement as the one I referenced.

[4] Posted by Paula on 6-21-2010 at 04:42 PM · [top]

Bruce takes one aspect of marriage (‘heirs’, and why on earth would that be important unless the notion of family were intrinsically valuable) and he tries to turn it into the whole of marriage. A truly cynical and grotesque way to approach things. It’s like saying the only reason to treat your children well is so they will look after you in your old age. I guess parents can ignore Eph 6:4 then as long as they have enough to retire.

But I wonder if Bruce did not innocently fall into this error, that anyone brought up in a Darwinized society might fall into. The deconstruction of family will help him to promote the normalization of his favorite sin.

[5] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 6-21-2010 at 05:00 PM · [top]

Oh I have been reading all of this and I can only just shake my head at the pure ignorance of these people

[6] Posted by TLDillon on 6-21-2010 at 05:29 PM · [top]

Paula,

I wholeheartedly support the idea that your Prevaricating Bishop

once made about the small number of Episcopalians being a good thing….

I just understand it more as a mathematical relationship than as a qualitative judgment. Given the nonsense on the HOB/D listserv and the clearly heretical direction in which the ecclesial community identifying itself as TEC is headed, I think the “good” should be maximized. Therefore, IMHO, the highest possible good would be approached as the membership of TEC approaches zero, at which point all of the faithful will have departed for other jurisdictions.

Of course, I am fairly certain that the Prevaricating Bishop would disagree with this. But, inasmuch as she was a biological oceanographer, I very much doubt her education extended much past statistics, so I doubt that her understanding of the calculus is among her strengths. It proabably ranks right down with her understanding of Christian theology, in other words, it is virtually nonexistent.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[7] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 6-21-2010 at 06:49 PM · [top]

A good example of the scriptural truth that “in a multitude of words, there wanteth not foolishness.”  Bruce Garner would do well to think through his chatter before committing it to the internet.

[8] Posted by Nlevee,Eend, BSC on 6-21-2010 at 06:54 PM · [top]

SpongJohn SquarePantheist,

You appear to classify Mr. Garner’s understanding of marriage as “grotesque”. To the best of my knowledge, and I am prepared to be corrected on this if I am wrong, I think it unlikely that Mr. Garner has ever been involved in a relationship that the leader of my ecclesial community would not describe as “severely disordered.”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[9] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 6-21-2010 at 06:54 PM · [top]

Be careful Greg, they might ban you from the HoBD. It’s against the canons to breach the mailing list’s confidentiality. Keep it up and Bruce the G might show up to explain what happens to kibitzers who don’t toe the line.

wink

[10] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 6-21-2010 at 07:46 PM · [top]

#10 - Matthew A (do you still stalk mouses?)
Now, why did you have to go and bring that up?  Though we are surprised we haven’t seen that trounced out yet.  Previously, IIRC, this stuff gets shipped to Greg by others without him having to mine it. 

Agree with R. Scott Purdy that all should have to subscribe to it to know that part of the “universe”.  That it’s closed to the public speaks volumes.  I keep being reminded of various Scriptures where what is secret is brought out into the light.

God institued various covenants, marriage being the first.  Guess they don’t count unless General Convention approves them.  It seems to me that TEC is the one putting God in a small box.

[11] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 6-21-2010 at 07:56 PM · [top]

Bruce Garner is not done, I am afraid that the real buffoon is Bruce Garner and those who think like him:

I find myself amused at some of the attempts to create ethics or the basis for marriage or a variety of semi-absolutes from Scripture.

We seem to forget a few things about what I still believe to be divinely inspired but “touched” by humanity:

Scripture comes from an era when there was little known about human biology. Reproduction was the result of a man depositing a tiny human into the woman’s womb where she simply incubated it until birth.

It comes from an era when mental illness was usually attributed to demonic possession. Jesus’ healing of “demoniacs” could be the result of a quick
realignment of chemical imbalances in the brain or a super fast divine counseling session.

It comes from an era when various humans were considered property, including women…including wives. The only women who seemed to have any independent “power” were very wealthy….the source of the wealth rarely identified.

It comes form an era when relationships between human beings were understood mostly in the context of power….one over another….even in a couples
setting.  Same gender coupling took place, but even that was viewed through a lens that insisted it be based on one having more power over the other. That’s not unlike the stereotypes that exist today.

It comes from an era when the world was supposed to be shaped like a saucer and the entire universe revolved around it.

These lines of thought persisted in some cases until a couple of centuries ago.

When I look at the Scriptures I see two truths that it is trying desperately to get across to the people of God:

The first is maintaining a right relationship with God.  The second is maintaining a right relationship with each other. Virtually every Biblical account of pretty much anything illustrates one or the other. Some illustrations are examples of very bad relationship models. Some are illustrations of very good, even divine, relationship models. Some are pretty neutral.

We can use Scripture pretty much any way we choose.  Most seem to want to use it to force a particular view on others. We have brains given to us by the God who created us. There seems to be an expectation that we will use those brains. Rather than thinking, most of us are more comfortable with regurgitating the same pabulum we were fed early on in our spiritual journeys. It’s much less threatening than an encounter with the Living God to search out different perspectives, dare I say, even different truths.

Why do we have such difficulties with seeing life through a lens that focuses on right relationship rather than power or who is the more orthodox or who is the most literal or non-literal in translation of Scripture? Is the lens of loving God and loving neighbor as self so difficult for us to utilize? Perhaps we have decided we just don’t want to try that lens. It’s easier to label and thus pass judgment on a label rather than a child of
God.

Sigh….....
Bruce Garner

[12] Posted by TLDillon on 6-22-2010 at 09:21 AM · [top]

eis·e·ge·sis   [ahy-si-jee-sis] –noun, plural -ses  [-seez].

an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

Example:

The first is maintaining a right relationship with God.  The second is maintaining a right relationship with each other. Virtually every Biblical account of pretty much anything illustrates one or the other. Some illustrations are examples of very bad relationship models. Some are illustrations of very good, even divine, relationship models. Some are pretty neutral.

Probably the worst analysis of the Two Great Commandments (see Matthew 22:24-30) I have ever read. Ever.

Is it possible for such analysis as Mr. Garner’s to be simultaneously risible and deplorable?

Even under Mr. Garner’s analysis, TEC fails in BOTH “relationships”.

Epic fail.

[13] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 6-22-2010 at 09:55 AM · [top]

Matthew 22:29-30

Links (with blanks between book and chapter) from Bible Gateway don’t seem to be working too well…

[14] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 6-22-2010 at 10:07 AM · [top]

I wonder if in the Bible there is a report of the Lord acting as witness in marriage, and what that looks like? Wouldn’t you know, Malachi 2:13-14 says this:

Another thing you do: You flood the LORD’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

Darn. That whole idea about marriage being made up by men and of no interest to God seems to go out the window. And I wonder if there is some plan of God in marriage - beyond the passing of property. Could it be Malachi also says something? Well I’ll be…

Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. (Malachi 2:15)

Kind of looks like God has an approval for marriage with the purpose of offspring, don’cha know?

[15] Posted by Festivus on 6-22-2010 at 10:53 AM · [top]

Ann Fontaine’s comment disguises the very spirit of Hell as humility:

It is a dumb prayer that is based on prejudice not Bible IMO

IMO.  In My Opinion.  Hath God really said?

Meanwhile Bruce Robison+ seems to have taken a swig of something other than Communion wine.  “Here, Bruce, drink some of this, it tastes great!  What, you say you don’t remember grape Kool-Aid having that funny bitter aftertaste?”

[16] Posted by Milton on 6-22-2010 at 11:06 AM · [top]

I’m sorry, but 20 years ago my wife and I stood at the altar for this “dumb prayer,” and have come back to it again and again for strength in the “poor, sick and worse” seasons.  These have included our continuing efforts to raise an autistic son along with all else.

For these wine and cheese christians to spit on us disgusts me way down deep.  My “listening process” is way past done, you pathetic traitors passing for church leaders, and I am making it my business to get this comment to as many people as I can to show what you all are.

[17] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-22-2010 at 11:40 AM · [top]

A great portion of Hosea is an analogy between a failed marriage and the relationship between Israel and the Lord.

So, no, obviously there isn’t much in Scripture about marriage.

I think my whole problem with the Episcopal Church’s new take on marriage is that my mental image is not of KJS or similar persons, it’s of the impressive clergyman in Princess Bride. GC 2006 and 2009 make a whole lot more sense if you realize that they discussed ‘mawwiage’.

[18] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 6-22-2010 at 11:43 AM · [top]

The nutcases like Bruce Garner on the HoB/D Listserv are their own worst enemies.  I’m glad that from to time Greg posts examples of the perpetual insanity on display there.

If Fr. Dan Martins (an orthodox leader surely worthy of respect) and other defenders of the true gospel want to waste their time interacting with folks there, trying to keep the lines of communication open in the faint hope that some good may yet result from it, that’s a noble effort (if a largely futile and thankless task).  Personally, I’d rather endure a root canal at the dentist’s office.

David Handy+

[19] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 6-22-2010 at 12:04 PM · [top]

As most of us know, part of the “dumb” theology embedded in the BCP marriage rite and its elegant, stately opening lines, is that Holy Scripture commends the holy state of marriage to be honored by all (Heb. 13:4).  Yet many leaders of TEC are scandalously eager to heap contempt upon the traditional Christian understanding of marriage.

This weekend, I had the joy of witnessing a beloved goddaughter (age 31) get married to a fine young Christian man (age 33).  Both had waited a long time to find the kind of mate they really wanted, and both remained sexually pure, despite living in a sex-obsessed, permissive society like ours.  The goddaughter, while raised an Episcopalian, now attends a thriving PCA church; yet the wedding service was largely taken from the BCP.  And the opening paragraph was lifted word for word from the 1979 rite.

Here’s the point.  Ironically, I think it’s quite possible that the famous opening words of the Episcopal wedding service are the most commonly admired and borrowed part of the BCP by a wide variety of Protestant groups, liberal and conservative alike.  Ironically, EVERYBODY loves the opening of the traditional Episcopal wedding liturgy, EXCEPT, it seems for many of TEC’s own leaders!  How crazy is that?

David Handy+

[20] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 6-22-2010 at 12:21 PM · [top]

Thanks Katie…I see now where border crossing has pre-empted any hope of a “pastoral relationship” with these representative of your church.
Intercessor

[21] Posted by Intercessor on 6-22-2010 at 12:40 PM · [top]

#18 - yes, it is symbolic. But for symbolism to have meaning it has to have a root in God’s character and application. Paul’s symbolism in Ephesians 5 demonstrates both the depth and sanctity of marriage, and the physical representation of God’s Holy love and purpose between husband and wife and Christ and the church. Numerous Scriptures, starting at Genesis, validate that marriage is between man and woman only, with a purpose to glorify God in love, and through procreation fulfill the plan of God as His crown of creation.

The comments on marriage of those who claim to be ordained in TEC is stupidity as its least and heresy at its worst.

[22] Posted by Festivus on 6-22-2010 at 02:07 PM · [top]

#17 Timothy Fountain:
Well said.

As I’ve said here and elsewhere, in the modern Episcopal Church too often zeitgeist has replaced the Holy Ghost as the third person of the Trinity.

Glad to see Fr. Dan and others battling them on the ramparts.

Peace,
-ms

[23] Posted by miserable sinner on 6-22-2010 at 02:22 PM · [top]

Remember what the HoB/D-L is: It’s the House of Bishops and Deputies Listserv - an email list maintained by Louie Crew

I created the list and maintained it for several years but have had nothing to do with the maintenance of the listserve since December 2002.  From that date Cynthia McFarland and Brian Reed have maintained it.  They also maintain the website AnglicansOnline.
—Louie

[24] Posted by LouieCrew on 6-23-2010 at 07:25 AM · [top]

Part of the “hallmark” of my rebirth in Christ was that I longed to know God’s will.  I wanted, and still want, to know what the Bible teaches so that I can be more faithful to the God that I love.  Certainly not because I need to earn my salvation, but rather because when you love someone, you want to be like them.  And when I read the Psalms or the epistles, I see that same longing.

I don’t see that longing for God’s word in these list serve discussions.  Which makes me wonder: do they not know?  Have they not been told? Has it not been told to them the beginning?

They need to be born again.

[25] Posted by Michael D on 6-23-2010 at 08:35 AM · [top]

I wanted, and still want, to know what the Bible teaches so that I can be more faithful to the God that I love.

And if the god that you loved was not the God of the Bible?

[26] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 6-23-2010 at 08:44 AM · [top]

These exerpts are a good example of the problem of the walk away from God’s Word. There are so many blind alleys and dangerous lanes all created by the one’s own desires that people get so lost that all the Dan Martins+ and Brad Wilsons+ in the world could not call out loudly enough for them to find their way back. To us, they are lost. We can only pray for Jesus to call them back.

[27] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 6-26-2010 at 07:55 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.