Archive for
Searching for Writers
I’m planning to start a new site (in addition to this one). The point of the site is to have internal Christian dialogue, with an emphasis on the fact that despite our disagreements on matters not related to salvation, we are all Christians and should treat each other with love.
The writers for the site will be required to affirm the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian). The posts on the site will be intended for the lay reader but will feature doctrinal discussion on a loving, Christian level. Specifically, some topics could include: the origins of life (i.e. creation vs. evolution vs. ID), Christian approaches to religious diversity, original sin, baptism, the role of women in the church, the authority of the Bible, the authority of the Church, etc. The posts would be laid out either as a point-by-point dialogue between the contributers (i.e. a back and forth with short e-mails in published form) or as series of posts with writers talking back and forth.
The purpose will be many-faced: to encourage discussion among Christians about issues which are important, while still maintaining Christian love for each other; striving for church unity by increasing respect among members of the Body of Christ; potentially apologetic/evangelistic purposes; and giving glory to God.
Posts on this new site will be short, so as to make sure the time commitment is not too high. I’m thinking about around 500 words as being the upper limit (though writers could exceed that if they desired–these issues are important and some could require several pages to fully address).
Any interested writers should be prepared to demonstrate writing skill and a knowledge base sufficient for engaging in discussion on the aforementioned topics. Applicants may submit an up to 500 word sample of writing on one of the topics above, along with a short biography and affirmation of Christian belief (this part will not count towards the 500 words) to oontabob@yahoo.com. Applications from Christians of any denomination are accepted, though, once more, adherence to the three ecumenical creeds is a requirement (which includes belief in the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc.).
I’m also looking for people talented with graphics/etc. who could potentially help with making pictures/banners/etc. for the site.
The Need for Apologetics
Just thought I’d share this video with my readers. Ultimately, it is Frank Turek offering the services of his ministry, but I think that my readers should note the important points he raises in regards to the need for apologetics in our society.
Molinism and Timelessness–A Match Made in Heaven (No, really!)
It seems to me that there are few matches better made than the doctrine of Divine Timelessness and Molinism (aka Middle Knowledge). I think they truly are a match made in heaven, for God Himself possesses both of these attributes/properties.
First, some definitions. God is timeless, which means that “God exists, but exists at no time” (Leftow, xi). Middle knowledge is God’s knowledge of counterfactuals (simplifying the case to some extent here, see Thomas Flint’s discussion in Divine Providence: The Molinist Account). Jointly these propositions serve as explanations for a number of phenomena of Christianity.
First, human freedom and divine omniscience is a problem curtailed jointly by these doctrines. Timelessness solves any kind of potential incompatibility by simply denying that omniscience is foreknowledge. Instead, it is simply knowledge, known all at once in one “instant” in eternity (Leftow, 246ff). That which is not in time cannot determine things “ahead of time”.
Molinism, on the other hand, can also deny any incompatibility by asserting that the counterfactuals of God’s knowledge are not under the control of God. In other words, God has no control over whether or not Jenny will freely choose to go mountain climbing. God can control the circumstances in which Jenny is placed, and then bring it about that some other counterfactual would be true (i.e. Jenny does not go mountain climbing because she stays home to nurse her ailing goldfish). But this control over circumstances does not entail control over choices. The choices remain free (Flint, 11ff).
Now, one objection to Molinism is that because God decides which circumstances in which to place Jenny before the creation of the world, he still is determining what she will do because he picks from the circumstances. But this is not quite the case. Jenny’s actions are not determined, but some of the circumstances in which she is placed are. This doesn’t preclude her free choice, however, for God only controls the situations Jenny will encounter, while her free choices remain outside of His control.
Timelessness is sometimes denied due to a perception that a timeless God could not have meaningful interactions with His creatures. This does not seem to be the case however, once one analyzes exactly what timelessness entails. Leftow argues convincingly that timelessness can be thought of as, in some sense, a parallel “time” during which all things happen at once, though not simultaneously. The relationship of successive temporal instants can be thought of in some ways as similar to logical priority. If a timeless God has middle knowledge, furthermore, then God can indeed have “real” interactions with creatures, because He, in eternity, all-at-once performs the creative, providential act. This includes the situations in which His creatures will be placed.
Thus, by His creative act, He sets the situations in which He will interact with His creatures, and this action is a true interaction because He factors in their free choices and takes such things into account. Furthermore, the objection that God’s interactions are diminished because they happen “before” the interaction occurs is a specious claim, for if God is timeless, then none of His actions occur “at a time” other than in Eternity.
Therefore, it seems to me that jointly, a molinist account and a timeless God make quite a lot of sense. This is not to say that there are no other accounts of God that make sense, but this is part of the interest of philosophy of religion, after all, particularly among Christians: the dialogue, the interaction with the Biblical texts which perhaps speak to each issue, and the different conclusions which can be drawn. These differing conclusions do not take away from or destroy the validity of our faith, rather, they ensure that we delve ever deeper, striving for an understanding of the divine Godhead.
Sources:
Leftow, Brian. Time and Eternity. Cornell University Press. 2009 (reprint).
Thomas Flint, Divine Providence: A Molinist Account. Cornell University Press. 2006.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.
Morality and Atheism
I am continually baffled by atheistic accounts of morality.* What, on atheism, gives us the grounds for stating that an action is wrong?
Morals can be either objective or subjective. The thrust of the following argument is intended to show that atheism cannot have objective morals. In other words, an atheist has no way to condemn some action as wrong, other than that it is wrong “in my opinion”.
There are only a few ways I have seen it argued that atheism can have objective moral values. These are:
1) Platonistic Atheism- Morals exist necessarily independently, as abstract objects (such as numbers).
2) Humanism- Humanity first. Humans are to be valued objectively, so morals can be based on what benefits the human race.
3) Science can answer moral questions, somehow.
There are horrendous difficulties with all three of these views.
Platonism about morality could be the best way for atheists to have a “way out”, if you will, for accepting objective morality. The existence of moral values such as “Justice” can be posited as brute facts of our existence. They just exist, and that’s all. The problems with this view are numerous.
First, on this view, the moral values of “Sloth”, “Hedonism,” “Masochism” are also platonic forms existing as brute facts. What reason can be given for choosing to prefer “Justice,” “Uprightness”, etc. over “Masochism,” “Hedonism,” etc.? If all of these things are simply brute facts, then why is it that some should be preferred over others? I see no non-question begging method for determining which values should be favored.
There is no reason, on atheism, to value one over the other. Second, how is it that (granting naturalist evolution) natural selection managed to line us up so wonderfully with what appears to be correct moral cognitions? Again, given that the morals themselves are brute facts of existence, it is utterly remarkable that we evolved in such a way as to line up with what appears to be the “good side” of the moral values (one might object by arguing that we don’t know either way, but then they would have to accept that somehow being a sadomasochist could be a moral good. I doubt very much this is a position worth even considering). Third, there is the thus-far ignored question as to what makes the idea of moral facts existing by brute fact even close to intelligible?
Given the huge problems with 1), and the fact that I consider this the strongest position for the atheist wishing to argue for objective morality, it seems these are dire straits indeed for the atheist ethicist.
2) is equally problematic, however, for a number of reasons. First is that humans often do not agree on what exactly is best for humanity. Which humans are allowed to determine what is right for the whole of society? Furthermore, 2) doesn’t actually provide objective morality at all. It merely sets an arbitrary line for morality–it is moral to act for the good of humanity. What basis is there for taking this assertion as truth? We are humans, but this doesn’t, on atheism, entitle us to any kind of superior ethical or cognitive status. Why is it that humans are objectively valued? It just pushes the problem of objective morality up one level.
FInally, 3) is utterly bankrupt as an explanation for objective morality. I have discussed this position before in more detail (see my discussion of Sam Harris’ attempt at articulating this unintelligible position). 3) basically asserts that somehow, we can empirically detect what is moral by figuring out what makes people happy. Surely, this is no way to detect objective morals, for even if the pool of test subjects is the entire human race, one day the entire human race may determine it makes us happy to kill other humans at will, and then this would be objectively, empirically, moral. It makes us happy, so it is moral! Clearly this is no way to save objective morality, for 1) it makes moral values arbitrary, which is clearly not objective, and 2) it falls victim to the same problems of either position 1) or 2) above, for it must grant one of these positions to pursue some background for determining reality. Sam Harris, in his discussion of this position, simply asserts that “Values are… facts” (see video cited in my link above). Wonderful! I agree that values are facts. But simply saying this doesn’t magically explain their existence.
The massive problems with any atheistic position which attempts to give credence to objective moral values show that the atheist really only has two positions open to him/her: 1) abandon the existence of objective moral values (a route not often taken, but when it is traveled, it leads to subjectivity of morals–which of course means we cannot condemn any action as “wrong” other than as a preference) or 2) abandon atheism and accept a position with better explanatory power for the objective moral facts. I suggest theism as one clear possibility.
*I am not suggesting that atheists cannot be moral people. Indeed, some great examples of moral people are friends of mine who are atheists. The point of this post is, instead, that atheism has no grounds for morality, other than total relativism.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.
Do we have epistemic “oughts”?
I’ve been contemplating for a while about the “oughts” within epistemology. It is often said that we should do something, or that we are obligated to consider certain types of evidence. But what exactly does this mean? Specifically, I don’t see that it can have any meaning given an atheistic perspective.
Take a recent example. I was talking to a friend of mine who asserted that we “ought” to be skeptical about all things.* The friend was referring to the existence of God as an example, and continued to argue that there are specific things we epistemically should or should not do. We should, for example, approach the question of God’s existence with skepticism. We should take empirical evidence above any other type of evidence. The examples could be multiplied.
The question that came to mind, however, is what kind of justification does an atheist have for arguing that we have epistemic “oughts”? In other words, what is it about people that means we owe it to… well, something… to fully investigate the universe? For, on atheism, there cannot be meaning to our lives other than a “noble lie” which we tell ourselves in order to try to infuse our lives with meaning(Dr. L.D. Rue–cited in On Guard by William Lane Craig, 46). The universe is on a countdown until cosmic heat death. Any actions we take are ultimately utterly devoid of meaning, for no matter how much we impact the human race for good or evil (and who knows what those terms mean, on atheism!?), the human race will, inevitably, fade into non-existence, along with the rest of the universe.
But then what does it matter what our beliefs are? How is it that we can have “oughts” about what we do or don’t believe? What kind of justification is there for thinking that we should or should not try to discover the truth about the universe? Ultimately, my actions, on atheism, do not matter. In the grand scheme of things, I am just more matter in motion, on a big hunk of matter in motion, in a universe filled with matter in motion, which will, itself, fade away.
It is because of this that I cannot think of any reason that there could be epistemic “oughts” on atheism. I think that atheistic philosophy (and indeed anything, on atheism) is an ultimately pointless endeavor, trying to infuse meaning into a universe which is utterly devoid of meaning.
There cannot be epistemic “oughts” on atheism. The very idea is a fiction, another “noble lie” invented to try to keep us from despair.
*I have the friend’s permission to write about this on my blog.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.
The Life Dialogue: Intelligent Design 3
This is part of a series of posts on the “Life Dialogue” within Christianity. Check out other posts in the series here.
Intelligent Design (hereafter ID) is a theory that suffers a lot of critique from all sides of the life dialogue within Christianity, as well as the secular world. Just a google search can bring up thousands of images ridiculing the theory, both from an evolutionist standpoint (often calling it creationism in disguise) and from a creationist standpoint (calling it evolutionism in disguise). I find that, too often, those criticizing the ID movement present a caricature of its arguments, without ever addressing the relevant issues it raises.
Creationists often attack ID for trying to sneak some kind of atheism into theology. I simply don’t find this to be true. The ID movement would have many theological implications, but atheism is definitely not one of these. Theistic Evolutionists criticize ID for being just creationism in disguise. I simply can’t see this as anything but a non sequitur of the greatest proportions.
Recently, an article in Philosophia Christi (cited below) by Warren Shrader discussed ID’s mechanisms of detecting intelligence. Shrader writes that the Explanatory Filter utilized by Dembski (discussed briefly here) can be strengthened by considering the epistemological tools of cognitive abilities in determining whether there is a specification condition (which would therefore justify a “design inference”).
The way we can utilize epistemology within the ID hypothesis is “…given an event E and a pattern D, we say that D is a specification of E if and only if the following conditions are satisfied.” These conditions are: 1) Tractability (essentially meaning it is possible for a cognitive agent to produce the pattern D), 2) The probability of E given H (“the hypothesis that the event in question was a product of chance” 383) and J (information) = the probability of E given H “for any information J generated by I“, and 3) D delimits E (392-393).
Armed with this capacity for determining design, ID avoids the objection that patterns can be replicated by computers. This is done by criterion 1), which restricts patterns to our finite cognitive abilities. This of course means that it is very possible that many “positive” results will be thrown out, but this only strengthens those positives that do result, because they are irrefutable evidence for ID. In other words, when we tighten the design criteria such that we guarantee the patterns were produced by a cognitive agent, we have guaranteed that intelligence has been detected.
Combine these tools with those mentioned in my previous posts on ID, and there is a functional system for detecting intelligence in biology, cosmology, etc. Reading about ID has me excited to read more. I cannot emphasize enough how much readers who have not explored the issue themselves should try to do so.
Source:
Shrader, Warren, “Dembski’s Specification Condition and the Role of Cognitive Abilities,” Philosophia Christi, volume 11, number 2, 2009, 377-396.
The Life Dialogue: Matt Moss Guest Post 5
This is part 5 of a series of guest posts by Matt Moss on the Genesis Creation account. Check out the first post here, the second here, the third here, and the fourth here.
Thesis 6: The Fall of Man into Sin destroys the order of God’s Cosmic Temple.
This destruction and disarray can be seen firstly in this: Man has tried to make himself God. This is what the deceiver promised in 3:5- “eat of the tree of which you were commanded not to eat and you will be like God.” Man has separated himself from communion with God in this Cosmic Temple. The price for his rebellion is expulsion from the Cosmic Temple, man and woman are cast out, East of Eden (this will be important in a moment).
A brief note on “sin:” I must say that one of the worst parts of Walton’s book is when he tries to address the place of death in creation before the 7 days of functional ordering and how it fits in after the Fall. I think this happens because Walton suffers from the same fate as most reformed evangelicals who deny any hereditary original sin that is a condition plaguing all mankind and even causing detriment to the world around us. Surely he would hold that all are sinful, but his language in the book leaves the door open for someone to think that he defends natural disasters and animal attacks on humans as if that’s always the way it was meant to be. He gives no indication that sin is a condition of chaotic disorder in this world. For him, sin is simply a wrong action we commit (or good we omit).
In retrospect I think Walton would find that a Lutheran understanding of Sin would actually HELP the case he tries to make in the book and even make sense of some of the loose ends that he leaves untied. Allow me to explain how a Lutheran understanding of Sin fits into this Genesis 1 Cosmic Temple. The word for sin in Hebrew is hta. Many have said that this is the word for when an arrow misses its mark. That is true, but it is not speaking of the ACTION of missing the mark (sin as an action would be what Walton and the reformed hold as do Lutherans although we do not limit it to that).Hta is the condition that things are not as they are intended to be! Sin is not, “oops I missed the target” (an act of committing wrong). Hta is “I shot the arrow straight down and now gravity is going UP!” or better yet, “I shot at the target and now the arrow is facing the opposite way, impaling my heart!” The correct condition is that the arrow is where it belongs: in the target. The hta is the condition where the arrow is completely confounded and misplaced.
When it comes to the Cosmic Temple then, the entrance of SIN (hta), as this condition of chaos, reverts the perfect, ordered, functional Cosmic Temple to the chaos of 1:2a. God spent seven days ordering this Cosmos into a Temple of communion between God and man and now man has rejected this Temple and sent all of creation back into tohu andbohu, purposelessness and functionlessness, worse than that! The world is now a place of rebellion and death. The ground of the earth is cursed (3:17-18) and as man and woman are expelled from the Cosmic Holy of Holies they are sent into the wilderness where animals, weather, and nature itself are now hostile to them! Throughout the OT and even into the NT the wilderness is viewed as the land of desolation, tohu and bohu, and separation from God. And yet, God is not about to let their chaotic overturn of His creation be the final word on the matter!
Thesis 7: God’s establishment of the Israelite Tabernacle/Temple serves to return mankind to the divine order of the Cosmic Temple: communion with God.
Finally we get to the point of all these temple comparisons. What was the point of all those tabernacle/temple regulations in Exodus and Kings? Why was God so specific? Because God wanted to show them in explicit visual detail that He was opening a new Eden by which the Israelite sinners could return to communion with their God! However, one thing had changed. Man was no longer pure and clean. Man was sinful and defiled and would need atonement to come before God. This is why the ONLY thing that differs between the Cosmic Temple and the Israelite Temple is the sacrificial system.
Allow me to quickly go through some of the aspects of the Temple that reminded Israelites that they were returning to God’s Holy Eden- the pleasure of His presence. First, recall that the man and woman were banished EAST of Eden. The Tabernacle and Temple of Israel each had the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies positioned in the West and the worshipers would enter through the East gate. By going from East to West they are coming home from the way God banished them.
Second, we recall the rivers of Eden: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris and the Euphrates. In addition to the water basins looked at above, it is also of remarkable note that there stands a spring just south of Solomon’s temple, in the Kidron Valley which was named, “The Gihon Spring.” Hmm. Very Interesting!
Once inside the main gate the Israelite worshiper walks among the courts, surrounded by wooden walls and looking at the pillars of the Holy Place with their decorated tops made to look like trees. Even to this day Cathedrals all throughout the world use pillars with decorated tops to act as trees leading to the centre of the Garden: the Holy of Holies in the Temple and the Chancel of the Cathedral!
Inside the Holy Place you have your lampstands to mark the minor lights just like the large menorah in the outer court acts as a greater light! Finally, you find behind the curtain of the Holy Place the Holy of Holies where God Himself sits on the Mercy seat. For Israel worship at the Temple is a return to the divine order of Creation as God intended, the sinful corruption of the world is made right. And yet, all of this was incomplete. The sacrifices all looked forward to a final sacrifice. Through the Israelite Temple worship God was reconciling His people, but through the final redemption, all the Earth would be restored to the Cosmic Temple God created.
Thesis 8: Jesus Christ finalizes the restoration of the Cosmic Temple.
Hebrews 10:1-18 is worth your read right now! Once you’re done, come back and read on.
Christ is the finale of the sacrificial system as surely as he is the only true sacrifice. More than this, the tearing of the Temple curtain at his crucifixion speaks of this restoration. Through Christ Jesus man is reunited to God and the Cosmic Temple is restored. Likewise, going back to our seven days of creation, there is now an eighth day of creation. Just as God rested on the seventh day, so Christ rested in the tomb on the seventh day. Then on the eighth day Christ was raised from death to life and established a NEW Creation through Resurrection!
“It doesn’t look so new,” you might say. “There is still death and disaster, pain and suffering.” Yes indeed. We live in a period of “now and not yet.” We are saved yet we are not in heaven yet. Sin has been defeated, yet we live in a fallen world. As Paul writes in Romans 8:18-30 (do look it up and read it, I won’t post it all here, the post is long enough) we and the whole of creation await the future glory. I find it marvellous that in the last two chapters of Revelation we find an undoing of the seven days of creation. In Revelation 21 – 22 we read of the New Heaven and the New Earth and we see an unravelling of what was created in Genesis 1. The sea is no more but all will drink from the spring of the water of life (cf. John 4; 7:37-39- the latter occurring in the Temple during the Feast of Booths where water is poured out as libation). The sun and the moon are no more because Christ the Lamb is their light (cf. John 8 “I am the Light of the world”- said while he was in the Temple for the Feast of booths, standing by the menorah)! In every way the New Heaven and New Earth are much greater than the pre-Fall Cosmic Temple.
To summarize what the last posts have addressed: Genesis 1 – 3 is an ancient Temple Cosmology that does not specifically address the questions of how or when God did His material creating work. Beyond that Genesis 1 – 3 serves as a Liturgical text, a Temple text, a Christological text, a Trinitarian text, a Redemption text, a Sacramental text, a Teleological text, and an Eschatological text, but NOT a 21st century scientific treatise. As I have told many people before, there is such a wealth and richness to these initial chapters that we simply miss the point of the text when we try to force it into modern scientific debates and attempt to answer questions that God did not deem important enough to address in His revelation to ancient Israel. What God does answer in these chapters is why He has made creation work the way it does, how man has thrown it into chaos, and how He will restore it to an even greater glory.
“The Shack” Reviewed by a Conservative (With Poll)
The Shack
I went in with some strong biases against the book. I’d heard from others that it is pretty terrible theology and borderline (or actual) heresy. Needless to say I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it, but, like any good work will do, The Shack proved my biases wrong.
The plot is fairly simple. A man, Mackenzie, has a horrific tragedy happen to his daughter; this tragedy affects his whole family in negative ways; then he receives a letter from God (?) asking him to come to the place the tragedy happened to talk about things. The rest of the narrative revolves around this discussion. One note I should make as a reviewer is that Young’s prose is fantastic. His descriptions of everyday events and locations inject a reality into the story that is necessary to get readers hooked, and he writes about the uncommon and the supernatural with stunning beauty.
The plot serves as just the background for what the book seems (to me) to be; The Shack is a stirring work of philosophical and theological investigation of the nature of God, the problem of evil, and our hope in Christ.
Readers who have read the work or read anything about it probably already know that God is portrayed in the work as three “persons” in a very literal way. The Father, “Papa”, is a motherly black woman, Jesus is a plain-looking middle-eastern workman, and the Holy Spirit changes her (?) form throughout the work. I feel it is necessary to address this, because this is perhaps the most controversial part of the book. It seems to me, at least, that the idea of God coming to people where they are should not be such a hot issue. Christ Himself describes God’s action in terms of a hen gathering chicks beneath her wings (Luke 13:34). God appeared in various forms throughout the Old and New Testaments (burning bush, still voice in the wind, incarnate Christ, etc.). I find it dubious at best to claim that God does not/can not appear otherwise to individuals–perhaps as a mother to those in need (and this would line up well with the Christian background of religious experiences, cf. Perceiving God by William Alston).
These three persons serve to drive the narrative of The Shack while also making claims about the various works of the persons of God. There are many points throughout the book where I found myself nodding as Young wrote a wonderful insight about the work of God. Young’s answers to some of the most poignant questions of humanity resound throughout the work. One of the most stirring moments is a chapter in which Mackenzie is asked to decide which of his children goes to hell. This is meant to reflect the way Mackenzie (and some Christians) seem to put God in the judgment seat, arbitrarily determining who goes to heaven and who is damned to hell. Mackenzie begs to be condemned instead of his children, and in a powerful turnabout, he is told that this is exactly how God feels. He became incarnate to die for our sins, to give the opportunity for all to be saved, loving all God’s children perfectly (p. 165). Moments like this occur throughout The Shack.
Another thing I must share is The Shack‘s answer to religious diversity. Jesus says that those who love Him come from every background, including other religions. This leads Mackenzie to ask, “Does that mean… that all roads will lead to you?” Jesus answered, “Not at all… Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you” (184). Should Christians agree with this answer? I leave it open to the reader to answer this question. Suffice to say that The Shack will challenge readers from all walks of Christian life.
I finished the book in the span of a day. I set it down late at night, realizing I couldn’t be the same Christian I was before. The Shack grabbed me and wouldn’t let go. The questions Young asks through Mackenzie are questions all Christians must face, and the answers he provides focus on one thing: the Love of God. There are definitely things that made me uncomfortable while reading The Shack, but there are other things I realized were suddenly made clear. Treating The Shack like a theological treatise is unfair. It’s not a doctrine book, it’s a work of Christian fiction, and it excels in its niche, asking questions, giving answers, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether he/she agrees or disagrees. This is a fantastic work and I highly recommend it to my readers. You don’t have to agree with what Young says in The Shack to make the book worth reading, but you should read it.
The Shack
Engaged!
Those of you who are avid readers of my blog (and perhaps I kid myself into thinking I have such fans!) would know that I sometimes update on exciting life events. This time, I have gotten engaged to my wonderful fiancee, Beth. She is in the picture that shows up when I comment on things. We are both extremely excited and we are so thankful that God has blessed us in this very wonderful way. We look forward to the next year of planning!
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 