The Constitution, the Bible, and Moral Consensus (eCrozier #163)

On January 25, 2013, in Bible, politics, by bishopbenhase

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams, 2nd President of the U.S.

John Adams was prescient and right. A form of government like ours can only work for the common good when there is both a broad agreement on what the common good truly is and when we have a people who have been morally and religiously formed to practice the virtues of compassion, justice, and love of neighbor. The Constitution, as a guiding document, does not exist outside of time or context. Adams rightly concluded it could only be effective as a guiding document if the people using it as a guide were morally and religiously sound.

That was why Dr. King was successful in being the voice of the Civil Rights movement. He had the Constitution in one hand and the Bible in the other and he appealed to those who took both seriously. In his 1963 speech at the Lincoln Memorial he spoke of the “promissory note” that African-Americans had that was based on the Constitution’s “Blessing of Liberty.” The Biblical narrative exposed how we as a nation had defaulted on that “promissory note.” He quoted the Prophet Isaiah, saying: “every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” The Constitution alone could not have propelled the Civil Rights movement. It was successful because we were a people whose conscience could also be moved by the Biblical narrative. I wonder if that is still true today?

Consider the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A society that grants people the right to keep guns as their personal possessions must also presuppose that those same people are of sound religious, or at least, moral fiber so that they will use those guns for only legitimate sport or personal self-defense. A constitutional right such as this only makes sense when there is an a priori presence of morality already existing in the people. It seems to me we now have the right “to keep and bear arms” without an overwhelming consensus about the morality of their responsible use.

The 2nd Amendment was codified at a time when that religious and moral consensus was present. That is no longer the case. I’m not suggesting doing away with guns. What I am postulating, however, is the need to examine their regulation in light of our reality. It will do us no good to wax sentimentally about the good old days of John Adams. We had horse carriages then and we now have “horseless carriages” that are “well regulated” requiring licenses, driving examinations, and insurance. With automobiles one has to show some level of competency and responsibility in order to own and operate one. It seems reasonable to me that a similar level of scrutiny needs to be applied to gun ownership. Absent a religious/moral sense of behavior and responsibility that is broadly shared, the 2nd Amendment alone is as obsolete as the horseless carriage.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Some Semi-random Reflections after our National Election (eCrozier #154)

On November 9, 2012, in culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

1. As a Christian, I understand my vote as primarily “damage control.” Which party or candidate will do the least damage to the poor and most vulnerable in our society? In my judgment both damage them, so the real question for me is which one will do the least damage? As I see it, any other plumb line for my vote becomes a rationalization for my own selfishness.

2. Government can do a lot of good, but governmental laws can’t legislate love, compassion, or reconciliation. Only God can change the human heart and only in following Jesus do we discover God’s desire for humanity. Too many Christians, in my opinion, place way too much faith in our government, our political affiliations, and our political processes.

3. In Matthew 25, the Gospel tells us that God will judge the nations by how each nation cares for the poor, those in prison, and the sojourner in their midst. The Bible says that God will judge the “nations,” not the Church, by this standard. So, God will judge the United States, like all nations. We don’t have a special exemption.

4. In his Beatitudes in Luke 6, Jesus declares: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” Jesus does not say: “Blessed are you who are middle-class.” Yet, that’s all I heard from both parties. Where was the voice for the poor in this election? Hence, my observation in # 1: My vote is “Damage Control.”

5. Democrats, Republicans, and others spent over $2.5 Billion in this election. The result? We have the same political calculus now as we did before the election. I don’t know who primarily benefitted from that $2.5 Billion, but my hunch is it didn’t feed the hungry or heal the sick (unless it was a political operative’s “sick” bank balance). I know that sounds like Judas questioning Jesus, but the amount of money in our politics can’t be anything but corrupting for all sides.

6. Jesus wasn’t a political partisan. He had Zealots, Herodians, Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees who were his disciples. He called people beyond “party” affiliation to a deeper commitment to God’s Kingdom on earth as it already is in heaven. We need Christians who are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Greens to make a similar movement from party followers to followers of Jesus. Such non-partisanship is not being non-political. It’s just putting our lives in the proper order.If I give my allegiance to any political party, then I’m creating an idol (the Bible frowns on such).

7. We can’t wait on politicians to change the world, because they won’t. We can’t wait on governments to legislate love, because they can’t. And we must not allow politics to determine the means by which we love one another. How we love one another should determine the means of our politics.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Economic Self-Interest and the Gospel of Jesus (eCrozier #151)

On October 19, 2012, in culture, gospel, politics, by bishopbenhase

The economy seems to be on everyone’s mind this fall as the election season burns on and candidates on all levels tell us what’s wrong with the economy and how, if we elect them, they will fix it to make us individually better off. This promise they make, that is, to make me as an individual “better off,” is, of course, an appeal to my self-interest, and to some extent, my selfishness. Because in the reptilian part of my brain, the lizard inside is telling me to protect what is mine and get just a bit more if I can. The candidates really do want me to ask: Am I “better off” now than I was four years ago?”

I noticed this in the recent town hall presidential debate. Both candidates addressed each questioner as if the candidate was a personal problem solver, and if elected, he would put in place such policies that would make them personally better off financially. I know the candidates have been advised by the legion who direct their every move to do this. These advisors have done the research and crunched the numbers. They know that candidates need to make such appeals to self-interest, maybe even selfishness, or the candidate in question won’t get elected. They are thus counting on us to selfishly vote our self-interest as if self-interest were not only primary, but also something simply deduced as what is economically best for me right now.

But, we must know, what is best for us cannot be reduced to such facile, empirical measurements as what puts more money in our pockets today. For example, what if there were a free market for human kidneys and applying the standard of what would make a person “better off” financially were applied? If a buyer and a seller could come to agreement on a price for the kidney, the deal clearly, under this rubric, makes both parties “better off.” The buyer gets a life-saving new organ and the seller gets enough money to make the sacrifice worthwhile. Both are “better off.” We must ask though: do we really want to live in a world where such an economic deal can be done?

Financial reasoning and moral reasoning are not the same. Pure financial self-interest cannot and must not be the plumb line for moral reasoning. In fact, I would say, as Christians, if our economic self-interest is the prime driver of our behavior and choices, then we need to do some serious soul-searching. Yet, as I observe many people who seek to follow Jesus as his disciples, they have cordoned off his teaching from their own economic understanding and practices. We all need to reconnect the Gospel of Jesus to how we think and act around what we understand to be our economic self-interest.

In this Sunday’s Gospel (Mark 10:35-45) Jesus teaches his disciples about how they need to be different from the standards of the world. His teaching there is principally about desiring power over other people and how it should not be so among those who follow him; they should seek to be servants. But his teaching has broader implications and is therefore related to issues of economic self-interest. James and John in the story wanted what they considered their due. In a sense, they wanted to be personally “better off.” But Jesus calls them out of their myopic self-interest to see their lives and their purpose in life quite differently. I pray we can do the same.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Preachers in the Pulpit & Religious Freedom: It can’t be about the Money (eCrozier #149)

On October 4, 2012, in politics, preaching, by Diocesan Staff

In case you haven’t heard, this Sunday, October 7, is Pulpit Freedom Sunday, declared so by The Alliance Defending Freedom, which I discovered through an exhaustive investigation on the Internet (actually, I just googled it). The Alliance Defending Freedom claims that there’s no constitutional basis for a separation of church and state. That’s a fiction, they say, posed by those who have an “aggressively secular agenda.” These nefarious fiction-mongers “have persuaded many pastors and church leaders that their God-given right to freely worship, freely speak their faith, and freely assemble with other believers is at the mercy of bureaucrats” (presumably from the IRS). The purpose of Pulpit Freedom Sunday, as its leaders describe it, is to liberate preachers so that they will without fear openly endorse specific candidates or political parties.

This is creating a nonexistent crisis. I completely agree that it’s debatable whether or not the Constitution asserts a separation of church and state. The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So, reasonable and thoughtful people can debate whether there’s a so-called “wall of separation” in this amendment. Of course, the term “wall of separation” isn’t even in the Constitution. It comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to members of the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association in 1802.

But that’s not what The Alliance Defending Freedom is really concerned about. They’re creating a straw man. Today, any preacher is completely free to preach whatever he believes his faith calls him to preach. Our government, we must know, doesn’t stop preachers from preaching. Pulpit Freedom Sunday is stirring up people, out of their ignorance, to think that the awful government, led by aggressive secularists, will swoop in and arrest these martyr-preachers. Like with a lot of deliberate misdirection, we should follow the money.

The real issue is tax-exempt status. Yes, if a preacher endorses a particular candidate, then his church is in danger of losing tax-exempt status. If churches and other similar non-profit organizations want the benefit of not paying taxes, then they must refrain from political partisanship. But that doesn’t muzzle them as The Alliance Defending Freedom claims. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status. If these self-proclaimed “defenders of freedom” really felt as strongly as they do, then they’d gladly give up their tax-exempt benefit in order to make their partisan pronouncements. If they did that then I’d have respect for their conscience and conviction. But they won’t do that, because this isn’t really about religious freedom at all. It’s all about the money.

Preachers should preach on important political issues if, in their discernment, Jesus’ Gospel relates to those issues. And any preacher worth her/his salt can do that freely without telling people who to vote for. So, I say to preachers: Preach the Gospel and then trust Jesus’ disciples to vote their Gospel-inspired conscience. The Alliance Defending Freedom must think Jesus’ disciples are so infantile that they can’t discern for themselves. They’re the ones undermining the real religious freedom of disciples.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Stop waging war and start washing feet (eCrozier #139)

On June 15, 2012, in Body of Christ, culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

Author Rachel Held Evans recently said that it was time for the Church to move “from waging war to washing feet.” She was referring to the culture wars in the Church over human sexuality. I could not agree more, even though I think “war” is too strong a metaphor for what we have been experiencing. Clearly, however, people have taken sides and are bent on their side winning. Maybe a more apt image is one of a circular firing squad. I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who wrote that the Church is the only known army in the world that shoots its own wounded. We are our own worst enemies. In some ways this is nothing new since human nature is nothing new. St Paul dealt with such partisanship in the Church in Corinth (and in other communities) where differing factions insisted that their way was the only way and if there was to be any compromise it would be by others coming to their way of thinking.

This sort of partisanship is steadily disempowering and marginalizing the Church. We are declining across denominational lines by just about every form of measurement one can use. Regular church attendance is in decline and the numbers of people claiming no religious affiliation is growing. The Church does not have much influence in the culture any more, it no longer is respected by a majority of the people outside the Church, and as Kinnamon and Lyons and other researchers have pointed out, two-thirds of young adults see the Church as being too partisan in its political engagement.

Robert Putnam and David Campbell, in a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, conclude that this partisanship is an important factor in the Church’s decline. They write: “In effect, Americans (especially young Americans) who might otherwise attend religious services are saying, ‘Well, if religion is just about conservative politics, then I’m outta here.'”

Of course, the Church’s way out of this is not to make religion about liberal politics either. That would be just as wrong and partisan. Nor is it for the Church to become a place offering a privatized religion disconnected from the world. The Church must be political, at least in the generic sense of that word meaning being involved in the lives of the polis (that is, the human community). Jesus was very much concerned with the lives of the polis. One can’t address the plight of the poor, the needs of the sick, the care of those afflicted with wounds of body and mind, or any other challenge of the human community without being involved in politics.

So the issue is not whether we as the Church should be involved in the politics of our communities and nation. The issue is how we do that. The partisan, divisive strategies adopted by factions in the Church are not only turning away young adults, they are not working! After 30 years of the so-called Culture Wars, all we have to show for it is more of the same vitriol and fewer people engaging with the ministry of the Church as we serve God’s mission.

Rachel Held Evans is right. It is time to stop waging war and start washing feet.

+Scott

 

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Political Fear-Mongering, Functional Atheism, and the Providence of God (eCrozier #101)

On August 19, 2011, in culture, politics, by bishopbenhase

I got God on my side and I’m just trying  to survive
But what if what you do to survive kills the things you love?
Fear’s a powerful thing. It can turn your heart black you can trust
It’ll take your God-filled soul and fill it with devils and dust
– from Bruce Springsteen’s Devils & Dust

A few weeks ago the Governor of Texas held a rally at a Houston stadium. It was billed as a call to prayer for the renewal of our country. That’s something for which I hope we all pray. Yet, the event went beyond that. Rather than calling upon God’s Providence and asking God’s mercy upon us all, people were called to act on their fears. Politicians (especially when they are running for public office) have learned to play the “fear card” quite well. It’s very simple: you gather people together, tell them how awful things are, then tell them who it is they should blame for their problems (not themselves or the politician, of course), and then whip them into a frenzy so they will do what you want.

“Fear is a powerful thing,” Springsteen wrote. Fear can lead us into all manner of behaviors, most of which, upon reflection and self-examination, don’t exemplify the highest virtues of the Christian faith. Such fear is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of political leaders. Fear, however legitimate (and many fears are), never serves us well as a primary response to whatever we face. Fear encourages reptilian reactions from our souls rather than the higher soul-functions of hospitality, compassion, and generosity.

Fear can compel us to become, de facto, functional atheists. Functional atheism means we give assent to God’s grace-filled Providence with our lips, but we actually live our lives as if we’re not part of a divinely coherent story that’s moving the world toward God’s plan of salvation. The Gospel is clear about the world God created. St John writes: “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

We need a renewed faith in the Providence of God as an antidote to this functional atheism. Our faith unequivocally states what God is up to in this world. God is in the business of reconciling and restoring the world through the merits and mediation of his son Jesus Christ. The world isn’t a random, meaningless place. It’s God’s world full of love and meaning. That doesn’t mean the world is perfect. We know better. It’s full of sinners like you and me. But it does mean there’s a telos to the world rooted in and underwritten by God’s Providence.

Those who want to manipulate us to live by fear seem to believe that God will be outflanked by what’s wrong with the world. So, this line of thinking goes, someone has to watch God’s back. That’s such a weak god. It’s the god of the functional atheist. It isn’t the God we meet in the Bible. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ won’t be stumped by our sins or anything else, including our fears. It shouldn’t surprise us then that the most recurring words of Jesus in the Gospel are: “Don’t be afraid.”

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Real Human Beings in a Disembodied Political Culture (eCrozier #100)

On August 12, 2011, in culture, incarnational, politics, by bishopbenhase

Not used to talkin’ to somebody in the body. Somebody in a body, somebody in a body.
– U2 in their song Fast Cars

The recent political spectacle in our national life has exposed our growing inability to really listen to another person who is embodied in our time and space. This requires us not to interrupt them or pretend to listen while we’re actually formulating a rebuttal. It also demands that we not the see the other person as an object to be dismissed into a category we’ve already reserved for them, but rather as another human being who has known love as well as heartache, has succeeded in something but has also failed in other things. In other words, they’re real persons, not caricatures.

I’m afraid our facebooked, texted, and blogged culture has further disembodied our sense of self and consequently how we’re present and incarnate in real time with the other person who currently cohabitates our space. For some this gives license to literally depersonalize the other person. As this ratchets up, the other person becomes a distorted figment of what we project on to them from the disembodied distance of our computer or smart phone.

In his amazing book, To End All Wars, Adam Hochschild, carefully documents the run up to WWI. Unlike in many other wars, there was no real provocation. The nations who went to war were eagerly trading with one another. Their respective royal families were intermarried. But a series of miscommunications and misinterpretations about those communications quickly led one side to strike first to avoid what they perceived to be the imminent strike of the other. Soon after came the propaganda campaign that effectively characterized the respective sides as inhumane monsters. Most people were willing to accept the characterization of the propagandists. As Paul Simon penned in The Boxer: “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

One the central truths of the Christian faith is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. The Incarnation tells us that our matter matters to God. The truth of God gracing human life in Jesus reveals that humanity has been endowed with a worth and dignity beyond creation. St Paul conveys this truth in 2 Corinthians 5. He says that as Christians we can no longer regard one another in a dismissive manner. Since Christ became one of us and has now been resurrected, our perspective on one another must change. No one, St Paul says, can now be seen in any way other than in the light of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Our humanity has ascended to God with Christ.

No one means no one, not even our enemies, our political rivals, or even that neighbor (you know who you are) who has repeatedly ignored our requests to remove that old Chevy up on blocks in his front yard. We Christians need to start a revolution of really being incarnate with other human beings so we can be truly human with one another and not objects of one another’s projections. Let’s start with members of the Church and we’ll work out from there.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Palin, Weiner, and the “vast wasteland” (eCrozier #93)

On June 10, 2011, in media, politics, by bishopbenhase

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin recently made some ill-considered comments about Paul Revere’s famous ride. Later, when a reporter gave her an opportunity to reconsider what she had said, she decided to double-down on her comments rather than just admit she misspoke and correct herself. Representative Anthony Weiner from New York did something even more ill-considered (I’ll let you discover that on your own if you don’t already know. It would make me blush to write it here). When his actions became public, he also doubled-down on his lie and claimed his Twitter account was hacked. He did later, to his credit, confess his lie (well, he did not actually say, “lie.” We hope for too much sometimes). The lives of Palin and Weiner are just two more “reality shows” on the network of our lives.

And some people actually claim there is no such thing as sin any more.

I do not think human nature is any worse now than it has been throughout human history. The difference these days is that the ever-present media gets word out about our failures, lies, and foibles within seconds after we make them. When George Washington confessed to his father about that famous cherry tree incident, my hunch is that it stayed between him and his father for most of his lifetime until he casually mentioned the story to a friend one day and then it got into our national story (Note: Please no replies to me claiming the incident about the cherry tree was made up. I want to hold on to a few illusions about our history before they are shattered).

Fifty years ago, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Newton Minow warned that our media, particularly television, was a becoming a “vast wasteland” of “screaming, cajoling, and offending” (and this was before “American Idol” and “The Apprentice”). Minow’s warnings have gone unheeded. Reality shows in our media are examples of what sociologist Daniel Boorstin calls “pseudo-events.” They are not real. Really. I’m not kidding. Although they involve real people doing real things, they are no more real than were the gladiators in the arenas of ancient Rome. Their purpose is the same: first to titillate and then to narcotize the population.

I guess we’d like to think that we humans have grown up over the millennia; evolved into better human beings and that our “nature” would lead us to become (as Lincoln so hoped) “better angels.” That certainly has been the great project of western culture. Our modern sensibilities have led us to believe that through education, cultivation in the arts, and scientific progress our natures would be molded and shaped into higher, nobler ones. But that belief should have been always questioned and doubted. The German commandants at the death camps spent their evenings listening to recordings of the best opera and reading the great literature and poetry of the day and in the morning they sent Jews to the gas chambers. Our moral sense and our moral actions have to be molded and shaped by more than education, art, and science. And our current appetite for that which titillates and narcotizes will only lead us to tolerate more Palin and Weiner “reality shows” in the media arena of our future.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #92

On June 3, 2011, in love, politics, by bishopbenhase

Former Senator John Edwards is now back in the news because there is some question as to whether he broke the law by using campaign funds to keep quiet the fact that he fathered a child with a mistress while he ran for the presidency and his wife battled a recurrence of the cancer that would claim her life. I am less interested in the legal question as I am in his behavior. What was he thinking? Or what was Newt Gingrich thinking when he acted out in similar ways? This stuff happens so regularly these days we are hardly shocked anymore. Have we lost the capacity to blush?

What I see happening is this: we are steadily subordinating lifelong commitments, be they between persons covenanted in marriage, between persons in friendships, or between fellow disciples in the Church, to the utility of satisfying the present desire of the self. So, persons walk away from marriage because they have developed in different ways. They end friendships because that friend no longer meets their present needs. And, they break off relationships from their fellow disciples in the Church because those persons become disagreeable or difficult to live with.

This desire to satisfy the self, of course, is not limited to physical desires (what the Greeks called eros), but it sure does suck in a lot of the cultural air. Take our Greek philosophical sensibilities, sprinkle in a heavy dose of the French Enlightenment, and voila!, we have our current McGnostic culture, the fast food-like mass marketing that separates what goes on in our heads from what we do with our bodies. So, we can have all sorts of high and noble thoughts in our heads (both Edwards and Gingrich have them) while using our bodies like amusement parks or production units each week.

No one with ounce of Christian sense could conclude that this is anything less than destructive to the image of God found in every human being. But the destruction is far more than the misuse of sex. That is merely a presenting symptom of the larger disease of our rebellion against God, which many in our culture are pursuing with avid enthusiasm, and not always consciously.

God’s covenantal love (Hebrew = hesed, Greek = agape) is the meta-narrative of the Bible. God has created us for steadfast love in holy relationships, and not only with God, but with one another in marriage, in friendship, and in our discipleship in Jesus. And this human love and mutual devotion are but a glimpse of the divine love poured out for us in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Love has been on the rap sheet of Christians from the time of Pliny the Younger in the earliest centuries to the camp songs of our generation (everybody sing: “They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they will know we are Christians by our love”). But this love is covenantal love. It is love that is in it for the long haul with a spouse, a friend, or a fellow disciple. It is love for the other regardless of their utility to us in the present.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

eCrozier #85

On April 15, 2011, in Body of Christ, discipleship, politics, by bishopbenhase

In a recent study, researchers postulated that since we humans have lived as foragers for 95% of our species’ history, it would be significant to study modern day foraging societies to see how human culture progressed and succeeded. They analyzed living patterns among 32 of these foraging societies. They noticed two consistent patterns among them. First, there was mobility among both men and women that allowed them to remain with their group of origin or move to another unrelated group. Second, most individuals sharing the same residential group were genetically unrelated. The researchers suggest this is why humans have had such biological success compared to other species. As we’ve evolved we’ve learned to include others outside our genetic family and this has led predominantly to cooperative, large social networks.

Our historical success as a species appears to be related to our ability to share with and include others outside our genetic specific group. In other words, we’ve historically thrived when we have included and shared. Other species that did not learn to include outsiders and share did not thrive. This is a good reminder for the American version of our species as we struggle to decide how to spend our common tax purse as the real problem of our national debt grows. Governments collect taxes to provide for the common good at the various levels of our large social networks (local, state, and federal). When faced with such a challenge we humans can reach inward and just try to protect what is ours or at least our perceived share of the pie available. But as the above study suggests, this might not be in our best interests. If our historical pattern holds true, it seems we would do best if we reached out and shared the pie equitably, or if the pie needs to be smaller to reduce our debt, make sure that the smaller portion of the pie is shared equitably in order to enhance cooperation and inclusion.

The study suggests something that we Christians have always known from the Biblical witness. In his image of the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, St Paul contends that the “lesser” parts of the body should be shown greater honor in order for the whole body to function rightly and for bodily growth to thrive. When the body works together rather than as separate parts and when the body gives appropriate attention to the “lesser” members of the body rather than ignore them, then the body is in right order.

What questions would such a perspective raise? Well, for example, should we cut $8.5 billion for low-income housing, or $8.5 billion in mortgage tax deductions for vacation homes? Should we cut $11.2 billion in early childhood programs for poor kids, or $11.5 billion in tax cuts for millionaires’ estates? Should we cut $2.5 billion in home heating assistance in winter months, or $2.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies while they earn record profits? And when General Electric pays no taxes and actually gets a tax rebate, something is out of order.

The challenges we face have moral, physical, and spiritual consequences. The thriving of our species may depend on how we meet these challenges.

+Scott

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Go To Top »