Dear Gabby

A priest looking for advice on how to advance the Church in a fast-paced world so often embroiled in conflict recently approached a well-placed cleric who had been a religious order priest and bishop for many years. In response, the bishop answered, in part, by sharing the following true story:

A priest went as a missionary to an area where for years they had no priest, and evangelicals had arrived. He told me that he went to a woman who had been the teacher of the people and then the principle of the village school.

This lady sat him down and began to insult him forcefully saying, “You abandoned us, left us alone, and I, who in need of God’s Word, had to go to Protestant worship and I became Protestant.”

This young priest, who is meek, who is one who prays, when the woman finished her discourse, said, “Madam, just one word: forgiveness. Forgive us, forgive us. We abandoned the flock.”

The tone of the woman changed. However, she remained Protestant and the priest did not go into the argument of which was the true religion. In that moment, you could not do this. In the end, the lady began to smile and said, “Father, would you like some coffee?”

Afterwards, when the priest was about to leave, she said, “Stop here, Father. Come.”

And she led him into the bedroom, opened the closet and there was the image of Our Lady.

“You should know that I never abandoned her. I hid her because of the pastor, but she’s in the home,” the lady said.

It is a story which teaches how proximity, meekness brought about this woman’s reconciliation with the Church, because she felt abandoned by the Church.

And I asked a question of this priest that you should never ask, “And then, how did things turn out? How did things finish?”

But the priest corrected me, saying, “Oh, no, I did not ask anything; she continues to go to Protestant worship, but you can see that she is a woman who prays. She faces the Lord Jesus.” And it did not go beyond that. He did not invite her to return to the Catholic Church.

What is one to make of this “advice” and the bishop giving it? Three things can be said with certainty:

1) This bishop has a very twisted understanding of what it means to be reconciled with the Church. In his mind, a woman who hides her supposed devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary for fear of rebuke from a heretic “pastor,” and who is steadfast in “worshiping” in a heretical community, has undergone a “reconciliation with the Church” presumably because she set her anger aside long enough to have a cup of coffee with a Catholic priest.

2) This bishop has a deficient understanding of the Church’s mission. His inquisitor has been given to believe that priestly work is well done apart from inviting heretics to return to the Catholic Church and the sacraments. He furthermore has been given to believe that he can determine on his own that one outside the Church, with no possibility of being absolved from his or her sins “faces the Lord,” the presumption being that such a person is fine where they are; outside of the solitary Ark of Salvation.

3) This bishop is the current Bishop of Rome; a pope who has demonstrated time and time again an appalling lack of concern for even the most basic duties of his exalted office.

The story above was shared by Pope Francis during a Q&A session with the priests of Caserta that took place on July 26th; it’s just one of a number of things said that day by a Roman Pontiff whose prolific public discourse so often betrays his indifference to the Catholic faith. You may read the exchange in its fullness on the Vatican News website linked above, but be forewarned, it is a gut wrenching experience.

Clearly, the priests of Caserta would have done far better to email their questions to just about any commenter on this blog. (Small compliment, I know.)

I honestly am not sure what you're getting at here. The death of Christ in general is fulfillment of numerous other OT prophecies, some right in Psalm 22, some in Isaiah 53, and elsewhere. But I am not aware of any specific prophecy that would have anything to do with the relationship between John and Mary specifically, and in that sense I would have to disagree that versus 25 through 27 represent the fulfillment of a specific prophecy. If indeed that is what you were trying to say. If I have misunderstood you, please feel free to correct me on this. I am somewhat guessing as to your meaning.

Let me explain again. Verses 25 to 27 were not designated as a fulfillment of any prophecy, or any law such as Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Those verses appear in the midst of other verses that were explicitly designated as a fulfillment. Since John was writing or recording this, or it was written or recorded from his oral tradition, this is the Gospel from his perspective, under the inspiritation of the Holy Spirit so that each and every word has meaning. Why was this done ? Why was it not designated as the fulfillment of a law or prophecy ? What is its meaning to us ?

If it were for Mary's physical care or for the sake of not going against Jewish tradition and custom, it would seem logical that her sister and sister's children should care for her as a widow, rather than someone who was not a relative. John had no income, no prospects for wealth in this world. I see this as a spiritual assignation. John and Mary never betrayed Jesus nor left this side. They clung to him through it all and he told them to regard each other as mother.

I think approaching this with an antiCatholic bias is a mistake. Just take it as it is. Any disciple that Jesus loves can regard Mary as his or her spiritual mother and Mary can regard any disciple that Jesus loves as her spiritual son or daughter. It fits with Matthew 12:46-50, which is a more complete version of his words than Luke 8: 19-21 which some erroneously interpret as a personal rebuke to his mother and cousins, and miss the tremendous truth and beauty that when we are in Messiah and walking in the Spirit we have these spiritual relationships.

On the broader matter of a command of relationship, Jesus did have half-brothers (extended family), but they were all younger than Him, and it was His decision as the eldest with whom she should live,

I'm unfamiliar with that law or custom in any Biblical or Jewish teaching. It sounds more like a Gentile custom to me. I think he chose John because John chose himself, by being there. However, I agree with you in the sense that this can also be applied as an example to us to make provision for our family, including our parents, should we pass away before them.

We know Mary was deeply wounded by these events, and who better to bear her up than Jesus' most faithful student during His moment of deepest need, John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

No, I don't agree. The prophecy Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also was no doubt fulfilled, yet John and Mary were already there. They were faithful through it all because of their deep love for Jesus. It is altogether logical and proper for them to have a spiritual relationship as son and mother because it is completely rooted in, and centered on, the LORD Jesus Christ. Obviously they understood Jesus' words and remained together until Mary's passing. Now they are together again.

As for commanding a unique spiritual relationship between the two, Christ had already commanded all his disciples that they love one another with the same kind of love that existed between the Father and the Son, and you can't do better than that, no matter who you are..

Who obeys him ?

Commanding such love here, as though it were something new, would seem redundant.

Are these things not written for our instruction ? Otherwise, it it were a fulfillment of a law or prophecy it would have said so. If it were a private family matter, why would it appear here ? Everything word has a reason to be in this book.

And again, the commands are two, one to Mary, one to John, and they are equilateral. So whatever you make of the content of the command, you must apply it equally to both.

Precisely

Mary is not being set over John in some mediatorial sense that can be extended to all believers. This is strictly between Jesus, Mary and John. There is no textual warrant for taking it further.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; It is for our benefit if we fit the same criteria, as listed in Matthew and John. I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

Thus any of us who are in His spiritual family have as much spiritual access to Him and Mary and His brothers as anyone ever had. We are all one in his holy catholic apostolic church. It is his will that we be one. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

If it were for Mary's physical care or for the sake of not going against Jewish tradition and custom, it would seem logical that her sister and sister's children should care for her as a widow, rather than someone who was not a relative.

Logical applying modern western standards, but not necessary, and not necessarily best for Mary. Besides, look at the direct consequence. What does the text say John's response is?

Joh 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Where is Mary's "extended family" here? They are no-shows, as so often happens with these things. But here we see John taking her into his home. That single consequence, John assuming the role of caregiver, confirms that the exchange was about taking care of Mary, because that's exactly what John does in direct response to Christ's command.

John had no income, no prospects for wealth in this world. I see this as a spiritual assignation. John and Mary never betrayed Jesus nor left this side. They clung to him through it all and he told them to regard each other as mother.

You say John had no income. Maybe the others were even worse off. This was not a time when it was normal for Jews in occupied Israel to be wealthy. John and Mary I suspect were well cared for by the contributions of the church in Jerusalem, as John ministered in the word. And who better to live among the disciples in the early days, when the message was still coming together, than one who knew Jesus from infancy. Can you imagine the conversations they must have had! Perhaps this is part of what lies behind John's parting comment in his Gospel, that so much more could be written about the many works of Christ, "but these are written that ye may believe..."

BTW, this just in: John was probably a cousin to Jesus through Salome, if in fact Salome was Mary's sister, as well as the wife of Zebedee. This would mean John was extended family and the beloved disciple, at the same time. See here for the discussion:

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/jesus-cousins-were-the-apostles-james-and-john

Which, if true, makes John the ideal candidate, even on your terms, for being the final earthly caregiver to Mary.

I think approaching this with an antiCatholic bias is a mistake. Just take it as it is.

This is the interesting bit of psychology here. I fully believe I am taking it just as it is. I've read this passage for years and it has always been both spiritual and practical to me, in that Jesus loved His earthly mother and wanted her to be taken care of by one who would truly love and respect her. How that transforms into "anti-Catholic" is the dark magic here. It makes no sense to me. I am not anti-Catholic. I am pro-Scripture. In many things that puts me on the same side of a given issue as any conservative Catholic might be, and I'm just fine with that. In some other things, that puts us at odds. But not because of animus toward any of you. Only because I try to always be honest about what I really see in the text. The later developments of Marian theology, especially her alleged mediatorial role, simply cannot be drawn from the Biblical text without standing it on its head.

It fits with Matthew 12:46-50, which is a more complete version of his words than Luke 8: 19-21 which some erroneously interpret as a personal rebuke to his mother and cousins, and miss the tremendous truth and beauty that when we are in Messiah and walking in the Spirit we have these spiritual relationships.

I don't see it as a rebuke, but as a teachable moment that would be essential for the life of the newborn faith to flourish, lest it become bogged down by improper partiality. Both passages are holy writ, and Luke give clarity that what Jesus is saying in Matthew is about the closeness and access we all have as believers to Christ Himself. It is taking the Matthew passage off focus to somehow divert it from being about access to Christ and turn it upsidedown into a proof text for Marian doctrines that were not even part of the conversation until hundreds of years later. That's why it's beneficial to take the two passages in combination. Scripture interprets Scripture. If Christ is here teaching that the faithful all have equal access to Him through their faith and obedience (as you evidently agree), it is wrong to subvert that meaning by redirecting believers to erroneously infer they have less access to Him (though I realize that is not your intent), by reintroducing the biological hierarchy as a model for a spiritual hierarchy never taught in Scripture.

No, I don't agree. The prophecy Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also was no doubt fulfilled, yet John and Mary were already there. They were faithful through it all because of their deep love for Jesus. It is altogether logical and proper for them to have a spiritual relationship as son and mother because it is completely rooted in, and centered on, the LORD Jesus Christ. Obviously they understood Jesus' words and remained together until Mary's passing. Now they are together again.

The prophecy as you say was fulfilled. But that doesn't mean Mary was some unnatural superhuman in her feelings. I have no doubt that her joy returned in good measure as she witness the unfolding of the church. But what mother would not miss her little boy? Especially with Joseph off the scene. The deeper the love, the deeper the pain of waiting for that reunion. John, in sharing that love for Christ, as you rightly say, would share also in that sorrow of parting and waiting, and they two would be uniquely suited to comfort each other during those quiet moments of reflection that come ever more frequently in the winter of life.

If it were a private family matter, why would it appear here ? Everything word has a reason to be in this book.

True, and there are many events described in Scripture which would have been private, but for their benefit to those of us who would later follow in faith. The Lord's Supper, for just one example. Or Christ's heart-rending prayer in the garden. But these are there for our benefit, are they not? As I have indicated above, anyone who has ever been involved in the difficulties of the sorrows of life, the duties of care and love we have to each other at those times of transition, can see a great beauty in the love Jesus had for both His disciples and His mother. He never stopped being perfectly righteous. One would not need to be told this was the fulfillment of a prophecy or law. It was a general fulfillment of "all righteousness," as He put it when being baptized by John. In this particular instance, the law to "honor father and mother" is seen here, not as some dry didactic teaching, but as a moment of love lived, in which we should all follow His example, and thus it is very transparent why God should include this in Scripture, however personal it might have been.

We are all one in his holy catholic apostolic church

I appreciate that you did not capitalize the "c" in "catholic," because it enables me to agree with you. "[c]atholic" is just an old synonym for "universal," and as such, all who hold true to the faith as accounted by the apostolic witness (as recorded in Scripture) are indeed united in Him through the work of the Holy Spirit. I have experienced this time and time again, in meeting a total stranger who happens to be a sincere Christian, we have an immediate bond of heart and mind, regardless of accent or skin color or any other accident of natural birth. It is the new birth, being made alive in Christ through faith, that makes us family, with Christ the Firstborn, our Elder Brother. This is the universal, hence truly [c]atholic assembly of the faithful of all times and places, who are in Jesus, Messiah, Son of God, God the Son, blessed for ever. Amen.

Peace,

SR

Logical applying modern western standards, but not necessary, and not necessarily best for Mary. Besides, look at the direct consequence.

Just trying to apply Jewish customs, not western standards, in order to understand the text. Yes, both Mary and the beloved disciple obeyed Jesus. Did we really expect otherwise ? Why would John refer to himself as the "beloved disciple ?" Doubtless it was not to flatter himself, nor self-effacing pride. What if it was for our benefit ? What does it mean to us ? Why is it in the text ?

Where is Mary's "extended family" here?

I just showed them in the Upper Room after his ascension. They are all together as one. That they were not at the crucifixion is understandable given the prophecies, even predicted by our Lord himself. He knew what had to happen for the Scripture to be fulfilled.

You say John had no income. Maybe the others were even worse off. This was not a time when it was normal for Jews in occupied Israel to be wealthy. John and Mary I suspect were well cared for by the contributions of the church in Jerusalem, as John ministered in the word.

I don't think this was about physical food. This was spiritual.

And who better to live among the disciples in the early days, when the message was still coming together, than one who knew Jesus from infancy.

Now you are getting warm.

Can you imagine the conversations they must have had! Perhaps this is part of what lies behind John's parting comment in his Gospel, that so much more could be written about the many works of Christ, "but these are written that ye may believe..."

And now I think you have nailed it.

BTW, this just in: John was probably a cousin to Jesus through Salome, if in fact Salome was Mary's sister, as well as the wife of Zebedee. This would mean John was extended family and the beloved disciple, at the same time. Which, if true, makes John the ideal candidate, even on your terms, for being the final earthly caregiver to Mary.

Yes, I can see how that could be true, but more as a spiritual son and companion than an earthly caregiver per se. I like your idea of a source for the Gospel books. I think all the apostles and disciples would consider it a special honor to love, honor, and spiritually adopt the mother of our Lord.

This is the interesting bit of psychology here. I fully believe I am taking it just as it is. I've read this passage for years and it has always been both spiritual and practical to me, in that Jesus loved His earthly mother and wanted her to be taken care of by one who would truly love and respect her. How that transforms into "anti-Catholic" is the dark magic here. It makes no sense to me. I am not anti-Catholic. I am pro-Scripture. In many things that puts me on the same side of a given issue as any conservative Catholic might be, and I'm just fine with that.

Good, good, just trying to avoid the case where someone might be so fixed on trying to prove Catholic teaching wrong that he or she would miss the jewel.

The later developments of Marian theology, especially her alleged mediatorial role, simply cannot be drawn from the Biblical text without standing it on its head.

Let's leave those aside for now and meditate on the texts.

It is taking the Matthew passage off focus to somehow divert it from being about access to Christ and turn it upsidedown into a proof text for Marian doctrines that were not even part of the conversation until hundreds of years later.

Oh, did I have an original thought ? I do think Matthew/Luke and John texts give us something very special in a spiritual sense. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the New Testament books are not written as a book of law with commentaries to answer all our questions. If we had the Apostles blogging with us now we could have all our questions answered definitively, save some few like when will Messiah restore the Kingdom to Israel. I think we have what we have, not only because it is sufficient, but as a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart to prove whose children we really are.

That's why it's beneficial to take the two passages in combination. Scripture interprets Scripture. If Christ is here teaching that the faithful all have equal access to Him through their faith and obedience (as you evidently agree), it is wrong to subvert that meaning by redirecting believers to erroneously infer they have less access to Him (though I realize that is not your intent), by reintroducing the biological hierarchy as a model for a spiritual hierarchy never taught in Scripture.

I don't see it that way. I keep writing about a spiritual relationship rather than physical. In Miriam/Mary, the blessed Virgin of Israel and mother of God with us, I see the spiritual fulfilled. There is nothing wrong with loving her and regarding her as a spiritual mother. She is a true source of inspiration and a vessel of grace that was filled by the Holy Spirit for our benefit. Everything about her points to, and draws toward, Jesus and no one will ever separate her from Him, her from Israel, or her from the holy catholic apostolic church. We will be one as Jesus commanded, and the only way is through Him.

The prophecy as you say was fulfilled. But that doesn't mean Mary was some unnatural superhuman in her feelings. I have no doubt that her joy returned in good measure as she witness the unfolding of the church. But what mother would not miss her little boy? Especially with Joseph off the scene. The deeper the love, the deeper the pain of waiting for that reunion. John, in sharing that love for Christ, as you rightly say, would share also in that sorrow of parting and waiting, and they two would be uniquely suited to comfort each other during those quiet moments of reflection that come ever more frequently in the winter of life.

For a minute there I thought you were going to logically progress to her ascension into heaven, which you must admit has two, perhaps three, precedents. I think she was full of the Holy Spirit and longed for the reunion while understanding she had a mission of love to the entire holy catholic apostolic church. Of course I surmise the latter from her close association with the Apostles, as a probable oral source of the Gospels, and of tradition. Yet you did not take that step so let's leave her ascension aside for now.

True, and there are many events described in Scripture which would have been private, but for their benefit to those of us who would later follow in faith.

I prefer when we agree.

The Lord's Supper, for just one example.

Now about the Lord's Supper I would like your honest opinion about which particular denomination or sect you believe does it correctly (as there are so many variants). More importantly, at least to me, is the correlation of these passages. I will list the books and chapter though I know you don't need them listed to find them. John 6, Luke 24, John 21, Revelation 3

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

He never stopped being perfectly righteous. One would not need to be told this was the fulfillment of a prophecy or law. It was a general fulfillment of "all righteousness," as He put it when being baptized by John. In this particular instance, the law to "honor father and mother" is seen here, not as some dry didactic teaching, but as a moment of love lived, in which we should all follow His example, and thus it is very transparent why God should include this in Scripture, however personal it might have been.

While all of that is true, I'm not persuaded it is the real reason it was included in the text of John. I don't see John, Mary, and the Holy Spirit putting that in the text unless it was for benefit in a greater sense. If it had other text in there, "so it might be fulfilled," ",John being the only one of his brethren at the cross," etc. I just see it stands out as unique in a different way. And then you have this, And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. This is not your standard example of Mosaic Law and they certainly did not understand him then. I just think there is more in John 19 in a spiritual sense. One can only go with the faith one possesses. At the risk of going out of context a bit from keeping kosher And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

I appreciate that you did not capitalize the "c" in "catholic," because it enables me to agree with you. "

:) Yes, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds have it just like that.

Just trying to apply Jewish customs, not western standards, in order to understand the text.

That was my point. Ah me. We seem to be talking past each other here. First Century Jewish culture cannot be read off in a few easy rules. Westerners like us are tempted to say, well, why doesn't the extended family do it? That's the rule, right? But Jesus was the birthright son, the de facto leader of the family in the absence of Joseph, and his judgment would prevail over the prima fascia rule. Furthermore, as I stated last post, there is a distinct possibility that John met the criteria of being family anyway, assuming him to be son of Salome the sister of Mary, and Salome being wife of Zebedee., which in turn would make Jesus and John first cousins.

This illustrates BTW the difference between trying to map a later evolved tradition alongside whatever faint hints one thinks they are finding in Scripture, versus insisting on hard evidence that the Scriptures teach a specific doctrine before regarding it as binding. The hermeneutic of the conservative Protestant is always going to look reductionist to those with a tradition to defend. But it is critical to not lay burdens upon men through the traditions of men that have no real basis in God's word. We know Jesus was vehemently opposed to that:

Mat 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (29) Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (30) For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

And see how He cleared out His Father's temple to overturn the burdens imposed by a priesthood that was true in earthly pedigree but false in heart. If there is anything that lies deepest in the heart of the Protestant hermeneutic, it is to make the way clear for lost sinners to come to Jesus, in that same spirit of clearing the temple of those who would, without warrant, make themselves the door to redemption, instead of Jesus.

This is why I will not, by God's grace, ever "progress" to seeing such things as Mary rising to Heaven without dying. There is no warrant for such a belief in Scripture. Furthermore, even as an inference, it is unsustainable. Elijah and Enoch, who were sinful men like the rest of us, did not have to die, for reasons known only to God. Jesus, who was sinless, both died, and rose, as was taken to Heaven in the clouds. So what basis for Mary then not to die? Even if she was sinless (which cannot be true of any human but Jesus), she might well have been subjected to death, as Jesus was. So nothing in the NT narrative gives us any reason to think she was anything but mortal like us, and will share in the resurrection like us, when that day comes. To take a later developed story like this, and make it obligatory of Christian belief, is to impose burdens not imposed by Jesus. It obstructs rather than helps the way of the sinner looking for Christ. It is Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith. Not Mary. Not you nor me nor any saint of God or would-be saint among men. Only Jesus. The best any of the rest of us can hope to be is "God's little helpers." That's it. And I'm happy with that. It is an honor, and one which I would not becloud with fanciful tales of johnny-come-latelies.

As for the Lord's Supper, I am a strict memorialist. Zwinglian, if you prefer that sort of label. And yet I believe the Lord Jesus is really and truly present whenever believers gather to remember His sacrifice on our behalf:

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So I would reject as idolatry any attempt to represent Christ as physically present through philosophic trickery such as transubstantiation, in such things as the bloodless wafer sitting at the center of the monstrance, which so resembles the solar image I could never subscribe to such without fully believing I was compromising to sun worship and denying the faith. It is the blood of Jesus that was spilled to set me free from my many awful sins. My remembrance of Him could never be done right without the cup of the New Covenant in His blood, "for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." It is His blood that made the difference, and without it, I would still be lost, and have no cause for celebration of my newfound life in Him.

What about John 6 and the other usual proof texts? I'm sure you can guess I see those as intentional metaphors provided by Christ as a means to draw us closer to Him through regular remembrance of His unstoppable love for us, both in word and deed. His presence at the meal is spiritual, but no less real for being spiritual rather than physical. God is spirit, and there is nothing unreal about Him. Others on this thread have tried to say that the Eucharist is exclusively about Christ, not one's fellow believers. That is a false dichotomy. It is about Christ, and us being knit together in Christ in love, a spiritual body, which we are to discern, lest we partake unworthily, which risk we remove, if we treat each other with love and respect, as the body of Christ.

I know I have said some things here which may offend. That is not my intent, and I hope you do not take it that way. I have appreciated the irenic nature of our conversation, and hope that it may continue.

Peace,

SR

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.