Friday, February 25, 2005

Debating Atheism (part 4)

This is the continuation of an ongoing discussion I am having with Theomorph. We are discussing the recent debate, "Does God Exist?" between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey. Here are my initial comments regarding his take on the debate. You might then read part 2 and part 3.

Craig must believe that those who do not agree with him are either "ignorant, irrational, or willfully defiant" according to Theomorph. If Craig does not believe his opponent is either of those, then his arguments must not be the only reasonable option.
Dacey pointed this out in one of his very first remarks. He said that Craig's willingness to even debate something he claims to be an open and shut case indicates that he must doubt his own claims to some degree and afford some level of reasonableness to the atheist perspective.
Would this not also follow for Dacey? If your statement is correct, Dacey must therefore, doubt his own doubting to be having a debate about God's existence. I don't believe that Craig feels his arguments are the only reasonable assertions. Something is reasonable if it is rational and logical. Does something have to be true in order to be reasonable, rational or logical? When the earth was assumed to be the center of the universe, were humans being rational? Absolutely! Were they correct? No. But, something is not determined reasonable by its truth or error.

Is it logical to assume that creation demands a creator? Yes, but it is also logical to assume that creation exists by the multiplication of species that have evolved from one uncausable cause, apart from a creator. Is one more logical than the other? I think so, but that doesn't mean that someone who agrees with the latter statement is irrational or willfully defiant. To be willfully defiant assumes the truth. A Christian who believes that the Bible is God's word but gets a divorce for unwarranted reasons (scripture warrants divorce for infidelity) would be considered willfully defiant. He/she has already accepted the truth of scripture. An atheist has not come to the same conclusions, therefore they could not be willfully defiant.

That leaves the option of ignorance. Does disagreeing with Craig make you ignorant? That depends on the truth of his statements. If what he says is true, then yes, to disagree with him is ignorance (assuming the reasons for doing so are not irrationality or willful defiance which I don't believe is the case for atheists). I was ignorant of the truth of scripture prior to accepting it. I know many others who were ignorant as well. Some people are willfully defiant, not wanting to face the truth because they enjoy their secular lifestyle. You have stated that you would need an "experience of God" to believe in Him. If there truly is a God, and He never bends to your demands for an experience of Him, would that make Him any less real? To box his existence to fit into your demands could only be considered ignorance if He does exist.

For example, I don't believe man ever walked on the moon and the only way you could convince me otherwise would be to take me to the moon and allow me to walk on it myself. Would I be ignorant of the truth? I would be as long as man truly did walk on the moon. A lack of knowledge or understanding doesn't change reality. We could say the same thing for someone who has never heard of math. They are ignorant of its truth.

There is no such thing as, "What's true for you is not true for me" (as tolerance seems to be defined today). That statement is self-refuting by simply defining truth. But that's beside the point. If ignorance is the state of the atheist what does that mean? I think I can anticipate your next assumption. If ignorace is the atheist's problem, how can God hold them accountable? Is punishment appeased by ignorance? I'll save my response to that for another post.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Debating Atheism (part 3)

This is the continuation of an ongoing discussion I am having with Theomorph. We are discussing the recent debate, "Does God Exist?" between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey. Here are my initial comments regarding his take on the debate. You can read part 2 here.

Theomorph believes that Craig was not arguing his case from a theists perspective but from a Christian perspective.
Craig may have claimed that he is a theist, but it would have been more honest to say that he is a conservative evangelical Christian, which is certainly not the same thing. His arguments for theism would not have the same resonance with non-conservative, non-evangelical, non-Christian theists.
I don't think Dacey was shocked to discover that Craig is a Christian. Nor do I believe that changes the debate. Craig should argue, at least in my opinion, from his own perspective. The debate becomes less personal if he can't do that. I don't think Dacey argued from a generic atheist's postition either. I think he provided reasons for his own personal beliefs and doubts. How would a skeptic argue from any other position? (BTW-I realize "skeptic" is not the same as atheist, however, I am also aware that Dacey is a skeptic-as most atheists are). Dacey certainly lost focus when he brought up an article Craig wrote about Hell. What exactly does that argument have to do with the debate? It was an ad hominem argument that backfired when Craig called him on it.

I think this is the crux of Theomorph's position:
The problem is that it's only useful to provide evidence and proof for things we have already seen (but don't understand), but it's pointless to provide evidence and proof that something we can't see is actually there.
Then why are we having this discussion? If supernatural possibilities are beyond your comprehension, no amount of convincing will ever prove anything to you. Unless God reveals Himself to you, there will be no belief in Him. The only chance of my arguments making any sense to you is if God gives you some kind of physical experience to believe in Him. But then, how would your belief be sustained? Would He have to continually provide you with physical experiences to prove He is still there? You could just as easily claim that what you experienced was merely a halucination. Now, God must come to you in bodily form and remain by your side at all times, all the while showing you that He is God, to prove to you that it was not a halucination. But then, how does He prove to you that He is God? Miracles, could be written off as some sort of slight-of-hand trick or mirrors and smoke. Miracles didn't convince everyone who saw Jesus heal the sick that He was God, why would it be any different today? So what would it take for you to believe? I see you already responded to this question...you said "it wouldn't take anything at all." And then you go on to show how the physical universe proves its existence everyday by experience. It sounds like the above analogy I gave, is not too far from the truth of what it would take for you to believe. It would take the supernatural to become natural for you to accept it. Am I wrong?

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Debating Atheism (part 2)

This is the continuation of an ongoing discussion I am having with Theomorph. We are discussing the recent debate, "Does God Exist?" between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey. Here are my initial comments regarding his take on the debate.

In an attempt to show that Craig simply made statements like those below without providing any support for his statements, Theomorph, quotes some of Craig's statements.
Here are a few quotes from Craig: Dacey's arguments are "enormously presumptuous" Dacey's argument is "plainly false" Dacey's arguments are "self-refuting" Dacey's arguments are "logically invalid" Dacey's argument is "pretty clearly false," "obviously false," and "pure speculation." "He's simply mistaken." And, my personal favorite, "I don't think that's true."
Again, I will say that anyone reading the transcript will see that these statements were followed up by examples. He never simply allowed the statement to stand as his argument. You are either being dishonest with these claims or you really didn't hear Craig's supporting arguments. I will assume it is the latter and we will see from the transcript, once it is available, what support Craig provided.

Theomorph argues that Craig never provided any "concrete examples." He also points out when Dacey challenged one of Craig's sources.
Dacey called him on that one, especially regarding Gerd Ludemann, and Craig replied by claiming that he had read Ludemann more closely and knew what Ludemann was really saying. But I've read Ludemann, too, and I don't see how Dacey could have been anything but correct in his assessment of Ludemann's view on the point in question, i.e., did people experience a resurrected Jesus
I felt like Dacey made his point clear on this one. It seemed to me that Craig conceded that Ludemann doesn't believe the resurrection actually happened but believes the people were halucinating. Craig simply said that Ludemann admits that people "saw" the resurrected Christ, even if Ludemann feels they were halucinations. I would agree with Theomorph here. I think Craig was reaching in trying to use Ludemann as a source. This was Dacey's biggest win, though I think it might have been one of his only ones.

Theomorph points out that Craig mainly used New Testament advocates in support of his arguments on the resurrection, "which makes their views fundamentally suspect." I don't think that sufficiently argues the points Craig made. To throw doubt on the source doesn't argue the point made. For example, if everyone wanted to shut the mouths of the few Christians who were spreading a lie about Jesus rising from the dead, why didn't they prove he didn't? The only valid argument is that the body was stolen, but that becomes a problem knowing that the tomb was guarded. I think there were about 3 other arguments that Craig made for his case that the resurrection occured, but my point is that doubting the source of these arguments proves nothing.

That only covers the first half of Theomorph's first rebuttal of my original comments. As time permits I will address the rest of that rebuttal and then move on to his most recent comments in order. As it turns out, I don't seem to have the time Theomorph has to volley back immediately. I am limited to about an hour a day with family, a full-time job, and school eating up the rest of my time.

Friday, February 18, 2005

Debating Atheism (part 1)

Theomorph has written on his blog about the debate. After reading the comments he made here, I thought I would entertain a little discussion. Here is my response to his review of the debate and for now it can serve as my post about the debate. I will hopefully have time this weekend to write more in depth about some of the arguments.

From the other side of the fence (I'm a Christian) I have some differing viewpoints on the debate. I will admit that Dacey was a more personable and likable guy (very quickwitted) with his style. He came off as genuine (although very flustered in the rebuttals) while Craig was too stern. I also agree that the Q&A was a joke, and didn't add any clarity to either positions. The Q&A did bring up something that Craig didn't argue which is the moral argument. That is one of the better arguments against Atheism and should have been in his intro. rather than his cosmological arguments which I doubt anyone really understood.

During Craig's introduction I was afraid he was going to talk over everyones heads, but his rebuttals were far more cohesive and prepared than Dacey's. Craig always followed up his statements with examples, so I think you just weren't writing fast enough. When the transcript is available it will show that he doesn't just make blanket statements like, "you just don't understand" or "it's clearly true". He always followed up with his reasoning. Regardless of how abrasive his wording was, he never let those statements speak for themselves.

As far as the lady who told Craig he was being judgmental in his arguments, I don't know how she could say that. Granted the audiences reaction was uncalled for and over-the-top, but why would she ask that? She was trying to attack his character, when a debate calls for the debater to attack his opponents arguments. I could have easily said the same thing about Dacey claiming that Christian beliefs are not reasonable (when that was the whole point of him being there). Craig simply made light of her harsh critique of his character by pointing out that her own statements were judgmental. Why is she seen as the victim here?

As far as your question for Craig...I think he would have turned it around by asking you the same thing. He would not have been sucked into claiming you are an irrational or ignorant person. He would have givin you the opportunity to say that of him. So what is it? Am I naive, fearful and desperate for something to hope for, or just blindly accepting the faith of my parents?

I would ask you a question that hopefully, you can respond to better than Dacey did. Why do my teachers say I'm from Apes? I don't look like an ape...just kidding.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

A Critique of Atheism (Part 3)

This Critique of Atheism series comes from an essay I turned in for my philosophy class last summer. Read part 1 here and part 2 here.

If the burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist to substantiate God's existence, then naturally, the atheist has the burden of proof to explain the existence of the world apart from a creator. The atheist must remove all supernatural understanding when interpreting the origin of life. This task is rarely understood by the atheist as a requirement for his philosophy. Atheism is thought of more in terms of disproving rather than proving. Atheists will give reason after reason for why they do not belive in God, but when confronted with difficult questions such as "how do you and I exist?" they will attempt to dodge the issue. They are more likely to give the impression that it si not their responsibility to answer such questions. They desire simply to argue against the solutions that others purpose.

Smith confirms my understanding when he says, "the theist who asserts the existence of a god assumes the responsibility of demonstrating the truth of this assertion; if he fails in this task, theism should not be accepted as true." He goes on to say,"when the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to 'prove' anything" (Smith). It may sound strange that an atheist does not feel any responsibility to provide solutions which answer questions regarding the origin of life. One would question the absurdity of living life in such a way. What is the point of arguing, if the questions remain unsettled? It is the skeptical mindset that the atheist thrives upon as the scapegoat for providing a response to any interrogation. Skepticism prizes doubt not theory. Rather than propose any theories of their own the skeptic is content with judging the theories that others propose. They may come off as noble and wise, but in reality they are left with the same questions to the meaning of life that everyone else faces.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Have you read your Bible lately?

I love Charles Spugeon for his honesty and bluntness. He is such a quotable writer and usually his sermons stir up an excitement each time I read them. In a sermon he gave on the Bible he challenges all of us with this:
If this be the Word of God, what will become of some of you who have not read it for the last month? "Month, sir! I have not read it for this year." Ay, there are some of you who have not read it at all. Most people treat the Bible very politely. They have a small pocket volume, neatly bound; they put a white pocket-handkerchief round it and carry it to their places of worship; when they get home, they lay it up in a drawer till next Sunday morning; then it comes out again for a little bit of a treat, and goes to chapel; that is all the poor Bible gets in the way of an airing. That is your style of entertaining this heavenly messenger. There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write "damnation" with your fingers.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Debate: Does God Exist?

William Lane Craig will be debating Austin Dacey at Fresno State this Thursday closing out the Veritas Forum. It is sure to be the highlight of the event. They have debated at least once before at Purdue. The opening statement Dacey gave for that debate is one of the more challenging articles I've read from an atheist. That debate is the most successful debate the sponsor, CFI, has ever put on, drawing 4,000 listeners. VHS tapes of the debate are available for $28.95 (shipping included). Here is the entire trascript of a debate Craig had with Quentin Smith on the same topic.

I will be attending the debate with some friends and will let everyone know how it went. I have been told that Craig considers Dacey his toughest opponent on the subject. He should be fully prepared as I'm sure Dacey will be also.

A Critique of Atheism (Part 2)

This Critique of Atheism series comes from an essay I turned in for my philosophy class last summer. Read Part 1 here.

George Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God (Skeptic's Bookshelf) has received wide acclamation for its representation of the atheist's view. According to Smith, it is the purpose of the atheist to "convince the listener that atheism represents, not a degeneration, but a step forward" (Smith 5). His assumption that, because Atheism is built upon reason and science, an individual takes a "step forward" in life when he is able to do away with the idealistic view of the supernatural altogether. He clarifies his point when he later states:
The atheist's frustration increases as he discovers that his arguments for atheism are futile, that the average believer - who was persuaded to believe for emotional, not intellectual, reasons - is impervious to arguments against the existence of a supernatural being, regardless of how meticulous and carefully reasoned these arguments may be (Smith 6).
Before I begin a critique of Atheism, let us make sure that we have a proper understanding of the word. Theism means belief in a god or gods. Atheism simply attaches the negative prefix "a" to the word, reversing its meaning. Therefore, the atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Debunking Atheism

Weapons of Warfare has a collection of archived posts on debunking atheism. These are well-written apologetical posts which are sure to give the theist as well as the atheist something to think about. While your there you can congratulate him on receiving the award for "Best in Apologetics" from the EU Evangelical Blog Awards.

A Critique of Atheism (Part 1)

This Critique of Atheism series comes from an essay I turned in for my philosophy class last summer.

I am fully aware that writing an essay which attempts to prove the existence of God using only reason and rationality in some way is an attempt at the impossible. To try to use reason to prove the existence of God is not an easy task, to say the least. In fact, the very Bible I believe in tells me that to speak of "spiritual" things using "man's wisdom" will sound like "foolishness." 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 states:
These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
With this in mind, it is not my endeavor to write an essay that has the ability to persuade someone of something that ultimately requires faith. Some of the early philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle attempted to do this without much rational success. My goal is much less complicated than proving the existence of God using philosophical methods. My motive is simply to prove that atheist's find themselves in the same position as theist's, requiring an element of faith, when their belief, or lack of belief, is critiqued with reason, rationality, and logic.

Read part 2 here and part 3 here.

Friday, February 11, 2005

God and Country

Matthew 15:8-9 "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
I can't help but wonder if conservative Americans don't fall into this category. It seems, sometimes, that we place a higher priority on fighting for Bushs' cause than for Christ's. I can easily get sidetracked myself when talking about current events becomes more common than talking about God.

I realize the verse above directly refers to the Pharisees and scribes who were so focused on being obedient to their own rules and man-made regulations that they had lost the main objectives of Scripture. But, are we any better today? The Pharisees were more concerned about what went into their mouths than what came out (Matt.5:11). They clearly missed the forrest for the trees. Do we not make a similar mistake when we become more concerned about how President Bush represents us as Americans, then how we represent Christ as His followers?
Psalm 20:7 "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God."

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Movie Review: Hotel Rwanda

This is the story of Paul Rusesabagina who housed over a thousand refugees in the hotel he managed in Rwanda. Don Cheadle gives the performance of a lifetime as Paul. The movie centers on the 1994 genocide that took the lives of 800,000 Tutsi's. While America was watching the Trial of the Century, one of the greatest genocides of the century was taking place across the globe.

I thought the movie might be one giant shamefest against the international community for its lack of response, and rightfully so. The global embarrassment is captured in one scene but it is one of the most emotional scenes in the movie. The UN was gathering people and fleeing the country but when a large group of children from a Catholic orphanage came running up to the Hotel, they are turned away. The priest and nuns who were caring for the children assume that the UN will take the orphans out of the country as well, but they only came for the foreigners. As those on the bus looked back at those left behind, looks of shame were returned with looks of abandonment. The song of several Rwandan children can be heard in the background as this gut-wrenching scene is taking place. If the song were on the movie's soundtrack I would buy the cd for that song alone, but I didn't hear it on the 30-second soundclips.

Hotel Rwanda is really the story of one man's courage. A man who daily risked his life to protect the innocent. You can read more about him in the not-yet-released book, Hotel Rwanda: Bringing the True Story of an African Hero to Film, written by Terry George, Paul Rusesabagina, and Don Cheadle.

In the REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS DURING THE 1994 GENOCIDE IN RWANDA it says:
"Acknowledgement of responsibility must also be accompanied by a will for change: a commitment to ensure that catastrophes such as the genocide in Rwanda never occur anywhere in the future."
Yet, another genocide is underway in Darfur, Sudan. 1.8 million people have been driven to the desert and left to die by armed militia groups. Why has the international community once again turned a blind eye? World Vision is there, doing what they can, but military action needs to put an end to this conflict. Now is not the time to point fingers at America or the UN. The entire world needs to come together on this and do something for the sake of humanity. All of human life has been created in the image of God. If we respect God, we will seek to preserve His image.

Outing Joel Osteen

Michael Spencer has given the Evangelical Blogosphere a challenge to "out" Joel Osteen's Christless gospel. His post contains loads of information and links to articles about the message Joel Osteen is sending Americans in the name of evangelicalism. Osteen's latest book, Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential is essentially a self-help book. Don't believe me? Check out Brian Harvey's collection of Amazon's book reviews. It's quite a scary reality.

Amazing Shot - Jordan Snipes swishes a 90-Footer to Win!

"For this former quarterback, it took a Hail Mary thrown like a baseball to win the basketball game. With 0.6 seconds left in overtime, Jordan Snipes of Guilford College rebounded the other team's missed free throw, wheeled around and heaved the ball the full length of the court."
Read the rest at Yahoo News.

See the video of the shot at ESPN.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Outing The Discerning Reader

I had my own customer service issue with TDR which has led me to look elsewhere for books. It took them 6 months to refund my money ($200) after countless emails were sent to resolve the issue. Now, with the new direction Rob is taking TDR, I have many more reasons to look elsewhere. His decision to lash out and attack his customers is akin to an athelete complaining about his fans. Not the best approach. The progressive direction he is taking TDR is like a Country Singer deciding he is going to become a Rap Artist. Also, not a good approach. The likely outcome will be a drastic drop in TDR orders, and a merge with Sojourners.

Philip Johnson's Bookmarks:

The Discerning Reader - The story of this company's sudden meltdown is one of the saddest and most bizarre sagas of the Christian Web. The Discerning Reader is a Medford, OR-based bookselling business that over the years sponsored several excellent and well-designed Web sites—including Antithesis, Christian counterculture, and a colorful critique of postmodernism. At least ninety percent of their book recommendations were excellent and insightful. We highly recommended them for more than two years.
Then complaints began to multiply about customer service problems at The Discerning Reader. Customer-service difficulties per se are inevitable and an understandable part of doing business by mail. What was disturbing here was the coarse and pugnacious way owner Rob Schläpfer lashed out at his customers with profanity-laced abuse. We know this is a fact, because (even though we never complained about customer service,) as we have sought to understand and make sense of the changes taking place on the various Discerning Reader-sponsored Web sites, we have more than once been on the receiving end of some choice but unprintable expletives from Mr. Schläpfer.
As the controversy grew regarding Mr. Schlapfer and his abuse of customers, he began to attack the theological stance he himself had at first claimed to represent. He hypocritically wagged his finger at Reformed Christians, suggesting that their theology made them abusive and unloving. He has now given a wholesale endorsement and his highest rating to a book calling for evangelicals to embrace postmodernism. Since we once recommended this site and its sister sites with the highest accolades, we think it only fair to issue an equally strong warning: Discernment seems to be in very short supply these days at The Discerning Reader. Caveat emptor.

To Rob's credit, he did respond:

I am sending this note out to anyone who has had any contact with our online work in the last 6 months or so. I would like to have addressed it with the salutation "Dear Friends." Sadly, some of you would not consider yourselves as such today. Where this is my fault, because of something I should not have said, I am truly sorry. Where this is the result of some disagreement over a theological matter, or the direction we have chosen to take in recent days, I would urge you to put that aside for a moment.

It has been reported around the Web that in recent weeks/months I have expressed anger with some of the people I have encountered in our work, "taking them to task" in a manner that is utterly inconsistent with the values I hold dear -- values that have been expressed throughout our six years on line.

It is true. I have done so. And I would like to formally apologize. I've been wrong. I would ask all injured parties to forgive me -- for Jesus' sake, and for the glory of the gospel.

for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires.


Selah.

Having said that -- with no qualification whatsoever -- I think it is important to underscore the source of my anger. It isn't because I just like to fly off the handle . . . I don't. It isn't some personal animus -- nor is it the fact that I occasionally "just have a bad day." No, there is something profound eating away at me, making it all the more needful to be kept in check -- something I have obviously failed to do, to my own shame. (It has also put me in a deep state of genuine depression for many months.)

In my last Christian Counterculture editorial, "This Is the Way of Love" (published in September 2004), I noted some important insights from author Greg Boyd regarding what I believe is the major problem that confronts the Christian community today: the tragic lack of love [and grace] among us. (Critics of Boyd's Open Theology: I know it is hard for you, but please put that aside for a moment and hear him on a point that has nothing to do with that debate. Thanks.) He writes:

"How much harm has been done to the church and to the cause of Jesus Christ because Christians have placed other considerations alongside or above the command to love as God loves? In the name of truth, Christians in the past have sometimes destroyed people, even physically torturing and murdering them. In the name of holiness, Christians have often pushed away and shamed those who don't meet their standard, creating their own little holiness club to which struggling sinners need not apply. And in the name of correct biblical doctrine, Christians have frequently destroyed the unity of the body of Christ, refusing to minister or worship together because of doctrinal differences, sometimes viciously attacking those who disagree with them."

"The unsurpassable worth of the person who doesn't share our truth, doesn't meet our definition of holiness, or doesn't agree with our "correct biblical doctrine" has all too often been neglected or denied. Which means that in such cases the truth, holiness, or correct doctrine we have defended was altogether worthless: clashing cymbals, resounding gongs, religious noise, nothing more. Such noise tarnishes the reputation--the glory--of God. It also explains why the church generally has been known for many things other than love and many things that contradict love."


I then made a comment that is very telling of my own disposition since beginning our work in 1999:

"Now I must confess that in recent years this reality has taken me from sheer bewilderment, on to near despair, and all the way to anger. And while I am ashamed of the later, there is no question in my mind that the issue at stake is the glory and reputation of God -- as Dr. Boyd suggests. This is not about "being nice" -- as one "pastor" snidely remarked to me. It is about being Godly. And being Godly means -- above all else -- loving as God loves."


There is something terribly wrong with people who call themselves "born again" believers in America today. Greg Boyd (above) nails it: we are judgmental, moralistic and almost completely lacking in the grace and love that mark God's character. As Christians, we fail to heed the most basic truth that marks the breaking in of the new age:

For the law was given through Moses;
but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

I have seen it first hand on almost a daily basis for years -- especially since opening our book ministry five years ago. Judgment. Accusation. Vindictiveness. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It is most notorious in Reformed circles -- the people who love "the Law." But it tends to mark all too many of those who are conservative and evangelical in their beliefs. And it makes me angry. Sometimes irrationally so. For that I do apologize. Most sincerely.

Please pray for me. Having been a Christian most of my life now, I find this gnawing anger a terrible thing to combat. I find the depression overwhelming at times. And I have deliberately pulled away from our work. But I will continue to look to the Lord to restore my hope.

So let's just leave it at this:

I am sorry.


rob schläpfer