Presiding Bishop, others begin campaign to ‘reclaim Jesus’ in US culture

By Episcopal News Service staff
Posted Mar 22, 2018

[Episcopal News Service] A group of Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders, including Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, have begun what they call a campaign to “reclaim Jesus” from those who they believe are using Christian theology for political gain.

“We are living through perilous and polarizing times as a nation, with a dangerous crisis of moral and political leadership at the highest levels of our government and in our churches,” say the 23 signers of the statement. “We believe the soul of the nation and the integrity of faith are now at stake.”

The group says the church’s role is to change the world through the life and love of Jesus Christ, while the government should serve the common good by protecting justice and peace, rewarding good behavior while restraining bad behavior. “When that role is undermined by political leadership, faith leaders must stand up and speak out,” the signers say, citing the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. who said the church is the conscience of the state, not its master or its servant.

“Reclaiming Jesus: A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis” offers six “affirmations” of what the group, currently 23 strong, believes, “and the resulting rejections of practices and policies by political leaders which dangerously corrode the soul of the nation and deeply threaten the public integrity of our faith.

“We pray that we, as followers of Jesus, will find the depth of faith to match the danger of our political crisis.”

In summary, the signers, in their the affirmations and rejections, said they believe:

  • Each human being is made in God’s image and likeness, and therefore, “we reject the resurgence of white nationalism and racism in our nation on many fronts, including the highest levels of political leadership.”
  • We are one body and, therefore, “we reject misogyny, the mistreatment, violent abuse, sexual harassment, and assault of women that has been further revealed in our culture and politics, including our churches, and the oppression of any other child of God.”
  • “How we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner is how we treat Christ himself,” and, therefore, “we reject the language and policies of political leaders who would debase and abandon the most vulnerable children of God.”
  • “Truth is morally central to our personal and public lives,” and, therefore, “we reject the practice and pattern of lying that is invading our political and civil life.”
  • Christ’s way of leadership is servanthood, not domination, and, therefore, “we reject any moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule. … They raise deeper concerns about political idolatry, accompanied by false and unconstitutional notions of authority.”
  • Jesus “tells us to go into all nations making disciples,” and, therefore, “we reject ‘America first’ as a theological heresy for followers of Christ.”

The statement says in its conclusion that “our urgent need, in a time of moral and political crisis, is to recover the power of confessing our faith. Lament, repent, and then repair.”

The Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, and Curry began talking earlier this year about the need for such a statement. The signers agreed to the wording of the statement at an Ash Wednesday retreat that Curry hosted at the Episcopal Church Center in New York.

“I joined with other Christian church leaders on this confession of what faith in times like these require,” Curry said March 22 in a statement to Episcopal News Service. “When faced with social issues, our Church has not been silent and we will continue to strive for justice and peace. Our role is one of moral leadership for our nation, for our church, for ourselves.”

The “Reclaiming Jesus” message, Wallis said in a March 22 commentary on the Sojourners website, needed to be “something that would be much more than just another statement to sign and then file away.

“Rather, with a shared humble spirit, we felt called to act as elders for a time such as this and to commend our message to the churches for a process of prayer, study, reflection, and action.”

Wallis called his commentary “Reclaiming Jesus: How Confessing Faith Can Respond to a Moral and Constitutional Crisis.”

The signers have set up a website, Reclaiming Jesus, where the statement and a one-page summary can be downloaded. There is also due to be a collection of resources in addition to a five-week “civil discourse curriculum” that already has been released.

The signers currently include:

  • Bishop Carroll A. Baltimore, President and CEO, Global Alliance Interfaith Networks
  • Rev. Dr. Peter Borgdorff, Executive Director Emeritus, Christian Reformed Church in North America
  • Dr. Amos Brown, Chair, Social Justice Commission, National Baptist Convention USA, Inc.
  • Rev. Dr. Walter Brueggemann, Professor Emeritus, Columbia Theological Seminary
  • Dr. Tony Campolo, Co-Founder, Red Letter Christians
  • Dr. Iva Carruthers, General Secretary, Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference
  • The Most Rev. Michael B. Curry, Presiding Bishop and Primate, The Episcopal Church
  • Rev. Dr. James Forbes, President and Founder, Healing the Nations Foundation and Preaching Professor at Union Theological Seminary
  • Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary Emeritus, Reformed Church in America
  • Rev. Dr. Cynthia Hale, Senior Pastor, Ray of Hope Christian Church, Decatur, GA
  • Rev. Dr. Richard Hamm, former General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
  • Rev. Dr. Joel C. Hunter, Faith Community Organizer and Chairman, Community Resource Network
  • Rev. Dr. Jo Anne Lyon, General Superintendent Emerita, The Wesleyan Church
  • Bishop Vashti McKenzie, 117th Elected and Consecrated Bishop, AME Church
  • Rev. Dr. Otis Moss, Jr., Co-Convener National African American Clergy Network
  • Dr. John Perkins, Chair Emeritus and Founding Member, Christian Community Development Association
  • Bishop Lawrence Reddick, CEO, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
  • Fr. Richard Rohr, Founder, Center for Action and Contemplation
  • Dr. Ron Sider, President Emeritus, Evangelicals for Social Action
  • Rev. Jim Wallis, President and Founder, Sojourners
  • Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins, Director, NCC Truth and Racial Justice Initiative
  • Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner, Co-Convener, National African American Clergy Network; President, Skinner Leadership Institute
  • Bishop Will Willimon, Bishop, The United Methodist Church, retired, Professor of the Practice of Ministry, Duke Divinity School


Comments (172)

  1. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    This statement is both political and divisive and therefore directly contradicts its stated purpose.

  2. Terry Francis says:

    Ms Blumenfeld, there was nothing political or divisive about Mr Geibel’s statement. His observations were spot on regarding the self-righteous attitudes of many Episcopalians toward people who disagree with them. It contradicts nothing. If you cannot read it and come to any other conclusion other than it’s “divisive” then you are, sadly, one of those progressives who doesn’t even attempt to try to understand those they disagree with.

  3. Terry Francis says:

    I see there was another statement, Ted Gemberling’s, that came after Mike’s and if that was the one you were commenting on Ms Blumenfeld I do apologize. I thought you were responding to Mike’s statement. My bad.

  4. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    I am talking about the original document, the Reclaim Jesus assertions, not about any of the comments written here about it. The bishop’s statement, the affirmations are all terribly divisive and political even though the alleged purpose is to end political divisiveness. And, as one can see from some of the comments, it makes many people feel they are no longer welcomed by the Episcopal church. A church can address current issues and explain how Jesus and the teachings of the church are relevant without taking a clearly divisive political stand.

  5. Donald Caron says:

    Barbara, I’m afraid it is not possible to be genuinely supportive of Jesus’ teaching without being political. The structures in which we live are intensely political. We are a people of laws, which should codify our best aspirations for our society. Laws limit the range of acceptable behavior, so complete freedom is curbed for the benefit of good order, for safety, to care for those in need, and sometimes to level the playing field. No one wants to give up what we have worked for, but sometimes we recognize that the benefits to our society that come about through our (even unwilling) contribution leads ultimately to a better world. Likewise, we recognize that limiting some behaviors can make our world safer, saner, and more cognizant of the well-being of all. When we create rules for behavior, whether they are written or unwritten, we are political. If we accept all behavior, all manner of social discourse, if we claim that there are no limits, we have surrendered our civility; we then follow the law of the jungle, where the strongest prey upon the weak, the loudest shout down the meek, those who are in power use that power to further solidify their grasp on power and privilege.

    Many Americans live with some degree of privilege and comfort, and who would willingly give up any part of that for the sake of a stranger? A follower of Jesus would.

  6. Ted Gemberling says:

    Thanks, Donald! I was about to post an excerpt of your comment from several days ago, with attribution, and am so pleased to see another comment by you.

  7. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    I am going to make one last (but lengthy) comment here, and then leave with the understanding that those who support the position explained in the ENS article and those who do not are just going to have to agree to disagree. I hope that the church will look at all the comments with an open mind and consider them all as it moves forward in this area. So, here follow my comments:
    I am not saying that a church can (or even should) separate itself from the current affairs of the day. What I am saying is that a church can (and should) give valuable insights on issues by sharing the teachings of the church/the bible/Jesus. But the church is not (or should not be) a political entity. Its positions on particular issues that may be political in nature should be guided by its basic faith and not by societal mores or values or pressures that are ever-changing. The teachings of the church should be guided by God, not by current events, even though those teaching of course have a bearing on current events.
    My problem with this stance of the Bishop and others as explained in the ENS article is that it takes a position that is clearly aligned (or, at least appears to be so) with one political party rather than simply explaining a stance on particular issues based on the age-old teachings of the church. Today’s politics are horribly divisive, and to take a stand with one particular party simply furthers the divisiveness that is already running rampant in our society. It also drives people away from the church at a time when they may most need the church and when, as a whole, society needs to become more connected with God, not feel driven away by God’s spokespeople.
    So, back to my original comment: “This statement [referring to the subject of ENS article about which all these comments are being written] is both political and divisive and therefore directly contradicts its stated purpose.” The purpose of the movement as explained in the article is apparently to save the soul of the nation by beginning a “a campaign to “reclaim Jesus” from those who they believe are using Christian theology for political gain.” And yet this very campaign uses Christian theology in support of a specific political agenda. There are laws and values that are a permanent part of Christian theology; these affect how Christians lead their lives and as such affect the world, including its politics, in which those Christians live. Yes, the church should do all it can to bring people back to those values. But in my opinion the church should not be aligning itself with a particular political party, involving itself in specific actions of specific politicians, and certainly should not be making political judgements that reflect opinions of one specific political viewpoint. For example, the statement that there is a resurgence of white nationalism is an assertion for which there are facts that could also lead to alternate conclusions as well, but it is a catch phrase used by one political party to cast aspersion on those who do not agree with its agenda. Similarly, the statement that “America First” is theological heresy is both superficial and political without first explaining how the author is defining that phrase and without any acknowledgement of the complicated and complex concepts that underlie that phrase, many of which do not fit the definition of theological heresy. Yet using the phrase in this superficial and very political manner is nothing but divisive.
    If the church chooses to align itself with a political party and its worldly agenda above the eternal teachings of Christ then it seems that it is telling us that the fickleness of this life and its values are more important than the eternal values of our theology. And, it is disingenuous to tell us that the church is political in the name of Jesus and to further the “integrity of faith.” Rather, it is allowing the transient politics of the day to drive its faith, instead of teaching that faith should drive those politics. Political agendas have nothing in common with religious faith, although religious faith does have a bearing on current issues for which there may be more than one political position. The approach explained in the ENS article has it backwards; whether knowingly or not, it confuses the two and pretends that supporting a political agenda is a way of supporting Christian theology. And, in the process, the church that says it welcomes all is driving away those who do not share the political agenda of the party with which the church seems to have aligned itself.

  8. mike geibel says:

    Dear Ms. Blumenfeld:
    Very well stated. Your comment is worth reading more than once.

  9. Ted Gemberling says:

    A Bible verse we don’t cite much in the Episcopal Church: I Cor. 11:19 “Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.”

    I suppose someone could argue that the “genuine” faction is made up of those who keep themselves above the political fray and concentrate on not offending potential church members. The most important thing is to give people a chance to enjoy the peace that comes from the sacraments.

    Barbara says the statement constitutes the church accepting the platform of the Democratic Party. But it says nothing about two Democratic priorities, abortion rights and gay rights. Why not? Obviously to bring as many concerned Christians together as possible. They didn’t come together to attack Republicans or whites but because they could see a severe threat to Christianity.

  10. Donald R Caron says:

    Many of us who have posted on this topic seem to take issue with the notion that it is “political.”. Perhaps what is really meant is ” partisan” or even “tribal ,” meaning : ” I am right and you must be wrong “.

    Again, I invite posters to return to the original statement and examine it carefully. Ask yourself whether the teaching and values of Jesus are represented (or misrepresented) in each part. Lay aside, if you can, your political labels– Republican or Democrat, progressive or conservative or liberal or whatever. Call yourself a follower of Jesus and a citizen of the Kingdom of God. What are the values of the Kingdom as revealed in Christ? What behaviors have no place in the Kingdom? What behaviors are motivated by a love for God and for our neighbor (as clarified in the parable of the Good Samaritan)?

    If the document seems to depict a leaning toward one political party’s agenda, perhaps it is not so much because the signers subscribe to that party but because that party’s agenda is aligned more closely to the ideals of the Kingdom. It might be so. I be!ieve that the document sets before us a list of values that can be made into agendas that may be brought to reality through political work. Yet, if these values are not part of the heart of America, no politician or party can succeed in bringing them to life in our culture.I

    I ask: Do you think our nation and our world would be better if people were guided by the Reclaiming Jesus values and by avoiding those ways of treating one another that are named as contrary to the way of Jesus? I also caution that following Jesus comes at a cost. Dying to self always means letting go of deeply held personal positions so that the mind of Christ can rule us.

  11. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    Mr. Caron and others:
    Political parties and their agendas are about political power. They use whatever they can to obtain that power including presenting platforms that may sound as if they were advocating a particular faith. They do not represent a particular faith, nor as I understand it is faith about obtaining political power. Yes, one particular platform item or another might seem to support a result that one’s faith might also support, but to align oneself with a political party saying that the party represents one’s faith is both naive and contrary to what religion is or should be about.

    1. Donald Caron says:

      Barbara and other followers of this thread, I have been encouraging Episcopalians and all Christians interested in this Recovering Jesus initiative to face the most basic question: Which is more dear to you– your membership in Christ or your membership in any political party? The manifesto calls us to give attention to the words and actions of Jesus in determining how we will treat our fellow human beings. The consequences of this are manifest not only in our private lives, but also in how we make political choices, because in a democracy, the laws and policies reflect the decisions of the people (we hope).
      The agenda of Jesus was set forth 2,000 years ago, and the Recovering Jesus manifesto is squarely based on that as recorded in the scriptures. Some of it can even be found in the much older record of Israel’s encounter with God, but because of the changing circumstances of Israel, we can easily see how attitudes and practices, sometimes appropriating differing ideas about the endorsement of God, changed. This dynamic is also part of our national experience. I leave it to your judgment whether the things encouraged by the manifesto are authentically from the revelation of Jesus. If you think they are not, then the appropriate way to make that argument is to talk about the message of Jesus as recorded in the scriptures.. I made that point much earlier in this discussion.

      We have been talking about the political agendas of the two major parties of the United States. Those agendas are both directed toward what the people of those parties believe to be good. We must decide for ourselves what is good if we choose to be involved in the life of the nation (and because of the great power of the United States) of the world. The Reclaiming Jesus document is intended to give us a faith-based criterion for judging what is good.

  12. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    “The Reclaiming Jesus document is intended to give us a faith-based criterion for judging what is good.” That may be its intent, but it uses partisan and political phrasing, catch phrases, and divisive buzz words to do so. Hence, regardless of what might be the intent, it has become a partisan and divisive document.

    1. Gordon Fuglie says:

      To Barbara Blumenfield: please specifically identify the “partisan and political phrasing, catch phrases, and divisive buzz words” you claim to see in Reclaiming Jesus, and tell us WHY you find them so. Thank you.

  13. Ted Gemberling says:

    Power and truth.

    I wanted to say something about the issue of truth here. Barbara Blumenfeld said that political parties are about power, and there’s a lot of truth to that, but power can be used in the service of either truth or falsehood. I want to give an anecdote that I think is worth considering. This is not to say there’s something special about me, and it’s not meant to make a generalization about the Republican Party. As I have said, there are Republicans who deserve respect as genuine public servants. John McCain is a great example. I am only talking about something that happened in the last year.

    Because Jeff Sessions was appointed Attorney General in the Trump administration, we had a special election here in Alabama to fill his Senate seat. Luther Strange had been appointed to fill it till an election could be held. I am a Democrat, but I do pay attention to political ads for both parties. Generally, getting the Republican nomination means you win election here in Alabama. Democrats have little chance for statewide office.

    You’ve probably heard about Roy Moore, our former Supreme Court Chief Justice who is quite controversial. I would not particularly want him to be our Senator, but I was quite disturbed by the ads last fall. A typical anti-Moore ad said that he wasn’t really a supporter of President Trump and wouldn’t build the Mexico wall. I thought, “That’s a lie. He’s more likely to build it than Strange. I have to send Moore some money,” and I did.

    Now, you might think that as a Democrat, I only did that because I hoped for a weak candidate on the other side. No, I really thought Moore would make a better senator than Strange. There was little chance a Democrat could win, and Doug Jones barely won after tremendous effort and is unlikely to win reelection in the future. I also thought it was rather suspicious that the sexual abuse allegations against Moore didn’t come out until he’d won the Republican nomination. While I do think he did do some bad things 40 years ago by the standards of 2018, the timing seemed extremely suspicious.

    Roy Moore is known to be a very argumentative person, but I would rather have someone who really talks about issues, even if I disagree with him, than someone who sweeps them under the rug. I think Republicans, especially ones of the social conservative stripe, need to ask themselves why it was so important for the Republican establishment to stop Moore.

    1. Gordon Fuglie says:

      Ted, your extended remarks about the Alabama theocrat Roy Moore’s candidacy are irrelevant to the substance of the Reclaiming Jesus document.

    2. Donald R Caron says:

      Power is a tool that brings about some outcome. It can be used in truth or falsehood, I suppose, but I would always want to ask for whose benefit is power being used? If political power is the topic of this discussion, then to whom do the benefits accrue? This is not always easy to determine

      I have been thinking today about the rollback of EPA standards for auto emissions I don’t think anyone would disagree that having fewer pollutants in our air is a good thing but if that comes at the cost of more expensive autos, that will have a greater impact on lower-income people than higher-income people, and if it negatively affects jobs, then does that outweigh the ecological benefit? I don’t know, but I do know that some decision must be made, and I would like to see some human value other than just money as a part of the conversation.

  14. Ted Gemberling says:

    Gordon, the reason I think they’re relevant is I’m trying to establish some common ground with conservatives. If even one Roy Moore supporter says, “maybe there is some truth to that. I wonder why the party wanted to stop him,” I will have accomplished something.

  15. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    Anyone who cannot recognize the biased and political language used in the Reclaiming Jesus document, some of which I already explained in a previous post, is not going to hear or understand any further information I might provide. I am so done with this conversation and with a church of which I have been a member for nearly 70 years but which has seemingly decided to abandon the eternal word and teachings of God to support transient political agendas based on superficial but popular reasoning.

    1. Gordon Fuglie says:

      Then, Barbara Blumenfeld, I will have the last word here. During Holy Week my Central California Episcopal Church was immersed in the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. As a layperson I preached once on John’s Gospel, served as a Eucharstic Minister, and rejoiced with my brothers and sisters in Jesus at the Easter Vigil.

      The church you SLANDER is in your mind. I have personally attended a revival conducted by Presiding Bishop Curry in 2017 and the Eternal Word and teachings of God you falsely claim are “abandoned” were front and center and proclaimed with wisdom and zeal. As for you, I call you to repentance from your bearing false witness against our church. AMDG.

  16. Donald Heacock says:

    I don’t know who wrote the new post he.said everything I feel
    I thank ENS
    I will not comment further

  17. Barbara Blumenfeld says:

    Gordon Fuglie, your comments are incredibly closed minded as well as personally insulting and do not reflect the welcoming love that the Episcopal church has always proclaimed.

    1. Gordon Fuglie says:

      I see, Barbara. When my real experience contradicts your assertions, and I call you on that, this makes me “closed minded.” We do a good job of loving each other and welcoming at my church. Angry naysayers like you need to repent before you can enjoy such graced fellowship. Do leave THAT at the door — please.

      1. Donald Caron says:

        Gordon, I think your comments would have more weight if you would simply describe your experience without characterizing the comments of other posters

  18. mike geibel says:

    Dear Ms. Blumenfeld:
    Once again, your comments demonstrate a compelling explanation of the difference between the Judeo-Christian values that shape our individual political positions verses the partisan politicking manifested by the Episcopal leadership since the election. The problem seems to be the Episcopal Church leadership is so ensconced into an activist agenda, that they will not listen to and cannot understand why conservative members perceive its Proclamations to be partisan, and cannot understand that this is why many are leaving the Church.

    Dear Mr. Caron :
    You challenge us to think not by being judgmental but by requesting introspection, and your questions are much more effective than labeling politicians or legislation as racist or heretical. I truly appreciate your input into the comments. Would that the proclamation at issue in this ENS article were drafted with the same tone and intent.

    I expect my pastor to be more compassionate and liberal in his / her own political beliefs than I am—listening and thinking about his or her descriptions of Christ’s teachings is my way of tempering my conceit and politics, and reminding me how blessed I am, and, as you say, to sacrifice something for the less fortunate and for the betterment of all. I suspect that you are a member of the clergy?

    After leaving the Church, I have attended services in many non-denominational, inter-denominational and non-mainline churches searching for the right “fit.” The one striking difference is that all of them have been a-political, and all have growing congregations where over 60% are comprised of young persons and families under age 35, most of whom I suspect are probably more liberal than the grey hairs like myself. These pastors are obviously doing something right. Their congregations are composed of the future leaders of this nation, looking for guidance on how they should live their lives and raise their children, and not who or what they should vote for.

    1. Donald Caron says:

      Ya got me, Mike. I am a semi-retired Episcopal priest currently an interim rector. I would never instruct my parishioners how to think and certainly not how to vote. I respect them too much for that. But all of us are subject to daily barrages from commercial and political sources that are heavily laden with values statements. All of the presenters of these statements want something from us. Some want our money. Some want our agreement or affirmation. Some want our verbal or mental support. As I have previously posted, I am the kind of person who hopelessly tries to believe in the goodness of all people, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are working for what is good–as they see good.

      It is that vision that I am interested in addressing, in this thread and in my parishioners. I attempt to present, from the scriptures and from the context of the scriptures, the long view of God, and I give particular attention to the ministry of Jesus a the supreme source to understanding the heart of God. I’m sure people get tired of me always bringing up the phrase “the Kingdom of God.” What I take that to mean is what this world would be like if people would act as God would like us to act.

      As so many posters have point out, “Reclaiming Jesus” is not a perfect document. It fails to specifically address many of the challenges of our age. But it is, in my view a valuable beginning. The objections that I have read have been for me an education, they force me to challenge my suppositions and sometimes bring me to accept that I may be mistaken. At the same time, this process has, for the most part, solidified my understanding of the place Jesus holds in the formation of my personal values and called me to step out of my personal cocoon to engage in dialogue in the public square. In doing so, I have attempted to address the text of the message and provide a voice of support while avoiding any comments directed at the persons of any of those with contrary views.

      For me, being “followers of Jesus [comes] before anything else–nationality, political party, race, ethnicity, gender, geography [as well as sexual orientation, sexual identity]–our identity in Christ precedes every other identity.”(paragraph 1}

      I suspect that most of those who have posted are Americans and have no difficulty saying we are “one nation under God.” UNDER God.

      I am disappointed that so little of this thread has addressed the words and actions of Jesus as they might apply to the way we live as a nation. I don’t think that you have to be Episcopalian, or Christian, even, to see that the things he taught and the way he treated others had merit in themselves. I also believe that any person of good will can see that racial bigotry, oppression, marginalization of the poor and weak, lying, domination (which we might call bullying), hostility toward those who might hold contrary positions, and “America-First” (not meaning that America IS not first, but meaning that the blessings we enjoy must be guarded from all who were not so fortunate that their ancestors emigrated to this land before–whatever date you choose to insert).

      So I DO reject those behaviors–wherever I encounter them. And I do not hold that any political party has the corner on righteousness. With the shift of majorities between the two major parties, it would seem to me that if that were true, we would have experienced perfection some time ago.

      To be critical of the state we are in is to have the optimism that we can be better than we are as individuals and as a nation. We need to have the mirror of truth held up to us. I can think of no more noble image to compare with than that of Jesus.

      If this conversation should go forward, I hope that it is in addressing separately each of the six areas identified in the “Confession of Faith…” and arguing whether there is a foundation for each in the teaching of Jesus that merits our adherence to its principles. We might also, as some have already done, seek to explore additional ways that the values presented there might be extended to other issues of the day.

  19. mike geibel says:

    Very well put. Your statement is impossible for me to reject ideologically and is a foundation for seeking common ground between all Christians, and even non-Christians. We may have to agree to disagree on specific political “solutions” to troublesome issues, but we should be able to agree on the direction Christ wants us headed.

Comments are closed.