The Real Choices in Life are Choices for Life.

I honestly shouldn't have to defend this position. Its pretty self-evident. I think it is interesting that when you do try and see things from another person's perspective, but can't do it; people say you are insensitive. I guess that is where I find myself right now. I am a white male and I am either to be kowtowed to an anti-life caucus or caricatured as some insensitive while male who wants to keep his squaw barefoot and pregnant. So, lets briefly look at the facts.

Women's health is important. I know this because I am a human being with friends who are women. I know women who have had cancer and struggled through it. I know women who have faced other life threatening illnesses. I have known women who have suffered hostility just because they are women. And I have known women who have been brave enough to raise children against all odds. Let me be frank, those women who know the responsibility of raising children on their own, or at least with cards stacked against them, are the bravest heroes of all. They dare to shout out for life in a cosmos bent towards death. 

I remember one such person in particular. She was in a cadre of friends of mine. I remember one day we went out for coffee and she told me she had some sobering news. As we drove, she told me she had become pregnant. Unmarried and not from the best economic situation, this is a "life-sentence" for anyone. I was there for her obviously, but I knew her decision was bigger than anything I had ever faced in my life. For her, it wasn't even a question though. She had that child. It wasn't the best of scenarios, but no one gets to choose a better scenario. She raised it with the help of her family, but frankly I think the temptation to give up on the hardships would have been there too.

I find it interesting the way we misrepresent courage and cowardice. It is as if being a woman or a man lets you be one or the other depending on your own clan. Some women say that men shouldn't talk about an operation that terminates a human life. Some men act as if women are just God's afterthought and should be grateful to get a footnote in the Bible. But I can't see how a member of the human community can think that another person isn't worth an inestimable cost. We hear of castaways lost and away from human beings dying for companionship. We know that the UN declares prolonged solitary confinement a crime against humanity. A human life is precious. It seems we only realize it when we are away from them. When we have a surplus of humanity then we talk of slavery and exploitation. We talk of death penalties and abortions. We discuss the cost benefit analysis of troops or healthcare or job markets. Stalin once said, "To kill one man is murder, to kill many is statistics." It is sad that his grim arithmetic is just as logical for the capitalist as the totalitarian. No one really has free-choice when convenience is the guiding star.

But this isn't just a tale about me, or my friend, or the women I know; is it? Its a tale about how we want to be remembered. It is just trading one terrible sin against a less terrible sin (if such cost-benefit analysis exists in our Lord's mind). We must make sure that women's health doesn't get used by extremists and charlatans. The progressives are right to demand women's health needs are covered. They must be covered, or this whole debate was a sham. Let us take Utah for example. The state recently moved all of its money from Planned Parenthood to women's health clinics. This move obviously fixes the problems. In fact, Democrats for Life has stated that giving to these clinics is a far better return on the investment. 

While hyperbole is running rampant from both camps, and human lives are being used in this political chess game; we should not let our common humanity be clouded. The ethical answer is simple: What will preserve the most human life? We leave as secondary the penultimate questions of: What causes the most human flourishing? or What helps society the most? To place these as primary is to give way to the eugenicist and the malthusian. Human life and being in community is difficult. The choices are not easy. Life is not an easy choice. 

So, I guess I am for choices. I am for hard ones. I am pro-the difficult choice. The choice that costs me more in my taxes. I am for the choices that make inconvenience me. I am for the choice of life. None of us really got a choice of where and to whom we are born, but I don't think a person alive can say it was a bad choice. There really is only one bad choice in that regard.

Thoughts on the Defunding of Planned Parenthood

So I've been following this issue for quite some time. I support healthcare. I am for a universal health care package. And even though the new Healthcare.gov has its issues, it is an improvement upon the previous situation. (My wife and I feel we are too poor to actually go to get regular checkups and all those tests, so obviously it isn't perfect.) I support gun control. I have friends who are hunters and think the best way I can show my love for my fellow human is to never pick up a firearm. I am for a pay scale that resembles the 1950s rather than the 1910s. I hope this settles my credentials. Sadly it will not. And that's a shame. It really is. It shows that nuanced thinking on an issue must take a back seat to partisan jockeying. The most horrible jockeying is with regards to human lives and the role of women in our society.

Several years ago, when I was in college, several of my friends asked who I would vote for. I wasn't really sure. They immediately said that I must vote for the conservative candidate since he would offer the best chance in getting rid of Roe v. Wade. I immediately countered that if the Republicans (or Democrats) ever did move in that direction, I would have a moral imperative to vote for them; but neither side would, so its a moot issue. Neither side did; but an organization called Center for Medical Progress has did. They did the thing which always needs to be done. They forced people to see their actions. This is what Wilberforce did with slavery in Britain or King did when marching to Selma. It forces people to make a stand. We are no longer permitted to allow the horrors done in our name to be ignored. Evil confronts us and we must respond. More on that later though.

What I find so frustrating is the way that the political Left has circled the wagons around Planned Parenthood. That is actually what spurred this blog. An article in the LA Times chastised Ms. Fiorina for her attack of Planned Parenthood. It even went so far as to demand an apology of her. I care very little for the Republican primary candidates (we are still over a year away from elections and months away from the first caucuses); but why is this journalist going after Fiorina in this way. Indeed in a way that betrays highly un-journalistic standards. So let us look at just three ways in which there has been a non-discussion of this issue.

Firstly, there is the charge of editing. The article from the LA Times declares, "The tapes have been conclusively discredited as heavily edited misrepresentations, but not even the 'full' versions (though somewhat edited, according to Planned Parenthood analysis show the scene Fiorina describes." The conclusive discrediting was provided by a media group in the employ of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood's analysis was that used for the discrediting of the full version. I want you to stop and think about that for a second. This is Kafkaesque. It is an absurdity. That is like a victim of assault being told nothing bad happened because the assailant reviewed all the evidence and declared all was well. This is, sad to say, the logic of a five year old. I do not speak in hyperbole when I ask why this person has not been laughed off of the paper. I would not be able to turn in a college paper with "logic" like that. But ideologues rarely look to logic to be their guide.

This brings me to my second point. If the welfare of women is your goal, then why not invest in organizations that are far more efficient. Democrats for Life point out that the alternative is clear: Community Health Centers. Planned Parenthood has become a corporation. They are about their bottom line. Traditionally democrats have been for support to be provided by the commonwealth. Pound for pound, people are far better served by these Community Health Centers than by Planned Parenthood. The health of women (and men) is far more comprehensive than basic care provided by Planned Parenthood. Even better is the fact that one doesn't have to worry about the albatross of "abortion." Which leads to a really frightening question. If such an organizational alternative to Planned Parenthood exists, why not take it? The sad truth is that by abandoning Planned Parenthood, many democrats fear losing constituents who favor keeping abortion on the books. In essence it is the abortion issue, as much as the Planned Parenthood people would like to tell you otherwise, which is the real issue. If Planned Parenthood did away with abortions tomorrow, the issue would be over very quickly. This isn't about women's rights to health. This is about abortion.

That brings up the third point, women's rights. Throughout history we have been faced with an embarrassment: the indignity visited upon women. No matter where we turn in human culture; we must take a humble and long examination of how we treat women. For so long a woman could give birth to a child and be virtually ignored by the other participant in that union. Great works have talked about this issue. I remember reading novels such as "The Scarlet Letter," plays like "The Importance of Being Ernest" or biographical works such as "Lawrence of Arabia" or the discussions of Hamilton. Of course these works focused on the offspring and not the women for whom the stress must have been great (even factoring in differences of cultures and epochs). I still remember when one of my friends informed me that she was pregnant with a friend's child. I made sure she knew I saw her no differently than before. This is the criticism real feminists have. The woman involved in sex is considered inferior whereas a man is considered virile. The woman who has a child in such a situation can be neglected while the man can choose to continue his life. This is the real issue that should be addressed. We should support life wherever it is. We should support it in our criminal justice system. We should support it in our international negotiations. We should support it even in the face of our enemies. But death as an expedient to expunge shame in a patriarchal society is a step backwards, and that is what Planned Parenthood represents. It represents the easy way out of the deadbeat dad, not the noble way forward of a enlightened woman and the commonwealth to whom she belongs. It takes a stand against all the forces of evil in this world in favor of life and right action.

So we have defunded Planned Parenthood. Good. What will you do with that money now? Will you find some lobbyist to give it to, or will you support the cause that you claim to back? Will you invest in life? I suppose the story of Planned Parenthood, given the sad state of affairs in current American culture, is that we will have defunded a great evil of commission for a lesser evil of omission. And when seen that way, this isn't much of a victory.

The Christian Feint.

I grew up in a mainline church. I have wonderful memories of running around the church and being part of a church environment that focused on being a family. I also remember doing mission work in Cincinnati. I remember how neither the Catholics nor the Baptists really knew much about Lutherans. Needless to say, coming from an environment where everyone was Lutheran to one where people are not is a bit of a shock.

Today, I don't neatly fit into either category of Christian right or Christian left. My friends on the left would say I am a conservative and my friends on the right would call me a liberal. I can get equally frustrated with people on both sides of an issue. However, what is becoming most infuriating these days is a level of snarkiness that emerges in a Christian dogma rooted in fear rather than Christ.

I should be perfectly honest, I am not aware of the Christian right as much as I should be. To be sure, they can be as disingenuous as the Christian left. However, the Christian right seems to have turned a corner. The pastors are either allowing the secular right to take over the jeremiads against culture or they have realized that there are bigger fish to fry. The Evangelicals have usually been more attuned to culture shifts and have moved accordingly. Today the leading voices in Evangelicalism are people such as David Platt, Francis Chan, and Tim Keller. Some of the older crowd still listen to the profit-seekers in prophets clothing, but in reality the Evangelicals are pretty even-keeled and the magazines like Relevant and Christianity Today are unafraid of delving into deep issues.

The same cannot be said for the Christian left, and that is what this blog post is about. The cassandras of the left feel consistently and constantly embattled. On one side they are dealing with being culturally irrelevant and on the other side they are dealing with being theologically irrelevant. The response is usually a vicious and dismissive snarkiness. They tend to be open-minded to the wider zeitgeist, but antagonistic to the Evangelicals and larger Christian historical thought. In this way they are a feint. It appears they are hitting the spirit of the world with punch, but they really reserve their attacks for the Evangelicals.

It manifests itself in many ways. For one thing when looking at their crippling decline, they try and show that other denominations on the other side are losing more. Which they are not. They talk about how they do not water down the message. Which they do. They speak of how they are adapting to the times or remaining true to the old forms. Which is not true either.

Yet all these remarks are said with a high-brow snobbishness that only wins them the nods of approval of people who have accepted a watered-down Christianity with enough trappings to make you feel like you are getting a full meal. There are classes where professors dismissed anything that didn't go along with bureaucratic orthodoxy. There have been church services with bon mots against fellow believers. I have even witnessed pastors chuckle at the "stupidity" of the laity.

The biggest difference between the Evangelicals and the Mainlines is that the Evangelicals have chutzpah to tell you what they really think. Were that all Christians more concerned with speaking openly and honestly and not snarkily.

You, Me, and Pastors (hopefully part one of a series)

In recent weeks Mark Driscoll's star hasn't just eclipsed, its gone supernova. Damage control that should have been done years ago, is finally too big for him to handle. Last year it was Steven Furtick and his $3 million home. The sad and scary thing is that I got some joy out of it. The complex emotion comes from the fact that it feels nice when people who put so much stock in these rock-star pastors get it wrong. Friends who would come up to me and ask if I had read something by Driscoll or Furtick are now eating crow because of the monumental failures they have shown themselves to be. Luke 18:11 comes to mind. Its the part where the pharisee stands in front of God almighty and thanks the giver of all good things ... that he is not like the poor wretch next to him. "The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.'"

Oh Lord God, I thank you that I am not like Mark Driscoll or Steven Furtick. I thank you that I am not like the other pastors who get taken down by greed or gossip or sex! I thank you that when one of them gets taken out, maybe I can move up just one more rung! Maybe, I'll be appreciated. Lord God, glorify me!

That is the secret prayer my heart makes when I am not looking and turned around. Thank God for His Holy Spirit. I recommend the rest of Luke 18, but especially Luke 18:9-14:

 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

For this I repent. You see daily repentance and renewal (and many things we associate with the life of the pastor) is not for them alone. It is for you and I. I live day by day on grace that God has given me. I am in Christ's debt. The more I live with my own pride and comparison being the center of my identity, the more envious I become of those who are getting along better than I am and even those who give me so much. This has always been why I have been so against pride, any kind. It is a sin which I wrestle with and kills me every time. 

While I look at the failures of pastors and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in how I should feel about this, I find that it comes back to my walk with Jesus. The sad thing for my pride is that when we are focused on Jesus we don't have enough vision to gloat over the failures of others or feel envious of their success. All we can do is be thankful like the second man in the parable. All we can say is: God, have mercy on me, a sinner. 

Deaths Which are not My Own.

Perhaps one of the most hypocritical things one can do is declare that we should not intervene. It was, theoretically, intervention that stopped the Nazis in their tracks. Yet, I suppose that the Nazis were an aberration rather than a rule. As we look throughout history we find time and again that evil is confounded only after it has reached a limit. Napoleon just couldn't keep going. The Vikings settled down after raiding. Rome was not so much conquered, but fell apart. The great bloodletting by the Golden Horde and expansion by the Ottoman's was not checked by violence, so much as the ware and tare upon them internally.

And so I am not sure what to make of ISIS. I would want a strong deliverer if I were in the position of my brothers and sisters confronting such a demonic clan. I have read of a great clamor for the U.S. to be involved, protect the innocent, fight and kill the evil doers. Our question should never be should evil be resisted, but rather who and how should evil be resisted. 

America has had two very painfully bad wars in the Middle East. Al Qaeda, such that they were, perpetrated a terrible tragedy upon humanity. Saddam was a tyrannical dictator who kept rule through oppression and fear. There was a large outcry for the U.S. military to come over and intervene. Perhaps we didn't care enough to rebuilt, but that doesn't change the fact. Whatever your justification, if your desire to use force is what you belief you will be offering; than you are not concerned with winning for peace. Peace requires greater discipline than war; and while there are many things America is showing the world which it has, discipline is quickly becoming apparent that it is not one of them.

And so we find ourselves, after seeing and sometimes fighting skirmishes with lesser clans, to be facing a movement of a people. A condensed hatred drunk in like poison has brought a living death to people no longer people but with human form. ISIS is evil and people have sworn themselves to that evil. The oath has been made in blood. Sadly, in our rashness, we have conjured up the specter to feast upon brothers and sisters in another part of the world. The deed has already been done and monsters have already been summoned.

Now we find ourselves back in a place we had sworn we would have already left so many years ago. In our desire to fight a war without a projected peace, we end up bombing a place where we have not declared war. bellum erit in perpetuum

Yet do I let people die whose lives were disturbed and disrupted further than they already had been by actions caused by my people? Do I wipe my hands of the whole thing because my people failed to think something through? On the other hand, can we afford one more war? We have a president who has been pulling back from greater military escalation in a part of the world we have been attempting to make in our own image. Our nation has desired to send young men and women to fight a forever war. Meanwhile they fight in a place that is not our own by people who are trying to rebuild either on traditions of the better part of their culture or the demons that possess them. I cannot help but wonder what they must think when planes from the outside world rain down bombs upon them. 

Ultimately there is no satisfactory answer. We either fight a forever war or watch people die in the aftermath of hell we have created. Even if we think it is noble to play the champion and come to the rescue, what will guarantee our success? All of this runs through my mind when I think of ISIS. How are we to protect against the evil in this world? How do we make sure it doesn't harm us? How do we make sure it doesn't become us? There are no clear answers. Evil will always be just beyond our ability to understand, to feel, to relate to; but it will always be close at hand. We must just pray that something is closer, if just for a little. 

I firmly believe that what we must do is be willing to call things what they are. Let us dust off words we wished not to use. Let us call evil what it is: evil. For those of us who believe, let us pray for righteous judgment to befall evil itself. Finally, let us make sacrifices for the restoration of human life in reflection and homage to that which we believe is the source of human life.

I admit that I do not know how it should be done, but I do know what should be done. We must save the lives of those who suffer at the hands of evil. We must not let evil be disguised by human form and destroy that which seeks to destroy our shared humanity.

Of Atlas and Pastoral Sanity

I believe that in order to do truly great things we need time, and time is a commodity that America does not value.  A friend of mine posted a talk by Walter Brueggemann in which he said that the pastor has gotten side-tracked by other duties outside of the traditional rabbinic duties that pastors were supposed to possess.  I shall ignore the shortcomings of that analysis and state that too often the pastor has is believed to be the one person and only person who is to change the church.  The hierarchy (i.e. synods, District Super Attendants, or other high-muckity-mucks) are not believed to be involved in the dynamic changes of parish life and the laity are viewed as being ill-equipped.  Thus the onus and burden for the life of the church too often falls on the pastor.  I remember a lay person giving a talk at a chapel service.  He talked about how pastors needed to get their finances in order.  He said, "If you can't afford seminary, maybe that is a sign you shouldn't go or that you should wait."  I will not go into the segue of how that places mammon above God; but I will say that he is quite correct that pastors should look at their finances and stewardship.  That being said, one can be completely right but totally wrong by not attacking the whole issue.  My question is this, "Do we expect pastors to be some sort of shaman or pontifex maximus with the backs of Atlas who shoulder the brunt of the entire church expectant or do we look at the eschatological reality of the church as the culture into which we all participate?"  Pastors do and should have a lot of responsibility.  If I have let people down, I have let my God down; I deserve to experience the same repercussions and long to experience the same grace as my office dictates.  God save the American church.

Charlatans amongst the argument.

When I was young, the Representative from our district came and visited our school.  I can remember thinking how cool it was to have a politician come and visit.  You see, I had been raised in a family that respected civil authorities.  Luther and the other Wittenberg reformers had been very much of the opinion that the civil authorities are to be given respect as any person in any job should have respect.  Concurrently, my father had been a person very much involved in politics from a young age.  He had grown up reading biographies and even, from time to time, tried his hand at it.  So, I was very happy to report what had happened at school.  My father held his council.  Good dads know when that opinions spouted to children have a nasty habit of growing up ill-formed in the child.

It has been years since then.  Rob Portman has moved on to do bigger and grander things.  And recently, in an article in the Dispatch, he threw his lot in with the pro-gay-marriage group.  While I am for all Americans to be permitted to marry, I have found this groups tactics to be questionable.  Obviously emotions move people quicker than logic; but we have to ask what the fall-out from this whole enterprise will be?

First, let me clear up my view on homosexuality.  My religious stance should not matter, but nor should it be discounted.  I believe, like the rest of orthodox Christianity, that homosexuality is a sin.  That is to say it creates disunity with God and God's creation.  If you do not believe in God or do not hold to the Christian view of creation, that is your prerogative.  I also believe in grace.  I believe grace is far more convicting than the law.  If we were to ban homosexual marriages, how many other things would we have to ban?  Would we ban lying?  Covetousness?  Adultery?  How about taking the Lord's name in vain?  In addition, we would have to render null and void all the marriages outside the Christian faith.  Legalism doesn't work.  God knows this.  That is why he sent his son.  Of course the law hasn't been done away with; but neither are we saved by it.  We enter into discipleship under the shadow of the cross and the darkened empty tomb, not legalistic precepts.

Sadly this is a battle that is being fought by legalistic pharisees on both extremes.  Both see the laws of nature being the paramount of human salvation or at least justification; rather than seeing a life relationally transformed through grace by faith.  I do not have faith in my biology.  Eventually telomeres will stop splitting and my heart will run down.  My body, mind, and soul seek my ruin.  Whatever.  That's life.

Rather, Christians should seek to make sure no one is persecuted because of their beliefs.  I have always thought of homosexuals as having a different worldview than the Christian.  That person has a different telos and has seen fit to bind himself or herself to different codes than the Christian.  To me a homosexual deserves the same tolerance and respect as a Buddhist, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, or countless other worldview participant.  Christianity was not born in a Christian nation, it was born in a foreign land.  It was born in the land of its sojourn.  As such we must be accepting to others who do not share our views.  Perhaps they will become Christian in the end, but that is not ours to determine.  That is a work of the Spirit.  We are only His humble servants.

Which brings me back to Rob Portman and other charlatans.  Perhaps a tragedy as great as the denial of civil rights to homosexuals (for instance not being able to receive pay upon the death of a partner or visitation rights at a hospital), has been the rise of the gay-rights' charlatans.  They range from corporations looking for an easy cause to gain consumers to politicians looking for votes to religious organizations who see a way to maintain their standing in a changing country.  Would these groups actually back the homosexual movement if it were not in vogue?  I doubt it.  Corporations would keep their lips tightly sealed, while the politicians and religious leaders would practice the age-old technique of doublespeak.

And so we come to the most recent of members to the "homosexual-rights" bandwagon, the Republicans.  It has been amazing that after this election cycle how many Republicans have become advocates.  I found it interesting to read.  Granted the Libertarians had always been in favor of it.  I suppose that was wind in the perfect storm, but the other fact was that the religious vote just doesn't mean anything.  The younger evangelicals could care less about Caesar and his elections, but those who do still care are going to vote Republican anyway so what does it matter what the party thinks?

And Portman, always the adaptable political player, has metamorphosed once again into a person who accepts homosexuality.  While some may come out praising his "courage" for, not becoming an ally, but just affirming that homosexuals should be allowed to marry in civil unions (something it should be noted that even the members who have broken off of mainline protestant churches affirm); we must look at the history of this politician.

I know this is going to touch a sensitive nerve here, but I actually am offended by this editorial.  He states that his Christian religion led him to his harsh stance, but the love of his son led him to a changed mind (what the Greeks would call metanoia).  The blessing should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the heresies of Conservative Evangelicals.  He became reconciled to family and nation; and what was the sacrifice legalistic Christianity.

Rob, I give up legalistic Christianity daily.  Its what Luther calls daily repentance and renewal.  Its called understanding that your country and your own heart are sometimes out to make your life hell.  I started this process in high school after reading Bonhoeffer's ethics.  I didn't need a son coming out to me to show me that legalism isn't the heart of the gospel.  I knew it because of Christ's death on the cross.  I knew it because I wrestle daily with urges of pride and envy and greed and dishonesty and, most importantly, idolatry.

I am glad Mr. Portman has decided that homosexuals should be allowed to be recognized as equal under the law of government.  I am just angered by his reasoning.  I am angered that he didn't understand his alleged faith enough to see that it allows for people with whom one disagrees to be given the same rights under the law.  I am angered that he used his son as the reason instead of his faith.

However, I am most angered by the charlatans like Mr. Portman who jump on the bandwagon of protecting a group of persecuted people for their own gain.  I wonder how many non-Christians will assume that the debate that went on inside Mr. Portman's soul was a debate between the real Christianity and the love of family or human rights.  Like all charlatans, Mr. Portman tries to square the circle by saying he is for churches who disagree with homosexuality.  He wants to have his cake and eat it too; and in our day and age of over-simplified media sound bites, I imagine he will get his wish.  The gay-rights' groups will trumpet his support as yet another sign of the march of progress; and for services rendered Mr. Portman will become a little more palatable to changing demographics in this country.  And in the end only two groups will have lost, orthodox Christians who believe in the dignity of human beings made in the image of God but ultimately flawed and sinful, and the homosexuals who will have found themselves used once again to further some person's campaign.  Meanwhile the corporations, the activists, the politicians, Christendom's lapdogs, and talking-heads will have moved forward in the name of progress but under the influence of their own self-importance.

But here is the hopeful part.  When the parade is gone and all the sycophants don't need to suck-up to anyone anymore; we Christians will still be behind ... like we always have been.  And maybe after the hoopla and intoxicating rhetoric, we will be able to speak openly of our sins to a world in need of a savior who, it just so happens, is waiting after the grandstanding is over, to be introduced to just one more person in need.  It has been repeated so often that we forget the meaning, "that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, so that whoever believes in him may not parish but have eternal life."  Luther called that the Gospel in the nutshell; and its nice to know that after all the writing and rewriting of principles, and the minting and reminting of new paradigms; the Gospel still remains true and unalterable.  I am a sinner exactly like you, but thankfully that is exactly who God came to save.