Is there any update on when the blogs will be available - I really want to have access to what I wrote over the last few years, there's some special stuff there that I don't have anywhere else, and it's lost to me completely now.

I can log in here to blogs, but can't log into the forum (tho thanks to Rhys for trying to help me).

But, where are all my other blogs? I'm devastated that they appear to have been lost. Is there any way they can be copied over, this was the only place I blogged and there's some special stuff I want to keep hold of.

I know it's nothing more awful than losing words and pictures, but I'm gutted all the same :(

Mayday, mayday. Can anybody hear me? I'm trapped in some sort of alternate reality where I can sort of log in, and sort of can't. I can apparently post this blog entry, but I can't reply to any threads. Can anybody hear me? Cross, please help. And I think Eeyore has the same problem. Won't a valiant knight come to my rescue? Or at least somebody who knows phpbb code?

Last Fall, the United Methodist Church, in its highest court called the Judicial Council, issued a judgment that a pastor has the sole authority to keep a gay man from obtaining membership in the UMC. While those of you in congregational systems may ask why this is a problem, the UMC is a connectional system whereby pastors are accountable to other pastors and bishops and such. Hence, this ruling violates the systems of accountability in the name of homophobia.

Needless to say, there have been a huuuge response from pastors, laity, organizations , and unsolicited signatures of over 2500 Methodists regarding this decision.

It is then with great sorrow that I condemn the upholding of this decision by the Judicial Council...what a horrible horrible shame!!

LINK: Judicial Council Upholds Anti-Gay Ruling

More background on this Council session: link

Prior to the event, the Council was swarmed with petitions, letters, personal stories, fine points of law, and many other pieces of Methodist experience. In fact, 2500 people signed the HereWeStand declaration that this blogger has been mentioning several times.

As the Judicial Council of the UMC began its meeting at 2 pm on April 26th, they did so with the knowledge that thousands of United Methodists are deeply disturbed by the decisions they made last fall resulting in the removal of the clergy orders of the Rev. Beth Stroud and in supporting the actions of a pastor who denied membership to a man in his congregation based on his sexual identity.

For the last several months, UMs across the country have been reading and endorsing the document, Here We Stand (www.herewestandumc.org), originally signed by 17 United Methodist leaders and then endorsed by over 2,500 United Methodists. The document calls upon:

* the Judicial Council to reconsider and reverse Decision 1032 forthwith;
* the Council of Bishops to advocate forcefully and continuously for a fully inclusive church; and
* the General Conference to remove all discriminatory language from the Book of Discipline at its 2008 session.

Prior to the Judicial Council meeting, an email containing the statement and nearly 2,500 endorsing signatures was emailed to the Secretary of the Judicial Council for distribution to its members. Hard copies (each some 75 pages long with signatures and comments) was delivered by Amy Stapleton, National Organizer for the Methodist Federation for Social Action, to each member of the Council as they began their meeting.

Witness at the event was amazing. Amy Stapleton, part of the witness and response from MFSA, reflects:

Throughout the two-day meeting we stood in prayerful vigil as the Council met. As the vigil proceeded, we prayed for each of the Judicial Council members by name. At the close of the meeting, those of us participating in the vigil were invited into the meeting room to share in a joint communion led by Bishop Fritz Mutti. The Rev. Dr. Myron McCoy, President of St. Paul School of Theology, shared with the group a passage from the Gospel of John:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As God has sent me, even so I send you."

Rev. McCoy pointed out that Jesus gives peace even to those gathered behind closed doors. We must not stay behind locked doors, however, for such a church will surely die.

The full text of the ruling is here. But the nugget is here

In our considered opinion, it is time for the issues addressed in Decision 1032 to now be debated by The United Methodist Church as is occurring. The presiding bishop fulfilled her disciplinary responsibilities when she responded to the questions of law. The Judicial Council has fulfilled its disciplinary responsibilities in reviewing the decisions of law rendered. We disagree with those in the minority who cavalierly assert that the Judicial Council has somehow exceeded its role in precisely fulfilling that role. The role of the Judicial Council is to interpret the Discipline and to apply its provisions to the scenarios that are presented. In Decision 1032, the Council has interpreted relevant provisions of the Discipline and applied them to the scenario posed to it.

We disagree with those in the minority who assert that further debate before the Judicial Council will be healing for The United Methodist Church. Rather, we believe that reopening this matter, especially where no grounds have been demonstrated to do so, will further polarize the various parts of the church. We have arrived at this view with great respect and admiration for those who disagree with us in the minority.

Are you kidding? Further polarization will come from you because it's a 5-4 decision! Think about it!

Here's some smattering of comments from the Dissenting Opinions

As well as being a legally flawed decision, over-reaching and imprudent, Decision 1032 creates grave theological problems. It is most troubling in its departure from the most essential tenets of Methodist ecclesiology. This decision has the potential to threaten some of the fundamental principles of the tradition articulated in The Book of Discipline, in the Sermons of John Wesley, the Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, and the General Rules of the Methodist Church. In addition, as was noted in the Henry-Crowe dissent on Decision 1032, 4 of the Constitution is violated. This paragraph is a theological statement affirming openness and inclusivity.

One of the distinguishing marks of the Christian faith, as expressed in Methodism, is the primacy and sufficiency of God’s grace, offered to all, and most especially, in the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. Through the sacrament of baptism, Christ’s invitation to full participation in the life of the Church for any and all baptized Christians is the gift that is offered. (Note: 103 Section 3 -The Articles of Religion – Of Baptism, Article VI of the Confession of Faith - The Sacraments.)

Season after season, we hear the words of Invitation to Communion offered by the pastor/celebrant in the following words, “Christ invites to his Table…” The invitation and the gift of Christ are extended by the pastor. . It is Christ’s invitation, not ours. Theologically, and as well as disciplinarily, the pastor has no discretion to exclude anyone from membership or the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharistic because it is not his/her invitation. It is Christ’s. Therefore, all who present themselves for Baptism, Eucharistic and reception into the Church are joyfully welcomed. This invitation is to worship, to receive the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, to take the vows declaring the Christian faith, and to enter into the life and mission of the Church through membership.

The Discipline in 340 clearly states: “Elders have a four-fold ministry of Word, Sacrament, Order and Service within the connection and thus serve in the church and the world.” The sub-paragraphs following outline the areas of responsibility including: Word and ecclesial acts, Sacrament, Order and Service. The vocation of ministry is a gift given by Christ and entrusted by the Church. This vocation cannot be a vocation of denial but rather a vocation of extending God’s love and looking for evidences of the work of the Holy Spirit. Determining who is eligible for life in the Church is not the vocation of the pastor. It is the Holy Spirit who makes us members of the Church. Touched by the Holy Spirit one comes to believe in and worship Jesus Christ. It is Christ who makes us members of the body. We then want to share communion with other Christians giving us the desire to join. For the pastor to deny membership is to present obstacles to the work of the Holy Spirit. This denial is dangerous and does not serve the work of evangelism. If a pastor refuses to receive someone into membership he/she is substituting him/herself for Christ’s role. By deciding who becomes a member or who does not the pastor is making him/herself his own association or church. This is not the Church. It is a gift to bear witness to the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s redeeming love in the world through Christ’s church.

At times, in the Church there is a tendency to see the Discipline as superseding Scripture. The Constitution as contained in the Book of Discipline has to be the measure by which we apply the Bible. The Constitution should not be in conflict with the Bible. If the Discipline violates the Bible then the Church is no longer Christ’s church but rather a mere association of men and women.

While profoundly disagreeing with the majority, we are committed to be in relationship with them and those who share their opinion. No one should pastorally or prophetically abandon fellow Christians. The unspeakable pain that this decision causes calls for repentance and prayer which will lead to healing. The cause of Christ’s Church and Christ’s hospitality, openness, generosity, justice and righteousness are the principles at stake.

I favor reconsideration of Decision 1032 because it is clearly in error. The Book of Discipline is silent on the issue of “responsible pastoral judgment.” Our task would have been complete had we merely said so. It would have been better for the Judicial Council to provide no guidance on the question than to provide the poor guidance of Decision 1032. Reconsideration of Decision 1032 would permit the Judicial Council to prevent manifest injustice resulting from its interpretation. Upon reconsideration, the Judicial Council would have the opportunity to review the issues presented with a greater understanding of its unintended consequences and its deleterious impact on our institutional fabric. We should remain cognizant that our decision not only applies to the parties who brought this question but has now been elevated to the point of law across the entire connection. There are other compelling reasons why reconsideration is mandated by these circumstances. The majority has decreed that pastors have "discretion" and by doing so has assumed and usurped powers specifically reserved to the General Conference. The grant of discretion is a legislative and not a judicial prerogative. The majority’s concoction of pastoral “discretion” outside of the established legislative processes of our system has created a perverse structural anomaly that does violence to our system of governance.

The continued viability of our system of checks and balances is threatened whenever one branch acts in excess of its powers. Decision 1032 is a blatant and unprecedented usurpation of legislative authority. This issue needs to be resolved by the General Conference at its next session.

It's too early out of the gate for me to link to really well-thought-out responses, but my initial one is this: This is continued violence being done to LGBT persons, and this is what the end result of exclusion is...namely a destruction of the accountability systems that hold us together. But this is just a first step, and greater Methodism needs to see the scales fall from their eyelids and see the dangerous hilltop we are on in the UMC.

Violations like this, that will affect straight people as much as LGBT persons, will continue until General Conference strikes at the root of the problem: the anti-homosexuality clauses in the UMC book of Doctrine. Only when these clauses are gone can the UMC truly make steps towards becoming a fully inclusive church.

Make your continued witness known at HereWeStand or your other action websites. We will not forget.

~ Cross+Flame

Healing services walk a fine line between healing and abusing people. Case in point: An American preacher is distributing pamphlets in Lesotho that call people to a healing service...which includes healing from AIDS.

LINK: Ernest Angley and the road to Hell in Lesotho

here's the handbill:

Looks like a typical Crusade/Miracle Tour elements, and hoping for people to come for many revivals. But if you look closely, the text "AIDS and other Death Diseases Healed!" is prevalent. Is a Healing service supposed to pray for healing or promise healing? What responsibility does Christianity have with regard to healing diseases?

Lesotho is a small South African country. According to Wikipedia, it has a 29% prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS. AIDS is thus an ever-present reality and a huge burden on the populace, not only in disease control but the economic effect of the lavish funerals traditionally done there. It is at the front of everyone's minds, and thus anything regarding AIDS gets paid attention to.

So, what should Christianity do to work with these people? How can we best minister to this situation of AIDS smiling in the face of everyone's future? Well, if you ask Ernest Angley from Ohio, you distribute faith-based pamphlets like the one below and promise a cure from AIDS if they attend a healing service. While healing and miracles is clearly Mr. Angley's typical approach, and there are testimonies that claim healing from AIDS, in my opinion campaigns like this go over the edge.

But far be it from me to interpret, let's hear a first-hand account from Paul, a Social Worker in Lesotho.

From the link above:

This kind of thing isn't generally that destructive in the United States. The preacher claims to cure your cancer, you go see your doctor the next day, take a few tests, and you can verify the claim. If the miracle is a fake, nothing is lost.

But in Maseru, people have more faith, and the word of an American preacher may be as good as the word of a doctor. Especially when the preacher says you are healed, and the doctor's solution is to prescribe you medicine for the rest of your life.

So if Mr. P___ goes to see Mr. Angley, and hears that he is healed, maybe he will believe. Maybe he will believe, and, in an act of faith, stop taking his medicine. Maybe he will get sick three weeks later, and get tested again, discovering that he still has HIV. Except during his three week hiatus from the medicine, the HIV has developed resistance. And now he still has HIV, and thanks to Mr. Angley, the meds no longer work.

In my opinion, I deplore times when Christians take advantage of epidemics to equate salvation with medical cures. That's both irresponsible and abusive of the Christian faith, and on top of that, it kills people. While not everyone will believe, and not everyone will keep taking the medicine, both the blind faith and the cost of the drugs will cause many persons to stop taking their lifelong medicines and instead live "free in the spirit" until they die a premature death. Most of them at least; I'm not about to refute the Testimonies that claim cures. But the promise of healing is not the same as praying for healing and I think such events like this go over that line and are hurting faiths and killing people because of its arrogance.

Thoughts? Do I have too little faith to believe this guy? Is this guy emulating Jesus going town to town healing people? Does the Healing Services bring forth possibilities to these people or end their lives prematurely because they believe so blindly? Or is Ernest Angley abusive?

Discuss.

LINK: [original topic @ BoingBoing]

The American Bible Society has cancelled an order of New Testaments to be handed out at adult entertainment conventions. The reason? The covers of the Bibles, made by XXXChurch, said in bold letters "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" and the Society deemed them "misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament."

The American Bible Society is refusing to print New Testaments with covers that say "Jesus Loves Porn Stars."

California pastors Mike Foster and Craig Gross, whose anti-porn ministry is called www.xxxchurch.com, had ordered 10,000 of the customized Bibles to hand out at adult film conventions.

But the edgy cover led the publisher to cancel the paid order.

The American Bible Society said that while it appreciates the pastors' mission, the words "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" are "misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament."

Obviously, there is a conflict between mission theologies: can the Gospel go into places deemed "dirty" and remain spotless? Can a Christ of Culture lead persons to Christ without Culture diminishing Christ's significance?

Some more links for your...uh...pleasure:

LINK: XXXChurch blog
LINK: XXXChurch extended article (.pdf)

It is ironic to me that a culture that presses the Bible into everything political negates the impact of Jesus the Christ in the cultural taboos of the world. It seems as if in the areas of abstract notions of 'doctrine' and 'policy' that the Bible is very relevant, but in the areas of impact and meeting culture on their level...well, someone needs to keep Jesus' sheets clean.

I haven't actually seen these bibles, but given XXXChurch's reputation, I would expect equal parts acceptance of the person with condemnation of their job with the tools to change. That's the goal of XXXChurch after all...to transform lives away from the adult industry into new creations in Christ.

Because that's just it. JESUS LOVES PORN STARS. Jesus LOVES everyone! I think all of Christianity can get in line with that on the basic level. What we differ on is what that love looks like. Is it a 'tough love' of that Jesus will love you if you change? Is it an empowering love of Jesus loves you and wants more for you? Is it somewhere in between?

What do you think? Is Jesus clean enough to go where it is dirty? Is the New Testament wrapped in language that is shocking appropriate? Is this a slippery slope to Jesus advertising thongs that are "Good enough for a Savior"?

Discuss.

I've been hit with a new word!

Was watching the Colbert Report, and saw Tony Campolo on there. He mentioned that he refers to himself as a..."Red-Letter Christian."

Two minutes letter...BAM, a link sent to me to an article by Jim Wallis about..."Red Letter Christians."

Five minutes of searching and I find a NEW website that organizes...."Red-Letter Christian" blogs.

What the heck? Where did this new word come from?

From both these interviews, they refer to a Christians who follow exclusively or "above all else" the words of Jesus. These words are written in red in red-letter editions of the bible. Indeed, their reference is directly to follow the words of Christ.

Well, one would say that all Christians follow the words of Christ higher than the rest of the bible, or at least give them more weight than the rest. But is this a new thing, or a remake of an old heresy?

The oldest article I can find is from Sept 1991 whereby the Biblical Examiner makes this note about "Red-Letter Christians"

We could identify the group as "Red Letter Christians." This would be the idea that we are NT Christians, followers of the words of Christ. This appears to be the majority of professed Christians today, who see the OT as merely a book with some good illustrations in it, and some proof-texts for their favorite doctrines. This would be the Christ-party which Paul is standing against. He points out that Christ was subject to God the Father of the OT. (One of my 'pet peeves' are Bibles which only are available in "Red Letter Editions.")

To a certain extent, we agree. I also dislike red-letter bibles, and I dislike Christian approaches that distance themselves from their Hebrew Bible and Pauline letters corpus. This is our shared history, and even though we dislike the seven verses marginally about homosexuality, the purity laws, the atonement and eschatology theology of Paul...they are our shared history, and should be considered not in light of the words of Jesus, but as accompanying them, and on their own terms. Cutting them out is not a responsible choice.

But I understand the intent behind this "new" movement: To raise up the mission and the spirit of Christ as the centrality of the Gospel, and the pre-and-post-Jesus actions as the bread around the meat (or tofu, for our veggies out there). To bring back the Christ that the Jesus of Suburbia and the Religious Right have obfuscated. To move beyond the black and white of the literal text to the blood-red words of Jesus as they point towards a kingdom of God that cannot be held back by dualisms or polarizing politics. To this Jesus, I would worship too.

But are they really different than the previous iterations? Are they really going to treat the gospels the same way? Indeed, my own Methodist background gives a hermeneutic: read the bible in light of the Character of God as you discern God's character through your own bible study, reason, and experience. God's character is pervasive through the Bible; Jesus' words are only the foils that point to the kingdom of God. Which should we really worship? Which would really solve the difficult passages: throwing them out, giving them second-place status.....or considering them in light of the Character of God. Which would give us a better leg to stand on?

My word? I'm still working on it. But tread carefully, Jim and Tony. Just as the Biblical Interrantists crowd gets too extreme in their interpretation, if you hold up Jesus higher than the one to whom Jesus points, then you might be left grasping thin air when all is said and done. But who knows, if you embody Christ and work the land and the people as Jesus did, you might be onto something.

Frank Miller, the artist/writer of Batman fame, is writing a new batman graphic novel...this time, the enemy is not the Joker or Riddler....but rather al Qaeda!

LINK: Holy Terrorism Batman!

However, Miller expounds on his reason for choosing al Qaeda.

The reason for this work, Miller said, was "an explosion from my gut reaction of what's happening now." He can't stand entertainers who lack the moxie of their '40s counterparts who stood up to Hitler. Holy Terror is "a reminder to people who seem to have forgotten who we're up against."

It's been a long time since heroes were used in comics as pure propaganda. As Miller reminded, "Superman punched out Hitler. So did Captain America. That's one of the things they're there for."

Yes, this is true Frank. But when you are painting everything as good or bad, and using figures that are unable to do evil, then you are playing into the Bush Administrations's hands and you are actually promoting this war on Terror.

One of the fundamental ways the Bush Administration has succeeded in rhetoric is to paint everything as good-or-bad, invoking everything from apocalyptic imagery to fearmongering. Thus, the other side is completely evil, and 'our' side is completely good. This has been discussed more eloquently by georgia10 at dKos as to how dangerous this is, because then the 'good guys' can get away with evil deeds. How else can wiretapping be justified? How else, for the sake of everything holy, can torture by justified?

So, now, we have Batman. Superman. Captain America. All beings with superpowers, but one shared trait: They.Can.Do.No.Wrong. They cannot be evil, or do evil things. Batman cannot even kill his opponents. Ridiculous amount of moral integrity in all three.

So now you pit them against al Qaeda, and you've got the quintessential good-versus-evil plot. Anything Batman does is good, anything al Qaeda does is bad. What does this say for America, as an allegory? Miller goes on to explain this further:

"These are our folk heroes," Miller said. "It just seems silly to chase around the Riddler when you've got Al Qaeda out there."
...
"The Greeks had their Gods and heroes," Miller said. "We have ours." And if you truly consider these characters our mythological figureheads, you have to wonder about their place and purpose in our culture.

Indeed, what are they there for? To give us hope, feed that inner sense of conflict? However, to further this normative claim of good-versus-evil using a comic book character that epitomizes "good", then you further that polemic. If Batman resorts to waterboarding a suspect to stop the bomb, I'm going to be sick indeed. :o(

This is not a call for a boycott of Frank Miller, or even a protest of his work. What this is is a look at what happens when a polemical situation gets even more seperated...this time using superheroes. And it's damn scary.

May we all be conscious of the ways how we further polarize our communities, and, as Superheroes for peace, use our abilities to unite and lead, rather than divide and conquer.

Planned Parenthood of Connecticut has a new line of keychains that subvert typical images of culture with funny incorporations of condoms to promore safe sex. One of them is the image of the Sistine Chapel.

Here's the image while it lasts:

According to our lovely friends at STOPP International, this is blasphemy.

"Planned Parenthood offends religious people with its key chain that shows a portion of the famous painting from the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo gave us a beautiful image of Adam stretching out his hand to God, with God's index finger about to touch Adam's index finger," said Executive Director Jim Sedlak. "In Planned Parenthood's blasphemous version, God is handing Adam a condom.
...
Sedlak is calling on all Americans to contact their local schools and churches and insist that the promiscuity promoters at Planned Parenthood not be allowed anywhere near our children. He is also calling on all government officials to stop taxpayer money from going to this organization that makes a habit of blaspheming God.

Is it blaphemy to change images made by MAN depicting GOD? Is it blasphemy to subvert those images to bring awareness to a cause your faith believes in?

Is it blasphemy if it offends God or if it offends people? Who knows if God was offended by the original Sistine Chapel, because she was not depicted correctly? haha

What is the definition of blasphemy? What defines blasphemy in the marketplace? How is it blasphemy for people to subvert people's images for God?

Discuss.

Brokeback Mountain...seen it? It's about two gay cowboys who go through a few decades wrestling with their lives, and their families are wrecked as a result of their taboo love.

Well, here's where life imitates art. In my state of Oklahoma, a gay man whose partner died has now lost their ranch, estate, and everything because of the lack of spousal rights.

Meadows' will, which left everything to Beaumont, was fought in court by a cousin of the deceased and was declared invalid by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in 2003 because it was short one witness signature. Because Meadows had no biological children or surviving parents, his estate was divided up among his heirs. When the ranch sells, the proceeds are to be divided among dozens of Meadows' cousins.

Are these the 'family values' we want? Persons who live and love together to have the rights of married persons? 2 decades together mean nothing in Oklahoma law, for hetero or same-sex couples...all because of bigotry like this. Disgusting.

Thanks to AndrewSullivan for the link.

Definition

Adiaphora (Gk. "indifferent things") refers to matters not essential to salvation, or those falling outside of the structure of commandments and prohibitions of Scripture. Saint Paul urged Christians to recognize some matters in this way (for example, what to eat or not to eat) for the sake of maintaining the community, and not providing an obstacle to those of weak faith. Individual churches may decide whether or not a matter of adiaphora is an acceptable practice.

Significance

Adiaphorist Controversy: Under the Leipzig Interim of 1548, moderate Protestants, led by Philip Melanchthon, held certain Roman Catholic practices (confirmation, fasting, veneration of saints) as tolerable for the sake of church unity; they were opposed by the Gnesio-Lutherans, led by Matthias Flacius.
Debates over 'adiaphora' can involve the related doctrine of subsidiarity, the principle that matters in the Church should be decided as close to the local level as possible. The clearer it is that something is "indifferent" in terms of the Church's central doctrine and ethics, the closer to the local level it can be decided; while the clearer it is that an issue is central, the wider must be the circle of consultation. People of faith all over the world are revisiting the idea of adiaphora as ethical issues of sexuality, cloning, stem cell research and many other scientific and social questions are debated in the contemporary church.

Recent Articles and Books

1. Montrover, Nathan. "Considering Contexts: Understanding Article X of the Formula of Concord Then and Now," Currents in Theology and Mission, 32 no. 2 Ap 2005, pp. 124-127. Discusses opposition to the recent Concordat between the ELCA and the ECUSA, based on Article X, which prohibits "forcing an adiaphoron [in this case, apostolic succession] onto the church." Argues that Article X was originally intended to prevent persecution of the new Protestant faith by secular authorities. Contends that Article X does not apply in situations where force is not threatened. In peaceful considerations of doctrine and practice, adiaphora may be accepted.
2. Verkamp, Bernard J. "Limits upon adiaphoristic freedom : Luther and Melanchthon," in Theological Studies, 36 Mr 1975, p 52-76. The precise locus of the adiaphoristic freedom championed by Luther and Melanchton is established by demonstrating the two Wittenberg Reformers did not teach that "outside faith everything is indifferent," but defined adiaphora simply as those things "neither commanded, nor forbidden" by Scripture. The article then investigates how Luther and Melanchthon strove, in the face of legalistic and antinomian tendencies, to keep the exercise of liberty within the boundaries of the inner law of love.

Related Terms

Appropriation (Trinity), Communion: open vs. closed, Consubstantiation (Eucharist).

Definition

(Gr. Apologia, "speaking in defense") The defense of religion in general, one particular religion, or denomination, against criticisms made by those outside of the apologist's faith community. Second and third century apologists attempted to define Christianity as the fulfillment of both Hebrew law and prophecy, and of classical Greek thought. Subsequent apologists have appealed principally to reasoned arguments or to a common human religious sensibility, in defending Christian revelation against Islamic monotheism, Enlightenment rationalism, atheism, and Marxist historical criticism.

Significance

The question of which doctrines need defense has been determined by the criticism of competing philosophies and religious worldviews. Early apologists (Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine) synthesized the personal God of Hebrew Scripture with the Platonic ideal of an unchanging, entirely spiritual divinity.
Apologists of the Middle Ages (Anselm, Thomas Aquinas) defended Christianity by appealing to reason and natural human abilities.
An anti-apologetic stream in Christian thought maintains that there is “no point of contact” between revelation and human reason except through the gracious in-breaking of God (Luther, Barth), limiting potential theological dialogue with philosophy and the sciences.
Recent apologists have faced arguments from secular modernity (Butler, Schleiermacher, Niebuhr). In the wake of Immanuel Kant’s distinction between faith and reason, contemporary apologetics has invoked experience and a common religious sense rather than rational argument (Troeltsch, Rahner, Tillich), claiming that God correlates to certain feelings or questions within human experience.

Recent Articles and Books

1. Dulles, Avery. "Mere Apologetics," in First Things, no. 154 Je-Jl 2005, pp. 15-20. Examines the work of C.S. Lewis, whom he describes as "probably the most successful Christian apologist of the 20th century." According to Dulles, Lewis' work followed many of the traditional apologetic steps, including a philosophical argument for the existence of God, and an appeal to human experience that identifies God as the source of our moral, rational, and spiritual senses. Dulles criticizes Lewis' failure to emphasize the importance of participation in a particular faith tradition.
2. Saayman, William. "New Testament Studies and Missiology in South Africa: Uneasy bedfellows?" in Missionalia 33 no. 2, August 2005, pp. 205-213. Asserts that "mission is the mother of theology." Points to the sometimes difficult relationship between Western Biblical scholarship and the evangelical use of the Bible in ministry in the Global South. Can Western Biblical scholarship still play a part in the apologetic/mission project of churches in a multicultural context? Argues for the importance of dialogue between those engaging texts on the "periphery," that is, in an evangelical and pastoral context, and those at the academic "center."

Related Terms

Evangelism, Ecumenical Dialogue, Missions/Missiology, Natural Theology

Definition

A technical term used by Origen to indicate a hope that all creatures including sinners, the damned and the devil would be restored to their original state of unity with God through salvation in Christ. This theology is based in Scripture and influenced by Neoplatonic and Stoic cosmologies.

Significance

Though this has not been a dominant doctrine, it is an early “hope” from Origen about God’s universal saving will. Thought to contain the salvation of demons, it was condemned by the Provincial Council of Constantinople in 543 because it did not contain a requirement of reason by the saved. The “nature, purpose, and duration of eschatological punishment of human sinners” was the cause of controversy with this doctrine. Origen maintained rejection of God was the only way to “eternal fire.” Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa argued for forms of the doctrine that were not explicitly condemned. But salvation for all fell to the wayside when faced with Tertullian and Augustine, who argued that humanity was on the road to perdition. Hans Urs von Balthzar developed the idea the farthest, saying that although we cannot be certain, it is compatible with Christian love and hope to believe that by God’s grace all might be restored to unity with God. Paul Tillich and Friedrich Schleiermacher are also modern supporters of the doctrine.

Recent Articles and Books

1. Sachs, John R., “Current Eschatology: Universal Salvation and the Problem of Hell,” Theological Studies 52 (1991), p. 227-54. This article attempts to revisit apocatastasis in the context of an alarming increase in language about heaven and hell based in fundamentalism and sectarianism. Written from a Catholic perspective by a professor at Weston School of Theology, the article particularly examines the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar. Sachs demonstrates that this frequently misunderstood concept of universal salvation is actually consistent with several strands of Christian and particularly Catholic belief.
2. Sachs, John R., “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993), p. 617-40. John Sachs continues his treatment of universal salvation in this journal with a comment to his fellow Catholic theologians to consider that the hope of apocastasis is consistent with orthodox Catholic teachings, despite the fact that many fear it is inconsistent with questions of human free will. He makes his case exploring the concept in the works of Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa.

Related Terms

Universal salvation, universalism, grace, judgment, eschatology.

Definition

a person who has de facto accepted the gracious self-offering of God (i.e. salvation), while not yet being a Christian at the social level (through baptism and church membership). Term coined by Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (1904-1984).

Significance

Rahner's views of the supernatural existential and of revelation become the basis of his famous theory of "anonymous Christians." On the one hand, God's salvific will is universal. This leads Rahner to say that there should be a possibility for all persons to be saved. Yet, on the other hand, the Catholic tradition holds a belief that salvation is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ and the membership into the Church. For Rahner, this conflict is solvable through the notions of the supernatural existential, as the condition for all persons in their transcendentality to receive God’s grace and "universal-transcendental revelation," which becomes God's self-communication to all people as transcendent beings. Consequently, Rahner urges, those who do not confess Jesus Christ explicitly and do not become members of the Catholic Church must have the possibility of a genuine saving relation with God and therefore they are called "anonymous Christians."

The difficulty of this term is that it can call into question the autonomy of other non-Christian religions and their adherents. It also downplays the importance of baptism (and other sacraments) as a sign of Christian life and therefore calls into question the role/importance of the life of Christ as a necessary saving act of grace.

Recent Articles and Books

1. Lamadrid, Lucas . “Anonymous or Analogous Christians? Rahner and von Balthasar on Naming the Non-Christian,” Modern Theology 11 (Jul 1995): 363-384. This article discusses/contrasts two ways in which Christians can relate to non-Christians in the encounter between the cultures. Rahner, according to this article, emphasizes the dialogue between the cultures to create a Christian witness and Balthasar emphases that witness makes dialogue possible. The benefit of reviewing these two opinions together is that one gets a more complete picture of these opposing approaches, their implications and their possible implementations.

Related Terms

christology, grace, salvation

Also called revelation

Definition

God’s adaptation of the manner in which God reveals Godself to humanity. God is revealed through the adaptation of language, narrative and content, making God’s purpose known. The most significant form of accommodation in Christian theology focuses on the Incarnation. Herein God reveals Godself in the human form of Jesus Christ allowing humans to grasp and experience the love of God.

Significance

Accommodation can be viewed in a historical way when God is revealed to God’s people in the Hebrew text by appearing to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Moses encounters God in a burning bush; Solomon is visited by God in a dream; and God is revealed in the New Testament through the incarnation of Christ. Human experience engages accommodation in the analysis of Biblical analogy, where language is accommodated to facilitate human understanding, drawing on Biblical texts in manner and context other than its original intention. It does not require a complete alteration of original meaning, but refocuses an idea to better accommodate a different community of recipients. This use of accommodation is seen in the New Testament in reference to Hebrew texts (Mt. 2:15, Hos. 11:1). Divine accommodation is foundational in Calvin's explanation of both the transcendence and incomprehensibility of God where Godself is disclosed in Christ, as well as through God’s works.

Recent Articles and Books

1. Balserak, Jon. "'The Accommodating Act Par Excellence?': an Inquiry into the Incarnation and Calvin's Understanding of Accommodation," in Scottish Journal of Theology, 55 No. 4 2002, p 408-423. Balserak examines Calvin's use of accommodation and concludes that Calvin goes beyond the Incarnation as accomodation 'par excellence'and uses diverse examples of God's accommodation to humanity in his theology.
2. Finke, Roger. "Innovative Returns to Tradition: Using Core Teachings as the Foundation for Innovative Accommodation," in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43 No. 1 Mr 2004, p 19-34. Finke argues that religious groups sustain organizational vitality by preserving core teachings while simultaneously promoting adaptive innovations. This article gives historical examples of accommodation in communities that have striven to maintain a connection to their tradition but also recontextualize that tradition for their own audiences.

Related Terms

Analogy, Condescension, Deus absconditus/revelatus, Natural Theology, Revelation.

Definitions

• The word atonment comes from sixteenth-century English and literally means at-one-ment.
• Atonement is the process of reconciliation between Gd and human beings (either on a communal or individual basis) with the goal of righting a wrong or injury, i.e. sin. Christians contend that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is intimately related to this process.
• Atonement can also be the end result of this reconcilliation process.

Significance

How and from what are we saved?

Different Theories:

1. Ransom (Christus Victor):
Jesus' life is a victorious struggle against evil and Jesus' death is the ransom paid to the devil (or evil powers) to free humans from the bondage of sin.
2. Recapitulation:
Jesus' sinless life rewrites the story of humanity started off poorly by Adam's sin.
3. Satisfaction:
The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is the paying of a debt (or satisfaction) caused by humanity's sinful nature offending Gd's honor.
4. Substitution:
Divine retributive justice requires all sinners to be crucified as punishment for sin, but Jesus willingly takes each one's place on the cross.
5. Christ as Exemplar:
Jesus' life and death is a powerful enough example of love and obedience to influence sinners to repent of their sins and improve their lives.
6. Governmental:
To keep order in creation Gd needs to visibly punish wrongs. Christ takes the place of the church on the cross.

Recent Articles and Books

1. Binau, Brad A. "When Shame Is the Question, How Does the Atonement Answer?" Journal of Pastoral Theology. 12, no. 1 (Jan 1, 2002): 89-113.
Binau offers a pastoral approach (that centers on addressing the problem of shame in theological discourse) to dealing with questions of the atonement.
2. Reno, Russell R. "Fear of Redemption." First Things. 144 (Je-Jl 2004): 29-34.
Reno picks up the theme of alienation present in works by Rousseau, Emerson, and Nietsche and attempts to show the atonement in terms of self-identity.

Related Terms

reconciliation, expiation, satisfaction, ransom, redemption, penal substitution theory, salvation, limited atonement (Calvinism), deification (Eastern Orthodox), justificiation, Yom Kippur, propitiation

It's all over the news and United Methodist circles: the reversal of the removal of a Virginia Pastor who denied membership to a homosexual man in his congregation.

To me, the pastor's exclusion of the gay man was a direction violation of the Christian tenet of hospitality. Hospitality, as defined by Christine Pohl in her book Making Room, involves:

Hospitality provides a context for recognizing the worth of persons who seem to have little when assessed by worldly standards. (page 62)

Hospitality thus has a counter-cultural edge to it as it embodies values and models that are not shared by the greater society. Additionally, Pohl relates the following quote about the relationship between the civil and religious spheres:

Expulsion from the civic sphere, in which the basic rights of citizens are protected, is the most dangerous form of expulsion, but the danger is intensified when particular religious, ethnic, and cultural identities are singled out for exclusion. (page 81)

Hospitality, by Pohl, is defined as a framework for transforming loyalties and relationships that envisions

1. the church as universal community of believers,
2. the lessening of social boundaries and distinctions,
3. the recognition of everyone's value, and
4. providing practical care (often the only understanding we have of hospitality!)

Thus, this concept of hospitality has been lost in our era of the 'hospitality industry' of motels, and the private entertainment of people in our homes.

What this privatization and blurring of hospitality does is remove or distort our initial response to people: to welcome, to invite, to exhibit Christian love. In the above case, the pastor excluded the gay man from hospitality for religious reasons...presumedly for hope of repentance and re-integration into his community. That certainly has biblical precedent.

However, in biblical times, to be excluded from a religious community did not threaten the well-being of the individual. In these modern times, the second quote above becomes relevant: when gays are excluded by the civil sphere, the church intensifies that expulsion by their policies. By not exhibiting Christian hospitality, and welcoming them into our churches and communities, we are making the damage more pervasive. And that damage culminates in deviant behavior, crime, depression, and suicide. While Churches are not directly responsible for the free-will choices of persons, it is irresponsible of us to not accept some correlation between expulsion from society and expulsion from our churches and these situations.

Perhaps that's the idea, though. Perhaps telling people that they are excluded from the church will cause them to change. Pohl, again, confronts this relationship between exclusion and endangerment.

When, by acknowledging difference, we only endanger [people], then we must only acknowledge our common human identity. (page 83)

By focusing on the differences, and by dehumanizing people by their differences, we are perpetuating the problem, not helping it. There cannot be repentance and re-integration if these people are without support and help, and see the church's position, as John Wesley warned us, as God's indeliable viewpoint.

By ignoring the Christian tenet of hospitality, we are endangering the LGBT community. All Progressive Christian churches need to call those churches excluding the LGBT community to accountability...accountability to the demands of the Gospel to see the stranger as fundamentally just like ourselves, human and beloved by God.

Works Cited

Pohl, Christine D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality As a Christian Tradition Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999.

We've all heard of the 'Priesthood of all Believers' as the recognition of the equal-accessibility of God to all God's followers. No longer was a priest needed to mediate between the people and God; the God of all is accessible to all.

What we tend to forget is that the role of the minister has two dimensions: the priestly, and the prophetic. While we have taken back the priesthood of all believers, we expect only our ministers to be the prophetic voice, to speak out against those parts of Creation that conspire against God's Kingdom. We assume that only the educated, the qualified, can possibly live up to the role of the prophet. In short, the 'prophethood of all believers' has been recognized, but not claimed, and marginalized only to those with ecclesial status.

So, come with me, and discuss what it means to be a part of a prophetic people's movement without a minister, without a leader, and to reclaim the 'prophethood of all believers' as the necessary counterpart, nay, the demand of God now that we all have access to God's grace.

Priesthood v. Prophethood

I heard last night someone use JL Adam's coined phrase "the prophethood of all believers" last night. It was in the context of reclaiming a faith that necessitated justice and right action. Very powerful stuff.

Practically speaking, the 'priesthood of all believers' doesn't mean that there are not distinctions between laity and clergy; rather, it means that there is no spiritual hierarchy that one must climb to get one's prayers and graces from God.

In the same way, the 'prophethood of all believers' does not mean there are not different roles for the laity and clergy to fill; but that to be a prophet is not a demand that necessitates theological education or spiritual status. Just as we ALL are priests, we ALL are called to be prophets.

When we demand equal access to God's grace, and rightly so, we diminish that grace by not accepting the equal demands God places on each heart: to speak, to act, to embody, and to bring forth the Kingdom of God.

How can this come about?

Learn from the Reformation. Martin Luther took a prophetic act: nailing the 95 Theses to the chamber door, to claim the 'priesthood of all believers'. To claim one side of the coin, the priesthood, took a prophetic act.

Perhaps today all it takes is a priestly act: to encourage our congregations to nail the laundry lists of what is wrong with society and what is incongruous with God's Kingdom to every door, sign, gate, and bridge. To claim the other side of the coin, the prophethood, all it takes is a priestly act of letting your parishoners know they have permission to act.

What would it look like?

Gosh, I have no idea!! But I know what a prophethood would do: Break down barriers, destroy idols, call to accountability the authorities in our midst! We cannot just call on the pastors and policy-makers to be the prophets; we must be them ourselves. Prophets are made when the world hears our message, and sees it as subversive and counter-cultural. By blogging, by acting, by speaking, by placing your body in harm's way...that is the demand of God's kingdom on the prophets.

Get involved today. Get out there! If we are to live into our priestly ideals of holiness, we must reclaim the prophetic ideals of justice, and never let one or the other fall to the wayside as we embody the Kingdom of God.

Your Turn

What keeps you from acting or speaking up? Do you not feel qualified? Do you think only the pastor's voice has the 'weight' to carry it through?

How can your community better envision the prophetic voice?

I just attended the Human Rights Campaign's annual event on LGBT and society issues. This years' was "Young and Gay in America" talking about the promise and the pain of being young and gay in America.

The four participants could not have been more appropriate. Judy Shepard (Mother of Matthew Shepard), Maya Keyes (Daughter of wacko Alan Keyes[dKos]), Mike Glatze (Editor, Young Gay America), and Chris Medeiros (Episcopal Divinity School professor). All four have extensive personal and professional experience with youth violence, oppression, and shared family pain of LGBT youth.

I was struck by how much religious language was used by the participants in the forum, and how pervasive the religious influence is in both perpetuating and preventing youth hate crimes in today's society.

The discussion began with a question of How to make Progressive churches respond more prominently and aggresively to LGBT issues. Medeiros said that American Christianity (which is his background) has been whitewashed as all anti-gay, as prominence and visibility are hard to attract from this current media that is focused on the Pope and Falwell. In reality, it has three tiers:

• The Religious Right wing (falwell, RCC, SBC)
• The Christian Left liberal churches (UUA, UCC, MCC])
• The huge middle gap of mainline protestant churches (PCUSA, UMC, Episcopal, etc...)

Thus, the primary force of progressive churches should be to expand the infrastructure, and to live into what it really means to be "welcoming." Take loud and proud stances and dont back down. Do more than wave a rainbow flag, and create institutions and infrastructure to deal with all the realities of what it means to be gay, from homelessness to poor to substance abuse and on up. It has to start with the people crying out "I am LGBT and I refuse to choose!!" Maya Keyes agreed, and stated that people aren't gonna know about openness until they target lgbt youth and let them know you are there. Thus, take the challenge of redefining the common concept of Christianity and flip that image, and Christianity can become a force for fighting oppression, not causing it.

The primary points I got from this conversation was that LGBT youth need the following things to truly find safe space, and all of these can be provided or influenced by the Church.

• Build an allies network. Reach out in little or big ways to find your friends in the community, and when the time comes, out yourself and your allies. The more people that can stand together, the more wind it takes to blow them down. Move forward from isolated individualism to community unity.
• Become Role Models. If LGBT culture is just the village people, or the white rich males, then it will lose. Be a role model or find a role model in your community to raise up.
• Break the Isolation. This is not 1993, you have the internet to find out information, and you have much more contacts than any other generation. Use it to break out of your shell.
• Help each other on the ground level. Focus on beds and help for homeless LGBT youth. Share information with other groups. We are all in this together, so coalesce and fight for humanity, not just gay culture.
• Small is Ideal: Small towns are great grassroots places for you to be heard. If you are safe enough and have enough support, out yourself and force a small community to deal with you. Exposure forces confrontation.

All in all, progressive churches need to step up the aggresiveness and the prominence of their witness, which will empower gay youth to break their culture-forced isolation and connect with others. Be loud and proud for homosexuality BECAUSE of your faith, not in spite of it!

What has worked in your community to reach out to gay youth? Discuss.

Catch-phrases, slogans, and "10 Essentials" dominate not only the airwaves of advertising, but the godwaves of church marketing as they seek to meet the people in the marketplace and beckon them to their spiritual shop. By breaking down the Gospel to manageable chunks that catch people's attention, they rob the Gospel of its compelling pieces of social change, and focus on the satisfaction of selfish desires crafted by Capitalism.

At its core, Capitalism does one thing extremely well: it disciplines our wants. It gives us impetus and at least the perception of opportunity to earn what we want, and to give up on what we want until the proper opportunity is achieved. Capitalism achieves this by dipping deeply into the cultural channels of desire, and by programming people to believe in their selfish wants.

How does the Church combat this monster of a machine? One of two extreme ways: sacrificing the Gospel by marketing it, or by combatting Capitalism itself at its own game.

For some churches, the church should meet the people where they are: in the marketplace, and provide the alternative voice to combat the noice directly. To sell ads on train walls, to give catch-phrases to radio stations, to sell books of "7 Steps of Highly-Successful Churches" and "10 Basics of Christianity", the "Purpose-Driven Church" and other minimalist approaches to the Gospel. Think these are only advertising and not really capitalism? The concept of delayed gratification is one aspect of the disciplining process of capitalism that finds rich fruition in marketed Christianity. The necessary component of the Christian story of delayed salvation, the social impetus to help others, is absent from the capitalistic marketplace.

The Christian Church in this context should do the opposite path of counter-capitalism. The offering up a competing set of principles and beliefs that also turn people's wants towards the Church and towards God. The want is not for yourself or your immediate surroundings, but the wanting, the yearning, is for God. To be saved (in God's economic sense) is to take the selfish wants and redirect them towards God who is our beginning and end.

Capitalism, then, is not an asset of the church, but is its necessary enemy. There is a clash of technologies of desire, one that wants in one's self-interest, the other that channels that want into God's interest. Capitalism's mechanisms focus the already-present channels of culture's wants on the individual; Churches should reconfigure the entire infrastructure to be focused on God for one another. When you reduce the Gospel to catch-phrases, all of which are focused on the individual (see next week's diary), then you lose the social message of Christ and betray the Gospel.

How to combat this this? How to keep evangelizing with integrity, but one that actually works? In an abstract sense, by subversion: by not playing Capitalism's game. By not buying ad space or airtime, but by offering up the counter-set of principles by doing what capitalism cannot: embody them. No person embodies capitalism, they just drink from its breast. A person of Christ can embody the work of Christ in social outreach and justice initiatives that live out the Great Commission in far better ways than . By being human billboards of integrity in your community, and by inviting others to do the same when they wonder where you get your power. Building a church of lightposts is better than powering a flourescent cross, as the power comes from within, not dependant on an external source.

While I leave it to you to figure out the practical ways, the simple point is this: By submitting to Capitalism's principles, the Church is getting short-term gain for long-term alienation and irrelevance of the Church. Even as we see the rise of Church exposure on the airwaves and in politics, we see the donut effect of the loss of the church's grounding in Christ replaced by the empty core of self-interest.

The church and capitalism are impossible bedfellows, as they don't dream of the same thing.

Go back to your church growth councils, and say to them: "Get out of bed with capitalism, you whore of a church, and go back to your Creator who beckons you to come home again."

At their essence, Christianity and Capitalism are incompatible, and thus I am leery of the question of corporate sponsorship in church settings.

A church I volunteer at holds musical events and programs in the evenings on occasion. When I go, I open the bulletin, and I notice about 2-3 pages of ads from local businesses. They are just well-wishes from the business, their address, and their tagline or whatever. Simple advertising and sponsorship of neighborhood projects. This is good sponsorship...or is it?

It's not just a local church. Luis Palau's huuuge DC festival has a full page of corporate sponsors to pay for all the flash, celebs, and communication efforts to get his festival off the ground. Admittingly, the event would never be as effective or flashy without those sponsors, who allow Palau to reach bigger audiences (though also drive away those of us who abhor those types of events).

Instances like these cause me to ask the fundamental question: What is the relationship between capitalistic agendas and church structures?

My church will solicit these corporate sponsors for their programs to pay for their printing and operating costs, and thus donations are purely for the church's ministries. In that way, corporations and local businesses sponsor the program, while allowing for donations to go to the church. Is this a good line to walk? Does this involve businesses pouring money into the community that they have as customers?

Palau's DC event is possibly a different animal (as it is not officially a denomination, but rather a Christian service). There is a ton of attention-getting items in there, most of which are only attention-getters, not actual operating necessities. Regardless of whether that is money well-spent, since money talks, does the religious event hear and obey? Are there provisions that only Chik-fil-a will be served as snacks? Should a church promote Amtrak's services(page 6) since they are sponsors? At what point is the Church endorsing a corporation in deed if not in word?

As one of my forum members pointed out, Christianity and Capitalism have two divergently different goals. Corporations exist to make money at all costs, Christianity exists for Christ who calls all persons to himself. Christ and money are not synonymous goals (though for some proponents of the Prosperity Gospel, they are linked), and anytime the Church is even considering choosing between Christian outreach and Corporate dollars, there is something wrong.

One counter-argument is not that Christianity should resist capitalism, but that it should subvert capitalism by using its greed for Christ's gain. An understanding of evangelism as meeting the public where they are and subverting those systems to point to Christ...what better place than the marketplace where advertising research can catch the person's eyes? Like God hardening Pharoah's already hardened heart, Churches can "with proper respect" use capitalism's greed to its own uses and subvert capitalism's system of advertising and sponsorship to draw people away from worshipping moneys or themselves and point them towards Christ who unites us all.

So, what do you think? Should churches have local businesses contribute by name to sponsor events? To advertise in bulletins? Should a church get into a contract with Coke to have a machine in their foyer in exchange for donations? Can there be a Pepsi Baptist Church? Should an evangelical event have sponsors that can sell their wares in the hallways outside or on the roads there?

At what point does Christianity submit to capitalism or subvert capitalism for the sake of the Gospel? And the flip side is also true: at what point does capitalism subvert Christianity to better find a target audience (We know Patriotism has subverted Christianity in parish's captive audiences)? How can we keep the church free from mitigating influences to be able to freely critique society and offer its own voice?

Hello, and welcome to the Cross+Flame Database!