Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Amok. Part 2.

Finding myself a bit bored, I wound up re-reading my last blog post and the related comments. As always, once my brain has had more time to "gel" with an idea, I think of things that I should've said, should've left out, or should've clarified. So, finding myself still bored, here goes...


I don't ever mean to convey an idea that sin can be defeated without Christ. Ever. Even though I insist that we take responsibility for our sin and not wait on some "spark" to move us to act, I'm ony talking about making good choices...avoiding the paths that lead us down roads that cause chaos in our own lives as best we can rather than do things that we know are wrong, excusing our actions because we haven't been "convicted" by God to do otherwise. Instead, we ought to "man up" and take our actions and our thoughts captive to overcome sin in our life. In my opinion, this is still a grace-driven "effort" - even our conscience I believe can be Spirit-governed, so, in a sense, just the desire to make the right choices is Spirit-led, IMHO.

But our own efforts can only take us so far. Our thoughts, our actions often contradict the desires of our hearts to do good (read Romans 7 if you want some harsh insight into this fact). Real life change can only happen if God is changing us from the inside out. I was assuming that in everything I wrote before.

Grace is implicit to all I believe. Nothing really changes apart from it. But our faith-response - our response to grace (whether a spirit-prompted emotional response or a response to living the kind of lifestyle we read about in Scripture) is important, too. If something as grand as salvation is offered to us free of charge - the price has been paid, I think that ought to move us to live accordingly. My Savior died for me; I'm going to live for Him. I'm going to listen to his instructions. I'm going to emulate his life as best as I can in my fallen state. Not because I have to to earn the gift of salvation given in grace, but because I want to die to the sin in my life that Jesus died to free me from. Die to it...pretty strong words...

This has been on my heart a lot lately because of things I've seen - observed or experienced firsthand - over the past few years. In this thing called the emergent church, I'm finding the whole discussion of sin increasingly frustrating. Before I dive into this, let me clarify: I love the emergent movement. I love the effort by churches and Christians to let go of traditionalism and seek new means to carry the Gospel to people in a world that's become jaded to all things 'religious' and the church seems to become more and more irrelevant. These are exciting times. It's a time of new awakening...where traditionalism is being replaced with innovation; legalism replaced with love; religiosity replaced with community and mission. My support of this is something I've blogged about a lot in the past.

But with any movement comes maturity. And as I think about the things I've observed, I've got one or two concerns:

As we learn to engage our culture on its level, there's a strong temptation to not only adopt cultural styles but to adopt cultural values and moral standards as we attempt to build relationships with people. While the effort to connect to our culture in relevant ways that move beyond the norms and structures of the past (which I'm ALL FOR), the re-shaping of Scriptural standards is freaky. Maybe because the whole "sin" concept has been overworked in churches (to the point of abuse) over the years, it's more fashionable nowadays to downplay it. Sin, if it is talked about, doesn't condemn you to hell, but - at the most - condemns you to a life void of self-fulfillment or self-actualization. The language has become humanistic. Sin has become a word that we avoid right up there with "pew" or "pipe organ."

The motives may be good. People who've been exposed to the abusive power that churches have wielded over the years that have left trails of unforgiven wounded people in the aftermath need to experience something different. Furthermore, constant "sin-talk" often builds more barriers with the people we're trying to reach than it opens doors to discussions of grace and forgiveness. So there's good motive in avoiding the most infamous 3-letter-word in history: S-I-N. People need grace where they've only known condemnation. They need love where they've only known or seen little or no acceptance. They need the message communicated in new, innovative ways that contrast the monotonous approach of tradionalistic churches (nothing wrong with tradition itself, but traditionalism - the old way is the ONLY way - is foolish). So - like I said - I can wholeheartedly embrace emergent churches that want to reach people in innovative ways....that want to go to where people are rather than wait for them to come through the doors of the "sanctuary"....that want to engage our culture and let them know God loves them no matter where they are.

But how far is too far? Is there such a thing? Where do we cross the line in our avoidance of the sin "discussion?" Where are we compromising our own walk with God?

Is the use of four-letter words just to engage our culture in its medium an okay thing? Is the use of lewd language full of explicit sexual content okay among Christian adults who are, by nature, sexual beings? Does drinking too much alcohol (to the point of drunkenness) with other Christians make it okay if it's part of the bonding experience of community? Is sexual promiscuity okay because we believe we're more careful and more enlightened than our ancient forefathers (besides sex is just sex and we have condoms today)? Can we say or do whatever we feel like - online, offline, privately, whatever - in the name of "feedom?" Is it okay to excuse sin - any sin, big or small - simply because we're trying to be "authentic?"

I'm asking these questions both to challenge our thinking and because I'm searching for an answer that satisfies the standards of grace and forgiveness - while at the same time - satisfies the standards of our mission to reach the lost in innovative ways AND to live lives worthy of our calling.

In books I read recently, I read about a pastor who walked into a church where they employed a homosexual preacher but asked the pastor to remove his hat during the worship service. Weird amalgamation of an affirmation of Christian tradition alongside simultaneous rejection of a moral standard. How does that happen? How do you affirm one meaningless norm, yet overlook a pretty big sin issue (according to Scripture) so casually?

In college, I had a fraternity brother who drank heavily. He did stupid things like drive drunk or, on a less serious note, order pizza and then pass out before paying for it. Heh. But seriously, there was a real problem there. When drunk, he became pretty forceful with women to the point one girl accused him of date-rape. He became pseudo-violent. Even when not drinking, he could be combative when it came to talking to people with opposing views and his outlook on life was pretty negative.

Oddly enough, one summer he decided to work as a summer youth leader at a local church. Finding this a bit odd for someone who pretty much rejected anything "church-related," I asked him about this decision. He commented that he wanted to reach teenagers...to show them who Christ was. Though he held to a fairly liberal "Jesus-didn't-rise-from-the-dead" view of Jesus, what prompted immedate concern from me is that this guy was pretty much drunk every Friday and Saturday night, yet leading teenagers in Bible studies on Sundays. Being pretty combative myself in my earlier years of my faith, I asked him, "How can you lead a group of teenagers to life in Christ is you don't live this in your own life?" He answered, "Well, I can't connect with teenagers if I'm not going through and doing the same things they're going through and doing myself." For him, that was the end of the discussion. Conveniently, sin - specifically, consistent drunkenness - was not sin since he could "use" it as a connecting point to reach teenagers. My last words to him were, "If you're not living a Christ-like life yourself, then where, actually, are you going to lead these teenagers?" I'll give him high props for being mission-oriented, but - to this day - it troubles me that the Gospel for him had been reduced to an impotent collection of words about forgiveness and grace that failed to acknowledge what exactly we're forgiven of and why we need grace in the first place. (Read: "sin") If it's okay to do whatever we want, what exactly did Christ die for anyway?

So what happens when a casual "overlooking" of sin gets out of hand? Well...it's not pretty. In a church in my college town, I saw a college minister start sleeping with girls in his college ministry. He'd quite literally lead these younger girls to Christ, pray with them, then get them to take off their clothes and...you get the idea. It happened with several girls. When the pastor of the church was approached about the actions of his college minister, he simply stated that those who approached him were being legalistic Pharisees and that they needed to forgive instead of condemn him. "Love over legalism," he said. Though I firmly believe this guy could and would be forgiven of his sin, why it was casually overlooked bothered me a lot. I knew some of these girls. They were confused. They'd felt betrayed...as if they'd been led into a lie. And the confrontation with the pastor and his insistence on forgiveness made no difference. He continued to 'seduce' girls. The situation ended ugly. One of the girls he'd slept with - who'd become a Christian partly to escape from a life of promiscuity - was deeply confused and wounded by the guy's sexual involvement with her and consequent cover-up of what happened. So she started talking. "If this isn't wrong, then I'm going to talk about it." As people found out, the church tore itself apart and was reduced from a thriving body of believers to a derelict building that housed maybe a dozen senior citizens on Sunday mornings. And the girl who talked? She walked away from all us "hypocrites."

The blind acceptance of sin devastaed a girl's emotional and spiritual well-being. I'm not assuming this; this is something she and I talked about as she was packing her bags, leaving our college campus to start anew where people wouldn't know everything that happened with her and this minister. On top of everything - now that the sin had been exposed - the sinner-hating fundamentalists in our community jumped in and started chastizing her, too.

Wounded from both sides: The unforgiving mob of Pharisee-types and the sin-condoning leaders of a church that led her out of sin then right back into it.

...

Therein lies the struggle. On the one hand, I never want to fall into the legalist, self-righteous way of thinking that has dominated churches in America for a long time. In these churches, the gospel is reduced to a system of rules that govern everything from our sexual practices to the clothes we wear to church, binding us to law instead of freeing us from sin. On the other hand, I don't want to fall into the trap of excusing sin. Well, it's a good feeling to not be condemned by your peers when you fall down. I admit that. But does that make it okay to fall down without repentance? I don't want to the gospel to be reduced to a huggy, "the only sin is not to love," hippie philosophy that breeds half-hearted believers who have rewritten Scripture to accommodate rather than liberate.

Yes, we need to know how to speak of sin in a world that cringes at the very religiosity of the word. Yes, we need to acknowledge and rectify the abuse churches have caused in the name of "dealing with sin" in a shameful way that's hurt many more than it's healed. Yes, we need to emphasize grace, love, forgiveness, etc., where they've been downplayed in the past. Yes, we need to crawl out of our judgmental circles and engage the culture on its level, daring to meet, greet, and make friends with those who do not yet know Christ. Yes to all of this. The message of the cross is indeed one of love, BUT... ("Um, how can you put a "but" on Christ's love?" you say?) Because Christ's love comes at GREAT cost - the death of Christ on a cross, atoning for our sins. Sin - and what Christ had to do to rid us of it - ought to grieve me. Sin causes God sorrow. If Christ had to die to save me from it, why flirt with it?

If sin is so serious that Jesus had to die for it, then I ought to take it seriously, too. Not because I need to earn my way into heaven or earn favor from God or other Christians, but because I don't want to allow things into my life that Jesus died to free me from. Because I want to respond to that kind of love He showed me.

That said, I'm a sinner. I always have been, I always will be. Not because I want to be, but because I am what I am - a person. So life, for me, is a struggle to let Christ rule in my life instead of my own human nature.

...

How do I sum this all up? I dont' know. Too many random thoughts bouncing around in my head, so I'll end with this:

The church is the bride of Christ. We ought to remain faithful to Christ. We don't need to whore ourselves out to our own desires or messed up ways of thinking. I don't mean not having an open mind or arrogantly assuming you can ever have every facet of our walk with Christ figured out. But too often, instead of walking a path of holiness as the bride of Christ, we're instead sitting alone in our personal 'closets' committing spiritual masturbation as we'd rather follow our own self-gratifying paths than truly remain faithful to him. Seriously, imagine being married to the most beautiful person in the world, but opting to self-gratify rather than spend intimate time with that person... How weird and stupid would that be? Or worse...we commit some kind of weird spiritual threesome where we try to merge our own philosophies/ideas/sins into our spiritual marriage bed, so to speak. Put that image in your pipe and smoke it.

Think that's too harsh? Too over the top? Think about it: How many people do you know who compromise something? How many people try to claim Christ and salvation but don't give a crap about how they live their own lives? Or at least 'excuse' some aspects of it?

No wonder hypocrisy creates so much atheism in our world. If we can't walk what we believe, we send a message that our God is impotent, and time is spent better elsewhere.

4 Comments:

Blogger video said...

"I don't want to the gospel to be reduced to a huggy, "the only sin is not to love," hippie philosophy that breeds half-hearted believers who have rewritten Scripture to accommodate rather than liberate."

um... what?

first, the emergent church (which unfortunately is a sub group of the 'emerging church' which you seem to be referring to) is a lot more than just 'how to connect.' that's the sad times when people try to learn the culture and reach them from where they are, not where the culture is. they learn to sell god like a car. they approach it with the same consumerist attitude. however, there is more than just relevance in the emergent movement. there are ideas emerging (sorry, couldn't think of another word) that are radically different than the ideas that have permeated modernity and colonialism and consumerism. there are ideas of hope in the end times, ideas that see the harm in the way the rapture has been presented and are offering a deeper understanding of what the kingdom of god is. but, that's not the main point.

second, which is the main thing, if you love, you don't sin. have fun trying to figure out how to sin when you are in christ-like love (the real kind of love). you can't. so, that is wholly the point. it's not a 'hippie' understanding of love - as in free love. it's a christ-like understanding of love. love as an action, doing what is best for everyone. doing what is best for god. so, i think love covers it. and i think instead of separating love from sin, it would behoove church institutions to come to a greater understanding of love. then they could preach it without feeling like stinky hippies. if you limit sin to following rules, you can remove it from your life, however if you make sin love's enemy - you have a life changing dynamic response.

but, that's just my opinion. and we are all flawed. everything we know is heresy because we don't know it all. everything we do is in part. and i am in part. and, i guess i'm that hippie, liberal, outside the institutional walls guy that doesn't even use the word christian much because of it's connotation (but do claim home in the church, much to the dismay of seemingly many around me) - so i don't expect people to listen to anything i say. i just expect to be that guy tries to love (and obviously fails a lot), but only gets blamed for trouble.

8:26 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

Wow. Someone actually read the "longest...post...ever."

Thoughts...(maybe the "longest...comment...ever")

1. There's nothing wrong with new ideas in the emergent/emerging equation. Thank God, or we couldn't call anything "emerging". In fact, acknowledgement of our past failings as a church - even as individual Christians - when it comes to how we've institutionalized and Christianized everything is important. Likewise, finding new ways to communicate...new courses of dialogue...with our culture is important...and to do it in a way that's not "selling God" like yet another commodity in our consumer-driven society. Dead on. I just think it's important that we know if there's a line we shouldn't cross. It's one thing to reinvent methods...rework centuries of bad dialogue/traditions...overcome the language and flawed influences of modernity (and postmodernity)... But it's another to dismiss things in Scripture where they don't seem compatible with culture simply because we prefer the cultural idea over the Scriptural one.

2. "If we love we don't sin."

um...what? (right back at you...heh)

I hope you realize the sheer depth in what you are saying. I do not disagree with it. But I think most people have no idea what love really is when they say things like "the only sin is not to love."

What does it mean to truly have Christ-like love in your heart?Love is sacrificial. Love is self-denying. It's caring about someone else more than yourself, whether that person cares about you or not. I believe if people were to love one another in a truly Christ-like way, it would shift our focus entirely. Better yet, if we were filled with His love instead of our own, this would be something greater than our own efforts in the first place. We wouldn't get caught up in the things that tear us up because we'd be too "other-focused". There wouldn't be room left for self-indulgent sin or conflict or whatever. Only room for Christ.

But do we do that? I mean...for real? Think about it. How many of us (emergent or traditional)claim love for everyone, yet lack consistent demonstration of it? We speak of "love, love, love," but our actions often disprove that. We vent too much anger... We criticize people - even those that ought to be our brothers/sisters in Christ (traditional, emergent, whatever they may be).. The institution, flawed as it may be, becomes our enemy. Or "hippie, liberal, outside the institutional wall"-types become our enemy. Maybe 'enemy' is too strong...maybe they're just 'annoying' or 'worth ignoring.'

Reality check. People that have wounded us aren't loved, but despised. Some malfunction happens, then our private discussions or public rants about bad situations become breeding grounds of gossip and misunderstanding. Unbridled anger...misdirected communication... Separation. Clique building. Someone, somewhere getting bashed...abused...unforgiven. Where's the love when this kind of stuff happens?

In a similar vein... Is it unloving to go to a friend who's letting some "sin" invade their life and confront them about it? I had to confront a friend about alcoholism. It was tearing him apart from the inside out. Confronting him was the toughest thing I ever did. Was I unloving for calling him out on it? Was I being legalistic? Labeling sin as "sin," so to speak? In the end, he overcame his alcoholism (with a lot of help and people standing by him the whole time...not waiting in the shadows for him to get things right before they embraced him in friendship).

What of the guy who slept with girls he was leading to Christ in his college ministry? Was it unloving to want him to turn from that? All the preacher wanted was for everyone to forgive him with no consequence for his actions. So that's what people did. And the guy STILL abused his position/influence to seduce girls. Oddly, it's because we loved the guy and the girls he'd taken advantage of and wanted to see them heal and didn't want to see this stuff totally destroy this guys' ministry, which, in the end, it did.

The problem is that though you and I know love is an action - and that Christ's love ought to induce a life-changing dynamic response within us - the depth of that love is often tougher than most people want to admit or accept. On the one hand, love is the easiest thing in the world to do. On the other, it's the hardest...because love - as sin's enemy, as you put it - doesn't merge with sin at all. Love builds; sin tears down. Love saved us; sin kills us. Christ-love is inherently holy; sin (we) are not.

So when I see people claiming "love" in that free-love, hippie way that seems to acommodate sin, I question whether that love is truly of Christ. In that instance, I think love has become a crutch - not a Christ-like love, but a cop out...a hippie love disguising itself as Christ-like love where sin is not love's enemy, but an excusable diversion.

To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus demonstrated a love towards her that saved her very life and sent her legalistic pursuers packing. But he still challenged her to "sin no more." Jesus was indeed the embodiment of love, and his love for this woman shut the mouths of her accusers AND - at the same time - desired to see the woman free of her sins.

Underneath all of this thinking, I do not believe for one second that following rules can remove sin from your life. Mainly because it's a heart condition. But rules - as they're presented in Scripture - can be indicators of the difference between right and wrong...litmus tests of whether we're loving God and others or loving ourselves. If we truly are flawed beings, then we need some guidance in this area. I think that's why God gave us law in the first place... In a sense, the 10 commandments themselves are simply guidelines to show us how we are to love God (i.e., have no other gods before him) and how we are to love others (and not do things like, um, kill them).

...

Yes, we are all flawed. I don't think that means everything we know is heresy (it can't all be wrong, even if it is incomplete...discernment and seeking the truth for ourselves is vital to wading through the waters where truth is clouded by generations of traditionalism and cultural contamination).

I've danced all over the place with regards to my church involvement. I've been a thoroughly modern-influenced traditionalist (I grew up in a strong Southern Baptist environment). It's no coincidence that shortly after that I rejected institutional church in all its forms and refused to attend anywhere (God was more evident to me as I rode a mountain bike atop a mountain on a fall morning than he was in the halls of church). I've embraced 'religion' as rigid as Calvinism and the Westminster Catechism. I've embraced liberalism, thanks to a few years of very liberal education at Mercer Univ.

Yet here I am - the music leader in a local church that is striving as best it can to be effective in reaching people. I have not wound up where I am today because of happenstance or because I have blindly accepted everything thrown at me. My faith today is the result of a lot of soul-searching, a lot of mistakes, a lot of wounds, and - at the heart of it - a lot of patience. And, as I should be, I'm still on that journey. So take what I say or blog about not as gospel (of course you won't), but as my journey. It has led me here. All I can hope is that something I write might help a person or two along the way who stumble across a path or two I've been down.

2:09 AM  
Blogger video said...

yeah, i'm with you.

and i did realize the depth of what i was saying. that's why i distinguished between the two 'loves' being talked about.

love is odd and dynamic and hard to understand a lot. i'm also not saying that we are in it all the time, i was just saying that instead of pushing rules and guidelines that have a tendancy of shoving checklists that people follow exactly, shove a deeper understanding of what love is at people.

love doesn't make everyone hug, though. love wasn't, in my opinion, what was shown to the dude screwing those girls. love for the girls would be enough reason to let him be removed from his position. love for him should be enough to not let him make a mockery of himself as a horney freak. i think that someone suffering from a crippling addiction should be approached with love.

there are going to be times when someone approaches someone else (in love) to help them, but only help them out of a problem they feel they should correct. when, in reality, there isn't a problem from the other persons pov. e.g. i have a friend who has a situation where there is a person that constantly tries to 'help' that person but criticizes them because they choose 'alcohol over god.' he isn't an alcoholic, doesn't actually even drink that much, and doesn't get drunk. ?? so, clearly, we aren't going to be in constant agreement. for those times i think life requires that we love people even if they don't change to adapt what we feel like christ wants for them (which is arrogant enough). but for the aforementioned problems, i do agree that something was required.

also, there are many things people will disagree about, and even if love is present, people will develop bad relationships (even if it's one sided, it's still there). i don't necessarily see a problem with that in scripture. i see people having that relationship with jesus. i see jesus, seemingly not caring at times whether they will feel loved by his actions and words, loving them by putting out the truth. of course, jesus was god, and had the wisdom to truly see what truth and love would be in every situation. we only can be a pale reflection of that.

anyway, yeah. we are in agreement. and i'm sure it's just semantics... but i would just rather teach people what true love is and call it that, than teach them rules. plus the more rules you give people, that's less decisions they make on their own, it's less communication with god they have to seek out on their own. it's less being led by the spirit, more pre-made, boxed up situational answers applied across the board, relative or not. a deeper understanding of love would show people not to sleep around - not because it doesn't feel good and fun and free love - but because of the bond it makes with people and the depth of the responsibility you have with that person. but, too many times you just hear - hey, don't have sex till ya tie the knot. sadly, we have answered with a lazy parental, "do it cause god said so!" without giving obvious reasoning behind how god shows us to love. i.e. the ten commandments.

cool discussion. sometimes i think we are from different planets, other times i think we just use words completely differently and relate more than i realize.

8:41 AM  
Blogger Kevin said...

Semantics... Man, nothing can divide more than two people looking at the same thing not knowing they're looking at the same thing, because they use different words to describe it.

For most people, to sin is to break a rule. Sure, the bible's full of rules and law. No wonder people (like the Pharisees in Scripture) get hung up on the leter of the law and miss the spirit of the law.

For me, sin is not a rule violation. It'd be better to call it "rebellion," ...okay, maybe that's too stereotyped, too...but it needs to be described as something that is more interpersonal in its connotation vs. simple "lawbreaking." At its heart, sin is rejection of God... It is a self-turned focus that is void of love for God and - ultimately - others.

But when I say 'sin,' I know most people immediately default to first interpretation. That's unfortunate, but it's something I need to be careful about as I seek to articulate such a weighty subject.

Semantics...

Take another example... back in the earliest days of Crosspoint, I was trying to start a 'small group.' (even before I did that thing at my house). The immediate reaction I got from people was a loud, "No!" "Never again!" For them, a small group was a bunch of people hanging around in a boring pseudo-Sunday school "holy huddle" that was not friendly to outsiders and really as far from being fun as you could get. Such was their experience. I couldn't blame them for their knee-jerk reaction.

For me, however, small groups were great places to hang with friends. To learn together...to talk...discuss things...open-minded... Real friendships...people you could rely upon. A small group helped us get food for our wedding when Stacey's mother dumped us financially. Another small group pooled money to buy a guy a car who'd just gotten out of jail and his own car was flattened by a tree after a tornado. Another small group consoled a woman for weeks who'd just lost her 11-year-old daughter to a fatal seizure.

They weren't holy huddles. Though some parameters of Bible study and meeting times and all that were around the edges, they were deeper than their form, if you get my meaning.

I think we'd overcome a lot in our churches...or even just in relationships with other Christians...if we were all mature enough to weigh in what words mean for people. Give people a little room to breathe, rather than just knee-jerk react to the words they say/speak, simply because they use words that may have negative connotations for us. We might find more common ground to stand on... more to relate to...

I had this professor at Beeson who, by all accounts, had the walk/talk and appearance of a bible-thumping, hardcore evangelist from the 60s/70s. He commonly wore a green blazer with khakhi or blue pants, complete with tie. His mannerisms were very "look at me, I'm a preacher." I always expected him to launch into some turn-or-burn sermon because he always used words like "evangelism," "revival," "church growth," and "gospel tracts" when he spoke. He seemed a true - and a bit frightening - product of modern church culture and evangelistic method, so I dreaded taking classes from him. But if I had let my perceptions/interpretations of him rule the day, I'd never have known that he was a man of a lot of depth. He didn't simply use big churchy words like a car salesman uses words like "warranty" or "invoice" or "best deal." He used them like a skilled warrior wielding strange tools like gospel tracts that he knew how to use in a way that demonstrated a huge love for people, a massive forgiving heart, and a great realization of his own shortcomings in the (then coming) 21st century church. He really wasn't trying to teach us his 'methods' at all, but his heart to reach/connect with people. Though a product of Billy Graham and big revival movements of the 60s/70s, he was more interested in the (at the time) contemporary efforts of Rick Warren and others who were pioneering (key word) new ways to do church and connect with people. For him, heart drives innnovation in our mission. I'm glad I didn't freak out at his green blazer and use of gospel tracts too much...or I would have missed the depth he had to offer as a teacher and the open-mindedness he had towards new things.

I'm not trying to be big-headed about this semantics thing. I freak out at stuff, too.

But imagine where dialogue could take us if we took the time to understand where people are coming from and what words meant for them? It wouldn't solve everything...sometimes I'm sure we'd scratch the surface to find exactly what we're afraid of underneath. But it'd be nice to take the time to make sure.

Maybe we all wouldn't be so splintered/wounded/'factionalized' if we were to do that.

12:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home