Pretty Sure Love Won

I finally read Love Wins.  If you are wondering why it took me…almost 3 years to read it, it’s because I’m not a Rob Bell fan.  I don’t want to get this twisted – I didn’t/don’t have a problem with Rob Bell, I’m just not a fan.  He always struck me as someone who said irrelevant provocative things to stir emotions to make the relevant message more emotionally charged.

But that goes to fandom and enjoyment of his work, not a commentary on what he says.  And I don’t always agree with what he says.  I’m by no means a hard-lined conservative or literalist, but I feel like his relationship with scripture as a written instruction in faith is…looser? weaker? more fluid? insert your own word?…than mine.  But he also probably knows scripture as an academic study more than I do, so I just say I disagree.

I digress.  Why I wrote this post is because a couple of…weeks? months?…ago I read a post about how the evangelical churches have done their best to crucify (we should really use a different word, people!) him for Love Wins and how he just doesn’t appear to care.  He’s just doing his thing, sharing the love of God and preaching the scriptures.

I’m quite positive he does care – more people aren’t so self-confident and self-sure to just not care that the opposition has tried to do to your public perception and humble at the same time – but he didn’t let him stop doing what he believes God has called him to do.

But this post isn’t even about that.  All it’s about is the book, or rather the response to the book.  I read the article, I got on the Amazon, I found a used copy that was Prime eligible, and I read it.

I don’t understand why anyone freaked out about it.  Yes, it is a little bit more liberal than my interpretation, I could have done without the artsy styling, I think he could have been a bit deeper, but he uses scripture, and nothing he says is actually that radical.

His whole premise – as far as I can discern – is to interpret these things through the lens of a loving God.  I’m not going to go into it into depth here – maybe another time after another reading – but the things I remember thinking were missing were punishment as love (and maybe I missed it; I found myself skimming a bit more than I wanted to) and the good desire for piety and seeking righteousness in our lives, even if we can’t attain it.

But he asks some really good questions about the nature of judgement and confession and eternal damnation.  And he asked them through the lens of evaluating a God that is loving first and foremost.  Can a loving God condemn someone who committed a sin and then was plowed into by a train?  Can a loving God condemn someone who was only taught selfish desires and never had a chance to learn a more loving way?  Can a loving God condemn us if we don’t understand sin?  Will a loving God condemn us if we commit this sin but not if we commit that sin?

The specifics of the book I found myself disagreeing with occasionally – though asking me for those specifics is a futile task because I read it during Holy Week and funeral planning – but the whole theme is one that I’ve been pushing in this blog, in my preaching, in my ministry, and in my life.

We have a loving God, people.  There are groups that preach that message, but in the same breath preach a message where God seems to enjoy sending those dirty sinners to Hell.  There is a theme of making sure people know that they are sinners but excluding the ultimate relief in Jesus Christ.  Some of the Church and Body of Christ finds itself to be a Good Friday church instead of being an Easter/Pentecost church.  So much focus on the sins and how screwed up we are – and we really are, trust me – without much focus on despite that, we are saved and loved.

As I read the book, I could understand why you could possibly not like it – I tried to like it, and I loved the premise, but I found myself underwhelmed – and I could see you disagreeing with it – like I said, I didn’t agree with every conclusion he made – but try as I might, I don’t understand why people started railing against Rob Bell after this book.  I don’t get it.

The only answer I can come up with is that there are people who want God to punish those dirty sinners, and this book strikes at the very soul of that theology.  It strikes me as awfully arrogant to be for a judgmental God, like somehow you, and those who think, act, and look like you, have an exclusive corner on the gift of Christ.  That is the only reason you would label Rob Bell a heretic after reading Love Wins.

I don’t get it.  I read the book thinking I would disagree with his premise and his thought process.  I avoided reading it because I didn’t care about another liberal book diminishing sin.  And I was wrong on both accounts.  I did find it anemic and a bit too trendy, but I, for the life of me, can’t imagine why anyone would freak out over this book.

Unless you want a God that judges the sins of others.*

The premise of this post is simply that.  The crucifixion of Rob Bell seems to be worded correctly if you truly believe he is a heretic over this book.  The only reason you would have that big of a problem with him is if you want God to judge someone else.  To use the same story that Bell uses in the book, you have to believe that the older brother was right in The Prodigal Son to really want to bash him for this book.

The book shouldn’t even be controversial.  Heck, I’m of the opinion it shouldn’t have even raised eyebrows; it wasn’t really that groundbreaking or crazy.  Had he written a theological book (this wasn’t) and ignored scripture (he didn’t) and said Hell didn’t exist and sin didn’t exist (he didn’t, again), then maybe.  But this wasn’t it.

Three days after Easter I am writing this.  Yesterday I performed a funeral for a woman whom I only met two days before Alzheimer’s took her life.  Both times I preached of salvation and heaven and Christ’s resurrection.

I’m pretty sure love won.  That’s what Rob Bell wrote about, and I agree with that.

So I can’t have a post about Rob Bell without mentioning the last bit of controversy.  You know, how he supposedly trashed the Bible?

Didn’t happen.  Again, I think if we want to have an adult debate and conversation about the theological statements that he makes, it’s perfectly fine to disagree with him.  But he isn’t watering down scripture as much as you want to believe he is because he interprets differently.  I looked up the exact quote people are freaking out about and here it is

“I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and co-workers and neighbors, and they love each other and just want to go through life,

Is he implying that the here and now trumps scripture?  No.  Read it again and you see that he says letters.  Which means he said the epistles, but he always uses the vernacular of the people who are seeking, not the clergy and the choir.

Tear that down a bit.  The Gospels, which is the lens we read all of scripture through, remain in tact.  The Old Testament, as much as can stay in tact because after Jesus, stays in tact.  He says that the epistles, which were letters written by men to churches 2000 years ago, are not a solid defense for not allowing people who love one another to be with one another.

I want you to think about this for a second.  Any exegetical study is lacking if it does not include the context of which the letter was written.  When he says letters written 2000 years ago, he is saying that they were written in a different world.  God is timeless and the message of Christ is timeless; the message of men is not.

(Side-note, I’m not using sexist language.  I’m being quite literal; we are using the letters of men 2000 years ago – not all people but men in leadership.  I don’t think that distracts from their efficacy or their eligibility for presence in canon but it contributes to their context for interpretation.)

We have to consider what kinds of actions Paul – because let’s be honest, that’s who we’re talking about – is actually addressing, if they are relevant to the current conversation, or if it is a different matter of practice.  Not going to get into the discussion here, but let’s just be honest about what Rob Bell said.

He said that we can’t use letters written 2000 years ago as our justification for doing painful, hurtful, or judgmental things.  We can’t.

He isn’t wrong on the major point no matter how much you want him to be.  He doesn’t trash scripture, he doesn’t even imply that scripture is bad.  He just said that we can’t use the words in the epistles, written in a different world, as justification for actions that they don’t prescribe as response to actions they don’t address.

But you have to be fair, treat everyone as they are doing the best they can, that you aren’t somehow holier than they are, and you can’t label people heretics who read scripture faithfully different than you do.  That isn’t debate; that is arrogance.  It’s the same response Mark Achtemeier received after he defended Scott Anderson, and I know that Mark is faithful to scripture and a faithful theologian.  He didn’t trash scripture or even diminish it in the slightest.

The whole point, I believe, of this point is to get to an idea that those who violently disagreed with Love Wins want a God that saves them and judges people who disgust them.  The problem is that we shouldn’t be disgusted with others** but with ourselves.  If God is punishing all the dirty sinners, we are screwed, and screwed royally.***  So if we are championing that God, we are championing being sent to Hell ourselves.

Not the God I worship, and if that is the real God, I guess I don’t worship that God.

Now time to wrestle up some grub and then maybe write the food piece.

Peace,

– Robby


* The only major criticism of the theology of the book I can get behind is the lack of piety in it.  I don’t know if piety needed to even be addressed – and frankly, the lack didn’t bother me that much – but it isn’t there, and a conversation about Heaven and Hell without Christian living and piety seems to be lacking.  Again, though, that is my opinion and not something to start calling people not pastors over.

** There are certain actions that repulse us from a biological or cultural standpoint; I’m talking about Christian disgust, not physical or psychological disgust.  Those are different things, which I wonder if that gets at the heart of the issue more than everything else I wrote.

*** Super-Reform here.  I know our Methodist brothers and sisters might disagree, but that’s a MUCH DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.  MUCH DIFFERENT!

I Just Don’t Have Words

I am not quite sure how to address this.  Last week I wrote the piece that I wrote.  You know where I am on how people are responding.  But my comments where much more about the philosophical and political response, the words and practices of what is being done about church associations and a unified body of Christ.

So I want to make sure that I am absolutely clear.  The people that I responded to last week are not who I’m responding to today.

I woke up this morning to see that 4 churches were threatened with violence because of the decision that was made.  Literally, somebody threatened to burn the churches down in this area, not because the pastors were doing anything (or that they even can because it isn’t legal in Missouri) but because of the decision of the national church.  I have words, but they ring hollow.  I can write how this is antithetical to scripture, how it is antithetical to Jesus, how it makes no sense, but that is my desire to make sense of a senseless threat.All I can do is pray for peace in the hearts of those who send threats like this, safety for those who are threatened, and a sense of love and unity that transcends our Earthly desires.  I can’t make sense of it, as I shouldn’t.  I just pray for peace and love.

– Robby

The Need for Unity and Love

Let’s dive right in.  Last night is was announced that Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) 14-F will pass.  The vote is unofficial as of this moment, but enough presbyteries have responded to show that it will pass.

What is Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) 14-F?  It is the amendment that allows pastors who believe that same-sex marriage is something that can be blessed by God to perform same-sex marriages in jurisdictions that it is legal (and perform ceremonies blessing civil unions already created) and sessions to use their facilities for such ceremonies.  To do this, it redefines marriage to be between two people instead of a man and a woman.

Now, if you are wondering why I wrote that as a description of something humdrum and rote, it’s because I don’t particularly care about the decision. I could make it all sensationalized, write it in a way that charges the emotions and sets your battling heart afire, but this, to me, is not that big of a decision. It does not compel any action whatsoever. Pastors who want to refuse to have any part of same-sex marriages are empowered to do so. Any sessions that want to categorically deny the use of their facilities for same-sex marriages can do so. Pastors and sessions who believe God can bless and be present and the third person in a same-sex marriage can do so. It is freeing, not compelling.  Anyone can treat it as the same interpretation as it was before if they desire.  It simply takes the decision of conscious and put it in the hands of sessions and pastors instead of the General Assembly.

I happen to believe that our restrictions on same-sex marriage hold a lot less biblical weight than a restriction on second marriages after divorce would and are a symptom of discomfort, not strong morality. I think we should be seeking, as churches, to be welcoming people who want Christ to be part of their lives to invite Christ into every facet of their lives and because same-sex civil union (legal marriage, which I think should be the term for all contracts that bound two people, not just same-sex) will soon be nation-wide and likely federally recognized, we should act in a way that opens the door for the Spirit to work within all couples that are legally bound and have Christ bless all unions. Call me crazy, but forcing people to seek Spiritual care, counsel, and guidance elsewhere because of homosexuality strikes me as antithetical to the message of love in the gospel.

That’s what I think about the decision. That’s my answer, as I am able to state it right now.  I wrote that before I had even gotten out of my pajamas, before I had any coffee, I spent the day working on a sermon and worship prep, and my position hasn’t changed.  That’s what I think of the decision.

But, as I said, I don’t particularly feel strongly about it.  I don’t think it as historical of an issue for the church as everyone feels it is, and I think our desire to make it historical has more to do with emotions and right now than it does with 20 years from now.  But that’s me.

You know what I do care about, though?  Hatred and disunity in my church.

If you read that post I wrote last week, you had a glimpse into the struggles I’ve had getting ordained.  There were multiple times I contemplated leaving this church that I love so much because the ordination process was killing my faith.  There were times that I felt this church that raised me and helped me grow was pushing me out and wanted nothing to do with my ministry.  I had to choose to be here, to fight to be there, and sacrifice time in my career (and likely some of Nora’s career) to stay in this church.  And I’m on the right path now, I see a light at the end of the tunnel – and the tunnel isn’t nearly as dark as it used to be – and ordination no longer feels like a pipe dream but an eventuality if I’m willing to work for it.

I had to fight to stay here, though.  I chose to be in this church, and made that decision multiple times when it felt like it was the wrong decision.  I would not have done that if I didn’t love this church, love God, and worship a savior through Biblical means.

Here is what I’ve seen my church do since the passing of 10-A in 2010 and affirmation by presbyteries in 2011:

Disunity and Hatred

I decided to visit the websites of the two PC(USA) groups that fall on the radical ends of the spectrum – the Covenant Network and the Layman – to see what each had to say.  The Covenant Network had a simple letter expressing joy that the measure they had worked to get passed had come to fruition yet understanding that it would create a rift between Presbyterians and hope that the conversation between them could continue.  In honesty, I thought it was a classy gesture and expressed joy while recognizing that not all would be celebrating.

I can’t fault them for that.  They faithfully believed this was the action that God was calling them to, and the celebrated in having it pass.  It’s the same as celebrating victory in an election.

I wanted to present a balanced account of how people were responding and yet I couldn’t because the response wasn’t balanced.  Covenant Network’s letter was about unity and not compelling any action.

When I visit the Layman, I was horrified as I was in 2011 to see how they responded.  I want to give them a benefit of the doubt, that they truly believe that this is so antithetical to Biblical teachings that all who agree with it should be labeled as heretics and stop being called pastors.  (To the Layman’s benefit, much of my horror was from the comment section and not the letter – though the letter wasn’t exactly unifying, either – but those comments point to a mentality.)  I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt when I read nothing but judgement – not admonition or disagreement – in their response.

I can’t understand it because I know people who were fighting this battle on the side that won.  I know pastors who have fought this battle from day one who are biblical teachers, well read and knowledgable and faithful.  I know scholars who have spent a considerable amount of time with the scriptures, the historical context of the words, and the style of literature each book is made up of, and come to conclusions that aren’t just well reasoned but faithful and Spirit-filled, in my opinion.

I know these people.  Some of these people are the reason I’m still in the process and didn’t jump ship.  Some of them have radically changed by views through use of the scriptures – the whole scriptures.  They have made me better at preaching, better at interpreting, better at every facet of ministry.  I am three or four times the pastor I would have been had I just been with people who agreed with me.  I still disagree with many of them – MANY – but I am better, and hopefully they are, too, because we butted heads.

So when I see people calling these faithful, loving, well-read, and Bible-followers heretics, evil, non-pastors, or anything other than loving Christian leaders, I get incredibly angry and I see a symptom of our fallenness.  We desire to be right so much that when we think we are right and the majority disagree with us, instead of seeking to find a way to reconcile that, and reconcile back with each other, we lash out and act in hatred instead of love.

That is unacceptable.  I had a list of people who I believed where literally pushing me out of the PC(USA) for no reason other than they didn’t like me.  Those feelings lead me to lash out at the process – not necessarily the wrong things to say in the situation, but certainly not done in a pastoral way to people who were judging my fitness for pastoral ministry – and that lashing out rightly risked me being removed from the process.  Everything that lead up to it was wrong, but my lashing out made it worse, and needlessly so.

Lashing out of emotion is not helpful.  It may feel good in the moment – I know it did for me – but it does nothing but create hostility.  If you are going to claim that your lashing out is because of something in scripture, show me in the same book of 66 pieces of literature where lashing out of emotion is how to reconcile differing opinions.

The other response from the losing side I see is the victim status.  I could spend hours dissecting that and saying why I think it is childish and baseless, but I’m going to say this:

Nothing in this decision compels anyone to do anything, and no one made this decision outside of their understanding of scripture.  You don’t get to claim victim status if it has no effect on your ministry and wasn’t an attack on your beliefs.

All teaching elders require seminary education, and there isn’t a PC(USA) seminary that doesn’t have exegesis courses.  We may not all agree on the path of interpretation, but we all have a strong background in interpretation because of our educations and the heritage we come from.  No one is a heretic in this situation – conservative or liberal.  You can’t make that claim every time you lose; you have to be an adult about it.

Fight for the next 100 GA’s.  Create resolutions every two years.  Discuss and debate passionately and peacefully.  Spend time honing your Biblical, theological, and historical arguments, and make them stronger so your position can become the majority position.  I encourage it; that’s how we grow.

What you cannot do, period, is claim that anyone who disagrees with you does not follow Christ.  It’s not fair, and you know it.

The other half of victim status is presbyteries who are making it difficult for churches to leave the denomination.  I’ve seen it a couple of times today, and I just want to address it like this:

I think leaving a denomination, further splintering the Body of Christ, is the wrong action.  Period.  If you can show me where we are supposed to fracture and splinter over disagreements of teachings and faithful interpretation in scripture, I will delete this whole thing and publicly shame myself.  But it’s not there.

We are one Body.  One.  I support presbyteries who make it difficult for congregations to leave – especially over an issues that have no effect on ministries that don’t want to have an effect on them – because we preach unity.

If the decisions today were to compel pastors to perform the ceremonies and sessions to allow them under their roof, then I would think the splintering was done to the congregations.  As it is now – and has been stated as the goal all along – the decision is to lie with the teaching elders and sessions.  You can be blunt about disagreeing, vocal about not doing it, put it in bylaws.  You are not forced to be something you cannot faithfully be, and splintering because effectively nothing changed for you is unacceptable and an emotional response.

And again, if it were truly heresy, then it would no longer represent the Body of Christ.  As it is, we also ordain women and allow women to enter the church while menstruating and eat shrimp and say slavery is bad and no longer have concubines and polygamy, all of which is from scripture.  This isn’t a heretical decision much like saying slavery is bad wasn’t a heretical decision; it is an interpretation of scripture, done faithful and humbly.

We cannot become splintered because of this.  We can’t just run away every time we don’t get our way.  Some of us fought to serve this church and find it offensive that people are willing to split because a decision didn’t go their way.

And ignoring my selfishness, that isn’t the way we show love to one another.  If you truly believe something is evil, you stick around and lovingly try to fix it.  If you believe someone has erred, you admonishing them lovingly, from a position of humility, and seek to reconcile.  You don’t respond out of hate, disunity, and a desire to break apart.

We are called to be One Body, and confess to One God.  Maybe we should worry a little bit more about that and not a decision of conscious being given to the individual churches instead of a mandate from on high.

Breathe in.  Breathe out.  Pray my sermon – which is completely irrelevant to this blog post – is actually Spirit filled and not just me blabbering for 15 minutes tonight.

In Christ and out of love,

– Robert

I did something pretty

One day I got distracted by Illustrator.  I had this concept in my head for about a week and I wanted to realize it in a real way.

It started with this first one:

AlienwmI liked it, but I guess I decided he was a bit exclusive.  Not only boys have broken hearts.  Thus:Alien2wmAnd I was pleased.  But then I realized, if they have identical hearts, and their both broken, maybe they can put them together and be happy with each other.  Because I’m sappy and all:

Alien3wmYeah, this blog is literally anything from day to day.  Thus, I have an “Irrelevancies” category, but this is relevant to nothing.  But I like it!

It made me smile.  I suppose this is my moment of delight this week.

To doing something fun, even if you are amazing at it…

– Robby

P.S.: Probably won’t be relevant but obviously these are my work and I reserve all rights to them.  If I see them off this blog, I better see/be able to click a link back here.

Struggling with Isaiah 6:9

So if you saw the beginning of the most horrifying and nerve-wracking thing I’ve ever done the Sermon Podcast, you saw that I preached on Luke 5:4-15 on Sunday.  If you listened to it (you did listen to it, didn’t you?), you know that I focused on the metaphor of the soils, like every other preacher in the world does.  For the sermon, that is where the focus had to be, but there was something that I didn’t get to address in this sermon that has been stuck in my craw since exegeting the passage.

Read Luke 8:10 and then Isaiah 6:9, which is what Jesus is referencing in the Luke verse.  Read the surrounding context.  Then you tell me if that makes you feel good.

No?  Doesn’t feel great?  Feels pretty crappy, actually?  Great, then you are where I was.

I really struggled with this.  The idea of making the entire sermon about that one verse briefly crossed my mind because of just how difficult I find that verse.  It strikes me as deliberately deceptive.  If I reworded that honestly using just English translations, I would word it as, “I’m talking in parables so other are confused and don’t understand, and it will blind them so they don’t see the glory of God.”

If you want to scream shenanigans at this sort of method, I agree with you.  I have always had a problem with deceptive preaching and deceptive teaching.  I know preachers who will start a sermon by preaching at the congregation believes and they attach those beliefs with “true” teachings – though, oddly, those “true” teachings often come down to interpretive issues, not strong immorality – and, though effective, is also rather condescending and self-righteous.  I can see validity in this method for humble prophetic messages – an emphasis on “humble” and “prophetic” – but for standard correction of teaching, I think this is unacceptable.

To address those who may say it’s really effective, I make my congregation question their beliefs regularly (for the sake of questioning, not necessarily because they are wrong) and search for deeper, truer truths and beliefs closer to Christ’s actual call in the gospel, and I’m straight and honest about it.  I don’t like being deceived or lied to, and that shows in my preaching.

Okay, off my rant horse for a bit.  I just have a problem with this who idea of hiding the message.  So, as a good exegete and horrible procrastinator, I went down the rabbit hole of Isaiah 6:9.  I looked at the Hebrew (and learned how rusty my Hebrew skills have become) and tried to rationalize a different translation.  I’ll tell ya, my BibleWorks is set up with many good and different translations and I couldn’t come to a different translation than I already had in front of me that got me past this hang-up and to a point where I wanted to pull a Thomas Jefferson and start cutting verses I didn’t like out of the Bible.

So how do I deal with this?  What am I missing?

When you don’t understand something, ask someone for help.  In life, that usually means a call to a trusted elder, in career, a trusted mentor.  In biblical exegesis, though, we don’t often have that person who was can call.  Instead, we have to hope someone has written something somewhere that will answer our questions and not make more1.  So I looked up at my book shelf, saw an Isaiah commentary that I bought cheap and haven’t used yet, and found the entry on 6:8-11.

Baumgartel, by way of Otto, wrote something in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament that started to chip away at this very difficult passage:

Every word of the prophet will merely make them (his hearers) even wiser in their human thoughts, and will make them more determined not to abandon their human attitude, in which they consider they are so firm and unassailable2.

At the moment I read it, it put the idea to rest enough for me to abandon it at the moment and go back to sermon writing.  Sermon came out fast, I got all of my worship materials finished, and I rewarded myself with a beer.  Life was good.

At the same time, I still struggled with that one verse.  Even when I was standing at the pulpit, trying to impress visitors and preach something better because I was recording, this verse caught me up.  I glossed it over, as my sermon needed, but I still find it festering in the back of my mind.

So Wednesday, days removed from the sermon and the next sermon leering from the distance, I’m still wondering about this verse.  What does it mean?

Look back at what Baumgartel said.  When I read these verses, I get stuck on the speaker.  I get stuck on how it seems that the speakers intent is to deceive and condemn.  If you look around this blog, or hear my sermons, I focus a lot on love, and that is certainly not a loving act.

I get stuck on the speaker and I don’t even consider the ears that are hearing it.  I don’t consider that they may not be in a position to hear what they need to hear, or that these teachings are going to turn them off.  I want so badly for every prophet to have the success of Jonah but that isn’t the case3.

God wasn’t telling Isaiah to make the people daft and to make reject the message. He was telling Isaiah to go to the people and preach the message even though they would refuse to understand it and refuse to see it. It seems like a bit of a stretch, but it works and here’s why:

God isn’t above being a bit passive-aggressive.  Read it like this: Listen, even though you won’t understand; watch, even though you won’t see.  It’s subtle, and I would listen to arguments that this doesn’t paint God in the best light, but it’s there.

This may seem weird, but read it through the lens of Nineveh.  If the Judeans would have approached Isaiah’s message with humility, God probably would have changed His mind.  If they had heard the message, and I mean heard it in their hearts and not just the physical and intellectual act of hearing.  If they were humble enough to recognize their own flaws, they could have avoided this.  If they would have understood that they were fallible, they could have avoided this.  If they had repented, they could have avoided this.

If Isaiah were to go to humble people and give this message, they would change.  He isn’t going to humble people, and so his message will do nothing but shut them off and make them fall deeper down the hole that leads to the exile.  In the command in Isaiah 6:9, God is telling Isaiah to say, “Listen to me even though you will hear and not understand; watch as I teach and even though refuse to see the message.”  Yes, it sets them up for condemnation and assumes it before he even starts, but, again, though the lens of Nineveh, they aren’t condemned until it is over.  God just knows their hearts, and knows the outcome.

Back to Luke.  What exactly is Jesus saying here?  I’m going to conjecture a bit here, but I think, when we read “disciples” in the gospels, we wrongly assume it’s only to the 12.  In all honesty, we have no reason to assume that.  There are multitudes there, and Gingrich (according to BibleWorks) says that we can, in practice, use the word “Christian” to translate “μαθητης”4 in Acts, even if it isn’t the best literal translation, which means we can probably assume that this means something more than the 12.  So, when Jesus is saying this, he is saying that those who are followers have been shown and will be taught; those who aren’t will be confused and refuse to learn.  He isn’t being intentionally deceptive; just that his teaching allude those who are unwilling to follow.

Kind of, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink no matter how hard you whip it.”  Something like that.

So there you go.  If you have ever wanted to see what it’s like in my mind when I exegete, there you have it.  If not, then why did you read this whole thing?

To curiosity in exegesis, not just the task at hand,

– Robby


1Just need to say that getting more questions than answers is great as a mental exercise and desiring that a philosophical position, but it screws with sermon writing.  You can’t say, “I don’t know” at the end of a sermon more than a couple of times a year before they start asking why they need to listen to you say your understand isn’t any greater than theirs.  Even if we are humble, teachers have to accept and act within the authority they have, even if it requires speaking in truths instead of questions.

2Kaiser, Otto. The Old Testament Library – Isaiah 1-12.  (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1972).  p. 83.

3I love Jonah. Even though he runs away, gets swallowed by the whale, begrudgingly preaches the prophetic message, and wants so badly for the people to be condemned, they still turn it around and follow God. Makes me smile, even if Jonah was a bit of a drama queen about it.

4What I could do in WordPress for Greek word. I know it’s missing an accent; sue me.

Brother’s Gaga

I had a roommate in seminary whose name was Joe Obermeyer.  We called him Jober.  He was a good friend.

We used to go on guy dates all the time.  Subway was an occasional spot but we found ourselves eating tacos and drinking margaritas as Los Aztecas quite a bit.  On weeks that Nora worked the weekend, we would have our guy time; when she was available, he would often join us for dinner.

I spent a lot of time in the Jober.  We were younger guys, I was unmarried and him single, our ministries were both local, and we found ourselves with a small amount of free time that others in our seminary community didn’t have.

Long story short, we spent a lot of time together.

All of that was to tell this story.  This was around the time that “Bad Romance” had gotten popular and we had a song that we sang together constantly that went something like this:

WOAHOAHOAHOAHOAHOAHOAHOAHOAHOAH!  Caught in a bad bromance!

It was our theme song. As we marched into the Mexican restaurant, cheap margaritas and tacos on our minds, this song was always on our lips.  I’m pretty sure our roommate Matt, Nora, and anyone else who had to hear us this these few lyrics sang over and over again wanted to murder us, but we sang it forever.

I miss my friend.  He is rocking it in North Dakota, living the dream and serving God, so we don’t get to see each other very often, but it is always a great time when we do.

I will always remember my “Bad Bromance” and the stupid song rewrite that we did.  I’m sure more than a view people had honest considerations of murder.

But it is such a good memory.  Nothing big, nothing crazy, just brings a smile to my face.

To cheap Mexican food and margaritas!

– Robby

Who am I?

I ask myself this question more than the average bear, I suppose.  I find myself wondering who it that I am from moment to moment.  I stand in a pulpit and I’m a teacher, and a teacher of the Word none the less.  I stand behind a camera and all of a sudden I’m back to a previous self that doesn’t understand how people blush at certain words and sound like I spent a considerable amount of time on a naval vessel.  Put a beer in front of me and I’m somewhere in between.  If I find myself behind a keyboard, all of a sudden I am forcing myself to be vulnerable.  In a meeting, I’m a closed vault of sorts.

At any moment, I have to decide which me is going to come through.  Actively decide.  I have to choose what level of vulnerability, brashness, and that intangible but always known “sailor talk” is appropriate in every moment.  I actually spend an inordinate about of time deciding if I need to go through and change every “hell” and “damn” I’ve put in this blog.

As much as I may want it to, it doesn’t make me unique.  Every adult has to do that.  Every person who ministers really has to do this.  If you stand at a pulpit, you are hyper-vigilant about it.  You have to decide how honest you are in the pulpit, on the street, and in the hospital room.  Do you show a bit of vulnerability at the risk of authority?  How do you balance that?

This has been weighing on me because I find myself wanting to be more honest and vulnerable from the pulpit.  I’m not desiring to make it my therapy session or a session to air my dirty laundry, but I still feel like there is a certain amount of “faking it” in my sermons.  I had a conversation with one of the ladies of the church after Sunday worship one week and we got to talking about my sermons and somehow it went to our imperfection.  I will never forget her words:

…when you talk about the bad things you’ve done in your sermons, you aren’t that bad.

“…not that bad.” I have to chuckle because I know myself, and I know the whole history. I smile because I know there are weeks that my exegesis is paired with a decent sized glass of bourbon. I chuckle because I think about editing a sermon while South Park is on in the background.  I shake my head because I think about the actual bad things I’ve done, and the things that I thought were really bad.  And I’m torn because I know that those facts shared from the pulpit in a pastoral way would make me more accessible to some people hearing my teachings and yet would drive away other that hear because I cannot meet a certain standard of “piety”, even if my not meeting that standard is a conscious, thought-out choice.

Again, though, this doesn’t make me unique.  If I lined up all of my pastor/preacher friends, I could similar conversations.  Maybe they don’t want to talk about their whiskey and entertainment choices, but maybe there is a bad decision they made or a horribly difficult life situation that they have to hide while in the pulpit that would open up relationships because of the vulnerability it shows and it makes the preacher, the teacher “real”.  The line of how vulnerable and “real” we are supposed to be while preaching, while teaching, and while interacting and providing care for those who we are charged with leading is not straight and changes in thickness, depending on the day, person, and situation.  An act of vulnerability can be too vulnerable, just right, or not vulnerable enough and not change in the slightest.

It’s a battle and “game” that anyone in a caring profession – ministry, counseling, or any others – play out every day, and find the ways to land on that line as often as possible.  Success in these fields requires it.  Period.

And it is freaking draining.  I’m not full-time in ministry at the moment, but even in the small bits of ministry that do come my way, I’m always torn.  Combine that with being on a media crew that is essentially a polar opposite of my church family and wanting to be the best “me” I can be to feed the souls in both groups the best that I can because I am a Christian and that is my interpretation of the call of the gospel (Feeding All Souls In Love) and it is exhausting because I don’t know when I am the real me.  After 27 years, 4 months, and 25 days, I don’t really know who I am.

… … …

Actually, yes I do.  I know exactly who I am.  I’m a God-worshiping beer drinker who cooks a bit too much, swears a bit too much, and loves as much as he can.  That’s who I am.  I think the reason I have to ask myself “Who am I?” constantly is because I don’t let myself be myself.  Sometimes I can’t be myself – cracking opening a beer at the pulpit is unacceptable, I think – and sometimes I don’t think I should be myself but this short, overweight, beer-loving preacher who curses and loves and gets distracted so easily (from the start of this sentence to now I’ve followed 6 new blogs….) and worships Jesus as much as he can and maybe relies on the Holy Spirit a bit too much on Sundays and tries really hard to be a good husband but falls short sometimes and really just wants to be real and vulnerable.

And that conflicts with who I have to be to feed some souls, and matches right up with other souls I feed.  And I want to feed them all.

So to respond to Ben Huberman’s prompt about our various “Me’s” colliding, I simply say, “Got 27 years, 4 months, and 25 days?  Because my life is defined by various versions of myself colliding with the real me.”

Who am I?  I am “Jesus, Beer, and My Tiny Kitchen” in human form; this blog is me in writing form.  Only person me messes up a whole lot more in the kitchen and written me cures a whole lot less.

To honesty, vulnerability, and beer,

– Robby

Seeking Unity

I realized a long time ago that, along with all of the writing I do here, I also do about 1500 words of writing every week for my sermon.  Most weeks they aren’t really something that translates that well into reading on a blog – or maybe I’m just over-critical – but this week I really liked when I wrote.  I also have had the idea of unity and disunity and wanted, at least subconsciously, to touch on the subject here.  It worked out perfectly, I suppose.

Here is my manuscript, edited a bit after I gave it yesterday:


The Unifying Act of Pentecost

Many gifts, one Body.  Many gifts, one Body.  Many gifts, one Body.  Many gifts, one Body.

Every year, when I approach my Pentecost sermon, I find myself focusing on the gifts of the individual.  Each one of us is part of the Body of Christ.  We have have a talent, a gift, a skill that we contribute to that Body.  We are each important.  Every year I tend to find myself focusing on the individuals.

That is a valid focus.  There will always be times that we find ourselves wondering if we are a necessary part of the Body of Christ.  Do we contribute?  Does Jesus actually desire us to be in his Body?  Can we even contribute to this Body?  What can we contribute?

Every year come to the same conclusion.  We each have gifts to share, we each have something that we contribute.  We each are part of the Body of Christ.  As faithful believers, we each have a roll that we play.  We fall short, we deny that role from time to time, but we each have a role in furthering Christ’s message, showing Christ’s love, and growing the Body of Christ.  We each are a part of the Body of Christ.

Every year I preach the same sermon.  Every year I talk about talents and gifts and how even the most miniscule act that do that is done in love and out of our faith in and love of Jesus Christ has radical effects.  A balloon has just a bit of air and yet it grows from something ugly, dull, and boring into something large, fun, and beautiful.  It does not take radical action to change the world.

Every year the same sermon.  I fear, though, that we miss something with that same sermon.  We need to reverse the lens that we are looking through.  We need to look not at each of us individually, but at the entire Body of Christ.  We need to do this because I’m afraid we miss an incredibly important part of the Pentecost day and what it did for our faith.

When we look at the Pentecost story, we see that Jews from every corner of the Earth, from every country, and in every language hearing the good news of Jesus Christ.  In this one act they were unified by hearing one Word.  They were one people connected to one message at one moment in time.  The Pentecost was as much a unifying act as it was an act of talent and gifts.  In that moment, the world of believers became one united Body of Christ.

Those who heard and understood were brought into the Body of Christ, becominf followers of the true Word of God expressed through Jesus.  They saw and heard the works of the Holy Spirit and were moved to follow Christ.  They were made better, their souls more whole, when they entered into the Body of christ.

It is better and joyful to be part of the Body of Christ.

Importantly, each of those who were brought into the Body of Christ were sinners.  Each had their flaws, each fell horribly short of the glory of God.  They were unworthy of being in this Body, and yet through Christ they were brought into one Body, showing mercy and love, and given their salvation.  Only faith, love, and submission to Christ was required.

No one was turned away, each was brought into the Body of Christ.

I see this outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the unifying actions of those who followed Jesus, the creation of a Body that requires only faith in Christ to be part of, and I cannot help but contrast it with the world we live in.  This world is not a world that is modeled after the actions of the Pentecost; it is the exact opposite of it.

When you look at politics, what do you see?  Do you see a unified Body working towards the good of the people, or a disunified Body whose concern is individual and selfish?  What do political ads say?  Do they speak to what good can be done, or what evil someone else has done?  What do we hear from our leaders?  Is it that they want to sacrifice for those who have elected them, or that they can help us if we just follow them and not that other person who has a different letter after their name?

But this goes beyond these divisions we’ve made for ourselves; we don’t just divide, we actively work to exclude people.  The world is set up in a way that we can only act like adversaries.  We are divided as “Us vs. Them” and the only ones who deserve to be part of the Body of Christ are the ones who fit in our “Us”.  The Body of Christ is universal and yet we like to see it as only those who minister like we do, talk like we do, and sin like we do.  Those other sinners have more black marks and different black marks on their souls so they cannot possibly be part of the Body of Christ.  They aren’t good enough.

We live in a world and we live lives that are anti-Pentecost.  We live in intentional disunity, we divide ourselves into groups that look and act and sound and sin the same, and we are glad to do it.

Glad to do it, joyful when we do it, and celebrative when it is done.

Disunity saddens me to a deep degree.  We are all called to be part of one Body and yet we are so divided.  If we disagree, we are more likely to battle, flee, or separate versus trying to solve the disagreement.  If something fails, we are ready to oust the person responsible and remove them from the Body.  If someone sins in a way that scares us, disgusts us, or just makes us feel uncomfortable, we are ready to cut their part of the Body of Christ away and make a more “pure” Body of Christ.  We are so ready to do this, so very ready.

Even denominations have the same issue.  I am not a huge fan of denominationalism as a whole, but I am even more angry at the denominations, my own Presbyterian Church included, that create more disunity in the Body of Christ over issues that are not that large, mostly issues that make people uncomfortable.  They split instead of trying to find a way to live within the same Body.  Martin Luther in no way wanted to divide the church and split it apart; he wanted change, he wanted discussion, but he realized that one of the calls of the gospel is unity within the Body.  His 95 Thesis was not supposed to be a wedge, even if the church treated it as one.

The Body of Christ is so divided, both as Christian bodies dividing themselves into fractured individual bodies and Christian churches denying entrance into the Body of Christ to those who are “different”, and those who contribute to this fracturing are denying everything about the Pentecost.  We were unified in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and we have done our best to deny that in our lives.

What is the solution, then?  What are we called to do?  We are divided, we are broken, we are fractured, and we live in a world of disunity; what are we supposed to do about it?

We can only work towards unity and wholeness of the Body of Christ in our own lives.  We need to recognize that all are called to the Body of Christ, including those whose ministries are different than our own, whose appearance is different than our own, and even those who sins are different than our own.  We have to act in a way that is accepting, loving, and unifies of the entire Body.  This is not to say that we need to turn a blind eye to sin but that sin does not exclude from the Body of Christ because of Jesus; we are redeemed, saved, and called to this Body despite of our shortcomings and our failures and our sins.  Christ makes us more than ourselves, and he makes everyone else more than themselves to be part of this one, unified Body.

Above all, the most unifying thing that we can do is love.  I talk about it every week, and I will every week.  One of the greatest things that Jesus gave us was an example of how to love.  Every action that we take must be made out of love, love of God and love of neighbor.  If we desire unity within our world, if we desire unity within the Body of Christ, we must love at every intersection and every waypoint.  We must love in everything we do.  We cannot have unity if we don’t.  Period.

We can only be unified if we love.  So love.  At all times and in all things.  Amen.


As always, comments encouraged (including homiletics comments if you are so inclined)!

To preaching the Word and being part of the Body of Christ,

– Robby

Lost Art of Freedom

I’m a tech person.  I love tech.  I’ve argued for tech.  I’ve seen the social media revolution as a great thing for humanity.  I’ve watched the internet destroy barriers and connect people in a way that science fiction writers could not dream up.  I won’t go so far as to say the entirety of human knowledge is available as my fingertips as I write this, but I would say we are getting pretty darn close to that.  A good friend of Nora and I’s was diagnosed with MDS and AML and I was able to go from knowing nothing about either to having a pretty decent basic crash-course in both within a few hours, including bleeding-edge information and treatment options.  Even this blog, which would have been a journal of an unknown man in times passed, is now available for the world to see.

All of this sounds great, but it gets even better when you start to dissect is a bit more.  Information is power, and information is freedom.  The more you know and the more you have access to learn (or access as necessary), the more freedom you have.  If you are not reliant on the powers to know, learn, and grow, if you are not reliant on archaic structures for learning and education, if you can learn anything you want because everything is available, you are more free than someone who cannot.

The internet has also broken down social barriers.  Twitter, for all of its faults and negatives, has completely opened up the social sphere and leveled the playing field.  It has opened paths of communication and allowed people of different social classes to communicate in an honest and open way – and mean and funny, as well, but the communication is happening that would have never happened before.  YouTube has allowed people, not giant corporations, to determine what entertainment they want.  Netflix has given artistic freedom to movie and television creators that the industry has never seen before.  This talk by Kevin Spacey is worth the 46 minutes.

The internet has changed things, some for the worse but vastly for the better.  Something it has done is given freedom, and in a way that nothing before it could have possibly done and nothing since its inception has come close to doing.  The internet is freedom, period.

A major aspect of that freedom is the fact that every bit of data is equal.  The only thing that differentiates how data is handled on the internet is size.  No data, no video or service, gets a priority over anything else.  There are sluggish servers, bad connections, but that is a problem with infrastructure, not a deliberate structuring of how quickly data is delivered based upon who can pay and who is willing to pay for their data to be given quickly.  No one is given preference and the internet is a neutral ground that has never been seen before.

And if what the internet delivery companies want to do with our data happens, we are going to lose that neutral ground.  If we let the telecommunications companies like Comcast, Time-Warner Cable, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, and Mediacom to determine who gets to go quickly and who gets throttled based upon who pays them in addition to what they are getting paid from subscribers, we are letting them destroy this neutral ground that has allowed small people to grow and succeed, allowed people who didn’t have the resources to learn before to learn anything they want from anywhere, and allowed the world to be connected to each corner.

If net-neutrality fails, then we are losing our freedoms.  Period.

I entitled this post “Lost Art of Freedom” to fit in here and I fear that I’m stretching it but I think there is something to practicing freedom.  Living in freedom is an art form.  I have no idea how to define that, but I do know what it isn’t.  I know that just using the internet for things that do not grow you, allowing your life to be defined by the frivolities of the internet instead of the beautiful thing that is presents, and not using it to broaden communication and freedom that is affords you, you are not practicing the art of freedom.

Or maybe you are.  Part of freedom is really the right to slit your own throat if you so desire.  Now, I am not advocating real suicide, but if you want to use the internet for cat pictures and Facebook chat, who am I tell you you can’t?  That is the beauty of freedom.

I don’t think, though, that if we idly sit by and not use the freedom and neutrality that the internet affords, we have lost our art of freedom.  If we don’t stand up and fight for our freedom, if we don’t use the freedoms we are afforded, if we are just idle, we have lost the art of freedom.

So what do we do now?  How do we fight that money and that power?

John Oliver has a brilliant idea (NSFW/Cursing Warning: I don’t blush at it, but I can understand why you may not want to watching something of that nature).  Contact the FCC and tell them that this is a freedom issue, not a commerce issue or something that should be determined by the powerful and rich men to make more money at the expense of freedom and neutrality amongst all people.  That is something you can do.  Here is the link:

http://www.fcc.gov/comments – Proceeding 14-28

Do this.  John Oliver kind of pushes for this to be “trolling” in terms of how we approach it but I think if we are professional, say that it is hurting our freedoms, and point to why, they have to deliberately deny this by changing the rules.  Period.  In changing this rule, they are choosing the profits of giant corporations over the freedoms of the entire nation.  We must express that this is unacceptable.

After you are done doing that, do something on the internet that makes it beautiful and wonderful.  Chat with someone on a different continent.  Learning something about theoretical physics.  Communicate with someone famous and important on Twitter.  Do something that the internet made possible that was impossible before.  Use the freedom we have been afforded in this act.

Learn to practice the art of freedom.  Act in a way that requires freedom.  Do something that shows you are free.

To freedom,

– Robby

Coffee

Every morning that Nora doesn’t have to open, we sit and drink coffee.  It isn’t a ritual thing, or even really an activity that we do together – right now she’s enjoying her coffee and I’m writing while we occasionally say something to each other.  Nora drinks coffee every morning.  Sunday morning rolls around and, because the sermon is never complete early, I need that cup of coffee to not be yawning throughout the service.  A nice cup of fauxspresso and Irish creme is…well, it’s just heaven.

We love coffee.  I honestly can say that I think I am better for having acquired the taste for coffee.  There are three things to have conversations over – food, beer (or whiskey), and coffee – and not having one of those three in my back pocket would have made the conversations I’ve had over the last 4 years less.  Period.

Have you ever offered a coffee drinker a cup of coffee when they had none?  It is amazing how much that cup of coffee can warm that person, both physically and emotionally.  I don’t remember where I picked this up, but I firmly believe that you can any knowledge of a person you want if you just offer them the comforting drink of their choice that isn’t alcohol-based; for coffee drinkers, and especially caffeine addicts, a cup of coffee will more usefully loosen a tongue than a bottle of bourbon or vodka.

My grandfather went downtown every day until the day he died and had coffee with all of the other old farmers from Battle Creek.  It was at the gas station, but either the coffee price went up or they took out most of the booths so they changed to one of the bars.  Then for some reason that didn’t work out so they moved to a small collectible shop across the street that basically served coffee and sweets so they would have a place to drink coffee and eat sweets in the morning.  And they did until many of them had passed.

My grandpa was at a funeral the day before he died and someone snapped a picture of him drinking a cup of coffee; even now, ten years after we lost him, my grandma still has that picture taped to the wall and she still has coffee with him.

Coffee is a part of life for a lot of people.  I’m not talking about a mochafrapaccinolatte (yup, made that up) concoctions that mask all of the coffee taste; I’m talking about a pot of drip coffee, milk and sugar for those who want, sitting around talking.  Growing up, after church on Sunday, the kids went upstairs for Sunday School and the adults went downstairs and drank coffee.  The coffee pot in the seminary lounge had the worst coffee imaginable and yet there was always a group of people talking and preparing their coffee right before and in-between every class.

There is something about the warmth, the bitterness, and the ritual around it that just brings people together.  It’s an intangible, something I can’t put my finger on, but it’s there.  Coffee brings people together.

(Note before I continue: I’m not a coffee-elitist.  Tea is wonderful, as well.  As is hot chocolate.  Mmmmmm, hot chocolate.  I just one, grew up in a coffee-culture, and two, find drip coffee in coffee mugs to be a unique part of our culture.  Other parts of the country, and other parts of the world, probably have their own thing that has the same effect coffee has on people in rural Iowa and much of the United States.)

As wonderful as coffee is, and it is wonderful, it has a serious dark side to it.  Big, multinational growers of coffee had harmed people in the name of cheap coffee.  People have been killed, have been starved, have been hurt just to make cheap, bulk coffee.  I’m not a social justice warrior of any sort and I really understand how money works for people who are without, but there was a point that I had to be honest with myself and align my consumption with my beliefs.  I can’t remember when it was, but I remember drinking a cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee, enjoying the taste quite a lot, and then thinking, “Someone has hurt to make the situation correct for this cup of coffee to be placed in my hands.”  And mind you, Dunkin Donuts coffee isn’t a cheap brand of grind, either; more ethical coffee costs a bit more, but it isn’t cheap like a store-brand grind.  It just struck me that I was participating in hurting people, and for a cup of coffee that was good but cheap(er).

I didn’t get perfect right away; it took me a bit to get to that point where I drink mostly ethical coffee.  You will still occasionally find cheap, store-band coffee in our fridge.  We aren’t perfect, and I will still get a cup of coffee at a restaurant without asking about it’s sourcing, but I am trying to help the situation.  I am trying align my love of coffee with my love of humanity and doing the small part that I can to help people who are being hurt for coffee.

So what do we do?  I’m not a huge proponent of Fair Trade because, though I agree with the philosophy and the goal completely, I’m not sure I agree with the practices nor the price of certification.  I will never look down at someone who has switched to Fair Trade because every ethical option helps but that isn’t the route I’ve been following.  Instead, I’m a huge fan of a couple of smaller outfits who aren’t certified but do a lot of good.

The first one is Justo Cafe/Just Coffee.  What I love about this is that everything – growing, roasting, and distribution – benefits the actual people in the area.  It’s also organic and shade grown, which is good for the Earth and not just her people.  And it’s good coffee; the preaching professor gave us a bag for class and it was quite fantastic.  In honesty, learning about this coffee really planted the seed to start drinking ethical coffee in me and guided me into wanting to change my plans.

The second is More Than Coffee.  There are a lot of groups that have this name; the one I am talking about is at http://www.morethancoffee.info.  The coffee itself is delicious, sourced from Ethiopia, and the farmers are treated as well or better than Fair Trade farmers are.  In terms of ethics, they are solid.  What is cool about this group, though, is that the profits are put back into helping the orphans and widows of Ethiopia.  What is even cooler is that I actually got to meet the woman who started it, know people who work with them personally, and I can attest to their love of God and love of helping people.  I have faith in the goodness of people who do these things, but knowing the people who do this makes it the obvious choice for us in our coffee drinking.

Their Ethiopian Delight is also the only coffee I have ever had that stopped me in my tracks with how delicious it was.  It is just amazing coffee.

Do I think these are the only good options for ethical coffee?  No, absolutely not.  I just know about them and have done research into them.  What I’m saying here is that you should know where your coffee comes from, know how the growers are treated, and find coffee that aligns with the second greatest commandment – Love your neighbor as yourself – and isn’t a selfish choice for you.  Just do a bit of research and find a brand that you feel is doing good instead of harm in the name of coffee.

Small choices, small actions by everyone change the world.  This is a small thing you can do.

In Christ,

– Robby