Posted by Eliza on: 11.02.2006 /
Another surprise - this class session was kind of enjoyable! I can pick out a few contributing factors.
First, the pastor provided a quite human touch this time (telling personal stories of being a regular guy, calling several people by name - including me - even though we’re no longer wearing name tags) - he was personable, warm, and funny. Last time, he was more serious, more…judgmental, it seemed. (Though this time he might have been chastising one woman student, a church member, in some things he said to a student who seems to be her husband - I couldn’t tell.)
The pastor also said some things in this session that I agreed with and/or appreciated, always a good way for the teacher to get a good rating. (Though there were certainly also some pretty conservative stances stated, and an occasional reminder that we’re all sinners with a pointed glance at me, but I’ve come to expect that.)
This time, there wasn’t any teaching that really surprised me - last week provided quite enough, shifting the groundwork for what I expect to hear in this class. So far the new groundwork is holding steady.
The pastor also gracefully and humorously acknowledged in class my corrections of some of his scripture citations, which was embarassing but (truth be told) did provide some positive feedback for me…which I’m sure will be knocked down next time ;-)
The topic at this class was the Ten Commandments, #6-10 (according to the Lutheran numbering).
1. Review of Class 4. In the 30 min review of the prior session (Class #4), the pastor said that the Ten Commandments are like dominoes - if you knock the First Commandment down, they all fall over. He said that (at least in the abstract) valuing life or self over God is a First Commandment issue (a violation)…but he also was frank that he wasn’t sure what he would choose in the heat of the moment if it came to a decision, die for God or live. That seemed like a frank and very human, realistic “confession” to make, so maybe that set the tone for the evening.
Regarding authority, he said that God keeps evil from us in a variety of ways, including government (police, court system) & that anarchists who think government should be abolished don’t realize what an evil mess that would result in. (I wasn’t sure if there are some Christians who are in favor of anarchy instead of a legal government - anyone know?)
He said “Sin has consequences, maybe you’ve been around long enough to experience the bad consequences of sin.” I thought that the “consequences” of sin were not as invariable as he made them out to be, that bad things happen to everybody (some more than others), and that seeing everyone as sinful would probably help suggest that anything bad that happens is due to sin. (Though, to be clear, he did not say that everything bad is due to sin - other than of course original sin, which he didn’t have to spell out because I’ve learned from class 3 that O.S. is at the root of everything bad.)
He said that we should each understand our position under the Law (God’s Law) as “a lost person, a condemned person.” He said that the Law is proclaimed to all people, especially the impenitent, but that “an impenitent person is not sorry for their sins. The Gospel must be proclaimed to troubled sinners”. I do believe I fit his definition of impenitent. I also do believe he looked at me while defining impenitent, & looks my way when talking about sinners & the need to accept Christ - but at least he’s not jabbing a finger at me (like in class #1), or talking about Satan as he looks at me (like in class #1 & maybe #3), so really in my eyes this is a big improvement.
2. The 6th Commandment. “You shall not commit adultery.” Well, by now you will not be surprised to hear that this means more than just “no adultery”. It covers marriage, and more than that, it means we are not to tell dirty stories, engage in foul talk, or have impure thoughts (including looking at someone other than our spouse with lust). (He said he used to remind his wife of this when Tom Selleck’s show Magnum P.I. was on TV, & got a laugh from the class.)
From the text (and scripture) we learned that “the purposes of marriage are: the rearing of children, mutual companionship, and the prevention of immorality.” The pastor said that marriage is not simply a social contract, it’s God’s institution. He reviewed scripture from the NT giving adultery and desertion as only the two legitimate bases for divorce. Obviously, he’s against gay marriage - but he did acknowledge separation of church and state, saying “I hope the state doesn’t change the definition of marriage, but if they do they do. What the government ends up doing in the US, I don’t have control over.” (Oooh, what a way to win Eliza over - acknowledge the First Amendment! Especially refreshing to hear, given my concerns over some of his references to it in Class #4.)
He said, “Sex is not dirty. Anyone here think it’s dirty? After all, who gave us sex? God did.” (That was refreshing to hear; I’d been expecting to hear it was a necessary evil or something like that, given the focus on everyone being a sinner.) He continued: “Sex is good - when it’s in the institution of marriage.” (OK, I’m fine with that, though I take a more “permissive” view of it for consenting adults who aren’t hurting anyone else, e.g. violating a spouse’s trust.)
He told us that when he uses the treadmill in the basement at lunchtime he watches TV, sometimes Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. (Silly of me, I had been thinking he wore his collar & worked on nothing but religion 24/7!) He commented on what awful situations people on the Jerry Springer Show had gotten themselves into, not knowing who the father of their child was, etc. People in the class made disapproving sounds, agreeing with him how awful those family situations are. (Too true. Which is exactly why Jerry Springer brings them on his show…)
He said he reads alot of counseling books, including secular ones, and notices that “secular counselors say neat stuff that ’s in the Bible, but they don’t know it.” (I had just been thinking, after Class #4, that secular counselors and Christian counselors must have very different approaches. Hmm.) The counseling “overlap” apparently includes the idea that men and women have the same needs, but with different priorities (men needing respect foremost, and women needing love and security foremost). He said that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently, & thought it was interesting that science was just getting around to demonstrating this. (I agree that males and females are different, starting from very early on, & that more of it is innate/biological than “we” previously thought. So I asked him at the end about research suggesting that homosexuality may be hard-wired. See item 6 below.)
He commented that “our culture has been feminized. The church is in the process of being feminized. This is why you’re seeing outbreaks of macho behavior” (in society, I think he meant). Then, expanding on the idea of respect being the prime need men have, he talked about men needing to be the breadwinner in a relationship. A male student (there with the woman who asked in Class #2 about Young Earth v. Old Earth Creationism, presumably his wife) asked, did he mean that a woman shouldn’t earn more than her husband? And the pastor responded that he sure would want to be the breadwinner in the household, & asked (rhetorically) “What’s the price of your integrity, your dignity as a man?” (That seemed a bit overblown to me, and apparently also to the woman/wife of the student who’d asked that question, judging from her expression. She didn’t say anything though.) The pastor said that, in counseling, “I tell women, if you want a career, please don’t have children” - then he made a distinction between a career and a job. (The woman/wife looks pregnant. She is a church member. I wondered if there were messages for her in these comments, or maybe I’m reading too much into it.)
3. The 7th Commandment. “You shall not steal.” Is anyone surprised to find that this has a broader meaning than might be first apparent on reading it? This doesn’t just mean, “don’t steal” - it also means that God owns everything, we are only stewards of everything we own & must use it for His Glory. He said (for everyone, not just himself): “All that I am, all that I have, is God’s”. (A beautiful sentiment, imo, with - no surprise here - a ton more meaning for believers than nonbelievers.) We turned to a pamphlet given out at the start of this class session, “Christian Stewardship” (by the president of the Missouri Synod) and also to an appendix in the text - the first one we’ve looked at - on the same topic. (I’m sensing clues that this topic is of special importance.) We reviewed scripture about managing resources, being faithful to our master, how much God gave for us; conclusion is, we each should support our church (ideally tithing; the percentage is more important than the amount).
Now, an aside. While describing marriage, the pastor had suggested 4 verses of scripture (beyond the text), ending with “Titus 3:5″. When he gives these, his intent is that people will write them down and look them up later. Not being one to wait - my only “homework” for this class is to write up my experience for this site - I flip through my Bible during class, quickly reading the verses he gives. In this case, I found that Titus 3:5 doesn’t address marriage…but Titus 2:5 does. (I know that my handwriting sometimes fools me, 2’s sometimes look like 3’s - maybe his does too?) So, when he next gave specific verses (not long into the discussion of the 7th commandment) I raised my hand & said I’m sorry, but going back to the prior verses, could I ask, Titus 3:5 doesn’t mention marriage, could it perhaps be that it’s Titus 2:5? (I tried for a polite tone; I definitely achieved a hesitant tone - here I am, an atheist in a group of Christians, correcting the pastor on Bible citations - talk about anxiety-provoking, yikes!) He stopped the discussion, said this is important, let me look; he checked and - what do you know, indeed he had meant Titus 2:5. He thanked me. (Now, remember, in Class #3 I had pointed out that the verse he cited in Revelation didn’t exist, so he’d located the correct one by skimming through that chapter of Revelation in front of the class.) Then, at this point in the class, talking about giving generously even when you don’t have much, he cited Luke 21:1-4 (the poor widow giving 2 coins), and he said something like “Eliza, you’d better check that passage & make sure I haven’t made a mistake!” (I blushed and tried to sink down in my chair.)
Getting back to supporting the church: in our handouts this time was a chart of incomes (annual and weekly) down the left side, and “Weekly Giving” across the ttop, with columns ranging from 2% to 20%, so we could quickly see what weekly amount corresponded to what level of donation. The 10% column was marked “Old Testament requirement - Tithing”. Another handout startled me - it was the balance sheet for the church for 2006! They expected (budgeted) $482,984 in offerings in 2006 and YTD (year-to-date) are $22,615 over budget (more received than expected). This is alot of money! The expenses were listed, including the salaries for the pastor, vicar, administrator, secretary, etc. The pastor it takes about $500K/yr to run the church, and they receive that amount; I was again a bit startled when he then said that he does not know what members of his church give. “I don’t want my relationship with my people, my flock, to be influenced by any information about what they give. Pastors are sinners too.” Someone asked him to repeat that, apparently not believing their ears the first time. Now, I think it’s a great idea to have the pastor be totally unaware of who is giving what amount, but it also sounds unrealistic. My question (not asked at class) would be: is the documentation & handling of the donations (endorsing and depositing checks, for instance) then left to one person, e.g. the church administrator? (That would strike me as a risky arrangement, exposing the church to potential theft.) Do any of you have an arrangement like this in your church, & who handles that financial information if not the pastor?
4. The 8th Commandment. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The discussion on this was short, in part because we were running out of time: “This is about the mouth” (people laughed). The message was, we shouldn’t think or speak evil of our fellow man; shouldn’t gossip, lie, or fail to defend someone against false accusations. (He gave an example, sounded theoretical but might have really happened, of him being in the supermarket down the block on a Monday, his day off, trying to find something his wife sent him to buy, & being so focused on that task that he didn’t recognize someone he knew, who then told people how unfriendly the pastor at this church was - point being that the person shouldn’t assume the worst & tell others about it.)
5. The 9th and 10th Commandments. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (9th), “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle” (10th) “nor anything that is your neighbor’s”. We were told that these commandments are about what’s inside of us - greed, selfishness, discontent, jealousy. (9th is not coveting nonliving things, 10th is not coveting living things. Now, it seems to me that taking one sentence and making 2 commandments out of it, should be a clue that your counting went astray somewhere earlier in the list…but OK, end of unsolicited comment.)
Some of you may have heard me rant in the past, here or on the Discussion Board, about the evils of advertising and consumerism. Well, this pastor seems to be on the same wavelength, and it’s always heartening to hear someone agree with you ;-) . He talked about advertising creating need (actually, not true need but instead covetousness) - the message being things like, ‘you need this new car’ (when actually your old car is fine). He keeps using Lexus as an example of a fancy product that people want but don’t need; in this class session, he told us why he keeps referring to Lexus - and it was a sweet story. He said his father bought a Lexus in 1989-90, when they first came out (& were the poster child for luxury cars); the pastor was opposed to the purchase, telling us with humor that he’d told his dad “Dad, what’d you do that for? We’re just going to have to fight over it when you’re gone”. Well, it’s 16-17 yrs later, & his father is still alive…and still has & loves that very same Lexus, now not worth anywhere near as much. It was a delightful, personal little tale, & the affection he has for his dad really shone through.
We closed with the idea that the 4th-10th commandments are summarized by Matthew 22:39 Love your neighbor as yourself…and then with another wallop of citations (from the text) about how all are sinners, no man is justified by the Law, you must be perfect (but you can’t be), etc. We got a teaser about how Christ fulfilled the Law, is the end of the Law, and redeemed us from the curse of the Law - a lead-in to the topic of the next 2 classes.
6. After class questions. After class, I went to the front and asked the pastor 2 things about homosexuality: (1) Harking back to his comments about science showing there are differences in men’s and women’s brains…there’s also research data suggesting there may be genetic or early developmental factors that “hard-wire” some people’s brains to be attracted to people of the same sex. Would evidence of a difference in the brains of gays v. straight people change his view of homosexuality or gay marriage? (No, he said, because God’s institution is marriage between a man and a woman. Not that he wouldn’t accept such evidence, just that he’d see it as stemming from some other cause rather than God’s plan.) (2) Since he said one of the purposes of marriage was for companionship, and I presume someone who isn’t attracted to anyone of the opposite sex couldn’t truthfully fulfill the purposes of traditional marriage he outlined, couldn’t marriage be OK for gays in order to provide that same kind of companionship? (No, he said, same idea - it’s not God’s plan.) How then could a gay person find that kind of companionship? (Friends - platonic relationships- that’s as close as they can come.)
It was interesting - the pastor seemed to have nothing against gay people (from what I can tell from this brief conversation) - I think I might have even sensed in his responses a tinge of regret that gays couldn’t experience life as fully as straight people (in his model) - maybe. But there was certainly no budging on whether or not gay relationships (much less marriage) was OK - he seems quite convinced that God created marriage for a man and a woman and that’s all we need to know to determine the correct position on this issue (or, for him & this church, this “non-issue”).
I’m going to miss Class #6 (Jesus Christ, Our Savior - Part 1) because of the bloggers’ dinner tonight. I might see if I can get the DVD of classes 5 & 6 from the church office next week. Class #7 (JC, OS - Part 2) won’t be for 2 weeks, as the pastor will be away at a conference next week.
Comment by: David H
1He might have been referring to people. I believe my faith is incompatible with politics, at least the American variety. It isn’t just that I don’t think Christians should attempt to pass faith-based laws. I also believe our government and the political process are so corrupt that they can’t help but corrupt any well-meaning individual (like myself) who gets inside.
I don’t believe that the U.S. should be without a government. I understand the need for law, order and social institutions. But there are plenty of other people who want to do that.
All this doesn’t stop me from criticizing our government and leaders. But my criticism is primarily from the viewpoint that a) stricter separation of church and state would be highly beneficial to the church and b) Christians shouldn’t do that (whether it is torture, lying to win votes, trading what they say they believe for political power, etc.).
I don’t see my belief as a mission. I don’t ask anyone to follow me. But that would probably fit more into my being an anarchist.
Comment by: Eliza
2David H, do you think this is inherent in government - does it have to be that way?
Also, do you think Christians should not participate - should withdraw from the political process as much as possible - maybe not even vote? Or, participate to the extent that they can, following conscience in voting & avoiding any non-Christian behavior (& perhaps thus not getting far up the ladder as elected officials)?
Vaguely related: the UU church I’ve been going to is having a (traditional, apparently) Election Sermon this Sunday, before the election - to tell people how to vote (the mechanics of it), not who or what to vote for. The minister says he’ll also discuss the legal line between promoting voting, promoting issues/candidates, and the laws regarding these activities in tax-exempt organizations like churches.
Comment by: Doreen
3Wow, I’ve actually found ONE thing I agree with this pastor about. :)
We were recently told in a class on “studying congregations” that there is absolutely NO reason for the pastor/minister to know who gives how much. I would not want to know whereas the lead pastor where I’m interning just got this info, much to his appreciation.
Nothing regarding finances can be done by 1 person alone. So whether it is counting the collection, endorsing checks, or going to the bank, at least 2 people participate. I think some churches may have these kind of people bonded.
Comment by: NCxian
4At our church, the ministerial staff does not handle the giving. It is handled by a finance committee, which is staffed by the financial secretary. Two members of this committee count and record donations. The idea is, I think, that the pastor should not know who gives what.
Our staff compensation is a matter of annual budgeting, so we are all aware (or have access to) what we pay staff people. In our denomination, all compensation is provided at the congregation level, so we make those decisions as a congregation.
Comment by: Pastor David
5This is actually standard in many churches. It avoids the pastoral issue of “special treatment” being given to those who give more to the church. It also avoids any appearance of financial impropriety on the part of the pastor.
For myself, it is as much for my own protection as anything else. No one can ever accuse me of doing anything shady with the church’s money, because I never handle the money.
The offering is counted by a group of people - usually four, headed by an elected council member. Checks are cut by the church secretary, but signed by the church treasurer (also an elected position). Each month, our congregational council (10 persons) looks over the ledger books, including copies of the checks that were paid out.
It is all about transparency. If people can see everything you are doing, there is no question of anything untoward going on — too many people would see it.
I think we have all heard stories about ecclesiastical abuse in financial matters. It is yet another way that many have been hurt by those bearing the name of Christ. This is one way to insure that that does not happen.
Comment by: Pastor David
6I think our reading of the 8th commandment (again, found in Luther’s small and large catechisms), is one place where Lutherans really add something positive to the conversation. The idea that the 8th commandment means that I should not gossip, and should read everyone’s actions/words in the best possible light, changes the way I interact with the world. Could you imagine if such a principle guided our public discourse in this country?
Glad to hear you enjoyed this one. I’m going to miss reading your report on Class #6.
Comment by: Karen
7It’s pretty funny that you’re the one correcting his scripture citation gaffes. ;-) It’s nice that he’s taking it in stride. I wonder whether the other students (non-skeptics, perhaps?) don’t bother checking what he’s said?
Yes, those outbreaks of machismo that we never experienced in previous, male-dominated society - like the Wild West, for instance …
Oh dear. I had hoped that this sentiment was erased back in the Magnum PI heydey. ;-)
I can remember being a college student in the 80s and having a pastor tell me that married women shouldn’t work outside the home because they would “tempt” their male co-workers to commit adultery. It sounds like something out of fundamentalist Islam, doesn’t it?
I’m very impressed by their openness, actually. In the megachurches that I attended, individual salaries were not available generally even to members (let alone people attending an outreach class). You had to approach the administrator personally to request salary numbers. Maybe that was because the senior pastors were being paid a whole lot and they didn’t want those numbers getting out, I don’t know. But it’s great that this church is so transparent about its finances. AND it’s over-budget! that’s another rarity in megachurches, at least in my experience.
Comment by: David H
8The short answer is yes. People as a rule tend to act out of self-interest in many instances. Given a degree of power, influence and authority the degree of self-interest tends to become exaggerated. The self-interest seems to grow along with the power except in very rare instances. Money also appears to be a distorting factor. I’m not aware of any government throughout history that was not heavily affected by such systemic corruption. However, I find the corruption in the current U.S. system more disturbing because we are nominally a government of the people and many Christians appear to have no compunction regarding participation in this corruption (either because they have rationalized what they are doing as actually good or because of the unholy belief that the ends — even in areas that touch on religion — justify the means).
I don’t pretend to espouse a position that should be adopted by others, but I don’t vote. I have two primary reasons, the first is spiritual and the second secular:
a) I don’t believe a Christian can make a moral choice between the lesser of two evils. Likewise, I don’t believe I should compromise on something I consider important in order to support a candidate who sort of believes some things similar to me.
b) From a completely unspiritual point of view I don’t participate in the “democratic” process in the US because I believe it is broken as a political system and that to “play the game” is to tacitly endorse the brokenness. I believe that telling citizens they can help the system by voiting is a lie intended to maintain a system that in many respects no longer represents the needs or wants of most Americans.
As for trying to be faithful within the system, I know and have interviewed Christians who believe they are doing right by that. I have been amazed at some of the actions I have heard justified on this basis. More important, I know of no Christians who believe they have made any meaningful changes or lasting reforms from their political positions. On the other hand, I have seen many supposedly faithful people utterly corrupted by the system. The insight I have received from interviewing and reading about politicans (I have talked to probably hundreds from local town and school board types up through state and federal legislative and bureaucratic positions) is that at a certain point you have to choose whether to be true to yourself or play the game. The people who have end up with the biggest problems often don’t know there is a difference between those two things.
Finally, I believe that people with strong convictions are more effective from outside the political system. A conscience works better without a political action committee.
I apologize for the typo that opened my previous post. I meant to say: He might have been referring to people LIKE ME. Blame a poor night’s sleep. I also want to reiterate that I don’t call other Christians to be like me. I do what I do (or don’t) because I believe it right for me.
Comment by: Marty SB
9David H - thank you for your insightful sharing. Have you written more on what you have learned from all of these interviews? I would love to read more.
I particularly like your thoughtful and independent consideration of the issues - particularly your deciding not to vote - and why. My instantaneous reaction is to difer with your views - while at the same time - what you have said and how you have said is leading me to think deeper out it.
Comment by: David H
10I spent 15 + years as a reporter for daily newspapers and a magazine. during that time I met a wide variety of people. I haven’t written much about my views on politics because I’m no longer a reporter and I don’t think any of the organizarions I worked for were interested in my slighty off-center thoughts on the subject. I speak freely to any that ask, but haven’t formed an anti-political party. I appreciate your not simply calling me a crackpot.
Comment by: Marty SB
11Quite the contrary - I like the idea of an “anti-political party.” Many years ago I become an Independent because of my distaste for both major political parties. My guess is that you would find a lot of us interested in your ideas - particularly driven by the inside insight that you have gathered. If you are willing and others are interested in further discussing this concept - maybe we should move it over to the discussion board and not take this thread away from the wonderful sharing from Eliza.
Comment by: Meg
12some friends and i stood for election at sydney uni as ‘the apathy party’ - we had a mandate, only the kind of people that would vote for us didn’t! our campaign involved intensive distribution of blank pieces of paper (sponsored by the apathy party!)
Eliza, this pastor guy’s sexist comments are unbelievable!! you have so much self control to be able to sit there and converse calmly. I would have lost my temper and yelled insults at him i think!! who on earth does he think he is, prescribing his opinions about such personal issues as who in a relationship earns the money, or the most money, or has a career, or whatever, and citing his opinions as representative of god and the bible. he has a nerve! grrrrrr!!
Comment by: David H
13Marty, I’m willing to discuss on board, but not sure how to get that started. I haven’t really used discussion board side of this site.
Comment by: Marty SB
14For those interested in further discussing the merits of forming an “Anti-Political Party” and/or discussing David H’s thoughts on not voting - lets take the discussion to the discussion board at http://off-the-map.org/ebayatheist/viewtopic.php?p=9100#9100
Comment by: Paul
15Thanks Eliza. Having just joined a home group where a number of the couples who attend aren’t married to each other but live together as if they are I think the whole “sex in marriage” thang needs to be revisted - we are subscribing the bible to our western cultural norm of marriage where for instance in medieval times it was usually for the church not to recognise a couple untill the woman fell pregnant - i might not be that bright but that would suggest sex was going on… Personally I think it comes down to commitment whether recongnised in church or not. altho saying that I appreciate being married for the way it has shaped my mind to saying to Debs when we fight, “you divorce me” to which she says “no, you divorce me” and after much circling we agree that we aren’t going to budge so we better try something else out, like facing the issue :)
Comment by: Eliza
16Meg,
At the first class, when the pastor said he would say some non-PC things in this course about men’s and women’s roles, & referred to “feminists” in a manner which indicated non-approval, I bristled (inside) & wondered how I would be able to sit through that discussion.
But now - especially after class #3 “Angels and Sin” - it seems to me that his world overlaps very little with mine; overlaps very little with that which I recognize as reality. It seems like it’s not just that we have different beliefs, but that he believes in (and lives in) a separate world. He probably thinks I’m the one who is missing out on “reality”, but my view is that he’s kind of in a fantasy land. I feel bad about thinking this - it seems judgmental and patronizing - but it’s really how it best fits for me. (Please fill “imo” in repeatedly throughout this paragraph!) Anyway, that’s how I can sit through this - it’s like watching make-believe, for me. (I hope that’s not offensive to anyone…again, it’s the only way I, personally, can make sense in my world-view of what he’s teaching.)
I do wonder, and worry, about the woman who seems to have been the object of disapproving comment from this pastor. I feel for her. She looked pretty unhappy during this portion of this last class session; I have to wonder what it would be like to be hearing such disapproval from your pastor (and, I am glad that for me it’s an academic question). If she brings out such disapproval from their pastor, why are they members of this church? Are they members because her husband shares these beliefs? (But, again, I really don’t know what was going on in the dynamics there - I was and am only guessing.)
This may be another example of it being easier to accept a belief that’s dramatically different from your own, rather than one that’s similar in some aspects but opposite in others…
Comment by: Seren
17Hi Eliza. This response might be a little delayed, but I wanted to respond to your question about Christian Anarchists. There is a book called “Christi-Anarchy,” written by Dave Andrews, an aussie who lives in Brisbane.
You can check out the book at amazon. He also has his own website, daveandrews.com.au
I think Christianity comes in any variety you could possible imagine.
+ thanks for your a great read.
Comment by: Eliza
18Hi Seren. Thanks for the book suggestion. I have learned here that Christianity comes in many varieties - but it sounds like it’s even more varied than I thought!