The cross must be occupied. It cannot simply remain an object in the misty recesses of time. Because it was the instrument of death that day, all those years ago, it must maintain its killing power today. That which became the Cross of Christ must remain the cross to bear by humanity. While it is true that Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of humanity, it does not necessarily follow that humanity is not still in need of the crucifixion.

The Theology of the Cross insists that Christ carried the sins of humanity to, and took the punishment for those sins on His cruel cross (Col. 1:20). It mandates that Christ nailed sin and death to His flesh on the tree (Col. 2:14). Justification accomplished! Reconciliation and redemption achieved! All who believe these facts are in right-standing-with-God, it is true (1Pet. 2:24). But the theology of the cross also demands the reality of sanctification, as well.  Now that we have been justified – sins forgiven; punishment due, paid in full – we must walk out our new relationship with God (and others and ‘self’) becoming more like Christ every day. Sanctification is the process of becoming Christ-like – not in His life, but in His death. It is the Form of the Crucifixion (Phil. 3:10).

The Resurrection Life of Christ can only come after the crucifying death of Christ. “Resurrection” necessitates, by definition, a dying. The Resurrection Life of Christ is only afforded to us after our own crucifying death to ‘self’ (2Cor. 13:4). Jesus hanged on the cross built for Barabbas (Matt. 27:16-26), but Barabbas would still have to claim his own cross (Matt. 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27; Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:19-20; 5:24; 6:14).

Christ was crucified once and for all those many years ago (Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10), but, today, we die daily for the killing of the flesh (Rom. 8:36; 1Cor. 15:31). He pioneered our faith on His cross (Heb. 12:2). He pioneered perfection – Entire Sanctification – through the suffering of its killing power (Heb. 2:10). If a Pioneer, then, He is the first of many who will occupy the cross.

In Romans (12:1-2), Paul explains that we, as the Church, are to “present ourselves as living sacrifices, which is acceptable and pleasing to God” and that we are not to be “conformed to the religious patterns of this economy [which is unacceptable and unpleasing to God], but we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we can figure out what God’s will is.” This transformation comes not by attempting to follow Christ by our own best efforts – this is the religious pattern – but by experiencing the killing power of the cross by taking on the Cruciform (the Form of the Crucifixion of Christ on the Cross).

In Philippians, the founding principal for the Form of the Crucifixion is Chapter 3:10-11: “…that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” (NASB)

“Being conformed to His death” is the means by which we know and experience Christ. It is necessary in knowing the power of His resurrection – in this life; the resurrection life of Christ lived in us. In the sharing of His sufferings (the pain of the flesh being killed) we attain the resurrection from the dead – the resurrection that is eschatological, at the end of things – as well. Thus, in the Cruciform, we live in the power of the resurrection life of Christ, now, which then ensures us of the resurrection of the body, later, in the end. God’s plan and purpose is for the “Christian” is to conform, not to the life of Christ, but to Christ’s death (Rom. 8:29).

How we conform to His death is explained in Galatians 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life that I now live in my body, I live by faith, indeed, by the faithfulness of God’s Son, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” (CEB)

While it is true that Christ was crucified for our sins, according to Paul in Galatians 5:24, Christians are also crucified, as it were, to kill the power of the flesh: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (NASB)

Speaking of his-self as an example to be mimicked, in Galatians 6:14 Paul says: “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” (NASB)

And again, speaking collectively of all Christians, Paul explains in Romans 6:6-7 that: “This is what we know: The person that we used to be was crucified with Him in order to get rid of the corpse that had been controlled by sin. That way we wouldn’t be slaves to sin anymore, because a person who has died has been freed from sin’s power.” (CEB)

So, the means of escaping our sin nature – our religious patterns – and to really knowing Jesus Christ, then, is to experience the killing power of the cross (Rom. 6:1-5; 8:6, 10, 17; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-12, 20). We – our old fallen natures – are still nailed to the killing cross. We – our new natures – are really Christ living in us in the power of His resurrection life. “Always bearing in the (individual) body the deadness of Jesus, so that the life supply of the resurrected Christ may be apparent in our (collective) body” (2Cor. 4:10).

There seems to be a common misconception (I’m being kind) in the church, which insists that the church is over against the world; and by “world,” so the misconception goes, church-folk mean “sin, evil, lusts, ungodliness,” and the like. Implied also, here, is the condemnation of the people living “worldly;” that is, the people living according to this definition of “world.” If this notion is true, then how and why does the church suffer the same “sins, lusts, ungodliness,” and the like in its own people? According to the definition offered, the church is just as “worldly” as the “world” and, therefore, incurs its own punishment.

In Romans Paul declares that we should “present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice that is holy and pleasing to God” (12:1); that we should not “be conformed to the patterns of this world” but that we should “be transformed by the renewing of [our] minds” (12:2). The context of this passage (and the entire Letter to the Romans, in fact) speaks to the killing of the religious nature that is found in our flesh. Paul explains that the only acceptable means of pleasing God is by imitating the Form of the Crucifixion of Christ (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20). Thereby, we do not conform to the religious nature of this world, but we are transformed by the Faith of Christ.

By “worldly,” then, we should understand that aside from the Faith of Christ there is only religion, and that it is religion that is “worldly.” This religion is as a result of the fallen nature of humanity. God made human beings to relate to Him through faith. But with the fall of humanity came the sin nature, and with the sin nature came the perversion of faith – religion (Romans 1). Faith was to be a spiritual, mystical thing that empowered us to walk again with God, but that faith has been counterfeited; it has become, in the unregenerate person, a religion of the flesh, enabled by the flesh, to serve the insecurities of the flesh.  Religion is worldly and, therefore, not of Faith. Anything that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:3).

So, the one who does not have the Faith of Christ is “worldly” in the sense that he or she is religious in their own right, by their very nature. Likewise, many so-called “Christians” are “worldly,” not because they don’t live by some ridiculous church culture, but because they, too, are simply religious having denied the Faith that rescued them (Galatians 3:3; 5:4).

Thus, the misconception is not in the fact that the “world” is filled with “sin, evil, lust, ungodliness,” and the like; but that such church-folk think that because they are in the church they are not “worldly.” The fact is that they who attempt to please God with the religion of their flesh (Gal. 5:24) are suffering under a common delusion, whether in the church or without. “Worldly” is not being without the church, but being without the Faith (Gal. 2:8-10).

First, I must qualify the opinion which I am about to express. I love my country, served my country, and could be accused by some of being a “Nationalist” (which they would associate in a negative context) for my America pride. I love the American Flag, which symbolizes the American idea. And I love the idea of America as originally defined by the Constitution of the United States. I love Jesus Christ and the Faith of Jesus Christ which God has made available to all who seek Him. And I love His church – His expression on the earth. But I take issue with the ideology and logical fallacy of America being “a Christian nation.”

Historically, the disgust over a national religion was one of the reasons why the colonies declared independence. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution not only prevents the prohibition of the free exercise of religion, but it also prevents the establishment of a religion. Thus, there is not, nor can there be, any law which determines Christianity as the official American religion. The argument that many of the founding fathers were Deists cannot be ignored (not to mention the evidence that many were Masons). The fact that Christianity spread so rapidly across America speaks volumes for the Gospel, not any national religion. Another variable in this argument is the Christendom mindset. Because Christianity was the norm in the “civilized world” (Christianity, it can be argued, is the reason for the civility), it only follows that America as a whole would follow precedent.

Theologically, it would seem bad hermeneutics to utilize Replacement Theology as a supporting argument for a Christian nation. Because the nation of Israel had a national religion, it does not necessarily follow that Christianity must, therefore, have a nation. First, God has not “replaced” Israel in any sense and; second, Old Testament Israel signifies the New Testament Church. Furthermore, while I would agree that God in His providence granted freedom to the United States from the King of England, I will argue that such freedom was from tyranny and injustice, and not to form some Christian nation (for England was already a “Christian Nation,” as it were). Further still, to demand Christianity of a people runs counter to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One needs to look no further than the historical accounts of the Crusades and the Inquisitions to witness the end-results of such religious thought. The “Good News” does not, in its truest form, coerce converts, but it wins souls. And a national religion, by its very nature, is inevitably an exclusive one. Not just in the sense that it excludes other religions, but it also will eventually persecute individuals and groups who think differently than what it has deemed acceptable and orthodox.

Finally, my argument rests on the fact that the knowledge of the truth comes by Christ alone, and not any form of religious institution. That being true, then, America cannot have a national faith, because faith is an individual decision, which happens to be lived-out in community. America offers a place to live out that communal faith; it doesn’t dictate it (which would be a religion and not a faith by definition). Express your faith for all to see, don’t rely on a state sponsored religion. This is the purpose of the Church!

This time of year many conversations revolve around politics. I do not use my public platforms to argue my political views (of which I am very opinionated) and I do not wish to do so, here, either. However, we do need to establish a fundamental fact concerning our political views. The fact is that this is America. And while we are free to think as we please (precisely because this is America), we are not, logically, free to make up our own definitions of “America.”

“America” is an ideology of how the United States is to function. The name “United States ‘of America’” makes this point obvious. The dilemma is concerning the definition of “America.” There are two main ideologies (with second order ideologies for each) that have their own definition of “America.” Thus, the discussion should be definitional and, therefore, logical.

“America” is an ideology, of which the Constitution of the United States (including its Amendments) is its first principle. That which defines “America” must be its first principle, otherwise the definition is relative, the ideology irrelevant, and the point mute. By comparison, the Christian first principle is the Scriptures. The definition of “Christianity,” therefore, is dictated by the Christian first principle. Without a first principle, the definition of “Christianity” becomes relative, its ideology irrelevant, and its point mute.

This being true, then, based on the logic of first principles, the definition can be interpreted (as with the Amendments to the Constitution), but such interpretations cannot contradict the original intent. Therefore, logic dictates that the original intent of the Scriptures cannot be contradicted by their interpretation. And, likewise, the original intent of the Constitution cannot be contradicted by its interpretation. Thus, “America” must be defined by the Constitution’s original intent. Just as we ask what the writers meant when they penned the Scriptures, so we ask what the founders meant when they penned the Constitution. We can certainly change the meaning of the original intent by our interpretations, but we cannot call any such conclusions “American” by definition or logical according to the Laws of Logic.

So, the argument is that we either seek the Constitution’s original intent in context or we redefine the constitutions intent according to our own context. The former defines “America,” while the latter defines something else. This conclusion is not an opinion but a logical fact. If one wishes to disregard the original intent of the Constitution that one may do so, but that one is not defining “America” by doing so; that one is defining another ideology altogether. One cannot redefine “America” because the “American” ideology has already been defined by its first principle (the Constitution). If one ignores that first principle then it is not “America” which is being defined, but “The United States of ‘Something-Other-Than-America,’” logically speaking. Redefine what you wish you cannot logically redefine “America,” you can only define another ideology altogether. Whether it’s logical or not is another discussion.

It is no secret that I am fascinated with the Apostle Paul (I have written over 1,000 pages in a dozen papers over a ten-year period concerning him). This fascination is not primarily by choice, but by necessity. I am drawn to his vision, his mission, and his living with the wretched Gentiles (the “Un-Churched” of his day). Yet, it is more than a fascination. It is a collision, a calling, and a definition. I share his collision with, and not a simple conversion to, Christ. I share a calling and not necessarily a choice. And the unadulterated definition of “Christianity,” and therefore “church,” are found in the mind of Paul – particularly in the Pauline letters – which I find inescapable.

Like Paul, I was not looking for Christ and, quite frankly, could have been identified as an enemy of His when He found me. Though not as dramatic as Paul’s Damascus Road accounts, Jesus Christ stood in my bedroom (in 1997), pointed at me, and told me to believe. Like Paul, I do not recollect a conscious effort to in fact believe (the Calvinist in me says, “see!” While the Wesleyan in me says, “It was through God’s prevenient grace that you were ‘wooed’ toward a conscious decision, somewhere.”). What I do know is that, like Paul, I simply believed and a complete reversal of life (thought-out and lived out) took place almost immediately. As Paul dropped from the scene for a period of time before his ministry began, so I spent several years in a small United Methodist Church (Carbonton – where I was baptized), formulating and processing the calling in which I found myself with Christ.

Like Paul, the calling of the collision takes the ethos of the previous religion (or lack thereof) and turns it upside-down in the cause of Christ. It is by calling, like Paul, and not by choice, that I have been sent to the “Gentiles.” Where Paul, literally, went to the “non-Jews,” I have gone to the “Un-churched” (those “without” – not with and outside of the plan and purpose of God). Neither Paul’s calling nor mine are exclusively to such group; for as Paul kept strong ties to the Jewish church in Palestine, so I covet my relationship with the “churched” generally, and the United Methodist’s particularly. Nevertheless, the calling is clear and the purpose is to carry the Good News to those who are in darkness, forgotten and “left loosed” and alienated by the church. The vision was never (and is never) to separate the Gentiles (Un-churched) into their own group, but to the contrary, it is to include and find acceptance for them in the present church; thereby tearing down the wall of separation between the two – Jew and Gentile (churched and un-churched).

And, as Paul taught those many years ago, the “mystery” of Christianity is found in the ‘Cruciform’ (“in Christ,” for Paul). That the Christian life is neither found in Law nor lawlessness, but in the grace of being “without law;” that “works of the flesh” are necessarily irrational (because the flesh, hopelessly bound to sin, has died); that if we have died with Christ, then we are raised with Christ in this life (and the life to come); that the resurrection life is a present reality (and not just a future hope); that Christ lives in us (not that we live “for Christ”); that the church is where the needs of the community meet God’s supply of the needs; where the church is ever expanding with humanity (rather than separating itself from it); where everyone, regardless of who they are, is accepted; where anyone, regardless of what they have done or haven’t done, is included; when Christ is the object of the church (and not simply the subject); and when “Christians” are owned by Christ (and not simply “on loan” to Him).

Thus, like Paul (though I, in no way, am attempting to compare myself to the great apostle; but, am simply following his example), I desire to reach the Un-churched and to “un-church” the church (in the present sense of the word, “church”). I am driven, like Paul, by the collision with Christ, the calling of Christ, and the definition of a “Christian” (and, therefore, the “church”) in Christ to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Much is made of the idea of accountability. To be held to account – to be responsible for words and actions; a place of answerability – by someone or something is an important concept. Accountability should not be preventative as much as it is to be proactive. There is risk involved with being accountable. One must admit guilt when necessary. One must carry the weight of burden for one’s words and actions. Where there is accountability there is also liability. Institutions (including the Church) have superimposed various fail-safes in an attempt to, if you will, force accountability. The legal system, with its civil and criminal laws, is a perfect example. But one cannot be forced to be accountable. One cannot be held accountable if that one wishes not to be. Certainly I am not suggesting we suspend the civil/criminal laws, but I am calling into question the notion of forced accountability (the statistics give evidence that prison, though instituted as accountability, is penal and nothing more for most individuals).

Without “Self-Inflicted Accountability” an individual will not allow him/herself to be held accountable to anyone or anything. Take, for example, the Decalogue. The Jews utilized the Ten Commandments for the purpose of accountability. This accountability has no control over the intent, but only the actions of a person. Because it tells me not to steal it does not necessarily follow that I do not still have the deep seeded desire to do so. The so-called accountability simply becomes a deterrent because I don’t want to be caught and becomes penal if I do, and in actuality causes me to attempt to find a way around the accountability or excuses my action by sheer manipulation. Perhaps, even worse, forced accountability causes me to do my deed in secret because, after all, “no one can tell me what to do.”

Without Self-Inflicted Accountability, the marriage covenant is nothing but relative to my desires. The legal system of civil and criminal law is only something to avoid if I am not under Self-Inflicted Accountability. As a pastor in the UMC, I will not be accountable to my D.S. and Bishop, but only resentful, without Self-Inflicted Accountability. Accountability does not come because they are the D.S. or Bishop, or because of some superimposed supposed accountability, but it comes when I self-inflict accountability that gives me the means by which to be held accountable to and by them.

Self-Inflicted Accountability demands that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It means to live in the Spirit and put to death the things of the flesh. It necessarily means that I experience the killing power of the cross of Christ and the life-giving resurrection power of the risen Christ. It insists that Jesus transforms my intent so that my actions change. It is part of the sufferings of Christ. It demands that a human-made religion is inferior to the faith in and of Christ. Instituted accountability by design points to and presupposes a Self-Inflicted Accountability; otherwise, it is only another form of penal system with no hope of transformation.

Speaking of the church, how do we measure success? By what means is a successful church measured? Are numbers the indicators of success (or not)? Is it the size of the budget, the size of the offerings, the size of the membership, or the size of the group in attendance? Is it the number of ministries, the number of ministers, or the number of those ministered to? Speaking of the Christian, how do we measure success? By what means is a successful Christian measured? Is it success in ministry, in influence, in sphere of influence? Is it even possible to measure success in such things?

Imagine you are a Roman citizen in first century Palestine. Perhaps you heard this man, Jesus, speak. Maybe, even, you heard the claims of some of the Jews that this man was on some sort of mission from God. Not having knowledge yet of the resurrection, how successful would you say Jesus was in his mission as he was whipped half-to-death and nailed to a tree, left to die in humiliation and agony, after having a huge crowd demand his crucifixion? He only had twelve close friends, perhaps 70 disciples and maybe 500 followers. Scripture says that he didn’t even have a place to lie down that he called his own. His burial site belonged to someone else. The leaders of the religious powers-that-be said he was evil, and he was denied by one of his closest friends and betrayed by another.

How successful would you say that the Apostle Paul was, if you were a citizen of Rome, when you heard through the proverbial grape vine that he had planted a handful of so-called “churches” in the name of some guy that, ridiculously enough, supposedly raised from the dead and, if that isn’t bad enough, then ascended in a cloud into the heavens. This guy, Paul, was such a trouble maker that he had been beaten several times by his own people (even stoned to near-death), imprisoned by the officials a half-a-dozen times, and ship-wrecked a couple times, and so on. He is delusional after all, claiming that some crucified dude had showed up again on his way down the road! And if this is the same guy that had gone into heaven, why, then, was he on the road over yonder? He had, like, one friend with him here in the Roman prison. These so-called churches had all kinds of issues and were wreaking havoc all over Asia Minor and Macedonia. Paul always talked about dying, and how he wanted to be crucified; well, he got his wish when he was beheaded and his body hung on a stake along the Roman Road.

Today, I think that numbers are in fact indicators – road signs if you please. We know that three days later Jesus arose from the dead. Paul’s churches were the primitive beginnings that eventually became the world wide Church, and that there are millions who claim to be Christian through Paul’s expression of Christ. Measuring success is a means to an end, but the end in itself, in a question, is, “Are you everything that God has called and equipped you to be?” I want to know how many people are impacted by my expression of Christ so as to test the effectiveness of my Vision Casting according to my calling and equipping. Success (or not) is ultimately determined by God, though. He knew that the death of Christ would lead to the resurrection of Christ. He knew that the few would reach the many. He knew that the martyr would be the catalyst that builds the church. And He is the God behind and beyond the numbers. Success is when Jesus says to you, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

There is a sign in front of a church not far from my house (the denomination will remain nameless) which last week, when referring (I think) to the weather, read, “If you think this is hot, wait until you get to Hell.” Now, numerous thoughts flood my mind as I attempt to process this: For example, who would deliver this message? What type of church delivers this message? What do unbelievers think about this message? What do unbelievers think about this church? What do unbelievers think about the Church in general because of this message? Likewise, what do unbelievers think about these Christians and/or Christians in general? More importantly, what do unbelievers think about God in this message?

The anti-hero of one of my favorite movie’s (Hellraiser, actually a series of movies) is Pinhead. The author, Clive Barker, presents Pinhead as a sort-of “moral entity” where, when one has an evil heart, is immoral and/or unethical Pinhead comes for you from the regions of Hell. He always has a catchy slogan – a million dollar one-liner – that sticks in your memory. In the third movie of the series, in a scene where our anti-hero has just defied a myth and walked defiantly into a “sacred” church building, the priest exclaims to Pinhead that he [Pinhead] would “burn in Hell!” Without missing a beat Pinhead retorts, “Oh, burn…Such a limited imagination.” This response to the naivety of the priest is what instantly comes to mind as I process the message of this church sign.

When I was still in trucking, there was a driver with the company who, as a self-proclaimed “prophet of God,” insisted (conveniently enough) that anyone who didn’t believe as he did would one day “wake up in the flame!” The interesting thing about this to me is the facial expression this guy would get; the change in the pitch of his voice when he said it; the sheer uncontrolled excitement reminded me (ironically) of the portrayals of the demon-possessed in the gospel accounts of Scripture.

The validity (or not) of a burning Hell notwithstanding, do we really see the exclamation of such as effective evangelism? Do we actually think that our uncontrolled enthusiasm concerning unbelievers going to Hell is somehow a derivative of the gospel? Can we hide our self-righteous pride in our own holiness for accepting this message that others are too evil to obtain? I’ll tell you what this message does, from personal experience: It raises-up (in the strong-minded), rebellion against you and your church. It calls forth (in the thinking person) defiance of your God (god?). You interpret this rebellion and defiance as necessary reactions of the ungodly, but you do not perceive that they are necessary reactions to your hypocrisy. What sort of theology do we have when we wear as a badge of honor the rejection of this message by unbelievers? The point is lost on me when the church prides itself in its fidelity to the lack of transformed lives in unbelievers. It is logically fatalistic if the church is present for the benefit of believers only (oh, the theological suicide)!

Pinhead (both in word and image) simply echoes the sentiment of sound reason if the gospel is not the Good News of the transformed lives of those who have escaped judgment by the resurrection life and living love of Jesus Christ expressed in the community of believers who bear His name. Love covers a multitude of sins, not Hell-fire.

For some of us, simple faith is enough. I do not mean this in the sense of “works VS faith” and neither do I speak in an ultimate sense of salvation and the role of faith. I refer to the fact that some of us are satisfied with faith, while others of us are interested in faith that seeks understanding (theology). That is how I view the five years of my life that I have spent here at Duke Divinity (not to mention another six years at NTS). Some argue that education “ruins the minister” while others think it is mandatory for ministry. Many are afraid of education and many others put far too much faith in it. I think that it obviously depends on the state of mind of the one seeking the understanding, if one so wishes, whether or not it is a good or bad thing to seek understanding.

 I think it is important to know and understand why and how we do/believe/think the things and ways we do/believe/think. Do we seek academia to give the answers to these questions? Certainly many do. The consequence of this is that these persons do not contribute to the ongoing conversation, but only serve to regurgitate the thinking of some professor or former (or present) thinker. There are many professors and/or thinkers of the ages with which I agree, but that is not why I am here. I am not here to get answers, but material. I want to hear the arguments presented throughout the ages so that I may enter the conversation and (God willing) contribute. Do I come away from these conversations with something? Certainly! Not simply because someone said it, but because of the fact of taking part in the conversation makes me think through the why and how we do/believe/think as we do (or do not).

 Some enter the academic setting with their theology already concretized. Many of these experience a crack in their concrete, and some have it strengthened further. Others enter without a theological basis at all – empty shells waiting to be filled – and these are the most impressionable, and quite honestly, the most naive. These are those who feel a certain professor or thinker is the proverbial “be-all-end-all,” as though such a one is the only one having the conversation. Yet, another interesting thing are those who sense no change in what they think, theologically or otherwise, even after years spent overhearing the conversations of the ages. These, to me, are most alarming! No one person (or group) has all the answers and, more often than not, a balance or combination of persons (or groups) gives a fuller picture of the whole. If you ever quit learning, you quit living.

 I cannot fail to mention an almost universal variable in all of this, namely, human frailty. It seems that most folks deem it detrimental to have all the answers, while others speak as though there are no answers to be had and thus only speak in philosophical circles. Many seek academics in the hopes of knowing something that “common folks” do not, as though their actual self-worth is in question. Others truly are seeking to better themselves and, therefore, those who are in their spheres of influence (the way we think affects the way we live – good or bad).

 Personally, as anyone who knows me will attest, I wish only for us to think. Period! And I have spent 11 years learning and processing ways to help us to do just that. I wish to invite you into the conversation. In my opinion, the faith we claim demands understanding (theology). Faith seeking understanding… Dare to know.