Opinion

Reconciliation among Christians might be closer than we think

"Reconciliation," a sculpture by Josefina de Vasconcellos, in St. Michael's Cathedral in Coventry, England. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (RNS) — Nearly a thousand years after the East-West Schism and after 500 years of Catholic-Protestant divisions, the task of restoring unity among the thousands of Christian denominations in the world today might seem like recreating a great ancient oak tree out of sawdust.

But that would be a view external to Christianity, and certainly outside the lens of faith.

For the past three years, I’ve stood inside the efforts to bring Christians back together, as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. That position sits at the nexus of over a dozen standing dialogues between Catholics and other believers, some going back over 50 years.

Along the way, friendships have been forged and theological obstacles have been overcome. It’s an experience that has taught me that Jesus did not pray in vain when he preached that his followers “all may be one.” (John 17:21)

So as the world commemorates the 500th anniversary of the Reformation this Oct. 31, I would offer three observations:

First, don’t buy into the perception that the world’s Christians are at war with each other. The friendships I have experienced with Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed Christians and other followers of Jesus are true. And what I have seen and experienced has surprised me with hope at every turn. There are so many things that unite Christians, and we have cooperated in so many ways. Finding that level of cooperation and that spirit of friendship has been a great blessing.

In our society today, particularly in political discourse, there is so much acrimony in discussing issues that many people are just plain weary of the divisiveness. Another hallmark of this culture is that religion is being increasingly set aside, and yet, ironically, it is religion that drives reconciliation efforts, rather than conflict.

That might seem counterintuitive to some who see Christians, for instance, as on the front lines of a culture war. But in the realm of ecumenical dialogue, the divided Christians of the world are the ones modeling dialogue and friendship amid disagreement. They are missionaries of civility, something too few people are aware of or understand. This could really transform the abrasive, toxic cultural conversation of the United States.

Second, we Christians shouldn’t be cynical or defeatist about the differences that remain — and in some cases have grown even wider — between different denominations of Christians. Again, hot-button cultural issues provide the most visible divisions, on marriage and family issues, the role of women in church life, etc. To many, these are seen as dead ends.

But even if these are irreconcilable differences on the surface, God’s ways are not our ways. Pope Francis has shown that when we commit to encountering each other as human beings and beloved children of God first, the ground between us shrinks in often unanticipated ways. The journey of friendship begun by so many Christians in the 20th century was itself a surprise. God is not finished with us.

Which is why, lastly, I am certain that the road to restored unity among Christians will not take another 500 years. The signs are all here.

The thaw of ecumenical friendships has created thousands of rivulets beneath the surface of the vast glacier of Christian division. It may look like solid ice, but look out! A total shift could occur, seemingly without warning.

But we’ve had warnings:

Pope Francis building bridges with Pentecostals.

Pope Francis telling Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew that a shared profession of faith ought to suffice for restoring full communion between our churches.

Pope Francis stating explicitly that uniformity is not the same as the unity we seek. (He actually says uniformity kills!)

All of these developments (and these are only the recent ones) should give hope that reconciliation among Christians is closer than we might think.

This drives home the importance of and the connection between friendships among different Christians and the ultimate goal of restored unity. The more we engage with one another, the closer Jesus will bring us to himself and to one another, allowing us to be special guests in each other’s homes and, ultimately, one family at one table.

All of this is the work of God, and our shared faith in that will make every difference.

(The Rev. Mitchell T. Rozanski is the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Mass. The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

About the author

Mitchell T. Rozanski

44 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • there would need to be too many compromises on scripture for every denomination to bring us to “one”. And, as with compromises, rather than reality, it still would not be Christianity.

  • I think Christ would rather have people with Him who love Him, respect Him, and truly want to be with Him, rather than people who just didn’t want to go to Hell. Our goal is to please Christ, Navy.

  • Serious question: Is there a particular denomination (or denominations) that you consider to be true or are the saved ones spread out in other denominations?

  • I think what we are seeing is that as Christianity loses more and more younger members to the nones, Christians will put aside theological differences to support partisan political goals. But can we really call that “unity”?

  • “…the task of restoring unity among the thousands of Christian
    denominations in the world today might seem like recreating a great
    ancient oak tree out of sawdust.”

    What a great analogy.

  • What Scripture are you referring to? Also, there is no compromise with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in regards to doctrine. The church agrees with you that reality cannot be changed. This includes the faulty interpretations of Scripture by a 16th century German monk.

  • I have never really understood why there was so much acrimony between Christians to begin with over the centuries. Catholics, of which I am one, have done more of their fair share of sowing this too. My mother had told me a story of how going to catholic school when they went to Mass at the church around the corner they were told to cross the street rather than walk in front of the local YMCA. I was shocked not only that anyone would hold such idiotic beliefs, but that it was taught to the students.

    What I would like to know, in the vein of a unified Christendom, is why can’t this unity just be common respect and filial togetherness without the need to put all Christian sects under one roof. If we truly love our fellow Christians then we will accept them where they are as they are. I am quite leery of a one world Christian faith until the second coming of Jesus based solely on the fact that Man is so corrupt including all those who call themselves pastor, minister, priest. The fractures that have occurred over the centuries all have their good and bad reasons, and consolidating power ironically is what caused the fractures in the first place.

    Respecting our fellow Christians, brother/sisterhood under the same faith in Jesus, does not mean everyone needs to live under the same tent. One must ask now, why the big push for this and who benefits because it’s usually not the laity.

  • But why unite at all when the basic foundations of Christianity (and all religions) are entangled in lies, errors, myths and embellishments?

    Once again, the ease of which one can put the kibosh on all religions is mind boggling.

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    “The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother’s womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. “

  • You have over 500+ sects of Protestant Christianity. Many of which do not even acknowledge one another as Christians for a variety of reasons*. Add to that 3 full fledged distinct sects (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic) with their own long and troubled history with each other.

    The idea of unity among Christians is an ahistorical fantasy. Time and again, the trend is towards division and schism rather than submitting to some overarching authority.

    In an increasingly democratic world, that is a good thing for Christians. To find a sect one is comfortable with and congruent with their beliefs. As opposed to accepting one imposed upon them by culture, birth and nationality.

    *I have no idea where Mormons fit in there. Can a member of the sect tell me whether they are Protestant or something different altogether.

  • “One must ask now, why the big push for this and who benefits because it’s usually not the laity.”

    Very good question. Seeing that people are largely OK with finding a sect which fits them, I scarcely see why “one big tent” is even desirable for most.

  • Then do what pleases you, except for the part where you instill fear in and cause harm to others. That I object to, vehemently.

  • I don’t instil fear. If you are talking about my posting scripture, who can say it better than Jesus? I’ll continue; thanks

  • It pleases you and your ilk to break out carefully selected, totally out of context, and devoid of reality bible verses to instill fear and guilt with the ultimate purpose of gaining points …er, converts.
    Conformity seems to be your ideology, diversity is your nemesis, all must be as one or retribution will be swift, indifferent, and cruel.
    This is what I learned as a voracious reader of biblical literature in my youth. It had not changed 20 years later when I took mandatory religious courses for my degree while on active duty. A Catholic college was all that was available in my remote location… and they accepted my Latin courses from a previous university.

  • Jim, I believe that no one has it correct. I do believe that some are more correct than others, and I do believe that in most Christian congregations there are some who are saved, in spite of the others in the congregation.
    I don’t believe people following Christ send people to Hell, so that takes out a lot of so called “churches” today.
    I believe that our job is to read our Bible and see if the teachings agree with what the pastor is laying out. Not a lot of people read their Bibles any more, or we wouldn’t have half of the trash that the world pushes on us coming into the church.
    I hope that answered your question.

  • It pleases God that we break out carefully selected scriptures. If you cannot understand them, there are many here who will help you.

  • You arrogantly presume that I do not understand/comprehend what you’ve selected from the biblical buffet. You incorrectly assume…demand that I need your assistance.
    Reading and comprehension have been my strong suit since kindergarten. Kind of happened when immediate family is heavy with academics and civil rights activists…so, I learned about context at an early age.

  • I’d be interested to know from the author of this blog post what “unity” would look like from a Catholic perspective. How would he know that we’ve achieved “unity?” Roman Catholics believe that their version of the faith is the one, true faith. Would unity mean all Christians becoming Roman Catholic? If not, what does unity mean? Friendship is different than unity (in my opinion).

    Also, I realize the writer is coming from a Catholic perspective, but he writes as if the only signs of coming unity emerge from the current Pope doing things, as if no other Christian group has ecumenical outreach (or the Catholic Church wasn’t engaged in ecumenical outreach prior to Francis) or there aren’t signs from other parts of the church that signify a desire for “unity.”

  • I don’t think the author is describing unity in the context of American partisan politics. He’s thinking much broader than that, though he’s not very concrete about what unity looks like.

  • I’ve got bad news for you, brother Mitchell T. Rozanski. This “Reconciliation among Christians” will never happen. Not in “another 500 years”, not even in a million. Know why? It’s because, like you said, “Jesus did not pray in vain when he preached that his followers ‘all may be one.’ (John 17:21)” He meant every word of it in that prayer. Question is, What were those words in His prayer? Just, That “all [Catholics like you and non-Catholics like me] may be one” – and that’s it? What, no strings attached? You’re kidding, right? But, of course, there are strings of conditions attached. Look them up in John 17 and you’ll see that there are at least four preconditions of the existence of this oneness:

    (1) People shall become as one only if and when they know the true God, believing He had sent Jesus to Israel and that Jesus had come from Him. (John 17:3, 8, 21, 25.)

    (2) People shall become as one only if and when they know God by name, the name received and revealed by Jesus; and are kept in that name and unified in it by love, just as God & Jesus are one and love each other. (John 17:6, 11-12, 26.)

    (3) People shall become as one only if and when they obey God’s word of truth, the word Jesus & His 1st apostles had given them; and are sanctified by it just as He was. (John 17:6, 8, 14, 17,19-20.)

    (4) People shall become as one only if and when they know and see that all that Jesus has, comes from God, who glorifies Him in it. (John 17:7, 10, 24.)

  • According to Daniel S. Mulhall, The Ecumenical Christian Dialogues and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paulist Press, 2013:

    “We interpret justification, present-day Lutherans, and the history of the Reformation through a new lens now that the Joint Declaration [on the Doctrine of Justification, 1999] has become an authoritative statement for Catholics. This gives us the opportunity of reinforcing the faith of the church as enunciated in the Catechism. … While all of what the church teaches is to be believed, all of the truths of the faith are not related to one another in the same way. … In an ecumenical dialogue it is important to order the truths of the faith accurately so that, where there are differences between communities, it’s possible to determine whether the differences are related to the central message of the incarnation or to later interpretations that developed. This clarity will enable the parties in the dialogue to understand better what each believes about important Christian truths.”

  • According to Sikivu Hutchinson, an atheist herself (cf. Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars, 2011): “There is little analysis of the relationship between economic disenfranchisement, race, gender, and religiosity in [atheists’] critiques of organized religion. … [Such criticism, having] limited cultural relevance for people of color … preserves and reproduces the status quo of white supremacy in its arrogant insularity. In this universe, oppressed minorities are more imperiled by their own investment in organized religion than [by] white supremacy. Liberation is not a matter of fighting against white racism … and classism but of throwing off the shackles of superstition. … [And so, these atheists] provide no sociological insight into why organized religion and religiosity have an enduring hold on disenfranchised communities in the richest, most powerful nation on the planet. Religion is only one apparatus for draconian repression and inequity. Secular institutions that enforce and uphold oppressive hierarchies must also be actively challenged within a humanist framework.”

  • CUI BONO?

    This rhetorical Latin legal phrase is useful when implying that whoever appears to have the most to gain from a crime is probably the culprit.

  • There will be unity under Messiah when He returns. But not under a politicized apostate Pope. May God bless you with enlightenment of His truth. Shalom be with you.

  • “Common respect and filial togetherness“ are not exactly characteristics of people who think that they are the sole possessors of The Truth. This is simply an observation, not snark. You can see it on these very pages, As Christians attack other Christians for not being the right sort of Christian, when they are not attacking Mormons, Jews, Muslims, gay people, uppity women, liberals, democrats, and anyone else.

    Cui bono?. Who has a well paying job, being ecumenical. Who gets to dresss well, go to a lot of swell places? Dinner In the Sistine chapel, prepared by the personal chef of the pope? What’s not to like?

    As HpO so deftly Notes above, all of this whole thing boils down to “let’s agree to disagree.” They don’t need all of the hoopla to produce that simple result. The hidden proposition is, “But as our numbers shrink, we have to maintain our relevance. So let’s unify”. It’s the sociological equivalent of making yourself larger in order to discourage bears and mountain lions in Yellowstone.

    I’m sure there are people who are genuinely distressed at Christian disunity, and who want to see that end. But I am also sure that as with so many other things, the abortion wars being prominent in my mind, it’s just another way to stay in business.

  • Thanks. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what this is saying is that there are higher order truths (central message of the incarnation) and lesser order ones and that once the Church distinguishes between the two (perhaps it already has), then we can have unity as long as everyone agrees with the higher order ones and we can agree to disagree about the lesser order ones. Is that approximately what it’s saying? Or is it something else?

  • The short answer is that while Mormonism arose out of the milieu of the Second Great Awakening, it quickly morphed into something very different that any of its members’ former Protestant churches. So it would be no more Protestant today than Jehovah’s Witnesses or Unitarian Universalism.

  • My mindset helps clarify. 1st reaction to article was counting how many times “Pope Francis” got mentioned in this holy endeavour. So it must be a Catholic thing, because they’ve always intended on evangelizing Christianity, which is bringing everybody back to Christendom with, well, him pope-ing over us all.

    2nd reaction was this quote I gave you which pretty much tells me even Catholics do desire to unify with all non-Catholics. The how-to is a challenge to them as much as to Progressive Evangelicals (there was a Sojourners co-founder brokering with Catholic higher-ups on this effort). Bottomline: holy effort overall, but no available means. Sure, they’ll experiment, like this talk of high/low order of truth.

    I don’t know. It’s hard, is all.

    But take a peak at my original comment, though. Jesus not too happy with their means and ends toward oneness.

    Which makes it all even so hopeless, you know? Imagine God’s not behind this whole enterprise, which is what I’m saying.

    So someone else here mentioned, Qui Bono? Now, that’s my 3rd but undeveloped reaction. Maybe it’s all conspiracy like Bill Burr loved to joke about.

  • I owe it to YoikesAndAway for making me think of ecumenism for the 1st time in terms of “who benefits” from “the big push for this”. Then, of course per the usual, you nail it with, “The hidden proposition is, ‘But as our numbers shrink, we have to maintain our relevance. So let’s unify’.” Or, as you might’ve noticed, “the big push” to “unify” progressive religionists with religious nuns I mean nones. Follow the money here, too, then; you & Yoikes(good grief, how do I even spell it?)And(cap that A)Away? are right. “It’s just another way to stay in business” – using “the laity” as the exploitable consumer – believers & atheists alike, you & I.

  • Thanks….I think? ?

    I really wasn’t trying to be snarky. But I have noticed many times, the Prop. 8 nastiness being paramount, that the absolute religious differences can easily be put aside if the payoffs is in power, money, and dominion. I know I use that phrase a lot, but it seems to apply a lot.

    Back in my student days, before there was hair, the sociology of religion was of great interest to me. What people say they are doing as opposed to what can be observed that they are doing.

  • Thanks for making me curious just now about that bit there that you wrote, “sociology of religion”. Me see (courtesy of Wikipedia) …

    Karl Marx’s sociology of religion: “‘Religion is the opium of the people’ … is a contradictory (or dialectical) metaphor, referring to religion as both an expression of suffering and a protest against suffering.”

    Peter Berger’s sociology of religion: That “much of the world is as religious as ever … points to the falsity of the secularization theory. … Unlike Europe, America has seen the rise of Evangelical Protestantism, or ‘born-again Christians’.”

    Ernest Gellner’s sociology of religion: “Facts … provide us with no guidelines on how to live and how to organize ourselves. In this regard, we are worse off than pre-modern people, whose knowledge, while incorrect, at least provided them with prescriptions for living. However, … these disadvantages are far outweighed by the huge technological advances modern societies have experienced as a result of the application of scientific knowledge.”

    Michel Foucault’s sociology of religion: “The rise to power of science, and of medicine in particular, coincided with a progressive reduction of the power of religious forms of knowledge. For example, normality and deviance became more of a matter of health and illness than of good and evil, and the physician took over from the priest the role of defining, promoting, and healing deviance.”

  • Christians have always been this way. It doesn’t take much to mentally cross from “we have the ultimate and total capital-T Truth” to “everyone who doesn’t agree with us has something that isn’t capital-T Truth at all” to “everyone who disagrees with us is wrong and deserves our heaped scorn and spite.” It’s been like that since the religion was invented by mystery scribes millennia ago. Catholicism became the standard-issue form of Christianity for centuries because they had the weight of government behind them to force others to join up. The second Catholicism lost that power, other forms of Christianity sprouted up–each seeking that same power of coercion and government-granted force. Some of those forms gained that power (notably the Christians who left England for the New World), and where they ruled, uniformity was enforced in the same way.

    Christians have now lost that power to coerce pretty much anyone to do anything anywhere. And we’re seeing what people do when they aren’t compelled to play along with religion. And new churches sprout up every day–the SBC is spiraling downward in membership and yet they’re starting plants literally everywhere they can and counting as a success any that last more than 3 years (most do not last anywhere near that long).

    Uniformity comes only through coercion. That’s the big problem with an ideology that takes personal revelation as divinely-granted wisdom. So even when Christians clamber into the same befouled and reeking bed to gain greater political power (as in their culture wars against women’s rights and LGBTQ equality), they consider everyone outside their groups to be wrong and therefore lesser than themselves.

  • You’re so right. The stated goals do not often match the real ones, in Christian-land. If any space aliens came to Earth and watched Christians as a group, they sure wouldn’t come away thinking that very many of them at all were actually interested in being known by their love.

  • I’m getting a firm impression right now that you really have no idea what love is. That’s a common problem in fervent Christians; they frequently relabel and redefine common words to suit themselves and let them get away with mistreating others.

  • Though Marx is sometimes taught in sociology classes, he wasn’t a sociologist. Gellner is being less than frank; social values inform religion as much as, if not more than, religion informs social values.

    You would probably get more out of reading Max Weber than from these guys. The sociology of religion is simply about how religion functions in society, and how society functions with religion.

    Cui bono is definitely a sociology of religion question.

  • I grew up with Marx down to Foucault around the time of my “Jesus Saves” moment. Go figure, right? Speaking of which, I’ll be right back. I want you to comment on Jurgen Habermas’ sociology of religion, please, please.

    A cyberspace travel there just now in midstream of consciousness, but I’m back. With …

    Jurgen Habermas’ Sociology of Religion: “For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.” (“Time of Transitions”, Polity, 2014). Mind, “the Judeo-Hellenic-Christian West … must refrain from using any non-discursive means in the hermeneutical conversation between cultures, and must become just one voice among others”. (“A Conversation About God and the World”, in Time of Transitions, Polity, 2006, page 155.) But “to exclude religious voices from the public square is highly illiberal”. (Jurgen Habermas, quoted in Rodney Pearson, “Tis the Season to Reveal What Atheists Really Want”, American Thinker, 2014.)

  • Atheists too though get pumped up by “the weight of government”.

    (1) According to Stephen LeDrew, an atheist himself (cf. The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement, Oxford University Press, 2016):

    Atheists “exhibit some totalitarian tendencies with respect to the use of state power … Major intrusions by the state on individual freedoms, as well as imperialist projects, are frequently legitimated ideologically through the rhetoric of security and protection.”

    (2) According to CJ Werleman, an atheist himself (cf. The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, Dangerous Little Books, 2016):

    Atheists are “secular fundamentalists … [Theirs] is a completely illiberal secular ideology”. They put their faith in “the beneficent U.S. secular state.”

  • I wonder what aliens think of atheists & their “love”.

    (1) According to CJ Werleman, an atheist himself (cf. The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, Dangerous Little Books, 2016):

    Atheists also “peddle fear, suspicion, and hate.”

    (2) According to Stephen LeDrew, an atheist himself (cf. The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement, Oxford University Press, 2016):

    Atheists’ “intolerance [is] quite dangerous.”

    (3) According to Daniel Fincke, an atheist himself (cf. “Why I Criticize My Fellow Atheists”, Camels with Hammers, June 17, 2013):

    Atheists are “just looking for flaws in theism or religious people’s behavior out of some animus … prejudice or malice. … Some atheists really do seem to have gotten into this movement to indulge in their feelings of superiority to those they pitilessly disparage as ‘stupid’ or wicked. … They are just in this to throw rocks at the ‘retards’. I have no sympathies with such people and am ashamed that they’re associated with me.”

  • This is one of those places where I have to say “shaking my head.”

    Putting it briefly, Christianity is the center of western culture. It is responsible for all of the good things that western culture has produced.

    The problem is, as the center of western culture, it’s alSo responsible for all of the bad things that western culture produced. Yes, while it gave us an anti-slavery ethic, it also gave us slavery. Yes, it help produce the scientific method, when it wasn’t jailing scientists. Yes, it gave us the gay rights movement, when it wasn’t demanding that gay people be put in prison.

    It’s far more accurate to say that Christianity was at the center of western civilization, without the spin.

    But of course, so much of what we might call “the bad” was not a product of Christianity, but a reaction to it. The French Revolution for example, stood against the divine right of kings AND the divine right of churches. That puts one squarely into Hegelian and Marxian dialectics.

    Excluding religion from the public square is a straw man argument. I agree that the churches have every right to be In the public square. But that is not the same thing as pressing purely theological concerns onto the civil law that governs all of us. You might want to review Jonathan Swifts comments about the Big Endians and the Small Endians. If you are the former, do you really want the latter to force that belief onto civil law?

    Or, Using my favorite example, it’s one thing to believe that homosexuality is a sin. It’s quite another thing to declare that not only is homosexuality is a sin, But it’s the very worst sin possible. It is yet again another thing to declare that a demonstrable bunch of lies about gay people are in fact the truth, and another thing entirely to declare that gay people must be thrown into jail in order to prevent the things that those who telll lies about them say are true, when they are not.

  • Is that “shaking my head” – “before there was hair”? Or …

    Which is to say, Hey, Ben in Oakland, do know I regard & appreciate your opinion highly. And where you’re coming from, too.

    And I think here you and Jurgen Habermas see i2i. And the whole world is, thankfully, all the better from that. Which, you’re right, is a Christian heresy to say, according to my born-again Christian brothers and sisters on a Power Play these days. And you know my reference there – on the eve of Trump’s 1st Anniversary – isn’t to hockey.

ADVERTISEMENTs