Lutheran Carnival #52 will be hosted here this upcoming weekend. Posts are due Friday; the Carnival will be up on Sunday. See submission instructions here.
See you at the Carnival!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Gospels in the 100's A.D.: Alternate Christianities and Irenaeus
In many places there is a general assumption that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen late in church history, hundreds of years after the fact, from a pack of equally strong contenders; that the "alternate" gospels enjoyed a similar history and following; that either politics or theological bias was the deciding factor in which versions of Jesus' life would reach us. The history of the canon of Scripture simply does not support such a view. The "lost gospels" so often trumpeted by pop scholars were simply never in the running; in fact, historically, from the earliest days among churches founded by the apostles no gospel writing was ever in the running other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I will not attempt to cover all the available material from the 100's A.D., but to review some of the better-known writings that show the special consideration in which the four canonical gospels were already held in that century. In this post I will briefly review the very early non-apostolic groups and Irenaeus' early attempts to show how we can know the genuine teachings received from the apostles.
Brief Notes on Non-Apostolic Christian Groups
Given that much interest is currently being paid to the views of Christians who were considered heretical and why they were considered heretical, it is worth taking a brief look at the writings these groups were using.
Interestingly, when reviewing the literature for and against alternate Christian groups that far back, their own writings and those who rebutted them recorded that they also typically used one or another of the same four gospels we now consider canonical. The Marcionites favored a version of Luke with many passages edited out for their particular theological reasons. The Gnostics favored the gospel according to John.
Irenaeus makes early mention (possibly the earliest mention) of a non-apostolic gospel called the Gospel of Truth, a writing which he disowned based on its late date and non-apostolic origins. He comments both that "they put forth their own compositions" in contrast with those received from the apostles, and "Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity as to entitle their comparatively recent writing 'the Gospel of Truth'." (Against Heresies 3.11) Irenaeus also argues that this gospel "agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles", which is something of an overstatement despite the plain differences in focus and style. After a copy of the Gospel of Truth was recovered from Nag Hammadi and was available for direct examination, it seems to have the character of a devotional commentary on the apostolic Scriptures, done in a semi-mystical strain with Gnostic tendencies. From the standpoint of a historian looking at the life of Christ, the Gospel of Truth does not bear any direct witness to Christ, mentioning only what is already recorded in the received apostolic writings, and in ways which make clear it is referring to the earlier apostolic writings as the original source material. The Gospel of Truth likely dates to around 150 A.D.
Irenaeus on the Four Gospels
But what about the churches that were apostolic, that had been founded by the inner circle of Christ's own followers?
Irenaeus is one of the better-known Christian writers of the 100's A.D., an early leader in giving criteria for distinguishing true teaching from false. In this, he relied heavily on the witness of the apostles as passed on to his own day. He had in his time met Polycarp, bishop of the church in Smyrna who had personally known some of Christ's own apostles, including the apostle John. Irenaeus placed confidence in this recent and direct personal knowledge as a reliable chain of transmission, a guarantee that the teachings he had received in this church were authentic to what the apostles themselves had handed down. His comments on the gospels received by the apostolic churches are deservedly well-known:
To be continued with more writings from the 100's A.D. ...
I will not attempt to cover all the available material from the 100's A.D., but to review some of the better-known writings that show the special consideration in which the four canonical gospels were already held in that century. In this post I will briefly review the very early non-apostolic groups and Irenaeus' early attempts to show how we can know the genuine teachings received from the apostles.
Brief Notes on Non-Apostolic Christian Groups
Given that much interest is currently being paid to the views of Christians who were considered heretical and why they were considered heretical, it is worth taking a brief look at the writings these groups were using.
Interestingly, when reviewing the literature for and against alternate Christian groups that far back, their own writings and those who rebutted them recorded that they also typically used one or another of the same four gospels we now consider canonical. The Marcionites favored a version of Luke with many passages edited out for their particular theological reasons. The Gnostics favored the gospel according to John.
Irenaeus makes early mention (possibly the earliest mention) of a non-apostolic gospel called the Gospel of Truth, a writing which he disowned based on its late date and non-apostolic origins. He comments both that "they put forth their own compositions" in contrast with those received from the apostles, and "Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity as to entitle their comparatively recent writing 'the Gospel of Truth'." (Against Heresies 3.11) Irenaeus also argues that this gospel "agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles", which is something of an overstatement despite the plain differences in focus and style. After a copy of the Gospel of Truth was recovered from Nag Hammadi and was available for direct examination, it seems to have the character of a devotional commentary on the apostolic Scriptures, done in a semi-mystical strain with Gnostic tendencies. From the standpoint of a historian looking at the life of Christ, the Gospel of Truth does not bear any direct witness to Christ, mentioning only what is already recorded in the received apostolic writings, and in ways which make clear it is referring to the earlier apostolic writings as the original source material. The Gospel of Truth likely dates to around 150 A.D.
Irenaeus on the Four Gospels
But what about the churches that were apostolic, that had been founded by the inner circle of Christ's own followers?
Irenaeus is one of the better-known Christian writers of the 100's A.D., an early leader in giving criteria for distinguishing true teaching from false. In this, he relied heavily on the witness of the apostles as passed on to his own day. He had in his time met Polycarp, bishop of the church in Smyrna who had personally known some of Christ's own apostles, including the apostle John. Irenaeus placed confidence in this recent and direct personal knowledge as a reliable chain of transmission, a guarantee that the teachings he had received in this church were authentic to what the apostles themselves had handed down. His comments on the gospels received by the apostolic churches are deservedly well-known:
Matthew published among the Hebrews a gospel in writing also in their own speech, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome. After their death Mark in his turn, Peter's disciple and interpreter, delivered to us in writing the contents of Peter's preaching. Luke also, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, the one who leaned back on his bosom, gave forth his gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1Having briefly mentioned the origins of the four gospels and their apostolic origins (Matthew, Mark from Peter, Luke from Paul, and John), he later continues to explain how there are no other gospels recognized in the church except these four:
As there are four quarters of the world in whihc we live, and four universal winds, and as the church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and ground of the church, and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immorality from every quarter and kindling human life anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to mankind, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit. (He again names the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.) ... For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. ... these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the aforesaid number. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11)
To be continued with more writings from the 100's A.D. ...
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Unless ...
Dan Edelen has a good post up titled Unless .... Go read it.
It's interesting to me that his lead-in angle is from Dr. Seuss ("Unless ..." is a key line from Seuss's The Lorax). Just as a side note, my second choice for a blog name was "Yop!" That's from the Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears A Who, where there are thousands of people too small to be seen, all shouting to be heard but to no avail until the littlest child adds a big loud "Yop!" And it's enough.
It's interesting to me that his lead-in angle is from Dr. Seuss ("Unless ..." is a key line from Seuss's The Lorax). Just as a side note, my second choice for a blog name was "Yop!" That's from the Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears A Who, where there are thousands of people too small to be seen, all shouting to be heard but to no avail until the littlest child adds a big loud "Yop!" And it's enough.
Recognizing Good and Bad Theology: Bible Playoff Test
Have you ever seen a tournament playoff bracket? Think of the March Madness basketball bracket, or the road to the World Series, the Superbowl, or the World Cup. The key feature of the playoff system is the quest for one champion. Along the way, other players are eliminated.
Last time that I posted on recognizing good and bad theology without recourse to doctrinal preconceptions, we looked at the analogy of leftover parts: if an understanding of the Bible systematically excludes parts of the Bible, we can already know it's a bad system. In the world of theology, the main way in which passages of the Bible become excluded is by a certain playoff mentality which is the subject of this post. In such playoff theology, certain verses win and other verses lose; some passages of Scripture overturn or eliminate others from the final result.
I am not arguing that all parts of the Bible are of equal interest. Compare the Bible passages listing inventory returned to the Second Temple to the Golden Rule and you'll see why I would not argue that all parts of the Bible are of equal interest. But I would argue that all parts of the Bible are relevant for their own purposes, and that none of them can be dropped off without losing something that should have been kept.
Certain passages of Scripture are contested in their interpretation. And in far too many cases the question is not about what the words meant as a matter of interpreting them from the original language and culture to ours, but about how they could be re-interpreted given that they do not fit into a certain theological system.
So in the Bible Playoffs, what is the winning verse? Does John 3:16 make it into the Sweet 16? Does it get taken out by Romans 9:18 before it gets to the Final Four? If so, you get Calvinism. If John 3:16 takes out Matthew 25:41, you get universalism. Does James 2:17 take out Galatians 3:25? Welcome to a sect of self-righteousness and earned salvation.
And if you get into playoff theology, "my prooftext can beat up your prooftext", well, ok, first off Scripture already lost because one of its passages was abused; but secondly there goes any objective way of knowing if the right prooftext "won". If one passage is supposed to win at the expense of the other, then what if the other one should have won? Objectively, how can you know that it shouldn't have? My premise is that one passage "winning" in such a way with another is "losing" -- a way that makes the Bible fight against itself -- ruins any chance of understanding the whole of the Bible, because it's not considered as a whole anymore. If you ever find someone saying "this passage cannot mean what it seems to mean because it would not fit into System X", there's only one thing to do: find the nearest exit from System X.
Scripture tells us time and again not to fall off to the left or the right, not to swerve to the left or the right. What we have is too many people who look at one passage that says, "Don't fall off to the left!" and so they rush off to the right as far as they can and fall off there; and another group that mocks them, and points at a passage saying "don't fall off to the right" (which the other people really should have taken seriously), and then the second group will rush the off to the left as far as they can (just to show those other folks) and they fall off to the opposite side. Each side (while falling off its own side) seems to count itself better than those who fell off the other side.
When I say "right" and "left" here, I do not mean any current political movements that go by those names. There is a Biblical sense of these words, that of setting boundaries on each side of us. Or to turn the sports analogy a different way, the ball is only in play when it is within the opposite boundaries, and the opposite boundaries define the field. The "opposing" passages of Scripture are seen as the left and right boundaries, things that complement each other rather than overrule each other. Understanding God is a wide field with boundaries extending to the limits of our minds and our senses. As soon as "opposing" passages are seen as one-sided, overruling each other, or forming a single line with no room in between, we have put ourselves in an untenable position for understanding God, and have cut ourselves off from areas we were meant to understand. By the same token, when we cut ourselves off from part of the mind of God, we also cut ourselves off from part of our humanity. If you doubt that, just check with anyone who has decided that either truth or love can be dispensed with, or that either faith or works really isn't that important, and so on for the practical results of taking sides for one or another of the "opposing" passages. Bad theology always has practical implications: in the end, it dehumanizes us.
Last time that I posted on recognizing good and bad theology without recourse to doctrinal preconceptions, we looked at the analogy of leftover parts: if an understanding of the Bible systematically excludes parts of the Bible, we can already know it's a bad system. In the world of theology, the main way in which passages of the Bible become excluded is by a certain playoff mentality which is the subject of this post. In such playoff theology, certain verses win and other verses lose; some passages of Scripture overturn or eliminate others from the final result.
I am not arguing that all parts of the Bible are of equal interest. Compare the Bible passages listing inventory returned to the Second Temple to the Golden Rule and you'll see why I would not argue that all parts of the Bible are of equal interest. But I would argue that all parts of the Bible are relevant for their own purposes, and that none of them can be dropped off without losing something that should have been kept.
Certain passages of Scripture are contested in their interpretation. And in far too many cases the question is not about what the words meant as a matter of interpreting them from the original language and culture to ours, but about how they could be re-interpreted given that they do not fit into a certain theological system.
So in the Bible Playoffs, what is the winning verse? Does John 3:16 make it into the Sweet 16? Does it get taken out by Romans 9:18 before it gets to the Final Four? If so, you get Calvinism. If John 3:16 takes out Matthew 25:41, you get universalism. Does James 2:17 take out Galatians 3:25? Welcome to a sect of self-righteousness and earned salvation.
And if you get into playoff theology, "my prooftext can beat up your prooftext", well, ok, first off Scripture already lost because one of its passages was abused; but secondly there goes any objective way of knowing if the right prooftext "won". If one passage is supposed to win at the expense of the other, then what if the other one should have won? Objectively, how can you know that it shouldn't have? My premise is that one passage "winning" in such a way with another is "losing" -- a way that makes the Bible fight against itself -- ruins any chance of understanding the whole of the Bible, because it's not considered as a whole anymore. If you ever find someone saying "this passage cannot mean what it seems to mean because it would not fit into System X", there's only one thing to do: find the nearest exit from System X.
Scripture tells us time and again not to fall off to the left or the right, not to swerve to the left or the right. What we have is too many people who look at one passage that says, "Don't fall off to the left!" and so they rush off to the right as far as they can and fall off there; and another group that mocks them, and points at a passage saying "don't fall off to the right" (which the other people really should have taken seriously), and then the second group will rush the off to the left as far as they can (just to show those other folks) and they fall off to the opposite side. Each side (while falling off its own side) seems to count itself better than those who fell off the other side.
When I say "right" and "left" here, I do not mean any current political movements that go by those names. There is a Biblical sense of these words, that of setting boundaries on each side of us. Or to turn the sports analogy a different way, the ball is only in play when it is within the opposite boundaries, and the opposite boundaries define the field. The "opposing" passages of Scripture are seen as the left and right boundaries, things that complement each other rather than overrule each other. Understanding God is a wide field with boundaries extending to the limits of our minds and our senses. As soon as "opposing" passages are seen as one-sided, overruling each other, or forming a single line with no room in between, we have put ourselves in an untenable position for understanding God, and have cut ourselves off from areas we were meant to understand. By the same token, when we cut ourselves off from part of the mind of God, we also cut ourselves off from part of our humanity. If you doubt that, just check with anyone who has decided that either truth or love can be dispensed with, or that either faith or works really isn't that important, and so on for the practical results of taking sides for one or another of the "opposing" passages. Bad theology always has practical implications: in the end, it dehumanizes us.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The Church and the Formation of the Canon of Scripture
The God-Fearin' Fiddler (a born-again convert to Roman Catholicism) has been discussing Scripture over at his blog. I've come late to the conversation, and wanted to comment on what he said here:
If I take that to mean "Scripture is known because the church has witnessed to the authority of these writings from the beginning" I'd agree.
If I take that to mean "Scripture is known because an official decree was made several hundred years after Christ when the list of books was finally made which fully agrees with what the (western) church uses today" -- then I'd disagree.
On what grounds would I disagree? On the grounds that the church is "built upon prophets and apostles, with Christ Jesus Himself the chief cornerstone." (Or to support the same thing another way, based on apostolic succession back to the original apostles.) This has direct implications for whether the church has any authority to decide over certain books. The church did not have the authority to decide whether to include the accounts of Christ's life and teachings, and the church in the earliest days of her written works recognized four such accounts of Christ's life and teachings (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The church did not have the authority to decide whether to include the prophets. And (at the risk of being repetitive) the church did not have the authority to decide whether or not to include the writings known to trace to the apostles. On the matter of the prophets and apostles and especially that of Christ, there was no authority to do otherwise than recognize, accept, and proclaim them.
The early church records show that the writings of the prophets and apostles and the gospels of Christ's life had fully gained recognized authority centuries before any council recognized them, and they gained this authority based on what they were. This recognized authority, long predating any such councils, extended to all of the books in the (Protestant) Old Testament and the large majority of the books in the New Testament. Any council which had not recognized those books would have been illegitimate.
Why would a council be illegitimate if it had not recognized those books? Because the church cannot have authority to deny its own foundation. Because the church is "built upon prophets and apostles with Christ Jesus himself the chief cornerstone", the church is bound by what it is and by what those writings are to recognize the authority of those writings. A church which denied the writings of the apostles would not have been apostolic. And, to put it more strongly, a church which took upon itself to decide whether or not to include the writings of the apostles would not have been apostolic either. The records show that the books known to be apostolic were in fact received without dispute; and in this way the church was established and confirmed as apostolic.
The only authority the church exercised was over the (relatively fewer) disputed books. For the disputed books, the church had to to discern which ones had ancient records strong enough to be officially recognized. In some cases this meant trying to determine whether a certain writing did in fact come from an apostle or contain the teachings of an apostle. This ruling over disputed books was a useful function, and the western churches have all followed a fairly unified canon of Scripture for many centuries now.
Biblical scholarship in recent centuries has made the attempt (in its own way) to re-open the question of the canon. They have discovered that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are a better source for the life of Christ than the faddishly fashionable but historically worthless "lost gospels". They vindicate the church's hesitancy towards other books such as 2 Peter and Revelation which gained acceptance more slowly. The scholars' arguments have sometimes mirrored the ancient disputes. It shows that the early church did a faithful job in recognizing what she was constrained to recognize and in carefully considering the remaining disputes.
But as for the disputed books ... it's a little bit like buying a car. You can argue about whether to get power windows or a fancy speaker system installed in the car. But you cannot opt out of having tires, transmission, and an engine or it's just not a car. In the same way the church decided on the disputed books, but could not have decided otherwise on the books of the prophets or the apostles or the four anciently attested gospels.
"Scripture is only known by the authority of the church"Now there's a sentence that can mean different things.
If I take that to mean "Scripture is known because the church has witnessed to the authority of these writings from the beginning" I'd agree.
If I take that to mean "Scripture is known because an official decree was made several hundred years after Christ when the list of books was finally made which fully agrees with what the (western) church uses today" -- then I'd disagree.
On what grounds would I disagree? On the grounds that the church is "built upon prophets and apostles, with Christ Jesus Himself the chief cornerstone." (Or to support the same thing another way, based on apostolic succession back to the original apostles.) This has direct implications for whether the church has any authority to decide over certain books. The church did not have the authority to decide whether to include the accounts of Christ's life and teachings, and the church in the earliest days of her written works recognized four such accounts of Christ's life and teachings (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The church did not have the authority to decide whether to include the prophets. And (at the risk of being repetitive) the church did not have the authority to decide whether or not to include the writings known to trace to the apostles. On the matter of the prophets and apostles and especially that of Christ, there was no authority to do otherwise than recognize, accept, and proclaim them.
The early church records show that the writings of the prophets and apostles and the gospels of Christ's life had fully gained recognized authority centuries before any council recognized them, and they gained this authority based on what they were. This recognized authority, long predating any such councils, extended to all of the books in the (Protestant) Old Testament and the large majority of the books in the New Testament. Any council which had not recognized those books would have been illegitimate.
Why would a council be illegitimate if it had not recognized those books? Because the church cannot have authority to deny its own foundation. Because the church is "built upon prophets and apostles with Christ Jesus himself the chief cornerstone", the church is bound by what it is and by what those writings are to recognize the authority of those writings. A church which denied the writings of the apostles would not have been apostolic. And, to put it more strongly, a church which took upon itself to decide whether or not to include the writings of the apostles would not have been apostolic either. The records show that the books known to be apostolic were in fact received without dispute; and in this way the church was established and confirmed as apostolic.
The only authority the church exercised was over the (relatively fewer) disputed books. For the disputed books, the church had to to discern which ones had ancient records strong enough to be officially recognized. In some cases this meant trying to determine whether a certain writing did in fact come from an apostle or contain the teachings of an apostle. This ruling over disputed books was a useful function, and the western churches have all followed a fairly unified canon of Scripture for many centuries now.
Biblical scholarship in recent centuries has made the attempt (in its own way) to re-open the question of the canon. They have discovered that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are a better source for the life of Christ than the faddishly fashionable but historically worthless "lost gospels". They vindicate the church's hesitancy towards other books such as 2 Peter and Revelation which gained acceptance more slowly. The scholars' arguments have sometimes mirrored the ancient disputes. It shows that the early church did a faithful job in recognizing what she was constrained to recognize and in carefully considering the remaining disputes.
But as for the disputed books ... it's a little bit like buying a car. You can argue about whether to get power windows or a fancy speaker system installed in the car. But you cannot opt out of having tires, transmission, and an engine or it's just not a car. In the same way the church decided on the disputed books, but could not have decided otherwise on the books of the prophets or the apostles or the four anciently attested gospels.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Discerning God's Will
I've recently been reading an introductory book on spiritual direction. One of the major topics covered is discerning God's will (usually rendered as "God's Will" with double capitals in the book). How do we discern God's will for our lives?
In itself, considering God's will is a good thing. Unfortunately, the current book's advice on discerning God's will does not have any depth on the most basic of all advice on God's will: loving God and neighbor. The author paints a picture of earnest and devout souls pouring themselves out in prayer in hope of finding that they have a commission for a Great Service, and scrutinizing every stray thought for a wisp of Holy Spirit that might lead them to what their Great Service should be.
The author shows some understanding that we humans are capable of self-deceit and self-delusion. But there seems little recognition that a great many Spiritual Quests are themselves somewhat self-deluded. God's general will is already revealed to us, from the negatives of not hating and not lusting to the positives of forgiving, loving, helping our families, helping our neighbors, greeting our enemies, and so forth.
C.S. Lewis once mentioned that it is easier to pray for a bore than to go visit him. Self-deceit enters our religious life when we pray for God to do what God has asked us to do. Nobody gets an additional assignment while refusing their original one. As the Scripture says, whoever handles a small trust well will be entrusted with more; whoever does not handle a small trust well will not be entrusted even with that. The Bible's advice on choosing good leadership is much the same: find people who have already done a good job with their families, who have already learned the basics and have already handled that trust well. They have built the necessary skills -- and shown the necessary faithfulness -- to be trusted with more. For our own lives, we have already been entrusted with certain small things that are within our grasp, things that are revealed in the Bible and are God's will for us all.
Someone on their knees, praying to know God's will (they would do it if only they knew it, they suppose), but ignoring their sick neighbor, not reconciling with their own families, harboring a grudge against the rude fellow at the office, and refusing be kind to their enemies -- and yet praying to "know God's will" -- this person's prayer to know God's will is not entirely sincere. The picture I had from the book was not so much of a noble soul praying, "Anything, Lord; anything", but of a would-be noble soul who did not want to love and serve the people he already knew, praying, "Anything but that, Lord; anything".
In itself, considering God's will is a good thing. Unfortunately, the current book's advice on discerning God's will does not have any depth on the most basic of all advice on God's will: loving God and neighbor. The author paints a picture of earnest and devout souls pouring themselves out in prayer in hope of finding that they have a commission for a Great Service, and scrutinizing every stray thought for a wisp of Holy Spirit that might lead them to what their Great Service should be.
The author shows some understanding that we humans are capable of self-deceit and self-delusion. But there seems little recognition that a great many Spiritual Quests are themselves somewhat self-deluded. God's general will is already revealed to us, from the negatives of not hating and not lusting to the positives of forgiving, loving, helping our families, helping our neighbors, greeting our enemies, and so forth.
C.S. Lewis once mentioned that it is easier to pray for a bore than to go visit him. Self-deceit enters our religious life when we pray for God to do what God has asked us to do. Nobody gets an additional assignment while refusing their original one. As the Scripture says, whoever handles a small trust well will be entrusted with more; whoever does not handle a small trust well will not be entrusted even with that. The Bible's advice on choosing good leadership is much the same: find people who have already done a good job with their families, who have already learned the basics and have already handled that trust well. They have built the necessary skills -- and shown the necessary faithfulness -- to be trusted with more. For our own lives, we have already been entrusted with certain small things that are within our grasp, things that are revealed in the Bible and are God's will for us all.
Someone on their knees, praying to know God's will (they would do it if only they knew it, they suppose), but ignoring their sick neighbor, not reconciling with their own families, harboring a grudge against the rude fellow at the office, and refusing be kind to their enemies -- and yet praying to "know God's will" -- this person's prayer to know God's will is not entirely sincere. The picture I had from the book was not so much of a noble soul praying, "Anything, Lord; anything", but of a would-be noble soul who did not want to love and serve the people he already knew, praying, "Anything but that, Lord; anything".
Friday, June 01, 2007
CRC #5 at the Cross-Reference
Jeff at the Cross Reference has done a great job of getting CRC #5 up and going. Stop by and say thank you, and take up his challenge to let at least one more blogger know about the Carnival. This month we had a record number of self-submitted entries (as opposed to round-up entries), I suspect largely due to the Jeff's knack for networking; let's keep the momentum building. Email here if you'd like to host the early July edition of the Carnival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
