The Devil in Disguise

If you havent noticed, these stores are popping up everywhere, and they are attracting all sorts of crowds. They put on this faux "indie/hipster" disguise, and people acutally think that they are doing something right by supporting these stores.

Starbucks just started selling fair trade coffee a little while ago, whereas local coffee shops have been doing this for years. Yes I think it's great that they offer fair trade now, but starbucks is still putting coffee shops out of business left and right. Many people get their coffee from starbucks because of it's accessability and the name itself. This commodity comes at a price. Local coffee shops usually sell a cup of coffee between $1.00 and $1.25, whereas a cup of starbucks coffee is nearly 2 bucks. Starbucks also continues to serve milk from cows that are injected with genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone. I think they started dealing in fair trade just to cover themselves.

Panera is another example of a business that has the hip coffee/lunch feel. They charge almost 7 bucks for a sandwhich, and they have only one vegetarian option. There are many local coffee and sandwhich shops that offer sandwhiches for a lot less than $7, and have a few different vegetarian options. Again, many hipsters go to panera and think that they are doing the world a favor. Wrong

Borders has that intellectual/coffee shop/bookstore vibe. People go and read, and I mean you have to buy a cup of coffee while you're at it!!! Borders charges List price on their books, and has been at least partially responsible for shutting down countless mom and pop bookstores around the country. Many used bookstores who sell their books for about $1 cannot keep up with borders. People just don't want used books anymore, they want a brand new fresh book to go along with their coffee.

It bothers me personally that so many people subscribe to this culture. Maybe places like starbucks are trying to do something noble by selling fair trade coffee, or maybe they are just trying to keep their image intact. Either way, local businesses are dropping like flies. I think that it is important to support these business, since many of them are people who are innocently trying to provide services that people want.

Please try to shop locally and support fair trade.

Why?

This really bothers me. Why do some people subscribe to this fascist garbage?

What do you think?

Praise the Lord, Some People Get It Right

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/ts_nm/usa_soldier_beliefs_dc

It's a good start. People always say "pray for our troops"...let's all pray for more people to come to their senses like this man.

Temptation

Christians are very good at resisting temptation. Unfortunately, they usually get their resistance backwards.

There are two general kinds of sins. The church generally refers to them with a mnemonically helpful rhyme scheme as "sins of commission" and "sins of omission". In plain English, there are sins you commit by doing something that is wrong, and there are sins you commit by not doing something that is right. Each of these types of sin has a corresponding type of temptation associated with it. All Christians are familiar with the temptation to do something wrong. Those are the kind of temptations we deal with every day...the temptation to be angry, the temptation to eat something terribly unhealthy, the temptation to look a little too long at that secretary with the miniskirt...we know these, and we (I hope) actively struggle against them. But because these are the sins we struggle with the most actively, they are also the temptations we are most likely to crack and give in to from time to time. After all, we all sin.

But "sins of omission" involve a different temptation. Have you ever read a passage in the Gospels, or in Acts, and seen how Christ and His disciples lived...how purely, lovingly, compassionately they behaved, and how they dropped everything and went out into the world making known the message of God's hope and salvation? If so, you may have thought to yourself "I wish I could do that", but then you simply convince yourself that it's completely impractical. After all, nobody lives like that nowadays. Nobody has compassion on the poor, or goes out by themselves to help the hungry and the needy. And besides, you donate money to a charity that helps the poor and hungry and needy, and that's doing your part.

Congratulations, you just resisted temptation. Too bad this time you shouldn't have. Christians are well experienced in resisting the urge, the "temptation" if you will (I will), to do right. We come up with however many excuses it takes to get out of doing what we know deep down that we ought to be doing. Yet when it comes to resisting the things we know we shouldn't do, it's a much harder struggle. What backward lives we lead! (And I'm talking to myself as well, here.) Personally, I believe firmly that if we started focusing on removing our resistance to good and starting living actively in the principles of true Christ-like ministry, we would start to see that the temptation to do wrong disappears. Our minds are so attuned to a defensive state that we just sit in our shell and let Satan attack us with temptation to do wrong, but ignore when God tries to pull us out of the shell to do something right. It's high time to return to Christ's calling to abandon our shells and do as He called us to do, to go on the offensive against evil by repaying it every day with good.

Give in to temptation this week. Do something right.

Spheres of Authority

This post is mainly a response to Jason's email in the post "War on Terror Dialogue (7)".

While perhaps the concept of government is one which was set in place by God for the good of humanity, like everything God established, humans have taken government to an extreme ideology which cannot be reconciled with God's optimal plan for humankind. I agree with Jason's statement that the church and government should be fundamentally non-overlapping, inasmuch as the church ought not make or enforce laws, and the government should not impose or restrict religion.

Where I begin to disagree with Jason is that he seems to assert that God has granted some power to governing authorities which transcends the directives He gave to each individual believer. Certainly, in the Old Testament, God provided certain nations with permission to annihilate certain other nations, but it cannot be claimed (or more correctly, it is very dangerous to claim) that He still does this today. How can it possibly be conceivable that To quote Adin Ballou (vicariously through Leo Tolstoy):

"One man may not kill. If he kills a fellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a hundred men do so, they, too, are murderers. But a government or a nation may kill as many men as it chooses, and that will not be murder, but a great and noble action. Only gather the people together on a large scale, and a battle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent action. But precisely how many people must there be to make it so? --that is the question. One man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But precisely how many are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that one man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great number may?"

To me, the absurdity revealed by Ballou is clearly visible. In fact, it is one of my chief beliefs that God does not hold groups of people to different standards than he holds individuals. The laws that God set in place for us are absolute, not alterable because of any human justification or majority judgment. This sets the stage for my final point, which is a fundamental idea behind the very beliefs that inspired this blog.

Jason is entirely correct when he writes that "As individual citizens or Christians, or as communities of faith, we have no right to bear the sword or repay evil for evil." Therefore, Christians on no scale have the right to judge, condemn, or punish others for their deeds, regardless of how evil. ("Let he without sin...") This means that Christians cannot participate in government, because the government supposedly does possess the authority to do this. (Recall that God's authority is above any human authority.) But as Christians, many want to still ascribe this power to the government. The only possible reconciliation, then, is that the Christian must necessarily desire the government to consist only of non-Christians; else they must will that their Christian brothers sin by taking part in a government that utilizes force. (Think about it before you disagree...) This means that a Christian who desires government must will for some people to be non-Christians, so that they could serve in government. However, as Christians, ABOVE ALL we must desire truly that every person be saved, becoming our brother or sister in Christ. Were this to take place, the government could not possibly exist in the capacity it currently does, and could not possess the authority to act outside the law of God. We, as Christians, would only be accountable to one Judge and one King, negating the requirement of government.

Therefore, the true Christian must be, ideologically, an anarchist.

Jesus Was Homeless

Have you read this book? My friend Carolyn from work told me about this book back in May. I had never heard of it, and thought that it sounded very interesting. She told me that it was about a guy who lives in Philly who wanted to know what it would be like to drop everything and follow Jesus, and that is what he did. At this point I was almost completely fed up with Christianity, almost willing to give up on it altogether.

I have to say that this book changed my life. I've never really had a life changing experience before. When I read this book, I realized that it really is possible to live and follow Jesus, and that it's not at all about going to church every Sunday. It's about going out into the world and really caring for people. Shane Claiborne tells his experiences of growing up with in the Bible Belt and going to Eastern University in Philadelphia, which eventually leads him to work with Mother Teresa, care for Iraqi natives over in Iraq, and start a community in Kensington, which is one of the most poverty stricken areas of North Philly called the simple way (www.thesimpleway.org). I've done a very poor job of caring for and helping people in the past. Last week I got the opportunity to play music for homeless people in the city of Wilmington at a homeless shelter. It was pretty much a worship service, which was led by people from various churches around the area. I've always loved homeless people. I love being in Philly and talking to them on the streets. I've met some of the nicest people on the streets of Philly. I also have a few friends who are homeless by choice because they are fed up with capitalism, but that is a different story.

My friend Carolyn who graduated the University of Delaware last spring is working at a homeless shelter in Colorado. She does not make much money and gets to experience poverty every day. I think a lot us forget about the daily struggle that some people go through. You can check out her blog here:

http://homelessindenver.blogspot.com

Anyway, I recommend this book to everyone. And remember:

Jesus was homeless.

In regards to the last 9 posts

The last 9 posts were a dialogue between some people. If you go down to the second post, everything is explained. Sorry for the confusion.

War on Terror Dialogue (9)

I agree with ALL of Jason's comments also. Raleigh and I might disagree with some of the applications of what Jason wrote (I'm guessing based on the previous emails), but it is nice to know that there is some common ground in our thinking. I don't disagree with anything that Jason wrote.

While I am a registered republican (back when I was in highschool, it was "pressured" by the school to choose a party and register), I certainly concur that I don't agree with the far right or the far left. When election time comes, I always vote based on Christian values and pray a whole lot. To me, if you follow Christ, the whole "running of the government thing" will fall in line.

Interesting subject and views. Thanks for starting this.

-Brent

War on Terror Dialogue (8)

Jason I really liked your take on the whole thing. I agree with you that some those extreme cases like the one with the sex trade or Hitler are very difficult to handle. And sometimes the best solution to a huge problem can be very challenging to uncover.

I thought the Iraq thing was dead on. I 100 percent agree with the whole idea that many times war has political as well as economic motivation. The whole Sudan example was perfect. The US would not consider them a threat, so there would be no reason to interfere. This is how the system works.

I've been sending my friend Matt these emails and he has something to say about the whole christian and government sphere thing. Matt and I were planning on creating a blog and never got around to it. But we just created one today. I was wondering if I have You (Jason) and Brent's permission to post these emails in the blog. I think there is a lot of Good Dialogue going on here. If I post them, it will definatly make it easier to Read as a collective. And people can
leave comments. Let me know if that would be ok.

~Raleigh

War on Terror Dialogue (7)

(NOTE: This email was from Jason Sica who is an associate pastor at faith church where my dad and Brent attend)

It seems to me the main issue here is the question of what function or role government is to have in society. I believe government is established by God to promote and maintain the public good. One way of doing this is through upholding law and order by restraining evil and promoting civil righteousness. This means the state is to pursue domestic peace - to cultivate a safe environment in which people can live, work, and flourish. You find numerous Scripture passages compelling belivers to pray for those in authority and to seek the well-being of the city. The rationale is that when justice and peace prevail we will benefit and enjoy the freedom to practice our beliefs. Conservatives are generally good at this (law & order). However, they don't always do a good job of seeing that this must by necessity include promoting and maintaining social justice. Throughout Scripture, the government is held accountable for promoting justice among the most vulnerable in society. The rights of the weak must be upheld. Christians must actively hold the government accountable to this.

The authority of the Church is to be distinguished from the authority of the state so there is a proper separation of spheres of authority. This is really what separation of church and state means (the issue is authority). Society flourishes when all spheres do what they are called to by God. So in regard to the state, it is to promote the public good (which by the way should include such things as caring for the environment). Therefore, the government has no right to endorse a confession of faith or impose any form of worship, but is to concern itself with public justice for the common good. The church by consequence has no right to create and uphold laws for the public, especially in regard to following certain beliefs. Coercion in religion is fundmentally opposed to the dignity of the human person. I also think Constantine declaring Christianity the religion of the Roman empire was a huge mistake. I believe history bears this out. It blurs the line between to spheres of authority which are meant to be separate. So the point here is that government is instituted by God for specific purposes that are essential in society. This is the backdrop for what I'm about to say.

As I mentioned above, one way the government promotes peace is by restraining evil. I believe this includes the use of force when necessary. For example, I believe it would have been morally acceptable for a police officer to shoot the Virginia Tech gunman in the midst of his bloody rampage. Likewise, I believe government officials have the right to invade a brothel and use force if necessary to free young girls from being dehumanized in the sex trade. Remember Romans 13 says that those who do wrong should fear the one in authority, for the one in authority is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Interestingly enough, Romans 12 argues that we must bless those who persecute us and not repay anyone evil for evil. Does Romans 13 therefore contradict the previous chapter? No, not if we keep before us the fact that there are different spheres of authority. As individual citizens or Christians, or as a communities of faith, we have no right to bear the sword or repay evil for evil. Jesus makes this clear in the Sermon on the Mount. We must turn the other cheek (now does this mean it would have been morally wrong for an ordinary citizen to shoot the Virginia Tech gunman, if the police would not have been able to do so. I'm not sure. I don't think so, but this is an extreme case and while related to our conversation, it a bit of an exception). So individuals (those outside the church, and especially those inside) have no right to bear the sword. Our ethic rooted in Jesus is love above all else. What Paul is saying, however, is that God has given the state such authority if necessary as it seeks to accomplish the goal of promoting the well-being of society. So I believe we must separate what we have the authority to do, and what the government has the authority to do.

Now, in regard to war I do believe the state has the authority to declare war as a measure of self-defense. However, this is to be a last resort that is rarely implemented. Peaceful negotiation and even the use of force apart from all out war is to be pursued before the declaration of war. We should go to war in tears because it is not ideal and is yet another reminder that we live in a world where things are not the way they're supposed to be. So I have no problem with someone like Deitrich Bonhoeffer (one of my favorites from church history) who was a pacifist but reached a point where he involved himself in plots with the German Military Intelligence Office to assasinate Hitler. I don't think it no longer made him a pacifist, but rather showed he thought the assasination of Hitler would likley lead to peace. Sadly, Bonhoeffer was murdered by the Nazis shortly before the war ended as the plots were "found out."

Having said all that, the state's right to bear the sword does not give permission to use force at will. So I personally believe the U.S. government abuses the authority given to the state in this area. I also don't believe the war in Iraq is just. Our tendency to play "world police officer" is very dangerous. It seems to me that whenever a threat arises, our response is to say "You better be careful here. We'll blow you to shreads." This is not good. Again, war in my estimation is a last resort that should be avoided at all cost. In fact, it should be rarely enacted. I think our country too quickly turns to war because we are the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and as a result, we have a "big bad army." Militarism is not what's in view in Romans 13. I do know that. The idea that we can secure freedom by going around and blowing up everything and everyone that is a threat is not healthy. I think we have to be weary of a nationalistic, civil religion that leans too quickly toward military involvement as the solution to everything. It's easy to justify war by saying we have the interest of other people in mind. But I don't see that when we are sometimes careless in the way we employ war, and when it seems to be self-serving and ultimately protecting our self-interest. I don't see our government expending the same kind of time and energy when it comes to the injustice of Genocide in a place like Sudan. Why? Well, probably because it isn't much of threat to us. I'm weary of government officials who are quick to to go to war, but slow to address social injustice even at home. This is another reason why I think the whole Republican/Democrat debate is a distraction. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm a Christian (which by the way in the NT means literally little follower of Christ). I care about morals, family values, and all those things. But I also need to care about the rights of the poor, the oppressed, and the planet on which we live (because it was made by God and he commands us to care for it). So there's no need for me to buy into a Republican or Democratic ideology. Christ the supreme ruler, the ultimate Caesar, is concerned that I buy into the ideology of his subversive Kingdom.

Don't end the conversation now. I just entered...Let me know your thoughts.

Jason

War on Terror Dialogue (6)

Hey Brent,

Romans 13 is one of the most popular texts that is missinterpreted. It calls for us to submit to governing authorities. First we have to realize that submit and obey mean two different things. We live in the United States, therefore we have to submit to the rules of the United States. This means that if we break a law we are supposed to accept our punishment, as Jesus did when he was persecuted. Early christians did not obey the laws and were often jailed. They submitted to
the government by accepting the punishment even though they did not obey the laws. Paul, who wrote Romans, was always running from the law. He was an Outlaw, as were all of the other apostles/disciples. This is how early Christianity (or The Way as referred to in Acts) functioned. It wasn't until Constantine declared Christianity the state religion, that things changed. (You think merging state and church was positive, whereas i see it as negative). To me, this is the point when Christianity became distorted as anything that is politically motivated does, and this gave rise to Catholocism. Before this time period Christians refused to hold a position in the military and government (not in Bible you can look this up if you want) and were persecuted for it. I have one more thing to address. The Bible says that God appoints ALL leaders, so does that
mean that he appointed Bush, Stalin, Mussolini, Napoleon, Nero, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad etc? Does this mean we should obey them. I think the answer is definitely not.

This is the last email that I am going to write on the topic since we could debate forever. The reason I left Faith Church was because I felt as if they just ignore these issues that we are discussing right now. I believe these are very very important in applying the Word to our modern lives. If you want to check out some organizations/beliefs I support, I recommend these sites:

http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/1995-23.html
~this is the mennonite confession

http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/
~decent resource

http://www.bic-church.org/
~Brethren in Christ network

www.circleofhope.net

Remember. Embracing Jesus as our Savior is the most important thing here. We
can all agree that He died for our sins and Rules Supreme!

love,
Raleigh

war on Terror Dialogue (5)

Raleigh - Good conversation.

I agree with much of what you say. But, at this point in my biblical studies, I do believe that we are able to help someone "pay for" their sins. It certainly requires us to define what "pay for" means. Certainly, only Jesus can pay the price of our sins and only Jesus can save us and change our lives. But, calling others' sins out, making sure they recognize them, and making sure they receive appropriate governmental (earthly) judgement is something we should do. If I see my neighbor kill someone, I should love them by making sure they are arrested and receive proper punishment for their sin. If Adolf Hitler is being a tyrant and killing innocent people, we should fight to have him arrested and receive proper punishment for his sin. The community of accountability is important to our existence, I think. That is what I meant.

Romans 13:1-2 tells us that "1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." As long as the government is not going against scriptural doctrine, we are to submit to them and "blindly" follow government powers. (E.g, the bible says nothing about how fast I should be able to drive my car, but I do need to blindly follow government powers in regards to the speed laws on the roads.) So, the issue/question is determining where the government crosses the line on going against God and where we draw the line in following our government. Remember, our government was put in place by God ("the authorities that exist have been established by God"). In the old testament, many kings ruled and did wicked things and can easily be described as un-Godly or non-Christian men - we are constantly reminded that God is still in command of these rulers and that God ordains and establishes our governing authorities in order for us to have some order in our society. We might not always agree with what our governing authorities do, but we do have an obligation to submit ourselves to the laws and positions that are established by them (again, you can't distort this teaching to think that if the government tells us that we must bow down and worship statues of Bill Gates, that we will all do it - but, the teaching is still valid as a core rule for us to live by).

Lastly, we can say that the word "nation" is a "wordly" term, but it certain is used widely in the bible. Personally, I think it is okay to label ourselves as nations. God established all government authority, which is purposely broken up into nations - God created/established many nations in the old testament and understood their purposeful earthly distinction. Therefore, I do have an affiliation to a nation - I am a proud American with the never-ending longing that our nation will turn to God, but knowing, as a whole, it probably won't. So, I start at a level that I am able to influence, my local community, and show the love of Christ the best I can and work to spread the gospel with the hopes that it will spread across our great nation and into our governmental positions.

Jason, if I've mis-interpreted the scripture here, please let me know. I'm going on my study last winter of the old testament and Jim's recent explanation of Romans 13 that I am able to remember.

Brent

War on Terror Dialogue (4)

Yes I was being sarcastic about being a 'christian nation". the phrase Christian nation is contradictory. Galatians 3:28 says "there is neither Jew, nor Greek, there is neither slave, nor free, there is neither male, nor female; for you are all one in Christ" If we are one in Christ, nothing distinguishes us. Not gender, not slavery, not national borders. 'Nation' is a worldly term. If we are in Christ, we have no affiliation to any 'nation' on this earth. So to try to call ourselves a 'christian nation' is to try to unite our spiritual call with our worldy bonds.

Brent, you said "Sometimes, the love that we need to show is played out by fighting for justice, by stopping tyranny, by helping others understand and pay for their sins". Yes it is important to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. BUT nobody should ever help someone 'pay for' their sin, because that is wrestling the judgement out of God's hands. I believe a famous teacher once said "let who is without sin cast the first stone". The ONLY way to help people understand the Message and their sin is with love and compassion. Force (and murder) will not solve anything. And who are the tyrants that you speak of? non-christians? I think the United States is the largest terrorist organization in the world right now. You have to understand that our media has a political agenda, and it can't always be trusted. Where are the WMDs that Bush promised? Christians should not blindly follow governmental powers. The Way in the book of Acts surely did quite the opposite.

love,
Raleigh

War on Terror Dialogue (3)

I'm not sure I'd agree that we are a "Christian nation" - unless you were just being sarcastic. Increasingly, our nation is moving farther and farther away from God, His truths, and moral integrity. In most cases, our leaders take care of earthly matters with an earthly perspective rather than a biblical one (this whole "separation of church and state" has really gotten out of hand).

My comment here is NOT (I repeat NOT) in regards to our current war situation in Iraq/Iran (as I must admit I don't know enough about the specifics), but I would say that when Jesus says to love our enemies it doesn't always mean turn the other cheek to injustice, dishonor, and other peoples' sins. I think the world also often twists the Bible to think that we must accept everyone as they are and not ask people to change and follow Biblical teachings and that we should just let people do whatever they want (the "if it makes you happy, it can't be bad" teaching). Sometimes, the love that we need to show is played out by fighting for justice, by stopping tyranny, by helping others understand and pay for their sins, and other things like this. I admit that it is a complicated subject as it is easy for our political views and earthly governmental opinions to be used as a filter for how we try and apply biblical truth. We pray for clarity by the Holy Spirit - I certainly don't have all the answers.

Jason, I'd love your thoughts on the subject. -Brent

War on Terror Dialogue (2)

Crazy video. It's America's duty to protect our country from the lion. In this case Iraq is the lion, and guess you could consider Iran the lion as well now. After World War II the lion was the Soviet Union. Apparently that gives us the right to go over and kill people; I mean after all we are a "Christian" nation, and we have to protect ourselves from the lion. We assume that all lions are out to get us and may have WMDs ready to be used against us.

I've been concerned lately about our current situation as we may be entering a war with Iran. As Christians (and I don't consider myself a Christian, but a follower of Jesus), we need to ask ourselves "What would Jesus do?" Jesus was the Prince of Peace. I think that many people take the Bible and twist it in their own way to make it fit their own worldview. I take Jesus' words very literally when He says to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek. After all, He was the Son of God.

Love,
Raleigh

War on Terror Dialogue (1)

if you have 8 minutes and 23 seconds to spare I GUARANTEE you will not be disappointed by this video on u tube. Thanks Karl...this is moving. What a great lead-in for your friend's Bible study this morning. thx for sharin.

Our enemy is like a roaring lion (I Peter 5). Will you rescue your brother from the Lion? Sometimes you have to go in and get him/her and snatch 'em from the Enemy's clutches.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM


sincerely,
David Booze
Wilmington, DE

The War on Terror

This is quite an interresting topic. I get very emotional at times when discussing our current situation. I've recently become a pacifist and in the past was fairly opposed to war for the most part. Growing up I thought that all Chrsitians were supposed to be republican and support the government 110%. I never really bought into this line of thinking, and was often confused as I grew up in a republican family. I was very bewildered througout high school and college as I became involved in the 'punk rock' community. (I use the term punk rock loosely, not just referring to the punk genre), and as I started studying philosophy and thinking for myself. This summer my friend Matt and I were trying to really figure out what it means to live like Jesus. and we have thought about a lot of the stuff he said; such as: love your enemies and turn the other cheek and all that good stuff.

Anyway, I think that is enough background for where I am going with this.

My dad sent me a video recently with some bulls protecting their young from some ferocious lions. I think somebody forwarded it to him. and he forwarded it to a bunch of people. Somehow the video sparked my interest and made me think of how America thinks it always has to protect itself from 'the lion' or the bad guy or whatever. This started a huge discussion between me and my dad's friend (and also my friend) Brent about military and submitting to the government and all sorts of crazy nonsense. I got permission from everyone who has been invoved in this dialogue to post them in this blog, so I'm going to do so. Each Email will be a post in the sequence they were written. Feel free to comment.

Welcoming Note

The purpose of this blog is to promote and engage in dialogue. We must first understand that we are trying not to approach this dogmatically. We hope to keep an open-minded discussion of issues that we think are important pertaining to following Jesus in the best way possible. Our goal is not to just discuss our beliefs, but to try to discover the best way to live as Christ instructed us to.