Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Opinion|Mon, Oct. 26 2009 10:11 AM EDT

The Idolatrous Religion of Conscience

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

"It wasn't primarily about sex." With those words, Lutheran theologian Robert Benne explained that the actions recently taken by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to normalize homosexuality were not primarily about sex at all, but about theological identity. "The ELCA has formally left the great tradition for liberal Protestantism," Benne declared.

Taking its stand with the radical theological revisionism of the Protestant Left, the ELCA "left the Great Tradition of moral teaching to identify with United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church," Benne lamented.

Writing in Christianity Today, Benne argued that his denomination had abandoned the Gospel for a social gospel. "The liberating movements fueled by militant feminism, multiculturalism, anti-racism, anti-heterosexism, anti-imperialism, and now ecologism have been moved to the center while the classic gospel and its missional imperatives have been pushed to the periphery."

Benne, director of the Roanoke College Center for Religion and Society, offers a first-hand account of what took place in Minneapolis in August as the ELCA met for its Church Wide Assembly. The actions were sweeping in scope and effect. The ELCA voted to allow churches to call partnered homosexuals as ministers and then adopted a Social Statement on Sexuality (which passed by one vote) which insists that the Bible offers no clear teaching on homosexuality.

As the smoke now begins to clear from the votes in Minneapolis, a larger issue comes clearly into focus - the authority of the "bound conscience."

As Robert Benne explains, the ELCA's authority-smashing actions were made possible by the denomination's adoption of a "bound conscience" principle that, in effect, means that anyone can believe almost anything and demand a place at the table, if they claim that their belief is rooted in a "bound conscience."

Mark Hanson, the ELCA's Presiding Bishop, explained that the "bound conscience" principle calls upon all Lutherans to respect the "bound consciences" of those with whom they disagree. Documents released or adopted by the ELCA explained in multiple ways that a conflict of interpretations concerning the Bible should not lead to a break in fellowship. For example:

The very fact that several different positions may be bound to Scripture means that we cannot assert one interpretation of Scripture over another but are called to respect consciences in the community of faith on this matter. The emphasis of "conscience-bound" is not on declaring oneself to be conscience-bound; rather it is that we recognize the conscience-bound nature of the convictions of others in the community of Christ.

In the case of the ELCA, the "several different positions" included the entire spectrum of positions on an issue as controversial and important as same-sex unions. The Social Statement on Sexuality affirmed no less than four "conscience-bound" positions within the church. The positions, all claimed as "conscience-bound," ranged from the rejection of same-sex marriage to its outright acceptance. This affirms Robert Benne's judgment that the church now has "no authoritative biblical or theological guidance" on a crucial theological and pastoral issue.

Though the issue of sexuality garnered media attention, the theological issue of "bound-conscience" is more fundamental. In accepting this principle, these Lutherans effectively abandoned any claim of normative instruction from the Bible. On an issue of such crucial pastoral and moral importance, the ELCA offers an entire range of contradictory positions, each of which is now to be "respected" because someone holding it claims to be bound by conscience.

Of course, any serious person declaring a position on any important issue will (and should) claim to be bound by conscience. The alternative to this is to suggest or to admit one's position to be both baseless and insincere. All sides in a theological controversy claim to be bound by conscience. This claim settles nothing and, on its own, leads to ecclesiastical disaster. The church simply surrenders to the autonomous individualism so prized by the larger culture and abdicates any authority to speak the truth. Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    DP,

    You just can't please some folks. Unless of course, you agree with everything they say.

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:50 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "Daniel Paul »Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1 Flag Delete HM--What is your PhD in?"

    HM---I got a thumbs down for asking about your degree!!! Someone must REALLY dislike higher educaiton....

  • Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    HM,

    I thought this thread was dead after DP and I cutting up about the thumbs-down folks.

    Three master's degrees (what ca I say, I love to learn!) and finally a PhD in Christian Ed with a minor in Biblical Studies. I've been translating Greek and Hebrew over 20 years. I went Christian Ed because I could use what I was learning in a local church, as opposed to the plethora of dead German scholars we studied in PhD OT/NT. I have a few articles with two more in the works. Approached about co-authoring a book last week.

    HM, I can understand why you'd want to be careful. Once the prof at Charleston was outed, he lost his job and his family in short order. Same story has been repeated elsewhere.

    Congrats on your degrees. I'm glad to know you weren't just relying on web sites for your info. However, I still have to disagree with your interpretation. Nothing in the Bible says Jesus embraced a disciple on a couch throughout a meal.

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    HM--What is your PhD in?

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    HM--"You should look at the evidence and see it for yourself. It's right there"

    It sure is. Sin is a virus of the soul. If a computer has a virus it is going to do the wrong thing but still think it's right. This is why when people start to defend sin their theology goes sideways....

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "Homosexual Man »Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:33 am
    DP, that's a pointless distinction, like saying "love" and "loving" are not the same word. They are not the same word, but they are from the same root."

    So, it's pointless to make the distinction between "do" and "undo"? After all, they have the same root....

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    HM...nd DP, what about your father? Degree, publication history etc?

    My dad holds a Doctorate in Education with secondary studies in psychology and counseling. He is an ordained minister and was Dean of a College since before I was born. My dad's work is mostly internal to Bible colleges. He was not really a writer.

    As for myself. I have a high school degree and a Master Gardener certificate! I have been studying greek for about 30 years and use to sit up with friends until 5am chasing words around the lexicon (ahh to be young again!). I have written a small group guide (12 week) based on being the right person instead of trying to find the right person. I have been working in "lay ministry" for about 35 years in one form or another.

    In short, I still have some autistic tendencies which makes school difficult. Still, I learn with other methods than are used in higher education. I am application minded verses data minded. AFter all, what's the point of having all that stuff on the ol' hard drive if you never use it? I want to UNDERSTAND it.

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:44 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    mathetes wrote: "How long have you translating the NT from Greek to English? Why should we believe what you say about the Greek?"

    I have a PhD and have been translating the NT from Greek to English for over thirty years. I have over 20 peer-reviewed articles in internationally recognized journals, and several book chapters as well.

    But you should not "believe" me. That is not how academics work.

    Frankly you don't have to have an academic degree to study and translate from a foreign language, including Koine Greek.

    You should look at the evidence and see it for yourself. It's right there.

  • Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:33 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    DP wrote: ""agapao" which is not agape."

    DP, that's a pointless distinction, like saying "love" and "loving" are not the same word. They are not the same word, but they are from the same root.

    As you know, Greek uses vastly wider array of suffixes than English, for example to distinguish 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person as in the example you are debating. This is very common in *most* European languages (check out Spanish, French, German, and Russian), just not so much in English.

    Don't try to confuse people between grammatical endings versus the definition of words.

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    How intolerant of those "tolerant" people....

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:45 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

    Daniel,

    And now they are TWO of them!

    Perhaps they don't like it that your dad has more education than they do.

    Or maybe they are xenophobic about our neighbors to the north, eh?

  • Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    Daniel Paul »Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1 Flag Delete
    "He didn't get a degree in it from New Orleans, did he?"
    Nope. NY and Canada."

    I love it!!! Someone disagreed with where my dad got his education! Please prove to me that my dad got his education for some other place....

    Serious idiocy!!!

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Not only that but think about all the "sex" that goes on when Obama is shaking hands....

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    hman, so do you now equate personal touch as being sexually intimate with another person? If so there are a whole lot of people who are going to be shocked to find out they were having sexual intimacy during the fellowship greeting that is observed in many churches!

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "He didn't get a degree in it from New Orleans, did he?"

    Nope. NY and Canada.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Daniel,

    I was about to reference Anders Nygren's immense book, Agape and Eros, which draws the same distinction between the two words, but you have summarized it well.

    I say immense, because he took 741 pages to detail how each word was used in the Greek culture. I wonder if HM would consider Nygren an expert?

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel,
    What I meant was the min. of Christian Ed circle. He didn't get a degree in it from New Orleans, did he?

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    HM...here's your error:

    Jhn 13:23 "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. "

    The word for love there is a verb tense "agapao" which is not agape. They are different words.

    Agapao:

    1) of persons
    a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly

    2) of things
    a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing

    This is not a "romantic" let alone sexual word. In fact, the word "agapao" is used 147 times in the NT. Examples are:

    Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.


    Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
    Mar 12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

    Luk 7:5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

    Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

    As you can see...not a hint of what you are talking about HM....

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    "Homosexual Man »Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:08 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2 Flag
    In the gospel of John there certainly was a personal specific love between Jesus and one man.
    It is altogether possible that this included or did not include sex, but it *did* include personal physical touch, lying together embraced on a couch, at a dinner party with friends for the duration of the meal."

    Ummm...not just no. If you tried to push that conclusion in some Arab countries when you see them do this even today ... it would not be well with you!!! You really don't understand culture differences do you, HM???

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Homosexual Man »Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:00 pm
    "Just like "love" in English, agape has a range of meaning in the New Testament that does not exclude the possibility of erotic love.

    In modern Greek, agape *is* the word for erotic love."


    Wow! Too bad the Bible wasn't written in modern greek. If it was you might be in the same country with a valid point!!! :D

    Dude...please....

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hman,
    Homosexual Man »Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:08 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2 Flag
    In the gospel of John there certainly was a personal specific love between Jesus and one man.
    It is altogether possible that this included or did not include sex, but it *did* include personal physical touch, lying together embraced on a couch, at a dinner party with friends for the duration of the meal.
    --------------
    That's eisegesis according to the dictionary:

    eisegesis: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis)

    Hman, you have given us a prime example of eisegesis. Nowhere in the text does it say that Jesus and this disciple "embraced on a couch" nor does it say it was for the duration of the meal. These are assumptions born out of your bias towards the homosexual lifestyle. You want to believe that Jesus approved of homosexuality and engaged in it Himself, so you read into the story elements that justify your lifestyle.

    I pray you will repent of your lifestyle and your twisting the Scriptures.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Homosexual Man »Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:17 pm
    "What I have done so far is exegesis. I am correctly saying "this is what the Bible says."

    Ummm...no. It is an exegesis of a translation of the Bible and not the Bible itself. This is why the english versions are called "translations". In order to do an exegesis of the Bible you would have to refer to the greek for your hermeneutical basis. You are not doing that so it isn't an exegesis of the Bible....

    You also are not understanding nor taking into account culture. One man laying their head on the breast of another was not a sign romance but rather strong friendship. Apparently, HM...you have very little understanding of the culture of the time so you are imposing your culture onto it.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mathetes »Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:03 pm
    "You are so right! I wonder if I know your dad... Sounds like we ran in the same circles."

    Could be but them are some BIG circles when it comes to that humor!!!

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    give it up HMan you lies and twisted scriptures are worthless...

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    To specific, Hman,
    What is the source of your Greek pronouncements? What is your academic background in NT Greek? How long have you translating the NT from Greek to English? Why should we believe what you say about the Greek?

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:21 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "What is the source of your pronouncements?"

    The Bible. You can read it in many different versions at sites like these:

    http://www.biblegateway.com

    http://bible.cc

    Check it out - it's pretty cool!

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    Mathetes, to you, anything that you agree with is exegesis, and anything that you disagree with is eisegesis.

    You are *not* making the correct distinction between the terms.

    What I have done so far is exegesis. I am correctly saying "this is what the Bible says."

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    The man Jesus loved is a critical presence in John chapter 13, and then chapters 18-22.

    He laid with his head on Jesus's chest (chapter 13). He stayed with Jesus through the trial and the crucifixion, and appears to be favored by Jesus over the other men after the Resurrection (chaps 18-22).

    As presented, he is the narrator of the entire gospel of John.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Hman,

    What is the source of your pronouncements?

    Reading the concepts of modern Greek into a document nearly 2000 years old... what you are doing (and have done in the past) is the definition of eisegesis.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    That much is for sure, straight from the Bible.

    An interesting additional question is whether the Bible says anything else about the man Jesus loved.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    In the gospel of John there certainly was a personal specific love between Jesus and one man.

    It is altogether possible that this included or did not include sex, but it *did* include personal physical touch, lying together embraced on a couch, at a dinner party with friends for the duration of the meal.

    Many people who call themselves "Christians" here at CP would ridicule Jesus for engaging in the physical acts ascribed to Him in the Bible.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel,

    You are so right! I wonder if I know your dad... Sounds like we ran in the same circles.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:00 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "Whenever it says Jesus loved someone, it's always agape, never eros."

    Like I said before Mathetes, I heard the phileo / eros / agape sermon forty years ago. It turns out that that sermon is wrong.

    My understanding is that the word eros is *never* used in the Bible to mean love as a verb.

    Agape *is* the word that is used to describe love, regardless of whether it is "divine love" or human love or two people being "in love."

    Just like "love" in English, agape has a range of meaning in the New Testament that does not exclude the possibility of erotic love.

    In modern Greek, agape *is* the word for erotic love.

    The distinction that you are insisting on simply does not exist.

    Nice try, but the Greek shoots down your idea.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Thanks, gem - we can always count on you to post something irrelevant.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:51 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Hman,
    "LOL. There's that loving "Christian" sarcasm. You're obsessed with defending your investment in your own ego."

    There was no sarcasm intended; you are wrong to take my remarks that way. I love the Truth and the truth. What you and your little gem are doing has nothing in common with either.

    "To me, that does not sound consistent with what Jesus taught. It sounds like what Jesus taught against."

    You think gem did right (twisting what people say) and those who speak the truth are wrong, so in truth what I said must be right.

    "Read the Bible for what it actually says. There was one special love in Jesus's life, and that person was a *man*."

    Now THAT is funny, coming from you! Are you becoming a literalist?!

    Actually this is just ONE MORE case of you reading your preferences into Scripture. Whenever it says Jesus loved someone, it's always agape, never eros. Nice try, but the Greek shoots down your idea.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:39 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

    "So changing what people say in order to make their words mean something entirely different = acting like a bag ..."

    Attributing extratextual meaning to an unattributed quote = convincing demonstration of idiocy?

    Volumes speak.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:33 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    HM--"There's that loving "Christian" sarcasm."

    Actually, having been raised in the Christian Education world by an ordained minister and having taken classes in a state run college, I can tell you that dry (odd) wit is not limited to the Christian world. It seems to be a prerequisite to become a professor....

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:58 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    LOL. There's that loving "Christian" sarcasm. You're obsessed with defending your investment in your own ego.

    To me, that does not sound consistent with what Jesus taught. It sounds like what Jesus taught against.

    Read the Bible for what it actually says. There was one special love in Jesus's life, and that person was a *man*.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:51 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Homosexual Man »Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:43 am
    "You are acting like a bag of hot air."

    So changing what people say in order to make their words mean something entirely different = acting like a bag of hot air.

    Glad you finally recognize it; that's what I've been saying all along about gem. Why couldn't you have just admitted it at the beginning? Oh, that's right: gem used it to say something you liked.


    Daniel,

    You're right about the age of that joke: I first heard it in the '60s.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:45 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    mathetes »Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:34 pm
    "I told Hman that IF someone had said those things, then they were wrong. But I could find no proof of anyone saying anything like that."

    This type of confusion which HM shows quite a bit is common among those who play the victim. It's gotten them far with others who simply walk away. It creates that safety zone around them where people who disagree with them can't get close. It's a defensive thing with those who are stuck in sin. I see it with recovery people. It's the base step from where people must leave to the next step or they will never recover.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    HM-"Daniel wrote that because I don't agree with him (a "reprobate mind"), kidnapping and murdering me could not cause any further harm."

    You had posted about kidnapping and murdering. I simply pointed out the illogic of your statement as doing ANYTHING would not be worse than having a reprobate mind. I could not imagine what my life would be like without the grace and mercy of God in it given through our Lord Jesus the Christ. I don't see how people can live without it.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Homosexual Man »Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:53 am
    "Same-sex relationships are not burdened with this unfortunate tradition of being "unequally yoked." Our relationships are by their very nature denied the typical false heterosexual excuses for one treating the other as inferior."

    Actually, Christians men treat their wife as a co-heir. I am one with my wife. We do things together as a team. We have different things each is good at and we work together on things that neither of us is really good at. The dominance you speak of is based on the concept of two instead of one. Our pastor has preached many times that if your wife is better with money than you are...it is poor stewardship to handle the money just because your "the man". My wife and I don't battle over being equal. We are congruent. We are different but of the same value. This is what Christian marriage is based on.

    Not only is my wife not inferior but she excels beyond me in some areas. She feels the same way about me. HM...I don't think you've ever seen an example of a Christ centered marriage have you?

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:31 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    HM-Not the first time you've said something that's not logical.

    logic to an illogical person would be illogical. Thanks for confirming the logic of what I am saying....

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Homosexual Man »Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:43 am
    "You are acting like a bag of hot air."

    Mathetes...stop acting like HM.... :D

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:27 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    HM: You never encouraged me to kill myself? You wrote that Judas killed himself, and you wrote "go thou and do likewise."

    You really can't keep stuff straight can you? You were posting bit's and pieces of Bible together to try to get it to say that gay was OK. Posting that statement was part of that conversation where I showed what happens when you treat the Bible like a buffet. If you find the actual post please provide the timestamp so we can review it.

    Just FYI, the statement is a standing joke used by ministers and professors to make this very point about putting together verses that don't go together and it's been around since before I was born (which has been a while)....

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:43 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Again Mathetes, we see what is important to you. Tki offered a brilliant insight and you're obsessed with refuting it.

    At the same time, you claim that jokes about kidnapping, murder, and suicide are actually a call for "repentance leading to restoration."

    You are acting like a bag of hot air.

  • Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:24 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Homosexual Man » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:08 pm
    Again Mathetes ... offered a brilliant insight.... you're obsessed with refuting it.


    Why, thank you, Hman.
    (since you think what gem did is ok, I'm sure you won't mind)

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Daniel wrote: "I have never encouraged you to kill yourself."

    You never encouraged me to kill myself? You wrote that Judas killed himself, and you wrote "go thou and do likewise."

    OK, you didn't "encourage" me to kill myself, because I didn't want to kill myself before you suggested it, and I still didn't want to after you suggested it. So in that sense you did not change my mind, and therefore you did not succeed in encouraging me to do it.

    So instead let's say that you "suggested" that I should kill myself, if that phrase works better for you. Is that the distinction you are trying to make?

    You also asked, because of what you believe about me personally, how any further harm could be done by kidnapping me and murdering me.

    And all of that in the context of asking people to pray that I would be miserable until I die (you would bring God in on the joke as well - He could not accept any repentance from me because that would mean He had lied to you), and after that I would go to Hell.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "As I have said before...it's not logical"

    Even though it's not logical, you went ahead and said it anyway.

    Not the first time you've said something that's not logical.

  • Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:55 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Again Mathetes, we see what is important to you. Tki offered a brilliant insight and you're obsessed with refuting it.

    On the other hand you don't have any problem with jokes about kidnapping and murder (as long as they are directed at a gay person? or at somebody you disagree with?). You claim these jokes about kidnapping and murder were meant in a caring and Christian way.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links