JamesR
Taxiarches
A pamphlet from the OCA.Timon said:Not challenging you or saying youre wrong, but where did you find this?On the other hand, Orthodoxy in America is the largest growing form of Christianity in all of America.
A pamphlet from the OCA.Timon said:Not challenging you or saying youre wrong, but where did you find this?On the other hand, Orthodoxy in America is the largest growing form of Christianity in all of America.
Thanks for the clarification about glossolalia. I am sorry that your feelings were hurt concerning this issue by others and hope that you have a better experience at our forum. We Orthodox are not cessationists, of course, by any stretch of the imagination, however there is still reason for caution about much of what derives from charismatic and pentecostal trajectories stemming from the Azusa Street incident at the turn of the 20th century in the considered opinion of many scholarly investigators in a manner in which I am personally fairly sympathetic to (more below). Perhaps it would be useful to turn to that subject a bit if that is nearer to the heart of why you suppose Orthodox Christians seem arrogant to you (since you have not yet retracted the term) for hesitancy about incorporating aspects of this movement as rapidly as has taken place in other quarters of Christendom.Hrugnir said:Thank you for the well-formulated reply!
I've read Metr. Kallistos' chapter on this before, but it was a good reminder.
I think to a degree, what I've reacted to is the reactionary tone of many Orthodox. I do understand the idea that doctrine is a unified whole, and that the church corporately feels a need to "keep the faith once delivered". I think it is primarily my charismatic background that I feel clashing with Orthodoxy. But then again, it's specifically statements by the more polemical converts who have hurt me.
One example is the stance on glossolalia/the gift of tongues. I've seen Orthodox say it's demonic, that it's psychological suggestion, or that it is "for children". And in a sense, I can get that last part. The same would relate to prophecy and healing. There's so much scepticism, and knowing a good portion of my best friends, who are some of the sanest and spiritually mature people I've met my age, I'm disturbed by those who simply assume that because something isn't Orthodox, it's probably demonic/prelest - and at least definitely nothing that an Orthodox person could learn something from.
While one would have to accept Tradition as a whole to be Orthodox, I wonder if Charismatics and Pentecostals could "bring their gifts into the Heavenly City" (cf. Rev 21:24-26) in any meaningful sense...
Gorazd: I've had a friend who went there! I might visit at some point. I've been to the only entirely Swedish-speaking Ortodox congregation in Sweden once (St. Anna, Serbian Patriarchate), and the brother of a friend is a parishioner there.
Substantial scientific studies have been published that provide an objective description of the linguistics of glossolalic speech and the neural behaviour of the speakers.
Linguistics of Pentecostal glossolalia
William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, published a thorough assessment of Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics.[5] His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in public and private Christian meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the USA over the course of five years; his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the Snake Handlers of the Appalachians, and Russian Molokan in Los Angeles.
Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker.
It is verbal behavior that consists of using a certain number of consonants and vowels[...]in a limited number of syllables that in turn are organized into larger units that are taken apart and rearranged pseudogrammatically[...]with variations in pitch, volume, speed and intensity.[6]
[Glossolalia] consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.[7]
That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others: Felicitas Goodman found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language.[8]
Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface, and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[9] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organised, and– most importantly of all– there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate, but glossolalia does not. Therefore he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".[9]
On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".[10]
Practitioners of glossolalia may disagree with linguistic researchers and claim that they are speaking human languages (xenoglossia). For example Ralph Harris, in the work Spoken By the Spirit published by Radiant Life/GPH in 1973, describes seventy five occasions when glossolalic speech was understood by others. (Scientific research into such claims is documented in the article on xenoglossia.)
[edit] Comparative linguistics
Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, Caribbean and Mexico; these included English, Spanish and Mayan speaking groups. She compared what she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation), and concluded that there was no distinction between what was practiced by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other religions.[11]
Neuroscience
In 2006, the brains of a group of individuals were scanned while they were speaking in tongues. Activity in the language centers of the brain decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. Activity in the area of control decreased, which corresponds with the reported experience of loss of control. There were no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function.[12][13][14] Other brain wave studies have also found that brain activity alters in glossolalia.[15]
Scientific explanation
Attempts to explain these physical and psychological from a scientific perspective have been suggested, including mental illness, hypnosis, and learned behaviour... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#Neuroscience
Such converts do more violence to their own brothers in the Church than to outsiders. They write silly polemical articles about how there is a revisionist conspiracy to make it look like long hair wasn't traditional among clergy before the Ottoman period. They fuss over scarves and lengths of clothing.Hrugnir said:I think it is primarily my charismatic background that I feel clashing with Orthodoxy. But then again, it's specifically statements by the more polemical converts who have hurt me.
Its easy to do. I think, as myself a convert, can sometimes get a bit hurtful in my criticisms of Protestantism, now that Im on the otherside.But then again, it's specifically statements by the more polemical converts who have hurt me
Good advice for everyoneI keep reminding myself to see to myself and my own sins
Im not even a convert yet and i find myself at times being way too harsh toward protestantism!primuspilus said:Its easy to do. I think, as myself a convert, can sometimes get a bit hurtful in my criticisms of Protestantism, now that Im on the otherside.But then again, it's specifically statements by the more polemical converts who have hurt me
Afterall, in American orthodoxy, what books sell the best? Converts pooping no their patrimony and writing a book about it.
PP
agreed.primuspilus said:Good advice for everyoneI keep reminding myself to see to myself and my own sins
PP
No problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.Hrugnir said:PS. I also tried searching for the word "arrogance" and found the final thread of Matthew777. If I understand things correctly as a lurker, he made somewhat of an impression on the forum, and not in the best way? I apologize if using such terms made you remember such behaviour.
Forgive me for any such accusations. In a sense, I suppose I also wanted to see what sort of reactions an accusation of arrogance would awaken... In the end it's me who finds myself having to repent of my own arrogance in presuming so much about "you Orthodox", as if it was this homogenous group, when in fact to a large extent it's a projected image of my worst fears of what a church I much admire might be like.
Lord, have mercy.
That, to me, sums it all up: the Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants, not just as needing to correct a few things like (for Catholics) the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc. but rather as needing to start from scratch.katherineofdixie said:No problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.Hrugnir said:PS. I also tried searching for the word "arrogance" and found the final thread of Matthew777. If I understand things correctly as a lurker, he made somewhat of an impression on the forum, and not in the best way? I apologize if using such terms made you remember such behaviour.
Forgive me for any such accusations. In a sense, I suppose I also wanted to see what sort of reactions an accusation of arrogance would awaken... In the end it's me who finds myself having to repent of my own arrogance in presuming so much about "you Orthodox", as if it was this homogenous group, when in fact to a large extent it's a projected image of my worst fears of what a church I much admire might be like.
Lord, have mercy.
A priest I know reported that a member of his Inquirers' Class practically broke down and said, "But, Father, if all this is true, and it looks like it is - then everything I ever knew is wrong, and I'm going to have to start all over!" To which Father replied, "Well, son, that's true, but the good thing is, you don't have to do it alone, and all the heavy lifting has already been done for us."
andNo problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.
A priest I know reported that a member of his Inquirers' Class practically broke down and said, "But, Father, if all this is true, and it looks like it is - then everything I ever knew is wrong, and I'm going to have to start all over!" To which Father replied, "Well, son, that's true, but the good thing is, you don't have to do it alone, and all the heavy lifting has already been done for us."
I think that is too broad of a generalization. For me, Roman Catholics would not need to start over (Anglicans either really) as we share common ground on many things.That, to me, sums it all up: the Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants, not just as needing to correct a few things like (for Catholics) the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc. but rather as needing to start from scratch
Well, I glad you think that Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not need to start over. But I would have to take issue with your assertion that Protestants do need to. Seems to be that "classical Protestants" (not the radical liberal ones) mostly have at least a firm Christian grounding even though they are heretical in some of their beliefs.primuspilus said:andNo problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.
A priest I know reported that a member of his Inquirers' Class practically broke down and said, "But, Father, if all this is true, and it looks like it is - then everything I ever knew is wrong, and I'm going to have to start all over!" To which Father replied, "Well, son, that's true, but the good thing is, you don't have to do it alone, and all the heavy lifting has already been done for us."
I think that is too broad of a generalization. For me, Roman Catholics would not need to start over (Anglicans either really) as we share common ground on many things.That, to me, sums it all up: the Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants, not just as needing to correct a few things like (for Catholics) the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc. but rather as needing to start from scratch
Protestants do need to start from scratch, because the myriad of views are so radically different to what would be considered the historical, truly biblical view of God, salvation, the saints, etc. reallyare all about.
I take my own convesion. I really had to re-think the way that I viewed God, and His plan of salvation. It was so radically different to what I believed for so long that it was almost like a night and day difference. Of course, this led me to question everything I thought about Christianity and how my views were in contrast to the original Church.
Now, that is not to say that some folks would not have that far to go. But overall, I think that to just say, "Orthodox think everyone has to start from scratch" is not really accurate.
PP
Exactly. That was my experience also.primuspilus said:Protestants do need to start from scratch, because the myriad of views are so radically different to what would be considered the historical, truly biblical view of God, salvation, the saints, etc. reallyare all about.
I take my own convesion. I really had to re-think the way that I viewed God, and His plan of salvation. It was so radically different to what I believed for so long that it was almost like a night and day difference. Of course, this led me to question everything I thought about Christianity and how my views were in contrast to the original Church.
We just need Jesus to stop by here on earth every few hundred years and go over everything again so their is no confusion. Then, everyone could stay on the same page!Peter J said:Well, I glad you think that Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not need to start over. But I would have to take issue with your assertion that Protestants do need to. Seems to be that "classical Protestants" (not the radical liberal ones) mostly have at least a firm Christian grounding even though they are heretical in some of their beliefs.primuspilus said:andNo problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.
A priest I know reported that a member of his Inquirers' Class practically broke down and said, "But, Father, if all this is true, and it looks like it is - then everything I ever knew is wrong, and I'm going to have to start all over!" To which Father replied, "Well, son, that's true, but the good thing is, you don't have to do it alone, and all the heavy lifting has already been done for us."
I think that is too broad of a generalization. For me, Roman Catholics would not need to start over (Anglicans either really) as we share common ground on many things.That, to me, sums it all up: the Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants, not just as needing to correct a few things like (for Catholics) the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc. but rather as needing to start from scratch
Protestants do need to start from scratch, because the myriad of views are so radically different to what would be considered the historical, truly biblical view of God, salvation, the saints, etc. reallyare all about.
I take my own convesion. I really had to re-think the way that I viewed God, and His plan of salvation. It was so radically different to what I believed for so long that it was almost like a night and day difference. Of course, this led me to question everything I thought about Christianity and how my views were in contrast to the original Church.
Now, that is not to say that some folks would not have that far to go. But overall, I think that to just say, "Orthodox think everyone has to start from scratch" is not really accurate.
PP
I only say that in light of my conversion. "Classical" Protestants have far less road to travel, I can concede that.Well, I glad you think that Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not need to start over. But I would have to take issue with your assertion that Protestants do need to. Seems to be that "classical Protestants" (not the radical liberal ones) mostly have at least a firm Christian grounding even though they are heretical in some of their beliefs
Naturally this is only anecdotal evidence. But I was born and raised "classical Protestant" - that is, Lutheran (and never thought I would be anything else). I was actually going to seminary with the goal of ordination as a Lutheran pastor, so I was fairly conversant with Lutheran theology and had a firm Christian grounding in the faith for my whole life. In addition, I was somewhat of a theology geek. I actually had a copy of the Book of Concord!Peter J said:Well, I glad you think that Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not need to start over. But I would have to take issue with your assertion that Protestants do need to. Seems to be that "classical Protestants" (not the radical liberal ones) mostly have at least a firm Christian grounding even though they are heretical in some of their beliefs.
I heard that Archbishop Dmitri (from the OCA Diocese of the South and who reposed this past summer) would tell converts to be grateful for their prior Christian upbringing, as that was what first brought them to Christ. He was Baptist before he joined the Orthodox Church.Peter J said:Well, I glad you think that Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not need to start over. But I would have to take issue with your assertion that Protestants do need to. Seems to be that "classical Protestants" (not the radical liberal ones) mostly have at least a firm Christian grounding even though they are heretical in some of their beliefs.primuspilus said:andNo problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.
A priest I know reported that a member of his Inquirers' Class practically broke down and said, "But, Father, if all this is true, and it looks like it is - then everything I ever knew is wrong, and I'm going to have to start all over!" To which Father replied, "Well, son, that's true, but the good thing is, you don't have to do it alone, and all the heavy lifting has already been done for us."
I think that is too broad of a generalization. For me, Roman Catholics would not need to start over (Anglicans either really) as we share common ground on many things.That, to me, sums it all up: the Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants, not just as needing to correct a few things like (for Catholics) the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc. but rather as needing to start from scratch
Protestants do need to start from scratch, because the myriad of views are so radically different to what would be considered the historical, truly biblical view of God, salvation, the saints, etc. reallyare all about.
I take my own convesion. I really had to re-think the way that I viewed God, and His plan of salvation. It was so radically different to what I believed for so long that it was almost like a night and day difference. Of course, this led me to question everything I thought about Christianity and how my views were in contrast to the original Church.
Now, that is not to say that some folks would not have that far to go. But overall, I think that to just say, "Orthodox think everyone has to start from scratch" is not really accurate.
PP
Peter J said:Well, I glad you think that Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not need to start over. But I would have to take issue with your assertion that Protestants do need to. Seems to be that "classical Protestants" (not the radical liberal ones) mostly have at least a firm Christian grounding even though they are heretical in some of their beliefs.primuspilus said:andNo problem, honey. As a former Lutheran, I can surely sympathize. See. the thing is, that Orthodoxy is not just another church or another denomination. It's a whole different ballgame. Orthodox may use the same words but mean totally different things. It is a radical re-orientation of your beliefs and outlook. A brave new world.
A priest I know reported that a member of his Inquirers' Class practically broke down and said, "But, Father, if all this is true, and it looks like it is - then everything I ever knew is wrong, and I'm going to have to start all over!" To which Father replied, "Well, son, that's true, but the good thing is, you don't have to do it alone, and all the heavy lifting has already been done for us."
I think that is too broad of a generalization. For me, Roman Catholics would not need to start over (Anglicans either really) as we share common ground on many things.That, to me, sums it all up: the Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants, not just as needing to correct a few things like (for Catholics) the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc. but rather as needing to start from scratch
Protestants do need to start from scratch, because the myriad of views are so radically different to what would be considered the historical, truly biblical view of God, salvation, the saints, etc. reallyare all about.
I take my own convesion. I really had to re-think the way that I viewed God, and His plan of salvation. It was so radically different to what I believed for so long that it was almost like a night and day difference. Of course, this led me to question everything I thought about Christianity and how my views were in contrast to the original Church.
Now, that is not to say that some folks would not have that far to go. But overall, I think that to just say, "Orthodox think everyone has to start from scratch" is not really accurate.
PP
Yes indeed.katherineofdixie said:Frankly, there are jerks everywhere, in every group. What seems like questionable behavior by some people should not turn us away from the Truth.
I keep reminding myself to see to myself and my own sins.
- http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=9178744&postcount=57dcointin said:Although this has already been said, it bears repeating:
We Orthodox view watch the Eastern Catholic Church exprience to see what reunion with Rome would be like.
I realize that it has been said that the uniate model is no longer Rome's way for dealing with reunion in the future, but actions speak louder than words, and we pay far more heed to what happens than what is said. Being unable to practice ones historic right to a married priesthood is *not* acceptable for us, and this will remain a significant barrier to reunion if this kind of action is allowed to continue.
Hrugnir said:I would certainly not say converting to Orthodoxy right now would be like "starting over", but that's because I've been slowly changing my opinions, or rather clarifying them in light of the things I've found, over time. I mean, I read the book "The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware. While it is clearly a "light-weight" book and much more accessible than say The Ladder of Divine Ascent (for many, understandable reasons), I found myself agreeing with every single sentence in it, doctrinally.
But, while I happen to have consciously moved closer to Orthodoxy, I definitely cannot say it would be like a total repentance for most of my Christian friends less enthusiastic about Orthodoxy, if they were to accept its teachings. Sure, emphases might change and things would definitely shake them around, it still would not be as if they made a 180 turn from something. And if dare make a prediction here, those who DO make 180 turns must either A. have been from extremely heretical and damaging backgrounds, or B. run into the risk of becoming Hyperdox Herman.
If your handle reflects your real life name, then you were probably ELCA which is very nominally Lutheran. (If I'm wrong, then please forgive me.) My dad is LCMS and I attended an LCMS university, so I enjoyed debating Lutherans. As my mom would say to dad when theological debates arose, "You just don't get it."katherineofdixie said:I was actually going to seminary with the goal of ordination as a Lutheran pastor, so I was fairly conversant with Lutheran theology and had a firm Christian grounding in the faith for my whole life.
FWIW, I assure you that I was not (nor was my family of German Lutherans, for generations, including my mom who is still not happy about my conversion to Orthodoxy) nominally Lutheran. Also my handle does not reflect my real name but rather my saint's name, St. Katherine.Luckster said:If your handle reflects your real life name, then you were probably ELCA which is very nominally Lutheran. (If I'm wrong, then please forgive me.) My dad is LCMS and I attended an LCMS university, so I enjoyed debating Lutherans. As my mom would say to dad when theological debates arose, "You just don't get it."katherineofdixie said:I was actually going to seminary with the goal of ordination as a Lutheran pastor, so I was fairly conversant with Lutheran theology and had a firm Christian grounding in the faith for my whole life.
I think he is wondering if you are a boy or a girl. If the latter, your attendance at a Seminary would indicate ELCA affiliation. To the conservative Lutherans (LCMS and WELS), ELCA is hardly regarded as Christian, let alone Lutheran. Perhaps this would clarify his statement.katherineofdixie said:FWIW, I assure you that I was not (nor was my family of German Lutherans, for generations, including my mom who is still not happy about my conversion to Orthodoxy) nominally Lutheran. Also my handle does not reflect my real name but rather my saint's name, St. Katherine.Luckster said:If your handle reflects your real life name, then you were probably ELCA which is very nominally Lutheran. (If I'm wrong, then please forgive me.) My dad is LCMS and I attended an LCMS university, so I enjoyed debating Lutherans. As my mom would say to dad when theological debates arose, "You just don't get it."katherineofdixie said:I was actually going to seminary with the goal of ordination as a Lutheran pastor, so I was fairly conversant with Lutheran theology and had a firm Christian grounding in the faith for my whole life.
Welcome. My father is a retired LCMS pastor and I was in the WELS before becoming Orthodox. I have noticed my views on some things "mature", but in no way feel like I had to "start over".Hrugnir said:My "branch" of Lutheranism is very much in the Pietistic tradition (by which I mean the original intra-Lutheran group). The forensic language of Luther, with emphasis on justicication, is then to a large extent complemented by an intense emphasis on piety, repentance and sanctification. Antinomianism and lukewarmness is a common problem among many in my church, but not within the branch I've grown up within.
In many ways, the ELCA has become that, which is one reason (though not really the main one) why I am now Orthodox. (But I do assure you that my upbringing and early Christian formation were as solidly and thoroughly Lutheran as you could wish. After all, the ELCA was formed after I was an adult.)Punch said:...ELCA is hardly regarded as Christian, let alone Lutheran.
Oh! I'm glad you said that, I was scratching my head thinking "How would a person's name be an indication of their denomination?" But yes, in view of the seminary/ordination comment, Luckster's statement makes sense.Punch said:I think he is wondering if you are a boy or a girl. If the latter, your attendance at a Seminary would indicate ELCA affiliation.katherineofdixie said:FWIW, I assure you that I was not (nor was my family of German Lutherans, for generations, including my mom who is still not happy about my conversion to Orthodoxy) nominally Lutheran. Also my handle does not reflect my real name but rather my saint's name, St. Katherine.Luckster said:If your handle reflects your real life name, then you were probably ELCA which is very nominally Lutheran. (If I'm wrong, then please forgive me.) My dad is LCMS and I attended an LCMS university, so I enjoyed debating Lutherans. As my mom would say to dad when theological debates arose, "You just don't get it."katherineofdixie said:I was actually going to seminary with the goal of ordination as a Lutheran pastor, so I was fairly conversant with Lutheran theology and had a firm Christian grounding in the faith for my whole life.
lolPeter J said:BTW, if you haven't already, you should watch Being Mistaken for the ELCA
This series is a riot. Did you see The two faces of Rome? Could ecumenism be taking the RCC in this direction?Peter J said:BTW, if you haven't already, you should watch Being Mistaken for the ELCA
I like it too. Oddly enough, I learned of it from someone on this forum. I don't remember who.stanley123 said:This series is a riot.Peter J said:BTW, if you haven't already, you should watch Being Mistaken for the ELCA
I did -- not too recently, but I remember the gist of it.stanley123 said:Did you see The two faces of Rome? Could ecumenism be taking the RCC in this direction?
LOVED IT! ;DPeter J said:BTW, if you haven't already, you should watch Being Mistaken for the ELCA
Agreed. And I went to college with Adriane Dorr.xariskai said:lolPeter J said:BTW, if you haven't already, you should watch Being Mistaken for the ELCA