But the Wise Shall Understand

I hadn't sent donations to Christian ministries before this year, simply because I hadn't had access to any significant amount of "spare" money (if you can call it that). Because of that, I hadn't ever gotten any exposure to the special efforts of charitable organizations to interact with those who rise above 'garden-variety consumer' of the goods they produce to sustain themselves. Now I have, and it's been interesting to gain that insight.

As I had mentioned here, I bought three orders of the 100-ct. bulk purchase of The Biggest Question with the intent of making their easy availability to me (I've stowed most in my car) an aid in the event of obvious tracting opportunities--can't give what you don't have, and in the absence of following up a conversation, a tangible message left behind is a way to hopefully leave a stronger impression on someone after a witnessing encounter.

This was apparently a big enough single expense to draw the attention of the team. Trish Ramos, who I can only assume donates her time to Wretched, seems to have had the responsibility of calling to thank donors at the end of 2014. I was surprised to get a voicemail that was very clearly individually sent, since I was addressed by name.

As a follow-up to the thank-you and a "please let us know if you're interested in further supporting the ministry or handing out DVDs," she sent a text with a few links n' things. At the bottom was a verse reference I didn't immediately recognize, so I was compelled to look it up.

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.Daniel 12:10

It would seem a rather obscure quote, especially when you look at its immediate context. It's in the prophecy to Daniel about the Great Tribulation. So its immediate meaning is that it concerns a distinction between the 'wise' and the 'wicked' as demonstrated (through 'trial') in that time period.

But while that is the focus of the text, that's not the limit of it. There's a cool word called perspicuity, which in Biblical theology refers to the fact that a passage can be understood on many different levels, based on your intellect and background knowledge, without there being contradiction. A child can understand that Genesis 6-8 tells that the whole earth was covered in water by a global flood that destroyed all of humanity but 8 people. Andrew Snelling can understand it, too, he just has a much more in-depth appreciation of some of its significance because of his technical aptitude. The perspicuity of Scripture is the doctrine that says that the plain truth is understandable to everyone.

At the same time, that means that, while Scripture cannot simply be twisted to mean whatever someone wants it to say, it is often the case that one single-sentence statement of truth can mean multiple things simultaneously.

Daniel 12:10 is focused primarily on the difference between the wise and wicked, so that tells me that there is a comparison between the two that is not limited to the Tribulation period but extends throughout history. Simply put, when Biblical truth is concerned, the wicked will not understand it, but the wise will. And who are the wise? Those who are purified. Who are purified? Those who are saved by grace through Christ's atoning sacrifice. Who are those? Truly converted Christians.

While I pondered this, the reason for Trish's inclusion of just that verse began to settle out in my mind. The wicked won't understand what value there is in buying some DVDs to hand out for free to people who are quite happy living their lives without being harassed by annoying Christian fundamentalists. The wise person recognizes that there's nothing on earth more valuable than the message these DVDs contain, so that it's not about the purchase itself, but what the concern says about the wise man's heart: promoting the spread of this Gospel is the most worthwhile endeavor there is to be concerned with, and his preoccupation with pursuing the amplification of that message throughout the world and in his community and in his life shows that he is wise.

The wise shall understand. I understand why Wretched's The Biggest Question project is something worth supporting. Do you have a similar depth of understanding when it comes to why you support, promote, or ignore various community projects, organizations and movements that you witness in your life?

'Something to think about.
~ Rak Chazak

Fox News is Not Your Friend (Hat-Tip to Wretched)

Subcaption: Voddie Baucham Cut off As Soon as He Mentions the Cross

Video after the jump.

Here's the link to the original podcast that inspired the article title for this piece:

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=62C14A71AA2030A715E5A1720DABEFD2&page=86

And now the piece de resistance. Black conservative pastor taken on conservative television station to talk about black violence and racism, and perhaps you think the producers will let him spread his conservative Christian views?

Haha. Nope.

See, Fox News is conservative, but that does not equivocate to Biblical Christianity. Sure, as Todd points out in the intro to the podcast, there might be many Christians on the side of the Republican Party, but that does not make the GOP a Christian, let alone Bible-based platform, party, or movement. It's most fair to say that it's influenced by Christians, but it disdains us in much the same way that the Democratic Party disdains the Republican Party. It's merely a matter of degree. Both groups want national influence, and they are strongly motivated to cast themselves as pro-Christian or the true representation of Christian virtue, in different ways, in order to court the support of believers.

But the parties as a whole and the nation as a whole is not Christian, and to say that Christianity influences them is becoming a more and more misleading statement.

No, Fox News exists to make money by selling commercial time based on viewership. They do whatever they can to get more views, hence the nauseating sensationalism. Yes, they bring up valid journalistic pieces that other networks don't, but then they do the same as those other networks. CNN might have spent 200 hours covering Carnival cruise disasters a few years ago, but FNC has covered Benghazi and that soldier stuck in a Mexican prison in just the same manner. "Breaking News: Nothing New To Report in the Politically Charged Issue We Keep Telling You About Because We've Staked Our Quarterly Profits On It." Ugh, just quit it.

Theology Matters: Rejection and Selfies, from Wretched Radio

Since you need to be a member to listen to or download Wretched Radio's full-hour podcasts, I think it's a fair conclusion that it would be inappropriate to upload segments, even if I had the software and know-how to splice mp4's into smaller pieces. But I think that the goal of ministries like Wretched and others is to get as much of their content out to people as possible, so there's a tension between wanting to do this and wanting to stay above water financially. Knowing this, I think the content creators would be fine with me posting the text of a segment I personally transcribed this morning, but if I am wrong I will naturally remove it upon their request.

I just had to share this, because of how good it is.

What I passionately appreciate about Wretched Radio is the practical theology. It's not a sermon and it's not a current-events analysis. It's the best of both, and more. Hopefully when you read the transcript below, you'll understand why I try to get as much insight from this as possible. Wretched segments (1/6 of the day's broadcast) are available for free on the website: http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm

Enjoy (broadcast from hour 2, segment 1, June 11 2014)

Don’t know if mentioned, I had the opportunity to be at the International Christian Retail Show, a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta, GA. Come and visit us if you love humidity—we’ve got it by the bucketful. There was a booth in particular that caught my attention: lots of charts, lots of graphs…I like that. There were some books by June Hunt. I’ve been intrigued by her, because I’ve read some good articles by her…Christian post…this one was called Rejection: Healing a Wounded Heart. And inside this little booklet, I wanted to see what her approach was, how she addresses healing the wounded heart…the heart that has suffered from rejection. And if the number of selfies that is being taken these days is any indication of the amount of lack of feeling loved, valued by somebody, is any indication of the amount of people that are hurting out there, then we have got ourselves a fair amount of pain going on in the US of A. By the way, speaking of taking selfies, there was a very thoughtful article, Girldefined.com, why Christian girls post seductive selfies…it was written by Christian Clark. And she talked about how Christian girls are posting selfies that they aren’t even aware are seductive. They just don’t realize it. Why? These are girls who are going to church, they’re raised in godly homes—they’re home-schooled!—and yet you see some of these pictures of these Christian girls and it’s like…What is the matter with them? Why are they doing that? And Christian speculates, because that’s normal to them. It’s not seductive to them. That’s just the way that girls pose. It’s all they’ve seen their whole life. Every billboard, every model, it’s all in some way designed to be seductive.

Which is Despicabler?

I fell far behind on my Wretched-listening over the course of December and January, when I spent several hours each day walking to and from work in anywhere from 9-60-degree weather (crazy extremes this year), before I finally acquired a vehicle at the end of January. But now, I've made a good run of keeping up with the podcast uploads since June. I'm going to download some before I leave my wi-fi location for the night. One of the recent podcasts opened with the question, "which is more despicable?" And offered audio clips or descriptions of recent events for consideration.

To choose from, you had:

• Barack Obama, at a commencement address, jokingly claims he blacked out and couldn't remember his graduation ceremony or even the 'after-party.' To many laughs from the crowd.
• A pedophile priest answers the prosecutor by saying he "wasn't sure when he learned" that having sex with minors was illegal. Todd added, what about that it was homosexual? And out of wedlock?
• Denmark is now forcing churches to allow anyone who wants to be married in their church (read: gay couples) to be married there. Tolerate it or face punishment.
• Planned Parenthood instructs a 15-year old on S&M and asphyxiation, and how to get her 17-year-old boyfriend to buy condoms for her without her parents' consent, when he turns 18. Todd added, but won't he be in a sexual relationship with a minor, then? The New Morality is nothing if not consistently inconsistent!
• A Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple has been ordered to take sensitivity training.

On an individual level, I think the pedophile priest "courtroom defense" takes the cake in demonstrating the depravity of thinking at play in the minds of people we sadly share this planet with. It only very narrowly beats out Planned Parenthood, only because they aren't also a hospital and orphanage. You have to actually go to Planned Parenthood, and that requires some choice on your part, and therefore some minute consciousness about what you're doing. But a church leader, regardless of the false nature of the RCatholic religion, is supposed to be a trusted person who will protect and lead young people in the paths of righteousness. This case is more akin to a paramedic "rescuing" someone from a brutal assault, only to take them to a dungeon somewhere and forcibly sterilize them. Like, what happened to 'Do No Harm?' When people who are in the business of promoting promiscuity so they can profit off of murder are trying to give you sex advice, that's nasty but expected. When someone you're supposed to be able to trust and rely violates your confidence in them and takes advantage of you, there's more of an element of deceit in that. And maybe now that I think about it, that's why I find it more revolting. Since lies are the things I hate the most, it's only reasonable that the thing which is most like a lie is the thing that I find the most despicable.

If what bothers you most is government infringement on individual liberties, I suppose you'd find the court-ordered sensitivity training to be the most offensive, with churches being forced to hold gay weddings coming in second because it isn't directly attacking the individual, but a group.

I was surprised that Todd and Tony (the show's co-host) thought that Obama's speech was so terrible. I agree, it shows his lack of good discernment very aptly. But for a video that shows his moral depravity, I think the "God Bless you Planned Parenthood" one is a far more effective sound-bite.

With regard to the Colorado baker, he avoided the issue by choosing to not offer wedding cakes. A good idea in the short run, but one could see the slippery slope where Christian businesses, if they were to take the "scorched-earth" route, would eventually be elbowed out of the wedding industry altogether, and presumably later on also anything having to do with the American flag or advertising on television. I just think it looks a little too much like giving up. Which is why I really liked the suggestions Todd read from a facebook user:

1. Say "I want you to know that I love you and because of that, it is against my deeply held religious convictions to offer you this wedding cake. But, the US government is forcing me to, so here you go! But before you pay, I want you to know that as a token of appreciation for your business, I will donate 100% of the price of this cake to the Family Research Council or other organizations for the purpose of addressing homosexuality in the culture from a Biblical approach. May God bless you, but not your marriage, and I hope you repent and believe the Gospel before it's too late. Thank you for your business."
2. Alter your company logo, especially if you're a photographer, to include 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in every iteration thereof. On your cakes, on your photographs, on your stationery, on your advertising, etc. Wait, you don't know what 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says? Let me read it for you. You won't forget it.

I'm a much bigger fan of those approaches. The first one negates the promotional effect that your business would have on their sin, at least to the people you directly do business with. And the second would negate the promotional effect on anyone who does not do business with you, but observes the business you have done with others. I would suggest that since letting people be deceived into thinking God is approving of their sin is the central reason for refusing to partake in certain acts, that if you are totally forced to do it and there's no way to avoid it, ("eating food sacrificed to idols," if you imagine living in an all-muslim society where everything is to Halal standards and you can either starve to death or eat food that's been slaughtered while a chant was said to Allah), doing it while actively educating anyone who sees you do it that your conscience will not rest unless you warn them that this is sin and that they must repent--hey, that would seem to address the issue, wouldn't it? Why would we have to quietly submit, anyway? Of course, if they start killing us, we'll have to keep adapting our approach. But these suggestions (I forget who the person was) show us that there is more than one way to go about being persecuted without violating your own conscience or dishonoring God.

~ Rak Chazak

How Churches Can Avoid Persecution Over Gay Marriage

I waited a bit too long to get moving on this post, and so I'm not going to give a summary, because I've forgotten the complete details. 

The complete podcasts are below: they contain Todd Friel's musings on coming persecution of Christians by the state religion for not acknowledging their sacrament of homosexuality.

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=6F6CB65ADC908ABCBBD1E85A79DB4C57&page=1

http://www.wretchedradio.com/podcast.cfm?h=6306D4DF10E3CA5486B832D380D9F9B6&page=1

Here was an important point he made for pastors, which I'll recall from memory:

The government is going to require that you don't discriminate against gays, or else you'll lose your 501(c)3 status or maybe be sued for violating the law, etc etc. So how does a church avoid this, without violating Biblical principles? 

Todd's advice is this: churches should adapt their bylaws to say that they will a) not marry anyone who is not a member of that church, and b) to be a member, one must be in good standing. To be a member in good standing with the church, of course, one would have to submit to God's Law. A homosexual couple would not be capable of being a member in good standing and could thus not be married. 

Todd's other point in the podcasts linked above is that, judging by how John the Baptist challenged Herod (he said that his marriage to his sister was sinful, not that it was invalid and not a real marriage), we should conclude that gay marriage is nevertheless a real marriage, as is a marriage that occurs through adulterous means. The point the Church should make is that the marriage is sinful, but still submit to the government's authority.

He explains it a little better than I did here, in the podcasts. Mostly the first; the second is follow-up. They're approximately 10-15 minutes long, each. I encourage you to listen to them. And forward this link, or the link to the podcasts themselves, to your pastors and deacons. Because this is an issue that they're going to have to anticipate NOW, so that they are not taken by surprise later on.

~ Rak Chazak

Theological Lyrics Thursday: Friel-Proof Christian Music

Hello Internet,

12 days after starting blogging, my post entitled The Wretched Podcast is the most popular, due largely to Elizabeth Prata's encouragement from a blog post on her website, http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/. In that post, I made mention of Todd Friel's radio program, and used it to springboard into a discussion of song-lyrics in Christian music and the danger of judging it by how it sounds rather than what it says. 

The idea hit me that I could present a few songs once a week, as a regular upload, to encourage any potential readers to check out songs that can offer them not just a good listen but also theologically meaty lyrics, to help us grow in our walk and remain 'heavenly minded.'

Since I can't limit myself to just one, here's what I'll do today--I'll make three categories:

1. Doctrinal Exposition -- this song emphasizes an important Biblical doctrine of some kind.
2. Good Idea -- this song delievers a message consistent with, or derived from, the Bible but isn't necessarily phrased in doctrinal language; less explicit, essentially.
3. Mostly Air -- this song may or may not have some redeeming qualities, but will be mostly fluff, with little or nothing to distinguish it as exclusively Christian music, and would be best avoided. However, in most cases you can get away with listening to it as long as it doesn't make up the vast bulk of your music library. 

Here comes the first batch:

Doctrinal Exposition: Children of God, by Third Day

+3 Brownie Points for having the singer look like the stereotypical 'Anglican' Jesus we see in paintings.

Here's what's good about the song: 

It emphasizes the doctrine of adoption -- the brief clip at the beginning emphasizes that point. The Bible says in Ephesians 1:5 that through Jesus Christ we (those who are saved) have been adopted as children of God into His family. Romans 8:14 says that "all who are led by the [Holy] Spirit are children of God." So the message is more than just sentimental, but an important Biblical truth to recognize. That's the great strength of Third Day's song. Extra credit is awarded for the manifold references to us being redeemed, the fact that we are "free from the judgment that we deserve," the implicit references to the Trinity through reference to the Father and the Son, and the correct identification of believers as Saints -- "we are the Saints, we are the Children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven," a bridge chorus that shows up later in the song.

In an age of deception and misinformation about who the Saints are, and who is a child of God, this song does a great service by emphasizing that both of these terms refer to believers in Jesus Christ, in contrast to Roman Catholic teaching that Saints are an elite, exclusive class of believers who have died and now answer prayers directed to them, and the false worldly misunderstanding that everyone on earth is a child of God, when in fact unbelievers are referred to as "children of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)

Good Idea: Blessings, by Laura Story

Here's what's good about the song:

It questions the mentality that says that God will make life into a cake-walk for every believer. It directly challenges the 'every day a Friday' attitude that expects Christians to be happy all the time and everything hunky-dory for them. It repeatedly questions, in several clever ways, whether the seemingly bad things in life may in fact be "blessings in disguise," reminding us that "this is not our home," and suggesting in one verse that "we doubt your goodness, we doubt your love, as if every promise from your word is not enough." This challenges us to be careful to not lose faith when prayers are not immediately answered with the relief we seek. It points the listener away from their material circumstance and refocuses them on God's promises. This is not 'your best life now.' Our best life is a future life after death, promised to us by God, for those who persevere in faith through the trials of life. (James 1:3) (Hebrews 6:12)

Take-away verse:

What if my greatest disappointments, and the aching of this life, is a revealing of a greater thirst this world can't satisfy?

Mostly Air: 10,000 Reasons by Matt Redman (has redeeming qualities)

There are many songs out there that aren't terribly BAD, they're just not full of theology. In this case, I've chosen one of the better ones; I have this one in my library and I'm not worse off for it.

The main message of this song can be boiled down to a single verse: no matter what happens, praise the Lord continually without giving up. Hey, that's a great message. But if you remember my suggestion in the article The Wretched Podcast, if you remove the brief shout of "Jesus!" at the end of the song, then this song can be sung by Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics; and when even the monotheistic versions of Hinduism can appropriate it, it means that it's not a remarkable song--it isn't distinctively Christian.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the song is taboo, or terrible. But if you were trying to casually witness to someone on Facebook, and were going to use a song out of these three that I've given today, to give to someone in one of the religions I mentioned above, then you would do well to choose the first one in the list. This one can be fine to listen to to worship God, but be wary of the cumulative effect that many such songs can have on your personal theology.

The most theologically distinctive the song gets is the single line, "You're rich in love, and You're slow to anger." It implies, but doesn't exactly scream "Jesus," so be wary of getting watered down. 

As long as you're cautious, you can listen to music with watered-down lyrics, or shall I say, with a low doctrine-to-verse quotient? But when you're setting priorities, do your best to seek out songs with a more complete message than just "worship God."

Tune in next week for a second installment and three (or two, depending on how you're reading this) more songs!

~ Rak Chazak

The Wretched Podcast

Once or twice weekly, I open up my computer and go to hit up my favorite websites to see what's been added in the past several days. One of these websites happens to be Wretched Radio, hosted by Todd Friel, a guy who used to be a pastor, discovered he was a false convert, and now is a true convert who spends his time combating various heresies through the medium of the air waves. Being an unemployed almost-grad, I don't have the privilege to watch his show on t.v. or to subscribe online, but that's okay, because there are free goodies to be found there anyway.

Specifically, the 15-minute excerpt of the 2-hour daily radio show is something I've made a habit of watching. Here's the link to this Tuesday's episode: 

The Wretched Segment of the Day -- March 12, 2013

Now I'm going to proceed to give my two main thoughts on this episode.

1. They start out by mocking (a valid method of correction if done right) what I guess could be labeled as "mainstream Christian pop," by playing sections of the lyrics of popular songs that don't hold up to theological scrutiny. I recognized one of them from my own music album, so this hit home a bit for myself as well.

I didn't recognize all the songs, though "we say yes lord, yes lord, yes yes lord" were the lyrics on one, "I am a friend of God (x3), He calls me friend" was another, and then there was the disturbingly-too-much-like-a-romance-song "I love the way you hold me, whoa oh oh oh oh oh" that I heard on the radio a year or so ago. Catchy tunes, no doubt. But they hardly compare to these examples:

"Because the sinless Savior died, my sinful soul is counted free; for God the Just is satisfied to look on Him and pardon me" -- The old worship hymn, Before the Throne of God Above

"I will not boast in any thing, not gifts nor power nor wisdom; but I will boast in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection." -- The hymn How Deep the Father's Love for Us

Notice a difference in terms of the theological 'meatiness' of the lyrics? Mmh hmm.

Mockery is supposed to be embarrassing when you realize that you or something you like is being mocked. That's how it motivates you to change your behavior if you're in the wrong. Assuming, of course, that the mockery is given in love and not intended to hurt more than your feelings. And I think Todd's mockery of these songs is well-intentioned, and effective.

That's why it was awkward for me to again notice that another one of the songs he mocked was the Newsboys rendition of "God's Not dead." Consider the lyrics: 

"My God's not dead He's surely alive
He's living on the inside
Roaring like a lion
He's roaring, roaring
Roaring like a lion (2x)"

Catchy tune, and it gets you pumped to blast it through your car speakers, but it doesn't have a solid theological message. At best, its message is emotional. So I acknowledge Todd's criticism, but I'll keep this one song in my album, and here's why:

I don't think Todd is saying that this music is evil or should not be listened to. I believe the concern is that when songs with watered-down lyrics like these make up the vast majority of music played over the radio, and when there are comparatively very few songs that exposit a Biblical truth, then those who are listening to this music are not being fed with good "soul food," if you will. They're getting candy for three meals a day and no vegetables. It can sure taste sweet to your ears to hear MercyMe sing "you're beautiful" to the tune of delightful guitar music, but if all you hear is about you and not about God, over time you'll develop a jaded impression. MercyMe's other song, "All of Creation" does more to exposit the change in the relationship we have with the Father because of the Cross. I have both in my music library. Some music just sounds good, and you're allowed to get your "fix" every once in a while. But our evaluation of whether Christian music is good Christian music should not be based on how it sounds, but on what it says. I think this is Todd's big push.

I happen to have a lot of "theologically meaty" songs in my collection, and hence I haven't been negatively affected by vague lyrics. It's a matter of balance, I believe. You can listen to "Draw Me Close To You" by Nicole Nordeman, which is a wonderful song and helps to emphasize that God should be all we want, and nothing else, but make sure to complement it with a song like "Children of God" by Third Day. Just like with real food, you've got to eat a balanced and healthy meal or you'll get sick to your stomach.

So ask yourself, is most of what I listen to wishy washy emotional music? Or do I listen to enough  solidly theological music ("Manifesto" by City Harmonic, for example) that I can listen to the other stuff without also washing down my own personal theology? 

As a general rule, consider: if a song can be sung by a muslim, mormon, catholic, Jew and jehovah's witness, as well as an 'Evangelical Christian,' then that music is not Christian music. It's far too vague to qualify. That doesn't mean Christians can't listen to it. But it's nothing special on its own.

I might suggest, too, that the more good theology you listen to, the less pleasant the wishy-washy stuff will become to you. I've found myself weighing the theological merits of a song before downloading it, more and more, recently. So I think Todd has a point. Surround yourself with "the good stuff" and it will improve your spiritual life.

If you want me to suggest further theologically sound music, beyond the tracks I've made mention of above, you can contact me through my email (or leave a comment below) and I'll be glad to offer you more suggestions if you want to spiff up your Christian music album.



2. Penn Jilette, in correcting Piers Morgan on what Catholics believe, gives glory to God

Towards the end of the Wretched podcast, Todd plays a clip of Penn Jilette, a famous atheist, on Piers Morgan's talk show. Piers is apparently Catholic (who knew?), but he questions many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Penn Jilette corrects him by pointing out that true Catholics have to believe everything the Pope says, because that is an article of the Catholic faith. Since Morgan wanted to question the Pope, Jilette pointed out to him that that was what Martin Luther started, when he said that he believed everyone had the right and ability to interpret the Bible themselves.

This reminds me of what Paul the apostle wrote in Philippians 1:

"¹⁵ Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: ¹⁶ The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; ¹⁷ but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁸ What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

I think we can rejoice that God saw fit to use a kindly atheist to correct a lapsed Roman Catholic and to point the entire viewing audience (in the hundreds of thousands?) to the fact that it is Protestant Christianity that asserts that everyone has the freedom to read the Bible on their own, to seek after truth.

There are many who are caught up in the false religious system of Roman Catholicism, which teaches many things that are contrary to the Bible. The fact that this exchange between Piers and Penn may give occasion for some Roman Catholics to question their supposed faith, and to read the Bible for themselves, is a cause for us all to rejoice.

~ Rak Chazak