John H Armstrong

Catholic AND Evangelical

This Thursday, September 3, a special "Catholic AND Evangelical?" presentation by Dr. Francis Beckwith and Dr. Timothy George will occur in Wheaton (IL) at 7:00 p. m. I plan to be present and invite any of you from the Chicago area to join me.

"Exploring Christian Identity: Can You Be Catholic and Evangelical?" will be hosted by the Center for Applied Christian Ethics and The Penner Foundation. The event begins at 7 p.m. and ends at 9 p.m. It will be at Edman Chapel on the Wheaton College campus.

This event will be moderated by my good friend Rev. Chris Castaldo of College Church in Wheaton. You can see more details at Chris's Facebook account.

I Am Somtimes Surprised That I Am Still Here

My friend Steve Brown recently recalled that Malcolm Muggeridge—the British journalist, author, satirist and Christian—once said when he was an old man that he sometimes awoke in the morning with one foot on earth and one in heaven. “Sometimes,” Muggeridge said, “I wake up surprised that I’m here.”

I not quite to this point yet but I can picture it if I live long enough. I do know, along with Steve, that I wake up at the end of August saying, “I’m surprised we are still here and doing this mission of ACT 3.”

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not surprised that I am still able to minister. I will do ministry whether ACT 3 succeeds or not. But God clearly has shown us that he has a continued purpose for this mission that we formed back in 1991 in my family room in Carol Stream. There have been times, however, when I really wondered.

I wondered when we began to lose donations in the early part of this decade. My open commitment to ecumenism cost us dearly. This really began in May of 1999 when we did our first trans-denominational conference at the University of Dubuque. I still recall the letters and calls that we got about having speakers from the “wrong” places. The list of plenary speakers included Carl Braaten (ELCA), William Abraham (United Methodist, photo at right), Donald Bloesch (United Church of Christ), J. I. Packer (Anglican) and me (now Reformed Church in America). We lost a lot of donors and hundreds of thousands of dollars from May of 1999 until about 2003. Once the bleeding stopped we closed an office and laid off staff. This was heartbreaking because it made me let go of some very dear friends in the process. We lost 60% of our total giving over the course of about three years. It was very stressful and thus I wondered, “Will we be here next year?”

My open commitment to think outside the box of certain kinds of rigid Reformed conservatism has also cost us very dearly. The verbal and written attacks of some leaders assured opposition against us in certain contexts. Misunderstanding followed. Though I have sought to “be at peace with all men” there have been times when men (I can’t think of one woman who has done this) have simply refused to be at peace with me. I have offered to meet with them and discuss things in private. I have been refused more times than I can remember. The instances that hurt the most were where men who I thought were good friends simply stopped writing or calling. Their actions spoke volumes. (There have been some wonderful exceptions. There are still a number of friends who do not always agree with me but who have chosen to not make this a test of relationship!)

So at the end of the summer 2009 I am amazed some days that we are still here. I am also grateful that so many of you love me, read me and support me and ACT 3. I am profoundly grateful to those who have donated to ACT 3 this year. In the last few months we have faced, like so many non-profits, a crisis in funding. The recession has hurt us. By God’s grace our immediate needs have been recently met thus we have kept current with our greatly revised budget.

While all of this sifting and shaking has gone on God has recently given me a deep sense of what is ahead. The vision of ACT 3 is simple: “To equip leaders in the unity of Christ’s mission.” We are working very diligently to create a strategic plan to carry out this vision in the next five years. Included in this vision are events that will follow the publication of my book Your Church Is Too Small, next March. Also included are articles and an expanded Web presence. God willing, we will launch a new initiative to train small cohort groups of leaders for the purpose of transforming the church. This new Center for Transformissional Leadership is taking shape and more information will come as we develop it. I will also begin working with an intern this week, a senior at Wheaton College. This senior leads the Ecumenical Society on campus. We have some plans to reach more students as we share together.

I have learned a number of things along the way. There is one thing I have learned again and again. God requires us to persevere through dark days and sunny days. He does not promise to always send sunshine but he does promise to always be with us if we are with him. I have not done everything well I assure you but I have served with my goal clearly before me—to exalt the glory of Christ and to pursue the making of disciples by equipping leaders for unity in Christ’s mission (Matthew 28:18-20 and John 17:20-23). Your love and support helps to make sure that we are still around in the next few years. If you would like to help us again, or for the first time, you can do so at ACT 3 online. 

The Dark World of Michael Savage

Of all the conservative talk show hosts on radio the most bizarre of them all has to be Michael Savage. I admit I have listened to him just enough to realize how disturbed and nutty he actually is. What is even more amazing is how well his books have sold. There clearly is a deep angst in many conservatives who feed on the anger and dark world of this man.

Kelefa Sanneh, writing a recent piece on Savage in the New Yorker magazine, says he lives in a "dark, apocalyptic world." The talk show host, who has an audience of  8 million listeners, says, "Twenty-one hours a day I live in misery. Three hours a day I'm happy." Having listened to a little of this man while in my car I found this to be exactly what I would have expected. Callers who try to converse with Savage have little chance to say anything of substance. He attacks people, interrupts them and bullies them, and in general is simply aggressive beyond description. His ideas often sound like some of the most radical expressions of hatred imaginable.

Before Michael Savage, now 67 years old, became an author and popular radio host he wrote about alternative medicine. He still will not wear head phones when he is in the studio for his fear of going deaf. He talks about losing his sight every day. The man seems totally paranoid when you get into his comments about life. He actually operates from what he calls "hidden locations" for fear of his life. Perhaps the reason for this is the deep loathing he has created among extremists on the left. Living in San Francisco, as he does a good deal of the time, would tend to make such a guy fearful I suppose. After all, this is the same man who said all liberals were psychopaths. He ought to know.

Mascot Madness in Chicago

Readers know that I love baseball. I decided this summer, due to the recession and the difficulty of getting to games in Chicago, to limit my baseball experience to a nearby minor league team, the Kane County Cougars. I get two inexpensive tickets for about 13 games a year and take friends with me to see a game and spend a relaxing evening together. This week the Cougars season (sadly) winds to a close. I will miss these boys of summer and the pure delight of hearing the crack of the bat and consuming baseball park delights with good friends.

Last week Anita and I took our dachshund Neo in the “Bark in the Park” parade at the Kane County stadium. Stacy also brought along her dog, Latte. It was a real delight for all of five of us. (We think the dogs enjoyed it!) The fans pointed at the doxies and laughed with us, or was it at us?

Before the parade around the park I had the opportunity to meet the famous Kane County mascot Ozzie. Ozzie is, fittingly, a Cougar. I think Ozzie is one of the better mascots in baseball. He is quite an entertainer. In fact, Ozzie is quite a runner as well. This short clip will give you an idea of just how fast Ozzie the Cougar really is. Enjoy!

Is Extremism on the Rise in America?

Politics in America has tended to move toward a deeper expression of extremism over the last few decades. Opinions differ about what started this negative trend. Some think it began with the Watergate mess. Others think it became even worse during the Clinton era, especially when conservative ministers tried to discredit Clinton with a number of lies. This culminated in the impeachment trial. Still others think this only got worse in the wake of 9/11 and the bitter opposition that grew in response to George W. Bush. Now it seems to have reached an even higher level of intensity with the bitter reaction of many conservatives to President Obama.

The presidency of Ronald Reagan may have been the only time, and perhaps the four years of the President George H. W. Bush right after him, when we have not had fierce extremism in the popular culture since the 1960s. Could Reagan's humor, and his upbeat spirit, have helped him overcome some of this? But even then extreme liberals despised Ronald Reagan and tried to find various ways to discredit him morally.

What astounds me is the level to which all of this has descended in recent years. Talk radio and 24/7 television has not helped. Indeed, it may have promoted more of this than ever. One whole movement of extreme conservative voices exists in what are called "the birthers." Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs have actually given credence to this movement. These people believe that Obama is not a legitimate president because he was not born on U. S. soil, which means he is not a legitimate U. S. citizen. This movement strikes me as not only extreme but as very dangerous. If we can undermine the whole electoral process, much as extremists did on the left after the Supreme Court decided that Bush won Florida in 2000, then we can undermine the whole legitimacy of our government. Extremists are always willing to discredit and destroy in the name of their agenda and goals.

The extreme right now employs not-so-subtle forms of race baiting. Glenn Beck recently proclaimed that Obama "has a deep-seated hatred for white people." Democrats seek to paint the Republicans as "right-wing, Southern bigots" who oppose minorities, women, gays and immigrants. But during the previous eight years the shoe was often on the other foot. I believe President Obama campaigned successfully precisely because he was able to put some distance between his campaign and the fringe left. He was able to defuse Republican attacks that painted him as the most liberal and extreme of all possible Democrats. Republicans have used this approach ever since Vietnam, saying all Democrats will not protect the nation militarily. Democrats have used the same approach always saying that Republicans will destroy Social Security, to use one common campaign standard.

But we must understand that political extremism is a bipartisan problem. 28% of Republicans, in a recent poll, said they did not believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S. But another poll, taken in 2007, revealed that 35% of Democrats believed President Bush actually knew in advance that 9/11 was going to happen. Both extremes are bad but the second is, to my mind, even nuttier than the first. Neither party can completely disavow this extreme nonsense. The "fanatical fringe" is alive and well. The question is just how large are these extremist movements? And how much influence does this really have in the mainstream?

We know some things about the fanatical fringes. On the right they segregate themselves with like-minded ideologues on the Web, listen to certain talk radio hosts and watch Fox News. On the left they love Michael Moore and Air America and MSNBC. The more people on both sides stoke their views with extreme ideas the more they tend to segregate themselves from people they disagree with. One blogger, David Paul Kuhn, says that "from this mutual incomprehension, outlandish conspiracy theories are born." I totally agree.

The two parties have been drawn into a policy of loyalty to their agenda, which is really a desire to keep or regain their political power. Few seem willing to find a way of compromise that will work for the greater good of the nation. The present health care debate underscores this very point. Both sides are accusing the other of nefarious and ugly conspiracies and lying. I do not know about you but this health care bill runs to over 1,000 pages. I haven't read it but then you probably haven't either. But the problem here is that no one in Washington seems to have read it either. Everyone should be asking questions rather than endorsing either side in a battle that is so clearly drawn along the lines that we have become used to in this country.

I run into the influence of this extremism regularly. I had a talk a few days ago with a man who was quite liberal. He got very angry even though I didn't promote any particular idea seriously. He face grew flush, his veins popped and he completely lost it. He made it know that he hated George Bush. He believed that Bush is the worst man to ever hold office in America. At the same time I run into Christians every week who hate President Obama so deeply that they seem to think this is their primary reason for getting up every morning. They will do anything, including lie and use anger in unrighteous ways, to let everyone know just how much they hate this man.

Ironically, both Bush and Obama are professing Christians. Their testimony to God's grace is known and can be read by all fair minded people. I, for one, accept them both at face value and judge their political views one-by-one. I fear this approach is now seen as weak and lacking in integrity by a large, growing number of Americans. This is why I think extremism is on the rise. I also believe that it is harming the mission and witness of the church very profoundly.

Rev. Ike & the Posperity Gospel

I sometimes say that the most original gospel message America ever gave to the world was the "health and wealth gospel" of the media evangelists. No one was more flamboyant in preaching such a message than the late Frederick J. Eikerenkoetter II, or "The Rev. Ike." For Rev. Ike the love of money was not the root of all evil. Salvation, for him, was found in personal success and material prosperity. He used to say, "Don't wait for your pie in the sky, by and by. Say I want my pie right now---and I want it with ice cream on top!" Money, he often said was, "God in action." The man sure knew how to turn a phrase.

I suppose most readers under 40 would have little or no recognition of the name of Rev. Ike. For my generation he was just odd enough to capture our interest in the 1970s. Born June 1, 1935 in Ridgeland, South Carolina, Frederick Eikerenkoetter was of African American and Dutch-Indonesian descent. Rev. Ike began his career as a teen preacher and later became the assistant pastor of the Bible Way Church in Ridgeland, South Carolina. He served a stint as an assistant to an Air Force chaplain (as a non-commissioned officer assigned to assist chaplains) and then founded several churches and ministries. His first church was the United Church of Jesus Christ in Beaufort, South Carolina. He founded the United Christian Evangelistic Association in Boston and then the Christ Community United Church in New York City, located on 175th Street in Manhattan. The Chicago Tribune says Rev. Ike received a "clear call to the ministry" at age seven. This is typical of the cultural Christianity that he grew up with in that time.

Eikerenkoetter attended the American Bible College, a school in Oklahoma that closed in 2005. American Biblical College says that it was known as a Bible-based evangelical, fundamental and nondenominational college with solid, conservative values. The school also says (on a Web site) that it was pleased to have both students and faculty from dozens of denominational and independent churches and backgrounds. The statement of faith affirmed the following:

•  We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
•  We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
•  We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
•  We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
•  We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
•  We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
•  We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Whatever Rev. Ike got at this Bible school he clearly did not remain faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ. After he moved to New York City he seized upon Psalm 23 and said his philosophy was based upon these words: "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." He began to spread a message of personal empowerment and wealth saying the best thing you can do for the poor is to "not be one of them." At the height of Rev. Ike's ministry he had 2.5 million listeners on 1,770 radio stations. He later went into television preaching in ten major markets, which is how I first saw him  in Chicago. One wrote that he "toured the nation like a soul-music star, attracting thousands to his sermons." He had unique ways for soliciting money and made no bones about his desire to collect all that he could. He lived a lavish lifestyle and flaunted his fleet of cars. He drove Cadillacs, Bentley's and Rolls-Royce's. He once said, "My garage runneth over."

Rev. Ike had a stroke in 1977 and never recovered, dying on July 28, 2009. He is survived by his wife of forty-nine years and his one son, who now runs his "metaphysical church." What Rev. Ike eventually did was create a new type of "mind science." For example, he began a Business of Living Institute and called the philosophy "Thinkonomics." He taught his followers: "Anything that you can honestly think and feel that you deserve must come to you." The guy was creative if nothing else.

When guys like Rev. Ike come flashing across the scene and then fade away I wonder what happens to the multitudes of people who flock to hear them in their prime? In the case of Rev. Ike most evangelicals clearly saw through his flamboyance and false teaching. Yet he pioneered a style and a communication presence that went into the mainstream over time. Ironically Rev. Ike was investigated by the U. S. government for money matters but he was never convicted. He also avoided the kinds of scandals that plagued more orthodox preachers with similar backgrounds to his own.

Rev. Ike was one of the earliest proponents of what we now call "prosperity theology." He argued that we should not feel guilty about riches. He taught people to embrace prosperity as a wonderful gift.

Here is the sad irony. Prosperity is a gift. And we should not feel guilty if we are given this gift. The problem is teaching people that God wills for everyone to prosper if they just have enough faith, or the right kind of faith. What Rev. Ike shamelessly promoted seemed odd to many in the 1970s. Now, forty years later, it seems less odd since so many elements of this message are used with a sprinkle of "mind science" so as to create the modern versions of the same message, albeit with a stronger dose of teaching about the cross and the work of Christ in salvation.

The question here is not really about wealth. It is not even about thinking positively. The real question is about living well and what living well really means. Those who live well will also die well. And those who live well will truly trust God and live for his glory. Because they live well they then will be prepared for the judgment which is sure to come. "It is appointed to man to die once and after that to face the judgment."

The Promise of America's Cities

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a significant leader of great interest to many Americans. It was rumored, in the last election cycle, that he might run as an independent candidate for president. I still think he may run such a campaign in the future. I listen to Michael Bloomberg whenever he talks about our cities and their future. He plainly understands the infrastructure of big cities and how they can thrive in a modern context. Bloomberg recently shared some great insights, in Business Week (August 24), into what makes a recessionary economy a time of real opportunity for true growth.

The mayor started a new technology company in an earlier recession and then ended up incredibly wealthy in the process. People told him that he was crazy to invest big money in a start-up during a bad economy. He proved them wrong. Later he was told that he was crazy to run for the mayoral office. He says, "Human achievement is built on the optimistic notion that what is not possible today can be possible tomorrow. America has never had a short supply of optimists, which may be the best of all reasons to be hopeful." Bloomberg is an optimist if he is anything at all! I think we can stand to hear a few optimists right now.

Bloomberg is also bullish on big cities. He says safer streets in New York have attracted entrepreneurial and ambitious people, especially young people. These young adults have transformed once-blighted neighborhoods. While manufacturing has moved overseas Mayor Bloomberg notes that design continues to grow in America. This is a sector of our economy that relies on ideas and he believes there are some great ideas in our biggest cities. (Not all big cities for sure, but most of them.) While financial services have declined in the present global recession, innovative and high-tech industry is growing. Technology, says Mayor Bloomberg, is stretching the bounds of entrepreneurialism. He says, "If you can dream it, you can build it, and the U. S. has always been a nation of dreamers, even in the toughest times."

Bloomberg believes that the current recession will give rise to a new wave of entrepreneurs. He also believes, and I hope someone is listening, that the challenge for local, state and national governments is to find ways to encourage and attract this vast potential. In New York City the mayor is opening business incubators, holding boot camps for entrepreneurs, organizing business-plan competitions and expanding the amount of early-stage seed capital designated for start-ups. He is also cutting taxes for small businesses.

Bloomberg believes the expansion of capital in countries like India and China will profit the U.S. He is most definitely not a protectionist. In fact, no one who is forward thinking about America's future is a protectionist. America's deep pool of talent and technological know-how will continue to make it a desirable place for investment opportunity if government plays the right role. He also believes Congress needs to fix our broken immigration system so that our society can truly be more open. Conservatives react against this thinking but I fear this reaction is very often rooted in a general ignorance of the issue or a latent racism that is not understood. Our world-class universities can attract the best and the brightest if we are open to the world. Government's role, besides creating a climate for all this to happen, is to invest in quality of life issues by committing money to mass transit, parks, schools, etc.

Bloomberg is not a conservative or a liberal, at least not in the normal ways these labels are used in the modern context. His social views are clearly more to the left, as are some of his views about other non-spending issues. But he is more of a fiscal conservative in the area of taxes and spending. All of this makes him both an interesting proponent of the future of our big cities as well as an interesting candidate for higher office. When Michael Bloomberg speaks a lot of talented and able people listen. It seems they do so for very good reason. I have no idea if I would vote for him but I will always be interested in what he has to say. He is an impressive mayor of the world's greatest big city.

The Present Devaluation of Christian Doctrine

Christian doctrine has been devalued for the last one hundred plus years. Liberal teachers continue to devalue it by inverting the relationship between Scripture and secular thought. They allow secular insights to interpret the Scripture. Evangelicals devalue doctrine by treating it as something that has little or nothing to do with living faithfully. ("It is not practical and only divides us anyway!") I have heard evangelicals say, most of my life, "Doctrine divides us but love unites us!"

A good example of this devaluing process, at least on the liberal side, is what we presently see happening regarding sexual ethics. The seventh commandment is quite clear. If you read what Christians teachers have said about this commandment since the first century the response would have been very, very consistent. But now, less than one decade into the twenty-first century, there is a huge debate about same-sex marriage. There really shouldn’t even be a debate. This debate can only thrive in a context where the role of Scripture has been inverted.

The real problem in this modern debate is that we have lost our way with regard to the clarity of Holy Scripture and the Christian tradition. The authentic Christian belief—still sustained by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and confessional Protestants—is that Holy Scripture is in essence God testifying to himself via human witnesses and God-breathed writers. (There is wide room here for differing views of how to define inspiration.) This belief that Scripture is God-breathed is basic, fundamental. Without it we can make no sense of Christianity. If the words of Scripture are not written revelation then we can know nothing of God’s truth revealed to us in Jesus Christ. We are cast adrift to interpret the Bible as we see fit in each age. (This is not to deny that we can rethink how we understand certain things in Scripture. It does mean that we cannot remake the commandments of God to fit into our modern ethical practice.)

The sum and substance of the church’s doctrine is found in the gospel itself. Our creator has become our redeemer through the incarnate Christ. But evangelicals have reduced this gospel to a few propositions; e.g., all have sinned, Jesus died and rose for sinners, believe on Jesus and you will be saved. This makes a valid point but the gospel includes much, much more. I would say, with many Christians down through the ages, that the Apostles’ Creed is a basic summary of the gospel. “The gospel,” says J. I. Packer, “is the full declaration of this gracious saving plan that God is fulfilling in and for his spoiled world, plus the full demonstration of the proper response—faith in Christ and repentance, good works, and love both Godward and manward, with gratitude and joyful hope.”

Intimately bound up with the gospel of Christ is the doctrine of the Trinity. The gospel saves us because, as J. I. Packer rightly notes: “the one tripersonal God, our God, operates as a team, all three persons within the divine unity working together in full conjunction with each other to carry through a single, huge, mind-blowing plan: namely, to establish a multi-billion strong community of redeemed human beings, each one an enormously complex entity in creational terms, within a fully reconstructed cosmos, with Jesus Christ the mediator at its center for all eternity.” I love those words: "a single, huge, mind-blowing plan."

The Anglican Prayer Book leads the worshiper to ask that God deliver us “from all false doctrine, heresy and schism.” Note all three: False doctrine, heresy and schism. They are uniquely related and we separate them to our own peril. Some Christians are concerned about false doctrine and heresy and care not at all about schism. The doctrine that establishes us in unity is the gospel and this gospel is intimately related to the Trinity. Without this framework Jesus is reduced to a cool plan of personal salvation. We cannot afford such reductionism since it will lead us further and further away from the doctrine of grace. Both liberals and evangelicals need this gospel and it will cost them something to make sure they regain it.

What is Christian Doctrine and Why Does It Matter?

Doctrine is the revealed truth of God defined and taught by the church in conversation with the Bible and the whole Christian tradition. Doctrine is for the growth of believers as well as for the whole world. The Latin word doctrina literally means teaching. Indeed, our English Bible most commonly translates the Greek word for doctrine with our word teaching. If a person teaches then they are communicating doctrine. It may be bad doctrine or good doctrine but it is doctrine. This is why I am always puzzled by people who say, "Just teach the Bible. Do not teach us doctrine."

The church, at least on the pages of the New Testament, appears as a community of learners. Some of these learners became teachers of the early church. All Christians were to be engaged in the lifelong task of taking in, meditating upon, and living out Christian doctrine. The most important of all Christian doctrines is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news. This doctrine most feeds our minds and hearts so that we can know and love Jesus.

A disciple is a life-long learner of doctrine. The Greek word for disciple is actually learner. The church in the New Testament is seen as a fellowship of learners who gather to worship the living Christ and then learn from him through teachers and each another. Each Christian is called to learn more about Christ and then to obey what they learn.

There is a real danger that a congregation can become doctrinally dull. The writer to the Hebrews rebukes some early Christians when he says, “You have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food . . . solid food is for the mature” (Hebrews 5:11–14).

Doctrine is taught in many ways. Sermons, classes with instruction, devotional talks, catechisms, printed books and audio-visual resources can all help to teach doctrine to the church. Perhaps the best way to teach sound doctrine, beside careful preaching and teaching, is through worship itself. This is especially truth when the worship is structured around the great themes of the Christian faith. This will usually result in carefully planned liturgies. (All worship has elements of liturgy in it, some of it carefully designed and theologically congruent.) By all of these means Christians can hear the faith and assimilate it into their hearts.

Faithfulness to sound doctrine promotes spiritual health. Doctrine is not just a collection of my ideas and your ideas. Rightly understood and taught doctrine is a declaration of what the Lord has said for our collective benefit. If doctrine is God’s gift to the church then we need the Holy Spirit to make it live in our midst. No doctrinal instruction should be undertaken as simply an exercise in learning a few unrelated, or mysterious, truths. God gives gifts to men and women so they can teach the church. The church should give thanks for these gifts and listen to them prayerfully.

An Interview with Satan on Church Unity

Check out this interesting video that humorously captures a great deal of the spirit of my faith and practice. It is quite clever and makes some exceptionally good points about Satan's desire to divide and separate us. Remember, C. S. Lewis rightly suggested that the devil cannot handle humor since it exposes him in a clever way and he likes to keep things that are clever all to himself. I tend to think that this is why he wrote his classic Screwtape Letters.