Friday, November 10, 2006

The tiresome path to Christian unity

It has been announced that the Archbishop of Canterbury will make his first official visit to Pope Benedict on 23rd November. This is the latest in a series of dialogues exploring the ecumenical objective of unity, and fulfilling the prayer of Christ ‘that they may be one’. This encounter may well result in some of the most considered theology on Christian unity in four decades, observing that both the Archbishop and the Pope are (whether one agrees with them or not) highly accomplished academics and renowned theologians.

The timing is said to be significant, marking, as it does, the 40th anniversary of the first meeting between an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Pope since the Reformation. When Archbishop Michael Ramsey met with Pope Paul VI in 1966, it began a process which was designed to heal the rift caused by Henry VIII when he broke with Rome in the 16th Century. Of course, yours truly was not an insignificant player in the process; His Grace and many other noble and honourable men of God were turned to ash in order establish the foundations of the Church of England, so why reverse it? And who is suing for this unity? Are Catholics prepared to compromise one iota of their dogma in order to embrace the heretic Anglicans? Not a bit of it. Are Anglicans prepared to accept the authority and infallibility of the Pope on matters of doctrine? Not remotely. So why continue the façade?

Could it be that the more the ecumenical agenda is pursued, the more likely it is that the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion will split? Is this Rome’s objective - a continuation of the divide-and-rule strategy so effectively deployed across the European Union? Such a schism would leave the Rome as the unchallenged global church – the sole Christian authority – and Protestantism would be reduced to an insignificant sect like any other. It has already been observed that the Anglican Church is really two churches, and the Anglo-Catholics and traditionalists have little time for the trendy bishops dance towards gay and female bishops, and a laisser-faire (to say the least) approach to Scripture and the XXXIX Articles. The liberal and conservative factions may be irreconcilable, and the exodus of the latter to Rome would not merely be a major publicity coup for the Vatican, not least because it would constitute the death throes of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

The Church of England belongs to the traditional Catholic order, and it is time to find a way of exercising and exerting an authority consistent with Protestant ecclesiology. While assertions of power within the Church of England have held the communion together for five centuries, it is a serious question whether a church built on the sands of episcopal authority and provincial autonomy can continue.


Anonymous Bob said...

It seems to me that the Anglican Communion is proving quite capable of tearing itself asunder without any outside help. Bishops such as Schori in the US, and Akinola in Nigeria, hold positions which are increasingly becoming more and more incompatible with each other.

The possibility of any unity with Rome died with the ordination of female clergy in the Anglican Church. At best the cause for ecumenism between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is a face saving exercise. The best that come out of any such meetings is that both Churches would be on good terms with each other, but nothing more.

I also cannot envisage a mass exodus of conservative Anglicans to Rome should the Anglican Communion dissolve. It seems more likely to me that there will be two or more Anglican Churches each proclaiming that they are following in the true spirit of the Reformation. If this blog proves anything, it certainly proves that conservative Anglicans have no desire to be part of anything Roman.

10 November 2006 at 10:25  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace wrote an interesting article about the divisions of Christianity. If I understand him correctly, his main point is that division is a good thing because otherwise the Vatican would become a dominant power and that appears to endanger Christianity.

It seems to me (but I might be wrong) that the quarrels among Christian authorities are a danger to Christianity. Why?

Religion is based on belief. Believing depends on the authority of the messenger. If the messengers of a religion representing brotherly love fight each other, they are all losing credibility and authority.

The same phenomenon can be observed in political parties. The leaders of political parties know that they will lose the elections if quarrels within the party become visible. For me (although I might be wrong), the endless quarrels of Christian theologicians (including His Grace's writings) appear to weaken Christianity. Because if God's own messengers aren't sure about their religion, how is the layman or laywoman supposed to know what to believe? The quarrels of theologicians inevitably lead to a lack of credibility for the entire Christian belief system. Therefore, I am not surprised that some individuals with an emotional need for a strong belief, which can only be based on certainty and not on the uncertainties resulting from quarreling priests, turn away from Christianity and become followers of other religions. A religion with quarreling priests has no appeal.

One could make a strong case for the thesis that the decline of Christianity was the consequence of its divisions. Christianity remained strong as long as it was united. It started its slow decline after the separation of the Catholic from the Orthodox Christian Church. And the decline of Christianity considerably accelerated after the separation of the CoE. Others learned from Cranmer's model and also wanted their own Church, e.g. Lutheranism followerd by Calvinism, followed by an endless stream of divisions. Now, a divided Christianity is facing a united and strong Sunni Islamic faith. Still, Christian theologicians continue their century-old quarrels and are arguing against any sort of unification, even if it is just a meeting for discussing the matter.

10 November 2006 at 11:21  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I thought Fisher had met Pope John XXIII in 1960 in The Vatican and that was the first meeting since the Reformation

As for I also cannot envisage a mass exodus of conservative Anglicans to Rome should the Anglican Communion dissolve

I can ....many have already gone and so have the priests - it cost the C of E a bundle and another exodus will bankrupt it.

Few realise that Durham Diocese floats on a £2 million subsidy from Oxford Diocese and its wealthy if Oxford moves out of the C of E Durham folds.

The Northern parishes depend upon revenue-sharing from the if a few key dioceses defect the C of E is insolvent and will implode

The problem for Rowan is that all the conferences etc have been funded by ECUSA so it is the rich American money he will forego if ECUSA splits; many of the liberal dioceses in the US Church are bankrupt - I think Michigan had to sell its cathedral

The same here, liberal theology does not bring funding and without the cross-subsidy from the conservative parishes the whole house of cards folds

If the evangelicals get the idea they can go it alone in a new Evangelical Union stretching across The Atlantic and into Africa and Asia, then the bureaucratic institutionalised Church is history and will be hollowed out

10 November 2006 at 13:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

decline of Christianity was the consequence of its divisions. Christianity remained strong as long as it was united.

It is the fastest growing religion in the world - huge numbers in China and Indonesia - but like Early Christians they are in the catacombs

The fastest growing branch of The Faith is Evangelical Christianity aka Protestantism - especially in Brazil and in many Arab countries

Far from the tired old crocks of middle-aged Britain which has no enthusiasm for anything but watching TV, the world is vibrant and looking to Protestantism for its guiding light. It is Britain that is turning into the GDR and becoming complacent and sad - no reason to assume the rest of the world is as tired of life

10 November 2006 at 13:12  
Anonymous Bob said...

To me it seems to be a contradiction to say on the one hand that the ecumenical movement is a facade because Anglicans will not accept certain Roman Catholic dogmas, but then on the other hand to say that numerous Anglicans are on the verge of departing to Rome.

In my own view, any Anglican who did not leave for Rome after the ordination of women became de rigueur in the Anglican communion will not do so now. Those who remained, I imagine, are committed to Reformation/Protestant convictions and not likely to be enticed to Rome.

10 November 2006 at 16:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Those who remained, I imagine, are committed to Reformation/Protestant convictions and not likely to be enticed to Rome.

Cannot say - I bow to your inside knowledge - but women bishops are on the agenda now which means it is hard for traditional priests to remain

10 November 2006 at 16:26  
Anonymous bob said...

I have no inside knowledge, hence the use of "I imagine."

I would also imagine that once women were ordained as deacons and priests that it was only a matter of time before they would be ordained as bishops. I can't imagine that any priest, traditional or not, would not be able to foresee such an eventuality. So I'm supposing that any such priests who were likely to leave over the issue would have already done so.

10 November 2006 at 17:12  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Time to disestablish? The CofE is a pale shadow of the political force it once was. It's now devoid of spiritual credibility, and compromised. Disestablished it will be stronger, and the state liberated from a historical hangover.

10 November 2006 at 18:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

No it is not clear that they would become bishops. If you look at the C of E those parishes which did not want women priests operate separately, but with women bishops that is not possible and the proposal to have alternative oversight with 'flying bishops' has been the remaining priests who had not expected women bishops to be an issue so soon must now consider where they go.

The Schism is unavoidable but will be in several directions - women bishops, gay priests, liberal theology..............Rowan Williams is the last Archbishop of Canterbury

When the priests left over women priests it cost the C of E £26 million

10 November 2006 at 18:59  
Anonymous Colin said...

It is the fastest growing religion in the world - huge numbers in China and Indonesia

The fastest growing religion by numbers is Islam due to the population explosion in Islamic countries. I know China quite well. The Chinese people are now visiting in huge numbers and on a regular basis their ancient Buddhist and Taoist temples. No signs of Christianity anywhere in China. Furthermore, the Christian belief is absolutely alien to their mentality. There are no huge numbers converting to Christianity in China. That's the fantasy of the missionaries who want more money for their work. However, I am not familiar with the situation in Indonesia but aren't they mainly Mulims?

It is Britain that is turning into the GDR and becoming complacent

And not only Britain but the entire EU. I agree that Christian Churches are going to survive in other parts of the world (e.g. the Phillipines). The Islamisation of EU is likely to lead first to the decline and finally to the disappearance of the CoE and protestantism in Europe. On the other hand, the Catholic Church will certainly survive in South America as well as in parts of Asia and Africa.

10 November 2006 at 19:01  
Anonymous bob said...

It makes theological sense, to me at least, to say that if a woman can be ordained to diaconate and to priesthood then it has to follow that there is no reason that a woman could not be ordained a bishop. The Church of Ireland accepted that women could be ordained as bishops some time ago (even though they have not, as yet, ordained a woman as a bishop), as has the Episcopal Church in the US and in Canada. That would seem to me to be a fairly good indication of what way the wind was blowing. However, this is all my own opinion, and I could, and perhaps will, be proven wrong.

10 November 2006 at 19:30  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

The question of female bishops should have been the first, not the last, to be decided. It was political trickery to admit women to the diaconate in the beginning. Now many of the bishops are drawing back from the logical conclusion of their early decisions, which is hypocritical.
The opponents who did not leave after 1992 (ordination of woman priests) will not leave now, but continue with the distinct organization they have created and make it stronger, eventually forming links with other catholic bodies.

10 November 2006 at 20:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...


Recent estimated figures of the number of Christians in China are varying. The official figure in 2002, which consist of members from Official Protestant churches is about 15 million, while some estimation on members of Chinese house church vary from 50 million to 100 million. Kiven Choy stated in a Chinese weekly newspaper in Hong Kong that, the correct number of Protestant in China should be at around 20 million, while Time Magazine recently reported 65 million.[4]

There are 4 million members of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and an estimated 12 million members of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China as of 2006.[5]

10 November 2006 at 22:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The fastest growing religion is not Islam unless you swallow wholesale the claims of the Jihadis..........

Christianity is not only the biggest religion in the world but is rapidly growing much as that fact upsets the secularist humanists and atheists

10 November 2006 at 22:29  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the Episcopal Church in the US and in Canada

these two churches are completely out of step with Anglican theology on gay priests, Wiccans, and Muslims - Colorado even has an Imam on the staff...............ECUSA is apostate - it is not a Christian Church

10 November 2006 at 22:31  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

What is Pope Benedict up to? Is he trying to organise some sort of anti-Jihadist coalition?

"Pope Benedict has met with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama for talks that the Vatican labeled as very private and of religious nature.

A spokesman for the Vatican gave no other information about the low-key visit Friday." from

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at that get-together.

10 November 2006 at 22:53  
Anonymous bob said...

I think, for the moment at least, ECUSA is still part of the Anglican Communion, which, given some of the rather extreme views of some of it's bishops (the names Griswold, Schori, and Spong leap to mind), is probably a greater threat to Anglicanism than anything the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church could ever confront it with.

10 November 2006 at 23:18  
Anonymous Rabid Atheist said...

Just the opinion of an outside observer, but most of you seem to think that the C of E is in crisis entirely because of gay and women clerics. Has it ever occurred to you that many of us English are less repelled (or not at all) by these than by the backward third-world influence from places like Nigeria? OK, they appeal to a lot of the conservatives because they are rabidly anti-gay, but is adopting African values the way forward for England? Call me a racist but I was more repelled by the thought of Zulu dancers in York Minster than by clerics of my own people who just happened to be gay or female. And the continual C of E brown-nosing to the Pope is highly unappealing as well. Nor is evangelical Protestantism, which comes across as uneducated,inbred hillbillies shrieking nonsense and fooling with rattlesnakes much of an incentive to practise the Protestant religion. I'm not being snarky here either but I wish the C of E would get the word "England" out of their title, because the opinions of the English seem to count for nothing compared to that of foreigners of various stripes.

11 November 2006 at 02:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Has it ever occurred to you that many of us English are less repelled (or not at all) by these than by the backward third-world influence from places like Nigeria?

Well as a rabid atheist your views on Christian churches are irrelevant - your racism is your own problem and one for secular legal authorities.

11 November 2006 at 07:40  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

It's nothing to do with race.

Religion should be privatised. Nationalised religion is like any other nationalised industry - inefficient, compromised, bloated, constrained. Liberate it!!

11 November 2006 at 11:11  
Anonymous bob said...

Although western society has, by and large, embraced concepts of feminism and lifestlyes of homosexuality, this has no direct bearing, as such, on the questions facing the Anglican Communion at the moment. The problem is more one of establishing what is and is not consistent with the teaching of the Bible. And that's the question that's tearing the Anglican Communion asunder.

I think it's also always useful to remember that just because everyone accepts something it doesn't necessarily make it morally permissible. Morality is not decided by means of who shouts the loudest. I think it's always good to remember that we live in an imperfect world, and that while democracy is the fairest system of government, it too is flawed. After all, a democracy elected Hitler, which didn't really turn out too well.

11 November 2006 at 11:19  
Anonymous Voyager said...

After all, a democracy elected Hitler, which didn't really turn out too well.

Actually not.

In 1932 Germany had been ruled by Emergency Decree by-passing Parliament under Reichskanzler Heinrich Bruening.

With the fall of his Govt the way was open for a Military Coup D'Etat but instead Von Papen formed a new Govt with himself as Reichskanzler and the NSDAP as coalition partner, Hitler being Deputy Chancellor.

It was Hitler's skill in deposing Von Papen and making himself Reichskanzler together with the deat of President Hindenburg which gave him absolute power..............but he was never elected into power as the same time Britain had a Coalition Govt..........

Then again the city of Berlin never voted for the NSDAP - ever

However Chile did vote for Allende whose supporters were stockpiling weapons with the trades unions to stage a coup and take over the whole of the Chilean economy

11 November 2006 at 12:05  
Anonymous bob said...

That'll teach me for attempting ill-researched hyperbole!

11 November 2006 at 12:11  
Anonymous vikki said...

"That'll teach me for attempting ill-researched hyperbole!"

Perhaps you should have used Mussolini as he was invited by the king to form the govt.....

11 November 2006 at 12:59  
Anonymous bob said...

I was trying to show the limitations of democracy so it might not have been the best example, although Mussolini did seem to have widespread public support at the time.

11 November 2006 at 13:06  
Anonymous vikki said...

Was just teasing you for giving voyager something to chew......

11 November 2006 at 13:22  
Anonymous bob said...

Sorry - I was getting caught up in my own hyperboles...

11 November 2006 at 13:33  
Anonymous vikki said...

Would litotes be in order then....

I believe the C of E is leaving substance while chasing shadows especially on women bishops.....

11 November 2006 at 13:51  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Don't worry Bob - I had researched it for a book.........but it is funny how Hitler is blamed for being elected (he seized power which is why Germans call it 'Machtergreifung') and he had the Devil's Luck.

General Beck wanted to stage a coup in 1938 and depose him but Chamberlain would not play ball - the idea was a hard line on Czechoslovakia and the Army would topple Hitler.

The other one was referenda - yet Hitler only called one - that was to fuse Reichskanzler and presidency after Hindenburg's death - the other referenda in Saarland etc were mandated by the League of Nations

11 November 2006 at 15:18  
Anonymous bob said...

Thank you, Voyager. It's gettting to be a long time since I studied history. I'll have to re-educate myself.

I think I had enough trouble with hyperbole without attempting litotes!

11 November 2006 at 15:31  
Anonymous Colin said...


report is correct. Hitler was not elected by the majority of the German people. Here are the results of the last election before Hitler became chancellor in November 1932. As the table and pie graph demonstrate, Hitler's NSDAP won 33,09% of the votes and had 196 seats in parliament. The Socialdemocratic Party (SPD) won 20,43% (121 MPs) and the Communist Party (KPD) 16,86% (100 MPs). Together the Reds (KPD + SPD) won more votes (37,29%) and seats (221 MPs) as the Browns (NSDAP)with 33,09% and 196 MPs, respectively.

At the 30th January of 1933, Hitler became chancellor of a coalition government. At the last election one month later, on the 5th March of 1933, Hitler's NSDAP gained 43,9% of the votes (288 seats) but still didn't win the majority of the voters because 54,6% (352 seats) voted for other parties.

Hence, more Germans opposed Hitler than voted for him. Similar to today's situation in the EU, although a democracy, the opinion of the people did not count because the ruling class had different plans.

Interestingly, Hitler was a migrant. He only became a German citizen by a trick of his friends on February 25, 1932.

11 November 2006 at 22:34  
Anonymous Old Red Socks said...

But Voyager is mistaken on a number of critical points about Hitler's assumption of power, namely:

1. The NAZIS never joined von Papen's government and Hitler was never his Vice Chanecllor. Indeed, the Nazis and Communist Reichstag Deputies joined together (along with the democratic parties) on a massive No Confidence vote.

2. The basis of Hitler's absolute power was constitutional. The newly elected Reichstag in March 1933 adopted by the required 2/3 Constitutional majority the "Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich" (Enabling Act) which permitted the Govt a completely legislative free hand.

3. As Colin notes, while the Nazis themselves only secured 43.9% of the vote in the last sem-free elections in 1933, if their various coalition parties (e.g. the equally anti-democratic Nationalists) are added, then the far-right did poll just over 50% of the vote.

4. BTW, in 1970, Allende polled way below 50% in the Presidential election...not much more than 35% (Ithink) and the result was therefore decided by the Chilean Congress. Arguably, the Nazis had more 'democratic' legitimacy.

12 November 2006 at 13:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

just fwiw, Christianity is not growing in Indonesia. The reverse in fact: historically Christian Batak peoples in Sumatra living away from the highlands are converting in great numbers to Islam, and once Christian villages are now 50%+ Muslim, and traditional festivities where a pig would be cooked can no longer take place, for fear of offending the Muslim population.

12 November 2006 at 13:58  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for this insider information concerning the situation in Indonesia.

12 November 2006 at 15:19  
Anonymous Colin said...

Old Red Socks,

made several important points I mostly agree with.

However, I beg to differ in regard to two of his statements.

(1) if their various coalition parties (e.g. the equally anti-democratic Nationalists) are added, then the far-right did poll just over 50% of the vote..

We cannot simply add all the anti-democratic parties together since also the Communist Party (DKP) was anti-democratic. The same objection applies to Old Red Socks suggestion to simply add the so-called far-right to Hitler's party for obtaining over 50% of the vote. In fact, there were only two non-left parties with a sufficient number of votes to provide together with Hitler's 43,9% more than 50%, namely the Centre Party (Zentrum) with 11,3% and the German National People's Party (DNVP) with 8.0% of the votes. The Zentrum Party was not far-right but a Catholic Party in the middle of the political spectrum as are its successors the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) and the Christian Socialist Party (CSU). The German National People's Party (DNVP) was a party of the monarchists. Its voters consisted of land owners, nobelmen, former officers during WW-I, medical doctors, professors, and farmers.

It appears to be a bit far-fetched to lump together under a single label "far-right" the workers, who voted for Hitler's brand of socialism, with the Catholic Christians, who voted for the Zentrum Party, as well as land owners, nobelmen, officers, academics and farmers, i.e. the voters of the DNVP. There were distinctive differences between these voters and parties. The voters of the Zentrum and the DNVP wanted to maintain the traditional Christian and monarchistic order, whereas Hitler's socialists wanted a new political order and promised a socialist paradise, the Volksgemeinschaft (the People's Community).

In conclusion, there was not a majority in the population for Hitler's politics. However, there was a majority for socialism, i.e. communist party + social democratic party + national socialist party. The fascists (Mussolini & Hitler) didn't want to conserve tradition but they wanted to change it. They did not want freedom for business but they imposed state regulations on business. The National Socialists were Socialists. It is a myth promoted by the socialists that the national socialists were not socialists but capitalists.

(2) Nazis had .. 'democratic' legitimacy

No, they had not. They had constitutional but not democratic legitimacy. This is not identical. Democracy is defined as rule of the people. The constitution is supposed to organize the procedure for implementing the rule of the people. Not rarely, the constitution implements a mechanism for protecting politicians from the people. Hitler was legitimized by the constitution but not by demos, i.e. the people.

Similarily, the signing of EU constitution is constitutionally legitimized by the German parliament but not by the people. That's the beauty of representative democracy: The people are considered legally incompetent and therefore have to select a guardian to take care of them.

12 November 2006 at 18:15  
Anonymous old red socks said...


Don't want to get bogged down on this (and risk His Grace's ire), but:

1. Absolutely agree with you on Zentrum, (though the party did vote for the Enabling Act).

But the Nationalists were willing members of the coalition govt formed by Hitler in January 1933. I readily acknowledge that Papen, Hugenberg and the aristocratic/plutocratic gang thought they could control the Bohemian corporal and were soon roundly disabused. But surely you are not seriously contending that Big Business did rather well under the Third Reich?

2. You will notice that the word democratic was in inverted commas!

12 November 2006 at 23:58  
Anonymous Rabid Atheist said...

Voyager exemplifies the adolescent silliness of many modern Christians: I don't want to talk to you if you're not in my gang! In England, Christianity is entwined with the laws, history, customs and cultures of the land. As such, many non-believers like myself have no problem in attending church services such as weddings and funerals; or subsidising the C of E's properties such as York Minster through taxes and private donation, or defending the primacy of Christianity over foreign imports. Most mature Christians have no problem with this and appreciate the support. They don't see Christianity as a game where you have to hate the other team's supporters. Only the fundys, the evangelicals adopt this position.

The African guy in York recently called for believers to condemn and shun non-believers. My local vicar, an Englishman, wasn't going to fall for this backward rubbish and forbid me to attend my friend's funeral. If the Christians of this land do decide to follow the African bloke's commands and shun the rest of their countrymen they will lose this support and soon find themselves as a minor religion in a country where no religion has primacy over any other. So yes, I do have an interest in Christianity, I have the interest of preserving it as part of my culture, even if I don't believe. This may be too subtle for the hillbillies to grasp.

13 November 2006 at 00:42  
Anonymous Rabid Atheist said...

Just found this quote from the Times online from historian David Starkey:

"I adore much about the Church of England, profound atheist though I am. I raise funds for its cathedrals and parish churches, which I regard as absolutely intrinsic to the fabric of England."

This sums it up - do you want to be the Church of ENGLAND or not? If you think you can do without your godless compatriots fine, but don't come crying to us when your churches are bulldozed to make a new carpark for the mosque!

13 November 2006 at 01:06  
Anonymous bob said...

An interesting aside to this story - the first meeting of the entire Catholic and Anglican Hierachies since the Reformation

15 November 2006 at 20:47  
Anonymous Colin said...

Sush, Bob,

The report might make His Grace unhappy. The blogger Rocco Palmo is an American catholic and BA of Political Science collaborating with the Vatican and writes for The Tablet, the international Catholic weekly published in London. I am starting to suspect that our host is correct with his conspiration theory.

18 November 2006 at 13:23  
Anonymous bob said...

Rocco Palmo is one of the most informed Catholic journalists around at the moment. His blog has received wide praise in Catholic circles. I have to say that I do not share the suspiscions of our host as to any Catholic conspiracy, although I might be considered biased as I am a Catholic myself.

18 November 2006 at 22:03  
Anonymous dave said...

Samuel Clear, a 28 year old from Australia, is walking an 18 month pilgrimage across the planet inviting people to join him in praying for the unity of all Christians. Naming the pilgrimage, Walk4One, Sam sold everything he owned to personally fund the journey, and left Australia on December 14, 2006. This began his 29,000km, 564 day, worldwide journey, which will include 18,000kms travelled on foot. To read about Sam’s journey, have a look at

16 August 2007 at 05:58  
Anonymous Brett said...

Is church unity always desireable. What's wrong with several different ways of worshipping and serving God ( There's enough of Christ to go around.

14 August 2008 at 00:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older