Ortho-Odoratus: Fragrant Evangelism & Critiquing the "Christian System"

Photo by M. Foley

"Pointing out all that I think is wrong with someone else's faith is not the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel."

For a few minutes, let me reflect a bit about the context from which this statement arose. Some of you have been praying along with us during the past couple weeks for a family that has been dealing with a particularly tragic and shocking death.  The family is Bhutanese-Nepali and from a Hindu traditional background.  I have quite a close relationship to the whole clan and am considered to be a relative in numerous ways (a subject for another time).  Thus, during the past couple weeks, I have been with the family members every day offering help, prayer, and love -- and observing some very interesting things.

There is a whole back-story about how things developed and the decisions the family has made during the past couple weeks, but I will not get into all of that.  Suffice it to say, most of the family members opted to employ a Nepali (Hindu) priest to come and perform a series of ceremonies over a 12-day period designed to (theologically speaking, or rather thaumaturgically or even pneumatologically speaking - the latter with an intentional small "p") benefit the departed soul (see chapter 5 of my book Ethnographic Chicago for a good discussion of folk Hindu understandings of departed spirits).  The Christ-followers among the relatives struggled during the period of mourning to know how to properly participate.  Their perspectives ranged from radical separation -- the desire to depart wholly from all so-called "Hindu" rituals (e.g. fasting from salt and meat, observing the period of mourning, being sad, etc.) -- on the one hand to a much healthier identification. A moment on each of these now:

Photo by Tim Guindon

1. Radical Separation -- from this perspective, it is important for the "Christian" to remove themselves from the Hindus and the Hindu "system" during the period of mourning.  Instead, they want to practice the "Christian System".  According to the separatists, fasting from salt is decidedly antithetical to being a "pure Christian". Likewise, observing 12 or 13 days of mourning is bad because that is in accordance with the "Hindu system".  They proclaim that the Christian system observes only three days of mourning and no fasting.  Moreover, it isn't mourning so much as it is gathering together to pray, listen to preaching, sing hymns, and eat snacks.  A guiding value for the adherents of this system is that ceremonies, rituals and forms are to be discarded solely on the basis of them being practiced by Hindus and not actually for any clear theological rationale.  When asked why a follower of Christ shouldn't do a certain thing, the most common answer is simply, "Because that is a part of the Hindu system".

Distinctives in the "Christian System"

I was able to observe elements of the Separatist praxis during the past couple weeks and have come to the preliminary conclusion that what is distinctive about this so-called "Christian System" does not actually have very much to do with either the Spirit of Jesus Christ or a careful engagement with and appropriation of His Scriptures.  The chief distinctions are as follows:  (a) this system emphasizes the importance of doing something different than what the Hindus do and essentially doing it in a place that is separate from where they are doing their things.  Also (b) this system employs ceremonies and rituals that are basically Western in origin and indistinguishable from the forms and rituals employed during their normal weekly worship gatherings.  Finally, it is (c) decidedly simpler and easier on the practitioners who do not have to fast at all and are finished with their obligations after only a few days.  

Similarities between the "Hindu" and "Christian" Systems

Photo by Josh Lustig

Otherwise, I have not found the customs of what these Bhutanese-Nepalis refer to as the "Christian System" to be altogether different from what I have observed the Hindus practicing during the same period.  Theologically, there is not a genuinely different foundation upon which they are based.  Listening to two sermons last week (one by a Christian pastor and one by a Hindu priest) revealed that at least for these two men (admittedly a small sampling) the central message of their systems was the same.  That is, "bad people go to hell" (called "hell" by the Christian and "the way of death" by the Hindu) and "good people go to heaven" (same word used by both). Both men illustrated and defended this principle with very similar stories and rationale.  What is more, both seemed to be motivated to perform their respective rituals primarily in order to (a) comfort the family of the deceased and (b) comfort the soul of the departed.  I will say that the Christians had less of an emphasis on comforting the soul of the departed, but it was present and there seemed a clear belief among them that the performance of rituals that accorded to the "Christian System" would result in certain (albeit somewhat ineffable) benefits.  For that matter, the Christians did not appear to be less fearful about evil spirits or more confident about how to deal with them.  Ritually and symbolically, the Christians were less elaborate and less concerned about punctuality, cleanliness, and attentiveness.  However, both seemed equally concerned about "orthopraxy".  The Hindus and the Christians alike wanted to know what they had to do and practically no room was given for the exercise of spiritual freedom.  Also, both parties made use of idols (the Christians erected a nativity scene especially during the period; the Hindus made symbolic idols from khoos grass to represent several deities).  

Let me add a note that while the Christians seemed concerned with bringing comfort to the soul of the deceased person, some among them nevertheless were quick to issue an injunction against praying for the dead.  Clearly there was a good deal of inconsistency in this.  This injunction emerges from a response to the popular concept of people being able to affect the condition of the departed soul through the performance of certain prayers, rituals, etc.  Correction in this area seems to be consistent with a Biblical worldview, but I am not convinced that a blunt injunction against praying for the dead is an effective way to communicate this.  

Preliminary Conclusions Regarding the Separatist Model

In the end, I observe the Separatist ("Christian System") approach to be simplistic, unhelpful and perhaps even syncretistic.  The model is extremely effective for bringing about a change of loyalties from the "Hindu Community" to the "Christian Community" but its value for Jesus-centered discipleship is questionable at best.  I do not observe in it that individuals are consequently better educated in Biblical theology nor do I see that from it emerges a greater degree of love, generosity, and sacrificial service towards the mourning family (especially if this family is Hindu).  

What is more, since the various Hindu traditions, rituals, customs, etc. each serve important psycho-social functions for the grieving family and surrounding community (e.g. facilitating closure and healthy mourning, encouraging community involvement and need-meeting, etc.) there is a vital and too-often unasked question regarding how effectively the "Christian Separatist System" has provided rituals and customs that can serve the same purpose.  This isn't the time to discuss liminality in detail, but its value for helping people and communities to cope with transition and tragedy is immense.  We must ask whether the "Christian System's" brief, non-mourning and non-fasting program can effectively create the kind of liminality that is necessary for helping a family deal with the loss of a loved one.  

Finally, if syncretism is to be understood as a "way of thinking that says by performing or participating in a particular religious ceremony or practice, you can alter the essential human spiritual condition in the same way that Jesus does through his death on the cross, burial, and resurrection from the dead, because they are parallel truths" (Richard Twiss) -- if we understand syncretism in this way, then the Christian separatist model may indeed be guilty of the kind of syncretism that its proponents so often accuse others of engaging in.  From a Biblical perspective the unique work of Christ -- the locus of gospel -- is found in His ability to regenerate the one who comes to Jesus in faith and thus to save from sin, shame and Satan through his atoning sacrifice and the power of the Holy Spirit.  In this, Christ is uniquely able to re-position (read: re-create) a fallen and sinful human being into a permanent and right relationship with their Creator in which they enjoy communion with Him forever.  And this, all of grace and by faith.  It is a liberation from our broken condition which cannot be attained by our own personal effort.

But what happens if this central soteriological truth is no longer what we proclaim? What if instead, we proclaim a message like the one I referred to above which essentially says that to attain salvation one must do good things?  The "Christian" preacher and his fellow advocates of the separatist model espoused a soteriology which could be summarized as follows:  If you belong to the Christian community and you obey the rules thereof, you will go to heaven.  If you don't obey the rules or if you don't belong to the community, you are in danger of hell-fire. But, if this is their gospel then it is difficult to assert that they are proclaiming a Christ who is actually offering something unique.  Moreover, they seem to be setting up an apparatus (i.e. joining the Christian community and then obeying the community's rules) that offers salvation in a way other than the one that Jesus actually provided (i.e. regeneration by grace through faith).  From this perspective, it is difficult to see how the separatist model avoids syncretism.

Photo by CIMMYT

2. Radical Identification -- Over against the "Christian System's" emphasis on separation, we may instead speak of identification.  Of course, this is ultimately modeled for us in the incarnation of Jesus and I will not repeat everything that I have said before about this here.  But I was greatly encouraged during this period of mourning to see some followers of Jesus seeking to identify with the mourners.  One of these asked me after a few days, "As a follower of Jesus, what must I do during this time?"  Here, she was seeking a law and a new set of rituals -- a new orthopraxy that could mark her off from the Hindus.  In this, she revealed how strongly influenced she has been by the ideals of the separatists' system.  But I encouraged her by strongly challenging her to continue doing what she was doing.  Be with the family.  Serve them.  Observe their needs and meet them.  Pray for them while being with them.  Grieve with them.  Fast with them.  Hope with them.  Identify with them in this time.  Be Jesus to them. Be Jesus with them.

But is this Radical?

Unfortunately, this concept of identification seems too radical in our days.  It is radical because it tends to eliminate external, visible signs of separation.  This causes a certain amount of fear in our hearts because we have learned a model of "courage" which says that one must stand up in the city square, curse all the idols of that place, and welcome the subsequent stoning.  That to be bold for Jesus is to be obnoxious to everyone else.  But must I wear a huge cross, change my name to Thomas or Peter, and trade my old holidays for the "Biblical" ones like Christmas and Easter in order to be a genuine follower of Jesus?  See, if we seek to identify with the one who mourns during these times, they may think we are Hindus (or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever).  They may not even know we are are "Christians".  But, if done right, they will know with certainty that we are in Jesus.  They will smell Christ all over us.  And given the choice, I would rather people know that I have been with Jesus than that I have been with the "Christians."  

Ponder this.

Now, getting back to my original tweet:

"Pointing out all that I think is wrong with someone else's faith is not the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel."

I sat today in the home of the family who had lost the loved one.  Now that their period of mourning is complete and having seen me daily during that period, they were delighted to offer me salty food again.  We talked and I pondered, "What should I say today to this family about God and the salvation that Christ uniquely offers?" I thought for a moment about going through all the customs that I had observed them performing during the past two weeks and explaining which elements I affirmed and which I felt were antithetical to the truth revealed by Christ.  But, God graciously brought a question to my mind, "Is that the gospel?"  Certainly the gospel of Jesus has implications for these matters, but a tedious picking through of all the things they "got wrong" wasn't really going to commend Christ to them.  It wouldn't have rung as good news.  It wouldn't have smelled right. What would?

As I continued to ponder this, the old man of the house came to me with a plate of food.  He set it before me and pressed his hands together, saying, "Namaskar." This was followed by an explanation by him that in giving this food to me he was seeking to "bow down before the Great Lord, God the Father" (Param Prabhu Parmeshwar Pita). I am not entirely sure what to make of this.  It didn't seem to require a commentary on my part at the time.  My association with the Triune God through Christ is unquestioned by them.  Their desire to draw nearer to this God is really still unquestioned by me.  At that point, it seemed clear to me that their need for the person of Jesus was not going to be satisfied by a lecture on correct doctrine or praxis.  Not that I'm suggesting that a Christ divorced from Biblical truth is either possible or something that we should desire. But there is something undeniably subtle and mysterious at play here.  Perhaps evangelism is less about presenting orthodoxy or orthopraxy and perhaps more about a kind of "ortho-odoratus" --  a correct fragrance.  Paul spoke of the "fragrance of the knowledge of Christ" (2 Cor. 2:14) being spread everywhere through us. He said that to some it would be a fragrance unto death (do not read: an annoying fragrance) and to others a fragrance unto life.  Admittedly, it is something more difficult to put your finger on than the "four spiritual laws", but I doubt that it is therefore untrue. As I pondered what would be the "right" things to say in order to point this family toward the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God was at work, diffusing a fragrance of Christ through my immediate presence and the broader context of my history with that family so much more articulate and distinct than any sermon or verbal presentation I could have made.  This earthen vessel (to mix a little more 2 Corinthians in) sat in their living room radiating something invisible to myself but unmistakable to them.  A fragrance betraying a divine presence that simply couldn't be ignored.

Enough.

My few minutes of reflection has now turned into a few hours and I need to land the plane.  Let me do so with a few questions:

1. To what extent are followers of Jesus called to proclaim "orthopraxy" (i.e. to "correct" and replace their rituals and customs) to the nations?  Do we observe Christ or the Apostles doing this?

2. Is the "radical separation" model described above a legitimate expression of faith in Christ and a valid option for the disciple of Jesus?  Or is it essentially antithetical to a worldview that values devotion to and imitation of Jesus as the unique savior of those from every nation who come to him in faith?  How "un-gospel-like" does a gospel have to be before it can be legitimately labeled "another gospel"?

3. What is to be preferred?  That those without Christ clearly identify you as a Christian but cannot discern the Spirit and fragrance of Jesus in you or rather that they clearly identify you as one who is exclusively devoted to Jesus but are not so sure that you are a "Christian"?  Related to that, does the term "Christian" in our days have the same connotative meaning as it did in the first century?  If not, what name are we to rejoice in bearing as Peter commanded (1 Peter 4:16)?

4. How can we commend Christ to the people -- share the good news of salvation and freedom through Jesus -- in a way that is fragrant, distinctive, and Spirit-filled?  That is, can we articulate definitive principles for "fragrant" evangelism?

Some of what I have offered above reflects some rather blunt and somewhat certain principles of missiology -- that is, ideas about which I am fairly certain.  However, today, so much of what I've written reflects areas where I remain unsettled.  As I get older, I become less and less unsettled about being unsettled.  But, then again, I know I am not home yet.  Looking forward to your feedback!

Should Christ-followers Show Hospitality to People of Other Faiths?

Below is an interesting article that describes how a number of migrant (mostly refugee) groups have gone about establishing places of worship for themselves in Utica, New York.  It isn't often that I get a chance to hear about this process for non-Christian groups and appreciate the chance to learn about some of their struggles.  The article begins with a focus on the Bhutanese-Nepali Hindu community but also talks about Burmese Buddhists and Bosnian Muslims.

As a follower of Christ, I desire for all Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and (for that matter) Christians to know and find salvation in Jesus.  However, I also can't help but to inquire of myself about the my responsibility to show hospitality in my relationships with diaspora people who are my new neighbors in the USA.   Is there are line to be drawn related to the extent of my hospitality towards these people?  Not sure.  Do check out the article, and feel free to weigh in.


Hindu latest group in need of worship place in area - Utica, NY - The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York: "UTICA —
    In a bedroom in East Utica, statues of Hindu gods peer out of a converted entertainment center. The inside is decorated with glittering wrapping paper. Around the three statues are offerings of paper flowers, and light from battery-powered candles.
    This is the home of Ganga Rijal, a Hindu priest and his family.
    “This is our temple,” Mukti Rijal, Ganga’s son explains. He bows in front of the temple and gestures to guests to remove their shoes before coming in.
    There are 170 Hindu Bhutanese living in Utica. They arrived from a refugee camp in Nepal’s jungle between 2009 and 2010."

The Basis of Interfaith Dialogue

Today, I wanted to share a really cool missiological design that my dear friend, Vincent Lee, created for me.  I came across a simple diagram in an article by another friend, Knud  Jørgensen in an article he had written on the subject of interfaith dialogue and missions.  I thought the diagram could use a little sprucing up, so I sent it to Vincent.  What follows is a few paragraph's from Knud's paper and Vincent's diagram:

We may not set limits to God’s grace, but at the same time we must reject an inclusivism that regards other religions as instruments for salvation in a Christian sense. Perhaps, says Newbigin, we could use a simple sketch, developed by Walter Freytag, to indicate the basis for dialogue between Christians and those of other faiths:

The staircase represents the many ways by which we learn to walk up towards God’s purpose. Here we find all the ethical and religious achievements of humankind, including the Christian religion. But in the middle of them and at the bottom is placed a symbol that represents something different – the historic place and the historic deed in which God exposed himself: God comes to meet us at the bottom of our stairways, not at the top – “I came to call not the righteous, but sinners” (Newbigin 1978: 204f). As I meet my neighbour, I meet him or her at the bottom of the staircase.

The Oslo Coalition's Anti-Contextualization Stance: My Rebuttal

While in Cape Town for the Lausanne Congress, there were numerous individuals and groups that distributed information of different types.  This was a basically unofficial activity that didn't necessarily reflect views being put forth by the Lausanne Movement.  One of those pieces was an 8-page document entitled "Missionary Activity and Human Rights: Recommended Ground Rules for Missionary Activity." The piece was produced by The Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.  I excitedly snatched it up because I thought that the idea of a code of ethics for missions was a good one.

I have since gone through the document a few times and have found that while in some places it has value, it ultimately doesn't seek to reflect a Biblical world view and doesn't hold the extension of Christ's Kingdom and fame among the nations as its primary impetus. At best, the document provides something of a starting point upon which to build, but it is major reconstruction that is needed and not just fine tuning.  If anyone knows of a truly Christian document like this, do tell.  Short of that, I feel the Lausanne Covenant and Manila Manifesto, while not seeking to do exactly the same thing, are far superior to the Oslo statement (we are all anxiously awaiting the Cape Town Commitment).

Today, I did want to highlight one article that I found especially objectionable in the Oslo statement.  It comes at part 2.1.2 bullet #2:

"The missionary organization should be careful in adopting terminology, rituals and customs from other religions, so as not to create misunderstandings about its identity. It should not attempt to achieve acceptance through adopting the outward appearance of other religions."

I find this to be a clear anti-contextualization statement that reflects a fundamental ignorance of issues related to culture, contextualization, and missiology in general.  Let me explain a bit.

1. On the notion of "adopting" terms, rituals, and customs "from" other religions -- Here is where the ignorance about culture and religion becomes clear.  The writers seem to be under the impression that certain religions can claim a kind of ownership over terminology, rituals or customs.  But this is utterly false. Whether we're speaking of circumcision or Sanskrit, incense or images, such things must not be considered the domain of any single religious group.  Rather, these are inherently communication tools - signs, symbols, and ceremonies that are designed to carry and express meaning from person to person and person to God. One should not assume that a different understanding of the nature of God requires a different means of communication. That is, perhaps my view changes as to which Scripture is truly divine in origin - from say the Vedas to the Bible. I may nevertheless still find that the use of Sanskrit mantras is the best means of memorizing and meditating upon that scripture.

2. On the notion of creating "misunderstandings about its identity" -- First, this phrase is somewhat demeaning.  It seems to communicate the image of a conniving and cunning Western missionary who sinisterly dupes the uneducated and unsophisticated savages, tricking them into religious conversion.  I have not found my non-Western friends to be so easily confused.  What is more, the pursuit of contextualization, far from being a strategy to confuse, is motivated fundamentally by a desire to improve and clarify communication.  By avoiding the unnecessary and unbiblical introduction of foreign religious externals, missionaries are better able to locate Christian identity where it belongs - in the heart.

3. On adopting the "outward appearance" -- Contextualization is not rooted in an attempt to adopt the outward appearance of another religion.  Rather, it is rooted in the imitation of Christ's incarnation.  That is, the contextualizer seeks, as far as is possible, to dwell among a particular cultural context as a full member of that culture. This has implications for the way one dresses, eats, relates to others, etc.  But it also has tremendous implications for the way one expresses, practices, and communicates the Christian faith.  To the unsophisticated eye, this may look like a missionary is adopting the "outward appearance" of Islam, Hinduism, or whatever. But the true, Christ-imitating contextualizer is rather seeking to adopt a people as his or her own including their means of verbal and non-verbal, spatial, ritual, corporate, individual, and chronological communication. This is done so as to more faithfully and clearly communicate the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ.

Many thanks for reading. I would sincerely enjoy reading your feedback in the comment section. Blessings!

Maybe Nobody is Hindu

(The following post is a "blast-from-the-past" article that I'm transferring over from my old blog especially in light of some new conversation going on at the Lausanne Global Conversation as well as at Cape Town 2010.  It is intended as "food for thought" and I look forward to your discussion.)

A friend of mine recently sent me a couple articles that I thought were worth passing your way.  The first here is an article by Lisa Miller entitled "We are All Hindus Now."  It appeared in an August 2009 issue of Newsweek. Miller's basic argument is that while Americans still tend to self-identify as Christians, their worldviews are becoming much more Hindu than Biblical. Miller's position is that America is on its way to becoming Hindu in terms of the worldview shared by most of the population.

In an October article published by Break Point entitled "Are We Really Hindus?", Regis Nicoll provides a well-conceived rebuttal.  He doesn't totally dismiss Miller's contentions, but provides a balanced perspective that should give the follower of Christ pause.  In Nicoll's mind, Americans aren't really becoming more Hindu.  Rather the problem is that American Christians have traded in a belief system based on creeds for one based on personal needs.

I thought both articles were interesting.  At the end of the day, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot for my daily life as a follower of Jesus engaged full-time in God's global mission of redemption.  Lost is still lost, regardless of the label.  It is essential to understand an individual's worldview and background, sure.  But I feel that believers sometimes read these kinds of articles in a doom and gloom sort of way. Like they'd be happier if people were lost but didn't believe in reincarnation.  I don't get that.

As for the question at hand, "Is America becoming more Hindu?" I'd like to suggest a totally different option.  That is, maybe no one is really Hindu.  Now, wait, I'm actually a little serious.  The word Hindu itself has very little meaning.  It is a term that was coined, it seems, by Persians to refer to the Indus river valley and the people who lived there.  Later generations of Arabs and other foreigners to India used the appellation to refer collectively to everyone living in "Hindustan" (India) regardless of their religious beliefs. It was only in relatively recent times that Europeans started using the term as a religious label, but they did this somewhat uncritically -- lumping different religious groups together that often had little in common. 

Literally, "hindu" just means someone from India, but the Hindi / Sanskrit word for India isn't even "India".  It is Bharat.  So, if "India" is no more than what foreigners call Bharat, can we really say that anyone is from India?  Are there really any Hindus?

More seriously, "Hinduism" can claim no universal tenets, doctrines, practices, or literature that explain why Buddhists are not Hindu, BAPS devotees are, and Jains are kinda-sorta.  Just try. Just try to explain what makes a Hindu a Hindu and not a Christian, Scientologist, Taoist, or Muslim.  Try.  Really, I'm not looking to be difficult, but I'd love to get a conversation going.

The Mythical Link between Contextualization & Syncretism: Lausanne Theology Discussion (7 of 7)

Welcome to the seventh of seven articles in response to the Lausanne Theology Working Group's paper on "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World."  If you've not had a chance to read the paper, you can do so by following these links:

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (condensed version)

"The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World: Reflections of the Lausanne Theology Working Group" (full version)

You can also read all seven parts of this series here.
__________

3. Regarding the Whole World (continued)

And last (but not least), I want to share a word of appreciation for what is said in this paper regarding world religions and the issue of contextualization.  In particular, may the whole Church latch on strongly to this statement:

“We need to repent of approaches to people of other faiths that reject or denounce their existing religion as wholly evil or satanic, with no effort to understand, critique and learn, and to discern through genuine encounter, friendship and patient dialogue where there may be bridges for the gospel” (p. 28, full version).

Let me say directly that I am personally counting very much upon the Nepalese, Indian and Bhutanese delegations to take this statement back to their contexts.  As one who has endured much grief as a direct result of just such a prejudice while working in the Hindu context, I need my South Asian brothers to sound this call to the South Asian Church.  

Related to that though is my continued concern that while the LTWG paper affirms those who are pursuing contextualization, it still does so in a way that lends credence to the myth that there is some kind of an inherent link between contextualization and syncretism.  I reject the notion that such a link exists and would suggest that no evidence can be shown to demonstrate that those theologically orthodox Christians who intentionally pursue contextualization are in any greater danger of syncretism than Christians who do not.  On the contrary, I believe that honest and balanced analysis will find even more syncretism (if we are defining this term as a sinful conformity to “pattern of this world”) in local churches that haven’t made any intentional effort to contextualize the Christ-life in their context.  The reality is not as the C1-5 scale suggests, that continued pursuit of contextualization inevitably leads to syncretism.  Rather, I would contend that, providing the contextualizer begins on theologically solid ground (an unwavering commitment to uphold the Bible), that the pursuit of contextualization actually serves to produce a much more thoughtful and theologically rich expression of Christian faith and practice than otherwise.   But alas, I cannot go any further into this right now. 

Question #7 – Upon what evidential basis does the LTWG feel it necessary to warn about syncretism in the same sentence as it mentions contextualization?  Doesn’t this sentence only serve to affirm an unfair prejudice against contextualization by repeating the unproven notion that contextualization and syncretism are especially and intrinsically linked?  

Okay, okay there is much more that I could say.  I’m already kicking myself for spending this much time on this.  My little blog post has evolved into a full week of posts.  So, let me wrap it up. I greatly look forward to reading and interacting with your responses.  May the Spirit enrichen and use this conversation.