22 December 2006

Four Star Soup Kitchen

I saw this really fun article in the New York Times:


It made me think about a few things. I don't know if any of you have read some of Mother Theresa's thoughts on caring for the poor, but this really made me think about it. She stresses that giving people your left overs isn't what we (as Christians) are called to do.

We are called to give them what we would have. If we have two coats, we are to give one away. We are not called to give them the one we don't want any more. Just like the way so many soup kitchens serve peanut butter and jelly. Don't get me wrong, I love PB&J, but most of the people running the soup kitchen aren't going to eat that for dinner. This creates a little problem - how far do we go with this? Mother Theresa never gave up her bed - she had a _very_ modest room with a bed and a desk - but for the most part, she lived the same as those she served.

What does it tell some one when we give them our left overs and rejects? This soup kitchen may use left overs - but there is nothing wrong with being frugal. It seems like there is something wrong when we are expecting others to live in a way that we would never.

I know I am saying something very radical, but I am only saying it because Jesus did... so don't get mad at me.

One last thought, that I got when I was listening to a program on poverty on my favorite radio program: Speaking of Faith. A man on the program who lives with and serves AIDs patients in D.C. talked about the difference between charity and justice. Charity is giving people thing on our terms - you can sleep here if you show up by 8pm and don't do drugs. Justice is the quest to change the social structures that keep some people up and others down - it would require us giving up our priveledge. There is nothing wrong with charity, but as it says in Isaiah 42: "I have called you for justice."

14 December 2006

My Niece - Maggie

So I know I don't brag about my niece so often - but I got this picture of her in her Holloween Costume (I know it is a little late) and it is painfully cute - so I thought it might put a smile on a few more faces. She can't really stand on her own, that is why her Mom is holding her up:

04 December 2006

More Lutheran Ethics Discussions

This one was definitely not as painful as the last one - it was good. We talked about what a youth minister should do if he caught Harold (senior pastor) with a woman in the church library who was not his wife. The exact phrasing was: "locked in a clearly sexual embrace with a divorced and unmarried parishioner" I struggled a lot with what restoration could/should look like for a church leader who screws up like this...

I was writing my final thoughts and thought they sounded pretty darn good - so I should show them off publicly.

[Classmate], you say something interesting: "Are people turning away from Christianity because they see blatant hypocrisy in their ministers? If we got rid of the immoral ministers and kept the upright (although still sinners) who walked their talk, would our churches grow and would faith deepen?"
I believe strongly that a church having convictions and holding to them - popular or not - shows an integrity that is attractive. I am not sure how I feel about celibate clergy, but the Roman Catholic unapologetic stance on what they feel is a matter of faith/obedience is inspiring. But what I see as a problem is the conflict in your statement - "upright (although still sinners)" is that all will fall short to varying degrees. Now we have to create a scale: so if we find out the pastor lusted after the cute girl in the third row during his sermon - should we relieve him of his position because Jesus said that looking/thinking is as bad as doing. It is a slippery slope for sure. Where does a sin require a public confession and public restoration/penance? Where is a sin something we only need to confess to our brother and move on? Where does pornography fit in on this scale of sexual sin?

I would say that the hypocrisy that people see in Christian ministry comes more from a Christian's inability to admit and address their own sins and failings than from the fact that they have them. Ted Haggard preaching against homosexuality is disgusting in light of the truth - Ted Haggard sharing his struggle with lust for sex outside of marriage is a testament to boasting about weakness and allowing God to work through our struggles and sufferings. In Christ all things are possible, if we only worry about our public face and our higher moral ground, then we will be put low over and over again.

18 November 2006

Ted Haggard again

Another New York Times article about the removal of Ted Haggard, and how his board decided to remove him. At the end of the article there are interesting comments on whether the oversight board was a success or not.

New York Times Article

I would lean towards his accountability board not quite effective - if they only get involved as everything is melting down, they there wasn't something in place for accountability in the actual day to day. If Haggard wouldn't have been pushing an anti-gay marriage ban, his accuser may never have come forward, and he may have kept living this lie for many years.

So much pain is caused by our sin - our desires to satisfy our own carnal desires. Then the shame piles on top of us, on top of our sin, and we bury it and bury it. How can our churches work to interrupt this process? How can we make honesty a healing process?

17 November 2006

Donald Rumsfeld

I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Donald - I really appreciate people who are direct, and don't hold back any punches. I don't know what it is - I have always been far happier to see him representing our country.

But nevertheless - you have to see this video - it is hilarious. I mean really really funny.

14 November 2006

The Struggles of Going to a Lutheran Seminary

So I am a bit torn with how to share this - it is an online discussion with a to remain anonymous classmate, in my applied ethics class. We are supposed to respond to a case study - then every one comments on each others original post, and then the original poster is to reflect what on the comments that were made. This is a little long - so don't say I didn't warn you.

Here is a summary of the case study:
Pastor Harold is pastor at Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, a church whose membership is mainly middle class with few large donors if any. The church’s pipe organ is worn out and a proposal has been made, to be voted upon at a specially called meeting of the congregation, to form a committee to raise money for a new pipe organ. Partly out of necessity, and partly out of principle, this fund raising campaign would be broadly based, focusing upon small and medium size contributions. Pastor Harold has promoted this effort because of its importance to the worship life of the congregation, something that has been considered a priority and special calling of this congregation for several decades. Considerable conflict has arisen in the congregation, however, because a vocal faction of the congregation opposes this project on the ground that it would impede fundraising for another proposal promoted by Pastor Harold, a “What is God up to in Our Congregation, Community, and World” campaign that would raise money for staff, equipment, and space for a sustained program of mission and outreach. It has become clear to all (and you should assume that this is the case) that the congregation cannot do both projects, that one of them would have to be indefinitely deferred in favor of the other, and that the congregants are treating this as a moral issue having to do with the stewardship of the congregation’s ministry and funds. Pastor Harold has decided to take no public position one way or the other and to remain neutral, preaching “reconciliation, brotherly love, and forgiveness.” Is Pastor Harold taking the right approach? Why or why not? If not, what should he be doing instead? Do you find yourself answering principally as a deontologist, teleologist, situationst, or character/virtue ethicist?

Bob's Response:
I would not say that Harold is taking the wrong approach, because he is taking the right approach to get the result that he is looking for. Whether or not we realize it, our choices and actions usually feed into our expectation. If Harold wants to create and nurture a congregation that is afraid to discuss difficult issues, then he is taking the right approach. I also don’t think either of the options that are before the congregation are productive in sharing the Good News of God’s reconciliation. I think in this way I would betray myself as a generally deontological thinker. I like to believe that some how – if we work hard enough - we will be able to grasp rules that would encompass all our difficult situations, and I just don’t think that Harold or the congregation have thought long enough about the universal concept of the Church’s purpose. Though I desire that ideal, I also know that we must deal with the situation that we have, which is never as clean as we want to be. I believe strongly that we must focus on the purpose or intent of our group or organization and see how this is fitting into it and it is not clear how either of these actions fit into that.

I do feel that preaching “reconciliation, brotherly love, and forgiveness” is a very good thing, and is always the right thing to do. I also feel that in many ways a Pastor taking a stance on a church issue is not always a helpful thing – it stops people from thinking on their own, and coming to the right conclusion through there own reasoning and understanding. On the other hand, I think that a pastor directing conversation and bringing issues to light is a necessary function. That is the unknown of this case-study: we don’t know if the pastor is just not giving an opinion or if the pastor is avoiding the topic altogether. Avoiding a sensitive topic for me is very rarely a good idea for a pastor. Exactly because this is a moral issue for the congregation – as a leader and professional moral teacher the pastor needs to take this opportunity to point out the implications of the decision that the congregation is making. There are ramifications and also a level of precedent to be set. Pastors need to be there to guide, shape and teach, and if he is not speaking or preaching about moral dilemmas – or even acting as an advocate for both issues then he is leaving his congregation with out the opportunity to discuss the issue. There might be a great opportunity for the pastor to speak to both sides of the debate – to highlight the advantages and statements of both options and show that there can be peace and understanding found.

The last paragraph talked about the pastor as a facilitator. I also feel that in this discussion the pastor can act as a prophet – or a master/teacher. In this way the pastor can set an example of how to discuss issues of moral significance, and how to respectfully talk with each other and consider both sides of a conversation, even when you have personal stake in the issue.

I believe that Harold must address the issue for the congregation in this situation. While his opinion may not be helpful to the growth of the community, his direction, love and example can serve to grow the congregation in meaningful and relational ways. He cannot sweep it under the rug, and must act to guide the congregation. If Harold belives that one is far more in line with God’s dreams for the church, then Harold has every right, and Miles would say even a responsibility, to act as a moral guide and help them understand how we are called by God.

This is where I run into my struggle with this case-study: in my opinion it is not clear that either plan would serve to develop congregation in any meaningful way – but that is based in my understanding of the church’s purpose. If one thinks that adding staff and equipment are the best way to minister to the world outside of the church – then this would be a great program. I myself see this program as an overly inwardly focused program that will leave the church with more expenditures than they currently have no interest in supporting. It reflects very much the concept of the pastor as a sort of entrepreneur – as opposed to some one really concerned with caring for the congregation and the world around it. Now more money has gone into the church and no ministry has actually happened. Why wouldn’t people from with in the church volunteer to do the world that they think God is calling them to be a part of? The second plan, as a non-traditional person, seems like it is hardly even an option. The organ for me shows up as a sentimentality that Jesus and Paul had no room for in their ministries.

Now I will admit that in hindsight, I could have written this better, and there were some clarity errors, but here is the response from my class mate:
I am wholeheartedly for preaching "reconciliation, brotherly love, and forgiveness" but I believe that there is a time and place for that and a time and place for healthy conflict. Jesus was not always about peace and reconciliation but at times named things for what they were. He told the rich how hard it would be for them to get into heaven on their own accord and threw the money changers out of the temple. Jesus was pretty good about agitating the most pious. If was not always right for Jesus, how can it always be right for us too? I struggle with understanding out preaching this message of love and forgiveness and avoiding the issue at hand is going to create the result he is looking for. It seems to me that Pastor Harold no longer knows what he wants and is just avoiding the real issue and thus allowing the conflict to begin to esculate.

I agree with much of what you said at the end and am curious about a few things. First, as a situationalist with some deontology guiding those situations, I would love to hear more thoughts on the rules that would apply to this situation and how we go about determining them. It seems to me that Pastor Harold does not really know what the purpose of the church is, what do you think? It seems to me that the organ and worship are key to the identity and purpose of the church, what do you think? I am really curious to know what third alternative you would suggest to develop the congregation in a meaningful way. I agree with you that neither plan currently seems to fit but I am not sure what I think should be done besides music is integral to it (part of their identity) and that Lutherans tend to not evangelize.

And My Final Response:
I am a bit confused, maybe my writing wasn’t clear, but I believe I already stated what you stated about a wishy washy message being a bad thing. I was trying to state that “reconciliation, brotherly love and forgiveness” are always a great topic, but if the pastor is avoiding the conflict on the spending of the money, he is modeling a very unhealthy way to discuss difficult issues in the church. Sorry if it wasn’t clear in my original post.

The flip side of this is preaching from the pulpit about topical issues and minimizing the ability of the “Word of God” to come through in the sermon, while the pastor uses a sacred time to address housekeeping issues or advance his/her own agenda.

Harold should preach the Gospel, and he should have conversations with the congregations at a separate time – maybe even during the church bulletin time, or at a specific meeting to discuss budget issues – not during the sermon. I know that the “Preached Word” is a sacrament to the Lutheran church, and it seems dirty to pollute a sacrament with what ever issues have come up in the last few weeks for a small population of the church community.

You suggest that Harold is out of touch with the purpose of the church, I think that the majority of most churches are out of touch with the reason that the church exists. Many people think that the existence of the church is a necessary thing – so that we must make sure to keep the church alive. The Church – the universal and apostolic Church is necessary, but that Church will go on past the Lutheran Church, past the Roman Catholics and most certainly beyond Solomon’s Porch (my faith community). If we lose sight of the reason the Church exists (the Great Commission, the building and nurturing of souls, the care and support of the underprivileged…) then we are not operating under the care and guiding of God, but only for our own preservation.

You ask for a third alternative for the church to work on, and I think that I already proposed that in my original post as well. That is what I was trying to get at when I said: “Why wouldn’t people from with in the church volunteer to do the work that they think God is calling them to be a part of?” I don’t understand why so many churches feel that they have to spend money to do anything. Money is not love, love is priceless, love is what we are called to share with the world, not only our money. Paying people to do nice things is not the same as doing nice things. My guess is that there are enough people, passions and talents that already exist in the community to do some amazing ministry and out reach. There is no need to raise money and hire new staff. More staff is the last thing most churches need.

Your final point is this: “I agree with you that neither plan currently seems to fit but I am not sure what I think should be done besides music is integral to it (part of their identity) and that Lutherans tend to not evangelize.”
I am not clear why a community’s identity is something that can’t/shouldn’t be changed. If a man refused to tithe because he wants to spend that money on his BMW we would find that ridiculous. But for him, owning a BMW is part of his “identity”. He grew up driving BMW’s and has always had one. Every one knows him as a BMW driver, and recognizes his fancy new car. It is part of his identity.

I don’t know why spending tens of thousands dollars on an extravagant instrument is an allowable form of “Christian Identity”, while we would all frown on some one’s identity as a BMW owner if it were to interrupt his ability to contribute financially to the church. These are both extravagances that prevent us from serving the purpose of the universal Church.

The same goes for the comment of “Lutherans tend not to evangelize.” I am not a fan of traditional evangelical models, but identifying a church as unwilling to serve God if it is outside of their comfort zone doesn’t seem very productive and certainly isn’t prophetic.

-I don't know if they get it, but I just had to vent publicly about the strugle that it is to be at this seminary.

07 November 2006

Pastor Ted Haggard

Jenell Paris - a member of my church, and an incredibly thoughtful blogger (I guess being a Prof. at Bethel helps) has posted a really thoughtful commentary on the situation and some of the responses from it.


20 October 2006

What's a good Christian to do?

This story in the New York Times is extremely striking reality for us Christians who live in priviledge.

This raises several questions for me:
1. The words of Jesus to turn the other cheek are far more alive and real for these people who live in the persecution similar to that of the time when Christianity was born. In a position of power, these words are often meaning less to us.
2. How persecuted are the Christians, comparitively speaking? It seems that every other day we hear about bombings of the Sunni and Shi'a mosques - where the Muslims are blowing up each other - and taking each other captive.

It also makes me think about some general issues I struggle with about Muslim countries. We would agree that many of the things that go on in Muslim countries are shocking, and according to our laws a violation of human rights:
1. Conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by death.
2. Adultery is punishable by death.
3. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
4. The age for a woman to marry is 9 years old.

The issue is that many of these things are part of the Koran, and are part of the countries' laws based on the authority of the Koran. It seems that there is no way to criticise these practices with out it being a criticism of the religion - which is not what the intention of this conversation. Somehow Christianity and Judaism have managed to put away some of its harsher laws (like the ones listed above) - even if they are from their scriptures. Where did this separation happen for us?

It seems to me that a lot has to do with the way that they hold their scripture which is very different from that of the Christian and Jewish tradition. There has been a lively tradition of intepreting and discussing scritpure within both of these traditions - even the translating of scripture was done for both the Jews and the early Christians (aside from the Roman Catholic Church for 1500 years). The Koran is not translated, and not interpreted - it just is. This leaves laws from the 8th century which are very shocking to us in America in 2006 in a place where they cannot be criticised. Where can we go from here?

11 October 2006

Funny Commercial - very funny

Here it is. My sister sent me this - and I found it on YouTube.

Oh so funny.

09 October 2006

Reasons why MadTV is funny - OJ Bloopers

Do you remember when OJ Simpson put out that video tape interview explaining how he was innocent?

Well I finally found this clip, after looking for a few years. It gets funnier each minute...

19 September 2006

"Where will you Find Him?"

My co-worker sent me a link to this article - it talks about Jesus, and Beer - it was just made for me.

So these Christian folk in Brittain are using a poster - this picture with the Phrase "Where will you find Him?" It is a very interesting concept - the first thing that came to my mind was the quote:

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
--Benjamin Franklin

But then after that, I thought of a story that I heard before I was a Christian, about one man's conversion that happened while he was high on drugs. I was always intrigued - this implied that either God worked through drugs, or that the man needed to get high to find God. Both interesting concepts.

Of course the mixture of God and alcohol upset some one - but I don't see how a poster like this is going to encourage any one to drink more, but only open the Gospel to those who may think it isn't available to them, because they have drank to long, and too hard. It is also quite clever with all the images of Holy Ones appearing on random places and being sold on EBay.

07 September 2006

DJ Bob Brown Returns - Sept 11th - Minneapolis

So my friends run a Discipleship Camp in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Northern Minnesota called the Boundary Waters Experience. They are having a silent auction to add to their "Scholarship Fund" - This fund allows kids who might not be able to afford the camping/canoe/community trip make it possible. Get the kids out of the hood, and make them crap in the woods.

I will be playing some background music for the event - chill electronic stuff 6PM till when ever. Nothing like the old days:

Here are the details if you are in the Neigborhood:
On Monday, Sept. 11, Eric Lacher and Jill Wing are hosting a fundraiser at Aura Bar/Restaurant (3001 Hennepin Ave. So., Mpls). Enjoy Aura's happy hour, DJ Bob Brown, massage therapist Marlene Larson, CMT, door prizes from Midwest Mountaineering, our silent auction/raffle, and other scheduled activities!!! Come and bring some friends. Your support and contributions can make a huge difference and are tax deductible! For more info.contact Marcus Andrusko (612) 743-7700 or marcus@bwexperience.com.

31 August 2006

November 11th @ 1st Avenue

Jamie Lidell - just has to be the best performer to come on the scene in recent years.

This guy is a masterful electronic producer ( I used to play his records often as a Techno DJ) and has made the leap to writing real music. His performances are electric - he sings wonderfully, and re writes his own songs on the fly using multitrack loops, key boards, drum machines and beat boxing. It is amazing. He didn't make his show here in the spring - due to some inclimate weather - but I have heard that he is returinging and I am very stoked.

Very stoked.

03 August 2006

Wikipedia, Truth and Colbert

So there is this very very funny clip from the Colbert report about Wikipedia, and how he can go online and change the facts.

So this article talks about how Colbert actually went online and changed facts about himself, George Washington and then encouraged his viewers to change info about elephants. Check it out, it even has a link to the video clip.


The most interesting thing he said went something like this - "if you get enought people to agree with you, then the facts are far more convenient"

So it is funny how we could do that with anything, and it would probably be especially effective with things such as interpretations of the Bible. I mean we sit around and argue for one interpretation of the Bible, and then we site other people who agree with us, as if that makes our interpretation of the Bible more valid.

Look at the prophets - it is pretty clear that God's will and desire for the earth has very little to do with popular opinion - look at how it turned out for Jesus. So majority opinion is the way that we all argue for things - who ever has the most people agree - or the most possible or even logical opinion will be the "winner" of the discussion. Even though we know that God's thoughts are not like our thoughts. But now I am proof texting. Oh well.

27 July 2006

Bad Joke

A minister wound up the services one morning by saying, ''Next Sunday I am going to preach on the subject of liars. And in this connection, as a preparation for my discourse, I would like you all to read the seventeenth chapter of Mark''.
On the following Sunday, the preacher rose to begin and said, ''Now, then, all of you who have done as I requested and read the seventeenth chapter of Mark, please raise your hands.''

Nearly every hand in the congregation went up.

Then said the preacher, ''You are the people I want to talk to. There is no seventeenth chapter of Mark.''

20 July 2006

Can't stop reading...

So I found this website:


Filled with random facts that are horribly interresting - for some odd reason. Here are some of my favorites so far:
- In a survey of Ohio residents, 12 percent said their favorite entertainer was "Jesus Christ."
- In a recent Department of Homeland Security sweep, three of California's state representatives were discovered to be illegal immigrants. Due to their standing in the community, they have not been deported or imprisoned, pending judicial review.
- The Sierra Club uses approximately 47,000 tons of paper per year for their fundraising mailings, almost none of which is printed on recycled paper.
- An average person's key ring has one key that hasn't been used in the last 9 months 21 days.

My Personal favorite - because it proves what I say about germaphobes:
- In a 2004 study by OSHA, it was discovered that people who will "usually" eat food that they've accidentally dropped on the floor report having 18 percent fewer sick days from work than those who "never" do that.

I hope it doesn't suck you in, like it has me

17 July 2006

What makes it a miracle?

So as we were studying/translating the story in 1 Kings 17 about Elijah bringing the woman's son back to life we talked about some of the differences in the translations of this passage. Before you read this - know that I am not a fan of the labels "conservative" and "liberal" - This rant is a little explanation of why I think that having an agenda or allegiance to an agenda outside of serving God (to the best of your current knowledge and ability) can be very counter productive.

The Hebrew used literally means to say that the boy's "breath left him" which is a Hebrew (and English) euphemism for dying. Our professor pointed out that some "liberal" translations translated it as "breath left him" and some more conservative translations will translate this as "died".

Here is where it gets interesting - many "conservatives" will want to say that this was a "Miracle" that the boy was dead and Elijah raised him from the dead. While some "liberals" would say that Elijah JUST used some method of CPR to revive the boy. Both of these ideas seem to miss the point by a long shot.

The "liberal" seems to say that God can only do things that we can scientifically explain, and the "conservative" side seems to think that God can only act miraculously in ways that we cannot explain.

Both sides would seem to take God out of the MIRACLE of physical birth. Because we can explain it. The sperm and the egg meet in the Fallopian tube, and incubate in the womb... But the problem is that we still don't understand everything about how one cell becomes a brain cell, and another goes to your knee cap.

Who are we to say where God is and isn't? God made up the rules that science struggles to put into mathematic equations. If we make God confine to our current knowledge of the physical world then we are taking away his domain, and if we say that he can only work in the parts that we don't understand, then we are doing the same thing.

CPR is a miracle, it is a reproducible way to bring some one BACK FROM THE DEAD. Think that CPR would have worked 5000 years ago - it requires no technology, no electricity - only an intimate knowledge of the workings of the human creature. Just because we figured out how to do it, doesn't mean that it is any less miraculous.

19 June 2006

Steve, don't eat that

Just wanted to share something funny for a change. Found this blog/website, and I couldn't stop laughing. The language is pretty foul, but man - it is so funny. This guy eats random things that are generally meant for human consumption in some culture or another. Pickled Porkrinds, to Prison Wine. Good Raffs. He gets a little off track with Beggin Strips, but it is still enormously entertaining (He makes a BLT out of the Bacon shaped dog treats.)
Steve Don't Eat That

09 June 2006

Revenge begats revenge.

So I was poking around after Zarqawi (sp)'s death, on CNN's website.

They had an interview with a man who's son was most likely killed by Zarqawi about his reaction to the death.

CNN Story

Aside from the finger pointing, non productive political stuff towards the end of the article, I was really intrigued by his response. We humans thirst for Justice. Eye for an Eye stuff. It seems fair. But I identified with this man, as I looked at the picture of the man dead, there was no satisfaction for me. I felt satisfaction in the capture of Hussein, but not in this death. 1000 lbs of bombs didn't seem to fix the situation, and infact seem to encourage the violent culture that is part of the terrorist mindset.

My friend John seemed to hint at the lack of satisfaction provided by the ending of this life in his Blog:God, Baseball, Life: Where, O Death is Your Sting?

The forgiveness is what has gotten me - but it is little odd, because his forgiveness doesn't seem to include forgiving our President for mistakes an casualties of the war.

08 May 2006

Being "Christian"

So, I am thinking again.

I read this article about a politician. It was talking about people committed to the Democrat/Republican Party (you must choose the one you align yourself with for this to work) that are trying to make sure that they gain control of the Senate/House. It made me think - at what point do we stop being committed to Democracy and the best interests of the country, and more committed to Being a "Democrat" or "Republican"?
I mean the "Republican" Party used to be the more "Liberal" party, but over time and change - etc. they are on the oposite end of the spectrum for the most part. So what it means to be "Republican" is not some set in stone thing.

This leads me to think - can Christians become too caught up in being "Christian" and all the things we think are attached to that, and lose sight of following God? So we(humans) set up this agenda of what it means to be "Christian" and we commit ourselves to that, instead of to doing God's will in our day and time?

I think so. I think it happens all the time.


What is Sin, and how does the Atonement/Reconciliation of Christ work?

Went over a bunch of models for this today in my Theology class - see what I mean that my school work can be devotional?

The story/question idea that came up was forgiveness. The professor told a story of a murderer who killed the daughter of a woman, who confessed his wrong, and appologized in court to the mother. The mother forgave the murderer, shook his hand and embraced the man who killed her daughter.
This activity only happened because of the willingness of the man to admit to his wrong, otherwise the forgiveness that she offered wouldn’t have made any sence.
So if we killed God’s son, we can only accept God’s forgiveness through our own admission of Guilt. Leads you to the story of our sinful nature as the bridge to Christ.
What do you all think?

Some News Articles about Forgiveness: