Was There a Biblical Flood?

Tweet

Is this what really happened?

One might be forgiven the impression that the Catholic Church has given up on the story of Noah and the Flood as anything more than that, a story. After all, it's the Protestant evangelicals who are enthusiastically building full-scale ark replicas, mounting search expeditions to Mt. Ararat and all the rest. While on the Catholic side we have to make do with the likes of Bishop Barron and his ironically named "Word on Fire" lectures arguing that a good portion of the Old Testament is mere allegory containing no more literal truth than the novel Moby Dick.

While I suspect it's true that the majority of post-Vatican II Catholic laypeople and prelates do not anymore believe in an historical Noah, to the extent that there is an official current Church position on the matter it is that Noah was a real person and the Flood - a massive cataclysm that wiped out all but eight human beings - was a real event.

Noah and the Flood are mentioned in five sections of the 1993 Catholic Catechism. Following longstanding interpretive tradition, the flood is said to prefigure baptism, with the dove sent by Noah representing the Holy Spirit. Christ is in a sense the new Ark. But there's no indication that the Catechism authors do not mean it also to be taken literally. Among other things, a mere allegorical Covenant would have no meaning.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) reports that virtually all Catholic theologians up to that time believed that the Flood was a real event.

The New Testament refers to Noah in many places. Among other things, he appears in the standard genealogies as well as the well-known warning spoken by our Lord Himself:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

And, of course, the references to Noah and the Flood in Genesis and other places in the Old Testament are written in a manner that appears to describe real events, including relating the exact dimensions of the Ark.

It should also be added that stories of a massive and perhaps worldwide flood are ubiquitous in the myths of perhaps the majority of world cultures.

However, among those 20th and 21st century Catholic theologians who subscribe to the orthodox literalist position, it's also true to say that many if not most believe that the Flood was not a global event but merely local to the Middle-East. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself leans in this direction, while admitting that this (in 1913) was a relatively new interpretation brought about by the scientific evidence or lack of it, for a worldwide flood. 

Thus, from around 1800 to 1900, a time when geology was still in its infancy, many orthodox Catholics stopped believing in a global Flood. Why this happened is an interesting question but I will not answer it in detail here. My own view is that it was as much due to a new critical attitude towards the interpretation of Scripture, as well as sympathy with certain philosophical or pseudo-scientific premises popular at the time - such as uniformitarianism - rather than any explicit clash with the empirical evidence per se.

It is important to note, however, that the view that the Flood was local went along with, and still goes along with the orthodox understanding that it nevertheless wiped out all of humanity except for Noah and his family. Thus, the new more "scientific" view carried with it a premise that could later be theoretically disproved by science - that at the time of the Flood, mankind had not yet spread out past a relatively small area in the lands of the Bible.

Contemporary proponents of the local theory must grapple with the fact that modern science seems to show that the human population was diffused around the world many tens of thousands of years ago. If we are to take the orthodox but local theory seriously, then we would have to believe that out of a pre-civilized population who, when it came to technology, were primarily focused on slowly coming up with a better axe-head, there came one family with the knowledge and means to construct a massive boat, 500 feet long.

This, in my view, is another example where a supposedly more "scientific" and believable theory, meant to make Scripture consistent with the alleged discoveries of modern science, ends up in fact looking ad hoc and preposterous.

Proponents of the local theory believe that their account is more realistic when it comes to the diversity of animals taken on the Ark and rescued. How would Noah have had the time or space to save all those Arctic animals and jungle animals, etc.? But if the question is flipped, it becomes devastating in the opposite direction. Why would God want Noah to go to extravagant lengths to merely carry the Middle-Eastern creatures, virtually all of whom, or at least their close relatives, would have survived anyway, elsewhere?

Most "young-earth" creationists believe that the Flood was global and occurred sometime in the mid- to early third millennium before Christ. This appears to assume a massive telescoping of human history, at least as most now understand it, with the Biblical attempt to erect the Tower of Babel and the historical beginnings of Egyptian civilization - its gigantic monuments soon to follow - being apparently squeezed into just a few hundred years. On the face of it, this seems ridiculous. We should note, however, that the written histories - the records of dynasties and so forth, as opposed to mere archaeological extrapolations - "coincidentally" go back to around that time and no further.

Those who do not believe in the Biblical account of the Flood cite a lack of geological and other evidence. The "old-earth" local Flood camp must somehow contend with this as well as the technological question: If civilization is really much older, and intercontinental migrations go back much farther than the Biblical literalists suggest (and old-earth creationists generally accept the premises involved in carbon-dating, the fossil record claims for early man and so on), then how can one make sense of such a high-tech project as the Ark in, say, 50,000 B.C.? That the fact that it didn't happen is not provable by modern science seems small consolation. Indeed, to me, it emphasizes the desperate nature of the view.

But the young-earth creationists at least have a consistent story - consistent within its own terms, that is. In response to the alleged lack of evidence for a worldwide flood, they claim that the evidence is in fact everywhere. The fossil stratification and geological phenomena supposedly pointing to great age is reinterpreted by them as evidence for a cataclysmic event. The unprecedented physical force of the Flood killed most land creatures - including probably the dinosaurs - created shale-oil deposits, disgorged the fossils of sea creatures on land while creating the "layering" often found in the fossil record, carved out massive canyons and other formations, destroyed and created continents, and changed the very climate, perhaps ushering in a mini-Ice Age as the waters receded.

The "science" of Flood Geology is relatively new, but in one sense it's merely a new version of catastrophism, perhaps the dominant view of proto-geologists until the early 19th century. Catastrophism would then be rejected by many 19th century scientists on a priori or philosophical grounds more than anything else - isn't it simply more reasonable to believe in slow and gradual change? - and later, the contrary uniformitarian view would be seen to have the added bonus of being a necessary premise for making the new theory of Darwinian evolution - requiring millions of years of gradual biological change - to work.

Ironically, catastrophism would make a comeback in mainstream science in the latter half of the 20th century, though without, of course, any Biblical associations. No longer would it be assumed, for example, that all natural geological formations were created in a slow and gradual manner.

Is the young-earth creationist account believable? As stated a few days ago, it's obviously quite unbelievable for most moderns, as it would necessitate rejecting what much of current science tells us is now beyond rational debate, such as the basic assumptions underlying radiometric and carbon-dating, among other things.

But for a Catholic who believes in a literal Flood, the alternatives are also unbelievable or at least untenable. At the least, I think that faithful Catholics who take both Catholic doctrine and logical and empirical considerations seriously owe young-earth creationism a second look.

A "God of the Gaps" forcing Catholics to continually retreat to ad hoc stories of cavemen building Arks to save camels and Arabian leopards in an unverifiable past is not an attractive option. And, of course, rejecting the historical truth of some kind of Flood is firmly against both Scripture, tradition and current Church teaching.

Slumming with the Creationists

Tweet

A display at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky

This week I wrote two posts where I bashed what I called the modern synthesis between the theory of evolution - including its accompanying claims about the 4.5 billion year age of the earth - and orthodox Catholicism.

However, nowhere in the posts did I call myself a "creationist," endorse "creationism" or, for that matter, even use the terms.

For the record, I wouldn't currently call myself a creationist. I'd call myself a Catholic who is also a skeptic. And, yes, that means, among other things, that I'm quite skeptical of the creationist view that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that dinosaurs probably lived alongside men and all the rest. To believe that, you would have to discard or at least radically reinterpret much of what the overwhelming majority of scientists believe about geology, astronomy and chemistry. Specifically, certain core assumptions underlying radiometric and radiocarbon dating as well as the consistency of the speed of light would have to be thrown out.

On the other hand, I think the standard theory of evolution is preposterous - from a scientific standpoint more than anything else - while the modified Catholic version of it - some type of theistic evolution or "intelligent design" ends up being very difficult to square with Catholic doctrine. Specifically, I do not see how animal suffering and ancient mass extinctions can be comfortably accommodated with a pre-Fall creation that was "very good" or how common descent from pre-human ancestors can be made consistent with a literal Adam and Eve. For the latter point, I stand by my claim that no Catholic or theistic proponent of intelligent design has ever even tried to outline precisely what it would mean for Adam to have been what I called a "near ape man." Indeed, Catholic and Christian quasi-evolution or design proponents are very uncomfortable even talking about the subject. That tells you something in and of itself.

So we're back to having a certain sympathy, albeit for mostly negative reasons, for creationism - a theory almost exclusively associated with 20th century American Protestant evangelicals, although its current chief proponent is an Australian transplant.

You might call my current position slumming with the creationists.

So what do I believe? If you could take a video camera back in time 6,000 years (the approximate point many creationists believe God created the world) or 4.5 billion years (if there was such a time) what would it record? I don't know. I'd very much like to know, but I don't. Quite honestly, I think all the alternatives are problematic for a believing Catholic.

That's not a magisterial opinion, obviously. It's my opinion.

And in this - the problematic nature of all the alternatives - I think intelligent and honest atheists such as Richard Dawkins have a sort of advantage.

How do you combat that? From a sociological point of view, you can't, or at least you can't very easily or quickly. Atheism or secularism are now the dominant intellectual and cultural paradigms, and there's no reason to believe this will change in the near future, whatever brilliant empirical or logical considerations any particular Christian can come up with in any particular intellectual battleground.

But here's what you don't do: You don't sweep the problems under the rug or ignore them because they might be difficult or embarrassing or whatever in favor of "I (as a Catholic) believe what I believe and that makes me feel very spiritual inside, etc., etc." Cue violins.

Or at least that's never been how I viewed my own Catholic faith.

Personally, I think much of the hostility to creationism among contemporary Catholics, even conservative or traditionalist Catholics, is because of its current association with evangelical Protestants. They're Protestants, after all. Plus, they're sort of lower class, have bad taste in clothes and often speak with a twang.

That the identification of creationism with Protestanism is almost entirely a 20th and 21st century phenomenon, that some version of "creationism," though it didn't go by that name, was the view of virtually all Catholics, including the Church Fathers and Doctors, and all the saints and popes up until the late 19th or early 20th centuries is something that many contemporary Catholics seem to be unaware of.

That doesn't make it true, of course. But at the least it should give faithful contemporary Catholic pause. The intellectual and theological wreck of Modernism with its first culmination in Vatican II created a sort of vacuum that evangelical Protestants in some part filled. That they filled it with their energy at evangelization is a certainty. They also filled it with their intellectual drive, which is ironic since so many would sneer at their "anti-intellectualism."

In some ways I feel more comfortable in a Moody Bible bookstore than in the basement annex of St. Peters in the Loop with its America magazine displays and row upon row of hippy-priest Paulist Press paperbacks.

If you have a problem with the fact that in recent times Christian evangelicals have done much of the work that Catholics should have been doing, don't blame them.

Protestant evangelical or Vatican II Catholic? Of course it's best to be neither.

But I'm not above slumming.         

Video Tuesday: Can We Make HIM Pope?

Tweet

England is in some ways the cradle of free-speech. Up until a few years ago it was in some still the capital of it. Most famous is Hyde Park Corner where anyone can mount a box and say anything. Long live the Queen! Down with capitalism! Jamaicans are lazy! Subsidize hemp! Whatever.

Some may not like that. I do.

But in regards to free speech, contemporary England is now choking on it. "Islamophobia" has been criminalized. If I lived in England, I would be on trial now (if anyone wanted to make an issue of it).

And even good old Hyde Park Corner is under pressure. It now abuts a heavily Muslim district, and Muslims like using the parks.  Denounce Allah from your box and you'll soon get a swarm of bearded and five-o'clock shadowed hecklers. Heckling is what they'll do if you're lucky.

But here's a faithful Christian who doesn't give a fig. His brand isn't mentioned, but I assume he's Protestant. Any informed Christian would assume so, and that makes me sad. Since Vatican II, western Catholics have largely abandoned evangelizing for Christ, especially to hostile audiences.

They would rather denounce the death penalty to friendly audiences.

But one brave man chose to defend Christ amidst a smirking horde.

A grinch was defied, even with kabob breath.

This faithful Christian has been labeled as "elderly". Compared to us, he's twenty-five.

Can he be the next pope, please?

The Pope as Reactionary Lutheran

Tweet

"This is the scandal of the Cross!"

Earlier in his pontificate, the Pope gave a homily where he said this:

What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it's not it ... True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: 'This is your sin, and I will sin again'. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us. 

Christ became sin for me! And my sins are there in his body, in his soul! This - it's crazy, but it's beautiful, it's true! This is the scandal of the Cross!

Now, unless you're a sycophantic Franboy, or are completely indifferent to the Christian message, you might find the above disturbing, or at least confusing. So let me set the record straight, especially for my non-Catholic friends about Catholic Confession. We don't say at Confession, "Jesus, this is your sin." Instead, we say, "forgive me for my sins." We don't say, "I will sin again." Instead, we say, "I promise to amend my life." And certainly, no Gospel source, Christian Father, Catholic theologian, saint or pope (up to now) has ever said, Christ likes it that I will probably sin again.

As Seinfeld might say about the Pope's views on Christ, sin and forgiveness--that's crazy talk.

It's also heretical, blasphemous, harmful and, well, false.

This particular bizarro claim never get the attention it deserved. I assume it was brushed over initially as a sort of an over-exuberant theological flub that the Pope didn't really mean. And recently his pontificate has become such a train-wreck with communist crucifixes and all the rest that few have the time or the desire to rake through the archives, so to speak.   

In fact, the Pope makes weird statements like this all the time now. And the most charitable interpretation is that he makes them, well, to be weird. He thinks the point of homilies is to shake up our preconceptions or to "make a mess" or whatever. And true enough, if you want to make a mess, there's nothing like giving a bizarro homily. It will make your audience think, after all.

Actually, though, in this particular case, the Christ sinned thing does have a theological pedigree. I didn't say it had a Catholic theological pedigree, but still. And I don't even claim that Pope Francis is aware of this pedigree. Frankly it wouldn't surprise me either way.

What is that pedigree? Well, actually it was Martin Luther:

All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood. The curse struck Him. The Law found Him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest Himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged Him for a sinner... 

I am told that it is preposterous and wicked to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer: If you deny that He is a condemned sinner, you are forced to deny that Christ died. It is not less preposterous to say, the Son of God died, than to say, the Son of God was a sinner.

Despite the title, this is not an anti-Lutheran post. In my experience, modern-day Lutherans don't know or care much about the actual theology of Luther. Again, that's not a criticism. Just an observation. On the main Lutherans seem to be "straight ahead" Christians that are often more "orthodox"--theologically and liturgically--than many Catholics.

However, as might be apparent, I don't like Martin Luther very much. No informed and faithful Catholic should. Part of the reason I don't like him is because of the dangerous and false things he said about Christ--things which most contemporary Lutherans probably wouldn't agree with anyway.

But our Catholic Pope does.

And in fairness to Martin Luther, even he didn't say that Christ likes the fact that we sin or will sin again.

Leave it to Wayne Jackson, an anti-Catholic Protestant, to defend Christian orthodoxy against Luther (and the Pope):

The theory (that Christ became a sinner) is false for two reasons. 

First, if Christ was “guilty” of sin on the cross, then his punishment was just. And...if it was deserved, there can hardly be merit in it for others...This dogma strikes at the very heart of the Christian system and the atoning death of our Savior, and logically reflects outright heresy... 

In addition, the theory of imputed “sin” is nonsensical. Sin is an act committed by personal choice (1 Jn. 3:4). It is “behavior or activity” that does not conform to the divine standard...A person cannot be “sinful” by the act of another (Ezek. 18:20)... 

...All humans suffer the consequence of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12), though not the guilt (as alleged by Calvinism). And as a result of Christ’s atoning death, and our obedience to him (Rom. 6:17-18), we are “reckoned” as righteous before God (Rom. 4:5). In a manner of speaking, his perfect sacrifice was “credited to our account” ...“[T]hough Christ was free from sin" (Jackson is now quoting a 19th century Protestant theologian), "he underwent the punishment of death, which is the consequence of sin: he was accounted as a sinner”...though he was not.

There are a few things here that are not quite how a Catholic theologian would put it. But on the main it works.

Pope Francis as reactionary Lutheran. Pretty soon he'll be denying free will and helping to put down peasant revolts. You laugh at the last one? What do you think his protege and ally, the Archbishop of Havana is doing to dissidents in Cuba?

Ship of Fools Reviews the Last Supper

Tweet

2882: Upper room, Mount Zion, Kingdom of Judea and Samaria

Mystery Worshipper: Synagogue Shopper (official Ship of Fools reviewer).

The church: The upper room of an anonymous residence just outside the city walls of Jerusalem, Kingdom of Judea and Samaria.

Denomination: Jewish.

The building: An unremarkable building in near suburban Jerusalem. Not poor but not showy or upperclass either.

The church: As implied, it wasn't a church per se. The room itself was spacious, longer than one would think from looking at the outside of the building. It was sparsely decorated but well cleaned and kept. I particularly noticed the restored lighting fixtures.

The neighborhood: Basic mud and stone architecture. The area itself has a strong Essene presence. I find them annoying but not dangerous.

The cast: A Rabbi (I didn't get his name) and a small group of parishioners, all male.

The date & time: April 1, 33 (Passover), 9.00pm.

What was the name of the service?
The Pasch.

How full was the building?
I would estimate 10-20. The room was fairly large but only had seating for that many.

Did anyone welcome you personally?
No. I was there because I overheard men talking of a Passover meal, and having no other place to go, decided to attend. First I followed a man carrying a pitcher of water. Then, upon entering an unmarked building I gave a sort of password to the butler and was directed to an upstairs room. When I entered, I saw a table set for the Passover meal with all of the seats already taken. I was glared at by a number of the parishioners, as if it were a "private" service or something. But the Rabbi made a sign that it was permitted. I took a seat in the corner and tried to be unobtrusive. Throughout the service a few of the parishioners kept occasionally glaring. In other words, it was pretty unwelcoming.

Was your pew comfortable?
The chair in the corner was not very comfortable. No.

How would you describe the pre-service atmosphere?
Not very prayerful. People were talking amongst themselves and making sure they had the right silverware and so forth.

What were the exact opening words of the service?
"Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who creates the fruit of the vine."

What books did the congregation use during the service?

None, as far as I could tell.

What musical instruments were played?
None. The atmosphere was quiet and sombre. I couldn’t put my finger on it at the time, but on reflection there seemed to be a significant lack of joy in the place.

Did anything distract you?

Well, I was quite hungry at the time so I was distracted by the sight of the food laid out for the regular parishioners. And then of course I was distracted by observing them eating it. But due to the hostile glares, I didn't feel comfortable going up to the table. 

Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what?
I guess I'd say, "or what." It was neither stiff not happy clappy. On the one hand the atmosphere was somewhat informal and everyone including the Rabbi seemed to know each other. On the other hand, everyone except the Rabbi seemed a bit stressed out and depressed.

Exactly how long was the sermon?
15 minutes.

On a scale of 1-10, how good was the preacher?
5 – That's a tough one. Much of the Rabbi's sermon was quite moving, but there were some elements to the service that were very bizarre. For example, at one point, the Rabbi got up from his position, picked up a rag and bowl and actually started washing his parishioners' feet! There appeared to be some argument about this from one of the parishioners, but then everyone got up and began doing it, madly washing feet and then in turn having them washed. I had never seen anything like it at my regular synagogue. The other weird thing was that towards the end, the Rabbi actually instructed his parishioners to purchase weapons! Without missing a beat, two of them started waving swords around--in the middle of the service! Thinking I had gotten mixed up in some politics or something, I hid in my corner. However, after all that, and for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, I have to admit there was something about that Rabbi I really liked.

In a nutshell, what was the sermon about?
Well, I gather it was sort of a farewell sermon due to the Rabbi being transferred or something (he looked too young to retire). But the whole thing was a bit mysterious as to where he was going and why, and I think many of the parishioners didn't understand it either. I decided this was the main reason why everyone was sombre.

Which part of the service was like being in heaven?
The Rabbi asked his parishioners to love one another as they loved him, and as he in turn loved them. In addition, as he was pouring the Passover wine and breaking the Passover bread, he said that the wine was his blood and the bread was his body. I won't claim this wasn't initially off-putting and confusing. And I'm still not sure what he meant exactly. But I do have to say that the more I think about it, the more it seems that something very important was being communicated.

And which part was like being in... er... the other place?
So, I've seen Rabbis publicly reprimand people for talking and whispering during synagogue, and frankly, I think that's rude on the Rabbi's part. It's certainly not welcoming or inclusive. But this Rabbi did something I have never seen. Right in the middle of the sermon he accused his parishioners of harboring the intention to betray him! First it seemed to be directed against just one parishioner but then he accused another! Unbelievable! This was so offensive that one of the parishioners got up and left right then and there, never to return. Of course I surmised that the Rabbi was being transferred because he was a paranoid. 

What happened when you hung around after the service looking lost?
After singing a hymn, everyone filed out quickly and I was left alone in the room. I shouted for the butler but I think he had gone to sleep.

How would you describe the after-service coffee?
There was no coffee.

How would you feel about making this church your regular (where 10 = ecstatic, 0 = terminal)?
2 – It was certainly an experience, I'll tell you that. I'm giving it a low rating partly because I don't think services are held there on a regular basis.

Did the service make you feel glad to be a Christian?
What's a Christian?

What one thing will you remember about all this in seven days' time?
The restored lighting fixtures.

For further reading, see here, here and especially here. This is for Fr. Blake, from an idea by Liam Ronan.

The Anti-Osteen Six: Can Living Protestants be Canonized?

Tweet

The six men who recently "disrupted" Sunday services at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston have been identified, and their leader, Jake Gardner, is now making statements to the media. After singing and praying with his comrades in the hallway of the Harris County courthouse, he had this to say about Osteen (initial Fundie bits have been redacted):

And Joel Osteen is a hypocrite for holding us accountable for preaching the Gospel message because he won't preach it. 

He's not saving souls in Houston, Texas. He's giving souls a free ride... to hell, and giving them a smile on the way there. 

It's a lie. It's a lie. He's an impostor--a charlatan. He's not a true Christian. Jesus Christ warned in the last days that many men would come. And they would call themselves prophets of God. They would call themselves pastors and preachers, teachers, evangelists, motivational speakers. Whatever it is, whatever title he confers upon himself, Jesus Christ says that he's a false prophet because he does not preach the sound words of the faith. 

He's not preaching the pure Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. He's preaching what will tickle the ears of those itching ears in his audience. He's preaching those words that the men of this church will endure.

Okay, so apparently the Church of Wells has been annoying people for some time, allegedly chanting "you're going to hell" at a homeschooling group (!). Some claim they're a cult. I say, give them some slack. They're spot on about Osteen.

At the courthouse:

(I've removed this video because the "automatic launch" was annoying. Watch it here.)

Church of Wells versus the Orangemen. Note the handshakes before battle is declared:

Pope Condemns Sharia (Just Kidding, It Was Franklin Graham)

Tweet

You make your father proud

Actually, the Pope said,

authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,

in a Papal Encyclical, no less.

I have never been embarrassed by my Faith. Only by the men who represent it. I wish Franklin Graham were a Catholic.

I know some Catholics who are proud to be Catholics because of the contrast between, say, the Pope and Graham. See (they say), the Catholic Church is more nuanced. We're not like those Islamophobic book burning Protestants who live in the swamps. We don't have sweat under our armpits. And the covers on our Paulist Press books are so tasteful.

What did Jesus say about Pharisees? 

The BBC just published a story about life under radical Islam—what it’s really like. This is a vivid reminder of why...
Posted by Franklin Graham on Thursday, June 11, 2015