What Was Missing in the Senate Judicial Committee’s Kavanaugh Hearings?

The Senate Judicial Committee's hearings on the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court were painful enough to watch.  Yet they captured social pressure points throughout society.  The elephant in the room was the Roe v. Wade decision that unborn children lack personhood and may be put to death at any time up to birth.  That dividing issue in the USA led to all the tricks and theatrics in the hearings.  Yet the presenting issue had to be something else since the ‘Ginsburg Rule’ says that candidates will not reveal how they would vote on particular issues.

What better way, then, to bring the candidate down in the #MeToo era than to make a claim of sexual abuse?  As a real Catholic, unlike lip-serving Catholics in high governmental positions who regularly advocate for abortion and homosexuality, Kavanaugh surely personally opposes abortion.  While we do not know how, as a judge, he would vote on the matter (for his role is to interpret laws, not make them), he would be a dangerous addition to the court from a pro-abortion position.  So, some issue other than how one might vote on abortion had to be found.  That issue somehow emerged in July and has been artfully and carefully played by the Democrats on the committee to delay any confirmation.  It falls to every viewer to decide what they will about these murky matters, yet it seems obvious that the game-plan has been about delaying the vote and nothing else.

It is, furthermore, politically correct to believe allegations of sexual abuse—and people seem to believe accusers rather than defendants on this issue.  The accuser no longer has to prove the accusation; the accused has to prove innocence: one is assumed guilty until proven innocent.  Such is the legacy of the #MeToo movement.  Men, white men, in particular, are the group to malign and disparage.  And how better to make a claim of sexual abuse than to lodge it in an obscure past with no corroborating witnesses to ensure that the courts will not touch it?  Proof is unnecessary for slander to stick, and slander, not proof, will bring down a nominee.  As I have often said to students, a well-articulated thesis is still not an argument, no matter how much it may sound as such to some.  Similarly, a well-presented story, which has surely happened to many in similar ways, is still not a legitimate claim, no matter how much it may sound as such to some.

So, why call for an FBI investigation?  Because the goal is not to get to the truth for the accuser but to delay a vote long enough to change—it is hoped—the majority in the Senate from Republicans to Democrats, the pro-abortion party.  A delay, moreover, offers the possibility that other baseless claims may be put forward, with the potential of further investigations and further delays.  Indeed, the call for an FBI investigation is a worthwhile gamble if it provides the extra time for further allegations to arise or further issues to pursue.  The primary game is to delay the vote on Kavanaugh until after the next elections.  Another possibility that any investigation might afford is that uncertain conclusions will be reached, which will pressure some senators to vote 'safely' against the accused--a political vote with great, personal harm and without regard to the presumption of innocence until proving someone guilty.

The historic hearings of Judge Kavanaugh make painful viewing.  One has deep sympathy for girls and women who experience this kind of sexual abuse, whether or not the accuser in this case ever was abused by someone in her past.  Her testimony rings true not because she has substantiated any of it but because it surely has happened to someone and has happened all too often.  Human depravity reaches every aspect of our existence, and sexual depravity and violence are the two most obvious examples. 

One also has deep sympathy for the nominee, who has been accused of horrific things long ago for which there is no proof whatsoever.  One fears being so accused by someone in this #MeToo era—like the early Christians, who were hauled before magistrates and put to death in large numbers by their neighbours.  Who will be fingered next by shrill voices for a crime he did not commit and dragged before judges eager to condemn? 

Furthermore, one gasps at the inequity of it all, with selective attacks on some but not others.  One groans, knowing that the previous hearings of Bork and Thomas were nothing but public character assassinations.

Yet the painful viewing also has to do with how this whole matter lacks key practices that make human flourishing possible in a fallen world—things that we do not find in our political system but are present in the Church.  The viewing begs for both justice and pastoral care, but neither are on offer.  The hearing is nothing more than an exercise in public slander.  What we watch is life without the elements of Christian faith—a living hell.  (Jean-Paul Sartre, of all people!, captured this in his No Exit.)  Fear of God, truth-telling, confession, forgiveness, and restoration are all part of the Church’s practices in regard to human sin, and none of these are on offer in such hearings.  The point is that we watch the hearings needing something more than what the hearings intend to give.  We watch the exposure of sin without belief in sin, the search for truth by persons who do not believe in truth, and the care of sinners by persons with only political motives.  We watch hell in operation.

Someone in these hearings is lying—and I have a strong belief that I know who.  Yet, that is not the point of this essay.  The focus is on what is so painfully lacking in the hearing for witnesses across the nation and even world.  Fear of God is almost totally lacking, apart from a line of questioning from Rep. John Kennedy of Louisana.  Truth-telling falls flat in a room charged with political motivations.  Instead, who is more rhetorically believable to the viewers wins the day.  Some sin, whether unjust accusation or sexual abuse, is involved.  Yet viewers watch without any movement of the situation through confession, forgiveness, and restoration.  All the things we associate with God Himself—truth, mercy, sacrificial love—are shut out the door of this hellish hearing.

The Law, it is often said, is an ass.  It is stubborn and unmovable, and it is painfully stupid in the sense that it is all about application, not reason, let alone redemption.  Yet, a quasi-legal, Judicial Committee hearing (it is far from a court case, to be sure) of the sort we have witnessed in Washington this week is the Law in the hands of (certain) devious law-makers interested in politics rather than justice.  And what drives this to the lowest level of filthy dealing is to hear the accusing law-makers disparage the ethics of Kavanaugh when they themselves are guilty of similar things.

Yet, one more piece is missing in all this.  Kavanaugh is accused of sexual misconduct in a day and age when sexuality has been redefined.  It is agonizing to watch senators who have no sexual morality of their own, who accept pre-marital and extra-marital sex, who applaud same-sex intercourse and so-called ‘marriage’ attack Kavanaugh.  Themselves proponents of things disgraceful, they seek to disgrace others.  While the story of the woman caught in adultery was added later to John’s Gospel (John 7.53-8.11), it is an early story about Jesus and probably historical, albeit not canonical.  Even so, from it, one hears the words of Jesus ringing in one’s ears, ‘Let him who has no sin cast the first stone,’ during this merciless take-down of Kavanaugh on the basis of some allegation (and nothing more) about one instance thirty-six years ago. 
These hearings would be more bearable if the accusation against Kavanaugh were true and he admitted it.  At least then we might witness some Godly confession, although we would certainly not witness forgiveness and redemption as the opposition is politically motivated.  Scripture gives us King David, murderer and adulterer and ruler that he was, as a man after God’s own heart.  Why?  Despite his great sin, his life was lived in the pursuit of holiness and righteousness.  He prayed for forgiveness to our merciful God,

Psalm 51:1-4 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.  2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!  3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.  4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

Even this possibility—of witnessing confession—is removed from the Kavanaugh hearing: he denies the accusation. 


We can only expect so much from committee hearings, and what we have come to expect is nothing good whatsoever.  But when the nation watches such a process as we have seen play out, it is the absence of a just and merciful Judge who will forgive the penitent of the vilest of transgressions that stands out.  Or, it is the absence of truth-telling and a sincere pursuit of justice that stands out. To watch such hearings leaves us longing for God.  Indeed, this leaves us with a single word to capture these hearings: merciless.  Thank God that, sinners though we are, our hearing before Him will be nothing of the sort.  As John wrote, ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1.9).  As Paul says, God is just ‘and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,’ (Romans 3.26), for Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1.15).  In these hearings, we confront our own need for God.

The Ethics of Tribal Victimhood versus Biblical Vulnerability

The Modernist, Western era has pursued, with considerable advantages at times, an approach to ethics through ‘rights.’  The USA added an addendum to the Constitution of ten amendments, called the ‘Bill of Rights.’  The United Nations’ charter was written in the language of certain ‘rights’.  This ‘rights’ approach is not entirely wrong in ethics, but it cannot adequately ground or ensure the morality that societies need.  Among its inadequacies is a tendency to see society in terms of groups, groups whose rights need to be identified and protected.  This has, in turn, led to a notion of victimhood, that is, that some groups as such are victim-groups.

Alongside this trajectory in Western society has been a progression from modernist to postmodernist to tribalist perspectives and practices (as I have been arguing for the past three years).[1]  Tribalism’s understanding of ‘rights’ is strongly coloured by an assumption of victimhood.  On this perspective, if society is broken up into various groups, then some groups are victors and some groups are victims.

There are victims of injustice, to be sure, and many Old Testament texts address this.  Sometimes the victims are victims without being complicit in any way.  Psalm 10 offers an example.  It says,

Psalm 10:8-11 He sits in ambush in the villages; in hiding places he murders the innocent. His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;  9 he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket; he lurks that he may seize the poor; he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.  10 The helpless are crushed, sink down, and fall by his might.  11 He says in his heart, "God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it."

Sometimes victims are victims because they have succumbed to the allures of an evil person, in which case they are complicit in their own demise.  Proverbs, for example, repeatedly warns the young man against the prostitute and adulteress who entices him to sin (cf. especially chs. 1-9).  He should stay away from the evil woman, ‘from the smooth tongue of the adulteress’ (Proverbs 6.24).  Both the evil woman and the young man, giving in to his desires, are at fault:

Proverbs 6:27-29 Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?  28 Or can one walk on hot coals and his feet not be scorched?  29 So is he who goes in to his neighbor's wife; none who touches her will go unpunished.

Yet Scripture does not present a class of people as victims.  A particular gender or race does not, ipso facto, make one a victim.  Liberation theology has tended, to one degree or another, to create a victimhood mentality in theology with regard to the poor, women, or colonies.  Typical groups constituting the poor in the Old Testament—widows, orphans, and aliens—are not victim-groups.  If we make such groups out to be victims, then we create a concept of ‘victimhood’ whereby such groups are, as such, righteous.  We enter a world of ‘identity politics.’  We create classes based on how many groups of victimhood we are in (this is now called ‘intersectionality’).  ‘Justice,’ then, becomes a matter of ruling in favour of those within groups holding victim status. 

Biblical justice, on the other hand, treats the poor as vulnerable.  They may be victims of injustice, but not simply because of their belonging to a certain group.  Instead of a protected status, they need protection against those who would exploit their circumstances.  Instead of continuous handouts offered to a group because of its status of victimhood, they are to be given opportunities (such as to glean at the edges of fields) and advocates to help the vulnerable to receive justice despite the power of the strong.  They are not righteous because they are poor, but the righteous will plead the cause of the poor.  Typical of Biblical justice for the poor, we read, ‘Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the LORD will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them’ (Proverbs 22.22-23).  We read, ‘Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause’ (Isaiah 1.16-17).  Biblical justice is not just defensive; it is active in the cause of the vulnerable.  But it is not about the ‘rights’ of certain groups who hold a righteous status because they are granted victimhood status by the reigning tribe.

The reason for this difference is that Scripture consistently sees individuals as sinful.  A Biblical perspective can see women as sinful just as much as men or the poor just as much as the wealthy.  In the latter case, it is possible that wealth has been gained through sinful activity, and it is possible to use wealth sinfully.  However, to the consternation of some, being wealthy does not in itself make one sinful any more than being poor makes one righteous.  The sinfulness of every individual requires a broader approach to social ethics than a focus on groups and their rights.  With regard to groups, however, the Biblical approach to justice is in regard to vulnerability, not victimhood status giving people special status.  A ‘rights’ approach has called for ‘equal rights’ for men and women, but a ‘vulnerability’ approach protects women as the ‘weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3.7).  A ‘rights’ approach has claimed that ‘God is on the side of the poor,’ meaning not that God is concerned for the vulnerability and exploitation of the poor but that the other group, the wealthy, are sinful.  Scripture presents various views about the wealthy, from being blessed by God to being in danger of not entering the Kingdom of God.  This difference can be accounted for when we understand that one group is not sinful and another group righteous but sin and righteousness have to do with the hearts and actions of individuals.




[1] Most recently, see ‘Tribal Victimhood and the ‘New Justice’: A Reflection on the Kavanaugh Hearings’ (25 September, 2018); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/tribal-victimhood-and-new-justice.html

False Testimony, Sexual Violence, and Speaking Out: Some Biblical Texts

The Judiciary Committee’s hearings around the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh raise questions about what the Bible says about false testimony, sexual violence, and the responsibility of victims to speak out immediately.  The following quotations (from the English Standard Version) are offered for reflection.

False Testimony

Exodus 20:16  "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. [The 9th Commandment; so also Deuteronomy 5.20.  Cf. Jesus’ affirmation of this Commandment: Matthew 19.18; Mark 10.19; Luke 18.20.]

Exodus 23:1 "You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

Deuteronomy 19:16-21 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing,  17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days.  18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely,  19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.  20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.  21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Psalm 27:11-12 Teach me your way, O LORD, and lead me on a level path because of my enemies.  12 Give me not up to the will of my adversaries; for false witnesses have risen against me, and they breathe out violence.

Proverbs 6:12-19 A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech,  13 winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger,  14 with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord;  15 therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.  16 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him:  17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,  18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,  19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Proverbs 12:17-22 Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.  18 There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.  19 Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.  20 Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, but those who plan peace have joy.  21 No ill befalls the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble.  22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Proverbs 19:5 A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will not escape. [Also, v. 9.]

Proverbs 21:28  A false witness will perish, but the word of a man who hears will endure.

Proverbs 25:18  A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is like a war club, or a sword, or a sharp arrow.

Matthew 15:19-20  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.  20 These are what defile a person….

Matthew 26:59-61  Now the chief priests and the whole Council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,  60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward  61 and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'"  [Also Mark 14.56-68.]

Acts 6:12-13  And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council,  13 and they set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,

Claims of Sexual Misconduct

Genesis 39:6-20 So he left all that he had in Joseph's charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate. Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance.  7 And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, "Lie with me."  8 But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge.  9 He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"  10 And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.  11 But one day, when he went into the house to do his work and none of the men of the house was there in the house,  12 she caught him by his garment, saying, "Lie with me." But he left his garment in her hand and fled and got out of the house.  13 And as soon as she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled out of the house,  14 she called to the men of her household and said to them, "See, he has brought among us a Hebrew to laugh at us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice.  15 And as soon as he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, he left his garment beside me and fled and got out of the house."  16 Then she laid up his garment by her until his master came home,  17 and she told him the same story, saying, "The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to laugh at me.  18 But as soon as I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment beside me and fled out of the house."  19 As soon as his master heard the words that his wife spoke to him, "This is the way your servant treated me," his anger was kindled.  20 And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined, and he was there in prison.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her  14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,'  15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.  16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her;  17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, "I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity." And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city.  18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him,  19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.  20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman,  21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Speaking Out About Sexual Misconduct


Deuteronomy 22:23-27 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,  24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.  25 "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.  26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor,  27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

Tribal Victimhood and the 'New Justice': A Reflection on the Kavanaugh Hearings

Since the 1980s, Judicial Committee hearings for Supreme Court justices have provided a window into cultural changes in the United States.  The postmodern turn in Western culture involved moving from a modernist understanding of truth as objective to understanding truth as local and constructed.  In modernity’s period, justice presumed the accused to be innocent until proven guilty.  A good judge interpreted the law correctly: there was a belief in the facts of the case and in right readings of the written laws. 

Postmodernity removed the notion of right interpretation based on the meaning of the original authors.  Words could be bent to new purposes.  Laws were freed from the tyranny (!) of the original authors.  This created an overreach of the judicial system into the legislative system of governance, what people now called ‘legislating from the bench.’  What is ‘true’ became what is ‘true for us.’  Meaning would no longer be established by interpreting texts according to their intended meaning; it would now be interpreted according to the significance it had for the present audience.  If the legal system was the product of the wrong system, set up to support the wrong groups, it needed to be bent and twisted to give voice and protection to the newly empowered groups.

Times have changed, however.  We are in a post-postmodern era, an era I have termed ‘tribalism.’[1]  Postmodernity wished to deconstruct the tyranny of controlling interpretations (what Jean Francois Lyotard called ‘an incredulity towards metanarratives’).[2]  Compare the overthrow of Apartheid in South Africa, where the deconstruction of one abusive power did not remove all abuse but only allowed another group to step into the role of abusive power.  Jesus warned, after all, that a person delivered of one demon may well experience possession again by the same demon along with seven other demons.[3]  Postmodernity did not lead to a place at the table for all views; it led quickly to an aggressive preference of particular views over others that were not preferred for their strengths but for the preferences and privileges they afford to particular groups.  Senator Teddy Kennedy’s rant against judge Robert Bork, in his unsuccessful bid to be appointed to the Supreme Court, amounted to a postmodern attack: if confirmed, argued Kennedy, Bork’s rulings would not support certain groups.

A particular aspect of tribalism has, by now, emerged from the shadows.  At first, the form of tribalism was predictable enough: a preference for those groups that had been marginalized in modernity and highlighted in postmodernity.  It then took the form of destroying the authorities of previous eras, whether Christianity (for its once privileged status in the West and opposition to post-religious morality) or figures representing past wrongs in American history.  This involved marches for certain groups, such as the so-called ‘LGBT community’ and tearing down statues of past slave owners.  An even more recent form of tribalism involves casting the newly privileged groups in the mold of victimhood.  The term ‘intersectionality’ has been invented to identify a hierarchy of privilege among victim groups: the group that can claim the greatest number (intersections) of victimization is awarded the highest status.  The very latest form of this trajectory accepts the claim of victim status to equate to truth if it serves the right agenda.  In other words, lying about victim status is acceptable.  Instead of presuming innocence until proving guilty, the presumption is guilt until proving innocent if one is a member of the wrong group (white men in particular).  Unabashedly, around the present hearings for judge Brett Kavanaugh to be appointed to the Supreme Court, numerous people have publicly stated that they automatically believe ‘the woman’ over the man in cases of allegations of sexual crimes.  The accused has to prove innocence instead of the accuser having to prove guilt.

In tribal justice, the other tribe is always wrong.  There is no objectivity that stands above both tribes.  Being from the other tribe in Western tribalism involves being a white person with European heritage versus a person of another colour from the developing world; being a woman instead of a man; being something other than heterosexual; being from another faith than Christianity; being an alien (preferably illegal) than a citizen.  The biggest loser in the world of tribal victimhood is the white, Christian male.  What is more, tribalism always carries a threat of violence.  So far, the violence is mostly in the casting of aspersions, the impugning of character, the suggestion of wrongdoing, and so forth in a context where the outside tribal member is guilty by association.  The guilt or innocence of the individual is irrelevant; what counts is the assumed corporate guilt of the group.



[1] See: ‘The Seven Demons of Western Tribalism’ (28 May, 2016); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/05/issues-facing-church-55-seven-demons-of.html; ‘Public Toilets and the New Rationality of Western Tribalism’ (4 May, 2016); online https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-church-18-public-toilets-and-new.html; ‘The New Tribalism of post-Postmodernity and Christian Mission to the West (23 April, 2016); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/04/issues-facing-missions-today-49-new.html; ‘The Changing, Cardinal Virtues of Western Society’ (8 August, 2017); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-changing-cardinal-virtues-of.html; ‘Abortion, Culture, and the Church: Moving from Questions of Viability to Concerns for Vulnerability’ (5 May, 2017); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2017/05/abortion-culture-and-church-moving-from.html; ‘Modes of Enquiry and the Gender, Sexuality, and Marriage Debate: From Teacher to Lecturer to Dialogue Partner to Tribal Warrior’ (12 September, 2017) https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2017/09/modes-of-enquiry-and-gender-sexuality.html; ‘Understanding Western Culture and the Church’s Mission, in 1,000 Words’ (4 May, 2018); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2018/05/understanding-western-culture-and.html; ‘Conscience and Freedom’ (8 April, 2016); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-church-17-conscience-and-freedom.html.  See also Rollin G. Grams, The Church and Western Tribalism (available for purchase at https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/p/bookstore.html).
[2] Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Theory and History of Knowledge, Vol. 10; University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. xxiv.
[3] Luke 11:24-26  "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.'  25 And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order.  26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first."

The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts