Posts Tagged ‘coercion’

Whose voice? – The Good Shepherd

April 29, 2023

Easter 4 – 2023
John 10:1-10
Marian Free

In the name of God in whom there is no deceit. Amen.

The internet is wonderful in that it gives us immediate access to all kinds of information and connects us with the world at the same time it has made us particularly vulnerable. Even the smartest among us can fall victim to a scam. Internet searches mean that our interests and shopping habits can be detected and preyed upon, and – at least it seems to me – there are ways for someone to discover if we have recently made an insurance claim, a mortgage application or if we have recently had a communication with a child that mentions money and to exploit these situations for their own advantage. During the last fortnight news channels have informed us that scammers are able to make a reasonable approximation of someone’s voice based on a relatively short recording of same.

It would be reassuring if we could be certain that it was only in the secular world that there were people who wanted to take advantage of us, but sadly, there are also charlatans who use religion to coerce the susceptible (and the idealists) into handing over control over their possessions, their relationships and even their daily lives. The documentary Gloriavale, details how one man (Neville Cooper or ‘Hopeful Christian”) convinced people to join his utopian, egalitarian Christian community. Over time, members of the community ceded more and more control to Hopeful, to the point that he dominated every aspect of their existence. Sadly, there are endless examples of charismatic leaders who have convinced their followers that they are messengers of God – often with catastrophic consequences. Jamestown, the Waco Branch Davidians and most recently the starvation cult of Kenya are just a few of the cults that come to mind. People seeking certainty are offered a clear definitive way to achieve salvation are drawn in by the confidence and assurance of the leader and, if and when, they begin to suspect something is wrong, they are so caught up in the propaganda that they are fearful that leaving will cost them their immortal soul – a price that only the brave are prepared to risk.

Religious cults are often exploitative, coercive, and constrictive and their leaders are frequently self-seeking, power-hungry and arrogant people who maintain control over their followers by stripping them of their self-confidence, their financial independence, and their sense of personal worth.

Whether in the secular or religious sphere, scammers and imposters seduce the willing with promises of love, riches, status, well-being or heavenly reward. For those truly. seeking the truth, it is sometimes difficult to determine the difference between the genuine and the false.

Discerning truth from lie, shepherd from thief is a theme that runs through John 9 and continues in John 10. In the gospel it is Jesus’ identity that is in question – is he an imposter or is he a truly sent by God? When Jesus heals the man born blind, the Pharisees (who are locked into their own idea of God) are determined to label Jesus as an interloper, a deceiver, a sinner, whereas the man born blind is willing to see Jesus for who he is – the Son of Man. In response to the Pharisee’s scepticism and their determination to destroy him, Jesus begins a long discourse on the sheepfold and the shepherd. It is a complex argument, and the imagery alternates between gate and shepherd, but at the heart of the argument is the distinction between shepherd and thief, between the one whose voice is genuine and those whose voices are filled with deceit.

In modern terms, the “thieves” (whom we are to assume are the scribes and the Pharisees) are those who try to lead the people of Israel astray, to lure them into danger with false promises and who use their knowledge of the people and the language of their faith to entice and then to control them. Jesus claims that he, not they, is the good shepherd. It is not his goal to coerce; “to steal and kill and destroy”. He has come: “that they might have life and have it abundantly”. Jesus does not demand obedience to outdated religious laws or observance of empty rituals. He is not seeking to control or to dominate, instead he will “lay down my life for my sheep.”

In life as in faith we will hear conflicting voices telling us that if only we do one thing or the other our happiness will be complete, our future will be assured, our salvation will be certain. If we are in any doubt as to whether the voice is of God or not we can be guided by this principle. A voice that is bullying, disrespectful, coercive, and self-seeking, that preaches a message that is alarming or worse, soul destroying, then we are safe to assume that that voice is malevolent and does not have our best interests at heart. On the other hand, a
voice that is humble, encouraging, liberating, and self-sacrificial and has at its heart a message that is uplifting and life-giving then we can be sure that the voice is holy and seeks our well-being above life itself.

The thieves and robbers (Pharisees and scribes) seek to control and coerce. The Good Shepherd (Jesus) seeks to empower and liberate.

Jesus came that we might have life and have it in abundance – nothing less will do.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Good shepherd, John's Gospel | Comments Off on Whose voice? – The Good Shepherd

Scripture should never imprison, love should never hurt.

May 15, 2021

Easter 7 – 2021

John 17:6-19

Marian Free

In the name of God who calls us to love selflessly and unconditionally. Amen.

In the past two years, we have been rightly shocked and appalled by the horrific deaths of Hannah Clark and her children and more recently that of Kelly Wilkinson. Both women died at the hands of the men who had promised to “love and protect them”, both had endured years of abuse prior to making the decision that enough was enough and both were failed by a system that was unable to keep them safe. In recent times, a crisis that used to be hidden (or ignored) because it occurred behind closed doors has become front and centre. The very public acts of violence like the murders of Luke Batty and of Hannah Clark and her children have exposed the extent of the problem and the weakness of the response. 

In Australia one woman every week is murdered by an intimate partner. Many more are locked in abusive or coercive relationships that they find impossible to escape. It is estimated that one in 6 Australian women and 1 in 16 men have been subjected, since the age of 15, to physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous cohabiting partner (ABS 2017b). Despite the statistics, despite public awareness and despite the attempts to strengthen the law and to police it, we seem unable to keep vulnerable women safe and unable to change the behaviour of men who abuse them. 

Historically, and to our shame, the church has often been complicit in the situation. A misunderstanding of the nature of forgiveness, a misinterpretation of scripture and a misplaced conviction regarding the sanctity of marriage has meant that the church has often turned a blind eye to domestic violence and worse, sent women back to their violent partners rather than confronting the partner’s abusive behaviour.

As we have seen with the issue of child sex abuse, too often a church that has focussed on outward appearance has fostered a culture of silence. Our embarrassment and confusion regarding the misbehaviour of our some of our members and our failure to confront what amounts to a misunderstanding of sacraments and the misuse of scripture has meant that not only have we not adequately addressed the issue of domestic violence, but we have created an environment in which women feel too ashamed to admit what is going on behind closed doors.  

For one reason or another in the past and continuing into the present the Bible has been used to coerce and control others. Individual verses have been used to ensure that women know and keep their place within an intimate relationship and to justify the use of controlling and abusive behaviour by men towards their partners. 

Three passages in particular are used to justify the control of or domination over a woman by a man.

The first of these is the creation story. It has been argued that because Eve was created from Adam, she was somehow inferior, and that it was her role to serve Adam rather than to be his partner. What is more, it was believed that because Eve persuaded Adam to eat the apple, women were by their nature both vulnerable andseductive -(as if that wasn’t a contradiction) – and therefore dangerous and in need of control by the more superior man. 

The other two texts come from Colossians and Ephesians. “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (Col 3:18-19) and “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour” (Eph 5:22-33). Both these texts have been used to coerce a woman into compliance and to take responsibility for the violent behaviour of her partner. (After all, she must have behaved in such a way as to provoke such a response.) These verses are probably the source of the language of Holy Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer in which the words “obey and serve” are added to the words of consent said by the woman alone.

All these texts are misrepresented by those who use them to justify violence against women. Yet what sort of God would not only condone, but actually incite violence against women I wonder? 

All our scripture readings have to be seen in context including these. For example, the creation of Eve occurs in the second of the two accounts of creation. In the first God creates humankind in God’s image, male andfemale (Gen 1:26-27). There is no hierarchy here. In the second account of creation woman is created to be Adam’s partner and equal because none of the animals could fulfill that role. (We note that Eve may have taken the apple, but as the story goes, Adam was weak enough to eat it. If blame is to be apportioned, both are culpable.)

The verses in Colossians and Ephesians are conveniently taken out of context – both historical and literal. If we were to read on, the next verse in Colossians says: “Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly” and Ephesians emphasises mutual subjection: “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Misused these minute pieces of scripture have done considerable damage – not only to the lives of those impacted by domestic violence and but also to the gospel itself that has at its heart a message of love, respect and empowerment, regardless of gender, class or race.

As individuals and as church it is incumbent on us to break the code of silence and to free women (and men) to speak of their experiences without shame or fear of judgement. In order to truly show the love of Christ, we must equip ourselves to respond to occurrences of domestic violence, not only by understanding the issues surrounding it, but also by being able to offer alternative interpretations of the biblical texts that have had such a damaging impact on the lives of many.

After all, our scriptures should never imprison and love should never hurt.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in John's Gospel | Comments Off on Scripture should never imprison, love should never hurt.

“Blind unbelief is sure to err”

April 18, 2020

Easter 1 – 2020
John 20:19-31
Marian Free

In the name of God whom Abraham confronted, with whom Jacob wrestled and with whom Job argued. Amen.

“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
I would like to say that I don’t want to contradict the gospel, but those who know me would know immediately that that was not true. So I will be honest and say that, however pious they sound, these words – purported to be the words of Jesus – are at best coercive and at worst abusive – especially when they are used to bully people into believing or to dismiss as unbelief questions or doubts in relation to faith.

I could give many examples of the way in which this text is misused and abused. This is clearly illustrated in a story that I hope I haven’t already shared with you. Some years ago, I attended a conference on Spirituality, Leadership and Management. The keynote speaker devoted a large portion of his talk denigrating Christianity, while at the same time using the images of the Christian faith to expound his own theories of wholeness and life! Later that evening as I was wandering around the conference venue, I met another attendee, Jack, who asked me what I had thought of the speaker. I responded by saying something to the effect that I felt that it was unnecessary for him to be so disparaging of the Christian faith. Jack’s response took me completely by surprise. He explained that he had attended an Anglican Boy’s School and that as a teenager he had taken his faith very seriously. He was however confused by a number of things, in particular belief in a virgin birth. He finally plucked up courage to ask a teacher to explain. Instead of taking the question seriously or entering into discussion, the teacher simply responded that Jack had to accept the virgin birth as a matter of faith.

As he recounted this experience, Jack’s eyes filled with tears. He had been made to feel that his faith was inadequate. His question had simply been dismissed. The failure of his teacher to honour his question and to engage with his doubt had hurt him so badly that some 35 years later the hurt was still evident. Having been made to feel that his faith was not sufficient, Jack had simply stopped trying to believe. His tears were evidence that this loss continued to be a source of grief and that his exploration of other forms of spirituality had not (at that point) been able to fully mend the hurt or to fill the void.

I cannot recount this story without feeling angry on behalf of Jack and on behalf of all who, having found some aspects of the Christian faith challenging, confronting or simply improbable, were denigrated or silenced – usually as a result of ignorance, insecurity or, dare I say, a lack of faith on the part of the responder.

You will note from today’s gospel that Jesus’ response to Thomas’s incredulity is quite different from that of the teacher in Jack’s story. In Thomas’ absence, Jesus had not only appeared to the disciples, he had also shown them his hands and his side. In other words, he had offered them the very proof that Thomas sought, he had made it easy for them to believe. I’m sure that many of us can relate to Thomas’s disbelief. Someone who has been dead for three days doesn’t simply appear in a locked room! Thomas’ imagination simply could not encompass something so incredible – perhaps his friends had seen a ghost. He, like them had to see and touch in order for him to comprehend that Jesus was not dead but alive.

Jesus does not denigrate or dismiss Thomas’ questioning. He honours it. Not only does Jesus appear a second time, but he invites Thomas to see and to touch. Then Thomas does what the others have not – he acknowledges Jesus as his Lord and God – becoming the first of the disciples to do so.

To believe that God expects unquestioning faith and obedience is to misread both the Old and the New Testaments. When God threatens to destroy Sodom and all its inhabitants, Abraham dares to challenge that decision and when God appears to Jacob at night, Jacob wrestles with God till dawn. Moses has the impudence to tell God that destroying the Israelites will ruin God’s credibility in the eyes of the surrounding nations and Job questions why God would take away his family, his possessions and his dignity. Even the prophets have the nerve to challenge the wisdom of God’s decisions and Jonah in effect says to God: “I told you so.” In fact, as Sister Eileen Lyddon points out: “the Jews in the Old Testament questioned God frequently and vigorously.” Even Jesus has a moment (albeit brief) of wondering if God’s way was the only way.

God does not respond to these questions, challenges and doubts with anger or even with disappointment. God does not dismiss or disparage those who do not conform or those who refuse to accept God’s way blindly and without thought. God’s response to each (with the exception of the sulky Jonah) is one of acceptance and indeed of respect. God does not demand blind obedience and God does not scorn, denigrate or coerce. The opposite is true. Biblical evidence confirms that God honours the doubters, the questioners and the challengers. God is worn down by Abraham and finds a worthy match in Jacob. God heeds the challenge of Moses and God does not think any the less of the prophets for all their doubts, criticisms and questions.

God meets us where we are; encourages and affirms us and, as a result, draws from us not blind faith, but a relationship built on trust, respect and love. God comes to us and reaches out with scarred hands, hands that have fully identified with the human condition and in response we can only declare (without threat or coercion) that Jesus is indeed: “Our Lord and our God.”

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Easter, Thomas | Comments Off on “Blind unbelief is sure to err”

Free to follow

January 20, 2018

Epiphany 3 – 2018
Mark 1:14-20
Marian Free

In the name of God who redeems and liberates us, but who always allows us to chose our own way. Amen.

I don’t need to tell you that by their very nature cults are insidious, abusive, controlling and soul destroying. In most cases they are established by individuals who are seeking to somehow empower or prove themselves by gaining control over others, usually under the guise of having some deep wisdom or spirituality to impart. Followers are often drawn in by a leader’s charisma or their own insecurities. These insecurities are then played upon to the extent that the followers will do whatever the leader suggests – abuse their children, engage in sexual acts with minors, murder the innocent or take their own life. Once they have fully embraced the “values” of the cult, members will try to convince others to join the group – the group grows and the cycle continues.

The Moonies for example, seem to target the lonely and the vulnerable (often young people traveling alone) and then use forms of mind-control (lack of sleep, suggestion, manipulation, drugs) to convince them that the cult has the answers to all life’s problems. They make it clear that if a member questions the teaching or the methods used to persuade others to belong that their own salvation is at risk.

It can become very hard to leave a cult. Those who have previously subscribed to the teaching can find it extremely hard to admit that they were wrong. If they leave the group they will almost certainly lose contact with their families and their friends. They will hav no form of social support and very likely, as a result of their time out of the world, will have no means of economic support. In some instances cult members are become so convinced of the rightness of the cult, or made to feel that outside the cult they are damned that no amount of rational argument will persuade them that they are better out than in.

In Australia, the cult known simply as The Family administered LSD in its purest form to teenagers in order both to subdue them and also to gain information from them that made it easy to manipulate them. It also allowed cult leaders to bend the youngsters to their will. With the collusion of doctors, nurses, social workers and lawyers, its founder Anne Hamilton-Byrne was able to “adopt” new born children and to whisk them away from hospitals without going through the proper channels. These children grew up believing that Anne was their biological mother.

What was it that made educated, professionals follow? What was it about Anne and her husband that led such people to behave in ways that were not only illegal, but that were also contrary to the ideals and codes of their professions? What hold did Anne have over educated professionals that they could justify to themselves their collusion in child abduction and in the shocking abuse of the children in their care?

What is it that makes people follow? What draws them to a particular person or set of beliefs? What leads them to forsake the norms of their society, to abandon friends and family and to accept as normal behaviors that are controlling and abusive? I’ll leave the psychologists to answer that.

It is interesting to note just how different Jesus’ approach is to that of those who establish cults. To begin with, Jesus has no intention of forming a cult (or even a sect within Judaism). Jesus’ goal is to proclaim the good news, to announce the Kingdom of God and to encourage people to ‘repent’ (turn their lives around). Jesus does not target the vulnerable, the lonely or the distressed. In fact the opposite is the case. Those whom he heals are free to continue living as they have before. (Neither the Syrophonecian woman nor the Roman centurion are urged to convert though both were in a very distressed state when they sought Jesus help.) Jesus doesn’t need followers to affirm him, to enrich him or to cover up his insecurities. Jesus’ goal is to empower and enrich others, to enable them to live life to the full. Jesus is confident enough and secure enough in his own person that he doesn’t need to resort to manipulation or subterfuge to gather followers or to subject them to his will.

Today’s version of the calling of the first disciples is quite different from that of John’s gospel that we heard last week. The call of the fishermen is the one with which we are more familiar. There was something about Jesus. Whether you take today’s account or John’s account, Jesus appears to have been able to inspire and energize others, to draw them out of themselves to their true calling. Without any attempt to pressure, without resorting to making them feel guilty, Jesus inspires Peter and Andrew, James and John to leave everything and join him in his task. Rather than take anything from them Jesus, as we shall learn, empowers his followers to do what he does. Instead of taking all the glory and power for himself Jesus shares not only his ministry, but with it the ability to teach, to heal, to cast out demons.

Rather than focusing on himself and placing himself at the centre of his movement, Jesus always and continuously points away from himself towards God.

It is true that many have used Jesus and his teaching to engender guilt, to manipulate others and to subject them to their will, but the true Jesus, the one whom we see in today’s gospel, has no need of coercion, does not seek power over others and nor does he induce feelings of worthlessness. The true Jesus recognises the strengths and weaknesses of his disciples, accepts them for who they are and frees them to be his voice in the world. The true Jesus knows us, accepts us and uses us to be his presence in the world.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Mark's gospel, Saints, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Free to follow

A lesson in letter-writing

January 19, 2014

Epiphany 2 – 2013

1 Corinthians 1:1-9

Marian Free

In the name of God who reveals Godself in many and varied ways. Amen.

1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 1Cor. 1:2   To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: 1Cor. 1:3   Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus,  5 for in every way you have been enriched in him, in speech and knowledge of every kind—  6 just as the testimony of Christ has been strengthened among you—  7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.  8 He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.  9 God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

John and Joan McFee have great pleasure in inviting Mark and Mary de Angelo to the wedding of their daughter Susan Maria to Joseph Anthony on July 31st at St Margaret’s Church, 4 George St, Marland, at 4:00pm and afterwards at Maryville Reception Centre, 23 Victoria St, Marland. RSVP July 17, 33458687.

Times have changed, but when I was at school children were taught how to write letters – personal letters, business letters, job applications, wedding invitations and replies and so on. Each form of communication had its own style. Even the form of letter closure differed according to how formal the letter was and the relationship between the writer and the recipient. It did (and does not) not make immediate sense that personal letters were signed “yours sincerely” and formal letters with “yours faithfully” but that is how it is done. These days there is a lot more flexibility. Text messages and emails have created entirely new and less formal styles of writing. Some forms such as Job Applications still have very structured formats – possibly even more structured than previously. So rigid are these styles that consultants exist to assist people in writing their CVs and job applications.

Given that in our more informal world we continue to have set formats for at least some style of letters, we should not be surprised that the Greek world also had criteria for writing different forms of communication. It is important to understand these forms when we read the letters in the New Testament. Paul’s letters exhibit a uniformity of style because Paul is using the letter-writing format common to educated people of his time. That said, there are some immediately obvious differences between first century Greek letters and twenty-first Australian letters. Our form of letter-writing might have an address at the beginning but with some exceptions (wedding invitations) the author is generally not identified until the end of the letter – “yours faithfully, Marian Free”. When we write a letter, we usually begin with an address to the recipient – “Dear Sam”. Greek letters reverse this pattern and begin with the name of the author and some means of identifying that person. In the letter to the Corinthians we read – “Paul, called to be an Apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God”.

Unless we use a line that indicates what the letter is in regard to, the reader has to wait for the body of the letter to discover why we have written. In Greek letter writing and certainly in the letters of Paul, the greeting prepares us for what is to follow. In his first letter to Corinth, Paul appears to be laying claim to his authority. Not only is he “an apostle of Christ Jesus”, he is an apostle by “the will of God”. This provides much more detail than is provided in the first letter to the Thessalonians which reads very simply: “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy”. It is only as the letter progresses that we understand that Paul is drawing on his God-given authority in order to pull the Corinthians into line. No doubt the Corinthians were immediately aware of the tone that Paul was setting. He is making it clear that he is an apostle and that his authority comes directly from God.

Having begun with an introduction to the author, the letter introduces us to the recipients. Again, if we compare 1 Corinthians with 1 Thessalonians, we notice a significant difference. The Thessalonians are addressed quite simply: “To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. The letter to Corinth includes much more detail:  “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” Compared with the Thessalonians where the address is purely descriptive, here there is not only more detail, there is a degree of flattery. Those in Corinth are described as “sanctified, called to be saints” what is more, they are skilfully connected with all the other believing communities,  “together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” How do we explain the difference in detail? Is it because the lives of the Corinthians exhibit a deeper spirituality than those in Thessalonica? As we read on, this conclusion seems unlikely. The letter reveals that the Corinthians are a divided congregation who compete with each other and whose members engage in immoral behaviour. A more plausible explanation for the long greeting is that Paul, who will later castigate this community, is using both flattery (saints, sanctified) and coercion (with all who call on the name of our Lord). Paul uses flattery because he wants them on side, open to what he has to say. At the same time, he is drawing on the practices of all the other churches to pull them into line, to make them conform.

As you can see, already, in just three verses, we suspect that Paul has something difficult to tell the Corinthians and that he will use the example of other churches to pressure them to change their behaviour. Paul follows the introduction with a standard greeting: “Grace to you and peace.” Paul adapts the usual greeting (charein – hello) to a term associated with the gospel (charis – grace) and adds the Semitic greeting of peace (shalom).

In most letters, the greeting is followed by a Thanksgiving. This serves to get the reader on side and to ensure that they are receptive to what is to follow. (The absence of a Thanksgiving rings alarm bells. For example, there is no thanksgiving in the letter to the Galatians. As we read that letter we can see that Paul has nothing for which to be thankful – he is very angry.)

Again, the content of the thanksgiving provides an introduction to the content of the letter as a whole. In this instance Paul says: “you have been enriched in him in speech and knowledge of every kind”; “you are not lacking in any spiritual gift”. As we read on, we cannot help but wonder if Paul is being sarcastic here. The Corinthians it seems put a great emphasis on wisdom, knowledge and spiritual gifts. They think that they have already achieved some sort of spiritual perfection (“Already you are rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings!” 4:8). In chapter 12, Paul tries to put their spiritual gifts into perspective – no gift is more significant than any other. Over and over again, Paul confronts the arrogance of the Corinthians, their belief in their own wisdom and knowledge and the fact that they compete with one another in areas of knowledge and spirituality. The refrain: “Do you not know?” is used repeatedly in Chapter 6 in which Paul exposes the fact that they do not know. “Do you not know the saints will judge the world?” Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” (6:2,3) and so on.

A good way to begin to understand Paul and his letters is to read the Greetings and Thanksgivings of his letters and to identify the similarities and differences between them. In so doing, it is essential to remember that Paul did not set out to write theology. He wrote letters to communities of faith, communities that – with the exception of Romans – he himself founded. Paul’s intention and deepest desire is that these communities share his faith, his knowledge of God and Christ, his conviction that faith in Jesus leads to freedom and that a life that is Spirit-led is a life that most closely conforms to the will of God. What is amazing is that these letters that were written to encourage, to chide and to correct, express the most profound theology and that over two thousand years later, these letters have become an integral part of our Holy Scriptures. Not before or since has one person’s letter-writing had such a profound effect.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in 1 Corinthians | Comments Off on A lesson in letter-writing