Christian Science Reading Room: On Being Wrong

On Saturday mornings I take my son to coding classes about 40 minutes away from our house.  The classes last 2 hours and during that time I try to find something useful to do.  Sometimes I go for a walk or a run.  Other times I find myself at a diner typing away on a keyboard.  One particular day several weeks ago, I found myself visiting a nearby Christian Science Reading Room.

Their room was on the upper level of a two-story building that held a variety of shops and offices.  I opened a see-through glass door and stepped in.  An older man sat behind a counter.  He greeted me with a strong Boston accent.  After a short conversation, I was shown a place where I could study, reflect and write if I wanted.

I sat down in a comfortable chair and began to type on my computer.  After a few minutes, I looked around the room.  I took notice of the brochures and books having to do with Christian Science.  There were several books about treating addiction, depression and suffering from abuse.  There were also books about the faith.  One was about how Mary Baker Eddy discovered Christian Science.  Another argued that Christian Science wasn't pantheism.  I began to look through the literature.

After looking at various brochures, it occurred to me that I'd never read Mary Baker Eddy's book Science and Health. A copy sat on the table.  I picked it up.  The book surprised me. I was expecting to read that all of my physical ailments were illusory. I was expecting the unsophisticated style I might find in the Book of Mormon - no offense to the Latter Day Saints.  That's not what I found.

The first thing I noticed was that Mary Baker Eddy was a fine writer. I didn't have to trudge through her words. She communicated clearly and interestingly.  Moreover, many of the ideas she communicated were deep spiritual truths that are found at the heart of many religious traditions, especially those that embrace mysticism.  Eddy was a mystic who almost certainly got some of her ideas from Hinduism.

I realized as I was reading through the book that Eddy's focus was on spiritual health more than on physical health.  She did believe in physical healing, but much of what I read focused on being spiritually healthy. After reading enough to have my perceptions challenged, I returned to the counter to discuss my question with the Bostonian. "You know," I said, "I've always thought that you folks believed that faith will make you physically healthy. I'm reading this book and I'm beginning to think that maybe I misunderstood."

He explained that while they do believe in physical healing and that faith does tend to make people healthier, that they don't believe faith necessarily heals the body the way that their critics often assume. He told me that they focus primarily on spiritual health, but that they believe that spiritual health often translates into physical health. At this, he pointed to recent research indicating that happier people tend to live longer.

After some time, I left the Reading Room to pick my son up from his coding classes.  On our way home, I reflected on my mistake. I should have known that my assumptions about the Christian Scientists were biased. I should have thought to pick up their book and at least look through it years ago. More than that, I should have been aware that the nuances of different religious beliefs are usually lost on their critics. We often fail to understand each other. I should have known better.

How I Became a Humanist #13: The Bible, the Churches of Christ and Christian Unity

The Bible and the Churches of Christ

In a recent post, I talked about how understanding chapters, verses, concordances and the printing press challenged my faith in Church of Christ dogma - and most Evangelical dogma.  It all appeared anachronistic (the view didn't make sense from a historical perspective).

As I continued to learn how to read the Bible, my faith in Church of Christ dogma was challenged in other ways.  Most importantly, I realized that the foundation assumption of the Churches of Christ was false.  We teach that the First Century Church was a perfect church.  They believed the right things.  They practiced ritual correctly.  And God was happy.  We seek to mirror their beliefs and practices.  We do this largely by reading Paul's letters to those churches.

Here's the big problem with all of that.  Paul is usually writing to these churches because of their imperfections.  He's writing to correct them.  If they needed correction, then the First Century Church wasn't perfect.  And if we're going to be like them, we're also going to be imperfect and need to be corrected.

What's more, when Paul writes these letters, he addresses the imperfect believers as brothers and sisters.  He doesn't assume that imperfection equals disunity.  Church of Christ founders would have agreed with that perspective.  While they emphasized doctrinal correctness, they fellowshiped ecumenically.  For the last century though, this hasn't been the norm.  Instead, the Churches of Christ excommunicate not only other denominations, but also churches within their own community for disagreements over how best to share communion or whether or not Power Point is biblical.  I wish I were making this up.  Oddly, the church obsessed with doing things in Bible ways is approaching unity and division unbiblically.

The Bible and Christianity

When I learned to read the Bible with a focus on books rather than specific messages, I also began to see that different books in the Bible contain different, even competing theological perspectives.  I recently discussed how Genesis tells us to welcome foreigners.  Ruth has a similar message.  Nehemiah has a competing message - "don't intermingle with those who aren't your kind."  Most of the Bible isn't all that concerned with women as people, Luke is almost obsessed.  He was the 1st Century version of a Marxist Feminist.  I'm not kidding.  Is there a Gospel story about a poor person? There's a 80% chance it's in Luke.  Is there a story about a woman?  There's a 90% chance.  Is there a story about a woman who gives her two pennies?  That's definitely going to be in Luke.  Obviously, I like Luke.  The other Gospels, however, don't have the same emphasis on women.  The Gospel of John isn't even all that concerned about the poor.

This may not seem like that big a deal.  If one Gospel omits a perspective, the others have it.  But, that wouldn't have always been true.  In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the church in a particular city might not have all of the Gospels.  They might only have Mark and Luke, but not Matthew and John, for example.  Each of these books was on a scroll.  The earliest churches didn't have whole books of the New Testament.

Knowing all of this, I read the Bible differently.  I saw a variety of nuances not only in the messages given by a single author in a single book, but in the complexity of the messages within the Bible as a whole.  I began to understand that the messages aren't simple black and white rules.  The Bible isn't a rule book or a constitution.  It's a multitude of genres of literature written by a variety of people who didn't always agree about the nature of God.  They disagreed not only about what was most important to God, but even whether God wanted one thing or another from us.  The Bible often raises as many questions as it does provide answers.  It might be easy to look at Genesis or the words of Jesus and say, "we should welcome the stranger."  But the Bible also warns us about people who are different from us.  The Bible as a whole forces us to take both perspectives seriously.  Used well, it shouldn't be used to beat each other up.  It should be used to facilitate conversation and understanding that might lead to consensus.  And when that doesn't happen, we should at least be reassured by the text that the people who came before us didn't always agree either.

Glen Bernie Church of Christ (Non-Institutional)

For years, I've wanted to attend a non-institutional Church of Christ.  I finally made the time.  This was different from visiting other religious groups, I knew what to expect more than I knew how to behave.  I wanted to ask honest questions without starting a debate.  Even now, I'm not sure if I succeeded.

As I pulled into the building I noticed a sign saying just "CHURCH of CHRIST."  Notably, it didn't say Glen Bernie Church of Christ.  I walked into a small foyer that wasn't exactly meant for socialization.  There was enough room for coat racks, entrances to restrooms and a few billboards, but it was clear that the building wasn't a social area.  I didn't see classrooms or a fellowship hall while I was there.  I don't think they have them, but I could be mistaken.

In the foyer, I noticed plenty of literature.  Most of it was what I would have typically expected in a Church of Christ.  There were pamphlets concerning the errors of other churches' doctrines.  There were some about instruments, others about Mary.  The literature generally carried this theme, "we're the right church because we believe the right things which we get only from the Bible."

The Churches of Christ distinguish themselves from other Christian denominations by claiming that they everything they do is sanctioned by the New Testament.  They claim that this isn't true of other churches.  Many of their members believe that the only way to be a true Christian is to organize their beliefs and practices around verses that come straight from the Bible.

They had pictures of their members - this is a common thing in the Churches of Christ.  I couldn't tell you where the tradition comes from.  They also had a missions board.  There was a time when missions boards were common in Churches of Christ.  I remember seeing them all the time as a child, but I hadn't seen one like this in years.  The church supported more than 15 missionaries around the globe.  They could afford to do this because their pulpit minister didn't take a salary, "he has enough money," one of their elders explained.  Another member told me that they preferred not to pay their ministers.  My guess is that both statements are true.

The service was like most Church of Christ services.  They sang acapella (without instruments).  The men led the service while the women sat quietly.  In most Churches of Christ, women aren't even allowed to pay offering plates or communion trays.  During the offering, they announced the visitors were not expected to donate.  During communion, which the Churches of Christ share weekly, they read a lot of scripture.  I'm not used to seeing this in mainstream Churches of Christ, but their message was similar to the one I'm used to, "Do this in Remembrance of me."

Throughout the service, I couldn't help but notice the diversity in the congregation.  The congregation was about 1/3 black and the black members of the church led the service as much as the white members.  I've never seen this in a Church of Christ; they are usually somewhat segregated owing mostly to history.

After a few more songs, there was a scripture reading.  The whole congregation read together.  This is the second time I've seen something like this in a congregation with a large number of black Christians.  Is this a part of their tradition?  Is this something one sees more frequently on this side of the country?  Or is it an odd coincidence?  I have no idea.

Eventually, one of the elders began to preach.  His preaching style was different from anything I've ever seen.  More than anything, he read scripture.  He must have read 3 or more chapters of scripture total during his sermon, commenting on a particular topic here and there.  He didn't jump around from one verse to another, which is what I'm used to seeing in Churches of Christ.  Instead, he read large swaths from each section he chose.  He was a good reader.  The overhead projector helped the audience follow along.

The service ended like most Churches that grew up in the 1800s revivalist traditions do.  There was a call for people who believed to be baptized.  The elder didn't threaten hell, but warned of the possibility of hell for those who left the building without being baptized.

I didn't get to socialize the way I normally do after a service.  I was in such a rush I forgot to get pictures.  I talked with the elder who'd spoken for a few minutes, but it wasn't the sort of engagement I usually experience at a church.  I couldn't tell you why.  Was it me?  Was it them?  Was it the structure of the building itself.  Architecture shapes the personality of a community.

One of the few things that really stuck out in the conversations that I did have was their pride in not having a pantry for the poor.  This particular issue came up several times when I asked them what was special about their church.  "We don't have a pantry."  It was explained that Christians were supposed to do good in the world, but that the Church's job was simply to preach the Gospel.  It's difficult for me to understand a theological position that allows for purchasing several projectors or flat screen TVs, but does not allow for a pantry for the poor.  I'm also uncertain how allowing members to collaborate by donating to a pantry is a bad thing.  I wouldn't even bother to mention it, but aside from being biblical based, it was the one thing that was mentioned to me at least three times during my few conversations.  They were proud of their lack of a pantry.  They were proud of the fact that, as a congregation, they are do not help the poor.  

How I Became a Humanist #12: How to Read and Understand the Bible #4

You'll meet people today who don't like Mark Twain, because sometimes he uses the work n***** in his books.  Of course, Twain was anti-racist for his time, but it can be hard for people to understand this because the word is so jarring to most modern ears.  It's easy to judge Twain by our standards today.  It's easy to forget that his books were written a particular point in time, and that to understand what he means, we have to understand his time to some degree.  This is true of all literature.  All literature is written in time by people from that time, at least originally to people from that time.

Let's talk about Genesis 1-3.

In many churches, Genesis chapter one immediately raises questions concerning science and religion.  "What does Christianity teach about evolution?"  Christians disagree about this, with Evangelicals usually stating that the earth was created in six days and more importantly believing that humans are not apes.  Theological liberals tend to believe in evolution and don't think the Genesis 1 narrative ought to be taken literally.

For now, I'm not interested in writing about evolution as a topic.  Instead, I'd like us to imagine reading this text before Darwin and any of his immediate predecessors.  In fact, I'd like us to imagine reading the text during the era it was written, a time before monotheism was common.  Normally, I've had people read the text before, but today I'd rather people follow along in the text as they read.  I'll point things out as we go.  To see everything well, you'll need a literal translation for this text.  I recommend using an NASB.

The first thing I want to do is to take a look at the days of creation.  I'll list them here, feel free to check it out for yourself.  Notice how the items in column A tend to match the items to their right in column B.


       Column A                                                                   Column B

DAY 1). Light and Darkness                                            DAY 4). Sun, Moon, and Stars

DAY 2). Sky and Ocean                                                  DAY 5). Birds and Fish

DAY 3). Land and Plants                                                 DAY 6). Animals and Humans

We don't normally see the days laid out like this, but take a good look.  In Genesis 1, God creates an environment and then fills it with stuff.  He paints the background, then animates it.  The days in each column correlate with one another to make this point.  One might think that the plants on day three are an anomaly, but that's only because we as removed from hunting and farming.  You can't have animals and humans without have plants first.  It's a different way of thinking than what we're used to, but the logic follows throughout the text.

Let's look at a few other things.  As you read through the text, notice the all-inclusive language.  In the NASB, the word "every" appears 11 times.  The word "all" also appears several times in the text.  It's important to the writer than the readers of the text understand that "God made everything!"  This message is lost on us, because most of us either believe in one God or zero Gods.  We don't understand why someone would bother to tell us that God created everything.  This wasn't true when the text was written.  Polytheism was once the religion of the day.  In polytheism, one god might have created the sky and another god might be responsible for the sea.  One god is responsible for the moon and another for trees, etc.  (For it's time, this was an incredibly controversial story, even among the Israelites who often worshipped Ba'al and other gods).

We see further evidence for this in the term Greater and Lesser Light.  A dynamic translation fails us here, using the term Sun, Moon, and Stars, but if you know anything about polytheism, you know that people used to worship these thing.  Their names were the names of Gods.  If you're attacking polytheism, you probably don't want to refer to these terms by the names of God, because you don't want your audience to think you're saying, "God created other gods."  So, in Egyptian, you wouldn't say, "God created Ra (the sun)."  You'd say God created the Great Light, removing the false god's name.  To a polytheist, referring to the Sun as a great light would have been more controversial than saying Happy Holidays during Christmas is to some American Evangelicals.  What's happening in this text was incredibly controversial for the time it was written.  Apparently it worked, since most of us aren't polytheists.

-You might ask, "would these be the names of gods in Hebrew?"  Yes, because Hebrew was a dialect of Phoenician.  In fact, El wasn't just worshiped by the Israelites.  El was the head of the pantheon throughout the Levant (what most Christians think of as Palestine).-

Genesis 1 was originally intended to defend monotheism in a polytheistic world.  What does that say about whether we should apply the text to the discussion concerning evolution?  You might expect me to say that it means that we shouldn't do it.  Clearly, I wouldn't do it.   But, I don't know that it's fair to expect this from every tradition of Christianity.  A text can have more than one meaning.  Even if the most important meaning isn't a literal one, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't also interpret the text literally.  Instead of saying that Evangelicals shouldn't interpret this text through the lens of evolution, it's better to say that they should be aware of the text's original context.

Zeus and other Gods.  In ancient times polytheism was the norm.  This is one reason why the Jews like the Persians (they too were monotheists).

My hope in writing this is that readers will understand that the historical context of the Bible matters when we read it.  The writers and original readers were asking different questions than we are.  Understanding that will help us access meanings in the text we might not otherwise have access to.  However, I can't fairly say that people shouldn't find more than one meaning in a set of scriptures or that people can't see meaning there that I don't.

I do hope that I have at least bridged some understanding between theological liberals and conservatives in writing this post.  They don't take the same approach when interpreting scripture, but if you can understand why the other party is interpreting it differently the conversations go a lot better.  It becomes easier to see each other as people seeking the truth, rather than heretics who have no concern for the truth whatsoever.  It's also easier have conversations if we understand each other's perspectives.  

Ethiopian Orthodox Church: Part 1

I walked into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church filled with excitement.  My experience with the Orthodox tradition is limited and here I was meeting with a Church that could trace its roots back to the earliest Christians.  Their history diverges from Roman Christian early enough that their Bible looks slightly different from ours, with several books that Churches which grew out of Roman Christianity don't use.

You may wonder what I mean by "Roman Christianity."  I mean to say that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church split from other churches before Rome had completely fallen, long before the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox had split from one another.  They split before the New Testament canon was completely closed - although they do have all 27 of our books.

I was also curious because the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was supposedly started by Ethiopian Jews.  The Kingdom of Ethiopia had a relationship with Israel and Judaism from ancient times.  The Ethiopians continue to claim that they hold the original Ark of the Covenant.  The place they claim to keep it is well guarded.  These claims are not without their critics.  It is, nevertheless, clear that Ethiopia and Jerusalem had some kind of relationship that goes back further than historians can quite validate.  It's does not seem impossible that their claims are true.

I had no idea what to expect at the service.

As I struggled to find a place to park, I noticed a number of people walking towards the building.  A significant portion of them were wearing white, but not all of them.  The women had the tops of their heads covered.  I wonder if most Americans looking at them would have confused them for Muslims.

I walked into a small crowded foyer.  I waited at the back for a moment.  The service, according to the website, wasn't supposed to begin for another 15 minutes, but it had already begun.  I guessed it had something to do with Lent.

After standing at the back of the foyer for a minute, I determined that it would be fine for me to work my way through the crowd, so I did.  A kind woman asked me if I would like to head into the service.  I answered in the affirmative and she found a young man to lead me into the service.  Noticing that everyone in the service had taken their shoes off, I took mine off too.

The young man took me to the front of the auditorium where I sat shoulder to shoulder with the men sitting on either side of me.  The men and women sat separately.  The men sat in the aisle on the left.  The women sat on the right.

So much of what I saw reflected Eastern Culture: covering the head, removing the shoes, separating men and women.  It reminded me of the Mosque and of the Sikh Temple.  I don't think most of the members there would have said that these things were necessary for salvation.  The people I talked to seemed to understand the difference between culture and religion (to a degree that shocked me).  Still, these are the ways that people from these cultures recognize sacred spaces and sacred moments.  What do Westerners do to remind themselves that the time their spending is sacred?  Do we value that?  I suppose it varies from religion to religion and perhaps from person to person.

How I Became a Humanist #11: How to Read and Understand the Bible #3

In the last chapter, I discussed how to look for themes in sections of the Bible that are bigger than chapters.  I showed readers how to ignore subtitles using the Gospel of Mark.  Today, I want to talk about how some stories in the Bible are placed right next to each other to make a bigger point, and how understanding that can clear up theological misunderstandings.  Let's talk about Genesis 18 - 19.  (Feel free to read along).

In the beginning of Genesis 18, Abraham meets three men.  The Lord is there also.  When Abraham sees them, he runs out to offer them hospitality.  To him, it's urgent that he treat these strangers well.  It appears at first that he doesn't realize that this is the Lord.  After this, Abraham is told that the Lord intends to destroy Sodom because of its unrighteousness.  Abraham begs that the city be spared if a small number of righteous can be spared.  God agrees that if he can find 10 good people there, it will be spared.

Abraham and the Three Visitors

In chapter 19, the men enter the city to meet Lot, Abraham's Nephew.  Lot too goes out of his way to show hospitality to the visitors.  However, citizens of the Sodom don't take kindly to the visitors and intend to rape them.

In Sunday school, I was told that this story was about homosexuality.  There may or may not be an element of that in the story (The Bible does not look kindly on homosexuality).  Nevertheless, that isn't the main point of the story.  Obviously rape and consensual sex aren't the same thing, rape is at least partly about power.  More importantly though is the context in which their attempt to harm occurs.  We just read a story about how Abraham treats visitors.  We are then shown Lot, a man whom God thinks is worth sparing.  Lot treats strangers same way that Abraham does.  Then we're shown exactly why the city of Sodom needs to be destroyed - visitors who are still in their town after dark will be raped, probably to death.

Verse 9 makes all of this very clear.  When Lot refuses to turn the men over to the crowd, they respond by saying,  "This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he' acting like our judge!  We'll treat you far worse than those other men!"  (NLT)  These people clearly mean to harm the visitors.  They also clearly think of Lot as an outsider, even though he lives in the city.  The issue here is their view of outsiders, their view of strangers.

The message, when we look at the stories side-by-side, is clear.  So why do we miss it?  Well, usually we aren't comparing stories side-by-side expecting to find meaning.  We look at the stories as history rather than theology.  We're not asking, "What does this story tell us about God, about morality?"  But, they aren't just history.  Moreover, we often come to the scriptures with questions we want to ask and points we want to prove.  The questions are fine, but points might not be.  The points are especially bad when they distract us from what the scriptures mean to say to us, in this case "don't hate foreigners."

Next time you read the Bible or another similar text, notice stories that are placed beside one another.  Ask, "are these stories related somehow?  Why does the author place them side-by-side this way?  Am I supposed to understand some greater point?"

How I became a Humanist #10: How to Read and Understand the Bible #2

Before studying theology, I think I read the Bible the way most Christians do.  If I read a section about Jesus healing a leper, I thought of it as history.  If I read a story about Jesus' geneology, I read it as history.  I looked at most the Bible as a sort of text book with stories that were more or less chronologically related.  It didn't occur to me that instead the stories might be theologically related, which is why the stories don't always occur in the same order in the various Gospels.  It's also why the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew differs from the one in Luke.  The two authors are making different points.  (I'll explain the difference between the theological difference between the genealogies if someone asks.)

Jesus Heals the Leper

One of the most common ways to see theology at play in the Bible is to observe how stories are placed alongside one another, that is, how they contrast and compare with one another (You don't need to know Greek to do this).  I'll use two examples.  Let's first start with the Gospel of Mark 1:40 - 3:6.  If you want to get the most out of this, read the text before continuing (If you can, read from a text that has no subtitles.)

Notice the following themes in several of the stories.

• Faith: 
• The leper demonstrates faith by saying, "if you will, you can make me clean."
• The friends of the paralytic man demonstrate faith by going out of their way to get to Jesus
• Mercy
• Jesus touches the leper before he heals him (this is technically against the law).  The man probably hasn't been touched by a clean person for years.  Jesus dignifies his humanity before he heals his body.
• Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic man before healing him (again, treating the soul).
• Jesus recruits a tax collector (who worked for the Romans - they were hated as traitors).  Jesus recognizes the outcast (same with the paralytic and the leper).
• Jesus chills with tax collectors and sinners.  He's ridiculed for this - these people haven't straightened out their lives yet.  They're not the picture of charity work that you would put on a poster.  They're sinners.  He dignifies their humanity before they get it right.  He spends time with them before he heals them. 
• Jesus heals on the Sabbath.  Again, he's breaking the law, kind of.  What he's saying is "this person's humanity is more important than protecting our most sacred laws, even the Sabbath."

Jesus Heals the Paralytic (By Jan Luyken)

• Jesus Power
  If you go back even further in the text to 1:21 you see a theme of Jesus' power permeate each story.
• Jesus has power over demons
• He has power over illness
• He has power to forgive
• He has power over the Sabbath
• He even has authority to interpret scripture that the scribes don't.

When we split the Bible up into memory verses and subsections with neat little headlines, we can miss these themes.  We also miss them because we haven't been taught to look for them.  The stories tie together and are generally told alongside one another to bring about a variety of nuanced theological points.

On account of the lengthy section of scripture, I'll continue this topic next week.

Church of Christ Scientists: How Honesty Gains Respect

In my early 20s, I had the opportunity to stop by the Church of Christ Scientist in Rochester, MI.  Here's what I remember.

I walked into an auditorium.  There were two aisles on either side of the auditorium.  Upon the stage in the front of the room stood two podiums, one on the left and one on the right.  The congregation was mostly elderly.  This is true in many churches, but it was more profoundly true here than in most churches.  There were probably about 70 people in attendance.

The church service was predominantly led by women who read from two books.  One was the Bible.  I think the other was Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy.  Up to this point, I've not taken the time to read the other book.  Aside from the additional text and strong female leadership the service didn't strike me as anything particularly out of the ordinary.  I remember enjoying it in a dull sort of way.

Mary Baker Eddy "Discovered" Christian Science

When it was over, I found myself talking to a woman in her mid fifties.  She wore a red dress.  We introduced ourselves and chatted politely about the service.  I explained that I was a theology student from Rochester College down the street.  Eventually, we got around to discussing the Church of Christ Scientist doctrine concerning faith and health.  It went something like this:

Me: Correct me if I'm wrong.  As I understand it, your church teaches that if people have faith that they will not suffer from illness.
Her: Yes, that's true.
Me: Would you also agree that people who have practiced the faith longest tend to be the most mature in it?
Her: I would say that this tends to be true, yes.
Me: It also seems to me that the oldest people in your congregation seem to be in the weakest health.  Does your fellowship have a theological explanation as to why this is?
Her: I don't know.  Honestly, I've never considered it.  Let me tell you something though.  When our denomination was founded, most Christians didn't believe that God acted in people's lives directly.  It wasn't even typical to ask for God to heal people.

Christian Science's Mother Church in Boston, MA (I hope to visit in April!)

I don't remember how the rest of the conversation went.  It was pleasant.  I don't know if that comes out in text, but I could tell that she knew that I was seeking understanding rather than challenging her.

For my part, I was and am impressed by her answer.  She answered kindly and undefensively.  This isn't an easy thing to do when one of the key assumptions of our faith has just been challenged.  My direct questions don't always get kind responses.  More impressively, she explained the historical context of her movement and the value she thought it had given to Christianity as a whole.  It seemed like a mature perspective that reflected not only on her but on her denomination as well.