Questions and Answers

[rj_anderson]

Q: What would you say if you met Jesus [here on earth, in an everyday setting, and he appeared just as an ordinary man]?

A: I've spent nearly a week thinking about this now. I think that if I met Him on the street, and actually knew for certain that it was Him, I would not be able to say anything right away because I would be flat on my face. It wouldn't matter that He didn't look glorious or superhuman; just knowing who He was would be enough. And when I could speak (if I could get past the tears), I would say, "Lord, forgive me. You loved me so much you died for me. I owe you everything. And I've given you nothing."

Q: What do you think of people of other religions, or agnostics, or atheists?

A: I think they are human beings like myself, many of them more intelligent, better educated, and more generous to others than I am. In fact I am quite sure that among those groups there are any number of people whose kindness and sensitivity and general good behaviour puts me to shame. If human beings could earn God's favour by doing good works they would no doubt be a lot further ahead than I.

However, I also believe that like me they have a conscience and a general awareness of right and wrong, and that like me they have all violated their consciences and done things they knew or believed to be wrong, not just once but many times. And so I also believe what the book of Romans says, that before God all men are "without excuse" and that none of us can enter heaven or gain a right relationship with God in our own merit. I believe that every one of us, regardless of nationality or culture or creed or personality or number and nature of sins, is in desperate need of a Saviour and that Jesus Christ is the only One who can save us.

At the same time, I also believe that if our hearts are genuinely searching for the truth about God and crying out for Him -- if we are faithful to whatever little light we have -- then it doesn't matter where we are or who we are, God will give us what we need to find Him. Whether that means meeting a missionary on the road or finding a Gideon Bible in a hotel room drawer or any of a million other, subtler things, I can't say; but I do believe that God is faithful and merciful and just, and He will not turn away from anyone who genuinely wants to know Him, nor will He condemn anyone who does not deserve it.

Q: What is your favorite hymn?

A: I've always loved "Be Thou My Vision", but more recently I've fallen in love with My Song Is Love Unknown, to the gorgeous tune "St. John (Calkin)", which unfortunately The Cyber Hymnal doesn't have so I can't link to that. The words are there, though.

Q: What's your number 1 fanfic pet peeve?

A: Bad characterization. And by "bad" I mean "I do not recognize this character as being in any way connected to the one I know from canon, except for a few incidental similarities." The phenomenon is by no means limited to badfic, either.

Q: What's your middle name / What does the J. stand for?

A: Joan. It's my mother's name.

Q: What colour are your eyes?

A: Blue-grey with yellow rings around the pupils, but they can also look green or brown depending on what I'm wearing.

Q: Coke or Pepsi?

A: Coke, but I don't really drink either. I'm not big on carbonated beverages; more of a Snapple gal.

Q: Have you hugged your muse today?

A: Well, I tried, but the only one who hugged me back was Malcolm. The others either looked at me askance, or went stiff, or threatened me with bodily harm. Sigh.

If anybody has any more questions feel free to stick 'em in the Comments section; I'm game...

Comments

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

I love Love Unknown (http://www.allsaintsgodshil.free-online.co.uk/hymns.htm) (Is St John the usual tune in the UK, because it's that that's on the midi file I've linked to?)

Thanks for your answer. It's an interesting insight.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Alas, that's still not the right tune. There appears to be no MIDI file of "St John (Calkin)" on the net, at least not that I could find. I'm surprised, because I'd never even heard any of the other tunes (or knew that there were so many alternate tunes for the hymn) until today... guess I just have a weird hymnbook. :)

[kalinalea.livejournal.com]

Enjoyed this immensely.

"Be Thou My Vision" is one of my favorite hymns as well. I particularly enjoy Twila Paris' rendition of it and have a tendency to hit the back button on the CD player until the rest of the family rises up in protest and insists on something else!

At the same time, I also believe that if our hearts are genuinely searching for the truth about God and crying out for Him -- if we are faithful to whatever little light we have -- then it doesn't matter where we are or who we are, God will give us what we need to find Him. Whether that means meeting a missionary on the road or finding a Gideon Bible in a hotel room drawer or any of a million other, subtler things, I can't say; but I do believe that God is faithful and merciful and just, and He will not turn away from anyone who genuinely wants to know Him, nor will He condemn anyone who does not deserve it.

We were discussing this in Sunday school just last week and came to roughly the same conclusion. It is a difficult point for me, as a Christian, because I do believe that Christ is the way to salvation but have trouble imagining God condemning those who have never had the opportunity to know Him. It also causes discomfort when I take stock and realize how very little, really, I'm doing to spread that message.

And now a question of my own, to a fellow mother of small children: When do you find time to write? When is your most productive writing time, and are you able to accommodate that somehow or do you squeeze it in when you can? Do you ever have guilt over time you spend writing/reading/online? OK, that was three questions, but they're all related :)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I particularly enjoy Twila Paris' rendition of it

I haven't heard that one. I have a version of "Be Thou" done by the Irish Christian group Iona, but it's to a different tune.

I do believe that Christ is the way to salvation but have trouble imagining God condemning those who have never had the opportunity to know Him.

Well, when I look at the Bible I see so many examples of people in the most unlikely circumstances who were found by God because their hearts were open to Him. Look at Abraham, from Ur of the Chaldees (a hotbed of idolatry if ever there was one); Rahab the harlot, from the doomed Canaanite city of Jericho; Ruth, the Moabitess; the Ethiopian eunuch, etc. So I think the idea that a genuinely seeking heart will always find God, even if that person is buried deep in the jungle, is very Biblical.

And yet, though the Bible is full of foreigners and pagans and members of other religions who came to God, it was always on God's terms and not their own (or the terms of the cultures and religions they came from). They still had to come through the "narrow gate", as it were. It's not as though God made two ways of salvation, one for people who grew up hearing about Christ and one for people who didn't. So I don't think that the hypothetical person in the deepest darkest jungle who can't read, has never heard of the Bible and knows nothing about Christ is going to be saved by virtue of his ignorance; rather I think that if he really wants to know God then God will lead him out of that ignorance in some fashion, even in ways that might seem to us exceedingly unlikely or indeed miraculous. (If that makes any sense.)

Romans 1 & 2 seem to put paid to the notion that there might be someone in the world who is sincerely and completely ignorant of God, or who knows nothing of right and wrong and never had a chance to know any differently. If we aren't condemned by the Law then we're condemned by our own consciences; if we've never read the Bible we've still looked into the book of God's creation; so "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" (3:9).

It also causes discomfort when I take stock and realize how very little, really, I'm doing to spread that message.

*nods glumly*

And now (finally) to the Q&A part:

When do you find time to write? When is your most productive writing time, and are you able to accommodate that somehow or do you squeeze it in when you can? Do you ever have guilt over time you spend writing/reading/online?

Well, it's a lot harder for me to write now, with two kids, than it was when I just had the one. I wrote most of D&L while Nicholas (#1) was napping or in bed. However, Nicholas stopped napping when he was two, just before Simon (#2) was born, so even though S. is a good napper I still lose those hours to looking after N.

If I want to get any serious writing done at all (as opposed to just blogging or chatting or whatever) I pretty much have to do it after 7:30 p.m. But of course, I'm usually pretty tired by then... you may have observed that I'm writing pretty short and unambitious stories these days!

I don't really feel guilt over the fact of spending time online, only that I often waste a lot of time clicking around brainlessly and reading useless junk when I could be doing something more productive. During the daytime I often browse LJ and blogs while nursing Simon, and write my e-mails and other responses while S. is sleeping and Nicholas is watching TV or playing in the backyard. As for writing and reading books, I've never felt guilty about that. Unless, of course, I'm reading or writing something that I know full well I shouldn't...

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

And yet, though the Bible is full of foreigners and pagans and members of other religions who came to God, it was always on God's terms and not their own (or the terms of the cultures and religions they came from). They still had to come through the "narrow gate", as it were. It's not as though God made two ways of salvation, one for people who grew up hearing about Christ and one for people who didn't. So I don't think that the hypothetical person in the deepest darkest jungle who can't read, has never heard of the Bible and knows nothing about Christ is going to be saved by virtue of his ignorance; rather I think that if he really wants to know God then God will lead him out of that ignorance in some fashion, even in ways that might seem to us exceedingly unlikely or indeed miraculous. (If that makes any sense.)

You might find the Mormon belief interesting on this one. We believe that everyone gets at least one chance to hear the gospel and accept Christ. For those who never get that opportunity in this life (like those in the deepest darkest jungle), that opportunity will be given to them in the next life. They still have to accept, and repent, and do things the way Christ would do them, but they *can*. No one is doomed to hell through the mere misfortune of their birth.

Of course, we can't know who has truly had the opportunity to accept the gospel here or not; it is not in our power to judge. So we'll keep trying, because *this* life is the time to prepare to meet God, not the next. But I think it's a very comforting thought that those who die without ever knowing Christ are not eternally lost, unless they choose to be.

Re:

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize that Mormons believed in reincarnation. Interesting.

Given the statement in Hebrews that "it is appointed unto a man once to die and after this to face judgment," however, I don't believe the Bible itself (i.e. apart from the Book of Mormon or other sources of Mormon doctrine) supports the idea.

Still, if God does not condemn the righteous with the wicked (an assertion that's made as early as Genesis 18), and if all human beings everywhere have sufficient opportunity to know God in this life but consciously choose to either pursue or suppress the truth revealed to them (Romans 1), then there's no need for a second chance, as it were...

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

Umm. I'm afraid you misunderstood me. Must be that annoying Mormon terminology. When I said "the next life," I meant the afterlife-- heaven, hell, the spirit world, the place we go after we die. Not that we are sent back to earth to make up for mistakes we made in this life. No, that wasn't the point at all. :)

So, when I talk about spirits being given the opportunity to accept Christ in the next life, I am talking about, essentially, missionary work in hell. Our belief in this doctrine is centered on modern revelation-- specifically, teachings of Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith. But there is some justification for it in the Bible, namely in the first epistle of Peter. There it mentions that Christ, after the crucifixion and before the resurrection, "preached unto the spirits in prison" (see 1 Peter 3:18-20), and in the next chapter Peter again mentions that "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6).

In our own scripture, we have several scriptures that bear up this idea. The first is found in Doctrine and Covenants 137, which is a vision given to Joseph Smith in 1836. He saw the celestial kingdom, which you would probably know as heaven, and saw father Adam and Abraham, and his father and mother and his brother Alvin there. Alvin had died before the Church was restored and had not been baptized, so Joseph was puzzled as to why he would be there. Then "came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died withoug a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have recieved it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts" (D&C 137:7-9).

Another key scripture for us concerning this doctrine is found in D&C 138, which is a vision given to Joseph F. Smith (Joseph Smith's nephew and the 6th president of the church) in 1918. He had been pondering those verses from Peter which I quoted above, and had a vision of the afterlife and the visit of Christ to the spirits in prison. Here's the most relevant passage: "And as I wonder, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them; But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and reveive the gospel. Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets" (D&C 138:29-32). Later in the chapter he says this: "The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receieve a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation" (58-59).

Continued. . .

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

Continued from above. . .

The scripture you quoted in Romans doesn't contradict this. I believe you're referring to Romans 1:18-20? Notice that those who are "without excuse" are specifically those who "hold the truth in unrighteousness," or those who have been given the truth and reject it. In that case, you're right, there are no second chances. But I'm not really talking about second chances here, I'm talking about first chances-- those who never had the opportunity to either accept or reject the gospel in this life.

This post is already long enough, but perhaps this following quote might clarify. It's from Joseph Fielding McConkie, who was my religion teacher at BYU this last semester, from a book caled Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions. The question he's responding to is "Will it be harder or easier to embrace the gospel in the spirit world?" Here's his answer:

"If God is just, then all of his children must have an equal opportunity to accept or reject the gospel before the Day of Judgment. As Latter-day Saints, we know that those who did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life will have it in the spirit world before they are called forth from the grave. These, Peter said, will then 'be judged according to men in the flesh' (1 Peter 4:6). This statement means that the standard of discipleship is the same in this world and in the next.

"In a revelation given to Joseph Smith, we learn that there was a law, 'irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated' (D&C 130:20-21). There is no place that we can go to escape the laws of God or their effects. Those laws applied in our premortal life, they apply in mortality, and they will apply in the spirit world and in the eternities to come. The God we worship is 'infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them (D&C 20:17)'. When the scriptures speak of an everlasting gospel, they are describing a gospel that is everlastingly the same (see D&C 27:5; 101:39).

"In principle it should be neither easier nor harder to exercise faith or to repent in the sprit world. Were that not the case, those in that estate could not be judged according to men in the flesh. For some it will be natural and easy to accept and live gospel truths, for that will have been the practice of a lifetime. For others it will be very difficult to do so, for eschewing the things of the Spirit will have been the practice of a lifetime. The difference is not in the gospel but in the hearts and souls of those to whom the message is being presented.

"We must allow, however, for circumstances in which people were prisoners to experiences in this life that prevented them from having a fair chance to embrace gospel principles here. When they are freed from those bitter chains, many of them will seek the blessings of the gospel" (97-98).

Anyway, I hope that clears up where I was coming from with my comment. Sorry to take up so much room on your LJ, I hope you don't mind. I love these kinds of discussions. :)

Re:

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. That makes more sense -- I'd been wondering about this mysterious Mormon doctrine of reincarnation I hadn't known about. :)

Alas, I don't think it would be a good idea for me to get into a prolonged debate about this issue, since I don't have the time to give it the attention it would require, and I would rather focus on other theological questions I think more important at this point. Briefly, then -- I know you're not likely to agree with me on this, but I don't believe the Bible verses you quoted are teaching the same thing that the passages you quoted from the Mormon Doctrines and Covenants are teaching.

Peter's comment about "them that are dead" makes more sense in the context (including the whole context of Scripture) as a reference to the gospel being proclaimed to people who are dead now but were not dead at the time the gospel was preached to them -- i.e. the patriarchs and other faithful believers prior to the earthly advent of Christ. And the verse about Christ preaching to "the spirits in prison" admits of a wide variety of possibilities, none of which I would feel comfortable building a doctrine on (particularly since the passage in which the phrase occurs doesn't do so -- not that doctrine, anyway).

Also, there are so many other Bible verses that emphasize the necessity of receiving Christ in this life, and the urgency of spreading the good news of salvation through faith in Christ to all nations, I find it difficult to believe that there is a "second chance" after death...

[wahlee-98.livejournal.com]

Gah. Don't have time to answer you right now, and of course you don't feel like debating it, but just let me say that:

1) *No* teaching we believe in as Latter-day Saints is compeletely, or even partially founded on the Bible. Every single thing we believe in traces its roots to Joseph Smith and modern revelation. We love the Bible, it teaches of God and Christ. But you know and I know that it is interpreted so differently even in mainstream Christendom that quoting chapter and verse does not necessarily mean that everyone, or even anyone, will agree with your interpretation. Now, I don't expect you to believe my church's intepretation of those verses in 1 Peter-- if you did, you'd be a Mormon, wouldn't you? :) But just know where I'm coming from when I say that a doctrine doesn't need Biblical proof for me to believe it.

2) We believe in the importance of accepting Christ in this life and spreading the gospel as well. Of course we do! Good grief, we ask every worthy young man to give up 2 years of his life to serve an unpaid mission in order to get the word out! D&C 88:81 says that "it becometh every man who hath beem warned to warn his neighbor," and Alma (in the Book of Mormon) says that "This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors." So how can I say that missionary work is important and that this life is the time to prepare to meet God and in the same breath say that repentance is possible in the life to come?

Simple. There is no possible way that we can reach everyone. Even if we were to preach every day for the rest of our lives, there is no way we can tell every soul who has ever lived on the earth about the gospel. Those who have the opportunity in this life to accept the gospel, and yet reject it, have no second chances. They may accept the gospel in the next life and repent, but they can never receive the fulness of the blessings they might have had if they had accepted it here. Only those who, through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity to hear the gospel *and would have accepted it if they had* will become the heirs of salvation. So really, it isn't a second chance for them. It's a first chance. Only God can judge the thoughts and intents of their hearts, and only God can decide if they would have accepted it. Only God can decide if they were given a fair opportunity in this life. So we preach, and we teach, and we do missionary work in more than 150 countries. We want people to be happy in *this* life. We want them to have joy *now*. As happy as knowing that people can still be saved in the next life makes us, we want people to know the joy of the gospel here and now.

God's justice is perfect, and so is His mercy. A God who would allow a child to be born and die without a knowledge of Him, and then consign her to everlasting misery because of the accident of her birth, is neither a just nor a merciful God. On the other hand, a God who gives every person, no matter where or when they were born, the opportunity to learn of Christ and to accept Him as their Savior, is both just and merciful.

Alright, I'm done. Thanks for reading.

Re:

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

God's justice is perfect, and so is His mercy. A God who would allow a child to be born and die without a knowledge of Him, and then consign her to everlasting misery because of the accident of her birth, is neither a just nor a merciful God.

Quite true. But as I mentioned before, the book of Romans makes it abundantly plain that every one of us does have the knowledge of God -- sufficient knowledge to make us accountable to Him, and indeed sufficient knowledge to condemn us if we choose not to respond to the spiritual light He has given us.

The fact that some people on this earth have more knowledge or access to knowledge about God than others is undeniable; that does not prove that some people have no knowledge of God and therefore no responsibility.

a God who gives every person, no matter where or when they were born, the opportunity to learn of Christ and to accept Him as their Savior, is both just and merciful.

Quite so. And I believe in a God who, being both omniscient and omnipotent, is perfectly capable of giving that opportunity to people here on earth, in this life, if they want it. As I said before, there are abundant Biblical examples of God doing exactly this for people who would otherwise never have known about Him. But on this earth and in this life, not post-mortem.

In any case, the real issue at stake is not what God is going to do with some hypothetical virtuous pagan in the jungles of Irian Jaya, but what we in North America are going to do given that we do have full and ready access to God's Word and the good news of Jesus Christ. Too often the question "What about Person X in Country Y?" is used to dodge our own responsibility. But the Lord's answer to that is the same as He gave to Peter: "What is that to thee? Follow thou Me."

[yin-taku.livejournal.com]

wow.... that was absolutely the most intelligent / non-obnoxious-and-arrogant thing i've ever heard about the subject of a christian's view towards those of other beliefs. thank goodness there's still people like you around in the world! ::bows to anderson-san:: you are amazing, both in your hp fanfics and in your expression of beliefs. i'm glad that the world i'm growing up in isn't totally hopeless. ^^

Re:

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[(Anonymous)]

Hey, thanks for answering my question!
I hope it's not too presumptuous of me to carry on. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, indeed it's usually me who's trying to defend some Christian attitude or other to people I know. Also, you said you felt guilty about not doing enough to promote the message, so here's your chance: I am a Christian, though a somewhat skeptical one. :)

What if you are an atheist, because you have deliberately rejected the teachings of the Christian society you have been brought up in? Not as a way of justifying acts of sin, but because you honestly believe the existence of God is just implausible? Then, if you live your life generally according to Christian values, and obeying your conscience, is your entry into heaven blocked because you never appealed to Christ to redeem you from your small sins? Does the same apply to people of other religions who seek God but find Him in their own faith? Or must it only be the Christian faith?

Also, while I'm here, another, more obvious question. What's your favorite character in a book, ever? :)

~Chresimos

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Interesting question(s) -- I've been thinking for a while about how best to approach this, because it has many angles and I'm not sure I can cover them all adequately in a small space...

I think what I'd say first of all is that the problem in humanity's relationship with God is not so much our sins -- the number of bad deeds we do -- but rather the fact that we are sinners. In other words, the root of the difficulty is in us, in the very attitude of our hearts to God. Even if we could perfectly control our outward behaviour, we would still not be free of the problem, because sin is in our thoughts and attitudes and motives as well. The Lord made this plain in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), but it's also in the words God spoke to Samuel in the Old Testament -- "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."

Furthermore, God is completely holy, righteous and perfect; He cannot look on sin with favour, or fail to judge it -- much less allow anything tainted with sin to dwell eternally in His presence. So even if there were a person who had only ever committed one sin in their lifetime, they would still "fall short of the glory of God" as Romans describes. They would be very impressive and admirable to their fellow human beings, but they would still be unable to stand in the presence of God's utter and complete holiness.

In that sense, there is no such thing as "small sins". Some sins are more obviously destructive and hurtful than others, some are more flagrant and grotesque than others, some are more obvious to the outside world than others, but in fact the sin the Bible condemns most strongly is one which is almost entirely private and personal -- pride.

Sinners of every other kind may repent and be forgiven, but pride inevitably drives a person away from God. Pride is what causes us to say to ourselves, "I don't need God, I don't believe in God, I can do great things and show myself to be a good person without God." Or the pride may take a subtler, theistic form, leading us to believe that by doing (or not doing) certain things or observing certain rituals or being a member of a certain religious group, we can make God our debtor and obligate Him to let us into heaven. Pride makes us think that God ought to play by our rules, and judge us no more strictly than we would judge ourselves. And as long as we have that mindset, there is no way we will accept God's offer of free salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. Why should we, when we're so sure we can save ourselves?

So, to directly answer your question, the morally upright atheist or the devout Buddhist or the idealistic pagan is in precisely the same position as everyone else. Regardless of how many sins they have (or haven't committed) or the philosophy to which they subscribe, they are still responsible to respond to the glimmer of spiritual truth God has given to them in nature and in their conscience. That glimmer of truth is enough to make them seekers of God's truth and eventually lead them to Christ, if they are willing -- but if they willfully choose to suppress that knowledge and remain in a state of self-reliance, they will have to suffer the judgment of a righteous God against their sins.

Sin must be judged, punished, and paid for. The question is, who's going to take the judgment, receive the punishment, and do the paying? If we don't accept Christ as our Substitute, then we must take the punishment ourselves. No religion, no philosophy, no code of good behaviour can address the problem of sin in our lives and hearts, much less cancel it out. But as Paul said to the Corinthians, "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation".

Sorry for the verbose answer. But I hope it addresses your question(s)!

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Oh, and my favorite book character, ever? That's a really tough one. Off the top of my head I really don't think I can choose... I'll have to think some more about it.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi again, and, again, thanks for answering my questions. Interesting response. I'm afraid I can't give any kind of useful or lengthy reply, as I'm no theologian, but I do appreciate the time you spent composing it. :)

Secondly, I hope you don't mind my constant commenting on your LJ. I do it because I know people in general like feedback, and so if I have a thought, I'll oblige and write it down. If it irks you, let me know.

Finally, is it only Bible study that interests you? As it happens I've been delving into the world of Medieval Christianity, in which I've found some passages that reminded me a little of one your above replies. It's random, I know - but sharing information is a good thing, isn't it?

~Chresimos

Re:

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Sorry it's taken so long to reply to this... no, I don't mind your "constant commenting" at all. I love comments. Bring 'em on!

As for study, I'm interested in theological matters generally (right now I'm reading an in-depth critique of Calvinism, for instance), but right now I'm really focusing on Bible study proper... if you felt like typing the quotes in, though, I wouldn't mind reading them. :)

My Song is Love Unknown: St John (Calkin)

[(Anonymous)]

I was pleased to find the very beautiful hymn, My Song is Love Unknown, set to tune by John Baptiste Calkin on http://www.hymnal.net/ in the section of "Classic Hymns".

In the Redeemer,

R. Watrous

Re: My Song is Love Unknown: St John (Calkin)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much! I've bookmarked the site.