Steven Chalke, Sedes Doctrinae and Same Sex Sins

It's time for another edition of Fighting for the

Faith, Thursday, January 17, 2013.

I've literally spent almost two days working on this episode of Fighting for the Faith. And with two days preparation,

I'm still of the opinion that I don't know if I can pull this off. Thank you for tuning in and listening to Fighting for the

Faith. My name is Chris Rosebro. I am your servant in Jesus Christ, and this is the program that dishes up a daily dose of biblical discernment, the goal of which, help you to think biblically, help you to think critically, help you compare what people are saying in the name of God to the

Word of God. Now, there's a concept I need to teach you.

I've mentioned it many times here at Fighting for the Faith, and this is one of the major principles of sound biblical hermeneutics, or exegesis.

And the idea is this, is that clear passages govern unclear.

Now in Lutheran theology, of course, I'm a confessional Lutheran, so in Lutheran theology, one of the things we talk about categorically when it comes to hermeneutics is something called the

Sedes Doctrinae. Now, I probably messed that up, but it's

Latin for the seat of a doctrine, or the seat of doctrine. So here's the idea, is that when we look in Scripture, there are clear passages, and some of those clear passages end up being like the apex, the archaic passage, for lack of a better way of putting it, the ruling passage that governs a particular doctrine.

And then what happens is, is that people who engage in bad hermeneutics, bad exegesis, and you'll see this especially in liberal theology, is what they'll do is they'll pit biblical passages against each other, but more often than not, not always, but more often than not, what you will see them do is pit a unclear passage against a clear passage, okay?

And so what happens is, is that their thinking is, is that, well, if there's an exception or some kind of, you know, if they can somehow prove that they're unclear passage, it must take the prime seat, must be the passage that comprises the

Sedes Doctrinae. Now, they won't talk about it in those terms. Then what happens is, is that that then becomes their argument and sledgehammer against sound biblical orthodox theology.

And to give you an example, okay, there is a really bad argument floating around out there in liberal world regarding the reason why we need to ordain female pastrixes, okay?

And the idea behind it is this, is that, see, there's this passage in Scripture, and this passage in Scripture, it's

Romans 16, verse 7, mentions an apostle named

Junia. And well, if there's an apostle named Junia, well, why on earth would we not want women to be pastors in our churches?

Now, you'll notice what they're doing. They're taking an unclear passage. And by the way, there is no unanimous consensus, even among the church fathers, as to whether or not the

Junia mentioned in Romans 16 is a guy or a girl, okay?

No unanimous consensus. There are church fathers who say it's a dude. There's some that say it's a woman.

And then the question rises, well, what is meant by apostle? Because that, you think you understand what that term necessarily means, but there was no apostles on the same level as Matthew, Peter, James, John, those guys, and the

Greek phrase itself there can be translated a couple of different ways.

And so the issue is what they're trying to do is they're trying to take an unclear passage, one that is obscure, that has some weird problems with it, and then make that the primary verse, the

Sede Doctrinae, and then interpret all of the other passages in light of that one.

Actually, they don't even do that. What they'll do is they'll then reject all of the others, okay?

And yet the other ones couldn't be more clear, okay?

First Timothy chapter two, verses 12 through 13 and other passages like that make it clear that a woman is not to be in a position of authority over a man, that they're not to be teaching in the church.

And when the apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives his argument as to why that is, in the apostle

Paul's mind, you can argue this way, the Sede's Doctrinae is

Genesis two, okay? That's where this all flows from. So all of this is to kind of get to where we need to go today, and that's this.

If you're going to rightly handle God's Word, sound biblical hermeneutics is not something subjective, it's not something arbitrary, and it's not something that is done in a way that basically runs roughshod over the text using really bad biblical hermeneutics.

Now, all of this is to kind of introduce one of the major topics we're going to be talking about today.

Now, there's a really good chance I'm going to mess this up, but in the

UK, there's a gentleman by the name of Steve Schalk, I'll just call him Schalk, even though maybe the

E is pronounced, maybe it's Schalky, I don't know. But I've decided I'm going to make the E silent today because I am not sure necessarily how to pronounce his name, but I'm going to make the

E silent, and if it's not silent, you can email me and I'll correct it in future episodes of Fighting for the

Faith. But he's making quite a furor in the

UK because he's supposedly an evangelical leader who just this week has posted on Christianity .com

in the UK, a website there, an op -ed piece basically arguing in favor of blessing, same -sex, monogamous relationships and unions.

And what you find there, when you take the time to pay attention to his argument and what he's doing there, you find that he's engaging in a very arbitrary and subjective hermeneutic, and that's causing him to come to the conclusions that he's coming to.

But see, Steve here has a habit, and a bad one at that, of employing this same faulty hermeneutic against the biblical doctrine of penal substitution.

Back in, I think it was 2008, there was quite a furor over the fact that he just came right out and just blasted the doctrine of penal substitution in one of his books, and then there was a flap about it, and then he ended up contributing, he wrote an essay that became a chapter in a book that you can get at Amazon .com

called The Atonement Debate, and the name of his chapter is

The Redemption of the Cross. But what you find when you pay attention to what he's saying is that the culprit in the crime is his faulty, arbitrary and subjective hermeneutic.

So what he's doing is being very consistent in basically undermining, attacking, impugning, deconstructing what the church has believed, taught and confessed from the beginning for the very reason that it's so clearly laid out in God's Word.

And the way he's getting away with this is by employing a faulty hermeneutic that doesn't primarily, and I mean this, that doesn't primarily, in a very disciplined way, make it so that clear passages govern unclear.

In fact, what he does is he takes passages that have nothing to do with, like for instance in his attack against penal substitution, he takes passages that do not give us any theology regarding the atonement whatsoever and turned it into an abstraction and then take that abstraction and bludgeon to death the biblical passages that teach penal substitution.

That's not how you do doctrine. That's not how you do Christian theology or anything like that. In fact, that is a sure and certain formula for wrongly handling

God's Word and making yourself the arbiter of truth. And so what he's doing is very dangerous.

So what I want to do is I want to address that particular thing that he's doing and at least bring it to light so that as people are discussing this, they can make his hermeneutic the issue because it's clear.

It's absolutely clear that, you know, that's what caused him to have a faulty view of penal substitution and has caused him to now do the next thing.

It sounds like Stephen Schalk is similar to, I would liken him to the UK's version of Rob Bell.

I think that's a good way of putting it. And so there's a lot of people in the United Kingdom who are upset about this latest article that he put out.

But see, the thing is, is that this is not any surprise to me at all because he's doing the same thing, the very same thing that Brian McLaren did, that Rob Bell did, that Doug Padgett did, that Tony Jones did.

And that is try to make himself appear an evangelical in the broad sense, while all the while he's been engaging in a faulty, subjective, and arbitrary hermeneutic that has no other choice than to ultimately be like a worm or a cancer that eats away at sound biblical orthodoxy.

This is just the next shoe to fall. And the thing is, if he continues with this faulty, subjective, and arbitrary hermeneutic, which is clearly informed by liberal theology and really bad premises, well, this is just the beginning.

I mean, there's more doctrines that are soon to fall, and the culprit is his faulty hermeneutic.

Now, I would argue that you could go deeper than that, and what he's basically displaying are the traits of a man who claims to be

Christian but doesn't believe what Scripture says. Therefore, that means he's not a

Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. And so we're going to address that today.

And then depending on how the time works out, there's a couple of segments that I want to get to that I think that are similar in this vein.

You know, I've got a Rick Warren's Daily Hope devotional called

The Wise Spend Time With God, and I want to point something out there. And then we may or may not have the ability to get to the

T .D. Jakes thing, but I have a T .D. Jakes update as well where he engages in some very fancy footwork when it comes to attacking the concept of solo scriptura.

And I wanted you to hear it because I think there's a similarity to all of these things,

Stephen Schalk, Rick Warren, and T .D. Jakes. And then in hour number two, we're going to be listening to a sermon from Potential Church, but it's not

Troy Gramling. It's a guy by the name of Dr. Dave Martin. Now, I've mentioned him maybe one other time on Fighting for the

Faith, but at opening up the sermon series that began at the beginning of this year at Potential Church, which is, by the way, they're not really a church yet, they're just a church in potentia, but the name of their current sermon series is entitled

Success in 3D. And I want you to hear this sermon because there's nothing

Christian about it. And what he's doing isn't teaching

God's word. I think all of these things kind of work together to kind of make a bigger point. And that has to do with the sufficiency of God's word, the clarity of God's word, and rightly handling

God's word. So with that, we are going to dive into the program proper. And that requires me to do this.

OK, from the Christianity Today blog and from their Gleanings blog, headline reads

Stephen Shock stuns British evangelicals by coming out in support of same -sex relationships.

OK, this is written by Jeremy Weber. Stephen Shock, one of the most prominent evangelical leaders in the

United Kingdom, has publicly announced his change of belief that monogamous same -sex relationships are not sinful and makes an argument for why churches should support such relationships in the latest issue of Christianity magazine released yesterday.

The magazine's February issue focuses on the Bible and homosexuality. It follows columnist

Shock's article calling for a new Christian understanding of homosexual relationships with ones by theologian in residence,

Greg Downs, unpacking the traditional evangelical understanding of homosexuality. And editor

Ruth Dickinson taking the temperature of evangelical opinion on the subject.

Shock, whose strong views on atonement theology broke up one of Britain's biggest conferences, writes, quote,

I feel both compelled and afraid to write this article, compelled because in my understanding, the principles of justice, reconciliation and inclusion.

Listen to those categories again. In my understanding, the principles of justice, reconciliation and inclusion sit at the very heart of Jesus's messages.

Afraid because I recognize the Bible's understood by many to teach that the practice of homosexuality in any circumstance is a sin or less than God's best.

Some will think that I have strayed from Scripture, that I am no longer an evangelical. I have formed my view, however, not out of a disregard for the

Bible's authority, but by way of grappling with it through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously.

OK, now I'm going to stop right there. OK, like I said, I've been working on this episode of Fighting for the

Faith for a couple of days now. And the reason why is because I think it's important to properly and precisely identify the problem.

OK, so let me go to my primary thesis. Chalke's ideas regarding same sex sins are the direct result of his faulty and subjective hermeneutic.

This hermeneutic, which Chalke describes in his latest article, The Bible and Homosexuality, Part One, first led him to reject

Christ's penal substitutionary atonement. And from there, in a perfectly consistent and predictable move,

Chalke redefined the church's mission and core message and is only now going public and announcing how he's recast homosexuality in light of his new definitions.

OK, now the evidence for this, by the way, comes later in his article. Let me let me read to you what how he defines the church's mission.

Later in that article, he writes, rather than condemn and exclude, can we dare to create an environment for homosexual people where issues of self -esteem and well -being can be talked about, where the virtues of loyalty, respect, interdependence and faithfulness can be nurtured, and where exclusive and permanent same -sex relationships can be supported?

OK, now notice, I'm going to point this out, in saying that, you'll notice what's missing there is any concept that a church is a place where sinners come to hear law and gospel, sin and grace, repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

Instead, he has a different agenda altogether. OK, so church needs to be an environment for homosexual people where issues of self -esteem and well -being can be talked about.

What about sin and the forgiveness of sins? Well, that's right out. And the reason why that's right out is because he denies the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

Let me continue. Here's what he says in the next paragraph. Tolerance is not the same as Christlike love.

Christlike love calls us to go beyond tolerance to want for the other the same respect, freedom and equality one wants for oneself.

We should find ways to formally support and encourage those who are in or wish to enter into faithful same -sex partnerships as well as their wider role as members of Christ's body.

Now, how did he come to this conclusion? Well, again, his hermeneutic, which he's consistent in applying against what the church has believed, taught and confessed from the beginning is what's the culprit.

OK, at another point in his article near the end, here's how he explains how he came to these conclusions.

Here's what he wrote. He says, using my hermeneutical lens, listen carefully to the details. The Bible is the account of an ancient and ongoing conversation where various, sometimes harmonious and sometimes discordant voices contribute to the gradually growing picture of the character of Yahweh, fully revealed only in Jesus.

For more insight on this, read Having Words with God, the Bible is Conversation by Carl Alan Kuhn, endorsed by Walter Brueggemann.

OK, now notice what he's doing there. OK, this is the exact same view of the

Bible that Brian McLaren has. OK, this is a postmodern liberal view of scripture.

OK, so the Bible is an account of an ancient, ongoing conversation where various, sometimes harmonious and sometimes discordant voices contribute to the gradual growing picture of the character of Yahweh.

See, this is a problem. OK, here's what he continues to say. He says, Christianity is not about a book, but about a person.

Who is the Word of God made flesh? On the issue of women or slavery, as just two examples, the

New Testament closes some distance from where even the most conservative Christian now is in their understanding.

The process of understanding the character and will of Yahweh as revealed through Jesus is an ongoing task for every generation.

So he says, here's my question. Shouldn't we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery and numerous other issues and apply it to our understanding of a permanent, faithful, homosexual relationship?

Wouldn't it be inconsistent not to? So notice what he's doing there.

He's basically saying, listen, since the Bible is just, well, let's use McLaren's idea, it's a library of people who've had a conversation with God and in these different voices in this conversation, in this library, you know, the picture of Yahweh has gotten clearer and clearer, but it hasn't stopped.

And so the Bible isn't where we go to find out what the will of God is for now. You got to look at the overarching trajectory of where we've gone in history.

And since we've, you know, obviously, you know, divine the will of Yahweh and getting rid of slavery and women's issues and stuff like that, shouldn't we use that same principle when it comes to same sex marriages or things like that?

Okay. Well, what he's done there is he's basically said, well, we can't objectively know

God's will from the written word of God. So we need a supplemental source.

The supplemental source is what he calls this arc that, you know, this overarching arc that we can look at this trajectory of, of how the gap has closed and things like that.

This is nothing but pure postmodern subjectivity, by the way. Okay. And if that's what you believe, then, well, real simple.

It becomes, Luther described a similar tactic used by the papists, the Roman Catholic church of his time in basically using tradition, you know, basically saying, oh, well, we know this doctrine is true because it's not written in the

Bible, but because it's in the church's tradition. Okay. He called tradition a magic hat.

Okay. You can pull any old doctrine you want out of there. Same principle applies here. You know, he's talking about this trajectory that, you know, since the, the close of the canon, since the close of the

New Testament that we can look at and see, we can apply these principles now to divine the will of Yahweh.

Well, this is a magic hat. You can pull anything you want out of here. I mean, you could turn around and make the argument, well, shouldn't we make this, you know, shouldn't we apply these same principles, you know, regarding monogamous and committed relationships between men and children?

You see, you just pull anything out of that magic hat using this principle, right? Because no longer is scripture the judge, is

God's word, the norm, the canon, the rule by which we judge these things.

Now we're outside of scripture. We've abandoned it, jettisoned it while all the while saying, oh, but it's authoritative on some level.

And we take it seriously, but then the weight of the argument rests on something subjective and outside of God's word.

You see what's going on here? So, um, let me, let me read a little bit more here. He says, so what are we to make of the kind of fancy exegetical footwork, which can allow in spite of the one

Timothy two argument from the order of creation, one approach to the role of women in church leadership while rejecting the acceptance of faithful same -sex relationships because it would overturn a creation ordinance.

Now, what he's doing right there is pointing to the hypocrisy of those in the church who on the one hand say, oh, we can have female pastors, but we're not going to bless same -sex relationships.

The reality is, is that the two both have their sedes doctrinae in the exact same text, and that is

Genesis two. Okay. And so here he's pointing out the hypocrisy of evangelicals who are pushing for and vying for women's ordination and at the same time rejecting monogamous same -sex relationships.

The reality is if you're going to be consistent, the two go together.

Okay. Which is one of the reasons why I firmly believe that some of the strongest voices out there in the visible church for blessing same -sex marriages are from female pastrixes.

Okay. Because the two actually go together. The two work together and they have, both of them have the same core passage as the thing that we should be looking to as to why we shouldn't have female pastors and pastrixes and why we should not be blessing same -sex marriages.

Okay. The point here is you got that. Okay. Now I want to point this out. This historically what

Chalk is doing is exactly the exact same tactic that he employed in the same hermeneutic that he employed in order to get rid of the penal substitutionary atonement.

Let me quote to you from his book, The Lost Message of Jesus. And here's what he says. This is from page 182.

He says, the fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse, a vengeful father punishing his son for an offense he has not even committed.

Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.

Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement that God is love.

If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetuated by God towards humankind, but born by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus's own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil.

And I'm going to stop right there. Notice what he did just in that little quote, he demonstrated his really error prone and completely subjective and arbitrary and false hermeneutic.

Okay. So what he did is he says, well, we've got a Bible verse that says God is love.

Therefore, because God is love, it's the cross as penal substitutionary atonement is completely, doesn't make any sense.

Well, the passage that says that God is love doesn't say anything about what

Jesus was doing on the cross, nor does it reveal the theology behind the atonement.

Okay. In order to know what was going on at the atonement, you have to look for the clear passages that govern.

Okay. So what he's done is he's taken the word, the phrase, God is love, basically made it an abstraction regarding love.

Okay. And said that if the cross is an act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind, but born by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus's own teaching regarding love your enemies.

Well, when Jesus said, love your enemies, it has nothing to do with the cross per se.

And by the way, it flies in the face of the clear passages. Okay. Let me give you a couple of these clear passages just so we understand what's going on here.

For instance, okay. Isaiah 53 is one of the passages that is clear and governs our understanding of what

Jesus was doing on the cross. The reason for this is because Isaiah 53 itself deals with the subject of Jesus's suffering and death.

Okay. Here's what it says in Isaiah chapter 53, who has believed what he has heard from us and to whom has the arm of the

Lord been revealed for he grew up before him like a young plant and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no former majesty that we should look at him and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows acquainted with grief.

And as one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. Yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted, but he was pierced for our transgressions.

He was crushed for our iniquities. Upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace.

Now I'm going to stop for a second here in verse five. It says upon Jesus. This is who it's referring to. Upon him was the chastisement.

The Hebrew word here is musar, musar, and literally chastisement means punishment.

Okay. That is a legit translation of that. Okay. It's something that is a punishment, a beating of, you know, you get what's going on here.

So the idea is, is that it's perfectly legit and it's in accord with what the clear passages say, to say that Jesus was punished or chastised for our transgressions, for our iniquities, and that the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds, we are healed.

Now notice this Isaiah 53 gives us clear, clear, clear doctrine and teaching regarding Christ's crucifixion and death on the cross.

Okay. But according to Steve Chalk, he rejects what this passage says, because he's taken another passage of scripture that does not actually tell us the theology of the atonement and says, we have to reject what

Isaiah 53 says, because there's a verse that says, God is love. And there's another place where Jesus says, love your enemies.

Well, see, the thing is, is that when we look at other passages that pertain to what Jesus was doing on the cross, we learn that love your enemies is exactly what

Jesus was doing. Let me give you another passage. Romans chapter five, verse six.

Here's what it says. For while we were still weak, at the right time,

Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person, though perhaps for a good person, one would dare even to die.

But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Therefore, since we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we now have received reconciliation.

You see what's going on here is that Stephen Schalk has a faulty, subjective, arbitrary, and undisciplined hermeneutic where he arbitrarily takes passages that do not deal with a particular doctrine and use those passages to wipe away the clear passages that teach what he is offended by and doesn't like.

That's not how Christian theology is done. Clear passages always govern unclear.

So he's flipped this on its head and says, well, because there's a statement that God is love, therefore,

I find that the idea of God punishing in a violent act, you know, his son, which was meant for humankind, that makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching regarding love your enemies.

No, it doesn't. Because the clear passages make it clear that Christ died on the cross for his enemies.

That's how he demonstrates his love for them. So over and again, what we find with Stephen Schalk is that he employs a dangerous, faulty, subjective, and arbitrary and undisciplined hermeneutic in order to wipe out the doctrines he doesn't like.

He did it with the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement, and now he's doing it with the doctrine regarding same -sex sins.

And the end result of all of this? Well, let me read another passage to you that I think has something to bear with this.

Mark chapter 2, verse 15. Now, this is right after he calls

Levi, the tax collector, to be one of his disciples. Verse 15 says, and as he,

Jesus, reclined at table in his house, that's Levi's house, the tax collector.

Many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.

And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

I came not to call the righteous, but to call sinners.

The idea is this. Many people like to point out the fact, yes,

Jesus hung out with, had meals with sinners, but Jesus was there not to hang out with them in the sense where he was affirming them in their sin.

But Jesus in this passage makes it clear that he's there to, as a physician, to heal those who are sick.

That means sick with sin. He is the great physician who sets us free from slavery to sin, death, and the devil.

He is the great physician who comes to us in our sinful and sick condition, and he heals us.

1 Corinthians 6, verse 9, or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor the idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the men who practice homosexuality, that would be the malachoi and the arsenikoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were, and such were some of you.

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Notice here, 1

Corinthians 6 gives us a litany, a litany of all of these different types of sins, right?

And Paul says, and such were some of you, but you were washed.

In other words, Jesus, being the great physician, healed them of their sin sick disease.

And the list of the sin sick diseases includes same sex sins.

What Stephen Schalk is basically calling for the church to do is to tell people, let me use the metaphor of sickness here, to tell people with terminal stage four cancer, that they're going to be just fine.

No worries, nothing to repent of, nothing to be forgiven of.

What he's basically asking the church to do is to not let

Jesus, the great physician, the one who came to heal sick sinners, right?

Because he didn't come for the well, he came for the sick. And basically tell them, it's all right, it's all okay, make yourself comfortable.

We're going to accept your illness. We're not going to try to treat it because that would be offensive.

No, what we're going to do is we're going to talk about your self -esteem and we're going to talk about inclusion and justice and things like that.

But the reality is, is that what he's calling for is not justice, but complete injustice.

Telling people who are sick with sin, rather than calling them to repent and to be forgiven by the shed blood of Christ on the cross, the one who was pierced for their transgressions, the one who was bruised for their iniquities, the one who was literally punished for them, is what the

Hebrew text says, that, oh, no, no, no, you come join our conversation.

And the way he's doing it, again, the culprit, technically it's unbelief. But the means of him doing what he's doing is a completely faulty, arbitrary, and subjective hermeneutic.

Rather than having a disciplined hermeneutic where clear passages govern unclear, he's taken passages that have nothing to do with a particular topic and use those as a club against the clear passages to wipe them out, to get rid of them, and to basically put in place his ideas, which he thinks are more palatable to the culture today.

That's what's going on. And that's why he's wrong and why he must be strongly, forcefully corrected, rebuked, and shown for what he is, a false teacher who himself needs to repent and to be forgiven for his idolatry and false doctrine.

All right, we're up on our first break. If you'd like to email me regarding anything you've heard on this edition or any previous editions of Fighting for the

Faith, you could do so. My email address is TalkBackAtFightingfortheFaith .com or you can subscribe on Facebook. It's Facebook .com

forward slash PirateChristian. Follow me on Twitter, my name there, at PirateChristian. Quick break and when we come back,

I'm trying to figure out which story I want to go with, might do the T .D. Jakes one. We'll be right back. I've got to make a decision during the break.

Stay tuned. Relevant shmelovans, we preach

Christ crucified for our sins. You're listening to Fighting for the Faith. You're listening to Pirate Christian Radio.