Jury Duty - Part 1

Much to my surprise, I served on a jury for 5 weeks.  I was surprised because I am an attorney, and attorneys hardly ever serve on a jury, at least in the past, though apparently the times are a changing (a Bob Dylan line).  [It's interesting that though lawyers serve the courts in many capacities, our legal system usually seeks non-lawyers to weigh the evidence at trial.]

The most difficult part of serving on a jury is that you cannot discuss the case with anyone until all the evidence is submitted, and then you cannot discuss it with anyone outside the jury deliberation room until the jury has reached a verdict.  In the meantime, you are hearing all this stuff, and cannot even discuss it with other jurors, at least until all the evidence has been submitted.  And even then you cannot discuss it with anyone outside the jury deliberation room, even with other jurors, since the idea is to only discuss it in the presence of all the other jurors.

Anyway, we finally reached a verdict, so I am now free to discuss the case, which many asked me about during my service, but which I had to say I could not discuss until the jury reached a final verdict.

Basically, this case involved a driver hitting a 15 year old teen crossing a marked crosswalk at between 35 and 40 miles an hour.  The driver claimed he did not see the pedestrian because it was dark, he was driving in a line of about 4 cars or so, and the teen was wearing dark clothing.  He claimed he only saw a blur at the last second.  There was no skid mark on the roadway.  The driver hit the pedestrian on the far driver side of the vehicle where his left headlight was at.  The teen's body crumpled, his head hit the windshield, and then he was apparently thrown 70 feet where his head again slammed into the pavement.

The boy received a concussion, and had no memory of the accident.  His girlfriend, who was then 14 years old, testified she looked before they entered the crosswalk, saw the headlights in the distance, and thought the driver had sufficient time to brake or slow down, and so they proceeded into the crosswalk.

Plaintiff brought in experts who testified that the accident occurred 23 minutes after sunset, during twilight, and that there was still sufficient light from the sky to see the pedestrians.  In addition, the headlights from the car would have provided enough light for the driver to have seen the pedestrians, especially since they walked almost all the way across the front of his vehicle.  The accident reconstruction expert attributed the accident to driver inattentiveness.  He also said it would have been impossible for Leo to have reached the extreme driver side of the vehicle if he had jumped out in the middle of a line of cars.

One witness said it was pitch black, but the jury did not believe her.  It was unclear whether the street light above the crosswalk was on or not.  However, the jury found that the driver had been negligent, since we believed there was sufficient light for the driver to see the pedestrians.  One or two jurors disagreed, but in a civil trial, 9 jurors are needed to reach a verdict, and at least 9 agreed on this.

A tougher decision was whether the teen himself was also negligent.  Though the Vehicle Code says drivers must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, it also says that requirement does not relieve pedestrians from their duty to exercise due care for their safety.  The jury took a whole day to deliberate on this question alone.

The police determined that the accident was due to Leo (the 15 year old teen) not meeting this requirement, not exercising due care for his safety, though they did not write him a ticket.  When they interviewed the 14 year old girl (Alexandra) at the hospital (she received a broken nose, a blow to her head from when it hit the pavement, and minor cuts and bruises), she said they had not looked before they entered the crosswalk.  When asked at trial why her later testimony differed, she explained she was in shock and pain in the hospital that night, and she couldn't recall the events that clearly.  It was only later when she visited the site that her full memory of what happened came back to her.  The jury believed this.

In the end, the jury found that Leo was not negligent.  On this point, I along with 2 other jurors disagreed and voted that he was also negligent.  However, the 9 votes carried the day on this point.  Because of this, we never got to the question of how much percentage of negligence to assign to the driver and how much to the pedestrian (comparative negligence).

Then we turned to the question of whether the driver's employer was liable for the driver's negligence.

 The driver, Almir, worked as a chef-instructor for the Culinary Institute of America (CIA).  Almir had finished work for the day at their St. Helena campus, and was driving to his home in Sebastopol.  Usually, an employer is not liable for their employee's negligence when they are commuting to and from work.  However, the law provides an exception to this rule when the employer uses the employee's vehicle for business uses.  The jury instruction on this had a lot of language about whether the employer required the employee to use his or her vehicle for business, or whether it derived a benefit from the use of the vehicle came to rely on it's use, and whether there was an agreement about this.  The language had a very broad scope to it, so that both the requirement, or the agreement, could be express or implied.  There was a lot of evidence that Almir frequently travelled for the CIA, often using his vehicle, that the CIA benefitted from his travels, reimbursed him for his milage expenses, and at times paid him for his travel time.  The jury did not want to find the CIA liable, but after carefully studying the language of the jury instructions, and reviewing the evidence, the jury came to the tough decision that the employer was liable.  Again, 1 or 2 jurors disagreed, but there were at least 9 jurors to reach this verdict, in which I agreed.

This was a 2 phase trial.  Phase 1 only dealt with liability issues.  All issues about damages was reserved for phase 2 of the trial.  In this part, I only discussed the issues we faced in phase 1.  In my next part, I will discuss the damages issues we faced in phase 2.

Scripture and Tradition

Sermon on the Mount - Carl Henrich Bloch - 1877

Though many often argue about the proper role of both Scripture and tradition, the historical Church teaches that Scripture and tradition work hand in hand together, and cannot be separated.  The Church usually describes this as the coinherence of Scripture and tradition - they exist in essential relationship with each other, as innate components of the other.  Yet, at the same time, the Church has always insisted that tradition must submit to the final authority of Holy Scripture.

This view might surprise many Christians who either reject or belittle tradition out of a mistaken notion that sola scriptura (Scripture alone) means Scripture stripped from any churchly context of tradition.  It also may surprise many Catholic Christians who view tradition as a parallel, or even an independent source of authoritative teaching, or even as revelation.

The writer of Hebrews clarifies God speaks to us (reveals Himself) in the Old Testament, and now through

The Evangelist Matthew
Inspired by an Angel
Rembrandt (1661)

his Son, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament period.  (Hebrews 1:1-2.)  What Jesus taught and did, the apostles initially passed down orally as tradition, which they urged believers to hold to. (1 Corinthians 11:2.)  Eventually, they wrote down those traditions which became the New Testament, which together with the Old Testament, became the written word of God, all under the work and supervision of the Holy Spirit.  (2 Peter 1:20-21.)  Jesus affirms God's word is truth.  (John 17:17.)

The apostolic tradition in the New Testament constantly urges us to obey what Jesus commanded, out of our love for Him, especially to love one another.  (1 John 2:3-6; 3:11 & 23.)  The Church thus considers the New Testament authoritative, as well as the Old Testament as interpreted by the New Testament.  Scripture serves as the standard by which the Church adheres to in following the head of the Church, Jesus Christ.  (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Colossians 1:18.)

Christ Pantocrator - Mosaic in Hagia Sophi
(roughly around 1261)
Pantocrator means Almighty
IC represents the first and last letter of Jesus in Greek
XC represents the first and last letter of Christ in Greek

Tradition, when understood correctly, is the proper reflection of Holy Scripture under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, as well as the faithful transmission of the gospel message it contains from generation to generation under the power of the Holy Spirit.  The early Church, through the work of the Church Fathers, diligently worked through many issues it faced, and gave us a great body of teachings, summarized in certain creeds, especially the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.  They helped to make explicit what was implicit in Scripture.  We would do well to heed and mine this great body of teaching for its treasures, as well as from all traditions of the Church grounded in Scripture and which helps us understand it better, as the Reformers did.

However, tradition can go wrong when it simply conveys what men, apart from Scripture, seek to impose on the Church.  In such cases, men, on their own, can render an inaccurate interpretation of Scripture, to further their purpose.  Jesus condemned traditions which contradicted the Scripture calling them "human traditions" or "the traditions of men."  (Mark 7:8)  This does not mean all tradition should be rejected, but that we should be careful to ground tradition in Scripture to help clarify Scripture, as Vatican II teaches (in Dei Verbum).

If we only study and follow our own tradition, the traditions of our own church, we will miss out on the vast richness the Holy Spirit provides believers in the various traditions of the various churches that are part of the one true Church with Christ as its head.  By studying and appreciating both Scripture and tradition, we will see and understand a richer view of the revelation of God - of what God is saying to us here and now.  Our understanding of what Scripture says should be informed by the wider fellowship of the community of faith, both in the past and in the present.  That is why the Church, the house of the living God, "is the pillar and bulwark of the truth."  (1 Timothy 3:15.)

The Way (film)

A good friend (Martin) recently recommended watching a film made in 2010, "The Way."  I watched it on DVD with my wife, Lori.  We both really enjoyed it.  I highly recommend it to others.

It's a film written, directed, and co-produced by Emilio Estevez

Emilio Estevez

(once considered the leader of the Brat Pack).  It stars his father, Martin Sheen (whose name is actually Ramon Estevez).

The film centers around El Camino de Santiago (The Way of St. James).  For those unfamiliar with this, it is a 500 mile (800 km) pilgrimage route that begins in the French Pyrenees and ends

El Camino de Santiago (highlighted in red)

in Santiago De Compista in Northwestern Spain.  By tradition, St. James made it this far in his apostolic missionary journeys, and his bones are interred at the Cathedral there.  During the Middle Ages, this route became one of the major pilgrimage routes.  Though by the mid-80s, the pilgrimage attracted few pilgrims, since then it has attracted a growing number, so that by 2010 (the year of the film), over 270,000 undertook the full pilgrimage.  (Many who now undertake this journey are not Catholics, or even Christians, but those in search of spirituality, or an experience to give their life meaning, or other personal reasons.)

The story centers around a lapsed Catholic, Thomas Avery (Martin Sheen), an ophthalmologist completely engaged in his practice, and little else.  His son, Daniel (Emelio Estevez), rejects his father's lifestyle, seeks to see the world, wants to engage in the lives of others and help them when possible.  Daniel decides to undertake El Camino de Santiago, but dies on his first day on the journey in the Pyrenees alone in a storm.

Much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, Thomas is swept up to France, to deal with the death of his son.  Once he finds out all the details, he feels it his duty to accomplish the pilgrimage for his son by carrying his son's cremated ashes along the pilgrimage route.  Again, much like Dorothy, he encounters 3 companions, at intervals.  As with Dorothy, during the journey, he learns much about himself and others.

Though I wouldn't put this up in arena of an Academy Award picture, I still highly recommend this film, and think you will enjoy viewing it.

Commanding Heights (Video)

In my last post, I discussed a book, The Commanding Heights.  In 2002, PBS (WGBH) produced and aired a 6 hour documentary based on the book called, "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" (Available on DVD).

If you don't have the time for the book, the documentary is an excellent summary of the ideas and materials covered in the book.  Plus it covers some additional materials (since the book was completed in 1998, 4 years before the documentary).

In addition, PBS has a website devoted to the documentary, which contains a treasure trove of materials related to the documentary, a virtual small encyclopedia on economics in the 20th Century.

If you don't want to purchase the DVD, you can likely borrow it at your local library (though some have it in a VHS format).  You can also watch it online at the PBS website which has the entire documentary available for viewing online.  The website also has the entire transcript available.

The documentary is divided into 3 - 2 hour parts.

• Part 1: The Battle of Ideas
• Part 2: The Agony of Reform
• Part 3: The New Rules of the Game

I highly recommend viewing this documentary.  Much like the book, it gives a vast oversight to economics in the 20th Century on a global scale, and is fairly easy to follow and understand.

The Commanding Heights (Book)

I finished reading "The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, originally published in 1998, and then republished in 2002.  The authors present an outstanding review of economics in the 20th Century around the world in terms of the struggle between free markets and government control, as reflected in the original subtitle, "The Battle Between Government and the Marketplace That Is Remaking the Modern World."

Daniel Yergin

The book focuses on this battle through the ideas of the two leading economists of the 20th Century, Frederick Von Hayek and John Maynard Keynes.  Hayek, shaped by the Austrian School of Economics, argued for free markets since, he said, the price system provided an efficient mechanism for communicating vital and pertinent information to all market participants.  He argued against central planning since the planners can never gather enough information to have enough knowledge to base decisions upon.  Keynes, fearing a communist takeover, argued that market forces, left alone, always leads to disaster, and needs to be reigned in by government control in order to survive.

Joseph Stanilaw

Free markets largely reigned at the start of the 20th Century.  However, the world retreated from them with the shock of both World War I and then the economic upheavals that followed, especially in Germany, but then spreading in worldwide depression.  Leaders began imposing more government controls to reign in the free markets.  Keynes became more prominent and while Hayek became more ostracized.

However, well into the later half of the 20th Century, this trend reversed as government control seemed to cause more harm than good.  Leaders began undoing many government controls and relied more upon the free markets to solve economic problems.  Hayek became more prominent and Keynesian economics became more suspect.

The authors do not write in generalities.  They delve into how these ideas played out in country after country
and region after region over vast time periods, in England, India, the United States, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, the Third World, Asia, Africa, South America, during each decade of the 20th Century.  The sweep and vastness of the study is stunning.  They also tell the stories of the many leaders involved in leading and directing their economies.

Little wonder, Daniel Yergin is a Pulitzer Prize winning author for a previous book he wrote about the history of the oil industry, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, which I mentioned in the Introduction to this blog, and some observations from it on the Oil Crisis which I later posted.

I highly recommend reading The Commanding Heights.  I hope the authors come out with another book that updates it.  PBS made this book into a documentary series which I plan to later post about.

St. Valentine's Day

Why do we celebrate St. Valentine's Day with declarations of love?  Who was St. Valentine anyway?  (Does anyone care who he really was anymore?)

Apparently, we know very little factually about what may be among the most famous of the officially recognized saints.  Instead, we have several hagiographies (biographies of saints - sometimes considered unreliable) about him.

Almost all the hagiographies agree that he died because he refused to renounce his belief in the Christian faith - in other words, that he died as a martyr, around 273, on February 14th.

He is associated with lovers because according to at least one hagiographa, as a priest (or a bishop) he

married Christians (in secret), though that was illegal at that time (and he also otherwise helped Christians - also illegal at that time.)  This is somewhat unsure, since many others with the name of Valentinus are also considered saints, and their hagiographies differ.

Regardless, Pope Galius I - named Valentine a Saint in 496, though he impliedly admitted not much was actually known about him.  So in 1969, Valentine was removed from the official Roman Catholic liturgical calendar for veneration, though still venerated locally, as well as by the Anglicans and Lutherans (as well as by the Eastern Orthodox in June).

Many other legends about Saint Valentine abound.  While I doubt they will outdo the amount of chocolates, flowers, and other expressions of love - let us rejoice one day a year is dedicated to love between men and women (and even between boys and girls).

Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Part 8

In my other post, I asked whether there are Evangelical Catholics, and affirmed, yes there are.  I proceeded to explore Protestants who call themselves Evangelical Catholics.  In this post, I want to explore Catholics who call themselves Evangelical (or evangelical) Catholics.

In general, in Catholicism, the term "evangelical Catholicism" refers to Catholics who identify with the four historical characteristics of evangelicalism, similar to some of the evangelical characteristics I mentioned in a previous post.

Four of these characteristics are:

1. A strong theological and devotional emphasis on Scripture (as understood through tradition).
2. A stress on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the both the cause and opportunity for salvation for all mankind.
3. A personal need for interior conversion.
4. A deep commitment to evangelization.

They tend to identify evangelicals within Catholic tradition such as Saint Dominic (founder of the Dominican order).  They also tend to emphasize the root meaning of the word, evangelical, which I described in an another previous post.

They also tend to emphasize some recent evangelical witness of some Popes, especially John Paul II in his Encyclical, The Mission of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Missio).

There is much more about all this at the website for the evangelical Catholic.  http://www.evangelicalcatholic.org/

George Weigel, a Catholic theologian, author of a best-selling biography on Pope John Paul II, The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II–The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy, wrote a book this year (2013), Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century (a book I have not read, so I am not endorsing in any way at this point).

The point is, that Catholics are more and more referring to themselves as Evangelicals (or evangelicals), without giving up their Catholic distinctiveness.  I view this as a positive development, and encourage my Catholic friends and brothers to embrace this development and stretch themselves to see how they can embrace an evangelicalism which seems to be deeply embraced in Catholic tradition in whatever way they feel God is leading them to do so in a manner that develops their personal growing faith in Jesus Christ.

Back to Part 7
Back to Intro
Over to Who (or What) is an Evangelical Part 1

Who (or What) is an Evangelical? - Part 10

Are there Evangelical Catholics?  Though many would deny such a meshing of terms, the short answer is yes, there are Evangelical Catholics.  What may surprise many is that Protestants choose to describe themselves as such.

Most prominent are some Lutherans who expressly describe themselves as Evangelical Catholics.  This has both historical roots, as well as more recent developments.

Historically, the Gnesio (from a Greek word meaning authentic) Lutherans defended Luther's early views, and emphasized the Catholic roots of Lutheranism.  They tended to emphasize the following statements from the Augsburg Confession (a central early document in the Lutheran tradition).

Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers, . . .
And:
Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in not article of the faith from the Church Catholic, . . .

As well as:
Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.

The Genesio-Lutherans took great pains to show that Lutheranism was a continuation of the Catholic Church.  They emphasized Evangelical as a continuation of the gospel tradition.

More recently, many Lutherans prefer the term Evangelical Catholic in preference to the term, High Church Lutheranism, especially since, as I mentioned in a previous post, Lutherans early on tended to describe themselves as Evangelicals.

However, not only Lutherans, but other Protestants describe themselves as Evangelical Catholics.  In recent years, this includes Methodists, Reformed (Presbyterians), as well as Episcopalians/Anglicans.  As far back as 1851, an Episcopal published a periodical called, "The Evangelical Catholic."  Others use the term to emphasize they are Evangelical, but maintain their Catholicity.

Yet, there are also Catholics who use the term, "Evangelical Catholics" - something I will explore in the next part of my parallel series, "Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)?"

Back to Part 9
Over to Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Intro

How Green Was My Valley - Film

In 1939, Richard Llewllyn wrote How Green Was My Valley.  It soon became a best-seller, winning the National Book Award, awarded by the American Booksellers Association, for favorite novel of 1940.

Hollywood mogul, Darryl Zanuck, head of Fox Studios, bought the movie rights to make the novel into a movie for $300,000, more than any other to that time.  He dreamed of making an epic film as a response to David O. Selznick's making of Gone With The Wind (1939).  He wanted to film it in glorious color in Wales, where the novel was set.  He also wanted, and signed, William Wyler, considered the best Director, to direct the film.  However, World War II broke out in the United Kingdom (including Wales) in 1940, ruling out filming in Wales.  Delays meant William Wyler was free to pursue other films, which he did.

But Zanuck pressed on, deciding to film in the San Fernando Valley (in black and white since California's golden fields would not look like Wales in color), and settling for John Ford as the Director, famous for making many black and white films in the West.  The film went on to win 5 Academy Awards out of 10 nominations.  It won (in 1941) for:

• Best Picture (20th Century Fox)
• Best Director (John Ford)
• Best Actor in a Supporting Role (John Crisp - Mr. Morgan)
• Best Cinematography, Black & White (Arthur C. Miller)
• Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White (Richard Day, Nathan Juran Day, and Thomas Little)

The center gem of this film is the introduction of a very young Roddy McDowell.  He plays Huw, the central character who tells the story as an old man recalling his memories growing up.  So much of the story is told by simply watching the eyes and reactions of this very young character and actor, who carries the heart and plot of the film.

Another gem is the first of several appearances of Maureen O' Hara in a John Ford film, playing the part of Angharad.  She would go on to play many other parts in his films, perhaps most famously in the 1953 film, The Quiet Man.

However, many gems adorn this film with many stars such as Walter Pidgeon (Pastor Gruffydd), Donald Crisp (who, as I mentioned, won Best Supporting Actor), Sara Allgood (nominated for Best Actress in a Supporting Role), Ana Lee (Bronwyn), Barry Fitzgerald (Cyfartha), and many others.

The story revolves around a Welsh family - the Morgans - as related to us by Huw.  They are coal miners, and a central conflict in the family is unionization.  However, that turns out to be a backdrop to many other issues such as Huw confronting and overcoming a serious illness, whether the local pastor who lives on a poverty basis, will marry Huw's sister or whether she will marry the rich local mineowner's son, whether that pastor will overcome the hasty judgments of his Deacon's Board, and especially what will become of the green valley when the slag heaps from the mines overcomes the green vibrant valley?

Another gem of this film is the music, by Alfred Newman, also nominated for an Academy Award, which features Welsh singing, a beauty to behold.

I am surprised to find, when I bring up this film, many are unfamiliar with it.  So I urge you to watch it if you haven't (or to watch it again if you haven't for a while) - it will feed your soul.  (You can watch it on NetFlix, find it at your video store or public library, or order it on Amazon.)   I will have more to say when I finish reading the original novel, which I am well into.

Recently, Turner Classic Movies presented this film as one of its Essentials.

Who (or What) is a Catholic (or a catholic)? - Part 7

There is a common saying among Catholics, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic."  This means, under Canon Law (the Catholic Church's bylaws), once you have been baptized in a Roman Catholic Church, or have been received into it, you are recognized as a Catholic for life.

This recognition is never removed, whether or not you regularly attend Mass, whether or not you follow Catholic practices.  You may cease attending Mass altogether, but you are still recognized as a Catholic - though perhaps a lapsed Catholic.  You may even leave the Catholic Church and begin attending other churches.  Still, you are

Pew Forum survey - Faith in Flux - 2009

recognized as a Catholic by other Catholics.  You may even begin identifying yourself as a Lutheran, a Methodist, or even a Baptist.  Still, you are recognized by other Catholics as a Catholic.

Another way to look at this is once you have been raised as a Catholic, the values imprinted in you largely stay for life (or at least, according to some, the guilt they impose).  This may help explain why the Beatles, who were mostly raised Catholic or Anglican (close), reflected many Catholic values in their many of their songs, even while they, at times, refuted their religious backgrounds.

Some find this view (once a Catholic always a Catholic) offensive.  They say it violates your freedom, and tags you with a label that you may not want.  I suppose it can be used that way, and undoubtedly some Catholics have misused it that way.  That is not the purpose.

Others are surprised to find that though they have attended and identified with another church for most of their lives, Catholics still recognize them as Catholic.  They are not so much offended as simply amazed that Catholics still regard them as Catholic.

Under this view, even if you are excommunicated, you are still recognized as a Catholic.  You might be considered a bad Catholic, but you are still a Catholic.  (Does this mean Martin Luther was still considered a Catholic after he was excommunicated?)

Many Catholics do not like this saying.  They resent Catholics who disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church and yet say they are still Catholic - by citing this saying.  They also do not like it when Catholics who do not regularly practice their faith claim to be Catholic.  I will have more to say about this in a future post.

Some say if you publicly defected from the Catholic Church, you would no longer be considered Catholic.  They base this on a provision of the Canon Law.  However, that provision had to do with marrying outside of the Catholic Church.  In any event, that provision was removed from the Canon Law in 2010, and so no longer applies.

One positive way to look at this view of Once A Catholic Always A Catholic.  Once you are baptized in the Catholic Church (or received into it), you are part of the Catholic family.  You can never lose that as long as you live, just as you can never lose your family as long as you live.  You are always welcome back (sometimes called being welcomed home).

A good friend, who is also a Catholic theologian, suggested that after Vatican II, with its emphasis of the Church as the People of God, and following the 1983 revision to the Canon Law, especially as to Baptism, that it may be more appropriate to update this old saying to - "Once a Christian, Always a Christian."

I think the old saying is true enough, so that once you have been baptized or recognized as a Catholic, other Catholics will always recognize you as a Catholic, and welcome you back, no matter how far you drift away, or where you wander.  However, and especially in light of Vatican II, that saying should not be used in a manner to divide Catholics from other Christians or to otherwise not recognize all who are validly baptized in Christ as part of the People of God.

Back to Part 6
Back to Intro
Over to Who (or What) is an Evangelical - Part 1