Local vs. Global Church
Fr. George Okoth Acting Dean of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at St. John’s University of Tanzania reflects on how the current situation in the Anglican Communion has theologically, politically, and socio-economically affected local parishes’ ability to deal with serious disagreements about theological Issues. What role does the interpretation of scripture play in disagreements in my home parish Sakawa – Tanzania, in the Anglican Communion? What are my initial thoughts about a way forward? How useful are the Apostle Paul’s epistles for churches in a time of conflict?
In its long history, the Church has often been disturbed and divided about doctrines, but at least Christians usually believed that they were fighting for something worth fighting about. Very often Christians can quarrel over trivial matters like other people, for sin and pride has not yet been banished out of the Church. But there are also times when Christians quarrel about very important things. When Jesus attacked the Pharisees, it was not because they were attacking Him, but because He believed that they were dishonoring God whom they professed to worship by their hypocrisy, and putting obstacles in the way of many people who wanted to return to God (the so called “sinners”).
On the other hand, people very often quarrel with the people they love and know best. For instance, if we see a man or a woman quarreling with their wife or husband, or with his own (blood) brother or sister, do we always conclude that there is no love between them? By no means! Sometimes it is those whom we love who have to bear the burden of our bad temper, or bad moods, because we know in our hearts that these are the people who are closest to us. They are like friends; a friend is someone who can tell you something which you can not hear from someone else. A friend claims ownership of you. And you will not refuse to give whatever they need from you. In this paper I am going to explore how the current disagreement in the Anglican Communion (AC) has affected our parish, Sakawa, in a remote part of Tanzania – East Africa. I will also explore briefly how the authentic Pauline epistles can be useful for the churches in a time of conflict.
John Mbiti, a famous African Theologian once asserted that “the church is at home politically [in Africa] but [is at home] ecclesiologically overseas.”
Mbiti meant that most of the theologies taught in Africa, and major decisions concerning the life of the church today are still being dictated by the Western churches. Most of the churches which were established by western missionaries (including Sakawa) are still financially dependent on their founding churches. Most of the programs and projects which received funds from the Western churches are still “sitting on the rock” (stalled), for the bishops have refused to accept funds from the Episcopal Church, since the issue of human sexuality began in the Anglican Communion (AC).
The consecration of the first publicly confessed gay bishop in the history of Christendom in 2003, and the approval of a same-sex blessing service in Canada, messed with everything. Our Bishops (Anglican Church of Tanzania-ACT) at the National level made critical judgments towards the behavior of the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Canadian Church, without considering the autonomous nature of the AC. In fact, the decision reached by the ACT bishops was unconstitutional and undemocratic for the house of the laity was not consulted. For a decision to be binding in Tanzania, it must go through the ACT synod which comprises the house of bishops, clergy and the house of the laity. Here we fail to see the bishops treat the laity as equal partners in mission, but just as if the clergy and the laity are people who cannot make meaningful contributions to their church. I honestly interpret this as a symbol of bishops’ refusal to acknowledge the importance and maturity of the laity and the clergy in the Church.
Having done my theological studies in the United States of America (USA), I have come to learn that the Worldwide Anglican Communion have got less or no idea on how the Episcopal Church is governed. In the Episcopal Church the laity are fully involved in the decision making process. Church authority is equally divided amongst bishops, clergy and the laity. It is not a top down hierarchical system found in the other components of the Anglican Communion. The policies which govern the Episcopal Church are formulated during the General Convention which meets after every three years. The General Convention is made up of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies.
For a policy to be passed it must be voted amongst the representatives of the two houses. In order to maintain the autonomy of the Episcopal Church, no central governing body has absolute power over all the Episcopal Church of USA (ECUSA). The Presiding Bishop is respected though considered “first amongst equals.” In line with this kind of framework of freedom, one would now understand why one diocese in ECUSA can embrace for instance, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) practices even if others object.
This kind of freedom enjoyed in the ECUSA is yet to be observed and understood in the Anglican Church of Tanzania where Bishops pass decisions without proper consultation amongst all stake holders. On this ground, it is sad to say that Christians in our parishes are suffering the consequences which they do not even understand deeply. Our Christians are only concerned mainly with how to get food on their tables. What they want is for their children to go to good schools, and they require affordable medicine. They need accessible roads and provision of other amenities. As you can grasp, doctrinal matters as concerns human sexuality is not a practical problem here. In our local parish, Christians would rather speak about the problems of witchcraft, polygamy, poverty, ignorance and diseases. Having said this, let me now turn to the issue of Biblical interpretation.
I must say that the Bible, instead of uniting Christians against those things which divide them, it is doing the opposite. The Bible itself does not speak with one voice, take a look at the Gospels. Each Gospel gives a different version of the Good News about Jesus Christ. The Bible has failed to help us to set aside our differences and learn to live together as Donn Morgan says:
The canonizers…instead of producing a Bible that was systematic and monochromatic, with clear answers to the question of how to live faithfully in God’s world, they created a canon of multivalent scriptures filled with diversity.
Maybe the real problem is not with the Bible but lies with the interpreters themselves. Some interpreters think that the Bible is fundamentally a human account of a particular people’s experiences of God. While others think that the Bible is an exact reproduction of the thoughts of God. The Bible is not only a human witness to divine revelation, but it is at the same time God’s witness to Himself. The Bible came to us in language and concepts meaningful to the Hebrew and Graeco-Roman cultures of the Bible’s times. Consciously and unconsciously it has been contextualized to be meaningful to people in cultures to which the Christian message spread, in which the church developed, and from which it sent out its cross-cultural missionaries. It is therefore the role of interpreters to decontextualize the Biblical message/doctrines to limit the intrusion of materials growing out of the missionary’s own culture. They then must re-contextualize the message to communicate effectively to contemporary Christians.
The interpreter may now distinguish between culture-bound aspects of the Christian message, which are open to modification, from revelatory content which has nonnegotiable supra-cultural validity. Thus, acceptable contextualization is a direct result of ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text; consciously submitting to its authority and continuity; and applying that meaning to a given situation. The results of this process may vary in form and intensity, but they will always remain within the scope of meaning prescribed by the biblical text. The famous expression “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water” may help to shed more light on what I am trying to say here. The baby must be retained, imagine how awkward it would be for the baby to be thrown out with the bath water either accidentally or intentionally!
It is therefore the role of the interpreters to figure out God’s intention in whatever He spoke (the Gospel) and to discard the cultural trappings which came with it. This isn’t simple work, it needs prayer, contemplation and meditation as the Spirit helps the interpreter to look at the Holy Scriptures closely. No doubt, as preachers we need to have a close reading of the text, pulling out what is in the Bible through prayer, and opening ourselves to God by literal reading. “Literal reading” has been misused to mean narrow reading or narrow understanding of the Bible. This should not be the case; it should be used in its wider sense – the abuse does not invalidate its usefulness (Lt., abusus non tollit usum). The following questions might need to be observed as we deal with the hermeneutics:
I. What did the text mean when it was written?
II. What does it mean here and now?
III. If that is what the text said to those people then, how do we put the words so that they may make sense to us today?
It is my conviction that contextualization is the way forward, that contemporary Christians will not lazy to the extent of neglecting the art of doing theology. The Apostle Paul actively did theology in different contexts where God sent him. I believe that any Christian can do theology. Anybody who lives a Christian life is able to do theology. So we must liberate theology from these academic and ecclesiastical chains. When we talk about contextual theology, we refer to people doing theology themselves, relating it in their own daily life. Thus theology is a response to everyday life and the problems, questions and issues every human faces. To many people theology is often associated with academia, for those who know the rules and jargon of the science—addressing problems and issues out of touch with everyday living. This kind of assumption should not be given room.
Whenever, my parishioners disagree on any doctrinal matter, they ask four important questions.
- What does the tradition of this historic church say about the matter?
- What does the Bible say about the matter?
- What does human reason say about the matter?
- What is the general experience of the local church on the matter?
Recently we have been experiencing the death of the use of common sense amongst our people. People do not know what is wrong and what is right. But thanks be to God, the life of fasting, prayer and tolerance has always been so helpful to our parishioners whenever there is any disagreement. There is a popular African saying that “whenever two bulls fight, it is the grass that suffers.” So in order to save the grass, whatever decision we make in God’s name, it is to consider the future of our children and the growth of the church. The discussions are held in the spirit of love. This does not mean that conflicts do not exist in our parish, by no means! Psychologist’s talk about the “love-hate” attitudes we have towards those who are closest to us. So in some circumstances, quarreling among Christians may be a sign not of hatred, but of their concern for one another.
So when Paul “withstood Peter to the face” at Antioch, was this a sign of hatred, or was it rather that he loved Peter so much that he could not bear to see him to make a mistake? On the other hand, “conflict is not in itself a bad thing,” it is inevitable. Conflict is in many ways necessary, as it fosters growth within a person, family, community and society. As Bernard Mayer beautifully asserts:
Conflict can help build community, define and balance people’s needs as individuals with their needs as participants in large systems, and help them face and address in a clear and conscious way the many difficult choices that life brings to them.
It should be noted that the body of authentic Pauline epistles typically starts with thanksgiving words. But in his epistle to the Galatians – the thanksgiving paragraph is missing. This reflects how Paul was mad at these people. How could the Galatians slide back and believe in another Gospel – the Gospel of works preached by the “super apostles”, the Gospel which he did not preach to them? The Apostle Paul preached the Gospel of grace to the Galatians. It is by grace through faith alone that human beings are justified, and it is by faith alone that human beings are to live out their new life in the freedom of the Spirit and not by the works of the law.
Paul powerfully points out that the Galatians need to stay together in unity; and that they should not let the doctrine of works of the law divide them. The foundation he laid for the Galatians should remain solid for the glory of God. They should not buy into the new materials the “super apostles” (sarcastic word implying false apostles) are trying to sell them over the ones they had received from him.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
The joy in our parishioners is like the one which was in Paul while in prison. He rejoiced in the continued advance of the Gospel in spite of difficulties he faced in prison. Although being imprisoned might be seen as a set-back for the Gospel, it is God’s plan to let Paul go to prison in order to preach to the inmates. Taking advantage of preaching the Gospel does not make him feel bad beause God is being glorified. The Apostle Paul wanted the Philippians to continue the good work which they were already doing. He and the Philippians were in a business partnership in the venture of the Gospel.
Paul prays that the Philippians should imitate the humble nature of God. The mind of God is that of being humble to an extent of accepting death on the cross. The Philippians should not fight amongst themselves, but each one should be able to consider others as better than themselves. No selfish ambition should be given room in their midst, but they should willingly lay down their lives for the sake of the Gospel, for Jesus himself had shown the way.
Many people nowadays are blatantly and unashamedly living for themselves. They are not interested in other people. They focus on what they want, what they need, and what they feel will most benefit themselves. In Paul’s epistle to the Philippians he is encouraging Christians to overcome the temptation of wanting to live selfishly.
It is evident that in the AC hate speech is being practiced openly, without apologies or apparent fear of the bad consequences. This will just make this historic church experience division and a slow death. The spirit of humility and the attitude of wanting to consider others better than ourselves is ceasing very quickly; everybody is looking for their own interests. The doctrinal disagreement in the AC has gone beyond repair. I might be wrong here but this is what I personally feel, smell, hear and think. “There is more than meets the eye” in the sour relationship between members of the AC. It is high time we learned to be generous and gracious with our words to each other, like the Apostle Paul himself did in his epistles. It is only on few occasions, like in his epistle to the Galatians, that his generous and gracious words are missing. He was in pain and could not understand why those people could turn to the false apostles.
It seems none is willing to abide with Paul’s exhortations to live in a manner worthy of the gospel. These words just seem to go straight over their heads as they drag each other to law courts and spend a lot of money which could have been used for the expansion of God’s kingdom elsewhere. The Apostle Paul encourages Christians to imitate Christ’s humility – to be Christ minded. This does not mean uniformity in thought, but that we should be united under the same purposes of working together as we serve each other for the sake of the Gospel.
The Anglican Communion has always boasted about the fact of its comprehensiveness. I think the comprehensiveness of the AC should be properly defined. The AC should not compromise everything in the name of comprehensiveness or inclusiveness. The core values of the AC, like the place of the Scriptures etc., should be championed for the glory of God. And minor values like style of worship, belief etc, can simply be contextualized according to the needs of a particular local congregation.
Above all, I strongly suggest that something be done about this freedom or nature of autonomy in the AC. The AC should have central leadership vested with more power and authority to show the way thorough consultation whenever there are serious disagreements threatening to split the church. The AC has left bishops and the laity to behave like mongrels eating their own children, even as it paid lip service to the autonomy of the church.
The idea of the “covenant” is meant to bring cohesion amongst the worldwide Anglican Communion. Yet the word has been viewed negatively by other members of the Anglican Communion. The covenant is a bad idea especially amongst the Native Americans, Aboriginals, Maori, the civil right movements in Tanzania, etc. Many people do not trust those who come to them with the idea of covenants. Historically, the colonialists in different parts of the world abused the word “covenant”, meaning to rob the natives of their birthrights. Yes, history is good in the sense that it helps us not to repeat what happened in the past. After all, we are not the slaves of history; history helps us shape our future in a more positive manner without repeating what came before. History positively encourages us to acknowledge our errors and to be open to welcome new insights.
On this ground, I argue that the covenant is meant for good and not for bad, and thus Anglican Communion members need not to be skeptical when asked to sign it. It will make the members of the Anglican Communion walk humbly before God with more clarity about what it means to be part of this historic church. Some identify the covenant with the famous proverbial words “spare the rod, spoil the child” (disciplinary), that Anglican Communion is dropping down its culture of tolerance and moving towards telling everybody what they should believe.
Other members of the Anglican Communion are afraid of the “covenant” for they think it bears colonial mentally of forcefully pulling back the whole Communion to be loyal to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am not sure whether this is true, but to me the covenant will help make our identity as a church crystal clear. It will demonstrate that the Anglican Communion still respects its tradition of acknowledging differences of opinions as a sign of maturity. The Archbishop of Canterbury will always remain “the first amongst equals” and thus will not have the authority and power that Pope enjoys over the Roman Catholic Church.
Our autonomy will not be taken away for its God’s gift to us; but, we need to have a structure which will help settle arguments and conflicts within the church. As I pointed out before, disagreements or conflicts are inevitable, but what is problematic is when there is no laid-down structure on how to handle it. Bernard Mayer helpfully asserts:
The strength of social systems lies in part in how they prevent serious conflicts and, when conflicts do arise, how they address them so as to maintain system integrity and preserve the well-being of their members.
When I was exploring above the four (4) questions my parishioners wrestle with whenever there is a doctrinal disagreement in our church, I did not mention two ways taht our local congregation tries, through thick and thin, not to allow to take precedence, as it looks for solutions to the identified problem. I now briefly turn to address them:
- Use of force – The stronger crushes the weaker, either by threat of physical force, or by bullying, or by social pressure (e.g. ostracizing), or by emotional means or black-mail, or by use of his or her prestige and authority. This is the worst kind of solution. It is unsatisfactory in most situations as it usually lead to bitterness and further conflict in the future. Such behavior is of course completely shameful in the Church.
- Avoiding the issue or problem. Sometimes it may be right or prudent to try to avoid an issue, especially where strong feelings are concerned. This is not usually the right way of dealing with a conflict situation.
For instance, if we see great injustice being done before our eyes, can we sit by and pretend that nothing is happening? Sometimes, if people’s feelings are hidden and not allowed to appear, there is danger of an “explosion”, then damage will be greater than if we had brought the matter out into the open at an earlier stage, before feelings had become so strong. In line with, this most people today would argue that “justice delayed is like justice denied.”
This is why other members of the Anglican Communion, especially the ECUSA and the Canadian Church, can barely wait for the directives of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They consider themselves as not hostages of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they are free and independent and if Rowan Williams does not recognize the Presiding Bishop Katherine as an elected leader, then the ECUSA will have no obligation to accord him respect. This is what I echo from Katherine’s response to Rowan William’s 2010 Easter epistle.
Katherine is bold to stand beside the oppressed; she often calls for the need of respecting human rights. She would not hesitate to stand up and make it known that all people are created and thus growing into the unique image of God. Thus, nobody should claim to know it all. So, whenever religious leaders deny people their basic human rights using Christianity as their justification, she finds this incredible. To her remaining silent in the presence of evil is evil. Imagine if Jesus would return today, who would Jesus hang out with? – The homosexuals, the immigrants, the poor, the single parents, the down trodden, the outcasts, etc.
Now I turn to explore briefly some of the authentic Pauline epistles in line with the subject under discussion – The usefulness of the Apostle Paul for churches in a time of conflict.
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome even though he did not establish this church. He had never been to Rome before. It is not clear who started the church in Rome, but it could have been started by those people who had come back from Jerusalem and had experienced the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Christians in Rome might also have been those who migrated from the churches which Paul had started in Asia. This sounds more familiar to me for our diocese – the Anglican Diocese of Mara in Tanzania was started by people of Mara who had gone to work in Nairobi City- Kenya. They embraced Anglicanism while in Nairobi and, on their return back home, they decided to establish the Anglican Church in the North Western part of Tanzania near Lake Victoria.
The Apostle Paul makes it clear in Romans that God’s plan of salvation is inclusive. He declares that both Jews and Gentiles fit into God’s plan of salvation. God welcomes everyone who comes to Christ by faith. Thus, the Jews and the Gentiles despite their original differences, should live righteous and harmonious lives together – “for all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory”.
There was big suspicion, tension and rejection amongst the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians as far as the interpretation of salvation was concerned. The Jewish Christians still thought it was very important for the Mosaic laws to be observed. “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…” This is the Apostle Paul’s gospel of tolerance and call for unity of the body of Christ. The Anglican Communion in conflict today should learn that changed and righteous lives are not a condition for salvation, but are something which is expected to spring naturally out from a new life lived out in the spirit of freedom.
Martin Luther in the 16th century found God in a new way after reading this epistle. He was moved to pin his Ninety-Five Theses on All Saints’ Church door in Wittenberg, Saxony in Germany. He condemned the Roman Catholic Church practice of selling indulgences in return for salvation. Luther believed that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, received by faith and trust in God’s promise to forgive sin. That there is nothing we can do, that there is nothing we can add for our salvation above what Christ had done for us on the cross. Other things apart from this were mere corrupt human traditions which could not make anybody gain righteousness.
The Apostle Paul founded the church in Corinth on his second missionary journey. He was heart-broken when he received reports from the household of Chloe regarding quarrels in the church at Corinth. The church had sent a delegation to Paul seeking his advice on various issues which threatened the life of the church (consider the use of the words peri de [περί δέ], “concerning” in 7:1). Thus the Apostle Paul wrote this epistle to address specific issues which were brought to him. There is no doubt, Paul is a good model of a contextual theologian. He wrestled with the problems which were real and caused trouble on the ground. He was not trying to answer unasked or irrelevant questions culled from some different geographical area.
The Apostle Paul used this opportunity to remind both individual Christians and the collective church of the significance of the cross of Christ. He reminded them that through the cross we are empowered to live transformed lives. We are to live lives which are totally different from the surrounding world. Even though believers were still powerfully influenced by their cultural environment they should be determined to live in victory.
It does not matter how bad the circumstances surrounding believers seemed to be. The believers should be able to say, “God we do not care whatever comes against us. We do not care how long it takes; this thing is not going to defeat us”. I have seen people dealing with huge problems – tragic death in the family, incurable diseases, divorce, bankruptcy, and all sorts of calamities. Yet they are happy and at peace – they are living in an attitude of faith. They believe and trust that things will change. They are not looking for quick fix. In short, his purpose in this epistle is to instruct and to restore the church in its areas of weakness, for the sake of promoting a spirit of unity amongst believers. He wanted people to stay together:
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment….what I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos”….is Christ divided?
Here once more, Paul reveals his true shepherd’s heart which I am sad to say is missing amongst the Worldwide Anglican Communion members, where others are just thinking of breaking away. The Apostle Paul’s language here is all about one body of Christ staying together. This does not allow considering other brothers or sisters in Christ Jesus to be less Christians because they hold different views from us. In a nutshell, Paul firmly addresses the solution to the problems of divisiveness in the church in chapter 13 – that “love” must take precedence.
This is an individual epistle addressed to Philemon who owned slaves. Philemon’s house had enough space to allow for the meeting of the church (house church). Since this epistle was read publicly in the church it could have been meant to address other slave owners who attended the same church, so that they could have a human face when dealing with the slaves. He writes this epistle strategically to achieve his goal, see verse 2. Some critics argue that the Apostle used sugar-coated words to win acceptance in the eyes of Philemon, that he cleverly chose words to make Philemon bend to his request. And it does not make sense to some critics why Paul did not go ahead and condemn slavery as something evil!
How could one human being own another human being as property? Well, reading this epistle through the lens of the world of today, it completely makes no sense. But if it is closely read in the social, political and economic context of Philemon’s time, around CE 60 or 61, it clearly holds water. If Roman laws were observed strictly, a runaway slave like Onesimus could have been put to death. Thus Paul was under the influence of God’s wisdom in tackling this sensitive issue. Paul does not condemn the act of slavery here, but he is trying to put it in a way that it is difficult to treat Onesimus as a slave. Paul has promoted Onesimus to be an apostle—“one sent.”
No doubt, Paul demonstrated his fatherly love in his rescue of this new-found brother in Christ, Onesimus. Paul, out of love, was willing to pay back whatever Onesimus owed his master. “Just charge this to my account; Paul will pay whatever Onesimus has stolen from you.” This can be compared to Jesus Christ’s sacrificial love. Evidently, Paul is fitting well the African communal saying, “a person is a person through other persons” or “I am because we are”—your pain is my pain, your loss is my loss. The Lord intends to set the solitary in families. We may be converted as individuals, but we are then incorporated into the family of God where we have many brothers and sisters.
Paul’s epistle to Philemon sounds just like getting a letter from your bishop. If a bishop writes to you like this, his humbleness can push you to do what the he needs from you. It is very powerful and beautifully written. We see Paul lowering his power and authority as he writes this epistle. This is something to note, and worth putting into practice when we communicate in situations of extraordinary tension and difficulty as members of the Anglican Communion or as church leaders.
It is also worth noting how Paul talks about his associates in a good manner or way – “Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our beloved fellow worker, Apphia our sister and Archppus our fellow solder…” Paul’s generous, gracious speech to his co-workers is so powerful that it can not be overlooked. It is also clear here that Paul was not a “lone ranger” worker. He worked with others as a team. Thus, we as Christian leaders, whether in the midst of conflict or joy, need to learn from Paul that generous gracious words should not be missing from our mouths when referring to our co-workers in God’s ministry. We must make them feel special, we must accord them the respect that is due, for this will always lower the tension as we do God’s work together.
It is my prayer that God will pour his Grace on us in the worldwide Anglican Communion as we continue our dialogue to figure out our common ground and as we seek to do God’s mission together in unity. As reflected in Paul’s letters, our agenda now is to bring our people together and plan for the future as a united team – unity is vital for the Anglican Communion. In a wrestling contest you don’t sit on someone forever once you have floored him, you extend a helping hand and work together.
1 Mbiti, Crisis, 2.
2 Morgan, 68.
4 Gal. 2:11
5 Mayer, 24.
6 Galatians 3:28-29.
7 Phil. 1:12-18
8 cf. Phil. 1:10, 27; 2:3-5, 12, 15; 4:4-8.
9 Phil. 2:2.
10 cf. Rom. 12:1-2
11 Mayer, 24.
12 Romans 1:16ff
13 Romans 8:1f.
14 Acts 18:1-17.
15 I Corinthians 1:10ff.
16 Mbiti, J. S., African, 113.
17 Ps. 68:6.
18 Phlm. 5:1ff.
Mbiti, J. S., African Religion and Philosophy, London: Heinemann, 1969.
Mbiti, J. S., The Crisis of Mission in Africa, Nairobi: HUP, 1986.
Mayer Bernard, The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution, San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 2000.
Morgan Donn, Fighting with the Bible, NY: Seabury Books, 2007.