Two Years Later…

It has been two years since my last "Sojourn" post. Sometimes life can be a joy-filled bounce from day to day, week to week and month to month. Most of the time, however, life is a journey filled with difficulty, trials and occasional happiness. In the last four years I have definitely been on a "sojourn." It has been a trial of faith and a test of character. It has seen my health go up and down, as if on a roller coaster ride. I have experienced brutal assaults on my integrity and on my person. What has made these assaults difficult, is that they have been made by people for I cared and trusted. Christians. These assaults have forced me on an unparalleled inward search. I have experienced tremendous theological change during this time. I've understood the 23rd Psalm as never before. It has forced me to confront my Meyers-Briggs type (ENTJ) and learn how to deal with it. It has seen me change professions and search for answers. The one thing I have found is that Christ is always there, and that He is faithful to His call in your life.

Everyone walks through the valley at times. I believe the key is to have faith, do the soul searching that is necessary and seek reconciliation where possible and where received. I claim no special knowledge and no special call. I am simply following Jesus with the gifts that I have been given, and hoping to love as many people with the love of God that I can.

The Third Reformation…

Many public pundits and prognosticators, including the new prophet of the emerging church, Phyllis Tickle, have announced that we have entered a "Third Reformation." Unlike the first reformation - often identified as the 'Great Schism', a theological break over the filioque clause in the 11th century between Orthodoxy and Catholicism; or the second reformation - often identified as the Protestant Reformation, a schism in the Roman Catholic church over ecclesial practice and doctrinal reform - the third reformation, which, according to Phyllis Tickle is "The Great Emergence." This new third reformation, "The Great Emergence," signals the death throes of the Constantinian church and the rise of the "age of the Spirit." For Tickle, the rise of the age of the Spirit is the mark of the emerging church in western Christianity, which has not yet fully emerged. So the third reformation cannot yet be fully identified. Nevertheless, Tickle cites the marginalization and decline of the traditional church, the rise of technology and its influence on ecclesial practice, the charismatic rise of Christianity in third world countries, as well as a general cultural malaise towards the Western church in its current form. She notes that the "emerging church" movement in the U.S. and other Western countries are a prelude to what the future holds for Christianity.

In principle, I agree with Tickle. The church has been a politically pliable organization since its inception. Christ gave the church a body, a power source and a mission; but never really identified a permanent structure, doctrine or liturgy for which the church would give its life. Hence, the contemporary church continually debates the issues of structure, doctrine and liturgy, rather than focus on that which it was given in the beginning - exercising and care of the body, cultivating the power source and constantly fine-tuning its mission. And so today, theologians, ministers and Christians-in-general constantly wrangle over what the church should look like, how it should operate, and, what it should do. Indeed, this has become a cottage publishing industry!

Whatever the church will become is still to be seen. It seems to me that we are still in the process of fragmenting in the West. The traditional church is in serious decline while other ecclesial expressions are rising quickly and, in some cases, declining just as fast. We are seeing the rise of the emerging mega-Church pastor and the mega-Church pastor 'concert' tour (e.g. Rob Bell: Everything is Spiritual Tour 2006). Disaffected contemporary Christians are leaving the traditional church under the guise of 'spiritual but not religious' and are experimenting with hybrid forms of spirituality, often combining religious liturgical traditions, or substituting alternative philosophical and recreative practices for them altogether. Whatever the church will become is truly, yet to be seen - but what we do now is that it is being transformed, and we are now in a time of deconstruction and transformation.

What are some of the possibilities?

1) The Renewed Ecumenical and Catholic Church. Many of my colleagues envision the church coalescing into, or better, re-forming into the one apostolic and catholic church. They see a return to a renewed Rome within a vibrant ecumenical framework. The church retains its Constantinian status, but doctrinal divides are dissolved through ecumenical dialogue.

2) The Underground Church. In light of continuing political disenfranchisement in the West, many see the church going into an 'underground', pre-Constantinian existence, with lay pastors and simple social ministries. Much more of a first century model.

3) The Apostolic Church. Several contemporary 'apocalyptic' prognosticators believe that the present church will simply die away and that a new church will arise, founded on new apostles and prophets. This understanding of the purpose of the third reformation is questionable.

4) The Missional Church. The missional church is a reconfiguration of the contemporary church. It consists in a change of focus - whereas the contemporary Constantinian church is focused on doctrine and liturgy, the post-denominational missional church is focused more fully on the mission of Christ.

5) Or maybe a reconfiguration even more radical…

I have my own ideas and will explore them even more in the following blogs. If you - my readers - have ideas about what the church could or should, look like or be like, I would enjoy hearing about it!

Leadership and other meanderings...

It has been quite awhile since my last post. Too much going on in my life to recount all that has happened. Who would have imagined that I could learn so much about myself and others on the eve of age 50? I just want to make a few observations for any interested readers:

1) We are shaped by family, faith, education, environment, cultural context, hopes, dreams and situations; and, how we respond to family, faith, education, environment, cultural context, hopes, dreams and situations. No, we are not a 'blank slate', waiting to be written upon, but it can seem that way sometimes. As a Christian, I believe all humans have an 'eternal' theological purpose. Outright evasion of, or engagement with that purpose, shapes us as well.

2) Life is lived as a fine balance between worldview, character and dreams; and these elements can sometimes be knocked out of balance by externally imposed, as well as self-imposed pressure. This can cause a myriad of dysfunctions in our lives.

3) Leadership is a dance. Successful leadership requires sharp vision, a soft tongue, thick skin, quick analysis, deep reflection and calculated movement. Successful Christian leadership requires all of the above; plus: a vibrant faith, spiritual gifts, a willingness to forgive and to ask for forgiveness, and, a continued reliance upon the grace of God.

4) Communication is everything. The manner in which we communicate is often the root of dysfunction. The substance of what we communicate is sometimes secondary. I've watched two friendships die because of poor communication.

5) Emotional and spiritual pain is not any easier to manage as you get older.

6) Tough decisions require tough people.

7) Sometimes you just have to walk away; and that is never easy.

That is all. 

The Challenge of Ecumenism...

I am truly grateful for the insight into the current ecumenical dialogue between Baptists and those of other Christian expressions, especially our Roman Catholic friends. A special thank you to Steve and Cameron for their generous insight into the contemporary situation, as well as the opportunity from my friend Bruce to engage in this area. As a Baptist in the most 'classic' sense, I've been concerned primarily with our own intra-denominational divide, rather than the greater divisions within Christ's universal church.

As Baptists, we are a loosely connected association, held together by only the most modest of ties: a spartan ecclesiology, simple biblicism and a tacit commitment to the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20. It should come as no surprise that we have splintered into so many disparate elements. It would seem that as soon as we Baptists attempt a more binding theological (read 'creedal' or 'confessiona'l) communion, we find a way to disagree over the minutiae and part company; sometimes neatly, sometimes messily, but always with great pain. In the past 40 years, the pain of separation has been felt in almost all Baptist sects - Southern Baptist, Cooperative Baptists, American Baptists, Baptist General Conference and the list goes on and on.

The result of this messy separation is not just a falling out between churches and denominational entities, but most prominently in our own children. Many of our children no longer see the point in being "Baptist." All they have known is struggle and infighting. Indeed many of my former students at Howard Payne University - most of them in fact - were not concerned about 'remaining' Baptist. There are now other churches that can meet their spiritual needs and they have no problem letting go of what they perceive as 'the futile struggle in Baptist life'. Indeed, even I was one of those at one time. But now these young men and women seek a way out or a way through. Unless Baptists find a way either to find unity or respect diversity, then our future is truly, 'post-denominational'…

A Brief, Personal Recap of Baptist Fragmentation

In my personal experience of Baptist life in Texas, Virginia, the Pacific Northwest and now the Northern Rockies, I have slowly categorized my experience of Baptists into several distinct family groups according to the following loose collaborations: Reformed, Moderate, Liberal, Fundamental and now Bapto-Catholic. What follow are some brief, quasi historical descriptions. None are intended to provoke debate or scholarly critique, but rather to elucidate the popular mindset.

Some segments of the Baptist family have sought unity within a strictly Reformed understanding of Baptist roots, stemming from the early London confessions of the seventeenth century. In the United States, this has led to an increasingly narrow Calvinistic theology of this group.

Some elements of the Baptist family have sought refuge in the modernist thought of E. Y. Mullins with its emphasis on individual and local church autonomy. This has led to what is called the 'moderate' Baptist church; a church that has defined itself over and against its more theologically rigid relatives. Of this moderate branch, there are many variations some professing the 'Calminianism' so aptly detailed by James Leo Garrett or a more Arminian Baptist position as exemplified by Roger Olson, to name a few.

The propensity to elevate individual autonomy has had further consequences though and led to an even more 'liberal' expression of Baptist life. This expression finds its expression in the rejection of fundamentalism in the 1920s as exemplified by Harry Emerson Fosdick in the north and Carlyle Marney in the south. Both of these distinguished thinkers explored the boundaries of faith and ethos, and were drawn to faith as psychological reflection and ethical action. This expression of Baptist life is highly influenced by the Social Gospel movement inaugurated by August Rauschenbusch earlier in the 20th century.

Yet another element of the Baptist church rejects both of its aforementioned cousins in favor of its own modernist theological leanings by elevating scripture, usually the King James Version, to a place of inerrant epistemological authority. This element is usually designated as 'fundamentalist' or 'primitive' Baptist. Yet others find unity in ethnicity, such as German, Swedish, African-American or Korean Baptists, for example, and their ethnic inclinations and commitments.


A recent expression of the Baptist family, coming out of the struggles of the late 20th century and related to the moderate branch of the Baptist family, is the Bapto-Catholic movement. Recovering liturgical and spiritual practices from the post-Niceaen church and seeking to create a healthy ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholic, Orthodox and other ancient expressions of the church, the Bapto-Catholic movement seeks to create a renewed future for Baptists. Bypassing or ameliorating the current fixation on the Reformation as the source for Baptist life and thought, the Bapto-Catholic movement is gaining traction within a younger generation of Baptists.

A more recent Baptist expression is the "emerging, postmodern Baptist." This expression of Baptist life draws from a veritable potpourri of theological and liturgical strains, but intentionally refuses to be dominated by any one strain. Roman Catholic and Orthodox influences are readily evidenced in the worship of these churches while at the same time one can find influences of Jewish and Buddhist spiritualities layered over a distinctly Reformed theological understanding. Since the movement itself allows for infinite variations, there are really no variations.

I realize that all of these vignettes are merely reductionist caricatures and ultimately reflect my own perception, good or bad. Yet even my opinions have popular roots, and to some degree have merit.


What then is our direction? Are the Reformed, Fundamentalist, Moderate, Liberal, Bapto-Catholic and Emerging expressions our only options as Baptists? Is there another way? Prior to Vatican II (1962-1965), the World Council of Churches (b.1948), a primarily Protestant grouping of churches was the voice of ecumenism. Post-Vatican II, ecumenism became a priority of the Roman Catholic Church. Not all Roman Catholic theologians were behind this ecumenical quest; some, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, were concerned that such a quest would be injurious to Catholicism. Ironically, it is von Balthasar's theological outlook that holds the greatest potential for creating ecumenical bridges between the various Christian expressions from the Roman Catholic side. On the Baptist side of the divide, James McClendon and Stanley Grenz stood as ecumenical standard bearers; and McClendon more so than Grenz. Yet Grenz's theology may have more promise for ecumenical engagement from the Baptist side!

The question comes back to how we understand the challenge of ecumenism. According to canon law, only the pope can call ecumenical councils. Does this mean that non-Roman expressions of the Christian faith must adhere to that dictum? Is it legitimate for denominations to engage in ecumenical discourse with other Christian expressions if itself is experiencing disunity and division? Shouldn't the ecumenical ideal begin in our own house? Some theologians have already answered these questions for themselves. Many of us either have not asked the questions, or we aren't concerned about them.

This is the challenge of ecumenism… from my perspective.

Is It Time for a "another" Third Way?

The last month has been illuminating. Acquainted, but not familiar with the Baptist-Catholic ecumenical dialogue or the nuances of the Bapto-Catholic believer, I have been given a crash course in that phylum's details. 

In the midst of the conversation, it has become obvious that the late 20th century was not kind to Baptists as a whole, regardless of sectarian orientation. Whether you were Southern, American, General Association, General Conference, Cooperative, Fundamental, Free-Will, Six-Principle, Conservative, Mainstream or "fill-in-the-blank" type of Baptist, in all probability, you experienced prolonged conflict and possible schism. I have served in two Baptist denominations: American Baptist and Southern Baptist. My experience of both groups contains angry conflict and painful separation. 

As these different sub-groups search for a way through their issues some have turned to an increasingly Reformed theology, while others have sought solace in the Bapto-Catholic trajectory. For my Reformed friends, conservative Baptist life had too many loopholes. Adherence to Chicago-statement inerrancy demanded a tighter theological web to support it. Calvinism was the answer. For my Bapto-Catholic friends, moderate Baptist life and its adherence to Mullins inspired individual autonomy left a serious want for holistic community and liturgical continuity. Thus,  the Reformed trajectory seeks to build a tighter, more rigid theological wall in regards to who's in and who's out of the kingdom, while my Bapto-Catholic friends seek refuge in a tradition that goes back 1200 years before the Reformation, yet has similar exclusivity issues as it gets deeper into ecumenical dialogue (see "papal authority", "ecclesiastical infallibility" and "creedal assent").  

Is this it? Is this the fork in the road to which Baptists have arrived? Reformed, Bapto-Catholic, or a soporific middle? Of course these are rhetorical reductions, but it would seem this is where we have landed, in popular terminology.

In our quest for a "third way" two historic theological figures are worth considering: Hans Urs von Balthasar and Stanley J. Grenz. Balthasar died in 1988, a committed Roman Catholic, yet wary of the ecumenical resolutions of Vatican II and a stout defender of the Marian tradition. Nevertheless, Balthasar's dialogue with Protestant theologians, secular philosophers and secular literary figures creates a model for ecumenical engagement. Stanley Grenz, a committed Baptist, was similarly engaged in a vibrant dialogue with a wide variety of theological perspectives, while remaining committed to the unique ecclesiology of Baptist life. Considered together, Balthasar and Grenz provide clues to a third way for Baptists.

Baptists, due to their unique ecclesiology, have an opportunity not only to draw from tradition streams in the past, but to create a multitude of new trajectories. The legacy of the John Smyth-Thomas Helwys experiment is a 'new' way in and of itself. These Anglican-Separatists, influenced heavily by the Waterlander Mennonites and later by the Westminster Divines were a living experiment in cutting edge ecclesiology! The sheer malleability of the Baptist tradition does not demand a search for origins, but an exploration of theological futures. True ecumenical dialogue therefore does not result in the surrender of ecclesiological uniqueness or acquiescence to foreign theological doctrine, but rather the creation of new theo-ethical ontologies. Baptists need not surrender Bible, Soul, Church and Religious freedoms in this quest. Indeed, these freedoms, when viewed from the historic Baptist communal perspective, contribute to the continual creation of community. This is possible when the quest for community is pursued not by retrieving tradition exclusively, but in exploring the theological future. "It is for freedom that Christ set us free" (Galatians 5:1). Baptists are 'simple biblicists' - as was Hans Urs von Balthasar. Scripture is greater than the term inerrancy that has been used to capture its essence. Baptists, in recapturing the essence of scripture as "the Spirit's book" (Grenz), will experience a life-giving theology not known since our 17th century origins. This exploration of the future is not simply a hopeful dialogue, but rather an eschatologically formed understanding of reality, where the future shapes the present. 

You want the rest? See you at the BHHS meeting in June!

Baptist Ecumenism... some initial observations.

I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. (John 17:11 NASB95)

In the 'high priestly prayer' of Jesus in John 17, we find the verse most oft cited by ecumenists - those who strive for universal church unity - to appeal to the mass of Christianity to be 'one' unified body. This movement, born in the modern period - roughly 1948 with the first meeting of the World Council of Churches - had stumbled with the resurgence of Evangelicalism in the 1970s and 1980s, but has found new life in the strangest of places: the Baptist church.

Seeking to find a way through their own divisions, Baptist theologians from across North America began to explore the works of the church fathers (patristics) and the ancient creeds (Nicaea and Chalcedon primarily) in order to move beyond the rigid Reformed positions of the ultra conservative right in Baptist and Evangelical life. Theologians such as the late James Wm. McClendon (Fuller), the inimitable (and living!) Ralph Wood, Barry Harvey, D. H. Williams,(Baylor); Curtis Freeman (Duke); Steven Harmon (Gardner-Webb); Philip Thompson (Sioux Falls Seminary) and Derek Hatch (Howard Payne University) to name but a few, have seriously explored the relationship between Roman Catholic and Baptist faith. Although many interesting correlations and possible connections have been explored, this exploration has not been unanimously embraced by Baptists; indeed, many Baptists have seriously questioned the integrity and viability of such ecumenical dialogue between Christian expressions so ecclesiologically different (e.g. Bruce Gourley, Bill Underwood, Walter Shurden, et al).

In light of this divergence, what then allows an ecumenical dialogue to occur among such differing expressions of Christian faith? Does the unity of the church come by surrendering ecclesiological uniqueness? Does it come by theological accommodation? Does it come by agreement on a shared mission? Does it come through a shared sense of moral obligation and virtue? What is the goal or end of such a dialogue? What does it mean "to be one?" Does that mean "a lack of difference" or homogeneity? Is the John 17 passage enough warrant to allow for a wholesale realignment of ecclesiological expressions? These are important questions for the ecumenist to ask.

One of my favorite theological mentors has been Dr. Ralph Wood of Wake Forest and Baylor Universities. Dr. Wood has laid claim to the designation, "Bapto-Catholic" for himself. In an interview with "Catholic.net" Dr. Wood was asked and answered the following question:

You describe yourself as a “Bapto-Catholic” Could you elaborate?

Wood: We Protestants are woefully weak in our understanding of the sacraments as actually conveying divine grace through the corporate community of the church, rather than merely symbolizing such grace as we ourselves individually appropriate it. Hence our need to learn from Catholics that baptism and Eucharist are two of the acts that objectively make us and sustain us as Christians.

As a Baptist, my other great debt to Catholics lies in the splendid tradition that the Roman Church has built up in its long millennial existence. By engaging its various host cultures, Catholicism has produced a vital legacy of moral, literary, philosophical and theological truth. Having come into existence only in the 17th century, we Baptists have not created such a rich tradition, though in John Bunyan we have engendered at least one world-class writer. By contrast, Catholicism has produced scores, and many of them are my heroes: Dante, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Walker Percy J.R.R. Tolkien, and of course Flannery O’Connor herself.

This enormously fecund tradition helps prevent Catholics from espousing a rather pathetic do-it-yourself religion, each believer determining truth for himself. In addition to the magisterium, Catholics have a veritable panoply of saints who serve as exemplars of the Christian life. Moreover, Pope John Paul II issued a series of encyclicals that provide excellent guidance not only to Catholics but also to us Baptists as well, so that we do not have to make injudicious ad hoc responses to such complex matters as euthanasia and abortion and homosexuality.

Yet some of my priest-friends complain about the horde of “Mass” Catholics who receive the sacrament faithfully every Sunday and think that they have thus discharged their Christian duty. We seek to cultivate a vital personal piety: reading Scripture daily, saying prayers regularly, making witness to others, etc. There are many Catholics for whom these things are true, of course, even as there are many Baptists for whom they are not!

A second contribution concerns the centrality of the proclaimed Word. Preaching also lies at the heart of our evangelistic life, our desire to spread the Good News to the whole world. This explains, by the way, why Flannery O’Connor was so deeply drawn to Baptist and other Protestant preachers in her native Georgia, especially the half-literate ones who announce the Word of God in uncouth but brilliantly engaging terms.

Thus have I devoted an entire chapter of my book Flannery O’Connor and the Christ- Haunted South to the excellent preachers who appear in her fiction.

(http://es.catholic.net/imprimir/index.phtml?ts=9&ca=430&te=996&id=26670)

I believe the questions then that I would ask Dr. Wood would be, "In terms of equitable ecumenical dialogue, how can Baptists uniquely contribute to Catholicism?" and "Why is Catholicism any different than Eastern Orthodoxy or Coptic Christianity?" Certainly, the Orthodox and Coptic traditions have as much artistic and sacramental emphasis from which Baptists can borrow as the Roman Catholic tradition. Dr. Wood, a man I continue to admire and respect, has raised more questions than given answers recently. From my initial observation, Bapto-Catholicism is not so much an ecumenical dialogue as it is a one-sided admiration for Catholic liturgical and theological sensitivities. When was the last time a Roman Catholic theologian drew from the work of E. Y. Mullins or W. T. Conner in a theological treatise? Or, for that matter, when did one draw from the work of Barry Harvey or Millard Erickson? Exactly.

The Bapto-Catholic dialogue is not a pure ecumenical conversation, if an ecumenical conversation is a dialogue with an equitable exchange of ideas tempered by a mutual respect for the other's position. It seems to be rather one sided (regardless of Dr. Wood's hopes) with the Baptists drinking stout draughts from the Catholic keg as our Roman friends look on with the stoicism of a 'Cheshire Cat'. My initial assessment is that the Bapto-Catholic dialogue is the attempt of a segment of Baptists - who have been brutally scarred by four decades of theological and political combat with Baptist assassins from the 'right' - to find meaning in faith outside their own tradition. I don't fault them one bit in this attempt. I think Dr. Wood's observations are spot on. This is not a bad idea, it is an engagement with merit - it's just not as ecumenical as my friends believe it to be.

For next time: if this is not a purely ecumenical dialogue, then what is? What would a genuine Bapto-Other dialogue look like?

The Celebration of In-Between-ness

As a good Baptomatic-Methodyterian, Catholo-Protestant Christ-Follower, I tend to view the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday as the "half-time" of Holy Week. (The sheer fact that I mention the terms "Good Friday" and "Holy Week" means that I am ecumenically oriented, which places me on the "dubious" list of my purely Southern Baptist friends.) Nevertheless, I find myself on this Saturday morning wanting more from this 'half-time' respite.

A quick check of my favorite though dubious resource, "Wikipedia", draws a picture of this Saturday in dark terms. My Roman Catholic friends call this day 'Holy Saturday' or 'Black Saturday'. The chancel is stripped bear and the administration of sacraments is severely limited. Holy Communion is only given as Viaticum to the dying. Altars are covered with black. It is a grave day, a solemn day. For my Orthodox friends, a sunnier disposition is held. It is called 'Holy Saturday' or 'Great Saturday' even 'The Great Sabbath'. In the Coptic (Egyptian) church it is called 'Joyous Saturday'. It is on this day that Christ 'rests' in the tomb from His work and the day in which He, by the Spirit, performs the "Harrowing of Hades" - the descent to hell where Jesus frees the captives! Woot!

Either way you look at it, as good Postmodern Baptomatic-Methodyterian Catholo-Protestant Christ-Followers, we have some choices to make about this day. Personally, I appreciate the point my Roman Catholic friends want to make, but I choose to celebrate the day as my Orthodox brethren do, as 'Joyous Saturday'. In days of darkness, such as ours tend to be at this time, the 'Joyous Saturday' approach communicates better in a consumerist culture. Having clarified my theological preference, let me make a different statement:

We live in Holy Saturday.

As contemporary Christ-Followers, we live our lives between the cross and resurrection. Jesus gives us the example of the cross and the hope of the resurrection. We share in His sufferings in the hope of His resurrection. In this sense, we live between Black Saturday and Joyous Saturday. We live between the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim. Mount Ebal being the mount of curse and Gerizim being the mount of blessing (Deuteronomy 11:29). Alan Lewis's book, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday does a superb job of exploring this relationship.

How does this serve us as Christ-Followers today?

This day causes us to pause and reflect on our "In-Between-ness." As participants in the whizzy-go-fast Western, Postmodern culture of our times, we become frustrated when life doesn't produce an immediate answer to our questions or fulfill our every desire. Black Saturday reminds us of the profound sacrifice of love that Christ made on our behalf. Joyous Saturday reminds us that He has set the captives free from sin and death; and yet, both remind us that we live in the "almost, but not yet." Christ is the example and hope. We suffer with Him and yet one day will live with Him. We are forgiven and empowered, yet not quite resurrected.

If we understand this "in-between-ness" as the nature of our existence, then each and every day becomes a choice between Gerizim and Ebal. Each and every day is an opportunity to live joyously and wisely. Each and every day is a celebration of life in the midst of death.

Tomorrow, Christ-Followers around the world will proclaim the resurrection of Jesus as truth. I will be one of them. But Holy Saturday begs the question: Why wait?

Live resurrection.