Pithy quotes from our current reading which give us pause to reflect

For those who feel as Ms Oldfield expressed it in Merv’s quote,

I kind of feel the same way about pinning so much importance on giving the mythos a specific historical grounding in the crucifixion. Go ahead, if it supports your faith and allows you to feel the tug of the sacred by all means do that! I don’t at all mean that in a tit for tat way but sincerely I am pro faith. Any faith that enables people to channel the sacred in the world is good for all of us and smiled on by God as conceived by me. Viva la difference. There is no intrinsic superiority in a faith divorced from a tradition but if it is the best one can do in a culture which has failed to keep alive the value of the sacred in the public sphere, it is still better than having us join the derisive chorus of angry atheists.

Another key block in McGilchrist’s pro sacred argument involves the legitimacy of the view which motivates material naturalism. What works so well for boring down to the physical laws of nature is no standard for how we should understand ourselves, our place in the world or our experience generally - and science is in no position to provide that context. This quote from Kindle pages 1730-1731 captures that idea but is still not the entire argument.

Wisdom has many facets that distinguish it from our common conception of knowledge in the modern West, and one of these is that true understanding requires a certain disposition of the mind towards its object. While it is decidedly not one of excessive attachment, it cannot be that of complete indifference, either. There is a sense in which an open affection for its object is as much a requirement for a deep understanding, as it is a product of it. Emerson reflected that ‘love is fabled to be blind, but to me it seems that kindness is necessary to perception’.

True understanding in other words already presupposes a connexion, rather than being the prerequisite of such a connexion. … Knowledge cannot be confirmed by some external criterion that is not itself already an object of knowledge: we can know ‘from the inside’ only, not ‘from the outside’. A hermeneutic circle* is involved, which means access to knowledge cannot be made certain and definite, but requires a step of faith to get going at all. I say ‘step’, because the normal expression ‘leap of faith’ makes it sound potentially random, whereas random is the last thing it is. It is no more random than one’s willingness to trust an outstretched hand that enables one to cross a stream.

The incoherent attempt to see things from the outside means that there is something excessively cold and alien about the Western idea of knowledge.

  • @Christy - does this usage of “hermeneutic” square with your understanding of linguistics?

** Also @Rob_Brewer does my application of this TMWT quote seem to fit the purpose I put it to by your understanding?

1 Like

Yes. In the general sense, it just means “meaning-making.”


Yes, Mark. I agree with your use of the quotes from TMWT. I hear Iain saying that often, Christianity tries to make everything smooth and continuous, but it is also an influence that intervenes and modifies, attempting to improve, assuming that it is unique and spot on in its assessment of existence. It is understandable in a world where so many things trouble us, but I also read Iain as saying (and also see) that we are part of the problem because our habit is to ignore the nature of things. Our tendency to isolate and separate overlooks the fact that everything is deeply attached and interconnected.

I’m sure Iain would say that Christianity’s largest contribution is emphasising love as a divine and sacred force. But love is also deeply woven into the fabric of transcendentals through its connection to unity, truth, and goodness – a concept that arose from medieval scholasticism (Aquinas) but originated with Plato, Augustine, and Aristotle in the West.

But if we look to the East, the Bhagavad Gita (dated to the second half of the first millennium BCE) describes love as closely connected to the path of devotion (the practice of Bhakti Yoga). Devotion to God is seen as a means to transcend the material world and realise the divine. This devotion, or love, unites the devotee with divine truth and goodness, aligning with the transcendent aspects of being.

My problem with Christianity is not so much the teaching of Christ but the dependency of historicity that is attached to believing. I am sure this is a major factor for people moving away from the church. Pinpointing divine intervention in one’s own tradition and overlooking the richness of other traditions is a decidedly left-hemispheric tendency which ignores the emerging facts that the Old Testament is a fabrication and the New Testament is a selected interpretation of events around Jesus. This wouldn’t be a problem if we could accept that traditions generally build on similar foundations and concentrate on teachings rather than claiming historicity.

The proof of Buddha’s or Lao Tzu’s existence and what they did is not contended, despite far less archaeological evidence, because it isn’t important. Their teaching is important.

Mark 4,10-12; 33-34: Jesus said, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside, everything is said in parables so that,

“they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise, they might turn and be forgiven!”

With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

The way I experienced Christianity, we were told the parables but not the secret of the kingdom of God. Namely, the kingdom of God is already here, as seen by those enlightened by knowledge of those secrets.

1 Like

More from Elizabeth Oldfield “Fully Alive”

In times of prosperity and peace, it is possible for an individual, couple or nuclear family to get on fine largely by themselves, brushing up against others only in casual social contact or financial transactions. A few friends just like us who we occasionally text, party or brunch with will do. When systems are working fine and there are enough resources to go around, the payoff from individualism in freedom and convenience seems attractive. It is easy to default to this way of living, and our social structures make it more and more likely. The trouble is that committed reciprocal relationships over time (yes, the kind that inconvenience us) help us flourish, and without them life begins to feel meaningless. But unless we hit a crisis we can go a long time before that becomes apparent to us.

For almost all of us, our times do not feel like settled peace and prosperity, and I can’t imagine they will again soon. Compared to most of the world, and most of history, we still have it incredibly easy in the West, but turbulence appears to be the new normal, and ramping up. Coupling that with a steady decrease in social cohesion is a terrible plan. Jonathan Sacks in his book Morality echoed many commentators by bemoaning an “overemphasis on the I and a loss of the we.” I don’t need to quote you loneliness figures and hand-wringing policy reports to convince you we no longer really know how to be together. We are fracturing, exactly when we are most going to need each other.

Because in unstable times, people who are members of diverse and committed groups are at a huge advantage. This is part of my drive to live more closely with others. It’s as selfish as that, on one level. I do feel genuine fear about my children’s future. Continuing to raise them as if the world they inherit will be the same one we did feels irresponsible. I don’t know what their world will look like, what monsters under their bed they will have to fight. But I know that being knitted into a small group of people who love them, whom they have seen up close learning to love each other, resisting their disconnecting pride, sharing their skills and capacity and energy for the good of all, is one way I can prepare them.

I want to show them that, although it requires sacrifice of individual autonomy and preferences and is not compatible with unfettered self-actualization, being part of real community is worth that cost. I think true self-actualization, becoming more fully ourselves, does actually happen best in healthy community, in places we are fully known, but it looks different. I honestly think, other than an unshakeable knowledge of their parents’ love, and an openness to the possibility of God’s love, this is the best gift we can give them.

Oldfield, Elizabeth. Fully Alive: Tending to the Soul in Turbulent Times (pp. 206-207). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

1 Like

…and from her final chapter where she finally broaches the obligatory discussion of “God” and “Church” … she has this to offer (drawing on no less than Iaian McGichrist, among others!

McGilchrist argues that understanding these different modes of attention is foundational, because they control “nothing less than the way we relate to the world. And it doesn’t just dictate the kind of relationship we have with whatever it is: it dictates what it is that we come to have a relationship with.” Matthew Taylor and I concluded we both take our kids to church out of the same instinct that makes us sign them up for music lessons, to literally form their minds through habits of attention. To widen the range of what they can see and hear. A child who has played an instrument will encounter an orchestra differently than one who hasn’t. They will experience more. The instinct is not to constrain their choices, but to keep their options open. I don’t want them trapped in a solely left-hemispheric world, for the possibility of divine love to slip out of their field of vision like the gorilla at the back of the basketball game. If my kids have been exposed to religious ways of knowing it will be easier for them to conceive of the possibility of God, even if they later choose to reject it.

Oldfield, Elizabeth. Fully Alive: Tending to the Soul in Turbulent Times (pp. 236-237). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


When I read about it I thought the exact opposite, that the flowers are cut because the culture changed.

Merv, both quotes from Oldfield are stunning. Thank you.

(I see the book is in my Bookshare subscription. Downloading it tomorrow.)

1 Like

I was looking for a good book on spiritual awakenings and landed on Lovelace’s Dynamics of Spiritual Life. This is a highly regarded book and Tim Keller’s foreword took it to a whole other level of anticipation for me. I highly recommend this in itself, which is a mini synopsis of Keller’s ministry and experience with revivals. It is available in the Kindle sample.

Lovelace explains that renewal is needed because Christians so easily fall away from a full understanding of the gospel into cheap grace, legalism, and moralism, or what I’ve often described as religion.

Keller, foreword to Dynamics of Spiritual Life

Wow! This Lovelace fellow is far ranging and concise

One group of genuine believers can never remember a conscious conversion to faith in Christ; another insists that a datable experience of being “born again” is essential; a third says that a second distinct experience of “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” is necessary for Christian maturity. When we “test the spirits” in the lives of representatives among these groups, we often find an equal level of spiritual vitality—or deadness!—in each sector.

And talk about nailing the truth with something I recently came across in the controversy of David French getting canceled. This is Lovelace quoting A.W. Boehm:

Faith, as it is now in Vogue, signifieth no more than a stiff adhering to a certain Sect or Denomination of Men, and a zealous Defence of such particular Tenets as have been received and approved of by that Party. All the Ingredients of such a Faith, are nothing but humane Education, Custom, Tradition, Perswasion, Conversation and the like. The Zeal which goeth along with it, is the Product of Self-love, and of corrupt Reason, the two great Framers of Sects and Party-Notions.


The metaphor was used by rabbi in Merv’s example, to show that religious virtues cannot be removed (cut) from their religious underpinnings and continue to flourish.

There is no mention in the metaphor of a reason for having removed them from the underpinnings, only that they will not survive without a continuing connection to those underpinnings.

I believe the rabbi is mistaken.

1 Like

This is a problem for me too personally but I can’t say that I think a belief system we manufacture ourself or distill from a study of many traditions is more apt to foster a connection with the unity when it’s source is our own intellectual process which is missing the testing of generations. I do believe it is the best I can do however.

What emerges from the sources available today is a subversive movement that began with the later prophets (if not earlier) against legalism and ritualism that the prophets saw enacted rather than heartfelt compassion—“I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6. This contradicts the Law, which commanded sacrifice, and Jesus quotes the verse in Matthew 9:12. There are more examples:

“Your incense is detestable to me… Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow." Isaiah 1:16-17

In the New Testament, Jesus shows the same frame of mind:

Luke 4:16–21 — American Standard Version (ASV)

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, “Today hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.”

Unsurprisingly, the early Christian movement was a subversive force, directly opposing the legalistic and often brutal rule of the Roman Empire. In their refusal to worship the Roman gods or the emperor, Christians advocated for love, charity, and equality, thereby challenging the Roman social order. The irony is not lost when we consider that once the Church gained power, it too became legalistic and authoritarian, contradicting the teachings of Jesus.

I’ve always seen Jesus as a bit tongue-in-cheek when confronting the Pharisees and Sadducees. The fact that obedience to the bishop later became the primary goal and people were brutally killed for their disobedience seems to contradict Jesus’ boldness. It is no wonder that the church considered laughing a sin for a while. In the early Christian Church, laughter was sometimes viewed with suspicion. The writings of several Church Fathers, such as St. John Chrysostom and St. Jerome, contain admonishments against excessive laughter and jesting, which were seen as distractions from a pious and contemplative life. The Rule of St. Benedict, a foundational text for Western monasticism, advised monks to avoid laughter and frivolous talk. However, in other ancient philosophical traditions such as Stoicism, excessive laughter was sometimes seen as a lack of self-control.

It is the legalistic and authoritarian aspects of any organised movement, including atheists or even post-modernists, that make the original criticism hypocritical and contradictory. Such subversive behaviour, looking across traditions, is recorded as far back as near the end of the Zhou dynasty in China, from about the 6th century B.C.E. to about the 3rd century B.C.E. It is probably much older, but we find the subversive Tao te Ching and followers of Taoism, even Confucius during the Han Dynasty was initially subversive, and throughout history, various philosophies, religions, and movements have acted subversively against overly legalistic or authoritarian rulers.

Carnival in Catholic countries functions as an allowed excursion into the subversive. It offers a structured opportunity for people to explore and express behaviours and ideas that challenge the norm, ultimately reinforcing the social fabric by providing a periodic release of tension and an affirmation of communal bonds. It has roots in pre-Christian traditions but has been adapted into the Christian calendar, particularly in the period leading up to Lent, a time of penance and reflection.

So, it isn’t as though there are no well-tried traditions. The problem is that we tend to regard Evangelicalism as something older than it is, and so-called Gnosticism, which is in reality just an abusive terminology for inspirational and visionary Christianity, is akin to mysticism, and its expressiveness is not unsimilar to many artistic religious expressions.

1 Like

I think I see your point. The ‘nourishing soil’ that should be provided to help ground ethical systems has in many ways been poisoned with idolatrous contaminants that is killing off the flowers anyway. Those hasitly plucking them up to find more wholesome soil for them may just be doing what is necessary right now. And in fact discovering that there are deeper, perhaps more native soils still to be re-discovered and used. I hope and trust for the sake of my own religious tradition that there will always remain at least some remnant of it that itself stays connected with those deeper soils. It could well be that it isn’t just our ethical systems that are badly in need of nourishment.

Good point. I suppose every denomination of Christianity can trace its lineage to Jesus in some way but probably each splitting left some protector of the faith shaking a fist and questioning if they should even be considered Christians at all. Can’t imagine Jewish leaders back then were any too happy to see their faction impressed with that rabble rouser Jesus split off either, especially when Rome joined them. Given that it was a gnostic mystic (from the point of view of the old guard) that got Christianity started it is understandable why iinstitutioinalists rule out further revelation and gnosticism. I wonder who the ‘old guard’ were when Evangelicals went their own way. I think every Christian from Luther to Joseph Smith can claim the mantle of tracing back to biblical times but there is little reason to take seriously their denunciation of later splitters.

  • My mother-in-law would have too. She had a “green thumb” and could take a cutting of almost anything, put it soil, water it, and it would put out roots, and grow.
  • The Rabbi was citing Will Herberg, (June 30, 1901 – March 26, 1977). who "…was an American writer, intellectual, and scholar. A communist political activist during his early years, Herberg gained wider public recognition as a social philosopher and[sociologist of religion, as well as a Jewish theologian. He was a leading conservative thinker during the 1950s and an important contributor to the National Review magazine.
    • "Herberg is credited with coining the phrase “cut flower culture” to describe the spiritual rootlessness of modern European and American societies. The epithet is typically taken to imply that these societies cannot long survive without being regrafted onto their Judeo-Christian roots. In Judaism and Modern Man, Herberg wrote:
      • ‘The attempt made in recent decades by secularist thinkers to disengage the moral principles of Western civilization from their scripturally based religious context, in the assurance that they could live a life of their own as “humanistic” ethics, has resulted in our “cut flower culture.” Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance, but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now-severed roots; after that is exhausted, they wither and die. So with freedom, brotherhood, justice, and personal dignity — the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung, they possess neither meaning nor vitality’ "
  • Rabbi Wolpe’s analogy is followed by Bishop Barron’s comment:
    • At about: 14:40, a significant point is made: about politics … anything you worship that isn’t God, becomes your god, and mischief ensues. All Christian Nationalists may not care equally about Young Earth Creationism; and not all YECs are Christian Nationalists. But one thing both groups “worship” in common, and it ain’t Jesus alone. It’s the Bible.
      :* For kicks, here’s a summary of Religion and Social Media.

I find it tiresome to hear about who has more insight into the real things because they have better developed one way of thinking or another or can integrate it all. I am grateful for words like this from I Corinthians 12

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slavesd or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts,e yet one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

There is room for all kinds, all abilities and all disabilities in the body of Christ. He welcomes our deficiencies and limitations. I’m grateful for such magnanimous grace.

1 Like

My point is much simpler.

The rabbi claimed that virtues rooted in religious traditions cannot be taken on by someone outside a tradition, and continue to flourish particularly over generations who no longer have connection to or awareness of that tradition.

In this the rabbi assumes

  • that virtue is the fruit of religious traditions. I’m not convinced that it is.

  • that virtue is objectively definable. I don’t believe that is the case. As we see among Christians in the U.S. alone, there is great disagreement about the virtuousness of a great many actions. Likewise I think history demonstrates that virtue is a cultural phenomenon that is defined by and differs between communities and cultures, although there is perhaps a great deal of overlap in what we might call virtuous.

  • that virtue cannot be developed outside of religious influence, but I think religion is not necessary for virtue to exist. Religiousness is normal for people, so virtuous behavior might appear to be tied to religion. But I believe there are many people without religion – now from a long line of those without religion, who understand and exercise virtue.

While the metaphor of “cut flowers” may describe the rabbi’s view of the matter, I don’t think it describes how virtue exists or develops.

I don’t see virtue as something transplanted, either. We are capable of admiring and learning behavior from others without an entire structure underneath it.

Likewise, as I said before, what counts as virtuous behavior is a product of the culture in which that behavior takes place. The universal, the surrounding culture defines what is virtuous and what is not. Sometimes the outlier must go against the culture, even that of one’s religious community, to behave virtuously – the entire point of Fear and Trembling.

If the community values the behavior, even if it comes from elsewhere, it may adopt it and make it its own. More of an absorption process, if one must use a metaphor.

This doesn’t mean that I see no point in religion. But I don’t see the purpose of religion as to develop us into moral, virtuous people.


I second that. One example is individual rights, something I got into a discussion about on a libertarian site. The idea that individuals have rights initially comes from a Judeo-Christian foundation, which was what one side was arguing, but it was also pointed out that the concept of individual rights can be derived from the idea of self-ownership, which doesn’t come from Judeo-Christian foundation: if I own myself, then it follows that I can do with myself as I please so long as I don’t harm others, and from that can be derived rights of freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of self-defense, privacy, etc. So the concept of individual rights was by one side severed from its religious foundation and attached to a new foundation.

Gnosticism was a vile belief system. One example is that Gnostics held that females cannot be saved, they have to become male if they want redemption. Another is that the God of the Jews is effectively the Devil; closely related is that the second-highest power(s) in the universe are deceiving tricksters – Jesus, who only appeared to be a man (an Aeon wearing a flesh costume), laughed at how everyone was deceived into thinking he was on the Cross. Indeed much of what the Quran has to say about Jesus and for that matter about women comes right out of Gnosticism. It isn’t very complimentary about men, either, generally holding that men are so weak they have to keep women locked away because men can’t control their lust. Add to that the notion that the only people who can be saved are those who were cast into this world from a higher state; salvation is defined as successfully recovering that lost status – a status that the vast majority of people do not have and so can do nothing but perish. Material existence was said to be an evil to be escaped from, though the manner of that escape varied widely. Wisdom is conceived of as a path to ruin; only the secret knowledge has value. For that matter, material existence was held to be an inherently polluted accident!

So in Gnosticism there is no Father, no Redeemer, and no salvation for the vast majority of humans.

Your portrayal of Gnosticism reflects a mix of historical and doctrinal elements often presented through a lens that emphasises its more controversial aspects. Gnosticism is a complex and diverse set of beliefs that emerged in the early centuries of Christianity, and while some Gnostic sects held views that were indeed radical and controversial, the overall picture is more nuanced. Here are some clarifications and context regarding the points you’ve mentioned:

Female Redemption: The intriguing concept that females must become male to achieve salvation, often associated with certain interpretations of Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is typically understood metaphorically rather than literally. This interpretation represents the unification of opposites, especially the transcendence of gender distinctions in spiritual terms, a profound and symbolic understanding of the Gnostic worldview.

Demiurge as the Jewish God: Some Gnostic sects posited that the creator god (often called the Demiurge) was a lower, ignorant, or malevolent entity, distinct from the true, transcendent God. This Demiurge was sometimes equated with the God of the Old Testament, leading to the idea that the material world is flawed or evil. However, this view was not universal among those called Gnostics and was one of many cosmological variations.

Jesus and the Illusion of Crucifixion: Some Gnostic texts, like the Apocryphon of John and the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, suggest that Jesus did not suffer on the cross in the way described in orthodox Christian teachings. Instead, he may have been seen as an illusion or a spiritual being transcending physical suffering. This docetic view contrasts with orthodox Christianity but was not uniformly held among all Gnostic groups.

Salvation and Pre-existent Souls: Gnosticism often emphasised the idea that certain individuals possess a divine spark or a connection to the higher, spiritual realm. Salvation was seen as the awakening and return of this divine essence to its original state. While this implies a sort of spiritual elitism, it wasn’t necessarily a condemnation of those who lacked this spark but a reflection of their specific cosmological beliefs.

Material World and Escape: Some Gnostics viewed the material world as flawed or evil, created by the Demiurge. This belief focused on spiritual enlightenment and escape from the material realm. However, attitudes toward the material world and the means of escape varied widely among different Gnostic sects.

Wisdom and Secret Knowledge: Gnosticism valued “gnosis,” or secret knowledge, as the path to salvation. This knowledge was often seen as hidden or esoteric, accessible only to those initiated into the mysteries of the faith. This emphasis on secret knowledge can be interpreted as elitist, but it was also a response to the perceived limitations and corruptions of the material world. The suggestion of secret knowledge is also present in the Gospels and Paul’s writings.

The fact that your views come from a mixing of various beliefs is a testament to the rich diversity under the name of Gnosticism. There was no unified belief system but rather a collection of sects with diverse doctrines and practices. The portrayal of Gnosticism as uniformly vile or problematic often comes from its critics, particularly orthodox Christian writers who sought to discredit it, a fact that underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of this complex belief system.

In summary, while what is deemed Gnosticism contained some radical and controversial ideas, it was a complex and diverse movement. Its beliefs varied significantly among different sects, and its teachings should be understood within their historical and cultural context rather than as a monolithic or uniformly negative doctrine.

1 Like