Research Articles Base: Religion Essays

THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY: A UNION OF HUMAN AND DIVINE INSTITUTION

THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY: A UNION OF HUMAN AND DIVINE INSTITUTIONS   People often understand the word “community” as a group of individuals living together sharing the same set of traditions, interests and beliefs. Normally, there is always an idea that there is harmony between the people a part of that community. But the image seems different for an outsider. This is true on my part. Learning to a new set of traditions, interests, and beliefs seems to be intimidating at first, especially for people like me who are suddenly placed at a new environment. This is the situation that I faced when I was newly got in the United States a decade ago. I believed then that being in a new place and being exposed with an entirely new culture would be a major problem. Wishing for a way to recover from this depressing feeling, my prayers seem to be answered when I was invited to a party with my friend. This opened the doors to a totally new experience. This gathering was a Christmas party hosted by the Catholic Church in our area. This is the very first community that accepted me on the earlier days of my stay in the United States. It was one of the latest events that I consider memorable. The people that go in that church welcomed me with smiles, started to chat with me, and offered their food as if I was family. These are some of the qualities that made me fall in love with the Catholic community in out area. Since then I’ve become one of the most active members of the church. However, these were just the beginning. After every meeting and after every hearing of mass, I am constantly discovering certain things about the community. The social arrangements and the practices in the Church seem to show itself in both formal meetings and casual encounters of the people who goes with that church. The community within the Catholic Church is more than simply making friends. It is more of making a second family. Yes, believe it or not the community is likely to treat every member like one of their own family. Maybe this may be based on the beliefs and traditions of the Catholic Church, especially of the Church being made up of both the divine and human aspects. It is the union and continuous relation between the two that keeps the community going. The spirituality and faith by each member is seen in the way they care for me and the other members (and non-members) of the Church. These values that the community has seem to rubs off on my own actions. For example, I have been a part of a lot of charity projects from food drives to free services to the community. The Catholic community has helped me understand how important and satisfying helping those who have less in life than I am. In addition, it has helped me understand the importance of the idea of a family in both the material and spiritual meaning.           After ten years, this community has become a big part of my life. It has been one that set up the foundations of my beliefs and ideas about goodness and decency with myself and how I deal with others. Moreover, the community has positively set up my ability as an individual to act within the virtues and principles of my faith. Good behavior and the way that I act in public in the same way are based largely on the good values that I have learned from the Catholic Church. My opinions on certain issues both social and political tend to base itself on my understanding of doctrines, faith and my spirituality as taught by the Catholic Church.   Mostly, the community that I have chosen to join has influenced my growth as a person a lot. Though I will not arrogantly say that I am perfect, the community that I belong helps me when I change direction on the path of what I believe as good and right. It makes me consider life changing decisions with the beliefs that I have learned in the past ten years in the community. Overall, this community that I chose to be a member of showed me the importance of the family. Not just speaking in plain terms, but also in the every meaning of the word. I would even say that it molded my identity and that realizing that I am actually a part of something greater that I ever imagined. Throughout this discussion I kept on saying that I decided to be a part of the Catholic Community, when I think about it, it appears that in some miraculous way, the community chose me. And for that, I am very grateful.      Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY: A UNION OF HUMAN AND DIVINE INSTITUTION

THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY: A UNION OF HUMAN AND DIVINE INSTITUTIONS People often understand the word “community” as a group of individua...

A pastoral letter

A pastoral letter by three high-level German bishops reopened the debate on pastoral care for those who have been divorced and then remarried. The status of these people conflicts with the principles of pastoral care since they are considered adulterers or at least living in sin and the current papal doctrine gives them only inadequate options based on the assumption that if the Church failed to support the indissolubility of marriage then people would not seek it. The pastoral letter suggests that pastoral care decisions would be better made on the local level as opposed to by Rome. The letter stated that a pastoral dialogue was needed to determine whether the “generally valid” prohibition against the remarried receiving the Eucharist “applies also in a given situation.” The presumption behind these pastoral options was that those whose marriages were invalid due to the existence of a prior bond of marriage were living in a sinful situation, an adulterous union. Their lives together placed them in the proximate occasion of serious sin, thus endangering their salvation. Moreover, it was intolerable because it could be a source of scandal to the faithful. The Church’s marriage tribunals functioned ponderously and declarations of nullity were slow and very few. The tribunals could respond to only a tiny fraction of the pastoral need. Often couples could not separate, since their obligations to their children, their dependence on one another, or their economic condition simply did not permit it. Living together as brother and sister was an arrangement “full of dangers” and to be suggested only in the rarest of cases.   The work of the NCCB Committee came to naught; no guidelines were ever issued. Pastoral practice regarding access to the sacraments by the divorced and remarried continued to be and still remains diverse in the U.S. During the 1980 International Synod on the Family there was concern expressed to improve pastoral care toward the divorced and remarried. At the time there was criticism of the synod’s final text for failing to catch the nuances of the discussion, i.e. not consistently distinguishing between conflict and hardship cases, and within the hardship category ignoring the difference between those who were abandoned and people in other situations. Overall, the tone of the synod discussions and the declared desire to provide a positive program of pastoral care was a big step forward in the Church’s ministry to those in irregular unions. In 1981, John Paul II issued his apostolic exhortation provided his thoughts on the synod topic. In paragraph 84 he addressed the situation of the divorced and remarried. There he made distinctions not found in the synod statement. The distinctions, however, did not make any practical difference in pastoral care – all divorced and remarried are to be extended pastoral care and all are to be excluded from the Eucharist. While gracious in tone and strong in his affirmation of the place of the divorced and remarried within the Catholic community, the pope repeated the synod’s reasons for Eucharistic exclusion – namely, a contradiction between the objective state of those in irregular unions and the unity which the Eucharist signifies.     They note that with regard to pastoral care “the church is not simply free,” for the standard of the Church must be “the word, will and example of Jesus” their conclusion makes two points. “The church cannot assume the right to disregard the word of Jesus regarding the permanence of marriage; but equally it cannot shut its eyes to the failure of many marriages. For wherever people fall short of the reality of redemption Jesus meets them in mercy with understanding for their situation.” Emphasizing that the Church “cannot serve human needs without first serving the truth about the human person,” Stafford stated that the Church’s position on divorce and remarriage is not of its own making but “comes directly from the words of Christ.” To violate that teaching is to rupture a sacramental covenant. Since the “Eucharist is the defining act, the central celebration of Christian unity and community,” those who participate must not be living a life which violates the sacramental unity. One cannot simply exalt the individual’s conscience over the Church’s teaching, especially on a matter so central to the Church’s life as marriage. The divorced remarried person is excluded from the Eucharist since adultery is a sin. (3) Adultery “exists exclusively in sexual communion. Thus, nothing stands in the way of admission to the sacraments if the partners of the new marriage reject sexual union, even if they live together in personal community.”       The issue of sin arises not only in regard to adultery.  makes the point that “not only the remarriage, but the divorce is an offense against God’s command.” Whether this offense is a sin must be judged not only by the objective situation but by personal culpability, for the present pope has “expressly acknowledged that not every divorced spouse lives in mortal sin.” Each case must be examined. Some may not be sinfully culpable for their divorce, e.g. the abandoned. Yet other spouses may well have “destroyed the personal living and loving community of a marriage in a mortally sinful way.” Such persons must earnestly undergo an examination of their actions and in “true repentance turn from sin” through the sacrament of penance. Such individuals are not excluded from the Eucharist, even if the divorce remains in effect, since reestablishment of the loving communion of the first marriage may no longer be possible. Divorced persons in this situation are free to receive the sacraments, although they were culpable in a serious way for the break-up of the marriage and their divorced state is not altered. Divorce, objectively violates God’s will for married life. In many cases sinful culpability is present when a marriage dies. Just as the divorced person may repent yet persist in the “objectively wrong” status of being divorced, so the remarried may honestly pursue a path of repentance and sacramental forgiveness yet remain in a canonically invalid second union. The Church acknowledges this to be so since it encourages a couple to live up to the obligations, both human and Christian, that derives from the new marriage.   The Church cannot tell a couple that their present state in life is their duty while at the same time tells them that their present state of life entails persisting in sin. True, the official teaching presently maintains that the couple meets their obligations while living as brother and sister. But since, as has already been argued, no rights of former spouses are violated by the sexual sharing present in the new marriage, because no such right exists, the full intimacy of marriage at all levels can and should occur in the second marriage. Thus, provided the divorced and remarried honestly seek to build a life of personal self-giving and loving communion, their participation in the Eucharist should be permitted when they approach the table, irrespective of the canonical status of their marriage. The early Church in developing its Eucharistic discipline appealed to both the Matthean text, “do not give to dogs what is holy” () and the Pauline warning to the Corinthians not to receive the body and blood of the Lord unworthily (). Paul called upon believers to examine themselves “and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” This attitude has fostered the presumption that if persons present themselves to the minister, the Eucharist should not be refused.         The Church does not believe there must be no original sin before baptism, nor no mortal sin before penance. Rather, these sacraments bring about what they celebrate, the forgiveness of sin. Must the sacrament of the Eucharist presume unity in order to celebrate it? Or may it be the means whereby unity is effectively created? Because the present church discipline does not give sufficient weight to the concern expressed in the second question we do not appear to have a balanced view of sacramental effectiveness. One can argue that because such a sacramental marriage should witness to Christ’s love it needs to embody a faithful and permanent bond of love which does not end. That is to draw a reasonable implication, namely, that if marriage is to be sign of Christ’s love, then a couple should imitate the qualities of Christ’s love. But to conclude that because Christ’s love for the Church cannot end, then this couple’s love for each other cannot end, is doing something more. In the first case we are drawing out moral implications, in the second we are making an ontological claim.() To state that indissolubility is a moral ideal, an ethical obligation, is a justifiable conclusion from the prior claim that sacramental marriage is meant to be sign of Christ’s love.         For one thing, quite apart from the Church’s teaching, people earnestly desire their marriages to be permanent and faithful. In reports from those regularly engaged in premarital-preparation programs there is little reason to conclude that couples enter into marriage indifferent to the ideals of permanence and fidelity. Every couple wants its marriage to be a success. Even as they admit that marriages often do not succeed, they want theirs to succeed. That is why divorce is a tragedy and many people who know nothing of Catholicism see it exactly that way. The actual legal decree of divorce may not be experienced by all as a tragedy since for some it is a relief, an end to wrangling, fear, and anger. But the existential process of the breakdown of a marriage leading to the legal judgment is deeply painful for all.   Pastoral Care/Pastoral Solutions One of the positive developments within the Church in recent decades has been the growing sensitivity to divorced and remarried Catholics. No longer is the language of bigamy or excommunication found in formal teaching. The Church has now reached out in a wide variety of ways to those who have suffered the break-up of a marriage, e.g. better tribunal practice, parish-based support groups, weekend retreat programs, welcoming attitudes among parish staff and congregations. The official teaching of the Church has encouraged such developments agree that many things can be done to support those who are divorced, whether single or remarried. People whose marriages have failed are still members of the Church and are entitled to pastoral care appropriate to their situation. In providing such care ministers ought not make the mistake of equating it only with the celebration of the sacraments. Even without admission to the Eucharist, much can and should be done for the divorced and remarried by pastoral leaders. The language of pastoral care can obscure the true nature of what is involved. For example, describing the outcome of a discernment process as a “good faith” solution is, in our opinion, unsatisfactory. There is a tendency to link “good faith” with invincible ignorance and the pastoral practice of dissimulation. However, many couples are fully aware of what the Church teaches regarding indissolubility and marriage. In any number of instances people simply do not see why the ban on Eucharistic participation must be absolute when it comes to those in canonically irregular marriages. When this moral framework is employed and the couple maintains that the new marriage exists, then three pastoral options are possible: (1) convalidate their present marriage after seeking annulment or dissolution of the first marriage; (2) leave the couple in good faith, dissimulate; (3) admit them to penance and Eucharist, without any formal judgment about the first union. Separation is most often impossible, economically and morally, and may be inadvisable. As we have already suggested, the brother/sister arrangement should not be proposed. In following this approach a priest’s intervention does not seem to be essential. It is an exercise of moral discernment, and a morally sensitive third party is advisable to assist in the honest formation of conscience.   Families teach the first lessons of relationships among persons, some of which are essential not only to private life but to public life as well. Within the family, one learns to act upon others and to be acted upon. It is in the family that we learn to identify ourselves with others or fail to learn to love. It is in the family that we learn to give and take with others – or fail to learn to be reciprocal. It is in the family that we learn to trust others as we depend on them or learn to distrust them. We learn to form expectations of the others and to hold them accountable. We also learn to hold ourselves accountable. These lessons of reciprocity, trust, discipline and self-restraint are important to the forming of relationships in public life. This family is not an isolated unit but very much a social institution, nested in a wider context that either helps to sustain parental commitment and accomplishment or puts negative pressure on fathers and mothers. That pressure obviously takes many forms, and I have mentioned just a few. Being a parent isn’t just another “lifestyle choice.” It is an ethical vocation. Communities, including churches, should lighten the burden and smooth the path for parents so that the complex joys of family life might rise to the surface and the undeniable burdens of family responsibility might be more openheartedly borne. Children lost to society in increasing numbers may be a growing phenomenon, and it is one that we must call what it is: a loss, a crying shame. Protecting, preserving, and strengthening family autonomy and the well-being of mothers and fathers is a way of affirming our commitment to the individual and to that democratic society that best speaks to the aspirations of individuals. The rights of persons are fundamentally social. What is at stake in the family debate and our response to it is nothing less than our capacity for human sociality. If kids are involved, so the saying goes, there is no such thing as divorce. Sure, you can get a piece of paper saying your marriage is over, but don’t expect to be able to make a clean break. As long as you’re co-parenting children, especially young children, you will need to be in continual contact, and you’ll inevitably hear a great deal about what’s happening in your ex-partner’s life, whether you want to or not. The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife? They were testing Him. He said to them in reply, what did Moses command you? They replied, Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her. But Jesus told them; because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate. In the house the disciples again questioned Him about this. He said to them, whoever divorces his wife and marries another will commit adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery and people were bringing children to Him that He might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.     When Jesus saw this He became indignant and said to them, let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it. Then He embraced them and blessed them, placing His hands on them. Most people would agree that divorce is always a tragedy. When a marriage breaks down, at least one of the spouses will need years to recover from the trauma. After having invested years in a relationship, one can hardly throw in the towel without a wrenching sense of failure. There is the fact that Jesus condemns divorce absolutely and unequivocally. In His words there are no ifs and buts. (). Such a commitment will inspire the couple to communicate deeply, to face their difficulties as they emerge, to do the maintenance work required for the preservation of any relationship. Such a marriage will not end in divorce, because ultimately it is built on an act of faith in Christ’s vision of marriage as being the only healthy one. True, in extreme cases the apostle Paul accepts the idea of separation (), but even then no divorce is contemplated, and the separated spouses must remain single. There exists no evidence that suggests Jesus ever discussed same-sex anything, publicly or privately, during his ministry. However, Christ, the bedrock of modern-day Christianity, did publicly condemn religious leaders of his age for granting bills of divorcement. But wading through all the hype in the media these days one might just conclude the opposite.       I’ve never witnessed a broadcast describing someone being dragged out into the middle of nowhere, hog-tied to a fence, and then beaten to a bloody pulp just because he or she once divorced and then remarried. Nor have I ever read an article in which America’s religious community demanded a legislative amendment to the United States Constitution to halt divorced people from having the right to ever remarry. Nor have I heard of any type of social reprisal aimed at halting their equal access to benefits already afforded married couples with no reason to locate a divorce attorney. Granted, in many Christian churches today divorce is heavily frowned upon. Yet, its leadership instructs that heterosexual individuals that do divorce and then remarry can receive unconditional forgiveness, grace, mercy, love and acceptance from God and also from their congregations. Moreover, most divorced believers are permitted to take on active pastoral and other leadership roles in mainstream Christian churches. Relaxed, attractive atmospheres are even created that foster new, Christ-centered relationships between divorced individuals and other church members, not being the divorced person’s initial spouse. They bless and spiritually consecrate these new unions in the eyes of God although one or both of the newlyweds’ former spouses still live, and are at times active members in the same congregation. But this is categorically contrary to the teachings of Christ. In the New Testament, Jesus was quoted as teaching, “It has been said and anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But Jesus tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”     Furthermore, the penalty connected to the act of adultery is synonymous with the penalty attached to the supposed sin of homosexuality. The Old Testament reads, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of his neighbor – both the adulterer and the adulteress [like those who commit same-sex acts] must be put to death.” Could it be that since so many spirit-filled pastors and other Christian leaders are themselves the continual perpetrators of repetitious unions, this blatant infraction of God s law and Christ’s teachings is so ardently disregarded nowadays? Or could it be that many of today s clergy have manipulated God’s law to make it conform to their social traditions, and in effect, nullifying God’s law by changing it? Does this sound familiar? Any well-versed Christian will confess that Jesus, himself, accused the ancient church of similar acts of aggression against God’s established predicts. One writer of the New Testament, Apostle Paul, commented on similar types of gatekeepers of religious law on this wise: “Now you if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark — you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? as it is written: God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”     The infamous apostle should have also prophesied that on the account of the Christians alive in the year 2004, God’s name will be held in contempt among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, and others who have not come to know God as God. Finally, is it considered an act of unconditional grace to say that the immeasurable, unmerited grace available from God stops only at the sin of adultery? Does God’s amazing grace cover only those sins of Old Testament law that are socially comfortable by today’s standards? Let me put it another way: Is divorce (absent of unfaithfulness) a sin? Many Christians might respond, yes, of course, and there’s plenty of scripture to back that up. Then will God consider the bed of that remarried person defiled? Most would probably respond, No, absolutely not, because of the New Testament law of grace, and there’s plenty of scripture to support this. Then, should not the same amazing grace, religious acceptance and social approval available to divorced people who remain remarried be extended to gays and lesbians who remain gay and lesbian? These are but a few of the more puzzling questions that remain avoided in arrogant-laced pulpits, as mainstream Christian leadership continues its one-sided, seemingly hypocritical onslaught against the social and spiritual validity of same-gender-attracted humanity.       In today’s gospel, Jesus puts into perspective Moses’ decision to allow divorce: “Because of the hardness of your hearts He wrote you this commandment” (v 5). Then He proceeds to remind them of God’s original intent when He created man and woman and blessed their union ( ). Jesus thus curtails the excessive privileges of man and genuinely protects the woman. A husband cannot throw his wife out of the house for a flimsy reason. No more. Marriage is an indissoluble union that places husband and wife on equal footing. Either of them could be charged with adultery. By saying that a divorced person commits adultery by marrying another, Jesus hinders remarriage and leaves them door open for reconciliation between the estranged couple. In this respect, Jesus goes beyond Jewish and pagan conceptions, giving marriage a position of highest dignity. Divorce is a delicate and sensitive issue. Moses compromised in view of human weakness. But Jesus reinstates the original order of creation. No one says it is easy to make a marriage work. Clashing personalities and temperaments can indeed be a deterrent to harmony. For married couples, the challenge of discipleship is to help each other grow and mature and to be faithful to one another, till death do them part, as they have sworn before God and the community of believers.       Matthew 19:3-12 Some Pharisees approached Jesus, and tested Him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to Him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. His disciples said to Him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” After upholding the ideal of marital fidelity, Jesus offers another ideal on the occasion of the disciple’s naive judgment that the single state is to be preferred over an indissoluble marriage. The unmarried state can be preferable, but only for some. Some people have lived without marrying not out of choice but because of physical defects. But for some who have received a special gift from God, celibacy can be a matter of choice and personal commitment. In the same way that the profound meaning of marriage is to be understood from the original plan of the Creator, so must the real meaning of celibacy be understood in view of God’s plan: the future kingdom, which we begin to experience in the here and now? Throughout Jewish history the Torah has been hailed as Israel’s supreme and most precious gift, given by God as His own special benefaction to His people. In the Midrash the Torah is said to have been created before the creation of the world, God using the Torah as the architect uses his blueprint. When God wished to give the Torah to Israel, the Midrash observes, the angels objected, wishing to retain the Torah for them. Moses managed to convince the angels that the Torah, containing as it does such teachings as ‘Thou shalt not steal’; ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’; ‘Thou shalt not kill’, could only have meaning for creatures of flesh and blood who are sorely tempted by envy, lust, and hatred. In this vein, the Talmudic Rabbis declare that the Torah does not make too heavy demands on humans since ‘The Torah was not given to the ministering angels’. In many a psalm the praises of the Torah are sung. The first Psalm praises the man who avoids the counsel of the wicked for whom the Torah is his delight. In Psalm 19 (v. 8) the Torah of the Lord is said to be perfect, renewing life. The whole of Psalm 119, the Pharisaic Psalm, as this has been called by Christian scholars, utilizes each letter of the alphabet eight times in praise of the Torah: ‘Oh, how I love Thy Torah! All day long it is my study’ (v. 97)     God alone is to be worshipped, the Torah being the means of coming to God. The usual expression in Jewish piety is ‘love of the Torah and the fear of Heaven’. The term ‘fear’, denoting worship, is never applied to the Torah. Some authorities even object to bowing to the Torah since this might suggest that the Torah is being worshipped. The custom, however, is to bow to the Torah just as one bows to a person one wishes to honor without the slightest suggestion that he is being worshipped. This implies that this Torah of Moses will not be abrogated and that no other Torah will come from before God. Nothing is to be added to it nor taken away from it, neither in the Written Torah nor in the Oral Torah, as it is said: “Thou shalt not add to it nor diminish from it” [Deuteronomy 13: 1]. The first is that God who gave the Torah does not change and it should follow that the Torah which stems from God does not change. Secondly, the Torah was given to the whole people of Israel and, unlike an individual, a people does not change. Thirdly, since the Torah is truth it cannot suffer change, for truth is eternal. If it is true, for instance, that there is only One God it is inconceivable that there should come a time when this will no longer be true and there will be many gods. Moreover there are examples in the Torah itself of a divine law being changed. Adam was only permitted vegetable food (), Noah was permitted animal food (). Abraham was given the additional precept of circumcision and many new precepts were revealed to Moses.     Although there existed a complete interpretation of the Torah and its commands there is no generation in which something new is not added and which is without its own legal problems. Do not contradict me by pointing to the Rabbinic saying that God showed Moses the minutiae of the Torah and the minutiae of the Scribes and the innovations that would be introduced by the Scribes, for I say that this was not handed down by Moses to anyone else. A careful examination of the Rabbinic saying shows that they spoke of God “showing” Moses, not “teaching” or “handing down” … By using the word “showing” they meant that these teachings were revealed to Moses but not “given” to him, like a man who “shows” his friend an object but does not give it to him.’ The problem of Jewish divorce has proven to be extremely difficult in the modern world, especially in Israel where all Jewish divorces are in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate and its rabbinical courts. The protests led by Orthodox and haredi women have reached such proportions that their plight cannot be ignored. The core of the difficulty lies in the Torah’s definition of marriage as a state in which “a man acquires a wife” and divorce as “he writes her a bill of divorcement” (). Even if this “acquiring” requires the consent of the woman, once the marriage has taken place, she is, in a sense, his “possession” and only he can free her from that position. Needless to say, this does not mean that he can abuse her. On the contrary, the Torah envisions a loving and respectful marital relationship.         Matthew 27-32 JESUS said to His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.” “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Jesus here deepens the understanding of the commandment forbidding adultery. He begins by declaring that His disciples know the law. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery”’ (v 27; Ex 20:14). In Jewish patriarchal society, the law states that a married woman is guilty of committing adultery if she were unfaithful to her husband. In contrast, a man, whether married or not, is guilty of adultery only if his partner is another man’s wife. If she were, he is said to have violated that man’s property rights. Here, Jesus teaches that it is not enough to refrain from committing adultery, for one must not even look lustfully at a woman (v 28). It is lust that causes one to treat another as a mere object rather than as a living person who is precious in God’s eyes. Lust degrades more the offender than his object. Speaking against divorce, a concession under the Law of Moses, Jesus points out that marriage should be a permanent commitment of the spouses, not a mere temporary contract. His radical words stress the seriousness with which marriage should be undertaken and maintained. In general, His stance checks the propensity of men to degrade themselves or others and raises the lower (property) status of women. In His eyes, men and women are equal partners, both deserving respect. Mark 10:1-12 JESUS set out from Capernaum and went into the district of Judea [and] across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around Him and, as was His custom, He again taught them. The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing Him. He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?” They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.” But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts He wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” In the house the disciples again questioned Him about this. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”  Having completed His ministry in Galilee (Mk 1:14-9:50), Jesus enters Judea on His way to Jerusalem. He continues to preach His demanding and radical message. Here, He speaks on marriage and divorce, a common topic in rabbinical debates. To test Jesus, the Pharisees ask whether it is lawful for a husband to divorce his wife. Claiming Moses’ permission, Jewish teachers have allowed men to put their wives aside for a number of supposedly valid reasons, as a result of which male divorce of women was easy and prevalent. Jesus reminds the Jews that Moses tolerated divorce only because of the people’s hardness of heart. Going beyond the Mosaic concession, Jesus appeals to the beginnings, the original ideal state designed by God Himself. Jesus cites the book of Genesis (well within the authoritative Torah) and insists on the basic principle that “what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” God wills that man and woman be united in an indestructible union of love for the duration of their life. The disciples of Jesus are thus surprised at this hard teaching and question Him for clarification. Jesus reiterates that marriage is indissoluble. If a man and a woman have been validly married, they cannot divorce and remarry without committing adultery. In God’s sight, the indissolubility of marriage is nonnegotiable and should never be compromised.           According to the Hebrew Scriptures, marriage is a state instituted by God because ‘it is not good that the man should be alone’ (). Although various biblical figures (such as Jacob, Saul, David, etc.) had more than one wife, monogamy seems to have been the general rule, and the prophets used marriage as an illustration of God’s relationship with Israel. Certain marriages, particularly between close relatives, were forbidden, and marriage between Jew and idolater was strongly condemned. Although a continuing marriage was much to be desired, divorce was permitted (). Although divorce is a matter of great regret, it is possible. According to Jewish law, if both husband and wife agree, a husband may give a get (‘bill of divorce’) to his wife. Both husband and wife can demand a divorce if the spouse has a physical defect, or because of unsatisfactory conduct. It is, however, in a post ghetto society notoriously difficult for the community to compel a husband to give a divorce, and if he refuses, the wife is tied; she cannot marry again, and any subsequent children.                       Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

A pastoral letter

A pastoral letter by three high-level German bishops reopened the debate on pastoral care for those who have been divorced and then remarr...

Hebrew View of God vs. Sumerian View of Gods

Hebrew View of God vs. Sumerian View of Gods             Both the Hebrews and the Sumerians give great regard to the existence of their gods. The Holy Bible and historical books report that both civilizations revere their gods and treat them as the highest being in all creation. For them, their god is the most powerful being, who has the power and strength to bring them good fortune, good harvest, good health, and life. At the same time, they also believe that their god also have the strong and powerful ability to take all good things back, such as bringing them death, sickness and plagues. Knowing the extent of their god’s power, they put him at the center of their lives, offering rituals and sacrifices to please him, and giving him the respect and veneration that he deserves.             However, despite these similarities on the role and significance of god in both civilizations are their significant differences. The Hebrews exhibit monotheism, or the revering only one God. They do not give room for serving or venerating other gods, especially idols. The role and significance of god for them is great, that they regard him as having full sovereignty over all creations, including shaping their values, culture, laws, religion and experiences. On the other hand, the Sumerians exhibit polytheism, or revering many gods. They believe that all their gods are equally powerful and controls their world, such that they see their sufferings and adversities as the consequences of their actions, which offended the gods. In contrast to the belief of the Hebrews, the Sumerians characterizes their gods as humans, such that, they believe that their gods can have conflicts among them, which is similar to the conflicts among humans.    Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Hebrew View of God vs. Sumerian View of Gods

Hebrew View of God vs. Sumerian View of Gods Both the Hebrews and the Sumerians give great regard to the existence of their ...

Why do the Israelites believe they are God’s chosen ones?

Why do the Israelites believe they are God’s chosen ones?             Israelites are God’s chosen people by covenant to Abraham as written in Genesis 12:2, God said that He will make him a great nation. Abraham had been a great and faithful servant of God. God has chosen one man, Abraham, to establish a new nation through which all families of the earth would be blessed. God has chosen Abraham to serve as a physical and spiritual model and to extend God’s love to the humanity. Abraham set an example of obedience in leaving his home country at God’s command, not even knowing his final destination (Hebrews 11:8). He believed God would fulfill His promises, in spite of the seeming impossibilities involved. He was even willing to give up his own son (Genesis 22), prefiguring the sacrifice of Christ. In faith he knew that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). Israelites believe they were the chosen people because they are the repository of the commandments of God. They are the recipient of the God’s law. They were entrusted with the words of God that given them a road map. They have in possession the scripture of God. They thought they knew the will and the heart of God. They thought they knew all that God wanted. Theirs are the transcript of eternal mind, theirs are the prophets, and theirs are the birth of the savior of the earth. They claim to be the guide of the blind and instructors of those people who are in the darkness, people who have not known God.  Not only that God has chosen the people of Israel but the land also is special. As written in Deuteronomy 11:12, “It is the land the Lord your God cares for, the eyes of the Lord your God are continually on it from the beginning of the year to its end.” God also said that He will bless those who bless them and curse those that curse Israel (Genesis 12:3).   Throughout history, every nation that has oppressed or cursed the Jewish people is either no longer in existence or has had to suffer various consequences as a result.             It is also in the book of Deuteronomy 7:6, God says that, “For you are the people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”           Many of the first Christian believers, all 12 disciples, the writers of the Bible, and Jesus Himself are all Jews.  Paul, a Jew, wrote most of the entire New Testament or some of the books were based on His letters.  “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).  Jesus came to save the Jewish people.  He is still the Messiah of the Jewish people.  Romans 1:16 says that “It is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first, then to the Gentile.”             It was in Israel that the Son of God that been promised was born to reconcile the world to Himself. It is also in Israel that the God’s miracles, judgments, promises and blessings happened.             God’s purpose to choose the nation of Israel is not because they were superior to other nation but to represent Him, to show an example that God’s way works. To show the nations around the beauty of God’s laws at work in lives of the Israelites. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Why do the Israelites believe they are God’s chosen ones?

Why do the Israelites believe they are God’s chosen ones? Israelites are God’s chosen people by covenant to Abraham as writt...

Leadership Style of African Indigenous Churches, Prospect and Retrospect

Leadership Style of African Indigenous Churches, Prospect and Retrospect Introduction After the inception of the church, the leadership has gone through successive leadership of several patriarchs until the present time. Believing in the apostles, many churches pay great tribute to their existence and contributions. The parish priests believe that the icons tell the story about the God. Also, the parish leaders introduce other sacraments, fasting, nativity and sacrifice of Christ which had been past from generation to generation of the African Indigenous Churches.  Leadership Style In the leadership style of the African Indigenous Church, it can be describe in the beginning or from the person who plays small roles in the propagation of the biblical teaching. The immediate leader in the congregation is the teacher who leads the teaching in the church. The evangelist is the one who lead and pray in or within the parish. Lay leader who take the duties in parish level by burial service. Next is the Deacon or the Reverend whose work is to baptize the ordination of the children, allows to wear a collar and usually seen working with the Father. The teacher and the deacon are both elected by a father. The “father” is the person who is head of the region and does the wedding and the Holy Communion and from him, the “superior general” and “vicar general” arrives in which elected in the Bishop’s Council, starting from the teacher and Bishop being the Chairman. The Bishop represents a diocese and the Arch-Bishop represents the arch diocese. Both of the Bishop and the Arch-Bishop are elected in the Pope’s Council which starts from the father, superior general, vicar general in whose the Pope is the Chairman. The Arch Bishop has a big rank within the country. Prior to the Arch-Bishop is the Cardinal and next to the Cardinal is the Pope. Cardinals next to Pope are “Victor Cardinal” and “Dean Cardinal” both are elected by the Pope.   The leadership in the church has several ranks and all are playing different roles. But most of the churches in Africa are not very different from the other Western Churches. If the churches adopted the Western teaching, it is not impossible that they do also apply of the Western style. The leadership of the church, as they said, is done democratically and based on the bylaws of the church it has three committee members and with due respect is given to each of the members. Furthermore, women are described as more possessed than men and therefore, they also hold high positions in the leadership regardless on their level of literacy or not (Harries, 2006). Prospect and Retrospect Based on the African Churches, the teachings were incorporated with the biblical messages and faith that shows the leaders as well as the founder’s vision and commitment. There is a great impact that came from the education and the indigenous language in the effect of the church to convey a truly indigenous African Christianity. Through the education and the vehicle of the language, the liturgical practices and the leadership style in the churches is communicated. There is a great influence coming from the Cultural Revolution or Culture Theologizing that continues to create an effect in the Christian practice among the churches in the Africa (Ogungbile, 2001). The African Indigenous Churches are mostly churches of a Pentecostal type that have contextualized and indigenized Christianity in Africa. The style they acquired in the origins and movements were manifested in the thousands of the indigenous churches and have changed so radically in the face of the Christianity. This is because of the proclamation of a holistic gospel of the salvation that usually includes the deliverance of the sorcery, evil, spirits, poverty, and sickness (Anderson, 1999). Conclusion Because of the various changes and influences coming from the western churches they adopted, the continuity of the Indigenous Churches to manage and lead the peculiarity is not properly disseminated. The custom of the Indigenous Churches are based on the tradition that serves as their foundation of their being and uniqueness. Administering the custom is hard when there is an influence and duly affecting their leadership. It is important that the Africans pay attention in administering the needs and the tradition but can manage the biblical teachings. Through the use of the indigenous language, the teachings of the leaders of the church are emphasized and the culture, tradition and the tradition way to preaching can be valued and preserved.         Works Cited: Anderson, A., 1999. The Gospel and Culture in Pentecostal Mission in the Third World. [Online] Available at: http://www.epcra.ch/papers_pdf/hamburg/anderson_1999.pdf. [Accessed 15 Feb 2010]. Harries, J., 2006. Visits to AICs (African Indigenous Churches). Kima International School of Theology. [Online] Available at: http://www.jim-mission.org.uk/articles/visits-to-aics.pdf. [Accessed 15 Feb 2010]. Ogungbile, D., 2001. The Dynamics of Language in Cultural Revolution and African Spirituality: The Case of Ijo Orile-Ede Adulawo Ti Kristi (National Church of Christ) in Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1. [Online] Available  at: http://www.njas.helsinki.fi/pdf-files/vol10num1/ogungbile.pdf. [Accessed 15 Feb 2010].   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Leadership Style of African Indigenous Churches, Prospect and Retrospect

Leadership Style of African Indigenous Churches, Prospect and Retrospect Introduction After the inception of the church, the leadership ...

Shinto

Shintoism or kami-no-michi was the ancient religion of Japan. It gives only one command, the necessity of being loyal to one’s ancestors. Its early aspects were naturalistic, which included spiritism, nature worship, and a sort of monotheism. Early Japanese worshipped the sun, thunder, earth, volcanoes, tigers, serpents, trees, shrubs, vines, etc. and even stones. A later stage is more intellectual and ethically oriented. The only deity actually recognized in higher Shintoism is the spiritualized human mind.  For the masses, Shintoism has about 800,000 gods, mostly the sacred heroes of the Japanese. The chief god is Amaterasu, the Sun God, from whom the Imperial Family of Japan traces its ancestry. The term Shinto came from a Chinese word ‘shin tao’ which means the way of the Gods or God-like way. Shinto has no founder. Shinto is the indigenous religion of Japan. It traces from the Yayoi culture, which originated in the northern area of the island of Kyushu around the 3rd or 2nd century B.C. Among the primary Yayoi religious phenomena were agricultural rites and shamanism. A perfect understanding of Shinto will enable one to have proper understanding of the Japanese nation and their culture. There is neither much grand philosophy nor complicated ritual in Shintoism. Shinto is not a religion adopted by the State. It is a religion of the heart. Shinto is a natural and real spiritual force which pervades the life of the Japanese. Shinto is a creative or formative principle of life. The Shinto principle is the background of Japanese culture, code of ethics, fine arts, family and national structure.   According to Shinto theology, Ame-no-mi-naka-nushi is the Absolute Universal Self. The visible universe (Ken Kai) and the invisible world (Yu Kai) have come into being from Ame-no-mi-naka-nushi through the activities of the three deities of Musubi, Principle of Creation, Completion and the Controlling Bond between the spiritual and the material, the invisible and the visible, the real and the ideal. These contradictory attributes are functional only. The Absolute Universal Self is not affected by these contradictory attributes. Absolute loyalty to the Sovereign Emperor, who is regarded as a direct descendant and representative of the highest God, respect for ancestors, profound feeling of piety towards the parents and love for children forms the fundamental structure of Shintoism. The mirror, the sword and the jewel have a figurative meaning in the course of the development of Shinto. They symbolize wisdom, courage and benevolence or intelligence, will and love in Shinto theology. These three are the holy signs of royalty of the Sovereign Emperor. They are supposed to symbolize the dynamic working of the Great Way and so they are found in the forefront of every Shinto shrine, popularly known as Mistu-tomo-e Susano-o-no-Mikoto is the impetuous divine brother of the Sun-God. He is the God of rainstorm. Tsukiyomi-no-Mikoto is the Moon-God. These three constitute a divine triad. They preside, respectively, over the plane of High Heaven, the vast ocean, and the night.   Beliefs Shinto does not have as fully developed a theology as do most other religions. Their religious texts discuss the High Plain of Heaven and the Dark Land which is an unclean land of the dead. Shinto creation stories tell of the history and lives of the Kami. Among them was a divine couple, Izanagi-no-mikoto and Izanami-no-mikoto, who gave birth to the Japanese islands. Their children became the deities of the various Japanese clans. Amaterasu (Sun Goddess) was one of their daughters. She is the ancestress of the Imperial Family. Ancestors are deeply respected and worshipped. All of humanity is regarded as Kami’s descendants. Thus all human life and human nature is sacred. Believers respect musuhi, the Kamis’ creative and harmonizing powers. They aspire to have makoto which means sincerity or true heart. This is regarded as the way or will of Kami. Morality is based upon that which is of benefit to the group. Shinto emphasizes right practice, sensibility, and attitude. There are four affirmations in Shinto: tradition and the family, love of nature, physical cleanliness, matsuri (festival) Forms of Shinto Jinja (Shrine) Shinto is the largest Shinto group. It was the original form of the religion; its roots date back into pre-history. Until the end of World War II, it was closely aligned with State Shinto. The Emperor of Japan was worshipped as a living God. Almost all shrines are members of Jinja Honcho, the Association of Shinto Shrines. Kyoha (Sectarian) Shinto is consists of 13 sects which were founded by individuals since the start of the 19th century.  Folk Shinto is not actually a Shinto sect. It has no formal central organization or creed. It is seen in local practices and rituals. Practices Shinto ceremonies are designed to appeal to the kami for good treatment and protection and consist of abstinence, offerings, prayers and purification. Purification, by washing with water, symbolically removes the dust and impurities that cover one’s inner mind.  A traditional Japanese home has two family altars one, Shinto, for their tutelary kami and the goddess Amaterasu Omikami, and another, Buddhist, for the family ancestors. Pure Shinto families, however, will have all ceremonies and services in Shinto style.  Shinto does not have weekly religious services. Some may go to the shrines on the 1st and 15th of each month and on the occasions of rites or festivals (matsuri), which take place at fixed times during the year. Shinto followers visit the shrine at their convenience; though some devotees pay respect to the shrine every morning. Shinto shrines are regarded as the home of the kami. The most important shrine building is the inner sanctuary (honden), in which a sacred symbol called shintai (“kami body”) or mitama-shiro (“divine spirit’s symbol”) is enshrined. In any case, it is carefully wrapped and placed in a container. It is forbidden to see it: only the chief priest is allowed to enter inside the inner sanctuary. A torii (gateway) stands at the entrance of shrine precincts. Proceeding on the main approach, a visitor comes to an ablution basin where the hands are washed and the mouth is rinsed. Usually he or she will make a small offering at the oratory (haiden) and pray. Sometimes a visitor may ask the priest to conduct rites of passage or to offer special prayers.  Rituals Each Shinto shrine has several major festivals (matsuri) each year, including the Spring Festival, Autumn or Harvest Festival, an Annual Festival, and the Divine Procession. The Divine Procession usually takes place on the day of the Annual Festival, and miniature shrines (mikoshi) carried on the shoulders are transported through the town.  Most Shinto festivals are observed generally in accordance with the above order. On such occasions as the Annual Festival, various special rites may be held like special water purification and confinement in shrines for devotional purposes, the procession of a sacred palanquin or of boats, a ceremonial feast, sumo wrestling, horseback riding, archery, a lion dance, and a rice-planting festival. Praying at Shinto Shrines  In praying into the Shinto shrine, you must put your offering in the box then ring the bell once. Bow twice and clap twice while thinking about your wish and then bow once. Give monetary offering according to your desire.    Being a Shinto You cannot actually be a Shintoist if you have no Japanese roots, because the basic principles of Shintoism came from the Japanese culture, ethics and tradition, but many foreigners practice Shinto rituals in Shinto temples all over the world. Learning the Japanese culture will help you in being a Shintoist. Practicing its rituals and festivals will also give you an idea about its beliefs and idealism. Shintoism is a part of Japanese way of life, to become a Shintoist you must also experience living like Japanese do. References 1.    Religion Facts, Shinto [Online] Available at: http://www.religionfacts.com/shinto/index.htm [Accessed 23 Feb 2010] 2.    Shintoism [Online] Available at: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shintois.htm [Accessed 23 Feb 2010]   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Shinto

Shintoism or kami-no-michi was the ancient religion of Japan. It gives only one command, the necessity of being loyal to one’s ancestors....

Responsibilities of Pastor Leader in the Growth of Number of Congregation Members

Responsibilities of Pastor Leader in the Growth of Number of Congregation Members                 Religion has been a vital sector of people’s lives ever since. There is no   existing society without a sense of religion or faith. Even in the prehistoric times,   archeological evidences show that early men at that time worship gods in their   own way.               Back then, there are just some major religions believed around the world.   Colonialism has been a major factor in spreading one particular religion. But,   different churches start to sprung from one major religion creating numerous   sects and divisions distinguished by doctrine and church authority. Sects began   to separate itself from the church when views regarding issues such as church   authority and interpretation of the gospel start to differ. And one of the results of   sect separation is the congregational churches.               When reforms are pointed out by Martin Luther in the sixteenth century   regarding the Roman Catholic Church, Protestantism was born out of it.   Congregational churches are Protestant Christian churches that run on its own   affairs autonomously and independently. Political and cultural changes had   created the environment with new ideas about the relationship between men and   God. Reformers advocated the faith in authenticity in the New Testament. It led   to criticizing the power of priests over people in proclaiming the faith, corrections   of distorted original Christian thinking and protesting against church abuses.   Thus, Congregationalism had revolutionized itself growing to complete autonomy   from a former single domination.               India is one of the countries where religion is an important part of culture   and history. A vast majority of Indians associate themselves with a certain   religion because of religious diversity and tolerance established in law and   custom. India is the birth place of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism,   which are considered as one of the world’s major religions. But due to   colonialism, invasion, travelers, traders, immigrants and missionaries from   abroad, other religious traditions had found its place in the country. Islam and   Christianity are the other major religions followed in India today. Also,   congregational churches had established itself leading a growing number   members.               Unlike in Catholic Church where the church leader performing sacraments   and proclaiming the gospel is called the parish priest, in Congregational churches   the church leader is called pastor. Pastor is the ordained leader of the   congregation which the term is derived from the Latin word ‘shepherd’. It is the   pastor’s responsibility in engaging the congregation into spiritual and emotional   activities that will help balance the challenges of life and faith of the people and   eventually benefit the church. Leadership plays a meaningful role promoting,   values, viewpoints, compassion, beliefs and communication within the   congregation. Catholic Church and Christian congregation has almost the same   framework of faith except for some viewpoints and regulations regarding the   religion. For example, followers of Christian congregation believe that salvation   comes by faith alone in Jesus Christ as the God rather than relying in good   deeds to other people. Another difference between the two religions is the pastor   can marry while priests practice abstinence.               According to studies, strong leaders make the churches grow in terms of   number of members. A follower of a certain religion sees the need of an effective   leader in engaging in gospel teaching and conducting homilies. Thus, it is   important for an appointed congregation leader to be a man of values and   talented in rapport.               As the pastor of the church, his major responsibility is leading the   congregation. Each worship service is led by the pastor starting from a prayer   asking blessing for God. Homily or sermon is the main core of each worship   session conveying a message interpreted or related from the bible. But, aside   from effectively delivering the homily, the most essential part of being a pastor is   unfolding the viewpoints and beliefs of a good life. Having faith in God is the main   reason of man’s existence. A man of faith is a man of salvation. This message is   not confined in verbal methods but in non-verbal as well. Aside from   encouragement, admonition and praise, living an exemplary life is the best way in   conveying the message.               Leading a congregation is a tough job, but doing it with full devotion will   make it easier than it seems. Social, political and cultural differences created a   climate of partisan religion. But, despite the different beliefs and practices   followed by churches, the ultimate message of religion is having faith in God.         References:   Aldrich, Martha, Strong Leaders Make Churches Grow   Morgan Lee, Duties and Responsibilities of Pastors, 2009    Napa, Celest, The Meaning of Leadership in a Pastor, 2008 http://www.cumorah.com http://www.indiasite.com/   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Responsibilities of Pastor Leader in the Growth of Number of Congregation Members

Responsibilities of Pastor Leader in the Growth of Number of Congregation Members Religion has been a vital sector of...