Can there be more than 1 true church?

[Cis.jd]

Hi everyone, I would like to start a topic about the "One True Church" and how I theorize that there is more than 1 Church that carries the teachings of the apostles.
==
First, I don't believe in a One True Church. (This maybe strange for a Catholic to say) but I believe there are two different types of Churches.
1. Physical church that Holy Spirit dwells - it has kept and preserved the true apostolic tradition.
2. is the church with in a person - the inner temple of the Holy Spirit.

On this topic, i am only focusing on #1: Which church is the one that (i believe) is theologically accurate to the teachings of the Apostles.

These churches are: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox - and to some degree the Anglicans.
Now, since I am a catholic, you may ask: "what about Matt 16:18"? Yes, we believe that this defines us as the true Church of Christ.. and yes, I believe that the Church Jesus built on Peter is the Catholic church.

However, didn't other apostles themselves build churches too? These apostles also received the teachings of Jesus, and they all spread out to different parts of the world.. obviously they either built a church there or their apostles did.
The apostles themselves had different perspectives and personalities, the gospels themselves have different portrayals. So maybe it's just like with Jesus' Church -- we all just root to different apostles, therefore have different personalities and perspectives in regards to tradition?

Note: this is just a theory i have at the moment, not something I am forcing to be fact.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hi everyone, I would like to start a topic about the "One True Church" and how I theorize that there is more than 1 Church that carries the teachings of the apostles.
==
First, I don't believe in a One True Church. (This maybe strange for a Catholic to say) but I believe there are two different types of Churches.
1. Physical church that Holy Spirit dwells - it has kept and preserved the true apostolic tradition.
2. is the church with in a person - the inner temple of the Holy Spirit.

On this topic, i am only focusing on #1: Which church is the one that (i believe) is theologically accurate to the teachings of the Apostles.

These churches are: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and maybe Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox (although, i don't know much about OO and Anglicans yet).
Now, since I am a catholic, you may ask: "what about Matt 16:18"? Yes, we believe that this defines us as the true Church of Christ.. and yes, I believe that the Church Jesus built on Peter is the Catholic church.

However, didn't other apostles themselves build churches too? These apostles also received the teachings of Jesus, and they all spread out to different parts of the world.. obviously they either built a church there or their apostles did.
The apostles themselves had different perspectives and personalities, the gospels themselves have different portrayals. So maybe it's just like with Jesus' Church -- we all just root to different apostles, therefore have different personalities and perspectives in regards to tradition?

Note: this is just a theory i have at the moment, not something I am forcing to be fact.

These churches are: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and maybe Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox (although, i don't know much about OO and Anglicans yet).
and maybe several others but only Jesus would know and only Jesus would know just how much false doctrine has been accepted as fact by any church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hi everyone, I would like to start a topic about the "One True Church" and how I theorize that there is more than 1 Church that carries the teachings of the apostles.
==
First, I don't believe in a One True Church. (This maybe strange for a Catholic to say) but I believe there are two different types of Churches.
1. Physical church that Holy Spirit dwells - it has kept and preserved the true apostolic tradition.
2. is the church with in a person - the inner temple of the Holy Spirit.

On this topic, i am only focusing on #1: Which church is the one that (i believe) is theologically accurate to the teachings of the Apostles.

These churches are: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and maybe Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox (although, i don't know much about OO and Anglicans yet).
Now, since I am a catholic, you may ask: "what about Matt 16:18"? Yes, we believe that this defines us as the true Church of Christ.. and yes, I believe that the Church Jesus built on Peter is the Catholic church.

However, didn't other apostles themselves build churches too? These apostles also received the teachings of Jesus, and they all spread out to different parts of the world.. obviously they either built a church there or their apostles did.
The apostles themselves had different perspectives and personalities, the gospels themselves have different portrayals. So maybe it's just like with Jesus' Church -- we all just root to different apostles, therefore have different personalities and perspectives in regards to tradition?

Note: this is just a theory i have at the moment, not something I am forcing to be fact.

Keep going with examining it all. You might be on to something. I'm going to watch this discussion develop.

One comment is that we can speak of 'the Church' but also of 'Churches'. The 'the Church' is one whole Church of Christ outside of which is nothingness. But within that 'the Church' are 'Churches' which are as you have enumerated above as Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, and the like which have all of the sacraments. Of course this is a Catholic perspective and the Orthodox would dismiss it because it legitimizes non-Orthodox Churches.

But it seems like what you are getting at, that there are 'Churches' within 'the Church'. For what it's worth.

 

[TheLostCoin]

No.

While I think it's possible for the Grace of God to work in different church communities, there cannot be different Communions of Churches that are equally the same, because that would mean that God - who if infinitely good, and infinitely love - views contradiction and lies as equivalent to Truth. Did Christ ever lie?

The Roman Catholic Church firmly believes in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - that is, humans inherit the guilt from the sin of Adam and Eve, and the Virgin Mary was exempt of this inheritance through God's grace.

The Orthodox Church views this as heretical, some even going so far as to say it's blasphemous, because it says that someone as holy as the Virgin Mary couldn't have been that sinless on her own free will. They deny this idea of the inheritance of the guilt of Original Sin, so thus, the Immaculate Conception cannot be True.

Therefore, it must be the case that one of these Churches is right, and one of them is wrong. They cannot simultaneously be right, or say that these ideas are "the same" but "expressed in different ways." They are contradictory ideas; one is blasphemous, one is divinely revealed truth.

If there weren't contradictions, there wouldn't be the schisms we see today.

This even gets into moral issues as well. The Anglican Church believes it's morally acceptable to ordain women. The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church say otherwise. They both can't be morally right, and this is merely an issue of Church ecclesiology, not even controversial topics of Abortion, LGBTQ, Contraception, etc.

Again, they both can't be right.

Also, all the Apostolic Claimant Churches (Anglican, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, etc.) hold to a principle of Apostolic Succession that is different than how you describe it. It isn't just merely that you are descended from a particular literal Apostle; rather, your Church contains the fullness of the Church, of the Apostles, of the Saints, in each Bishop which can all be traced back to the Apostles. Each Bishop is a successor of the Apostles; Saint Ignatius of Antioch points this out with "Where the Bishop is, there is the Church." In order to be a successor of the Apostles, you have to teach exactly what the Apostles taught.

This isn't a new idea you are espousing, it's an idea of "branch theory" that both Orthodox and Roman Catholics (at least historically) have explicitly condemned as heretical. As Saint Paul says, "One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism."

Plus, it's not like the Apostles were isolated. They were in contact with each other and kept tabs on things; Saint Clement had to deal with the problems in Corinth. I mean, yeah, Saint Thomas in India probably didn't keep tabs on Saint Paul in Greece, but it's not like they were isolated figures who didn't talk with each other and who expressed dogmatic Truth differently.

 

[Cis.jd]

Keep going with examining it all. You might be on to something. I'm going to watch this discussion develop.

One comment is that we can speak of 'the Church' but also of 'Churches'. The 'the Church' is one whole Church of Christ outside of which is nothingness. But within that 'the Church' are 'Churches' which are as you have enumerated above as Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, and the like which have all of the sacraments. Of course this is a Catholic perspective and the Orthodox would dismiss it because it legitimizes non-Orthodox Churches.

But it seems like what you are getting at, that there are 'Churches' within 'the Church'. For what it's worth.

It's like this for me, i think the RCC is the Big brother church, because like you, I do think we come from Peter - who is the Big Bro apostle. We catholics think that Jesus gave this responsibility to Peter, however we have also seen other important roles given to the other Apostles. Paul needs no explanation; while the rest such as John where also leaders during their time.
I just don't understand how their can be one true church due to the accuracy of apostolic tradition, when there were 12 apostles who had different personalities and perspectives that they focused on more? The gospel themselves aren't the same yet they are all 1 divine truth.. so how can the true church be one?

 

[TheLostCoin]

1. Physical church that Holy Spirit dwells - it has kept and preserved the true apostolic tradition.
2. is the church with in a person - the inner temple of the Holy Spirit.

It's like this for me, i think the RCC is the Big brother church, because like you, I do think we come from Peter - who is the Big Bro apostle. We catholics think that Jesus gave this responsibility to Peter, however we have also seen other important roles given to the other Apostles. Paul needs no explanation; while the rest such as John where also leaders during their time.
I just don't understand how their can be one true church due to the accuracy of apostolic tradition, when there were 12 apostles who had different personalities and perspectives that they focused on more? The gospel themselves aren't the same yet they are all 1 divine truth.. so how can the true church be one?

It's not a problem of "different perspectives." It's logical contradiction; the Churches believe in different things. The Assyrian Church believes that Christ the human and Christ the God are two different Persons who look like one Person and are connected to each other. How can you say that this is a "different expression" of One Divine Truth, which says Christ is One Person, Who is fully God and fully man? Especially if a Church holds a Holy Spirit guided Council which condemns the idea as blasphemous (which was done in the Council of Ephesus)?

You can't say both are Truth.

If it was merely different perspectives, people wouldn't have died for what they believed in. To laugh at the death of martyrs is no small feet; Pope Martin was murdered for confessing the Truth, that Monothelitism is a heresy. Are you gonna laugh at his death and just say "he shouldn't have died, it was just a different perspective?" What about the iconophile martyrs, who died in refusing to say that it's wrong to have religious artwork in Church?

What different perspectives did the Apostles have which were so great that there were contradictions in moral teaching or dogmatic beliefs, and led to death?

By pure logic, there must be some Churches which are better than others, and if you believe that there is a Church which contains the fullness of what the Apostles taught, you must believe there can only be One Church which is Fully True.

 

[Cis.jd]

If it was merely different perspectives, people wouldn't have died for what they believed in. To laugh at the death of martyrs is no small feet; Pope Martin was murdered for confessing the Truth, that Monothelitism is a heresy. Are you gonna laugh at his death and just say "he shouldn't have died, it was just a different perspective?" What about the iconophile martyrs, who died in refusing to say that it's wrong to have religious artwork in Church?

What different perspectives did the Apostles have which were so great that there were contradictions in moral teaching or dogmatic beliefs, and led to death?

By pure logic, there must be some Churches which are better than others, and if you believe that there is a Church which contains the fullness of what the Apostles taught, you must believe there can only be One Church which is Fully True.

Different perspectives doesn't = different beliefs. Also, i never mentioned Neo Chalcedonism as one of the true apostolic churches. Those dogmatic beliefs we have with the EO are just different perspectives we have on certain biblical topics like original sin, purgatory. These difference don't mean only one of us came from the early church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are certainly different physical Churches - from the beginning there began to be many local Churches.

But they were supposed to be one - Jesus prayed that His body would be one as He and the Father are one. Scripture says we have one Lord, one faith, one baptism. There should be only one communion. Any dissensions of practice or doctrine that separate so far as to break communion go against what God planned for the Church.

Even though I don't believe what we have is God's will for the Body, God is able (and generally does) take whatever we might do outside His will and still turn it to good and use it. The situation we have now may benefit some - though I think the reason they may need something different is because of our dissensions - if we had maintained as we should then everyone could benefit.

And so I believe that the grace of God isn't subject to boundaries we set. I do believe God had a plan for how His grace should be bestowed, but because many don't have access to that, I think out of love and condescension God works in many ways, as He wills.

I think it's not God's purpose, and it's not ideal. But the world is what it is. And so I think God still works within what we have, for the good of all, because He is love. But it is not as good as it could be, if we had cooperated and followed His plan the whole time.

What that means for us as each person, I think, is to do our best to discover God's will for the Church, and pursue that. I think that's what most people do anyway. We just have different bits of information to try to discern that, different interpretations, different levels of understanding, and we may pass through these.

 

[HTacianas]

Hi everyone, I would like to start a topic about the "One True Church" and how I theorize that there is more than 1 Church that carries the teachings of the apostles.
==
First, I don't believe in a One True Church. (This maybe strange for a Catholic to say) but I believe there are two different types of Churches.
1. Physical church that Holy Spirit dwells - it has kept and preserved the true apostolic tradition.
2. is the church with in a person - the inner temple of the Holy Spirit.

On this topic, i am only focusing on #1: Which church is the one that (i believe) is theologically accurate to the teachings of the Apostles.

These churches are: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox
Now, since I am a catholic, you may ask: "what about Matt 16:18"? Yes, we believe that this defines us as the true Church of Christ.. and yes, I believe that the Church Jesus built on Peter is the Catholic church.

However, didn't other apostles themselves build churches too? These apostles also received the teachings of Jesus, and they all spread out to different parts of the world.. obviously they either built a church there or their apostles did.
The apostles themselves had different perspectives and personalities, the gospels themselves have different portrayals. So maybe it's just like with Jesus' Church -- we all just root to different apostles, therefore have different personalities and perspectives in regards to tradition?

Note: this is just a theory i have at the moment, not something I am forcing to be fact.

I believe there is one true Church and that different parts of it aren't speaking to each other right now.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's like this for me, i think the RCC is the Big brother church, because like you, I do think we come from Peter - who is the Big Bro apostle. We catholics think that Jesus gave this responsibility to Peter, however we have also seen other important roles given to the other Apostles. Paul needs no explanation; while the rest such as John where also leaders during their time.
I just don't understand how their can be one true church due to the accuracy of apostolic tradition, when there were 12 apostles who had different personalities and perspectives that they focused on more? The gospel themselves aren't the same yet they are all 1 divine truth.. so how can the true church be one?

There is one truth, obviously. Or maybe not obviously to many people any more. But among the Churches you mention there is a substantial hold on that truth. Not quite for the Anglican ecclesiastical communities who seem to have much less of a hold on the truth. But the others hold to the sacraments and have a common enough faith.

The idea of the Twelve and then the idea of Peter create a tension. It's not all monarchical and it's not all by committee. The Orthodox cut away the role of Peter but had to essentially recreate it with their Ecumenical Patriarch. And now Moscow is cutting him off and replacing that role with the leader of the Russian Church. The role is essential. Likewise the Anglicans replaced pope with king. The Catholic Church shows the obverse of this. The Council of Trent was necessary for reform. And the current Synod is providing correction to the stacked deck of leaders appointed to it by the pope. There is a need for balance, for tension, for the perspective of many, for one focus of unity.

There can only be one 'the Church' because truth is one. Even within the Catholic Church there are many 'Churches' such as the Maronite and Melchite Churches. In a way too, each diocese is a proper Church under it's bishop. My point last night was that the use of the word 'Church' is multivalent depending on what exactly we are referring to. How is my diocese 'Church' and yet part of the whole? That needs to be taken into account.

 

[Cis.jd]

These churches are: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and maybe Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox (although, i don't know much about OO and Anglicans yet).
and maybe several others but only Jesus would know and only Jesus would know just how much false doctrine has been accepted as fact by any church.

There are 2 types of churches to me. #1 is more on the academics - just judging by the history and theological accuracy to the apostles, the #2 is the inner - the church with in the person. That #2 is important because I don't think any doctrine or church subscription can really define a person to be a true christian. It's all on what the person exhibits after the sunday.

But just on the #1, i don't think Protestants are part of it at all since they themselves admit on their rejection towards apostolic tradition and have a very diverse view of Sola Scriptura which alone shows why they can't be historically and theologically aligned to the apostles. The best thing they have is the personalities of their members (regardless of the owners of mega-churches who i view to be corrupt); the whole focusing of relationships and charismatic type of worship is a great thing IMO.

 

[Cis.jd]

There is one truth, obviously. Or maybe not obviously to many people any more. But among the Churches you mention there is a substantial hold on that truth. Not quite for the Anglican ecclesiastical communities who seem to have much less of a hold on the truth. But the others hold to the sacraments and have a common enough faith.

The idea of the Twelve and then the idea of Peter create a tension. It's not all monarchical and it's not all by committee. The Orthodox cut away the role of Peter but had to essentially recreate it with their Ecumenical Patriarch. And now Moscow is cutting him off and replacing that role with the leader of the Russian Church. The role is essential. Likewise the Anglicans replaced pope with king. The Catholic Church shows the obverse of this. The Council of Trent was necessary for reform. And the current Synod is providing correction to the stacked deck of leaders appointed to it by the pope. There is a need for balance, for tension, for the perspective of many, for one focus of unity.

There can only be one 'the Church' because truth is one. Even within the Catholic Church there are many 'Churches' such as the Maronite and Melchite Churches. In a way too, each diocese is a proper Church under it's bishop. My point last night was that the use of the word 'Church' is multivalent depending on what exactly we are referring to. How is my diocese 'Church' and yet part of the whole? That needs to be taken into account.

I highly agree and thank you for your input.

What I like about Anglicans is that their theology isn't as different but they just cut away from all the political stuff which I don't have anything against them for doing it. I do like that they designed their churches to be something in where all christian faiths (Catholic, EO, Protestant) can just come together in communion and also the whole ignoring of political/sociological opinions that Christians have (Women for example, and many anglicans have been very kind to homosexuals by even making a mass for them). These are noble things IMO, but whether or not they fit the historical-esque type of description in my #1 is another story. These are all my theories by the way, in no way am I saying i am right.

 

[Resha Caner]

As many have said, there is only one Church (capital C). However, sinful human nature has created divisions within that Church which manifest as churches (little c).

To expect one of those churches to be The Church is to expect perfection on earth, which is not possible. But I do understand the struggle. It raises the question: If no church is perfect, how do I know what to believe? That's why Christ is the perfect savior. He covers all those problems.

In earthly terms, I tend to refer to Shannon's Law, which in communication theory specifies how to transmit information in the presence of noise. There will always be noise (sin), but that doesn't mean the signal can't get through. So, it's more about continuing the discussion than finding a final answer.

 

[disciple Clint]

There are 2 types of churches to me. #1 is more on the academics - just judging by the history and theological accuracy to the apostles, the #2 is the inner - the church with in the person. That #2 is important because I don't think any doctrine or church subscription can really define a person to be a true christian. It's all on what the person exhibits after the sunday.

But just on the #1, i don't think Protestants are part of it at all since they themselves admit on their rejection towards apostolic tradition and have a very diverse view of Sola Scriptura which alone shows why they can't be historically and theologically aligned to the apostles. The best thing they have is the personalities of their members (regardless of the owners of mega-churches who i view to be corrupt); the whole focusing of relationships and charismatic type of worship is a great thing IMO.

My thinking would be that the original church that Jesus started has over the years become very different from what He expected. Many additional beliefs and doctrines and dogmas have grown into the church. I attribute this to the church having too many theologians with far too much time on their hands. Unfortunately if you have two theologians in a room you get four different opinions. By the time of the reformation there was so much that had not been part of the original concept that people left the church and started their own based on the teachings of Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Most of these new churches accepted the decisions that had been reached in the various councils but some did not and some seem to have their very own concept of what Jesus said and what He wanted the church to be. This is a very simple explanation without any details from church history or specific arguments but the point that I would make is that all of the churches today have beliefs that have flaws. Hence there is no "true church". The Catholic church would claim that they accurately reflect Scripture and Tradition. The problem with that statement is that they seem to invent Tradition as it pleases them. I am not anti Catholic, there are many good things in the Catholic church, but I do have difficulty accepting some of the dogma that in my mind is very poorly supported if it is supported at all.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Different perspectives doesn't = different beliefs. Also, i never mentioned Neo Chalcedonism as one of the true apostolic churches. Those dogmatic beliefs we have with the EO are just different perspectives we have on certain biblical topics like original sin, purgatory. These difference don't mean only one of us came from the early church.

The Assyrians aren't "Neo-Chalcedonians", they are rather pre-Chalcedonian, as they reject the Council of Ephesus which caused the schism. They also reject Chalcedon, because it denied Nestorianism.

And nobody denies that there is a legitimate argument for historical continuity with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church. However, these Churches split because of dogma, not "sinfulness" alone, and each of these Churches hold fast to the fact that there is "One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism," and therefore, One Church. While of course sinfulness and pride leads to dissension and schism, sometimes it's necessary to separate a portion of the Church to prevent it from corrupting the Church. If a hand becomes leprous, it's necessary to cut away that hand to preserve the integrity of the Body, otherwise the body will get leprosy. It's inevitable that schisms and heresies arise, because human beings are prideful and sinful creatures generally speaking (with the exception of Christ and the Theotokos), and some will do absolutely insane things when they enter into positions of Church leadership.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Saint Paul makes this principle absolutely clear. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump."

Saint Paul also says that in 1 Corinthians 11, schisms and heresies are necessary so that the True Church may be distinguished, and it is not permitted for heretics and schismatics to eat at the same table (the Lord's Supper).

If we allow different interpretations of the Faith to flourish, then there can't be a claimed continuity with the Apostles, and Christ, His mission, and the Gospel becomes purposeless, because nobody can really claim to know what Christ meant or how we are to follow Him, other than their own personal interpretation which has 2000 years worth of separation from the lives of the Apostles.

If everybody was permitted a different perspective, you could not follow Christ and what the Apostles taught.

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that it's impossible for God to work through different churches and help people towards salvation - but if it is the case that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church - that is, heresies - and all the Churches hold to different dogmatic positions - then it must be the case that one of the Churches is fully True, and all of the rest of them is partially false.

 

[Resha Caner]

... it must be the case that one of the Churches is fully True, and all of the rest of them is partially false.

That doesn't follow. It's possible they are all flawed in some way. But I understand. Even though I acknowledge the possibility - almost a certainty - that Confessional Lutheranism is flawed in some way, I wouldn't be Lutheran if I thought there was something else that is closer to the truth.

I'm sure it's the same for you.

 

[archer75]

The trouble with all this, @Cis.jd, at least from my perspective, is that if we assume or determine that one church or communion is "fully true," then we have the problem of figuring out who belongs to it. With the Roman Catholics, suppose that's the true church. What about the SSPX? Their status is "irregular," from the Vatican's perspective. So are they in or out? What's going on?

With the Orthodox, similar problems, though expressed differently.

And similar problems anywhere you look, as far as I can tell.

 

[Cis.jd]

The trouble with all this, @Cis.jd, at least from my perspective, is that if we assume or determine that one church or communion is "fully true," then we have the problem of figuring out who belongs to it. With the Roman Catholics, suppose that's the true church. What about the SSPX? Their status is "irregular," from the Vatican's perspective. So are they in or out? What's going on?

With the Orthodox, similar problems, though expressed differently.

And similar problems anywhere you look, as far as I can tell.

It's like this. I believe, (again i'm going completely based on History and Academics) that the Roman Catholic church is the church that Christ built upon Peter... I guess you understand what this believe leads to in Catholic apologetics.. And in that same sense, that one true title should go to Roman Catholicism just basing on that info from scripture (whether you agree with that Matt 16:18).

Contrary, we do have records of the other Apostles such as John, Thomas, Jude... all of them also went around and evangelized. In short they built churches and also had apostles, now my theory is that eventually the apostles with in the 12 (or the 12's apostles) came from a certain ethnicity in where this apostolic church was located, so not only did they inherit the passed down teachings of Jesus but at the same time they also had their own cultural views tied with in it. I am not saying that distorted the teachings of Christ but it was more mixed with these types of cultural views - likewise when Rome adopted Christianity. So technically, there are these theological difference yet we all still root to the same source. So just by that alone it fits in with the academic description of "One Church True".

However, take in note that I am not fully sold on my own views on this.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think the problem with "true Church" is when you assume the salvation of souls is perfectly tied to whether one is an official member of that Church or not.

I have known people who believe, and denominations who teach, that they and they alone are "saved" because they are the "true Church".

The problem is that the Church might be a vehicle for salvation, but God is not limited in this way. He can and does save persons outside of any particular ecclesiastical structure. And there is no ecclesiastical structure that doesn't have tares among the wheat.

If your question is only - what did Jesus establish and has it been maintained? - then I think it's a fair question to seek the answer to that question.

But if your question has to do with salvation of souls predicated on ecclesiastical membership while here on earth, then we begin to presume upon the sovereign rights of God alone.

 

[Lost4words]

I truly believe that Jesus built His church on Peter, The Rock. He knew He was leaving through His 'human' death on the cross. He wanted a leader, a strong person of faith at the helm. Just like any well run 'ship', its not just the Captain that keeps it afloat and headed in the right direction!

Its a pity that we are divided.