“God runs this church!”
It’s as if these words are the final say in any disagreement about church policy or leadership. No matter the issue, if you have a problem, well tough, “God runs this church!” All thinking, deliberation, and dialogue must cease in subjection to the authoritarian speaking on behalf of God.
There’s a slight problem though, agency.
According to the standard works, God gave humans agency. In 2 Nephi 2:26, agency is described as “to act for themselves.” According to Joseph Smith, no one is forced to act virtuously or to sin. “The devil could not compel mankind to do evil; all was voluntary . . . God would not exert any compulsory means, and the devil could not” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 187). In Mormonism, agency is essential to our mortal and even premortal existence. As the narrative goes, we had agency prior to our earthly existence and chose to come here while a portion of hosts in heaven turned away because of their agency. (Doctrine and Covenants 29:36) In fact, our very existence is dependent upon the concept of agency. “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:30)
On the other hand, Satan sought to take away agency, and to attempt to take away human agency is a serious offense. In fact, this offense made Satan the devil, because it inhibited the purpose of the Plan of Salvation:
“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.” (Moses 4:3)
What was at stake in the war in heaven is that all would be meaningless without human agency. There must be opposition in all things, which includes the freedom to choose good or bad. If there is no choice or opposition, it follows there is no meaning or purpose to our existence according to Mormon theology.
As a free agent, no one can avoid being free of accountability. God has also promised not to intervene—even to the extent that we are free to choose “liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator” or “captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.” (2 Nephi 2:27-29) Likewise, “remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.” (Doctrine and Covenants 10:23) According to these scriptures, not only are we free to choose, we will create an existence of our own choosing.
The argument at hand is, if God gave all humans agency, and God has promised not to override human agency, how is it possible for God to run this church if the church is run by free human agents? Does God infringe on human agency to preserve the Church? As I recall, that was Satan’s plan—to be compelled into righteousness. To claim that God is running this church with exclusive and immutable authority is almost tantamount to saying God doesn’t respect human agency. If God runs this church as an unquestionable tyrant, are we even talking about God anymore, or are we talking about Satan?
“God runs this church” rings false when cross-examined by the standard works. If God is running this church it is within the constraints God has set, which is to not impinge on human agency. If that is the case, what does “God runs this church” even mean when this church is composed of free agents? What does this mean when the First Presidency and apostles are free agents?
Perhaps persons who use this phrase mean to convey “The First Presidency and apostles will not lead us astray.” This is a common catch phrase for those seeking to relinquish responsibility for their agency, by giving it to an external authority figure. This functions as blind self-security in that the participants no longer have to think or contemplate, only comply in obedience regardless of who they injure in the process. But as the scriptures say, it is impossible to be saved in ignorance. (D&C 131:6)
The problem is, the First Presidency and apostleship are capable of leading us astray, even to the power of the devil and our own destruction as previously stated in scripture. The patriarchal gerontocracy are free agents too, and indeed fallible. The apostles themselves have commented on their own fallibility even when in positions of authority.
Consider these examples:
“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.” (Brigham Young: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150, 12 January 1862)
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone . . .” (George Q. Cannon, Millennial Star, v 53, p 658-659)
“Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine… Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord…” (Bruce R. McConkie, In a letter to Eugene England, 19 February 1981)
“To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine…I suppose the Church would only be perfect if it were run by perfect beings.” (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us”, October 2013 General Conference)
When considering the scriptures and the words of past and modern prophets, it appears that the claim “The First Presidency and Apostles will not lead us astray!” is problematic. Church leadership, as free agents, can lead us astray, because God has promised not to override their agency. To suggest otherwise is unfair to them and us.
However, this is not to say we shouldn’t listen to those in governmental positions of the Church, but what it is to say is that it is only through agency, discernment, and personal revelation that we can decide individually and collectively what is and is not God’s will. God cannot meaningfully reveal what we would not meaningfully accept. This sentiment is also extended to the President of the Church. If the First Presidency would not meaningfully accept new revelation, then God will not override their agency to force them into accepting new revelation. If the lay membership of the church is not willing to accept new revelation, God will not compel us into accepting new revelation.
“God runs this church!” or “The First Presidency and apostles will not lead us astray!” cannot be taken seriously when it echoes the sentiment of Satan’s plan of mandated salvation of unfree agents. More often than not, “God runs this Church!” is used as a shortsighted tactic to shut down inquiry into further understanding, light, and knowledge. Subconsciously, this might also serve as a way for people to absolve themselves and church leaders from the accountability that comes with agency in a repetitive pattern of circular reasoning.
God is not running this church independent of human agency. Men in power can lead us astray. God is not a dictator, tyrant, or fascist who disrespects agency. But more importantly, neglecting our responsibilities as free agents will not save us.
Thanks, Blaire. What an important topic. I think you addressed it very well. I especially liked the sentence: “More often than not, ‘God runs this church’ is used as a shortsighted tactic to shut down inquiry into further inquiry, light, and knowledge. I would like to use it in my discussions with other people, and I will always attribute it to you, of course.
Blaire,
Before I comment I’d like to see the statement “God runs this church” in context. Was it explicitly stated somewhere?
This is stellar.
I believe the more commonly used phrase is ‘God is at the head of this church’ which I think more closely fits your points. I agree that people including church leaders are fallible and that God is far more hands off than we sometimes think, but I think the dogmatic Mormons who may use the term “God runs this church” are less common than we may think. That being said I still do believe that God has called the leaders of the church and it better to sustain( support and encourage) than criticize (guilty until proven innocent) we are all prone to misdirection just as much as Church leaders are…
Amen.
And I totally agree with the post by Boyd Ricks.
Also, when it comes to being led astray, some prefer to say that the prophet will never lead “the Church” astray. Of course, this would be virtually impossible for the leader of any church to do, because churches aren’t individuals and can’t make choices or be led. But individual members were led astray for more than a century by prophets who preached that blacks were not entitled to receive temple and priesthood blessings.
Another problem with saying that “God runs this church” is that modern prophets, seers and revelators have uttered false doctrines and made false prophecies in spite of the fact that they possess authority from God.
BTW, I believe the unhealthy LDS overemphasis on obedience to mortal leaders in part stems from the fact that members seem to think that the term “heed” in the Scriptures means to obey. It does not. In virtually every case, it means “pay close attention to.” Big difference. For example, I heeded Church leaders’ statements opposing same-sex marriage, then proceeded to support its legalization.
I appreciate your thoughts, it’s given me some great food for thought. 🙂
In considering this topic, I wonder if you (or anyone else here) has a suggestion on how someone could respond to this kind of dialogue. I’d love to have a response in mind when I hear these kinds of things, something that would stop it in it’s tracks (where it belongs).
I’d love to hear ideas.
Let me give some ammunition that KarlS asked for in this article:
In General Conference October 2015 Elder M. Russell Ballard clearly stated: I invited listeners to follow Brigham Young’s counsel to say on the Old Ship Zion, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are on the old ship Zion… (God) is at the helm and will stay there…He dictates, guides and directs…He will guide us right.
The Lord directs His Church through living prophets and apostles. This is the way He has always done His work. We cannot separate Christ from His servants.
This is well put together. To add to the study that Good will not load this church astray, is that there is only one point in cannon supporting it. And it doesn’t even have a verse. Wilford Woodruff made no claim that the particular teaching was new doctrine.
This post conflates weaknesses, mistakes, rebellion and agency rather than distinguishing between them. They are not the same thing.
The post’s worry that God might be seen as “running this church with exclusive and immutable authority” has, ironically, stated the matter succinctly and correctly – that is exactly how God is running this church. He is the authority, per Jesus: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.” (Matt 6:13).
So how is it possible for God to run this church if the church is run by free human agents? Well, two things: First, it is those free human agents/leaders who recognize that God is running the church. Second, it is these free human agents, called by God, who have used their free agency to choose to do things God’s way. They will listen to Him and freely obey His will. That’s how it is done. On the occasions when they don’t, it is not necessarily due to the exercise of their free will; in other words, they are not rebelling (“God may want it this way, but I say otherwise”), it may be because of mistakes that come via our fallen natures. Mistakes aren’t the same thing as free agency. They may be related but are not conceptually the same. (1+1 = 3 is not a mis-exercise in free agency. Neither are many other things.)
Follow-up question: Will God allow mistakes (or even rebellion) to permanently harm His Latter-day work? No.
God has mandated the terms of salvation; they are not a collaborative effort between Him and us. They aren’t negotiable. He also “gave” us our free agency so we could accept or reject them without compulsion. That’s the difference between the Church and North Korea.
Those who accept all the terms of salvation, which are found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, receive grace for grace until exaltation, which is the life God lives. Those who freely choose, through their agency, to comply less fully with the terms of salvation receive a lesser degree of salvation – there are things they can’t do and places they can’t go. Those in the Telestial Kingdom hardly complied at all. The sons and daughters of perdition, along with Satan and his hosts (who freely chose to follow him) rebelled utterly and find themselves powerless to escape Outer Darkness. The terms of salvation are set, and they are set by God. They are communicated, via angels and revelation, to mortals. One of the points of mortality is to see whether we will freely do all things whatsoever God commands us to do. (Abraham 3:25)
We pray that “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matt 6:10). In heaven, all the discord and rebellion and tumult we see here do not exist. All see eye to eye; that is; everyone agrees who God is and what His will is. They comply with whatever laws and bounds apply to them – as mandated by God.
Our model is, of course, the Savior, who followed the will of His Father without exception; He “suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.” (3 Nephi 11:11). Indeed, His will was “swallowed up in the will of the Father.” (Mosiah 15:7). Jesus never said, “My Father says such and such – but I think it should be otherwise.” He did say: “I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hast sent me.” (John 5:30). We are supposed to do likewise. He wasn’t coerced into this and neither are we.
As for the Church, President Uchtdorf was quoted in the post. Here is the rest of what he said in that Conference address:
“As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.
Here are two statements from President Hinckley:
“The Lord is directing this work, and He won’t let me or anyone else lead it astray.” (Pres. Hinckley, Ensign July 1996)
“No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves. But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice…I add by way of personal testimony that during the twenty years I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the nearly thirteen years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed. I have seen differences of opinion presented in these deliberations. Out of this very process of men speaking their minds has come a sifting and winnowing of ideas and concepts. But I have never observed serious discord or personal enmity among my Brethren. I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and again in directing this, the Lord’s work. (God is at the Helm, April 1997)
There are plenty more along these lines. Are mistakes made? Yes, but they aren’t the kind of mistakes that derail the Church.
Here most recently is Pres. Nelson:
“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively. And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will. This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process.” (“Becoming True Millennials” Worldwide Devotional, Jan 2016)
The issue is whether Church leaders (and this post is emphasizing the General Authorities) are leading us by revelation from God or not. Those who uphold the Church believe and are assured it is so led. Those who are disaffected from the Church don’t and aren’t. They don’t like something the Church teaches; therefore, that something can’t be true (and, possibly, the whole of the Church as well). They see a Church led by men who are making it up as they go along, if not in outright opposition to what God “really” wants done (which, apparently, they are competent to discern.) For some of these, when the Church parts company with the World, they part company with the Church, which has become a social liability.
“What does ‘God runs this church’ even mean”, the post asks, “when this church is composed of free agents?” It means that those free agents have freely agreed that God runs this church, and have freely made covenants to uphold it and defend it, come what may, and they agree to make His will their will. To that end, understanding that morals are fallible, they sustain those mortal, fellow free agents God has called to leadership in the Church that He runs. They don’t believe for an instant that the “Old Ship Zion” is going to sink or will miss its port of call or be abandoned by its captain.
Tim,
Thanks for this quote from President Hinckley, it helps make a broader and more problematic point about who is leading this church.
“No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves.”
“These men come from different backgrounds.” That is true if you make a distinction between Orem and Provo or Holladay and Murray. Some are judges and some are just lawyers, some are cardiac surgeons and some are just cardiologists. Some are white and others are uber white. In that way they are different. What do the middle class black and Hispanic apostles from South American and Africa think about these issues? What about women, what do they think?….oh wait…there are none.
“They are men who think for themselves.” Really? How would we know that? There is no transparency about these discussions. No publicly available minutes to show Elder Renlund or Elder Cook expressing concern about a particular issue. While I don’t doubt they think for themselves I find the suggestion that all (white, Wasatch front, upper class, male) voices are represented in the final decision to subjugate children of gay marriages, to be profoundly disingenuous. To then take such a narrow sampling, homogenize it into an even narrower policy and say that it’s Gods will which no one can disagree with or be labeled an apostate is lesson one on the first day of ‘Leading like a Pharisee 101’ at Sadducee University.
Perhaps we would all be well served to consider Brother Brigham’s warning that Blair reminded us of,
“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.”
Maybe we should stop looking for 15 white men in Salt Lake to tell us what to do and how to think and instead reach out to the living Christ and our Heavenly Parents to revel to us the customized, tailored, personal truths they so desperately want us to know. Maybe those 15 white men could stick more to the administration of this multi national church/corporation which we the people are unable to do, and leave the revealing of personal truths to the persons in the church who are wholly capable of receiving it.
Tim,
Tim, I think you may not appreciate the challenge it is for people that have conflicting messages in their minds, spirits and hearts. Of course it doesn’t make rational sense that an individual in the Church would be more right on an issue than 15 men who have dedicated their lives to God, are loving and seek His will. But, what is the person to do when they they feel in their heart of hearts that something the authorities are teaching violates their conscience and is not Christlike and they have real life experience with the issue? Are they to deny their spiritual feelings or their lived experience? They have been taught all their lives to seek the spirit and follow promptings and to also follow their leaders. But, when they conflict—now what? We don’t tell investigators to find out that the Book of Mormon is true by taking the word of a leader—we tell them to go straight to God. But, as soon as they are baptized we infer by our practice that we really don’t need the Holy Ghost, except for the most personal of decisions, because the leaders are directing us in everything else. It’s messy. It’s difficult. Just trust is an adage, but is hard to do when one sees many situations that show that trust wasn’t warranted.
I appreciate your sincere and thorough articulating of your thoughts. I agree with them to a large degree. It gets messy though. When you said, “ They [leaders] will listen to Him and freely obey His will,” the catch is the leaders not just listening for His will (which I have no doubt they earnestly do), but comprehending His will and being able to articulate it to others. This is illustrated recently with the Nov 5, 2015 HB1 policy change toward gays. The HB stated that if one were “in a same-gender marriage” that the person was in “apostasy” and that a “disciplinary council is mandatory.” But, apparently they didn’t get it right, because eight days later the First Presidency issued a change via a letter. It stated that anyone in a “similar relationship” to same-gender marriage “warrants a Church disciplinary council,” so now anyone with a gay partner comes under that directive.
Additionally, the new policy stated, “A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship” cannot be baptized until 18 and then only if they do not currently live with any parent who ever was in, or is currently in a gay relationship and after they (the child) “disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.” In the letter to bishops eight days later the policy now only applies “to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender relationship.” To me these are not minor clarifications, but have large ramifications to many, many saints and represent the leaders not getting it right the first time….or the second??
As to unanimity in the highest councils’ decisions, a member of the council agreeing that a given measure should move forward is not the same as them personally feeling the measure is best or right. So, intimating that all of the quorum agrees with an issue may not be accurate.
I agree with your statement: “Follow-up question: Will God allow mistakes (or even rebellion) to permanently harm His Latter-day work? No.” Again, it’s messy. Of course nothing will “permanently” harm the work or anyone’s opportunity for happiness in the end, but that leaves a lot of leeway for possible harm in the meantime. Defining “harm” or “astray” may also be warranted.
I also appreciate and like the quotes you provided from Pres. Hinckley and Uchtdorf and it is clear that Blaire was careless at best in cherry-picking Pres. Uchtdorf’s statement. Pres. Uchtdorf said, “This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.” What is the “appointed course” and “divine destiny” of the Church? Isn’t it fundamentally to lead people to Christ and His saving grace? So, where I feel that God wouldn’t let large deviations from this mission occur (there we go again…I should define “large”) I don’t feel I can say how much agency in the big picture God lets the Church and its leaders have. I do feel that regardless of how much latitude He gives and regardless of how much sub-optimal to actual damage is done, every soul in the end will be treated accordingly with the warranted love, justice and mercy in a combination that I will agree with.
KarlS
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I would not make light of faith crises, and from my own “lived experience” (a term I am not keen on) I know that life is messy. It was certainly made more difficult when God mandated plural marriage to Joseph Smith, yet there it was. What I react to is a revamping of theology to make doctrines, God’s sovereignty and apostolic oversight of His Church as fuzzy as possible.
I don’t think it will do to tell investigators fresh from baptism that they will find that the leadership of the Church is a well-meaning – but problematic – source of authority that they best regard with a wary eye and may have to (or may expect to) maneuver around. It’s not just that we are led by 15 men who have dedicated their lives to God and seek His will – there are plenty of groupings of 15 men and women who meet this – these 15 have also (a big “also”) been called by God by prophecy to be His apostles. He could have, presumably, selected others.
Most of what they do is administer a multimillion-member church, which involves, among so many other things, the constant turnover of bishops and stake presidents. Who does the Lord want called? General Authorities are sent out to Stakes to determine the Lord’s will in the case of Stake Presidents; the names of prospective Bishops go to Salt Lake. I am reminded of this spiritual gift per D&C 46:15:
“And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.”
It can’t be a breeze.
Blaire clearly has a problem, not just with patriarchy, but with anything being “mandated” at all, even if by God. Here’s a comment from her prior post:
“Let’s allow multiple sealings to multiple persons of any gender, if they so choose. . . If you think celestial glory mandates polygamy, monogamy, heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, asexuality, celibacy, or any other orientation among consenting adults, you need a better myth. Your heaven sounds like hell. I cannot believe in a God who would universally mandate any of these practices.”
Really? Anything goes? Heaven as one big Woodstock? We will be at loggerheads here.
I’m not sure what you mean about leaders who are directing us “in everything else.” How much “everything else” do you mean? As far as Church goes, we have the meetings we attend, the callings we fulfill, the scriptures we study, our prayers – pretty mainstream stuff; I’m not sure to what extent I am otherwise being (or feeling) “directed.” I suppose the temple recommend questions are as good a measuring rod as any for what is expected of us in church commitment – the Lord clearly wants us in the Temple. Elsewhere, we are to represent Christ in our daily lives and act as leavening influences in a world that is rapidly leaving God behind as either irrelevant, or inconvenient to the activities it doesn’t want God involved in, or so tolerant as not to care. I find life a whole lot messier outside of the Church than in it.
I find the recent clarifications of the policies regarding same-sex marriage less problematic than you do, but I know others certainly would agree with you, not me. I’m pretty orthodox and I’m sure I don’t have much traction on this website. My concern is not that people have questions, but that they will leave the Church over them. My faith is that we will eventually have answers to all our questions and that they will be satisfying answers. Until then, I know enough and have experienced enough to stay on the Old Ship Zion and I encourage others to do the same. The storms of life will only grow worse as we approach the Second Coming and you don’t want to be on those seas in a canoe.
That “every soul in the end will be treated accordingly with the warranted love, justice and mercy in a combination [all] will agree with” is as succinct and comforting a statement of truth as I have seen.
KarlS,
I think you have done a good job of explaining the difficulty some of us have in accepting teachings, practices or policies that we believe are questionable or in error. I also liked Blaire’s thought: “More often than not, ‘God runs this church’ is used as a shortsighted tactic to shut down inquiry into further inquiry, light, and knowledge.”
A Latter-day Saint who believes that 15 prophets, seers and revelators are authorized of God shouldn’t necessarily accept whatever they put forth as “gospel.” Sometimes they are wrong. On the contrary, anyone who wants a better Church tomorrow really ought to speak up today. We aren’t potted plants. Let’s face it: Theological malarkey gets a long lease on life when members merely say “amen” to it all. A lot of what was taught and practiced in my childhood is seen in today’s church as backward.
Although I believe prophets have sometimes led us astray on doctrine, I also believe that the Lord’s church and kingdom will prevail. In the meantime, in order to prevent more needless casualties along the way, let’s not be rubber-stamp members.
I like Christ’s words in D&C 1:20 “that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.” (Of course, most in the church believe that the Father is our God rather than Christ–but that’s a topic for another day.)