Book Opinions

Okay, I need people's opinion on a couple of books.

First, in our young marrieds group, we started reading the book Love and Respect by Emerson Eggerichs (how do you pronounce that??). It sounds like a good enough book, it definitely sparked a good discussion in our group on Sunday, but something was always nagging at me. For one, it's printed by Focus on the Family-- and I'm more apt to disagree with a majority of the things they teach, but I let that slide. I also know nothing of the author and his views of life and marriage, and couldn't find anything online about it, but I still wasn't convinced. I was on guard, but nothing I was seeing or hearing was showing me that I would not enjoy and (especially) agree with the book. But then lo and behold, I was reading through my google reader and came upon a blog by Complegalitarian that stated this about the book:

I also encourage you to read Love and Respect because it is the complementarian book that has the most thorough discussion of domain-based authority. In fact, it is this discussion that convicted me. For example, Emerson points out that men and women tend to view careers very differently. Women typically view work outside the home as a choice, while men view it as a fundamental responsibility. (This thinking came through on Complegalitarian blog a couple of weeks ago, in Wayne's "what is a Christian feminist" post. Women wanted the right to choose whether they worked and the right to choose the military. Yet, none of them expressed a willingness to assume primary responsibility for supporting a family or defending their country.) Male authority in marriage follows logically from this responsibility to protect and provide. Of all the complementarian books that have attempted to answer the “why does God command me to submit to my husband when I know we’re equals” question, it is Emerson’s discussion of responsibility and authority that I found to be compelling.

I have to admit, that scares me a bit. I worry when someone is "convinced" about traditional ideas. I understand that people want to learn more about it, and it is a bit unfair of me because I try to "convince" others about egalitarianism. And the idea of "domain-based authority" just makes my skin crawl. But what the bigger issue is, is that I haven't read the book, nor have I bought it yet, but I don't want to buy a book that I am going to spend my time yelling at and wanting to throw across the room because of the things I disagree with (I've done that with "women's Bible study" books).
However, I can also see that the author may talk about more traditional ways of conducting marriage, but it's not the focus of the book... I just don't know what to think about it. Because I also resist strongly (and usually gets me into trouble) when people try to put me (and especially me as a woman) into a box and call it "all women." (And "all men" for that matter. Michael rarely fits into the "Christian man" box.)
Anyway, all that to say, I'm worried that this book will cause me and Michael to implode and have to be the "weirdos" because we don't agree with it. But if it's a subtle message, I think I might be able to handle it if the overall message is okay.... but is it? Please, anyone who's read it, tell me what it's like before I go out and buy it (and possibly end up burning it).

There is another opinion I need. My sister-in-law mentioned to me that she wants a good book on faith, spirituality, and dealing with life. I'm coming up short (ha-ha everyone laugh... cuz I'm short...) with ideas and I don't know what book to get her. She's not a big reader, so she doesn't need anything too theological or anything like that. She just needs something simple, encouraging, and educational. Any suggestions? Any books you have liked in the past (or present) that she might find something in? Please give me all the suggestions you can!

Thanks for everyone's help!

What name do you give God?

Some very thought-provoking ideas are discussed on Michael's blog. It really makes you think about how we worship our God, especially how we identify Him. Go check it out! Leave a comment (show some love) if you feel the urge ;-)

Is it Possible to be Biblical but not Christian?

I’m officially a theologian! I tend to be the one who goes to others who are older and wiser than I am for advice and insight about different issues, topics, discussions, etc. However, I was the one who was come to! I felt so honored J So instead of running instantly to my friend who lives down the street to give me the “right” answer, I jumped in head first by myself… I am growing up! ;-) But I would still love anyone and everyone’s thoughts and insight!

So here's the scoop: I joined a group on Facebook called “The Economics of Jesus.” (If you’re on Facebook, definitely check it out!) Well, I didn’t think much about joining the group because my beliefs fell within what the group talked about. A friend of mine emailed me a few days ago asking about the group. (Without hesitation, I can say she is much more conservative than I am.) Well, here is the question and following it is my response to her:

i was checking out the group and something about it confused me. how can something be biblical, but not christian? if the bible is the inspired word of GOD, how can people meant to be CHRIST followers dismiss parts of his very word? i.e. giving a portion of your income to the church? maybe you've given this some thought and can explain how something can be biblical, but not chrisitan.

From my understanding, a lot of it comes down to one’s understanding of the definition of the word “church.” It has become a new teaching in some churches that the church is not just the building with four walls—but the people and businessesàthe community around the building of the church. The church becomes the people you encounter at the coffee shop, your fellow students in your classes, the poets, the mothers and fathers, the homeless, the poor, the single mother working 3 jobs, etc. The church is not defined by the four walls, and shouldn’t be. God says that He is the head of the church—he did not necessarily mean that he is the head of the building (just one step above the pastor).

The church dynamic is very different than what it originally was in Biblical times. Paul was the one who coined the word “Christian;” Jesus never used it or even alluded to it. He told people to follow the calling that God put in their lives and to have fellowship with one another. There of course were the teachers—because believe me, I could not function completely on my own when it comes to the Bible without good teachers—but they give insight and teach to their greatest understanding of what God wants them to teach. You don’t have to look far for the corruption of the church and the mistakes that are made within the church’s understanding of Biblical passages and laws (of the Old Testament).

Saying something is Biblical and not Christian is an interesting idea, even for me. After giving this a lot of thought, my main conclusion is that when the group talked about the tithe as Biblical and not Christian is that the Old Testament is no longer followed as law in the Christian church. Because Christians don’t follow the Old Testament law, even though it is in the Bible, the idea of tithing is not “Christian.” Tithing is also defined as giving a certain portion of (all of) your income and possessions to God. Today, churches use the words "tithing" and "giving" interchangeably, even though they are completely different concepts. I believe that the creator of the group meant to get rid of the use of the word "tithing" as an obligation instead of a personal calling.

There are ideas that Christians have put into their interpretations of the Bible—therefore, making an idea “Christian” but not necessarily Biblical. God intended a lot of things that may not be lived out in the modern church. Specifically, you asked about giving to the church. The idea of giving to the church is a modern idea. In the Bible, God calls His followers to give to the poor, the hungry, and the needy. In Matthew 19:21, Jesus told the rich man to “sell your possessions and give to the poor…” Giving to the poor is not code for “give to the church.” Jesus cared about the poor and the outcasts, and he calls his followers to do the same. Any mention of tithing is mentioned in the Old Testament. It was in Leviticus and Numbers, but in both of those passages, they talked about tithing your possessions (and everything else… See Lev. 27:30) and giving them to God. It does not say the church, because there was no such thing as the church back then. God called His people to tithe to Him, sacrificing yourself and your possessions for God.

In regards to the fact that the commands about tithing are all in the Old Testament, one must not ignore that. When Jesus came, he got rid of the old covenant. In Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, and Hebrews 9:25 and 12:24, they all talk about Jesus being the new covenant. We are no longer under the old law. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t give to the church or the poor or whomever else God calls you to give to. I am saying that we are no longer required to. Our relationship with God became very personal when Jesus came and died for us. We no longer had to do anything, but could choose and listen to see where God was taking us and directing us individually instead of as an entire community. By saying that Jesus is the new covenant (and not following the old covenant and laws) is not dismissing the Bible. It is the history and there are many things to be learned through the Old Testament laws, but they do not direct our life any more. If God did not want us to learn something from the Old Testament, it wouldn’t be in the Bible. But it shouldn’t be taken as laws, and should definitely not be used to pick and choose which laws we should still be following. It’s an all or nothing kind of thing. God called His people to tithe—no longer a law, but a choice and a calling. Personally, I have rarely tithed to a church. I use it to give where I hear God calling me to give—World Vision, Unitus, lunch with a friend who is short on cash, coffee for the stranger behind me in line, etc. That is God’s church, not necessarily the building.

The Bible does talk about giving to support pastors (or leaders, I’m not really sure where that passage is…) so if that is what God has called you to do, that’s awesome! There is nothing wrong or unbiblical about that. Do what God has called you to do. A lot of pastors are solely supported financially by the giving of the church members, so I am not disregarding the need for giving to the church. However, one cannot discount that other’s calling may be to give to the poor (and not the church as a building). Both are Biblical. Although, one is not always considered “Christian” because most churches teach that the only way to give is to give to the church. It all comes down to interpretation and personal conviction and calling on your life.

...and Justice for All

I was in my religions class yesterday and we were continuing our study of Islam (let me just say I sit in complete confusion for the entire hour!). We talked about the central and very strong belief in the importance of justice. We then compared it to the Christian concept of justice. In regards to the Christian concept of justice, my professor said, and I quote, "Jews and Muslims laugh." At first, I was slightly offended. However, as he kept talking, it started to make more sense. Justice means to give a consequence for an action. We talked about that in Islam, if a son does something wrong, a mother is bound by her beliefs in justice to turn him in because she must value justice (and Allah) over the love for her son. That seemed so tragic and heartbreaking.
With the Christian perspective of that scenario, the mother would embrace her son and give him grace... hmmm... doesn't sound like justice to me! It started to make more sense. Grace is central to Christianity and we function and love within that belief. God is graceful and merciful because He loves us. Yes, God is just, but His love and forgiveness overrides that.
Also, my professor started making fun of the idea that Christians are passionate about "social justice." Again, slightly offended. It was also through this I realized my professor may not hold the beliefs I thought he did (being from Ireland and all, I assumed he had either a Catholic or Protestant background... maybe not... or he could have been playing devil's advocate... but not likely). But it really got me thinking about what social justice really means. Is it truly justice? Is there a better word/phrase to describe what is implied by when people mention social justice? How would changing the wording effect what was done or expected? Would it have an effect? This is just something that I've been thinking about. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this or anything else related!

Can a Christian believe a non-Christian can be saved?

So I finally wrote my paper for my religions class that I talked about in a previous post. I decided to write about whether or not a Christian can believe a non-Christian can get to heaven-- that one seemed to be the most interesting, by far! So I'll copy and paste my paper here. Let me know what you think. It's an "academic essay" (whatever the hell that means) so it's really formal and not how I usually write on here! Enjoy!

Christianity and Salvation in Regards to Other Religions

There are many different views in regard to salvation. Salvation is an extremely complex issue and cannot be discussed in one theology. In my essay, I will discuss what salvation is and specifically what Christians believe it is. I will also discuss the different views of who Christians believe are saved. Finally, I will talk about Christians believing that people of other religions can be saved.

The idea of salvation is not solely a Christian concept. Most religions have some concept of salvation, and it does not always involve the idea of a heaven. Christians believe in the saving power of the cross. They believe Jesus was perfect, died on the cross for everyone’s sins, and was resurrected 3 days after he died. Christians tend to believe that the way to be saved is through “church rituals (particularly baptism and -- in the Catholic churches -- confession), good works; Belief in: Jesus' resurrection, Jesus’ status as the only begotten Son of God, Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior; Or by some combination of the above.”[1] The debate comes from the fact that there are numerous other religions that believe in a higher power, in the person of Jesus, and the existence of people in remote areas of the world who never have and never will hear the name of Jesus. The following paragraphs will explain different beliefs about who is saved and the support each belief has.

The first belief is universalism. They believe that everyone, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, is saved. Because, according to Romans 3:23, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Jesus redeemed everyone of their sins. As a result, all are saved and going to heaven. Origen argued that there is no such thing as dualism. He believed that “God will overcome evil and restore creation to its original form.”[2] He did not believe that God, who is perfect and holy, could coexist with Satan, who is evil. Robinson argued that God’s love is stronger than the evil and will eventually conquer evil, which makes “the existence of hell an impossibility.”[3] However, this theory does not take into account the need for faith in any higher power. With this theory, it does not matter what kind of person someone is—they could be a murderer or rapist who is unrepentant of what they did, and they could still get into heaven. Universalists could argue that all people are sinners, one sin is not greater than another, and because of God’s grace, and we are all saved: “For it is by grace that we have been saved… not by works, so that no one can boast” Ephesians 2:8-9.

Another belief of salvation is that only elect people can get into heaven. This theory rests heavily on the idea of pre-destination—that God chose only a few people to be saved. This theory comes from the idea that Jesus came and died for all people, but only a select few will be saved. They argue that because Jesus came and died only to save those who God had already chosen to be saved. However, those who follow this theory do not give any solid Biblical references for their beliefs and dismiss the “universality of God’s love and redemption.”[4]

The last, and most popular, belief is that only believers can get into heaven and be saved. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This is the most popular belief among churches today. Jesus is believed to be central to someone’s salvation. If someone does not believe in, and “confess” the name of Jesus, and that he came down to earth and died for our sins, they cannot get into heaven. This belief emphasizes the importance of faith in Jesus and God in order to be saved. Augustine was a strong force behind promoting this idea originally. During the Middle Ages and the Reformation it was further supported. The writers of the time started the idea, that continues to be popular today, that nonbelievers cannot be saved. Calvin stated: “All the more vile is the stupidity of those people who open heaven to all the impious unbelieving, without the grace of him who Scripture teaches to be the only door by which we enter heaven.”[5]

In contrast to the earlier theologians, there have been others who believe that a non-Christian can be saved. In John Wesley’s sermon, “On Faith,” he “argued the need for faith in God in order to be saved—but affirmed that this faith need not be explicitly Christian in character.”[6] In the twentieth-century, C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject of who is saved. In his book, Mere Christianity, he argued that “those who commit themselves to the pursuit of goodness and truth will be saved, even if they have no formal knowledge of Christ.”[7] In regards to other religions, those who are saved are more complicated. Lewis states: “There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence top concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.”[8] This idea supports the fact that God is present in everything.

People who have never heard of the name of Jesus or God can still acknowledge the presence of a higher being. In Romans 1:20, Paul states: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” God is omnipresent, so God is in remote areas of the world where people who have not heard of the name of Jesus would be able to experience Him. If Augustine were to argue this point he would most likely use John 14:6, referencing Jesus saying that he is the only way to be saved. One could state that a person does not necessarily have to acknowledge the person of Jesus to be saved. He came, died, was resurrected and left the Holy Spirit on the earth, so it is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus and God are revealed. Because Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one entity, acknowledging the presence of one acknowledges the presence of all three.

Western Christianity is very western-centric and we do not have a clear understanding of other religions, and even the beliefs and practices of Christians in other parts of the world. Other religions believe in a higher being and some even believe in the existence of Jesus. (Islam—Allah and Jesus as a prophet, Judaism—believe in God who is Jesus) God is truth, and if another religion or person lives in a truth, it is following God’s way. In Rob Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis, he talks about all truth being God’s truth, no matter where the truth is found. He references Paul’s writings in the book of Acts where Paul quotes one of the poets of the place he is staying. The poet spoke truth. If all truth is God’s truth then the poet unknowingly spoke God’s truth.[9] Bell states, “as a Christian, I am free to claim the good, the true, the holy, wherever and whenever I find it. I live with the understanding that truth is bigger than any religion and the world is God’s and everything in it.”[10] As a Christian, it is possible to believe that other religions can speak truth and God is present in that truth. Other religions acknowledge the person of Jesus, not always saying he is the Messiah, but a prophet or just a man. It could be argued that because they believe he existed, people who follow other religions are saved. Along with that, if another religion follows a deity, they could be following God, but giving Him a different name. Especially because Jews follow the God of Abraham, as do Christians, they all believe in the same God who is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

It is possible, although not always accepted, that Christians can believe that people of other religions can be saved. Christians tend to be very exclusive and intolerant of other religions, not accepting the idea of God’s truth being present in everything, including other religions’ beliefs and doctrines. Although Jesus said he is the way to be saved, it is not defined how exactly that is seen or decided. People can live a life for Christ and not consider themselves Christians.

In conclusion, Christians believe in the saving power of the cross of Christ. However, Christians can also believe that non-Christians, who do not believe in the cross, can be saved. In this essay, I explained the different views about who is saved and who is not. I also explained that it is possible for Christians to believe that nonbelievers and people of other religions can be saved.

---

[1]B.A. Robinson, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Religioustolerance.org, http://www.religioustolerance.org/salvatio.htm, 2007

[2] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 357

[3] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 357

[4] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 359

[5] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 357-358

[6] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 358

[7] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 358

[8] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 358

[9] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis,, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 79

[10] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis,, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 80

More Questions Than Answers

So I have spring break this week (that is one thing I will miss when I'm not in school!) but I have to spend some time of it writing 2 papers... ugh! Well, at least starting them. Anyway, one of them is for my religions class-- which I'm still loving by the way-- and I thought I'd get other people's insight cuz they're not easy questions to answer. We have the option to write about one of 5 questions. Here are the two I am thinking about writing about:

1) Is Christianity a monotheistic religion?
-- This was a very interesting discussion because I have grown up in the church and it was never a question as to whether or not we believed in one God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just part of God (use whatever analogy you wish to explain it--the egg one is my favorite). So at first my answer was, "Yes, duh!"However, in this class, we discussed the question of: how it is possible to think of Jesus as fully God as well as fully human? If he's human, he can't be God, but if he's God, he can't be human... well, according to logical thought. And if Jesus was praying to God and was the son of God, that would make him separate, right? Well, I'm not saying I believe that, but it definitely gives you something to think about and gives me a big headache! But it did get me thinking about this issue. How would you discuss that? How can Jesus be God AND human at the same time, all the while being God himself? Any thoughts? I'll definitely be wrestling with this and researching it (I'll have to see what our theology textbook has to say about this... I'll get back to everyone about what I find). But I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

2) Can a Christian believe that members of other religions are “saved”?
-- It's kinda funny cuz we got this assignment and I got onto my blog reader thingy and Paul had written a blog about this issue! Crazy! (I'll post a comment about it when I read it, and especially if I write my paper on this!) So I am going to read that (it's really long!) and see what he has to say as well I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks! When we discussed this in class, I was in a group with mostly Christian (well, self-proclaimed) girls and we really struggled with this issue. It would be great if everyone got into heaven. The discussion always came around to "what about the guy in the middle of nowhere? will he go to heaven if he's never heard about God/Jesus?" That question was a little easier to answer or at least give a decent answer for, but what I want to know is what about the people in the Middle East who strongly believe that their religion is the truth? Or even the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, etc. in the US? Does it come down to theology? Cuz Muslims believe in Jesus, just that he was a prophet, not the son of God. And Jews believe in God-- and if Jesus is God, would that mean they indirectly believe in Jesus? What about Catholics and Mormons who have very similar beliefs but different values and some VERY different beliefs but the core beliefs are the same? Cuz they all believe in Jesus. Where is the line drawn? Is there any way to know? Isn't it very prideful for Christians to say they have the one and only way to heaven? Let me know what you think!

--Also, any good references would be greatly appreciated for either of these questions-- books, websites, Bible verses, etc! Feel free to comment about only one or both! I'd love to hear what people have to say and think!

What is the Trinity?

So I had my religions class today and we started our discussion on Christianity. More specifically, we started talking about the never-complicated subject of the Trinity--WHOA! When I was reading our book, "Christian Theology" I was confused at some points and I've grown up in the church and have somewhat of a grasp of what the trinity is and how it functions.
It did help me see, however, how other religions do not believe Jesus is not God. Until now, I never understood how people couldn't believe this-- "of course Jesus is God!" When looking at it that Jesus was a man so how can he be God really got me thinking. It's a pretty heavy subject and I am not about to try to explain it here.
The biggest and most interesting discussion we had in class today was the fact that the Bible only mentions the trinity (but not called the trinity in the Bible) as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in two verses in the whole Bible! The discussion arose, inevitably, that what if the idea of the trinity was just a man-made idea and we got it totally wrong? That we misunderstood what it meant by the Father/Son/Holy Spirit relationship? No one had a very good answer. They either answered "just because" or "I don't know."
So I started thinking to myself, what would that do to our theology? Our beliefs? I had a discussion with one of my pastors recently about this very subject (about theology changing, not the trinity). We both read the book Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell which I've talked about before, and in it he talks about how people put too much emphasis on the theology of Christianity and miss the big picture. He proposed the idea of (this is definitely a paraphrase) what would it do your faith if you knew that the word used for virgin regarding Mary not only meant someone who hadn't had sex, but also a woman who had had sex only once? And what if it could be proven (by some super-duper sci-fi gizmo) that she was the later definition of virgin? What would that do to your faith? Would it discredit the Bible? Is our faith solely based on theology instead of the message of the Bible? This is just what was going through my mind today during class and I thought I'd share it with everyone. What are everyone's thoughts? Ideas? Insights?

Can You Prove God?

So I'm taking a class this semester called, "Religions of the West." It's about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and Atheism actually). Before I even walked in the classroom on the first day, I knew it was going to be a fascinating class. Oh, and let this be a warning, because it is a philosophy class and it's about religions-- it really makes me think--which will cause a lot of blogs! I am excited to learn about the different religions and process what I learned. I'm especially excited to see how it will strengthen my own beliefs and theology. So here goes the first digestion of topics discussed last week:

In my class, the first religion we are studying is atheism. It really helps to understand what people believe when they don't believe in a higher being. At first, I thought it was weird to be studying atheism in a religions class, but come to find out, a religion is just a set of beliefs. We could have gotten into the discussion about if capitalism could be considered a religion, but thankfully my teacher spared me that boredom (at least for now... who knows what the rest of the semester holds)! Anyway, we are studying prominent and influential atheists-- Marx, Freud, and some guy I can't remember the name of (give me a break, it's only been 2 weeks of class!). Last week we discussed Marx's ideas about religion. It was fascinating! Marx believed that the poor believed in the Bible, and especially the idea of Heaven, to give them hope and religion helped the rich keep them in their low positions. The rich got richer while they exploited the poor who believed they'd get something better someday. Marx saw this as weak. He believed people needed a reason for their suffering and "the last will become first" idea gave them that reason.
My thoughts on this is how can hanging on to hope be considered weak? Since when is hope weak? It is the source of life! It is what keeps people going from day to day, even when those days are bleak and gray. Jesus hung out with the poor and hopeless-- they are who he loved (he loves everyone, of course), but he especially came for the lowly people-- those who needed hope, the doctor to the sick.
Also, if there is no afterlife, what is the purpose of living? For what purpose do we do good works and love other people if our lives and souls end when our heart stops beating? If we have no one to tell us what makes life worth living, what is the purpose of living? Why wouldn't people just do what they want? (which gets into the debate of whether people are inherently good or evil...)
Another thought: Why do people submit our own lives to an incomprehensible being, someone we can't actually measure or evaluate or really even understand? Religion becomes a very personal experience. God is real to those who believe in him and experience him. God is everywhere. But how do you prove His existence? Is there any way to take the personal experience with God into public, outside of the walls of your bedroom and the walls of your church? Is it just shown through our actions and our love? I know God is real and alive and omnipresent, but how can I convey that to everyone else? I know showing his unconditional love is key to it all... but is there anything else? How we can show God to other people is a very personal experience and decision and walk for everyone. God works in so many ways-- there is no set mold or equation that God uses for everyone. That's what makes God amazing!
There are so many thoughts and questions and ideas running through my head, I can't even begin to type fast enough! I know I've only begun to scratch the surface of this theological discussion, so I would love to hear everyone else's thoughts!
What are everyone's thoughts? If you were to talk to Marx about his views on religion (this is not about his political ideas and/or communism), what would you ask him? I'd love to hear anyone and everyone's thoughts!!