Featured post

I Am Glad You Did that!

I Am Glad You Did that!

Rodney Eivers


Over the past 24 hours a number of events have come to me leading me to ponder the contribution of community and house churches to wellbeing.


  1. “I am glad you did that!” This was an e-mail response I received from a close 80 year old relative whom I had phoned earlier to wish her a “Happy Birthday”. I had said “I do not want to bother you because I thought you would be inundated with phone calls.”

“No,” she said, “You are one of only two people who have been in touch with me today.

  1. Last night our Home Study group met for its fortnightly gathering. We have been meeting for some 25 years and comprise members with religious orientation ranging from the deep Fundamentalist to the way out Progressive radical. Nevertheless we still find satisfaction in getting together.
  2. I met with a couple of Uniting Church ministers from neighbourhood churches. We revealed and accepted our doctrinal differences and in a frank and honest discussion were able to share in our passion that the Jesus way of unconditional love be proclaimed in our communities.
  3. A small column appeared in the Courier-Mail (page 20) of the June 15th 2018 issue.


“Faith links to Long Life”


            “Being actively religious could add more than six years to your life, a study suggests.

            Researchers believe the social aspect of a religious community could improve well-being, and said religious rules prohibited unhealthy behaviour and promoted positive activity among the faithful.

            In the study, led by Ohio State University, psychologists examined obituaries. An analysis of national newspapers found those of religious faith lived for an average of 3.82 years longer once gender and marital status were considered,


One can argue about the statistical basis of this study but it raises the question. What is behind this?” Is it “God is being good to us, and never mind the heathen”?

Or, has it something to do with the community and family-type responsibility which arises from groups gathering with a common religious purpose.  Does community come before doctrine?


I am inclined to think that in today’s 21st century environment it does. This is the ethos behind the Milpara concept of integration of congregations with their secular local communities and of the nurture of smaller sustainable groupings as house churches.


Let’s see what we can do to respond to the loneliness which so many of us can feel in today’s busy world.

Featured post

Facilitation of House Churches – theological or doctrinal orientation

                           From Rodney Eivers

Since last communication I have had some discussion with a number of people who have shown interest in facilitating house-churches in association with the UCA. The idea is to maintain access of the general secular world to our expression of Christian faith without the impediments of doctrine, compliance, membership, finance, personnel and in some cases property, which currently exist.

One Synod Officer described the approach as “organised disorganisation” and perhaps there is something in that. You may be able to help me with one aspect which has been going through my mind.

Doctrinal or theological orientation:

In providing a coordinator who can direct enquirers to an appropriate house-church Contact Person for a given, postcode, town or suburb it will be valuable, indeed wise, to point the person to a group with which he or she will be comfortable. Such compatibility, may be in relation to style of worship. relative ages of attenders, language and so on but for religious celebration the most critical factor, in the long run, is theological orientation.

So, if we accept that the house churches need not follow any specific theological line (that is the point of dissociating them formally from the denomination), what is a simple classification that would have meaning for the average secular high-school-educated student of today?

Here is my attempt at it:
For a start I would limit it to three groups:
1. Literalist/conservative – Characterised by those drawn to the Assembly of Confessing                                                              Congregations
2. Liberal/orthodox – Characterised by the bulk of UCA attenders.
3 Progressive – Characterised by subscribers to the UC Forum

Common to each Group:
Following and seeking to live the Jesus Way of unconditional love as the means to a better life and a better world – The Kingdom of God

Characteristics of each group:

1.Literalist/Conservative  attitude to:

Doctrinal change – reject 
The Bible –
read literally as complete guide to life
The supernatural – 
foundation of Christian faith that fails without it.

2.Liberal/Orthodox   attitude to:

Doctrinal change – resist but modify
The Bible – read in context
The supernatural – accept in Christian doctrine, less so in life

3. Progressive attitude to:

Doctrinal change – explore and adapt
The Bible – explore and analyse
The supernatural – has no validity

So a conversation might go as follows:

Enquirer: I have friends who seem to get a lot of satisfaction through joining a community in a house church. Do you know of any such gatherings in my part of the world?

Coordinator: Yes there are some groups around and they tend to have different ways of approaching Christian faith. It would be good for you to go to a group where you would be comfortable.

Enquirer: Well, what’s the difference?

Coordinator. Well you might put them into three groups:
1. Literalist/conservative
2. Liberal orthodox
3. Progressive.

A .The literalist/conservative values the past traditions of the church and is anxious that her or his worldview not collapse if the supernatural Trinity, and the divine source of biblical writings are questioned or abandoned.

B. The liberal/orthodox which is where the vast majority of mainline denominational participants sit, do not like to question much, are happy with traditional doctrines of faith (e.g. the supernatural Trinity) but tend to yield to current social ethos with respect to personal relationships even when conflicting with biblical rule-setting.

C. The progressive seeks to read the Bible and interpret Jesus’s message with relevance to 21st century knowledge and experience of nature and of personal relationships, at the risk of some uncertainty, confusion and loss of passion.

That these are live issues for people of Christian faith with the UCA can be seen from the correspondence to the Editor in the Winter 2018 issue of the Queensland Synod’s Journey magazine with an exchange of letters between Drs Ken Davidson and John Frederick. That they also tend to divide us can be seen in the debates on same-sex marriage which are about to come up in the National Assembly next month.

House churches of the nature that I am suggesting we facilitate, would allow us to maintain our differences and still in one sense be one body.

This is already happening de facto to some degree. For instance we have the Assembly of Confessing Congregations, we have the UC Forum, we have home study groups and some congregations with a variety of doctrinal stances but all seek to maintain their association with the Uniting Church without having to toe the party line.

I would be pleased to have your thoughts and suggestion on how the A, B, C statements above , while still being one sentence each , encapsulate the description of the three groups.

It is important, that the description be “neutral” in that each group must find it an acceptable wording of where they stand.
Thank you
Rodney Eivers


Featured post



The following extract was brought to my attention by Paul Wildman, one of our subscribers. It provided a new slant for me on the prospect of house churches being a valid option for conveying the Jesus message in a world where “Christian” has become, in a remarkably short time, a “dirty” word.                                                                                                                                                                                     Rodney Eivers

“It would have been out of the question for [Saint] Paul that such female co-workers should be condemned to subservient silence. Paul traveled with these women, depended on the support of female patrons, and organized numerous local communities around the hospitality of powerful women. Because first- and second-generation Christian gatherings took place in domestic settings, which, unlike the public sphere, were traditionally presided over by women, positions of authority in these “house churches” naturally went to women. Paul’s authentic writings consistently reflect that. Indeed, they take the essential equality of women as a given.”


Carroll, James. Christ Actually: The Son of God for the Secular Age (p. 223). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Featured post

Editorial Note -5th May 2018

Especially for past visitors to this Milpara website.

You will be aware that this website Milpara.com has been quiescent for several years.
This is mainly because your editor has had other preoccupations. One of those developing preoccupations is a growing awareness that the current model for congregations with the mainstream church denominations is unsustainable.
In early 2018, however, I became aware that other people may be seeing some merit in exploring an additional component. This would be something of a network of Christian groups meeting in private houses. They would be associated with a specific denomination but not tied to that denomination as a legal entity. So, although Milpara would continue to promote the “community” model of a church congregation as against a “doctrinal” model there may be virtue in stepping back from that primary structure – 50 to 100 worship attenders with one full-time minister. Instead we might generate a smaller more intimate “family” model of first contact with few if any administrative constraints. Of course, if the house church happened to grow (not its prime function) there may well be the opportunity to evolve into a standard congregation.
So you will find for the time being with Milpara that we may be making a fresh emphasis on the “house church”.

For a start you will find a page here  which in response to a call for thoughts on “What the church needs to do to address its decline” by the UC Forum (. This provides some basic suggestions as to what the house church scenario might entail. We would invite you to join us in this venture e-mail milparahouse@bigpond.com )
Rodney Eivers

PS. On coming back to this website I have been reminded of the list of people to whom notice of postings is sent. If this is considered to be impertinent please let me know milparahouse@bigpond.com and we shall remove your name. On the other hand there may be some who would like to be added to the list. Invite them to send their details to us.

Featured post

Home Church has great cultural value

The position of ‘faith’ in society is well over due for a fresh and practical review.

Promoting ‘home church’ in the current climate of huge social challenges to the institutional Church has great value. But not all home churches fit the bill.

Traditional ‘home church’ has given groups a chance to ‘hide’ from the reality of a diverse society. It has brought comfort to those who did not easily mix with others and those who found the world in conflict with their values. But a more enlightened view of church and in particular home church offers something that is sorely needed to bring people into a more harmonious relationship and greater commitment to ‘community’ and the sharing of resources and values. The sharing of resources and working for the common good is a strong mantra of both the Old and New Testaments and is not unique to Christianity.

We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please our neighbours for their good, to build them up. Romans 15:1-2

 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” 2 Corinthians 13-15

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
    and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
    and not to hide yourself from your own kin?  Isaiah 58:7

The sharing of faith values is an important part of a healthy democracy, provided it is in the spirit of ‘sharing and learning’ rather than ‘imposing and constraining’. There is so much we learn from each other within safe and open environments. Sharing values does not mean sacrificing personal viewpoints and practices. It means placing a personal world view into a context of the reality of our neighbours life journeys. Greater tolerance grows out of shared understanding.

‘Identity’ of individuals and groups in society has lost ground with increasing globalisation and the growth of the market economy in favour of big corporations and the political support for transnational organisations. The Church has fallen into line with the trend towards the mega-group. The Church is following trend and drawn into the idea that big is beautiful as well as the outdated view that audiences don’t need to be involved in critical thinking. In this model individuals, their viewpoints and needs count for little. It often does this while walking away from small or fading communities. But is this serving the needs and interests of communities and individuals? Is it community building or unintentional community degradation? Is it more about the survival of the institution than serving society.

At the same time, cultural barriers of race and religion are slowly coming down despite the efforts of reactionary nationalistic movements. In particular, especially in the western world, people are no longer identifying themselves on the basis of religion or race. They look for ‘good’ communities – friendly, supportive, intimate and understanding.

The emergence of supra national interest groups may be a response to a trend to eliminate ‘identity’ by the economy and political authorities. It is a healthy movement away from the old  crowd management models. Possibly the fastest growing category of people is now those of mixed race, mixed religion and diverse cultural and ethnic origin. Long term practitioners of Christianity probably regret the slow but sure decline in adherence to large worship events, but many would welcome a ‘back to the grass roots’ faith of its founder and presented in the Gospels. Home church can put the emphasis on the teachings and examples of Jesus and moves away from the essential doctrinal and organisational values that take precedence in the institutional church.

In this climate of  growing mixed ethnicity and falling social boundaries, the practice of home or small group church fills a great need in community building and cohesion of society. It becomes a shared space that can liberate thinking and promote unity of social purpose in communities.

Giles, in the previous post, makes the point that 84% (and growing) of the planet have a faith perspective that influences their world view. He makes a good case for bringing the faith and non faith peoples into closer alignment. There are obvious reasons why this would be good for society, but there are few vehicles for this to happen intentionally.

Home churches or home groups lend themselves to encouraging collaboration and conversations between church and non-church people. The expectations are different. The formal church worship event, unless worked on intentionally, is not a natural setting for non-church people to feel at home and expects conformity and acceptance of all that is said and done. Within the smaller, less formal setting of a home or family environment there is greater potential for sharing ideas, opinions and values.

For many reasons, the Church is at a crossroads. Many are tipping its demise, others are seeing it survive and even grow as a reaction to a liberal society. We have an opportunity to turn the current crisis of purpose and usefulness into something closer to the community model it manifested before it was moulded into an empirical model by the Roman rulers of the 4th Century.

Paul Inglis January 2018.

The author was a Uniting Church Community Minister for 11 years and still works alongside church and community to develop healthy and harmonious communities.

Church, a diverse community – Giles Fraser

It is hard to believe that it is two years since we had a contribution to this Milpara website. It is not that I see its purpose as any less relevant but life has a way of making other activities a priority from time to time.
While the nurturing of the integration of congregations with their local geographic communities remains a direction for Milpara I am coming round to putting more emphasis for the next 20 years on the facilitation of “house churches” which are seen as an option for the a future Uniting Church as described in Keith Suter’s Scenario Three – Return to the early church as small centres of “spiritual” focus. I am looking for young people with a 20-year vision to work with me on this venture.
What prompted this specific entry, however, was following a link to on-line article in the Guardian newspaper by Giles Fraser.
Mr Fraser notes that local churches are a hive of diversity. Indeed this is my experience going back to early childhood. It is this encompassing of a diverse community which impels me to promote the integration of congregations with their local geographic communities.
Here is the first paragraph of Giles Fraser’s article. You can read the rest by following the link.
Rodney Eivers
“Reviewing the Christmas services it strikes me once again how diverse a group us churchgoers are. In terms of class, race, nationality, gender and sexuality, it’s hard to imagine any other regular collective gathering that pulls in such a varied collection of people. My church is a black majority church in a gentrifying area. University professors sit next to the people who clean their offices. The Ethiopian, Trump-supporting evangelical sings the same hymns as the chap with his fine collection of Jeremy Corbyn badges. The Romanian homeless guy prays alongside the person who is transitioning and next to the old Etonian ex-army officer. Many of these people have very little in common except their faith. But this is enough for them to treat each other as extended family. And I am proud to serve as their priest.”


Milpara – A Suter-style Scenario No. 5?

Milpara – Suter-Style Scenario No. 5?
Rodney Eivers

3rd January 2016
I had a message from a colleague this weekend who recommended that members of Uniting Church congregations use some available 2-minute video vignettes, to learn of the writings of Dr Keith Suter. Dr Suter has published a doctoral thesis on the Future of the Uniting Church and paints pictures – he refers to them as scenarios – as to where the Uniting Church in Australia might be heading over the next one or two decades. The full thesis may be viewed at
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/11587/1/suter_ks_thesis.pdf .

I would support the recommendation that people view the 2-minute vignettes by Keith Suter on his study of the future of the Uniting Church. He speaks very clearly and they are a good summary of his wake-up call to the Uniting Church. We have already screened the first of the video series, at one of our Acacia Ridge UC services. We may screen the others later this year.

Suter’s commentary leads me to ponder where Milpara might fit in to all this.
In thinking about these matters I wrote a little piece about where the concept (integrating congregation and local community) might fit into Suter’s scenarios. I came up with a Suter-type scenario No. 5 which is akin to his Scenario 3 – Return to the early church – but retaining, with some sort of building, a visible presence in the community. Such a physical presence could also be relevant in the event of Scenario 2 – Secular Welfare.

With the potential introduction of “contestability” for Government services (compare the current tendering of government services such as School Chaplains and employment services), the Uniting Church could lose its access to Government funding. In that case the provision of community services could be thrown back on the congregations in the way it was to some extent before centralisation took place into Uniting Care.

I post here my article describing briefly a Suter-type Scenario 5.

Scenario 5 – Milpara. A local community spiritual centre and meeting place


Dr Keith Suter in his work The Future of the Uniting Church in Australia has outlined four scenarios as to where the UCA might be heading in the coming decades. He does not select one scenario over another as the most desirable or the most likely to be attained. “Preferred”, is the term he uses for such a choice, if it is made.

For the purpose of using these scenarios to develop policies and move forward one needs to either select one of these scenarios, each of which has significantly different outcomes, or develop a scenario of one’s own. Milpara is moving towards this.

As a starter may I suggest that Scenario 3, is closest of Suter’s 4 scenarios to the Milpara approach. There are, however, major differences:

This is Scenario 3 – Return to the Early Church.
Suter summarises it as follows:

“Early Church”: This Uniting Church has discarded its corporate businesslike nature and is run (as was the church in the early centuries of the Christian Era) as a small group of people focused on the more explicitly “spiritual” aspects of life, with no government-funded services

The Milpara “Preferred” Scenario

Scenario 5 – Milpara. A (local geographic) community spiritual centre and meeting place.

It would comprise a slow but steady interpretation of doctrine in tune with educated social attitudes accompanied by visible interaction with the community at the local geographic level. Moving towards the incorporation of all faith positions, including the secular, as the spiritual, ethical, social heart of local communities. Clear identification in the early stages with the Uniting Church but with loose levels of governmental control maintaining the levels of church councils broadly along the lines of the present. The local community may be defined loosely as comprising those citizens within walking distance of the congregation or faith community wherever it may happen to meet.

Remember this is a possible scenario, not a prediction of what might actually happen or is likely to happen. Delineating such a scenario, (I presume this is what Keith Suter is getting at) has a very practical value because, by adopting a scenario, this will colour and guide the decisions which are made and acted upon at all levels of the church.

I don’t think such scenarios are necessarily wishful thinking or, by contrast, giving up. They provide guidance and a direction in which to channel our energies. And, of course one can have several different scenarios operating in parallel.

One of the main differences Milpara has with Suter’s number Three is the low place he gives to a visible location of the church in the community. He does talk of “house churches” and that may well be a welcome part of it. But the dependence on coffee houses, private homes and other ephemeral rented locations for religious practice and community activity is unlikely to give a sense of permanence for the church group in that community. Moreover, if there is no physical base, it makes it that much more difficult to engage in social welfare by members of the faith group (as opposed to Government agencies or the centralised denomination) Nevertheless, we would see such a presence, not being envisioned by the grandly prominent church structures of past eras, but by “meeting houses” needing to occupy no more than a standard house allotment. Of course if the functions of a particular congregation were to expand and the secular community were supportive, more substantial buildings would be warranted.

Place of denominational administration: (Assembly, Synod and Presbytery) We would see the National Assembly playing much the same role as at present, setting such policies as need to be defined and responding to questions of national and international concern.

Presbyteries, which can be seen currently by congregations to operate mainly as a controlling body (monitoring “compliance”) rather than nurturing spontaneous growth, may become less necessary with a loosening up of control and church membership.
Any necessary remaining presbytery roles might be taken over by the regional Synods.

The Synods (regional coordinating bodies – not necessarily defined by State political boundaries) would have an additional role, of providing hands-on services for the small congregations and faith communities. This could include, financial accounting, property maintenance, centralised educational and training facilities and the provision of a pool of preachers and teachers. We anticipate that the funding of these would be provided by a levy (hopefully voluntary rather than required) on the faith groups. Currently only 30 per cent of Synod income at present comes from “offerings” as against indirect Government largesse of some 70 per cent.

To summarise: Rather than a central body venturing out to plant what amounts to fully grown churches Milpara would seek to identify growth points from within the local community (perhaps from existing small home study groups) and nurture their growth. The new Highfields U.C. group may provide something of a model here.

Our vision might be: “A church in every town and every suburb”.


Garage Sale – Meeting the Locals

Rodney Eivers – 30th November 2015

A couple of weeks ago Milpara Congregation held a “Garage Sale”(a.k.a “Boot Sale”, “Flea Market”)

I had not realised how popular these events are. There were people lined up at our gateway at 7 o’clock on the Saturday morning. They drifted in and out over the next three of four hours and it was notable that there was a high proportion of people whom we had never seen before. There was another group of non-church-attenders who were known casually to members of our congregation and greetings of recognition were exchanged

I presume such market days are a feature of church congregations around the world. While I was holidaying on the Sunshine Coast last week we read of one being conducted that weekend by the Coolum Uniting Church.

So what can this mean for those of us who seek integration of congregation and local community? At the very least it gives us chance to meet more of our neighbours.

A local market on the church grounds can have a number of functions. It may be a means of raising money, often for charitable purpose, or perhaps for some immediate need for maintenance of the property. In the case of the Milpara Congregation it was for the purpose for getting rid of the clutter from all the paraphernalia which had built up in the storerooms and cupboards over a number of years. These reasons have their value.

But what if, in the context of the Milpara vision we see these public occasions as opportunities to invite the local community to join with us in making our town or suburb a better place – a little corner of the Kingdom of God?

If this is to be the case we need to be purposeful in planning and carrying out these market days. Viewers of this site may have more ideas and we would invite you to send them in. Let us put aside the money-making or rubbish-disposal options. They may be a valid function of open-air markets but are not relevant to our purpose:

Market days as an integrater of congregation and local community

  • Plan well ahead and draw up a schedule of market days as much as a year in advance and provide firm dates. As with the local government kerbside pick-ups this allows people to put aside items they may want to dispose of but which may still have value for others, knowing that they will have the opportunity to sell them or give them away.
  • Be aware of government and denominational statutory requirements. This would include appropriate insurance cover. Church Councils will need to have the planned dates recorded in their minutes as activities of that congregation.
  • With the awareness of the ageing and infirmity of most congregations, on top of the need to incorporate local “secular” expertise, be always on the lookout to invite non-attenders to participate and to have them, as far as is practicable participate in the initiation, planning, design and administration of the markets. It would be a good idea to invite people to attend church council meetings for that purpose. Such a practice would have the further purpose of demonstrating to the locals how church governance works.
  • Use as a principle, the assumption, that in this context of enlivening our congregations and integrating with the local community participation is more important than efficiency. Thus where there is a choice (and we should be on the lookout for such choices), to carry out a particular role or task choose:
  • A younger person over an older
  • A non-member over a member*.
  • An ethnic or minority group person (refugees?) over an Anglo Australian
  • Perhaps in some cases a woman over a man. (Or perhaps the reverse when it is proving difficult to get men involved in the congregation’s affairs!)
  • As the purpose of the market is to bring church and community together the money-making aspect can be subordinated to the bringing of local people on to the property. Therefore sites for stalls may be offered at very cheap rates or free of charge.
  • While the market is being conducted the church building may be left open for people to wander through and gain a little familiarity with the religious environment.
  • Publicity. Because the aim of the market day is to build up rapport with the local community, promotion and advertising needs to be directed to people in the vicinity of the church property. Ideally this would be for people within walking distance. Use of local shop fronts, newspapers, community organisations and so on may be useful but the most direct contact with people is likely to be either greeting them in the street or through a publicity brochure dropped into letter boxes of every household. I suggest an appropriate radius for this would be a distance of one to two kilometres from the property.



Glossary:* Members: In this context and in other places on the Milpara website “members” will not necessarily refer to formal, baptised members of the congregation (something which is not always easy to establish and a criterion not likely to be familiar to the general public). It will usually be used as a synonym for “regular attenders of worship services”. That is those people, whom to the casual eye, make up the group that forms a congregation.

Everybody knows who I am!

Everybody knows who I am!

This week’s tip for integrating church and community – The wearing of name badges

Rodney Eivers

For many years I resisted the idea of wearing a name badge on my chest at church services or other public gatherings. Perhaps I was a bit shy about revealing my identity. Perhaps I thought it to be something  of an ego trip and that I would be just big-noting myself.

I have now changed my mind when it comes to church services or to public gatherings where there are strangers. Perhaps it has become even more important when there are very few strangers who may feel somewhat isolated within a group of others well-known to me.

The trouble with assuming that everybody knows us when it comes to integrating church and community, or simply making strangers welcome, is that we are seeing the question from our own point of view.

What about the stranger, especially one who is coping with growing deafness? She or he is feeling uneasy about being in an unfamiliar environment. Being enabled to learn somebody’s name without the embarrassment, potential discourtesy and perceived “forwardness” in asking for it, can go some way to making the stranger feel comfortable in that environment.

And this need not only be in incorporation of brand new people. Sometimes it can take a very, very long time to get to  know the names of people whom  we may greet from week to week and yet never  manage to put a label to the   face.

To my chagrin and shame this week I was told of the untimely death of a person connected from time to time with our congregation. I could not recognise the name but was staggered to find that he had been associated intermittently with us for the past 10 years!

There is a most damaging implication from the declaration, “I don’t need a name badge because everybody knows who I am”. It reveals a mindset that assumes that the membership of the group is static and there is no expectation of new people coming along.

So let’s not be shy of displaying our names when it is our hope to make people welcome.

To have the name of our denomination or congregation on a badge may be additionally helpful but the more space available to make the lettering easily visible may also be an advantage.

I am not the first male to feel some nervousness at misperceived intentions in staring intently at a lady’s breasts because of  my unreliable vision.

Badges are readily available from the Internet and probably other sources and in my case, recently, cost about $10 each.



What might the new face of the church look like?

There has been a great deal of conversation about the changing character of “Church’.  Recent conferences in Australia and overseas have tapped into this topic. Not everyone agrees that change is inevitable and will not be determined by churches as organisations or as congregations, but by the natural evolution of social values. Just when we were getting used to the idea of being more community relevant, a confronting challenge has been made by Jamie Manson, columnist and book reviewer to the recent National Catholic Reporter Conference in USA….“the new face of the church won’t have much of a face at all,”

Go to: National Catholic Reporter Conference to read a commentary on her paper.