God at Work

Last updated on: January 30, 2021 at 5:06 pm By Gene Veith

My publisher, Crossway, informed me that the Kindle version of my book God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life will be on sale at a discount at Amazon, today through February 10.

I was asked to put out the word about this deal among my readers, so here you go.

Many of you are already familiar with this book, which offers a popular treatment of Luther’s doctrine of vocation, a key teaching of the Reformation that had somewhat faded away in contemporary Christianity, but which is enormously transformative, liberating, and practical for Christians today.

But vocation–not just as a treatment of “jobs” but as a theology of the everyday Christian life–is being rediscovered, and I’m happy and humbled that this little book has played a role in that.

This is happening in terms of various theological traditions, but the Lutheran emphasis, as I develop in God at Work, is, first, that vocation is a “mask of God.” That is, vocation–the Latinate word for “calling”–involves God Himself working through and by means of human beings to bestow His blessings. Thus, He gives daily bread by means of farmers, millers, and bakers; He creates and cares for new human beings through the vocations of mothers and fathers; etc. And, second, that the purpose of every vocation is not self-fulfillment or performing great works for God, but loving and serving one’s neighbor.

To mark the occasion of this special offer from Crossway and Amazon, I will offer you a sample. As I explore in the book, our vocations are multiple, corresponding to the different estates, or systems of relationships, that God has designed for human life: the household, the church, and the state. “Vocation” in the sense of how we make a living was, for Luther, part of the “household,” which comprises the family and how that family makes its living.

This is the introduction to Chapter 6, on the Vocations of the Family:

The church was packed for the funeral of a lady in her upper eighties. She and her late husband had had a lot of children, and here they were, along with a whole slew of grandchildren and a passel of great-grandchildren. Add in the spouses of the various generations, plus nieces and nephews and their children, and the church was pretty much filled with family, all coming before God to thank Him for this woman’s life and to commend her back to Him.

What if this woman had not happened to meet her husband, way back in the 1930s? What if they had not gotten married? Half of the people in the church, from the middle-aged grand parents to the little kids squirming in the pews, would cease to exist. The union.of that man and woman had consequences they could never have dreamed about, leading to untold numbers of new lives down through continuing new generations, untold numbers of baptisms, new marriages, and new children being born. Clearly God was working through this woman along with her husband in the family they started.

Every Christian–indeed, every human being–has been called by God into a family. Our very existence came about by means of our parents, who conceived us and brought us into the world. Again, God could. have populated the earth by creating each new person separately from the dust; but instead He chose to bring forth and care for ,new life by means of the family.

The family is the most basic of all vocations, the one in which God’s creative power and His providential care are most dramatically conveyed through human beings. Anthropologists point out that the family is the basic unit of every culture. The family, with its God-delegated authorities, is likewise the basis for every other human authority. Thus the vocation of citizen ship has its foundation in the family, and the father’s calling to provide for his children gives rise to his calling in the workplace. And even in the Church, the family is lifted up as an image for the intimate relationship that God has with His people: God is our Father in Heaven; the Church is the Bride of Christ.

We were born into a family, our very existence being due to a mother and a father. Being a child is a vocation, according to the Reformers, and we will always be the child to our parents. And it may be that we children, in turn, will be called into marriage–another lifetime relationship–and that we will be called to be parents, with children of our own. All of these are holy, divine vocations from the Lord.

Then the chapter goes on to discuss how each of these vocations function in God’s design as realms for living out our faith in love and service to the specific neighbors they bring into our lives.

I have written other things on the topic of vocation since God at Work came out in 2002, including an entire book on this topic of the callings within the family that I co-authored with my daughter Mary Moerbe: Family Vocation: God’s Calling in Marriage, Parenting, and Childhood.

Get that one too!

Premium Content

The Three Religious Factions That Missed the Point of Christmas

Last updated on: December 17, 2020 at 12:08 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The esteemed John Mark Reynolds, a fellow Patheos blogger, has written an excellent meditation on the Magnificat, the song of Mary (Luke 1:46-55). Read it all, but I’d like to extract two of his paragraphs.

From And Mary Said (the Politics of Christmas?:

There were zealots in the neighborhood, people who would not compromise with the tyrants, but she could not join their doomed cause. They associated the kingdom with a political order and her Son, her Divine Son, would build a kingdom not of this world. He was building an Empire of souls, eternal, safe for all time by her intercession.

There were Sadducees in Jerusalem. They had made their peace with Herod and Rome. They had the world, pleasures for their flesh, and the approval of devils. There were treats they could distribute. Mary would have none of it. She knew the Temple and became the Temple for God in the flesh. She wanted God: truth, goodness, beauty.

To complete the parallels, let’s add something about the Pharisees:

There were Pharisees in Nazareth. Seeing that she was pregnant out of wedlock, they would have stoned her as an adulteress. They had the idea that religion is about how good they are. Whereas some poor souls think that and are crushed, the Pharisees were convinced that they have attained righteousness. Whereupon they mistreat people accordingly, proving their sinfulness after all.

But Mary, though innocent of what they would charge her with,  exults, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (1:47). In saying that, she is alluding to the name and the identity of her unborn Son.

So the Zealots, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees all missed what was happening with Mary and her Son. And clearly, all three of these factions have their counterparts today.

The Zealots are those who believe Christianity and Christ are all about earthly kingdoms. Thus we have the social gospel of mainstream Protestant denominations. That’s the social gospel of the left, which has been around for quite a while. Now we also have a social gospel of the right, with conservative churches making conservative political action their priority. Certainly, politics are important, in our vocation of citizenship, and Christianity can influence social and political structures. But temporal kingdoms can never be ultimate. And, as Jesus explained to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

The Sadducees were the Temple aristocracy. They were the social elite. But they were also collaborators with the Romans, interested in getting along with those in power. They were also theologically liberal for their time, rejecting doctrines such as everlasting life (Matt 22:23). The modern-day Sadducees are the cultural conformists, those who believe that Christianity should change to be in line with the dominant culture. The Zealots of both the left and the right are at least opposed to the status quo, but Sadducees, whether they lean liberal or conservative, want to be the status quo.

The Pharisees are the legalists, the moralists, the self-righteous, the virtue signaling. Nothing wrong with the law, morality, righteousness, and virtue. But Pharisees think they have achieved them. They are blind to their own faults, while being sharp-eyed and attentive to the faults of others. They don’t realize their need for grace, and they refuse to extend grace to others. There are so many Pharisees in churches today that outsiders think this is what Christianity consists of. They do not realize that Christianity is not just about being good, but about being forgiven because we are not good, that Christianity has to do above all with Christ, His atoning death and resurrection, that is, the Gospel.

Zealots, Sadducees, and Pharisees then and now are oblivious to Christ. They don’t really need Him, they think. And although they might enjoy the festivities surrounding Christmas, they do not realize what it means.

Against these mind-sets we have Mary, who sings about the work of God:

⁵¹He has shown strength with his arm;
    he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
⁵²He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
    and lifted up the lowly;
⁵³he has filled the hungry with good things,
    and sent the rich away empty.

So much for the proud (the Pharisees, vs. 51), the power-hungry (the Zealots as well as their Roman antagonists, vs. 52), and the rich (the Sadducees, vs. 53). In Christ, the hypocrites are scattered, the politicians are brought down, the liberal theologians are sent away hungry and empty.

And yet, the good news of Christ and for Christmas is for people in all these factions too, and sometimes that Word breaks through. As happened with Simon the Zealot, who became one of the Twelve Disciples (Luke 6:15); Saul the Pharisee who became the Apostle Paul (Philippians 3:5), and Joseph of Arimathea, the member of the Sanhedrin, which would have put him into close association, at least with the Sadducees (Mark 15:43). They all came to know Christ after all.

Illustration: “Madonna of the Magnificat” by Botticelli, via Uffizi Collection, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

The Bible’s Super-Short & Always Useful Prayers

Last updated on: December 5, 2020 at 12:15 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

When we pray God’s Word back to Him, the Holy Spirit is praying with us and for us. Praying the Psalms is a profound devotional activity. But the Bible also has many profound prayers that are extremely short, yet applicable for much of what we need to pray for. They are so short that they can constantly be in our hearts and on our lips.

I realized this while reading a wonderful Advent devotion by Peter Leithart, in which he reflects on the last prayer in the Bible (Revelation 22:20). He says this:

The Bible ends with a small Advent liturgy. The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” All who hear echo the prayer and say, “Come.” Jesus assures his people, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” The response to that assurance is another prayer: “Come, Lord Jesus.” Maranatha—an Aramaic word meaning “Come, Lord”—is the last of the Spirit’s prayers, harmonized by the Bride. Scripture leaves us eager for the Lord’s arrival.

This last prayer of the Bible is the core of the Table Prayer so popular among Lutherans: “Come, Lord Jesus,/Be Our Guest/And Let Thy Gifts to Us be Blest.” For a long time after I had become a Lutheran I didn’t think much of this, considering it to be just a child’s prayer. Later, though, I came to appreciate it and use it for its apocalyptic meaning and for its theme of vocation (God really is present as He gives us our daily bread through all of the vocations involved as we sit around our tables).

But this short prayer from the Bible has wide applicability, and it called to mind a number of others.

Come, Lord Jesus [Revelation 22:20]. I’ve heard my daughter say this–actually, I realize now, pray this–many times in this trouble-filled year of 2020. It’s good to pray when we are overcome with how messed up this world is. We are asking for Christ to come back to end this fallen world of sin and tragedy and to bring about the resurrection of the dead and the New Heaven and New Earth.

Lord, have mercy. [Matthew 20:30] This prayer of the two blind men whom Jesus healed may be the one we need most often and in the most circumstances. We can pray it when we need forgiveness, when we need help, and when other people need forgiveness and help.

This Biblical prayer has been expanded into the Jesus Prayer used in Eastern Orthodoxy: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” This has become a staple of Orthodox spirituality and meditation. See also how it features in my favorite novel by J. D. Salinger, Franny & Zooey. It’s also the “Kyrie” (the Greek word for “Lord”) in the liturgy: “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.”

Praise the Lord. [Psalm 106:1, among many others] To “praise” God does not just mean telling Him how good He is, though this often happens in praising. The term derives from a word for “shine,” so that it connotes responding to the great light of God. Thus, praising the Lord involves celebrating God and reveling in Him. Nor is this phrase, as it seems in the English imperative, to be just an exhortation for other people that they should praise Him. This is one of those linguistic curiosities in which to use the word is to perform the action.

This is good to pray when you are thankful to Him, when you are conscious of both His benefits and who He is in Himself. If you want to pray in tongues–that is, in a foreign language–you can use the original Hebrew for this phrase: Hallelujah!

“Come, Lord Jesus” is one of those super-short prayers that is always appropriate, like “Lord, have mercy,” “Forgive me, Lord,” and “Thank you, Lord.” (in Bible?) “Praise the Lord.” “Bless the Lord” (what does that mean, exactly?) “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.”

I give you thanks, O Lord. [Psalm 138:1, and others] For when we feel gratitude for God and for His gifts. I think of the line about how one of the worst things about being an atheist is when you feel grateful but have no one to thank.

“I believe; help my unbelief!” [Mark 9:24] The prayer of the father of the boy with the unclean spirit who brought him to Jesus in the hope that he might be healed. Jesus said that all things are possible for one who believes. The father sort of believed. His was a mixture of belief and unbelief. He asked Jesus to give him belief. And He did as He healed the man’s son. This is good to pray in times of doubt or spiritual struggle. It’s striking how well the Word of God understands us.

Can you think of other prayers from the Bible like these?

Having these on the tips of our tongue can help us to “pray without ceasing.” And to fulfill the rest of that passage: “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

Image by mleonascimento0 from Pixabay

Premium Content

Reforming the Church around the Gospel

Last updated on: October 28, 2020 at 9:59 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Saturday is not only Halloween–the evening before “All Hallows,” or “All Saints’ Day”–it is also Reformation Day, the anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of the 95 Theses.

The Reformation was about “reforming” the Church, not “replacing” it with other churches designed from the ground up. Specifically, the goal was to “re-form” the Church around its “substantial form,” or essence. That is, what is the defining teaching of the Church, or of Christianity, what distinguishes it from all other religions and gives Christianity its unique characteristics?

The answer is, Christ saves sinners. That is to say, the Gospel, which refers to the “good news”–that is what “Gospel” means–that the Church proclaims. So the aim of the “re-formation” was to bring the Church back to its essence, to re-form it around the Gospel.

Not that the Gospel was completely absent from the existing Church. You can find it in medieval Christian writings. Luther pointed to its preservation in the Liturgy. Whenever the “Agnus Dei” was sung, with the words “O Christ, thou Lamb of God, who takest away the sin of the world,” that is a proclamation of the Gospel. That is a Word of God that the Holy Spirit uses to create faith in its hearers.

The same thing happens in Holy Communion–which distributes Christ’s body, broken for you, and Christ’s blood, poured out for the remission of all your sins–and in Baptism and in Absolution and many other places. The problem is that the Gospel was buried under so many contradictory accretions–the accrual of merits, superogatory or extra works that can be sold to others, Purgatory, indulgences, penitence that is punishment rather than forgiveness, counsels of perfection to be achieved in monasticism, etc., etc.–as well as other preoccupations, such as the Church’s pursuit of political power, turning the sacred into magical talismans to manipulate God, sexual and financial corruption.

Other elements associated with the Reformation were to reinforce the Gospel, especially the authority that upheld it, the Word of God, as opposed to the innovations of the papacy. But also the Creeds, whose Christology explained why Christ, being the Second Person of the Trinity, could die for us. Displacing the works that we are, indeed, to do–though not for salvation–away from the monastery into ordinary life, led to the doctrine of vocation.

So what is the state of the Church today? Does it need re-forming?

According to the 2020 American Worldview Inventory, 52% of those who identify as “Christians” believe that salvation comes from good works rather than from Christ. Not only that, 41% of evangelicals–a word that comes from the Greek word for “Gospel”–don’t believe in the Gospel. Among Pentecostals, 46% believe in salvation by good works. Among Mainline Protestants, the number is 44%. Among Roman Catholics, the number is 70%, but that at least agrees with their theology.

Not that the Gospel isn’t present in those traditions. It certainly is, creating untold numbers of faithful Christians. But, again, the large numbers of people in those churches who look to their own good works instead suggest that, again, the essential message is getting buried.

There are now other Gospels–the Social Gospel of the Left, the Social Gospel (whether of the Left or the Right), the Prosperity Gospel–despite the warning of St. Paul:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

In fact, the Church’s message today is obscured by the same preoccupations as in the Middle Ages: the pursuit of political power, turning the sacred into magical talismans to manipulate God–think Prosperity Gospel–and sexual and financial corruption.

It isn’t that we need another Reformation. We need the same Reformation.

Illustration: Reformation Day Pumpkin (Martin Luther) by Maureen via Flickr, Creative Commons 2.0 License

Premium Content

Which Should Weigh More, Character or Abortion Policy?

Last updated on: October 23, 2020 at 12:36 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Most of us conservative Christians are reasoning this way: Yes, Donald Trump has character flaws. But he opposes abortion and this is reflected in his policies and judicial nominations. Being effectively pro-life outweighs his personal faults, so I’m voting for Trump.

Not so fast, says the highly-respected evangelical pastor and author John Piper. He argues that considerations of character are more important in a leader than policy positions, including those regarding abortion.

In Policies, Persons, and the Paths to Ruin, Dr. Piper makes some fresh and provocative arguments. He begins,

I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly.

He says that the sins he cites are described in the Bible as deadly and soul-destroying. Christians can retain their faith if the government turns socialist or restricts freedom or takes away life. But faith cannot co-exist with those personal sins.

Furthermore, Dr. Piper says that the acceptance of abortion, which he agrees is heinous, is caused by character flaws. Therefore, issues of character must be considered more fundamental than immoral actions.

He also says that, according to Scripture, leaders exercise a unique influence over the nations they govern:

There is a character connection between rulers and subjects. When the Bible describes a king by saying, “He sinned and made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That’s the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill.

Read Dr. Piper’s entire argument. But also read the contrary argument by my fellow Patheos blogger Grayson Gilbert, You Can’t Be a Christian and Support the Democratic Party. He makes the case, also using fresh and provocative arguments, that the abortion issue has to trump (sorry) every other consideration. Read the two articles. Both authors, by the way, share an adherence to Reformed theology. Which one do you think makes the better case?

Here are some of my thoughts about what Dr. Piper says. . . .

First of all, it seems to me that assaults against one’s neighbor should weigh heavier in temporal affairs than the conditions of a person’s heart. Temporal government is designed to implement the first use of the Law–that is, to curb external sins, so as to protect human beings so as to make societies possible. While it is true that such external law-abiding enforced from the outside cannot save us and that internal sins are damnable, only the Holy Spirit, working through the second use of the Law, not the power of the state, can bring us to repentance and to the inner transformation brought by faith in the Gospel. Furthermore, character flaws continue to dwell within us, in our old sinful nature, so that we must always struggle against them.

But our moral action in the temporal realm should not be primarily focused on our interior self-improvement but should be directed outside ourselves to benefit our neighbor. That would include unborn children. When the Bible enjoins us to care for the poor, the oppressed, and other people in need, that too includes unborn children. Such matters of justice are the task not only of our personal relationships but are specifically the duty of the state and its vocations, which would include elected officials.

Secondly, if bad character produces abortion, what should we think about the character of those who advocate abortion? Joe Biden, like many other liberal Democrats, used to be pro-life. Now he wants to make Roe v. Wade the law of the land. He has been a strong supporter of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents government funding for abortion, until just a few months ago. Why has he changed his position? Apparently, because of political expediency. Wouldn’t surrendering one’s convictions for worldly considerations constitute the sin of worldliness (kosmikos)?

Joe Biden is a professing Christian, a practicing Catholic, who has placed himself under the authority of a church that strongly condemns abortion. Wouldn’t that constitute the sin of disobedience (apeitheia)? And faithlessness (apistia)?

So how do we weigh different kinds of bad character?

Donald Trump used to be pro-abortion, but he is now pro-life. Joe Biden used to be pro-life, but he is now pro-abortion.

Perhaps both changed their positions because of political expediency: Biden needed the feminist vote, and Trump needed the conservative Christian vote. We don’t know that, but assume it is the case. One can change towards the good, for whatever motive, or one can change towards the bad. The ending position is what matters most. One’s motive in quitting smoking might be a craven fear of death, not to one’s credit, perhaps, but, nevertheless, the end result is a good thing.

But let’s stipulate a further possibility. Let’s make up hypothetical candidates. Say that one personally believes in abortion, but nevertheless supports pro-life policies. The other personally is pro-life, but supports policies that promote abortion. Doesn’t this call to mind the Parable of the Two Sons?

A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” (Matthew 21:28-31).

To be sure, there can be lots of motives and considerations in choosing one candidate over another. Some may choose what they consider the lesser of two evils. Or, when faced with two evils, choose neither of them. Some of us are single issue candidates. Character is, indeed, important. But I can’t agree with Dr. Piper’s analysis.

Photo: John Piper, from Desiring God, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

On the Pope’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Civil Unions

Last updated on: October 22, 2020 at 5:12 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Pope Francis is being quoted as endorsing same-sex civil unions. Though this stops short of advocating same-sex sacramental marriages, this would amount to a seismic shift in Catholic moral teachings.

In a recently released documentary about Pope Francis entitled Francesco by the Russian-American filmmaker Evgeny Afineevsky, the pontiff says this:

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it. . . .What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

To be sure, such an off-the-cuff statement–like a number of other controversial statements Pope Francis has made to journalists–does not constitute an official church teaching, much less an ex cathedra proclamation that claims the authority of papal infallibility.

And questions have arisen about the editing of the quotation. The footage appears to be taken from a 2019 interview with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa. But, for whatever reason, the statement about civil unions was edited out, both when the interview was run in Mexico and when the Vatican itself released its own version. Then again, Afineevsky, who is himself gay, himself edited out what the Pope says next: “That does not mean approving of homosexual acts, not in the least.”

So what is the pope endorsing? Celibate civil unions? Is the idea that romantic attachments could be given a legal sanction that would constitute a family apart from sexual activity? That would be an interesting innovation–a new kind of family entirely–though such a novel institution would raise questions of its own. (For example, could priests and nuns form these kinds of families, as long as they refrain from sex? Does this option underestimate the strength of the sexual drive?)

In general, as they are currently constituted, civil unions and civil marriages are a distinction without much of a difference. Pretty much the only difference is that people can walk out of a civil union without going through a divorce. Thus, in some jurisdictions, heterosexual couples have been getting civil unions instead of civil weddings, so that if things don’t work out, they can leave the relationship without the legal and economic trauma of getting a divorce. (How would that accord with Catholic doctrine?)

As this Catholic apologist explains, the Catholic church does recognize civil marriages. Just as Protestants who convert to Catholicism do not have to get re-married, Catholics who were married by a justice of the peace are considered to be validly married. The apologist goes on to say that the church still cannot accept a same-sex marriage, though in accord with civil law, because, despite the name, it does not constitute an actual marriage, which in its essence must be between a man and a woman.

The Catholic church is concerned with “essences,” not just “names,” and this rejection of “nominalism” is foundational to Catholic thought. Another kind of nominalism would arise if the only difference between a “civil union” and a “civil marriage” is the name, as opposed to the essential relationship.

Also, Catholic ethics are grounded in “natural law,” not just in church dictates. The purpose of sex–biologically, naturally–is to engender children. Therefore, sex that is not ordered to that end–even in marriage, as in the use of contraceptives–is immoral. And this is why homosexual sex is intrinsically, as they say, “disordered.”

A civil union for homosexual couples would seem to bestow at least some level of moral approval to gay sex–though Pope Francis says it does not–and for a civil union to constitute a family (without children? with adopted children?) would seem to set aside everything that Catholic ethicists have taught about natural law. This too would shake the foundations of Catholicism.

But not as much as a pope making such changes. Conservative Catholics are highly committed to the church’s traditional teachings about sexual morality, and they are also highly committed to the authority of the papal office. For these to come into conflict is highly traumatic to the church’s most dedicated members.

Those of us who are not Catholics–believing that the Bible, not a human leader, makes the most reliable authority; believing that marriage, though an icon of Christ and the Church, is not a sacramental creation of the church but a temporal vocation that applies to all human beings, etc.– will look at these issues differently. But we are at least allies with Catholics–call it a kind of intersectionality of the morally marginalized–when it comes to sexual morality. We would join with our conservative Catholic friends in wishing that Pope Francis would speak more carefully and, if he is misconstrued, to explain his position more forthrightly.

Photo: Pope Francis, during his visit to Korea by Korea.net / Korean Culture and Information Service (Photographer name), CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content