Editorialist Leonard Pitts Jr. makes me think, which is often painful and never finished. Here is a piece that appeared in the Detroit Free Press. Pitts throws his light on another fine mess created by someone who poses as God's official representative. Here's the link: Pitts
What is scary to me is that I presume to speak for God every Sunday. How can I possibly be arrogant enough to do that? What makes my words any more "godly" than Pitts or Phelps, Robertson, or Nagin? Jim Wallis and Charles Colson both wrote books with the title, "Who Speaks for God?" Do they arrive at similar conclusions?
Wouldn't it be easier if those who spoke for God were marked out in some way - wore sackcloth and ate locusts, for instance? And wouldn't it be much better if those who claim to speak for God but are just pretending were struck by lightening?
No, wait. Maybe not.