Tactics for Discussing your Christian convictions from Gregory Koukle

Found at Amazon Gregory Koukle's new book Tactics: a game plan for discussing your Christian Convictions.'

A snippet that helps us deal with a common objection by Koukle is as follows


“That’s the part that confuses me. Why is it when I think I’m right, I’m intolerant, but when you think you’re right, you’re just right? What am I missing?”

Of course, you are not missing anything; she is. Her move is simple name-calling.

Labeling you as intolerant is no different than calling you ugly. One is an attack on your looks. The other is an attack on your character. Neither is useful in helping you understand the merits of any idea you may be discussing.


A powerful encouragement
In Christ
Gary

How to reach Postmoderns with the Truth

How to reach postmodernists with the Truth?

For many people these days to talk about reaching postmoderns with the truth is a contradiction in terms, especially for those of a postmodernistic bent. For those who enthuse about postmodernism there is no “Absolute Truth” and yet they are confronted by the fact that Christianity unashamedly proclaims that there is Absolute Truth. There is only one God and only one way to Him as John 14:6 and Acts 4:14 declare.

What is one to do in the face of Postmodernism?

This is the question which all Christians and most importantly pastors have to work through in our present culture. Our task is to consider how we can reach Postmoderns in a biblically faithful and effective manner. By engaging with Vincent McCann’s ‘How can Christians Proclaim Absolute Truth in a Post Modern World?’  and Don Carson’s ‘The Gagging of God’ we can glean a way forward and not merely offer sound bites that whilst orthodox don’t seriously impact the unbeliever and leave him feeling secure in his own position.

Gregory J. Laughery wrote an article ‘Evangelicalism and Philosophy’ where he considers the lack of Christian interaction with Philosophy and so an understanding of how to converse with those who hold to different worldviews. We do not as Christians despise the intellect, in fact we ought to seek to improve our intellectual prowess in honour of God as much as possible. Though the challenge of our world may be a call to being open minded, as I love to say, this doesn’t mean we are to be empty headed. We must think and ask questions as wisely as possible. Asking the right questions becomes critical when dealing with secular worldviews such as postmodernism. Far too often as I hope to show below Christians jump on the latest bandwagon without critical assessment of the ideas being set forth.                 

This seems to have happened by and large with postmodernism. Too many have been ready to declare postmodernism a worthy reaction against modernism. However it may be better to describe the present mood to rather be supra modernism. With all the suggested epistemological difference there remains really a deep rooted desire to determine one’s own life irrespective of others. After all, the postmodern angst is more against religion and morality than against anything else. The present generation still loves the fruit of certainty delivered by modernism in the areas of Technology and Science with their ipods and ipads and iphones. Moreover, when something serious in life happens and they visit the doctor, they don’t dismiss the doctor’s advice as subjective twaddle but they clutch the script and head for the chemist. The Doctor almost takes over the role of God. This in itself is a good place for further discussion, but for the present let’s assume the postmodern child of modernism as described in the current debate. Whether he is illegitimate we will leave for another time, so let’s just assume for the moment the definition of Carson that postmodernism is a reaction against modernism. Even at this point it seems to me it is only the reaction of a child who hasn’t been raised with boundaries in life and finds out the hard way what this means in reality as he runs kicking and screaming through the community trying to live out his own self-determined rules, and then complaining when they don’t play by his rules.

Reaching the postmodern generation:

Rarely, in the abundance of postmodern literature do we have a consideration of the way the Christian is fruitfully able to reach the postmodern advocate. Vincent McCann’s article is an exception. In ‘How can ChristiansProclaim Absolute Truth in a Post Modern World?’  he deals with the complexities of the issue. I value his fairly succinct overview of the nature of Postmodernism, however at times his solution is not altogether orthodox. Particularly in regard to “experience” as typified in the ”Toronto Blessing” being an inroad to those decrying the certainty of knowledge.[i] 

This lack of certainty is a perspective which not merely infects our culture but is also spreading like leaven within the Church.

After giving a worthy description of Postmodernism McCann rightly says the Church “cannot compromise its proclamation that Jesus is the only way to God.” Secondly he claims there is a bridge that can link Christian belief and the Postmodern outlook because postmodernism includes some “elements of truth”. At this point he is presumably thinking of Postmodernisms rejection of the attitude of the Enlightenment that prevailed in modernism, the attitude that human reason alone is able to be the Arbiter of Truth, that modernistic mood that man has sure foundations for all knowledge and truth. Because McCann sees the Church similarly rejecting this understanding of Reason as the arbiter of Truth he sees a commonality with Postmoderns objections at this point.

Thirdly, he then mentions that one response the Church can take is the addressing of subjectivism, which “leads to a destruction of both intellectual honesty and life itself”. Furthermore McCann suggests there’s agreement between us in the limitations of human knowledge. But I would suggest the reasons underlying this argument and the conclusions derived from them are for unbeliever and believer polar opposites. Christians argue that knowledge and certainty are indeed limited due to our Creatureliness, however since we are created in the image of God we are able to know truly. This is not the case of the unbeliever in his worldview. The unbeliever says involved in the nature of knowledge is the notion that nothing is certain. Certainly we can agree the post Enlightenment attitude was one of over confidence. Amazingly McCann then suggests that ecstatic experiences like the Toronto Blessing may be one avenue to breaking through this negativity towards human reason. A fifth major response is to focus not on expository preaching but rather on “story”, a common suggestion now making the rounds in Christian circles. Lastly the truth the Church believes must be lived out in their lives or else it will fail to impact postmoderns.

What am I to make of this? At least Vincent makes an attempt to address this perplexing issue of reaching postmoderns. Many who write on postmodernism rarely or with clarity address how a Christian can reach the postmodern crowd with the Christian message.

Before reflecting upon Vincent’s approaches to reaching out to postmoderns and suggesting a couple of further approaches it will be of benefit for us to reflect upon his description of postmodernism and interact with it.

Certainly postmodernism is essentially anti-modern, to which as I pointed out above Carson’s helpful description of it is as a mood! Central to postmodernism is the idea that each individual is part of a community and all texts ( and here, even a persons actions are taken to be texts ) are to be interpreted in light of that community. This notion I might point out, has grave implications for hermeneutics, and leads to the rejection of meaning residing in the intentions of the author, and suggests instead that meaning is given to the text by the interpreter. It is exactly at this point that many fail to note the inconsistency of postmodern advocates in that the authors of postmodernism arguments assume the reader will understand their intentions and not read anything into the text. Indeed they tend to get upset when you don’t take what they have written in context and seriously. One idea which is a correlate of this notion of little “t” truth residing in local communities is the view that metanarratives are thus rejected. However, again many fail to see that Postmodernism is a metanarrative itself and it is just as exclusive as Christianity. They make absolute claims such as “all truths are equally valid and there is no universal standpoint which gives one the power to say this is wrong or that is right.”

The reason for Postmoderns decrying metanarratives, is that they are oppressive of minorities such as gays and women. However postmodernism is itself a metanarrative, declaring that this is the way that one should read a text. It seems to me that Postmoderns border on Gnosticism, a bit like Plato’s Philosopher Kings who decree what is right and good for everyone.

What should be raised with postmodern advocates is how they escape the conditioning of the “truth” of one’s group or social context to arrive at such a metanarrative as postmodernism?

Postmoderns when taking the approach of denigrating metanarratives would do well to read ‘Alice in Wonderland’ about making words mean anything and everything. Language, which is how we communicate with others our lofty thoughts and deep feelings becomes nonsense on this approach. Further, they seem to be in the same boat as the adherents to Scientific Positivism which philosophically imploded upon itself when it argued that nothing was true except that which is able to be demonstrated by Science. But this proposition itself was unable to be so demonstrated by Science. This type of nonsense we rightly call a self defeating argument.

And don’t let philosophers dismissively wave this aside saying this objection is only a relatively minor issue. It’s true that it can be an easily voiced argument but it should alert you to the serious problems of the view being proffered.

Still the real and present danger for us is with the postmodern assumption that the meaning of the text resides in the reader. From this assumption a whole new hermeneutical theory is created contrary to hermeneutics as it has been historically understood, and one which undermines biblical hermeneutics in particular.

Let’s see how taking into account the hermeneutics of Postmodernism itself undermines McCann’s suggestion of the fruitfulness for Christians resorting to “story” to proclaim the Gospel message to Postmoderns. Sure Jesus told stories, sure the Gospels in a limited sense are “story” ( they are actually theology, not chronological histories of Jesus’ life and ministry. ) however the postmodern hermeneutic allows him to interpret the story in a way which allows him to continue in his rebellion against God and to remain comfortable in his disobedience, all because he believes that meaning resides in the reader. And he is free to do this with any “story” he hears from the Christian evangelist. The very core of postmodernism undermines any cogent attempt to tell the Gospel to unbelievers who hold to postmodernism  because all meaning resides in the reader / hearer and not in the text. Yet Christianity unashamedly declares the Bible to be God’s Word, His revelation to man, and the meaning of it resides in the intention of the Author, God himself. The antithesis between Christian and postmodern rightly continues because the unbelieving worldview is at odds with the Sovereign Lord of all Creation.

The reality of this is a wakeup call to Preachers succumbing to the postmodern lie that story is the way forward in our current cultural climate. Steven D Degner, a Lutheran who has pondered much of the present Western Culture with amazing insight nonetheless considers story to be one of the ways forward for interacting with postmoderns. Not Ashamed of the Gospel in a Postmodern Age Again my concern with Degner is he doesn’t seem to understand the postmodern’s hermeneutic negates the Biblical message of What God is saying.

Given the above I find some of McCanns suggestions are inadequate and misplaced given the worldview of postmodernism itself.

Before we move on from this, we need to recognise further that the call by some to narrative preaching as the real kicker to reaching postmoderns fails for exactly the same reason. It just does not deal with the postmodern approach that meaning resides in the reader or hearer. They can interpret the narrative to suit themselves and never be challenged with the actual message of the Biblical teaching. Now hear me clearly on this, I am not ignoring or ruling out the work of the Holy Spirit to bring such a person to understanding and repentance, but I take it that Christian’s are also to bring down opposing strongholds and fortresses and make them captive to Christ. We are in a spiritual battle, which God equips us for, yet the battle is also carried out at the intellectual level, so “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” 2 Cor 10:4-5. In love we bring the Truth to bear upon unbelievers and their rebellious worldview so that there is no place to stand, except as Christians will argue, upon the sure Word of God. Certainly it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and brings to repentance. We convert no one, but God has chosen to use us in the endeavour of bringing His Word to unbelievers, and we need to do this wisely and with insight. This is merely seeing what Paul did in Acts 17 as a good model for dealing with unbelievers. Along with the central passage of 1 Peter 3 where we are to offer a defence of the faith in gentleness and respect.

Historically we find many who have lived a life fuelled by emotions and feelings and so are very difficult to reach with the Gospel message, something especially true of those who have drifted out of a Pentecostal environment. But then, those of Paul’s first century had also lived a life of excessive emotionalism and feelings directed in frenzy pagan worship. And Paul does not resort to story in that case but a clear apologetic.  What we hold to as back then is a clear declaration of the Gospel message and the destructive nature of such a pagan lifestyle, and wait to see the Holy Spirit convict the person.

Narrative Preaching - Ref Martin Weber an Adventist? ‘Reaching Postmodern Society’ Outlook September 2006 pg 7 suggests this, but so do many Anglicans and Calvinists.

Does Carson offer us a way to reach postmoderns?

Carson’s great tome, all 640 pages of it, looks at postmodernism and secularism in depth but the nuggets of how to reach postmoderns are hidden to a large extent within its pages. Sure he outlines in chapter 12 on page 494 a way forward for Christians. He lists four ways for us to proclaim the gospel message.

 A) He suggests the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of our age is to be ‘critiqued’. Here he suggests focusing on the human emptiness that arises from the postmodern worldview. Pg 495.

B) Further our evangelical endeavour must recognise what’s been labelled as the ‘paradigm shift’ in worldviews which has taken place in the West. Then we like Paul must modify our presentation to address that reality. Carson refers to Paul on Mars Hill Acts 17 ( pg 496-501 ) and then Biblical theology pg 501f.

C) The rudiments of the historic gospel must be proclaimed with authority and courtesy.

D)  Lastly, we need to live out the Gospel, not merely give lip service to it.

The overall impression from his book is that its aim is to critique and explain the contours of postmodernism and secondly adhere to his Biblical and Calvinistic theology. These are indeed great aims and I don’t want to denigrate them but I think he fails to deal with those Scriptures that talk about apologetics and also the role of Christians to “destroy fortresses and bring down strongholds” and intellectually and intelligently deal with the unbelievers worldview. At that level Carson is frustrating and light on in giving us a clear response to the postmodernist.

Indeed he seems to not understand the impact of postmodernism on the general culture when he expresses his belief that postmodernism will quickly die out as University scholars see the incoherence of it. But that ignores the “life” such a belief has taken on within our Western Culture. It may be generations before postmodernism warps into another fractured worldview, keeping to the downward spiral of the fruit of a darkened mind. Carson does say we must continue to preach the truth, and in one sense this is perfectly true, in that God’s Spirit is the one who convicts and changes people. But what are we to make of this current framework where postmoderns won’t even discuss evidences for the truth of Christianity, historical or otherwise and their worldview which hermeneutically doesn’t allow for objective truth but rather truth is whatever “the reader” thinks and not the intentions of the author?

Consider again his four suggestions for reaching postmoderns.

A) He suggests the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of our age is to be ‘critiqued’. Here he suggests focusing on the human emptiness that arises from the postmodern worldview. Pg 495. Carson however speaks in expansive generalities such as “the critique of this age must not be merely intellectual but [speak to] the bankruptcy of the moral, ethical, relational and spiritual dimensions” in a loving manner. Pg 496. Yet we must point out here that we need to seriously and intellectually grapple with the postmodern hermeneutics which controls the unbelievers response to our presentation of the gospel message and the Christian worldview.

B) Further our evangelical endeavour must recognise what’s been labelled as the ‘paradigm shift’ in worldviews which has taken place in the West. Then we like Paul must modify our presentation to address that reality. Carson refers to Paul on Mars Hill Acts 17 ( pg 496-501 ) and then Biblical theology pg 501f. Still as I will point out below, the issue is more than educating biblical illiterates, however true that may be.

C) The rudiments of the historic gospel must be proclaimed with authority and courtesy.  Here on pg 505 Carson alludes to being a herald, however the Christian is to be more than this, he is to be an apologist. 1 Peter 3.

All is not lost for the careful reader however. Hidden in a story in Carson’s work is a further hint of an approach to take with postmodernistic thinking whether it be in the Church or outside. He talks about a Ph’d student who cornered him after teaching on hermeneutics and insisting “that true knowledge is possible, even to finite, culture-bound creatures.” She insisted he was “escaping from the dreaded positivism of the 19^th century. Ardently arguing for the new hermeneutic she was not amused when he tongue in cheek said “I see what you are saying, you are using delicious irony to affirm the objectivity of truth”. She responded more heatedly when he said “he was delighted to find someone using irony so cleverly in order to affirm the possibility of objective knowledge.”  She became quite upset as she considered Carson was not taking her words for what she was saying, she then exploded in anger when he said “it’s marvellous that you can add emotion to your irony.”   
It sunk home when he quietly explained “but this is how I am reading you” As he then explained to her, “You are a deconstructionist .. but you expect me to interpret your words aright.” page 102-3. The point is one cannot have it both ways. To espouse a worldview that is self contradictory and self defeating and unliveable leaves a person either open to seriously considering a worldview that is liveable, and consistent and gives an account for truth or to remain intellectually vacuous and left on the futility of  their thinking because of their rebellion against God.

What Carson does there is an example from apologetics of an internal critique of the unbelievers worldview pointing out its internal incoherence and also that in the end it is un-liveable, that it just does not comport with reality.  And then offering an external critique from the Christian worldview. Biblically this is grounded in Proverbs 26 verse 5 that says “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” for an internal critique, and then Proverbs 26 verse 4 “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” for the external critique where the Christian declares the Christian worldview and Gospel. As Greg Bahnsen points out, this means saying to the unbeliever, ”let’s assume your position – what follows from it? Is it coherent? Is it liveable? Does it agree with reality?” And then after having done this, don’t answer a fool according to his folly means let’s now not accept what you say, but let me now offer you a view that is coherent, that is liveable, that does comport with the way things are! Does my Christian worldview explain why you are the way you are and why such views as you hold flourish even in the face of being incoherent and unliveable.

This approach is sadly lacking in the Church today. We need to take it up with vigour for when our children go off to University they are no longer presented arguments as to why their Christian beliefs are wrong, but merely ridiculed and called intolerant from the perspective of the Postmodern worldview and its assumptions. Our Christian youth are then left confused about the coherence and intellectual foundation of the Christian faith.

We also need to take up this approach ourselves with our work colleagues and friends and family who are unbelievers. They have bought a worldview without considering its cogency or coherence or whether it is indeed liveable.

In the end what postmoderns reject is exactly the stance that Eve took in the Garden of Eden “Has God said?”

You may not like what God has said, and the unbeliever will reject it at his own peril, but we must never ignore what God has said and present it with honesty and clarity so that he may repent and worship his Creator.

We as Christians need to realise that the affliction of the world is a malignant hermeneutics, and indeed the battleground for the next 50 years within the church is hermeneutics, just as we see happening right now,

In Christ
Gary.

---

[i]  No doubt this can be attributed to his involvement with the demonic before becoming a Christian. Though not aware of all the details of his release from bondage, I have read his testimony on the blog, and would at this stage just mention that the Gospel message is what is to be used to bring a person into the Kingdom and a Christian can be oppressed but not possessed by demons.

 

Gunning for God and the New Atheists

Frankly the new atheist are boring me, but I still picked up this book to read because Lennox says things in profound and astute ways. He has not disappointed. This book points out charitably the foundational failures of the new atheists arguments, or better still, it points out the “preaching” of the new atheists have no grounding in reality, because their approach makes everything meaningless to start with.

Sadly too many secularists are taking their unsupported opinion as gospel and Lennox brings this out.

What I really enjoyed about the book was how Lennox employs  a very careful analysis of the objections of the New Atheists.. It’s something that many Christians would do well to emulate. We need to think carefully about the assumptions and implications of what the New Atheists are arguing.

On pages 46-47 Lennox looks at the consistency of the new atheists reliance upon Freud and shows it just won’t do the work they assume it will.  Effectively Lennox does an internal critique of the New Atheists arguments. Speaking in the context of ‘Is Faith a delusion’ pg 45f  Lennox points out that although Dawkins rejects faith, it is merely his definition off faith that he rejects. Indeed the Oxford English Dictionary points out a delusion is ‘a fixed false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence.’ What is crucial here is the falsity of the belief. That’s why the objection you may as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster or leprechauns doesn’t unsettle us. Years ago Edwin Orr  pointed out the nonsense of such objections.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is conceptual nonsense having no substance in the real world, It is as bad as arguing for a square circle since pieces of spaghetti do not a monster make and certainly they don’t have the physical constitution giving spaghetti the ability to “fly”.

Likewise today Alister Mcgrath substantiates that

it is only a delusion when such things don’t exist

pg46. So if God does not exist then faith in God is a delusion, however just as true is that if God does exist then atheism is a delusion. This is where Lennox is at his most stimulating.

Consider then how Lennox applies this to the oft quoted support of Freud by the New Atheists. He states that the objection that belief in God is a delusion, a crutch to cope with the real world and its uncertainties, can be turned on its head and asked of the unbeliever. “Is not atheism a delusion, a solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”

What we find will happen when we ask this of the unbeliever, is that she may possibly  return to what matters, the evidence for God, the centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

From his analysis we see that the argument of Freud helps no one unless you offer grounds for believing or not believing in God.

In Christ,
Gary

Ben Carson, Evolution and Morality - Biology and the missing imperative

I just love the way some people write. They are truly gifted at being eloquent and succinct at putting the issues into perspective, something I fail at frequently to do.
Someone who does this is Richard Weikart over at World magazine. He recently wrote an article called 'Consternation over Ben Carson, evolution and morality.' It's a precise and to the point article that captures what is happening in secular academia and yet some in the christian family go off their rocker when one of their own calls into question evolutionary theory and points out the logical consequences in regard to morality if one adheres to macro evolution.
Have a read and see what is being said today. And don't forget to pray for Ben Carson and understand the issues so you will be equipped to bring these to the attention of your peers and children.
Slime just won't produce a grounding for love and it won't justify it as a moral imperative. If you look to society you won't find it there also.

God Bless,
Gary

Culture and Christianity the debate continues

Just yesterday Tim Keller wrote that the "Cultural Transformationists" and the "Two Kingdoms" adherent were getting closer in fairly representing and debating the issues than ever before, a good thing for Reformed Evangelicals. He clarifies the issues and it can be read here. As Keller describes it, Transformationists "Though different in significant ways, they all believe Christians should be about redeeming and changing the culture along Christian lines." Two Kingdom adherents "the opposite---that neither the church nor individual Christians should be in the business of changing the world or society"

Michael Horton doesn't agree totally with Keller's description of the "Two Kingdom's" view so that also needs careful persual read it here.

A must read is the article in Themelios by Dan Strange which is very thought provoking about these issues. However it is a footnote in this article by Strange that I want reflect upon in terms of considering a person's assumptions in the arguments the Culture itself presents as cogent, reasonable and "convincing".
Consider Stranges footnote #72

As Julian Rivers pointed out in 2004, ‘It may be that a culture deviates in some respect from the law of God to such an extent that some moral positions seem defensible to Scripture alone. We may rapidly be reaching that point in the Western world as regards sexual ethics’ (‘Public Reason’, Whitefield Briefing 9:1 [May 2004]: 4). One thinks here of a country like Switzerland currently discussing the decriminalization of consensual incest and the U.S. case of David Epstein, charged with having a three-year affair with his adult daughter. Epstein’s lawyer said to ABCNews, ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so. At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms. It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. . . . How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not’

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/david-epsteins-lawyer-we-_n_797138.html).

To which I hope that we’d point out the assumption behind the thinking that ‘what is carried out in private is of no concern to anybody else’ is “that what I do in private doesn’t affect anybody else”. But this ignores how such activities affect one’s character and relationships in the public sphere. One cannot divorce their worldview that allows and condones such behavior from how they relate the rest of the time in public.

Just something to ponder.

regards,

Gary

Shane Hipps don't think much about hell either

I am so glad Shane Hipps is not my teaching pastor!
He is Rob Bell's replacement at Mar's Hill but his understanding on Hell shows no Biblical understanding at all.

His "argument" is predicated on truth being what someone experiences. perhaps he is a poached egg but hasn't experienced it yet.

What these guys so blatently neglect is the Authority of God's Word the Bible. They want to pick and choose what suits their Reason, but they fail to see that it is only in the Scriptures that we are told to trust that Jesus' death on the cross makes you rught with God.

Gary

Radical Guilt free Evangelism

For many of us, evangelistic classes on how to evangelise fill us with guilt. We are even tempted to say
"Hey let's leave that to those gifted in evangelism". How is it possible then to have guilt free evangelism?
Simply by have a changed life, a transformed life where you are being made into the image of Christ.

The Scriptures actually teach this. All of 1 Peter talks about your identity in Christ and having different attitudes and behaviour to the world around. Being different to our culture. This is seen in the submit to those in Authority, slaves submit to your masters ( a principle applied today in our workforce ), wives submit to your husbands, husbands care and nurture your wives. Then some radical attitudes in 3:8-12. "finally all of you ( no one is left out here ) live in harmony with one another, be sympathetic, love the brethren, be humble"

And even the most famous passage of all that speaks of apologetics, giving a defense for your faith in 1 Peter 3:15f is predicated upon living a changed life so that when people ask of you Why you live this way you have an opportunity to answer them with the truth of the Gospel.

Josh McDowell understands this well. He was asked in an interview why young people still flock to hear him, and it was clear that it was because it is evident that he really cares for them.

1 Peter tells us to understand who we are in Christ and to display changed attitudes and work on our relationships within the Church. When we change people will ask us What has happened.

Now that's provoking isn't it?

God Bless
Gary

Worth a look: reflecting upon Schaeffer's impact

Hi Friends,
Over at the Gospel coalition there's a thoughtful reflection upon Francis Schaeffer and his impact.
Enjoy the read.
God Bless
Gary

The Queensland false Messiah - AJ as Jesus

Our news has recently been awash with reports on the new reincarnation of Jesus in the person of Alan John Miller 47 in Kingaroy Queensland.
Not only does Alan Miller claim to be a reincarnation of Jesus the Christ, but also his "wife" Mary Suzanne Luck is a reincarnation of Mary Magdalen. So just as Luck would have it, they meet in a town in Queensland, Australia out of the 6 billion people on this planet. Coincidence? Well highly improbable but it's not on those grounds we dismiss him as a cult leader and deceived.

My daughter, just 13 years old observed, well that's easy to show as false - all you need to do is look for the holes in his hands and feet and in his side. But as I explained to her, although she is going down the right track, it would be dismissed by Alan and Mary because they are claiming to be reincarnations of Jesus and Mary.
Yet we as Christians can on at least two grounds dismiss this claim.
First it contradicts the Bible directly, and the Bible is the Word of God which Jesus himself gave full authority to. After all, his answer to the temptations from satan were "It is Written". In Hebrews 9:27 it says man is destined to live once, and after that face the judgment. This life is all one has. Reincarnation is a false teaching.
But secondly, Jesus with holes in his hands and side and feet as seen by the disciples after his death and resurrection, ascended to the right hand of God where he awaits the time the Father has determined to return in the second coming. He did not die to be reincarnated as someone else. He is at the right hand of the father - living! He with his resurrected body which reveal the scars of the cross will return in that same resurrected body at His glorious appearing.
So on two grounds this fellow Alan is mightily deceived and leading others astray in demonic deception.

We do well to know why this is deception and a cult, and be able to answer enquiries from unbelievers. And then to pray for these people to be convicted by God's Holy Spirit and find Christ, and in him eternal life, and life to the full.

In Christ,
Gary

Amusing ourselves to death

John Stonestreet of summit.org makes an astute comment

We live in an age of entertainment so that people think Christianity is about Christian entertainment.

Ponder that and you will reaslise why so many who role up at Church seek not to be fed by the Word of God, not to have their thinking extended so that their actions may follow right thinking but rather to be entertained.

In Christ,
Gary

Wacky stuff - wanting to burn the Koran

The Pentecostal minister Terry Jones of Gainsville perhaps could understand better the power of the Gospel, via the Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit to combat the forces of darkness, however it seemed telling that the vision we see of Hilarly Clinton denouncing the coming bonfire was that she was standing in front of a sign saying "Council of Foreign Relations'. How subliminal was that!

We in Australia however need to understand, but not condone the emotions of Americans in regard to Muslims and 9/11.

And further, understand how tragic is the failure of the media to deal critically with Islam. Many are just intent on dealing superficially with the teachings of Islam, and more pointedly the Koran. They have not ever tried to understand Islamic hermeneutics when it comes to the Koran where the later verses in the Koran override the earlier, which negates all the quotes about the tolerance and the peacefulness of Islam. What this tells us is that just like there are professing Christians who never read the bible or do so superficially ( let alone obey the Lord God ), likewise there are Muslims who do exactly the same.

If we are going to impact the world with the gospel message we do well to take these things into account and recognise that while there are indeed lovely caring Muslims all around us, still Islam is false.

Something to ponder.
Gary

The Sin Delusion – Why do Atheists just not get it?

Why do Atheists just not consider the wretchedness of man due to his sinfulness?
Some helpful comments by Clay Jones who is an assistant professor at Biola University give us a perspective to mull over on this when he talks about evil and suffering.

Richard Dawkins has that famous comments in his ‘The God Delusion’ that shows he hasn’t really understood the Old Testament nor it’s teaching about God at all.
Dawkin’s said on page 31

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

But let me challenge him to reread it and look at the Grace that God shows towards a sinful and rebellious people. How patient he is in regard to their ongoing sinfulness. Just read the book of Genesis to see this at its clearest.

Often times we hear the objection from unbelievers that a central objection to believing in the Christian God is the ‘Problem of evil’, and it in general doesn’t take a syllogistic form but rather a more down to earth objection as to “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and only later is it raised up a level to “Why is there so much suffering in the World if God is so good?”

In this regard the interview with Clay at Apologetics 315 gives great insight into this whole issue. Clay has written an article which talks openly about the command of the Lord God for Israel to wipe out the Canaanites. He rightly points out that many who object have failed to take into account a number of crucial factors.
Firstly it’s not Divine Genocide but Capital Punishment that is taking place here for the sin of the Canaanites as indicated from Leviticus 18 indicates the utter baseness of the people here. Not only were they committing incest and adultery but in the end they give over their children in sacrifice to Molech.
Furthermore, it is a people problem for God later judges the Israelites with exile in 722 BC for doing the very same things, first warned the tribes of the North by His prophets about committing the very same sins of the Canaanites. So the Assyrians destroyed them in warfare and took off many into exile. Then Judah was warned also and they suffered the same fate of exile in 586 BC under the Babylonians. But let me here encourage you to listen to the interview.

His point is that it’s not genocide, as in destroying just the race of the Canaanites on whim, but killing those who sin in this way which is Capital Punishment.

Secondly, not only is it about Capital Punishment but those that object about Divine Genocide have failed to address the utter sinfulness of what is going on , and indeed they ignore in our own culture what is going on. In this regard what he says has powerful ramifications for Christian apologetics and how to answer objections by unbelievers in regard to the questionable goodness of God. We need to ask them when they object in some regard to God’s goodness and things like Divine genocide and the like whether they regard paedophilia and bestiality as abhorrent and evil?

What is their reply? And on what basis are they able to call these things that men do evil?

We are asking what do they do about the obvious evilness of man himself!

How does their worldview give an account of what is right and wrong, evil or good?

For the Christian he takes into account not merely the fall of man as told in Genesis 3 but also what the Lord God tells us through Paul in Romans 1.
Romans 1 must be taken into consideration here. It’s central to our Christian Worldview. Sure God made mankind good, and yet in Adam they fell and all mankind now are sinners. That doesn’t mean primarily that we regard man’s problem is that he does specific sins which we regard as abhorrent such as lying and cheating and adultery and murder but that he ignores his creator, the Living Sovereign God of Scripture. Man is in rebellion against his Creator and desires to rule his own life. From this suppressing the knowledge of God results a moral and epistemological corruption. There are consequences to his rebellion in the world that God has made and they are a foolish thinking and moral degeneration.

Let me again encourage you to browse over to Apologetics 315 and download the Clay Jones interview. it's well worth the 54 minutes listening to it.

Your brother in Christ,
Gary

Secular Humanism's inconsistent Worldview in regards to morality

I recently listened to a talk by Dr. Phil Fernandes { #36562.mp3 lecture } where he observes that the humanistic manifesto of secular humanists makes clear that they are not consistent with their own stated Worldview.
For example, they assert that all moral values are autonomous - that is, each person decides for themselves what is right or wrong, what is moral or not. Then just a few paragraphs later they state that they are "for any sexual act between consenting adults." This seems very open and even handed, not at all like those Christians who are frigid and haters of sex.
The impression is that they are not against anything, after all, their moral values are decided upon by the individual and yet this provides a dilemma for them. They phrased their statement very carefully. They are against rape, that is the act which involves the nonconsent by some adult, and it is only OK when between adults, sex between adults and children as the movement NAMBIA advocates is wrong on their Worldview. On this we applaud them for we too agree that such things are wrong. But here's the kicker, Why, given that each person decides their own moral values individually is rape and sex with children wrong! On their worldview they say something is universally wrong yet they have asserted that one's moral values are determined individually.
We need to push them about this inconsistency because their worldview doesn't allow this declaration, even if it's silently inferred, that somethings are Universally wrong.

Trying to ground morality in either the individual or the community is a dead end. The grounding of moral values in the individual as expressed above is either emotive, based on emotions or perhaps the same thing, just asserting your own preferences. We will speak of the societal based morality another time. For now we can see the atheist who proudly adheres to the humanist manifesto is in a sticky situation.

So all is not well with Atheism as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would declare!

God Bless,
Gary

There's No Clarity of argument from some atheists

Clarity of Argument is not always something you read from those antagonistic to Christianity. You see it exemplified in Richard Dawkins and his book 'The God Delusion' which really just reveals that he is more concerned about winning converts to "his" side by diatribe and invective and ridicule than presenting rational or forceful arguments.
Now in letters to the Star-Ledger a newspaper in New Jersey Carol Shields, a public school educator and teacher trainer no less, makes a complaint that totally misses the point. She gets stuck into Bret Shundler, the newly elected State Commissioner of Education, for advocating Intelligent Design and knowing "nothing about current Science theory"
She says:

he’s not familiar with the state science standards, namely 5.3 E, which reads:

"Evolution and Diversity: Sometimes, differences between organisms of the same kind provide advantages for surviving and reproducing in different environments. These selective differences may lead to dramatic changes in characteristics of organisms in a population over extremely long periods of time."

In the above quote however things are not so clear. Are proponents of ID rejecting change between organisms of the same kind? We certainly accept change within same kinds of animals and birds and so on. The problem arises with macro evolution, that change can occur from one kind to another.
We do well to remember that Darwin named his book "Origin of the species" not "change within species" which is what his evidence presented him with.
What do you think?
regards,
Gary

You've hurt my thinking, forget about my feelings!

There's an interesting piece over at Bill Kinnons blog where he quotes the Bishop of Durham who says,

Part of our difficulty in the Christian world of late Western modernity has been that the mind, the faculty of thought and reasoning, has become detached. As happens if you have a detached retina in your eye, when you're thinking becomes detached you stop seeing things clearly. "Thought"and "reason" seem to have been placed to one side, in a private world reserved for "intellectuals" and "academics."(Note for example, the way in which sports commentators use the word "academic" to mean "irrelevant" as in "from now on the result of the race is academic.") Furthermore, we often speak of our thoughts as if they were feelings: in a meeting, to be polite, we might say "I feel that's wrong", because it sounds less confrontational than saying, "I think that's wrong". Similarly, perhaps without realizing it (which itself is a sign of the same problem!), we sometimes allow feelings to override thoughts: "I feel very strongly that we should do this" can carry more rhetorical weight than "I think we should do that" since nobody wants to hurt our feelings. As a natural next step, we allow feelings to replace thought processes altogether, so that what looks outwardly like a reasoned discussion is actually an exchange of unreasoned emotions, in which all participants claim the high moral ground because when they say, "I feel strongly we should to do this", they are telling the truth: they do feel strongly, so they will feel hurt and rejected if people don't agree with them. Thus reasoned discourse is abandoned in favour of the politics of the playground. (2010 SPCK, Virtue Reborn, Pg 134) [emphasis added]

What a helpful reminder of the way things are going in public discourse these days. Using feelings to address disagreeing with thoughts is really pathetic in that it leaves an argument floundering as a mere opinion instead of something requiring rational debate.

BTW, I do not agree with Bill's blogg assessment that Brian McLaren is not a wolf in sheeps clothing. I believe he is a wolf, a false teacher because of what he teaches given that the bible clearly refutes his "teachings". Perhaps he is now just a wolf and people have lost their ability to discern.



Gary

Hearing God's word and sticking your fingers in your ears!

Tony Jones a foremost emergent crowd "leader" made the following comment at his B-Net blog:
Tuesday August 4, 2009 Categories:

GLBT, same sex marriage OK, I’m serious about this. I’m not even being snarky. Really.
If you are one who thinks that homosexual sex is sinful, can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?
My only stipulation is this: You may not quote one of the six verses in scripture that mentions homosexuality. Instead, you must use theological and/or philosophical arguments to attempt to convince me that when you have genital contact with someone of your own gender, it somehow inhibits your relationship with Christ.
Thank you in advance for your civility in answering this question.

Brian McGraw rightly responded -- how do you have a theological argument without the use of scripture?

I would add that such an approach is totally unbiblical as it's a denial of 1 Peter 3:15 that starts with "in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord" meaning in every aspect of life we are to live with Christ as Sovereign Ruler of our lives.

You will find further helpful responses by pastorboy at Wittenburg Church Door
Yet at Wittenburg you will also read a few comments by Chad, in one of which Chad responds as follows:

"Ok, you have shown that you can offer a “why” response to God’s commands. There is reason behind the commands. You have listed:
- It hurts your spouse- offends the person to whom you have lied.- harms the one from whom you’ve stolen- causes harm to a person in God’s image and their family and friends.
All of these reasons are reasons I would agree with as to why God has commanded us not to commit adultery, not to lie, not to steal and not to kill.
So now, why not answer Tony’s question?"

Now I want to draw our attention to the problem with the whole approach of Tony and the emergent sheep and people like Chad, namely they have a problem with Scripture being the Word of God, that God has said something and they need to deal with it.

Now I am not saying that flippant replies to serious enquiry such as "God said so" are satisfactory. Often in Scripture we need to read the context of God's Commands, understand his Nature and consider other relevant Scriptures as well. Indeed sometimnes lengthy argument is given for a particular doctrinal teaching, such as Paul locating the reason for women not to teach [ mixed company ] as being grounded in Creation. So 1 Tim 2:11-15

So given that disclaimer, I now want to point out that Chad and his ilk exemplify that same question of Satan who asked of Eve in the Garden of Eden "Has God Said?" The thrust of this question in it's context is to raise Doubt in Eve's mind about the goodness of God [ "you must not even touch it" ] and His care for Eve. It is to make God out to be some ogre who wishes to stop Eve having fun and is one set on limiting her development. But the central issue here is even more disasterous.
In her refusal to listen to and obey the clear commands of God, she sets herself up as the Authority on what is right and wrong. She abandons God who alone has that Authority and in whom alone is the Standard of right and wrong, good and evil.

In the above statement by Chad we read that all the reasons pastorboy gave "are ones that he Chad would agree to." Perhaps he is just using sloppy language however if he is following the emergent crowds holy grail that things must agree with what they alone determine as compatible to their moral sensibilities then he is treading on dangerous ground. That's why so many are already decrying the notions of Hell and homosexuality and the atonement.

Please hear me when I say that what I have said above is not questioning Chad's salvation. what I am pointing out is that the line Chad is taking and the emergent crowd frequently espouse is a dangerous one that will easily lead to them being outright heretical, and because of that the warning needs to be sounded clearly and forcefully.

It is because of this undercurrent of unbelief that the emergent crowd are doomed to head towards heresy, and it's firsfruits can be seen in what Brian McLaren and others are already saying.

Beware!

Gary

Understanding Hermeneutics - the first step

When considering hermeneutics some are a bit put off by the fact that some begin by quoting Scripture as providing the contours, the boundaries as it were for proper hermeneutics, hermeneutics which is the proper method of Interpreting Scripture. They see this as perhaps circular reasoning and are maybe embarrassed by it.
Let me suggest that this same unease is encountered by some who study and debate Christian apologetics. They are uneasy about beginning with Scripture. They think that this somehow is a refusal to find “common ground” with “the unbeliever” or “the seeker”. ( if there is such as person as a seeker in the Bible’s sense of the term. ) and that such a method commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Furthermore in such debates from Christians discussing apologetics you find the fear that if the believer begins with Scripture, then all that will ensue with the unbeliever is a “shouting match” where the believer says “God says” and the unbeliever rejoins “Who says” or perhaps a seemingly reasonable argument that “we must not assume the very thing we are trying to prove”.
What is often forgotten is first of all the motive for the Christian to do apologetics, that is offer a defence for what the Christian faith is, is his faithful response to the word of God found in 1 Peter 3 “Always be ready to give an answer … the reason for the hope you have.” And the reason he is motivated by this is because the Lord God has already worked in his heart to convict him of his sin against God, brought him to repentance and filled him with his Holy Spirit. That is, God has transformed him, and that is the reason why he wants to obey 1 Peter 3:15. It is only a Christian, one transformed by God already who wants to do apologetics with his unbelieving neighbour.
That is the foundation for all he does as a Christian. So methodologically he begins apologetics with his understanding of the unbeliever as a sinner, one in rebellion against the Lord God. Then he takes a two pronged approach to the unbeliever. He reasons with him to show that his worldview, the unbeliever’s worldview – whether it be naturalism or a even a religious worldview, is incoherent, it just doesn’t provide for meaning and reason and love and ethics and right and wrong and science and the like. Then he asks him if he can share about the Christian Worldview of the bible that does provide and account for these things and he can speak of the Creator of all, God, who is personal and Sovereign etc, Who is outside of His Creation and yet enters into it to relate to man, and how man sinned and rebelled and how God in His wisdom and plan sent Jesus, Who is God, into the world to redeem Him, etc.
In the end it has to be assumed, that the unbeliever is in rebellions against the God who is his Creator and Creator of all, even though he does know him. Rom 1. The unbeliever is actively and continually suppressing that knowledge.
So what we need to understand here from this illustration from apologetics is that methodologically it is reasonable and coherent to argue from Scripture right from the very start in any endeavour we take as a Christian, and ever so much more when it comes to hermeneutics.
Thus we begin our discussion of correct hermeneutics, that is, how one can rightly interpret the bible by quoting Scriptures that make it clear that:
1. Scripture is God’s Word. Inspired, breathed out. 1 Tim 3:16.
2. Scripture has to be accurately handled. 2 Timothy 2:15 “accurately handling the Word of Truth”.
3. Scripture is Truth. 2 Tim 2:15.
4. Scripture is clear though it has some passages that are hard, but not impossible to understand. So 2 Peter 3:15-16. It just means a lot of hard effort needs to be put in, indeed in 2 Tim 2:15 it requires “a workman”, one who puts in much effort! In Deut 6:6-7 Moses tells the Israelites to teach these words to their children, to discuss them. The assumption is that it can be understood. Then in the reading and application of the book of the law in Nehemiah 8:8, it says the scribes ”read and gave the sense of the Scriptures” Now there’s a good reminder of the role of the elder in expository preaching of the word to God’s people. Then Jude 3 assumes that Christians can understand the word of God for we all are to “contend for the Faith once for all delivered.”
No doubt there are others to add, but these at least are a minimum.

your brother in Christ,
Gary

Apologetics methodology - reaching our culture where it is at.

Pastors wake up! we are past Josh McDowell's plaid trousers. To put it another way -
Pastors, we are not in Kansas anymore. At least Dorothy had the perception to realise that she wasn't in Kansas anymore, unlike many pastors and evangelists today. Back in the late 60's or early 70's I had the pleasure of watching a movie involving Josh McDowell speaking about Christianity and the Evidence that demands one make a verdict about Jesus. It was relevant and informative and challenging, for in those days many were asking the question about evidence for the christian faith.
I remember the laughter however when Josh, appearing before a University crowd came on the screen dressed in plaid trousers. At the time something culturally relevant for Americans but not so with Australians where Blue Jeans was the "in thing".
Thirty odd years on however, we have Pastors who just don't get it that those sorts of answers that Josh gives don't cut it anymore in evangelism purely because most unbelievers are not asking those questions anymore.
These Pastors who quote McDowell are in effect wearing plaid trousers without any awareness that the culture has moved on.
Our Culture has moved on. Far fewer have any basic understanding of the Bible or the Christian Faith. It's revealed partly by the unbelievers best known verse which isn't John 3:16 but rather "Do not judge". Most unbelievers think that objections to Christianity have won the day. Many live by unexamined assumptions about life where beliefs are picked up by adding them to your plate from the smorgasbord of beliefs and chosen on the basis of pragmatism only. What "works for me" seems to be the guiding motive in what people believe today. They accept half-baked worldviews such as postmodernism with any investigation or deep thinking about what is involved. The Closing of the American Mind is aptly descriptive of the Australian scene and indeed most Western advanced countries. But surely it is tragic if this is the situation of our pastors also.

Some might think that apologetic method is not important for the Christian, he just needs to tell others about Jesus. But this is both simplistic and untrue. It ignore that Paul shows a clear method of being culturally relevant to unbelievers and showing them that their worldview is a house of cards and that Christianity alone makes sense of it all. In Acts 17 Paul helps us see the importance of what he elsewhere calls "pulling down fortresses." The unbeliever is shown how man has 'a worldview of choice' that is internally incoherent, for example he makes idols of the same wood he uses to warm himself by the fire.
And we need to repeatedly hear that Evangelising doesn't mean everybody responds positively as we see clearly from Acts 17, indeed Paul is denigrated and maligned by some of his hearers but such responses are not a reason to refrain from proclaiming the gospel message.

Isn't this something we take for granted, this cultural awareness in evangelism - when preparing missionaries for the mission field. We do this as an integral part of the training we do when sending missionaries overseas to the Chinese or Africans. We learn the culture and language so as to be able to communicate and not needlessly offend by saying inappropriate things or using gestures in the wrong manner. So why are we so reticent at home within our own culture?
Is it that we are so cut off, or perhaps it's the opposite of being so absorbed by our culture? that we are not aware that our professing of evangelistic truth is not hitting home and we blame the lack of response to being due to hardened hearts or refusal to turn to God.

I hope all of us will spend some more time in pondering this as we seek to take the good news to those without the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your brother,
Gary

The No Metanarrative Fallacy

Some of you may have read of the view of many emergents who reject metannaratives, the view that there is one overarching view of the world that is true and correct, claiming it to be abusive and a power trip. They do this having taken on board uncritically the view of postmodernism.

You will often hear "postmodernists" explain either their rejection of a metanarrative or in relation to all religions having part of the truth by using the example of the 6 blind men and the elephant. Where one has hold of the tail and claims this is the reality, another has hold of the trunk and says this is it, another has a leg, and another the ear and so on. Or that each person has partial religious truth and is to be respected for it's their perspective.

Without going into whether this is an epistemological rejection of an overarching view of reality or a rejection of metaphysical perspective per se we can see what they are getting at. It is I believe an illustration used by advocates of religious pluralism and radical skepticism. See Greg Koukle's article The Trouble with the Elephant.

However, have they a case to argue using this illustration or analogy? One thing that is often ignored but pointed out by Leslie Newbingen is that while there are 6 blind men groping around the elephant, we and the narrator of the story actually see the whole elephant. That is, at least the person using the analogy is claiming a total comprehension of reality. They themselves claim to know it all in order to be able to use the analogy in saying each of the 6 blind men only have part of the truth but it is truth as far as it goes and true for them!

You see, the person using this anaolgy is actually usurping the place of God who is omniscient and omniresent. That is, God who is the only one in the position to know everything and know it truly. He alone knows how it all fits together. And some of this he has revealled to us in Scripture. Not every known fact there is, but how it relates to Him as Creator., as Sovereign Personal Triune God.

Grasping this will help immensly in speaking and communicating with the present unbelieving generation.

In Christ,

Gary

The thorn in the flesh of postmoderns - death

Even though I have grave suspicion about whether there is truly a postmoden worldview, this generation has a thorn in their flesh. Despair and grief when friends die inadvertantly such as in car accidents and drug overdoses.

How do you grieve if you hold to naturalism? That all that is is matter. You repond just as the Bible says - without hope! If you believe you just came from slime by chance, then the move into dust is just something that happens.

Os Guiness wrote a great book looking at the state of man searching for meaning and value - calling it "The Dust of Death." What an appropriate title, well before the emergents examined the establishment and the [ counter ] culture.

Can we face death with a different perspective than the unbeliever? Yes.

A couple of weeks ago I had to do the funeral of my mother who died at 89. We actually had a thanksgiving because she was friend of Jesus. She was a christian. That means we don't grieve as the world does because one day we shall meet again.

Here's something I wrote for the funeral.

How do you assess someone's life?
It's got to be more than talking about a person's life from their birth to when they die. Just recently here in Australia Richard Pratt died, and the media gave you the impression that what mattered was his wealth and power.

We also have just had Anzac day where we remember our Veterans, their commitment and achievements and what they gave the rest of us.

But what about a VET's life?

How is that assessed?

Thinking about it - we see soldiers who returned emotionally scarred, others physically scarred.
Is that how you think of them?

Or do you think about their early childhood or their teenage years?

We need to reflect on this because many who are older and suffering and then die, that's the last memory we have of them!
Like some with cancer - you tend to remember their suffering, how difficult it all was.
So How are we to assess mum's life?
All of us here can agree there's much in her life to respect, to admire, to love.

She gave herself to us three children when she didn't have to! Being our stepmother and a widow she could have walked away! But she didn't.

She went without so we could have much.
She went without marrying again. Without that close relationship that's so important to our humanity. To share on an adult level what's so important.

I could talk about her childhood, at Boort, and her parents store, and her army days as a driver.

But what is important is her relationship with Jesus.
Because when we have a relationship with Jesus we have life.
Not mere existence, not scrapping by, but life. Living with meaning. Knowing that God is your Creator and that you are made in His image. That is, you are not just some concoction of chemicals which finally got together and emerged out of the slime.

No, You and I and mum are persons, able to love, care, think, plan hope and share. Mum had learned about Jesus early in her childhood. She had gone frequently to Church. But she was of that generation which saw religion, saw christianity as a private matter. Not one you talked about much with other people.

But I remember a time when all that changed.
When in her reading of some great books by Christians she saw what Christian faith was all about, how it was about being His disciple, walking with Him and doing what pleased Him and not what pleased her.

That's the high point in mums life. When she told me one day she was thinking about joining a bible study group at church.
When her relationship with God and Jesus was her Life!

Not something that we do on sundays and when we pray at night.

That life, means death, physical death is not the end. It's Why for a christian death is not something to be feared.

While alive she had meaning and purpose and value in all that she did. And now that she is passed from us, she is still alive, because she is with our heavenly Father who is Life.

Mum, your legacy to us is that God is in the business of change. He is in the business of changing people to be like his Son Jesus.

We saw you change as you walked with Him.
And you hold out the goal for us to continue to be changed by Jesus day by day.
That is how one can assess a life. One tha tis changed by God. Impacted by Jesus.

Thanks.