Posts filed under ‘Christianity’
Hero worship is a problem in our society. Even worse, hero worship is a problem in evangelical Christianity. The reliable Vaughan Roberts issues a prophetic warning on the phenomenon of personality cults in his book Authentic Church. Drawing from 1 Corinthians 3-4 he writes;
“We copy the world in its obsession with personalities, dividing into parties which gather around different Christian gurus whose teaching is exalted almost to the level of infallibility. Those who attach themselves to other leaders can be seen as enemies, even though they are fellow Christians who believe exactly the same as us on all the fundamentals of the faith and worship the same Heavenly Father. Sadly, membership of the same Christian family can be seen as less important than membership of the same faction.
Sometimes the leader is to blame for promoting such adulation by drawing attention to himself and encouraging and unquestioning loyalty from his followers; but often leaders placed on pedestals are as uneasy as the apostle was when people said, ‘I follow Paul.’ He was horrified a the thought of Christians gathering around him rather than the Lord he served.
To counter their immature, worldly thinking, he outlines a truly spiritual understanding of Christian leadership that never allows mere humans to take center stage. Churches should value not those who are the most flashy, with impressive gifts and personalities, but rather those who are faithful in fulfilling their charge, and point to the master, not themselves. (39-41)”
This morning I ran across a good concise post by Nicholas McDonald through Trevin Wax’s blog. Nicholas is a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. In this post McDonald outlines the “heart-diagnostic approach” to sermon application that Tim Keller has made famous. The full text of his points are below…
1. Show people what they’re doing wrong. The key for unbelievers here is to find common ground. After hearing these lectures, I was amazed at how much secular culture points to common-grace morality. Every week I’ve been able to find something in culture that points to the moral application. The other key is to be able to describe what it feels like to sin. Sinning is miserable, Christian or no – describe sin in such a way that people are anxious for a solution.
2. Explain to people why they do it. Keller’s a specialist at this – maybe the only one I know. In order to unearth people’s aberrant behavior, we need to get to the root. The root, as Christ has said, is the heart – the desires and longings we imagine our idols can fulfill. The key here is to know the idols of your culture – is it education? Family? Safety? Sex? Fun? This has added a level of penetrating depth to my preaching I’ve never had before – tell people what desires cause them to pursue their sin, and the soil will be fully dug for Christ to enter in.
3. Show how Christ satisfies those desires. Tullian Tchividjian said it best: “Jesus + Nothing = Everything.” This is the point in your sermon where people are on the edge of their seats, waiting for an answer – “Then how can I change!?” This is where you lead them to Christ. Keller says this kind of preaching “sanctifies people on the spot”. By pointing to Christ, we’re appealing to the deepest need of believers – we disobey the gospel because we fail to believe the gospel. We’re also pointing to the deepest needs of unbelievers – to see that their sin problem can only be taken care of through faith in Christ. Keller recommends using a secular story as an analogy (rather than a strictly doctrinal explanation) to penetrate the heart of your culture.
4. Paint a picture of a gospel-filled life. The most beautiful, helpful one-word phrase I’ve ever learned, I learned in this series: “If you really believed, you would…” This is what your congregants need to hear every week. Show them what it means to really believe the gospel, deep down, and let it penetrate every portion of our hearts. Point them to the spiritual disciplines that foster this kind of faith. Show them what it means to be a radical disciple in your culture, time and place. Let them walk away knowing for sure whether they are being obedient to God or not. Show them precisely where they need to become less, and Christ needs to become more.
I was flipping through the tv channels recently and caught a few seconds of an interview with a cultural icon. The interviewer pulled this star aside as she was headed into an entertainment award show. What held me on that channel was the reporter’s first question.
Who are you wearing?
The question sounds a bit odd. However, we can discern the intended meaning of the question from the context. Who designed that dress? Who are you representing by wearing that dress? See, the name of an elite designer communicates status, importance, meaning, and worth. Most of us cannot afford custom designer clothing. Most of us are not invited to televised award shows to be displayed before the watching world. Yet we are on display to those around us.
Nakedness and the Search for Meaning
We are all searching for value and meaning in some sense or another. And we are all judged, and judge others, on these grounds. So we clothe ourselves in cultural signifiers that communicate worth and status. Why?
Immediately following the fall of mankind our first ancestors were found naked and ashamed. Adam and Eve rejected their covering under the Lordship of God and grasped for worth and status in and of themselves. Ashamed of their nakedness they grasped for new covering. And we have tried to clothe our shame and find significance in our coverings ever since. There is only one covering that will sufficiently clothe our nakedness and give us true rest.
One of the Apostle Paul’s favorite metaphors describes “putting on” or “clothing oneself” in Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom.13:12; Eph.4:24; Col.3:12f.). Paul likens Christ to a garment. The idea of “putting on” Christ implies 3 very important gospel truths. (These truths were outlined similarly in Tim Keller’s study on Galatians)
- Clothing Communicates Our Identity
Our clothing communicates to the world who we are. Clothing shows others that we are identified with a particular gender, social class, or national group.To say that Christ is our clothing is to say that our ultimate identity is found in him and not in any other classification.
- Clothing Shields Our Nakedness
Clothes are kept closer to you than any other possession. We rely on clothing for shelter every moment of every day. To say Christ is our covering is to call us to continual dependence and awareness of Him. Clothing ourselves in Christ should remind us of his presence.
- Clothing Adorns Us
Clothing is also worn as adornment. To say that Christ is our clothing is to say that in God’s sight we are loved because of Jesus’ work and salvation. The metaphor of “putting on Christ” is a comprehensive metaphor for the entirety of life. In Christ we have his Spirit and are imputed his record. This should permeate everything we think, say, and do.
As Christians we are covered by Jesus, “wearing Christ” before God. But if your neighbor or friend were to ask you – who are you wearing? – what would you say? More importantly, who would they say?
Strategic Pastoral Counseling is a model developed by David Benner described as a brief, structured counseling approach that is explicitly Christian and that appropriates the insights of contemporary counseling theory without sacrificing the resources of pastoral ministry. There is much debate about the uses and differences of secular counseling and biblical counseling. I will not examine those here. My purpose is to give a brief account of Brenner’s work. There are a few characteristics of Strategic Pastoral Counseling (SPC) that I found helpful for pastoral ministry.
SPC is brief and time-limited, working within a suggested maximum of five sessions. Both the pastor and the parishioner are encouraged to work continuously at maintaining focus and direction. One of the benefits of this model is that is presupposes that the counseling relationship is a partnership, which increases the participation and expectation of change in the counselee.
The use of written materials is central to SPC. The Bible as well as a variety of other devotional, inspirational, and practical books and booklets could be assigned to the client. The literature should be integrated within the counseling session, not simply offered as a supplement to them and serve as a support and extension of the counseling. Moreover, it also seems that Benner advocates a holistic approach to pastoral counseling that aims at the behavioral (action), cognitive (thought), and affective (feeling) aspects of the personality – with a focus on spirituality.
Lastly, the SPC process is very structured. Each of the sessions has a clear focus and each builds upon the previous ones in contributing to the accomplishment of the overall goals. SPC involves three stages:
- The encounter stage, where boundaries are set, the central concerns and history are explored, a pastoral diagnosis is conducted, and a mutually agreeable focus is achieved.
- The engagement stage, where the problem is explored holistically and resources are identified for coping or change.
- The disengagement stage, where progress is evaluated, concerns are accessed, referrals are arranged, and counseling is terminated.
Overall I found this little book helpful and would encourage pastors who are developing their counseling philosophy to read it. Counseling in a Christian context can be highly effective when it maintains narrowly focused goals in a time-limited setting. The details of this model of pastoral counseling are outlined well in this little practical guide.
At this year’s Southern Baptist Convention in Houston The Gospel Project is hosting a discussion panel on Christ-Centered Preaching and Teaching. Ed Stetzer will moderate the panel with Trevin Wax, Eric Hankins, and Jon Akin. We are working with several publishers to give each attendee free resources on Christ-Centered preaching and teaching. There will also be a free breakfast. We only have room for 350 so sign up soon!
Here are the details;
Christ-Centered Preaching and Teaching: A Discussion Panel
Tuesday June 11, 2013
George R. Brown Convention Center
Room 351A-F on Level 3
6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
To beard, or not to beard? This has become a popular question. And it would seem that many men are choosing to let their beards grow. You might notice the style experts reporting on the dominance of beards in popular culture over the clean-shaven perfectly smooth face. Not too long ago a campaign for Gillette starred three cultural icons sporting facial hair – yes, remaining facial hair in a razor commercial. Why? Because the beard is a phenomenon. And the beard phenomenon is not only growing in popular culture but also in Christian culture.
One might argue that the recent popularity of beards in Christian circles is a demonstrative protest against the decline of gender differences in our society. Maybe the growth of beards in Christian circles is cultural or contextual mimesis of hipster trends. Perhaps the popularity of the beard is simply an appreciation for it as a masculine ornament. At least one thing is clear, beards are continuing to grow in Christian circles. Perhaps you’ve seen the website Bearded Gospel Men? In case you missed it, Leadership Journal recently ran an article titled The Beards of Ministry in which they proclaim, “the beard is back in a big way. Along with celebrities, bike messengers, and your local barista, pastors are no exception to the glories of facial hair. The ministry beard has a long and glorious history among preachers, theologians, and everyday men of the cloth.” (Don’t miss their graphic)
The beard does have a long and rich history. For the Ancient Israelites in the Old Testament a full rounded beard was an ornament signifying manhood, a source of pride. The Hebrew men carefully maintained their beards. For the more affluent men beard care was ceremonial. While we don’t find too much in the Bible concerning beards, there are a few descriptive passages to read while twirling your chin hair;
- For the Israelites in the Old Testament the beard was never to be shaved, only trimmed (Lev. 19:27; 21:5). The only time a beard was to be shaved was in the circumstance of an infectious disease (Lev. 14:9).
- As a sign of lament, men in mourning would often shave or even pull out their beards (Ezra 9:3; Is. 15:2; Jer. 41:5, 48:37).
- The prophet Ezekiel was instructed by God to shave his beard as a sign of desecration and shame, pointing to the coming destruction on Jerusalem (Ezek. 5:1).
- Since the beard was a symbol of masculinity in ancient culture it was a grave insult to damage someone’s beard. Once on a mission, David’s men suffered grave humiliation when their beards were half shaved by the Ammonites. They didn’t return to Jerusalem until their beards had grown back (2 Sam. 10:4-5).
- Isaiah depicts the pulling out of a man’s beard as emasculative and shameful (Is. 7:20, 50:6).
There is not much in the Bible concerning beards. Even so, theologians and preachers have taken up the subject of beards. Augustine once argued that “there are some details of the body which are there for simply aesthetic reasons, and for no practical purpose—for instance… the beard on [a man’s] face [which is] clearly for a masculine ornament.” Similarly, Charles Spurgeon contended that growing a beard is “a habit most natural, scriptural, manly, and beneficial.” So, what are we supposed to do with all of this? I am not sure. This post was written for fun and theological novelty. Clearly, God does not command all men everywhere to grow their beards, nor are beards the quintessential mark of masculinity. But maybe the thought of a beard will grow on you…
I thought it would be helpful to provide some context to the discussion on adoption and orphan care in light of Kathryn Joyce’s recent comments on NPR related to her new book The Child Catchers. Joyce does raise legitimate concerns about orphan care and adoption systems in her article, though she is a little too inflammatory and cynical in her diagnosis. Joyce rightly observes that we live in a fallen and broken world. However, broken systems do not dismantle our call to care for neglected children. Christians are also broken people saved by the grace of God. We still see through a glass dimly. There are times when we could have addressed these issues with more wisdom. My concern here is that Joyce is a little off the mark in discerning our motivation behind orphan care.
As for Southern Baptists…
In this post I can only offer one opinion from a specific sector of the evangelical world, namely, the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, I am only going to respond to part of her observation about the evangelical world of adoption. I have not read the book. But, in the interview she argues that;
“Evangelicals felt that they had kind of unfairly lost a claim to the good works side of Christianity, the social gospel, the helping the poor,” she tells Fresh Air‘s Dave Davies, “and so they wanted a way to get back into doing something for poor people’s rights, and adoption and orphan care came about as something that, I think, they could really invest themselves into without challenging or changing their stances on the other social issues that they care about.”
To be fair, evangelicals have picked up involvement in adoption and orphan care in recent history. But the reason for doing so is not because adoption and orphan care are simple social causes that we can jump on without challenging or changing our stances on the other social issues. The impetus behind the movement is rooted in the resurgence of conservative theology. In June of 2009 the SBC overwhelmingly passed a resolution proposed by Russell D. Moore promoting adoption and orphan care, which in part reads:
That we encourage local churches to champion the evangelism of and ministry to orphans around the world, and to seek out ways to energize Southern Baptists behind this mission.
Interestingly, orphan care has long been a part of Southern Baptist life. Since our very beginning, Southern Baptists have taken the call to orphan care as a divine mandate. In 1845 the Southern Baptist Convention was formed with two cooperative ministries and one agenda. The two ministries were the Foreign Mission Board (Now the International Mission Board) and the Domestic Mission Board (Now the North American Mission Board). The initial agenda of the Convention was simple; to combine the efforts of autonomous churches for one sacred effort, namely, the proclamation of the gospel and the demonstration of Jesus kingdom. One phrase in the original constitution of the SBC reflects this clearly:
“It shall be the design of this convention to promote Foreign and Domestic Missions, and other important objects connected with the redeemer’s kingdom.”
While orphan care fell under the banner of ‘other important objects’, it was important none the less. The foundation for such social ministries came from the desire to provide gospel signs amid the rubble of a broken world.
Adoption in Early Southern Baptist Theology
“Baptists have long been considered a ‘people of the Book.’ Various Baptist confessions demonstrate the way in which the Bible is viewed as the Word of God and is, therefore, authoritative for the faith and practice of every believer and church”. In the larger framework of evangelical Christianity, Southern Baptists have not always been known for their contributions to theology. As one historian put it, Southern Baptists “have been more active than contemplative; they have produced more doers than thinkers”.
Yet searching the work of early Southern Baptist theologians provides a glimpse into the importance of the biblical doctrine of adoption. Baptist Theologian John L. Dagg opens his discussion on the theology of adoption by explaining it as it is practiced among men: “an individual receiving the son of another into his family, and conferring upon him the same privileges and advantages, as if he were his own son.” Unlike Northern Baptist theologian Augustus Strong, who placed adoption as a sub-category of justification, Dagg argued that the theological truth of adoption is a blessing that rises higher than justification because in its relational aspects adoption secures the love of God, the discipline of God, and believers are made heirs of God.
The relational aspect of the doctrine of adoption is further described by Southern Baptist James Petigru Boyce, who wrote that “the sonship ascribed to the believer in Christ, is best understood by considering its gracious origin, its peculiar nature, and the wondrous blessing which it confers.” Boyce noted that one experiences a “closer and more endearing relation to God” because of one’s adoption through Christ. Like today, the stunning reality of one’s adoption in Christ was most likely the theological motivation for the early Southern Baptist’s orphan care endeavors.
Orphan Care in Early Southern Baptist History
If one takes a close look at the denomination’s history they will find that Southern Baptists organized several orphanages across the southern states dating back to the 1860’s, most of which ministered to Civil War orphans. The correspondence of the Domestic Mission Board’s secretary, W.S. Webb, concerning the situation of orphans in Mississippi following the Civil War enables us to see the importance of orphan care in our early history as a convention. Historian Keith Harper notes that Webb “estimated that there were some 5,000 to 10,000 orphans in the state and some 50,000 Baptists whom he chided for neglecting Biblical commands to care for the poor and needy”. Ignoring the call to care for orphans, argued Webb, “would mark [Southern Baptists] with a pusillanimity that would deserve contempt from the world.” While Webb’s challenge went unheeded by some of his specific audience, there were Southern Baptists who took up the call for orphan care. Harper writes:
Southern Baptist orphanages tried to provide the best possible medical care and education for their children. They also tried to provide a homelike atmosphere that gave orphaned children, in addition to mere shelter, a sense of stability in community.
Beyond that, Baptists were influential in developing orphan care systems such as the ‘cottage plan’ orphanage (placing children in self-sustaining cottages with a housemother), the ‘placing out system’ (a forerunner to modern foster care), and even the ‘apprenticeship model’ (placing children in specific homes for training in an industrial trade or framing skills) throughout the American south. Even today state children’s homes continue to be a part of the Southern Baptist convention’s care for domestic orphans.
There is a rich history behind the efforts of orphan care in the Southern Baptist Convention. Though we are currently separated from the founding efforts recalled above by over a century, Southern Baptists still have a divine mandate and a social situation that calls us to care for the orphans. It is interesting to note, as one historian posits, that the controversies of the 1970’s and 1980’s between the conservatives and moderates over the authority of the Bible was more closely tied to the abortion issue, thus the sanctity of human life, than many Southern Baptists realize. However, there seems to be little evidence of an adoption and orphan care movement during this period.
Perhaps this was due to the hesitation among conservatives towards social endeavors as an implication of the moderate’s drift towards a theologically bankrupt social agenda. Even still, there has always been a desire among Southern Baptists to seek the welfare of the city and to love one’s neighbor as a sign accompanying the proclamation of the gospel, even if we haven’t gone about engaging these issues in the wisest way. Nevertheless, the divine mandate is still before us. The specific call pertaining to orphan care is well reflected in our current denominational summary of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message:
We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.
Since its conception, the Southern Baptist Convention has out grown its name. Our gospel efforts reach far beyond the southern states of North America. Moreover, there is still an orphan crisis. Immediate indigenous situations (like the civil war) are no longer the sole source of the orphan crisis. Globalization has flattened our distance from third world poverty, the AIDS epidemic, and unwanted pregnancies.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest protestant denomination in the United States, with over 44,000 churches in all fifty states, and is now more than 160 years old. If the Church is truly, as Merida and Morton argue, the most powerful force in the world, then we must not remain silent or still. As for the Southern Baptist Convention specifically, according to historian Nathan Finn, the strength and longevity of the convention is evidence that, “…autonomous churches believe that they can accomplish more when they work together than they can as individual congregations.”
I am thankful for the resurgence in connecting our orthodoxy to orthopraxy. Like our early Southern Baptist theologians, are regaining a sense of God’s heart for the helpless. Moreover, we need to consider the model of early Southern Baptists who saw their mission in terms of both evangelization and social outreach to the less fortunate. May we be faithful and fruitful in advocating for the poor, marginalized, abandoned, and fatherless.
“It’s utter pandemonium…Everybody’s just in disbelief and sadness.”
These are the words of one witness to the bombings at the Boston marathon on Monday. Runners and spectators scattered in pandemonium as loud explosions went off near the finish line. As the news broke my first thought was…why? Why would anyone do something like this? We’ve seen it before…but it sickens my stomach every time.
We live in a broken world for sure. And we should expect suffering and even death as a result of sin’s entrance into creation order, but gratuitous evil human actions like these leave us not only weeping – but scratching our heads.
When it comes to suffering, death, and evil there will always be questions. Honestly, there are some questions, like “why”, that often have no clear explanation when it comes to the particulars. What happened in Boston was a tragic case of what theologians call moral evil. Moral evil is that which is the direct result of human volition. Someone did this. Rest assured that the persons who planted those explosives will answer for their actions – hopefully to the law, certainly to God almighty (Matthew 12, Romans 14, Revelation 20).
As a Christian I believe that ultimately the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only comfort we have in facing these horrible realities. The days are evil. But one day Christ will return. Listen to the words of the Apostle John in Revelation 21:3-5;
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
As we long for that day let us seek justice in all wrongs, peace when all possible, and always point to Christ as the hope that is within us. And what about those who ask – why does God allow things like this to continue? I think Tim Keller deals with this question well from the perspective of an evangelical Christian in his book The Reason for God;
“The death of Jesus was qualitatively different from any other death. The physical pain was nothing compared to the spiritual experience of cosmic abandonment. Christianity alone among the worlds religions claims that God became uniquely and fully human in Jesus Christ and therefore knows firsthand despair, rejection, loneliness, poverty, bereavement, torture, and imprisonment. On the cross he went beyond even the worst human suffering and experienced cosmic rejection and pain that exceeds ours as infinitely as his knowledge and power exceeds ours. In His death, God suffers in love, identifying with the abandoned and godforsaken. Why did he do it? The Bible says that Jesus came on a rescue mission for creation. He had to pay for our sins so that someday he can end evil and suffering without ending us.
If we were to ask the question: “why does God allow evil and suffering to continue” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not know what the answer is. However, we now know what the answer isn’t. It cant be that He doesn’t love us. It cant be that he is indifferent or detached from our condition. God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was willing to take it on himself.
So, if we embrace the Christian teaching that Jesus is God and that he went to the cross, then we have deep consolation and strength to face the brutal realities of life on earth. We can know that God is truly Immanuel- God with us- even in our worst sufferings”
Let us continue to turn to Christ as our only hope. In these moments let us pray for the families of those who died. Let us pray for those who are hurt. All the while asking in our hearts, How long, O Lord? with the Psalmist.
Below is the full text of a post written by my friend Trevin Wax titled 8 Reasons for the Media Blackout on Kermit Gosnell
On Twitter and FaceBook today, #Gosnellis trending. The reason for the social media buzz is the strange silence of the mainstream media regarding one of the most gruesome murder trials in American history.
To put the Kermit Gosnell trial in perspective, consider other famous cases of child-killing. From Susan Smith toAndrea Yates, and most recently the horror of Newtown, we are accustomed to 24/7 news coverage of these types of tragedies.
Not so with Dr. Gosnell.
Here are the reasons why:
1. The Gosnell case involves an abortionist.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the abortionist must be portrayed as a victim of hate and intolerance, not a perpetrator of violence. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps “abortionist” separate from testimony about dead women and children.
2. The Gosnell case involves an unregulated abortion clinic.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be portrayed as a “refuge” for women in distress, not a “house of horrors” where women are taken advantage of. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps “abortion clinic” away from negative connotations.
3. The Gosnell case involves protestors who, for years, stood outside 3801 Lancaster and prayed, warning people about what was taking place inside.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the protestors must be portrayed as agitators and extremists, not peaceful people who urge mothers to treasure the miracle inside them. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps the abortion protestors from looking like heroes.
4. The Gosnell case involves gruesome details about living, viable babies having their spinal cords “snipped” outside the womb.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the details of an abortion procedure are to be avoided. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from asking why such violent killing is unjust moments after birth, yet acceptable at any other time during the pregnancy.
5. The Gosnell case raises the question of human rights.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must always be framed in terms of a woman’s “reproductive rights,” not a baby’s “human rights.” But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from asking why “reproductive rights” should trump “human rights” – or why a doctor devoted to “reproductive rights” would (without any apparent twinge of conscience) violate human rights so egregiously.
6. The Gosnell case involves the regulation of abortion clinics.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the clinic must be portrayed as under siege from anti-abortion extremists. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that will keep people from pushing for policy change and further regulation of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics.
7. The Gosnell case exposes the disproportionate number of abortion clinics in inner cities and the disproportionate number of abortions among minority groups.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the discussion must be framed in terms of providing “access” for low-income, minority women. But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that keeps people from wondering if perhaps some abortion providers are “targeting” low-income, minority women.
8. The Gosnell case competes with recent stories about states enacting broad laws banning many abortions.
Whenever we see news stories about abortion, the choice of coverage must focus on the threat to a woman’s “right to choose.” But it is impossible to spin this story in a way that will keep Americans from joining together to enact more common-sense regulation of late-term abortions.
Lord, have mercy on us.
Using audio from Don Carson, this short video challenges us from the Bible how we must be sharing our lives, opening up the Bible and changing generations as we point them to Jesus.
(HT Tim Challies)