My Thoughts on James MacDonald’s “Resignation”

Last week James MacDonald resigned. Not as pastor or anything like that. He resigned his post as “fixer”:

No more setting people straight, helping others see the light. No more putting people on a program or convincing them to look in the mirror and see what they refuse to believe. Helping? Yes. Praying? For sure! Preaching? Always and with increased power, I pray. But fixing people individually? I’m done!

I first read MacDonald’s article after reading the response from Dan Phillips. Others on Twitter expressed concern over MacDonald’s words. Personally, I think this could serve to spur us on towards a helpful conversation.

The first time that I read through the article I was put off by what MacDonald was saying. I wondered if he was completely resigning from doing the messy stuff of pastoral ministry. It seemed to me that he was essentially saying, “I’m not going to be in the business of trying to help people anymore, nobody appreciates me anyways”. It sounded like an angry tirade.

Then I read it again and realized that MacDonald’s central point is that he is no longer going to try to fix people that don’t ask for it. Some of the anger that I had picked up was directed towards his old way of doing things. So now he is resolved to not offer counsel unless asked. As MacDonald says,

“Where the fixer is uninvited and the receiving heart is unreceptive, it’s far better to pull up and kneel down—interceding for a better reception, a more timely time, or a more worthy messenger.”

What I take from MacDonald is that he is going to stop initiating “fix you” conversations. He’s going to be more concerned about the things that he is called to do and less concerned about other people—unless they ask him for assistance.

Where I Agree

As I read through MacDonald’s post I think he actually has a solid point. We are prone to worry about taking the speck of dust out of our brothers eyes without looking at the log in our own. There is a certain type of person that goes about trying to fix everyone as if he/she is helping along the Holy Spirit. I believe MacDonald is saying that he no longer wants to be this guy.

This is good. We shouldn’t be that guy. If this is all MacDonald says, then I’m in agreement with him. I wish he would have been a little more careful with his words and tried making the point in a little less shocking way—but that’s forgivable. I know there have been times when I’ve let art get in the way of clarity.

Where I Might Disagree…

While I find some agreement with Macdonald, his post still causes me to be unsettled. There is some truth in saying “if people don’t want to change there is no use trying to help”. But it’s also an incomplete truth because God’s Word is more powerful than our foolish resistance. The powerful word of God is the means that God uses to “fix” people.  

As ministers of the Word of God occasionally we are called to bang our head against a wall that probably shouldn’t budge. We do so because we know that there is power in the Word of God. Worldly wisdom says that the heart of kings isn’t supposed to turn, yet Nathan boldly proclaimed truth to a King that didn’t want to face his sin. In the same way it’s a solid axiom that you cannot help people that do not want to help themselves. But isn’t the Word more powerful than this axiom?

We must proclaim God’s Word humbly and lovingly. Yes, as we attempt to restore those that are “caught in transgression” we must do it with a “spirit of gentleness” while also “keeping watch on ourselves”. But simply being prone to hypocrisy and having a tendency to botch “pulling specks out of our brothers eyes” doesn’t necessitate the pendulum needs to swing to silence.

Yes, there might be a time to “shake the dust off our feet” but that should not be our default position. And this is what still has me unsettled about MacDonald’s “resignation”. It seems as if his default position goes against the Scriptural admonitions to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching”. That charge doesn’t seem to be something reserved for a Sunday morning sermon. And if you keep reading in that passage in 2 Timothy he is charged to do those things in the context of those that “will not endure sound teaching”.

Now if MacDonald is simply saying that he will continue to exhort, reprove, and rebuke but not try to play the role of the Holy Spirit, I agree. And it’s a good point—that I believe he made somewhat poorly. But my concern is that in embracing something good (not thinking you are deity) MacDonald is adopting something that is not good (being silent when we ought to speak).

What are your thoughts? At one point do we “resign”? Can we?

Is It Enough to Just Speak the Truth?

On the day of his first public service at St. Mary Woolnoth, John Newton explained to his hearers the truths that would inform his gospel ministry. They are evangelical and gospel-centered as to be expected with on like Newton. One thing, however, that I believe sets Newton apart as an exemplary example for us to follow. He believed that just speaking truth was not the whole of his duty:

But the cause of truth itself may be discredited by improper management; and, therefore, the Scripture which furnishes us with subject-matter for our ministry, and teaches us what we are to say, is equally explicit as to temper and spirit in which we are to speak. Though I had the knowledge of all mysteries, and the tongue of an angel to declare them, I could hope for little acceptance or usefulness, unless I was to speak “in love”.

I believe Newton is correct. Just speaking truthfully—even eloquently--about the great mysteries of our faith is not sufficient. Certainly the Lord is powerful and convert sinners using even the weakest means. But the apostolic method of preaching/pastoring/leading/living is to speak the truth in love. Both are necessary.

“Loving” people without speaking truth is a sham. At the same time, speaking truth without loving people is a mockery of Christ our example.

That Angel Is an Idiot

That title bothers you doesn’t it?

It bothers me too. But that is telling. We revere angels—as maybe we should. So I invite you to imagine a scenario with me for a moment.

You’re driving home from work. You haven’t had codeine or any other mind-altering substance. You’ve been sleeping well. You didn’t have Indian food for lunch, either. All of a sudden you get this weird urge to pull over to the side of the road. You ignore it for awhile but after it keeps gnawing at your guts you sheepishly veer off to the shoulder.

Your car has not been stopped for more than 15 seconds when a man that looks like Michael Landon gets in your car. He tells you that he has a very important message for you. He explains that he is an angel. And he even shows you his wings and his drivers license to confirm it.

His important message is that most Christians have gotten the gospel message of Jesus entirely wrong. He lets you know that the message that Christians proclaim is only partially true. Because of a vast conspiracy, that Satan himself was behind, an entire book of the New Testament has been left out.

The angel hands you a tattered scroll with some funky ancient writing on it. He opens it and reads the important portions to you. It turns out that Christians are correct about salvation in Jesus by grace through faith. That is what gets you into the kingdom. But you do not stay there simply by a continued faith in Jesus. The way that you stay in the kingdom is through a complex set of rituals that mark you off as the people of God. Everyone that does not engage in these rituals (similar to the putting blood on the doorpost in Exodus) will not inherit eternal life even if they have initial faith in Jesus.

How You Decide If This is Bunk

This seems really weird to you, but the guy is really convincing. So, how will you determine whether this is true or not? How will you go about getting at the truth? Some might answer, “Well, I need to figure out if this is really an angel or not. If it’s really an angel then I ought to really consider what he’s saying. But if it’s just some crazy guy dressed up like Michael Landon then I can dismiss this.”

That might be your answer. And you might also be totally wrong.

The Scriptures teach you that it doesn’t matter if this really is an angel. If it’s an angel then the angel is an idiot. This is what Paul says in Galatians 1:8,

“…but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” 

You don’t need to know whether or not this is an angel to know that what he is telling you is bunk. It doesn’t match up to the gospel and so the credentials of the messenger really do not amount to a hill of beans*. What matters is the content of the gospel. As soon as this Pa Ingalls look-a-like starts blathering on about a different gospel you know his words are nothing more than serpent talk—even if he is an angel.

Today’s “Angels”

It doesn’t take wings to teach a different gospel. There are many different gospels that are being promoted in our world, sadly even from “Christian” pulpits. For many of them they are followed simply because of their credentials. Their book deals, the number of people coming to their church, the massive amount of people they have “helped”, etc., serve as an angel license. Surely they aren’t preaching a “different gospel” if the Lord is giving them so much success.

It might be easy for us to point a finger at those goobers that embrace a different gospel simply because of the flashy teachers credentials, but let’s be really honest…we can be just as awestruck.

Dude…it’s John Piper**. You can trust what he’s saying. And you can. He’s not going to preach you a different gospel nor is he deserving of an anathema. So, in that sense Galatians 1 doesn’t apply at all. I still think that we can learn a lesson here, though. We ought to be careful not to be so enamored with some dude’s credentials (even if it’s a long list of gospel-centered talks) that we begin weighing what people say based upon their name instead of on the unchanging gospel message.

So, let’s weigh the veracity of a message based upon it’s faithfulness to the gospel of Christ instead of Preacher Joe and his stellar gospel credentials.

---

*I’m not really sure what the exchange rate for a hill of beans is these days, but my grandma seems to think that they aren’t much.

**You can substitute John Piper for any other solid Bible teacher.

The Summit of Love

The church at Ephesus was a doctrinally solid church. It also had endured a great amount of hardship. They had remained faithful in the midst of false teachers. In our wishy-washy lite on truth society the church at Ephesus would have been a welcome sight. Yet, in the eyes of Jesus they were missing the mark:

But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. (Revelation 2:4 ESV)

Scholars debate whether this is love for the Lord or love for one another. I agree with those that believe it is probably a combination of both. Biblically speaking the two often go hand in hand. You can’t love the Lord and hate his bride. Likewise you aren’t going to be lacking in love for Jesus but exploding in love for his broken bride. The doctrinally sound church at Ephesus was missing an awe of God. Perhaps they had gotten to a point where they equated believing correct doctrine with treasuring correct doctrine.

Jesus tells them that the prescription for this lack of love is to remember, repent, and to get back to doing the works that they did at first. In this statement in verse 5 I find something very interesting. In verse 5 Jesus says, “remember therefore from where you have fallen”.

That tells me something about correct doctrine and endurance; namely, they aren’t the summit. Love is. (Or at least love is higher than both of those). Otherwise their lack of love wouldn’t have been a height from which they could fall. Love is not optional to correct doctrine. It’s not the icing on the cake of having sound theology. If you don’t have love then your whole cake is jacked up. 

Why does doctrine matter?

From such a truth some have erroneously concluded that doctrine really doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is love. To this I say “poppycock”. Or at least I would if I said things like “poppycock”.

In Paul’s prayer for the Philippians he prays that their “love may abound more and more” and that it might do so “with knowledge and all discernment”. (Philippians 1:9) In other words Paul prays that they might have a growing love that is grounded in the truth.

You do not get to the summit of love without correct doctrine to fuel you upwards. Your love for Jesus grows when your grasping of the truth of Jesus grows. The argument from many of Paul’s letters is that there is an intimate link between our seeing and beholding Christ (doctrine) and our treasuring of Christ and His people (love).

You cannot treasure what you have little knowledge of. My son thinks that baseball is pretty cool. But he also still will sometimes run to second base before first base. Or he’ll think that the goal of the game is to tackle the pitcher after you’ve hit the ball. It’s a pretty cool version of the sport, I’ll give him that, but he doesn’t understand baseball and therefore he doesn’t rightly know how to treasure it. It’s the same way with Jesus. Correct doctrine fuels love. Or at least it ought to…

What does this mean for the local church?

I would like to also ask, “what does this mean for seminaries”, but because I have about as much influence on seminary life as Justin Bieber does on making solid music I will stick to the local church. I will say though, that I believe many seminaries err in training pastors how to have correct doctrine but seldom challenging them to learn love.

In the local church we must disciple people not only with correct doctrine but with a heart that treasures Christ. At the end of the day this is all the work of the Spirit. Even being able to swallow, embrace, and treasure correct doctrine is a work of the Spirit. How much more then is it the work of the Spirit to cause people to respond to correct doctrine with worship and and a life of love?

How does the church keep from churning out theological dolts and/or loveless theology nerds? I believe it’s by continually exposing them to the word of God while modeling humility and pushing them towards that. When discipling others we must value truth and excel in love.

Some need to be reminded that they haven’t arrived simply because they can win games of Bible trivia or go toe to toe in theology discussions with a seminary professor. They need to be reminded that doctrine truly embraced will express itself in worship of God and humble and loving service in a local church.

Others need to be reminded that if their doctrine is shallow more than likely so is their love. They ought to be congratulated that they are excelling in love but spurred on to make that love more grounded in the unchangeable truth of Jesus.

Both must, through the power of the Spirit, aim for the summit of love.

Heresy, Error, or Truth? He descended…

The Apostles Creed states:

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

Note the bold, “He descended into hell”.  What do you think?  Heresy, Error, or Truth?  Did Christ, upon his death, descend into hell?

Monday’s Ministry Musing: Screw the Truth

In Richard Baxter’s work The Reformed Pastor he discusses the preachers need to “screw the truth into their minds, and work Christ into their affections.”  As I read over that the phrase, “screw the truth into their minds”, Baxter’s unique wording struck me.  Notice that he did not say “nail the truth” or “drive the truth”, he said “screw the truth”.  I think that is intentional.

Consider the nail.  A nail will go into a board with one swift blow.  Even a child, with minimal labor, can plunge a nail into a board.  Not so, with the screw.  The screw often requires a power tool.  Screws don’t go in easily; you have to laboriously twist and twist.  Putting a screw into a board takes more time and more work. 

A nail is easier to go in, but it is also easier to pull out.  And this, is why I think Baxter said “screw the truth”.  A screw does not come out quite so easy (keep in mind Baxter did not have a local Home Depot with power tools).  A screw is harder to get into the board, but it is also more difficult to rip out and far more secure than a nail.  Is this not the effect that we want truth to have in the minds of those we preach to? 

Therefore, do the hard thing of slow, tedious, twisting and turning through long seasons of biblical teaching. 

Lessons from Aesop: Lobbing ‘Grenades of Truth’ at the Wounded

A boy bathing in a river was in danger of being drowned. He called out to a passing traveler for help, but instead of holding out a helping hand, the man stood by unconcernedly, and scolded the boy for his imprudence. "Oh, sir!" cried the youth, "pray help me now and scold me afterwards." Counsel without help is useless.  From Aesop’s Fables.

Paul Tripp refers to this as “lobbing grenades of truth”.  I wonder how often and in how many areas we, as the church, do this to struggling believers and unbelievers.  Are there homosexuals dying of AIDS and without Christ that we refuse to reach out to?  Are there poor people that spend their money unwisely that we ignore?  Are there teenagers that we refuse to counsel because of their unwise choices?   

I fear that we often look more like the passing traveler than Jesus.  We are pretty good about exercising church discipline.  But sadly the church discipline that we often exercise is on unbelievers.  We let many that claim to be believers go untouched (so long as they are within our friendly confines, tithe, or at least on our membership rolls) with discipline and we “discipline” those are not even within the church. 

You see Aesop really does well at pointing out the ministry of Jesus here.  Jesus most frequently helped and then counseled.  The only time you really see the opposite is with the religious elite that “don’t need help”.  If we only lob truth at people and scold them in their sin then our counsel is useless.  If we only help people but never counsel them then our help is shallow at best. 

Perhaps, rather than boycotting Pepsi and picketing gay parades we should try to build a relationship.  Perhaps, rather than saying to a poor person we will only give 25% to your electric bill we should give until it hurts us, come alongside the person making poor decisions, and counsel them in biblical finances.

But of course lobbing grenades is far easier.  It is more destructive but at least it takes less out of us than hand-to-hand combat.  I could probably lob 15 grenades to every instance of hand-to-hand combat, but it remains impersonal.   So, which type of ministry do you want with people?  Easy yet destructive or tough yet personal?

The truth about lying

The only way Satan can effectively be the Father of lies is by knowing the truth so well. 

Our lives are not so much a quest to gain truth as it is to live by the truth that has been revealed to us.  Our problem is often not that we are unaware of the truth.  Our problem is that we are painfully aware of the truth and we rebelliously reject it.  Lying is not a problem of information it’s a problem of knowing the truth but not liking it.

Idolatry is at the heart of lying.  How more prideful and idolatrous can you be than to stare reality in the face and attempt to reconstruct it with a reality of your own making? 

The only hope we liars have is that the truth of the gospel might penetrate our hearts in such a way that we love reality more than a lie.

Sermons from Colossians

I realize that I am quite behind on posting past sermons. There are four new sermons on Colossians that I have preached.

The first one is part 2 of Colossians 1:15-20: Jesus, Lord of Reconcilation. It is always neat for me looking back at sermons that the Lord uses (at least in part) in His mighty process of reconciliation. One young lady came to know Jesus the night this sermon was preached.

The second one is Colossians 1:21-23: Must I Endure? In this sermon we consider the doctrine of eternal security (or as we Calvinist call it--Preservation of the Saints). I am indebted to Tom Schreiner for many of thoughts in this sermon. He helps us to see how we ought to heed the warning in this text.

The third sermon is on Colossians 1:24-29, where we consider: Are You a Faithful Minister? This was (is) and extremely difficult text to preach. (At least it was for me). At the beginning of preperation it was one of my least favorite sermons. However, once I began writing it quickly became one of my favorites. If I had it to preach over again I would spend more time on the final point--but until I edit you get the uncut sermon.

The fourth sermon is last weeks sermon on Colossians 2:1-5: Truth Matters. This is another sermon that students responded to. I know for me, considering whether or not I truly believe Jesus to be the storehouse of all wisdom and knowledge, this was convicting. In case you read the sermon and want the answers to the first 13 questions: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 are true the rest are false. You may disagree with calling 11 false--I mean it to be somewhat tricky.

May God be glorified!

How to Filter Rubbish

The Internet is overflowing with garbage. I am not merely talking about all of the pornography and the ramblings of the idiot culture. I am talking about the Christian blogosphere. Just as it is in a Christian bookstore there is quite a bit of rubbish out there. I do not care to add to the collection. So, I have set up a filter for myself; I use it for blogging, for preaching, and for engaging in deeper conversations.

As I have mentioned in the past I have a quote in my office that is taken from Piper's Don't Waste Your Life; I use it as my mandate. "To so live and so study and so serve and so preach and so write that Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen God, be the only boast of this generation." That is great, but how can I determine whether or not I am writing to make Jesus the only boast or if I am simply adding to the heap of Internet rubbish? Simple, you use the Rubbish Filter 101...or as some people like to call it 1 Timothy 1. I use it to ask 7 sets of questions:

1. Does it promote speculation? Is it clearly related to Scripture or does it require a "secret" knowledge to find it in Scripture?
2. Does it accurately preserve the gospel and transmit the clear gospel? Is it faithful to the stewardship that God has given us?
3. Is it motivated out of love? Or is it pride, self-evaluation, revenge, self-righteousness, bitterness, discord, or unbelief?
4. Will it lead to vain discussion?
5. Is my motivation to promote the unity and purity of the Bride of Christ or my own name?
6. Does this come from a deep conviction and love for the Christ and His Gospel?
7. Will this doctrine exalt man to an undue place?

There you have it. Mark Dever has a few good questions he asks concerning what doctrines are essential (I would be indebted to anyone that could provide a link to that). Also Michael Patton considers the same question, here.

Compromise is Stupid When Truth is Known

Compromise can be a good thing. Compromise is especially necessary when partners have conflicting desires in marriage. However, compromise can also be synonymous with selling out the gospel. A quote that Steve Camp referenced made me think of this. Campi quoted Jay McInerney as saying, "The good life is the middle way..." What a wonderful summary of postmodern thought. In one sense I actually agree with the quote. In another sense I disagree with it from the core of my being.

I agree that compromise (or the middle way) can be a good thing. When no clear answer is spelled out in Scripture then compromise is a wise way to go. If my wife wants Burger King (and enjoys their slow service and gross food) and I want Taco Bell (with its luscious Chicken Bacon Ranch chalupas) then a compromise (you decide what that would be) is a good option. Theologically speaking, if there are issues in Scripture that are somewhat unclear and not very close to the gospel then perhaps compromise is a good idea. There are quite a few hills that are not worth dying on.

On the other hand when truth is known compromise is stupid and morally repulsive. Christians believe Jesus is the only way to God. Nobody else does. Compromise in this regard would not be a virtue but tantamount to abandoning the faith. Now, the pomo will tell us that truth cannot be known, therefore, the "good life is the middle way..." As believers in the God that calls believers to worship Him in spirit and truth, we cannot sell out to such garbage. God has clearly revealed Himself in Scripture. There are things that can be known, and known absolutely. On these matters refuse to compromise.

Compromise can be appealing. After all is it not easy to be "unified" when we all seek the middle ground? But, unity for the sake of unity is no virtue. If unity is not unified around the truth of Christ then it stands just as opposed to God as the people in Genesis 11. Brothers and sisters, there are things that we must NOT compromise on. The good life is not the middle way, it is the narrow way.

One last thing. There is a difference between compromise and cooperation. Take the debate in the SBC over those darn Calvinists. I would consider myself on the Calvinistic side of the debate. To me compromise is not an option. My Arminian friends would probably say the same thing. The truth is compromise for either side would be (in the opinion of each) a sell out. Therefore, in these situations the call is not to compromise it is to cooperation. It is having a "self-sacrificing conformity to a shared vision" and cooperating despite our differences. Compromise is stupid, cooperation is not.

Today in Blogworld 2/1

Welcome to February. I am beginning to think that many bloggers are snowed in today; we are having quite an active Friday.

Steve Camp has a well put-together post on Discerning whether or not you are in Christ. He provides quotes from Flavel, Whitefield, and the little known Matthew Mead. Really good stuff here. Also you can view his first post in this series on discernment, here.

Alvin Reid, whom we used his book for Intro to Evangelism in college, has a wonderful discussion on The Great Commission in the Home. Recently in my conversation with David Michael (Pastor for Parenting and Family Discipleship at Bethlehem in Minneapolis) he mentioned something similar. For some reason we forget that the home can be a strategic center for missions and obedience to the Great Commission. I look for a resurgence in this in the coming days. Reid offers an interesting challenge to pastors: "Ask your congregation how many grew up in a Christian home? Then ask how many of those who raised their hands can recall their parents leading a discussion ever about reaching your neighbors. Then, ask how many remember the family ever doing anything specifically to get the gospel to their neighbors."

Timmy Brister closes up our discussion on The Bruised Reed. The last post is an open thread (which if you are involved in the challenge be sure to post on to be eligible for the prizes--I'm pulling for #7). Timmy also offers a summary of all the posts on Sibbes. He concludes his discussion by pointing out the mercy exhibited by Sibbes as well as the fact that he was a 17th Century Christian Hedonist.

Scott Lamb posts a transcript of Jimmy Carter's speech(?) at the New Baptist Covenant Celebration.

J.D. Hatfield has a phenomenal post on The Heart of the Matter. It is a very phenomenal articulation of the balance between being a jerk in our proclamation of the truth and neutering the gospel for the sake of being nice. Excellent job, J.D.! (Will: Make sure to read this one!)

I am overjoyed that C.J. Mahaney has joined the blogosphere. He gets it going with a great lists of Cross-Centered books. After reading this I need to update my wishlist with a couple of these books. He also offers a lists of helpful books on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.

Scott Lee asks, "Is Church Membership Divisive?"

Thabiti has written a wonderful article on The Gospel and Bitterness, at NA. I absolutely love Thabiti's heart (from what I've seen) and his ministry! Thanks, dear brother!

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 01/17

Steve Camp is concerned that many Christian men are more concerned about niceness than truth. His main contention is that these men are, "...toy-soldiers [that] carry what I call 'a velvet covered sword.' It's lightweight, easy to wield, isn't designed for battle, takes little strength to lift it, looks inviting, and won't cut too deep for fear of offending too greatly. " Also central to Camp's argument is this statement: "But in our day, postmodern evangelicalism would have us place tone above truth, demeanor above doctrine, feelings before faith, and embrace the comfort of the retreat rather than the campaign of the battlefield."

Challies blog tour reaches Day 9 and finds itself at the home of the IMonk. As Challies sums it up IMonk asks, "questions about what happens to churches and Christians who refuse to practice discernment, about freelance discernment ministries, about a Protestant magisterial and about Tim Horton’s (along with a few other topics)."

Ray Ortlund points us to an excellent quote by James Denney. "No man can give at once the impressions that he himself is clever and that Jesus Christ is mighty to save."

Yesterday at Team Pyro Dan asked a question about a card left at his doorstep. Today he gives the answer, it was indeed Mormons. Dan also shares his experiencing of witnessing to them. It was inspiring and convicting. We've had a couple Mormons walking around our neighborhood and I've never stepped out the door and screamed "Mormons!" so as to engage them.

Jared Wilson shares 5 Important Things the Seeker Sensitive Movement Got Right. Great thoughts. It takes much wisdom to mine even things you do not agree with for truth! Thanks for these thoughts Jared.

Tony Kummer is giving away 3 Children's books at his website. I own The Jesus Storybook Bible but would love to have the other 2 for Isaiah. If God does not grace me with winning this give away I will probably buy them later.