Review of Andrew Fuller by Paul Brewster

My exposure to Andrew Fuller has been pretty minimal.  Thankfully, Paul Brewster joins a host of others that are contributing to the rise of study of Andrew Fuller.  Hopefully, through these efforts many others will not be left in the darkness on the life of this great man. 

Brewster’s work is an attempt to show Fuller as a prototypical Pastor-Theologian.  He explores Fuller’s methods of theological study and how this relates to his pastoral practice.  There is also an entire chapter dedicated to Fuller’s soteriology (which is a prominent part of the life and thought of Fuller).  Throughout Brewster attempts to apply Fuller’s theology and methods to contemporary situations such as the decline of doctrine in Baptist churches.

You do not have to be a Southern Baptist to learn and benefit from Fuller.  In fact there is little here that is unique to Southern Baptists.  It is part of our history but Fuller shaped far more than merely Baptists. 

As stated earlier I am new to the study of Andrew Fuller, so I have little prior knowledge of Fuller to compare this work to.  This work, however, served as a wonderful introduction to this great man, and has encouraged me to open up my Works of Andrew Fuller that I purchased a little over a year ago. 

There is much that we can learn from Andrew Fuller.  In fact I wish that Brewster would have added a little more biographical information.  The first part of the book was dedicated to his “story”, but the person of Fuller does not shine through much of the rest of the book.  We explore much about his doctrine and theology and application of such, but there is little about the man himself.  Maybe that is because you really cannot separate the two. 

Nonetheless, this book is a worthwhile introduction to Fuller.  Interacting with his soteriology was extremely helpful for me as a Calvinist (and one that is probably closer to Fuller in soteriology).  It would be helpful as well for a non-Calvinist to read as well because the lines between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are seen more fully in the life and work of Fuller. 

The book is well-written and engaging, and you would benefit from reading it.  I wish it were a little less expensive.  At 18.99 it is a tad overpriced.  Hopefully it drops below 15 bucks sometime soon. 

Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

Active Symbols

I am really interested in this series by Les Puryear on the differences between Reformed and Southern Baptist Churches.  Today Les considers the difference between Ordinances and Sacraments.  He mostly highlights an article by Tim Challies.  It would also be helpful to read Justin Nale’s response. 

I am not sure if you would call my position Reformed, Baptist, sacrament, or ordinance.  Honestly, I’m not really all that concerned with the label that you give me.  But here is my view. 

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are visible pictures of the gospel.  It is another way of proclaiming the gospel.  Baptism does not save, Jesus does.  The Lord’s Supper does not save, Jesus does.  But I believe the Spirit proclaims the gospel through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

Challies uses this statement to sum up the Baptist view: “Where sacraments revolve around what God does, ordinances revolve around what man does and what God did.”  I struggle with this statement because I struggle with memorialism.  What Challies defines as, “the sacraments have no real power, but are merely memorials, object lessons, which teach something about God.” 

I struggle with this view because I believe that God is active through His Spirit in the proclamation of the gospel.  And I believe that the gospel is being pictured/proclaimed in both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

I think we as Baptist overstate what Baptism “isn’t” to keep us from falling into any form of sacerdotalism or baptismal regeneration.  And in so doing we undercut the activity of the Spirit in proclaiming the gospel to hearts through visible pictures like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

So, am I Reformed or Baptist?  You tell me.

Who Makes the Better Southern Baptist?

 

A Mission of Legalism

This is a very interesting post by Tony Kummer.  Last week Thom Rainer conducted a “straw poll” where he sent out this question on Twitter:  “What do you think when you hear Southern Baptist?”  Tony put together a Wordle to capture the answers:

Read more at SBC Voices, Timmy Brister’s blog, or Thom Rainer’s original post. 
In case you are not familiar with Wordle, the size of the word indicates its frequency.  A few things leap out at me. 
1) Southern Baptist are seen as legalistic.  This could legitimately be legalism or it could be perceived legalism by those that are repulsed by holiness.  Sadly, I think it is legitimately legalism.  If it were perceived legalism then I don’t think you would see “Disney, boycott, tradition, and controlling as big (or bigger) than Jesus. 
2) Jesus is smaller than Pharisees.  And I think, sadly, this could be a tad accurate.  Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves”.  If we had some of their sermons and Wordled them I think missions would be large…right alongside Law.  Perhaps Southern Baptist are still very big on missions—lets just hope that it is to proclaim the grace and redemption of Jesus. 
3) Maybe…just maybe…the reason why Jesus is not bigger is because denominationalism is more in line with a fallen world than a redeemed one.  Maybe …just maybe…Jesus is not bigger because our mission is to create more Southern Baptists and our goal is to preserve a Baptist Identity more than passionate followers of Jesus.  Maybe…just maybe…Jesus is not bigger because our fellowship is more centered around Fried Chicken than the Gospel. 

Thougts on Driscoll, Acts 29, Emergent, and those that oppose

Before I begin these thoughts I need to make 2 points of disclosure. 1) I reserve the right to be wrong. I do not propose to solve this problem, if it were so simple, that somebody like myself could solve it, then it probably would no longer be an issue. 2) I am certainly not Emergent, I do not agree with Driscoll/Acts 29 on everything, but I would not consider myself in opposition (at least to Driscoll/Acts 29). This is my humble offering to this discussion. Knowing that it can be a form of pride to take the "nobody is right in this issue" road, I timidly will take that position. Probably the most difficult thing in this discussion will be defining the issue. Usually by the time someone has nailed the proverbial jell-o to the wall, the discussion is already so confusing that the implications or application is thrown out the window. So for sake of clarity, knowing there are a gazillion other issues at stake, I will try to address only one major point: the idea of "making the gospel relevant".

Since I am not emerging/emergent I doubt I can give them a fair shake. In fact I only include them in this discussion because of their supposed association with the Driscoll/Acts 29 crowd. A true Emergent person would probably be speaking of something different by "gospel" anyway. Rather than asking, "how do we preach the gospel in such a way that someone comes to know Jesus", they are probably asking, "how do we live the gospel in such a way that someone lives a better life and has a better understanding and grows a soul-patch". I'm not concerned at this point with addressing the Emerging Church, it would be a distraction. But a distinction must be made. On issues of the gospel and soteriology ACTS 29 IS NOT EMERGING.

You will not understand this discussion until you come to that conclusion. There are some areas that Acts 29 will look like an Emerging Church. Their methodology sometimes will have the appearance of evil Emerging. But soteriologically speaking they are far from Emerging. You cannot brand them heretics. Doing so is irresponisble and just plain wrong.

On the other hand folks in the Acts 29/Driscoll crowd have the same foundational desire that Emerging Churches have; the desire to change the present structure and be relevant in their culture. The buzzword now is missional. You have to exegete your culture and figure out a way to make the gospel relevant. You do not sell out the message. But you have to make certain to speak the language of the culture. That is the mindset. Sometimes that gets a little shaky. What do you do if the culture you are ministering to eats monkey brains? Well, you eat monkey brains. What if the culture you are ministering to uses crass language? Well, you use crass language. Or do you? And here is the big discussion.

Those who oppose Acts 29/Driscoll say that you must not use crass language just to reach the culture. That is selling out the gospel. Methodoloy matters. If you are drinking a beer with an alcoholic, you are not doing him any favors. Total abstinence is the best way to share the gospel. The lost person, must see that your life is different. Then maybe at some point he'll ask questions. "Hey, buddy, why don't you drink"? Then you can share with him that it is because of your relationship with Jesus Christ, and that you have found happiness outside of a bottle. Maybe you were once a drinker. You can use this as a launching point to share your testimony. But the best way to share the gospel is not to become like the culture. That can lead to sin.

But wait, 1 John says that "greater is he that is in me". Wouldn't we all have been in a pretty precarious position if Jesus himself had not went to these sinful places? Doesn't Jesus say, "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners?" If Jesus always stayed out of bars then why did they call him a drunkard and a glutton. And as far as offensive language is concerned have you read Ezekiel? Do you pick up on some of the language of Paul? Does he not also use, inspired by the Holy Spirit, scatalogical language? So, are we not just following the methods of Paul and Jesus? Because of Jesus and his power we are getting as close to sinners as possible. Our task is to be like Jesus and Paul, they did not run away from sinners and hope that they came to them. They went to sinners. They engaged the culture.

So who is right? Before I begin to answer that question I have to add something else to the mix. Reformed Theology. Acts 29/Driscoll claims to be solidly Reformed. Many that oppose Driscoll claim to be solidly Reformed. Many that oppose Driscoll are not Reformed and oppose him based upon this point, but missionally speaking they might agree. This is the way I see the discussion. Driscoll/Acts 29 says, we are Reformed and because of the awesome power of the gospel we believe that God calls us to engage the culture with it, whatever that means. Reformed guys that oppose Driscoll, we believe that God is powerful enough in His Word that you do not have to add to it with all of this "engaging the culture" mumbo jumbo. Just preach the Word, and God will bring the increase. The non-Reformed Driscoll opposer will either dislike his theology, or dislike his methodology. This camp believes that people are won over to Christ by what we do. If they agree with the Acts 29 methodology then they will probably change their seeker-sensitive churches into Acts 29 churches...or, hey theology doesn't matter much...so why not just be Emerging. Or maybe they disagree with the whole alcohol issue. Maybe the methodology does not square with them. Nobody will be won to Jesus by a drinker. Then you have opposition from this side.

So who is right? All sides believe we are to engage the culture--at least in as much as that means "win lost people to Jesus". Note that I asked, "who is right", not what wins the most people. This is not a pragmatic question. If we make it so, then we will side-track this. You cannot say look at all those people Driscoll and Acts 29 is reaching. That's not a good argument, because look at all those people Joel Osteen is reaching. To which we respond, reaching with what? They key issue is this...who is most faithful to the gospel, as presented in the Word of God?

1) The gospel must be clear. It is very true that God's Word has power in itself--it doesn't need my help to accomplish its purpose. But it seems that there is a need for a preacher. (Rom. 10:14) And it appears that there is a need to preach in the "native tongue". (See Acts 8:26-40) So, there is some credence to this idea of "making the gospel relevant". But

2) Making the gospel relevant, if it is to remain biblical, must mean NO MORE than preaching the gospel in the "native" language. It does not mean that you have to make the gospel appealing. Paul models this in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. It seems as if Paul labored to make the gospel unappealing. He did not want the Corinthians to be won over by his eloquence, but instead to be won-over by the message. But, Paul did labor to be like a Jew when he was with the Jews and like a Gentile when he was with the Gentiles. What does this mean? It means that Paul laobred to speak in their native tongue. He was not doing this to make the gospel appealing, he was doing this to keep from putting up stumbling blocks. He ate monkey brains, if his hearers ate monkey brains. But it is also important to note:

3) Speaking the native language does not necessarily mean engaging in native rituals and removing ALL stumbling blocks. Paul did not allow Titus to get circumcised. Nor did he sacrifice to pagan idols. You do not become a prostitute to minister to prostitutes. But this point is where we get into arguments. Is Mark Driscoll becoming a "prostitute" to minister to "prostitutes" when he uses coarse language to minister to those with "coarse language"? Do Acts 29 guys prostitute themselves when they have a beer to minister to those that drink? These are difficult questions and ones that must not be settled in a vacuum. Despite what some may believe this is not as black and white as it would appear. Therefore,

4) The Church and the church plays a critical role in taking the gospel to the nations; or to put that another way, you are not supposed to "make the gospel relevant" by yourself. That is why we must consider, and 99.4% of the time submit, to the authority of the consensus of the Church universal and, how this will be lived out most generally, to the local church. There are times that we need Martin Luther's. But, seriously, those are going to be really really rare. As long as the Church is being the Church then even if we have a few warts, we are genuinely the body of Jesus that he is caring for. She is worth submitting to for the sake of others. So what are the implications of this?

Let's take Driscoll's language for an example. Language can be a funny thing. What may not be offensive in Calcutta may be offensive in New Hampshire. And the reverse is also true. In Missouri I can walk side by side with my wife. But I better not do that in many Muslim countries. I realize that is not an example of language, but it serves my point well. There is nothing really innately offensive about words...only the meanings that they carry.

But lets consider this through our first four points. 1) To make the gospel clear, is it absolutely necessary for Driscoll to talk the way that he does? I do not know Seattle culture, but I am not certain that speaking the way that he occasionally does is necessary. 2) Is he doing it to make the gospel clear or appealing? It appears to me that his reasoning is to make the gospel "relevant", and by that I mean appealing. 3) Is he engaging in a sinful cultural ritual? This could be debatable. I would lean towards, yes; but lets try giving the benefit of the doubt and see what happens? Let's consider it a non-issue for the moment. 4) If you post a video on youtube it better be acceptable for not only Seattle but also the Bible belt. Why? Because you risk offending the body of Christ as well as creating a needless stumbling block for an unbeliever from a different culture. And I understand that we can easily do this unknowingly. But, you cannot tell me that Driscoll has no clue that what he says may offend somebody in New Hampshire.

Should it offend them? That's not the issue. Is it central to the gospel? No. Do you need to speak that way to preach the gospel? No. You do not need to say "knockin' boots" just to put the gospel in the native tongue. The issue to consider is this, are you trying to make the gospel understandable or appealing? If you say appealing then you are on really shaky grounds. Therefore, I believe Acts 29/Driscoll should abandon the use of potentially offensive "edgy" language. There may be instances where words are not innately sinful. Maybe saying "knockin' boots" is not offensive to folks in Seattle. But it is offensive to your brothers and sisters elsewhere. Therefore, for the sake of unity, and because it is not central to the gospel--abandon the practice.

At this point it probably seems as if I am not taking the "high road" of disagreeing with both sides. It sounds like I am coming down hard on Driscoll/Acts 29. So, this is where I disagree with the opposers.

1) I do not think that Driscoll really is considering all of the ramifications of his every action. I do believe that he is far too entrenched in his culture. But, is he a heretic? No. Is he blasphemous? I really think that is too strong of a charge. And such a statement might create shock but I am not sure that it furthers the discussion.

2) In discussing these matters with Acts 29/Driscoll people, are you trying to speak in their native tongue? We will not win our brother by name calling. Is it possible that you ought to bear their burden? Ought you not gently instruct and rebuke?

3) Are there some issues that they may be right on? Are these brothers in Christ? If so are we guilty of slander? Are we not also responsible for the way that we engage in our discussion with them? Might we cause undue offense by the way that we discuss these matters? Is it really helpful to the body of Christ to call those that follow Driscoll "Kool-Aid drinkers"?

4) Things are not as black and white as you wish they were. Engaging the culture is a difficult thing. Do we eat monkey brains? Do we pick a sheep up out of a well on Sunday? How close to sinners do we get? How do I keep from being culturally anorexic? How do I keep from being culturally gluttonous? These are very difficult questions. In no way does this statement negate the absolute sufficiency of Scripture. But you cannot always point to a biblical text and determine whether or not it is okay to watch a Rated-R movie. You cannot pull out Scripture that speaks of coarse language when the coarse language of Paul's day is different than ours. There are general principles, but it is NOT as black and white as we wish. To act like it is will be dangerous, and will not engage our brothers and sisters. We cannot ignore these issues. Nor can we simply make blanket statements and hope that it all goes away.

So here is my conclusion, to this rather long post. If you are a follower of Acts 29/Driscoll then you ought to repent and cling to Jesus and His gospel. If you oppose Acts 29/Driscoll then you ought to repent and cling to Jesus and His gospel. And I just bet that as we are both draw closer to our great King we will be drawn closer to each other. Maybe we all will give up our pride in the process.

MBC/Acts29 Continued debate

The title is a little misleading. This really is not much a debate. Those who have made the decision have remained pretty silent as to the reasons for their decision. The only thing that could somewhat be considered a response is that of Don Hinkle. The BP has also ran an article that gives us a little light. If we combine these two responses we get a few vague reasons. It appears that Hinkle's reasoning is that this decision was made because the Executive Board is the highest authority (except of course the necessary shout out to Jesus and His Word). I always thought that it was the local church--but perhaps I missed that class in Introduction to Southern Baptists. Along with the "just because they can" argument it appears that Hinkle's other reason is that Acts29 is a renegade network with no accountability. Here is his statement: "Because Missouri Southern Baptist churches did not give their Cooperative Program gifts to fund the church plants of another organization. Nor did they give to plant churches who pledge to do one thing, then do another, often putting the church plant and convention at doctrinal odds — and without accountability, something Acts 29 seems to be lacking."

I am trying my best to be fair with these comments. But they seem to be not grounded in truth or any biblical basis so it is very difficult. Acts 29 is a network and does not require affiliate churches to give to them. Therefore, giving to this network is no different than a church giving money to the Purpose Driven Life or for that matter the MBC giving or taking money from Mormons (Tan-Tar-A, MO Baptist College). I am not certain what the "pledge one thing, and do another" is referring to. I know my friends church is doing everything they pledged to do. I think my main problem with Hinkle's statement is that it is not substantiated by anything. They are just accusations; many of which have been addressed and disproven (see here). Timmy Brister does a far better job and is more expansive than I in addressing this, read his response.

When we look at the BP article we learn that the newly elected President of the MBC, Gerald Davidson, "argued that only a handful of board members were informed enough about the Acts 29 Network to be able to vote on any motion that was critical of it. He said on two separate occasions that his knowledge was lacking." It would have been really nice if they had heeded advice and tabled the issue until April. But, as often is the case in our democratic Christianity the majority won: "But Dunn spoke for the majority of board members who have at least heard about The Journey's well-publicized barroom ministry and are bothered by it and vow that it will never happen again." The article is not extremely informative. Yet, it does help us to see that this issue is heated, emotional, and volatile and it appears to have a set course. What bothers me most is that the majority report by Theological Committee was accepted but not the minority report. Also comments by Mark Devine and mounds of evidence seem to be ignored. This really pains me because it is brother fighting against brother.

Also, the Lord has moved in the hearts of many brothers and sisters to set up a fund for these 9 churches that will be hurt by this decision. If you feel so compelled to give then you can do so by sending a check or money order to:

St. Louis Metro Baptist Association
(designate it for the “Show Me Church Planting Fund”)
Mailing
address:

St. Louis Metro Bapt. Assoc.attn.
Darren Casper
3859 Fee Fee Road
Bridgeton, Mo. 63044

The Effects of the Acts29/MBC decision

I just received this e-mail today from a brother that is affiliated with Acts 29 and receives funding from the MBC. It pains me to hear that his salary will be cut because he has good doctrine, a heart for Christ, a heart to reach people for Christ, adheres to the Baptist Faith and Message, and did I mention loves Jesus and is a brother in the Lord. Sad. Here is his e-mail:

Believer’s Church is affiliated with two different groups to further the cause of the planting Gospel-centered churches and reaching lost people with the message of Jesus Christ. One of those groups is the Missouri Baptist Convention and the other is the Acts29 Network. Although there are NO major theological differences between the two groups and they both, in the area of church planting especially, claim to be working towards the same end. One of the groups, by nature of its structure, is incredibly political in comparison to the other as was evidenced this past Monday. In spite of encouraging reports from Mark Devine, professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a recent conference featuring the president and board members of Acts 29 at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, the executive board of the MBC passed the following motion in a meeting Monday (which many board members were not able to be at because of the weather):

Effective Jan 1, The Acts 29 Network is an organization which the MBC Exec Bd. Staff will not be working with, supporting, or endorsing in any manner at anytime.
It was amended with the following statement:

While recognizing the autonomous nature of all areas of MBC life beyond that of the Executive Board Staff, the MBC Executive Board directs the Church Planting Department and other ministry departments to not provide CP dollars toward those affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.

This has caused quite a stir among many people in the MBC already, but the deed has been done. This means that our church will lose $12,000.00 in funding for 2008. This money will not affect our church budget, as our ministry budget is based of the giving pledges of our members. This is money that I am dependent on for my salary and it will definitely affect us with our second child due in February.

Please be in prayer for the Missouri Baptist Convention; that God would cause them to be more focused on Kingdom power than on personal power and political kingdoms. Also be in prayer for the church plants/planters that this is going to affect. Last of all, please pray for our family. We are confident that God will supply all of our need (Phil 4:19), we’re just not sure where from right now.

Thank you for your prayers and partnership in the Gospel,

Hey here is an idea--go to www.bchannibal.com and help support this brother! On the homepage click on Give. Also, I would encourage you to go to their website and see what type of "heresy" they are preaching at this Acts29/MBC church...His preaching is very foolish (1 Cor. 1:21-22).

Acts 29 and the MBC

I have to be cautious. All of the information is not yet out. My opinion is really really low on the scale of "Whose Opinion Matters". And I am pretty upset about this decision. With that being said, I carefully offer my opinion on this dreadful decision by the MBC Executive Board. Here is the motion:

MOTION:Effective Jan 1, The Acts 29 Network is an organization which the MBC Exec Bd. Staff will not be working with, supporting, or endorsing in any manner at anytime.

Amendment:While recognizing the autonomous nature of all areas of MBC life beyond that of the Executive Board Staff, the MBC Executive Board directs the Church Planting Department and other ministry departments to NOT provide CP dollars toward those affiliated with the Acts 29 Network.

Motion as amended passed by a vote of 28-10 HT: Jim Shaver

What does this mean? It means that if you are a new church plant with the MBC and you are not yet "self-sufficient", then you must decide whether or not you are going to drop your affiliation with Acts29 or the MBC. Because the MBC is providing much of their funding this puts them in a very difficult position. I would love to see Acts29 step up and provide funding in place of the MBC. I would love seeing Acts29 churches stay in the MBC--but the politicians have made this nearly impossible.

I will probably be posting more on this later. Until then there is a little conversation going on at
Founders, Scott Lamb at Thoughts and Adventures, and at Micah Fries blog.

Update: Here are a few additional thoughts I have after doing some research. They are also posted at the Founders blog:

Let me preface by saying that I am not very knowledgeable of all the inner-workings of the MBC; so I could be quite wrong in my hypothesis. Nevertheless after doing a little research I think I have figured out that this is more than just an "alcohol" issue. I think the Executive Board feels that they are doing us a favor by preserving us from the Emerging church movement.

If you know anything about Acts 29 you know that they are not affiliated with the emerging church movement (Emergent, McClaren, Tony Jones, etc.) However, the Theological Committee Review has reported that Acts29 and Emerging/Emergent are pretty much synonymous. Read section 3A of their report

It appears to me that the underlying problem is that they are lumping Acts 29 with the Emerging Church. Emerging Church we should be very concerned with as they often deny the biblical gospel...if you read the review you will see how Acts 29 is lumped in with Emergent...therefore, I think people associate the heresy of Emergent with Acts 29.

Here is the part I am unsure of...how serious did the Executive Board take the Report. But as I have studied I think it is more than "just alcohol". It's motivated out of misinformation and wrongly associating Acts29 with Emergent.

Back from the Convention

I am back from the Missouri Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. It was an eventful 3 days yet also a little boring. I have taken 3 things from this convention.

1) I felt that there was a great deal of pride at the convention (not the least of which was my own). The Lord convicted me deeply of a desire to make my name great. On Tuesday night I skipped out on the programs and got alone with the Lord. I went back over the gospel and had to be reminded that I was created by God and created for His glory and His glory alone. I know that He will not share His glory with another. I was deeply convicted yet mightily encouraged. I have a new resolve to preach the gospel boldly and a desire to fight pride in my life via the power of the Cross. May God be gracious and give me clarity and passion in driving the vice of pride out of my life.

2) I need to go to seminary. I am not sure when, but I realize that I must go deeper and I cannot do that on my own. I need a further education. I am praying that the Lord might show me His timing--and that I might not pursue that any sooner than I am supposed to nor any later.

3) There is a sharp division in our Missouri Baptist Convention. The younger generation seems to be a very large contrast to the older generation. I fear that because of our hubris ("our" being the younger generation) we will not be heard, and when we are it will be self-honoring and not Christ-honoring.

Brothers, we must bow humbly before the Cross. We must realize that God is more concerned with our convention, with being honored, with spreading His name than we are. Therefore, we should boldly stand for the truth yet not create factions and not refuse to love our brothers in Christ. I am humbled by the depth of some of the leaders in my generation. I am thankful to God for them. Hopefully, the MBC stance on alcohol will not be displeasing to God. I say that because by passing a resolution that would not allow Paul, Timothy, or Jesus Himself to be a trustee--i think we have went too far. But enough on that. I am back and happy to be back...now i must draw deeper from the wells of grace and preach the gospel boldly.