Tag: theology

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 5: Dying to Live

~ K ~ 2 Comments

[This is part X of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.]

Image from http://www.turnbacktogod.com

Chapter 5 is a heckuva lot easier to summarize:

Jesus died and rose again. As a result of that action, he has forever reconciled us to God the Father.

This is not controversial stuff.

As a result, there’s not much that I need to ponder over or challenge because in this chapter, Bell lays out Jesus’ sacrifice and he does it in a way that is typically Bell-esque: with original analogies and beautiful images. (When Bell says something clearly, it’s like bursting into a magnificent, clear blue sky after having endured dark shadows and lingering gray storm clouds.)

Bell makes an interesting point that I’ve never heard of before (but find interesting): he speaks of John (the Gospel writer) numbering signs all throughout his gospel. In John 11, Lazarus’s resurrection from the dead is the seventh sign of Jesus outlined in the gospel.

Now ask: Is the number seven significant in the Bible?
Does it occur in any other prominent place?

Well, yes, it does. In the poem that begins the Bible. The poem speaks of seven days of creation.

But there’s one more sign in John’s Gospel. In chapter 20 Jesus rises from the dead. Now that’s a sign. The eighth sign in the book of John. Jesus rises from the dead in a garden. Which, of course, takes us back to Genesis, to the first creation in a . . . garden.

I’d never thought of things that way. Reading that blew my mind. Either John was a very clever fiction writer or God is the most amazing storyteller I’ve ever read.

What is John telling us?
It’s the eighth sign, the first day of the new week, the first day of the new creation. The resurrection of Jesus inaugurates a new creation, one free from death, and it is bursting forth in Jesus himself right here in the midst of the first creation.

… John is telling a huge story,
one about God rescuing all of creation.

I love it. John continually points his readers back to Genesis, constantly linking Jesus to God the Father, Creator of all things from the get-go (Jn 1:1) and here it is even in the final chapters of John and I totally missed it. It’s beautiful to see.

As I’m breathless and taken away by this beauty of discovering the symbolism in everything Jesus does, Bell kind of ruins it for me in “wait-a-minute-this-is-a-book-about-heaven-hell-and-the-fate-of-every-person-who-ever-lived-moment.”

How many people, if you were to ask them why they’ve left church, would give an answer something along the lines of, “It’s just so . . . small”?

No one I know really. They’d have tons of other reasons but it wouldn’t be that.

Of course.
A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small.
A gospel that has as its chief message avoiding hell or not sinning will never be the full story.
A gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the “in-ness” of one group at the expense of the “out-ness” of another group will not be true to the story that includes “all things and people in heaven and on earth.”

And I think to myself, this is not the gospel. No one I know or have ever heard in Biblical Protestantism (ok, and Anabaptism) preaches a message like this. (I’m not sure whether to classify this as a false dichotomy.) The main message of the gospel, which can often be “ye must be born again,” is always Christ and Him crucified.

Why was Christ crucified? To reconcile us to God.
Why do we need to be reconciled to God? That’s a question, or more accurately, a tension we can be free to leave fully intact.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 4: Does God Get What God Wants? (Part IV)

~ K ~ 2 Comments

[This is part IX of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. Note: Chapter 4 has been broken up into four parts. Chapter 4, part I can be found here, part II can be found here, and part III can be found here.]

Let’s work on closing out Chapter 4 of this book.

“Many people find Jesus compelling, but don’t follow him, because of the parts about ‘hell and torment and all that.’ Somewhere along the way they were taught that the only option when it comes to Christian faith is to clearly declare that a few, committed Christians will ‘go to heaven’ when they die and everyone else will not, the matter is settled at death, and that’s it. One place or the other, no looking back, no chance for a change of heart, make your bed now and lie in it . . . forever.

Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives.“

A Twitter friend of mine said this in her Goodreads review of this book:

“Speaking of Jesus, I don’t find many non-Christians that are hung up on the idea of hell. Most I know are hung up on the idea that Jesus is the only way. And that the Bible says seemingly contradictory things and you’d be stupid/silly to believe it. “

Doctrinally, I’d say that’s been my experience too. In general, I’d say non-Christians tend to be averse to Christianity because of the hypocrisy that runs rampant among many of its believers. (Side note: Tim Keller makes a great point in regard to why this behavior occurs among Christians in Chapter 4 of The Reason for God.)

As for the bolded part about not having to believe in eternal punishment/torment/hellfireandbrimstone to be a Christian, I start to get a little twitchy. Because even though the basic rule of being a Christian is being an obedient (“as best as you can”) follower of Jesus, there are all these doctrines and tenets that have kind of been hung around his neck as part of the package and it’s difficult to distinguish whether you can have Jesus without hell.

So can you? Continue reading “Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 4: Does God Get What God Wants? (Part IV)” →

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 2: Here Is the New There

~ K ~ 2 Comments

[This is part III of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.]

“First,
heaven.”

Image from onceuponacross.blogspot.com

“I show you this painting because, as surreal as it is, the fundamental story it tells about heaven—that it is somewhere else—is the story that many people know to be the Christian story.”

The painting above isn’t the black-and-white replica that Bell has in his book but it’s pretty close and retained the same ideas.

Bell’s point in Chapter 2 is to challenge the reader’s conceptions about heaven and all that they’ve heard or think (or know) to be true. He references the parable of the rich man who wants to know how to get eternal life. According to Bell:

“When the man asks about getting ‘eternal life,’ he isn’t asking about how to go to heaven when he dies. This wasn’t a concern for the man or Jesus. This is why Jesus doesn’t tell people how to ‘go to heaven.’ It wasn’t what Jesus came to do.

Heaven, for Jesus, was deeply connected with what he called ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come.'”

Bell’s references to “this age” and “the age to come” become foundational to Love Wins:

“We might call them ‘eras’ or ‘periods of time’:
this age—the one we’re living in—and the age to come.

Another way of saying ‘life in the age to come’ in Jesus’s day was to say ‘eternal life.’ In Hebrew the phrase is olam habah.

What must I do to inherit olam habah?

This age,
and the one to come,
the one after this one.”

Bell defines ‘age’ further:

“Now, the English word ‘age’ here is the word aion in New Testament Greek. Aion has multiple meanings… One meaning of aion refers to a period of time, as in ‘The spirit of the age’ or ‘They were gone for ages.’ When we use the word ‘age’ like this, we are referring less to a precise measurement of time, like an hour or a day or a year, and more to a period or era of time. This is crucial to our understanding of the word aion, because it doesn’t mean ‘forever’ as we think of forever. When we say ‘forever,’ what we are generally referring to is something that will go on, 365-day year, never ceasing in the endless unfolding of segmented, measurable units of time, like a clock that never stops ticking. That’s not this word. The first meaning of this word aion refers to a period of time with a beginning and an end.

So according to Jesus there is this age, this aion—
the one they, and we, are living in—
and then a coming age,
also called ‘the world to come’
or simply ‘eternal life.'”

When Bell has paragraphs that meaty, they beg to be explored. Continue reading “Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 2: Here Is the New There” →

Managing My Drifting Boat of Faith

~ K ~ 1 Comment
Image from mysticalchrist.wordpress.com

I spent time with some friends today in which we were able to catch up on our lives after not seeing each other for a while but also discussing some theological issues. (Ah! I like this topic much too much!) After learning about their theological stance, I began to pour out my heart on theological issues too.

But it wasn’t theology. Or was it?

I began blurting out all of the things that I was upset about in my spiritual life and in my church. It became a few minutes of which I began airing my spiritual grievances against myself and the world.

The fact of the matter is that I am hunger for God. I read TONS of books on the Christian faith, Jesus, hell, desiring God, parables in the Bible, Reformed doctrine, and being Christ’s hands and feet to those in need. I want to do something. I’m also aware I need to spend a good bit of time being, but I’m also itching to do.

Day after day I’m torn up over my spiritual state because I am angry at myself for forgetting about Jesus when I’m working or not telling others about the freedom that he’s given me.

  • I want to do practical things to reach out to others in the name of Christ.
  • I want to be so earthly minded that I’m heavenly good.
  • I want to wake up on Sunday bursting at the seams to worship Jesus, the God-man who’s done amazing things for me.
  • I want to be joyously obedient to the Lord out of love and happiness.
  • I want to connect with other members of Christ’s family through Bible studies where we learn how to transform our lives by applying God’s word.

My husband always admonishes me that I’m too concerned with the big picture. I do want to be part of the big picture. I want to be one of the tiny puzzle pieces that fit to make a beautiful picture when it’s all put together. Right now, I don’t know what I’m doing or where I’m going. I’m drifting out to sea trying to manage this boat of faith all on my own.

The more I think about the church I visited last week, the more I think I’d like to go back. Maybe because it’s shiny and brand-spankin’ new just like a kid who gets a new toy and plays with it until he’s tired of it and wants something new.

I want solid doctrine, I want love and community, and I want to share my enthusiasm for a powerful, loving God (who, yeah, I have issues with at times) who cared enough about this earth to send his only begotten son to this earth to save sinners.

According to the title of a Rob Bell book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians.

I hope I’m not so far gone that he can still save me.

 

Here, There, and Everywhere

~ K ~ 5 Comments

“To lead a better life, I need my love to be here.”

I have a bunch of things I feel like writing about but they’re not topically related so here’s my mishmashed post.

Music.

I am enjoying listening to Danger Mouse’s new group, The Broken Bells. Hat tip to Derek Webb on that one.

Theology.

Up on The Resurgence blog this week:

Question 74 – Should infants, too, be baptized?
Answer – Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God’s covenant and congregation. (Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14) Through Christ’s blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. (Ps. 22:11; Is. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:31) Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. (Acts 10:47; I Cor. 7:14) This was done in the old covenant by circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14), in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant. (Col. 2: 11-13)

I seriously struggle with the idea of infant baptism also known as paedobaptism. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and appreciate that I do not need to agree with the concept of paedobaptism to be a member of the covenant community. I’m not even fully convinced that I hold to covenant theology but that’s too broad of a matter to tackle within the subject of paedobaptism.

The best case I’ve seen for infant baptism has been presented by Greg Bahnsen here. But again, it’s not that I’m not open to viewing infant baptism as scriptural or that I am adamantly opposed to it per se but I find that there is a clearer Biblical case for believer’s (or as some have called it, “professor’s”) baptism.

Perhaps, however, if I fully subscribed to covenant theology and saw baptism as a replacement for circumcision, then infant baptism would make logical sense. As a Christian who previously subscribed to dispensational theology, the jump to covenant theology is not easy. (Here’s a chart for a comparison between the two. However, I did stumble upon this, and from a quick glance, it would seem like I agree more with New Covenant Theology.)

Scripture.

Relevant Magazine had an article on the most misused verse in the Bible:

Jeremiah 29:11 that says, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.”

I thought the article had great insight, especially given that as humans, we have a tendency to look at God as a vending machine: pop our prayer request in the coin slot and wait for our requested result. The author expounds on the context surrounding this oft-quoted verse which shows this verse is not telling readers that God will give us whatever we desire.

Stay-at-home dads.

Matthew Paul Turner at JesusNeedsNewPR tweeted a link to Nicole Wick’s post about Mark Driscoll who bashed stay-at-home dads.

The video is a little old but I was surprised to hear this view from Driscoll given the fact that I usually agree with him. The fact that he was only willing to make “rare exceptions” for men to stay at home to take care of the family was rather appalling to me. In this economic climate and culture, it’s possible for wives to have a better-paying and steadier job than their husbands. In that case, the right way for a husband and father to provide for his family is to let his wife bring in the necessary income for them so that he can be at home rearing the children. (We are assuming in this scenario that the parents have decided they will live off of one income so that one of the parents can be home to raise the children.) An ideal situation would be for a mom to be at home with her children (should she choose to do so) but that is not always the case and I don’t believe that it must always be the case. Driscoll is way off the mark here.

Miscellaneous.

I think there’s more a-brewin’ in my head but the words are all jumbled and I can’t get them out coherently. Some other things going on:

  • I’ll begin editing on my novel soon so that will be quite a challenge. (See hard copy mess in right photo.)
  • I’ll be leading the women’s weekday Bible study during the summer so that’s another exciting thing on the horizon.
  • I’ll also be part of a book club in which we’ll we reading Ed Welch’s When People Are Big and God Is Small. I read through it for the third time last year but highly enjoy the book and find that it’s chock full of wisdom to the point where I don’t mind reading through it again.
  • My husband and I may be going on a trip to Cancun during the summer with my paternal cousins, which I’m highly looking forward to so that I can establish solid relationships with them.

Perhaps you didn’t care to know all that but it made me feel better to type it out.

Food for thought #2: Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity

~ K ~ 2 Comments

I have a slight problem with Brian McLaren’s graph from p. 34 of A New Kind of Christianity. His graph is shown above in the picture; my revised version is shown below.

McLaren places Eden on the level of Heaven which basically equals perfection. That might bother some but it doesn’t bother me. The only difference between my graph and his is the direction of the “Hell/Damnation” arrow. While nitpicky, I have a fundamental disagreement with McLaren on this one.

From a theological perspective, what bothers me is the downward direction of the arrow. Perhaps he drew it that way because we always think of heaven as existing above and hell existing below. I redrew it to make it a continuous straight line not only because I have semi-OCD tendencies but also because the destination as a result of condemnation is hell/damnation. It’s not a downward trajectory from condemnation but rather, a continuous path that is not separate from it. According to the Bible, this is the spiritual path that all souls are on as a result of the fall (Romans 5:17-19).

I’d also like to add that I’m interested in reading McLaren’s response to the pluralism question: “How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?” On page 21, he briefly summarizes what he’ll try to address:

So we ask: Is Jesus the only way? The only way to what? How can a belief in the uniqueness and universality of Christ be held without implying the religious supremacy and exclusivity of the Christian religion?

I think it’s an interesting question to posit and answer, oops, I mean “respond to.” (There are no answers according to McLaren, only responses in an effort to stimulate and continue conversation. For a great Biblical counseling perspective on this conversation, check out Bob Kellermen’s series in which he provides responses to McLaren’s questions.)

So here are my initial responses before reading the chapter in which McLaren expounds on the pluralism question:

  • Is Jesus the only way? “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” — John 14:6
  • The only way to what? God the Father and His house. Thomas specifically asks about this. See all of John 14.
  • How can a belief in the uniqueness and universality of Christ be held without implying the religious supremacy and exclusivity of the Christian religion? While I appreciate McLaren’s question here, I’d rather “lob back” in response, as he’d say, that there’s a supremacy and exclusivity that’s inherent in Christ rather than the Christian religion. I don’t think any system of belief is foolproof. I believe only Christ is. Religion muddies waters (how many Christian denominations are there?); Jesus Christ is crystal clear. That being said, I believe there is a uniqueness and universality of Christ that transcends all beliefs and religions but there is a supremacy and exclusivity that is inherent in the God/man rather than the religion. (I’m sure this is something I will clarify and elaborate on as I progress within McLaren’s book.)

I’m excited about reading through A New Kind of Christianity. I have an open mind about this and am totally willing to transform my Christian faith and live it in a new way with only one caveat: it must remain true to the Bible. If McLaren argues something that goes against what the Bible says, I’ll point it out. We know very little about Jesus apart from the Bible. And we would know nothing about Jesus’ teachings without the Bible. So holding McLaren and his questions and responses to a Biblical standard is neither unreasonable nor unfair since he is talking about the the Christian faith.

I hope you’ll join me in my journey through this book. If you don’t know who Brian McLaren is or what a little bit of background on what part of the Christian faith he comes from, please check out my series on the emergent movement.

    Exploring my meaning and purpose in life

    ~ K ~ 3 Comments

    Who am I?

    As a product of the instant gratification generation, I want to know the answer to who I am and why I’m here NOW. The two basic questions I grapple with on a daily basis are:

    1. What is my meaning in life?
    2. What is my purpose?

    And when I say daily basis, I mean, daily as in every single day. Usually the standard answer I give myself is the first Q&A from the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

    What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

    I’m not sure how those in the Reformed faith applied that practically in 1646 but I’m trying to figure out what that looks like in 2010.

    Does that result in a list of do’s and don’ts? There’s a call to holiness: how do I live that out? I’m called to be a Christian witness 24/7 but often feel like a practical atheist—speak of God, am interested in the things of theology but do not really talk about my faith outside of… my faith. Quite the impractical faith. But I’m not trying to get into a discussion of evangelism and witnessing right now. I’m trying to figure out how to accomplish my meaning and purpose in life by glorifying God and enjoying Him forever.

    Glorifying God and enjoying Him look different for each person. We are not all the same and we are not called to be alike. While we all have the same chief end, how that plays out looks different in an individual’s life.

    So in my life, what does glorifying God look like? Well, to be quite honest, I’m not so sure. As a Christian though, there are certain things I am called to:

    • Being a good wife
    • Seeking after God through prayer, Bible reading, worship with His community, and the preaching of His word
    • Exercising my spiritual gift of mercy (and supposedly encouragement) to those who need it (in and out of the body of Christ)

    And how do I enjoy Him? You’ve got me. I know how to enjoy His creation but enjoying Him is an entirely different matter.

    Still searching for an identity… part 4

    ~ K ~ 1 Comment

    Faith, religion, God.

    I’m currently reading Joel Osteen‘s latest book, “It’s Your Time” and annoying the Twitter world with my #ItsYourTime-related tweets. I subscribe to a brand of Christianity that does not subscribe to Osteen’s brand of Christianity. So why am I reading this book if I don’t agree with him? Several reasons actually:

    1. Curiosity. It’s fun to make fun of what we know of the guy but has the message changed?
    2. Legitimate criticism. I tire of Christians panning books they’ve never read and never intend to read. I want to legitimately pan–or extol (unlikely, though)–Osteen’s book.
    3. Amusement. His optimism amuses me. He’s easy to make fun of and his anecdotes are sometimes hilarious.
    4. Thought-provoking. In a twisted mode of thought, I enjoy finding verses and passages that are distorted or examples that are taken out of context. Makes me feel like a mini-theologian. 🙂

    The trouble with Osteen’s book, however, is that there’s a lot of truth in it but there’s enough wrong to make it bad.

    I’ve been assuming the majority of my readers are Christians who know about Joel Osteen in some way. Maybe you’re not a Christian or you’re simply not familiar with Mr. Osteen. Well, let me introduce you.

    Osteen, in a nutshell, is considered by his supporters as “America’s voice of hope and encouragement” while his critics deem him as a proponent of the prosperity “health and wealth” gospel. Indeed, I can see truth from both sides.

    Osteen writes in a very personable way, which makes it feel as though he’s speaking specifically to each reader. If a person is feeling discouraged, no doubt, Osteen has the gift of encouragement. (Even renowned evangelical Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll has said such!) Osteen is the ultimate optimist. (Sometimes, he’s so optimistic, it’s sickening.) I’m very much a cynic and a pessimist. I really have no business reading this book.

    But there are scriptural truths that he does point out that I, as a pessimist, tend (and prefer) to overlook. For example, God tells us to ask Him for anything. (Matt. 7:7-11) And Osteen can even legitimately use Matthew 21:22 (“And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive”) if he so desires. I’d argue in favor of Osteen if someone tried to tell me Matthew 21:22 wasn’t a straightforward verse. (Even taken in its context.)

    However, where Osteen errs is by leading readers to believe that God will “fulfill all the desires of your heart.” (Psalm 37:4) If we look at the entire verse, which says, “Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart,” it implies first “delighting in God.” When believers delight themselves in God (and the things He’s after), the desires of their heart will align with the desires of God’s heart, not the desires of our sinful lusts. James 4:2-3 again confirms this by saying:

    You lust and do not have. … You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

    Christians sometimes have this fallacious belief that God does not answer prayer. Not so! God does answer prayer with a yes or no. Sometimes he doesn’t always answer right away but he does eventually answer our requests. Often, some people take a “no” response to really mean “no answer” because we keep hoping He’ll say “yes.” I can pray my little heart out to be as rich as Bill Gates one day. It’s legitimate to ask for it since I can ask for anything. However, I must also realize it’s legitimate for God to flat-out–or take His time in saying no.

    Has Osteen’s book helped me to dream a bit bigger? Well, yes–cautiously.

    Osteen has a pretty big God and I think Osteen’s critics sometimes view through the lens of cynicism and try to make God so much smaller than He really is. Truth is, no one can contain God–not you, not me, not Osteen, and definitely not Osteen’s book or sermons. Can God bestow much wealth and restore full health upon you? He sure can; I believe that. Will He? I don’t know but the likelihood of obtaining exceptional wealth is slim. (When I mean “wealth” here, I’m referring to the Americanized definition of “massive accumulation of wealth,” which is the language Osteen uses.)

    And that’s where I have a problem with Osteen. Can God do anything? Yes. Will He do anything and everything simply because I ask Him to? No. God is not a magic genie we must rub the right way. This becomes a works-based, legalistic theology. People must obey God simply because He is God. He created all things and therefore gets to make the rules whether we like it or not.

    But Osteen tells his readers if they believe they’ll receive whatever they ask for and have enough faith, it will happen. He can support this with Matthew 21:22, remember? How do you refute that?

    Osteen’s book so far has challenged me to have more faith in what I pray for. Not some lackadaisical half-hearted faith (“Well, I’ll pray for it, but it likely won’t happen.”) but a real, bold faith that could position me for embarrassment if it doesn’t happen (“I prayed for it and have NO DOUBT it’ll come to pass!”). I’m challenged to pray with confidence, not expecting disappointment but with a realistic mindset that my prayers may not be answered exactly the way I’d like them to be. (I prayed fervently for an Italian husband and got NOWHERE CLOSE to that. But I wouldn’t trade my husband of Anglo-Sax/German heritage for any other man.) God’s ways and wisdom are so much higher than mine. He’s a better judge of good things that I could ever be.

    Relationship with God.

    Lately, I’ve felt like a Christian in name only (CINO). I hear all these stories of how Christians are told by non-Christians that they “are different” and that “there’s something special” about them they’d like to also have. That has never, ever happened to me. I’ve never been able to “lead” one person to the Lord. Does that make me a terrible Christian?

    I know Christians are supposed to be “in the world and not of it.” I always got the impression that the life of a Christian would look different than that of a non-Christian–in a positive way. However, when I evaluate my life, I’m troubled that I can’t tell a marked difference than that of my neighbor who doesn’t go to church. And I don’t mean simply n a public level; I also take my private life into consideration. I don’t get on my knees by my bed to pray every night. In fact, my prayers are sometimes quick requests made in passing throughout the day. I don’t have consistent devotions daily. (There’s that lack of consistency thing again.) I can sometimes go days without talking to God or reading His word. I know my eternal salvation doesn’t depend on me (and thank God it doesn’t because I’m doing a lousy job right now) but James emphasizes “faith without works is dead” (2:17, 26). What good is the salvation I have if I don’t put it into action? My life in Christ needs to be alive and vibrant–and I’m at a total loss as to how to do that. (Remember my little problem with consistency and regularity?)

    I want to be different for God. I want to be a God-honoring Christian. I want to put my faith in action. I want to have a close, personal relationship with God. I want to revere God better than I revere any celebrity but I also want to be comfortable with Him like He’s my “homie.” So comfortable I can cry, “Abba, Father, Daddy” (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6) in the most personal and familiar of terms.

    Until then, I feel as though I am back at square one like when I was Catholic 12 years ago–CINO. I am hungry and desperate for a savior. I want–perhaps need–to accept Jesus all over again. Maybe daily.

    Isn’t consistency key?
    —————-
    Now playing: Sara Groves – Maybe There’s A Loving God
    via FoxyTunes