Preaching On Street Corners – Breaking Free of False Guilt

Spiritual gift inventory after spiritual gift inventory in my journey as a Christian shows the gift of Evangelism as being a top gift in my repertoire. In my journey I can’t tell you how many times the idea was presented in books or by people that if you really had the gift of evangelism you needed to go hand out tracks on a street corner or stand on a box on a sidewalk and preach to passersby (Are you scared about what will come next? J )

In the past year I had the opportunity to hear Dan Bohi preach and time and again challenged to read through the Bible in 90 days. The first time around July or August of 2011 I crashed and burned (line from Top Gun). I got distracted in a good way by particular books of scripture and went off in a new direction. But in September, I attempted it again. While I will not make the 90 day mark it might be four months. One thing it has done for me is occasionally themes that are woven through scripture have come together and stared me in the face. Here is what I got hit with today.

The prophets spoke to “God’s chosen people,” people who already had a history with God, the Israelites. Some where called to do radical things and walk through the streets but they had a specific call to do so. How would Jonah get the message to the “pagan” Nineveh when there was no gathering place where he would be authorized to speak?

If we take the model of evangelism from Jesus and the Apostles, I think we are in for a surprise. Jesus spoke in the Temple, in homes and in public places when crowds that had followed him gathered around him. These people sought him, were drawn to him before he opened his mouth to speak. Other times he had what I would call God appointments, like the woman at the well, the guy at the pool and other situations. But note while they were in public places it was one on one. He was Jesus. He was totally dependent on, filled with and led by the Spirit. Remember all the lady with the issue of blood had to do was touch his garment to be healed (Mark 5:27). He was aware of teachable moments but he taught to crowds who were interested in hearing what he had to say or when people challenged his authority.

The Apostles spoke primarily in the Temple, synagogues, homes, and when crowds gathered to them (the Day of Pentecost). It was the same for Paul. Even when he spoke in Aeropagus in Acts 17 it was because people took him there. After his arrest he spoke as his overseers allowed or called on him to.

I think there maybe some who are particularly gifted or called to do so and successful in impromptu preaching in the middle of a city street. I knew a lady preacher in NY who would go into the Washington Square Park area and had church on the street. It helped that she gave out food and groceries which initiated the crowd. I know I have had promptings in the past to hand out a tract in the middle of (I think St Louis) and got into a great conversation. But most of those who went out in Scripture went out into cultures of people they knew, had a specific call of God to go or had a common ground with. Those strangers they spoke to had heard of them and wanted to hear what they had to say.

My encouragement is: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Heb 12:2) Crawl into his lap and his Word as often as possible. Get quiet and listen for the Spirit’s whisper.

Do not allow what others are passionate about to distract you or lay guilt on you for thinking you are a substandard Christian because you don’t go out in the middle of the street and preach. As a pastor of Outreach I am called to encourage people to look out beyond their current situations and circles to see who we can reach. I am called to encourage people to stretch. My heart is we will find the door God has opened for us (not just TFC but all Christians) to reach the lost. It may be different for each one of us. It should never be “if you aren’t doing exactly what I am doing you are not doing God’s work.” I’ve been on the receiving end of that and false guilt is a horrible feeling and can distract you from what God has asked you to do. I say publically if I have communicated that to any of my brothers and sisters in Christ anywhere please forgive me.

All that said there maybe a time when we are prompted by the Spirit to go do something that would be a stretch. Pray and go with the prompting to speak to whoever he is prompting you to speak to. He will give you what to say. The reward of obedience is awesome even if on the human level there is no response.

Mark 16:9-20 and Women As Jesus' Messengers

This is a scripture in which Bible versions note it is contested whether it was in the original text. Yesterday, it caught my attention. I am not trying to convince anyone on my friend list of Jesus support of women in ministry but it might be an interesting text to use.

If we back up to the verses prior to this text in verses 1-8 it tells how Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome. In verse 7 he or an angel tells them to go tell His disciples he has risen and to meet him in Galilee. But they said nothing because they were afraid.

In verses 9-20, which do not continue from verse 8 smoothly, there seems to be either a different version of his conversation with the women or a continuation of the story. That version says Jesus appeared only to Mary Magdalene and that she did indeed go and tell the disciples but they didn’t believe her. Then it says he appeared to “two of them” (doesn’t say male or female) and they shared the Good News with the disciples but weren’t believed either.

Verse 14 is the key. Jesus rebukes the eleven for not believing those he sent which included at least one woman.

Why is this interesting? He first appeared to woman and sent her. Then when they didn’t believe he sent two more. When the 11 don’t believe His messengers, he rebukes them. In that day women may not have been the first chosen to bring that critical of news to followers. By choosing women first to bring the message he showed the importance of women as bearers of the Good News. And he showed it was ok for women to bring a message of truth to men.

Ok so why am I leaning on a scripture the NIV says was not in the “most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses” don’t have it?

Well first of all if it wasn’t included it still doesn’t change the fact he appeared to women first according to Mark 1-8. The very fact that Mark 1-8 says the women were afraid may demonstrate their doubt they would have been believed by the 11.

What’s even worse is their disbelieving his messengers also meant they didn’t believe the prophecy he spoke when he was alive and with them about what would happen.

Here is another question: If women were not respected in those days and men were not to be expected to listen to women why did Jesus first commission women with the greatest news of all? Either women were respected and had more important roles than what we have been taught or Jesus was changing the rules. Either way it shows the respect for women.

In doing more research I found there are four possible endings to the Book of Mark.

Some “uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac and several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts continue after verse 8 as follows:”

But they reported briefly to Peter (that would refer to the three women and changes the line they were too afraid to tell) and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.¹

It has also been concluded it doesn’t make sense that if the longer ending was part of the original text that someone would chose the shorter ending (unless they didn’t want the message the longer one had) when the longer one has such rich material. It remains in most texts as a bracketed paragraph out of respect for the “antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel.” Another ending has nothing to do with women. ²

I must say, from what I have been taught, scribes took their job incredibly seriously. All it would take though is the one reading the source to the scribes to change it for the scribes to have an addition or deletion. People aren’t perfect. The amazing thing is in all the sources, in all scripture the message of God’s love, mercy, grace, his coming, his dying, his resurrection and ascension is almost written in stone. The texts Biblical interpreters, scholars and/or publishers  question as to whether they should be  included or not do not alter the message of who God is, what he has done, who we are, and our relationship with God.

Getting back to Mark 16:9-20: So you may be asking me at this point if that long section speaking of Jesus’ rebuke was not in the original text then why make a point of it? It seems to defeat the purpose of the argument of Jesus’ defending women right? Oh, but if it wasn’t part of the original text who added it? It’s been out there since at least the seventh century and in a number of different cultural contexts. Certainly male scribes of a male dominated church did not add it, right? Why would they do such a thing? Or could it be it was part of the original text and Mark didn’t end with verse 8 but continued at verse 7 into the longer ending (remember the original texts didn’t have verse numbers). The other option is there has been more support for women in ministry throughout the ages then we have been led to believe. Why would scribes in a male dominated society add a longer text showing Jesus appearing again to Mary M and to others and then rebuking the disciples for not believing them?

Whatever the case we have to remember Matthew, in an uncontested ending, has the women telling the disciples about the resurrection and no other messengers, In Luke we have almost the same women as in Mark 16:1-8 telling the disciples and not being believed. In Luke’s account, 24:1-45, we have again the women being the messengers, not being believed and then in verses 13-29 he meets “the two” on the road to Emmaus and rebukes them in verse 25 for not believing the message. While the emphasis of his rebuke is on them not believing the prophets who spoke of what was going to take place, it also would have been a rebuke for them not believing the women who brought word of the prophecies fulfillment. The rebuke takes place right after they tell of the women bringing the message and Peter visiting the tomb but not seeing Jesus. Lastly, in the Gospel of John it is Mary M he appears to and tells to bring the message of his resurrection. It seems the longer ending that has been tacked onto Mark is a compilation or an attempt to bring an agreement between the four Gospels. But all aspects of what it contains are contained in the other Gospels including the sending of the disciples into the world with the Good News.

So while Mark 16:9-20 may have been an addition, it contains truth the other Gospels contain. The fact that it was added shows someone somewhere in antiquity thought it was important to communicate Jesus used women and rebuked men for not believing his sent messengers male and female.

^1. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2^nd Edition. 1971 United Bible Societies. (New York, NY) p.103

² Ibid

Peter, Cornelius, Paul and the Gentiles

At First Church we have been journeying through the book of Acts for quite awhile. The past several weeks we have been discussing Peter’s encounter with the Gentiles. We have talked about obedience, testimony, comfort zones, reaching out to the “unclean” as well as the fact God seemed to break down the wall between His chosen people and other people groups.

This is what hit me today: What if Peter had not obeyed God? What if he just thought “you are asking too much of me to go to these filthy Gentiles.” What would have happened to the church? Yes, God could call another (oh that sounds like Star Wars – “this is another Skywalker” – Yoda). In fact he did call another. He called Paul. This whole deal with the clean and the unclean takes place in between Paul’s conversion and his being sent out. God had made it clear to Paul he was to be his voice to the Gentiles.

So what if Peter had not obeyed and gone to Cornelius’ house? What if Cornelius’ had not obeyed and called for Peter? Peter, one of the original twelve, was God’s chosen instrument to do this and then bring both his testimony and Cornelius’ back to his fellow Apostles and the “circumcised.” When his circumcised doubting and critical friends heard Peter give the testimony of all that happened in Joppa and Caesarea they accepted the truth God was including the Gentiles in the “church.” Soon after this they sent Barnabas to Antioch and then Barnabas hooked up with Saul who was back in Tarsus and they both went back to Antioch to minister there and beyond. What impact would it have had on the Jerusalem Council and those who sent out Paul if Peter had not obeyed and had a testimony about God's Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles?

The testimony of what happened in Joppa and Caesarea has impacted the body of Christ far beyond what I think Peter or Cornelius’ could ever have imagined. It opened the door for God to use the Jewish believers as His instrument to pour His Spirit out on the Gentiles and combine two groups into one Holy body.

But what if Peter had not obeyed? What if Paul, who’s training in Judaism and who was a Pharisee of Pharisee’s before his conversion, said God this is too much to ask. I’m not going to the Gentiles. Would the body of Christ be as diverse and wide spread as it is today? Would we have the letters that Paul wrote in the New Testament? What would the New Testament look like if Peter, Cornelius, Paul and others disobeyed God when He called them to get out of their comfort zone?

I don’t know if I have ever missed the boat. It’s easy to stay in our comfortable cocoon and send money. What if God has a purpose beyond what we can imagine to get us out of our comfort zone and minister in a place that may not be so comfortable? Would we be obedient? Have we considered the impact on the body of Christ for generations if we do not obey? Oh, we may say God can send someone else, but he didn’t ask someone else if he asks us. We may say, who me, I can’t do that! I won’t have the impact of Peter, Paul or the other Apostles. But how do we know if we do not obey? Moses said the same thing at the burning bush. He begged God to send another with excuse after excuse as to why God should. God called, sent Moses and the Israelites eventually wound up in Israel .

I end with this: Obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22). Obey him and we may open the door to possibilities we could never have imagined. Are we in places spiritually where God can speak? Lord, help us to get there!

In Discrediting and Dismissing People, Places and Things We Miss Blessings

I am sharing something I recently learned about myself. I am being incredibly transparent here. Last night I sat in a Catholic Church for a concert performed by local high school students. The acoustics were incredible. I looked at the magnificent windows which tell the story of the Gospel. Did you know they did this so illiterate people could understand the message of Christ? I thought of the statues and the great cloud of witnesses gone before us. I am no great fan of a vast portion of Catholic theology however, I thought of how easily Evangelicals dismiss the Catholic Church because of what they disagree with and miss out on the rich heritage which we come from. As I sat there I heard a whisper that my issue is an issue the church and our nation also deals with.

This past week I was involved in a seminar. A few aspects of this seminar got under my skin and I began to question the integrity of the seminar itself. I chose to half participate in one of the activities. What God has shown me is this is a pattern. When God starts scratching, scrubbing or pushing on my comfort zone I want to find a way out. Discrediting a person or process (even if it’s just in my heart and mind) can give me a way out from the scrubbing process. You see if I discredit the process I don’t feel I have to submit to it. God showed me this is a pattern. I have done this in numerous seminars and workshops I’ve attended and other venues. It makes it real hard to enter into the “game” and receive the blessing. I can remember words like: this isn’t real life, this is stupid, in real life we’d have resources etc… I’ve picked a part the theology or wording of questions and methodology.

What I found is discrediting a person or process in my mind or engaging the leader about the issue I disagree is a control issue. If I can find an issue with the “program” then I don’t need to submit, right? However, I have found the issues normally raised are smoke screens. They may be legit issues but they aren’t as important as I make them out be. Sometimes I am not even aware this is what I am doing. This week I became real aware. The real issue is control. I want to maintain control. My question is why? In the healing process when resistance occurs there is normally some place I don’t want to go. I am on a journey. I have identified the block to healing and now I am working to break through with God’s help and the help of those He has given me. I want to find what I am trying so hard to avoid dealing with.

Is Jesus the Lord of my life? You betcha! I have obeyed him and boldly moved to two different states, visited three countries, traveled across the country on motorcycle and other things I felt he called me to do. He had me write this week in my journal all the times in my life I took risks for him or just engaged in adventurous activities. I am talking about white water rafting, canoeing, hiking, horseback riding, climbing a mountain in NY, moving into new areas of ministry and more. The purpose was to show me I am a courageous person and/or he has blessed me with courage. He also spoke to my heart and told me courage is not the absence of fear but moving forward in spite of it.

Why am I sharing this?

In my walk over the last 20 years I have journeyed with Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, “Non-denominationals,” Presbyterians, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and other Christian denominations. I have attended ecumenical prayer meetings, gatherings and conferences. I have attended crusades of major Christian personalities. I can’t think of one major Christian event I have attended which crossed denominational lines where I have not been blessed and/or challenged in some area. I may not have agreed with all of their theology or antics but I have heard the truth and it has ministered to me and helped shape me into the person I am now. It has always disturbed me how divided Christendom is. Yet, isn’t it because we want to maintain control over what we think, how we act, and carry out our traditions that we push others aside. Isn’t it when our paradigms are challenged or comfort zones invaded we want to discredit the one through whom this is occurring? What if we journeyed side by side with our brothers and sisters in Christ?

The problem is when people want to do things or share things which disrupt our comfort zone or status quo often we aggressively attack the disrupter. We discredit pastors, ministries, denominations, and even government figures and programs. If a politician has a view point or a few view points we disagree with we dismiss them and attack them. To clarify, I am no fan of any of the current main personalities in politics on either side. We find something we dislike so we don’t have to listen to them, come under their authority or work with them.

Wait! We condemn our politicians for not working together and the church can’t get along. We fight for control inside our congregations; we fight over turf in our communities with other local churches and over theology with other denominations. Read John 17.

When a pastor or lay leader presents a new idea or a change which may disrupt out comfort zone what do we do? Do we challenge their spirituality and accuse them of not hearing from God? I’ve had brothers and sisters in ministry put out of their churches and charged with insane accusations because they disrupted or were attempting to disrupt, with God’s truth and leading, the comfort zone the church was in.

We do this with believers from other denominations also. Often we are so afraid of being shown we are wrong or have our theological boat rocked that we find anything to discredit the speaker or theology so we don’t have to listen. It may be the Bible version they use or what they believe about communion, baptism, end times, even whether once we are saved if we have anything to worry about. There maybe areas of legitimate disagreement but discrediting the whole message cuts us off from blessings that denomination has to offer as well. Remember iron sharpens iron. When we have multiple ideas regarding theology it causes us to think about what we believe. It sharpens our faith. Remember the hand can not say to the foot it doesn’t need it. All denominations have something to offer the body as a whole even those we may believe have gone off the theological track.

I would encourage you to evaluate if and how you dismiss people, processes, organizations, traditions, ideas etc. Ask yourself what it would cost you to move past the issue you disagree with and listen. Is there something trying to get you to think outside your box? Is there an issue you have been avoiding which you know they are big on addressing? It’s so easy to change the channel when we hear a TV Evangelist or other Christian personality, but could they be saying something you need to hear? Just a thought. I pray we would learn to love others as ourselves, so those outside the church can see Jesus by the love we have for one another. We don’t like to be dismissed or rejected do we?

Stephen Colbert to Congress "migrant workers suffer and have no rights"

Whom Do We Serve? Joshua 24:14-15

I woke up this morning with a question from Joshua 24:15 on my mind: “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” Over the past few months I have been reading the Christian classic by Sidney Sheldon: “In His Steps.” I feel God leading me in a certain direction. Last week I was in NY with my family and I realized, after leaving hastily when I felt things not going as I had wished, it was I who had failed miserably. I had been more interested in being able to do something for her than listening, respecting her boundaries and just relaxing and enjoying the time together. I had been serving self instead of my sister. Last night I watched a movie which focused on what it means to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

So it comes to no surprise to me that I woke up this morning with the scripture from Joshua on my mind. Here is the full text of 24:14-15 (NIV):

“Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods of your forefathers (and maybe we should think of those of our foremothers) worshipped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are now living (which by the way God had told them to wipe out because of the depth of their sin). But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

So the question came to me this morning who am I serving? I believe in ministry I am serving God but God challenged me to ask myself am I serving him in my family life, workplace and where I live? If we believe Jesus Christ is Lord of our lives or at some point we asked him to be, the question is: Is he Lord of all of our life?

Then I went on to think: are we serving God in the church or are we expecting others, the church, to serve us? Are we infants needing someone to constantly feed us, give us our spiritual milk in a baby bottle or are we able to serve ourselves? Are we looking for everything the church does to serve ourselves and our family or are we allowing the church to modify its worship and ministries to reach new generations? Or to reach our communities?

The writer of Hebrews says in 5:11-14:

“We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, still being an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”

So I close by asking you and myself these questions:

Are we, as Christians and as a body, serving our own needs or are we serving God?

Are our lives dedicated to the expansion of his Kingdom?

Are we loving God and loving others (esp those outside the Kingdom) by putting our needs aside and looking to meet the needs of others?

Are we serving self, which is idolatry, or serving God?

Are we truly loving God and others?

God got my attention this morning. Are you willing to give him yours?

A. W. Tozer "The Keys to the Deeper Life"

A.W. Tozer – The Keys to the Deeper Life

I read this book today and found some interesting quotes I’d like to share about desiring revival, the condition of the church and the Spirit.

1. In sermon, song and prayer we are forever reminding the Lord and each other that what we must have to solve all our spiritual problems is a “mighty, old-time revival.” Pg 17.

2. I believe that the imperative need of the day is not simply revival but a radical reformation that will go to the root of our moral and spiritual maladies and deal with causes rather than consequences, with the disease rather than the symptoms. It is my considered opinion that under the present circumstances we do not want revival at all. A widespread revival of the kind of Christianity we know today in America might prove to be a moral tragedy from which we would not recover in a hundred years. Pg 18

3. Fundamentalism, as it spread throughout the various denominations and non-denominational groups, fell victim to its own virtues... In large areas religious imagination withered... An unofficial hierarchy decided what Christians were to believe…The basic doctrines were there, but the climate was just not favorable to the sweet fruits of the Spirit….It assumes, for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself…The Bible tells us how to be saved, but textualism goes on to make it tell us that we are saved, something which in the very nature of things it cannot do. Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resultant experience wholly mental. Pgs 19-21

4. The human mind can endure textualism just so long before it seeks a way of escape. So, quietly and quite unaware that any revolt was taking place, the masses of Fundamentalism reacted, not from the teaching of the Bible but from the mental tyranny of the scribes. With the recklessness of drowning men they fought their way up for air and struck out blindly for greater freedom of thought and for emotional satisfaction their natures demanded and their teachers denied them…Of us Bible Christians it may truthfully be said that we “sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play.” The separating line between the church and the world has been all but obliterated. Pg 22

5. Unless praying men (and women) have the insight and faith to amend their whole way of life to conform to the New Testament pattern there can be no true revival. (He uses the example of Joshua prostrating himself before God after the defeat of the Israelites at Ai because there was sin in the camp and God tells him to stop praying and get rid of the sin.) pg 23

6. We must return to New Testament Christianity, not in creed only (and I would say not just in religious practices, liturgy or traditions) but in complete manner of life as well. Separation, obedience, humility, simplicity, gravity, self-control, modesty, cross-bearing: these must all again be made a living part of the total Christian concept and be carried out everyday in conduct. Pg 25

7. Tens of thousands of believers who pride themselves on their understanding of Romans and Ephesians cannot conceal the sharp spiritual contradiction that exists between their hearts and the heart of Paul…Paul was a seeker and a finder and a seeker still. They seek and find and seek no more...For them the truth becomes a veil to hide to hide the face of God; for Paul it was a door into His very Presence. Pg 29

8. It has been the unanimous testimony of the greatest Christian souls that the nearer they drew to God the more acute their consciousness of sin and their sense of personal unworthiness…The very thought that they were good or great would have been rejected by them as a temptation of the Devil. Pg 35

9. Religious work can be done by natural men (women) without the gifts of the Spirit, and it can be done well and skillfully. But work designed for eternity can only be done by the eternal Spirit. Pg 44

10. This frightening hour calls aloud for men (and women) with the gift of prophetic insight. Instead we have men (and women) who conduct surveys, polls and panel discussions…We need men (and women) with the gift of knowledge. In their place we have men (and women with the gift of scholarship.) Pg 45

11. Clearly, however, we have yet to see what God would do for his church if we would all throw ourselves down before Him with an open Bible and cry, “Behold Thy servant, Lord! Be it unto me even as thou wilt.” Pg 47

12. It is in the preparation for receiving the Spirit that most Christians fail. Probably no one was ever filled without first going through a period of deep soul disturbance and inward turmoil. When we find ourselves in this state the temptation is to panic and draw back. Pg 53

13. Too often we pray for the right things but desire the answer for the wrong reasons, one reason being a desire to gain a reputation among the saints. Pg 65

14. We must reckon ourselves dead to gain and glory and allow ourselves to become inextricably involved with the cross of Christ and the high honor of God. Then our prayers will be something like this: O God, let Thy glory be revealed once more to men: through me if it please Thee, or without me or apart from me, it matters not. Restore Thy church to the place of moral beauty that becomes her as the Bride of Christ: through me, or apart from me; only let this prayer be answered. Oh God, honor whom Thou wilt. Let me be used or overlooked or ignored or forgotten. Pg 66.

This book, amazingly, was written in 1957. This was a time many look back at and call the glory days of the church. These are days of tent meetings and waving hankies. These are days when people dressed “respectively” when coming to church. Yet, Tozer lamented about the condition of the church. Wesley lamented about the church in his day, as did Luther, as did Paul and John.

True revival happens when we are honest with God about the condition of our lives and churches, willing to deal with things that are bothering us from the past, present including hurts we have committed wittingly or unwittingly to others, things we knowingly or unknowingly supported through actions, inactions or lack of knowledge, and things done to us and the people we care about unknowingly or knowingly. Revival happens when we take the garbage to the dump and bury it with repentance and forgiveness. Revival happens when we surrender ourselves and/or our right to hold on to grievances or seek retribution to God. Revival happens when we truly allow God to be Lord over every area of our lives and our churches and we don’t do anything without seeking his will in the matter.

This is book is a Zondervan Publication copyright 1957/1984 Grand Rapids Michigan - all numbered or bulleted items are direct quotes from the book. The items in parenthesis are my additions to the quotes.