Tag: Apologetics

Leaving the Village

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

village

It takes a great deal of courage to follow the Lord’s call and leave the only church you’ve ever known. When I shared my story of leaving extreme fundamentalism, I was trying to deal with the trauma in one sense, but I also wanted to find camaraderie and support from others via the internet. I had become aware that I wasn’t the only one experiencing the turmoil of finally seeing the world through different eyes.

Over the years, I’ve had numerous expressions of thanks as people have commented on my blog posts or contacted me via email or Facebook. I’ve also had my share of ill-will directed toward me, as people assume that our dramatic change was a cop-out and an excuse to live it up in the world. In truth, it was the hardest thing my wife and I ever did: we risked alienating ourselves from both sides of our family and ruining the only real friendships we had.

There are now a lot of ex-fundamentalist blogs out there. And there are a host of other “survivor” type blogs as well. Some exaggerate the problems of fundamentalism, others jettison any connection with Christianity at all. The internet is a mixed bag, for sure. But it has helped shed light on the beliefs and practices of any group. Mormons have found the internet and are starting to see the problems in their church’s historical dogmas. And countless others have been rescued from cults as they do their own secret internet research.

Like anything, the internet in the wrong hands can be bad. But the truth is not ashamed of honest inquiry: which is why Christianity has and will only continue to flourish in the internet age.

I say all this by way of introduction as I want to direct your attention to a new blog from a Facebook friend of mine. It is called Leaving the Village and describes his own exodus from a legalistic, controlling faith community. His story is very similar to mine, in some respects. And for those struggling to decide how to proceed in their own faith journey, reading his story may be a blessing. He doesn’t try to trash his former church but is sharing his heart and how it felt to go through the process that lead to his “leaving the village.”

In his message to me he shares his motivation for the blog:

Hey Bob, your blog and story were a huge help to me when I was walking away from ——. Just simply knowing I wasn’t alone was one of the biggest things I needed to see.

I just started a blog to try to tell my story and help young guys in the same way you helped me. I’m trying to get the word out about it, but I’m not linking directly through my own social media yet. I don’t want my former pastor to just dismiss the blog as a hit piece. I’m writing with a bit of anonymity, but not pulling any punches.

Anyways, I was wondering if you might consider reading the first post and possibly sharing it on your blog. No pressure, I just wanted to ask you to consider it.

Regardless of what you do, thanks again for the encouragement you gave me.

Go over and read his first post. Then bookmark his site, as it promises to be good reading.

Here is an excerpt to get you started:

It’s hard to imagine unless you’ve been there. One decision, one moment changing the whole course of your life and the life of your family. Regardless of your story, everyone faces life changing decisions at some point, but the feelings of angst and terror seem to be multiplied when those decisions involve leaving a religious cult.

I know, the word cult is a loaded term. It’s also pretty polarizing. Those within the cult never see it as a cult. If they did, they would leave. But those outside it look back in and, at least in my case, ask questions like, “How did I stay duped for so long?” or “Why do people stay?” Calling something a cult has far less to do with its message and far more to do with its methods. But again, that’s a subjective definition that someone inside a cult is bound to disagree with….

My goal is not… to correct misguided beliefs or point out the flaws of others. We all hold presuppositions, more than we care to admit, and attempts at correcting your presuppositions will only go as far as you allow them.

Instead, I want to share my story–a story of angst, a story of searching for truth, a story of a guy looking for a God who was there all along, guiding each step of the journey. I know my audience is small. Not too many people grew up in “a village.” But if you’re one that did and you’re reading this, then know this, you are not alone. Rather than try to convince you of one position against another, I simply want to meet you in the journey and share in the feelings and longings that can be down right terrifying.

My prayer is that you know the road you walk is not one walked alone. Leaving the village and embracing the mystery of a life of faith in Jesus was the best thing that ever happened to me.

“Discovering the City of Sodom” by Steven Collins and Latayne Scott

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Discovering the City of Sodom by Steven Collins and Latayne ScottBook Details:
  • Authors: Steven Collins and Latayne Scott
  • Category: Biblical Archeology
  • Book Publisher: Howard Books (2013)
  • Format: audiobook
  • Page Count: 352
  • Audio Length: 9.2 hours
  • Audio Publisher: Mission Audio / Christian Audio
  • Read by: Sean Runnette
  • ISBN#: 9781610457057
  • List Price: $24.98
  • Rating: Must Read

Review:
Any book with the title Discovering the City of Sodom: The Fascinating, True Account of the Discovery of the Old Testament’s Most Infamous City promises to be a sensational read. But a book about discovering the biblical city of Sodom must surely be just another crackpot’s wild theory, right? Wrong. Dr. Steven Collins is a veteran archaeologist and he has plenty to say against the crackpots and misguided adventurers whose escapades in the Middle East pose as archaeological discoveries. And while his claim that Sodom has been found is controversial, he does his best not to be overly sensational and claim more than the evidence warrants. Collins is not without his skeptics, but the case he builds, I believe, is painstakingly thorough, and in the end convincing.

I listened to an audio version of this book, read by Sean Runnette, available at ChristianAudio.com. And even without pictures and maps, I was enthralled by the tale. Collins, with the help of co-writer Latayne Scott, a professional writer, uses a variety of literary techniques to make a nearly decade-long project of digging holes in the sand sound interesting and engaging. He walks us through a day in a typical dig, describing the personality types and theological motives (or lack thereof) that people bring to such an undertaking. He uses flashback and personal anecdote, and then puts on his teacher’s hat as he assembles facts about archaeology, dating, and the history of the Levant (the archaeological term for Palestine).

I was struck by Collins’ faith, and how he is unashamed to use the Bible as a source alongside other ancient Near Eastern texts, in his scientific method. And with the Bible being the sole historical record of the city of Sodom, Collins surveys in detail the various aspects of the Biblical record and applies that to his research. His attention to the text with its many geographical details, ultimately is what convinces me that Tall el Hammam in modern-day Jordan, is the site of the biblical Sodom.

Collins makes a convincing argument that Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah was located on the Kikkar, a plain near the Jordan river just to the north of the Dead Sea. And while he doesn’t find mysterious sulfur balls of the kind that lead to wild tales of supposed discovery, he does find an area bereft of any human civilization for 700 years after a sudden fiery end to what was a prominent culture.

There are problems and puzzling sides to his story, however. He defends a date which will not fit with an early date for the Exodus. Anyone familiar with OT evangelical theology should know that the question of dating the Exodus is not as simple as it may seem. Collins dates the fall of Sodom to around 1650 B.C. Now with some work, his date could fit with a late date for the Exodus, as accepted by many scholars. However his own advocacy of a middle date for the Exodus, based on historical synchronisms with the text makes the problem even thornier for Collins himself. In the context of his grappling with the chronology of his finds, he makes what I believe is an important observation. And in this particular case, I believe he may well be right.

Geography trumps chronology when you’re dealing with the ancient Near East and the Bible. That’s because there are a lot of variations in Near Eastern chronologies–with high, middle, and low versions that can vary thirty to fifty years at given points…. By comparison, geography is quite static. With few exceptions, it doesn’t move around…. Again, we begin with the text, and that’s how, using all the geographical markers in the story of Abraham, you invariably find Sodom located in the Kikkar of the Jordan, because that’s what Abraham and Lot saw when they were dividing the land between them. (pg. 130)

He goes on to argue for honorific or symbolic numbers when it comes to the age of the patriarchs, but he also presents alternative views which could reconcile the dating with his find. He argues in the end that we cannot take the Bible “only literally” but must read it “authentically.”

Whether one agrees with his take on biblical chronology or not, you will have to grapple with the impressive geographical evidence that Collins marshals from the text. It is clear that he respects and listens to the Bible’s text, and this very fact makes him a target of liberal scholars for his audacity to believe the Bible’s record could be true. By the end of the book it is clear that Collins isn’t out to make friends but to pursue the truth, and he believes his work has provided concrete evidence bolstering the belief that the Bible’s account of the destruction of Sodom is grounded in historical truth.

Collins explains why others have not looked for Sodom in this locale. It is chiefly due to theories that Sodom was under the Dead Sea or to be found on its southern shores. Ultimately these theories were based less on evidence than on unsubstantiated educated guesses from earlier and still renowned biblical archaeologists. Further data has contradicted the assumption that Sodom was in the barren wasteland of the southern Dead Sea – which was never (during the time of the Biblical Sodom) an Edenic paradise that was to woo Lot to pitch his tent there. And the fact that the Dead Sea is at its lowest depth in the last four thousand years, argues against the idea that the cities are to be found in its depths.

The book ends with the most exciting find of all: pottery shards that are superheated to glass on one side, yet are perfectly normal pottery on the other. The conclusion of experts is that the shards were super heated and then cooled far too rapidly than would be expected by any typical human furnace or heating method known in ancient times. Extensive, independent research compares this to molten sand left over after nuclear experiments and the green glass found in the desert at times due to meteoric events. The best physical explanation is a meteor that burned up in the atmosphere leaving no crater, but still sending a fireball to earth (as in a documented case in Sieberia in the early 1900s). This may very well be concrete proof that the story of Sodom’s fiery demise as recounted in the Bible is true.

Collins hesitates to say more than what science can affirm, but he holds the biblical record to be true by faith. Along the way he presents an excellent example of how to hold true to Scripture and yet still seek to pursue a path of valid scientific inquiry.

The book reads well–mystery and history interwoven with the science of archaeology. It will interest amateur archaeologists and bible geeks, as well as history buffs. It can be understood by high schoolers as well and may spark an interest in biblical archaeology in younger readers.

The audio quality on the ChristianAudio.com recording was superb. Downloading the book in any format is a breeze. And the narrator does an excellent job keeping the story fresh and alive, rather than dull and boring. And kudos to him for pronouncing all the difficult words with ease. A simple search at Amazon will supply many of the charts and maps that are missing in the audio book experience. I am sure you’ll find the audio book as much fun as the hardback version. Of course, like me, you may be enticed to purchase both versions after listening to the audio reading of the book.

Author Info:
Dr. Steven Collins is Executive Curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Biblical History, Dean of the College of Archaeology and Biblical History at Trinity Southwest University, and Visiting Professor of Archaeology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary.

Dr. Latayne C. Scott is the author of fourteen published books, including The Mormon Mirage.

Resources:
  • Dictionary entry on Sodom written by Dr. Collins
  • The Tall el Hammam excavation website

Where to Buy:
  • ChristianAudio.com
  • Amazon.com

Review:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by ChristianAudio.com. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Book Endorsement: “The Doctrine of Scripture” by Jason Harris

~ Bob Hayton

The Doctrine of Scripture by Jason HarrisToday’s book review post is special for two reasons. First, this marks the 150th book review I’ve posted here at Fundamentally Reformed. Second, this review includes the foreword I was privileged to write for this book.

The Doctrine of Scripture: As It Relates to the Transmission and Preservation of the Text by Jason Harris is published by InFocus Ministries in Australia. I’m excited to recommend this new book to my readers here in the United States as I believe this book can go a long way toward helping those confused or entangled by King James Onlyism.

My Foreword

Another book on the King James Only debate? Much ink has been spilled and many passions expended in what may be the ugliest intramural debate plaguing conservative, Bible-believing churches today. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, Baptists and Presbyterians, Reformed and charismatic — all have been affected to a greater or lesser extent by those arguing for or against the King James or New King James Versions of the Bible. With each new book it seems the debate becomes more and more caustic, each group castigating the other in ever more forceful terminology.

Jason Harris enters the fray with the right blend of humility and tenacity, and turns the attention of all to the true center of the debate: the doctrine of Scripture. What makes this debate so passionate is that it centers on the very nature of Scripture. Rather than focus on technical facts and ancient manuscript copying practices, Harris takes us back to what Scripture says about itself: its inspiration, preservation and accessibility. In doing so, he demonstrates how those upholding the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus behind it, base their position not on sound exegesis of the Scripture, but on tenuous assumptions read into the text.

Harris’s pen is lucid and his grasp of the King James Only debate as a whole is masterful. He focuses his work on TR-only position which represents the very best of King James Only reasoning. He interacts with the exegesis of key TR-only proponents and marshals compelling evidence demonstrating their failure to measure up to Scripture’s own teaching about itself. And after explicating the doctrine of Scripture, Harris draws important conclusions which should protect the reader from making simplistic assumptions in a quest for textual certainty that goes beyond what Scripture teaches we should expect.

Harris wants us to be confident that we do have the inspired Scripture translated accurately in our English Bibles. He wants such confidence to be rooted to a Scriptural understanding of the Doctrine of Scripture rather than in the “supernatural-guidance” of a group of sixteenth-Century translators. Assuming that such a group of men made no mistakes is to expect something Scripture doesn’t teach, and ignore what it does. Harris is to be commended for such a clear, lucid defense of the historic doctrine of Scripture. I hope his book is received well and helps laymen and pastors everywhere to begin to rethink the basis for why they think as they do when it comes to the King James Only debate.

Bob Hayton
FundamentallyReformed.com
KJVODebate.Wordpress.com

[pp. 9-10]

Additional Thoughts

After re-reading this book and seeing the published version, I am more optimistic than ever about its promise to provide clarity to the King James Only debate. Jason Harris’s book has a few characteristics which together make it a unique contribution to this debate.

First, his book focuses on the alleged doctrine of the verbal, plenary accessibility of Scripture. This is where the root of the KJV and TR preference lies for many people. The argument is not so much based on texts and manuscripts as it is on what allegedly the Bible teaches – that the very words of Scripture (all of them down to the letters) would be generally accessible to believers down through the ages. Harris spends most of his time marshaling a Scriptural rebuttal to these claims and also demonstrates the difficulties such a position has when it comes to the history of the text as we know it.

Second, this volume carefully builds a theology of the transmission and preservation of Scripture. Such a careful, exegetically-based explication of the doctrine of Scripture has been lacking in this debate. And such a gap has often been used by KJV-only proponents to their advantage. It is KJV-only books which start with a Scriptural position and then look at the evidence, with the “anti-KJV” books starting with history and evidence and then moving to the Scriptural arguments. This book is different and starts where the debate starts for most of the sincere believers who get swept up into it — it starts on Scripture’s teaching about the very nature and preservation of Scripture.

Finally, Harris keeps a very irenic tone throughout. He is careful not to overstate his case and exaggerate the claims of his opponents. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to this heated debate, but Jason pulls this off well. Additionally, he backs up his book with the inclusion of a vast array of footnotes documenting the claims he is arguing against. I appreciate how he does not direct his argument toward the Riplingers and Ruckmans of this debate. He focuses on the TR-only position and the more careful wing of KJV-onlyism, men like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Charles Surret, and the like. Harris has read widely in the KJV only literature, and his treatment avoids broadbrushing and generalizations that tend to give KJV-only proponents an easy out. It’s easy to dismiss a book as not being directed to their particular position, or to claim the author makes egregious errors and lumps their position in with that of heretical views. Harris’s book is not open to such charges. He directs his case against the very best arguments of KJV-onlyism.

Had I been exposed to such a book I would have been inoculated to the pull of the KJV-only persuasion. As it happened, I was swept up in a TR-only view that made it seem like we had the corner on truth and everyone else was compromising. By God’s grace I came to understand that Scripture does not support such a view of the transmission of the text.

Jason Harris is to be thanked for giving us a tool to recommend to those thinking through this issue from within, and to help the ones who are being pressured to join the KJV-only position. I highly recommend The Doctrine of Scripture and hope it makes its way into the hands of anyone struggling with this issue who will yet be open-minded enough to study out the issue from both sides.

You can pick up a copy of The Doctrine of Scripture at Amazon.com.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the author. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

What Jerry Sandusky’s Fall Teaches Us about the Christian Basis for Morality

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Like most everyone else, my heart was sickened by all the news surrounding Jerry Sandusky. Now that he has been convicted on 45 counts of child sexual molestation, it seems that justice is served. Setting aside the questions of whether Penn State should have done more to ferret out Sandusky, his conviction offers an opportunity to ponder the moral impulse of our society. By and large, the general public is shocked and outraged by Sandusky’s behavior, especially since he was in a position of authority. Pedophilia is universally condemned, and this by people of many different world-views.

The Gospel Coalition blog alerted me to an excellent article in the Catholic World Report that explores why Sandusky is guilty in the public opinion. The answer is Christianity and its effect on our culture and its undergirding of our moral fibers for hundreds of years. Let me excerpt the article and encourage you to go read the whole thing.

This is 2012. Turn the historical clock back 2000 years, and find yourself in the pagan Roman Empire before Christianity arose, i.e., before the Christianization of the West. In Rome, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was completely acceptable. To be more exact, homosexual activity was frowned on (but not very diligently) when it occurred between two free-born men, but it was cheerfully affirmed between a master and his slave, and even more, a man and a boy between the ripe ages of about 12 to 17—just the target age of Sandusky. The man generally presented himself as a kindly benefactor to the boy, taking him under his wing, so to speak, and (in return for sexual favors) helping him up the social ladder. Just like Sandusky.

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He would not even have been noticed. His actions would have been entirely unremarkable. There would have been no disgust, no anger. The verdict would have been innocent, and in fact, the notion that he was guilty of anything would have been unintelligible.

There is one and only one reason, 2000 years later, that Sandusky is guilty now…Our consciences, our minds, our hearts, our legal system in America have been formed by Christian moral teaching about sexuality. Subtract Christianity from history, and we would be back in Rome. In pagan Rome, Sandusky would be innocent.

The piece goes on to illustrate how natural morality, darwinianism, democracy, psychology and philosophy all fail to lead to a condemnation of the kinds of acts that Sandusky is convicted of. But the article concludes with a warning:

But again, here’s the problem. Our society is being successively and successfully de-Christianized. The moral formation is wearing off rapidly. Now that we’ve answered the why of Sandusky’s guilt, we’ve got one more question to ask: How long will we continue to feel guilty?

That is a good question indeed. But I would demur. We still have many Christian underpinnings in our society, and for that we should be thankful. I often bring up this free attitude toward pedophilia or even ritualistic sex that was so pervasive in Rome and Corinth, and other ancient cultures, when I encounter the widespread Christian pessimism about how bad things are getting today. Christianity thrived in the most pagan of cultures, and it will continue to thrive the darker it gets today. Saving our society and improving our secular culture shouldn’t be the primary focus of Christians. Living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its tranformative moral power should be. May God help us “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom [we] shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” (Phil. 2:15b-16a).