Christoculture
  • Home
  • About
    • Christoculture: Gospel, Church, and Culture
    • Terry Coy
    • Endorsements
    • Contact
  • Flight Plan for 21st C.
    • Conference for Pastors
    • Conference for Churches
  • Consulting Services
    • Consulting
    • Speaking and Teaching Schedule
  • Blog
  • Books

September 22nd, 2017

9/22/2017

2 Comments

 
Picture

​A PEACEMAKING SERIES: REFLECTIONS, CONFESSIONS, AND CONFRONTATIONS.    #4 -- "PEACEMAKING ACROSS CULTURES."

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all on​e in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28

“Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called ‘uncircumcised’ by those who call themselves ‘the circumcision’ . . . But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.” Eph. 2:11, 13-16.

In the Biblical world there were only two types of people, Jews and Gentiles. We find in both Testaments (even all the way back to the Exodus) that some Gentiles were “God fearers” and were incorporated into the fellowship of Israel, although always considered foreigners. Following the death and resurrection of Christ, these two groups were further divided into two sub-groups: the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah and those who received him as such. The Gentiles were also divided into those who rejected Christ and those who have been incorporated into the “one new humanity” and “one body” with believing Jews. Paul goes on in chapter 2 of Ephesians to call the Gentile Ephesians “no longer foreigners and strangers,” but “fellow citizens,” “members of his household,” part of the “whole building,” and together with the believing Jews a “holy temple.” They are both a “dwelling” where God lives. Bottom line, the most extreme religious, cultural, and ethnic barrier in that day was broken by Christ.

Now, here’s the irony. The last time I checked most of my friends, acquaintances, neighbors, fellow citizens, and even most of my global co-residents are Gentiles. That raises the question: If the gospel can break down such a deep divide as that between Jews and Gentiles, shouldn’t it be able to overcome deep cultural divides, real or perceived, among us Gentiles and especially Gentile believers?

Before answering that question, let me state some of my assumptions about culture, which includes, at minimum, race and ethnicity:

1. It is a Biblical given that all human beings are created in the image of God. There is debate over what the image exactly means (reason, relational ability, spirit/soul, etc), but the implications are several:

a. Humans are, as others have coined the term, the “crowning achievement” of God’s creation, of far greater value and importance than all other creatures.

b. The image of God is equally present in all humans, regardless of race, culture, ethnicity, intellect, and socioeconomic status. (The image is not, by the way, “God in us” or a “spark of the divine” that needs to be discovered, tapped into, or brought to the surface of our consciousness through spiritual knowledge or effort).The fact that the image of God is in all human beings demands an essential respect for human life and for people across any and all any cultural difference.

c. Because humans are fallen and sinful the image is marred. Sin has affected all humans and every aspect of humanity. We are not all as bad as we could be, but we are broken and sinful in all areas of our humanity.

d. The consequences of the fall are certainly horrendous on many levels. Still, humans and human life are to be respected and protected as much as possible.

2. Cultures and the elements of a culture (family, government, art, commerce, creativity, and so on) were created and given to us by God; however, because cultures are made up of humans they, too, are fallen. Like individuals, not all cultures are as bad as they could be, but all cultures are broken and sinful.

3. Consequently, both moral equivalence and moral relativism should be rejected in personal and corporate ethics. This means:

a. All human behavior and all cultures are to be judged by some absolute standard, which I would argue is Biblical truth. This is harder and more complex than some of us realize, because we are all part of a culture and wear cultural blinders. However, when we come to an ethical conundrum, the problem is not with Biblical truth but with our ability to understand and apply it.

b. Without some kind of absolute standard, then we have no ultimate grounds to call the pedophile worse than the shoplifter, or the Taliban’s treatment of women worse than, say, the Amish. Hear what I am saying: we may all agree the pedophile and the Taliban are in fact worse, but without some standard by which to make that claim we have no grounds beyond relative cultural or personal experience to do so. That relativism will take us some distance in our argument, but will eventually collapse when two relativistic ethics collide. Similarly, we can’t argue that the Taliban and Amish treatment of women are morally equivalent because both are imperfect and culturally determined.

c. Having said that, there are some things that are culturally relative and which are “relatively” harmless. Take for example, the way different cultures view time. What all these culturally relative things are and how to discern them is beyond the scope of this brief article.

4. Therefore, cultural differences are real and important. That is, worldviews, race, ethnicity, cultural practices, and cultural mores are real to those to whom they belong. Any effort at peacemaking across cultures requires the freedom, sensitivity, honesty, and the initiative to talk about and attempting to understand these differences. The old principle of “seek to understand before being understood” applies. Two extremes, should be avoided: One is cultural machismo; that is, automatically viewing “their” cultural differences as inferior, defective, primitive, or silly. Some differences may certainly qualify as such, but we don’t want to automatically denigrate another cultural identity in toto. This extreme is usually caused by and will certainly result in intentional and conscious bigotry. The other extreme is to be a cultural Pollyanna; that is, to minimize, overlook, or even deny the reality of cultural differences, claiming that we should “all just get along” or “get over” our differences, that differences are not that important, or even claiming that someone is a racist or insensitive or oppressive for noticing or attempting to talk about said differences. This extreme is intellectually dishonest and, surprisingly to some, caused by and also results in unintentional and unconscious bigotry, for it does not take people or their culture seriously.

5. When it comes to history and issues of race, ethnicity, culture, injustice, and restitution, the situation gets really messy. There is enough here to require a future article, so I will address history in my next article.

Now, back to the question above: Shouldn’t the gospel be able to defeat cultural, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic divides, however deep they may be? The short answer, of course, is yes. Some implications, and a few warnings, to that short answer:

1. The gospel is grounded in and assumes the image of God in all people, the love of God for all his creation, and the command to take the message of reconciliation to every tribe, nation, people, people group, and culture. Remember that the only reason any of us may have heard the gospel of reconciliation is because at some point someone brought it to our own Gentile clan, tribe, people group, and nation. This task takes lots of sensitivity and work – just ask any missionary.

2. Personally, because I am a believer, the gospel compels me to reach across cultures, both to those who are part of the “new humanity” and to those who are not and may even refuse to be. Put simply:

a. With those who are part of the new humanity – the Church, the Body of Christ, my fellow believers – I have no option but to see and treat them as fellow members of the Body of Christ, as brothers and sisters in Christ, as co-heirs of the promises of God, and as my real, eternal family. To do any less is sin and disobedience on my part. And, I pray they will have the same attitude toward me!

But, we need to be careful how we say and do this. This is the point where we (I) can fall into a bit of subtle cultural paternalism and ethnic superiority. We often correctly say “We need to treat them as equals in Christ.” If we are not careful, however, that statement can imply that “we” are those who are superior or who have arrived and that our recognition of “them” as equals somehow elevates them to our preferred cultural status or practice. To put it crassly, we pat ourselves on the back because we are treating our “little ___________ (insert color, ethnicity, socioeconomic class here) brothers and sisters as equals in Christ.” No, we may not actually say it that way, but do we sometimes think it or feel it deep down? Confession time all around!

b. With those who are not believers (or not yet believers), or who reject the gospel and who may never be part of the “new humanity” I still have no option but to see and treat them as equal creatures, made in the image of God, someone whom God loved and for whom Christ died (limited or unlimited atonement discussion for some other time!), and someone who I have been commanded to take the gospel of reconciliation to. It is my responsibility to reach across whatever barrier there may be.

3. I am not saying, by the way, that non-Christians cannot overcome deep cultural divides. History has shown that on occasion, to our shame, non-Christians have done a better job at peacemaking. We Christians have often failed miserably. What I am saying is that gospel believing Christians have no excuse and should take the lead in peacemaking across cultures.

4. None of what I have said so far denies that there is evil in the world, that there are evil people who do evil things, and that society, cultures, and human institutions can be and can do a lot of evil at times. Sometimes these have to be confronted and even fought against. Sometimes the government has to take up the sword to punish evil doers. Sometimes the people have to rise up against evil authorities. Taking these sorts of actions are sometimes necessary, but they can also be difficult, complex, and often are morally ambiguous.

As a believer and follower of Jesus, however, I have to first seek peace and take the lead in peacemaking, especially across cultural, racial, ethnic, and national lines. This is hard, because it requires self-examination, confronting consequences of the past, confronting past and current injustices, honest confession, sincere forgiveness, and possible restitution. It requires me taking the first step. It may require that I and those like me perhaps giving up some of our rights and demands in order to overcome the consequences of a past injustice. It sometimes requires taking responsibility for the actions of those who have gone before us. This brings us back to history, its messiness, and some of the real “yeah, but what about” issues. Come back next time for:

“Well, I never!: History, injustice, and things I never experienced (and a few I have).”
2 Comments

September 08th, 2017

9/8/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

a peacemaking series: reflections, confessions, and confrontations
#3: the new testament imperative

Israel was chosen by God to be the model, example, and missionary light to the nations. God graciously gave them the Law which described in detail what this covenant would look like in daily life. Unfortunately, Israel failed to be that light to the nations. Of course, this was no surprise to God. Throughout the Old Testament we see pointers, signs, promises, and prophecies of the coming Messiah who would be what Israel and the Law could not. Thus, Jesus Christ fulfilled what “Moses and all the Prophets” had written (Luke 24:27) and all that Israel had failed to do. This means Jesus fulfilled all the laws related to sacrifice. He was the once and for all atonement, the sacrifice for sin. It means he took upon himself the punishment for all sin for all time (so, no, we do not stone rebellious children). It means he perfectly fulfilled the moral and ethical law. It means, most importantly, that his righteousness can be ours by faith. Therefore, whereas the Law pointed to and leads us to Christ, it still has relevance to us today. How? We look to his perfect fulfillment, example, and teachings and to the empowering presence of his Holy Spirit for direction in our journey of transformation to be more like him. We gratefully receive the “indicatives” (who we are in Christ) of the New Testament while walking in the “imperatives” (what it looks like to live as a disciple).  And that includes peacemaking. 

Luke’s birth narrative tells us the angels declared “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” Once again we see the peacemaking initiative of God, who has sent his Son to reconcile humanity through his life, death, and resurrection. That angel scene has often been misunderstood to mean “Peace on earth” as if somehow humans could bring about the peaceful kingdom of God on earth through the ethical teachings of Jesus and good social works alone. There are definite social implications of the gospel, but the core idea is that Christ came to bring relational and eternal peace between sinners and God. Having said that, what are some the relational and social implications? Just a few passages:

 Matt. 5:9 – “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God,” Matt. 5:9. We looked at the meaning of this in the first article of the series. Peacemakers are those who intentionally work at making peace with and among others – they create conditions of peace. By doing so they will be called sons of God because they reflect the character of God, who is a God of peace.

 Rom. 12:14-21 – “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.  On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

There is not a whole lot of commentary needed on this passage; it is pretty self-explanatory (and convicting). A few observations:

-- Blessing others, returning good for evil, doing right, and striving to live at peace with others are my choice.

-- From a human perspective everything called for here is counter-intuitive and certainly counter-cultural.

-- Even when wronged I may have to give up my “right” for fairness and restitution and leave long-term and certainly ultimate justice to God. That doesn’t mean I don’t oppose injustice or that the authorities don’t deal with injustice, but I have to keep my selfish concerns under check.

 Hebrews 12:14 and 1 Peter 3:8-11 both give similar imperatives. It is my responsibility to seek, as much as possible, to live at peace with others, returning good for evil, and actually seeking and pursuing peace if I love life and want to see good days.

 Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 2:11-22 deal with what scholar Donald Guthrie calls “some of the deepest social divides in human history,” that between Jews and Gentiles. If the gospel of Jesus Christ could overcome that divide, then it should be able to overcome all other social divides. Peacemaking, reconciliation, and returning good for evil are not to be limited by language, culture, ethnicity, or race. Much more on this in the next article.

 Finally, Revelation 5:9 gives us a glimpse of the results of God’s mission of redemption: there will be those “from every tribe and language and people and nation” who have been made “a kingdom and priests to serve our God.” The mission of God from the beginning – through the Old Testament and the nation of Israel, from the incarnation of the Son, his life, death, and resurrection, through the current work of the Holy Spirit in and through the church – has been to redeem, reconcile, and make peace with those from every group on earth. Not all will believe, but all will be represented.

What conclusions can we draw from this brief New Testament overview?

1. God is the initiator of Peace. The familiar John 3:16 verse emphasizes God’s initiative when it states that God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, the Prince of Peace, to be the means of reconciliation and peace with the Father.

2. Jesus, therefore, is the supreme peacemaker. His crucifixion and resurrection established the grounds for peace with God. Before that his life reflected peacemaking, his teaching focused on peacemaking, and the gospel about him is the greatest peacemaking message of all time.

3. Peace is not appeasement, peace at all costs, or passive pacifism. In fact, in Matt. 10:34-37 Jesus seems to contradict what the angels stated at his birth. What he is pointing out, however, is that his mission of peacemaking and reconciliation will necessarily and inevitably upset the status quo. Choosing to follow him may mean a lack of peace in the household and in the community. His peace is not at any price, but is a peace that is just, that is based on his righteousness, and was made possible by his violent death.

4. All this talk of peace does lead to ethical implications and demands:

a. Our witness is about sharing in word and deed the gospel of peace with God. Apart from this, all and everyone are lost.

b. We are to live at peace with others as much as it is possible. This acknowledges the reality that we will have enemies (Jesus had them!) and will not get along with everyone, even within the family and at church. 

c. Consequently, my intentional peacemaking efforts must include those in my “family,” the church and those outside my church family. Yes, this can be hard.

d. This peacemaking effort, both as a witness and an ethical demand, transcends cultural boundaries.  Based on God’s mission to the nations, the first hints of the universality of the gospel in the Gospels, and the specific barrier destroying passages in Galatians and Ephesians, we have a Bible, as Christopher Wright puts it, “. . .which glories in diversity and celebrates multiple human cultures, the Bible which builds its most elevated theological claims on utterly particular and sometimes very local events, the Bible which sees everything in relational, not abstract terms . . . .” 

e. Intentional peacemaking means, furthermore,there may be times when I have to give up my “rights.” Paul asks the questions in 1 Cor. 6, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” instead of seeking one’s rights against a brother in the court of law. Similarly, Peter speaks in 1 Pet. 2 about doing good deeds when wronged and accused falsely. I am not saying our “God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed” rights are to be surrendered lightly, but there is something about being willing to sacrifice personally for the sake of peace. (Yes, there is a tension to be held with point #3 above. This will be explored further in a future article).

f. Bottom line, if I am a follower of Christ, I have no choice! I cannot choose an ethic of convenience. I must work at being ethically consistent, especially in the demanding task of relational and social peacemaking.

Coming up:
“Peacemaking across cultural lines”
“A radical model for peacemaking”
“ Peacemaking and a messy history”
0 Comments

September 01st, 2017

9/1/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

Conservapedia
​A PEACEMAKING SERIES: REFLECTIONS, CONFESSIONS, AND CONFRONTATIONS.  #2 -- THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATIONS

What is the Bible all about? It is “about” a lot of things – history, law, wisdom, judgment, grace, forgiveness, church, family, morality, and so on. It could be argued, however, that all those things the Bible is “about” are all about the one thing the Bible is all about! And, as Christopher J. H. Wright argues in his impressive work The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, the Bible is all about mission, namely God’s mission of redemption.

Wright points out that reading the Bible according to that missional map means we can see in Scripture:

 God’s purpose for his whole creation, including the redemption of humanity and the creation of the new heavens and new earth.
 God’s purpose for human life in general on the planet and God’s purposes for human culture, relationships, ethics, and behavior.
 The centrality of Jesus of Nazareth, his messianic identity and mission in relation to Israel and the nations, his cross and resurrection.
 God’s calling of the church to be the agent of God’s blessing to the nations in the name and for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There have been hundreds of volumes written on the theological implications of those four statements, but what do they tell us about peacemaking? Specifically, what does God’s mission of redemption have to do with peacemaking? Everything!

First, God’s mission of redemption means that, because of our sin, the human race is estranged from him. We need rescuing. We need to be saved from something and for something. We need to be brought “home” to him. We need to be reconciled to God; that is, as the Apostle Paul put it, because “we were God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10) we need to have peace with him.

Second, it means that God himself has taken the initiative to solve our sinful estrangement (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). He is the one who thought up the “peace initiative,” so to speak. Consequently, any possibility of peace with God does not arise out of human endeavor. He is the Peacemaker.

Third, it means that we have the ministry of reconciliation or peacemaking ourselves (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Certainly this verse is primarily talking about reconciliation of sinners with God, but there is plenty in Paul’s letters – and in all of Scripture – about reconciliation and living at peace with others both inside and outside the fellowship of believers.

A brief look at the Old Testament shows us this Great Peace Plan was centered on the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that their descendants, the nation of Israel, would be the instrument of God’s redemptive plan in the world. Israel was given the Law and the land in order to be a blessing to the nations. They were to model what it meant to follow God in holiness, righteousness, and purity. They would demonstrate what it was like to love and worship God, what it meant to be reconciled and at peace with God, and what it meant to live righteously with others and in the land. Bottom line, God elected Israel as a kingdom of priests in order to make himself known through them to the nations and thus reconcile the nations to himself. This purpose is proclaimed throughout the Pentateuch (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 28:9-1), in the historical books (Josh. 4:23-24; 1 Sam. 17:46; 1 Kings 8:41-43, 60-61), in the Psalms (22:27-28; 47:9; 67:1-2), and preached by the prophets when Israel failed to live up to the task (Isa. 25:6-8; 45:22-23; Jer. 4:1-2; Zec.8:13).

Ultimately, as the prophets preached, because Israel failed to be the light to the nations the promised Messiah, the Prince of Peace, would fulfill in his person and work God’s mission of redemption. Furthermore, it would be the Messiah who would bring the final, ultimate and eschatological peace all humanity is yearns for. Isaiah 9:6-7 makes it clear that all future hope of ultimate peace rests on the shoulders of the person and work of Christ.

One of the most mind bending things to me, simultaneously perplexing and comforting, is that the redemptive mission of God as seen in the Old Testament, this mission of bringing peace and reconciliation between himself and sinners, took place among some of the most violent, divisive, rebellious, and sinful peoples, nations, and events in human history. Some of us read the Old Testament and struggle with the violence of Israel, with God’s commands to conquer the land and totally eliminate the Canaanites, and with the dramatic failures of God’s chosen people and leaders. We struggle with the descriptions, and often prescriptions, for violence and war. How could a God of peace allow such violence and much less give such warlike instructions?

The answer is to look at the big picture and understand that God was graciously working with and through a fallen human race which mostly and consistently rejected him. To accomplish his ultimate redemptive mission of making peace with humanity, he had to deal with humanity on our own terms, and sometimes quite violently. See, long-term peacemaking in a fallen and sinful world requires the making and enforcement of just laws, the punishment of law breakers, and sometimes the imposition of a strong arm. Think of the Allied goal in World War II of defeating the Nazis and bringing peace to Europe. In order to establish peace the Allies had to invade North Africa, Italy, and France and then fight Nazis across Europe. Similarly, when the United Nations sends peacekeepers to a war torn country, they send actual soldiers with real guns who will pull the trigger if need be to accomplish the long-term goal of peace. On a daily level, the police SWAT team may have to break down a door and shoot the violent hostage taker in order to rescue innocent victims and restore peace in a broken household. Once again, we are not talking about pacifism, but peacemaking. (By the way, when reading the Old Testament, be sure not to confuse ugly description and divine accommodation, such as what Jesus mentioned in Matt. 19:8-9, with godly prescription).

Therefore, that God worked in and through the people of Israel simply magnifies his amazing, eternal, and perfect grace, patience, and peaceful intentions. Instead of wiping out a distressingly sinful humanity and instead of disowning a radically rebellious Israel, he worked in and through them in spite of human sinfulness and because of his holy, loving, righteous, and gracious nature. When reading the Old Testament, do wrestle with the hard questions; however, rather than focus on what sinful people did try to discern what God was doing behind the scenes and in and through sinful people.

And what was God doing through the people of Israel? As already noted, he chose them to be a blessing to the nations, a model and example of holy living, the means of God’s redemptive, peacemaking mission. On a daily basis they were to do this through their singular worship of Yahweh, but also through their ethical behavior. For example, they were to:

 Make restitution when harm or an injustice was done to another (Ex. 21:12- 22:14)  Not take advantage of widows and orphans (Ex. 22:22-24)
 Not deny justice to the poor (Ex. 23:6-7)
 Leave enough of the harvest for the poor and the alien (Lev. 19:9-10)
 Not steal, lie, or defraud (Lev. 19:11-13)
 Not mistreat the alien or foreigner; i.e. that person of a different race or ethnicity (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33)
 Avoid dissension by loving rather than hating (Prov. 10:12)
 Speak wisely, righteously, and fittingly (Prov. 10:20,21,31-32)
 Not oppress the poor and being kind to the needy (Prov. 14:31)
 Avoid dishonest business practices; avoid violence and deceit (Mic. 6:12-13)
 Avoid violence, injustice, strife, and the oppression of righteousness (Hab. 1:2-4)

And on and on. Hundreds of passages could be listed to argue for the Old Testament foundations of peacemaking. No, not all these passages specifically mention “peace,” but they all instruct in attitudes and behavior that would lead to reconciliation, redemption, restitution, justice, and peace between nations, within a nation, and most certainly between individual people. Peacemaking, therefore, implies and includes intentional efforts to establish conditions of justice, reconciliation, restitution, and redemption.

Inevitably, someone will question the application of these Old Testament laws to New Testament Christians. This is not the place to resolve the debate about the overall place and use of the law. I do like, however, the way Christopher Wright puts it in another one of his impressive works, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God: the law was “to mould and shape Israel” so that Israel could live as a “model, as a light to the nations.” That particularity of Israel and the law, however, does not keep the law from having a universal application. These Old Testament Scriptures, therefore, serve as a “paradigm, in one single culture and slice of history, of the kinds of social values God looks for in human life generally.” Consequently, from a generally ethical and specifically peacemaking perspective, although we may agree the Law has no salvific power, we should not throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Through the Law God has graciously given us an ethical paradigm. Perhaps we should not obsess over what we don’t have to keep, but rather should do the hard work of figuring out what we can learn and still apply. This is not legalism. It is, believing in the whole counsel of God.

In conclusion, the Old Testament clearly lays out the foundation of and for peacemaking: God is a God of peace in that he is on mission to redeem creation, reconcile humanity to himself, and ultimately re-establish the peace we originally had with him. He chose Israel as his instrument in that mission and Israel was given the Law as guidance on how to live in right relationship with God, the land, and with each other. Israel’s failure and our continued human struggle do not reflect on the real peacemaking nature of God’s character and mission nor do they minimize the implications and imperatives for our own lives.

Next: The New Testament Imperative for Peacemaking
.
0 Comments

    Author

    Terry Coy -- husband, father, grandfather. Trying to figure it out while on the journey with Jesus.

    Archives

    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015

    Categories

    All
    Bible
    Culture
    Discipleship
    Missions
    Personal
    Theology

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly