Let's go ahead and get started again. Make the best use of the time that we have remaining. So our reading for this week was approximately the second half of The God Who Is There. It's 12 chapters, but a number of those chapters were pretty short. And so he's going to continue to develop his ideas in this part of the book. And we'll just kind of go through chapter by chapter and hit a few high points. He starts out by talking about how in a system of theology, all the parts have to relate together. Now, why would I want to make a point about that? Because that seems so obvious. And the answer is because he often pointed out how disconnected our beliefs were. We had all kinds of bits and pieces, but we didn't know how to relate them together in a systematic way, in a unifying way. He says that Christianity is the system that has all the answers that are basic to men, and that Christian answers Christian answers stand both the test of rationality and real life. And again, that's going to be very important in terms of how we understand his approach to apologetics, because he's going to be in that category that we generally call verificational, the belief that you can examine the evidence that's available and it will end up driving you to the scripture. He talks about the importance of love in the Trinity and the personality of God as a necessity of seeing personality in the creature, that otherwise it's just mystical if you think that personality comes from nothing but chance. He says that this way only some form of mystical jump will allow us to accept that personality comes from impersonality. And then he refers to men like Teilhard de Chardin as metaphysical magicians who reject the only explanation that actually fits their own experience. I'm going to talk some about Huxley, Julian Huxley, who made the observation that man seems to function better if he acts as if God were there. So how do you be an atheist and yet still say, even though there's no God, maybe it's useful to us to act as if there is a God up there somewhere. I thought this was an interesting observation towards the end of this chapter. He says, in the absence of God, love will mean facing the problem of pushing the button that destroys the human race. It is a love resulting in that which should destroy. Thoughts about that? You're saying that it is love to be the one who enacts that? that the secular definition of love, once you've rejected God, leads you basically to self-destruction. Well, look at it! Look at Klaus Schwab and all the monkey mugs that want us to dissipate, vaporize, and rid the earth of excess taxation of the resources here. So here's another quote. They don't want to do it to themselves, but they want to do it to people. Right. You're the problem, Leland, not them. They're the ones who see the problem and know how to fix it. Give me my injection, please. Yeah. You'll be getting your pill in the mail. Listen to how Frey Schaefer says this. If the world is what these men say it is, then man, not only individually, but as a race, being unfulfillable is dead. In this situation, man should not walk on the grass, but respect it, for it is higher than he. What does that sound like? Sounds like my second cousin. Yeah. So, and just parenthetically, by the way, as you look at the notes, you'll notice the indented paragraphs are kind of my commentary on the notes. So if we consider where we are today with the globalist agenda to drastically reduce or eliminate the human race as a plague upon the planet, that's Paul Ehrlich's words, an idea that goes back to Ehrlich in the 60s and even further back to Malthus in the 18th century, then we really are prepared to destroy the race in order to save the grass. That's how absurd we have become in our humanism. I have had conversations like that. with displays that we had and things like that. And more than once I had somebody, I think he's college age or maybe just beyond, but human beings are a virus on the earth. It's repeating the propaganda. And it's ironic, you know, it's hard to figure out how you would get this out of a Darwinian kind of theology, because the whole point of Darwinianism is the dominance of the superior species. So why are we talking about wiping out every other species on the planet? Because we are, after all, at the top of the food chain. But instead, you see how distorted it is. It becomes completely reversed where we say we're the problem and we're the ones who have to go so we can save the grass. And spotted owls... There is that elite, self-appointed, top-of-the-rung evolutionary archons, you know? They get to decide. So they do in some camps maintain consistency. But Schaefer's overarching point that he keeps coming back to again and again that becomes the basis for his apologetic is that the unbeliever can never maintain a consistent worldview. And so we are looking for the point of tension where he is inconsistent and then pressing that point of tension. Right, right. Immediately speaking, I'm referring to, they're willing to kill others off, but they're not willing to off themselves for the sake of mother nature. Right. It's like the liberal's understanding of compassion is to take your money and give it to somebody else. That's it. Take your life. Same kind of idea. Your money, your body parts, life, whatever. Whatever serves the need. Whatever serves the greater good, Leland. You need to think outside yourself. I always say I have a motto. You first. That was my strategy with the vaccine. I did not want to be accused of any kind of racial appropriation by getting in line first for the vaccine. Okay, in chapter two, he talks about communication and our ability to communicate. Again, he's emphasizing the idea of verifiable facts. And I'm picking up on some of these things because as I'm reading Schaeffer again with a view towards a critique of his apologetic, it's easier for me to start seeing the kinds of things that he's saying that is giving us hints about his approach to apologetics. He talks about the importance of unity over the whole field of knowledge. God has spoken about himself and man, history and the universe, and that both the upstairs and the downstairs are covered. We don't have mechanical reason in the downstairs and irrational faith in the upstairs, but we can reunite those two through Scripture. So he says things like this, that even the unbelieving scientists can arrive at knowledge, but he can't necessarily understand its true nature. And I think, again, it's fairly self-evident that people who are not Christians can know a lot, can learn a lot, can teach a lot, can invent things, and all those kinds of things. So man, though he's fallen, is not completely disconnected from his creative and his intellectual faculties. And I think that's going to be an important point of contention a little later on when we start critiquing Schaeffer. He uses the example of Camus' novel, The Plague, as an example of the dilemma, the dilemma of the humanist. That if you fight the plague, you're fighting against God. But if you refuse to fight the plague, then you're being anti-humanitarian. And that's the kind of dilemma that you end up with. It's like someone who says we should respect all life. The question is should we respect the bacteria that are invading our body and making us sick or should we take an antibiotic? Because after all it is a form of genocide against those little bugs if we take the antibiotic. He also talks a number of places about man's ability to choose, that man is not a machine, that he is significant in history because of his ability to choose. I like this particular statement, if you take away the first three chapters of Genesis and you cannot maintain a true Christian position, nor give Christianity's answers. And then it's interesting to notice that both in naturalistic science and in neo-orthodoxy we're trying to undermine those first few chapters of Genesis. Either by saying that it didn't happen the way God said it did, that it was millions and billions of years, or on the neo-orthodox side of saying we just don't know, you know, we can't trust anything of the historical nature that scripture says. He says the Bible answers Camus' dilemma that there is a God who is there and He is good, there is hope for a solution to man's dilemma, there is a basis for morals, and there is a reason for fighting against wrong. He asks the obvious question, if I live in a world of non-absolutes, what criterion do I have to distinguish between right and wrong so that I can know what I should be fighting? And this is a way for us to think about where we may find a point of contact with somebody who disagrees with us completely, but they're passionate about fighting one thing or another. The question is, why? On what basis? Where are you? I'm on the bottom of page 8, moving on to page 9. You skipped page 7 entirely? I think I may have said something from page 7. I've been searching, too. Does some of the class have the syllabi? I may have missed page 7 now that you mention it. What Leland? Does some of the class have the syllabi? I sent you a copy of the notes by email and I also posted it on Canvas. I was knocking on the wrong door again. I'm so sorry. No, it's okay. It's my intent to have the notes posted to Canvas a couple hours before class and then also to email them to you directly. So yeah, they're there. I promise. Yeah, it's funny. I missed page seven. Thanks for catching that, Jenny. He talks about how modern theology is no longer open to verification. Again, he's using that word that when we remove the ability to examine the facts, then we're taking ourselves out of basically a biblical view. Bottom of page seven there, before we get to chapter three, it should be obvious by this time that Christianity and the new theology have no relationship except the use of a common terminology with different meanings. So that's the dilemma of communication. We're using the same words, but we have changed the meaning of the words. Now I'm trying to find where I left off. All right, I'm going to jump to page nine, chapter five. He describes proof as consisting of these two steps, that there's a theory that must be non-contradictory, and it needs to give an answer to the phenomenon, and that we must be able to live consistently with our theory. Now, the kind of approach that he's using is sometimes called a scientific method. So if you're familiar with the scientific method and this sounds a little familiar, that's because that's the general idea. You propose a theory, you examine the data, you draw conclusions, and you may revise your theory after going through that iterative process. He says, quote, the existence of the external universe and its form and the managedness of man demonstrate the truth of the historic Christian position. So again, he's coming back again and again, and think in terms of the context. You have in the early 20th century, particularly the liberals who are denying the historicity of scripture. Higher criticism says there's spiritual truth in the Bible, but we can't trust its history. And Schaeffer again is coming back again and again and saying, no, we can trust the history of scripture. And not only that, but there's a verificational aspect to it, that what the Bible says about history can be tested and proved. He talks about the distinction between rationality and rationalism. Rationality is needed to open the door to a vital relationship to God. It defines and provides a form for the whole. If we give up the rational, everything is lost. So it's not surprising because of his reliance on reason that he's going to get some criticism as being a rationalist in his approach rather than using rationality as part of it. What's the difference? I think Bantill gets him more on his presuppositions. So we'll see when we get there. But rationalism is that enlightenment idea that we can start with man's reason and find out everything that's true. So we have to at least make the distinction between the use of reason, rationality, and the reliance upon reason by itself. And you might say he walks the fine line in that regard because he uses so much reason in his argumentation. Okay. In the next chapter, he starts talking about the point of tension and what is communication. And he defines communication as ideas that pass from one mind to another, and language is obviously an obstacle to that communication. And so here again, he's gonna say that the burden is on the Christian to figure out how to communicate in a way that the unbeliever is going to understand him, today's man, according to today's thought forms. So here we can think again of Edith's experience in China, of her willingness to adopt both the language and the culture. I could also quote from Paul there, who said, he strives to become all things to all people. That by all means, he might save some. And I don't think he means or implies in any way a compromise in what is true, but we might say an accommodation to the particular language or culture that he's speaking to. He did not speak the same way to the Jews as he did to the Gentiles. Schaefer says, as we turn to consider in more detail how we may speak to people of the 20th century, we must emphasize first of all that we cannot apply mechanical rules. Each person must be dealt with as an individual. and not only that, but our communication to him must be in genuine love, a genuine concern for the individual. So if he takes a very individualistic approach to communication and to apologetics, again, that makes him a little more difficult to categorize because he's not going to use a formulaic approach. He says, this kind of communication is not cheap. that genuine love means a willingness to be entirely exposed to the person to whom we are talking and this was an interesting thought because as I consider the difference between presuppositional and evidential apologetics I remember one time talking to a co-worker who was just bombarding me with questions and It was obviously putting me in a defensive position of trying to answer his questions. And I did the best that I could at the time, which wasn't very good. But it was an important lesson from the standpoint of seeing that there are different approaches to apologetics. And being in a defensive position like that, where the total burden of proof is on you, That can be really tough. I came away from that thinking that the problem with that approach is that you have to know too much. You've got to be able to answer just about any question that might come up. On the other hand, when I get exposed to presuppositional apologetics, after kind of figuring out how it was supposed to work, I thought, I like this better because, first of all, I don't have to know as much. I can use a didactic kind of approach, I can ask questions, but there's a way in presuppositional apologetics to kind of keep the burden of proof on the one that you're talking to. And so I think of those in broad terms as one is kind of a defensive approach and the other is a more offensive approach. And obviously being in the position of offense rather than defense is a more comfortable place to be. So here's Fran, and this is what he's saying, that basically you have to be willing to enter into the other person's world and make yourself completely vulnerable to it. If that doesn't make you a little uncomfortable, I don't know what to say. Again, it's kind of taking the approach that you have to be willing to say that if there's evidence against Christianity, then you're putting yourself at risk of having to repudiate what you believe. And isn't that kind of what Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15, when he goes through that great argument, if Christ is not raised, we are still in our sins, Let's eat, drink, and be merry, because there's nothing else. So there is a willingness to put yourself in a vulnerable position. And I suspect in his case that his ability to do that is part of what made such an impression on those that he talked to. But if Christianity depended on Christians to be able to give you every single answer more to it than just an intellectual argument, because it continues to thrive and continues to grow in the face of death of its adherence. So, it's more than just an academic answer, and it's more than just an academic faith, even though academics are good. Sure. There's still systematic truth there. But my experience on that one occasion of being queried repeatedly by this friend, and he was not hostile. He and I remained friends and co-workers for years afterward. But I came away from that thinking that it's almost like a game of gotcha. Then let's say he asked me a hundred questions and I answered them thoroughly. And then he asked me the very next question and I said, well, I don't know the answer to that one. And he said, ah, I gotcha. Now, if you failed to answer just one question, then I'm justified in maintaining my atheism. It had that kind of a feel to it. And I think that's virtually an impossible situation to be in because there's always gonna be at some point a question that you don't know the answer to. I actually heard one guy say, because I'm waiting for the results on the shroud of Turin to determine whether I'll be in. Yeah, you know, and it's a case of continually raising the burden of proof no matter what proof you offer, then, well, there's going to be one more thing after it, right? And so that's, at some point, And not to sound mean, but at some point, you need to have some tools to be able to go somewhat on the offensive. At least by beginning to ask questions. Okay? But at the same time, isn't Schaefer warning us against that same approach? We don't play gotcha with non-Christians. No, there's... We interact man to man. There's a lot that's presupposed there. It's not my world view on trial. It's your world view. You get up every morning and you roll the dice with eternity. Now tell me how you make that work. Yeah. I forgot what I was going to say. Sorry. I'm always interrupting. It happens. If it's important, it will come back to me. That's how I reason myself when I have one of those. On top of page 10, he says, every person we speak to has a set of presuppositions whether he or she has analyzed them or not. And this kind of gets my attention for a second because I'm starting to think that the way Schaeffer describes presuppositions and the way Van Til is going to describe presuppositions, there are going to be some different meanings in what they mean by that. And that may be a point where Van Til starts taking Schaeffer to task, where Schaeffer will say, I'm a presuppositionalist, but Van Til might come back and say, well, you're not my kind of presuppositionalist. That's not how I define presuppositionalism. Again, he says that there's no non-Christian who can be consistent in the logic of his presuppositions. And then here's where I ask this question. He's presupposing that there's still the common ground of logic and reason with the one he's talking to. Is that a good assumption? If we have passed the line of despair into non-reason, then can we still assume that reason will be an effective approach when it comes to apologetics, that it'll work? And what I mean by that, here's the question, which of you haven't encountered someone who seems completely at ease with the inconsistency of their beliefs? Yeah. There's no conscience left. Yeah, so it's not a question of failing to find the point of tension. There may be many points of tension, but when you try to bring those to bear, it may not have much of an effect because, frankly, if you are in the world of non-reason at this point, why should your belief system have to make any sense? Why should it be consistent? Last week I listened to a homosexual guy go and tell me I'm a Christian. I believe in Jesus. He answers my prayers. He does miracles. He's changed my life. I used to be an alcoholic drug user and now I go to church. Yeah, and I think as we kind of project forward from where Schaefer was 40, 50, 60 years ago, that seems to be what we're running into. And I think that's making the task more difficult. He says when you face... We're just going to have to come out and say, you know, according to the Word of God, you're not. We're going to have to take our lumps. Yeah. And another thought is that, and I think he says this, maybe it was last week's note that we talked about this, that we have to be able to establish truth. We have to reclaim the ground of truth, and maybe that's part of the approach, that if we're gonna reclaim reason, we first have to reclaim truth, objective truth, not feelings. Here's my comment on that. Modern man as the pantheistic mystic is increasingly impervious to any attempt at using reason. He's made his home in the upper story of subjective non-reason, his own feelings and preferences. About a third of the way down, page 10. He talks about the tension that man lives in between the reality of his world, the reality of the world on the one hand, and the consequences of his beliefs on the other hand. He says he cannot live in both places at once, that the more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world, and the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presupposition. So whether he is closer to the real world or closer to the end results of his own worldview, either way he's living in considerable tension. And here's where I come up with the idea of proposing something that I'll call the insanity continuum. That on one extreme, that we have denial, and on the other stream we have psychosis, a total break from reality. So denial is simply rejecting the objectivity of the world as it exists, and it presses against you, but psychosis is when you've reached that place where you live in a universe that doesn't even exist. Schaefer insists that man is lost, but he's not nothing, that we must not see fallen man as less than the Bible sees him. and that we are to find that place where his tension exists. Figure out what's important to him. Everybody has what I call moral hot buttons. Might be in the environment, it might be the oil companies, it might be you name it, right? Figure out what that is and use that as a starting point. Start with what is important to that person. He says, in practice, we'll always find a place where we can talk. And then I pose the question, what if we can't? And I wouldn't be surprised if you've had this experience as well, that you're trying to have a conversation with somebody, and at the end of the conversation, having resolved nothing, the other person says, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and then walks away. Well, I found that sometimes I have to say that. Otherwise, I go insane because the person keeps going round and round and round. And you're at an unusual point in continuing the conversation. Yeah, and you may reach that point as well, where you realize that you have pressed it as far as you can. They're not so mannerly anymore. They usually end up calling you a name like a bigot. Yeah, the ad hominem is always a popular choice. A better breaking point these days might be, let's come back to that and do it tomorrow. Yeah, and we say that kind of thing in a way that we really don't mean it. That's true. But you're really closing the door if you say we have to. And here's a thought, and I think, have any of you read Greg Kokel's book, Tactics? I have his tape series. Okay. Well, I like the way he approaches it. Me too. And he says he's not a presuppositionalist, but he kind of acts like one, it seems to me. Yes. I like his approach to asking questions and using questions. Columbo. Yeah, the Columbo questions. But I think of it like this. I think there's a... We could put it like this, that we're taking We're taking a page out of Satan's playbook because he likes to ask the question that raises doubts. And we can do the same thing. Sure. You should train people to doubt their doubts. Yep. There's plenty to be uncertain of and yet today's man seems completely certain of what he doesn't understand at all. A bit of irony. So he goes on to say, we're pushing someone to the point of tension, but our goal is not to win the argument. Our goal is to show the person their error, to bring them to a point of understanding. He says, as I push a man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him. Pushing him toward the logic of his presuppositions is going to cause him pain. Therefore, I must not push any further than I need to. And as I think about this idea of pushing someone toward their pain, taking the roof off, as he says, exposing them to the reality or the consequences of what they claim to believe, and causing them pain in the process, it's a little like a disciplinary process. You know, scripture says rightly that no discipline seems pleasant at the moment. It's painful, but it produces the fruit of righteousness. And then there's another aspect to this, that I bring up as well, and that is this, that at some point, using his analogy of the roof, that we think of this individual living in a worldview, it's a house that has walls and has a roof, and taking the roof off and exposing him to reality is helping him confront the consequences of his belief. But the other side of the coin is that If you don't take the roof off for this guy, sooner or later the roof is going to come down on top of him. In other words, reality is going to come through that roof, one way or the other. And it might be some tragedy that comes crashing through the roof that you might actually be doing someone a favor by helping them see, even if it's causing some pain, helping them to see and understand their worldview more clearly before something much worse can happen. And what's the worst thing? What's the last consequence? And then what? Are you talking about the ultimate consequence? Yeah, what's the ultimate? The ultimate consequence, wow. Are you going all the way to the venancy, the judgment? Yeah, that would be the one. That's the ultimate reality that everyone is going to have to face. You don't want to be guilty of being a hellfire and brimstone preacher either, but the issues at hand aren't such. We have to remember that souls are at stake. That's right. Toward the end of this chapter, he says, the hardest thing of all is when we have exposed modern man to his tension, he still may not be willing for the true solution. So he's at least acknowledging that it's not always going to produce what we would like in terms of an outcome of bringing someone to that point where they're prepared to hear the gospel. He goes on to talk in the next chapter about the aspects of what it means to believe on, to cast oneself on Christ, and here's where my parenthetical commentary I find it a little annoying that so often he talks about accepting Christ, because that sounds very Arminian to my Calvinistic ears. I was going to ask, did he ever state whether he considered himself Calvinist or Arminian? Oh, he's definitely Calvinist. He doesn't sound like one. Yeah, so it may just be that he's kind of picking up on what was more common language at that time, but he comes back, he hits a home run here. when he eventually says that, you know, this expression, he says there are four critical aspects of what it means to believe on, to cast oneself on Christ. The existence of God, personal moral guilt, the substitutionary death of Christ in space and time, real historical event, trusting in Christ and not in works. And then summarizing by saying, my faith is simply the empty hands by which I would say receive. I accept God's free gift. I love it. It's a lot more than just saying, I prayed it's in or it's prayer. Absolutely. There has to be knowledge first. That's a big part of what he's saying. You don't come to Christianity without knowledge and without using reason. So again, The gist of his apologetics is to lead you to the gospel, not just to win an argument and leave you hanging. He talks about the importance of growth through Bible study, prayer, evangelism, and church attendance. He goes on in the next chapter to talk about the purposes of Christian apologetics. the ability to communicate in a way that any given generation can understand. He talks about how apologetics is the kind of thing that starts first with the individual, that you need to have answers to the questions for yourself first before you can answer other questions. And maybe you've seen a case, or maybe you have. The story that I was relating a moment ago is kind of a case of trying to do apologetics without knowing as well as I should have at that point what I believe myself so that I could answer the questions. He says, we have left the next generation naked in the face of the 20th century thought by which they are surrounded. And here's where I think back to Edith's motivation in high school for becoming an apologist because of what she saw happen to her own older sister. There's a longer quote that I'm going to share with you on page 13 there because this captures several points. He says, the positive side of apologetics is the communication of the gospel to the present generation in terms that they can understand. The purpose of apologetics is not just to win an argument or a discussion, but that the people with whom we are in contact may become Christians and then live under the Lordship of Christ in the whole spectrum of life. It is important to remember, first of all, that we cannot separate true apologetics from the work of the Holy Spirit, nor from a living relationship in prayer to the Lord on the part of the Christian. We must understand that eventually the battle is not just against flesh and blood. So what are your thoughts on that? What then becomes the danger of a methodological approach to apologetics? What is it missing? Well he sums it up by saying the battle is a spiritual battle. We can do methodology, but our relationship with God and prayer has something to do with our effectiveness in ministry to those that are bound by the enemy. Not that we have anything in ourselves to do with it, but as vessels for God to work through. Has there something to do with the fact that if we are obedient to Him, in our own personal lives. It has an effect to the degree that He can use us. I'm not saying that He can't use us at any time, but being used by Him is a privilege. And the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey Him, and the work of the Holy Spirit not of our works, but there is something that has to do with our obedience if God uses us. We want to be used. God can use somebody else, but He wants to use someone who's disciplined themselves in a way that He can. And this is what Schaeffer is trying to direct us toward, being more devoted and more disciplined in our Christian living so that God can put his fruitfulness through us in a way that can be winsome and appealing to the world. It's a spiritual battle. The enemy doesn't want it. both in apologetics and in other parts of his ministry is the reliance on the work of the Spirit. That it's not just what you say or how you say it, but having that reliance on the Spirit to make it effectual. if we don't rely on prayer, then we are practically denying God's existence. So we're trying to do this at our own strength. So we end up falling back into a kind of religion of warps. So in the next to the last chapter he talks about the importance of demonstrating through our life and our witness, the reality of God. He talks about the importance of demonstrating what he calls a substantial healing. So not that we are perfect, but that there is real meaningful change, visible effects. And this is where I'm gonna finish with this quote here, because this is where there's gonna be a little contention later on. He says, the world has a right to look upon us and make a judgment. We are told by Jesus that as we love one another, the world will judge, not only whether we are his disciples, but whether the father sent the son. The final apologetic along with the rational logical defense and presentation is what the world sees in the individual Christian and in our corporate relationships together. And then to add a little humor, I said, yikes, the noise that you hear is the sound of alarm bells going off at the Apologetics Control Center on the estate of the late Cornelius Mantill. Because we're saying that the world, in its fallenness, is making a judgment about Christians. So, apologetics is a way of life, not just a method for reaching the lost or answering questions. And Schaefer is adamant about the importance, as Leland says, that there's an integration of all of life and a reliance on the spirit. Last thoughts or questions. Until he wasn't just a classroom bookworm, he would go out on the street and street preach. Yep. I mean, he was very much fluent in his evangelical lifestyle, too. Yes. So, we'll have a chance to look at some of those kinds of things as well, and compare and contrast a little bit between both the method and the application of apologetics for those guys. Anything else? I want to give a praise report. Since starting the class, listening to the lectures. It moved me to download the series, How Then Shall We Live, put it on a USB drive, gave it to my cousin who's a retired attorney. She got a Master of Theology from a Catholic college, taught She said, I'll listen to it, and I'll deal with it. And I was just really jazzed about that, that she would even take it, you know? It's a way of planting some seeds, and then you can have conversations later. Okay, let me quickly pray us out and give you guys a quick break before we start the next class. Father, we do thank you that you have brought us here tonight to learn and pray that you would apply what we're learning to our hearts and our minds. That we would reflect the kind of true spirituality that Schaefer talked about so often. That not just in our words, not just in our arguments, but in our lives, we would reflect the reality of the work of Christ in our lives. And that we would go from here and Be creative and find new ways to reach the lost as we go about our daily lives. We pray these things in Christ's name, amen.