However, I am convinced that if there is such an office and gift that sets one apart (from the calling of all Christians to proclaim the coming judgment and testify to our hope and mercies of and in Christ) then we do have one in Ed. His passion and work in the areas of evangelism and apologetics for the sake of the gospel is beyond most anyone I’ve ever met.

Ed’s particular interest is in cults—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, Mormons, etc. And if you follow American politics even a little, you know that a presidential candidate—Mitt Romney—is a Mormon. [As an aside, if you don’t follow American politics, it is nothing worth getting into, trust me.] As a result, Mormonism is a topic of great interest for many, Christian and non-Christian alike.

The thread that runs through the discussions comes down to this question: “Is Mormonism Christian?”

Now, I’ve read books and listened to debates and to me there is no way Mormonism is Christian. But the majority Christians that I’ve talked with think otherwise. Further, I know some learned and faithful Christians who don’t want to be so stark with this divide. With that, I’ve always had a slight nudge on my conscience that I am being too dogmatic and rigid.

Back to Ed. He convinced me to spend a day with him at some Mormon historical sites nearby. There we would be able to talk with Mormons and find out what they believe, from their own mouths.

The short of it is that I came away from the day with a conviction that indeed Mormonism is not Christian. Here are six observations in spending the day with them:

1. Their devotion to Joseph Smith—the Prophet—is parallel, if not greater, to that of Christ.
2. The commitment to the teachings and institution of the Church of Latter Day Saints trumps their commitment to the Bible (which they confess they uphold as truth from God).
3. When faced with the idiosyncrasies of their belief, they rely on their experience of faith. In other words, a few gentlemen said to us “you are thinking this through with your head, but I know the truth in my heart”. They also retreat to hierarchy, in that none of them would “speak for the Church” when confronted with a question that befuddled them.
4. They have a sense of the sacred (places and times) that originate from their view of Joseph Smith (see #1). Any significant place Smith dwelt is somewhat of a mecca for them.  I am curious if they view historic sites in Jerusalem and Israel in the same way?
5. Their hope can never rest because it rests ultimately in doing enough good works.
6. We were called “brothers” (as in Christ) but also told, by the same people, that those who don’t follow Smith’s prophecies are outside the Church and need to hear the true gospel.

Two final observations are worth noting. First, because I live in a Catholic-dominated area, I found little difference in evangelizing Catholics and Mormons. If you read the above six points and change some names, a fair description of the average Catholic is made. It is trendy to move away and slightly modify Reformation Orthodoxy. My time with the Mormons entrenched me in the justification-by-faith-alone camp. It is what all people of all religions need to hear. Yes, Mormons do speak of being saved by the blood of Christ, but when it gets fleshed out in practice, it is actually not where they put their hope. This is the same with my Catholic friends.

Second, because I have a rather bleeding heart when it comes to direct encounters with people, I couldn’t help but notice their sincerity. In one sense, the Mormons I met where beautifully devout people. But Ed reminded me what is really going on with this great phrase, “the beautiful face of evil”. Indeed, that is what any religion or person is portraying when the trappings of sincerity and meekness cover up and distort the fact that Jesus is the true Savior and King.

Sunday, I preached on 1 Samuel 16-17. So I finally had a deadline to force myself to come up with an answer.

It is a wonderful passage. I could have spent several weeks going through one of history’s greatest stories. As one would expect, I leant heavily on insights which John Woodhouse spoke and wrote about in his sermons and commentary.

What was equally as helpful was Dale Ralph Davis’ 1 Samuel (Christian Focus, 2003) expository commentary. What is interesting is that Davis, as many know, isn’t exactly a champion of the Christ-centered model of preaching the Old Testament (as least in the same way Woodhouse and Goldsworthy are). Still, his summary of 1 Samuel 17 is worth quoting in full here:

“Hence the driving concern of this chapter is the honor of God’s name, his reputation, his glory. David is driven by a passion for the honor of God. Does this make any difference in how one interprets the chapter? Yes! It should keep us from going around and talking about the cleverness of David or the bravery of David. The focus of the chapter is not on David’s courage but on Yahweh’s adequacy in David’s weakness. David himself told us this (vv. 37, 45, 47). An interpretation that refuses to see this steals the glory from God which in this Scripture he has designed to receipt for himself. Hermeneutics can be hazardous. The chapter will allow us to focus on David in one respect, to follow him in one particular, namely, to share the vision of his faith, a faith that kept its eyes fixed on the honor of Yahweh. Hence in this chapter David essentially says to Israel and to us: ‘Yahweh’s reputation is at stake; that matters to me; that matters enough to risk my life for it.’ Can we say that? Is that our vision, our point of view? What situations are there in our own day, in our own various worlds, where we can clearly see god’s honor is at stake? Can we say that that matters to us more than our advantage or reputation or security?” (p. 154)

Me: ‘Have you heard of Matthias Media?’

T4Ger: ‘Er…no, I don’t think so.’

Me: ‘Have you heard of ‘The Trellis and the Vine?’

T4Ger: ‘Oh, yes, that is a great book. We’ve been reading it with our leaders…Are you guys connected to that book in some way?’

To which I would happily inform my new friend that Matthias published the book. It was extremely encouraging to hear of the impact the book has had in so many churches in the States and in Canada.

However, in amongst all the encouraging chats we had were a few conversations that surprised me. Marty and I both talked to a few church leaders who told us that they had read the book, appreciated the insights in the book, invited other leaders in their churches to read the book…but then the excitement fizzled out and they moved on to some other ‘model.’ I appreciated the honesty of that feedback we received, but it did suggest to me that (horror of horrors) it’s even possible to turn The Trellis and Vine into a trellis!

In the church we are so programed to programs, that when something comes along encouraging us to de-program, we can’t help but treat it as a program. So we read it, discuss it, rave about it, but once we get to the last page we subconsciously tick that resource off our list and look for what else we can take our leaders or members through.

I don’t want to convey the impression that these few negative responses are a common reaction. I think the vast majority of people who have read the book get what Tony and Col have written. But for me those conversations served as a reminder that shifting from a trellis concentration to a vine concentration really is a mindset change that doesn’t happen overnight. It is something we need to commit to over the long haul.

I know as a pastor that I can be impatient for change and growth in our church. I want our members to increase in their love for the Lord Jesus such that their lives demonstrate abundant spiritual fruit. I long for increased hunger for the Word of God which translates into greater trust and obedience. I pray for a greater zeal to talk to our non-Christians friends and neighbors. But the temptation on all these fronts is to think that the next great program that comes down the evangelical production line will be the answer. But it never is. If we treat The Trellis and the Vine as another such program, we’ll only be disappointed again. It will just be another trellis.

By God’s providence, ‘The Trellis and Vine’ came out around the time a group at our church were meeting to discern a vision for our congregation in the coming years. The book redirected our course such that we saw the need to become disciples who make disciples in order that all would ‘taste and see that the Lord is good’ (Psalm 34:8). It meant a renewed commitment to read the Bible together – on Sundays, in community groups and (gradually) in one-to-one settings. It meant coming on Sunday mornings ready to do ‘ministry in the pew.’ It meant doing more than lip-service when it comes to prayer, but acknowledging that while we plant and water, it is the Lord who brings the growth.

And slowly we have seen the vine growing. In some areas the evidence are small shoots, in other areas there are clusters of fruit. It is extremely encouraging to see this growth. But constantly I’m reminded of the need to keep everyone’s focus on the vine. Just yesterday in our adult Sunday School class we were thinking about the work of the church and among other passages we looked at Ephesians 4:1-16 and Hebrews 10:23-25. We observed how God’s way to build maturity and unity is through word ministry (Ephesians 4) and were convicted again of the responsibility of each of us in that task. We saw again the summons to constantly be encouraging one another and realized that one dimension of this mutual encouragement, namely our ‘ministry of the pew’, needed re-focus.

These conversations were great reminders for me too that what we read, digested and adopted in ‘The Trellis and the Vine’ was not for a season, until another program came along. Vine work is the ongoing Word-centered, disciple-making, Christ-exalting work to which we are called at all times.

So, has ‘The Trellis and Vine’ been ‘trellisified’ in your church?

Andrew Smith grew up in and ministered in Ireland but now lives in Pennsylvania. Andrew is the pastor of Kennett Square Presbyterian Church outside Philadelphia. He and his wife Tara live with their two children in Kennett Square.

“Cynics imagine they are disinterested observers on a quest for authenticity. They assume they are humble because they offer nothing. In fact, they feel deeply superior because they think they see through everything.”  – Paul Miller, A Praying Life, 91 (NavPress, 2009)

One of the many places where this humble superiority comes through is when I hear most forms of God talk. When I hear the flowery language that attributes glory to God, a “praise God” after every sentence or two, I do an imaginary eye roll. When I ask people how they are and they respond “better than I deserve”, I say under my breath, “O, please.” When a suffering soul responds with “the Lord will provide”, I think that the person must be reading too much of Joel Osteen.

Why?

Because I’m superior. I see through it all. I know that they really don’t mean what they say. I know that they conditioned themselves to say such things. I know that these people are hopelessly inconsistent with the words they say and the lives they live.

Even more, I know that if I were to adopt some forms of God talk, it would just be met with deaf ears. I know that those who know my life and listen to my words will just write me off as a hypocrite. I know that even if some will be encouraged by my pointing to the Lord with my mouth they will, no doubt, misunderstand me and become Arminian, Amyraldian or Pelagian.

Worst of all, I know that if I stop being cynical then I’ll become a “cock-eyed optimist” (to quote Kramer from Seinfeld) just like the rest of America. With that, I’ll lose my “honorary Aussie” title.

One other area where cynicism reigns is in sin projection. Because I struggle with this sin it must mean that everyone does. But, I am willing to keep a bit of cynicism here and suggest, especially to those of my ilk, that many could use a dose of humility in this area. I am rather sure most to whom this hits will not allow the pendulum to swing too far the other direction.

I am in Wheaton, Illinois this week. I’m attending a Charles Simeon Trust workshop for people who teach the Bible. I am here as a participant as well as on behalf of Matthias Media. Vaughan Roberts, rector at St Ebbes in Oxford, is leading the workshop alongside Josh Moody, pastor of College Church.

To most, those are simple and basic facts of my whereabouts this week. To me, it is a wonderful confluence of circumstances that represent the genesis of Matthias Media in North America.

It was twelve years ago that I stepped foot into St Ebbes in Oxford on a Sunday morning. By the time I left that evening (I think I did leave for lunch) my life was turned upside down.

When I arrived that morning, I had never heard of expository preaching or of Matthias Media. That evening, I had in my bag an Interactive Bible Study on Titus and a set of expository sermons (on cassette!) that would launch a complete rethinking of the Bible, my life and ministry.

My new friend, Peter Sanlon was an undergraduate there at Wycliffe Hall and applying for a position on staff back at my home church in Ohio. So he was keen for me to get a glimpse of his world there in Oxford. A key part of his world was two young ministers, Vaughan Roberts and Tony Jones. Led by these men, this world was full of robust theological thinking, biblical theology, expository preaching and personal ministry.¹

The remarkable part of the story is that I grew up in a solidly Christian home and church. I attended a conservative Christian college. I listened to well-known and faithful bible teachers on my commute to work. But, when I heard Vaughan and Tony give expositions on Revelation and Titus respectively, I knew that they were teaching and preaching the way it should be. No one told me this. I had yet to learn Dick Lucas’ text/framework instruction. I just knew. Call it intuition or, more accurately, the power of God’s Word preached in context and with vigor. Either way, it got my attention.

Now, that Bible study I came away with worked in almost exactly the same way. I had been through dozens of studies in church and at college. This one was different though. To me, it functioned as one of those new expository sermons I heard, only in print. It prompted me to work hard at observing the text, understand the context and respond in repentance and faith.

To keep it short and to the point, I will say that those two influences on my life—expository preaching and Matthias Media—grew over the next five years. So much so that when I was attending my first Simeon Trust Workshop in Wheaton in 2005, I sat at a restaurant over the dinner break and mused with some friends about getting Matthias Media into the United States. I knew that I couldn’t be the only person who needed a radical reorientation about life and ministry. Not everyone has access to top-notch expository preaching, but through the Matthias Media resources, every small group could. “We could think of it as expository ministry,” I told my friend.² “Through the training up in it through the Matthias Media resources, perhaps there could be more expository preaching and ministry.”

This week, I get to listen again to Vaughan in person at the place where Matthias Media North America was first thought up. It is indeed humbling that the Lord has been kind in using those circumstances to be a blessing to thousands of churches and pastors around North America.

I’ve pondered the reasons why it is so difficult to write out my thoughts once per week. If you were to ask my friends, it wouldn’t be because I lack opinions on any and all things.

There are the obvious reasons—two jobs, four children, micro-managing my Australian overlords, etc. But what is at the center of many of the other reasons is my sheer fear of man, and the opposite side of the same proverbial coin, people pleasing.

Some of the reasons are straightforward. For example, I am not sure if I want to put myself in harm’s way in the blogosphere, even just the four people who might read my posts.  Kevin DeYoung is a respected pastor and blogger over at The Gospel Coalition website. Usually, his posts are received with thankfulness and applause. The other day though he got lambasted by his readers when posting about politics. The many comments that shot him down were doing so because he wasn’t “staying within his field of expertise”. I actually wonder if I have any field I can write on. Thankfully, the readers here at The Briefing site are much more charitable and helpful.

It is the other side of that coin that gets me more. Being a fairly avid reader of current books on theology and the bible, as well as following some of the more well-known blogs, I confess that I often ask myself “What could I add?” and then move on to other tasks. I am not terribly insightful. The best I have to offer other people is what I read and hear from, well, other people.

Even with those sobering judgments, I still often set out to impress and wow people when I set out to blog on theology and Christian thinking. This came to light again as I set out to prepare some sermons for the summer and prepare for an upcoming Simeon Trust workshop. In both opportunities, I have been asked to prepare passages from 1 Samuel. And in both cases, I am—conscientiously or unconscientiously—trying to make sure I say something really smart and novel (and at least one humorous thing). Those are not helpful motives; nor are they often obtainable without some “give” on the message.

So, I’ll write something here that is not unique or breathtakingly amazing. I’ll write what you already know. I am a son of Adam in my fear of man (or woman) rather than God. Or, as the excellent book states, I am acting on life as though man is big and God is small.

I realize this doesn’t give me (or anyone) a good reason to blog or write mediocre posts about boring topics. Still, given that I’ve been asked to blog, I should go about it in a Christian manner. What does that mean? My motives should be to exhort, to proclaim, to stir up by way of reminder, to observe, to seek guidance. In other words, in doing what I am supposed to do for and with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I should seek to be faithful to the Lord. Not to be clever or to get re-posted by Justin Taylor (though, that would be cool!), but to be helpful, even if it is only for one reader who never posts a response.

Our mantra at the Trellis and Vine workshops is “do a deep work in the lives of a few and let God multiply the results”. Perhaps by getting back to regularly thinking of what will be helpful for others, God does a deeper work in me.

“Labels are for boxes and dieters” a friend told me after I asked him his theological persuasion. Many of my new Christian friends tell me basically the same thing. Most of them are under the age of forty, and none of them want to be labelled. They don’t want to identify themselves as Baptist or Presbyterian or Calvinist or conservative. They just want to be known as Bible-believing Christians.

Ever the instigator, I say, “Wait a minute. That is a label, isn’t it? After all, what other kind of Christian is there besides those who believe the Bible?” Then we have that discussion of what it means to be a Christian and how much of the Bible you have to really believe to be considered one.

For the first time in my life, I attend a non-confessional church. Previously I’ve attended churches that held to historic confessions of the faith—like the 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession. However, due to accepting a pastoral position, I now am ingraining myself in a broader evangelical church that confesses a belief in the Bible and in a short statement of faith similar to that of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. The change of church has resulted in my having many more of the above conversations than I ever thought I would.

This shouldn’t have surprised me. This is the age of individualism and self-sufficiency. What has surprised me is how, despite our anti-label culture, the term evangelical is still one that is so commonly contended for and shared by so many anti-labellers.

In 1995, Mark Thompson wrote about the label evangelical:

We are not simply defining an interesting and distinctive group within the Christian spectrum; we are defining authentic, biblical Christianity. Evangelical theology is not simply our label; it is God’s truth for the world. ¹

Have the last fifteen years changed anything? Is the label worth fighting for? Does it mean anything anymore to call a church or someone evangelical?

Some authors—most notable of them is David Wells in The Courage to Be Protestant—think there is little hope of rescuing the term evangelical. Perhaps this landscape prompted Zondervan to commission Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Like many books in this comparative genre, this one attempts to allow representatives of differing views to make an argument and interact with others through a series of articles. The four views and their representatives are:

• Kevin Bauder—Fundamentalis
• Albert Mohler Jr—Confessional evangelicalism
• John G Stackhouse Jr—Generic evangelicalism
• Roger E Olson—Postconservative evangelicalism

The editors asked these scholars and pastors to speak and interact not just on their view but also around these three issues:

• What is their view’s take on Evangelicals and Catholics Together and The Manhattan Declaration?
• What doctrinal boundaries do you think evangelicals should have (using the issue of open theism and the role of the Evangelical Theological Society as examples)?
• What is your view on penal substitutionary atonement and its place in considering a belief to be evangelical?

This book was a fun read from cover to cover. The format allows bright men to interact with each other’s arguments in a thoughtful and measured way. My assumption was that I would early on take a side, enjoy that one article and then read begrudgingly through the rest. However, throughout the book I found myself agreeing with bits and pieces of each author’s response to another. Further, as one who enjoys reading church history, the treatment of the history of the evangelical movement—through four different lenses—was fascinating.

But it was a confusing read as well. While the editors presented the contributors the list above to interact around, I was not exactly sure what the goal of the book was. Sometimes the contributors were making a case for their particular view to be the defining view of an evangelical. Albert Mohler’s confessionalism article makes the case that evangelicalism’s identity lies in how one (or one’s church) responds to these issues—the trustworthiness of the Bible, the exclusivity of the gospel, the integrity of theism, and the nature of justification and the atonement (p. 89).

Certainly, the evangelical circles I know best would agree that those are the signifying issues, marking the difference between evangelicalism and mainline confesssionalism or liberalism. However, I was left wondering if confessionalism can really exist when there is no singular confession to confess. I know what confessionalism means for an Anglican or for many Presbyterians. I don’t really understand it when it comes to evangelicalism. The devil surely is in the details. Does one vacate evangelicalism with certain views on polity or six-day creationism? Depends on who you ask.

Kevin Bauder took a different approach while representing fundamentalism. Bauder argues that fundamentalism’s approach should be considered part of evangelicalism but that evangelicalism is not restricted to a fundamentalist approach. He says, “the rift between fundamentalists and other evangelicals is more than a half century old” (p. 48, emphasis added). Bauder clearly believes evangelicalism is broader than his fundamentalism.
Stackhouse and Olson both have a bit of a reactionary argument, arguing for a broader view than Bauder and Mohler. For example, Stackhouse says “Evangelicals who diminish or dismiss substitutionary atonement seem to be in the same camp as my evangelical brothers and sisters who espouse open theism: truly evangelicals, and truly wrong about something important” (p. 137).

Similarly, Olson labours to make the case that evangelicalism is a movement. As such:

Evangelicalism has no definable boundaries and cannot have them. An organization has boundaries; a movement does not. And without boundaries it is simply impossible to say with certainty who is and who is not an evangelical. (p. 163)

Interestingly, he later then questions the possibility of Seventh-day Adventists and Churches of Christ being evangelical (p. 180).

Detailed arguments for and against each strand of evangelicalism by the contributors are found within the book. I certainly wouldn’t be able to add much insight beyond what these scholars have already put forth. But, after reading and thinking about these arguments, I have little more clarity than when I started. I still wonder if the evangelical label is worth contesting for and, if so, what exactly one would be fighting for or against.

A complaint on the methodology of the book is that it seemed like there was an intentional avoidance of Scripture. Perhaps the editors thought it would open up too many proverbial cans of worms. But I would have enjoyed a healthy debate on key texts that may signify the exclusiveness or inclusiveness of an evangelical brand of Christianity and if any other such brand of Christianity could really exist.

The book could be helpful to some, especially those who are in the trenches of these debates. However, for my friends mentioned above, I doubt a book like this would be helpful. In fact, I worry that the book may reinforce their views that labels are only good for fighting over or, more generally, that words contain so little meaning that we should focus instead on just getting along. I would not be too fussed if those views were held only in relationship to the issue at hand—the nature of evangelicalism—but such vacuums do not exist.

I’d rather commend something concrete and singular like John Stott’s Basic Christianity, and the dialogue over its plausibility and correctness. There will still be nagging questions about whether there is such a thing as non-evangelical Christianity or the role of confessions and creeds. But, now equipped with a summary of the core doctrines of the Bible and a summary of the gospel—as Stott’s classic book provides—it would be clear that words and doctrine do matter, and that beyond anything else Jesus is Lord.

Still, there is much more to be dealt with.  I am re-reading Broughton Knox’s The Everlasting God. He brings up a slightly different way to help someone understand judgment, connecting it with creation and purpose.

Here is a sampling of quotes from his section on judgment (pgs. 36-41):

“Creation implies purpose. In contrast, impersonal evolution is purposeless – things happening by accident without plan. But creation is a personal activity of an almighty, supreme God. Personal action implies purpose, and this in turns implies assessment. The doctrine of judgment is closely related to that of creation.” (37)

“Thus the gospel that contains judgment, and salvation from judgment, is a gospel that is always relevant to the hearer, no matter what state of civilization he may have attained. Such a gospel does not need to be assimilated to the culture of the people who are hearing it.” (39-40)

“A gospel that minimizes or omits judgment must concentrate on this life and benefits that Christ brings for this life. Most modern preaching, whether liberal or evangelical falls into this mistake. The liberal preacher may emphasize a social gospel, for example, one of alleviation of poverty or political oppression; the evangelical may emphasize a happy life, love, joy and forgiveness.

But the Christian gospel is concerned with the future. It proclaims Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come. When hearers accept the gospel for the benefits of this life, such as peace and happiness, it is a contradiction to ask them to suffer for the gospel. The whole purpose of their accepting the gospel was for some present benefit which they had been offered by the preacher. This presentation and acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ for the benefits it brings here and now may well be the explanation of why it is that although evangelical Christianity is growing, for example, in the United States, Christian influence on society is receding.” (pg 40-41)

A few observations:

• Establishing the story of a people in a purposeful creator/creation relationship, as Two Ways to Live does so well, seems to be the way to assimilate this “no-assimilation-needed” gospel. Are there other ways or variations on the theme that you have found true to the above ideas?
• By connecting creation/purpose with judgment, are we making an unintended statement about God and his ability in creation? (i.e. “God is surely not a very powerful, or good, or able, etc. creator if this world is his handiwork”)
• With that, will the conversation inevitably trace down the road towards predestination and, among other places, Romans 9?
• His observation about preaching the gospel towards this world’s benefits or felt needs is spot on. Just this last week, I’ve heard at least two mature Christians recount talks to non-Christians about the essence of Christianity. Their talks were all about self-fulfillment and inner peace. Those may not always be there. Future judgment will.
• I haven’t heard a better concise explanation of how and why Christianity can grow but have a lessening effect on society.

“If you could get all the people at our church to read three books, which three would it be?”

Being a bit of a reader, I thought I would be able to rattle off three titles and be on with my day. However, it was tougher than expected to narrow down my selections. Is the reader a mature Christian or new to the faith? Should someone read more on Christian living or on how to read the Bible? How old is the person?

“Three books for anyone anywhere on their Christian journey,” my friend says.

With that, these are my three selections:

God’s Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts

Dig Deeper by Nigel Beynon & Andrew Sach

The Everlasting God by D. Broughton Knox

With the first two selections, I hope that someone will begin to develop (or redevelop) a proper foundation for reading and understanding the Word of God. The final choice comes not from a need to put a Matthias Media book on the list. It comes from a conviction of the necessity to ground people in a proper theology, especially of the nature and character of God. The Everlasting God, like no other book, helped me grasp that theology is not just a study of God but of “God in relationship”. From these additional two words comes all of Christian living and thinking.

So, those are my three books. What are your three books?

Over on Kevin DeYoung’s blog, guest blogger Jason Helopoulos asks this intriguing question:

“What if? What if there was a movement among the people in our Christian church pews? Not just any movement, but a movement where lay people were willing to consider, entertain, and act upon a different impulse than is normal in our decision making.”

He then goes on to apply that idea to Christians making radical decisions about where to live based on the need to plant churches. It’s worth reading in full. I think he’s right. It would “alter the landscape”.

But let’s not leave it hanging there as a wistful theoretical question: “What if…?”

Let’s ask: what would it take for lay people to “act on a different impulse” as suggested?

The Bible’s answer: it would take the Holy Spirit applying the life-changing truths of the gospel in a way that deeply impacts  both my heart and my way of thinking about the course of my life. It would need me to prayerfully soak in God’s word and its revolutionary message, thinking carefully about the practical implications for my choices and decisions. And, I suspect, it would also be helpful to have the assistance and prayerful encouragement of a group of Christian brothers and sisters who were doing the same thing alongside me.

Enter a new resource: The Course of Your Life: a personal revolution.

Don’t just ask “what if…?”. If you’d like to see yourself and other Christians acting on a different impulse in 2012, why not plan to gather a group of 8-10 people at the beginning of this new year, and commit together to carefully and thoroughly consider The Course of Your Life?

Order the Leader’s Guide, DVD, and Workbooks from Matthias Media today.