We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
Chapter 16 is entitled “Recover the dynamic of Spirit-filled gatherings in homes.”
Let’s face it, the Churches of Christ are in the doldrums. Our services are often boring, lifeless, gloomy. I’m convinced that our most loyal members attend regularly because they are just that, loyal, and not because they find it joyous and exciting. We are not growing. An outsider would never see us as imaginative, creative, or innovative. Except for some encouraging exceptions, we are not a changing people and we are not out on the cutting edge. We are going to have to get with it or we will not be saved.
That other mainline denominations are in the same predicament does not justify our own stagnation. (p. 187).
Why are our services so lifeless?
We have expensive edifices to pay for and to maintain, staffs to support, programs to fund. Our Achilles heel is the System. The System resists change, except occasional cosmetic change. Nothing real or substantial. The System demands conformity, and it is uneasy with thinking people around, especially a thinking preacher or a preacher that says something.
The System must maintain the status quo, and it must preserve itself at all cost. This is why it seeks to keep everyone satisfied by reacting rather than acting. And most significantly, the System is tied to the building. Regular church attendance, along with generous giving, is the essence of “faithfulness.” (p. 188).
Therefore, Garrett urges us to build our assemblies around home gatherings —
This brings me to the one thing above most everything else that we must do to be saved. We must recover — or is it discover? — the great lost secret of primitive Christianity. That secret was the dynamic of joyous, Spirit-filled gatherings in homes. Primitive Christianity knew nothing of buildings that never seem to get paid for. They did not have to bother with building an educational wing or getting the parking lot resurfaced, which are major tasks for the modern church. The early churches were house churches; as they grew they took in more homes. (p. 189).
I do not conclude from all this that we should close down our buildings. We cannot be the first century church, but as the 21st century church we can discover the great lost secret of the primitive church and make it applicable to our own time. Our buildings can be used for small group gatherings as well as large congregational meetings, but they should be more intimate and open to the leading of the Spirit than the usual Sunday school arrangement. Let eight to ten men and women gather in a circle each Sunday and Wednesday evenings long enough to get intimately acquainted. They could start by sharing what Jesus means to them, and from there they could talk about their fears, hopes, problems, family, etc. They would learn to pray together as a family of sisters and brothers, and they would eventually unburden their souls to each other. (pp. 191-192).
We need to be in each other’s home, come to know each other better, love each other more, learn to pray and share together in a way that cannot be done in the big “sanctuary” at church. In such an atmosphere the Holy Spirit can teach us more about the meaning of unity and fellowship. (p. 192).
Garrett, in short, proposes a small groups ministry in which meals are shared, intimate relationships are formed, and worship is intense.
I’m a big fan of small groups ministries. I’m not a big fan of house churches. I’m not opposed to house churches per se, but I think they aren’t particularly effective at growing the body of Christ or doing ministry in the American culture. I think they’re great for the participants, but not for the community where the participants live. Towns won’t miss a house church that closes. Many a great “institutional” church would be deeply missed if it were to close because it serves as a relief center, provides free programs to the community such as Celebrate Recovery and meals for the hungry, and otherwise has a substantial impact on its neighbors, and I don’t see house churches replicating this kind of impact.
Of course, many an institutional church would not be missed even a little, but there are enough large churches that matter to those outside the church that it’s clear that the institutional form can work. It can be small enough to build relationships through small groups and large enough to impact the world by being a single organism.
Hence, I think a vibrant small groups ministry — with meals — is a critically important adjunct to any church of over 100 members. Things happen in a small group that eats together that just don’t happen in a Bible class or church assembly. Garrett is right: these are places where the Spirit can be especially powerful.
Jay,
I certainly cannot dispute that institutional churches have an impact that house churches do not have. But that is also a conclusion reached from hindsight.
I cannot help but wonder what the “status” of Christianity would be if our gatherings had never become institutionalized in the first place.
Taking a general view of history, such institutionalization seems to have grown because certain men wanted to have greater influence on Christians than other men. Or, they wanted gain their own form of power.
Today, we seem to be trying to make the best of the institutionalization. And, more often than not, we are not doing a very good job.
What would you say the average size of an Adult Sunday School class is at your church? I noticed when I came to the CoC that the classes were huge compared to what I was used to being in.
Good to see that you don’t always agree with Leroy – but you disagree on the wrong points 😉 I don’t know how and where you have experinced house church life.
Today it was at our place. Peter made the kids-devotion and we all built a model of the tabernacle – in 15 min (he did some great preparations ahead). After the kids have been sent to their room (for coloring a picture and quite play time), we continued with songs, prayer and two shorter teachings, a reading, the Lord’s Supper. This was followed by a meal, with broccoli soup followed a “sweet buffet” (just happens when you have pot luck 😉 ) the last sister left at 3 pm (we started at 10 am).
Alexander
Johnny,
Class sizes vary quite a bit from church to church and even within a given a church. In my congregation, the class sizes run from 5ish to 45ish.
In the main, we see classes as providing a group larger than the typical small group — and we’re looking for a different dynamic. Baptists, on the other hand, often combine small groups and classes, and so have fairly small classes that act as small groups.
I think that it can be an either/or situation. I am a long-time proponent of house churches, but have begun to see that large local groups CAN work well as a point of connection between small groups and between the church and the community. This, however, requires a large group who is community oriented. A place which merely offers larger meetings does not, I think, really add much to the equation. Few people come to Jesus having walked in cold to a congregation where they have no connection. If we were to think of this in evangelistic terms alone, our facility “cost per convert” would be in the tens of thousands. But if we are talking about a group whose building is open all week, serving the community, that might readily complement house churches… if we can find in our hearts to stop being proprietary about who belongs to what group.
Historically– and I think this is what Garrett sees– the average CoC congregation is only open for business 4-6 hours a week, and eats all the resources of its members. Consider the little 90-member congregation, whose operating budget for salary and expenses may only be $60,000/yr. That’s about $200 per hour of public operation. I know that’s not all that goes on, but that is the time where the group is accessible to its neighbors. If this is how we let our light shine before men, this is one expensive bulb.
I don’t have a comment, but would like to read the comments. Yet, I have not found a way to subscribe to comments other than by posting one. If there is a way to do so, please let me know.
I read this — with astonishment:
“Let’s face it, the Churches of Christ are in the doldrums. Our services are often boring, lifeless, gloomy. I’m convinced that our most loyal members attend regularly because they are just that, loyal, and not because they find it joyous and exciting.”
He has misrepresented many, many people I know and he has misrepresented my wife, myself, and our family.
Jay, I continue to wonder why your webforum gives a further voice to Leroy Garrett’s bombastic words. How does misrepresentation of peoples’ hearts and actions honor the risen Lord? The answer: It does NOT.
Yes, small groups can be valuable. But the greater threat to our assemblies has nothing to do with “institutionalization” or anything that Leroy discusses here.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jerry,
For you, I just installed some software that should solve that problem. You can now subscribe without commenting! (But please don’t stop commenting.) Please try it out and let me know whether it really works.
For those with RSS readers, /comments/feed/ will provide a feed to all comments on all posts.
Jay:
As you have indicated clearly before, you will BLOCK someone on this webforum who posts a statement that JUDGES PEOPLE’S HEARTS. And as I have indicated, I believe you are on firm ground to do so. Now… you need to apply the same criterion to posts/words by writers you are quoting in your essays.
Some of what Leroy Garrett wrote should have been BLOCKED from this webforum. Just because brother Garrett targets “our most loyal members” in aggregate should give him no free rein on this webforum to express what you have said is out-of-line toward an individual.
I remain hopeful that you will act with greater consistency regarding your rules of conduct, Jay.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, you have resorted to that oldest of objections to general observations: “But MY CHURCH isn’t like that!” –as though your individual experience debunks a general statement such as Garrett’s.
ANY group may excuse itself from ANY criticism by taking offense in this manner. Government is not broken, because I am a state employee and I do my job very well, thank you very much. America is not a covetous or greedy nation because my aunt Mary is selfless and gave away her last mite to someone in need.
And speaking of bombast: Pot, meet kettle. Such affronted denials do “not much honor the risen Lord” either, Bruce. Being offended is not an argument or an answer, mi hermano. And trying to use your personal offense to get Jay to saw off other parts of the discussion is not much of a truth-seeking device.
If I recall correctly, the CoC’s numeric growth does not match the overall increase in population. And if one subtracts from that meager increase the increase experienced among those darned new-fangled “progressive” CoC’s, the numbers sag even further. Meanwhile, charismatic churches worldwide are experiencing considerable growth and multiplication. This is not to make things all about numbers, not at all. But a healthy body GROWS and gets stronger. It does not do this by insisting that everything is just fine exactly as it is.
Rather than swelling up in personal indignation, I would propose some friendly conversations where you talk with former CoC folks and ask them about their experiences. Or ask non-CoC visitors from other denominations what they think. I love my dad and brother, both long-term CoC preachers, and am glad to attend services with them. And I find some really nice people there. But a more arid and spiritually lifeless experience I hardly ever find. It’s like sampling Grandma’s fermented turnip-and-leek chutney. If you didn’t love Grandma, you wouldn’t eat the stuff at gunpoint.
Garrett’s stance is different from mine, I will admit. He wants to save his denomination by reviving it. Me, I want to enlighten its members, and if that kills the denomination– so be it. Learning more has certainly has run a few thousand of us out the door.
But I respect the desire of people like Leroy and Jay who want to reform their denomination and are willing to take steps toward that end. Their ideas of reform are not to simply build a bigger, more influential group, but to more adequately reflect in their communities the Spirit of God. That means change– significant change. But, institutions are change-averse, having their own inetia to overcome. It’s a demanding job. But if you do what you’ve always done… you get what you’ve always had.
Bruce wrote: “But the greater threat to our assemblies has nothing to do with “institutionalization” or anything that Leroy discusses here.”
Bruce, what would you say that this “greater threat to your assemblies” would be? I’m interested in your assessment.
“[W]e are not out on the cutting edge…”
When I see this, what I see is someone – even the best and sharpest among us, in this fellowship or any other – who is using the standards of the world to just the spiritual credibility of the church. These standards should be approached with care and with co-option, not acceptance and adoption.
If we’re not careful, we’re about to the miss the bus yet again on the significant social movement of our time. Adopting the “cutting edge” in finance and global economics – not to mention government and law – has gotten society, as with so many others in the world, into the mess that it’s in. Invariable, most people feel the blade of the world’s “cutting edge.” And, regardless of how attached we are to our own day and time, it’s always been that way.
The real “cutting edge” – to co-opt the term – may well be faithfulness to Who Christ is and what He’s about, but too many of us in the United States conflate our religion with our society and our partisanship at home and abroad. Openly living lives of compassion regardless of person or politics may the most cutting edge thing we can do right now. It certainly was “cutting edge” back in the first century, much to the confusion and ultimate anger of the powers that be of that day. Certain that seems to be the image of the Hebrews writer in ch. 4:12: the gladius was the legionaire’s sword and the image of imperial power. Yet even the gospel was sharper:
“…piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account.” ch. 4:12-13.
I’m always drawn to I Kings 22 when I run into discussions about the church and culture. The account reads as well as parable as it does the fragment of a history of the kingdom of Israel. Too many immature believers place their trust in the power of the state to embody their faith (“faith in what?” one may ask). The question remains: do we see ourselves as Micaiah or as Zedekiah, the true prophet or the court prophet? Do we wear the horns of iron or not?
Bob offered: “The real “cutting edge” – to co-opt the term – may well be faithfulness to Who Christ is and what He’s about…”
And if that is indeed the case, I think Garrett’s assessment is unfortunately still on target:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
OR
“Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.”
Jesus’ mission was NOT to “determine, defend, and maintain the orthodoxy of the church”, the main mission to which much of the CoC has devolved.
Please do not think I believe that the CoC is the only denomination that has lost its way in this regard. Nor is this forward-to-the-past fortress mentality characteristic of all CoC’s. But when we defend our reluctance to change by associating everything new or different with “the world”, we chain ourselves to the past.
“[W]hen we defend our reluctance to change by associating everything new or different with “the world,” we chain ourselves to the past.”
Wow. Glad I didn’t bring any matches.
Last time I looked, not many of us in this fellowship regard everything new or different with reluctance. If you can find me an example, I’d be grateful. And, since the historic Jesus is, by definition in the past, chaining ourselves to the historic fact of the Cross and the Savior’s finished work is a bind worth tightening.
One problem, as I see it, is the entire past-present dichotomy. One thing examining the past shows believers is the persistent tendency to find meaning for the Cross in their own present now long past. And to the extent that their own present embraced the Cross, it remains vital in the lives of those who come afterwards. We had Jerry Rushford at Fairview Road in Columbia (Mo.) last Sunday; he had come to town to catch the Mizzou-Texas game.
His sermon was an utter throwback to the past; it was derived from the theology of Issac Watts in “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” a hymn every bit of 300 years old. Watts himself was an example of those harrumphing the new vs. the old as the father of modern English hymnody. The point I took from it is not that Watts was modern in his day and ancient in ours but that the Gospel embraces not past or present as it does the eternal.
I suspect that most of our co-religionists in our fellowship and our fellow believers in the power of the Cross, while we have our fondness for things of the past (often firmly fixed in our minds and hearts in the vigor of youth and less so of older age per se), our real love is in the power of the eternal God to repair and redeem His Creation. There’s plenty of new things (ranging from technology to people) to bring to bear in advancing the Gospel in the present, but every generation has had its own experience with new things to young people. One day, all of this newness here and now will no longer be new, but it will be important to those who came to faith in this here and now.
20, 30, 40 years from now, something else will be that new thing. If we’re smart and if we’re mature, we’ll recognize the shared nature of old and new things, especially when the essential part of the shared nature is eternal, not contemporary. And we’ll communicate that recognition to our children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren, and their friends and their neighbors.
I suspect that one second on the others side of the grave, to that “undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns,” (to borrow some Hamlet) the distinctions between contemporary and traditional will suddenly matter very little. I shouldn’t think that we have to wait until then.
Charles:
Please stop couching my posts in “debate” terms. I have read such twice… and twice is too much. These posts are less “debates” for me and more matters of apostolic teaching and the heart. Yes, I have confidence where I “stand,” but that has nothing to do with “debate style,” “that oldest of objections” or any such stuff. I have a relatively simple view of the essays and posts here. Are they true to Scripture as the Word of the risen Lord? Do they fairly represent peoples’ hearts? Etc. I would be glad to chat by phone with you to let you better get to know me. I think you will find that simple approach is exactly who I am. If an interest glad to first converse by email. You can reach me at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net.
I think I will stand by what I wrote. Leroy Garrett was out-of-line in some of what I wrote.
As for your comments re the lack of numerical growth among churches of Christ, yes, I believe you are correct… but not for the reasons you (and Leroy and some others in this blog) are proposing. Any group in the U.S. committed to Scripture is generally facing the same barrage of critique.
Are you are familiar with John MacArthur’s The True War? If no I will suggest a read. As you wade into his study, you will find the answer to your query about “greater threat.” MacArthur’s assessment of U.S. popular religious thought is insightful — and on target. Indeed, he is sounding more-and-more like the Restorationists of a century back. Jay would do well to open his book to a review on this weblog. Far more valuable than wading through Leroy Garrett’s broad brush strokes, which misrepresent people at points.
And… let Jay speak for Jay. He has been inconsistent re the applying of his rules.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Charles:
Additionally, I read this:
“Jesus’ mission was NOT to “determine, defend, and maintain the orthodoxy of the church”, the main mission to which much of the CoC has devolved.”
And decided to ask: So, what do you make of the risen Lord guiding Paul as he wrote the letters to Timothy about concerns with doctrine and the need to pass on teaching to others?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Ah, but now we have moved from the mission to the methodology. Paul’s letters to Timothy were not presentations of the Gospel, but were primarily instructions and encouragements as to how to care for the believers.
It is not outside the work of the church to “protect the sheep”, nor is it outside God’s care for us for Him to instruct us as to how to walk as sons of God.
But Jesus’ mission, if I may, was to reconcile men to God. And when sermons debating OSAS or immersion or weekly meeting rules or church government or exactly how old a boy has to be before a woman has to stop teaching him begin to dominate the teaching of the church, then we have indeed marginalized the mission. We have changed our primary focus to determining what is “sound doctrine”, then reiterating and protecting it among the believers.
Now, part of the problem here may lie in our modern focus on weekly meetings, which, frankly are not very interesting to unbelievers and find very few of them in attendance. When our audience is the saved, we likely don’t spend much time on the ministry of reconciliation. We have evangelists to do that, I suppose. Those who actually spend significant time with unbelievers, that is.
It might be an interesting study to find out how many hours the average church member spends in receiving instruction in doctrine versus how many hours he spends sharing the gospel with unbelievers in his community. If he is a faithful churchgoer, he may spend 150 hours or more a year in getting such instruction. If, with all that input, the church has not managed to motivate him to spend that same sort of time in the ministry of reconciliation, what is our mission REALLY?
Want to know what a man really loves? Find out where his time and money went. Same thing goes for a local religion club. Want to know what kind of disciples we are making? Watch what they do with the good news.
Bruce, I confess I have not read McArthur’s book. Could you please just tell me simply identify that “greatest threat” you spoke of, without sending me to a third party to try to guess it for myself? Thanks.
And I don’t think you can really lump the CoC’s issues in with all the other denominations which teach the scriptures. (I did not suggest that only the CoC would be criticized for that practice.) I would note that other groups are experiencing strong growth without abandoning the gospel. It is not the offense of the cross that is the problem here, in my opinion. If it were, every evangelical group would be experiencing the same sort of decline. It is specious to suggest that if another is more effective than you are, he must be somehow “cheating”.
I once was the human resources manager for a regional corporation. I spent more time in the field with the managers and employees than most of the rest of the executive staff. When that staff gathered at headquarters to discuss problems with employee turnover or training or morale, I had the unenviable task of telling my superiors that most of the problems I identified were coming from that very boardroom. Mangement needed to change what WE were doing, rather than laying blame outside the room. I think this is Garrett’s crime. Much of his denomination wants to continue to say that our less-than-stellar results are because the truth is unpopular and unattractive, and that other people are just really sinful. Garrett suggests that maybe the fault lies with us instead.
That sort of insight can make one as welcome as a skunk at a garden party.
Maybe you would not count them among “Evangelilcals”, but Joyce Meyer (for example) is highliy “effective”, and maybe it is really not a problem to proclaim: “God wants you to drive a nice car!” Or Joel Osteen presides the largest Mega church, but he really does not want to think about the question whether unbelievers would go to hell …
These two names are just symbols – I have no bone to pick with them since i don’t know them personally. But looking at these symbols I question the value of numbers to evaluate our message.
Of course we should question ourselves when our Gospel-proclamation so obviously fails; but then I return to the Gospels to see what Christ preached, and … we don’t preach like He did! Neither do the so “effective” groups among the Evangelicals (see above mentioned symbols)!
Check for yourself: Where in the Gospels did Christ EVER mention the word “grace”? It’s worth the time to just go back to your study room to ponder the key-words of Christ’s message. By this I don’t mean the so often mentioned “love of God and your neighbor”, but the words most often used by Him.
It was for a reason that I proposed the question somewhere else: Which is the most important Psalm? To get a rather “objective” result you should check which Psalm has been quoted most often in the NT – it is NOT Psalm 23.
I say: almost all Protestant denominations have replaced the Gospel by a few favorite verses (e.g. John 3:16)! We ALL leave out the heart and essence of the Gospel! Those churches that still grow are doing “well” because of their “worldly” and “visitor-friendly” rethoric, but not because they present a complete Gospel message. In this we ALL fail.
“Progressives” among the churches of Christ lean more and more toward the Evangelical Gospel-Presentation: More Grace – less baptism. But this is a wrong turn. And Leroy is one of those leading in this wrong direction. It’s about the Kingdom.
Alexander
Alexander suggested: “Check for yourself: Where in the Gospels did Christ EVER mention the word “grace”? ”
This is literary hair-splitting, and a weak job of it at that. You want me to consider only one particular word which may or may not be found in some very particular portions of only four books in scripture, which portions if left alone might underscore your point by the absence of that word. Wow. And you even go so far as to ask me to specifically avoid what I might otherwise read in those four books! No, no sale here. Not under those conditions. You ask me to buy the whole cow, but you only want me to see the tail.
Jesus dies on the cross that we might be reconciled to God by virtue of HIS gift, by his grace, and you want to suggest that grace is NOT a theme of the Gospels? It’s only the central truth of the revelation of Jesus’ salvific work, Alexander, if you can get past the concordance for a moment.
I am the one, as I recall, who suggested that grace is not even meaningful outside the context of the Kingdom, outside the presumption of the reality of divine rule. So to some degree, I agree with your overall point. But to try to marginalize one facet of the truth because you feel another part of the truth is being under-represented is a poor solution.
And, just as a sidebar, “Don’t look at those other scriptures, just look at these!” is advice I simply don’t take. I’ve had that offer made to me before. Many times. I took it. I don’t anymore.
Charles:
To quote someone of late, it seems to me that you are doing your own “literary hair-splitting” in your response to my question.
Here is the original:
Jesus’ mission was NOT to “determine, defend, and maintain the orthodoxy of the church”, the main mission to which much of the CoC has devolved.”
And then you adjust slightly to talk about the “presentations of the Gospel.” Hmmm? Paul’s letters to Timothy are filled with a mingling of both “presenting the Gospel” and “maintaining orthodoxy.” The content is not the either-or you suggest.
I know you are trying to launch a proposal to gather in the unchurched in our society… get the Gospel heard, etc. However, tossing “maintaining orthodoxy” out the window as part of Jesus’ mission is a mistake. Jesus’ himself came to live the Law, lift the Law from the Mishnah, and call people to see the very heart of the Law. Now that is its own “maintaining orthodoxy” at the highest level. And putting it in other terms, look at how Jesus’ speaks of such in John 14:30-31. And it was about love. It was both. I suspect that remains one of the most misrepresented aspects of the Gospel in our time. I hope you are not going there as well. It may “fit” America better in your mind, but it does not fit the testimony of Jesus’ own mission.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Charles:
As to your question about the greater threat, I will help a little more: John 14:30-31 says much that our time has yet to soak up. Much of America does NOT believe that Satan is real. And for my two cents, I believe most do not even realize what they do not believe. They simply “live it.” We have constructed a nation with social, financial and commercial systems that know no supernatural threat. Andrew Delbanco’s The Death of Satan should be necessary reading for missionaries in North America. And THAT, Charles, is where I will suggest a “radical approach” to reaching people must start. And it must be couched in the simple worship practices focused on Scripture that churches of Christ, Mennonites and others have been urging for many decades.
Many congregations are NOT as out-of-step as you, Jay, others have suggested. How about a quote I saw recently that framed all of this about as well as I have seen?:
“It’s 2011 and humans still believe in a physical manifestation of evil called Satan? Pathetic.” (Yahoo! News, November 4, 2010).
That, Charles, is the “greater threat.” Note: I preached recently in a congregation on this very point. I had people young and old come up to me and say, “I got it.” or “That is it, isn’t it?” People reject the Gospel to a great degree because it genuinely “does not compute” to them in our time. They may hear “the love of Jesus’ a great deal, but that does not mean they connect to understand the reason for the cross. I am glad to share that an elder stood and led the congregation in prayer that morning asking that the Lord help all make a renewed effort to help people see the reality of evil in our day and then begin to talk about Jesus. I saw many people “soaking” and I am certain that congregation is going to grow.
Similarly, I know a missionary in New York state who has made a remarkable change in his missional approach. Before he talks about the Gospel, he talks about the fall of humanity. He says that he has noticed that “the light comes on for people” far more by that approach. And the body of Christ is growing there as a result.
It does not take “cutting-edge” methods, etc. It simply takes a clear understanding of what troubles America and then an application of the Word of God to the troubles.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas