Saturday, 4 February 2012
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Mystery of marriage
This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:23 ESV)
This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:23 NIV)
The mystery [of marriage] is this: God did not create the union of Christ and the church after the pattern of human marriage - just the reverse! He created human marriage on the pattern of Christ's relation to the church. - p213, from Desiring God by John Piper
I love my wife, but I am not always the godly husband I am called to be. Whether I feel good about myself as a husband or not, how glorious, humbling, and encouraging this mystery is.
O, Lord, be gracious to me, and empower me to love her like Christ does the church.
Foundation for building a tolerant loving society
Read this great article by Phillip Jensen: Britain is changing. Will Australia?
I thought for some time that discrimination against Christians we observe around the world will come to this country, Australia, soon, well, if it isn't already here.
Various European countries, although their heritage was rich in christianity, with the wayward political-correctness and confused multiculturalism, have lost what it takes to encourage tolerance and fight discrimination. And such discrimination against christians led me to suspect it will soon come to Australia, another country rich in Christian heritage, but rampantly secularised.
Perhaps, I have been lagging behind.
Phillip Jensen argues that Britain is changing in the way they think about religion and the way they want to, or need to build their society and culture. Perhaps they are finally waking up from their moral sleep that was caused by secularism. And, if his observations and predictions are going to be accurate, Britain just might be able to establish a cohesive and tolerant society we all want.
Phillip Jensen argues that Britain is changing in the way they think about religion and the way they want to, or need to build their society and culture. Perhaps they are finally waking up from their moral sleep that was caused by secularism. And, if his observations and predictions are going to be accurate, Britain just might be able to establish a cohesive and tolerant society we all want.
But the question remains, as Phillip posed. Will Australia regain their religious and moral footing in Christianity? Will the people who lead the public opinions understand and embrace the truth uttered by Mr. David Cameron, the current British Prime Minister:
"Those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths... simply don't understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain (in our case, Australia, of course) has confidence in its Christian identity."
Christian faith and truth lay the most solid foundation for any nation to allow its people to believe and practice their faiths whatever they be. Granted, "christian countries" throughout the history have not always allowed its people to do so, but neither have countries of other faiths. But when we actually delve into the teachings of these various faiths, you will agree that christianity does provide the foundation, the most solid foundation for building a society that is loving and accommodating.
This kind of foundation is even more acutely needed in a country like Australia where it has so much to gain from its Christian heritage already and has so much to lose if severed from it.
This kind of foundation is even more acutely needed in a country like Australia where it has so much to gain from its Christian heritage already and has so much to lose if severed from it.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
God is good because...
This is a little philosophical and theological exercise. How would you answer the following question:
Does God say He is good because He is good, or is God good because He says He is?
In other words, is God good when measured against some kind of standard of goodness, or does God appear to be good because He is the definer of goodness?
How you answer that question will not only reveal your understanding of "goodness" but also your understanding of God and the bible, His word.
Here's my take.
Christians understand and believe God is good. We believe God is good because the bible says so. And since the bible is God's word, His revelation of Himself, we trust what He says about Himself. Once we have met His Son, Jesus as Christ, our Lord and Saviour, we cannot help but trust what He said. And He said the bible is absolutely trustworthy.
So, the bible, God's word tells us that He is good.
Now, however, when He tells us He is good, do I understand it as God meeting certain criteria of being good, hence He can say that He is good? In other words, is there a kind of standard with which we can (and God can) measure God to see if He is good or bad?
Three options I think we have.
1) There is no standard to measure what is good and evil.
2) There is a standard and God does not meet that standard.
3) There is a standard and God does meet it.
Option 1 is invalid since to choose that leads us to conclude that there is no meaning of good and evil. The bible is babbling meaningless words when it says God is good, since if there is no standard with which we (or someone, even God Himself) can judge what is good and evil, how can we even have the category of goodness? It's like saying God is thick or round, but there is no category for measuring God's thickness or round-ness. It is an absurd position. So we reject that option.
Option 2 means that God is not good since God fails to meet the standard of goodness. It is simply contrary to what the bible says. Hence, we reject this option also.
Option 3 is the only valid one we can accept, if the bible is reliable. There must be a standard of goodness, and God meets that. Should He failed to meet the standard, He would not be good, and the bible would be misleading us by telling us that He is good. But the bible is trustworthy and tells us truth about God. So, there is a standard of goodness, and God does measure up to it.
This lets me answer the first part of the initial question in affirmative. God says He is good because He really is good.
Now, then, if God is saying He is good because He actually is good, must we reject the idea that God is good because He says He is? The phrase does appear to suggest that God could be an evil despot but tricks us into believing He is good by telling us with almighty force that He is good? Or can we still say that He is good because He says He is without harbouring some kind of suspicion that God could be lying to us about His character?
I believe we can. I believe we can say that God is good because He says He is good. Not only that, there is a sense in which we must insist upon.
Let me explain.
Earlier, we established that since the bible is trustworthy, and the words like good and evil are not meaningless but meaningful, it is necessary that there is a kind of standard of goodness and God fulfils that standard. But what is this standard? Or, rather more importantly for my current arguments, where does this standard come from? Is the goodness defined outside God? Is the standard of goodness external to God? Then He is judged by an external authority to be announced good. God could have all the power and strength in the world, but His moral standard, His goodness cannot be sustained by Himself. This is unbiblical idea. God is the creator of all things, visible and invisible. All authority is of Him and from Him. The standard of goodness must be internal to God. God defines what is good and evil. He reveals this through His word and supremely in His Son. We are all made in His image, so we can make sense of goodness that God reveals, and even if one has never been taught about the bible, in general, he can agree with what good is when shown to him.
So there is a sense where we can say that God is good because He says He is. If you cannot agree with that statement, it reveals something about your trust (or mistrust) in His revelation of Himself through the bible. We can validate whether He is actually good or not by measuring His actions against His words and we see the supreme vindication of all this exercise in His Son. In Jesus, His Word became flesh, and showed to us that God is good by His own supreme, excellent, and absolute standard He has Himself defined.
The important point of all this is that all these arguments I presented hinge upon the reliability, sufficiency, and authority of the bible as God's word. Without God's revelation of Himself by His word, the bible, we can only have speculations about God's character and even if you may affirm all the right things about God, you do not have a solid foundation to stand upon.
Does God say He is good because He is good, or is God good because He says He is?
In other words, is God good when measured against some kind of standard of goodness, or does God appear to be good because He is the definer of goodness?
How you answer that question will not only reveal your understanding of "goodness" but also your understanding of God and the bible, His word.
Here's my take.
Christians understand and believe God is good. We believe God is good because the bible says so. And since the bible is God's word, His revelation of Himself, we trust what He says about Himself. Once we have met His Son, Jesus as Christ, our Lord and Saviour, we cannot help but trust what He said. And He said the bible is absolutely trustworthy.
So, the bible, God's word tells us that He is good.
Now, however, when He tells us He is good, do I understand it as God meeting certain criteria of being good, hence He can say that He is good? In other words, is there a kind of standard with which we can (and God can) measure God to see if He is good or bad?
Three options I think we have.
1) There is no standard to measure what is good and evil.
2) There is a standard and God does not meet that standard.
3) There is a standard and God does meet it.
Option 1 is invalid since to choose that leads us to conclude that there is no meaning of good and evil. The bible is babbling meaningless words when it says God is good, since if there is no standard with which we (or someone, even God Himself) can judge what is good and evil, how can we even have the category of goodness? It's like saying God is thick or round, but there is no category for measuring God's thickness or round-ness. It is an absurd position. So we reject that option.
Option 2 means that God is not good since God fails to meet the standard of goodness. It is simply contrary to what the bible says. Hence, we reject this option also.
Option 3 is the only valid one we can accept, if the bible is reliable. There must be a standard of goodness, and God meets that. Should He failed to meet the standard, He would not be good, and the bible would be misleading us by telling us that He is good. But the bible is trustworthy and tells us truth about God. So, there is a standard of goodness, and God does measure up to it.
This lets me answer the first part of the initial question in affirmative. God says He is good because He really is good.
Now, then, if God is saying He is good because He actually is good, must we reject the idea that God is good because He says He is? The phrase does appear to suggest that God could be an evil despot but tricks us into believing He is good by telling us with almighty force that He is good? Or can we still say that He is good because He says He is without harbouring some kind of suspicion that God could be lying to us about His character?
I believe we can. I believe we can say that God is good because He says He is good. Not only that, there is a sense in which we must insist upon.
Let me explain.
Earlier, we established that since the bible is trustworthy, and the words like good and evil are not meaningless but meaningful, it is necessary that there is a kind of standard of goodness and God fulfils that standard. But what is this standard? Or, rather more importantly for my current arguments, where does this standard come from? Is the goodness defined outside God? Is the standard of goodness external to God? Then He is judged by an external authority to be announced good. God could have all the power and strength in the world, but His moral standard, His goodness cannot be sustained by Himself. This is unbiblical idea. God is the creator of all things, visible and invisible. All authority is of Him and from Him. The standard of goodness must be internal to God. God defines what is good and evil. He reveals this through His word and supremely in His Son. We are all made in His image, so we can make sense of goodness that God reveals, and even if one has never been taught about the bible, in general, he can agree with what good is when shown to him.
So there is a sense where we can say that God is good because He says He is. If you cannot agree with that statement, it reveals something about your trust (or mistrust) in His revelation of Himself through the bible. We can validate whether He is actually good or not by measuring His actions against His words and we see the supreme vindication of all this exercise in His Son. In Jesus, His Word became flesh, and showed to us that God is good by His own supreme, excellent, and absolute standard He has Himself defined.
The important point of all this is that all these arguments I presented hinge upon the reliability, sufficiency, and authority of the bible as God's word. Without God's revelation of Himself by His word, the bible, we can only have speculations about God's character and even if you may affirm all the right things about God, you do not have a solid foundation to stand upon.
Monday, 26 December 2011
Can science prove naturalism is true?
It is only more recently in history that this 'pragmatic naturalism' has expanded to become an (unjustified) absolute. For Christian reasons, science began by talking about natural causes only, for science was just that - a method for investigating natural causes. In recent years, however, this has been turned on its head so as to claim that science therefore proves that natural causes are the only causes. This is a rather bizarre twist of logic, and only a little examination will show it to be unreasonable. Whether or not naturalism is true, it cannot be proved true by the very activity that pragmatically chooses not to discuss the alternative. The scientific method (as practised by the scientific community) will never 'discover' supernatural causes, since it does not look for them and by definition cannot accept them. This may or may not be a useful way to investigate the universe, but on its current constitution that is how science investigates the universe. A theory that incorporates supernatural intervention is, on current widely-accepted understanding not a scientific theory.
- p40, Unnatural Enemies by Kirsten Birkett (italics original)
That modern science came from Christians intending to discover the natural laws that God had woven into the world is indisputable. In order to discover the natural laws, they had to take on a pragmatic naturalism, that is, to leave out the discussion of all supernatural or spiritual explanations outside the labs in order to to focus on the natural causes, not implying that natural causes are the only causes in this universe.
Take heart scientists who are Christians, excel at what you do, for you are not and never will be discovering something that will explain away God's truth or His own existence. Only, remember to be steadfast and resist temptations to bend truths somehow to prove or support what you believe about God.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
About church: a note to myself
Of many areas of theology, the theology of church has been the most difficult for me. I think I can give a definition of church, a gathering of Christians. And yet, I often find myself qualifying that definition, having noticed that seminaries, mission organisations, or denominations are NOT church, even though they are "gatherings of Christians", are they not?
I don't know when I will grasp the meaning or the reality of church more clearly, but here's a few articles that I found helpful in thinking about church.
That second article is titled strongly for a purpose, nevertheless, I hope you can keep a clear head to read and comprehend what he's saying there.
I have been on his side of thinking for a long time, even as I greatly admire people like John Piper and Matt Chandler who are pastoring to multi-site churches, and are being used by God in a truly wonderful way. I believe multi-site churches are a compromise at best and should not be seen as an acceptable model.
I don't know when I will grasp the meaning or the reality of church more clearly, but here's a few articles that I found helpful in thinking about church.
- Regarding parachurch ministries: Church and Parachurch by Carl Trueman
- Regarding multi-site churches: Multi-site churches are from the devil by Thabiti Anyabwile
That second article is titled strongly for a purpose, nevertheless, I hope you can keep a clear head to read and comprehend what he's saying there.
I have been on his side of thinking for a long time, even as I greatly admire people like John Piper and Matt Chandler who are pastoring to multi-site churches, and are being used by God in a truly wonderful way. I believe multi-site churches are a compromise at best and should not be seen as an acceptable model.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
P plate fine
Driving back from Canberra last Sunday.
Me: Oooh, ok, there's a police car behind me with lights on. I'm gonna have to slow down and stop.
Wife: Really?
Me: I hope I wasn't speeding, for a moment, I might have gone over the speed limit, I don't know. If I have, this might be my first time getting caught. :-(
Wife: ...
Police Officer: This is a random breath testing, can I see your driver's license, please?
Me: Oh, yep. (feeling confident and relieved that it's not about speeding, handed over my license.)
PO: Please count to 5 here.
Me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. (feeling more confident. Of course I didn't drink any alcohol that morning, nor the night before.)
PO: Ok... I also noticed that you didn't have your P plate displayed at the back.
Me: What?!?! No, really? It must've fallen off somewhere.
PO: No, well, you show me where you had it on. Just watch the cars driving past.
Me: Yeah, sure.
Came out of the car, walked around to the back. And, of course, just as PO said, it wasn't there.
Me: Oh, ok... but... but... I normally have them on, just here. (Pointing to the right side of the number plate.)
PO: So, when did you have it on?
Me: Urm... yesterday...? (O how I wish I did not say that...)
PO: See, there's dust here where you are pointing, you didn't have it on for a while.
I started walking around to the front of the car, thinking, "surely, the front one must still be there."
PO: Yeah, the front one, do you have the P plate at the front?
Me: What!?!? (To my shock and horror, the front one was missing too.)
PO: Where do you have it on, usually?
Me: (Somewhat unsure this time, point to the right side of the number plate) Around here...?
PO: There's dust and bugs as well here. See, you didn't have them on for a long time. You lied. I don't like being lied to.
Me: (By this time, I was so shocked and started feeling miserable, had my hands on top of my head.) I.. I have spare P plates in my car, I'll put them on right now.
PO: Yeah? I got lots of them. I can give you some if you want. Do you want them?
Me: No, no, I got some here. I'll just put them on right now...
PO: Well, I'll be right back, this won't take long. (Walks back to his car.)
Me: (getting back into my car and to my wife) Whe... when did we lose our P plates?
Wife: ... I don't know...?
Me: It must've fallen off somewhere and we didn't realise it for a while.
PO: (returning to us) You have driven without your P plates, and there was dust and bugs on the spot where you said you had your P plates on, obviously you did not have the P plates for a while. You are receiving the penalty and the instructions are on this paper. Do you have any questions?
Me: .... no.
PO: Ok, sorry to keep you waiting, have a nice day. (Walks away.)
Me: ... (sigh) ...
Me: (drive away)
... silence in the car for several minutes ...
Me: Sorry, Sulahya. I should've checked.
Wife: That's ok. (smiles)
Me: (sigh)
... more silence in the car for many more minutes ...
Me: Sorry, Sulahya, but... Arrghhh, I'm so upset!
Wife: It's okay. (more smiles)
Me: I mean, sure, I didn't have the P plates on. I'll pay the fine and take the demerit points, but why did he accuse me of lying?
Wife: ...
Me: I feel like writing a letter to the police department for an apology. I don't care about the fine, but why accuse me of lying?
Wife: huh. (small laughter)
... some time later ...
Me: Ok, ok. I have to confess that when I said, "yesterday...?" I was kind of lying. I didn't know whether the plate was on the car yesterday or not.... I just assumed it was on, and I was hoping that he would let me off with just a warning if I told him I had them on yesterday. I should forgive the policeman for accusing me of lying.
Wife: Ok.
Me: Yes, I forgive him. I decided to forgive him, and I forgive him.
Wife: Ok.
... some hours later ...
Me: Oh, I realise that I had been breaking the road rules many times, and I take this as God's gracious warning. I'm not even going to bother appealing for leniency. I'll just pay the fine and I will thank God for reminding me of His grace in my life.
Wife: Yeah... Ok.
... the next day ...
Me: (after paying for the fine online) Oh, God. I'm still upset. What is going on? Why, why am I so upset still?
[The dialogue with the police officer is as accurate as I can remember it. I wish I had the recorded conversation available to me.]
.
.
.
Deep down, I am upset more because of the moral accusation of lying from the policeman than the fine I received. But there is also a sense of being trapped by him (when he asked me when I had the P plate on, since I just assumed I always had them on and didn't pay much attention to it) and also a sense of lost opportunity of appeal for leniency because I didn't say the right words at the time (the policeman informed me well that the conversation is being recorded). But, ultimately, I now realise that I am so upset and unable to let go because I am not satisfied with God's forgiveness and Jesus's righteousness imputed on me. I am hurting from PO's moral accusation because my heart was saying that God's promise is not enough! It is good time to remind myself of Romans 8:1, There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. O, that my heart be satisfied with Him!
I am not a fan of turning any of unfavourable life's events into some kind of lessons. There are cases where such approach may not be appropriate. But in this incident, I need to learn some valuable lessons, and they are:
1) Believe in Jesus who have paid for my sins completely. I no longer need to defend myself. No need to seek my own justification. Jesus is my justification. God declared I am forgiven. True, I am a liar, deserving eternal hell. Also true, that I am blameless in God's eyes, accepted into the blissful heaven where He reigns.
2) Resolved to be satisfied with what God says about me, rather than what people say about me. How long shall I go on fearing men, rather than God?
3) Resolved to speak truth only, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, all the time. Even in a situation where I *might* be able to escape a penalty by telling a half-truth, I must speak the truth. (In my recent experience, when the PO asked me when I had the P plates on, I should have said: "I do not know. I just assumed they were on, because I don't recall taking them off.", instead of squirming out, "... yesterday...?")
4) Resolved to keep to the law of the land to my best ability. It does not honour Jesus to break the law of this land.
5) Resolved to apply the gospel again and again to my own heart, knowing that it is both the sharpest sword to pierce my dull conscience as well as the most soothing balm to my hurting soul.
Also, from The Critical Question for Our Generation:
Ray Ortlund: “The worst this life can shove down our throats, but with the nearness of Jesus, is heaven on earth. The best this life can give, but without Jesus, is a living hell.”
I agree. And this whole event for the past few days, as much as my heart is still sore and grieving, has forced me to rely on Jesus more and for that I am grateful to God. It is His grace that I received this fine. It is His grace in my life that the PO stated the obvious that I am a liar. It is His grace that I continued to seek comfort from God. It is His grace that I can now say that it is His grace. It is all Him. I can boast in none but Jesus.
For those close to me, I ask for your prayers that I may be restored to peace and joy in Jesus.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
A young boy, political opinions, and Christianity
Charlie, an 11 year old from Sydney, has written an articulate opinion piece, and it was published by SMH yesterday.
As soon as saw it, I knew it would become popular, nay, semi-sensational, and apparently it did, mostly because anti-Christian people naturally love hearing arguments against Christian activities. It almost doesn't matter whether it is a strong, persuasive argument or not, as long as it is against Christianity, or more accurately, their understanding of Christianity.
Anyway, the opinion itself was very well written, I thought, for an 11 year old.
But, I would make a couple of comments about the following in particular:
Firstly, you seem to have a naive view of political engagement. Anyone and everyone who comes into a political arena brings his own beliefs. A Christian brings his Christian beliefs and they form their opinions. A muslim is influenced by his beliefs. An atheist brings his atheistic beliefs (that is, there is no God) into his political opinions, and I'm sure he tries to argue his case in hope that his policies will bring good to the people and the nation. Not only this is inevitable, it must be this way. You try to separate a person's beliefs and his opinions, you get hypocritical opinions. You will never get a genuine voice anywhere, unless you allow people to live, act, speak from their beliefs. No doubt, the pervasive naivety about the separation of church and state contributed to your error.
Secondly, if you are simply opposing Fred Nile's opinions and his political influence, whatever your motivation, that's fine. Let me repeat that. I'm a Christian, and I support Fred Nile in some of his political opinions, but I will not stop you from opposing him, whatever your motivation. But there is difference between opposing a political influence and attacking someone's right to a political influence. If you are hoping that he should not be allowed to voice his opinions and exercise his political power that he has, then you are only asking for trouble. You are denying his right to a political activity. Ever heard of freedom of speech? You know what you get when you deny others' freedom of speech? Totalitarian society.
Charlie, you wrote very well, and I believe you have a talented mind. In time, you will be able to understand and articulate issues and opinions even better than this. Keep yourself humble, and keep learning. You have a great potential, and I don't say this to many people.
For the SMH editors and readers who had to rely on this article to express your thoughts, I don't have much commendation for you. Not because it's from an 11 year old (I have a great respect for young minds, you only need to be aware of just a little bit of history to realise the amazing capacity and potential of young minds), but because it's not very strong and articulate as you think. You are only betraying yourselves when you get so excited about this piece. You only exposed your own ignorance on the fundamentals of the democratic society of Australia which comes from a rich Christian heritage.
As soon as saw it, I knew it would become popular, nay, semi-sensational, and apparently it did, mostly because anti-Christian people naturally love hearing arguments against Christian activities. It almost doesn't matter whether it is a strong, persuasive argument or not, as long as it is against Christianity, or more accurately, their understanding of Christianity.
Anyway, the opinion itself was very well written, I thought, for an 11 year old.
But, I would make a couple of comments about the following in particular:
By all means, Mr Nile, you go out and be as Christian as you want; I respect that entirely. But that does not give you and your supporters the right to attempt to shape a future generation of adults in your mould – that is a religious conservative.
Firstly, you seem to have a naive view of political engagement. Anyone and everyone who comes into a political arena brings his own beliefs. A Christian brings his Christian beliefs and they form their opinions. A muslim is influenced by his beliefs. An atheist brings his atheistic beliefs (that is, there is no God) into his political opinions, and I'm sure he tries to argue his case in hope that his policies will bring good to the people and the nation. Not only this is inevitable, it must be this way. You try to separate a person's beliefs and his opinions, you get hypocritical opinions. You will never get a genuine voice anywhere, unless you allow people to live, act, speak from their beliefs. No doubt, the pervasive naivety about the separation of church and state contributed to your error.
Secondly, if you are simply opposing Fred Nile's opinions and his political influence, whatever your motivation, that's fine. Let me repeat that. I'm a Christian, and I support Fred Nile in some of his political opinions, but I will not stop you from opposing him, whatever your motivation. But there is difference between opposing a political influence and attacking someone's right to a political influence. If you are hoping that he should not be allowed to voice his opinions and exercise his political power that he has, then you are only asking for trouble. You are denying his right to a political activity. Ever heard of freedom of speech? You know what you get when you deny others' freedom of speech? Totalitarian society.
Charlie, you wrote very well, and I believe you have a talented mind. In time, you will be able to understand and articulate issues and opinions even better than this. Keep yourself humble, and keep learning. You have a great potential, and I don't say this to many people.
For the SMH editors and readers who had to rely on this article to express your thoughts, I don't have much commendation for you. Not because it's from an 11 year old (I have a great respect for young minds, you only need to be aware of just a little bit of history to realise the amazing capacity and potential of young minds), but because it's not very strong and articulate as you think. You are only betraying yourselves when you get so excited about this piece. You only exposed your own ignorance on the fundamentals of the democratic society of Australia which comes from a rich Christian heritage.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Prayer for the anxious
Ah, Lord. I feel anxious again. I feel this dread and fear. I am burdened. Forgive me my sin of anxiety. Heal me, God. Heal my heart of this dread, fear, this heaviness, and give me that easy yoke, the light burden. Let me rest in You. (Matt 11:28-30)
Monday, 18 July 2011
What Bible is not about
The Bible is not an ethical textbook. The biblical writers are interested in revealing God's plan of salvation. They were not concerned to integrate the scattered moral elements into a systematic whole. Moral ingredients are dispersed throughout the text of Scripture and when these ingredients are gathered together they do not in themselves present a totally comprehensive picture. There are many gaps, and these do not allow us to correlate everything into an entirely comprehensive arrangement.
p. 248 The how and why of love: An Introduction to Evangelical Ethics by Michael Hill
Take the bible as a ethical textbook, you will get some crazy religious people.
Take the bible as the progressive revelation of God's plan of salvation, centred on Jesus, you get a life-transformed (and transforming), love abounding people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)