Category Archives: Interview

THE BIBLE IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Richard Bauckham is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. He is also senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge and a fellow of both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He is the author of many distinguished works. The following interview revolves around Professor Bauckham’s book, The Bible in the Contemporary World (http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Contemporary-World-Hermeneutical/dp/0802872239).

David George Moore conducted the interview. Dave blogs at www.twocities.org.

Moore: In the introduction you write that “biblical surprises should also be part of the Bible’s relevance to the contemporary world.” Would you unpack that a bit for us?

Bauckham: I meant that we should never feel too satisfied that we know what the Bible’s messages are and how they relate to the contemporary world. If we go on studying Scripture at the same time as we attend to what is happening in our world there will always be fresh insights.

Moore: Some continue to argue that Gnosticism is compatible with Christianity. It seems fairly obvious that this is not the case, so why do so many keep seeking to persuade us otherwise?

Bauckham: We live in a culture that values diversity and so I think the idea that early Christianity was more diverse than we thought is appealing. Moreover, the institutional church is not popular and so the idea of an early version of Christianity that was suppressed by the institutional church for political reasons also appeals. But Gnosticism is a slippery term. I think, for the sake of clarity, we should limit it to the view that the material world was created by an inferior and incompetent deity, identified with the God of the Old Testament, while the Father of Jesus Christ is an altogether different, supreme God. Jesus came from the Father with a message for the elect: that they do not belong in this world, in which they are trapped by their bodies and the hostile god of this world, and can escape to the kingdom of the Father. Gnosticism is anti-Jewish, anti-body, anti-matter.

Moore: It seems quite evident that British biblical scholars are generally more apt than their American counterparts to discuss the abuses of capitalism and the importance of stewarding the environment. If I am correct in my observation, what do you attribute this to?

Bauckham: There is a strong tradition in USA of association of conservative Christianity with right-wing politics and economics. This doesn’t exist in UK. You also need to remember that the political spectrum in USA is considerably to the right of the spectrum in the UK.

Moore: The modern idea of progress is a stubborn and persistent idea. It is resilient in the face of modern horrors like the great wars, genocide, and so much more. How can we better help others see the unbiblical assumptions behind the modern notion of progress?

Bauckham: I always have to explain that, when I criticize the idea of progress, I am not denying that many things have improved (e.g. medicine). But other things have got worse (e.g. climate change). We cannot empirically weigh up all the gains and losses and say that on balance and in total the world is constantly getting better. The idea of progress is an ideology that distorts by making us notice what seem to be improvements and to miss what are often serious downsides of those very improvements. “Progress” very often has victims, but the beneficiaries of this “progress” can the more easily ignore them because the ideology of progress consigns them to a past that is being left behind.

In its origins the idea of progress is a secular version of Christian eschatology. Perhaps that’s why so many Christians are still firm believers in it. But the Christian hope is for a future that comes from God and is not just for those lucky enough to live in the vanguard of progress but even for the dead.

Moore: It is common to hear people announce the death of the Enlightenment Project. Is the Enlightenment over, and if it isn’t, why do so many say it is?

Bauckham: Of course, the Enlightenment was a complex phenomenon, like all such historical movements. Some of its legacy is more or less permanent, other aspects less so. I think many of us were very impressed by the claim that postmodernism was about to succeed the Enlightenment, but it hasn’t really worked out that way. It looks like the West now has a culture that mixes elements of both.

Moore: Do Christians in the West generally have the correct understanding of freedom?

Bauckham: My impression is that Christians generally don’t think about what true freedom is. They unthinkingly go along with the views that are current in our culture. But, seeing that freedom is probably the most powerful concept in contemporary western culture, it is surely vital that Christians think critically about it.

Moore: Give us a few things that you would like your readers to take away from reading The Bible in the Contemporary World.

Bauckham: I hope many readers will come away with the sense that the Bible speaks more broadly to the big issues of our time than they have realized before. And I hope many readers will find that the Bible invites them to be more concerned with the big issues of our time than they have been before.

EVERYONE HAS A PLAN UNTIL THEY GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE

Leave a reply

Mike Woodruff is senior pastor of Christ Church in Lake Forest, IL. He has served in that capacity since 2003. Healthy and fitness focused, Mike had a freak accident which upended the trajectory of his life.

Moore: Give our readers a sense of what happened that fateful day in the pool during your regular swim.

Woodruff: The winter of 2014 was a nasty one in Chicago. It was too cold for me to run outside so I started swimming to stay in shape. Swimming is supposed to be a great low-impact cardiovascular workout. Unfortunately I am in the .02 percent who are susceptible to fraying a vertebral artery by repetitive head turning (to breathe). On Good Friday I ended up suffering a SCAD – a Spontaneous cerebral arterial dissection. This means the lining of my artery frayed. Blood got into the lining, ballooned it out and that led to a stroke. I wasn’t swimming at the time. I was in my office getting ready for a busy weekend. I stood up and felt a bit dizzy. I didn’t think anything of it. A few hours later it happened again. The third time the room started to spin. I went home early and went to bed, thinking I had the flu. I started to slide pretty fast. Early on Saturday AM my wife called an ambulance. I was quickly diagnosed at the local ER and transported to Northwestern University’s Neuro-ICU unit.

Moore: Didn’t you already plan on doing a series on suffering just prior to your accident?

Woodruff: Yes. Every fall I write a book for part of a fall series. I had started writing a book called Broken, which was based on four ideas: 1) If you live long enough you will suffer; 2) Americans are bad at it; 3) You can prepare; and 4) suffering can be a pathway to growth. It doesn’t have to be, but some can emerge stronger.

Moore: In the first book (we should probably call them booklets) of the five, you mention that you “started out writing a very different book…” What changed the original course you were on?

Woodruff: The book I was writing was a bit more academic. And in it I had noted that I didn’t feel particularly qualified to write about suffering. As soon as I was coherent enough to start reflecting what was going on I started blogging about my situation. The response to my blog led me to think I needed to adopt a very different voice for the book. (And yes, because I was so late in getting to the book, we turned it into five small booklets).

Moore: Mark Noll famously said Abraham Lincoln was the best theologian during the Civil War period because he appreciated the inscrutable nature of God’s providence. Perhaps we could say Mike Tyson is also a pretty good theologian with the memorable quote that leads into our interview.

Woodruff: I love the Tyson quote. It is quite profound.

Moore: I interviewed Tim Keller on his book, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/02/04/tim-keller-on-suffering/) Both of you describe how common it is to find Christians who are surprised by suffering. How do you pastor folks to be better prepared for difficult and trying times?

Woodruff: I told the congregation that I was going to talk about suffering because I was tired of people being surprised by suffering – and also by death. I said, “I am failing you. I need you to hear that if you live long enough you will suffer. It’s going to happen. Count on it.”

Even having said that some are still surprised.

Moore: You make your living by speaking. It must have been terrifying to feel like your livelihood was in jeopardy.

Woodruff: The doctor in the ER of the local hospital told me that I had had a Cerebellar stroke and would make a full recovery. That was a bit optimistic. Most of the damage I sustained was to the Cerebellar region, but I also suffered Vestibular damage. That is more serious. Few survive Vestibular (brain stem) strokes because that real state is so loaded with important things, like breathing. My balance, sight, touch, swallowing and voice were affected, but not breathing. Anyway, I didn’t understand how serious my situation was. There were some very dark moments, but I thought I would make a 100 percent recovery for the first few months. I only later realized how close to I had come to dying. And how much worse it could be. (For the record, I would say I have made a 90% recovery to date).

Moore: How has your relationship with Christ changed as a result of the stroke?

Woodruff: During the most desperate moments I felt great peace. As I began to heal I prayed that I could hold on to that closeness. I am sorry to say that I have not. I believe some may, but I didn’t. What I can say is, I found great comfort from my savior and my family. I would not want to go through it again, but I got to test my safety net and it was very strong. I am thankful.

YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER

2 Replies

Conversion and Discipleship, that is.

The following description of Bill Hull comes from his web site: “Bill Hull’s passion is to help the church return to its disciple making roots and he considers himself a discipleship evangelist. This God-given desire has manifested itself in twenty years of pastoring and the authorship of many books.” Bill’s latest book, Conversion and Discipleship: You Can’t Have One Without the Other (http://www.amazon.com/Conversion-Discipleship-Cant-without-Other/dp/0310520096) framed this conversation.

Moore: Late in life, St. Augustine wrote his Retractions (some like to translate it reconsiderations). He was working through the body of his works to see what might need to be changed or clarified. You’ve written several previous books on discipleship. To what degree is your present book akin to Augustine’s Retractions?

Hull: Augustine wrote over 100 pieces of significant literature, my corpus is twenty-two books and a few articles and I suppose hours of video, blogs, tweets, and other recordings. Overall I have less to regret than the Bishop of Hippo, but your question gives me an idea for the next book.

At the twentieth anniversary of each of my disciple making trilogy, Jesus Christ Disciple Maker, The Disciple Making Pastor, and the Disciple Making Church, I reread the books and contemplated some changes. I found it easier to write a reflection at the start of each chapter than reconstructing the book’s arguments. What I found to be true in that exercise was that the problem of nominal or weak Christianity still existed, but that I would choose some different modes or methods to solve the problems. Conversion and Discipleship is like throwing a “smart bomb” into the middle of the church and see what is left after the smoke clears. What is significantly different than my previous work is that it starts the conversation at the “What is the gospel?” level rather than the “Make Disciples” level. There are really three levels of conversation when it comes to the world revolution that is the Great Commission. Upstream it is, “What does the gospel we produce naturally produce, disciples or consumers? The midstream conversation is, “What is a disciple, why are they important, and what difference do they make?” Finally, there is the downstream conversation, “What is your plan? Because if you don’t have a plan, you don’t intend to do it.

Moore: I’ve been the beneficiary of discipleship for almost forty years now. I’ve had several men invest in me and I love doing my own part with other men. In both of the seminaries I attended (Dallas and Trinity), I was constantly surprised how many of my classmates (many coming from solid, Christian families) never were discipled. Why is that?

Hull: Everyone has been discipled, by a family, a church, a culture. Everyone has a spiritual formation; even a terrorist has been discipled. I know their meaning when they say such a thing; they have not been worked with by another person in a systematic way where there was some start and finish to the process. That reveals how powerfully the insularly educational discipleship process has been embedded into the evangelical mind. I think Winston Churchill put it nicely, “We teach what we know, we reproduce what we are.”

Most contemporary discipleship runs aground because it is educationally based, and self-focused. It is about finishing curriculum and evaluates itself by asking the question, “ How am I doing?” This is not the kind of question or life than Jesus invites us into. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called Jesus, “A man for others.” As his disciples, we are to live for others; the church exists at its best when it exists for others. If you try and make a Christlike disciple from a conventional gospel you will fail, every time you will fail. Another factor is that discipleship has not been central to the teaching available in seminaries, churches themselves and the pastors have very little theological or practical basis for beginning such a process or developing a workable plan.

Moore: We live on the far side of mass evangelistic outreaches with the likes of Sunday, Moody, and Graham. To what extent do you think that approach to evangelism has brought confusion about the integral nature of discipleship?

Hull: There is a lot to say here. I will restrict myself to how modern mass evangelism separated conversion from discipleship. The first step in the separation was to replace the gospel with the plan of salvation. The gospel is the complete story of God, humans and the redemptive drama. The early fathers saw the four gospels together as the “gospel.” The drive to evangelize and get decisions created the “Plan of Salvation,” a four or five point extract of the gospel. Through the popularity of mass evangelism the plan of salvation replaced the gospel in the perception of the American church. The split between conversion and discipleship was complete when the Navigators and others created a category called discipleship. Discipleship included a system, a planned curriculum or study, and had tiers of ascendance. You would start as a convert, the after a period of time you would earn the moniker, disciple, then worker and finally leader. This all meant that conversion or being a convert was an entry level Christian. Discipleship then was a post conversion option for those who were so inclined, but it had no bearing on heaven, forgiveness of sins or eternal life. This of course has led us to the present need to reunite conversion to discipleship, and realize truly, that we cannot have one without the other.

Moore: I’ve had many conversations with those who advocate a “free grace” perspective when it comes to the gospel. (I don’t even like the term. Kind of like the “Department of Redundancy Department.”) As you know well, it came to prominence during the 1980s. I was at at Dallas Seminary at the time and the teaching of Zane Hodges, the late professor of New Testament, was influential. Others continue to advocate the “free grace” position. What do you think about this recent interpretation of the gospel? Has it had any effects on how we understand the integral role of Christian discipleship?

Hull: Dallas Willard commented on the misunderstanding of grace, “We have not only been saved by grace, we have been paralyzed by it.” He meant that it created a passivity among Christians. Bonhoeffer was disturbed about what his own Lutheran church had done to Luther’s understanding of grace. Willard said the grace was not opposed to effort, but was opposed to earning. Bonhoeffer famously, called what his church practiced, “Cheap grace.” All that needs to happen to corrupt grace is to it assign it a single place only in our spiritual journey, the point of conversion. Therefore, when someone says, “I was saved by grace on July 1, 1986, we then leave that big dollop of grace behind as a memory and we live on that memory. Grace becomes only a memory, but not a means of power and energy to strengthen our effort to work for Christ and his Kingdom. Grace too often breeds passivity. We keep waiting for a special work, command or power before we act. God’s grace is an active force that is ever ready to empower us.

The only way out of this corruption of grace I know is to act, quit asking a lot of personal therapeutic questions about self, and start obeying, doing what God has already commanded us to do, then you will experience grace. Much better than sitting around and contemplating its meaning.

Moore: You regularly refer to Dallas Willard in your latest book. What role has he played in your own understanding of Christian discipleship?

Hull: My first attraction to Dallas was his writing. He reached my mind before he did my heart. I first met him in 2001 and he complemented me on something I had written. Of course, that warmed by heart. I heard him say two things that stand out in the development of my life and understanding. The first was, “ I never try to make anything happen.” I really did question his sanity when I heard him say it. I thought, “ a typical philosopher who doesn’t need to make anything work.” But he was talking about forcing the action, attempting to get people to accept or recognize his work, or to through human effort attempt to earn God’s favor. I found this a profound truth, coupled with this: “ Don’t seek to speak, seek to have something to say.” This was not a call to passivity. It was a call to humility and allowing God to provide the opportunities.

The second statement was, “There has not been in twentieth century anyone who has put together a theology of discipleship.” I questioned this statement as well, because I thought I had done it. But in conversation with Dallas over a period of months I came to agree with him. His comment and subsequent conversations was the impetus for the publication of Conversion and Discipleship. Upon Dallas’ death, I sensed it was time for me to give it a go. While it didn’t turn out exactly as I had planned, it is my good faith effort as a writer to put out a respectable street level theology that can help leaders make disciples.

Moore: Another friend of yours, Robert Coleman, wrote the influential The Master Plan of Evangelism. For those who may not be familiar with the book, there is much in that relates to the subject of discipleship, and discipleship is what Coleman continues to do even now at 88 years old. This book continues to sell at a rather brisk rate, yet I don’t hear it mentioned much in evangelical circles. Is my own experience unusual or do you think there is a rather pervasive neglect of Coleman’s message?

Hull: Dr. Coleman is a national treasure, not just for the church, I mean for the nation. There are so few people of such an age who are so full of Christ. The Master Plan is one of those books that everyone remembers they read, even if they never read it. It is short and simple. It is the reason it remains one of the best sellers of all time. I believe somewhere around five million have been sold. It was used by Billy Graham in follow up to his crusades and offered on television. It is no longer marketed or repackaged strongly and that explains partly why it is less known to the younger generations. There are a few discipleship classics, but none with the history, clarity and brevity as the Master Plan. It is the gold standard.

Moore: What are a few things you would like people to take away from your book?

Hull: I would hope that it would change the way you think. I have always believed that the most important part of a leader is what he or she thinks, for it drives everything else. The book’s thesis is, “All who are called to salvation, are called to discipleship, no exceptions, no excuses.” If that is believed and practiced, then the church will fill the world with Christlike disciples, they will preach the gospel to the end of the earth and then the end will come. Our choices do matter, our efforts do count, and in the end, God has given us this work to do. Discipleship is about world revolution.

CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY TO CHRISTIANS?

Leave a reply

Mark Tietjen serves as director of religious life and Grace Palmer Johnston Chair of Bible at Stony Brook School. His latest book, Kierkegaard: a Christian Missionary to Christians (http://www.amazon.com/Kierkegaard-Missionary-Christians-Mark-Tietjen/dp/0830840974/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) framed this interview.

Moore: Your title will pique the interest of those not familiar with Kierkegaard. How is he a “Christian missionary to Christians”?

Tietjen: Kierkegaard’s context is 19^th century Europe, i.e. Christendom, and thus he’s addressing an audience that would regard itself as Christian, simply by virtue of their being European. He felt strongly, however, that there was little Christianity in Christendom, hence the description of his work as missionary work. I think what Kierkegaard offers is along the lines of what any number of Christian thinkers offer when they point us closer toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in doing so challenge those beliefs, prejudices, behaviors, attitudes, and feelings that we take to be ‘Christian,’ but which in fact are not. And the process of discovering that is painful, but good. Reading Kierkegaard can be painful, but good.

Moore: As a young Christian growing up the 1980s the writings of Francis Schaeffer were extremely influential. I vividly recall Schaeffer’s critique of Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith.” A college professor who described Kierkegaard as the father of existentialism added another inaccurate component to my understanding of Kierkegaard. How did both of them get Kierkegaard wrong?

Tietjen: “Leap of faith” is a phrase that never appears in Kierkegaard’s published work. What critics pick up on in his use of the term leap is the idea that the most important decisions humans make in their lives are passional decisions, decisions where reason can help but is not necessarily decisive, and instead, our deepest commitments—our cares and passions—direct us. If that’s true, then we need to cultivate virtuous cares and passions, and Kierkegaard is devoted to thinking deeply on that. These critics would suggest that when it comes to faith Kierkegaard promotes a kind of irrationalism which, at the end of the day, says that to believe in God is something one does blindly, without any evidence. Kierkegaard is hardly an irrationalist. However, he is a very strong critic of rationality because he recognizes that all conceptions of rationality have some angle, some set of assumptions, that often serve to justify oneself, one’s nation, one’s ethnic group, one’s prejudices, etc. Kierkegaard is also aware that while Christianity has its own logic (Jesus is the logos, after all), to those who do not share that faith, Christianity seems irrational. That does not scare Kierkegaard, precisely because he refuses to deify and human conception of rationality.

Concerning existentialism, classical existentialism claims that humans more or less determine who they are by their choices, but Kierkegaard thinks this sort of thinking is actually despair. Kierkegaard believes humans are image-bearers of God who will all experience despair until they ‘rest transparently’ in God. He is far more Augustinian than existentialist.

Moore: On the positive side of the ledger, I’ve noticed that many “conservative” Christians now refer to Kierkegaard with great enthusiasm. What has changed the minds of many in a more favorable direction?

Tietjen: This is a good question. Perhaps one explanation is the overall increase in Christian philosophy that has occurred since the 1970s. There are quite literally hundreds of more Christian philosophers working than there were 50 or more years ago, and thus more scholars who’ve studied Kierkegaard at a high level and recognize his contributions to Christian philosophy, psychology, and theology. I also think that when popular Christian writers like Philip Yancey and Timothy Keller speak approvingly of their debt to Kierkegaard, that moves the needle in the right direction.

Moore: Over the years, I’ve led several book clubs through various classics of the Christian faith. Kierkegaard’s Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing is one of the readings. There are a number of things which have stuck with me from reading that incisive work, but I want to ask you to unpack Kierkegaard’s suspicion over the crowd or what we today call “groupthink.”

Tietjen: Simone Weil, a kind of kindred spirit of Kierkegaard’s, once bravely admitted that she could imagine getting sucked into the group energy of Nazi rally songs—that there is a kind of seduction to following the mob that lullabies one to sleep. Kierkegaard felt that Christianity was primarily a category of individuality, meaning that God created each human uniquely and relates to each human individually, and thus oftentimes our involvement in the masses, including the public and even the church, can distract us from standing before God as individuals who have obligations to God and specific callings from God. To say I’m a Christian because I’m a European (or a Southerner) is precisely to make out of faith a group identification rather than a personal relation to God.

Moore: Kierkegaard had some very pointed things to say about the clergy of his day. As you point out, even on his deathbed he refused communion because the clergy of the State church would have to administer it. He makes Eugene Peterson’s critiques of modern pastoral professionalism look mild! How did those ministers who ended up in Kierkegaard’s spiritual crosshairs respond to him?

Tietjen: Kierkegaard’s critique of the church and its clergy was at times challenged by the clergy, and at other times simply dismissed because he was not taken seriously after a while. To this day many in Denmark don’t know what to do with Kierkegaard. He was a public agitator, and that bad taste has never gone away. On the other hand, he’s arguably one of the three most famous Danes the world has ever known, and so there’s reason to take pride in him.

Moore: Kierkegaard liked to use irony, story-telling, and even sarcastic humor to get his points across. Was his intention similar to the famous lines of Emily Dickinson where she says, “Tell all the truth, but tell it slant”? In other words, conveying the truth via direct communication may not always be the most effective.

Tietjen: Telling someone who identifies as a Christian that his or her life does not reflect Christ or Christianity is a hard sell and likely to get you in trouble. So Kierkegaard tries to ‘deceive into the truth,’ to use his phrase (one he attributes to Socrates). Beyond that, however, he felt like Christianity is more than affirming true doctrine, but rather it contains truth (or the Truth) to which one must personally relate. For example, to be a Christian is not to believe in the doctrine of sin, but to recognize in one’s heart, mind, and actions—“I am a sinner.” But the best way to communicate this, Kierkegaard felt, was not simply through saying as much, but through irony, through humor, through characters, etc.

Moore: What kind of person would derive the most benefit from reading your book? What would you hope that type of person would learn from your book?

Tietjen: I can think of a number of different kinds of people who might benefit from the book, but I imagine the person in need of a spiritual jolt or in need of encouragement in faith might benefit from the book. The book covers a lot of ground—who Jesus is, what it means to be human, what a life of Christian love looks like, and how we’re to think about ourselves as witnesses of faith. Thus, it is geared toward those inclined toward self-examination, those interested in thinking about their faith, but also those wondering what Christian faith means for me beyond beliefs—in the realm of religious emotions, Christian action, and care for those around me.

EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS, EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS?

Leave a reply

Chris Castaldo was raised on Long Island, New York where he worked full-time in the Catholic Church. Chris previously served as a pastor at College Church of Wheaton and then as Director of the Ministry of Gospel Renewal at Wheaton College. He is now Lead Pastor at New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois.

The following interview revolves around Castaldo’s latest book, Talking with Catholics about the Gospel.

Moore: Your title uses “with” not “to” Catholics. Tell us a bit why you chose that way to describe the title.

Castaldo: It is common for books on Catholicism (written by evangelical Protestants) to convey an unkind attitude. The doctrinal emphasis of such works is commendable, but the irritable tone rings hollow and fails to exhibit the kindness of Jesus. It is the sort of tone that my seminary professor warned against when he said, “Don’t preach and write as though you have just swallowed embalming fluid. As Christ imparts redemptive love, so should his followers.” This love is communicated in the content of God’s message and also in its manner of presentation. Therefore, our engagements with Catholics must express genuine courtesy, even in disagreement.

Moore: You’ve written in the area of Roman Catholic theology before. What was the impetus for writing this book?

Castaldo: My previous book, Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic, was concerned with helping ex-Catholics to assess our experience of conversion from doctrinal and sociological points of view. Such reflection sought to illumine areas of difficulty (e.g., how are we dealing with patterns of injurious religious guilt?). It also attempted to shed light on challenges and opportunities connected with sharing the good news of Christ among our Catholic friends and loved ones. The new book—Talking with Catholics about the Gospel—however, was not written with reference to former Catholics. It makes no assumptions about an individual’s knowledge of Roman Catholicism (which is why, for example, it has a chapter on Roman Catholic history from the Reformation to the present in order to be a sort of primer), providing the basic information one needs to clearly communicate the gospel among Catholics.

Moore: You give three broad categories of Catholics: traditional, Evangelical, and cultural. Some Evangelicals will be surprised to see the moniker “Evangelical.” What are a few of the biggest misconceptions Evangelical Protestants have about Evangelical Catholics?

Castaldo: At the beginning of his award-winning book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark Noll famously quipped, “The Scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” In like manner, many evangelical Protestants in my pond would like to assert that there is little substance to the term “Evangelical Catholic.” According to this viewpoint, the essence of the “evangel” is the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which Catholics repudiate, thus putting them in a category other than “evangelical.”

Having conducted my doctoral research on the doctrine of justification, I appreciate the above perspective. It is true; the ultimate basis of our acceptance before God (i.e., justification) is different from what Catholics understand it to be. The Catholic view grounds divine righteousness in a person as opposed to locating it squarely in forensic righteousness for a person (as Protestants believe). However, in contemporary Catholicism—at least in the Midwest portion of the United States—I know several Catholics who possess convictions that are evangelical in nature. For example, they attribute salvation to grace alone. They read Scripture as the most authoritative norm for Christian faith. They will even use the language of “faith alone” (as did Pope Benedict) to highlight that forgiveness is a gift of God. Are such positions perfectly consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I’m not convinced they always are. Nevertheless, in view of the growing number of Catholics who hold these positions, I am comfortable recognizing their evangelical orientation.

In the book, I unpack the characteristics of men and women who identify as evangelical Catholics. I won’t reiterate them here beyond what I’ve already mentioned, but I will share a good example of what it looks like in action—a dialogue between my friend, Brett Salkeld, a very bright Catholic systematic theologian who identifies himself as an “evangelical Catholic,” and Jeff Greenman, another friend of mine who is the President of Regent College, Vancouver. They are helpful examples of the sort of warm-hearted and doctrinally rigorous exchange of which we need more.

Moore: When we seek to understand the official Catholic teaching on salvation it can be a bit frustrating and confusing. I know this firsthand! Would you recommend the statements in the Catholic Catechism as the most representative?

Castaldo: Absolutely. And there is an online version of the Catechism that allows you to perform word searches. There is no longer an excuse for confusion about what the Catholic Church teaches (although understanding what exactly they mean by what they teach and how it find application may sometimes involve a measure of ambiguity).

Moore: Related to the previous two questions is the portrayal of the Roman Catholic, especially as they position themselves against the Protestant tradition. Catholics tend to portray their church as monolithic, when the feet on the ground reality is a broad, rambling landscape. Granted, we Protestants have our thousands of denominations, but Catholics have de facto denominations. Unpack some of this diversity within the church and why many Catholics are hesitant to concede it exists.

Castaldo: When I consider this question, I think of a statement from the book Holyland USA written by Catholic author Peter Feuerherd. Here is how he captures the varied and complex shape of Catholicism:

In reality, Catholicism includes those with disparate authority and opinions about almost everything under the sun. There are liberal bishops and conservative bishops. The pope sometimes differs with his own Curia. American Catholic voters are regularly viewed by experts as a crucial swing group in every national election, too diffuse to truly categorize. In fact, some scholars of religion refer to Catholicism as the Hinduism of Christianity, because it is infused with so many different schools of prayer, ritual and perspective, much like the native and diverse religions of India now referred to under the single rubric of Hinduism.[1]

Peter’s point is important to keep in mind when we discuss the diversity of Catholicism. It is easy to see the common clerical attire of priests, the standard liturgical order of the Mass, and hierarchical structure that unifies parishes and conclude that there is general unity in the Catholic Church. Not quite. Just like in Protestantism, there are progressives and conservatives, charismatics and stoics, feminists and male elitists, postmodern relativists, liberation theologians, traditionalists, mystics, and everything in between.

Moore: What are a few things you would like readers to gain from reading your book?

Castaldo: I hope readers will understand at least three things. I want them to gain an understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches concerning religious authority and salvation, at least on a basic level. I’d also like them to understand the different types of Catholic people in America today: the traditional, the evangelical, and the cultural. Finally, I want them to embrace their calling to embody the grace and truth of Jesus (John 1:14) in reference to Roman Catholics.

In my role as a pastor, I often observe how personalities lean toward one or the other poles, grace or truth. Some of us naturally resemble lambs; others are more like pit bulls. That’s life in a world full of uniquely created people. Consequently, we shouldn’t be surprised when we disagree on how to handle specific issues; but such disagreement shouldn’t undermine the enterprise of trying to thoughtfully navigate through our differences. Although we must agree to disagree in some places, courteous dialogue is a much more Christian approach than throwing polemical hand grenades over the ecclesial fence. They will know we are Christians by our love.

[1] Feuerherd, Peter. Holyland USA: A Catholic Ride Through America’s Evangelical Landscape. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing, 2006), 72

JERRY FALWELL JR AND ROBERT JEFFRESS: READ THIS BOOK!

Leave a reply

John Wilsey is Assistant Professor of History and Christian Apologetics and Associate Director of the Land Center at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. His first book, One Nation Under God: An Evangelical Critique of Christian America, argues that America was not founded as a Christian nation but as a nation with religious liberty.

Wilsey’s book, American Exceptionalism and Civil Religion: Reassessing the History of an Idea (http://www.amazon.com/American-Exceptionalism-Civil-Religion-Reassessing/dp/083084094X/ref=la_B00DXLOTGE_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458851128&sr=1-1) framed this interview.

Moore: To what degree, if any, was the previous work you did in One Nation Under God? a catalyst for writing this book?

Wilsey: Yes, this book is an outgrowth of my research from One Nation Under God. That work originated as my PhD dissertation. I noticed while surveying the Christian America literature from 1977 to 2007 that American exceptionalism was entailed in the Christian America thesis. I spent a few pages describing how this was so in One Nation, but I did not have the space to devote a fuller attention to it. So, I decided to pursue a book length study on exceptionalism after One Nation was published.

Moore: You describe two different types of American exceptionalism: open and closed. Briefly sketch what they are and why it matters.

Wilsey: Exceptionalism is a loaded and ambiguous term, and the purpose of the book is to attempt to offer precision in how we understand what it means. To do that, I wanted to look at the history of exceptionalism as an idea going back to the Puritans of the 17^th century and also to consider what theological commitments exceptionalism entails.

I argued in the book that exceptionalism has had strong theological commitments throughout American history. Still, exceptionalism has also been articulated in political/social forms, too. I call the theological forms of exceptionalism “closed exceptionalism” because these forms divide people into either the Chosen or the Other. Thus, theological, or closed, exceptionalism is exclusive. But “open exceptionalism” is based on the liberal founding ideals of the nation as expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. Open exceptionalism, because it does not generally appear in imperialistic or theological ways, is inclusive.

Moore: There are plenty of politicians on the right who have a closed form of American exceptionalism. Are there any politicians, either moderates or liberals, who articulate a closed form of American exceptionalism?

Wilsey: Interesting question. Because the Democratic Party has largely abandoned its interventionist policies that defined the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations, closed exceptionalism has not been as widely embraced by those on the left. Obama is likely the most strenuous advocate of American exceptionalism on the left today, but the brand he extols is definitely open exceptionalism.

The most recent figure on the left to argue for closed exceptionalism would probably be Lyndon Johnson. An example of how he articulated closed exceptionalism is in his 1966 speech, “The Obligation of Power.”

Moore: For those who hold to an open form of American exceptionalism, are there any grounds to apologize for past abuses to Native Americans and African-Americans?

Wilsey: Of course. One of the features of open exceptionalism is national self-examination and the acknowledgement that not everything we have done as Americans is just. This is a tradition that goes back to the Puritan jeremiad, a genre of literature that calls members of the community back from their sins and backslidings to return to faithfulness to their covenant with God.

When Ronald Reagan acknowledged past abuses to Japanese Americans during World War II by offering reparations, this is an example of how open exceptionalism can take a step toward correcting past wrongs.

Moore: Other than Russell Moore, I haven’t seen many Southern Baptist leaders decry the immensely troubling endorsements of Trump by the likes of Jerry FalwelI Jr. or Robert Jeffress. I pay pretty close attention to the news and have been dismayed (but sadly not surprised) by the lack of critical scrutiny. I would like to buy each one of them a copy of your book, but I’m not convinced it would move the needle much. If you had the chance to sit down with those men, what would you say to them?

Wilsey: Another great question! I might sit down with these brothers of mine in Christ and take them to 2 Chronicles 7:14. We’d look at the verse, as well as the context of that verse as it is situated in the larger passage of chapters 1-7. I would show them how to interpret the passage in its immediate historical context, but more importantly, how Christ fulfills the passage in his redemption of humankind through his death, burial, and resurrection. It is centrally because of Christ that we do not think about nations and lands being chosen by God. Christ is God, having come down to us as one of us and in bringing reconciliation through his atonement for sin. There is no longer any need for chosen nations and lands, because God now dwells with His people, the universal church.

Moore: You write some very helpful things about not confusing loyalty with conformity. You are addressing what it means to be a good citizen, but your discussion is very applicable to what I’ve seen in many Christian organizations where those raising legitimate concerns can be marginalized for being “critical spirits.” Would you unpack a bit more about the importance of not confusing loyalty with conformity?

Wilsey: Sure. True loyalty does not overlook faults. True loyalty brings faults into the light so that those faults might be corrected. Proverbs 27:6 tells us that “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” This is referring to personal relationships, but the same can be said about patriotism. The notion of “America, right or wrong” is thoroughly unhelpful, and has gotten the nation into trouble in the past. On the other hand, protest movements that have stood against injustice—particularly the civil rights movement and the pro-life movement—help the nation be confronted with its sins and figure out ways to correct evil trends.

Moore: What are a few things you hope your readers will take away from your fine work?

Wilsey: Thanks for the interview!

I hope readers will see that embracing closed exceptionalism is not an appropriate way to express patriotism. As I wrote in the book, true patriotism does not equal absolute agreement with everything the nation is doing. What happens when the nation begins trampling upon the rights of freedom of religion or freedom of speech? What happens when our own friends, neighbors, family members—even ourselves—are persecuted for what we say or what we believe? True patriotism entails standing up for the right, and opposing the wrong, as Lincoln famously said in many of his speeches and writings. America is historically an exceptional nation, and exceptionalism as a political/social construct built on the founding ideals puts us on a path to responsible civic engagement.

DEEP WORK: INTERVIEW

2 Replies

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success-Distracted/dp/1455586692

Cal Newport is the best-selling author of such books as So Good They Can’t Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for the Work you Love and How to Become a Straight-A Student: the Unconventional Strategies Real College Students Use to Score High While Studying Less.

Cal teaches computer science at Georgetown University in Washington DC. The following interview is over Newport’s latest book, Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success-Distracted/dp/1455586692/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8).

Moore: Give our readers a feel for the impetus behind writing this book.

Newport: We spend so much time wringing our hands over distraction that we’ve forgotten what’s so valuable about its opposite. If you hone your ability to work deeply, and prioritize this activity, you’ll become much more successful, and your professional life will become more satisfying. This seemed like a message worth sharing.

Moore: You provide some wonderful examples (including your own) of those who have been able to accomplish considerable work-related goals without being stressed workaholics. Why do most of us equate productivity with long hours and significant stress?

Newport: Not all work is created equal. If you spend all day answering emails between jumping on calls and attending meetings, you might feel busy, but you should not feel proud. You did very little that created new value or made you better at your craft. Once you recognize the value that true deep work creates, it becomes easier to treat the shallow alternative with suspicion – a nuance at best, a serious obstacle at worst, in your quest to make an impact on the world.

Moore: A computer scientist can’t be a Luddite, but you find Facebook and Twitter a waste of time. However, you do regularly blog. Personally, I am in the same boat: regular blogging, but no Facebook and Twitter. Preach to the non-choir who think Facebook and Twitter are the best things since sliced bread.

Newport: There’s a difference between being a Luddite and being picky about which technologies you allow to lay claim to your time and attention. There are a lot of technologies I love. But there are also a lot that I think are nonsense. I include most social media in the latter category. These commercial services are cleverly designed to prey on your quest for social approval and craving for lightweight distraction so that your eyeballs and personal data can be harvested then sold to advertisers. I have a hard job and two young kids at home. I want to preserve the small amount of free time that remains in my life for more meaningful pursuits.

Moore: During my time in radio I had the opportunity to interview Neil Postman for the hour. He was insightful in writing about the tradeoffs which come with new technology. Unpack that a bit for us.

Newport: Neil was a gifted and influential media critic. Among the many things he wrote about, an idea of his that stuck with me is the danger of the “technopoly.” In short, he warned that we have a tendency to deify new technologies as being intrinsically good and a prophetic source of wisdom regarding how best to run our governments, companies, and personal lives. I think we’re definitely seeing this play out today. When I say, for example, that Facebook is stupid, even if not everyone agrees with this claim, this really shouldn’t be that controversial—but I find instead that it throws people into a tizzy. This is the mark of a technopoly: dissent is seen as desecration not debate.

Moore: You have to do a lot of “deep work” for your role as college professor and writer. Should the rest of us be concerned about setting up our schedules in such a way that we can also do deep work?

Newport: Yes. Deep work is like a super power for many, many different knowledge work professions. To quote The Economist: “Deep work is the killer app of the knowledge economy.” There are three reasons to embrace deep work. First, if hone your ability to concentrate, you can produce significantly better output in significantly shorter time. Second, deep work allows you to learn complicated things quickly. And third, it makes your life more meaningful and satisfying. We were created to create things of value—not send emails.

Moore: I found your book a great encouragement for what I am doing right and a further motivation to tweak my schedule so as to allow for increased deep work. Two book projects are propelling me forward! What would you say are a few reasons why people ought to consider buying your book?

Newport: The book has two parts. The first part makes the case for deep work. If you’re on the fence, or if you’re a believer but want more ammunition to convince others, you’ll find what you need in part one. The second part provides detailed practical instructions for how to better cultivate and apply deep work in your own life. So if you’re looking to improve your ability to work deeply, this part will provide exactly what you’re looking for.

DEEP WORK

Leave a reply

Soon I will be interviewing Cal Newport on his terrific book, Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success-Distracted/dp/1455586692

Cal teaches computer science at Georgetown and has written a book underscoring the type of work which is increasingly rare and thus valuable. One example can be found in blacksmith, Ric Furrer. The care and integrity of Ric’s work is amazing. I wonder what it would look like if Christians read their Bibles and studied with such care.

CHILDREN OF MONSTERS

Leave a reply

Jay Nordlinger is senior editor of National Review. He also contributes as a music critic to The New Criterion. I interviewed him on his book, Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators. (http://www.amazon.com/Children-Monsters-Inquiry-Daughters-Dictators/dp/1594038155)

Moore: You’ve written a history of the Nobel Peace Prize. Is Children of Monsters a companion work? Seriously, what led you to write such an offbeat kind of book?

Nordlinger: Some years ago, I was in Albania, which had suffered one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century: that of Enver Hoxha. There was nothing else like it on earth, except for the dictatorship of Kim Il-sung in North Korea. (Hoxha admired Kim.) It occurred to me, “Did Hoxha have children? And if so, what must their lives be like?” That led to Children of Monsters.

Moore: Twenty dictators are featured in your book. How did these twenty make the Nordlinger cut?

Nordlinger: I went for the worst of the worst. To be blunt about it, body count mattered. Terror mattered. Degree of totalitarianism mattered. I have a few in there who don’t belong in a book called Children of Monsters – Franco is the obvious example – but most qualify beyond a shadow of a doubt: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, et al.

Moore: Sadly, I can say (as I believe everyone can) I’ve interacted with dictator types in business, church, the arts, sports, and academia. Do the infamous dictators we typically think of simply have more access to power, and thus more opportunity to evil? In other words, is being a dictator more common than many of us may tend to think?

Nordlinger: I’m sure that’s right. The dictators I have studied have some things in common. They tend to be quite smart (unfortunately). Often street-smart, but smart nonetheless. They tend to be charismatic. And they are, of course, ruthless.

They also feel themselves born to rule.

Moore: The nature v. nurture debate continues apace. You briefly touch on this in your comparison/contrast between the two sons of Ceausescu. Now that you have finished writing do you have any further thoughts on why some children of moral monsters turn out okay, even denying their father’s wicked ways?

Nordlinger: I think this has to do with strength of conscience. Also, whom has a person been exposed to? I think of Svetlana Stalin, whose mother killed herself when she was six. Her brother, who was eleven, was raised by Stalin’s bodyguards: the hardest, most vicious men in the Soviet secret police. But Svetlana was raised by a nanny who was a warm Christian woman. That must have helped.

Moore: Notable in your list of dictators is the lack of women. Granted, there are many less women in human history who hold the reigns of political power, and there are some women who were very much a team player during their husband’s oppressive regime. I think right away of Elena Ceausescu. Given all that, do you think men tend towards violence more than women?

Nordlinger: I think they commit more violence than women. Are women equally supportive of violence? That would be hard to measure. All of these dictators – the worst of the monsters – have had their fans, very much including women.

Moore: In your chapter on Stalin, I have more marginal “Wows” than any other chapter. Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana, rejected her father’s ideology and called him a “moral and spiritual monster.” To what degree do you think travel outside her homeland contributed to rejecting her father’s ideology?

Nordlinger: She had not really traveled outside her homeland before rejecting her father’s ideology. What did it, I think, was her conversion to Christianity. Also, Stalin had imprisoned or killed her beloved relatives – aunts, uncles, cousins – which hastened her skepticism, let’s say.

But you’re right: When Svetlana had the opportunity to go to India, her stay in that country made her more aware than ever of life outside the Soviet Union. She later wrote that India had “set free something in me.” While in India, she “lost the habit” of a Soviet way of life. And she sought political asylum in the U.S. embassy.

Moore: What are few reasons why people ought to read Children of Monsters: an Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators?

Nordlinger: Well, that’s not for me to say! But I can tell you what others have said. They have learned something about dictatorship. And about families. And about human beings. Also, they have been left with an enhanced appreciation of what we have here in the West: liberal democracy, the rule of law – in short, freedom.

DISAPPEARING CHURCH

Leave a reply

My interview with author and Aussie pastor, Mark Sayers:

Moore: You’ve been addressing some of these themes in previous books, so what led you to write a full-throated account?  

Sayers: I was driven by a conviction that something radical was changing culturally, and that the Church was struggling to not just catch up but articulate this shift. For decades now the Church has relied on the strategy of cultural relevance to engage Western culture. The premise of this strategy was based on two great assumptions. First, that Western culture had entered a kind of post-Christian phase, and second that the best way to engage this post-Christian phase was through employing strategies and tactics learned on the mission field with pre-Christian cultures.

This was the strategy that ultimately created the contemporary church movement. I am not suggesting that the strategy of cultural relevance has not been fruitful nor that we should abandon it. The strategy of cultural relevance works well in pre-Christian or traditional cultures where the gospel can be communicated into and built around local symbols, stories, traditions, conventions and structures. However, the mood behind the post-Christian culture of the West ultimately seeks to deconstruct and contest all symbols, stories, traditions, conventions and structures. How do you apply a strategy of cultural relevance in a Western context which liquifies culture? Missiology emerged as a way of engaging non-Western traditional cultures without colonizing them. In our post-traditional West, the danger is that when the church engages the cultural solely with the strategy of cultural relevance, too often the church is colonized by the post-Christian mood. I am suggesting that alongside the strategy of relevance we need a strategy of resilience. Not retreat, but cultural engagement with robust resilience. 

Moore: In an early section titled “The Soft Power of Post-Christianity” my marginal note reads: “Well put and insightful. We get dulled, duped, and diverted by the panoply of options that indirectly say Christianity is irrelevant.” Describe a bit of the allure and toxic nature of our current cultural moment.

Sayers: Post-Christianity is ultimately the project of the West to move beyond Christianity, whilst feasting upon its fruit. Thus it constantly offers us options and off ramps, in which we seemingly have what we enjoy about faith, but without the sacrifices and commitments. It does not demand that we become apostates rather that we reshape our faith to suit the contours of the day, and in the process offers us the promise of tangible freedoms and pleasures for doing so. It does not challenge our faith head on in a kind of apologetics debate; rather it uses soft power, offering a continual background hum of options and incentives which eat away at our commitments. We are offered the mirage that we can have community without commitment, faith without discipleship, the kingdom without the King. To steal and misquote Eliot’s line, our faith doesn’t disappear with a bang but with a whimper.

Moore: Much of modern culture seems rather benign. We all benefit from breakthroughs in technology, medicine and so much more. It seems a bit ungrateful to level harsh criticisms (something you don’t do) against a culture that produced such benefits. How can the church be winsome in its critique without losing fidelity to the biblical story?

Sayers: Its key that we remember that human culture reflects human nature, thus it mirrors the reality that we are both created and loved, yet also fallen. It is also important to remember that culture is not a monolith, but contains all kinds of spheres, such as media, law, art, and politics. In a globalized world, locations also still matters. So we need nuanced, wise and discerning cultural critique. Scripture shows us that such wisdom and discernment flows from a close abiding with Christ.

Moore: The following is a generality, but does, I believe, depict a big problem. In America, older evangelicals can be faulted with tethering the gospel to certain political agendas that have little or nothing to do with the gospel. Younger evangelicals have reacted in the opposite direction with a disinclination to say much about certain issues that the gospel does address. Do you have a similar challenge in Australia?

Sayers: Traditionally evangelicalism is more politically diverse in Australia than in the US. Having said that, with the rise of the Internet, increasingly Australian evangelicals and even some elements of the media, confuse our relatively small local evangelicalism with American political conservatism. So we also have had understandable move away from some of the compromises with right wing politics, but sometimes the reaction slides into an equally concerning compromise with left wing politics.

This is all happening at a time, where across the Western world we are seeing the rise of a harder left and a harder right. This comes as a shock for since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair moving politics into the center, it seemed that such ideology had had its day. Yet ideology is back. What I find fascinating though is behind this move to further edges of the right and left is a common thread. Both espouse a kind of anti-institutional impulse which seeks to remove the restraints on the individual will. Both seek to either return to an idealized past or a utopian future through the hand of a kind of a benevolent, paternal entity be it government, tech companies, or the global financial market. Both end up ignoring, or bypassing the mediating institutions such as family, neighborhood, community organizations or church. Thus, creating the contemporary, atomized, and commitment phobic self, dizzy with choice. There is a significant and growing missional opportunity here for the church to inhabit and rehabilitate this ignored space.

Moore: You write about “creative minorities.” In what ways can the church better remember both words of that description? 

Sayers: Writers from Arnold Toynbee to Malcolm Gladwell have shown the way that creativity emerges so often from the margins. This is true in politics, culture, art and religion. The marginal position, isolating one from the mainstream, enables one to view the mainstream from the outside. To in a sense be a part, but also to stand apart and see the idols flaws, and myths of the mainstream culture. To be invited to be a healing presence with good news that directly addresses those idols, flaws and myths. However, as the story of both Israel, and Christ shows us, the margins at best are not comfortable and at worse harm and hurt. To be a true creative minority, the church must truly understand that we will always be mocked, persecuted, and marginalized, and yet we must meet such a response with love and faithfulness. Such a posture provides a fruitful creative tension.

Moore: What are a few goals you would like your readers to walk away with from having read Disappearing Church? 

Sayers: There is no going back. We will most likely live the entirety of our lives in an increasingly diverse, contested, globalized, and divided world. As William Davidow and Moises Naim have shown, this world will also be a fragile one. Thus such a moment will be served by a church that is relevant by being resilient. With change and chaos as the norm, a nostalgic desire to return to halcyon days is deeply tempting. Instead of wanting to return to the past, we must learn from the past. Two thousand years of Church history have shown us that again and again, even as large portions of the Church compromise with the spirit of the day. Creative minorities, who engaged new landscapes with creativity alongside biblical orthodoxy and faithfulness, flourish, bring good news and live as ambassadors of the kingdom. This can and will again happen in our day. If in some tiny way Disappearing Church can contribute to that renaissance I will be deeply grateful to Him.