bekahcubed

Categories Recap

Recap (Jun 20-26)

1 Comment by

On bekahcubed

Book Reviews:

  • The Courteous Cad by Catherine Palmer

    “I’ve mentioned my enjoyment of Regency romances at least once before. So when I saw what looked to be a romance from a Christian publisher (amazing how the covers just glare “Christian romance”, isn’t it?) with the title The Courteous Cad, I knew I wanted to read it. With the word “Cad” in the title, it had to be a Regency.”

    Read the rest of my review.

    • Whom Not to Marry by Father Pat Connor

      “Are you a single lady seeking to discover whether the man you’re dating is “marriage material”? Are you trying to decide whether you should commit to marriage with him?

      Allow me to summarize Father Pat Connor’s advice to you in three words: “Don’t do it.””

      Read the rest of my review.

    Photo Albums:

    Recipes:

    On the web

    Books for the TBR list:

    • Scratch Beginnings by Adam Shepard
      What would you do if all you had was $25, a sleeping bag, and the clothes you’re wearing right now–and had to make a life for yourself? I hope I never find myself in that situation, but Adam Shepard chronicles his year long experiment in which he does exactly that. I’m eager to read this book!

    News to take note of:

    • Intimacy, empathy decrease as social media overtakes face-to-face communication

      “It’s possible that instead of fostering real friendships off-line, e-mail and social networking may take the place of them — and the distance inherent in screen-only interactions may breed feelings of isolation or a tendency to care less about other people. After all, if you don’t feel like dealing with a friend’s problem online, all you have to do is log off.”

      HT: Challies.com

    Thought-provoking posts:
    The following are a collection of three arguments about TULIP’s “L”–limited atonement (which states that Christ died for the sins of the elect, but not for the sins of the non-elect). I found all three of these articles via Justin Taylor’s Primer on Limited Atonement.

    • Justin Taylor weighs in on the “pro” side, citing logical arguments, quoting John Owens, Loraine Boettner, and John Piper

      “In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition ‘Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people’ with the idea that ‘Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.'”

      This argument is a very good logical argument for a theology of limited atonement. I can see the quoted authors’ perspectives that both Calvinism and Arminianism limit atonement: one limiting it quantitatively, the other limiting it qualitatively.

    • Randy Alcorn weighs in on the “con” side, citing Scripture.

      “Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers who bring swift destruction on themselves, and describes them as “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” Either Christ died for all men, including those who aren’t elect, or the false teachers who bring destruction on themselves are elect. I just don’t know how else to interpret this passage.”

      Very good point–the “whole world” doesn’t mean “whole world” argument doesn’t really hold up here.

      “Whether we like it or not, there seem to be two components in salvation, first Christ’s provision of the gift and second our acceptance of the gift. Regardless of our profound failure to understand how those work, and what we may believe about the extent of free will or how He empowers us to choose salvation, Scripture itself does not demand that Christ’s death to offer us a gift automatically saves us, only that it offers us salvation that we may or may not accept. “Whosoever will may come”—well, if Christ didn’t die for him, can he come or not? (Of course, I believe that due to depravity and election and grace, we cannot accept it on our own, but only through a drawing, convicting, supernatural work of the Spirit.)”

      My current viewpoint probably stands closest to this four-point position espoused by Alcorn (not that I’m not open to having God conform my mind!)

    • Doug Wilson weighs in on the “pro” side, citing postmillenialism (of all things).

      “So I don’t want Calvinists to throw away their logic, or as Alcorn put it, their “western” logic. I want them to pick it up. Follow it out farther. No points without five points, yes. And no five points without the sixth point of postmillennialism. This means the starchiest five-point amill guy is in the same logical position as the four-pointers.”

      I don’t have much of an opinion on eschatology (except that if premillenialism is correct, I’m gonna expect a post-tribulation rapture)–but I don’t understand Wilson’s line of reasoning at all. I don’t feel he developed his argument well enough that I can even comment on it. Okay, so postmillenialism is the answer–How?

    Yes, maybe I’m a bit obsessed with Calvinism these days–the joys of coming from an Arminian background but being profoundly dissatisfied with the low view of God (and God’s sovereignty) that the Arminian argument allows or even encourages.

    Videos worth seeing:

Categories Faith, Politics

The Secret Socialist (Part 1)

1 Comment by

Last night, my siblings were discussing the apparently dead-in-production film version of The Hobbit and Peter Jackson’s lawsuit against New Line.

Several siblings remarked that Peter Jackson didn’t really NEED more money.

Their remarks struck me wrong for whatever reason and I added my comment: “The question isn’t whether Peter Jackson needs more money, but whether he deserves more money.”

It’s not an issue of who needs what or of “fairness”. It’s a matter of justice.

(Please realize that I know VERY little about this particular court case–I cannot even begin to answer the question I posed. That’s not the point.)

The point is that even in some of the most conservative of us (my family is pretty conservative as a whole), there lurks a secret socialist.

Now, it may well be that I am completely blowing this out of proportion. My siblings weren’t necessarily saying that Peter Jackson shouldn’t win this lawsuit because he didn’t need the money. Rather, I am almost certain that they were asking why he was pursuing the lawsuit, as though he needed more money.

But the conversation (along with my reading of Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation) got me to thinking about the purpose of government.

The governments of this earth have a God-ordained role to administer justice:

” Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
Romans 13:1-7

The God-instated role of government is to reward the one who does good and punish the one who does evil. In other words, governments are intended to administer justice.

The problem is that justice…well, justice isn’t always very NICE. Justice is often pretty “unfair”. Justice means that the poor man who steals from a rich man–even if he’s stealing just so that he and his family can eat–is punished and required to repay what he has stolen–even though the rich man has no need for the stolen money.

“People do not despise a thief
If he steals to satisfy himself when he is starving.
Yet when he is found, he must restore sevenfold;
He may have to give up all the substance of his house. ”
Proverbs 6:30-31

The mercy of the onlooker means he does not despise a thief who steals to satisfy himself when he is starving. The justice of the law demands that he restore sevenfold, regardless of the personal cost to himself.

Sometimes, even we conservatives look at the law and desire for it to be merciful–but that is not the purpose of government. The purpose of government is not the administration of mercy but the administration of justice.

Please don’t write me off as a hard-hearted conservative yet! I’ll be exploring this issue further in the upcoming week. Stay tuned to hear my thoughts on social justice and the role of the church in society (which is quite different from the role of the government in society.)

Categories Family & Friends

Prioritizing People

1 Comment by

I’m a goal-oriented person. I make myself a to-do list and I finish it. I have an end goal in sight and I don’t stop until I’ve accomplished it.

In doing so, I find that I can go an awfully long time without seeing or talking to people. Left on my own, with a computer and a project, I can go weeks without people.

In my push to finish one project or another (I have plenty of projects to keep me busy until I’m at least 150), I’d often forgo social events, preferring to “get stuff done.”

But a few months ago, I realized that the way I was living was not consistent with my life vision.

“My vision is to glorify God by growing daily in relationship with Him, being conformed to the image of Christ; by growing in relationships with others, taking time to invest into their lives; and by growing as an individual, always learning and practicing what I’ve learned.”

I said that I wanted to prioritize people, that I wanted to take time to invest in their lives; but I wasn’t doing it.

Something had to change.

So I put people on my to-do list. Three slots every day. I couldn’t say I’d completed my list for the day unless I’d made contact with at least three people. A phone call. A note. A lunch date or walk around the neighborhood. My day wasn’t complete until I’d made time for people.

Singing the little ditty “Make new friends, but keep the old–one is silver and the other gold”, I made a list of friends, old and new. I scheduled them in regular intervals throughout my planner–reminders so I wouldn’t let these friendships slip (as I have been wont to do in the past.)

My roommate from Bible school came up in my list this week, and I was trying to figure out how to connect with her. We haven’t seen each other for a while. She moved to Kansas City after she married, and we’ve only seen each other infrequently, when she comes back to Lincoln and we happen to run into each other. But I knew I wanted to renew this friendship. But how?

The opportunity came rather surprisingly. She and her husband just closed on a house in the neighboring city–and she posted a Facebook status asking if anyone wanted to help them paint and move.

I saw my opportunity–tailor-made by God.

I’ll help. I’ll renew this friendship. I’ll prioritize people today.

So today, I’m going to Omaha to paint. I’m ticking things off my to-do list. I’m prioritizing people.

Categories Thankful Thursday

Thankful Thursday: Unexpected Blessings

Leave a comment by

Today I’m thankful…

…for an unexpectedly quick pool set up and the pleasure of spending some time with my sister yesterday.

Setting up the Pool

…for the unexpected productivity of today’s thesis work. I felt like I was just FLYING through the articles I was reading–quite different from the slogging I had been doing.

…for the unexpected opportunity to see some old co-workers at lunch today. I had nice little chats with Jeff and Janet and was able to say hello to quite a few more.

…for an unexpected Kudos from one of my dad’s coworkers on the successful wedding

…for an unexpected chance to spend time with a former friend I haven’t seen for a while. We roomed together during my senior year of high school, but she moved to KC for college–and I stayed in Lincoln. Now she and her husband and baby daughter are back in Omaha and I get to help them paint tomorrow! Yahoo!

Thankful Thursday banner

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Who Killed Jesus?

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 2: Why Did Christ Die?

Who killed Jesus?

The Roman soldiers did. They were doing their job, carrying out the crucifixion. Jesus spoke of them when He said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Who killed Jesus?

Pilate did. He handed Jesus over to be crucified, knowing full well that He was innocent. Pilate was more interested in keeping the peace and in preserving his position than in administering justice.

Who killed Jesus?

The Sanhedrin did when they falsely accused and convicted Him of blasphemy, when they falsely accused Him of sedition and delivered Him up to Pilate to be crucified. They killed Him out of envy.

Who killed Jesus?

Judas did when he betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin for 30 pieces of silver, when he kissed Jesus’ cheek to direct the guards to Him.

Who killed Jesus?

The Jews did when they chanted for Pilate to “crucify Him”, when they said “Let His blood be upon our heads.”

Who killed Jesus?

We did.

“More important still, we ourselves are also guilty. If we were in their place, we would have done what they did. Indee, we have done it. For whenever we turn away from Christ, we ‘are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace’ (Heb. 6:6)….’Were you there when they crucified my Lord?’ the old negro spiritual asks. And we must answer, ‘Yes, we were there.’ Not as spectators only but as participants, guilty participants, plotting, scheming, betraying, bargaining, and handing him over to be crucified. We may try to wash our hands of responsibility like Pilate. But our attempt will be as futile as him. For there is blood on our hands. Before we can begin to see the cross as something done for us…we have to see it as something done by us….Indeed, ‘only the man who is prepared to own his share in the guilt of the cross’, wrote Canon Peter Green, ‘may claim his share in its grace’.”
John Stott, The Cross of Christ, p. 59-60

Who killed Jesus?

No one did. He gave His life for us.

“I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.”
John 10:17-18

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories Family & Friends

A Break for a Shake

Leave a comment by

Sometime last fall, I texted Arbys to receive a free curly fry.

Since that time, I’ve received approximately one text from Arby’s every week. Offering a buy one get one free Reuben sandwich or a buck off a salad, the “deals” are not really my fare.

Generally, I flip open my phone and delete the message immediately.

Until yesterday, when I flipped open my phone to see

“Cool off with a friend!
Show this text to buy one Value Shake
and get one FREE!

I quickly texted my little sister asking if she’d like to go to get a shake with me.

After she got up :-), she texted me back with her “Sure”.

We ate leftover Curried Chicken Salad for lunch at my house, talked while we let our tummies settle enough to have room for shakes, and then headed out walking.

Our nearest Arbys is about a mile away, a nice comfortable jaunt in comfortable weather–which yesterday definitely wasn’t. By the time we got to the restaurant, we were sweaty and ready for a nice cold treat.

We pooled our change to pay the $1.07 for our Jamocha shakes and sat in a booth sipping and snapping photos.

Grace and Rebekah at Arbys

If it were an inconvenience to receive and delete the weekly texts from Arbys, this fun little outing with my sister more than made up for it. There’s nothing better than a sized-just-right (12 ounces, I think) Jamocha shake, shared with a friend and sister!

Grace at Arbys

Isn’t my sister just too cute?

Categories Wondrous Words Wednesday

Wondrous Words Wednesday

2 Comments by

Wondrous Words Wednesday

Join Bermuda Onion and others as we explore the new-to-us words we’ve come across this week!

1. Cynosure (ˈsī-nə-ˌshu̇r)

“The cross is the pivot as well as the centre of New Testament thought. The exclusive mark of the Christian faith, the symbol of Christianity and its cynosure.”
~Samuel Zwemer, quoted in John Stott’s The Cross of Christ

Definition: a center of attraction or attention

2. Lycanthrope (lī-kən-ˌthrōp)

“If you asked me last week if I had anything in common with Twilight star Robert Pattinson, I would have said, ‘Yes, we’re both bipeds, we have hair that borders on Conan O’Brien height levels and we’re constantly harassed by lycanthropes.‘”
~Jon Acuff, from Stuff Christians Like

Definition: 1. a werewolf, 2. a person affected with lycanthropy

3. Laboratoryoratory, availaboratoryle, elaboratoryorate

“He was a reconstructive surgeon and often performed liver transplants on children, but felt stymied by the lack of donor livers availabloratoryle.”
~Winston and Oliwenstein from Superhuman: The Awesome Power Within

Okay, this isn’t a serious new word. I’m just flummoxed at how an editor could miss three glaringly obvious additions of “oratory” to other words. All three of these were found within three pages. What on earth?

Categories Book Notes, Theology

Under the Shadow of the Cross

Leave a comment by

Notes on John Stott’s
The Cross of Christ
Chapter 1: The Centrality of the Cross

The Shadow of Death

John Stott describes Holman Hunt’s painting “The Shadow of Death” in the following terms:

“She looks startled (or so it seems) at her son’s cross-like shadow on the wall….Though the idea [for the painting] is historically fictitious, it is also theologically true. From Jesus’ youth, indeed even from his birth, the cross cast its shadow ahead of him. His death was central to his mission.”

How church history has viewed the cross:

Church history affirms the centrality of the cross to the Christian faith–despite (or perhaps because of) its incredibly negative connotations and propensity to be ridiculed.

How Jesus viewed the cross:

Jesus made no secret that He would suffer, die, and rise again. Throughout His ministry, He speaks of His hour. This hour did not come in teaching or in working miracles. Rather, it was in His death that His hour had come.

“‘The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified….Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? “Father, save Me from this hour”? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.'”
John 12:23, 27-28

How the apostles viewed the cross:

While the sermons of Acts do not explicitly detail the theological implications of the cross, they do all mention the cross and many allude to its implications by using the term “hung on a tree” to describe crucifixion. This phrase directs the hearer to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which proclaims a curse on all who are hung on a tree–alluding to the substitutionary nature of the cross (He became a curse for us, Galatians 3:13). Additionally, the apostles’ emphasis on the resurrection is an implicit reference to the cross, since the resurrection is the reversal of a prior sentence of death.

In the epistles, the doctrine of the cross is central to the writers’ messages. Paul, Peter, John, and the author of Hebrews all go to great length to describe the implications of the cross and its centrality to the Christian life. In the Revelation, Jesus’ primary identity is as the Lamb of God–not a reference primarily to His humility but to His death as a lamb slain for the sins of the world.

Summary:

The Cross is central to the Christian faith and is the biggest distinguisher between believers and unbelievers.

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
I Corinthians 1:18

“In the Christian theology of history, the death of Christ is the central point of history; here all the roads of the past converge; hence all the roads of the future diverge.”
~Stephen Neil

(See more notes on The Cross of Christ here.)

Categories What's on Your Nightstand?

Nightstand (June 2010)

10 Comments by

On last month’s nightstand:

On my nightstand

What I actually read this month was…
not very much. Last month, I blamed the last few weeks of school and working on thesis–this month, I had a wedding interrupt my daily routines (definitely not an unwelcome interruption!) I’m going to have to stop making excuses and just accept that my life is such that I can’t expect to read a bazillion books a month.

Fiction

  • Washington’s Lady by Nancy Moser
    I’ve enjoyed all of Nancy Moser’s historical novels–but I think this one is my favorite. Histories do not always make the best novels because our lives are rarely as neat as we demand our fictional tales to be. Nevertheless, Moser does a good job of giving Martha Custis Washington’s story a consistent theme. It’s not an amazing book, but it is enjoyable.
  • Winter is Not Forever by Janette Oke

Nonfiction

  • The American Bar Association Complete and Easy Guide to Health Care Law
  • The Children’s Blizzard by David Laskin
    Click the link to see my review.
  • In the President’s Secret Service by Ronald Kessler
    My thoughts pretty much echo Susan’s: the behind-the-scenes stuff was great; the whining about not having enough money, enough staff, nice enough supervisors, etc. was tiresome.
  • Life’s Instructions for Wisdom, Success, and Happiness
  • Make Your Own Living Trust
  • Nolo’s Simple Will Book
  • The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller
    Click the link to see my review.
  • Writing your dissertation in fifteen minutes a day by Joan Bolker
    Intended for doctoral students working on their dissertations, this was nevertheless helpful to me in getting past some of the inner distractions to writing my (master’s) thesis.

Juvenile

  • Children’s Picture Books author ANNO-ARNO (44 titles)
    including Kathi Appelt’s Bubba and Beau books
  • The Shortwave Mystery by Franklin Dixon

Currently in the middle of…

On my nightstand

Nonfiction

  • Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views edited by Wayne Grudem
    I had this one out via interlibrary loan and had to return it before I’d finished it. I quickly sent in a new request and quickly received a new copy. While I’m not publishing my notes from this title, I’ve been enjoying reading and making notes on the four views represented within. I think I’ve officially decided that this format is the best way to study controversial theological topics–the knowledge that other viewpoints will respond immediately to one’s argument seems to force each author to write with greater clarity and theological depth.
  • The Cross of Christ by John Stott
    I’ve just started this title, but I’m already crazy about it. After a hiatus from writing (public) book notes (thanks to writing private ones on Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?), I’m ready to jump back in. I’ll be writing public notes on this title over the course of the next month.
  • Dug Down Deep by Joshua Harris
    I’ve already read this title through–but then I suggested that our ladies fellowship group read it through and discuss it at our bimonthly meetings. They agreed, so we’re traveling through it slowly (2 chapters a month) and discussing.
  • Human Rights: Opposing Viewpoints
    I had to check this out a second time (after the first six-week period). I always enjoy the Opposing Viewpoints essays. Even though I generally end up agreeing with one side of any particular issue, I find it useful to read a variety of perspectives.
  • The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd
    I’m reading this one (two chapters per week) along with a diverse book club here in Lincoln. It’s definitely been interesting to see the differing perspectives (of book club members) on how the church is to deal with politics. So far, Boyd seems to be taking an almost Anabaptist position (separation from politics). There are some points on which I agree with him–and some points where I differ. I’m interested in seeing him develop his argument over the course of the rest of the book.
  • Superhuman by Robert Winston and Lori Oliwenstein
    This is another one I checked out a second time. It’s interesting to read about advances in medicine and the wonders of the human body–but I dislike the authors’ underlying evolutionary and Nietzschean assumptions.
  • Whom Not to Marry by Father Pat Connor
    Meh. Haven’t decided whether I like this or not. It’s directed towards women and it’s constantly making statements of “If he…., don’t marry him” but makes very little reference to what the women should be doing. There’s no corollary “If you…, don’t marry.” So basically, it reads like the man has to be perfect, but the woman can be as selfish and immature and irresponsible as she pleases.

On this month’s nightstand:

On my nightstand

Fiction

  • The Courteous Cad by Catherine Palmer
  • The Princess Bride by William Goldman
  • Solemnly Swear by Nancy Moser
  • Stardust by Neil Gaiman

Nonfiction

  • Donna Kooler’s Encyclopedia of Needlework
  • Five Aspects of Woman by Barbara Mouser
  • Holiday Crafts 2009 by Better Homes and Gardens
  • Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon
  • Stitch Sampler by Lucinda Ganderton
  • Theses–as I work on my own thesis
  • Wedding planning books
    It’s my habit to use wedding planning books to “review” after each wedding I help with and to organize my notes for what worked/what didn’t work/how I can help things run more smoothly the next time around. Yeah–I’m somewhat over-the-top as a wedding assistant. Oh well!

Juvenile
Chronicles of Narnia

  • Children’s Picture Books author ARNOLD-?
  • The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis
    I’ll be reading this (and maybe The Horse and His Boy) as part of Carrie’s Chronicles of Narnia Reading Challenge.

Drop by 5 Minutes 4 Books to see what others are reading.
What's on Your Nightstand?

Categories The Week in Words

WiW: On the Church and the World

4 Comments by

The Week in Words

The Esteemed Reverend Welcher, on relevance in preaching (from a Facebook note):

I wonder how many modern sermons replete with movie quotes, pop references and endless rehashings of the Pastor’s college exploits will be even remotely useful to a person living in the future?

Of course, the vast majority of us won’t be read after we fall asleep, let alone 500 years after we fall asleep. It’s not a problem we’ll have.

For most of us, our goal should be to preach the Bible is such a way that we are relevant to the people we are teaching in the here and now, and to train up men who will be relevant tomorrow.

This was good! The question of “relevance” vs. “timelessness” is of definite interest to many within the church. The answer, however, is not in choosing one or the other (as some might look upon it), but in seeking to translate timeless truth into relevant terms so each generation can be transformed by the unchanging but ever relevant gospel of Christ.

Of course, I’m not a preacher–but I’d be willing to say that the same principles should be true of our teaching, evangelizing, making disciples, and… dare I say blogging?

Robert L. Saucy, on the exercise of spiritual gifts, from Are miraculous gifts for today?: Four views:

“The ministry of spiritual gifts is the encounter of God with his people. For a person open to God, the reception of gifted ministry is the experience of his supernatural work. Too often this is primarily seen and therefore sought in the miraculous. But the edifying experiences of rebuke, conviction, encouragement, comfort, etc., brought through the nonmiraculous gifts, are as much supernatural and the experience of God as are miracles.”

I really appreciate this comment from Saucy’s “Open but Cautious” standpoint. I think there is a grave danger in letting the pursuit of the miraculous overshadow the “everyday” exercise of spiritual gifts. While the miraculous gifts are a hot button issue that receive a lot of attention, the bulk of the spiritual gifts listed in Scripture are non-miraculous (but still supernatural) workings of the Holy Spirit for the edification of the church. To lose sight of this and fail to practice the less “showy” spiritual gifts would be a tragedy.

Chris Brauns, on the power of the church:

You know: the magnifying glass does not provide any power of its own. It serves only to direct the power of the sun. But, when it does, it brings light to a burning focus and things ignite.

That is what the local church is supposed to do. By itself, the church, God’s people, do not offer any power. But, a church is like a magnifying glass that God uses to focus and direct His power.

HT: Vitamin Z

This quote refers to using a magnifying glass to ignite something on a sunny day. I appreciate the perspective this analogy provides to the idea of how a Christian is to work. Matthew 15:16 says “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” Our good works, our very lives as the church are but a tool that God uses to display His power and glory to the world.

Collect more quotes from throughout the week with Barbara H’s meme “The Week in Words”.