My previous two posts (here and here) looked at what many philosophers deem to be a special kind of knowledge, one which is the basis for the standard view of knowledge. It is called propositional knowledge. Here is a short recap.

Propositional knowledge requires three conditions. Propositional knowledge requires truth. You cannot know something unless it is true. It is never right to say, “He knows it but it is false!”. That lacks complete logic. You cannot know that George Jetson was the first man to step foot on the moon. The reason you cannot know that is because the facts indicate that Neil Armstrong was the first person to step foot on the moon. You know a proposition only if it is true. What we must now deal with is an understanding about what it is for something to be true. The simple and widely accepted answer to this is contained within the correspondence theory of truth.

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality.] Additionally, a “proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts. A proposition is false if it fails to correspond to the facts.”

A second condition for propositional knowledge is belief. If you know something, you must believe it or accept it. Belief in this case is being used in a broad sense. Any time you take something to be true, you believe it. This includes hesitant acceptance as well as fully confident acceptance. If you do not even think something is true, then you do not know it. In addition, it must be stated that you can believe something without it being true, having the facts to support it. Propositional knowledge requires belief, but belief does not require truth.

Philosophers also say that a third condition for knowledge is justification for the belief. What justification amounts to is of considerable debate. Justification is something that comes in degrees, meaning that you can have more or less justification. In addition, you can be justified in believing something without actually believing it.

The modern church has adopted propositionalism as the basis for understanding truth and knowledge within the context of Christianity. The Bible is understood propositionally. Belief is understood propositionally.

In the context of Christianity, however, we must deem propositionalism desperately lacking. In fact, Christians cannot beholden our knowledge of God in a propositional manner. Here’s why. By definition, propositional knowledge must contain verifiable facts. Does the scripture have facts? Yes, indeed. It is a fact, propositionally, that David was a king in Judah. It is a fact, propositionally, that Solomon was a very wealthy king of Judah. It is a fact, propositionally, that Jesus lived and a fact, propositionally, that Jesus died. It is not a fact, propositionally however, that Jesus walked on water. Though I believe that He did, it is not provable or factual.

The basics of our faith are not factual, propositionally; they are beliefs. We cannot factually verify that Jesus walked on water. We cannot factually verify that it was an angel of death who killed all the first-born of Egypt in Exodus. We cannot factually verify many of the miracles of scripture. They are beliefs, not facts.

However, to equate truth as propositional means that we must deal with truth through the lens of an epistemologically propositional framework. To do so destroys our Faith.

Does that mean that there is no truth? No. Does that mean that there is not such a thing as absolute truth? No. I believe in truth and in absolute truth, which is found only in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet to define knowledge and truth through one particular framework means that we have to take the good and bad that framework brings. For a Christian, propositionalism cannot work.

The second implication for the church is that propositionalism potentially distorts the gospel. Belief in a propositional framework is used in a broad sense. Any time you take something to be true, you believe it. This includes hesitant acceptance as well as fully confident acceptance. In addition, it must be stated that you can believe something without it being true, having the facts to support it. Propositional knowledge requires belief, but belief does not require truth. To adopt the gospel with hesitant acceptance and equate that to the biblical definition of belief distorts what it means to believe in Jesus Christ. Belief in Christ is not an acceptance of facts It is a emotional, mental, and physical response to the calling of God upon a person’s life. If even the demons “believe” and are still bound to an eternity in Hell, then belief has to be more than acceptance of facts; it is a movement towards God as a response to God’s calling.

The framework that best exemplifies biblical truth and biblical salvation, then, is a relational framework. Salvation is a response to Jesus wooing us relationally. Truth, biblical truth, is found only in a relationship with Jesus and the revelation of the Spirit (I Cor 2:14). Therefore knowledge and truth are best described as relational, not propositional.

Related Posts:

• The conditions for propositional knowledge
• Knowledge – An introduction
• Images of Truth
• Images of Objectivism and Knowing
• Communicating to change lives: Jesus’ communication

Related posts:

• The Impact of Service on the Reputation of the Church
• Unleashing Your Creativity
• MORPHE: Depression in Ministry
• Identity and the Metanarrative
• Characteristics of Gridlocked Systems

The Trusting Brain

Since my dissertation included a good bit of brain research, I subscribed to a number of blogs of scientists and brain researchers. One is called “The Frontal Cortex“, which is part of Science Blogs. This morning they have an article on trust and the brain.  The article primarily concerns the economic struggles our country finds itself in and to what degree we will trust the government, business leaders, and our own understanding of the economy. However, the research has implications for our own trust in the Godhead.

The Relevant Study

The writer, Jonah Lehrer, describes a 2005 study led by several Neuroscientists regarding trust.

The research was born out of a serious limitation of conventional fMRI, which looks at the brain by itself. (An individual is put in a claustrophobic scanner and told to perform a task.) Humans, of course, are a social species, so the scientists (led by Montague) pioneered a technique known as hyper-scanning, which allows subjects in different fMRI machines to interact in real time.

The experiment revolved around a simple economic game in which getting the maximum reward required the strangers to trust one another. However, if one of the players grew especially selfish, he or she could always steal from the pot and erase the tenuous bond of trust. By monitoring the players’ brains, the scientists were able to predict whether or not someone would steal money several seconds before the theft actually occurred. The secret was a cortical area known as the caudate nucleus, which closely tracked the payouts from the other player. (The caudate is usually discussed in the context of addiction, since it plays a central role in modulating our expectation of pleasure.) Montague noticed that whenever the caudate exhibited reduced activity, trust tended to break down.

But what exactly is the caudate computing? How do we decide whom to trust with our money? And why do we sometimes decide to stop trusting those people? At first the caudate didn’t get excited until the subjects actually trusted one another and garnered their separate rewards. But over time this brain area started to expect trust, so that it fired long before the reward actually arrived. Of course, if the bond was broken – if someone cheated and stole money – then the neurons stopped firing; social assumptions were proven wrong.

The moral is that trust is ultimately about the expectation of rewards. Trust may be an admirable social trait, but it’s ultimately rooted in a greedy calculation, emanating from our primal dopamine reward circuitry:

Taken together, these results suggest that the head of the caudate nucleus receives or computes information about (i) the fairness of a social partner’s decision and (ii) the intention to repay that decision with trust. In early rounds of the game, the ”intention to trust” is evident only after an investment is revealed. With experience, this signal shifts to a time preceding the revelation of the investment.

What does this have to do with the economy? Over the last few decades, investors have grown accustomed to predictable rewards coming from the financial markets. We were used to our 7 percent return in the stock market, that 4.5 percent return from a money fund, and that 2 percent return from our bank account. We assumed our homes would always increase in value. In other words, these “rewards” were taken for granted. (It hasn’t helped that the last severe recession arrived in the early 1980’s, more than 25 years ago. People forgot that these financial rewards were contingent, just like the players in the trust game who were shocked that someone would abscond with their cash.)

When those rewards disappear – when home prices fall, and borrowers default, and the markets flatline – the end result is a collapse in the bonds of trust that all markets depend on. The problem, of course, is that restoring trust is ultimately about rewards, not reassuring statements or grand plans from Congress. Until those financial rewards start to feel predictable again – and that may take a long, long time – investors will continue to be wary of each other, just like people who got burned in the brain scanner.

The Impact on Life and the Gospel

The results of this study has a great impact for life and how we share the Gospel. Our trust in the Godhead comes only after levels of expectation and reward are observed and received. In other words, trust has to be developed; we do not give God our trust blindly. God, from the moment we are born, sets out to earn our trust. In earning our trust, we then can transition from the God who wants to be in relationship with us, to the the “Santa Claus” view of God to the deeply relational, Fatherly view of God.

In the midst of this process, we have to de-trust God in order to trust him deeper. Our brain has to have it’s’ neurons re-wired so that we can not only trust him more relationally but we can change our behavior in the trusting process. Our brains get wired in a certain way such that our thoughts and actions become automatic. However, to re-wired our brain and allow God to take us places through faith we could never other otherwise go, we have to de-trust what we already know. Then, and only then, can those new trusting circuits be rebuilt.

The reward changes during this process as well. We move from the Santa Claus view of God, where he gives us stuff, and helps us out (reward), to a deep relationship with the Father where the reward is the relationship. That takes a series of trusts and de-trusts where our reward changes over time.

This is what St. John of the Cross called the dark night(s) of the soul. It’s the Chrysalis of Alan Jamison. We will all have a series of stops and starts, a series of trusts and de-trusts, in our relationship with God.

Yet it has great impact on how we share the Gospel. We have to concede that blind trust is not given by humans to God without any relationship whatsoever. Could it be that our starting place is to discover how and in whom people have seen the activity of God. That becomes the starting point, not where will a person will spend eternity when they die. This may have worked in years past because people had some experience with God. However, fewer people have a positive experience with God, assuming they have any, and are less likely to understand that question, accept your premise of them being sinners and needing heaven, or even want to engage you in that conversation. Despite a belief in “God”, experience with Jesus or his followers is minimal. Our starting point, then, is wrong. Our starting point should be discovering what, if any, activity they perceive (or we help them understand) of how God and Jesus has worked in their life to move them to a point of actually being able to trust.

This isn’t brain surgery. It is not rocket science. It is time and relationships and a discernment by us of what the Spirit has done in their life to move them closer to Jesus.

Related Posts:

• Hyperbolic discounting and the Gospel
• Why Denominations Cannot Complete the Great Commission
• How we read each other’s minds
• The Gospel: God’s solution
• What is the Gospel? Sin’s impact

Related posts:

• Open systems, Creativity and Trust
• Word for Wednesday: Psalm 49
• Constructed Theology
• My view on the past 26 years of the SBC – Leading from fear.
• The Gospel: God’s solution

This is a video from the 2009 American Atheist Convention. It is 54 minutes long. It is extremely interesting. It is scientific, somewhat technical, and challenging.

However, please take a listen. Here is the original article. Read the comments, they are quite interesting. Here is a summary:

The basic summary of Dr. Thomson’s talk goes thusly; Humans are programed to notice pattern and agency so as to avoid danger and recognize potential help, and supernatural concepts, such as attributing agency to inanimate objects (animistic spirits, for instance), are a result of this. Similarly, humans are hard-wired to recognize emotion, trust kin, and strive for harmony with kin, again, ways to avoid or mitigate danger, and religions make blatant use of this through familial metaphor. Corollary to this is our capacity for empathy, which causes those areas of our minds which process pain to become active when we see others injured. He points out that, through images and stories emphasizing the suffering and sacrifices made by religious figures and co-coreligionists, religions use empathy to create a sense of guilt and obligation to them, and then claim that only obedience can fulfill this debt. He also points out that supernatural beliefs are produced in specific parts of the brain which are involved in these mental processes, proving the contention that supernatural concepts are a by-product of these cognitive self-defense mechanisms.

He concludes by pointing out that, as more evidence compiles showing the efficacy of this cognitive neuroscience of religion, the necessity to teach it to professionals will grow, and that eventually this will lead to its discussion at the public school level, which will lead to direct conflict with religion, as the promulgation of a complete, non-supernatural explanation of religion threatens the very roots of religious systems, and that a proper understanding of the basic neuroscience involved will be necessary to defend against this attack.

I will have a comment on this and its application to theology and religion in another post, particularly regarding the new Atheism that has arisen over the past five years.

Related Posts:

• The Ontological Church
• Does submission equal authority?
• Integrative Theology
• A Review -- Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth
• Tom Wright & James Dunn The New Perspective on Paul

Related posts:

• Monday Highlights: God’s Victory!
• Reframing Success in Ministry: The New Metrics
• It’s amazing how people can show their love
• Monday Highlights: God’s provision for the toughest mission
• Ah Sugar!

Richard Dawkins believes science’s ability to admit ignorance is one of its greatest strengths. On the flip side, he proposes that faith remains arrogant and all too certain of its validity without any rational set of proofs.

Related Posts:

• Tim Berners-Lee: The next Web of open, linked data
• Is climate change causing all this snow?
• The loss of innocence
• Weird or different? Why we need to contextualize, not coerce conformation
• Thinking about Creation: Functional, not Material Creation

Related posts:

• Youtube Tuesday: C.S. Lewis’ journey from atheism to theism
• Are We Programmed to Care?
• A Dialogue between Richard Land and Brian McLaren
• Does Increased Atheism Equate to Increased Social Liberalism?
• Richard Land on Sarah Palin

Part 2 of 7 with N.T. Wright discussing his book Simply Christian.  This is audio only.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn7nbWpOKyw[/youtube]

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Youtube Tuesday: Simply Christian Part 1
• Youtube Tuesday: C.S. Lewis’ journey from atheism to theism
• Youtube Tuesday: C.S. Lewis and his conversion to Christianity
• Youtube Tuesday: One of Us
• Youtube Tuesday: Faith Noel

One of our small groups in our church has begun a study of Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus but not the Church. In the first section, Dan speaks about talking with two folks in a coffee shop. The two folks he met had come into the coffee shop and were discussing Kabbalah.

Kabbalah is becoming more widely known and practiced in culture. It is something that Christ followers need to understand.

One of the things we’re doing in our study is putting together information that can be used in an apologetic sense to share with folks around the themes Dan deals with in his book. Since he has a discussion of Kabbalah, I’ve done some, just a little actually, research on the topic and provide a couple of those links below. I would love to hear what you know about the topic especially if you have interacted with folks apologetically.

Resources:

• wikipedia
• Kabbalah 101 – this website has a scheduled 42 part series on Kabbalah. Currently, there are 23 articles posted.
• Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism
• LearnKabbalah.com – this website is a free source of Kabbalistic teachings, texts, and resources. It is suitable for those new to Kabbalah, and those with some background who wish to deepen their knowledge. Learnkabbalah.com was created by Jay Michaelson, who is both a teacher and a student of Kabbalah, meditation, and spirituality. Jay has learned Kabbalah in both traditional and academic contexts; he is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

If you have any references, other than those listed about, that you could provide, please let me know. I am trying to put together as many sources of reputable information as possible.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Change movements, disciples, and the chicken and the egg
• They Consume, So Let’s Build to Sell
• They Like Jesus but Not the Church
• A simple reminder of the need to go…
• What I Dig About Jesus

A new blog I’ve found recently is from Bob Robinson at Vanguard Church. Bob recently was able to have lunch with Josh McDowell at a conference in Ohio. The thing that stood out to me as Bob was recounting McDowell’s discussions at the table is how McDowell talks about truth. He says:

McDowell then explained “how we got here,” with a quick review of history, from the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution to Darwinism, explaining that instead of God being the source of truth, nature and science had taken God’s place as that source. “Hmm,” I thought, “He’s pretty tough on Modernism. That’s good.”

He never said the word “Post-modernism,” preferring instead the phrase, “The Cosmic Shift.” He explained that we have experienced a shift in our epistemology. This shift is characterized by how the new generation processes truth. The older generation saw truth as something to discover, but the younger generation sees truth as something to create. The older generation said, “If it is true, it will work”; the younger generation says, “If it works, it is true.” In other words, the younger generation bases their idea of the true based on experience; they don’t believe in things that have, in their minds, proven not to produce good results.

He then goes on to describe McDowell as saying (emphasis mine):

McDowell pleaded with these Christian leaders that ministry to the young generation needs to bring together “unfailing love” and “truth.” He insisted that it’s not just about being sure of the truth, it’s also about lovingly showing it to people.

And then he said, “I’m sick of McLaren and Bell putting me in the modernist camp. I am anything but a modernist.”

He proclaimed that he was advocating a “Relational Apologetics” and that “all truth is through relationships.”

I was amazed. At first I thought McDowell would advocate a mere reasoned apologetics and a fight for the concept of propositional truth. Instead, he was arguing for churches to create opportunities for young people to have genuine relationships with Christians so that they can experience what its like to live out their Christian convictions in real-life situations.

He was arguing for incarnational apologetics (what I’ve called “Emmanuel Apologetics”)!

All I can say is WOW! McDowell appears to be arguing for truth as relationship, not proposition. Now I’ve got more in common with McDowell than I knew as well!

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Truth: absolute, relative, or relational?
• Truth and Missional Living
• Images of Truth
• The Theology of Journey: Grey Theology
• What aspect does culture play in truth?

Len Sweet noted to us in a chat this week a scripture from 1 Thes. 5:21 “Pay careful attention to everything . . “ “Semiotics”, he said, “is the art and science of paying attention”. As I said in a previous post, Semiotics is the study of signs.

In Matthew 16, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their inability to read the signs. He says, “And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.” (Matthew 16:1-4, ESV)

When Jesus stood, in Luke 4:16-21, before the synagogue to announce the beginning of his ministry, he read a passage from Is. 61. Note what his ministry calling consisted of: signs. Signs of what? Signs of the kingdom. These signs were announced in the Isaiah passage as demonstrating the one who would come and lead the people out of exile. When Jesus sought to begin his ministry, he announced it using sign language.

When John the Baptist was in prison, about to get his head handed to the queen on a silver platter, he sent messengers to Jesus. His question? “Are you really the Messiah?” Notice how Jesus answered him: “And Jesus answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.’” (Matthew 11:4-6, ESV) How did Jesus choose to let John know that he was indeed the Messiah? Via signs.

In Matthew 25, Jesus identified people would enter into his kingdom in the following way: “I was hungry, and you gave me food…” Again, signs.

These activities were all kingdom activities. These were signs that the exile would be over and that the Messiah had come. These were signs that the exile was over. Unfortunately, the religious people missed it. All of it.

Reminding us again of Matthew 25, seeing the Christ in others is how we will one day be judged: Mt. 25:50 . . “As you did it unto the least of these, you did it to me.“

The gospel in Jesus’ day was communicated by signs. Compare that to how we are trending in our communication of the message of Christ: verbal. But images and signs are much more powerful communicators in our image-rich culture. So what images do we create with our word choices? Using what you know of the many gospel presentations, (EE, CWT, FAITH, the Roman Road, etc) let’s examine this for a moment:

We want to share the good news, but do our best to talk about hell. I am not arguing that hell doesn’t exist or that we shouldn’t talk about it, but think of the image we are creating by sharing good news with images of hell. Is it really good news? Even more importantly, we should ask this question: When Jesus shared the gospel, did he speak of hell?

We communicate the reality that if we trust Christ as our savior, we will spend eternity with him in Heaven. Think about this for a moment. What are we communicating? We are communicating that Christianity is all about getting great seats into that holy, heavenly stadium. We are communicating a “then and there” message and neglecting the “here and now”. Is there any wonder that since the verbal images we create do not communicate involvement in the community of Christ we have so few in our churches?

We communicate that all we have to do is believe certain facts about God and confess them. What images and signs are we communicating? Christianity is an intellectual assent that doesn’t really have much to do with how I behave or how I am transformed.

Can their be any other conclusion that the signs we introduce when we verbally communicate the Christ message is creating a void in our churches? Is there any reason to think that the methods we use strip so much of the true message of Christ out that the effects we long for are non-existant?

Maybe it’s time to reject the patterns we have learned and begin to be a sign to the world. Maybe if we recover a signing mentality, with people seeing Christ, we will see people become fellow pilgrims on the journey to Christ-likeness.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Signs and Communicating the Gospel
• MORPHE V1.2: September 11, Signs, and Garden Cravings
• links for 2008-07-11
• My Fall Reading List for School
• How did God reveal His will in Acts?

Does the gospel, as presented today, have any interest to those outside the Christian faith? In my own discussions with people, I have yet to find any interest in discussing salvation or the gospel. People have more that interests them than the message we present. Could it be that the message we present is so far from the original that it has lost not on it’s power but it’s relevance in people’s life?

Some of the following thoughts were sparked by reading Ron Martioa’s new book called Static. Some are thoughts that I personally have had examining change theories. I admit that these may challenge you deeply; but it is a challenge that must be undertaken in trying to communicate the message of Christ in a new culture.

We have reduced the gospel and abbreviated it’s story. The gospel is about getting people a house in God’s heavenly subdivision. But what if a 4/2 ranch house on a cul-de-sac is simply the by-product of the gospel and not the newsflash that we should be sharing?

Does Jesus’ dying on the cross for our sins so that we can go to heaven paint an accurate picture of what those in the first century would have used to explain the gospel? While I understand how this is important for those in the Christian faith, it doesn’t seem that Jesus, John the Baptist, or even Paul associated heaven and the gospel. It appears to be more of a by-product.

The background for the word gospel comes from Isaiah 40 and Isaiah 52. In Is. 40, Isaiah established an expectation that there would come a day when one would emerge who would prepare the way out. It would coincide with Israel being rallied from exile. The breaking news, the good news, or the gospel would be that whoever was in charge would wither away like the grass and God would reign as king. When John the Baptist came on the scene quoting Is. 40, you can imagine the reaction of the people who heard it.

In Is 52, what is the good news expressed here? The good news is that there is someone is coming who will say to Jerusalem, “God Reigns! He’s the king!”

What would the listeners of Isaiah’s gospel understand when the John proclaimed the good tidings? They would have heard that salvation has arrived. Be careful not to insert our own meaning for that word there. We think salvation “is some sort of possession we get after reciting a prayer that ensures we are saved from the fires of hell and are given a seat in the afterlife, usually called heaven. (Martoia, Static, pg 33)” But what the Isrealites heard was that there was coming an end to their exile and an end to foreign rulers. The king would be restored to the throne and they would be free and whole and experience peace.

In the Greek world, the word euangelion (“gospel”) was used to announce a great victory, an important birth, or the enthronement of a new king. The coming of a new king meant the beginning of a new world order and peace was anticipated.

What if we looked at these cultural understandings of “gospel” to help us understand our message? From the Old Testament we would come to recognize that the king is finally on his way. And from the Greco-Roman world, we would see that the announcement of Jesus as King would be a direct challenge to the claims of Caesar. With the coming of the new king who supercedes the son of god enthroned at Rome, the oppression will end, and we can finally be whole and live in peace.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Reframing the Message
• Signs and Communicating the Gospel
• Constructed Theology
• EBook – Reframing Success: Missional Metrics for Missional Ministry
• Where Does Evangelism Start?

It should be noted that often times when we begin to express our faith in culture, we receive a less than hospitable reaction. The language that we often use, if we are honest, is often either not understood, not accepted as fact, or creates something similar to a jousting match rather than an expression of the faith we hold so dear. The result is a struggle to have conversations with friends and neighbors about their spiritual condition.When we use words like gospel, salvation, repentance, and sin, we have to realize that the people we are talking to may not have the same understanding, if any at all, of these words as we do. A person who grew up in a conservative Baptist tradition will understand these words differently than one who grew up in an Methodist tradition or a Catholic tradition. For someone who grew up with no religious tradition, what these words communicate may have no meaning. Or it could be that their understanding of the words may arise from the mockery that often comes from the media types who poke fun at Christianity.

When we try to communicate the true message of Jesus, we use the words above quite often. But what if we are using these words to provoke a reaction based on definitions or implications that are inaccurate or even wrong? At best we are doing a poor job of communicating; at worst we are positioning people to misunderstand the message of Christ from the very beginning.

It could be that in order to be effective in how we talk about our faith to others we need to get back to the real understanding of what these words mean and how they affect our own understanding of the message of Christ. It could be that we have mis-defined the very message we use to express our faith in Christ to others. Maybe what we need to do is get back to an healthy understanding of what we share and, if need be, reframe the discussion using different, though highly biblical, language.

Over the next few days, or weeks, I hope to begin helping us understand the language we use and offer some possibilities to reframe the discussion in a biblical, Christ-centered manner that faithfully expresses the faith we hold so dear.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• EBook – Reframing Success: Missional Metrics for Missional Ministry
• Signs and Communicating the Gospel
• Reframing the Message – Gospel
• Communicating to change lives: communication design
• Coming soon to a bookstore online…