Dr. Paul Gould is a professor of philosophy (PhD from Purdue) at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Here is his bio, which says, in part:
I have a Masters in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Talbot School of Theology and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Purdue University.
I am an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.
What his bio page doesn’t say is that he left a career in business to go onto this apologetics/philosophy track. I find that very interesting, because like most professionals with an interest in apologetics, I had the same dream – to go and do a PhD and get into a college and be a positive influence on Christian kids. But the main thing is that he has had some experience in the real world.
Anyway, Dr. Gould has written two posts on how to change the world, and I want you to look at an excerpt from the first one.
Christians like to talk—and aspire—to changing the world. This language stems very naturally from our God-given desire to make a difference, to live a life that matters. In a very real sense, making a difference is to change the world. But, usually, when Christians talk about “changing the world” they mean something like “winning the world for Christ” or “helping the gospel to gain a hearing in culture” or “contributing toward shalom.”Recently, there have been a number of very helpful books written by folks who challenge the common view of how to go about the task of world-changing, and call into question the relationship between Christ and culture. One of the most important books to enter this discussion is James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic of world-change. In this post I will share his critique of the “common view” of world change. I think his critique is dead on.
Hunter argued that by and large, Christians have gone about the task of world changing in completely the wrong way and the result is that Christianity in our country at least and in the western world in general, represents a weak culture.
He focuses on world-view ministries (primarily from the US such as Chuck Colson’s Wilberforce Forum and Focus on the Families’ Truth Project) and those like them that offer the following view of how to change the world:
Common view of world change: as we change the individual beliefs and values of persons, and change enough persons, then we will ultimately change society. This is a bottom up approach.
On the common view, the implicit view of culture is that “the essence of culture is found in the hearts and minds of individuals” and that culture change will come as enough individual lives are transformed.
Hunter argues that this approach fails to take into account cultural elites and the institutions that yield power within culture.
Instead, cultural change has always been top-down: it is always elites—those who have cultural capital to exert influence and power—who have changed the culture. This is why the university, and the media, and the arts are so important in shaping the culture.
All of this leads to a fascinating conclusion: some ideas have consequences—namely ideas propagated by those within society who possess cultural capital and a supporting network of other individuals and institutions also within the center of cultural influence and production.
Second post is here. The second post has a link to his review of Hunter’s book (PDF), which is published by Oxford University Press.
I agree completely with the top-down thesis of James Davison Hunter, and I think that it is a tragedy that the Christian parents and Christian churches don’t do a good job of challenging and guiding young Christians to study the things that will allow them to have an influence. Most Christians I talk to have a negative view of steering young Christians towards advanced degrees, or towards making a lot of money, or towards positions of cultural influence, etc. Instead of focusing on being effective, they tell me “I will do what I want to do, because God has a mysterious will for me to be happy”. I don’t buy it. I am happy to consider alternative plans that serve God better, but I don’t think that the “I’ll do what feels good” view is interested in producing a return for God in terms of money and/or influence. Crazy plans do not work out just because we want them to. There are costs to every plan, and not every plan is as likely to lead to influencing the culture as any other plan. This is reality.
I also think it is important to steer children into positions where they can be prosperous and/or influential. Again, many Christians disagree with guiding children that way. In my experience, it is assumed that children need to be happy, and that they are the best people to decide what they should be doing in life. Well, I’m not a heavy-handed bully, but I am not letting my children do whatever they like, because they don’t have enough wisdom and experience to know what to do. For example, I am not letting my children study ballet in university. It doesn’t pay the bills, and it isn’t likely that they will have an influence compared to other choices. Money is important because money can be used to fund Christian scholars, apologetics ministries and apologetics events. Marriage is a great way to have an influence, but marriage costs money, and that means that marriage-minded people should have a plan to pay the bills before they consider marriage. We do not have the right to do whatever we feel like, because we have a boss who expects a return on his investment. If a person is capable of doing hard things that produce a better return (money or influence or children, etc.) then he should do that.
We have a problem in this country as it is with young people borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to study things that either don’t pay off, or that don’t allow them to have an influence. It’s not unloving to tell children the truth about the choices they make. Especially when the cost of having a child is over six figures per child. You can have a huge Christian influence with that kind of money if you spent it on other things, like apologetics scholars, their ministries and their events. So, if you are going to have children and spend it on them, you’d better have some sort of plan, and look for a spouse who is on board with that idea of providing God with a good return on his investment. Everything we do – including the choices to marry and have children – should be focused on serving God. If people shy away from the idea of steering children to have an influence, I don’t think it’s a good idea to get married at all. Save the money and use it for the kingdom somewhere else. Marriage is about making the best decisions you can in order to serve God, and you can’t marry someone who puts their own happiness over the need to produce that return for the boss.
Having said that, if you are already married, stick with it. I am advocating for making smarter decisions before you commit. And before you go off to college, ask yourself: is what you are thinking of studying worth it? Trade school is an excellent option that will give you an income that can support a family AND give to apologetics ministries, with less exposure to debt. If you must go to university, then it’s generally wiser to stick with STEM degrees, so that you can get a job and actually pay off those loans. Marriages and children are NOT free. Retirement is not free. Health care is not free. Christian apologetics ministries do not run on wishes and hopes. Christian scholars do not get their degrees for free – they need support. I think another good plan is to have one person do philosophy or history and then be supported by other people with jobs in STEM fields. That’s what I do – I help out Christian scholars on my team to finish their graduate degrees in fields related to apologetics. Those non-STEM degrees are the best way to have an influence, but it’s easier to get them as a multi-disciplinary team effort. Everyone has to pull their weight!
And one last point. The most amazing thing in the world is when I meet people who are very very skeptical about mentoring young people and steering children towards prosperous and influential areas, even though they themselves may be facing the results of their own poor decisions. You would think that someone who has burned $60,000 on a degree in Women’s Studies and can’t find a job would be on your side about helping other young people to make better decisions, but they are often not on your side. Why is that? Somewhere along the way, this culture stopped liking the Mr. Knightleys who were praised for loving people by telling them the truth about their bad decisions. Now we think that the Emmas can do whatever they want, and no one should be giving them any guidance. How sad.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
It sounds to me, then, like your original aspiration (teaching at a college) was pretty close to the mark. Also, his comment brings up the related question of the viability of pursuing work in “the media, and the arts.”
As someone who got a telecom degree with an emphasis in motion pictures, and basically minored in acting, most of my friends constantly trumpeted their “dreams” of getting into entertainment as a chance to bring God’s truth through those fields. I’ve always thought (and still do) think that’s just a rationalization to allow them to do what they want to do rather than really seek God about what He really wants. Plus, I don’t see such people making that critical impact through the media.
Dr, Gould’s comments, however, suggest it’s a route we shouldn’t neglect. Although I don’t see that it has ever been used effectively, there’s no denying that those avenues or forums — university, media, the arts — are strong contributors to how paradigms develop and get promoted and ultimately accepted.
What’s the takeaway, then, for how we approach or use stuff like the arts and media? Or even join the university system and make a difference there?
LikeLike
I think if you are absolutely first class in media and arts then you should do it full time.
AND, I think if you branch into it after doing a real (STEM) degree and getting a real (STEM) job and you’re secure, then you should do it.
I also think that a person who is practical and financially secure should marry someone who is trying to make an influence in one of these riskier fields (philosophy, media), and work as a team.
LikeLike
Well, as Han Solo put it, “That’s the real trick, isn’t it.” Being first class — particularly in the arts and entertainment fields — is far less reliable a predictor of success, to say nothing of the subjectivity of classifying anybody’s talent as adequately “first class”. So I think your opening guidance presents some untenable problems. I’ve seen success and strugglers of all kinds of quality.
That’s why I think you’re subsequent advice is more on target and why I (too late in life) realized it’s better to pursue any artistic aspirations with a more classical approach. i.e. You want to be an actor or filmmaker or musician/band, fine, but be truly Renaissance about it. Those geniuses were often well-rounded people and often didn’t do art as their vocation, e.g. all, I think, of “The Five” Russian composers, Da Vinci, etc. People like to call themselves “Renaissance” men/women, but only think of it in terms of the arts, forgetting that those people often were well-rounded, well-versed in (and voraciously intrigued by) science and other, dare I call them, loftier pursuits.
My opinion, and the way I wish my dad would have thought to present it — get a degree in something more concrete to offer the marketplace. In modern vernacular, get a STEM degree, or even business, but something more vocationally reliable. If the arts is the only vocation you think you’re “called” to do, then you might need a, as they say, “come to Jesus” meeting with yourself and consider the possibility that you need to do a little growing up. And I say that as someone still a bit in that boat.
LikeLike
I agree with your opinion. I count a degree in business as STEM. I agree with you that people who choose other than that may need to realize that the economy is just not there for this sort of thing. I also agree with J. Warner Wallace on his “tent-making apologists” view. Work full time to support your ministry. That’s what I do.
LikeLike
“…people…may need to realize that the economy is just not there for this sort of thing,” is one of the best pieces of advice I think should be given to graduating high-schoolers. If you have a passion, pursue it, but not necessarily as a vocation. Do your homework on what the marketplace climate is and *find* something you can be interested in that is more likely to sell. If your interests are limited it’s not only detrimental to you, but a sign that you could probably use a little more maturing. Just like your grandma’s advice about being a good “catch”: Be *interested* and you’ll be interesting. Or, in this case, marketable, and just generally a better person for it.
LikeLike
The fine thing about a business degree is not only does one end up with something very marketable and attractive that even lets you select from varying avenues (I have a business degree with a minor in psych, and didn’t end up in exactly my intended career path after graduation, but did well nonetheless), but very often it a) can be acquired at private business schools that are less expensive than other institutions, with no loss of quality in the education and b) the student can avoid much, if not most, of the garbage being spewed in institutions of higher ed these days.
Yes, you’ll come across some of it, especially considering some of the professors (one of mine was a die-hard socialist and we locked horns more than once), but not as much as a student taking, say, environmental studies or English literature will.
Some of the private business schools are eager for excellent students, too. Due to my high GPA and my willingness to attend full-time even while working full-time at a demanding job, my school paid a full half of my tuition so long as I kept my GPA up, which was unnecessary motivation but nice anyhow!
LikeLike
Here are two areas that support the top-down approach: abortion and homeschooling. Anti-abortion laws have had a big effect the last few years on reducing the number of abortions, and those laws were passed by conservative elite politicians using conservative lawyers – often Christian. Homeschooling would not even be legal in America were it not for the outstanding Christian legal talent at HSLDA. So, these are high octane careers and professions that are making a HUGE impact. Very top-down.
Of course, we would argue that it is important to use the bottoms-up approach as well – in witnessing to those we come into contact with, online, etc. We have seen much fruit in that area as well, and the early Church shows the importance there. But, and this is important: the apostles had to travel and they had to eat too.
LikeLike
Yep, the legal profession is something I’d throw in among the STEM, and my other option of business, as worthwhile for formal education pursuits.
LikeLike
I disagree that repealing prohibitions on homeschooling is a top down approach. It is the repeal of the top down approach.
As for items of absolute moral clarity, such as murder and abortion, then yes it is a top down approach on punishment. That always comes after the crime. The prospect of punishment (and regulation) might deter some, but the best way to is to convince individuals of the right way. Otherwise, people will still murder, abort children, fornicate and commit adultery, commit suicide, steal, lie, et al no matter how many laws you pass.
LikeLike
But repealing prohibitions on homeschooling has to be achieved WITH the top-down approach.
LikeLike
It does? Answer this then, were the laws improved or repealed before or after parents began homeschooling in ever increasing numbers? I would contend that in each case, there were a ground swell of people persecuted and people who wanted to homeschool but were afraid to do so because of the law. HSDLA mostly defends individuals who are being persecuted and lobbies for the rest. They are mostly funded by small contributions from individuals. Their most potent weapon is getting their members engaged to contact their legislators on various bills of interest. I call that a bottom up approach.
Here’s another analogy. The gun control movement is seriously envious of the NRA and it’s success. They try to mimic it with Moms Demand Action, pretending like that is a grassroots organization when in reality it was mostly funded by Bloomberg and is now owned by him. In contrast, the NRA does have millions of actual members who show up in great numbers at rallies and protests. It is most effective when it encourages its members to get involved. I call that bottom up.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty good response.
LikeLike
One more point on homeschooling. It was quite common nearer the nation’s founding. It was an assumed and basic right until liberal fascists began writing their version of morality into the education laws and regulations. The sheep then followed, because the law (in this case, ungodly law) is a powerful teacher. Once God was “kicked out of” the schools, and the government education system collapsed in corruption (early 60’s into the 70’s), wise families realized the benefits of homeschooling, and tried it. Then, as you say, the persecution began, the movement became organized (with the help of some high octane professions, but always by the Power of God), and immoral laws were struck down and replaced by godly ones that were true to our nation’s founding.
I’m not seeing how there is anything wrong with combining a top-down approach with a bottoms-up one. I think we are in a spiritual war, and we should engage it with all of the talent we have. I believe that engineers and computer scientists make particularly good apologists, and that godly lawyers should engage their talents in this battle as well. God certainly does not need our help, but He equally certain commands us to make good use of our time, treasure, and talents.
You say below that Jesus was never concerned with the masses, but He did feed the 5000 and 4000, and both of these were teachable moments. He was teaching to groups all the time, most notably His disciples.
LikeLike
You make a number of excellent points here and below. I especially agree with your comments on the grassroots nature of some of these organizations.
Nevertheless, the law is a powerful teacher (see before and after statistics on abortion, euthanasia, marijuana legalization, etc), and we need good lawyers and reasonably educated politicians to pass good laws. (I can’t believe I’m talking favorably about either category! :-)) Here, I am thinking of the founding fathers: many lawyers and successful businessmen, and none too poor, most ranged from upper middle class to quite wealthy. I am NOT proposing a prosperity “gospel” or elitism here, merely shoring up WK’s thesis a bit with hard evidence.
And, we do see evidence that these are outstanding lawyers at HSLDA, NRA, ACLJ, etc. I’m not sure if these organizations could do the amazing job they do of stirring up the grassroots movements AND initiating legal action without them. If it was a bunch of moms only, do you think that the powers that be would have responded as quickly? It’s not like these groups are media darlings or anything.
LikeLike
I do not argue that we should withdraw from the political process at all, but that one approach must precede the other. If you do not change the hearts and minds of a significant amount of people, you could be dictator for life, pass all the laws you want imposing morality, punish severely any non-compliant people, and people will still act immorally.
Or let’s bring this back to the great commission. We could repeal the part of the 1st amendment that precludes congress from establishing a national church and replace it with wording that we are a christian nation with the christian church (ignoring the question of which one or ones) as the official and only church. Will that have saved one soul or brought one person to Christ? They will certainly not understand what it means to accept Christ as their savior and the Holy Spirit as their guide any better than before you passed that amendment; so how could they be saved?
LikeLike
I agree 100% that the top down approach works, and has been terribly neglected by Christians. Essentially we gave up the culture. Look at how pagan societies were converted. It was usually a king who converted, and then essentially made paganism illegal. You can question whether they fully eradicated paganism, or whether the people were ‘true’ Christians, but it worked. Worldly ways will never be fully eradicated, and one can always call into question whether people have a true faith. That’s just as true of modern Churchianity. Nevertheless, Europe became Christendom, thanks to the conversion of those in power.
You can’t convert one person at a time, when the cultural tide is rushing everyone into the sewer. Most people just go along with the tide. In the meantime, the decidedly non Christian attitudes of modern culture have seeped into the Church and soiled it, making it even harder for the Church to win converts. Converts to what, exactly? The World, with a pastiche of feel- good christianisms?
LikeLike
I absolutely disagree. In nowhere in the New Testament will you find Jesus concerned with the masses. He always focused on the individual. He never admonished his disciples to seek power and convert whole nations. He commanded them to go forth and spread the good news. And should a town not accept them, they were to shake the dust off of their feet and move on.
The outward appearance of culture always mirrors the secret behavior of the masses. Pornography did not corrupt people, corrupt people desired pornography and more corrupt people saw an opportunity to profit. The morals were being dismantled already by the time Playboy was first published. It is the lack of morals that allowed Heffner to publish Playboy and stay in business; not Playboy that demolished the morals. Otherwise Heffner would have been poor for many years and probably had to go through bankruptcy a few times for the culture to catch up with him. Instead, he became an instant success which shows that people had already dropped their morals when it came to lust.
In other words, we were already in the sewer (steeped in sin from birth) and now you are complaining that the sewage level is increasing. You’re right that it’s getting worse, but the only way out is to lift ourselves, with the help of Christ, out of the sewer and encourage others to follow.
When Constantine converted, rape, murder, abortion, adultery, fornication, theft, idol worshiping, paganism, et cetera did not end. When Paul established churches throughout Asia, they did not suddenly become paragons of virtue. If you doubt this, then reread the epistles. Every one is an admonishment of behavior occurring within the body of Christ. Read Revelation chapters 2 and 3. There was adultery and incest openly occurring in the body! The sewage was always there. Sometimes it runs openly and sometimes it goes underground.
LikeLike
“pornography did not corrupt culture”
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-pornography-and-the-brain/
LikeLike
I did not argue that pornography was neutral, but that culture created pornography because it was already corrupted. It had to be corrupted to create pornography in the first place. It is not like discovering fire. We were not all innocent of lust until Hugh Heffner one day discovered you can take pictures of people without their clothes on.
LikeLike
I agree with you on this.
And what’s more, so does Charles Malik:
Cited here by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland:
http://www.faithandreasonforum.com/index.asp?PageID=17&ArticleID=249
LikeLike
The Marxists learned this a century ago. They realized that even though they did not have much of a grassroots movement, they could control society within one generation if only they could take control of academia.
We are now facing this crisis regarding marriage. The cultural elites have decided to change our public consciousness regarding homosexuality, and given us the full court press through the entertainment industry, the news, and the universities. What’s funny is that homosexuals compose about 2% of society. This is not a grassroots movement.
Tell me where people get their information, and I will tell you their ideology. The sources of cultural power are the sources of public information. This is why progressives are obsessed with gaining control of the public school system, and this is why Susan Gerbic is obsessed with controlling Wikipedia. If we are to fight this, we must take back control of these institutions. The more centralized that our information becomes, the more important it is that we have a say in how it is presented.
LikeLike
I just want to re-affirm that I am in favor of BOTH a top-down and bottoms-up approach here. I see evidences for both in the areas of abortion and homeschooling, and other areas as well. Was it prayer that allowed Meriam Ibrahim to safely leave Sudan, or was it the diplomatic and legal efforts on her behalf? It seems to me that God worked through all of these channels. Jesus simultaneously healed individuals and fed the masses. The apostles in the Book of Acts did the same – they spoke to the masses and healed and witnessed individually.
I just wish to be clear that I am NOT downplaying the bottoms-up approach, individual witnessing, and grassroots movements that Ken in NH has eloquently spoken to on this page. Individual witnessing and prayer are most powerful, arguably the most powerful way we can engage the culture. Changing hearts and minds has been HUGE in the abortion and homeschooling arenas. Prayer, witnessing, top-down, and apologetics form an unbeatable combination when employed in God’s Will:
“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10:4-5
LikeLike
Let me bring all of my response above into one thesis here.
First, no top down approach will win souls for Christ. God has given us free will and trying to quash that will not only be ineffective in bringing people to the point where they are willing to accept the Holy Spirit, but may even drive them away as they become resentful of their Christian overlords. I challenge anyone to find anything in the Gospels, the Epistles, Acts or Revelation where we are commanded to take power or rule over people.
On the other hand, that does not mean that we should not agitate for moral laws where there is absolute moral clarity among both Christians and non-Christians. It may sound like I am splitting hairs, but there is a difference between a law proscribing murder, that will not make the population in general resentful of the Christian church, and a law banning all abortion, that will cause widespread resentment at this time. If we wish to reshape the morals of our society, we must do it by changing the culture first. We do this with empirical data, logic and reasoning, and bringing individuals into communion with Christ*. When we have created an overwhelming majority (more than fifty plus one) then the laws will follow. (I chose abortion very specifically because we can easily see the majority building. I do not if we will ever be able to treat abortion like murder, but we are growing ever closer and I will take saving some lives over saving none any day.)
This world is fallen and therefore incorrigible. There will not be a perfect society, a just society, a moral society until Christ returns to reign. To believe that we can bring about anything but the dimmest distorted reflection of His future reign before His return is arrogance that prevents us from carrying out the great commission. We do not need to pass laws or rule over the culture to convict people of their sins; we need only to guide people to the Holy Spirit and He will convict them of their sins.
Beside not being supported by scripture, the top down approach is bound to fail because we too are sinners. If we have the power to bring change top down, we will also fall prey to its corrupting influence. At best this will mean that those who are in power will fall to personal sins, but will still be saved. At worst, it will mean that they will drive people away from Christ by their moralism.
Now, that I have dispensed with the legalism, I do wholeheartedly agree with placing ourselves in positions of influence. Influence is not power though. Influence means that we do not dictate, but that we lead. The Green family of Hobby Lobby and the Cathy family of Chick-fil-a are good examples of what I mean. They follow their morals and allow those they are in contact with to see the benefits and make up their own minds. Jim Caviezel is another example. He will not remake Hollywood, but he might lead others in Hollywood to Christ and by choosing his works well, he might influence the greater culture in some small degree.
LikeLike
Most Christians tend to forget or want to ignore this:
“This world is fallen and therefore incorrigible. There will not be a perfect society, a just society, a moral society until Christ returns to reign. To believe that we can bring about anything but the dimmest distorted reflection of His future reign before His return is arrogance that prevents us from carrying out the great commission.”
I might say “a naive delusion” rather than “arrogance” (at least in the majority of cases), but the gist is same.
That said, there’s a clarifying point that needs to be made about the next statement you make there, viz. “We do not need to pass laws or rule over the culture to convict people of their sins…”
This is definitely true and is the right bottom-up perspective, but the drive to pass laws doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t) be about convicting people of sin, but protecting people. As long as we’re focused on that goal in our push to support moral laws, it’s a perfectly acceptable top-down agenda item.
LikeLike
We are close to full agreement, but I have to ask what you mean by passing laws to protect people? If you mean that we should have laws that project people from the predations of others, then I am with you. What is more, those laws are easy sells, mostly, even in this corrupt world. If you mean to have laws that protect people from their own base desires, then I disagree.
But then C S Lewis put it more succinctly: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
LikeLike
Definitely the former. I think, as you (and Lewis) suggest, that goal is a slippery slope. I had briefly considered editing my phrase as “protecting innocent people”, which infers (even if still not perfectly) more of the anti-“predation” goal that you (rightly) tout.
LikeLike
I would say that laws protecting babies from being chopped up in the womb is a pretty good start. The law is a powerful teacher, and the evidence supports that – especially on abortion. (How about the lives lost due to the incremental pot-related fatalities in Colorado, since legalization of medicinal marijuana “clinics?” Are those lives worth nothing either?) Really, I am stunned and saddened by your view on abortion, Ken. I cannot for the life of me understand where you are coming from, as a fellow Christian, on that one. You are “worried about resentment” on abortion, but out on the streets witnessing for Christ?!? Ever seen any resentment there?!? Please tell me that you have not fallen for the false “you can’t legislate morality” ideology?
Or is it the “all we are supposed to do, as Christians, is witness – we aren’t supposed to protect the helpless or defenseless or be involved in the public square” ideology? If someone came into your home and attacked your wife or daughter, would you try to witness first to them while telling your loved one to “turn the other cheek”, or would you put a stop to it, and witness after-the-fact?
The view seems to be that because the world is going to Hell, we should just sit back and let it happen – from a legal standpoint – ignoring sin and unrighteousness, merely because we know how the “game” is going to end. But, if that were true, then surely we would be justified in doing so from a Great Commission standpoint as well. After all, the faster it happens, the sooner Jesus will return, right? What happened to being salt and light – even as the world darkens?
LikeLike