Would this make your list of 'the worst sins'?

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." (Eph 5:5)

In our church, we are just drawing to a close in Daniel and I have been preparing our next series in Ephesians which is due to start a week on Sunday. I was recently putting together a sermon on Eph 5:3-14, due to be delivered midway through October (yes, I really do prepare sermons that far in advance!). As I was doing so, I was particularly struck by Eph 5:5. You can see the verse above.

By way of orientation, Paul's general thrust in the preceding verses is to explain how Christians ought to live in the nitty-gritty of everyday Christian life. His main concern in 5:3-14 is to encourage believers to live as people of light. He then goes on to explain precisely how we are to do that.

In 5:3-5, Paul is trying to explain what sort of behaviour is inappropriate for Christian people. He is not trying to lay down the law and have a go at the reader. Rather, he is trying to say that you were once totally unconcerned about these sorts of things but now, as Christian people, you want to avoid these behaviours. It is meant to be an encouragement to Christian people he knows are keen to avoid the things he lists. 

When we get to 5:5, Paul is implying that these believers will inherit "the kingdom of Christ and God" because they no longer engage in these practices. Of course, the reverse of this remains true not least because, rather than being implied, it is specifically what Paul says. Those people who are given over to these sorts of behaviour show that they never really belonged to Christ and thus will not inherit the kingdom.

Most Christian people affirm that those who are given over to sexual immorality or continually doing whatever makes for impurity (1) show that they are not true believers. Rightly, we should put all the appropriate caveats on that and distinguish between those given over/continually practicing/walking in sin and those who have fallen into sin but are repentant. Nonetheless, most are prepared to say those who continually practice these two things are not walking in Christ and will not inherit the kingdom. In fact, as most Christian people manage to avoid such major sin throughout their Christian life, it is readily apparent that those walking in them must be disregarding Jesus' commands and place themselves outside of his people (2). So far, so in line with Paul's thinking.

However, Paul doesn't only talk about sexual immorality and impurity. He actually talks about three areas of sin: sexual immorality, impurity and covetousness. Though the tendency of most Christians is to agree with Paul on the first two, I suspect many of us have little or no concern regarding covetousness in reality.

What is particularly concerning is that Paul doesn't even put covetousness in the same bracket as sexual immorality and impurity. Now, most of us don't put them under the same banner either but, unlike us, Paul puts covetousness in a worse category of sin than the first two. It is covetousness alone which Paul links to idolatry which, throughout the Old Testament, was the sin that most consistently and inevitably drew the righteous anger of God.

It is worth mentioning that at the heart of sexual immorality and impurity is covetousness. In each case, we want what is not ours and/or we want more of what we may currently have in part. These first two are, to some degree, an overflow of a covetous heart. And covetousness is idolatry because it is seeking satisfaction and joy in something other than Christ. We want what does not belong to us because we believe whatever it is will make us complete. We are saying such things will satisfy us in a way that Christ does not/cannot. That is idolatry.

Most of us can conceive of reasons to take action, or begin the steps of church discipline, against someone who has been found doing what is sexually immoral. Likewise, it is easy to think of times we do the same against public impurity of one sort or another. But I suspect most of us could not conceive m/any circumstances under which we would take action against covetousness. And that is perverse given that Paul sees it as worse than these other two. He at least sees it as at the root of these other two.

The reason for our quandary is obvious enough. Most of us are prone to some form of covetousness. It has become one of those "respectable sins". In fact, we can even "christianise" covetousness and make what is fundamentally sinful into a virtue. We covet particular gifts, we covet recognition or we covet the size and work of other churches. We even tell ourselves that such covetousness is for God's glory. And yet, Paul says this is all idolatry.

I have no great answer to our condition except for repentance and faith in Christ. Rather than pointing fingers at "those big sins", perhaps we are harbouring significant sins of our own that we have made respectable. It is a reminder to all of us, if we are continually walking in and characterised by these sins, then perhaps we are standing outside of God's kingdom. Again, we must make appropriate caveats. There is a difference between falling into and walking in covetousness. One speaks of a constant state of mind, a regular discontent and continual longing for what does not belong to you. The other speaks of an irregular discontent and longing which, though still sinful, shows some desire not to be characterised by a covetous heart. It is the former which signifies our lack of standing in Christ.

Nonetheless, it is a stark reminder that we are sinful people. We are only in a right relationship with God based on our standing in Christ. God does not love us more or less depending on our performance each day. Yet, if we are truly in Christ, our lives will reflect our new identity in him. The question is not whether we have done these sins. It is whether we are characterised and continually walking in these sins. This applies as much to covetousness, if not more so, than to these other things.

Notes

1. Impurity is often linked to sexual immorality by Paul but it is not exclusively tied to it. Though impurity encompasses sexual immorality, it is a much wider term that covers anything that might defile us before God
2. John Newton used to make a similar case that most Christians avoid the most major and obvious sins but fail to grow because they fail to deal with (seemingly) smaller sins. You can read more on that here and here

Communion, individualism and your relationship with God

"that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:3)

One of the problems in the church - dare I say, especially within Evangelical circles - is that of rampant individualism which has, in turn, given rise to church consumerism. This individualism starts at our view of salvation (it's a personal thing between me and God) and soon works its way out into our church life and everyday Christian walk. On this view, church becomes very "me-centric". It is about what the church can do for me, how it makes me feel, whether it serves my particular desires and whether it helps to improve or impede my personal relationship with God.

I am always struck by the order of John's words in 1 John 1:3. He does not say - as many of us would expect - get yourself into a right relationship with God and then we may begin to have fellowship. Rather, he says we have come to you "so that you too may have fellowship with us". Only then does John tell us that such fellowship entails being right with the Father and his Son. In other words, John's view is first corporate and then individual, not the other way round. 

John also says in v4 "we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete". If John is writing in order to have fellowship, it follows that his joy would be complete in having such proper Christian fellowship with those to whom he writes. So whilst he is calling the readers into a relationship with God, he is actually calling them into corporate fellowship with the church which they cannot have without a relationship with God.

On this reading, our approach to church takes on a different edge. It is less about what the church can do for me and more about how I can build up the church. If this actually becomes the modus operandi of every individual member, each of us would be working to build up the others and each of us would find our own needs met by a series of people who are looking to build up people other than themselves. Our fellowship is primarily corporate, not individual, but we cannot have such corporate fellowship without an individual relationship with God.

All of that is by way of a long introduction to the issue at hand. Communion can be one of the places where church individualism is expressed at its worst. There is a mysticism that says communion is primarily about me and my relationship with God. It is the place where I reflect upon all that the Lord has done for me. Whilst that is certainly involved, I think this approach is to fundamentally misunderstand what we are doing at the communion table.

Communion is the family meal. It is the place where we come together to express our unity with one another in Christ and our ongoing association with this particular church. Communion is not primarily about your personal relationship with God. It is primarily about your corporate relationship with God's people which you cannot have apart from an individual relationship with Christ. By taking communion, we are saying we are unified with this church and we are united to them through our personal union with Christ. Communion is primarily corporate not an act of personal individualism.

That means if we seek to take communion outside of the corporate gathering of the church, we are really missing the point of the communion service. It is not a mystic act between us and God but a corporate act between us and the church with whom we are only unified in Christ. Anything that detracts from the corporate element of communion - regardless of how well-intentioned - will miss the point. The bread and wine are memorials of Jesus' body and blood but those symbols bear witness to the ongoing association of God's people in Christ. We do not take the emblems so they will impart grace but we take them to symbolise our corporate unity in Jesus, which we cannot have unless he is our personal Lord and saviour.

It is true that we are expressing our standing as believers in communion. It is true that we claim an ongoing association with Jesus when we take the emblems. But that is not all we are doing. In fact, it is not even primarily what we are doing. We are primarily associating with Jesus' church, claiming to be fully unified with them in Christ. 

If that is what we are primarily doing, then individual communions - or communion apart from the corporate body - misses the point altogether. Of course, we cannot be unified to the body without a personal, individual relationship with Christ and we affirm this in communion. But, we primarily affirm our unity to one another which only exists in Christ. It is Christ who bought our unity, it is the work of Christ on the cross and the ongoing work of the Spirit that actually unifies us, but it is our unity with one another in Him that takes centre stage. We can't affirm our unity without affirming our standing in Christ but we absolutely shouldn't make communion yet another means of pressing individualism in the church.

Why you must do the hard work of thinking about scripture

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Rom 12:2)

Paul tells us to be transformed by "the renewal of your mind". Whatever that may mean, it seems clear enough that the renewal of our minds is for the purpose of discerning God's will. Discernment has to do with understanding. Paul's point is that if we are to understand and work out the will of God, we have to - at some level - engage our minds in order to know it.

In Isaiah 1:18, God says "come now, let us reason together". God wants to reason with you. But reason, by definition, requires the engagement of our minds. We reason with our brains, thinking and working out what seems reasonable. God, who is far above us and does not need to tell us why or how he does anything, nevertheless calls us to reason with him. Who are we that God should explain himself to us? Yet, he chooses to explain and communicate something about himself to you and I.

Here, then, lies the issue. If we are prone to throwing up our hands and saying "I don't understand" to shut down thinking through scripture, or we refuse to engage with God's word meaningfully, we are throwing God's gracious desire to reason with his creatures back in his face. We are saying to God "I don't care what you have communicated, and I don't care that you condescend to reason with someone like me, I don't want to engage". God wants to communicate with you, he wants to reason with you, he gives us his word so we can understand something about him. If God is there and he has communicated something to us, surely it is vital for us to work out what he has to say.

Now, I am not saying it is wrong to find the Bible difficult to get your head around. It can be hard to understand at times. What I am saying is that we should not throw up our hands in despair, claim we can't understand and therefore not bother trying. Simply because something is hard does not make it worthless. Simply because something is hard doesn't mean we should give up trying to pursue it. Simply because understanding God's word involves engaging our brains in work that is sometimes difficult and intense does not mean we should give up trying to understand it altogether.

Rather than throwing in the towel, perhaps we should pray that the God who communicates would make his word clear to us. It makes sense that if God wants us to understand him, he will make himself understood and help us if we bother to ask. It means rather than saying "this is too difficult", we should wrestle with the text until we come to understand it. We should engage our brains in trying to understand and our prayers in asking God to make it known. That may be hard, that may take a long time, we may not be natural readers and thinkers but it is the necessary work we must all do if we are to understand what God has to say to us.

God calls us to renew our minds so we can discern his will. His will is written for us in scripture. That means we must engage our minds and wrestle with even the hardest bits of the text so we can understand what God has to say. If God wants to reason with us, we must be prepared to reason with him. We must be prepared to engage our minds and work out what seems reasonable based upon what he communicates. 

In reality, if we won't engage our brains we are not really loving the Lord in the way he commands us to do (Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27). We may love him with our hearts and desires, we may serve him with our strength but if we won't sit and do the hard work of thinking about the Bible we are still holding back our minds from the Lord. To do that is to fail to love him in the way he demands to be loved.

God does not "live at the church"

Perhaps you have had a conversation a little like the one in this video? Either it is in the context of whether church buildings - or "the sanctuary" - is particularly special or perhaps during a discussion of the 'where two or three are gathered' issue. I wonder who you side with?

First, let me rule out the worse argument. God does not "live in the church". Even during the era where anybody spoke of God dwelling in the tabernacle/temple, Isaiah and Jeremiah recognised that God was not confined to a tent or building.

Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." (Isaiah 66:1)

Am I a God at hand, says the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:23, 24)

Even Solomon, who eventually built the temple, got this point when he said "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" (1 Kings 8:27, cp. 2 Chron. 2:6, 6:18)".

Quoting Isaiah, Stephen says the same:

Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
“‘Heaven is my throne,and the earth is my footstool.What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,or what is the place of my rest?Did not my hand make all these things?’ (Acts 7:44-50)

So, scripturally speaking, the argument that God is everywhere is on better ground. On one level, God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent and therefore we are always 'in his presence'.

But, paradoxically, God did dwell in the tabernacle/temple (cf. Exodus 25:8,9; 40). However, given all that we have seen already, this dwelling place was not the extent of God's presence. Rather, it was a visible reminder that God specifically dwelt with a particular people. He did not 'live' in the building but rather chose to express his glory there as a visible sign that he was with, and for, this particular people. It marked a focal point for his special presence and glory rather than the total extent of his general presence. When people talk about the 'presence of God', they usually do not mean his general omnipresence but rather his special presence as manifested in the temple reflecting his association, and confirmation, of this particular people as his own.

Nevertheless, Daniel, Ezekiel and Jeremiah all prophesied a time when the temple building would be no more and what was confined to particular people within the confines of the building would be extended. Jesus also prophesied the destruction of the temple building, which came to pass in AD 70. Even before the temple was totally destroyed, at the crucifixion, the temple veil tore in two. Access to God had been opened and the glory of God would soon no longer dwell in the building itself.

God's special presence is neither limited to the temple building nor does he manifest his Shekinah glory everywhere. God has not confirmed one particular nation as his own - making a set structure impractical - nor does he confirm all people indiscriminately as his own, making the idea of his omnipresent dwelling impossible. Rather, as the NT states, God's people - made up of different tribes, tongues and nations - are God's dwelling place. As Paul says: "Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?" (1 Cor 3:16).

All of that is to say the building is of naught. There is nothing especially sacred about the space in which we meet. God does not "live at the church". In fact, five minutes in any church that meets in rented accommodation quickly bursts any illusion that the pulpit stands on holy ground or the meeting hall represents hallowed ground (unless, of course, you think the school assemblies that happen there the rest of the week are sacred too).

At the same time, God does not dwell with all people everywhere. Though He is omnipresent, God dwells in the hearts of those who believe by faith in Jesus. God indwells people by his Spirit. Just as the Spirit dwelt in the temple (even though he was clearly present and active outside of the temple), He now dwells in the hearts of God's people (even though he still continues to be present and active in the world).

Buildings are just buildings whether they are allotted as church buildings or not. There is nothing sacred or special about them. God does not dwell in the church building. Rather, He dwells in his church. That is, He dwells in the heart of each and every believer. That also means He is no more present with us together than when we are alone. The Spirit fills our hearts with the presence of God and He can be no more present with us than when He is in us.

God is as present and active in my prayer time on my own as he is when I'm together with the church. God is as present and active in my life at home as he is when I gather with his people. God is present with me when I am on my own and He is present when me when I'm with other believers. The place where we meet and the time that we meet do not increase God's presence. God is either with us, or He is not. God is either dwelling with his people, confirming us as His own, or He isn't. God is either dwelling in our heart, by his Spirit, due to our faith in Jesus Christ or He isn't. If we truly want the presence of God, it is found in faith with Jesus Christ. If we have that, we have the Spirit. If we have the Spirit, we have God's presence, always present, dwelling in our hearts.

In defence of cold-contact evangelism

I was listening to the podcast at the Blazing Centre blog which included a snippet asking the question 'is cold-contact evangelism a good idea?' (the segment begins at 27:45). I could empathise with the general conflict the contributors were having. All seemed to agree that, on the one hand, folk who engage in cold-contact evangelism are actually out there doing something. On the other hand, nobody wants to be that person who, without so much as a how do you do, presses random strangers into answering the question 'if you die tonight, where will you spend eternity?'

Nonetheless, I was left a little cold by the discussion. There were lots of caveats about how the Lord can use any method if it is done prayerfully and with good intentions, how those doing cold-contact evangelism were trying to be faithful and how we should be slow to criticise methodology. Yet, the overall thrust of the conversation seemed to be that cold-contact evangelism was generally ineffective and, frankly, a bit weird. Excepting a few gifted individuals - and even then this was generally in response to questions and interactions in cafes and shops - all the contributors were skeptical.

I was especially disappointed at the closing comments of the segment. A dim view was taken of those who say 'if we don't go and tell people the gospel, who will?' The contributors argued such comments smack of arrogance and a sense in which gospel success depends upon us. Whilst none of us should be arrogant, and of course we must rely on the Lord going before us, it strikes me the 'if we don't, who will' line is precisely the argument of Rom 10:14f. Though it is a work of the Lord, He has appointed the means by which people will hear and graciously includes us in his work of salvation. The context in which the contributors made these comments sounded like the argument of hyper-calvinism and those seeking excuses to avoid evangelism altogether.

Church attendance figures for the UK suggest only 6% of the population attend church regularly. When one considers that not every church included in that 6% will be gospel-centred or bible-believing, we are left with an even lower number of people hearing the gospel inside church buildings. At best, we must conclude that 94% of the population are not coming into church with any regularity nor sitting under the sound of the gospel in church meetings. Inside our own buildings, we are primarily preaching to the converted. Most Christians agree, if we are going reach the world with the gospel, we must go to where the people are and it is evident they are not in church.

There are a variety of ways for us to reach people. We can put on events and services to try and attract people into the church. Though this is becoming increasingly difficult, and it is often hard for the church to attract people with things the world can usually offer without the gospel input, there are still those can be attracted to what the church can offer. It is also worth remembering that godly, gospel-centred community - our love for one another and our unity with one another - are specifically things scripture says will attract the world. Alternatively, we can begin to join clubs and societies in order to build friendships with those we meet. Over shared passions and interests, we can build bridges and share our faith in natural ways with those we meet.

All those things are great and each have a place in the mission of the church. But, if we limit ourselves to these things we essentially only reach those prepared to come into a church (which is, nowadays, very few) or those people like us who share our interests or with whom we are already friends. We are still left asking who will reach the people Romans 10 talks about? Paul isn't talking about those with whom we're friends or those we are in contact with already, he asks who will go to those who have nobody to tell them the gospel? In modern UK society, with only 6% of people coming into any sort of church regularly, most people reside in this Romans 10 bracket.

It strikes me that cold-contact evangelism is one of few ways we can meaningfully reach these people. I do not mean accosting people in the street apropos of nothing, I mean pointed and intentional evangelistic activity taking place outside of our church buildings. That may be open airs, doing questionnaires, distributing evangelistic leaflets or any number of things. Whatever it is, it will involve an intentional desire to share the gospel with those who would not otherwise come into church and with whom we would not otherwise come into contact. That is what I mean by cold-contact evangelism.

There are, no doubt, good and bad ways to do cold-contact evangelism. But asking people in town to do a questionnaire on their beliefs or their understanding of the Christian faith doesn't strike me as any more weird than market researchers or charity fundraisers doing the same. Equally, an open air speaker is no more intrusive and odd than any other street act in a city centre. It is no more unnatural to offer a tract to someone who has listened to part of an open air than it is to offer them a leaflet explaining more about some goods they just looked at in the shop window.

Again, nobody wants to be obnoxious or arrogant. Most people want to avoid becoming a weirdo wearing a sandwich board proclaiming judgment and shouting at people through a loud-hailer. Very few people want to be so crass as to accost people with questions that are not particularly pertinent in the most unnatural way. Even the majority of Christians, who probably think about these things more than most, do not spend every waking moment thinking about where they will spend eternity when they die. To expect a stranger to meaningfully engage with that question as they are caught on the hoof is unlikely to bring them into a relationship with Christ. But, of course, when we talk about cold-contact evangelism these are really not the things we are talking about.

I think the question of how we will reach those people with whom we wouldn't ordinarily have any contact is one of the most pressing for churches today. Folk are simply not walking into church buildings with any regularity anymore. Christians - like everybody else - have always engaged their passions and interests and shared their faith with whomever asks them about it. So the people in church, and the people in our clubs and societies, are the people we have always been reaching on some level. The question remains: how will we reach those we don't know? 

I think cold-contact evangelism - that is meeting and talking to people whom we wouldn't ordinarily engage with the specific intention of sharing the gospel with them - is a means we can credibly do this. The burden of proof is on those who wish to reject cold-contact evangelism to provide a credible alternative for reaching people we wouldn't otherwise meet. Organisations such as United Beach Missions, Open Air Mission, Campus Crusade for Christ and others would all speak against the idea that cold-contact evangelism is ineffective. Even if we wish to argue that some of these missions are not 'cold-contact' per se, seeking to establish relationships for gospel work, they nonetheless aim meet people we wouldn't ordinarily meet with the expressed purpose of sharing the gospel with them. It is at least 'cold-contact' during the time we are beginning to establish relationships and we are building those bridges with a clear sense that we are Christian workers sharing our faith.

It is often the case that we are too timorous with the gospel and we hide behind an ethereal sense of what is, or is not, culturally appropriate in order to shy away from the great commission. We must ask ourselves honestly, are we really avoiding cold-contact evangelism because it's ineffective or is it because we're too scared to engage people with their need of Christ? The evidence points to cold-contact evangelism - as with every form of evangelism - being effective when it is done well and with the right people. If the method is effective in winning souls for Christ - the great awakening, the work of C.H. Spurgeon, the work of Billy Graham, multiple mission organisations and my own personal experience of open air evangelism all suggest that it is - we must have a really solid reason to say we're not going to do it. 

To be honest, 'it might come across weird' may not cut it.

New name & new design

Those who have followed this blog since its inception back in March 2010 will know that it has gone through scant design changes in its time. I make no bones about my total lack of design capability. Nevertheless, I - like most people - enjoy things that are aesthetically pleasing.

To that end, I began faffing around with a long overdue redesign of this blog. I finally succumbed to the lure of Blogger's 'dynamic view' template. Apart from having fewer widgets (something I know many shed no tears over losing), the design is a lot nicer. I appreciate the 'mosaic' may not be to everyone's taste, and it does make it slightly harder to view the most recent post (though the most recent run top-left to bottom-right), but I like it more than whatever came before.

To go with the rather natty redesign, I thought I would take the opportunity to do a rename. As you know, the blog was previously titled The Watchman Waketh but in Vain: a reference to Ps 127:1 and a specific nod to the immediately preceding clause (replace 'city' for 'blog' and voila!). But a change seemed good to me. 

To that end, this blog has now been re-branded The Arbour. If you want to know more about why, do go and visit the About this blog section. If you want to know more about the one writing it, best look at About the author.

Anyway, all that is to say I hope you enjoy the new look and approve of the new name. 

If we say we most love Jesus...

It cannot be that there is a high appreciation of Jesus and a totally silent tongue about him - C.H. Spurgeon

I was recently reminded of the above quote by Spurgeon. Having refreshed my memory, I came across this article by Rico Tice at the Desiring God website. Few were as vocal about the need to speak frequently about Jesus Christ, especially outside of our church buildings, as Spurgeon. Few have done as much as Rico Tice to press the vital importance of evangelism, advance its cause and provide practical ways for all Christian people to do the same in the modern church of the last decade or two.

Both Spurgeon and Tice recognise that we will talk about whatever it is we most love. The theologian Jonathan Edwards advanced a similar case in respect to the things we do. We essentially do all the things, and talk about all the things, that most capture our hearts. Whatever we spend our time doing is what we most love. Whatever we love to talk about gives away where our hearts lie altogether.

If our conversation is littered with references to going out, sport, work, family or whatever it may be, it suggests those things are what we love most. If our conversation, and whatever we do throughout the week, rarely focuses on Jesus Christ, it suggests we don't love him as much as we might want others to think. Before I go further, let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with enjoying and talking about things other than Jesus Christ. But it rather says something if we talk a lot, and spend our time pursuing, these things more than we talk about, and spend our time pursuing, Jesus Christ.

So, here is a simple challenge: how much do you talk about Jesus? How often to you spend time pursuing Christ? How much time do you dedicate to Christ in comparison to other things you enjoy?

If we claim to love Jesus above all else that will surely be reflected in the things we say and do. A high appreciation of Jesus cannot lead to a silent tongue about him