Let’s take a look back in time and see the most-read posts from October. Go check them out:

1. Everyday Theology: God Won’t Give You More Than You Can Handle (July 2009)
2. Everyday Theology: God helps those who help themselves (July 2009)
3. The Dos and Don’ts of Book Reviews (or at least how I do them) (January 2011)
4. John Piper on Mark Driscoll & John MacArthur (May 2009)
5. Book Review: Love Wins by Rob Bell (March 2011)
6. (Cheap) Christian e-Books for Your Kindle! (November 2011)
7. Book Review: For the City by Darrin Patrick and Matt Carter (November 2011)
8. 5 Ways to Get Attention in the Christian Blogosphere (November 2011)
9. Christmas Shopping for the Bible Guy (and Gal)! (November 2011)
10. Everyday Theology: Preach the Gospel always, if necessary use words (July 2009)

And just for fun, here are the next ten:

1. Inerrancy, the Church and the Cults (November 2011)
2. Book Reviews (page)
3. Book Review: Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle (July 2011)
4. Book Review: Gospel Wakefulness by Jared C. Wilson (November 2011)
5. Choosing a New Preaching Bible (November 2011)
6. Another Great Book Giveaway! (November 2011)
7. Who Writes This? (page)
8. J.I. Packer: Nehemiah’s God (May 2010)
9. 5 Biblical Names We Won’t Be Using For Our Next Child (November 2011)
10. Does it Matter if Paul Didn’t Write the Pastoral Epistles? (November 2011)

Four of this month’s top ten posts are from November (which was kind of a nice surprise). It was also great to see a new entry in the top ten—The Dos and Don’ts of Book Reviews (or at least how I do them). It’s great to see that people are checking out this one (and I hope finding it helpful!). The next ten, as always, are an interesting mix—lots from November (and one from this week, even). Really great to see people engage in the discussion on choosing a new preaching Bible and glad to see the excerpt from J.I. Packer finding an audience again.

Over the last few weeks, Dave Jenkins and I have been looking at the big question of inerrancy. What does it mean? Where did the idea come from? What does it mean if we lose it? Today, I want to quickly look at a nagging issue that comes up again and again in conversations and debates surrounding the inerrancy of Scripture and that is the issue of infallibility.

Understanding Inerrancy: A Quick Recap

As was stated in the first post in this series, inerrancy means that the Bible is entirely truthful and reliable in all that it affirms in the original manuscripts. At the risk of oversimplifying, inerrancy means that the Bible is free from error. Because God is truthful (cf. Titus 1:2 among others), and the testimony of Scripture is that it itself is “God-breathed” (what theologians have referred to as “verbal plenary inspiration”)¹ we can trust that what He has said, through authors inspired by the Holy Spirit, is true.

So that, at it’s most basic level, is the idea behind inerrancy. But what about infallibility?

Understanding Infallibility

Infallibility is closely related to inerrancy, yet distinct. In fact, infallibility is a much stronger term than inerrancy in many respects. To say that the Bible is infallible is not simply to say that it is free from error, but that it is incapable of erring. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is extremely helpful on this point:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.²

So, can something or someone be fallible yet still inerrant? Theoretically, yes. Here’s what I mean: It is possible for a person who is capable of erring (making a mistake) to not err. He or she is fallible, yet made no error. But what about the reverse? Is it possible for someone to be infallible, yet err?

Not at all. If infallibility means being incapable of error, then it is not possible in any way, shape or form.

This again draws us back to the source of Scripture, that being God. If God is indeed perfect, always true, always doing exactly what He promises and always doing what is right, then it is impossible for Him to err. He is not only free from error, but incapable of committing it. Thus, if Scripture is truly inspired of God, if it is truly all that it claims to be, then it too is incapable of committing error. It is infallible and inerrant. 

Infallibility addresses possibility—inerrancy addresses fact. They are distinct, but they are inseparable.

A few days ago, we started digging into this question of inerrancy—the idea that the Bible is completely and totally truthful in all that it says. This doctrine is one of the most critical, but is tied to a larger issue, one of authority.

If the Bible truly is inerrant, then it’s authority over how we think and live cannot be questioned (even if we are uncertain as to how we should interpret some of what it says). But why would it have such total authority—where does this authority come from? The answer is a simple and complicated one:

The Bible’s authority is derived from the character and authority of God.

Of all the ways God is described, as being merciful, faithful, full of steadfast love, there is one description that encompasses and controls all these: His holiness. God is completely and utterly perfect in all He says and does—and in His being.

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts,” the angels sing. “The whole earth is filled with His glory!” (Isa. 6: 3) This holiness, this perfection, undergirds everything else that is true about God.

His love is a holy love.

His wrath is a holy wrath.

His truth is a holy truth.

And because God is holy, everything He says and does will always be completely and totally truthful.

The claim of God’s complete and total truthfulness is not something that is tucked away in an obscure part of the Bible, but rather it permeates the entire thing. It’s rare to find a book that doesn’t make an appeal to the truthfulness of God in some fashion. Some are more obvious, such as in Numbers 23:19, which boldly declares, “God is not man, that he should lie.” Likewise, as Paul reminds Titus of the assuredness of the hope of eternal life, he does so by appealing to the truth that God “never lies” (Titus 1:2). Again and again, the claim is made:

“This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true.” (2 Sam. 22:31; Psa. 18:30)

“Every word of God proves true…” (Prov. 30:5)

“The rules of the Lord are true…” (Psa. 19:9)

“…all your commandments are true.” (Psa. 119:51)

“The sum of your word is truth…” (Psa. 119:160)

“…the word of the Lord in your [Elijah’s] mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

“…your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

These are but a few of the places where we are repeatedly and emphatically told that all that God says is truth. So, the question is, can God’s Word declare something untrue?

No. Because He is holy, He can be nothing less than perfect. Because He is perfect, He can be nothing less that completely truthful. It would be against His character to be anything less.

So we have to be really careful as we consider this question of inerrancy. Because God so strongly identifies with His written word (cf. Psa. 119:42; John 17:17), we risk impugning His character by suggesting that Scripture errs (even if we suggest that it is still infallible—a subject for a future post). And God identifies strongly with His written Word, not simply because He has ordained it be His method for revealing His character, but because He was intimately involved in it’s writing and continues to use it as His means of saving and sanctifying His people.

Scripture is “God-breathed,” says 2 Tim. 3:16, as God the Holy Spirit worked through the unique personalities of every author to set forth the exact message He intended for humanity. It “is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). God’s Word—His written Word—has power unlike any other book ever written.

The question for us, then, is what do we do with it? Do we continue suppress the truth in our unrighteousness—do we risk impugning the character of God by suggesting that He could err? Or do we, like the Thessalonians, accept it, “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13)?

Yesterday, I read a short blog post asking the question of whether or not Paul actually wrote the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) and if it matters. A large number of New Testament scholars, including I.H. Marshall, reject Pauline authorship of these books (an argument that’s really only emerged in the last 200 years) for a variety of reasons, primarily due to differences in style, vocabulary, ecclesiology and theology (although these last two in particular are overstated).

But a big question emerges, whatever position you take: does it really matter if Paul didn’t write these letters?

Does it affect how we read them?

Are they still inspired Scripture if we could definitively prove they’re not Pauline?

These are really important questions, ones that we should consider with the seriousness they deserve (and that includes more consideration that I could hope to give in a simple blog post). However, I want to take a second to address the question of whether or not it matters if they’re not written by Paul—because the answer is an emphatic “yes!”

It’s of drastic import to their place within the canon and to their trustworthiness if Paul didn’t write them. If Paul didn’t write these letter, then they’re pseudonymous works, and while writing under a pseudonym was fairly common within the culture of the first century, it wasn’t something commonly done in personal correspondence. It was also rejected outright by the early church itself, as Scripture itself testifies in 2 Thess. 2:2 and 2 Thess. 3:17. Paul, in this undisputed letter, says that the church of God is only to accept and trust genuine letters. So if the pastoral epistles weren’t written by Paul, they would be inauthentic.

Looking outside of Scripture to church history, we see mention of Pauline authorship of these books in the Muratorian Canon; we also see that when an elder wrote a pseudonymous work under Paul’s name he was removed from his office (see Tertullian, On Baptism, 17).

So, if Paul didn’t write these letters, then they would be falsified documents that would have been unwelcome in the early church.

Why? Because they would contain a lie.

More than that, they would be based upon a lie. And if these documents were based upon a lie—that is their authorship—then they absolutely cannot be trusted whatsoever, meaning you have to reject them or reinterpret what it means for something to be inspired of God. This then becomes even more problematic, is that then the entire doctrine of inerrancy evaporates, because you’re left with a position that forces you to say that Scripture errs. And if Scripture errs, then it throws your entire view of the Bible into question and in the end you’re left with either a collection of documents that you choose to trust out of preference (a subjective view) or you’re left having to throw the whole thing away because it’s not trustworthy.

It’s not wrong to ask the question of whether or not Paul wrote these books, but we must be diligent in our study of God’s Word in order to find the answer. There is legitimately too much at stake and on this issue, we cannot afford to be agnostic.

Here are a few great deals I’ve found for Christian books for your Kindle—If you see any that I’ve missed, let me know in the comments!

New Additions and Updates—all under $5:

The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul—Free!

Leaders Who Last by Dave Kraft ($1.99!)

Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe by Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears

What Did You Expect? by Paul Tripp

Redemption by Mike Wilkerson

Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God by Francis Chan Continue Reading…

Today I’m giving away a couple of great books published by Shepherd’s Press:

Red Like Blood by Joe Coffey and Bob Bevington &

Christ Formed in You: The Power of the Gospel for Personal Change by Brian G. Hedges

 Want to win these books? Enter using the PunchTab app below (RSS readers, you’ll need to click through to the post to enter) and tell me why you want to read these books in the comments.

Contest ends Friday, November 4th at midnight (Eastern Time). The winner will be chosen at random and contacted via email on Saturday.

Dr Tim Chester is a director of the Porterbrook Institute which provides affordable, Bible-college level training for church leadership and missional church in the context of your ministry (www.porterbrookinstitute.org). He is a leader of The Crowded House, a church planting network (www.thecrowdedhouse.org). He blogs atwww.timchester.co.uk. He has previously been Research and Policy Director for Tearfund UK and a part-time lecturer in missiology. He is the author of a number of books and series editor of The Good Book Guides (The Good Book Company). He is married with two daughters.

What I want to do is take you to the beach—the metaphorical beach—and I want us to sunbathe in the sunshine of God’s love… and to use that for our motives in caring for orphans.

I want you to imagine for a moment that God not Trinity, not God in three persons… as such, there is nothing he can love aside from himself. He can’t love, because there’s no one to love. He can’t relate, because there’s no one to relate to—it’s hard to even call this god a person. So why does this god create? To meet his needs. This god is deficient. This god creates to meet his emotional needs…

But I have good news for you. Turn to John 17:1-5, 20-26:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. . . . I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Here we have Jesus speaking to the God who is Father, the God who is one, and speaking to him as God. . .  For all eternity, the Trinity has existed in love, not a solitary individual but a community in relationship. And not only is God loving, he is love. It defines his character. He is not on his own loving, he is loving; the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father… The Son communicates to the Father through the Spirit. In Genesis 1, at creation he communicates with another, saying “Let us make man in our image…”

Throughout John’s gospel, Jesus says that he speaks the words his Father has given him. So if there was a time when God was not Trinity, there was a time when he was not loving, he was not Father. But he has always been loving, he has always been Father, Son and Spirit. If he were not Trinity, he would not be knowable, there would have been a time when he didn’t speak. But because he is Trinity, he is knowable, he speaks. He didn’t just drop a book out of the sky as is said with the Quran. But God did not create out of any deficiency in himself. Before the world was created, he existed within himself in community.

If we ask the question “Who is God,” we might think that God is ruler. And he is in a sense. We might think that he’s a ruler who sometimes acts in a fatherly way. But fundamentally he is Father. Salvation is adoption because he IS Father. He is not a frustrated ruler. He is Father.

The Trinity is eternally satisfied in each other. God did not create out of need. And he does not recreate his children out of need.

But think about the implications of this for us:

You can’t claim to be godly if you adopt out of need. Don’t adopt if you’re trying to adopt out of some need in you. If you adopt out of some need in you, you’re going to create all sorts of problems. Your adopted child will not be free, they will feel the pressure to meet your needs. They’ll either be constrained by your expectations or fight against them. God did not create the world out of some need because the Trinity was entirely satisfied in itself. The Father was eternally satisfied in the Son and in the Spirit… You may feel that if you just have a family they you’ll be happy. But it’s not true. You were made to have a relationship with your heavenly Father. What is a fulfilled life? It is not having a child, it is being a child of God. Eternal life is to know God in Christ. If you are adopting a child out of need, you’re making that child a god-substitute, an idol. You’re setting them up to fail. There’s no way they can be all that you need to you. Even a model child cannot fulfill you.

So what was God’s motive for adopting us as his children?

He created us to be his children and recreates us to be his children out of the outflowing of his love. The Father and the Son gloried in one another in all eternity. The light of Father’s glory is perfectly reflected in the Son. The glory of the Father shines on the Son and is reflected back onto the Father through the Son. And it’s like that for us too. We’re mirrors. We reflect back onto God what’s His. We reflect the glory that originated with him.

Look at Ezekiel 1:27-28:

And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him. Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.

Think about Ezekiel’s vision of the Lord—how does God appear? A rainbow. But there’s no word for “rainbow” in Hebrew. It’s just “bow.” God is hanging up his bow, and this bow, this rainbow, this war bow, perfectly reflects God’s glory because it points to his judgment being taken upon himself—it’s pointing at the Son. In John’s gospel, the Son is lifted up in glory when he is lifted on the cross.

The first way we glorify God is by doing nothing. Christ said “it is finished,” there is nothing left to do. We can kick off our shoes and soak in the warmth of God’s love.

The Father radiates love to the Son and the Son to the Father through the Spirit and this is what they share with others. The Father gives words to the Son, who gives words to believers. The Father sends the Son, who sends believers. The Father is one with the Son, who is one with believers. The Father loves the Son, who loves believers.

Why does God adopt? It’s out of love. Why does God love us? It’s all of grace.

God creates out of the overflow of his grace and love. And it’s the same as salvation—Jesus wants people to be where he is. And where is the Son?

Back in John 1, we read that “No one who has ever seen God, but the son… the language is that of a child resting on their Father. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father.

Owen wrote that the greatest unkindness you can do to him is not to believe that he loves you. Why? Because the whole plan of salvation is you being adopted as his child. God makes us his children, but he wants more than that—he wants us to know we are his children. God sent the Son to make us his children and sent the Spirit to make us experience being his children.

Our job is to go sunbathing—to go swimming in the ocean of God’s love. Imagine the ocean is fresh water and you’re thirsty. You dip a cup into the ocean, drink and you’re satisfied. What do you do the next day when you’re thirsty again? Do you think, “If I keep this up, the ocean is going to run out?”

That’s what we do when we come to God—we think we can drain the ocean of God’s love with our little cups. We need not fear that we can drink it dry. In fact, we can just jump in.

Bryan Loritts is the pastor of Fellowship Memphis, a multi-ethnic community of faith in Memphis, TN. He is also the author of God on Paper and A Cross Shaped Gospel as well as a contributing author for the book entitled Great Preaching.

We came to Memphis because we had a passion to plant a church planting, multi-ethnic church. . . . Like any city, it’s got some scars underneath the surface.

Tim Keller says that whenever you walk into a city, you should look for the idols. And unfortunately in Memphis, that idol is racism. But we wanted to bring together a gospel-centered, Christ-centered, multi-ethnic church . . . bringing together a taste of heaven. Heaven is going to be a multi-ethnic experience. Jesus tells us to pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven…” He’s saying that we’re to make a preview of heaven here. Like my Grandma says, true religion has shoe leather on it. It does something.

Gospel-centered people understand that because they were once orphans themselves, they have a heart for orphans, both spiritually and literally, in this world. . . .

Let me set the expectations: I am not a sociologist, I am a preacher. I want to walk you through Matthew 25:31-46:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Then the righteous will answer him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?” Then he will answer them, saying, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

William Wilberforce was at a party with his friend William Pitt. And at one point they say, “Hey, let’s run for parliament.” Wilberforce wins his seat, and for 50 years, never loses his seat. At 25, he becomes a follower of Jesus Christ, and experiences a conundrum:

“On the one hand, I am a newfound follower of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, I cannot reconcile my newfound faith with my vocation.”

I cannot reconcile leading a country that is thriving off the injustice of slavery, he thinks. So he thinks maybe will quit his position and become a pastor. But luckily he was being discipled by a man named John Newton—a man who was in the providence of God involved in the slave trade himself—that is the man Wilberforce goes to see with this conundrum. And Newton tells him that he can redeem his vocation to accomplish God’s purposes in life. These words strengthen him and he gives a six hour lecture in the parliament saying that he will not rest until he sees the abolition of the slave trade.

And they’re looking at Wilberforce, thinking, “have you lost your mind?” He’s beaten, voted down, sometimes beaten within an inch of his life… but eventually abolition is passed by parliament.

Two days ago, I sat at a pro-life banquet . . . and I came away realizing that the issue of fatherlessness and abortion is our 21^st century issue of slavery. Two miles from my office is a planned parenthood center, where last year 9,000 abortions were performed. And the tragedy is that most of those were performed by African-American women who were handed down a legacy of fatherlessness.

I don’t want anyone to leave here thinking that fatherlessness is an African American issue. I need you to understand that I’m not playing victim, but I need you to know that the American history of slavery has left a legacy of broken families. The whole system of slavery was predicated on the breeding and separating of families.

Fatherlessness, broken families, orphans, have been part of the African-American families from the beginning.

Richard Pryor, the great comedian, made everyone laugh, but his story was anything but funny. His mother had him out of wedlock. His father left at an early age. His mother tried to care for him, but had to give him up because she was a prostitute. His grandmother took him in… but she ran a brothel. His earliest memories were growing up in a brothel. . . . He was once asked how he views women, and he said, “I see women as taxis, I get in and out of them all day long.” And so we have this legacy, and someone has to step in and say this curse ends here. This legacy ends now.

I think it’s beautiful that many of you have decided to adopt across ethnicity . . . but don’t be like the Drummonds on Different Strokes. The problem with Arnold and Willis is that they were never introduced to their culture. I don’t lead with my ethnicity, but make no mistake, I am a black man—it means I do things differently.

Here’s what I want you to understand—I’m different. And no I don’t lead with my ethnicity because as Paul wrote, in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile… he is not arguing that there is no difference, but what he is saying is that at the foot of the cross, there is no extreme.

I meet so many kids who grew up in white homes who have deep-seated identity issues because their parents have not done the hard work of exposing them to their culture.

All that was not planned for, but here we go. Let’s lay down some theological points. When we come to Matt. 25, we’ve got a major problem, right? It seems like Jesus is preaching works-salvation.

Now one of the rules of good hermeneutics is that you never build a doctrine on one passage. You have to look at what the whole Bible says—and the consistent pattern of Scripture is that salvation is by faith, from Genesis [to] Romans [to] Ephesians…. So seen in its proper context, it’s not salvation by works. So what is it about?

Salvation is a mystery. Jesus is talking to some religious people who did all sorts of great things in his name—and Jesus said, “Thanks, I never knew you.”

Here’s a scary thought: There’s going to be lots of religious people in hell who preached sermons, went to conferences, were virgins….

So how do I know if I’m saved? Fruit. A changed and changing life that is directly connected to the presence of the Spirit of Christ in my life. And if the only sign I’ve got of my salvation is my praying a prayer and burning my M.C. Hammer cassettes, then can I be too sure?

One theologian says about this passage that “our passage deals not with the root of salvation, but with the fruit of salvation.” Genuinely redeemed people as a manifestation of the Spirit in me, I care for the poor, I contemplate adoption… it’s not because I have to, it’s because I get to.

I was that person! I was adopted. I was hungry… a gospel-centered person understands that they don’t sit on it, they give it away!

And for any Christ-follower to not contemplate adoption, Jesus says it’s totally incompatible with faith—it’s not I adopt, so I’m saved, it’s I’m saved, so I consider. I contemplate.

So how do I do this? Here’s my two points:

It’s going to take a deep heart for God. I’m reading through my Bible and I’m being struck by all these verses on the orphan, the widow, the alien…The Bible isn’t concerned with how they got there, it says love them. There are over 2000 verses in the Bible that talk about the poor, the widow, the fatherless. Grudem says that the Bible is the transcript of the heart of God. And I can’t claim to have the heart of God if I don’t care about the fatherless.

We’ve for so long preached a false gospel that says you can be as greedy as you want… I’ve never seen a case of church discipline for being greedy. I’ve never heard of someone being disciplined because of materialism. Materialism is so much a part of American culture that trying to explain it to an American Christian is like trying to explain water to a fish. And it’s totally incompatible with the gospel.

When it comes to adoption, economically, it’s ridiculous. The economy of it is ridiculous. And if we’re going to get there, we’ve got to learn the art of leaving margin in our budgets. We have to learn to wrestle with the issue of enough.

Wesley committed to living off of 28 pounds in a year. Whatever he made over that, he’d give away. One year, he made 1500 pounds off his books. He kept 28, gave the rest away. He learned what was enough.

We have to wrestle with this—how much house is enough. How many rounds of golf is enough…

Secondly, it’s going to take a profound love for people. My mother is the fruit of an adulterous relationship between an 18=year-old girl and a 26-year-old navy soldier. My grandmother got pregnant and we can say fairly certainly is that she contemplated abortion. We can say that because she had five. . . . Broken homes was such a part of my mother’s culture, that she remembered listening to her cousin give a tutorial on how to give yourself an abortion with a coat hanger. My grandmother was abusive . . . my mother was bounced from home to home. And my grandmother had one rule—while she was sleeping off her hangover, the kids had to go to church. And so my mother and her brothers would go to the Presbyterian church, the only black kids at the church, and an elderly family began investing in her and they brought her to faith in Christ. She came to faith because an elderly family got Matthew 25. . . . Friends, if we’re going to be a part of seeing God’s will be done here as in heaven, its’ going to take an army of families.