Recently Colin Beaven (aka No Impact Man) posted this.
I liked it.
I have found myself in the place he describes many of times.
Sometimes to me, prayer is nothing more than throwing my hands up in the air in confusion. I like how Colin doesn't imply that prayer is more valid than a Agnostic who hopes or aspires or a Buddhist who chants. The evident truth is we're all searching, for truth, for answers, for solutions.
Check it out below...
peace
nh.
People ask me all the time what they can do to help. I have a list of things that you can find here. But there are times when it seems like nothing I can possibly do on that list or any thing else help the world. I don't mean to sound pious, as if I spend all my days trying to figure out how to help--I don't.
But there are times when I become aware of so many things that seem to be going wrong and I feel powerless in the face of it all. At that moment, there seems like there is only one thing left I can do: I pray.
I know this might offend some people. It will offend some people because the idea that prayer is an answer to the world's problems sounds weak and overly supernatural. It will offend others because the idea that prayer is a last resort instead the first sounds like an error.
But I am not talking about what other people do or should do. I am not talking about how other people or even I should do things. I am just talking about what comes naturally to me.
When it seems like there is nothing left to do, I pray. And because I pray, I feel I am doing something that is, at least, better than nothing. There is always one thing left to do. And because I pray silently and privately, and because I know some other people do so too, I feel solidarity with them.
"Prayer" is just the way of talking about what I do from my own spiritual perspective. An agnostic or atheist, at that point, might simply hope or aspire. Perhaps a Buddhist would chant.
I know that I'm risking sounding like a crackpot to some people, that I'm taking the risk of sounding irrational. But here is the thing, I think we--meaning the human race--has come to depend too much on its rationality. We have come to worship our brains when what is best about us may be our heart. We imagine that intelligence is our highest function when, in fact, that status may belong to our compassion.
So I figure I should pray. Or hope. Or aspire. I'm not saying that I should stop doing everything else, but maybe there is something to the intentionality that comes when we privately aspire, through the function of our compassion, to do something great.
With world leaders gathering for the United Nations conference on Copenhagen this week, I feel it's appropriate to keep them and the conference in our prayers. A prayer for world leaders is also a prayer for the Earth.
Brian Mclaren and Tim Costello have put together a prayer for Christians (and beyond) to pray.
Most gracious God, creator of all good things, we thank you for planet Earth and all creatures that share it. Have mercy on us, Lord.
Through ignorance and carelessness we have poisoned clean air and pure water. For monetary gain we have reduced verdant forests to barren wastes. In our craving for more we have plundered your beloved creation and driven many of our fellow creatures to extinction. Only recently have we begun to realize the dangerous future into which our current patterns of consumption and waste are driving us, especially in relation to Earth’s climate. Only recently have we begun to see our need to find a wiser and better way of life in the future, before it is too late and our choices are limited by the consequences of inaction.
We who join in prayer today believe the time has come, Lord. Please guide us now, our God, at this critical moment in history, to better fulfill our role as stewards of this fragile planet. Guide the leaders of nations who (will) gather in Copenhagen (on Dec. 6). Give them courage to set noble goals that reach beyond short-range political expediency, short-term economic profit, and short-sighted self-interest. Impress upon their conscience our sacred duty to bequeath to our children and grandchildren a healthy and thriving environment rather than a world in climate crisis.
If our leaders fail, Lord, if they fail to take the necessary action, they will violate both our trust and your calling to use their power for the common good. If they fail, every person will be affected, including generations not yet born. Rouse us all to action, for we are all woven together in the fabric of creation.
This is the moment, God, when a great turning of hearts must begin. So through this prayer, we of many traditions who follow Christ — joined by friends and neighbors of many faiths — unite our hearts in a cry for change. Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer.
We pray in the name of Christ, through whom you have given yourself to the whole world in incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Amen.
The Book of Job is well known for the way in which it highlights some of humanity’s most profound questions within the Judeo-Christian tradition; one of them being the question of theodicy.The word theodicy constitutes a concern for both God (theos) and justice (dike). It literally means God-justice or the justice of God. Theodicy perhaps, could be loosely defined as an attempt to vindicate God as “not guilty” for the suffering and the denigration of society and order.
The generally accepted understanding of the ancient Israelite community was that a relationship existed between one’s actions and the consequences of that act, enacted by the divine retribution of Yahweh. The Israelite people acknowledged only one God ‘Yahweh’ - and by implication this required the single deity to be ultimately responsible for everything that transpired, hence Yahweh is acknowledged as the one who gives prosperity as well as the one who inflicts suffering. This was unique to monotheism and distinct from polytheistic belief in a pantheon of deities, each of whom was ascribed with different divine responsibilities. The outcome of Israel’s monotheism meant that all natural forces were attributed to Yahweh, and naturally the presumption was that forces responsible for destruction were instruments of divine retribution for sin.
Walter Brueggemann highlights various articulations of the accepted theodic understandingof divine retribution in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Torah tradition directly highlighted the covenantal relationship in obeying or disobeying the commandments given by Yahweh and subsequently reaping the consequences of that choice (Deut 30:15-20). The prophets pronounced condemnation against Israel and issued the appropriate judgment in accordance with Torah instruction for Israel’s failure to adhere to the law (Amos 4:1-3). The wisdom literature expressed divine retribution within socially domesticated settings, where wise and upright decisions and good behaviour contracted prosperity and health, while foolish choices and behaviour resulted in deficiency (Prov. 11:8; 12:13). Although slight subtleties do exist in the varied literary forms of the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh’s divine retribution articulated in action equals consequence remains distinct in Ancient Israel’s understanding.
The Book of Job, in its current existing format is wrought with mystery, in both its minor details and its perplexing questions. Difficulties arise when attempting to identify the author and date of Job, however it is appropriate to recognise that in coherence with ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature, the Book of Job may purposefully avoids specific historical peculiarities, giving it universal acceptability.
The suffering experienced by our established protagonist Job, bears impact upon his communion with God and consequently the divine retributive theology of his time becomes questionable to him. The account of the tests contained in the Prologue is valuable information for the reader, however what has transpired in the heavenly court is unknown to Job and his friends as the readers we are aware of Job’s uprightness (1:1), the satan figure (satan meaning accuser and not to be confused with the later mythological bad-guy) and his intentions (1:6, 2:1) and God’s faith in Job’s character (1:8, 2:3), whereas the dialoguing characters with the exception of Yahweh remain naïve, and this naïvity is reflected in the dialogue which spans forty or so chapters.
Job delivers the first word, which starts the dialogue by breaking the silence with a lament, a cry of grief and a curse against his birth because of the misfortune that has besieged him (3:1-26). The question of Job’s integrity is first raised in Eliphaz’ speech, in which Eliphaz offers well intended comfort to Job. Eliphaz’ adherence to the retributive justice framework of the day fails to offer Job comfort, but rather opens the question of theodicy as Job rightfully considers himself blameless (31:1-40). For Job, the questions begin to arise: Is God responsible for my suffering? Is He my friend or enemy? and based on the discourse that Job follows, God is known to Job as the latter (6:2-5).
The doctrine that the friends hold to brings Job to a place where he perceives that God has brought charges against him. Some commentators identify the legal metaphor present in the text of the poet. In dialogue with the friends Job surveys the impossibility of bringing God to trial, because of the inevitable imbalance that would be present in such a case (9:1-35). The language of litigation speaks volumes for Job’s perception of God’s authority as it is fitting for mortals to plead to God for mercy, not bring legal proceedings against the Almighty (9:14-15).
Job’s suffering doesn’t simply challenge the idea that God rewards the just and punishes the wicked, but rather it is a complete contradiction to that theology. The friends offer little to the dialogue beyond their single standpoint, as it is difficult for them to comprehend the implications of what Job’s suffering insists on. The poet doesn’t reveal any personal experiences or reasons of the friends which might lend support to Job’s understanding.
When the three friends speak, the obvious standpoint from which they speak dictates that suffering is always a result of sin, and from within that framework, what they offer to Job is admirable comfort and advice. The poet establishes the three friends as the voice of traditional understanding but whilst the friends are unified over that major standpoint, the author of the dialogue seeks to subtly distinguish their voices from one another.
The first of the friends to speak is Eliphaz (4:1-5:27; 15:1-35; 22:1-30). It is likely that Eliphaz is an older figure in Job’s life as he considers himself older than Job’s father (15:10). The first speech suggests that Eliphaz is considerate of Job’s suffering (4:2). He recognises Job’s piety (4:6-7) however due to his understanding of the retributive framework, he is convinced that Job has sinned and exhorts Job to seek forgiveness from God (5:6-9). Theodore Robinson in his work Job and His Friends identifies Eliphaz as a mystic, and the advice Eliphaz offers Job is sanctioned by an experience of divine revelation (4:12-21). Overall Eliphaz is a fine character who begins by offering Job hope of a brighter future (5:17-27).
Bildad is the second of the friends to respond (8:1-22; 18:1-21; 25:1-6). Bildad’s character is clearly distinguished from Eliphaz by the way the poet opens each of his speeches. Whilst Eliphaz appears attentive to Job’s suffering, Bildad opens with a defence of God’s justice (8:3-4). The divine retributive justice system is not merely the framework in which Bildad offers comfort; rather his defense of it is central to his speech. Like Eliphaz, Bildad urges Job toward repentance (8:5-7).
Zophar is the third to speak (11:1-20; 20:1-29) and unlike Eliphaz with his mystical experience and Bildad with his ancestral wisdom, Zophar doesn’t recognise any source of his wisdom.Instead he implies that he knows the hidden mind of God (11:6) and his desire is that God would be revealed to Job so that Job might understand.What Zophar says expresses his assurance in the theology of divine retribution. Again Zophar doesn’t add anything radically new to the dialogue and has become perhaps more dogmatic about the position that each of the friends hold.
As the dialogue becomes more impassioned, the friends’ standpoint becomes all the more obvious. Their unified voice remains the same: that all suffering is a result of sin, and so the inevitable conclusion for Job’s suffering is that Job has sinned, and is therefore reaping the chastisement of that sin. Within that working framework the friends are not wrong, and by urging Job to confess his sin they are sincerely offering Job hope for forgiveness and restoration.
The debate as wisdom dialogue doesn’t merely offer two different opinions, but rather two polarised moral imaginations, representing two understandings on the way the world is to be understood. The friends work within a traditionalist perspective that is reinforced by their experience, the wisdom of tradition and their own resolve, whilst Job’s understanding is sceptical of the fashionable opinion as the facts do not suffice when he considers his own suffering and innocence. Wisdom Dialogue provides a format for two opposing opinions to be in dialogue with one another.
After the three cycles of conversation and the contribution of Elihu, at the request of Job’s litigation (9:32; 13:3; 13:15), Yahweh speaks through the tempest (38:1-40:2; 40:6-41:34). Although Yahweh fails to address Job’s question on why the innocent suffer, given the Book of Job as a whole, whatever it is that Yahweh says brings peace and transformation to Job. It is often understood that the awe of Yahweh’s presence brings Job to the point of transformation, the text seems to place enormous value of the content of what Yahweh says. Given that in the Epilogue God refutes the friend’s words (42:7), it is safe to assume that what the poet attributes Yahweh with saying is not a simple variant of the accepted theodical understanding, but has something unique to offer to the dialogue.
The first speech that Yahweh gives is characterised by its listing of the designed elements in the Inanimate Physical World and the Animal and Bird Kingdoms. In Yahweh’s revelation of the Cosmic design, human beings and their values, laws and systems do not feature as primary, and there is no hint of a created order of which the ultimate purpose is human needs. This is well illustrated when Yahweh says:
Who has cleft a channel for the flood,
Or a way for the thunderbolt,
To bring rain on a land without people,
On a desert without man in it,
To satisfy the waste and desolate land
And to make the seeds of grass to sprout? (Job 38:25-27)
This is a demonstration of the Yahweh character’s non-anthropocentric concern for the cosmos – a care that extends beyond human needs and requirements. This widely accepted view of divine retribution implies that all reward and punishment through nature merely exists as punishment or reward for human existence. Through Yahweh’s speeches the poet presents another perspective.
Perhaps, in the cosmic design of God, chaos and order, freedom and control, wisdom and folly all exist in paradox. This only complicates the question of a theodicy that seeks to defend a unilateral order by which the universe operates. The poet uses the image of Yahweh giving birth to the Sea (38:8-11), and treating this violent character of chaos like a baby in a playpen, as a representation of his power over the order and chaos that exists within the universe. For the poet, Yahweh does not destroy chaos, but brings it under his control. Perhaps this example is extended in Yahweh’s second speech in reference to Behemoth (40:15-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34). Both creatures of chaos are subject to Yahweh’s control. Job is challenged at the beginning of Yahweh’s second discourse to take the principles of the just rule that Job claimed for himself (29:7-25) and to put them to work in a cosmic setting. Again this highlights the futility in humankind claiming any understanding of the ways of Yahweh.
In considering the three of the voices from the Book of Job presented here, is it possible to draw a single conclusion as a solution to the question of theodicy? We are presented with Job’s voice, which when given his circumstances has reason to ask “why should people suffer?” His experience is incompatible with the tradition that Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar upheld. Each of their understanding is based on either their mystical experience, the tradition of their ancestors or their own resolve, so what Job proposes about theodicy is accepted only as an absurdity to them. Finally the voice of Yahweh is heard, for whom humanity’s suffering doesn’t appear to be of primary concern. Yahweh’s speeches provide an implicit challenge to the Hebrew notion of theodicy and perhaps what the friends and Job are requiring of God is nothing more than their own human presumption about God.
I would argue that the purpose of the Book of Job is not to provide a solution to the question of theodicy, but to allow a space for dialogue. Furthermore if we are to create from the text a theodicy of how God operates, is it fair for us to consider ourselves much different to Job’s friends? In summary of the Book of Job, I feel Mikhail Bakhtin’s description of Dostoyevsky’s literary universe can be applied. We ought to consider Job “an artistic universe of tension in simultaneity rather than of resolvement through temporal evolution or plot”.
In terms of application, I feel the Book of Job still challenges our modern-day religious perspectives in the same way it possibly challenged ancient perspectives. It is still common for me to hear pastoral advice to situation where people are experiencing major or minor issues saying “you just need to get into God more” or “you’re obviously not living rightly”. Sure this might be good advice (as was the friend’s advice to Job), but can often be meaningless or even offensive to any modern day hearer. I think we should show more sympathy to Job’s friends as we are often no different. However we also ought to understand that our relatively comfortable religious lives, can be so far removed from reality that a message we provide for a suffering world could implicitly be favoured by our comfortable lives and comfortable system.
This is a long post so congratulations if you’ve had the patience to endure it. To be honest its really study procrastination, but feel free to comment. It has been adapted from a paper a wrote recently and like most things I say or think, brings many more questions than answers.
first have a look at this blog entry titled 'one cup, one life' - pretty special.
second, this week I've briefly started to look at the book of Qohelet (aka Ecclesiastes). The book in itself is confusing - however I've only briefly looked at it... So far this theme has stood out to me:
...And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realised this is also striving after the wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain. (Ecc 1:17-18)
Knowing stuff is hard!
One of mt collegues who's currently in seminary today said that where he comes from there are many broken and bending roads, and you can tell who the drunk drivers are because they drive in a straight line down the roads, whereas the sober drivers follow the broken path.
It was an interesting observation. Can that be applied as a metaphor to life?
What are the big truth's in life? and who decides them?
It is often said that we should focus on the big truths that unite us - a statement that I fully endorse, however it becomes problematic when there are disagreements about what those truths are. Something may be a clear big truth to one, yet a small truth to another.
The word ‘curse’ or ‘cursed’ appears 4 times in the prologue to the book (Chap 1&2).
The Hebrew word used in theses instances is barak which actually means bless.
I wonder what the author was attempting to say.
What is blessing? What is cursing?
“Do you still hold fast to your integrity, curse (or bless) God and die!” - Job’s wife
To be ‘blessed’ are we really cursed? and to be ‘cursed’ are we really blessed?
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.
...But woe to you who are rich, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way. Luke 6:21-22, 24-26
Not sure how many still read this... sadly - i do.
This semester at uni, I'm doing a unit focussed around wisdom writings of hebrew scripture - Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. It's fun!
Psalms are incredibly interesting, at the moment i'm absorbed with the humanity present in them. My traditional view of psalms as the 'ancient hebrew equivalent of contemporary church worship songs' is being challenged as I get to understand the role of poetry and liturgy in ancient near eastern context - I told you it was fun!
I am admittedly biased toward the laments. I like the idea that Brueggemann suggests, that they are the result of moving from a world of orientation where perhaps one might feel life is quite simple; God is king; I am righteous and God loves me - simple... to a world of disorder, where things are ambiguous; is God distant, or not present; there is pain and confusion resulting in the psalmist being quite paranoid about everyone out to get them or feeling as important as a worm - disoriented!
I like the laments - they're real, it's also nice to know (or at least assume) there are other depressed creative types out there.
To end on a happy note there is another movement from disorienation to the new orientation - which to me, says a lot about hope and the importance disorientation which takes us beyond living in a state of denial.
"Your love O Lord is like the ocean - deeper than endless seas Your faithfulness is like the mountains - and your word never fails."
In our day this is an odd lyric to sing.
I wonder if we consider ocean acidification, ocean dumping, oil spills, marine pollution and over fishing when we sing about God's love being like the ocean?
Do we consider over-mining, consumerism and the destruction of our habitat or melting ice-caps and avalanches when we sing about God's faithfulness like the mountains?
Quite possibly not.
We have the potential to do so much to taint and pollute God's love - yet it remains the same for his creation.
All of our experience, knowledge and drive has the possibility to exploit God's faithfulness - yet his grace still present within the created.
I was in the city today. Walking from the Oxfam shop to my car down hay street. I noticed a well dressed lady, presumably on her lunch break awkwardly stepping back from a conversation with a man. The man wasn’t well dressed, unshaved, obviously hadn’t had a shower recently. I was disgusted with my first reaction, to move to the opposite side of the walkway. I caught myself in this mindless reaction and then moved toward to the side closest to the gentleman.
He asked for some money - I only had change, so I stopped, gave him the change and then decided to have a conversation with him. Not long into the conversation he asked if I was Italian, to which I told him about my South African heritage. We talked for a little while about Cape Town, Table mountain and the cable cars. He told me his name please forgive me as I don’t remember it, possibly because it was a Jewish name. I told him my name, and told me he was a poor Jewish man, so he recognised it. We chatted a bit about the Old Testament and he rightfully corrected me and called it the Torah. He told me to remember one thing - that Jesus wasn’t a British man.
We wished each other well and ended the conversation, as I walked away it struck me - that I had just conversed with a poor Jewish man.
He kind of reminded me of another poor Jewish man.
I've never seen 'angels' - maybe i'm being presumptious, but I dont think I need to. My poor jewish friend is enough reality for me.
On the basis that to a certain degree human autonomy has the ability to set or alter history, the implication stands that God’s grace is active in natural history. It is implicitly impossible to then consider individual sin without considering the social sins that exist as human beings are be understood within community and furthermore it is individuals who create and govern societal structures.
There is an intrinsic, yet not exclusive link between the Christian notion of salvation and human liberation. For the individual, salvation is being liberated from sin and not bound to the present reality. For liberation to expand in history, it must be known to the individual first followed by self-transcending acts of love for one’s neighbour. Human autonomy then becomes an instrument by which grace is active in the world. The objective of action is to liberate the person, so our concern is to confront social structures and institutions that are oppressing persons; bearing in mind conflict is not directed at the individuals. Likewise no structure or institution can objectively embody salvation as inner sinfulness remains and inner conversion of individuals is the priori to human liberation.
Liberation theologies highlight the notion of sinful social, economic and political institutions and infrastructures. Whilst understanding that Christianity is not exclusively linked to social reform, I believe there are certain implications for the way followers of Christ ought to conduct their lives. Two comparitively similar ideas are presented in The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II, by Charles E. Curran. Firstly, every personal sin has social consequences and secondly that some sins directly effect the neighbour. Social sin, in whatever form is directly associated with man’s fallen nature.
It appears apparent that the solution to systematic injustice can only be found in human autonomy by aligning one’s free will with that of God’s desire. Just as social sin is spread throughout history flowing from individual consciousness, so too divine grace flows through autonomous acts of self-transcending charity.
“We all have the right and duty to promote the common good. In all aspects of our life, including family and work, those of us who are Christians, especially, should fulfill our responsibilities with fidelity and with competence, as leaven in society, guided by the gospel and the Church but normally acting on our own initiative. (McOustra, 1990, 112)”
This idea is present in what Christ, the central figure of grace taught when he said “The Kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough” (Matt 12:33). Jesus role on earth was to bring liberation (Lk 4:18-21). In first century Palestine, the Jewish people were under Roman oppression and for Christ liberating Israel from Rome was persuading Israel to change. If there was no internal liberation within the Jews, there was no hope for liberation from imperialism.
Liberation is not about a mere reform in social structure. The reform that Jesus preached is deeper and affects every sphere of life in dealing with the root cause of oppression and domination: humanity’s lack of compassion.
True liberation is about reconciliation, and to love your enemies’ means to live in solidarity with all people. This idea of liberation is far more radical then what the Zealots of first century Palestine could hope to of achieved in overthrowing the government. Loving your enemies challenges every area of life, whether it is political, social, economic or religious. With people as the primary concern for liberation, we a forced to look beyond human brokenness, as the battle being fought “is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly realms.” (Eph 6:12)
Profane history and grace are interdependent on one another, as grace comes from divine being and is exercised in the world through human involvement. As Karl Rahner, the Jesuit theologian so articulately stated, the church ought to be very the tangible present expression of a hidden reality. What radical change grace effects inside the individual, subsequently ought to be expressed in the world through love – this is communication of the supernatural reality of grace.
The book of Genesis in the Hebrew scripture canon (also quite famous amongst Christians) gives us some kind of indication as to the significance of the human creation. Although it is not entirely valid to my point, as a prioi I should state that I don’t understand the book of Genesis as a scientific or historical text book, in a nutshell I swing far closer to the old earth creation-evolution theory, however that has no bearing on my view of God as presented in the book of Genesis, in fact it validates organic, artistic and oral traditions of ancient and indigenous people.
In case you’re unaware there are two different accounts present in Genesis 1 and 2, and are possibly written and edited by two different oral traditions, and quite possibly edited together by Moses or an associate of his. The first account was quite possibly a Priestly writing, commonly dated to the exile and concentrates on the cosmogony and the human beings place with that. In this account the God figure speaks and creation comes into being and there a strong rhythm until chapter 1, verse 26. It’s at this stage that God communicates with at least one other entity. Later Christian traditions have used this to refer to God’s Trinitarian nature here, and that is a fair assumption based on the notion of the inspiration of scripture. It is however probable that the author had different intentions, the author possibly refers the presence of other lesser gods in a heavenly court of which creator God ruled over and communicated with, again this is only a speculation. But the idea is that in this account at the creation of humankind, God communicates with others, indicating a more intimate and intensive work than that of the prior works of creation. It seems no other work of creation bears the identity that humans do, carrying divine image and divine likeness.
The unity of the whole human race is evident. Humankind is spoken of a singular. Both male and female are thus created in the image of God. It seems that only in community is God truly reflected in us. It can be disheartening for some to believe that grace and salvation are about personal salvation, about personal commitment, about what Jesus did for me, and about me being “right” before the throne of judgment. In no way do I desire to minimise the value of human autonomy. The truth is our human autonomy is quite possibly that which gives us the likeness of God. I strongly believe in the role of the individual to seek to establish community and build solidarity beyond our churches, our religion even our national borders. God created one humanity, and this ought to impact the way we see people and where we are heading. This idea might help with our ideas of poverty and injustice.
"The poet is the healer of language. A poet can carefully, gently, with dignity, return the word to its home. The poet can graft, gingerly bind the word back to its rightful place. Amazingly, what was prostituted and left for dead, comes to life, flourishes, grows!"
I found this quote on a blog post. Check out the rest of the post here.
There was this wise cracker named Jesus (I'm must mention he grew up in Capernaum which is very likely to mean 'village of Nahum') who came to proclaim the "good news" (gospel).
I'm interested - what do we think is the the gospel?
Can it be completely defined in a simple sentence, diagram or 5 minute altar call?
