THE CHURCH, SCOTUS, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Image credit: inspirestock / 123RF Stock Photo

Traditional marriage is becoming blurred in the 21st century. Do a Google search using the term “same sex marriage” and it appears that the dominoes of traditional biblical marriage are falling even in some Christian circles. Unfortunately there is no real debate since in recent years only one side of the issue is tolerated by those who seek to change thousands of years of reality, family and social structure, and scientific fact. This is the first article on the issue on the Simple Discipleship blog and a difficult subject it is in our time. It is troubling to see so many Christians and churches yielding to social and government pressure to change their doctrine of marriage as established in the Bible.

 

On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled for same sex marriage rights and against traditional marriage. In fact, Justice Scalia in his dissent described the majority ruling in the following manner: “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition (NewYorkTimes.com).” As a direct result of the SCOTUS ruling, social and theological liberals will claim that anyone affirming traditional marriage is “an enemy of the human race.” Justice Scalia plainly said so. Implications will certainly impact American culture…specifically the church. This writer believes that as the state (federal government) will gradually move to connect non-profit tax-exempt 501C3 status to equal rights law, including same sex marriage. Pastors and churches may be hounded with expensive litigation for preaching and teaching a biblical view of marriage, refusing to hire gays, and/or for refusing to allow or conduct same sex marriages. This may be the beginning of persecution of Christianity in the United States resulting in a proliferation of the house-church movement. House church networks may be a way for the conservative church to prepare for a culture and government that is hostile. Don’t think for a moment that first amendment rights will protect Christians and the church because the current movement of SCOTUS will shape that which will be tolerated under the first amendment. Consider, a photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington, and a baker in Colorado have already been victims of intolerant coercion and religious institutions will not be left out of the pressure. With the force of Caesar (the federal government) on their side, all religious groups and business entrepreneurs holding to traditional marriage may be persecuted and prosecuted.

One might ask what this writer has to contribute to the discussion. As one holding a medical technology degree along with degrees in Christian theology, this writer’s argument will consider both, science and biblical theology. To cut to the essence of the argument in favor of traditional marriage as being between a male and female are three primary factors of holiness, creation, and the family.

Don’t think for a moment that first amendment rights will protect Christians and the church in the future because the current movement of SCOTUS will shape that which will be tolerated under the first amendment.

THE HOLINESS FACTOR

Most arguments in favor of changing the definition of what constitutes marriage begin with an anthropocentric focus such as “What makes me happy?” Therein exists the problem of reconciling one’s religious faith with one’s desires. When one seeks to frame or reframe their religion to fit their personal desires they are defeating the purpose of having a relationship with God. While the individual person is important to God as related to the Christian faith, God is still the focus…theocentric rather than anthropocentric. With an anthropocentric focus, people attempt to bring God down to a human level and minimize God’s expectations of those who desire a relationship with him. On the other hand, God already has a standard and unlike the currency standards or man’s laws, God’s laws and expectations do not change. People often change what we wish God allowed and expected but that fact never truly affects God’s already established standards. People and society often change what they want God to expect of them based on feelings, pressures, and societal evolution. Yet, the fact remains that these anthropocentric efforts have no affect to change God’s standards, laws, or expectations.

Stated in the form of a command, God says at least twenty times in the Bible, “Be holy.” Holiness requires that believers agree with God in regard to sin. Thus, those who maintain a relationship with God in good fellowship agree with God as related to God’s standards, laws, and expectations. Reinterpreting, redactionist translation, or simply ignoring biblical statements about homosexuality is an attempt to acquire God’s affirmation, holiness, and blessing without conforming to his expectations. Does God love gays and lesbians? Absolutely! God loves them as well as murderers, adulterers, thieves, and all sinners but he does not change his expectations of repentance, relationship, and holiness.

People cannot effectively dictate to God what he will accept as appropriate behavior.

God’s expectations of holiness work in tandem with God’s creation as well as the family which is the first building block of community and society.

THE CREATION FACTOR

Virtually every discussion of same sex marriage ignores the absolute fact that same sex intercourse does not work as related to procreation. Just because a young man says he feels like he would be more comfortable as a woman does not change his gender. He may have operations and hormone therapy to move his physical system to be more feminine and he may increasingly adapt his behavior and appearance to be feminine. However, genetically and anatomically he remains a male. We could also postulate this argument from the perspective of a female with a desire to be a male.

Virtually every discussion of same sex marriage ignores the absolute fact that same sex intercourse does not work as related to procreation.

Reports of “men having babies”  after having sex reassignment surgery and drug therapy are greatly exaggerated. In all of the recorded cases of men having a baby, the subjects were born as female and still had a functioning womb in which to carry and deliver the infant to term. Yet the parent delivering the child appears in a photograph to be a male and has changed their name to that of a male. People will go to great effort and expenditure to achieve their personal vision and desire even if it is still a lie. In each of these examples you may find in the news, the person’s real gender remains what it was at their birth no matter what they have done to change it. Do an autopsy 100 years from now on any person who has had sex change operation or drug therapy and the bone structure and DNA  will show the person’s gender at birth regardless of what they have done to alter it. Sex change is an attempt to acquire God’s blessing without conforming to creation. Two passages of the Bible are instructive here:

Romans 1:20-32 ²⁰For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. ²⁴Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ²⁶For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. ²⁸And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; ²⁹being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, ³⁰backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,³¹undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;³²who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. NKJV

This first passage relates to the issue of homosexuality acted out against God’s creation and standards while attempting to dictate to humanity, society, and God what should be acceptable. The large context is important since some proponents of gay rights have reinterpreted Romans 1:26-28 to exclude monogamous homosexual union. The passage is clear that there are other sins included in God’s right judgment on this point and each are against his creation and expectations, not to mention commandments.

Then there is the next passage:

Ro 9:20-21 ²⁰But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” ²¹Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? NKJV

The previously mentioned women who have attempted to change their gender as the media celebrates “men having babies” is a good example of “the thing formed saying to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” It is a clear rejection of God, his standards, and his law. Furthermore, to demand changes and to impose their will upon society flows into the final point—the Family factor.

THE FAMILY FACTOR

As we have seen, a same sex couple who desire to raise a child together must yield to God’s creation laws and even natural laws in order to obtain a child. Thus, at the outset they are contradicting the very principles used to argue their case for marriage rights. They are attempting to acquire God’s blessing without conforming to God’s laws of society. One article on the “men having babies” celebrated the child as having two fathers, which of course is not really possible. God set up the basic building block of society as the father and mother of children. Consider the Ten Commandments regarding number five- “Honor your father and mother.” The intent is consistent with God’s holiness and his creation. Children can develop well in spite of having a single parent, two men, two women, adoptive or step parents raising them. However, God’s ideal is that the job is the responsibility of the biological father (male) and mother (female). Once these three factors—holiness, creation, and family—are abrogated, there will be consequences across the board to society, the nation, and people of faith.

CONCLUSION

Once the laws of marriage are codified to recognize same sex marriage, the laws will likely be challenged further. Liberalism is never satisfied with current boundaries and is intolerant of intolerance. The Baptist Press stated a concern that polygamy  might be the next issue and of course bestiality and the age at which one may marry will likely be challenged. In fact laws in the uniformed code of military justice were recently changed on this point as the Senate approved a bill legalizing sodomy and bestiality in the U.S. military. While opponents of same-sex marriage may express incredulity at further changes in the laws, who could have foreseen thirty years ago that this discussion would be at the forefront in 2013? Will the people of faith stand up?

Many will conclude that the church going underground in the United States is an impossibility. However, consider that as recently as thirty years ago we could not imagine the current discussion. Church, get ready; Jesus is coming soon!

Click–> FACTS ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

——————–

Dr. Tom Cocklereece is CEO of RENOVA Coaching and Consulting, LLC. He has 20 years experience as a  pastor, and is an author, certified professional coach and coach trainer, leadership specialist, and a member Coach/Teacher/Speaker for the John Maxwell Team

Email | LinkedIn | Twitter | Web | Blog | Book | Coaching | Leadership

ARE WE “SLAVES” OR “SERVANTS” OF CHRIST? A DISCUSSION ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATION AND THE HCSB

Holman Christian Standard Bible

ABSTRACT: The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) offers an excellent contemporary translation alternative. However, the HCSB may present a potential unnecessary offense to some black readers by translating the Greek word “doulos” as “slave” in most occurrences regardless of context. This comes at a time when the Southern Baptist Convention is making good faith reconciliatory efforts toward the black community. The article is intended to spark reasoned discussion and not meant to be critical or divisive.

INTRODUCTION

About 2004 I purchased a leather-bound Holman Christian Standard Bible New Testament (HCSB). I heard that the HCSB was being produced by the Holman Bible Publishing Company so that Lifeway could include readings from the new version in Sunday school material as a contemporary translation of the Bible. Like many Southern Baptist church pastors, I began trying out the HSCB for teaching and preaching and at the outset a challenge was presented. In a Bible study of Philippians 1:1 a young black woman I had baptized raised some concern over a word in the verse. Here is the verse:

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus: including the overseers and deacons. Philippians 1:1 (HCSB)

The word in question was “slaves.” Her comment was, “What does it mean to be a slave of Christ? One becomes a “slave” by force but one becomes a “servant” or “bond servant” by choice as other Bible versions translate the word. She said the verse created a troubling image in her mind as a new Christian. She could not envision Jesus forcing her to believe with a whip in hand. She had come to know Jesus by his love. Her question was thoughtful and one that other Christians of color are asking.

I began trying out the HSCB for teaching and preaching and at the outset a challenge was presented. In a Bible study of Philippians 1:1 a young black woman I had baptized raised some concern over the word “douloi” translated “slaves.” …She said the verse created a troubling image in her mind as a new Christian. She could not envision Jesus forcing her to believe with a whip in hand. She had come to know Jesus by his love.

I raise the issue herein respectfully not as a biblical language translator, though my seminary education included biblical languages. I am certainly not a biblical languages expert. However, the issue is important as my church is becoming a truly multicultural church. Have other church leaders heard comments or a rejection of the HCSB over the same issue? Why would the HCSB translators choose to translate the word “doulos” as “slave” in almost every case? Other options such as “servant” or “bond-servant” were available that would 1) make the proper translation equally well, and 2) avoid offending American blacks who have been deeply affected by slavery and the civil rights movement. It is interesting that some have started calling the HCSB the “Hard Core Southern Baptist” Bible. Will the HCSB receive broad use and perhaps cross denominational lines? Only time will tell but it will certainly be interesting to see whether the HCSB receives acceptance in the African-American community and culture.

Few non-blacks can comprehend how the issue of slavery continues to hurt and affect people. Just a few days ago a black leader in the church told a story of how his great grandfather was “lynched” for taking his own pig that had escaped to the neighboring farm that belonged to white people. He spoke of the disturbing event as if it happened recently. There should be greater sensitivity regarding the issue.

COMPARATIVE TRANSLATION OF THE WORD “doulos”

A comparison of how various Bible versions translate the Greek term “doulos” indicates that two popular contemporary versions translate it to “slave.”

1. KJV= servant
2. NKJV= bondservant
3. NIV= servant
4. ESV= servant
5. NLT= slave
6. HCSB= slave
7. NASB= bond-servant
8. Amplified= bond servant

Which is most correct based on definition in the original language AND the context of biblical usage, AND how the reader will likely understand in the receptor language?

Holman Christian Standard Bibles

To be fair and accurate, the NKJV has 20 occurrences of “doulos”  translated as “slave” due to context and 81 occurrences of the same word translated as “servant.” The HCSB has 72 occurrences of “doulos” translated as “slave” or “slaves” and 3 occurrences of the word translated as “servant” or “servants.” Please realize that there are a few other Greek words that may be translated as servant or slave often indicating a child. However, it is clear that the HCSB translators made a choice to translate most occurrences of “doulos” as “slave” even when another choice was available. A small and insignificant point? Let the reader decide. I would love to hear the opinions of African-American Christians on this point.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:

• To what degree is the receptor language of Bible translation important to translators?
• To what biases are the translators susceptible?
• Does the translation committee reflect racial diversity and sensitivity?
• What is reflected in the “proceedings” regarding the translation of words in question?
• To what degree is the committee aware that they are reaching beyond several demographics of social strata?

INSENSITIVITY, COMMITMENT TO ACCURACY, OR A MISTAKE?

It is true that the Greek word “doulos”  may infer voluntary or involuntary servitude so why raise the question? I pastor a church that has made a commitment to be a multicultural disciple-making church. We are one church with two congregations with the active church membership being about 50% white and 50% black. As the reader can imagine, merging a largely black congregation into a white congregation presents more than several challenges. The leaders are always on guard for issues of insensitivity and misunderstanding between the two cultures of the church. As a result, I do not use the HCSB because the translators were slavish regarding the translation of the term “doulos” as “slave.” I believe the Greek word could be translated as “servant” or “bondservant” and avoid the potential problem.

Christians in America will cross oceans to reach races of other nations with the Gospel but we must learn to cross the street.

Is this an example of insensitivity, a commitment to accuracy, or a simple mistake? Cultivating relationships in a multicultural church has required me to immerse myself into the culture of black Americans. It is unlikely that the translation committee for the HCSB considered the issues discussed herein. It is ironic that the release of the HCSB with the identified issue, comes at a time when the SBC is trying to be inclusive to black churches and leaders. It may indicate a lack of missionary prowess on the part of the coordinating leaders and agencies of the SBC.

QUESTIONS:

1. Is this discussion much ado about nothing or is it meaningful?
2. Do you understand the cultural barriers between Christians of differing races?
3. Do you think the HCSB publishers should consider the issue discussed herein in a future revision?

SD Blessings,

Dr. Tom Cocklereece

——————–

Dr. Tom Cocklereece is CEO of RENOVA Coaching and Consulting, LLC
He is a pastor, author, professional coach, leadership specialist, and is a member Coach/Teacher/Speaker for the John Maxwell Team

Email | LinkedIn | Twitter | Web | Blog | Book | Coaching

THE NUANCED GOSPEL: POSTMODERN SYNCRETISM

The Emergent Jesus

There is a lively discussion taking place among church leaders as related to a movement called the emergent church. Many of the emergent church movements in their attempt to bring Jesus Christ down to our level and to make the message of Christ relevant, they often diminish his deity. In its more severe expression, leaders have literally gone to extremes to make the church relevant and appealing to a younger generation at the expense of essential traditional beliefs. The question is…are they also changing the essential doctrines? Keep in mind that some leaders who are pegged as being in the emergent church movement may not be compromising traditional evangelical doctrine. For the sake of this article we will discuss those leaders in what some call the emergent liberal wing of the movement. Emergent liberal Christian leaders may be characterized by two (maybe more) things that allow them broad acceptance and concurrently, broad criticism and yet they seem to escape being squarely identified as outside Christianity. The two characteristics are nuance and opportunism. They tend to write and speak in nuanced terms that sound suspiciously like rejections of orthodox Christian theology but when they are challenged they run back to home base and voice that they believe the traditional theology…what might be called opportunism. Opportunism in this usage is characteristic of someone who wants to have it both ways. This way the leaders may enjoy the security of remaining in the orthodox camp even if on the edge, while also enjoying the notoriety of being seen as leading on the cutting edge, though the cutting edge may be outside the orthodox camp. In this article, I use specifics from Rob Bell’s works and teachings as a point of doctrinal disagreement and not as a point of insult. Keep in mind that there are a number of leaders in the emergent church movement including Brian McLaren and others. They are intentionally shaping the future church. The point of this article is to awaken many sleeping Christians to join the discussion.

IS NUANCING EVERYTHING GENERATIONAL?

The answer to the question is, “No.” Only those looking for a gospel that provides a universalist and relevant appeal but still allows for nuanced interpretation of sin will jump on this bandwagon. However, many people over forty have difficulty with the mindset of the younger generation to whom “shades of meaning”—i.e. nuance seems to appeal. This may be why politicians who nuance their meanings on policies appeal to the younger generation while clearly taking one position verbally and acting on the same policy in a totally different way. When challenged, the politician may repeat his previously nuanced position on the policy as justification, leaving critics dumbfounded and often speechless. Pastors and other leaders in the liberal emergent church tend to apply the same communication method to their theology.

I believe that this issue surrounding “nuanced interpretation or nuanced theology” is a key to understanding what is going on in some of the emergent church. Why does nuanced language and speech appeal to them and the younger generation? In a discussion about the authority of the Bible for instance, you find yourself in a discussion with another person and agree that you both believe in the authority of the Bible, yet the other person uses various terms such as inspired and “most important” when speaking of the Bible and seems to compare some other writings on the same par with the Bible. What happened? They just “nuanced” you. When you challenge them, they backtrack and claim they believe in the Bible the same way you do but they also are not a Biblicist- one who worships the Bible instead of the author of it…a double nuance.

A new style of nuanced dialogue is to answer one question with a myriad of broader questions that essentially change the focus and subject. It is true that Jesus himself answered questions by asking a targeted heart probing question. Consider John 5 where Jesus encounters a lame man who cannot get to the healing pool before others. Jesus asked, “Do you want to be made well?” His question cuts to the heart of the man’s problem and focuses the discussion rather than further complicating it.

While his is not the only example, take for instance Rob Bell’s recent book Love Wins! Throughout the book, Bell asks a question and answers his own question with a list of questions that complicate the issue raised by the first one without ever giving a clear definitive answer. However, his answer appears to be one that is nuanced and buried within the list of questions. And his answers usually take a road that diverges from traditional Christianity. His book left me frustrated and with a tired arm as I could not nail the Jello to the wall on any doctrine he discussed.

You see, this is like nailing the proverbial Jello to the wall and you cannot win! Often the person with the logical and reasonable argument is left with “egg on the face” and receiving the criticism of many others. The world has indeed turned upside down. Does it matter? Is there a danger in nuancing the central doctrines of the Christian faith?

THE NUANCED GOSPEL AND ITS DANGEROUS POTENTIAL

As with liberal theology in general, the first doctrine that is diminished tends to be the authority of the Bible on which all of the other beliefs hinge, and that is why it is so crucial. Both Rob Bell and Brian McLaren redefine biblical authority into their own terms that make conservative views appear inferior. The diminishing communication is subtle and its subtlety is at the core of nuanced language. They use the same terms others use but they often mean something different. Consider quotes from Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis as related to the Trinity and the Bible:

“This doctrine is central to historic, orthodox Christian faith. While there is only one God, God is somehow present everywhere. People began to call this presence, this power of God, his ‘Spirit’. So there is God, the then there is God’s Spirit. And then Jesus comes among us and has this oneness with God that has people saying things like God has visited us in the flesh (John 1:14). So God is one, but God has also revealed himself to us as Spirit and then as Jesus. One and yet three. This three-in-oneness understanding of God emerged in several hundred years after Jesus’ resurrection. People began to call this concept the Trinity. The word trinity is not found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus didn’t use the word, and the writers of the rest of the Bible didn’t use the word.
But over time this belief, this understanding, this doctrine, has become central to how followers of Jesus have understood who God is. It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it (this fact, of course, doesn’t make the doctrine any less true. It’s been true all along; people just ‘recently’ discovered it.) It was added later. (page 25)

“The Bible is a collection of stories that teach us about what it looks like when God is at work through actual people. The Bible has the authority it does only because it contains stories about people interacting with the God who has all authority”. (page 65)

“…it wasn’t until the 300s that what we know as the sixty-six books of the Bible were actually agreed upon as the ‘Bible’. This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So when I affirm the Bible as God’s word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true. In affirming the Bible as inspired, I also have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books. (Page 68)

I realize these are long quotes and taken from two places but bear with me. Notice that in his statement he sidles up to traditional Christian interpretations and then states that the Trinitarian belief was added later. For a young or new Christian he has just opened the door to the popular belief that the Gnostic gospels or lost gospels should be considered on the same level as the Bible. Subtle as it is not just what you say… it’s what you don’t say. For those who want to argue my point related to Trinitarian doctrine, there are a number of passages in the New Testament that clearly identify Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the same verses. Thus, we can say that while the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, the concept certainly is there. Furthermore, while Jesus never used the term “Trinity” he did talk a lot about all three and yet confirmed their oneness.

In the example above, Bell further tears down the evangelical position of Sola Scriptura which opens the door for just about anything and everything nuanced.

Religious Ecumenicism

The nuanced gospel is no gospel at all. It is old liberal theology mixed with Gnosticism and New Age philosophy targeted to appeal to a cut-and-paste generation. It opens the heart of many of the followers in the movement to clearly non-Christian views while inviting world religious beliefs and practices into the Christian’s life on an equal plain. This is no more or less than postmodern syncretism where people may cut and paste various religious beliefs into their brand of Christianity. Consider Rob Bell’s message regarding meditation. Based on his teachings in the Nooma “Breathe” Bible study, Bell equates eastern religious meditation (yoga) with Christian meditation—another nuance. My view is that eastern religious meditation invites the subject to “empty” their minds of everything while Christian meditation is where the believer fills their minds with God’s word the Bible. This is consistent with the Bible:

Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You! Psalms 119:11 (NKJV)

¹⁴⁷ I rise before the dawning of the morning, and cry for help; I hope in your word. ¹⁴⁸ My eyes are awake through the night watches, that I may meditate on your word. Psalms 119:147-148 (NKJV)

When a disciple of Jesus Christ fills their mind with God’s words from the Bible, there is strength, nourishment, resistance to sin, and no room for false gods.

MAKE DISCIPLES OF JESUS NOT EMERGING CHRISTIANS

Dominoes

Once the proverbial domino of biblical authority falls, the rest of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith will fall soon after. Watch for nuanced interpretations about the virgin birth, the resurrection, about hell, and the return of Jesus Christ. Adherents and disciples of the leaders of the emergent movement may find themselves in a strange land that fails to live up to promised expectations. As disciple-makers, we must be careful that we are leading people to become disciples of Jesus Christ and not disciples of our own making who follow us.

1. Do you agree or disagree with my observation of the term “nuance” as applied to some of the emergent church leaders?
2. Simple Discipleship teaches primary values and expectations that are based on the Bible. How does diminishing biblical authority in the life of a believer affect the discipleship process?
3. If the universalist view of faith was true, why be a disciple of Jesus?
4. Name some other traditional Christian doctrines that may be in danger as a result of the Nuanced Gospel.

Make disciples!

Dr. Tom Cocklereece, The Disciplist

——————–

Simple Discipleship

Simple Discipleship

Simple Discipleship: How to Make Disciples in the 21^st Century was published by Church Smart Resources. To learn more about Simple Discipleship and to order the book, follow the link below:

http://www.simplediscipleship.com

——————–

Dr. Tom Cocklereece is Author of “Simple Discipleship,” and a contributing writer forwww.Linked2Leadership.com Blogazine. He is a pastor, leadership coach, and ministry development specialist.

Email | LinkedIn | Twitter | Web | Blog | Book