In this article I will provide a critique of the relevant driven church. This subject is of particular interest to me since I was once a minister who embraced this model and employed it with some success.  

Within my lifetime, I have observed a fundamental change in the way pastors, elders and laymen think about the church and the way they do church.

In large part this tectonic change is due to the influence of the church growth movement and several very successful large mega churches who have redefined the way many Americans think about the church.  Under this new model of doing church, leaders have learned how to build the church through secular means by applying the social sciences to the church. For example, I remember reading men like Peter Wagner, an early church growth guru, who was one of the first men to promote the idea that we could grow the church by applying the right methods and techniques to the church. Back in the seventies and eighties these men were instructing eager students, like me, how to market the church. Through their instruction and influence the skill set of a pastor has been altered from that of theologian, shepherd, pastor/teacher to that of a savvy entrepreneur who understands how to market the church, create an efficient organizational structure, motivate people to serve, and, possibly most important, cast the vision in a winsome manner.  Under this new model, the minister is more of a savvy, charismatic leader with great leadership skills than a trained theologian, a prophet who proclaims God’s word, and a humble shepherd.

This was pressed home to me over twenty-five years ago when one of these church growth doctors told me that I would be better served by getting a business degree than a seminary degree which emphasized theological training.  According to this man, who had a PHD in church growth from Fuller Theological Seminary, learning how to parse Greek verbs may be helpful, but learning how to apply the social sciences to the church was the real key that so many ministers overlooked.  This position was defended because, after all, the church is God's business, and we should strive to do God's business in the most professional manner possible.  The church growth doctors would argue that churches fail to grow because they run the business of the church in a shoddy, unprofessional manner.  Church growth men emphasized a service friendly building; the location of the building was of great importance.  Other main areas of concern were consumer oriented church programming, targeted marketing, organizational structure, people skills with the ability to inspire and motivate people to serve, and last but in no way least, the ability to vision cast.  It was imperative that the lead minister have the ability to cast the vision in a convincing, winsome manner.  With this emphasis, is it any wonder that so many churches have become market driven, developing consumer oriented programs for everything under the sun?  This secular philosophy of doing church has resulted in a church which emphasizes cultural relevance and meeting people’s felt needs rather than giving people what they really need instead of what they want.

According to the Bible, what people really need is to be put to death, to be crucified with Christ and spiritually washed and resurrected in Christ, born of the Spirit, for Jesus says, “The flesh gives birth to the flesh, the Spirit gives birth to the spirit.”  “You must be born from above, born of the Spirit” if you are going to enter the kingdom of God.  This new birth by the Spirit is a miracle that the Holy Spirit produces in those who are dead in sin.  According to the Bible (Romans 10:13-17) the Holy Spirit only produces this miracle through the means that Christ has ordained, namely the preaching of Christ.  When the Law and the Gospel are faithfully preached, either the Holy Spirit will harden the reprobate, and the preaching of the gospel will be the repulsive stench of death, and Christ crucified will be a stumbling block to them, or, for the elect, in God’s time, the Spirit will work through the Gospel message to bring the elect to a spiritual understanding of their true condition before a holy, righteous, and just God, and the elect will flee to Christ after they have been born of the Spirit.  This kind of conversion is not brought about by appealing to man’s felt needs.  The church has to be willing to give people what they need and not necessarily what they want.  The winsome, informal, casual, conversational, felt need, culturally relevant preaching that has become so popular today ultimately compromises the faithful proclamation of Christ crucified and the good news of the Gospel. 

Consider the words of the Prophet Jeremiah, "My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding. They are skilled in doing evil; they know not how to do good." I can't imagine that God's assessment of the secular market driven church would be any kinder, especially when one considers the doctrine of God which this model presupposes. In this model God is small, and man is large.  This is evident in that man’s felt needs are more prominent in the preaching and the worship than God’s righteousness and holiness.  

Those who defend this secular model make the assertion that the means are not restricted by God’s Word as long as the message is preserved, but they fail to recognize that the means and the message are inseparable. The cultural, winsome preaching that I have described in this article is incompatible with the faithful, direct, prophetic proclamation of the Law and the Gospel.  The foolishness of preaching must remain foolish to those who reject Christ crucified and the promises of the gospel.  In principle this is also true of the visible means which Christ has ordained.  For example, the second commandment forbids the use of visible images in worship, including all images of God.  Therefore the only visible images which can be used in worship are those which Jesus Christ has ordained, water in baptism and bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.  When the sacramental elements of water, bread and wine are properly understood, these humble elements proclaim Christ crucified.  Through these elements Christ is offered to those who receive them in faith.  This cannot be said of any other visible means.  God has restricted the use of means to word and sacrament.      

Finally, a secular relevant driven model of doing church has resulted in the profaning of worship. The worship service is often so informal, casual, and lacking any true proclamation of the law and the Gospel, that not only is the Gospel compromised, but the holiness of God is altogether lost.

Can anyone honestly say that this kind of casual worship conforms to the teaching of God's word in Hebrews chapter 12?  "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:28, 29

The Relevant Driven Church Exposed (Part II)⤒🔗

In this article I will evaluate the mission and mandate of the relevant driven church.  This seems to be a good starting point since the mission and mandate of the church ultimately determines the church’s ministry model.  We must recognize that any attempt to critique a church’s ministry model will fall short apart from a Biblical understanding of the church's mission and mandate.  What is the God given mandate and mission of the church?  Unfortunately, this is often where the confusion begins.

For example, what is the meaning of the Great Commission, and who is actually being commissioned?  

“Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:16-20)

Based upon the Great Commission, is a church determined to be faithful by what it is doing in the community at large “out there” as opposed to what happens on the Lord’s Day?  Your answer to this question will be determined by your understanding of the Great Commission.  Is every believer being addressed in the Great Commission?  I ask this question because it is commonly accepted that true biblical churches or so called missional churches, are having an impact upon their community through a variety of ministry programs which depend upon a large number of volunteers.  This understanding of the church’s mission requires every Christian to have his/her own personal ministry, or at least to volunteer for a ministry program.  Is this what the Great Commission requires?  

Let's play a little game of church golf. This is from D.G Hart:

“How would you rate the work of your church? A ministry scorecard might include the following categories: if your church has a children's ministry give it 2 points; a welcome team ministry, 1 point; a tape ministry, 1 point (but if a tape and book ministry, 2 points). A couples' ministry should be worth 2 points as should an international student ministry, a mothers' ministry, and a newlywed ministry; but subtract a point if it is a newlywed mothers' ministry. Women's ministry should also receive 2 points and-in the spirit of equity-a men's ministry should receive the same, but if your men's group is an adjunct of Promise Keepers don't give any points-you have to start it on your own. AIDS ministries, homeless ministries, and low-income housing ministries all receive 3 points, a score befitting a big church with many resources and talented members. Throw in 1 point each for a weekly Bible study, foreign missions, and the Sacraments (2 points for the latter if your church allows the laity to set up the Lord's Supper). Finally, add 1 point for a Sunday morning service, 2 points if you have both a contemporary and a traditional service.

Now tally up your score. How did your church do? Be careful, though. Before you delight in a double-digit number, you should know that this game is like golf-the higher the score, the worse the performance. The reason, of course, for this inverse method of scoring comes from our Lord Himself. When He sent His disciples out into the world, He prescribed the means that they would use to disciple the nations. In the Great Commission Christ tells the apostles to teach and baptize. In other words, He defined the ministry of the church as encompassing two tasks only-Word and Sacrament.

Such a narrow view of the ministry means that par for the church is 4: 1 point for preaching, 2 points for the Sacraments, and 1 for prayer. Any activity beyond these results in a bogey church.”

Hart makes an excellent point with this example. The mandate that Christ gave to His church in the Great Commission is to preach and to baptize. Historically, the Great Commission has been understood to be fulfilled by ordained servants in Christ's church.  This understanding of the Great Commission is based in part upon the fact that Jesus commissions the eleven remaining disciples in Matthew 28:16.  In this particular text Jesus is not addressing all believers, but rather He is addressing those who hold the ordained office of pastor/teacher.  An office dedicated to the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments.  Until recently the church has understood that not everyone is ordained to preach and baptize. Today, however, the general priesthood of all believers has swallowed up the special offices so that there are no longer any clear distinctions between what the ordained servant (pastor) does and what the layman does.  This is just one reason why we have laymen reading scripture in the public worship service.  

If the reading of scripture in the public worship service is part of the ministry of the Word, and, in fact, it is the purest form of this ministry, then this responsibility clearly belongs to the office holder who has been set apart for that purpose, namely the minister of the Word and, at the very minimum, an elder.  

What happens when this more narrow understanding of the mission and mandate of the church is compromised?  If the real ministry of the church is performed by laymen, then it is only a matter of time before the "real" ministry happens "out there".  Ministry programs of various forms and social programs take a higher seat than what Christ commissioned His church to do in Matthew 28.  Is it any wonder that church services are dying in attendance, and the second service has been dropped?  People have been taught to devalue what happens when we "come together" as Christ's body.  There is no confidence that anything powerful is happening when the Gospel is preached in the public worship service.  With the intent of empowering the laity, churches have actually taught God’s people to lose confidence in the foolishness of the Gospel message and the simple means of preaching.  As I stated in an earlier article, the fundamental problem with the contemporary church is a loss of confidence in the message and the means that Jesus Christ has ordained for building and sustaining His body.  

In fact, I would argue that the more people are taught to value the specific ministry of Word and Sacrament, the more God’s people will desire to serve Him out of gratitude and thanksgiving, as a living sacrifice.  I invite you to test this claim against the teaching of the Bible.  In Romans chapter 12, verse 1, we read, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”  The Apostle Paul is clearly instructing believers to serve the Lord, in response to the mercy that they have received.  In view of this mercy, we are commanded to offer our bodies as living sacrifices to God, for this is our reasonable service to God.  The Lord is more concerned with the attitude of our heart (thanksgiving) and the way that we fulfill our station in life than He is about what programs we volunteer for.  In my prior life, before I became Reformed, I spend most of my time as a pastor recruiting, training and organizing volunteers to serve in the church’s quote “ministry programs”.  Over time, I became convinced that the church and the Lord would be better served if many of the volunteers that I worked with would focus upon fulfilling their station in life, in other words, being a better husband, father, employee, wife, mother, student, etc.  In fact, some of the most dysfunctional people were the first ones to volunteer, because having their own ministry provided the validation that they so deeply desired.  Many of these people served because they expected their service to fulfill some kind of emotional need.  They expected to be appreciated, validated, affirmed, and even applauded for their service.  Any time God’s people serve because they expect their personal service to meet some kind of emotional ego need in their life, they are not serving in view of God’s mercy.  In other words, they are not serving out of gratitude for what they have received.  Instead they are serving so that they might secure the very thing that they desire, namely validation and significance.  This kind of motivation for service is based upon a shaky understanding of the Gospel, for when we truly understand the Gospel, we service in view of what we have already received, God’s mercy and kindness.  We do not serve in an attempt to secure something from God or in any effort to secure the approval of men. 

When God’s people truly comprehend His mercy and love, they are compelled by an overwhelming sense of indebtedness; they desire to worship God and receive the means of grace.  This attitude of gratitude extends to every area of life including marriage, family and employment.  The believer offers his/her body to God as a living sacrifice, for this is their reasonable service to God.  This is consistent with the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans chapter 13, verses 8-10, where Paul teaches, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” (vs. 8)  It is only through the power of the Gospel that God’s people will understand His mercy, that they will be crucified with Christ and spiritually resurrected and renewed so that they begin to live in the manner that Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 13, namely loving their neighbor in fulfillment of God’s moral law. 

Therefore, let us reclaim what needs to be reclaimed and realize that a church is being faithful to its God given mandate when due attention and place is given to the faithful preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.  May the Holy Spirit give us greater confidence in the message and the means that Jesus Christ has ordained.   

The Relevant Driven Church Exposed (Part III)←⤒🔗

In this article, I am going to explain why churches that are driven by a committeement to cultural relevance, or in other words, cultural sensitivity, have little concern for teaching and defending confessional biblical doctrines, and refuting false prophets. It is only a matter of time before such a church fails to preach and maintain the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, as was true of the mainline churches in the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties. Cultural relevance, and outright unbelief, is the spirit of theological liberalism.

In the broader American culture, if there is anything that we can agree upon, it is the dangers associated with intolerance. We might disagree on everything else, but there is general agreement that intolerance is harmful and dangerous to society. This is particularly true in the area of religion, where dogmatic doctrinal positions are viewed as divisive, hence the statement that “doctrine divides, but service unites.” Statements like this, assume that Christians can experience true unity without being united in our doctrinal beliefs.

Words such as sensitivity, accepting, and tolerance can be very slippery terms. These words are slippery, because they are used to censor people who hold views that are considered unpopular. If an individual’s views are deemed unpopular by the court of public opinion, the debate is no longer about the validity of a particular position, as to whether or not a particular position might be true. Instead of the debate focusing upon the substance of a position, the debate is now about whether or not an individual’s views are sensitive, accepting and tolerant. In addition, if an individual’s views are judged to be insensitive by the court of public opinion, then the individual is further marginalized as someone who is guilty of promoting intolerance and even hate.

When the ministry of the church is driven by a committeement of cultural relevance, the starting point for any discussion is, “How will the church’s teaching on a particular subject be viewed by those who cherish the values and priorities of the broader cultural context”? Anytime the church, is more concerned about the way that the truth will be viewed by those who have been culturally conditioned, it has lost it’s way. It is like a ship without a rudder. The church is living in fear of man, and not in fear of God. This is an extremely dangerous position to be in, because ultimately, the unbelieving world is given greater authority than God’s Word in determining issues of doctrine and life. Once the church embraces the agenda of cultural relevance, it is only a matter of time before the church compromises it’s God given mission and mandate, thus causing it to become a counterfeit church.

This was illustrated by a 2011 Time Magazine article, authored by Brent Humphreys, which focused on Rob Bell, a popular Michigan pastor, and his book entitled, “Love Wins”. Following is an excerpt from his article: “As part of a series on peacemaking, in late 2007, Pastor Rob Bell's Mars Hill Bible Church put on an art exhibit about the search for peace in a broken world. It was just the kind of avant-garde project that had helped power Mars Hill's growth (the Michigan church attracts 7,000 people each Sunday) as a nontraditional congregation that emphasizes discussion rather than dogmatic teaching. An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi.

A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell."
Bell was struck.
Really? he recalls thinking.
Gandhi's in hell?
He is?
We have confirmation of this?
Somebody knows this?
Without a doubt?
And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?

So begins Bell's controversial new best seller, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. The standard Christian view of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is summed up in the Gospel of John, which promises "eternal life" to "whosoever believeth in Him." Traditionally, the key is the acknowledgment that Jesus is the Son of God, who, in the words of the ancient creed, "for us and for our salvation came down from heaven ... and was made man." In the Evangelical ethos, one either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell.

Bell… begs to differ. He suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal — meaning that, as his book's subtitle puts it, "every person who ever lived" could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be.”

Humphreys then goes on to quote Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, saying, “The traditionalist reaction is understandable, for Bell's arguments about heaven and hell raise doubts about the core of the Evangelical worldview, changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation. When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction between the church and the world,” says Mohler, “then you don't need the church, and you don't need Christ, and you don't need the cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it's Rob Bell's tragedy in this book too."

The author of the article goes on to state, “Is Bell's Christianity — less judgmental, more fluid, open to questioning the most ancient of assumptions — on an inexorable rise? "I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian," Bell says. "Something new is in the air."

From Rob Bell’s own comments, it is clear that he is trying to re-cast the Christian Faith in a way that the world will not find offensive, insensitive, and intolerant. After all, what could be more accepting than the fact that everybody gets to go to heaven in some manner, because “love wins”? This is where you eventually end up if you approach theological discussions from the perspective of what is acceptable “in the eyes” of the unbelieving world. When determining matters of faith and life, we must always begin with God’s Word. In addition to beginning with God’s Word, we must be willing to submit to God’s Word, and proceed with a healthy dose of humility and fear of God.

This raises several important questions: First, what does the Bible say about these “so called, ancient assumptions”; and Second, what does the Bible say about those who deny these fundamental doctrines of the Christian Faith?

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-7, the apostle Paul makes reference to a creed. “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles”.

In this passage, Paul makes use of an early creed to summarize the faith. It is very important to understand, that in this creed, the Gospel is equated with the person of Jesus Christ and His historical, objective work. Paul says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.” This creed is a summary of the historical work of Christ, also known as the objective work of Christ. In contrast to our contemporary way of thinking, the apostle Paul describes this creed as the Gospel. In other words, the Gospel is that which Jesus Christ accomplished in history, on behalf of the sinner. I suspect that if you surveyed modern day Christians, and ask them to summarize the Gospel, very few of them would respond with a summary of Christ’s historical work. I also suspect that even fewer would respond by making use of a creed for this purpose.

Yet, the Bible says, “By this gospel you are saved” (I Corninthians 15:2). In the context of this passage, the historical work of Christ refers to the Gospel as a matter of first importance. In other words, the starting point for understanding the Gospel begins with one’s understanding of Jesus Christ and His historical work as it is revealed in the Bible. Therefore, if you reject what the Bible teaches about the person of Jesus Christ and His objective work, then you have rejected the very truths that define the Gospel. Fundamentally, the Gospel is based upon the objective truth concerning Jesus Christ, and not a subjective experience, or as many false prophets teach, adherence to an ethical system. Ultimately, our salvation is not based upon our experience or our works.

A popular saying among people who belittle the use of creeds, is that they “have no creed but Christ.” This claim is meaningless. Contrary to what they say, this cannot be a creed because it tells us nothing about Christ. There are basic questions that must be answered about Christ, such as, “Do you believe in the virgin birth, the incarnation, the two natures of Christ, His substitutionary death, and the bodily resurrection?” To reject any of these cardinal doctrines, is nothing less than to reject the Gospel itself. In other words, what you believe is important - it is a matter of life and death. Now, if this is true, why are so many Churches unwilling to emphasis the need for teaching doctrine, and why are they so unwilling to use creeds and confessions to assist in this effort? One possible reason why so many churches are opposed to emphasizing the need for doctrinal teaching and the use of creeds, is that they have been conditioned to view these things as culturally irrelevant. They associate doctrine and creeds with dead churches. The bias against precise doctrinal formulations, and the use of creeds, is based upon the idea that these things are culturally insensitive. As Americans, we are culturally conditioned to think that any kind of religious teaching that is narrow and rigid, is harmful, dangerous and intolerant. Within our post-modern cultural context, the more the church clarifies and defends biblical truth, and more specifically, the exclusive truth claims of the Gospel, the more this world will try to marginalize us by accusing us of being insensitive, intolerant, promoters of hate, and dangerous.

With this in mind, consider what Paul says in Galatians 1, about those who preach another Gospel. “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! 10  Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

In this passage, the apostle Paul places everyone under the ban, meaning, that they are eternally condemned, if they preach a Gospel other than the one proclaimed by the Apostles. This should be our attitude toward those who are willing to compromise the Gospel in the name of being culturally sensitive. It is also worth noting, that Paul raises the same question that I have raised previously, “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men?”

Consider the following quotation from Reverend Brian Hopkins, the lead minister of Journey Church in Bozeman, Montana. The following quotation comes from his church’s blog, where Reverend Brian Hopkins interacts with those who accuse Rob Bell of being a false prophet and outside the church. “First (and admittedly, this is an aside from the content of the book, but I think this whole conversation needs to start here), it’s my view that Christ-followers need to learn how to disagree with each other in ways that aren’t degrading. For example, I know of a “big dog” pastor, thought leader, and author who Tweeted, “Farewell, Rob Bell” in response to early commentary from critics about the book. Really?!? That’s what it looks like and sounds like and is to disagree with a brother? We must do better, Church.” From this quotation it is clear that Reverend Brian Hopkins views Rob Bell as a believer and he takes the liberty to chastise those of us who judge Bell to be apostate.”

“Second, after having listened to the book in its entirety from “cover to cover”… What I hear in the book are questions that seem to be aimed at starting a conversation around culturally accepted concepts of heaven and hell. It is my assumption (and just my assumption…I don’t have anything to back this up…and you know what they say about assumptions…) that Bell is asking these questions as one way of inviting us to question many of our long-held assumptions and concepts of heaven and hell. I mean, really, does anyone here on earth know that Gandhi is in hell (from the opening illustration of the book)?”

Given what the apostle Paul says in Galatians 1, Paul would have no problem condemning Rob Bell, and placing him under the ban. Yet, in the name of true Christian piety, Reverend Brian Hopkins calls upon Christians to accept as brothers, those who want to enter into a culturally relevant discussion about heaven and hell. The kind of piety that is being promoted by ministers who are more concerned about being culturally relevant instead of being biblically faithful, is the kind of piety which leads to compromise and apostasy. Once the church embraces a piety of cultural tolerance, it is only a matter of time before this false piety undermines the church’s integrity and Gospel witness.

I am reminded of the words of Jesus in John 16: 1-2, “All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. I did not tell you this at first because I was with you.”

In the first century, the unbelieving Jews were some of the most aggressive opponents of the Gospel, evidenced by the fact, that they had no problem putting Christians out of the synagogue. Likewise, in the twenty first century, those who bear the name of Christ, but reject the exclusive truth claims of the Gospel, are some of the most vocal opponents of those who are trying to remain faithful to the Christ of the Bible.

In conclusion, by God’s grace, may we stay the course, may we reject the agenda of being culturally relevant and sensitive, and may we live in fear of God, and not in fear of men. May God and His Word be Hallowed in our hearts and minds.