The word “grace” (Gr “charis”) means, most literally, a gift. In Biblical terms, it is commonly associated with the gift of mercy, or the forgiveness of sins, which God has provided for believers in His Son. None of us can earn salvation; we are saved by “grace,” which is “the gift of God,” and not by our own works (Eph 2:8,9).

Being saved by God’s grace, we are God’s “workmanship” (Eph 2:10). He has made us all that we are; we have not made ourselves.

Nevertheless, He has “created (us) in Christ Jesus” for a purpose — to do good works (v 10). And so, with God working in us in a mysterious sort of partnership we can scarcely comprehend, we do good works — not to earn or merit eternal life, but in gratitude for the grace or gift already conferred upon us.

What “good works” flow out of hearts which have known the grace of God? “And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches… God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things and at all times, you will abound in every good work… You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion” (2Co 8:1; 9:8,11).

The “good work” of giving to others has its origin, Paul says, not in man’s generosity but in God’s — and not just in God’s generosity in material things, but especially in His grace in Christ. When we understand this, then we see the need to abound in every good work — in acts of kindness, in visiting the sick, and in giving of our material blessings. There is a direct connection between God’s grace and our acts of concern for others, between God’s generosity and ours. And so there is a direct connection between the cross and the checkbook, between the empty tomb and the full collection bag. Those who have been bought with a price (2Co 6:20), the precious blood of Christ (1Pe 1:19), willingly give themselves to the Lord (2Co 8:5). Having made that commitment — of the entire being to Christ and to his Father — there is no question of the commitment of their material resources to the doing of good works. And so one “grace” surely begets another, and another.

Paul writes of the “grace of God” bestowed upon the Macedonians (probably the church, or ecclesia at Philippi) (2Co 8:1). Since this “grace” did not guarantee its recipients against either “severe trial” or “extreme poverty” (v 2), Paul must have meant the grace — or gift — of the gospel of salvation in Christ. So the Philippians gave generously to help others, even though they themselves were neither rich nor comfortable. They gave because they knew the joy of God’s love in Christ as God’s grace had abounded, or overflowed, toward others (2Co 8:2,7; 9:8).

Giving to the work of the Truth — whether it be for gospel proclamation or charitable assistance — is no mundane matter. It should not become just a habit or a tiresome necessity. Even though it should not be flaunted as a reason for pride (Mat 6:1-4), neither should its necessity be hidden away as an embarrassment (Mat 5:14-16; 2Co 8:3,4). It is nothing less than an opportunity, and a wonderful privilege, to contribute in a small way to the saving purpose of God. The printed appeal, which we have seen before — the cold figures on paper, which only an accountant could love — these may be the means by which other people may come to praise God for His grace, for present burdens eased and for futures made infinitely brighter. We need to “see” the circle of God’s grace growing ever wider, and to “hear” more voices being raised to praise His grace. And we need to remember, with our wallets and purses and bank accounts, no less than with our Bibles and hymnbooks, the one who “though he was rich, yet for our sakes… became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2Co 8:9). “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift” (2Co 9:15)!

Some years ago in Houston, we had a weekly radio broadcast; it was called “Herald of the Coming Age” (name borrowed, I suppose, from the Logos booklets on first principles). Brother Troy Haltom did a lot of work on the broadcast and follow-up. Once he showed me a postcard asking for a booklet on a particular subject covered in a broadcast. The postcard was addressed to…

“HAROLD of the Coming Age”.

I still don’t know if that particular writer thought that Troy was actually a time-traveler named “Harold”, who had come back to tell us all about the “age to come”!

But nevertheless, I cautioned brother Troy about inspiring the worship of angels (or “demigods”?)!

And for a while thereafter, I addressed him as “brother Troy of the Coming Age”.

Which suggests, I think, an exhortation of sorts: we all can, and should, live in the “coming age”, to some extent and with some understood limitations. We are… “the children of the Kingdom”; our “citizenship” is in heaven, from whence we look for the Saviour to appear. And — although we all now dwell in mortal bodies, bodies that will surely perish if enough time passes, we are still — Scripturally understood — partakers of “eternal life”! And — Rom 8:3 — right now, there is NO condemnation upon us if we love God and follow His commandments.

In other words, it is possible to be physically alive and spiritually “dead”… OR to be physically “dying” and spiritually “alive” in Christ.

So the question is: where DO we live? In this age, or in the age to come?

George of the Coming Age

When I was about 18, I attended a Christadelphian fraternal gathering. The speaker was an older brother (60 or 65), and a dynamic (and learned) speaker. But on this particular occasion he made a fairly simple mistake (the details are of no consequence, except to say it was plainly not just a slip of the tongue — it was a real mistake). When the time came for questions and discussion, guess whose hand popped up first: “Brother, how could such-and-such be true when it says in so-and-so verse that etc, etc?”

I had him “dead to rights”… and I tell you, I can look back 30+ years and still feel a bit of the smugness I felt then. He was wrong, and he knew it… and now everybody else knew it too.

We all waited while brother X thought it over for a few seconds. Then, quite simply, he said: “You’re right; I was wrong.” Nothing more.

And that was it! Except I still carry the memory of a brother who was (indeed) well-versed in the Bible, and a wonderful communicator, and (justly) revered by many other brethren… who was nevertheless not afraid to say, “I was wrong.”

I think that was worth more than anything I learned that day… and a lot of other days as well.

Actually, come to think of it… that simple story says a lot more — to me at least — about:

1. human nature,
2. the pride of life,
3. the nature of sin,
4. the mind of the flesh,
5. the mind of the spirit,
6. humility, and
7. a few other “deep” Bible subjects…

…than do a lot of quite erudite discourses.

Does God ever act in the lives of believers… in any way apart from His written Word, and the providential arrangements of circumstances external to the individual? In other words, does He ever act — directly — upon the mind of a believer?

I have followed the give and take on this subject before, and of course I have thought about the various Bible passages, and the overall philosophical views expressed. I have come to the conclusion that the means by which God works on human minds is — basically and fundamentally — unknowable. Maybe that’s why Jesus likens the Spirit to the wind in John 3 (besides which, we know that both the Hebrew and Greek words have these two more-or-less-interchangeable meanings):

“Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [Or “spirit”] gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You [plural] must be born again.” The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit’ ” (John 3:5-8).

It’s one of those cliches, practically, that we cannot “see” the wind; we can only “feel” its presence, and “see” the effect it has on other things. The leaves in the trees rustle, and the dust swirls along the ground, and we know the wind is blowing. But we don’t SEE the wind — we only see the effect of the wind; we see the leaves and the dust move! And we deduce the presence of the wind from their movements.

In like manner, a “spirit” being, a new creature in Christ, is controlled by unseen forces and considerations. Until a man is born of this unseen force, he cannot know its cause — only its outward effect in the lives of others… which can always be explained by other factors.

So it seems to me that — given our limitations here and now — we can never “prove” that God is working by His Spirit in the lives of others around us, nor even — to be absolutely certain — in our own lives either. That’s just the nature of things… now.

True, we pray (all of us?) prayers like this:

(1) “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law” (Psa 119:18),

or…

(2) “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (Psa 51:10),

or a hundred other, Bible-based, prayers… which presume that God works, somehow and some way, in our lives along with His written word.

But we can’t know (can we?) exactly how (or when, or where) He works. If we did know, then we would have the Holy Spirit, and the ability to discern such spirits — in short, we’d be inspired prophets… and then we’d be talking about “a whole different ballgame”.

But, just because we can NEVER “prove” that it is happening, does that in and of itself “prove” that it NEVER happens?

So we have the typical exchange — typical, at least, of this sort of discussion — between two people:

a. Al says, “Jesus ‘opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures’ (Luke 24)”… to which Bob responds: “Meaning, Jesus *explained* the scriptures to them.”

And… Bob is right! Or, at least, if he were wrong — or, perhaps, only half-right, or 3/4 right, or even 99% right — the point is: How could we ever know?

How could we ever know, for sure, that Jesus “explained” something to the apostles by putting the thoughts which they ought to think directly into their minds, or even in the very least influencing their minds indirectly… when, of course, they had the Scriptures and were thinking about them already, and working on them already — and when, IF Jesus did such a thing, it would appear for all the world as though it were the natural workings of the apostles’ own minds? Well, IF he did, then — here’s my point! — it would have been something other than an unseen, secret divine intervention into their minds — it would have been visible, with real, recognizable, provable “power”… and then it would have been… something else! It would have been the “inspiration” of the Holy Spirit.

b. Then, as if to give the other side of the coin, just as we would expect: we have the second of Al’s points: “The second occasion is in Acts 2:6-8. In this incident the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and everyone heard them speak in their own language.” To which Bob replies: “This is referring SPECIFICALLY to the Holy Spirit gifts. The discussion is NOT about the Holy Spirit gifts — it is specifically about whether the Holy Spirit ever literally ‘indwells’ the believer OTHER THAN THROUGH the Holy Spirit gifts…”

And… Bob’s right again! Because if you can actually SEE the “power” and can PROVE — by visible, tangible evidence — that it is divine, then it CANNOT be anything but real Holy Spirit power. It can no longer be a secret, unseen, “indwelling” power — because it simply can’t be both things simultaneously.

If you SEE it, then it can’t be an unseen or secret “indwelling”.

And if it is an unseen “indwelling”, then you can’t see it. You can’t even see the EFFECTS of it, for that matter, in such a way that its existence could not be explained by other means — like “reading your Bibles”.

Now, here’s the deal: there are — literally — hundreds of passages in which righteous men and women pray for God to act in their lives… and we are not afraid to ask for such divine intervention or interaction in our own lives.

• “Our Father, be with our speaker this morning as he brings us your word!”
• “Our Father, comfort sister D in her illness.”
• “Our Father, help brother M find a job.”
• “Our Father, we pray for our children… our brothers and sisters… our preaching efforts…”
• “Our Father, help those who are seeking your truth in this dark world around us…”

Etc, etc.

Why would we ever pray in the first place, what would we ever ask for… IF God never worked in the lives of men and women?

But of course He does!

We’ll just never know exactly how He does it… now, in this age. And we’ll never be able to prove that He does — even in ourselves or to ourselves.

And we’ll never be in a position to boast about such “power” in our lives, as though we “earned” it, or “deserve” it.

And [to me this is THE key point!] we’ll never be able to depend on such “power”, to the exclusion or the neglect of reading, and understanding, our Bibles. Because — if and when it is “there”, whatever that means, we won’t be able to know it’s “there” — we’ll just be doing our best, to understand what God has said, and to put it into practice in our lives. And that’s the part we’ll SEE — the other, if it’s there, will be silent and secret, even in our own minds.

And thus, we’ll never be able to depend on such “power” to help us make a decision, or to give us strength to do the right thing… because these thoughts and actions are all things we can do for ourselves, and even if God is helping us to do them — it’ll be a secret, silent, “indwelling” kind of help — not visible to others, and not provable even to ourselves…

Because, given the way all human minds work, the thoughts that seem to come unbidden into our minds could merely be the chemical processes of our own brains (which, left to themselves, are much more often wicked rather than righteous). And how am I to know the difference… between the thought I conjure up out of my subconscious (which, let’s face it, may be good or ill) and the thought that — maybe — God actually put there… because it would look the same, even to me!

So, in the final analysis, the whole question — it seems to me — is a kind of delusion: God’s Spirit MAY BE there, in my mind, helping me think right thoughts, and helping me summon up the will to do right things. But I can never know that for sure (because… then it would be something else!), and I can never depend on its being there. All I can do is read the Bible, try to understand it, tell others about it, and try to apply it in my life.

And pray that our Father will help me think and do right things. But if and when He does help me, I’ll never know it for sure. I’ll still have to be continuing to do my best, to read, think, understand, and apply… as though He isn’t helping at all.

I can’t “put it on automatic pilot”. I have to keep flying the aircraft, and hope and pray that God steadies my hand, and sharpens my eye, and focuses my mind. But I can’t consciously stop doing what I can do, and let Him take over! The plane would crash.

Bottom line: what practical difference does it make? If I can’t see God’s power working for sure, then I just have to do the best I can anyway — and hope that, somehow, He is helping.

“For we are labourers together with God” (1Co 3:9).

“We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2Co 6:1).

How to stay safe in the world today……

1. Avoid riding in automobiles because they are responsible for 20% of all fatal accidents.
2. Do not stay home because 17% of all accidents occur in the home.
3. Avoid walking on streets or sidewalks because 14% of all accidents occur to pedestrians.
4. Avoid traveling by air, rail, or water because 16% of all accidents involve these forms of transportation.
5. Of the remaining 33%, 32% of all deaths occur in Hospitals. Above all else, avoid hospitals.

You will be pleased to learn that only .001% of all deaths occur in worship services in church, and these are usually related to previous physical disorders. Therefore, logic tells us that the safest place for you to be at any given point in time is at church!

Bible study is safe too. The percentage of deaths during Bible study is even less.

For safety’s sake… Attend church and read your Bible…

It could save your life.

Something tells me (maybe it’s 28 years of experience in the married state) that there are good ways, and then there are not so good ways, to tell a woman she is wrong! Maybe one of the not-so-good ways is to bring up all the recorded and imagined sins of her gender for the past 4 or 6 thousand years, from the far east to the middle east, to Lizzie Borden with her ax, as if to say, ‘And you… why, you are just like all the others!’ Maybe another not-so-good way is to suggest that her gender and her gender alone is responsible for all the evils in the world today… ‘You know, we men would have had such a perfect world if it weren’t for all the subtle flatteries, the sly whispers, and the wanton ways of the treacherous sex!’

Maybe a better way is first to remember that a woman is a human being, a person with feelings, who should be treated with respect, even if (stress the “if”!) she is wrong. Paul told Timothy, “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity” (1Ti 5:1,2). I take it that Paul is saying here, ‘Do not rebuke an older woman harshly, but exhort her as if she were your mother.”

So maybe one rule of thumb, when preparing to tell a woman she is wrong, is to ask: ‘How would I tell my mother she is wrong?’ Anyway, all this is a little like: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And that’s an easy rule to remember — even if it’s sometimes hard to put into practice.

Now the question comes to mind: Did Jesus ever have to tell a woman she was wrong? Yes, in John 4 he meets a Samaritan woman by a well. And his task is to tell her she is a serial adulteress whose worship of God is all wrong. Surely a wonderful opportunity to pull out all the guns and really blast her!

But what does Jesus do? First, he speaks to her and asks a favor of her: “Will you give me a drink?” He shows her that he, like she, is a human being with needs, and suggests — subtly perhaps — that each of them can help the other. Secondly, the very fact that he speaks to her in a civil fashion fills her with amazement, because he is plainly a Jew and she is a Samaritan, never mind a woman. So he has treated her, already, with more kindness than most Jews would even think of; he has treated her as — surprise! — another human being of equal worth with himself. And he hasn’t even begun to rebuke her yet.

And so their conversation goes on. He slowly draws her out with spiritual analogies that intrigue her, and then finally he mentions her husband. This elicits her response, “I have no husband.” Now Jesus has the opening he was looking for. Does he pounce triumphantly? — ‘Aha, got you now!’ I don’t think so. He must have spoken his rebuke so gently, and after such a careful buildup, that the Samaritan woman, her sin finally exposed, is still not afraid of this strange man. Leaving her water jar, the woman goes back to the town to find all her friends. “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could he be the Messiah?”

And so Jesus’ rebuke of this woman’s sinful ways is carried out so carefully, so gently, and so kindly, that the last we see she has invited him to stay in the town, where for two additional days he speaks to many others who come to believe!

I think that’s how to tell a woman she is wrong. Now… if I could just remember that myself.

And maybe, when I’m wrong (IF that time ever comes!), she can remember to tell me in the same way.

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat” (Theodore Roosevelt).

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15).

The enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman is equivalent to the enmity between the mind of the flesh and the mind of the spirit:

“For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom 8:6,7).

But Jesus brought an end to that enmity, in himself:

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

God’s plan of salvation required that His only-begotten Son be subject to the same weak flesh, or “nature”, as all other men, but that nevertheless he would do what no other man had or could do, that is, overcome the mind of the flesh (or the mind of the serpent) by giving himself over completely to the mind of the Spirit of God. In doing this, Jesus “condemned” (ie, pronounced judgment against) the “sinful” principle of the flesh.

Put another way, Jesus — being, like us, a partaker of flesh and blood, nevertheless “destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the devil” — or the diabolos (Heb 2:14,15).

The same principle is demonstrated typically, prophetically, and pictorally, by the brazen serpent lifted up on the stake in the wilderness (Num 21), a figure which Jesus appropriated to himself:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14,15).

How could Jesus equate himself with a serpent? This is an extraordinary and improbable figure of speech, and only makes sense — I would suggest — if the “serpent” describes the flesh, or “nature”, with its susceptibility to a “carnal mind”, which Jesus possessed — a “nature” or disposition of mind which, by God’s grace, he overcame, condemned, and destroyed by his faithful obedience to the Spirit-will of his Father.

Whereas Job was plainly a righteous, indeed a “perfect” man (Job 1:1) — under extreme testing, physical and mental and spiritual, he came up short. But this should be no reflection on him; almost certainly, none of us would have fared nearly so well as did he.

And that seems, to me, to be one of the key features of the Book of Job. Even though Job is a type of Christ — and that is very plain to see — he can, of necessity, be nothing more than an imperfect type! The very best of men, tested in something like the way that Jesus would be tested, while comporting himself very well in the beginning, and enduring fairly well the continued trials (brought on by his “friends”!)… still came up short: drifting down into self-pity and anger and bitterness.

But, of course, it would ill become us to make any disparaging remarks about Job’s reactions to his extreme trials. What might our reactions have been, in similar circumstances? I almost hesitate to ask the question, for fear of… whatever!

The Book of Job is there in the Bible, I think, to remind us: here’s what the VERY BEST or men could do with something approaching the VERY WORST of trials. Job is both a comparison and a contrast, to Christ. And in his great trial, and his (relative) coming short, Job simply emphasizes to us the incredible nature of the character and trials and sufferings of our Lord. How humbling is that!

I am a sports fan, and baseball is my game, especially. It’s interesting, from a historical perspective, to note that in the history of baseball — with literally thousands of players participating on the highest level for well over 100 years — there have been maybe a dozen pitchers who could consistently throw a baseball over 100 miles per hour. Hundreds and hundreds of pitchers can hit, maybe, 95 miles per hour; and thousands could generate, say, 90 miles per hour. But only the very, very greatest could have occasionally thrown a baseball at 100 or 102 miles per hour — and they are legendary: Walter Johnson, Satchel Paige, Bob Feller, Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson. (For perspective’s sake, very good amateur pitchers might hit 80 mph — and ordinary people, on the best days of their young lives, might throw a baseball at something like 60 mph.)

Anyway, with that in perspective, suppose there came along a pitcher would could consistently throw a baseball… let us, say, 150 miles per hour. Well, first of all, it would revolutionize the game of baseball — such a baseball would be, for all practical purposes — unhittable. The very rules of the game would have to be changed. (120 miles per hour would probably be unhittable, for that matter.)

In the realm of such pitching (which, admittedly, has limited value otherwise — but just for the sake of discussion), a Walter Johnson or a Bob Feller would be… Job. The extraordinarily talented or gifted man — one among thousands — whose feats are so far beyond other mortals as to make their comparison with him ludicrous.

But alongside such a “superman”, how would we characterize the man who could throw half again faster than he?

“By faith Abraham, even though he was past age– and Sarah herself was barren– was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise” (Heb 11:11).

So the writer to the Hebrews clearly implies that Abraham was in fact “past age” to become a father (as does Rom 4:18,19).

“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” (Gen 17:17).

Is it possible that Abraham laughed, not the laughter of doubt, but of joy and hope based on faith (Joh 8:56; Rom 4:19)? And so the question may be one of amazed wonderment.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad” (Joh 8:56).

“Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” [Gen 15:5] Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead — since he was about a hundred years old — and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised” (Rom 4:18-21).

Yet “against all hope”, Abraham “did not waver through unbelief”. Sounds like he must have known that he, at the age of 99 or 100, could not have children… and this despite the evident fact that his father has fathered him at the age of 130.

My guess (and it can only be a guess) is that (1) Abraham had experienced some debilitating disease, and/or (2) (how to put this delicately?) he simply knew in his own personal experience what no observer could know… that, humanly speaking, he could no longer father children. Although Abraham was not nearly as old as his father Terah had been when he was born, still he knew that — as far as he was concerned — he was “past age”!

Yet he still believed God, against all the evidence of his own body! And the laughter (Heb “tsachaq”) of Abraham and then of Sarah — whether a joyful or a incredulous laughter, or something of both — found expression, when another year rolled around, in the naming of their infant son, “Yitzhaq”, Isaac, “Laughter”:

“Now the LORD was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did for Sarah what he had promised. Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. Abraham gave the name Isaac [‘Isaac’ means ‘he laughs’] to the son Sarah bore him. When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. Sarah said, God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me” (Gen 21:1-6).

Now the birth of any child can inspire, in its parents, the profoundest and most subtle of “laughter”, the sheer joy of new life, the miracle and wonder of God’s ongoing creative process, in which even humans may be blessed to have a part. The joy of recognition, at some level, that God has not yet given up on the human race, since He is still allowing new “entrants”! The joy of looking at a future, and hoping for a future, of which the newborn may be a part.

I think something of all this was in the minds of the parents as they looked upon their son. And they named him “Laughter”. As Sarah put it, “Everyone who hears will laugh with me!”

Can we laugh with joy that the old couple could still, by God’s grace, have a special child of promise? “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” (Gen 18:14).

And can we laugh with joy that the young virgin could, by the power of the Highest, conceive and bear a son who would at the same time be Son of man and Son of God… and set the angels singing in the heavens? “For nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37).

The babe in the manger in Bethlehem… his name is “Laughter” too! We should all laugh together, in joy that God is still “creating”! In joy that He hasn’t yet given up on the human race! In joy that, through His Son, he is still looking for new “sons” and “daughters” to be “born anew” in Him! In joy that in times and places where no human power is sufficient, God is still working! And in joy that God’s future is — through His Son — bright with promise!

So, come on, everybody. Laugh!