(This post is the first "answer" to a series of questions that haunt pastors. You can submit a question here. I have a great one to start next week, so check-in on Monday and discuss with me.) Am I making a difference? I asked myself that as I drove home after church one Sunday afternoon. The question was still with me the next day when I woke up and went running. Running has always been a good time for me to think. So I started re-phrasing the question and being more specific about it. Many pastors probably wonder about this, and we attach our value to "how church is going." If it's going up, we feel up. If it's going down, we feel down. That's not a very good recipe for longevity of effective ministry. Let's dive in and explore this a little more. What am I really asking when I ask "Do I make a difference?" First, I think I mean specifically: "are there any changes in the lives of the people who hear me preach?" That is a question that I cannot answer directly. I can observe how people live and try to connect it to my influence. I can listen to people give compliments after a sermon. I even get compliments from people after months of hearing my preaching. But the cynical side of me has a hard time receiving them because I've always thought "actions speak louder than words." So what actions do I see among the people who hear me preach regularly? Again, the cynical side of me has an easy time coming up with negative responses to that question. I'll be honest, it's hard for me to find things to celebrate. Maybe I expect too much, or I expect it on a faster time-frame. A friend and mentor responded to my question on Facebook saying, "Look for the small advances." That's great advice. In fact, at our last Church Council meeting I had people share things they thought the church could celebrate, and hearing the responses was very encouraging. I'll be honest though, I'm inpatient, and I want to see big things. So, looking for the small advances helps, but it's not always satisfying. Another issue is how my denominational system tracks "fruitfulness." The main focus has been worship attendance, which can trend up over time, but has dips in between. So if you measure each week by that, it can be a stressful roller coaster ride. We also track "professions of faith" (a.k.a. conversions/commitments/decisions/confirmations), the number of people in "hands-on" mission & service, and the number of people involved in regular discipleship groups. We are always reminded that every number is a person, and every person matters, but a value ends up getting attached to the number. I just can't attach my value to numbers. So, what's the answer to this question about making a difference? What am I asking? What do I really want to know? That my life's work is not in vain, but has a value for eternity. I want to know that the preaching, the visits, the evangelism, the youth trips and camps, the VBS, etc. has impacted people's lives in such a way that those who have not had a close relationship with Jesus, will know him for eternity. My experience with Youth Ministry has shown me, that I may not see that until the students have grown into adulthood and choose to live as Christ-followers. And some students I may never see again in this lifetime. I may not know the answer to this question until eternity. So why ask? I think part of it is doubt, which we all face. It's one of those self-doubt voices that you have to be very careful about listening to. Too often, I forget that God in Jesus Christ has said "You, Ben, are valuable, my son. Your life is important to me. You will be apart of the great things of My Kingdom." In one sense, I already know the answer to my question: Yes, of course I make a difference. I am a beloved child of God. As long as I am faithful to God's call, God uses me to make a difference for the Kingdom of God. (If I am unfaithful, I am choosing to abandon God's call and kingdom even though God still offers it.) I am also reminded of how much encouragement and appreciation people need. I'm not the only one asking this question. All of us want to know. Have you taken time lately to go out of your way and show appreciation and encouragement for the Christ-followers who have invested in your life? Let them know they make a difference. Here's the answer: I do make a difference. I know it not because of a number, and not because people like me, and not because people do what I say. I know it because God proclaims it through Christ's death & resurrection, and God's willingness to adopt me as His own. Through Jesus Christ, I know it more and more each day, and one day...one glorious day, I will know it fully and completely in eternity. Many of my clergy friends are moving and have moved to new contexts for ministry in the past weeks and I thought this is relevant to getting to know people. Can/should we follow Jesus' example today? Is it ok for me as a Follower of Christ to just invite myself over into people's homes to spend time with them? What's the balance between respecting culture and violating etiquette? Let's take a deeper look at the story. Jesus does not just invite himself over out of the blue. Zach made a clear effort to try and get to know Jesus. Jesus responded and said, "I'm coming to your house." So, it would not be best to walk up to some random stranger and say "I'm coming to your house today." If that "stranger" is an acquaintance (or on the way to becoming one) and shows an interest in you and what you're about, then you can invite further conversation and invite yourself to their home. Also, notice that Jesus knows Zach's name. Whether it was divine foreknowledge, or if Zach was a well-known public figure, the story doesn't say. But, Jesus knows Zach's name. Again, this is not just a random stranger out of the blue. The story says Zach is a rich leader among tax collectors. Zach is a person of influence, and probably known in the community, which can be negative or positive (in this case, probably negative because he's a tax collector). And Jesus knows his name and calls him by name. I imagine Zach also knew Jesus' name. Why else would he be climbing a tree to try and see him? Ok, maybe he just did it because everyone else was crowding Jesus and Zach just wanted to see what the spectacle was. But even then, the buzz was probably going around: "Jesus is here." So they both probably knew of each other, but didn't necessarily know one another. So if you know a persons name, and they probably know yours, then you can invite yourself over to their home. Are you following me? Why am I discussing this? Because breaking cultural norms to reach people for Christ is tricky business. I need to fit in culturally, and speak the language, and follow the "rules," but the cause of Christ compels me to push the boundaries and take risks. Inviting myself over is a daunting risk, but if I know the person's name, and they've made an effort to know me, then I'm just returning the favor and seeking to know them more. This is how relationships start, and a relationship with me is a start to a relationship with Christ. So don't pass up the opportunity to violate etiquette and invite yourself over to strangers homes. They won't be strangers for long, and you have the chance to share your relationship with Christ by starting a new one. Take the risk. It's worth it. What do you think, is inviting yourself over going too far? How is it different from door-to-door evangelism? I think if you keep the above thoughts in mind and the person is becoming an acquaintance instead of a total stranger, then you're good to go. But honestly, for me, it's a very daunting task to step out, risk rejection and build a deeper relationship with some one I don't know. Again, the risk is worth it for the sake of Christ. I'm working on growing in this area myself, and I'm finding that yes, taking the risk is worth it. I I thought I would do something to keep me blogging on ministry leadership. So I have "questions that haunt a pastor."** These are things that would keep a pastor up at night, or at least continually searching. The way this will work is, at the beginning of each week I'll post a question, and then you can post your thoughts about it. At the end of the week, I'll post my reflection/answer about it. To give things a chance to catch on, I'll ask the question this week, but I would love people to submit questions here.
This week's question is "Am I Making A Difference?" I ask myself that at least weekly. Do you ask yourself that? How do you measure your effectiveness as a leader, pastor, teacher, minister? I don't want to say too much now because I'll save it for the reflection/answer later. **(I'm stealing the title from my friend and theologian, Tony Jones. His series "Questions that Haunt Christianity" focuses on issues that deal with Christian Theology and Spirituality. People submit questions that bug them about Christianity, and then Tony and his readers answer. It's been pretty good discussion over at Theoblogy, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/.) So, I got kind of busy with Easter and training for half marathons and I've neglected the blog. I'm going to start a different approach and build up some drafts so I can post more consistently...we'll see how that goes. Anyway, so way back a few months ago I read Tony Jones e-book on The Atonement titled A Better Atonement. (You can find my posts about atonement theory here: http://www.methodistmissionary.com/1/category/atonement/1.html) Tony basically had two main goals: 1) debunk some of our typical thinking about Original Sin, and 2) dethrone Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement from its prominence. He did this by presenting multiple theories of the atonement that have been presented throughout Christian history. The two most recently developed theories being "The Last Scapegoat" and "The Solidarity Theory". He does a good job giving a general overview of each and showing some fo the dangers. The Solidarity Theory is very intriguing and I never quite got around to it here on the blog. So here it is... The inspiration for the theory comes from Jurgen Moltmann. A great theologian whose experience of The Holocaust colors his theology. Speaking from that experience and his understanding of The Gospel, Moltmann puts forth the idea that Jesus' death on the cross is God's choice to be in solidarity with us in suffering. He uses the term "godforsakenness" to name the intense oppression and suffering that Christ faces on the cross, which is witnessed to by his saying "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Human beings also experience godforsakenness when experiencing oppression and suffering. God chooses to be with us through it all. This choice is very powerful for those who face incredible oppression and suffering. It means you are not alone, God is with you. That brings great hope. Here are the closing thoughts from Jones: Our call is to identify with Christ's suffering and death, much as he has identified with us. In his death, we are united with his suffering. And in identifying with his resurrection, we are raised to new life. This does not mean that Solidarity is the only and correct theory of The Atonement. I think the whole point of Jones' book is that Atonement Theories each express different aspects of the mystery of God's salvation of humanity. The theories of atonement are like golf clubs, you can pull out a different one depending on the context.
Ok, I have another chart for you. The last one I stole from facebook.com/journeychurch.org but this time I just kept the layout and changed most of the words myself. I'm trying to highlight a key difference about how evangelism is viewed or done differently. I'm calling it Attractional vs. Relational Evangelism.
In the attractional model, it's all about getting people to come to you. In the relational model, it's about going to meet people where they are in ordinary life and living as a Christ follower. Attractional methodology works to draw a crowd as quick as possible and offer a product (give a sales pitch). Relational methodology takes an investment of time and friendship. I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive. I think there is possibly a hybrid option here. BUT, I prefer the relational side. It makes sense. I've encountered Jesus Christ and that changes me and how I live. It should be natural that my relationship with Christ has an effect on all aspects of my life, especially all my other relationships. I do not draw myself out of culture, but I engage people through culture, at least the parts where my life intersects theirs. Relational takes a long-term view of building a relationship. The aim is to populate the kingdom of heaven on earth, not simply fill pews. The Relational Evangelist (which every Christian should be) brings the kingdom of heaven to people where they are, much like Jesus is depicted doing in the Gospels. We work to bring to the world: peace, justice, beauty, creativity, love, blessing, health, reconciliation, forgiveness, redemption--the values/ideas/lifestyle of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of heaven. Relational methodology is about influencing the people around you by the way you live (as Christ). The problem most of us "church people" face is that we "joined" a church and quit making new friends outside of church. We've disengaged. The way I've been taught to alleviate this problem as a leader is to have "bridge events" where we create space for "church people" to interact and build bridges with "non church people" (lack a good term for that). What if we took a different approach and used the events/activities that are already going on in our everyday ordinary lives? For example, I recently convinced another church to open their gym for some time for men to play basketball. I saw it as a way to invite people and build relationships with guys I don't know well. It is working. That is happening. But now I feel like I have to pull a "bait-n-switch" tactic to get them to "come to church". A better way would probably have been to go join an already existing basketball league/program in my community. Then I could build relationships and live out my faith in noticeable ways that my new friends would want to investigate further. A hybrid methodology is possible, but it is hard to avoid feeling a bit deceptive about a "bait-n-switch". The bridge event would need to have no hidden motive other than the stated good that the event does for the community. It would still provide a space for relational evangelists to mix and interact with "non church people" and begin building bridges and relationships. I consider this hybrid because you're still doing some marketing to get people to come to something instead of sending "church people" to go where "non church people" are and build relationships. What do you think? Am I on target? Any adjustments that you would suggest? This graphic captures exactly the transformation that I want the churches I lead to go through. This gives me lots of questions to answer:
How do I lead consumers who are so inundated with consumer culture to see church differently? We are so enveloped by consumerism, we don't even realize it. It is that pervasive here in the west as USAmericans. In fact, they way we typically describe the American Dream equivocates our ability to consume with success. So, how do I lead others to see things differently? It starts with me. Seek to consume less, and seek to serve/give more to/for/with God. How does being Missional change the time that we gather together on Sunday mornings? If an hour or so on Sunday morning is no longer a religious service to be consumed, what drives what we do during that hour or so? In the past, it seems like the songs we sing were chosen largely in part because they were consumable for people. You could probably say something similar about the sermons that are preached. It was an effort to sell God to consumers for what God can do for them. This is so different from the attractional, worship-driven model of evangelism. Is an average attendance number a good indicator for church health? Yes, but is worship the doorway to the Christian life as it has been in the past? It is a good indicator because it means you have more people who are being sent on mission. It can still function as a doorway for some (and even many), but maybe not in the way we've seen in the past. Why do I say this? Because if we're not trying to put out a product for consumption, then are we going to invest so much in doing over-the-top performance type of stuff? Let's be honest, the church cannot compete with Hollywood and professional concert venues--although we've done fairly well in many churches across the country. AND, I just don't think we SHOULD be trying to compete with the professional entertainers because we're not trying to put out a product to be consumed. However, we are trying to communicate and help people experience an Awesome God who can do more than any high-tech entertainment could even dream of. So I'm not saying we abandon all technology and excellence and professionalism. I'm just saying our motivations are different for using it, which will probably change the way we use it. What does that look like? I think we create it as we go in the context we are in, so it will look different for each group of people that gathers. One of my fears with stating it that way, though, is how do we keep worship from devolving into a product to be consumed. I think this graphic also indicates another shift (transformation) that needs to happen in the churches I lead. A movement away from programs, and a greater focus on people. I feel like we get so attached to our programs so much that we'll do anything to keep them going even though they're not reaching people. The example I've seen is Sunday School. Let me first say that I don't think Sunday School is inherently bad. People learning the bible and growing in their relationship with God is good. The problem is Sunday School has become an institution that we expect new people to be willing to jump into. I've heard church members complain and say, "I wish we had more people in Sunday School." Usually it's "I wish those young people would come to Sunday School." Those of you who are leaders of established churches with declining Sunday School know exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said, people growing in their relationship with God is a good thing. Let's find ways for people to be a part of a group where that happens in their context, whether or not it's a part of the institutional Sunday School--who cares? The important thing is people are growing in their faith and supporting one another in ways that they can't (or won't) in a large group of people. My one last reflection on this for today is applying this to Holy Communion/Eucharist/The Lord's Supper (or whatever you call the sacrament with bread and wine). The way I've experienced this sacrament in the churches I've been a part of is very individualistic and consumery (yes, I made that word up). Most of the time, it seems like communion is focused on me getting right with God. I remember what God has done for me in Jesus Christ. I consume the gift God gives, and it is my individual transaction. How is the Sacrament of Bread & Wine different when being Sent on mission is emphasized? How is it more communal encouragement and still personal? I've had more questions than answers, but it's discussion that we need to have. Tony Jones, in his book A Better Atonement, introduced me to a Theory of the Atonement I had not discovered before: The Last Scapegoat. I must say, it is very intriguing. Read the book to get Tony's full explanation of it, but I'll do my best to cover the gist of it.
According to Jones, this theory is developed by anthropologist and literary critic, René Girard. Jones quotes from James Alison in an article published here: http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng05.html, which describes Girard's way-of-thinking about humanity. Basically, he says that we all have a desire for what other humans have. This idea is called "mimetic desire." We want to be like others, and have what they have. Girard posits that this mimetic desire leads to rivalry and violence as we try to get what others have. This rivalry and violence grows and grows rampantly, until the community unites against a Scapegoat who takes on all of the guilt and is sacrificed. (I'll admit, that's probably not exactly the best explanation, but that's how I re-phrase it in my own words to try and explain it to you). Much of human religion was sacrificial religion until Judaism and Christianity changed things and wrote the story differently. Ultimately, Jesus Christ is the Last Scapegoat. Here's what Jones writes: "In Christ, God becomes the one who is rejected and expelled. That is, the scapegoat is not one of us who is sacrificed to appease an angry deity. Instead, the deity himself enters our society, becomes the scapegoat, and thereby eliminates the need for any future scapegoats or sacrifices." He then quotes James Alison's summary: "Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God's overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not." This makes some sense to me. I think this has some similarity to the Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement, which suggests that Jesus's actions inspire us to a better life. To me, what is intriguing about this Theory of the Atonement is that it emphasizes how Judaism and Christianity were different from the religions of their time. It shows how we were counter-cultural, choosing to show that the One True God is different than what the world had ever really experienced. It basically plots a course of human history that is entirely different than what had been in place prior to that. I think this is fairly consistent with the Narrative of the Scriptures. I think this is a culturally relevant way of talking about the Atonement to someone who has never known Jesus Christ. We all know envy, rivalry, jealousy and striving against one another. We know the violence of the world we live in. The Last Scapegoat Theory of the Atonement gives a way of communicating Jesus Christ as one who provides a different vision for life than envy, jealousy, rivalry, strife and violence. Christ brings peace, hope, love. Instead of working against each other, we can work together in harmony. I feel like I didn't really do this justice, so do your own reading and feel free to comment and adjust my explanation to more closely depict Girard's thought. I too should do some more study about it. So, in my recent study of theories of The Atonement, I bought an Amazon Prime membership so I could borrow for "free" Tony Jones' book, A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin. Then, yesterday, for Ash Wednesday, Tony puts it on sale for free to buy! Now I can't borrow another book for free until the month is up. (In actuality though, I was going to buy a Prime membership anyway, but I thought I'd share my experience of life messing with me, at least now I can read it on any device for "free".) Tony does a good job discussing Original Sin and the origins of how we think about it due to Augustine and others. Basically, Tony proposes that the notion that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin through biological parentage is ridiculous. Why should we be held accountable for someone else's sin? That's not justice. Tony reminds us of the corporate/social aspects of sin. Sin is bigger than just my individual, personal mistakes. The point he makes is that we inherit Death from Adam, but not the guilt of his sin. So that changes how one views The Atonement and the work of Christ. He then goes on to outline a few theories of The Atonement, ending with the one that he thinks is most helpful. He touches on the Penal Substitutionary or Satisfaction Theory of Atonement and in his words wishes to "dethrone" it from being the primary understanding of The Atonement. As you can guess, I agree. As I've already written in the last week, the PSToA can be useful, but for the most part can prove to be toxic to faith because it takes power away from the Resurrection and promotes a concept of justice that is not Restorative or Redemptive. Tony even includes some discussion of current proponents of PSToA Mark Driscoll and John Piper. He even discusses a conversation he had with Piper about different theories of the Atonement. All along the way, Jones reminds us these are just "theories" not scripture, and all of them can be used to communicate what God is doing in Jesus Christ on the Cross in different ways to different contexts. Jones also talks about the Christus Victor Theory of Atonement and The Ransom Captive Theory of Atonement, which are closely related to each other. He writes those off because he doesn't believe in Demons or personified evil like Satan. You can choose to agree or disagree as you please. I am ambivalent about it because I leave the possibility open that those things exist, but I doubt it. The last two theories of The Atonement are the ones that I think deserve the most thought: The Last Scapegoat and Solidarity. Since this post is getting long enough, I'll discuss those in a couple of future posts and conclude this one with some general thoughts on Tony's book. I recommend the book because it is a pretty quick read that is not overly academic. However, that is also my main complaint about it. It goes through everything very quickly. I really wish the Solidarity Theory of Atonement was developed more. Jones basically just quotes Jurgen Moltmann a few times to explain it. Including some reasons why this should dethrone PSToA would be nice. He would just have to answer the question: How is thinking of the Atonement in this way more helpful in today's context than PSToA? He had previously stated why he doesn't like PSToA, and he briefly says why he likes the Solidarity Theory of the Atonement, but I'm looking for more explanation. I guess "de-throning" PSToA is enough. He relativizes all of the theories as useful. If I were supporting a particular theory, I guess I would want to put it on the throne instead of PSToA. But as Tony says "It is just a theory, right?" All in all, it is a good read to get a quick overview of Theories of the Atonement. The ideas presented could be made into a much lengthier more academic book. You can also read Tony's blog, Theoblogy, at www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones So this past week, I talked about two different theories of Atonement, that emphasize different aspects of what God is revealing to us in scripture and through Jesus Christ. I think the Christus Victor and Solidarity theories of Atonement are more helpful to express what God accomplishes in Jesus Christ. Especially when you consider the USAmerican culture that we live in today. Not everybody agrees with me, but that's their problem. Part of my sermon mentioned that Jesus mentions Hell, but not as a place of eternal punishment and torment. He was actually talking about a real place that existed in his time, a valley called Gehenna. During my sermon, I only mentioned it as a trash heap like a city dump, but now I've done a little more research and discovered the imagery and metaphor Jesus was using goes even further. I know Wikipedia isn't always the greatest source of information, but It gives a quick overview of what Jesus meant by "Gehenna": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna. So, this Valley was a place that had historically seen Child Sacrifice and Human Sacrifice. Bodies would be burned there. Animals would come and gnash their teeth on the bones. It smelled bad. And people probably wept at the loss of life: their family, friends, sons and daughters. Basically, the worst think on earth. Something you would never want to see or experience...but people did. Does your life have experiences like that? Where suffering, grief, injustice and pain overwhelm you? Where you know things are absolutely wrong, and no one seems to care? Where it seems impossible for things to be made right? If so, I have Good News! JESUS CAME TO BE WITH YOU THROUGH THAT, AND TO RESCUE YOU FROM IT to ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN! One day, everything will be made right. Jesus' resurrection--being raised from the dead--was the first sign of the new life that is to come. Jesus was victorious over Death and Sin and Evil, and when he comes again, that work will be complete. That New Life can begin in you today through faith in Jesus Christ! That is the Good News of the Gospel. That is why I am thankful for heaven. Jesus rescued me and carried me through my darkest moments, and I have hope for the future--the best days are yet to come! Heaven is beginning now as Jesus and his body, the Church, live out God's purposes here on earth. The Holy Spirit is at work in me and the Church bringing heaven and New Life, helping God create "The New Creation." I'm excited! Are you? redletterchristians.org has an article that helped me think differently about Atonement, heaven and hell So, this last Sunday, I got off on a tangent that I didn't plan on going down. And I talked about something that I wasn't prepared to talk about: hell and eternal punishment. I didn't stay on that topic very long. But I know that I said some things in a way that I regret. The actual topic I was speaking about was "How Can I know God's Will for my Life?". The sermon for the most part went pretty well. I was trying to talk about reasons that we have great Joy and Love because God has saved us. That was when I turned to some teachings that I was taught growing up in conservative Christianity. I'm speaking of the most predominant Theory of Atonement taught among conservative Christianity today: The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Basically, the theory says that God is set on punishing (or Penalizing, hence Penal) Sinners by death. Jesus Christ is offered instead of sinners to take that punishment. Jesus is our Substitute. So by Jesus taking the punishment that was meant for us, we can be "Atoned" or have peace with God, and enjoy eternal life in Heaven. If we reject Jesus Christ, then we receive the punishment of Hell, eternal separation from God, torment. I believed that way of thinking for most of my childhood and teen years, and probably even into college. I never really liked it though. I felt that preachers used it to incite fear and proclaim threats, which they could then use to manipulate people into making a decision for Christ. I don't see that being God's way or Jesus Christ's way of working in the world. In fact, I seem to remember the New Testament saying, "perfect Love casts out fear." Even though I didn't agree with that way of thinking and preaching, I still did not pursue re-programming the 18+ years of that teaching in my brain. So it is unfortunately, the default way I think about the "Good News" of the Gospel: God saves us from the punishment of Hell so we can enjoy Heaven. You'd think in Seminary and through Board of Ordained Ministry Interviews, I would have clarified what I really think. Fortunately, yesterday I came across this article: http://www.redletterchristians.org/healing-toxic-faith-did-jesus-die-to-save-us-from-god/. Derek Flood does a good job of putting forth a different way of thinking about The Atonement, and showing why the Penal Substitution Theory is not simply "What the Bible says." The main issue he raises with it is the fact that it sets up a scenario where Jesus Christ dies to save us from God--why would we need to be saved from God? Isn't God Good? The PSToA isn't so much what the Bible reveals to us, rather it is some Christians imposing Punitive Justice upon the Bible. The article briefly presents the Christus Victor Theory of Atonement, that was taught by the church for many years before the PSToA took over: For the first thousand years, the work of Christ was understood primarily in terms of God’s act of healing people, and liberating them from the bonds of sin and death. This understanding of the atonement is known as Christus Victor. But gradually there was a shift towards a legal focus, and with it a focus on violent punishment. The message was flipped on its head: instead of the crucifixion being seen as an act of grave injustice (as it is portrayed in all four Gospels), there was a shift towards the claim that God had demanded the death of Jesus to quench his anger. Not coincidentally, this coincided with increased violence perpetrated by the church, and it went downhill from there. So, this Sunday, I plan to make up for my mistake and answer the question "Why does a Loving and Just God plan eternal punishment in Hell?" I can promise you that my answer is "He doesn't, and here's why..." It's time to have a Christ-like faith that brings healing, not fear.
|
About MeI am a Software Developer, a career shift made in 2018. So far, I have experience with C# .Net and Angular. I continue to let curiosity lead me into learning new technologies. I plan to share what I learn along the way about technology and personal/career life. Previously, my vocation was United Methodist pastor. So in addition to coding, I'll share about theology, the Church and The Bible. I also enjoy running, music, and I'm a deeply committed father and husband. Maybe my experiences will help you. I know it helps me to share. Archives
January 2019
Categories
All
|