According to Hebrews, it is by faith that we understand. And of course, if Christianity is actually true, that understanding requires knowledge of the invisible. By faith we know who God is, the truth that He created all things in the beginning and will judge all things in the future, and even present unseen realities like our union with Christ, our nature as Image of God, and the moral order. These invisible realities and their interconnections are at the heart of Christianity. Faith, therefore, is necessary for grasping the Christian vision of the world: it is by faith that we understand reality as it really is.

The things I love deeply are also the things that irk me most easily. And most profoundly. This makes sense: when we love, we care. (Likewise, indifference breeds apathy.) For nerds like me, this applies especially to books.
Let me first say that I love Luc Ferry’s little gem A Brief History of Thought. It’s a gem because it succinctly if simplistically traces through the whole history of the Western intellectual tradition by articulating four major epochs; and it does this by charting the ligaments between metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. So, so helpful.
But as this is the internet, we must race past vague, general praise toward concrete, specific, detailed, brash criticism.
Allow me, dear reader, to explain what irks me about Ferry’s book. Ferry thinks of philosophy as an attempt to construct a theory of salvation without recourse to divine revelation. In religious traditions, the divine brings salvation to humanity. In philosophical traditions, humanity seeks salvation on its own. In the introduction, Ferry puts it this way: “Unable to bring himself to believe in a God who offers salvation, the philosopher is above all one who believes that by understanding the world, by understanding ourselves and others as far as our intelligence permits, we shall succeed in overcoming fear, through clear-sightedness rather than blind faith.” (p. 6) I happen to think this is an unhelpful way to differentiate religion and philosophy, but what really irks me is that word ‘blind’…
Ferry is, of course, not alone in insinuating that religious faith is an agent of blindness, that to have faith is to shut oneself off from some aspect of reality, that faith requires persistent belief without evidence or even in the fact of evidence to the contrary. Both outside the church and, more troublingly, inside, Christians are often told that the claims they are meant to hold most dear, the claims they ought to order their lives around, are either irrational or, at best, a-rational. Anyway, the central, credal claims of Christians throughout history aren’t subject to the sort of careful, reasoned investigation that, in the physical universe known to humanity, only humans can undertake. We must simply believe.
1. Seeing the Invisible
The Scriptures paint a different picture of faith’s relationship to sight.
In the letter we know as 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul connects faith in God to Christians’ ability to suffer well. He writes:
For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. … Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, ‘I believe, and so I spoke,’ we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. … So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light and momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. … So we are always of good courage. … [F]or we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor. 4:6-10, 13-14, 16-18; 5:6a, 7)
Notice that Paul runs headlong into a connection between faith and knowledge: we believe by faith, and so speak, because we know we will be raised. This connection between faith and knowing, which is not unique to Paul, eliminates the idea that faith is opposed to knowing, and therefore to reasonable belief. Notice that Paul includes the faith-sight contrast in this very context. In whatever sense faith is opposed to sight, faith simply is not opposed to knowledge.
We can go further.
The author of Hebrews toys with the idea of knowing by faith through seeing the unseen as well. Moses is said to have endured the wrath of Pharaoh “as seeing him [that is, God] who is invisible”. (11:23) Moses looked to his unseen future reward. (11:22)
Hebrews goes beyond Paul: “By faith we understand”, it says. (11:3) The things understood are themselves invisible: the creation of the world by the Word, the promises of God fulfilled, Jesus seated at the right hand of God. This goes further than mere knowledge because understanding requires knowledge but is more than knowledge. Understanding is knowledge organized and applied. To understand is to systematize what you know and be able to utilize that knowledge in the right circumstances.
2. Understanding by Faith
In the context of religion—or, more broadly, any perspective on the whole of reality—understanding involves not just knowledge of certain religious facts, but the systematization of those facts.
Read More
Related Posts:

Tragically, when it comes to the contention that racism is the defining trait of the medical profession and the source of health disparities, opposing views have been ruled out of bounds and are grounds for being purged. The separation of politics and science is no longer seen as a source of empirical strength; it is instead a racist dodge that risks “reinforcing existing power structures.” 

The post–George Floyd racial reckoning has hit the field of medicine like an earthquake. Medical education, medical research, and standards of competence have been upended by two related hypotheses: that systemic racism is responsible both for racial disparities in the demographics of the medical profession and for racial disparities in health outcomes. Questioning those hypotheses is professionally suicidal. Vast sums of public and private research funding are being redirected from basic science to political projects aimed at dismantling white supremacy. The result will be declining quality of medical care and a curtailment of scientific progress.
Virtually every major medical organization—from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) to the American Association of Pediatrics—has embraced the idea that medicine is an inequity-producing enterprise. The AMA’s 2021 Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity is virtually indistinguishable from a black studies department’s mission statement. The plan’s anonymous authors seem aware of how radically its rhetoric differs from medicine’s traditional concerns. The preamble notes that “just as the general parlance of a business document varies from that of a physics document, so too is the case for an equity document.” (Such shaky command of usage and grammar characterizes the entire 86-page tome, making the preamble’s boast that “the field of equity has developed a parlance which conveys both [sic] authenticity, precision, and meaning” particularly ironic.)
Thus forewarned, the reader plunges into a thicket of social-justice maxims: physicians must “confront inequities and dismantle white supremacy, racism, and other forms of exclusion and structured oppression, as well as embed racial justice and advance equity within and across all aspects of health systems.” The country needs to pivot “from euphemisms to explicit conversations about power, racism, gender and class oppression, forms of discrimination and exclusion.” (The reader may puzzle over how much more “explicit” current “conversations” about racism can be.) We need to discard “America’s stronghold of false notions of hierarchy of value based on gender, skin color, religion, ability and country of origin, as well as other forms of privilege.”
A key solution to this alleged oppression is identity-based preferences throughout the medical profession. The AMA strategic plan calls for the “just representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as . . . leadership ranks.” The lack of “just representation,” according to the AMA, is due to deliberate “exclusion,” which will end only when we have “prioritize[d] and integrate[d] the voices and ideas of people and communities experiencing great injustice and historically excluded, exploited, and deprived of needed resources such as people of color, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+, and those in rural and urban communities alike.”
According to medical and STEM leaders, to be white is to be per se racist; apologies and reparations for that offending trait are now de rigueur. In June 2020, Nature identified itself as one of the culpably “white institutions that is responsible for bias in research and scholarship.” In January 2021, the editor-in-chief of Health Affairs lamented that “our own staff and leadership are overwhelmingly white.” The AMA’s strategic plan blames “white male lawmakers” for America’s systemic racism.
And so medical schools and medical societies are discarding traditional standards of merit in order to alter the demographic characteristics of their profession. That demolition of standards rests on an a priori truth: that there is no academic skills gap between whites and Asians, on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics, on the other. No proof is needed for this proposition; it is the starting point for any discussion of racial disparities in medical personnel. Therefore, any test or evaluation on which blacks and Hispanics score worse than whites and Asians is biased and should be eliminated.
The U.S. Medical Licensing Exam is a prime offender. At the end of their second year of medical school, students take Step One of the USMLE, which measures knowledge of the body’s anatomical parts, their functioning, and their malfunctioning; topics include biochemistry, physiology, cell biology, pharmacology, and the cardiovascular system. High scores on Step One predict success in a residency; highly sought-after residency programs, such as neurosurgery and radiology, use Step One scores to help select applicants.
Black students are not admitted into competitive residencies at the same rate as whites because their average Step One test scores are a standard deviation below those of whites. Step One has already been modified to try to shrink that gap; it now includes nonscience components such as “communication and interpersonal skills.” But the standard deviation in scores has persisted. In the world of antiracism, that persistence means only one thing: the test is to blame. It is Step One that, in the language of antiracism, “disadvantages” underrepresented minorities, not any lesser degree of medical knowledge.
The Step One exam has a further mark against it. The pressure to score well inhibits minority students from what has become a core component of medical education: antiracism advocacy. A fourth-year Yale medical student describes how the specter of Step One affected his priorities. In his first two years of medical school, the student had “immersed” himself, as he describes it, in a student-led committee focused on diversity, inclusion, and social justice. The student ran a podcast about health disparities. All that political work was made possible by Yale’s pass-fail grading system, which meant that he didn’t feel compelled to put studying ahead of diversity concerns. Then, as he tells it, Step One “reared its ugly head.” Getting an actual grade on an exam might prove to “whoever might have thought it before that I didn’t deserve a seat at Yale as a Black medical student,” the student worried.
The solution to such academic pressure was obvious: abolish Step One grades. Since January 2022, Step One has been graded on a pass-fail basis. The fourth-year Yale student can now go back to his diversity activism, without worrying about what a graded exam might reveal. Whether his future patients will appreciate his chosen focus is unclear.
Every other measure of academic mastery has a disparate impact on blacks and thus is in the crosshairs.
In the third year of medical school, professors grade students on their clinical knowledge in what is known as a Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE). The MSPE uses qualitative categories like Outstanding, Excellent, Very Good, and Good. White students at the University of Washington School of Medicine received higher MSPE ratings than underrepresented minority students from 2010 to 2015, according to a 2019 analysis. The disparity in MSPEs tracked the disparity in Step One scores.
The parallel between MSPE and Step One evaluations might suggest that what is being measured in both cases is real. But the a priori truth holds that no academic skills gap exists. Accordingly, the researchers proposed a national study of medical school grades to identify the actual causes of that racial disparity. The conclusion is foregone: faculty bias. As a Harvard medical student put it in Stat News: “biases are baked into the evaluations of students from marginalized backgrounds.”
A 2022 study of clinical performance scores anticipated that foregone conclusion. Professors from Emory University, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the University of California at San Francisco, among other institutions, analyzed faculty evaluations of internal medicine residents in such areas as medical knowledge and professionalism. On every assessment, black and Hispanic residents were rated lower than white and Asian residents. The researchers hypothesized three possible explanations: bias in faculty assessment, effects of a noninclusive learning environment, or structural inequities in assessment. University of Pennsylvania professor of medicine Stanley Goldfarb tweeted out a fourth possibility: “Could it be [that the minority students] were just less good at being residents?”
Goldfarb had violated the a priori truth. Punishment was immediate. Predictable tweets called him, inter alia, possibly “the most garbage human being I’ve seen with my own eyes,” and Michael S. Parmacek, chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Medicine, sent a schoolwide e-mail addressing Goldfarb’s “racist statements.” Those statements had evoked “deep pain and anger,” Parmacek wrote. Accordingly, the school would be making its “entire leadership team” available to “support you,” he said. Parmacek took the occasion to reaffirm that doctors must acknowledge “structural racism.”
That same day, the executive vice president of the University of Pennsylvania for the Health System and the senior vice dean for medical education at the University of Pennsylvania medical school reassured faculty, staff, and students via e-mail that Goldfarb was no longer an active faculty member but rather emeritus. The EVP and the SVD affirmed Penn’s efforts to “foster an anti-racist curriculum” and to promote “inclusive excellence.”
Despite the allegations of faculty racism, disparities in academic performance are the predictable outcome of admissions preferences. In 2021, the average score for white applicants on the Medical College Admission Test was in the 71st percentile, meaning that it was equal to or better than 71 percent of all average scores. The average score for black applicants was in the 35th percentile—a full standard deviation below the average white score. The MCATs have already been redesigned to try to reduce this gap; a quarter of the questions now focus on social issues and psychology.
Yet the gap persists. So medical schools use wildly different standards for admitting black and white applicants. From 2013 to 2016, only 8 percent of white college seniors with below-average undergraduate GPAs and below-average MCAT scores were offered a seat in medical school; less than 6 percent of Asian college seniors with those qualifications were offered a seat, according to an analysis by economist Mark Perry. Medical schools regarded those below-average scores as all but disqualifying—except when presented by blacks and Hispanics. Over 56 percent of black college seniors with below-average undergraduate GPAs and below-average MCATs and 31 percent of Hispanic students with those scores were admitted, making a black student in that range more than seven times as likely as a similarly situated white college senior to be admitted to medical school and more than nine times as likely to be admitted as a similarly situated Asian senior.
Such disparate rates of admission hold in every combination and range of GPA and MCAT scores. Contrary to the AMA’s Organizational Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity, blacks are not being “excluded” from medical training; they are being catapulted ahead of their less valued white and Asian peers.
Though mediocre MCAT scores keep out few black students, some activists seek to eliminate the MCATs entirely. Admitting less-qualified students to Ph.D. programs in the life sciences will lower the caliber of future researchers and slow scientific advances. But the stakes are higher in medical training, where insufficient knowledge can endanger a life in the here and now. Nevertheless, some medical schools offer early admissions to college sophomores and juniors with no MCAT requirement, hoping to enroll students with, as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai puts it, a “strong appreciation of human rights and social justice.” The University of Pennsylvania medical school guarantees admission to black undergraduates who score a modest 1300 on the SAT (on a 1600-point scale), maintain a 3.6 GPA in college, and complete two summers of internship at the school. The school waives its MCAT requirement for these black students; UPenn’s non-preferred medical students score in the top one percent of all MCAT takers.
According to race advocates, differences in MCAT scores must result from test bias. Yet the MCATs, like all beleaguered standardized tests, are constantly scoured for questions that may presume forms of knowledge particular to a class or race. This “cultural bias” chestnut has been an irrelevancy for decades, yet it retains its salience within the anti-test movement. MCAT questions with the largest racial variance in correct answers are removed. External bias examiners, suitably diverse, double-check the work of the internal MCAT reviewers. If, despite this gauntlet of review, bias still lurked in the MCATs, the tests would underpredict the medical school performance of minority students. In fact, they overpredict it—black medical students do worse than their MCATs would predict, as measured by Step One scores and graduation rates. (Such overprediction characterizes the SATs, too.) Nevertheless, expect a growing number of medical schools to forgo the MCATs, in the hope of shutting down the test entirely and thus eliminating a lingering source of objective data on the allegedly phantom academic skills gap.
Meantime, medical professors need to be reeducated, to ensure that their grading and hiring practices do not provide further evidence of the phantom skills gap. Faculty are routinely subjected to workshops in combating their own racism. On May 3, 2022, the Senior Advisor to the NIH Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity gave a seminar at the University of Pennsylvania medical school titled “Me, Biased? Recognizing and Blocking Bias.” Senior Advisor Charlene Le Fauve’s mandate at NIH is to “promote diversity, inclusiveness, and equity in the biomedical research enterprise through evidence-based approaches.” Yet her presentation rested heavily on a supposed measure of bias that evidence has discredited: the Implicit Association Test (IAT).The IAT’s own creators have acknowledged that it lacks validity and reliability as a psychometric tool.
Increasing amounts of faculty time are spent on such antiracism activities. On May 16, 2022, the Anti-Racism Program Manager at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles hosted a presentation from the Director of Strategy and Equity Education Programs at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai titled “Anti-Racist Transformation in Medical Education.” Mount Sinai’s Dean for Medical Education and a medical student joined Mount Sinai’s Director of Strategy and Equity Education Programs for the Los Angeles presentation, since spreading the diversity message apparently takes precedence over academic obligations in New York.
Grand rounds is a century-long tradition for passing on the latest medical breakthroughs. (Thomas Eakins’s great 1889 canvas, The Agnew Clinic, portrays an early grand rounds at the University of Pennsylvania.) Rounds are now a conduit for antiracism reeducation. On May 12, 2022, the Vice Chair for Diversity and Inclusion at the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Medicine gave a grand rounds at the Cleveland Clinic on the topic “In the Absence of Equity: A Look into the Future.” Afterward, attendees would be expected to describe “exclusion from a historical context” and the effects of “hierarchy on health outcomes”; attendance would confer academic credit toward doctors’ continuing-education obligations.
Read More
Related Posts:

We, Reformed Church of Los Angeles, have been probably one of the most conservative churches in the RCA since we planted, but they were always good to us and always let us be. The RCA is egalitarian, but we’re complementarian. The RCA has made accommodations for Baptists, but we’re Reformed. The RCA is confessional and holds to the Three Forms of Unity, but RCA churches were no longer unified under our beloved confessions. We’ve (RCLA) been questioned many times regarding our specific beliefs and practices and asked point blank if we’re aligned with the RCA’s practices. I say practice because on paper, the RCA remains orthodox as it pertains to sexuality, marriage, and gender, but in practice things are very different from Classis to Classis and that’s what folks are really getting at when asking.

A New Denominational Home for Reformed Church of Los Angeles (RCLA)
In the last few days, I’ve been inundated with friends reaching out to share an article that was just posted in Religion News on January 7, 2022 titled, “Reformed Church in America splits as conservative churches form new denomination.” I’ve read it, heard feedback from both conservative and progressive ends of the Reformed Church in America and it hasn’t all been honest nor loving, and I’ve seen implied condescension from both sides regarding the other.
I saw a post on social media yesterday that someone re-tweeted, now I’m not a fan of the original author but I couldn’t agree more with what was stated. The Tweet was addressed to Christian leaders in their 20’s & 30’s encouraging folks to be merciful in word AND in deed and to be very slow to publicly condemn and cancel folks. I feel, though, that it is especially relevant to Christian leaders older than that, especially within my own beloved Reformed camp. We’ve been known to be harsh… and what I’ve observed regarding the above referenced article proves this.
We, Reformed Church of Los Angeles, have been probably one of the most conservative churches in the RCA since we planted, but they were always good to us and always let us be. The RCA is egalitarian, but we’re complementarian. The RCA has made accommodations for Baptists, but we’re Reformed. The RCA is confessional and holds to the Three Forms of Unity, but RCA churches were no longer unified under our beloved confessions. We’ve (RCLA) been questioned many times regarding our specific beliefs and practices and asked point blank if we’re aligned with the RCA’s practices. I say practice because on paper, the RCA remains orthodox as it pertains to sexuality, marriage, and gender, but in practice things are very different from Classis to Classis and that’s what folks are really getting at when asking.
Whereas some Classis are known for being very conservative, others are known for being extremely progressive. Whereas some in the RCA take pride (the good kind) in the “reformed identity,” others would stake their flag in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith instead of the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort, or the Heidelberg Catechism. All this to say that the time came in which we came to the realization that there was nothing really keeping us in alignment with the Reformed Church in America. Let me say this now, very clearly, so that there is no doubt, that Reformed Church of Los Angeles (RCLA) is no longer a part of the Reformed Church in America (RCA). Our decision to part ways was extremely, extremely painful as we’ve got relationships with some amazing folks that will remain… one of the greatest pains is because of Eddy Aleman, the General Secretary, who is also my spiritual father. The RCA, through him, discipled me and gave me many opportunities, for which I am so grateful. But it was simply our time to leave and serve Christ as He has called us to our specific ministry, in our context, and with our understanding of the Bible.
Back in 2010, fresh out of prison as a new Christian and stepping into the RCA, I had no idea of the vast hermeneutical differences within until I started serving at the denominational level. I didn’t know that there were so many different perspectives on a myriad of issues. I thought everyone baptized babies. I thought everyone stood upon our beloved Heidelberg Catechism of 1536. I thought everyone was complementarian. I thought everyone was about church planting. I’m not gonna lie, my heart broke when I came to the awareness that we weren’t all on the same page, but that’s where God had placed me, that’s where God raised me, discipled me, and also challenged me on my own beliefs as well. I’m all about unity, about peace… but purity is imperative, and I feel that with so many different perspectives the RCA had lost that. I mean, there simply can’t be that many different understandings of Scripture and all be right at the same time… someone has got to have it wrong. So, can there be unity and peace at the cost of purity? We came to the conclusion that there simply could not, especially as it involves a hermeneutic that we’d say deviates from Scripture and leads to and affirms sin.
Now, please don’t read or hear what I’m not saying. I am not saying that those who remain in the RCA are wrong, that they’re all liberal or progressive. I know that there are many faithful churches who wish to maintain unity, to preserve the almost 400-year history and fight to make it work, God bless them and I pray things work out the way they hope. I pray that the unadulterated Gospel is proclaimed, that the Jesus of the Bible is preached, taught, and used to disciple. But we don’t want to be in ecclesial partnerships with the ELCA, UCC, PCUSA, and other progressive mainline denominations. We’d rather realign ourselves with more conservative folks, Reformed and confessional folks, folks with a heart for church planting.
For us, however, at Reformed Church LA, a confessional church plant in the hood, who is trying to plant other confessionally Reformed churches in hard places, it was actually counter-productive to remain in the RCA. This wasn’t a quick and painless decision, as I’ve already referenced, but it was a long process, it was one saturated in prayer, with much hard work. There is and was a lot of talk, posting, gossip, accusations, and slander towards the Vision 2020 Team who’d been tasked to work together to help recommend the best way forward for the RCA. I was a part of this team, I don’t think I agreed with most of the perspectives that were represented in that group of just 12 people. But we loved each other, we met almost every other month for over 2 years, taking time away from our ministries and families in order to meet, talk, pray, and work through differences in order to be faithful to our calling and offer the best way forward for the RCA. I gave it my all, I tried over and over, but realized it just wouldn’t work. So, whether I agree with the outcome or not, I won’t throw a grenade on my way out (I hope this isn’t interpreted as throwing a grenade).
I fought alongside others, to help make sure that what happened in other denominational splits, such as the PCUSA, did not happen in the RCA. For those that aren’t familiar with that story, when the Presbyterian Church USA split over the same things many years ago, those churches that didn’t agree with the direction the PCUSA was taking, regarding sexuality/ gender, etc. were forced to buy back, yes, to repurchase their own buildings. I wanted to make sure that if a conservative church in a progressive Classis wanted to exit, that they could do so and keep their assets. In the same way, if a progressive church was in a conservative Classis, that they too could leave, keep their assets, and not be kept hostage. All this to say that as a church plant, RCLA has got more to lose than gain as it pertains to material or financial issues in leaving the RCA. We don’t own a building, we don’t have much money, most of our support was coming from the RCA, or RCA churches and RCA relationships, but in the end we will NOT compromise our convictions for the sake of financial support.
That left us with the million-dollar question, where to now? By God’s grace and providence, He’d already connected us to friends in the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), and the URCNA (United Reformed Churches in North America). We’ve got great connections with them all, and we even hosted a joint Evangelism Conference a couple years ago spearheaded by a Black PCA guy, a Korean OPC guy, and a Mexican Dutch Reformed guy (me). We think those three are all viable choices, however, in the end after much prayer and discernment, we felt that God was calling us to partner with our brothers in the URCNA. We’ll now be a NAPARC church (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council) and partnered with folks who we’ll be in alignment with theologically, confessionally, and practically.
Many folks told us to remain non-denominational, but we don’t believe one can be Reformed and not connected to a denomination. While we’re an A29 Church, and partnered missionally with them as we strive together to make a global impact for Christ in planting Gospel-Centered churches, A29 is not a denomination, so like many others within our A29 Network, we will be dual-affiliated. In case you’re wondering why remain with Acts 29 since we’ll now be denominationally connected? The simple answer is, you must not know about A29 and that we are church planting BEASTS!!! I’ve not seen any denomination ever do the work that they’ve done and are doing. These are the brothers that are in the church planting trenches with us, that know the struggles, that know the hardships that come with planting in hard places (AKA The Hood).
So what now? That’s a great question! Well, Reformed Church of Los Angeles has officially submitted paperwork to petition a colloquium doctum for myself and my brother Chris Márquez to be interviewed/ examined and then if by God’s grace we pass, we’ll be called by our brother Rev. Danny Hyde of Oceanside URC and logistically receive oversight and support as well from Rev. Dan Borvan of Grace URC in Torrance, and we have also had some great convos with my homie Rev. Chris Gordon of Escondido URC about partnering with them too. God is providing some dope connections, some amazing support, guidance, and wisdom from men like these. We’re excited and look forward to a bright future of what lay ahead for us all as we endeavor to transfer into the URCNA.
We wish our friends well, we pray for the RCA, and ask that you too would pray for them and us as we embark on the same journey, with new companions for the long road ahead as we preach Christ to the nations, but start in our own backyards. I saw an image that forever burned in my memory that says, “Reach the world, but touch the hood first!” and that’s exactly what we hope to do with the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The same one who lived a perfect life we never could and died a death that was meant for us, that if we’d believe, we’d be saved from God’s wrath for having broken His Law. It is my prayer that you too, would trust in Christ, repent from your sins, and be saved. #HoodGrace
Source