Fellowship of Faith

Part of the “on again and off again” related to our lack of proximity. More of it had to do with the same dissatisfaction regarding the Sunday-going-to-meeting institutional ideal we’d left behind years ago. We’d go for to the house church thing for a while and then back off. We hoped things would become more productive and then realize once again it is not likely.

One thing we’ve found everywhere we’d go is a disparity between the rising aura of books writers, group discussions and conferences— that bat around Ephesians 4:11-14— compaired to reality in group practice.

There’s attractiveness to the idea of every believer having a gifting and calling. Wouldn’t we all love to be active, significant, productive and impactful both for God and His kingdom?

However, on a real level, at least in my experience in a lot of places, I have not found a practical group reality of God giving some as apostles and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, [NASB]. This says nothing of the reason God gave these to us:

1. Until we all attain to the unity of the faith
2. To mature man, (women also) to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ
3. That we areno longer to be children (naïve, simpleminded)
   • (not) tossed here and there by waves (perhaps social/political instability or the ever shifting religious philosophical ideas)
   • (not) carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (cults, controllers, deceivers…)

Questioning???

IF God really gave us these giftings and callings, or perhaps more exactly, IF we recognize such and operated with the reality of God’s gift to each believer, what would happen? How would we function? How would we allow this to develop in our groups and would we facilitate it?

We hardly need more books illuminating us on the subject of the believer’s priesthood. Look at all we have and yet there is near famine of the reality regarding the priesthood of every believer. Yes, there are pockets that are encouraging. However, we shouldn’t even start to feel accomplishment yet.

Reality We Need To Deal With:

In the New Testament [NT] we are informed in at least two places of various giftings or callings being given to believers. Nowhere are these lists said to encompass just a few special people. Both are addressed to “all” in the local fellowship, as if all are expected to be operational or moving toward a reality of multiple widespread uses of these giftings both in the fellowship and outside.

Key Details:

No one has all the truth. Therefore, we need the plurality of gifts operating within a group to have as much truth available to us as is possible among believers.

Why is it that all functions given in Ephesians 4:11-14 are not operational in all fellowships today? Why is one function honored above all others in both “house church” as well as its institutional counterpart?

I feel there are a several problems, pandemic within what we call church, in whichever type you care to analyze.

1. Since all gifts are not functional; direction, leadership and objectivity are sought in a central figure or focus [this figure is not God]
2. There is no path through growth, maturation, to application of all the gifts/callings
3. Simultaneous concurrence of all gifts is not a reality because of the first two points

A friend of mine once quipped, if we were to take a car to a repair shop and ask the mechanic to repair it but we removed 4/5^th of the tools he needed to do it; the repair could not be made and the repairman would think you nuts to purpose such notion. Yet, this is exactly what we do in “church” of all types, with few exceptions.

No Path To Maturity In Giftings:

How do we perceive apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in our midst or as a gift begins to show itself in maturing believers?

How do these spiritual tenderfoots grow in a role such as prophet, teacher and the like?

Is spiritual osmosis in a desert of no specific help the only means for believers to grow in these functions? I am afraid that this IS more a reality than many care to admit.

The current culture of “church” real or otherwise does not have a good apparatus for training up everyday people in the use and employment of all giftings. If they offer training, most is stilted toward one gift/function as a stand alone to a near denial of all others. In addition, this is usually for special people through the means of  Bible Schools/Seminaries/Missions Schools. The regular “joe” in the pew doesn’t stand a chance of ever doing more than warming pews and throwing money.

In other instances, we’ve seen places where “prophets” run wild or where “the pastor” is the be-all-end-all… This type of reality is so often skewed to a very nuanced ideal rather than the biblically practical outworking we see in scripture.

Religious Showmen

Many modern examples “prophets,” they are more like TV psychics and showmen who come-on to a crowd with generalities that could fit a significant number of people in any group, “I sense someone here with and inner ear ache” at a meeting in the dead of winter in Mankato, MN. Or you’ve heard the, “thus saith the ‘Lord,’” thrown behind some biblesque pronunciations from someone titled a prophet? This is not meant to slam; but rather to illustrate endless examples we’ve all seen …

Additional to, “no path to maturity” in a real giftings, according to scriptures delineation and employment of them, is the problem of no place to use them. Our meetings, even in “house church” are more activity based: meaning there is only a short duration to them and they are reoccurring. It is still something we do, very occasionally, rather than something we are 24/7. There is little place and time for the gifts and callings of God to function in our contexts because “regular life” surrounds the interspersed times we meet and do the thing so often called church.

Simultaneous Concurrence:

If we’re determine to be a fellowship of the kingdom of God, which is based on relationships (community and mutual synergized ministry) then we need to train and bless people into the ministries God is calling them to rather than a slot of religious busyness in a weekend show. We need to help to envision, guide and launch people into what God has for them. This is what leadership should accomplish.

This does not mean all the giftings separate into sub-fellowships according to their genre. God has a purpose to multiply His body. Yet each local fellowship must have all gift components operating with in it or be waiting upon God to provide these components. Speaking anatomically, each part of the human body has traces of water and potassium as a part of basic biological makeup. Yet each part has a different function. Not only can the physical body not function without all its parts, neither can each of those parts function without these common components, which also happens to be common between them all.

Once we’ve gotten to the level of all gifts in all groups, how do we function together?

Once we determine the gifts in people, how do we/they grow in application?

How does a mercy person deal with the perceived “harshness” of a prophet type? How does the vastness of an evangelist deal with the plodding of family ministry and body life?

In the same way everyone cannot be rambling in tongues or it will be bedlam; all giftings indiscriminately being thrown in at the same time in a context will be equally dysfunctional.

All believers need to realize the giftings of the other in the group or in any context in which believers are together. The mercy person isn’t totally “right” neither is the prophet type. The outreach of an evangelist does not trump pastoring of people and families in a fellowship. The same is true between all of the functions God has given as gifts.

What can we do?

Listening, consideration and security in God’s guidance and orchestration:

purposeful listening

Listening – As people are moved to share or do something the group should discern the detail. Not everyone who says, “God told me” are for fact listening to God. They need to realize this and the group needs not be led around helplessly because someone throws the “trump card” – God told me. In the group process all will learn and grow. As other things are brought out in the group; listening and dialog help understand how a detail fits with everything the group knows to be God’s purpose in their midst. When a different type of gifting brings something to the table the same approach should apply.

Reflective Rumination

Consideration – Is not a stopgap measure for spiritual mules who tend to put their bottoms on the ground within a group to maintain a status quo. Consideration can be a lengthy process or it can be finished within a meeting. It means a group discusses a matter; given scripture, discernment and open dialog. It means that application is thought about. It means being circumspect and inclusive with feedback. It may mean significant pray about a matter because discussion may not be conclusive. Consideration is focused toward the person or ideas involved in a suggestion.

Security – Is not an immutable position from which we operate or that we seek to achieve. This can ONLY be found in an active, palpable relationship with God. In a group setting the relationship we have with God sustains us as we build relationships with other believers in the group or as we struggle through tight spots with them. Security is not in what we know and claim as belief. It is in that we are “knowing” God in the moment.

As we walk in God’s guidance we are secure. God’s security measures to us even as we wonder in growth and error toward maturity in following Christ. Our sense of security rests in God’s character and our relationship with Him. As we obey and surrender to His purposes we can see His orchestration. This is why any thing that might be said or brought up in meeting cannot not threaten us.

You Have A Gift:

You’ve been given a gift. If it’s not obvious to you and/or your group is not into you being operational in a gifting, find one that is into more than talk concerning the priesthood of every believer. If people talk in terms every believer being a priest then they ought to invest in their group members finding out how God gifted them and how to grow and use that gifting. Read about the giftings, talk to mature believers who know you in concerns to how you might be gifted. Find a place you can develop in the use of your gift. Find ways to work with others who are gifted in other ways to learn simultaneous concurrence. Learn to listen to God about what you ought to be doing. Learn how all the giftings can work together. Allow others to encourage and guide you; refining your employment of what God’s given you. Realize you will make mistakes. If your group is really the way God wants, they will help you through these rough spots (notice the plural here).

Your Group Needs All Gifts:

Your Fellowship

In your group make allowances for all gifts to be practiced in what amounts to be simultaneous concurrence. No gift or person equipped with such should dominate all the rest. Learn from each other. The mercy person can evangelize through their work of mercy. The prophet can learn to pastor and operate in mercy in their gifting. The teacher can learn to reach out to those who are not of faith… Gatherings need to have a free flow of giftings at work in the fellowship while the group moves in various areas of teaching, learning, prayer and outreach.

Groups need to sense giftings in the people who meet together. We need to be sensitive and encourage not run right out and label people in a positive way… Destinies need to be watered and encouraged. New outreaches need to be fostered as people with definite giftings immerge. The role of elders is not to homogenize people into a central group function. It should be to equip saints and round people out to where they can minister together while including diversity both of giftings and maturity levels in the endless cooperation with God in the purpose of multiplying His kingdom.

Is the good book too holy?

“Inerrancy of scripture” is commonly evoked as a bulwark behind which religious people stand proving their orthodoxy or assessing that of other people’s. Some hold this ideal for the purest of reasons. Yet, there is presumption in this phraseology. For one, it is thought to be both legitimate and necessary for all “true” believers. However, I fear tremendous danger for anyone who relies on this notion. Let me explain.

My questioning of inerrancy does not mean I hold scripture with less value than those who purport it. Here are my concerns:

1. It weakens most believers; often embattling them
2. It misleads many; that belief in such equates to being what God wants
3. It facilitates something other than what Christ intended
4. It actively destroys relationship with God; substituting it with an obsession with an impressive literary document

What I am about to share is the difference between a relationship with God over and against a belief in a belief, which God never intended. The stakes could not be higher and damage could not be more extensive.

Let’s consider a few questions… There is a point to systematical questioning layers of presupposition underneath the philosophic position of scriptures’ inerrancy.

Inerrant?

Obviously, proponents of Inerrancy think scripture is free of errors. Yet, are we talking about the printed versions everyone can read today or the original languages? No one could be taken seriously who suggest that the translated versions of the Bible are inerrant. Thus, two questions arise: can the average person read the original languages of the Bible fluently without aids? Secondly, do we have the “original” versions of all texts said to make up the Bible? The answer to both is an emphatic, NO!

Secondly, what is it worth if the scriptures are “error free,” but an increased number, beyond those who don’t even have them, can’t read or understand perfect original texts we don’t have? The question even sounds ridiculous… Another problem with copies of the original documents we do have: which version is “error free?” Several versions exist: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi. Another, Textus Receptus, is revered by most inerrancy teachers and believers as authoritative: e.g. error free… Yet, this invites many arguments embattling believers in details they are not equipped to contend with?

Error Free:

What is meant by error free regarding scripture? Does it mean, “not missing any bit of the original text?” Or, does it mean there are no conflicting editions, which would bring all or part of an edition into question? Or does “error free” mean that even though bitty sections are missing from an original text the “gist” of the text is still communicated?

Scripture:

What are we looking for in Scripture?

While we’re at it, we should ask what is scripture. Is it what we have as in the canon: 66 books of the Old and New Testament? Are just subcomponents of these books; interpreted as “inspired” not including the necessary grammar to make it readable? Could scripture be more than what has been put forward by scholars who we can’t say were inspired to produce their list of books, which we call the Bible? Worse yet, is the Bible a purposed misrepresentation of the “complete words of God” because it lacks certain books; lost to history or suppressed religious councils [not to be confused with the “Gnostic lost books”], which have gone unnoticed by believers and no great effort has been made to inform them of these details?

Note: Various councils consolidated a list of books that became “the Bible” as we know it. Among them were Council of Laodicea about 360 A.D.; Council of Rome 382 A.D. Hippo, 393 A.D., and finally the sixth Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.?

Scriptural evidence: we don’t have all that might have been inspired

Does the average believer know Paul wrote the Philippian church twice? Philippians 3:1 tell us, “Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.”

The same question could be asked of 1 & 2 Corinthians and 3 John. Preceding letters are referred to in these books. Paul writes in I Corinthians 5:19 (KJV), “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.”  We have no epistle to the Corinthians prior to 1^st or 2^nd Corinthians yet Paul is noting here an epistle existed at one point; not just an indiscriminate personal letter to the brethren there at Corinth. In 3 John 1:9, the apostle tells us, “I wrote to the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us not.” We have no reference to this fellow in any other book of the NT, but yet John tells us “he wrote” the church…

So, what was contained in the former letter to the Philippians? How about the real 1^st Corinthians and the real 3^rd John? Are we ready to sweep aside these lost texts concluding that we have “the complete” word of God? Everything we still have from John and Paul are not questioned as to inspiration. So, why wouldn’t these other works also be inspired? We cannot assume that God intended these letters to be lost. If God meant for certain books not to be available in the modern Bible, why would He leave proof they existed?

More basis to question, what scripture is:

In 2 Corinthians 8:10 Paul writes, “I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it.” Is Paul’s opinion here what we should call scripture; an authoritative and inspired thing we cannot minimize or avoid?

In other places, we find details scholars give us concerning additions to the gospels of Matthew and John, which various collections of letters including the vaunted Textus Recepticus do not uniformly contain. Thus, we must question the claim scriptures’ inerrancy. Perfect works do not have missing texts, nor textual arguments between scraps or versions….

What does all this mean:

Proponents of the inerrancy cannot legitimately step around these questions. There are answers but the arguments will be a constant Achilles’ heel. This is one the weakening factors I mentioned early on. Inerrancy is supposed to be a stronghold “true” believers can depend on. Yet we find there are a plethora of serious questions. Add the antagonism of atheists or pagans and believers are embattled with people who have no intention of following God in an argument they cannot win.

How does inerrancy affect believers?

In religious settings, this view commonly creates an environment where people are measured in their belief or relationship to one another in direct connection to the notion of inerrancy. Nowhere in scripture is the ideal of inerrancy espoused or used as a litmus test as to whether people are following God or not.

Today believers use inerrancy apologetically as an unquestionable argumentation that their belief is legitimate in the eyes of all, including non-believers. Why do we want to get non-believers to accept something about God when He hasn’t been convicting them and working in their hearts? In this scenario, the gospel is reduced to an intellectual argument over and against a call to be what God intended: a differentiated people of His kingdom within the context of the kingdoms of men, which are under the control of the devil.

Inerrancy often stunts a maturing relationship with God. Believers become hung up on the text of the Bible itself. They study it as if the Bible is the only means of God’s guidance. A completed book thus muzzles God because it supposedly contains all of what God has to say…. People hope in the scriptures, not in the God spoken of by this collection of letters and books.

Scriptures’ Sufficiency:

Many folks touting inerrancy base the validity of their belief on the notion that the Bible is “perfect” in one form or another. Many of the same folks talk about a relationship with God in conjunction to their belief. The odd thing about it: while inerrancy types talk of relationship with God they seem most confident in the purely philosophical argument of inerrancy.

What person would deny their relationship with their parents? This says nothing of quality. Your friends would confirm the connection. The rest of your family would do the same. Even people in the community would attest to the association. We don’t have to espouse a belief that there is a relationship connection for there to be one. Belief doesn’t make a relationship. The whole argument of scriptures’ inerrancy is a huge denial of relationship. At one point Jesus stated, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you would practice lawlessness.’” Can you imagine being one of those, one who read the scripture, practiced it, even did miracles “in the name of God” to then be told by God, “I never knew you.” Belief in inerrancy cannot bring us any closer to God.

Jesus further confronts the idea of justification by the “right” beliefs arrived at by an authority in certain documents when He said to the Pharisees, “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me,” (cf. John 5:39).

Is it a stretch to see that God revealed Himself outside of scripture? The bible tells that God has done so, (e.g. Noah, Cain, Enoch and so many others). Why would the God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, change from revealing Himself to people just because we now have a consolidated written form of revelation? One, W. Carl Ketcherside makes my point:

It cannot be denied that thousands of people in the world, both Jews and Greeks, were in covenant relationship with God before one word of the New Covenant Scriptures was ever written…* Many had no idea there would ever be a compilation of such letters. They simply believed that Jesus was the Messiah and God’s Son, and pledged allegiance to Him…and simply put their trust in the righteousness of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

The divine agreement, the covenant that established their relationship with the Father of all mercy, was inscribed by the Holy Spirit upon the walls of the inner chambers of their being. It was written in terms of love, a dynamic so powerful that it not only transformed their lives but completely altered the world in which they lived, not vice versa.¹

*Note: A high percentage of early believers were illiterate. The only heard a reading of a couple of the apostles letters if any at all. How on earth were they able to affect the world of their time with so little of what we call the Bible? How ere they able to “mature” in Christ with “the written word?”

Scripture itself never makes the claim that God suddenly stopped speaking to people after Revelation. Religious people want a fence, a box, and a clear differentiation like an include/exclude device because many are not in relationship with God and they have lost the ability to discern.

Scripture isn’t a static place at which to arrive. The Bible is mere dots on a page until the Holy Spirit brings revelation. The scripture is a door we enter and progress beyon as God guides. God is the be-all-end-all. For the inerrancy-of-scripture folk, they have a hard time relating to others without the reservation of, “Do others believe like I do?” Relationship presuppose mistakes, misunderstandings, weakness, and perhaps being taken advantage of… It also presupposes connection, times of intimacy, imputation of value, warmth, and variety… These are tough realities for the unmitigated stoicism of religion: belief in a belief.

Scripture is sufficient to bring us unto Christ. God, the body of Christ and the Holy Spirit are able to mature us in Him and bring us into all truth, to recall all the things that Christ taught… Scripture is eminently valuable. However, it is FAR less valuable when it is placed above all other means with which God intends to teach and guide us. Scripture can become total evil in the hands of men who would “rightly divided” it in their own strength. History stands as a testament to this happening more than not.

Conclusions:

The position of the inerrancy of scripture is a lazy mental assent at best. On other levels it is pure heresy, embattling believers in indefensible labyrinth of entanglements far away from the real spiritual battle. Since this belief is dogma, believers are continually forced into an arena to allegedly defend their faith, which is dependent on this view instead of their relationship with God. Thus, belief is always reduced to provability against the attacks of curbside philosophers or raving idiots. Further, many believer come to think of faith in Jesus as only verified by the attacks of nonbelievers (a defensive reality) rather than being a contrasting alternative whose basis of authority is in acts, happenings and outreach that cannot be explained away or replicated by nonbelievers (a offensive reality).

When Jesus healed, when He delivered people of demons, when He spoke hidden things in people’s lives, when He annihilated the reductionism of the religious, when He loved the unlovely and those who did not love Him; this stood with an authority and credibility mere sophists would kill to have or cover up. In fact, they did both. The unbelieving world must deal with the great works of God, if indeed His followers allow Him to work through them. Many believers place their entire function around a “finished” book and static theology that does nothing. They have muzzled God isolating Him to what they can squeeze from the pages in letters He inspired.

Our relationship with Jesus is not founded in what scripture says. These can only confirm and strengthen what we have with God, if indeed we have it. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do…” John 14:12a (NASB). This was not merely spoken to the lot immediately following Him in that moment. It speaks to us as well. Why stoop to trying to prove God and prove belief to those who have no intention of following Christ just so we can feel at home in their dominion. Christ taught about a very here-and-now kingdom that up until the 2^nd century turned the world upside down. It expressed itself in realities the world did not want to deal with but could not deny.

Lets go back to the simplicity of gospel of knowing Christ and being His kingdom. Lets contrast arguments of belief in a belief with the undeniability of a relationship. Lets dump mental assent and live in what God continues to say in conjunction to what He has already given us. Lets live in the reality that God is able to lead us personally into all truth whether we have every scrape He inspired or not. Lets learn to discern truth from error instead of dividing into groups thinking ours to be the right one because of some subjective claim of “orthodoxy.” Lets be real instead of religious. Lets allow growth, questions, maturity and so forth happen in an organic symbiosis between God, His followers and our collectively following of Him.

¹The Death of the Custodian: The Case of the Missing Tutor; Chapter 9. The Freedom of Maturity, see: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wcketcherside/tdotc/chap9.html

Thanks to Marc White of http://walkworthy.org/wordpress/, Kyle Knapp of http://www.tuesdaytogether.us/, Gary Jaeckel, Jon Zens, Keith Giles of http://subversive1.blogspot.com/, Gary Peterson and Terry Rousseau for feedback, suggestions and advice on how to shape this article.

Earlier last year I got into it with a well-known personality over a book and ministry. It has been my frustration to see a specter rising offering truth and encouragement only to find it is more words and merely a change of wallpaper and carpet than the actual shift it purports itself to be… (No specifics)

A friend encouraged me to challenge brother X based on a litany of scripture and the fact few others had attempted to do so and “stick with it.” Therefore, I bore down and pursued the issue and brother X. It went back and forth and as is so common in circles of belief the dialog broke down and extreme attempts to keep the issue on the front burner utterly failed.

Does this mean I was wrong or that he was wrong? Could be, maybe not? I don’t think that is the answer needed.

Just recently, two fellows I know, both professed believers, got into it with each other and then brought me into awareness of their activity. I watched blow-by-blow as the talk went back and forth and the emotive language increased on one side and sarcasm volleyed back on the other. Both had valid points, both I feel made mistakes, both did not understand nor have a full appreciation for the other.

As I got to thinking about it and as I attempted to encourage both to look at things differently, I was given an understanding in my own world and my own shortcomings… Wow what a clarion moment!

I asked both about if someone else, a non-believer, were to take a look at the “dialog” flying back and forth between them. What if it was all this person was to consider as a representation of what believing might mean? And if so what impact would it have on them: would they be more or less likely to “believe” given this exposure between these two brothers?

I concluded to these two that such a representation likely bode poorly as far as impact. That’s when the curtain went up and I got hit with a ton of bricks. I felt like God was showing me that in my struggle with brother X was an exact copy (in essence) of what these two other brothers were doing.

Yes, I had solid points to contend about. Yes, this brother I mentioned is off too: but aren’t we all at one level or another? Yes, I should be able in an ideal world to go to him and contend… However, if God was not bringing us together what I was doing was contrived (building in my own strength). I could not say that if this brother didn’t agree with me that he was either being irreconcilable or breaking fellowship. We’d never had a tight relationship or connection prior to the confrontation.

Kingdom as a now-reality can’t be expected in a reciprocative way between any two groups of believers. We should be so connected to God that this might be a reality. But we can’t at this late date expect that it would be so. This was the mistake I made.

Secondly, unless God brings people together in relationship; admonishment, confrontation, exhortation and whatever else may not be possible even though both are followers of Christ and both desire to do the right thing.

I don’t know how God will bring His kingdom into connectivity between people, groups given all the obstacles between them. However, if His kingdom is a now reality, He will have to perform it or whatever it is will be nothing different than has been seen in the whole of “ecclesiastical history.”

When we say “kingdom of God” God needs to make it real in any practical sense between folks. Yes, it, as a now-reality is for fact. However, if we beat people over the head about stuff God has not made real to them in their inner person we only confuse the issue and make it more difficult to ever come to fruition.

I need to pray more about practical connections and say less directly to folks. What calls itself church seeks to force compliance or recognition of various details, some of which are totally valid. However, this is not God’s way. God’s is the symphony conductor and we are just pieces in the orchestra. I can’t tell the woodwind section then need to get with it, even though true. God must reveal it and make it real or it is merely human device working toward an ideal that will always turnout stilted.

God help us to rest in Him. God help us to know and make known His truth THROUGH our lives. God help us to share through mediums that offer people enough information to challenge them but not so much that a movement needs to be founded to push that matter. God help us to build relationships that can be dynamically infused by what He is doing.

Website: www.therebuilders.org

Blog: miltrodriguez.wordpress.com

Main Blog: http://www.KeithGiles.com

Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/keithgiles

E-mail: elysiansky@hotmail.com

FAVORITES:

My amazing wife, Wendy, hanging with my boys, Keane’s coffee, books by; Philip K. Dick, Jon Zens, Dallas Willard, Frank Viola, Scott Bartchy; U2, Mongolian BBQ, The Road and No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy.