Ninety-nine ten

One commenter a few months ago said he liked it if pastor-bloggers talk about some of their "outside" interests as it humanises us. Well, I needed no excuse to mention running again...

Today was the number three out of my "big five" of planned runs, climaxing hopefully in a marathon in about 4 weeks. (The big five are three twenty-milers (two down so far, one remaining) for the endurance, a "raced" (against the clock!) half-marathon to test my speed, and the marathon itself).

Today was the half-marathon. Because of injuries and travel arrangements, I haven't been able to race one since September 2007 - and that was objectively my best run ever: 1:36:40 (7:22 per mile). Everything went well on that day: perfect weather (cool, with a tiny bit of drizzle to prevent the body needing to spend much energy sweating), fresh legs, well-timed. Anyway, that was blogged back here.

Matching that performance would be tough, even given the 4 months of injury-free training this year since my January marathon. I don't know what a true equivalent performance would be; Eldoret is at a 7000ft altitude, and it is more hilly than the Derbyshire Dales - there's very little running that isn't up or down, and the slopes can last for dozens of miles. (Not uniform - every mile may be a net up, with almost no flat, but there can be some downs along the way). In any case, my best 10-mile time in training was 2 minutes behind what I did then. Today's course was up for half the distance, then turn round and come back down.

At half-way I thought I still had a chance, but the extra gears needed in the second half were not there - I accelerated some, but not enough for 1:36:40. The result was 1:39:10 - exactly 2.5 minutes slower. It did still include (by 30 seconds) my fastest 10 miles ever in Kenya (though assisted by a 200 foot net elevation loss!). I'm still really pleased; when I did that 1:36, it was the absolute limit of what I thought was possible, and had set a target of 1:40; which today I did meet, so no complaints.

According to the 1.06-exponential formula used to calculate an equivalent performance (raise the ratio of the distances involved to the power of 1.06) that could translate, all things being equal, to a 3:26 marathon. 1:36:40 translates to 3:21, but the actual result was 3:40 - though an injury got in the way. I think the formula is a big optimistic though once you go over 20 miles - it's a different ball game at that stage. And all things won't be equal: for reasons I won't bore you with, the planned marathon involves 21 miles of near-continuous uphill. I'm not quite sure what happens if you try such a thing, but I wonder if it could be more morale-destroying than 3 miles on Chesil beach. All being well, we shall see!

By the way, what are the benefits of spending 100 minutes running in a large circle? For me, I need less sleep, sleep better when I do sleep and have significantly more energy during my days. As well as finding it mentally relaxing which is always welcome when one's work does not involve many other mindless tasks.

Exodus 3-15 in 1200 words!

Here's my summary (for my students) of Exodus chapters 3 to 15 - the great account of the Exodus from the calling of Moses at the burning bush, until he had led Israel over the Red Sea. In just 1237 words!

* * *

1) Meeting God at the burning bush, 3:1-4:17

Before God sent Moses, God met Moses. He met him at Mount Sinai, also called “Mount Horeb” or “the mountain of God” (see 3:1, 31:18-32:2, Psalm 106:19, Deuteronomy 5:2). Moses met with the “angel (messenger) of the LORD” - but in verses 3 and 6 we can see clearly that it was the LORD himself. With our New Testament knowledge, we conclude that this was actually an appearance of Christ (a “Christophany”), the second person of the Trinity, the Word of God, the Son of God. There are many examples of this in the Old Testament – the same messenger appears in Judges 2:1-4. In Psalm 45:6-7, there is God – but he also relates to another called God; and yet we know there is only one God! The truth of the Trinity is in the Old Testament, even if it is not clear like in the New Testament.

When God spoke, he spoke as the God of the covenant. God only, ever, deals with men through covenants. Notice that he speaks about “my people”, and calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. This is all covenant language. He speaks about his promises – the covenant promises. Salvation today comes through a covenant that God gave – the New Covenant in the blood of Christ (Hebrews 8).

He also revealed his name - “I AM” or “I AM WHO I AM”. This name reveals God as sovereign – the one who depends only on himself. God's sovereignty is a major theme of Exodus: he is God over everything, even over Egypt, even over Pharaoh. This is what Moses and Israel needed to know to trust him.

Moses did not trust God like he should have done. In fact, he made five protests:

1) 3v11 - “Who am I?”. God's answer is, “I will be with you” - that is all we need.
2) 3v13, “They will ask your name!” Names are important in the Bible. God then revealed his name.
3) 4v1, “What if they don't listen?” God gave Moses 3 signs. Signs always accompany something new. These signs were not nice; they were all signs of judgment – because God was going to judge Egypt.
4) 4v10, “I cannot speak well”. God himself made the mouth, so he can easily give Moses what he needed!
5) 4v13, “Please send someone else”; though God sent Aaron too, he was angry; after his 40 years in the wilderness, Moses was unbelieving. This shows us that though Moses was great, he was not Jesus!

2) Moses' return to Egypt and meeting the elders of Israel, 4:18-31

Moses did not tell Jethro the full reason for why he was returning to Egypt – I wonder why not? (What do you think?) Verses 24-26 are very mysterious indeed – do study the commentaries; probably there is a link with verses 22-23 with their message about the firstborn. Not even Moses could escape God's judgment if he ignored the covenant sign. Moses was a saviour – but not the great Saviour who was still future.

The people of Israel believed (v31). We know that later, they grumbled and their faith failed (5:21, 6:9). These are the first signs that Israel would be a half-hearted, double-minded people – and when Christ came he would not only be far greater than Moses, but need to create a new people too.

3) Meeting with Pharaoh and the results, 5:1-6:13 (and then the genealogy of Moses, 6:14-27)

These chapters, until the end of chapter 15, are all about the contest between Pharaoh and Jehovah. The great question is – who is God? In Egypt, Pharaoh was the recognised lord. So in verse 2 Pharaoh says – who is Jehovah? Who is the God of the (weak, enslaved) Hebrews? Why should I care about him? This is all preparing us for the great competition that is now beginning. Whose word will stand? (Compare verse 1, “Thus says the LORD, God of Israel” with verse 10, “thus says Pharaoh”). As the contest begins, life gets harder for Israel. They now must make their bricks with no straw – and they are beaten. Sometimes there is peace because Satan is not being challenged – but here in Egypt, he is now!

4) The plagues, climaxing in the death of the first-born, 6:28-11:10

The great purpose of the plagues was not only to judge Egypt, but supremely to display the great power and sovereignty of Jehovah. They show his sovereignty everywhere – over the River Nile (the source of life in Egypt), the air, in people's houses, in their fields, over their crops and animals – even over light and dark and over the lives of the first-born, even Pharaoh's son and heir. There are no limits on God. God's people should not fear; nobody can resist the LORD. Slowly we see the magicians of Egypt failing, and being defeated. (Notice too that when they were competing, they did not remove the plagues – they only made them worse! That is what Satan does). Through all the plagues, Pharaoh hardened his heart. He brought his own ruin, refusing to submit. This is what sinners who hate God do; this is what the devil does. Instead of stopping and repenting, they carry on – even if it will completely destroy them!

5) The Passover and the Exodus itself, 12:1-13:16

The Exodus comes about with an important festival: The Passover. This is a great type of Christ and his death at Calvary (as we have seen in the gospel of John, where John presents everything around Christ's death as a New Passover for a new people). In Israel there was a perfect lamb, who died in the place of the firstborn, to redeem the family. The blood was painted on the door as an act of faith. The substitution price was paid, and God purchased his people for himself. There was no leaven (yeast) in the bread, because there was no time to waste; showing that salvation is no small or easy thing, but costly as we are rescued at a great price from the flames.

Whilst there was a lamb who died for each family in Israel, there was no substitute in Egypt, and the firstborn died as the judgment on every family. When God comes to save his people, he also comes to judge his enemies. When Jesus died on the cross, Satan was cast out (John 12:31). When he will return for us in glory, the wicked will meet their final doom (Revelation 21:1-8).

6) The fall of the Egyptian army, 13:17-14:31

Egypt was totally ruined – crops, animals and people. In every family from the highest to the lowest, the firstborn had died. You might think Pharaoh would stop now – but he did not. As a hardened sinner, he pressed forward, to his complete ruin. He sent out his army for their final defeat in the Red Sea. Like many Christians, I believe that the Bible teaches that at the end of time there will be one final great rebellion of Satan (Revelation 20:7-10) which will finish with his final, complete ruin in the lake of fire.

7) The song of victory, 15:1-21

When God had saved his people, they worshipped him with the song of Moses. Redeemed people become worshippers, and before service comes thanks and praise.

The damage wrought by unwitting "helpful" missionaries...

This, a short extract from Steve Saint's "The End Of The Spear" (p148), is a great illustration of how outside "help" often fails to help... but actually positively hinders, painfully, badly. Don't worry about the strange names for the tribe (Waodani) or vocabulary ("Waengongi" is the Waodani word for God, "People" means the believers) or places - but understand the point. So, so many lessons in here...

"On my weeklong trek, I had noticed that none of the Waodani villages had God's houses. Tiwaeno had once had one, and so had Tzapino. Now they didn't. I asked the People why. They simply said that they couldn't build them. Of course they could, I told them. They could build a Waengongi onco in the same way they built their own oncos! They explained that they could only build durani-bai - like the ancient ones had - not 'proper' churches.

As the conversation went on, I realized that when outsiders had built the crude little board church in Tonampade, with cement posts and a tin roof, everyone decided that this was what a 'proper' God's house should look like. The Waodani didn't know how to make boards, they didn't know what that mush was that got so hard and supported the building, and they didn't have the money to buy tin roofing.

The Waodani in Tonampade would not even attempt to fix the church floor, which had begun to rot. When I asked them why they didn't fix it, they said they couldn't because they did not have permission. 'Permission from whom?' I asked. They didn't know the answer to that, but what they did know was that they had not built it or paid for it. They did not know whose it was, but they knew it definitely was not theirs."

"Making rich people feel good about themselves"

Definitely worth a read, though the portion I've quoted in the subject might make you a bit uncomfortable if the cap fits...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7747998/Did-Britain-really-need-to-give-millions-tothe-wealthy-state-of-Singapore.html

We know...

One commentary I read remarked on the frequent use of the phrase "we know" in 1 John. It suggested that John uses it to counter the (proto-)Gnostic claim to a superior insight, only available to the initiated and not to all believers.

I just did an analysis of how many times this phrase appears in the New Testament, in the two Bibles I can search easily. Results like so (all unmentioned books do not include the phrase):

Book	KJV	ESV
Matthew	1	1
Mark	1	1
Luke	1	1
John	10	15
Acts	1	2
Romans	5	7
1 Cor.	3	3
2 Cor.	1	3
Galatians	0	1
1 Thess.	0	1
1 Timothy	1	1
Hebrews	1	1
1 John	10	13

Interesting that John and 1 John are the two stand-out books.

When I went through the results of the search in John's gospel, the results were even more interesting - only twice (or only once KJV) are the words actually used to confess orthodox faith:

"Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God." - John 16:30. "This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true." - John 21:24.

If instead we search for "you know", then John and 1 John again stand out, but Matthew, Mark (less so) and 1 Thessalonians also join them. This means that if you add the two together, John and 1 John both come out far ahead of the rest of the New Testament. This time, on a quick glance, we see the phrase being used much more in a meaningful sense in John's gospel, on Jesus' lips, e.g. "And you know the way I am going", John 14:4.

But does this indicate/flow from what the commentary says it does? How would we know? (Boom, boom). And at what point do such observations become an evidence (of whatever weight) for the common authorship of John and 1 John? (I suppose on the latter question, a statistical test could be devised to test the hypothesis against its alternative. I recently read of such a test being done to prove to the highest confidence levels that Genesis chapters 1-3 are of the genre of historical narrative in the same way that other uncontroversial passages of the Pentateuch and Old Testament are accepted to be historical narratives. You can find this in ed. Terry Mortensen, Biblical authority and the age of the earth).

If you hoped that this post was going to climax in some new and profound insight and conclusion, then it's time to be disappointed. It's food for thought, but I'm still chewing! Have you got any ideas?

Home-schooling - will your children be socially inept?

Back here I argued that home-schooling has the significant advantage, in normal circumstances, in terms of the quality of education.

Today I'd like to advance on that by arguing that, all things being equal, it should lead to more sociable and adaptable children also.

When I say that, I'm aware that upon hearing the idea of home-schooling, many people immediately fear that their children will be in some danger of being anti-social freaks who cannot relate to anyone else except for their parents and perhaps other home-schoolers. The idea seems to be that everyone else is at school, that school has its culture, and that if your kids grow up in a different culture they won't know how to relate to their peers.

Now, the "all things being equal" phrase here is important. Of course, some parents may choose home-schooling because they fear and loathe the outside world and want to avoid it wherever possible. They are recluses, and force their children to do the same. OK. We're not talking about that kind of situation. Of course, personality matters too. Some people are naturally by their innate personalities better socially than others. This also proves nothing. Comparing how well I run the 100m after a year's solid training (by the way, I'm short) against how a lanky Jamaican does after a fortnight will not demonstrate who had the better training method.

Having got that out of the way, I next want to agree with the embedded assumption: that schools have their own culture. That's a large dose of the reason why I and many other parents decided to be home-schoolers. We couldn't afford the fees for a school that aimed to foster our children in a learning environment we would sufficiently approve of. In other words, a school with an explicitly evangelical Christian ethos, which we believe is required by Deuteronomy 6:4-6. Deuteronomy 6:4-6 does not require that 100% of a child's time needs to be spent in an environment with explicitly Christian assumptions (and I never met a home-schooler who thought anything in that ball-park); but the bulk of the day Monday to Friday for most of the year is way, way the wrong side of the line in my judgment: not even close. Declining to choose a 9-to-5 learning environment for our children that is overwhelmingly non-Christian is not the same as fear and loathing of the outside world.

Now, you may well differ from me on that. That last point is not the main part of my argument, so pardon me thrusting that in your face if you didn't agree with it. My real point is a simple one. Home-schoolers, if their parents are taking an all-around view of education (i.e., it's more than just the book-work at the desk), will get out and about quite a lot. They will see and meet many people.

Because all activities are not laid on a plate at school, they are likely to go to a club or two. They might go to music lessons with a private teacher. They might meet up with a local home-schoolers group together with their parents for share activities. They're likely to accompany mum as she does the ordinary routine - to the shops, the vet, the bank, etcetera. They write letters to pen-pals. They video chat with a buddy they met at a home-school convention over Skype.

The point is this: in whatever activities they do do, little Johnny or Joanna are meeting people. At school you meet people; home-schoolers also meet people. The key difference is this: at school, you overwhelming interact with only one kind of person: those like yourself, born within the same school year, in the same class, doing the same thing together day after day. Home-schoolers are likely to meet a significantly more diverse range of people - and especially a much higher number of those more mature than them.

Is it not obvious which of these two is more likely to be better socially adapted? Which is more like "real life" - spending the great majority of time only with your exact peers, or spending it with a much wider range? How many people find it a shock when they leave school and actually join the real-world - where everyday life means interacting with people of all kinds, not just those who are the same age as you and have followed the same basic path for the last decade?

"Your children will be socially ill-adapted" is in my opinion a myth - just as much as the idea that everybody who goes to school is socially well-adapted is (was it like that at your school?). In our experience, real home-schoolers who avoid the obvious pitfalls are much more likely to receive remarks on how confident and conversational their children are.

The moment of glory

Being made in the image of God, one thing that is deeply embedded in all human culture is the idea of the final moment of achievement: the final victory. Pop songs drone about how you and I are going to "make it together", as if that was it. Football fans dream about their team slamming in the winning goal in the last minute, and lifting the cup to a tremendous shout. Athletics is all about striving to break through the ribbon first. Politicians promise us that they, at last, are the ones destined to will lift us up to the higher level and usher in the quasi-millennial kingdom where all else before have failed.

This is really inexplicable on non-Christian terms. After all, life here down below is pretty cyclical. One team wins the FA cup today, but it'll be back on the line to compete for again in a few months' time. Our political saviours will soon enough be our political villains, and a new Messiah will be sought for. After capturing the girl of my dreams, we had kids and it won't be long before all being well it'll be their turn whilst we grow old and fade into the background - and then it'll be our kids' turn to do that too. And ultimately, so the atheists tell us, the universe will just peter out into empty, cold nothingness - if it doesn't get consumed in heat death first. "Under the sun", there is no final victory: only endless repetition followed by final nothingness.

So why do we (unless too much TV lobotomised our brains) continually long for this final moment, this great arrival? The simple answer is the true one. It's because it's real; because it's how things actually are. God has, as the Psalmist says, put eternity in the hearts of man. The memory of the great promise of a great Redeemer cannot be forgotten any more than the need and longing for the completeness which fallen man cannot himself attain can be legislated or entertained away. We long for it, because we were made for it, and because it is what history is about.

Before Christianity swept the globe, the idea of a final goal for history was generally denied. Paganism and its various manifestations believed only in the endless birth-death-rebirth cycle. Following Christianity's (outward) triumph in much of the world, no competitor could be enter the arena without a competing eschatology. Hence communism's final revolution resulting in egalitarian utopia; hence our secular politicians' promises of the final realisation of free and fair societies - and even atheism's hollow promises of a world without conflict once science and rational thought do their stuff.

But enough of the counterfeits, and back to the real thing. One day the sky will be rolled back like a scroll, and Jesus Christ will be revealed in all his glory. The last trumpet will sound. Death will be dealt the final blow and will itself die. We who love him will see him and be like him, sharing in those true riches. Sin and sorrow will be no more, and Jesus will lead us all into the new heavens and earth on the ultimate, real victory parade of which all the tastes in this life are but the palest - though real - shadows. The shout that goes up then will be like nothing ever heard. That's more than worth setting aside the quest for earthly glory for. That's worth losing everything in order to gain. Are you doing that?

Adam and Eve - on-line chapter of "Should Christians Embrace Evolution?"

Michael Reeves' chapter of IVP-UK/P & R's "Should Christians Embrace Evolution?", on the topic of Adam and Eve, is now (by kind permission of the publishers) available on-line for free, here.

The blood of Christ

"Martin Luther once dreamt that his accuser came to him to set before him afresh all of his sins. Luther admitted them all, without denying any or seeking to justify himself in any way, but he also scrawled across the list, 'The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.'" - Knowing Where We Stand, Peter Barnes (Evangelical Press), p22.

African Christianity

According to demographers, African Christianity is booming.

But just what is Christianity, according to the African Christians?

In this large survey of attitudes of those who self-identify as Christians and Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa (which includes Kenya), a majority of "Christians" in most of the countries endorsed the "prosperity gospel" - i.e. that if we have enough faith God will give us health, wealth and prosperity in this life: http://pewforum.org/executive-summary-islam-and-christianity-in-sub-saharan-africa.aspx

Remember this important fact next time someone tells you what a growing percentage of the world's Christians are now found in Africa...

Law and politics

A reader writes! And having nothing else to say right now to keep the blog going, I'll answer this instead...

Hi David, I don't think I've ever commented here before, but I appreciate the things you write.

Thank you!

On the subject of politics and freedom:

How do you think Christians should feel about/respond to a potential ban on burkas (as has recently happened in Belgium, and I think is one of UKIP's policies, although I don't know if any of the major parties have mentioned it). On the one hand, governments telling people what they can and cannot wear doesn't seem like a good thing, and we might well wonder what the next thing to get banned would be. On the other, to oppose a ban would (it seems) be to defend an idolatrous practice.

I suppose that in the context of the present state of Western civilisation in regard of how it measures up to a godly society, spending too much energy on this issue is making sure that we don't let any of the Titanic's deckchairs fall over. In the context of a society which explicitly refuses to name Jesus Christ as Lord, what the state does with bits of clothing is making sure the patient's toenails are clipped when he's bleeding to death. But, a Christian politician looking to please God and serve man still has to have an answer because the issue's out there. I don't think that the government tolerating X is the same as defending or approving X. In lots of things the government simply has to say, "this is not by legitimate area of concern". Now, if people only ever wore burkhas because they were off on a suicide mission in a crowded station and they believed that Allah had told all suicide bombers to wear burkhas, then the government might have a legitimate interest in banning them. But banning them simply because they represent false religion is not in keeping with the government's limited role, which does not include restricting false religion. I think the state is intended to submit to and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, because he is Lord of the state; but this does not mean a negative role to restrict the activities of those who don't agree.

I think that continental powers are discussing banning the burkha because it is to their eyes a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam rather than because it represents false religion. I find it had to get worked up with enthusiasm for this policy; why not pass laws against the oppression of women in Islam, rather than just against the symbol? But in fact I think that the Bible doesn't make either of those two things the God-given work of the state. Families have authority from God to employ their own symbols (only if it is obscene does it become a matter for the state) and the oppression of women in Islam can only ultimately be undone by a change of heart through the advance of the gospel, not an external attack on the symbol. Though symbols point to significant realities, yet we don't want people to think that the kingdom of God is a matter of clothes and appearance rather than righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

So basically I think that Christians should assert that people are free under God to choose whatever they wish to wear without interference from the state, and that we wish to approach Muslims with the gospel, not with restrictive and intrusive laws on their appearance.

Similarly, how do you feel about those protesting about the planned Mega-Mosque in/near Dudley?

Again, it seems inconsistent. If you allow large numbers of Muslims into an area, then forbidding them to live as Muslims is churlish. Choose one or the other; you can't welcome people who self-identify as Muslims without allowing them to be Muslims. If they are allowed in the country they should be allowed to worship according to their consciences, because God has placed worship as a matter under the authority of the individual, not the state. Islam is a legalistic, external and crudely territorial religion and for Christians to protest against mosques is for us to confuse Muslims about how knowing Jesus Christ is a distinctively different experience. The best protest against mosques is gospel preaching. To be sure, a mega-mosque may drastically change the character of an area and there are such things as planning laws and zoning laws which should be applied and can be done without the state over-extending its God-given role. They should obey the same planning laws as everyone else; I don't know anything about if or how that applies in this particular case. Perhaps a protest against a mega-mosque is a proxy-protest against mass immigration, but I think a Christian needs to be careful that he does not compromise his gospel witness by becoming seen by the unsaved person as an enemy protester instead of a friendly evangelist.

(Since you mentioned Doug Wilson, I'd like to ask your views on theonomy, but perhaps that's a little much for a blog comment!)

If you elaborate on the question a bit to help me I can try in a future post!

God bless,
David

That's a new one

I've marked about two thousand bits of work from the students at the Bible college I teach at now, and not much seems new any more.... but this is....

"It was Passover time. This was to celebrate the deliverance of the Egyptians from slavery under the Romans".

Whoops.

"Presumption and sacrilege"

Tomorrow I'm preaching (God-willing) on Mark 10:13-16 - "let the little children come unto me".

Some paedobaptists have found in this passage an argument for paedobaptism. Ho hum. And amongst that number is John Calvin, whose boots we would not be fit to polish... but who was not infallible, and in his commentary on this passage states, in direct application to those who don't baptise infants, that "it is presumption and sacrilege to drive far from the fold of Christ those whom he cherishes in his bosom, and to shut the door, and exclude as strangers those whom he does not wish to be forbidden to come to him."

This conjures up an interesting mental image of what Calvin (and other paedobaptist writers who've run the same line) supposed Baptist churches to be like.

Here in Eldoret we run children's clubs (had a holiday one this week, and the weekly one this afternoon), have spent some weeks to train our Sunday School teachers, teach the catechism, teach songs, teach the Bible day in and out in family worship, have had special meetings to press parents' duties upon them, and arrange the Sunday School to be before the service that the children can all be in the sermon.

But in Calvin's mental universe, it appears that it is actually of the essence of the Baptist position to be halting the service when we see children approaching, chasing them far off down the hill, and bolting the door in case they dare to show their faces again!

Ha ha! The key is in Charles Spurgeon's famous sermon title: "Children to be brought to Christ - not to the font". Regular Baptists don't actually leave their children in the parking lot when they go to church, and therefore Jesus' rebuke of the disciples in this passage does not neatly transfer over to an anti-Baptist application; unless you believe in sacramental regeneration, i.e. in literal "Christening" via the water. Notice that when Jesus insisted the infants were brought to himself, according to the Scriptures, he prayed for them - exactly what Baptists do; he did not baptise them or perform any other sacramental ceremony, and it is ridiculous special pleading to insist (as even John Murray does in his book) that Jesus words' necessitate we do what Jesus never did.

All "The Gospel" conference audio now available

All the audio (9 sessions) from our recent Nairobi conference on the theme of the gospel is now available for download, including the question and answer session with these questions (answers vary from 6 to 25 minutes):

• Should we teach predestination? (Sukesh Pabari)
• How should we attack the false gospel of moralism? (Sukesh Pabari)
• What is faith? (David Anderson)
• How can we have assurance? (Michael Otieno)
• What is it like to be filled with the Spirit? (Sam Oluoch)
• How does the Bible teach us to evangelise? (Paul Odera)
• How many final judgments are there? (David Anderson)
• If God has elected his people, does this not contradict the idea of our free will? (Sukesh Pabari)

Here's the link to freely download it all: http://rebmik.org/rm/index.php/conference-2010/