The Christian life is not a way “out” but a way “through” life. Paul freely acknowledged that he received his apostleship purely as a result of God’s undeserved favour. God then used Paul’s testimony to encourage me at a time when I most keenly felt my complete unworthiness to write on the subject of personal holiness. The question, however, is this: To what extent can we use Paul’s very personal testimony and my own experience to establish a scriptural principle regarding Christian ministry? Is all ministry, where it be teaching a children’s Sunday school class, or witnessing individual to students at the local private school or preaching to thousands of people each Sunday, performed by the grace of God by people who are unworthy to be doing it? Harry Blamires had an incisive answer to that question: In the upshot there is only one answer for the preacher who wonders whether one is worthy to preach the sermon one has composed or for the writer who wonders whether one is worthy to write the religious book one is working on. The answer is: Of course not. To ask yourself: Am I worthy to perform this Christian task? is really the peak of pride and presumption. For the very question carries the implication that we spend most of our time doing things we are worthy to do. We simply do not have that kind of worth. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

Of course, it matters little what Harry Blamires or Jerry Bridges think unless our thinking accords with Scripture. So what does the Bible say to this question? In Romans 12.6 Paul said, “We have different gifts according to the grace given us.” Paul was referring to spiritual gifts given to every believer enables us to fulfill the ministry or service God has appointed for us in the Body of Christ. However, not that Paul said these spiritual gifts are give accord to the grace of God, not according to what we deserve. The Greek word for a spiritual gift is charisma, which means “a gift of God’s grace,” whether it is the gift of eternal life as in Romans 6.23 or the gift of a spiritual ability for use in the Body. Here are somethings to consider on the connection of grace and gifts. “I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus,” reports 1 Corinthians 1.4. The specific basis of Paul’s thanksgiving in their case is God’s “grace given you in Christ Jesus.” Commonly this is viewed as a thanksgiving for grace as such, id est, the gracious outpouring of God’s mercy in Christ toward the undeserving. However, for Paul charis (“grace”) very often is closely associated with charisma/charismata (“gift/gifts”) and in such instance refers to concrete expressions of God’s gracious activity in his people. Indeed, the word “grace” itself sometimes denoted these concrete manifestations, the “graces” (gifts), of God’s grace. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

In our Systematic Theology, the main concern is, precisely, to build a “system,” this is, to work out the implications of our central perception of the Protestant principle along the mainlines of theological thought. Yet even though we are primarily concerned with the symbols of faith and their transcendent meaning, or with the historical relevance of the Christ, we unavoidably run into traditional Christian doctrines. These we reinterpret in order to assume them into our system. Whether our reinterpretations are orthodox or not is obviously an important question, but it is not the question to which we primarily address because we do not exclusively maintain a theology of revelation (as the neo-orthodox theologians have done). The terms “dogma” and “dogmatic,” are not terms we like to use because they came to be used at a time when the Church was engaged in self-defence. The Creeds were adopted as a protective formulation against heresies. Their acceptance became a matter of life and death for Christianity. This was a necessary step in the development of the Church, for heresies were demonic attempts to distort the Christian message. In this sense, a theology is always dogmatic: the word “dogmatics” emphasizes the importance of the formulated and officially acknowledged dogma for work of the systematic theologian. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

Yet we shun the word as much as possible, for we believe that the significance of dogmas became distorted after the first centuries. Instead of reaming protective formulations of the core of the Christian message, dogma is identified with the laws of the Christian state. Heresy became a social crime. State and Churches that condone this confusion have become themselves demonic. There arose a demonic use of dogma, a reversal of values, by which dogmas were used, by Catholic as well as Protestant, against theological honesty and scientific autonomy. This unfortunate situation has discredited the words “dogmas” and “dogmatics” to such a degree that it is hardly possible to re-establish their genuine meaning. Our reluctance to use a vocabulary to which large sections of the intellectual World are allergic makes sense, for our purpose is precisely to build a bridge between the Christian faith and the secularized intellect. No antagonism to any specific dogma is implied. This does not reduce the significance of the formulated dogmata…but it makes the use of the term “dogmatics” impossible. The Christian is ultimately concerned about Christology, not only as symbol and as history, but also as dogma. The ultimate source of Christian belief can only be the revelatory situation in which Jesus is perceived as the Christ. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

There are no “revealed dogmas” properly speaking, no depositum that was communicated to the Apostles and handed down through the life of the Church, to be infallibly taught to the faithful. Our attitude is well epitomized as there are no revealed doctrines, but there are revelatory events and situations which can be describe in doctrinal terms. “Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found on an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the World and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with human’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of humans for to dwell on all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of humans for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the God-head is like unto gold, or sliver, or stone, graven by art and human’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all humans everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the World in righteousness by that human who one hath ordained; whereof one hat given assurance unto all humans, in that one hath raised one from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter,” reports Acts 17.22-32. The first time I spoke of our existence as theologians, I indicated that the foundation of this existence lay in the power of the Divine Spirit and in the reality of the Church. It was the believing theologian—believing in spite of all one’s doubts and despairs—that I tried to describe. The second time that we considered our existence as theologians, we looked at the self-surrendering theologians who, though the power of love, becomes “all things to all humans,” that theologian who seems to lose oneself through the understanding of everything and everyone. This time let us think about the answering theologian who, in spite of one’s participation in the weakness and error of all humans, is able to answer their questions through the power of one’s foundation, the New Being in Christ. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

The famous scene in which Paul speaks from the central place of Greek wisdom shows us a man who is the prototype of the answering theologian. Paul has been asked about his message, partly because they knew that they did not know the truth, and seriously desired to know it. There are three stages in Paul’s answer, which reveal the three tasks of answering theologian. The first stage of Paul’s answer consists in the assertion that those who ask him the ultimate question are not unconscious of the answer: these humans adore an unknown God and thus witness to their religious knowledge in spite of their religious ignorance. That knowledge is not astounding, because God is close to each one of us; it is in Him that we live and move and exist; these also belong to His race. The first answer, then, that we must give to those who ask us about such a question is that they themselves are already aware of the answer We must show to them that neither they nor we are outside of God, that even the atheists stand in God-namely, that power out of which they live, the truth for which they grope, and the ultimate meaning of life in which they believe. It is bad theology and religious cowardice ever to think that there may be a place where we could look at God, as though He were something outside of us to be argued for or against. Genuine atheism is not humanly possible, for God is nearer to a human than humans are to themselves. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

A God can only be denied in the name of name of another God; and God appearing in one form can be denied only by God appearing in another form. That is the first answer that we must give to ourselves and to those who question us, not as an abstract statement, but rather as a continuous interpretation of our human existence, in all its hidden motions and abuses and certainties. God is nearer to us than we ourselves. We cannot find a place outside of Him; but we can try to find such a place. The second part of Paul’s answer is that we can be in the condition of continuous flight from God. We can imagine one way of escape after another; we can replace God by the products of our imagination; and we do. Although humankind is never without God, it perverts the picture of God. Although humankind is never without knowledge of God, it is ignorant of God. Humankind is separated from its origin; it lives under a law of wrath and frustration, of tragedy and self-destruction, because it produces one distorted image of God after another, and adores those images. The answering theologian must discover the false gods in the individual souls and in society. One must probe into their most secret hiding-places. One must challenge them through the power of the Divine Logos, which makes one a theologian. #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

Theological polemic is not merely a theoretical discussion, but rather a spiritual judgement against the gods which are not God, against those structures of evil, those distortions of God in thought and action. No compromise or adaptation or theological self-surrender is permitted on this level. For the first Commandment is the rock upon which theology stands. There is no synthesis possible between God and the idols. In spite of the dangers inherent in so judging, the theologian must become an instrument of the Divine Judgement against a distorted World. So far as they can grasp it in the light of their own questions, Paul’s listeners are willing to accept two-fold answer. However, Paul then speaks of a third thing which they are not able to bear. They either reject it immediately, or they postpone the decision to reject or accept it. He speaks of a Man Whom God has destined to the Judgement and Life of the World. That is the third and final part of the theological answer. For we are real theologians when we state that Jesus is the Christ, and that it is in Him that the Logos of theology is manifest. However, we are only theologians when we interpret this paradox, this stumbling-block for idealism and realism, for the weak and the strong, for both pagans and Jews. As theologians, we must interpret that paradox, and not throw paradoxical phrases at the minds of the people. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

We must not preserve or produce artificial stumbling-blocks, miracle-stories, legends, myths, and other sophisticated paradoxical talk. We must not distort, by ecclesiastical and theological arrogance, that great cosmic paradox that there is victory over death within the World of death itself. We must not impose the heavy burden of wrong stumbling-blocks upon those who ask us questions. However, neither must we empty the true paradox of its power. For true theological existence is the witnessing to Him Whose yoke is easy and Whose burden is light, to Him Who is the true paradox. There is also a question regarding the distribution of educational opportunities. Before humans can contribute according to their abilities, their abilities must be developed. However, in whom should society develop which abilities? It is clear that all humans require some early training to make them viable social beings; further, all humans require certain general skills necessary for performing work. We all have the right to receive the goods and resources necessary for preserving ourselves. Human beings have the right, rather, not to be killed, attacked, and deprived of their property—by persons in or outside of government. No human is good enough to govern another human, without that other’s consent. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

However, there are some very rare instances in which some citizens could find themselves in circumstances which require disregarding rights altogether. This would be in situations that cannot be characterizes to be “where peace is possible.” Nonetheless, under normal conditions, the enforceable right of every person not to be coerced by other persons. Humans have a right to life, a right not to be killed unjustly and a right to property, a right to acquire goods and resources either by initial acquisition or voluntary agreement. However, these rights do not entitle one to receive from others the goods and resources necessary for preserving one’s life. To possess any basic right to receive the goods and resources necessary for preserving one’s life conflict with possessing the right not to be killed, assaulted, or stolen from. The latter rights are considered to be held by all individual human beings. Rights are the link between the moral code of a human and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. Nonetheless, in a system that legally protects and preserves property right there will be cases where a rich person prevents a poor person from taking what belongs to her (the rich person)—for example, a chicken that the poor person might use to feed herself. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

When people defend their property, what are they doing? They are protecting themselves against the intrusive acts of some other person, acts that would normally deprive them of something to which they have a right, and the other has no right. As such, these acts of protectiveness make it possible for men and women in society to retain their own sphere of jurisdiction intact, protect their own moral space. They want to be sovereigns and govern their own lives, including their own productive decisions and actions. Those who mount the attack, in turn, fail or refuse to refrain from encroaching upon the moral space of their victims. They are treating the victim’s life and its productive results as though these were unowned resources for them to do with as they choose. This system is developed for a human community in which peace is possible. It is a system that is developed for individual rights, which guide men and women in such an adequately hospitable environment to act without thwarting the flourishing of others, are thus suitable bases for the legal foundations of a human society. It is possible for people in the World to pursue their proper goals without thwarting a similar pursuit by others. The typical conflict situation in society involves people who wish to take shortcuts to earning their living (and a lot more) by attacking others, not those who lack any other alternative to attacking others so as to reach that same goal. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

If the government entered areas that required it to make very particular judgments and depart from serving the interest of public as such, the integrity of law would be seriously endangered. We have already noted that the idea of satisfying basic needs can involve the difficulty of distinguishing those whose actions are properly to be so characterized. Rich persons are indeed satisfying their basic needs as they protect and preserve their property rights. Private property rights are necessary for a morally decent society. Normally persons do not lack the opportunities and resources to satisfy their own basic needs. Even if we grant that some helpless, physically disabled, those with intellectual disabilities, or destitute persons could offer nothing to anyone that would merit wages enabling the to carry on their loves and perhaps even flourish, there is still the other possibility for most actual, known hard cases, namely seeking help. I am not speaking here of the cases we know: people who drop out of school, get a skilled job, marry and have kids, only to find that their need more adequate preparation to survive life in these expensive communities all across American. Some have even considered migrating to Mexico, but prices for real estate there are also quite high. In fact, you may get more for your money in America. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

We have no justification for assuming that the rich are all callous, though this caricature is regularly painted by communists and in folklore. Supporting and gaining advantage from the institution of private property by no means implies that one lacks the virtue of generosity. The rich are no more immure to virtue than the poor are to vice. The contrary view is probably a legacy of the idea that only those concerned with spiritual or intellectual matters can be trusted to know virtue—those concerned with seeking material prosperity are too base. The destitute typically have options other than to violate the rights of the well-off. “’Ought’ implies ‘can”’ is satisfiable by the moral imperative that the poor ought to seek help, not loot. There is then no injustice in the rich preventing the poor from seeking such loot by violating the right to private property “”Ought implies ‘can”’ is fully satisfied if the poor can take the kind of action that could gain them the satisfaction of their basic needs, and this action could well be asking for help. There are people who are helplessly poor, who through no fault of their own, nor again through any rights violation by others, are destitute. However, those cases are by no means typical. They are extremely rare. And even rarer are those cases in which all avenues regarded as legitimate from the American point of view have been exhausted, including appealing for help. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

The bulk of poverty in the World is not the result of natural disaster or illness. Rather it is political oppression, whereby people throughout many of the World’s countries are not legally permitted to look out for themselves in the production of trade. Of course, it would be immoral if people failed to help out when this was clearly no sacrifice for them. However, charity or generosity is not a categorical imperative, even for the rich. There are more basic moral principles that might require the rich to refuse to be charitable—for example, if they are using most of their wealth for the protection of freedom or a just society. Courage can be more important than charity or benevolence or compassion. Human behaviour is taken to be determined by a person’s economic circumstances, so one is bound by one’s situation and cannot make choices that would overcome them. More generally, in modern political philosophy there as been a strong tendency to view human beings as passive, unable to initiate their own conduct and moved by innate drives or environmental stimuli. Thus, those who are well-off could not have achieved this through only their own initiative, nor could those who are badly off have failed in significant ways. Accordingly, all the poor or badly off, be they victims of others’ oppression, casualties of misfortune, or products of their own misconduct are regarded alike. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

The right to free association, freedom of trade, freedom of wealth accumulation, freedom of contact, freedom of entrepreneurship, freedom of speech, freedom of thought—that provides the most hospitable social climate for the creation of wealth. Socialism can do no more than to socialize poverty, exempli gratia, make everyone poor through socialized medicine, free higher education and so forth. As to the historical evidence, it is hard to argue that other tan substantially capitalist economic systems, which tend in the direction of libertarianism (as least as far as the legal respect for and protection of private property or the right to it are concerned) have fared much better in reducing poverty than have others, without also causing massive political and other social failures (such as dysfunction of civil liberties, institutions of forced labour and involuntary servitude, regimentation of the bulk of social relations, arresting scientific and technological progress, or censorship of the arts and other intellectual endeavours). Thus, America is still the freest of societies, with many of its legal principles giving expression to classical liberal, near-libertarian ideas, and it is, at the same tie, the most generally productive (creative and culturally rich) of all societies, with its wealth assisting in the support of hundreds of other societies across the globe. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

There is another point to be stressed. This is that there can be people in the American society—indeed, in any society—for whom a lack of wealth, even extreme poverty relative to the mean, may not be a great liability. Not everyone wants to, or even ought to, live prosperously. For some individuals a life of ostensible poverty could be of substantial benefit. Some people elect not to seek economic prosperity. There are some who are poor but who are not, therefore, worse off than the rich, provided we do not confine ourselves to counting economic prosperity as the prime source of well-being. Furthermore, some artist whoa re poor are happier than some merchants who are rich. There is no justification for feeling compassion for such artists, despite their poverty. In short, being poor in and of itself does not justify special consideration. Being in need of what it takes to attain one’s well-being warrants, if the need is a matter of natural misfortune or injury for others, feelings and conduct amounting to care, generosity, and charity. Poverty does not always constitute such neediness. Nonetheless, all humans have the right to live in a community of other human individual with equal protection under the law. Justice requires only an equal liberty. Players in the game do not protest to their being other positions such as batter, pitcher, catcher and the like just because they cannot win. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Hear us, holy Lord, Father Almighty, everlasting God, and join the grace of Thine own visitation to our humble services; that Thou mayest makes Thyself a mansion in the hearts of those whose dewing we approach; through Jesus Christ our Lord, we know that all things are possible. “Now when Ammon and his brethren separated themselves in the borders of the land of the Lamanites, behold Aaron took his journey towards the and which was called by the Lamanites, Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers’ nativity; and it was away joining the borders of Mormon. Now the Lamanites and the Amalekites and the people of Amulon had built a great city, which was called Jerusalem. Now the Lamanites of themselves were sufficiently hardened, but the Amalekites and the Amulonites were still harder; therefore they did cause the Lamanites that they should harden their hearts, that they should wax strong in wickedness and their abominations. And it came to pass that Aaron came to the city of Jerusalem, and first began to preach to the Amalekites. And he began to preach to them in their synagogues, for they had built synagogues, for they had built synagogues after the order of the Nehors; for many of the Amalekites and the Amulonities were after the order of the Nehors. #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

“Therefore, as Aaron entered into one of their synagogues to preach unto the people, and as he was speaking unto them, behold there arose an Amalekite and began to contend with him, saying: What is that thou hast testified? Hast thou seen an angel? Why do not angels appear unto us? Behold are not this people as good as thy people? Thou also sayest, expect we repent we shall perish. How knowest thou the thought and intent of our heart? How knowest thou that we have cause to repent? How knowest thou that we are not a righteous people? Behold, we have built sanctuaries, and we do assemble ourselves together to worship God. We do believe that God will save all humans. Now Aaron said unto him: Believest thou that the Son of God shall come to redeem humankind from their sins? And the man said unto him: We do not believe that thou knowest any such thing. We do not believe in these foolish traditions. We do not believe that thou knowest of things to come, neither do we believe that thy fathers and also that our fathers did know concerning the things which they spake, of that which is to come. Now Aaron began to open the scriptures unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and also concerning the resurrection of the dead, and that there could be no redemption for humankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

“And it came to pass as he began to expound these things unto them they were angry with him, and began to mock him; and they would not hear the words which he spake. Therefore, when he saw that they would not hear his words, he departed out of their synagogue, and came over to a village which was called Ani-Anti and there he found Muloki preaching the word unto them; and also Ammah and his brethren. And they contended with many about the word. And it came to pass that the people would harden their hearts, therefore they departed and came over into the land of Middoni. And they did preach the word unto many, and few believed on the words which they taught. Nevertheless, Aaron and a certain number of his brethren were taken and cast into prison, and the remainder of them fled out of the land of Middoni unto the regions round about. And those who were cast into prison suffered many things, and they were delivered by the hand of Lamoni and Ammon, and they were fed and clothed. And they went forth again to declare the word, and thus they were delivered for the first time out of prison; and thus they had suffered. And they went forth whitersoever they were led by the Spirit of the Lord, preaching the word of God in every synagogue of the Amalekites, or in every assembly of the Lamanites where they could be admitted. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

“And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct. And it came to pass that Ammon and Lamoni returned from the land of Middoni to the land of Ishmael, which was the land of their inheritance. And king Lamoni would not suffer that Ammon should serve him, or be his servant. However, he caused that there should be synagogues built in the land of Ishmael; and he caused that his people, or the people who were under his reign, should assemble themselves together. And he did rejoice over them, and he did teach them many things. And he did also declare unto them that they were a people who were a free people, that they were free from the oppressions of the king, his father; for that his father had granted unto him that he might reign over the people who were in the land of Ishmael, and in all the land round about. And he also declared unto them that they might have the liberty of worshipping the Lord their God according to their desires, in whatsoever place they were in, if it were in the land which was under the reign of King Lamoni. And Ammon did preach unto the people of king Lamoni; and it came to pass that he did teach them all things concerning things pertaining to righteousness. And he did exhort them in daily, with all diligence; and they gave heed unto his word, and they were zealous for keeping the commandments of God,” reports Alma 21.1-23. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

Cresleigh Homes

Pro-tip 💡: Your #MillsStation Residence 4 dining room is the perfect spot for some succulents to call home. 🤩

Take a virtual tour of this floor plan on our website! Link in bio. https://cresleigh.com/mills-station/residence-4/

In early 1948, Emanuel D’amico rented a brownstone storefront at number 309 Court Street in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Carroll Gardens. Emanuel, a sea merchant from Palermo, Sicily, left his home some twenty years prior — one of the over 4 million Italians who immigrated to America seeking their fortune in the New World. He’d lost all he had in a failed Pasta Company endeavor and New York seemed his last chance to make things right. For a number of years he worked odd jobs and began a number of side ventures, but none were too successful. A number of years later, after sending for his wife under a U.S. sponsored amnesty program, the two reunited in Brooklyn and shortly after opened the doors to D’amico Foods.

D’amico Foods originally set their sights on coffee. In 1948, there were few cafes and most coffee consumed was mass produced, undrinkable swill. With an AJ Deer Royal Roaster, Emanuel became one of the first small batch, roast to order Brooklyn roasters. The max capacity of the machine was a mere 10 pounds, ensuring that all coffee which left D’amico Foods was fresh. He was revolutionary in his approach and developed quite a following amongst the Italian immigrant population in Carroll Gardens. With each batch Emanuel pulled, the rich aroma of fresh roasted coffee spilled out into the neighborhood.

Three generations and over 60 years later, D’Amico is still a staple of the Carroll Gardens neighborhood. The storefront has become a Brooklyn legacy. That’s why we established D’amico Coffee in an effort to share this longstanding tradition of delicious Brooklyn roasted coffee with the nation. We’ve expanded our facilities and now offer wholesale but continue to use the same techniques and approach to roasting Emanuel did back in 1948. Because at the end of the day, we’re a family owned business and we’re your neighborhood roaster. For the best coffee in the World: https://damicocoffee.com/