<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="width:425px; height:350px;” data="http://www.youtube.com/v/eXl9oiCa-dE"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eXl9oiCa-dE" /></object>

This short audio clip is taken from a recent sermon presented by John Piper at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on March 27, 2007.  No further introduction is necessary–just listen to it.  Praise God for men like John Piper, who are able to use mere words to express such profound truths.  Thank you Dr. Piper for reminding us that Jesus is more than icing on the cake.

Read more here and here.  Listen to the whole sermon here.

Greg,

What a worshipful two minutes that audio-video clip was. It really jump-started my day.

Piper has become one of the greatest preachers around today, along with John MacArthur and RC Sproul.

Stan

Wow, Greg, thanks so much for posting that amazing clip.  If one can call themselves a Christian and NOT experience a tingling sensation up and down their spine when watching it then something is dreadfully wrong.  If I’d known he would be speaking at SBTS I would’ve taken the day off and gone over there.  The same thing happened with MacArthur spoke there a few months back and I didn’t find out about it until the day before when it was already too late to arrange time off.  Al Mohler has brought in some terrific speakers to the campus since taking the helm.

It’s such a shame to me that some former Adventists devalue John Piper’s ministry simply because he advocates that setting aside a day to focus on things of the Lord is beneficial to Christians...like this somehow means that he is a deceived legalist even though he attaches no salvational requirements to it at all.  That’s pretty sad.

Aaron

Great points Aaron, and thanks for coming on. Yes, I know of former Adventists who like a lot of things Piper says, but when they heard his position on Sunday Sabbatarianism, they cooled somewhat. You know what, these kind of differences just don’t matter to me anymore. Piper’s overall message constantly glorifies our Lord Jesus Christ.

Stan

Listening to Piper’s clip again today, this particular sentence jumped out at me:

“You’re satisfied by the wrath-bearing, justice-satisfying, sin-atoning death of Jesus.”

This morning I was browsing through Johnson and Water’s book, By Faith Alone. In a chapter entitled “The Reformation, Today’s Evangelicals, and Mormons,” there’s an interesting footnote providing some detail behind Piper’s sentence about God’s wrath, justice and the atoning death of Jesus.

Responding to the trend in modern evangelical circles to downplay the atonement, the authors give commentary in a footnote:

“Steve Chalke, a high-profile advocate of what calls itself the Emergent Conversation, recently launched a frontal assault on the doctrine of penal substitution calling it, among other things, a form of ‘cosmic child abuse.’ See his The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 2003).  This has become a common refrain amongst embrangling emergent types, including their leading spokesman, Brian McLaren; cf. his ‘A Radical Rethinking of Our Evangelistic Strategy’ Theology News & Notes (Fuller Theological Seminary, Fall 2004), where he says, ‘bona fide evangelicals (such as Mark Baker, Joel Green, and N.T. Wright) are suggesting that the gospel is not atonement-centered, or, at least, not penal-substitutionary-atonement-centered.’ He has also gone on record describing penal substitution: ‘presents a God who is incapable of forgiving.  Unless He kicks somebody else.’ See his The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change Everything (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005).  Joel Green and Mark Baker co-authored the book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in the New Testament & Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000).  This book is even more truculent than Chalke, declaring, for example, ‘Undoubtedly the widespread popularity of penal substitutionary atonement is built in part on the base of human fear of God, combined with the perceived necessity of placating an emotion-laden God ever on the verge of striking out against any who disobey his every will’.”

I shake my head when I think how far we must go to cover up what God said through the prophet Isaiah hundreds of years before the prophecy came to pass on Calvary:

”Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned–every one–to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all...Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:4-6,10-11 ESV)

Cosmic child abuse?  Emotion-laden God?  A God who is incapable of forgiving unless He kicks somebody?

How about a God of unsearchable holiness who, in His infinite mercy, laid our unrighteousness on Himself, so that we could draw close to Him?

May we worship not a god created in our image, but the righteous God of the universe who revealed Himself in Scripture and not in the random musings of modern-day “prophets” or philosophers.

Greg

Thank You.

Very moving indeed!

Truth beyond measure. 

Al Mohler on his blog yesterday had an excellent review posted here:

http://albertmohler.com//blog_read.php?id=920

This is a review of an article by JI Packer back in 1973.

But now there is a liberal assault on the doctrine of the atonement. I noticed this first when I was at Loma Linda when Provonsha and Maxwell taught a whole generation of students the heretical moral influence theory, which reduces the cross to nothing more than a demonstration of God’s love. But Provonsha and Maxwell were largely products of the liberal schools of theology they attended.

Liberal Adventism has been taken up with the views described by Greg in his post above.

Reading Packer’s article on why penal substitution is important and essential to the Christian faith is certainly worthwhile.

Stan

JI Packer’s article mentioned above is linked here:

http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html

Stan

Here is a paragraph from Packer’s article:

“Every theological question has behind it a history of study, and narrow eccentricity in handling it is unavoidable unless the history is taken into account. Adverse comment on the concept of penal substitution often betrays narrow eccentricity or this kind. The two main historical points relating to this idea are, first, that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it and, second, that the arguments brought against it in 1578 by the Unitarian Pelagian, Faustus Socinus, in his brilliant polemic De Jesu Christo Servatore (Of Jesus Christ the Saviour)1 have been central in discussion of it ever since. What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice). What Socinus did was to arraign this idea as irrational, incoherent, immoral and impossible. Giving pardon, he argued, does not square with taking satisfaction, nor does the transferring of punishment from the guilty to the innocent square with justice; nor is the temporary death of one a true substitute for the eternal death of many; and a perfect substitutionary satisfaction, could such a thing be, would necessarily confer on us unlimited permission to continua in sin. Socinus’ alternative account of New Testament soteriology, based on the axiom that God forgives without requiring any satisfaction save the repentance which makes us forgivable, was evasive and unconvincing, and had little influence. But his classic critique proved momentous: it held the attention of all exponents of the Reformation view for more than a century, and created a tradition of rationalistic prejudice against that view which has effectively shaped debate about it right down to our own day.”
--------------------------------------------------------

Notice that the arguments against penal substitution come from a Unitarian Pelagian named Socinius in 1578. It is this Socinian view that is being resurrected again in evangelical circles. I occasionally post on another SDA forum http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com where this kind of theology is advanced. The majority over there think of penal substitution as totally inconsistent with their view of what God’s character should be like.

I am really astounded that Desmond Ford who was orthodox on the atonement and every major Christian doctrine lost his credentials, when Jack Provonsha and Graham Maxwell were allowed to teach a view of the atonement which is really pagan in origin. It is a view which takes away any significance to the blood of Christ shed for our sins. It is a view that directly contradicts Hebrews 9 which says ‘without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins’. But a bloody atonement is foreign to a post-modern mindset. Imagine again Steve Chaulke characterizing the classic view as “cosmic child abuse”. And I have heard the same equivalent phrase in liberal Adventist circles for years.

Stan

Stan:

I don’t think anyone knows what Graham Maxwell believes but Graham Maxwell.  He always taught using the Socratic method. Each student came away challenged to do their own thinking. The closest he every came to expressing his views were in challenging the “Wrath of God” concept of those who misunderstood J. Edwards infamaus sermon. The cross demonstrates God in the hands of angry men. Men motivated by the killing hate of Satan for the Trinity. Given the classic Loma Linda mind set(particularly of the Hill Church) a mind set that believed and taught that every word from the pen of E. G. White was an exact representation of the mind of God; Maxwell and Provonsha were a needed corrective.  They always were very careful to refer to representative passages from the Spirit of Prophecy to support their propositions--seldom if every their position. 

Never-the-less, there was a cloud over Graham ever since he ignored the brethren’s advice about the University of Chicago. He walked a very fine line--too fine for anyone to label or libel him. Both men were godly teachers, of great personal morality and ethics. Jack Provonsha was particularly active in the Consultations that occurred following Glacier View in support of Desmond Ford and Scholars within the church.  Dr. Alden Thompson at Walla Walla probably was the more effective and more conservative--but I at least didn’t find any Calvinism in him or liberalism either. He presents his case in a very winning and redemptive way. I know he places both Maxwell and Provonsha in the Christian fellowship and so do I. 

Hi Deacon,

Are you saying that Maxwell and Provonsha did teach that Christ died for our sins, and took the penalty of the second death due us?

All I can tell you is I sat in Provonsha’s religion classes in medical school for three years, and I never heard what I view now to be the true gospel of salvation. I heard the true gospel of Christ dying for my sins on the cross at an excellent SDA campmeeting in Soquel, while growing up, but what I heard from Provonsha was entirely foreign to the old fashioned Christian gospel. I especially realized this after I came to a saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice for me back in 1982. Shortly after that it was Desmond Ford that was very outspoken that another gospel was being preached at Loma linda, called the “Moral Influence Theory”, and he did say that this indeed was the view of Maxwell and Provonsha. If Ford is wrong about this, and I am wrong to repeat these statements, then I would be happy to see your evidence to the contrary. I know you spent a lot more time around these men than I did.

But also Provonsha came and gave a week of prayer at PUC one time, and the message seemed entirely foreign to my mind.

There almost seemed to be this level of high sophisitication among the more educated elite, and this attitude that the gospel Billy Graham preached was somehow inferior, or even too childlike for the intellectual types who loved to go to Provonsha’s Sabbath School class when I was there from 1973 to 1980. This was, and still is my perception as well as many others who have seen the same thing. This elitist spirit is also present every time I go to an AAF forum meeting in San Diego, where you can hear the likes of Dalton Baldwin tell us why the Bible is unreliable (as I described on another thread).

Anyway Deacon, maybe you can show me things these men wrote or taught which would put them more in the orthodox camp of Christianity. In fact, this might make an interesting separate thread of discussion talking about different views of the atonement, and whether a view of the atonement which denies the efficacy of the blood of Christ for remission of sins is indeed orthodox?

Stan

Stan:

You make an excellent point about evidence. There is none to my knowledge. Neither Graham nor Jack published in the classic sense.  There are sermons around. I think Graham has a web site. I forget the name but if you google for Graham Maxwell you will find it.  He has a paper entitled, as I recall, “How God Won His Case”.  That comes a close to what I understand Graham to believe as anything I have read or heard.  I knew these men as Christian friends. My real hero was Edward Heppenstall to which they agreed.  I found and still find Dr. Heppenstall’s book “The Man Who Is God” and his article in the Signs entitled, I believe, “The Crentrality of the Cross” about 1962 as Manna from Heaven. I know that Graham agreed with my assessment at the time.
I find in E. G. White a mix of hype Calvinism and Moral Influence. I try to explain E. G. White as A and B. That is why there are such angry exchanges over her writings. The story is told of the little girl overhearing her parents heated argument of a passage of Scripture saying: “If God wanted us to understand, why didn’t write it plainly?”

So I believe that Graham and Jack are Christians. I know they are my friends. But my Scriptural favorites remain, John, Paul, and the Writer to the Hebrews. The Psalms got me through WWII so I must not forget David et al. But if I had to chose it would be the Gospel of John, Romans, and Ephesians. I believe that Graham, at least, feels the same way.

Back to the original: Piper’s sermon quote should be the mantra of us all. The Deacon.

Stan

I did find some secondary evidence from the Archives of Spectrum. In Memory of Jack Provonsha The Editors, David R. Larson, and Roy Branson. It can be found at:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/library/columns2004/040817provonsha.html

Stan

I did find some secondary evidence from the Archives of Spectrum. In Memory of Jack Provonsha The Editors, David R. Larson, and Roy Branson. It can be found at:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/library/columns2004/040817provonsha.html

Perception of a “Juror”

Graham Maxwell

God may you “win your case when you go into court!”

Goodspeed’s dramatic translation of Romans 3:4 matches Paul’s use of David’s prayer in Psalm 51:4. The apostle has raised the question, does the lack of faith among God’s privileged people mean that God Himself cannot be trusted? “By no means! God must prove true, though every man be false; as the Scripture says, ‘That you may be shown to be right in what you say, and win your case when you go into court.’”

If God had not been accused, there would have been no need for Him to defend Himself. And just as the charges had been heard throughout the universe, so the answers must be publicly made known. When Daniel described a convening of the heavenly court, he emphasized the open presentation of the evidence. A hundred million watched as “the court sat in judgement, and the books were opened” (Daniel 7:10, RSV).

As sinners needing salvation, we naturally tend to be preoccupied with what God has done to save us, so that we may be regarded as righteous when our cases come up in the judgement. But the Bible speaks of a prior concern of far greater importance–the confirmation of the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God Himself.

Some find it hard to believe that the Infinite One would tolerate–let alone encourage–the questioning of his inscrutable ways. But the book of Revelation and many other parts of Scripture describe an age-long conflict over the divine character and government that has involved the whole universe–even to the extent of war up in heaven (see Revelation 12:7-17).

Unless God wins this war and reestablishes peace in His family, our salvation is meaningless. Who would want to live for eternity in a warring universe? Moreover, the conflict is over God’s own trustworthiness, and until serious questions concerning His character have been convincingly resolved, what sound basis is there for our faith in Him?

What would it mean for God to win this war? His enemies are His own children. To destroy them would be no victory for a loving Father, but an agonizing loss. Think of the eternal void Lucifer will leave in God’s infinite memory!

If the conflict were merely over power, how easily God could demonstrate His superiority. But even the demons already acknowledge this, and in their distrust of so powerful a God they “tremble with fear” (James 2:19, GNB).

The controversy is over a far more subtle issue: Who is telling the truth, God or the brilliant leader of His Angels?

The former Lightbearer, now called Satan or the Devil, meaning “accuser” or “adversary,” first succeeded in persuading vast numbers of his fellow angels that God was unworthy of their trust (see Revelation 12:4, 9). Then when the conflict was extended to our newly-created planet, he accused God of lying to our first parents and insinuated that he had been arbitrary, vengeful and severe in His harsh restriction of their freedom.

If Satan’s charges are sustained, we would be foolish to place our trust in such a deity. Has God responded to these accusations? Do we find His answers a sufficient basis for our faith?

The Bible–all of it–is a record of the lengths to which God has been willing to go to convince us of His trustworthiness. During the past forty years, I have enjoyed the privilege of leading groups through all sixty-six books more than 130 times. With each successive reading it becomes more convincingly apparent that God is not the kind of person His enemies have made Him out to be. On the contrary, He values nothing higher than our freedom and our freely given love and trust–toward Him and toward each other. Such qualities cannot be commanded or produced by force. Nor does God ask us to trust Him as a stranger. Instead He first reveals Himself, that we may come to know Him and decide for ourselves whether we find Him worthy of our trust.

This is why, instead of destroying His enemies, God took His case into court. The supreme Creator of the universe humbly submitted His own character and government to the scrutiny and investigation of His creatures.

How did God set out to win His case? Did He resort to bribery or intimidation? Satan accused God of buying loyalty in the case of Job. Did He expect the court to accept His claims of trustworthiness simply because of who He is–the powerful Creator of the universe? Did He bedazzle the court with miracles? Did He threaten to destroy anyone who voted against Him? Would that have helped Him win His case? What kind of victory in court did He desire?

Most of all, since the issue is a question of trust, did God manipulate the jury by miraculously planting faith in their hearts so they would all vote in His favor? Would you trust a God who would so control the minds of His children or be satisfied with such artificial faith?

There are no shortcuts to trust. Claims of trustworthiness prove nothing. The devil can make such claims. Hitler claimed he could be trusted, and history showed the folly of believing mere promises and claims without confirming evidence. When Satan questioned the genuineness of Job’s faith, God did not settle the matter by divine pronouncement. Instead, he permitted the painful demonstration of the facts in the case. This is God’s way of establishing the truth.

Even though God has been falsely accused, there is only one way to meet the charge. Only by the demonstration of trustworthiness over a long period of time and under a great variety of circumstances–especially difficult ones–can trust be reestablished and confirmed.

This is why God in so “many and various ways” demonstrated the truth about Himself “to our fathers” through the long centuries of Old Testament history (see Hebrews 1:1, RSV). Finally, He sent His Son to live among us. And the way Jesus lived, the way He treated people, the things He taught about His Father, and most of all the unique and awful way He died were the clearest revelation of the truth about the trustworthiness of God the universe will ever see or need.

What a price God has been willing to pay to restore and confirm trust in His family! And the costly demonstration was not only for the benefit of us sinful mortals. The whole universe has been involved. Christ did not die for sinful men alone. He shed His blood for the sinless angels, too! For they, too, needed the faith-confirming message of the cross.

Paul explained this to the believers in Colosse. “Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through His Son’s death on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven” (Colossians 1:19, 20, GNB). It is through the meaning of the cross that the war that began up in heaven is finally brought to an end and eternal peace is made sure.

Twice in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul wrote of God’s purpose to bring his whole family back together again in unity and harmony (see Ephesians 1:10; 3:10). As Jesus said before His crucifixion, “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to me” (John 12:32, GNB).

The 1611 first edition of the King James version has Jesus saying that He will draw “all men.” But later editions carefully indicate by the use of italics that the word “men” has been supplied. Paul’s larger understanding of the involvement of the onlooking universe in the meaning of the cross supports the translation of the Good News Bible, “I will draw everyone.”

Ellen White emphatically agrees that “the plan of redemption had a yet broader and deeper purpose than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth...but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe.” Then she quotes John 12:32, boldly and correctly leaving out the limiting word “men” (PP 68, 69).

In the same chapter in Romans where Paul calls for God’s victory in court, he cites the supreme evidence upon which God bases His defence and wins his case. God sacrificed Himself in His Son to provide convincing demonstration of the truth. As Paul explains, “God showed Him publicly dying as a means of reconciliation to be taken advantage of by faith. This was to demonstrate his own righteousness, for in His forbearance God had apparently overlooked men’s former sins. It was to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, to show that He Himself is righteous and that He sets right those who trust in Jesus” (Romans 3:25, my own translation).

God had told the truth in Eden. He had not lied as Satan charged. Sin does result in death. But no, it is not torture and execution at the hands of a vengeful God. God did not lay a hand on His Son, either in Gethsemane or on Calvary. He “gave Him up” as He will give up sinners in the end. And they will die. And God will cry, just as he wept over rebellious Israel, “How can I give you up, how can I let you go?” (See Hosea 11:8; cf. Romans 1:24, 26, 28; 4:25)

Was it worth such a price to clear up any misunderstanding about sin and its consequences and how God is involved in the eternal death of His unsavable children? Why was it so important to God that His children should not serve Him from fear of torture and execution?

Some of God’s own misunderstanding people demonstrated the terrible answer. The universe watched in horror as scrupulously devout observers of the Sabbath tortured Jesus to death in God’s name–then hurried home to keep holy yet another seventh day, to show that they were indeed God’s faithful and obedient people.

How could they be so religious and so cruel? Was it because they worshipped a god who would do the very same thing? Cruel persecutor Saul served such a god until he met Jesus on the Damascus road. Is there a warning here to Christians who worship a god who would miraculously keep sinners alive in the final flames until they have been sufficiently tortured before execution?

Three highly privileged disciples were invited to watch the awesome experience in Gethsemane, but they were too sleepy to pay attention. Only one of them went out to Calvary to see and hear for himself God’s costly answers to the questions in the great controversy.

But the evidence was not wasted on the rest of the universe. Ever since Christ cried out on Calvary, “It is finished,” the loyal angels have never tired of assuring God that He has won their everlasting love and trust (see Revelation 4:8; 5:11-14). On the basis of the evidence God had overwhelmingly won His case. And He had won it with evidence that could stand up under investigation for eternity! Only here on this planet are there any remaining doubts about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God.

The open way in which God sought to win His case is itself persuasive evidence of His trustworthiness. He even warned against accepting questionable evidence, especially signs and wonders used as a substitute for truth (see Deuteronomy 13:1-3). This warning, of course, invited people to look carefully at the miracles God Himself performed.

God also warned of the danger of accepting too quickly the claims of religious leaders that their messages came straight from God; they could be lying (see 1 Kings 13). This in turn invited people to be cautious in accepting claims and promises that seemed to be made by God Himself.

On the road to Emmaus, God further demonstrated His concern that important decisions be based on weight of evidence rather than the authority of someone’s mere assertions, no matter who he may be. As Jesus talked with the two disciples, He disguised Himself until He had interpreted the Scripture and had led them to an intelligent faith in His life, His character, His mission to earth, and His death and resurrection. Clearly, He wished the truth to be established in their minds, not because it was supported by His personal testimony, but because the teaching and predictions of the Old Testament, agreeing with the facts of His life and death, presented unquestionable evidence of that truth (see Luke 24:13-35).

That the Sovereign of the universe, who has the power to run His creation any way He wishes, should humbly choose to win our agreement on the basis of adequate evidence is unbelievable–but true! God has clearly shown it to be His preference, and history has demonstrated the reason why.

God even prefers that we regard ourselves not as His servants but His friends. As Jesus explained in John 15:15, the reason for this incredible offer is that the servant simply does what he is told. No reasons. No explanations. Just unquestioning submission and obedience. It is an honor to be God’s faithful servant, but God prefers the intelligent cooperation of understanding friends.

God was honored by the confidence of Abraham and Moses when–with all due reverence–they ventured to question His purposes and plans. As can be expected of good friends, they were concerned about God’s reputation. And God was proud to acknowledge them in the Bible as His trusted friends.

How could a God like this fail to win His case–at least with me and you!

©1987 Graham Maxwell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

©1998 Pine Knoll Publications. All rights reserved.

Stan

This is not evidence but another observation. Jack Provonsha was Professor of Christian Ethics. Therefore, his classes where directed toward the Life Style of the Forgiven. He began his lectures on the assumption that the Class were either Christian or familiar with the Claims of Christianity. If you follow Sprectrum on line you may have noted that I had a two part series: The First the Claims of Christianity, the Second the Life Style of the Forgiven. The Four G’s of Christianity posted in ForTheGospel was a parallel piece. The one thing I had trouble with Graham was getting a yes or no usually just another question. The one thing I had trouble with Jack was his vocabulary was too esoteric for this old farmer. Among the faculty at Loma Linda I found those two the closest to Christian Gentlemen I have known.  I knew a couple of Jesuits at Marquette with that same Christian ethic. There are not many who walk the walk like they did. Stan, I wonder if you were at Loma Linda when Paul Heubach was Pastor of the University Church. Here, to my mind, was another Christian Gentleman.
Lots of Seventh-day Adventists too few with the Life Style of the Forgiven.

A short story about Graham. While teaching at PUC he was invited to address the Roman Catholic Seminary in S.F. He began by stating that the Church was built on Peter. He paused and then added: and Matthew, John, James, and went on and named all twelve apostles and cited Rev. 21:14. He quickly added, “Of Course, Peter in his first testamony before the Sanhedrin declared Jesus Chirst as the Chief Corner Stone, citing Act. 4:11 Graham then went on: I want to tell you about that Chief Corner Stone.  When Graham had finished the Archbishop said: “You are not far from the kingdom, son!” That one of many reason why I call Graham my dear Christian friend.