The Irrationality of Evolutionary Materialism

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Charles Darwin
Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

― C.S. Lewis

In Sunday School we have been reading and reviewing this book together,

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Darwinism-Flawed-Disastrous/dp/1436383684/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

Windchy, brings out the Darwin quote and Lewis only teased it out its implications.

1.) Incoherency of Materialism

In the end Materialism (Naturalism) is inherently contradictory and so irrational since it the idea of truth is itself a non-corporeal, non-material idea. Further, the very second that the Materialist begins invoking “logic” to support their position they have at that point overturned their materialist position since logic itself is immaterial. Further still, as the materialist disavows the “mind,” instead choosing to embrace the material brain. But all the brain is a bio-chemical entity that has evolved over time. How can a bio-chemical entity ever develop anything like the non material concept of true truth?

2.) Materialism Attributes the supernatural to the natural

Materialism denies the supernatural and then turns around and imbues the natural with supernatural categories. Matter becomes eternal, omnipotent, having aseity, infinite, etc. Naturalism then doesn’t void the supernatural, it instead, merely tucks it away inside the natural.

The implication of this is that a absolutized Nature that is impersonal, irrational, and without purpose creates an effect — a world that is allegedly personal, rational, and purposive — without supernatural means that is greater than its cause. Materialism wants to insist that a non supernatural and mindless world brought forth a rational world that is inhabited by beings brought about by a time + chance + circumstance natural selection that can rationally reflect on their irrational origins. So, Naturalism, posits rational, self-aware human beings that have brains but no minds who can rationally and meaningfully reflect on their irrational origins.

Pointing out the Obvious

I picked at part of this quote in the previous entry but I just have to come back for another bite at the proverbial apple.

D. G. Hart writes,

“So if you are a legislator or president or judge and you hold office by virtue of being elected by Americans, not just the Christian ones, then don’t you have an obligation to execute your office in a way that is in the best interests of the people you serve (Americans and American-Christians)?”

1.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one posit, that acting in a non-Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents would be a Christian thing to do?

2.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one not think, that acting in Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents, would always be in the best interest of non-Christian constituents?

3.) By what standard are we defining “best interest?”

Darryl asks,

“But if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

1.) I guess every thought captive to the obedience of Christ is understood to have the addition “except in the public/common kingdom.”

2.) So much for “whatever is not done in faith is sin.”

3.) This quote suggests that if someone is voted in by all the Americans then there are times when it would be wrong to act in the best interest of Christians vis a vis the Christian constituents.

3.) Are we being told by a Dr. of the Church that it is wrong, at times, (by what Standard?) to act as a Christian when in a public capacity?

4.) If one is not acting as a Christian then how is one acting? Perhaps it is the case for Hart that it is Christian to not act as a Christian when you are a public official representing all the people?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Hart continues,

I get it. Politicians face ethical dilemmas but those are not the same as a personal preference or conviction on the one hand and what is best for everyone on the other. A Major League Baseball umpire may have grown up as a Phillies’ fan, but if he is behind the plate for a Phils-Pirates game, he’s supposed to call the same strike zone for both pitchers.

So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?

1.) Only a Christian Umpire, or a Umpire influenced by a Christian worldview would think it important to call balls and strikes as “balls and strikes” in a Phillies vs. Pirates game. A non-Christian Umpire would call that outside pitch a third strike on Andrew McCutchen every time and be glad he was able to do so.

2.) Acting in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers would be to always act as a Christian.

Where R2K World’s Collide … Dr. Darrell Hart contra Dr. R. Scott Clark

Recently, public officials of the California State University locations, ruled to “de-recognize” the Christian campus ministry called “Inter-Varsity.” See story linked,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/intervarsity-sanctioned-california-state-university_n_5791906.html

Now according to R2K Chieftain Dr. D. G. Hart, this was a understandable move since,

” … if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

Now, it is at least possible that the public officials of the California State University system were Christian and it is possible, that since the California State University system was not to show any religious preference, therefore those Christian public officials of the California State University did the right thing.

However, even if the all the California State University officials who made this decision were pagans, it still is the right decision, according to Hart, since the University system was not to show any religious preferences. I mean, after all, who does Inter-Varsity think they are requiring leaders to adhere to Christian beliefs? The University, per Hart, was correct to shut this travesty of unprincipled pluralism down.

However, Hart’s colleague, Dr. R. Scott Clark thinks that the California State University was wrong to de-recognize Intervarsity. Clark offers this morsel,

“One area that ought to be a matter of growing concern for Christians (and other religious folk) is the attempt by some in our society to use administrative and bureaucratic positions to silence views with which they disagree. Such impulses are fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

Scott, sees de-recognizing Inter-varsity as something bad. But, we might ask, “bad,” by what standard? By a Biblical Standard? 1000 times no. Scott’s standard for faulting the California State University system’s decision as bad bad bad is that it is “fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

But applying Darrell’s principle it most certainly is American and just. After all, the California State University system is to show no religious preferences and allowing Intervarsity to only have leadership that is Christian is the very apex of religious preference.

Pursuing a brief rabbit trail one wonders why Dr. R. Scott Clark appeals to the Confessions in order to gain traction for policy in the Common realm? Certainly, if Scripture is not to be our guide in the common realm, per R2K, then the confessions would be out of bounds also right? Why should Christians care what the Confessions have to say concerning common realm activity? Well … they might care what those Confessions say about the common realm when they are in the Church realm but the minute they leave the Church realm they would have to forget that they cared what the Confessions said when they were in the Church realm.

Scott also complains about the California State University system trying to impose ideological conformity from above but if the University system would do what Scott wants by allowing Inter-varsity to operate untrammeled wouldn’t that also be a case where the University is imposing a top down ideological conformity? The University can either impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced,” or they can impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced except Christianity.” Either way, the University system is imposing a top down ideological construct. No neutrality Scott … remember? It is never a question of “whether or not top down ideological construct,” it is only ever a question of which top down ideological construct.

Scott complains about the unfairness of it all, but what is fair outside a Biblical standard?

Scott asks the question,

“From what mountain did the administers descend, what revelation did they receive that gives them the authority to banish historic Christian orthodoxy from campus?

I hate to be bearer of bad tidings but the answer to this question is they descended from Mt. positivistic law or they received the Revelation from St. Natural law. The further bad news for Scott is that the only thing that can combat each and both of them is Biblical Christianity in the common realm.

Micro approach supporting Infant Baptism

Why we Baptize

1.) Baptism is a subset of covenant theology. In covenant theology God calls a people and says to them “I shall be your God and you shall be my people.” This covenant calling extends to not only the called but to all who come under the household of the called.

9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

2.) So from the beginning it has been as Peter said in Acts, “39 For the Covenant promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” When Peter mentions “for your children and all who are far off,” we hear this as a covenant promise. The children are included and those afar off are understood as the generations yet to come who remain afar off.

Peter’s language is reminiscent of the language of Moses in Dt.

I am making this covenant both with you who stand here today in the presence of the LORD our God, and also with the future generations who are not standing here today.

God has always built His Church as a family of Families. Not a family of Individuals.

So, all of God’s covenants have included families. Even the major prophecies of the new covenant clearly indicate the continuance of the household as the basic unit of the people of God. See Gen. 12:3; Isa. 54:10, 13; 59:21 (the Old Testament backdrop to Acts 2:39); 61:8-9; Jer. 32:38-40; Ezek. 37:25-26; Zech. 8:5; 10:7, 9; 12:10-14; 14:17. In response to the use of the new covenant passages made by our Baptist friends, we must show that in those very passages the household principle remains as an aspect of the new covenant. If noble Christians “searched the Scriptures” (i.e., the Old Testament) to find out whether the things taught by the apostles were so (Acts 17:11), where would they have found warrant to abrogate the household principle?

3.) We see nothing in the NT that changes this covenant family arrangement. When God calls people into the Church of Jesus Christ he calls the children with him. Consider the household Baptisms

Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14)
Lydia (Acts 16:15),
Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33-34),
Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16)

Now it is conceded that in ZERO of these Baptisms are children explicitly mentioned as being Baptized. However, that is irrelevant to our appeal because the whole theology of “Household Baptism” is that on the basis of Household Baptisms babies would have been Baptized had they been present. The whole identifying reality of household baptism is that all who are in the household would be baptized. So, even if no infants were in those NT households baptized the point is that, upon the principle of household baptism, if they have been present they would have been baptized. Household means all considered part of the household.

Where do we find, with the coming of Pentecost, that God now deals with individuals as opposed to families?

Of course we do ourselves what we forbid God to do when we deny His place to call our children His own prior to their concession to God’s claim. When we have children we name them without their permission. When we have children we care, provide, and protect them without their permission. We call them our own without their permission. This is what God does in Baptism. He marks us as His own. He cares, provides, and protects via His Sacrament that conveys Grace and this without their permission. In Baptism He calls them His won without their permission. So, we allow ourselves the claim of ownership upon our children without their permission but we do not allow God in Baptism to have a claim of ownership upon His people.

4.) Continuing on as to why we Baptize our children,

We Baptize our children because we confess that they are partakers of Adam’s sin and have need to become partakers of Christ’s righteousness. Scripture says that “In sin did my mother conceive me.” We are born sinners with the sin nature.

When we baptize our children we trust God’s promises that Christ is the cure for the wound of Adam’s sin that we are all born with. Romans 5 teaches that in Adam’s fall, we sinned all. It teaches that we are born sinners and that Christ is the only cure. We understand that Baptism conveys Christ to those who have been set aside for salvation.

All of this is taught in our Catechism when it asks,

Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (a) and since redemption from sin (b) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (c) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (d) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (e) instead of which baptism is instituted (f) in the new covenant.

So why is there so much controversy surrounding this idea that the Children of those who God owns are owned by God? One of my theories is that the way we think about the foundations of how society is organized wars against a covenantal understanding where the Children go with the parents.

According to the Lockean social contract myth, upon which our social order is based, had human beings being isolated Egos. Each of us have a will of our own, and each is free to make choices on our own. We are sovereign “I’s” first and foremost, though we may, for various selfish reasons, combine with other I’s into a political society

If this is really what is going on, then the most effective argument for infant baptism may be the creation account which teaches that man in isolation is not fully man. It is not until the creation of Eve, and so the inauguration of the community whole, that man is fully self. In short, man only finds the meaning of the individual self in the context of community. The vast majority of the contemporary Church denies this insisting that man as the individual must give assent to the community whole – The Church with Christ as King – before the community whole can recognize the individual as a member of the whole community.

In short the Christian holds that the primary building block of society is the corporate whereas the non Christian holds that the primary building block of society is the sovereign individual. When the sovereign individual is the primary building block then it is easy to understand why a child must concede to God’s calling before he is Baptized.

Funeral Gerrit Douma — RIP

Call to Attention

The grace and peace of God our Father who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, be with you all.

We have gathered in Worship for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and to remember the Life of Gerrit Douma.

By way of comfort consider the Revelation of God,

John 11:25 Jesus said … “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Psalm 116:15

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in need. Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling. — Psalm 46:1-2

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God;[a] believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:1-6)

Because of these great and precious promises, those united to Christ, believe that all the ties of family, friendship and affection which knit us together throughout our lives can in no way be unraveled by death. Confident of God’s love and His ability to keep His own, even in the face of death, let us pray.

Opening Prayer

Benevolent and Holy Father
the death of our Father, GrandFather, Uncle, Brother and Friend Gerrit Douma
reminds us of our frail human condition
and that life is but a vapor.

Yet for those who are owned and loved by you
because of your provision in the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ,
death is not the end,
nor can it destroy the bonds
that bind the departed saints to you and to the saints that remain.
We who remain as the Church militant, understand our union with the Church at rest.

Help we who are gathered here to share that faith together
even through our tears and sadness.
Bring the light of Christ’s resurrection
to shine on this time of grief and emptiness,
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AMEN.

Hymn — By The Sea Of Crystal

One of the portions of Scripture that Gerrit had memorized was the 23rd Psalm. He recited it more than once during his recent convalescence,

23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.
4
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
5
You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord
forever.

Paul offers us comfort likewise in his letter to the Thessalonians,

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. — I Thessalonians 4

Having been reminded of the ability of God to keep his own we rise to lift our voices in praise sining,

* Hymn — How Great Thou Art

Eulogy – Gospel

When we consider the Eulogy we are reminded that the word literally means “good words,” or “good saying.” It is the point in the service where we remember the virtues of the one who has been excused from this life. It is not a time we seek to preach someone into heaven and it is not a time where magnify the deceased above our magnifying of the Lord Christ. It is a time where we magnify God by speaking of a life well lived of one of those who bore the Image of God. The virtue we see in the Saint departed is a virtue that was kneaded into the Saint by the ongoing sanctification of the Spirit of God.

Work Ethic

When we speak of Gary we can speak of his long faithfulness to Marge and the children. We can speak of his career as a Parole Officer. We could speak of his dry and droll humor.

Let us start by remembering that Gerrit was never far from the soil. He grew up close to the land and the noble calling of Farmer was never completely extinguished in him. Gary would recall stories about time on the farm and time helping one of his Grandfathers sell produce. Even after marriage Gary remained close to the land via his Saturday work on the Litch farm where he earned 1.25 an hour plus the opportunity to raise his own crop.

I’ve never met a family Farmer who didn’t know how to work and a strong work ethic is a gift of the Lord. When we work, we reflect a God who works. The Christian faith, wherever it has gone in history, has always produced a work ethic in those who were called of God. And in God’s providence the work on the Litch farm taught Gary’s son the work ethic as well as eventually Tom would be put to work as well.

We could say more of the work ethic. We could note that after Gerrit retired he didn’t retire. There remained the work of driving for Spartan, and all the work that could be found in tandem with and on top of a Tractor. It was only in the last few months that Gary conceded that he had finally retired.

Traveling,

Then there was the Traveling.

Gerrit used the road to bond with his family. Years ago, Gary and Tom took off on a 6 week road trip across the country in a hatch-back pinto. Do you remember those hatch-back Ford Pintos? This was living on the edge.

The day would come when Grandsons would head off with Grandpa on these types of road trips.

Singing

While on those road trips it was not unknown for Gary to burst out in song. Perhaps at the end of a long days drive. Perhaps when on top of a Mountain when soaking in the beauty of God’s handiwork. Perhaps while driving.

Singing was close to Gary his whole life. He spoke many times of his time singing in the Calvin College Choir when they preformed the Messiah. He would travel yearly for some years to Randolph Wisconsin to hear the Men’s choir. He would sing in our annual Christmas worship service. Sometimes solo. Sometimes in duets. Sometimes in quartets. He loved to sing.

In the last few years Mr. Douma would always lead the doxology in the Evening service. Often he would lead us in what is particularly poignant today.

Lyrics

1. God be with you till we meet again;
By his counsels guide, uphold you;
With his sheep securely fold you.
God be with you till we meet again.

(Chorus)
Till we meet, till we meet,
Till we meet at Jesus’ feet,
Till we meet, till we meet,
God be with you till we meet again.

2. God be with you till we meet again;
When life’s perils thick confound you,
Put his arms unfailing round you.
God be with you till we meet again.

3. God be with you till we meet again;
Keep love’s banner floating o’er you;
Smite death’s threat’ning wave before you.
God be with you till we meet again.

Before we knew it Gary was closing every meeting with a doxology. A business meeting. A fellowship activity. He even asked to close one of the weddings with a doxology. He loved to sing.

Even in his last days he was singing God’s songs to and with folks who would come to visit.

Praying,

Similar to that motif, I used to love to hear Gary pray.

By the means of a combination of the Timber of his voice, and the cadence in his speech it was a privilege to hear him pray. More then cadence and timber though was the deep solemnity that Gerrit brought to prayer. The old timers used to say of people that they “could pray you into heaven.” Because of Gary’s sense of God’s majesty his prayers would bring us before God’s throne.

Like all of us here today, Gary had his pecadillos, idiosyncrasies, and besetting sins but these help explain why he loved the Church. He knew he was a sinner and was in constant need of being reminded that Christ was a greater savior than he was a sinner.

OPEN TIME … OPEN TIME … OPEN TIME … OPEN TIME

Church

Mr. Douma’s attachment to the Church was part of his covenant heritage.

He told me a story once that I have, in turn, told many times myself in other settings.

Part of Gary’s childhood memory included a Grandfather who would carry a ill Grandmother into and out of Church each Sunday. Doubtless this made an impression upon him on the importance of the Church.

His commitment to the Church, then, was doubtless a commitment that was passed on from generations prior. God promised to be the God of us and our seed and God’s faithfulness was seen in those Grandparents. Seen in Gary’s parents presenting Gary as a infant to be Baptized. And was seen in Gary reading Scripture to his children at meal time and making sure they were in Catechism and in Church.

For generations then, to date, — because of God’s faithfulness alone to His covenant promises — the name “Douma” as been associated with the Reformed Church and so the Biblical faith once forever delivered to the saints. It is my earnest prayer that for generations yet to come that will remain true of the “Douma” name.

You see the Reformed Church was only important for Gary as it was a carrier for the Message of Christ Crucified — the one who brings sinners into God’s approval because of His death, resurrection and ascension.

The message of the Reformed faith that Gary lived and died by is succinctly summarized in the Heidelberg confession,

Q.
What is your only comfort
in life and death?

A.
That I am not my own,
but belong with body and soul,
both in life and in death,
to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.

He has fully paid for all my sins
with his precious blood,
and has set me free
from all the power of the devil.
He also preserves me in such a way
that without the will of my heavenly Father
not a hair can fall from my head;
indeed, all things must work together
for my salvation.

Therefore, by his Holy Spirit
he also assures me
of eternal life
and makes me heartily willing and ready
from now on to live for him.

In this catechism we are reminded of why we bother with Church.

We are reminded that no man owns Himself.

Pleasant poetry notwithstanding none of us can say that “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” As mortals we are not independent beings. We belong either to God or to the enemy.

The Heidelberg, following Scripture, tells us that if we belong to God it is by way of the work on the Cross done by Jesus Christ.

We are thus reminded that apart from trusting Christ our sins will eat us up.

And this is a large part of what the Church is to remind us every week. We are great sinners but Christ is a greater savior. Apart from Christ we become alienated from God, from others and even from ourselves. Apart from Christ we constantly seek to de-god God and en-god ourselves so that all people and things serve us and our wants. Apart from Christ we are bent in upon ourselves. Only Christ can deliver us both from God’s just anger against sin, from our sin, and from ourselves at the same time.

We are thus reminded that the Christian life looks like something

By the work of the Spirit we now longer live for ourselves as the center of all things. Now we live with God as the center of all things. We live for Him. And we learn what it means to live for Him by knowing and conforming to His explicit instructions as set forth in Scriptural revelation.

Yes we fail … every day in word, thought or deed, but our failure doesn’t diminish or eliminate God’s grace. Instead the thought of God’s forgiveness in Christ fills us with gratitude to the end of confessing our sin and then rising to be again hearty and willing to live for Him.

This is the Faith of clan Douma for generations and this is the faith that remains for generations to come.

Let us stand for prayer,

Prayer

Triune God of all mercy who has given us the Holy Spirit for consolation.
We are reminded Father that you are our refuge in times of sorrow,
our light in death’s darkness,
and our stability when faced with the valley of the shadow of death.

Comfort your people in their loss and sorrow we beseech thee.
Be a reservoir of hope to Gary’s family during this time.
Lift them from their grief
into the peace and light of your presence.

We thank thee, that your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
by dying has destroyed our death,
and by rising, restored our life.
Enable us now to press on toward him,
so that, after our earthly course is run,
you may reunite us with those we love,
when every tear is wiped away.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AMEN.

Having Prayed for you, I ask that we might confess our Faith by praying together the Prayer our Lord taught us to pray,

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever. Amen.

And now receive the Benediction

May the peace of God
which is beyond understanding,
keep your hearts and minds
in the knowledge and love of God
and of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

AMEN.
—Philippians 4:7