L’Abri Rochester

Rochester L’Abri
  • 4.0 (1)
  • Christianity
  • Updated Weekly

Here we explore life’s issues with our weekly speakers from the Rochester L’Abri Community; aiming to give honest answers to honest questions from a Christian perspective.

  1. 2d ago

    L'Abri 101: Living in the shadow of the fall. Jock McGregor & Greg Jesson

    (Handout from Greg Jesson follows below)   L'Abri 101: Living in the Shadow of the Fall   This Summer we are trying something new! We are beginning our Summer series of lectures with a short five-week course on the essentials of L'Abri teaching, what we sometimes refer to as the 'Five Themes of L'Abri'. Each Friday, Greg Jesson and Jock McGregor will co-teach one of these themes. For those of you who have wondered about what makes L'Abri's teaching distinctive or who want to learn more, this will be a good opportunity. Each lecture is stand alone, but if you can attend all five lectures that make up this short course, that would be best. This week we continue with our third theme, which looks at the Fall - Dr. Schaeffer felt strongly that we cannot understand the fullness of Salvation unless we understand the full significance of the Fall.   Greg Jesson's journey from Los Angeles took him to Switzerland, where he studied at L'Abri with Francis Schaeffer, back to LA where he earned a BA at UCLA and an MA at USC under Dallas Willard, and finally to the University of Iowa for a Ph.D. in philosophy. Most recently, he was a professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Ethics and Public Life at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. Having decided to leave the university, he now spends his time writing, lecturing, restoring an old home, and looking after his dog, Dr. Watson.   Jock McGregor and his wife Alison direct the Rochester L'Abri where they have lived for the past 25 years. They met at Swiss L'Abri and previously worked at English L'Abri for ten years. Jock has a B.Sc. and an M.Div from Regent College in Vancouver. He lectures widely on many topics that bear on the relationship between Christianity and contemporary culture. (Handout from Greg Jesson follows)   Pondering the Five Themes of L’Abri: #3: Living in the Shadow of the Fall Dr. Greg Jesson gregrjesson@gmail.com   1. Opening comments on L’Abri themes 2. When I began looking at Christianity: First, the person of Jesus, but then general themes: the moral order, the logical order, the soul (personhood), God’s revelation in history, progressive revelation, Old Testament context for the coming of the Messiah, grace, redemption, character transformation, cognitive space, freedom, God’s sovereignty, the Fall, etc.   This is why I’m arguing for Following Clues, Signposts, Hints, and Insights 3. Methodological points: Move from the reality of something to the details of an in-depth analysis of it—not the other way around. Two common mistakes in philosophy and theology: a. the thing to be explained gets reduced into something else: Physical objects get reduced to experiences (Berkeley, Hume, Ayer, Carnap) The self gets reduced to experiences (Hume) Knowledge gets reduced to groundless opinion (countless skeptics) Experiences get reduced to brain states (Dennett, Smart, the Churchlands, etc.) The University of Iowa Philosophy Department: “we are seeking to reduce everything” b. one gets hopelessly lost in the details: (our descriptions of knowledge, God, time, whatever, are never the thing itself) Example: Edmund Husserl 4. The theme of the Fall is really looking at God’s relationship to the world What does the Fall mean? The catastrophic results of human rebellion against God What is the evidence for the Fall? Whatever Became of Sin? By Karl Menninger M.D., “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” G.K. Chesterton What implications does the Fall have for our lives? It touches every point of our lives   We are each immersed in a vast moral order This is a key element of C.S. Lewis’ case for Christianity   People often begin by getting unnecessarily tangled up in the details while missing the wide, general themes. C.S. Lewis: Why I Am Not an Atheist, From Mere Christianity, pp. 38-39   “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But, how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.   Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But, if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”   5. Why does God allow the evil and brokenness of our world? The Problem of Evil   Problem of evil: not meant to obliterate the suffering Not is it meant to explain away specific evils, specific sufferings: that would be trivial The world is an unfathomable mixture of good and evil: and We are each a curious amalgam of good and evil. Everyone’s problem: You cannot be a mature human being without facing the issue of evil and suffering   1. If God is all-powerful, then he is able to eliminate all evil. 2. If God is all-good, then he would want to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.   Moral evil vs. Natural evil; Human evil not decreasing with education and technology Never underestimate the potential for evil in each person, nor the potential for good in the human heart   Augustinian accounts of evil (causal explanation) vs. Irenaean theodicies (a rational justification for natural evils). Evil is metaphysically and logically necessary for the achievement of some unique good. An adequate answer must tell us something about God. Why did he allow this? The afflicted man naively seeks an answer, from men, from things, from God, even if he disbelieves in Him, from anything and everything. Why is it necessary precisely that he should have nothing to eat, to be worn out with fatigue and brutal treatment, or about to be executed, or be ill, or be in prison? If one explained to him the causes which have produced his present situation, and this is in any case seldom possible because of the complex interaction of circumstances, it will not seem to him to be an answer. For his question “Why” does not mean “By what cause?” but “For what purpose?” Simone Weil, Waiting for God   Life crushes all the illusions out of us—that is what it was designed to do. Evil a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for recognition of two facts that we continually forget: 1) The folly and futility of the human enterprise in establishing hope in the world (Sin) 2) If there is any hope for humanity, it must come from outside the human sphere (The possibility of Redemption)   Anthony Flew: Parable of the Gardner: “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?” 1. God would not be acting in love if the world and human life were completely futile and frustrating, in which progress towards the good would be impossible. 2. God would not be acting in love if the illusions of humanity could not be confronted and addressed. 3. God would not be acting in love if people could not see the tragedy of their rebellion. Thus the necessity of natural and moral evils. 4. God would not be acting in love if moral and natural evils, which teach us the tragedy of our ways could be avoided. 5. God would not be acting in love if He instantly changed our evil dispositions, incorrect beliefs, and prejudices to the right and the true. Character is chosen; it is not born, given, or ready-made. 6. God would not be acting in love if He immediately punished everyone for doing wrong. 7. God would not be acting in love if He allowed evil people and structures to become so powerful that they utterly block God’s grace in the world. 8. God would not be acting in love if he did not provide examples of how His love can transform and empower lives, and thus overcome evil. 9. God would not be acting in love if He made us and the world in such a way that change would be impossible, difficult or highly improbable, and available to only a few, such as those with superior intelligence or education, etc. 10. Finally, God would not be acting in love if He did not provide the means by which we could be transformed. This is the meaning of the life and mission of Jesus.   6. Living in the Shadow of the Fall: As stressed in the last two lectures, L’Abri is committed to each of these themes because they are essential elements of the historic Christian faith. Because of this, the members of the L’Abri community are committed to living out these themes in both their individual and corporate lives. Part of the calling of L’Abri is to point the way for others to follow. With respect to the Fall: Understand that every part of creation is flawed, broken, and mangled Recognize that every person is a remarkable mixture of beauty and brokenness (an image bearer of God that has been disfigured by the Fall) Practically this means that every person will often be disappointing to others, and even to oneself. (James 3.2)

    1h 33m

  2. Jun 17

    L'Abri 101: The Reality of the Supernatural

    (Lecture Syllabus follows the Blurb.)   L'Abri 101: The Reality of the Supernatural   This Summer we are trying something new! We are beginning our Summer series of lectures with a short five-week course on the essentials of L'Abri teaching, what we sometimes refer to as the 'Five Themes of L'Abri'. Each Friday, Greg Jesson and Jock McGregor will co-teach one of these themes. For those of you who have wondered about what makes L'Abri's teaching distinctive or who want to learn more, this will be a good opportunity. Each lecture is stand alone, but if you can attend all five lectures that make up this short course, that would be best. This week we continue with our second theme - what Dr. Schaeffer described as the Reality of the Supernatural.   Greg Jesson's journey from Los Angeles took him to Switzerland, where he studied at L'Abri with Francis Schaeffer, back to LA where he earned a BA at UCLA and an MA at USC under Dallas Willard, and finally to the University of Iowa for a Ph.D. in philosophy. Most recently, he was a professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Ethics and Public Life at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. Having decided to leave the university, he now spends his time writing, lecturing, restoring an old home, and looking after his dog, Dr. Watson.   Jock McGregor and his wife Alison direct the Rochester L'Abri where they have lived for the past 25 years. They met at Swiss L'Abri and previously worked at English L'Abri for ten years. Jock has a B.Sc. and an M.Div from Regent College in Vancouver. He lectures widely on many topics that bear on the relationship between Christianity and contemporary culture.   Greg Jesson Syllabus as follows: Pondering the Five Themes of L’Abri: #2: The Reality of the Supernatural Dr. Greg Jesson gregrjesson@gmail.com   Plan for the Lecture: 1. Opening comments on L’Abri themes 2. Why it’s not a simple matter of evidence. Why? One’s presuppositions and assumptions can greatly determine what one will allow as evidence. At best, evidence without the true framework produces moderate, and often only temporary, curiosity.   This is why I’m suggesting Following Clues, Signposts, Hints, and Insights   This is Lewis’ point in The Screwtape Letters. “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.” The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, Preface 3. Carefully define supernatural 4. Evidence for the supernatural is everywhere. It’s right in front of our faces—we just look right past it. Some examples: our experiences and thoughts, our identity through time, knowledge, abstract realities (truth, logic, math, morality), and finally historical miracles 5. Christianity only makes sense in the context of the supernatural. Demythologizing theologians, such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), rejected the miraculous element (“mythical world picture”) in the scriptures, often arguing that they are incompatible with our current scientific understanding of the world, but traditional Christianity has always maintained that the miraculous is only discernable in the context of the common, everyday view of nature. (e.g. when St. Joseph learned Mary was pregnant). 6. L’Abri deliberately attempts to live daily in the reality of the supernatural: prayer, our expectations, our hopes, and our understanding of everything in the context that we each live our lives in the reality of God, Acts 17.28.   The central point in this lecture: When Ranald Macaulay first heard Francis Schaeffer speak at Cambridge University, (5 June 1958, Wednesday): “The supernatural is right here.” Defining “Supernatural” The natural and supernatural worlds overlap Natural world: physical objects and their properties Supernatural world: minds, experiences, abstract realities (not physical, don’t exist in space) It appears that some parts of reality are objective while other parts appear to be subjective. (Logic, mathematics, and the physical objects that make up the subject matter of the various sciences appear to be objective. To conceive of these realms as being subjective, or in some sense mind-dependent, is just to render these realms utterly unintelligible and absurd. However, mathematical and logical objects cannot just be any kind of objective reality. It would be absurd to conceive of mathematical and logical truths as nothing more than mere marks on a sheet of paper.)   The common, everyday world of our experience, consisting primarily of the physical world in space and time is thoroughly intertwined with the supernatural realities including God and human persons, angelic beings, and abstract objects (math, logic, geometry, and universals—Plato’s forms).   The underlying assumption of the entire secular world: everything is physical Modern connection between empiricism and materialism (naturalism) Empiricism: All knowledge comes from sense experience, things you can see, touch, taste, hear, and smell. This has to be challenged. Only three possibilities: Materialism (Everything is physical)(Weak on the mental) Dualism (both physical and non-physical, mental things exist) (What is the connection between the two realms?) Idealism   (everything is mental)  (weak on the physical)     1926: The Mind and Its Place in the World, by C.D. Broad The Reality of Minds and Knowledge: C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed: “If Joy ‘is not’, then she never was. I mistook a cloud of atoms for a person. There aren’t, and never were, any people. Death only reveals the vacuity that was always there. What we call the living are simply those who have not yet been unmasked. All equally bankrupt, but some yet not declared.   But this must be nonsense, vacuity revealed to whom? Bankruptcy declared to whom? To other boxes of fireworks or clouds of atoms? I will never believe—more strictly I can’t believe—that one set of physical events could be, or make, a mistake about other sets.” (pp. 25-26)   Lewis’ point: a person can’t be just a series of chemical and electrical events. More to the point: Lewis himself, having knowledge, can’t simply be a series of brain events.   Is the mind identical to (the same thing as) the brain? (mind=brain) Are mental states (pains, perceptions, and thoughts) identical to brain states? (mental states=brain states?) Are there two different things (a mind and a brain) or is there just one thing (mind=brain)?   How Is It Possible to Believe in God? William F. Buckley, Jr.   “I've always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, “How is it possible to believe in God?” The imperishable answer was, ‘I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop’… Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief—how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration—near infinite—of natural causes? On the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature’s molder? What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?   The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable by the belief that there was merely a physical cause for them. But how can mindless forces be the ultimate cause of Hamlet? Or, of St. Matthew's Passion? What is the cause of inspiration?   This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature...”   Materialism and Empiricism Eliminate the Mind (the self): Here is Hume’s account, which is driven by empiricism. The mind or self gets reduced to experiences. “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” A Treatise of Human Nature, Selby-Bigge edition, p. 252.   “When I turn my reflection on myself, I never can perceive this self without some one or more perceptions; nor can I ever perceive anything but the perceptions. ’Tis’ the composition [the bundle] of these, therefore, which forms the self.” p. 634.   This is just another way of saying that the mind is identical to the brain (brain=mind) and (mental events = brain events)   But this has to be wrong. Leibnitz’s factory: the brain is a giant factory that we could walk through; we never could see experiences   We could have a complete description of the human body and not know that mental events and minds even existed.   In summary: All mental events are known only by introspection, but no physical objects or events (the objects and events of science) are known by introspection. All mental events are of or about something (i.e. exhibit intentionality), but no physical objects or events (the objects and events of science) are of or about anything. 3. Mental events can be known with certainty (incorrigibility), but physical objects and events cannot be known with certainty. 4. Therefore, mental events are not identical to physical objects or events.   If it appears that there are two things that seem to be completely different the best explanation, given that there is no other direct evidence to

    1h 30m

  3. Jun 11

    L'Abri 101: The Christian Faith as Truth

    L'Abri 101: The Christian Faith as Truth We have a short five-week course on the essentials of L'Abri teaching, what we sometimes refer to as the 'Five Themes of L'Abri'. Each Friday, Greg Jesson and Jock McGregor will co-teach one of these themes. For those of  you who have wondered about what makes L'Abri's teaching distinctive or who want to learn more, this will be a good opportunity. Each lecture is stand alone, but if you can listen to all five lectures that make up this  short course, that would be best. This week we start with what Dr. Schaeffer called 'True Truth'. {Text of Greg Jesson's Handout follows} Pondering the Five Themes of L’Abri:   #1:  On Truth & Knowledge Dr. Greg Jesson gregrjesson@gmail.com Plan for the Lecture: 1.  Opening comments on L’Abri themes 2.  What is at stake? 3.  Carefully define truth and then knowledge, which requires truth (15 points) 4.  Common Misconceptions concerning truth and knowledge (the following 15 points) 5.  How did truth and knowledge get undermined? 6.  Primary reasons that truth is rejected: naturalism and skepticism  7.  Francis Schaeffer’s pivotal insight concerning apologetics, life at L’Abri, and living in what is true  Truth, Reality, and Knowledge: Following Clues, Signposts, Hints, and Insights  1.  Only certain kinds of things can be true, such as beliefs, thoughts, and indirectly sentences.   (Propositions)  2.  Truth is the correspondence between a belief and reality.  (Correspondence Theory of Truth.)    Schaeffer called this “true-truth” and Dallas Willard called it “real-truth”.   3.  Reality is everything that exists.  Therefore, there are not different realities.  (There are differing  conceptions of  reality, but only one reality.  Reality is objective; it has nothing to do with how you feel  or what you wish.)  4.  Truth requires a truth-bearer (a belief, thought, or sentence) and a truth-maker (reality).  5.  When a thought matches reality, it is true.  6.  When a thought does not match reality, it is false.  7.  Every thought must be true or false.  8.  Because reality is objective, truth is objective.  (Truth has nothing to do with how you feel or what you  wish.)  9.  Therefore, saying that something is “true for me” is literally non-sense.  (Willard’s compass example.) 10.  Saying something “is true for me,” is just a confused way of saying, “I believe it.” 11.  Believing something (even really hard), does not make it true. 12.  Knowledge is more than truth.  13.  Knowledge requires three things:  You must have a belief, the belief must be true, & the belief must be justified.   14.  Justification comes in degrees; therefore, knowledge comes in degrees.  15.  The value of knowledge is that it “gets hold of” reality.  The rest is the adventure of your life! Some Misconceptions and Confusions:  (Examples of misconceptions and confusions are taken from Jamie Smith’s book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism)   1.  That nobody knows anything.  Rather, everyone starts by knowing a lot.  (Romans 1: 18 ff.)   2.  If you can’t prove something then you can’t know it.  (Rather, every argument must come to an end.  The          real issue between presuppositionalism and evidentialism is what is required for adequate  justification.)   3.  That we need philosophy in order to know if we know anything.   4.  That knowledge is impersonal, mechanical, and always simple.  (Rather, knowledge is always an achievement of a person wherein the individual grasps the objective on the basis of adequate evidence.    Therefore, knowledge is always a grasping of the objective from a perspective, and perceiving and understanding  the objective within the context of one’s history, education, culture, motives, language,  preconceptions, presuppositions, agendas, values, other knowledge, other beliefs, and physical and mental condition, etc.)   5.  That knowledge is complete or perfect.  (We can have perfect knowledge of very small matters, e.g., a phone  number, but complete knowledge only belongs to God.)   6.  That knowledge does not require humility, patience, and work.  (Rather, what one can see is always dependent on  the condition of that person.  As one famous epistemologist said, “Take heed how you hear” Luke 8.18)   “What I, a sinner saved by grace, need is not so much answers as reformation of my will and heart.” Smith, p.  30  [In  fact, we need all of these things!  Reformation of the will and heart often comes through answers.]   7.  If something is an interpretation, then we can’t know it is true.  This is simply false.  In fact, we test our  interpretations countless of times everyday against reality to see if our interpretations match reality.  “I would agree that the gospel is an interpretation and that we can’t know the gospel is true, if by knowledge  we mean unmediated objectivity or pure access to the ‘way things are.’” P. 44.   8.  If something is true, then everyone could/would know it.   9.  That one’s presuppositions, preconceptions, and beliefs cannot be challenged by the facts. “…I am, in some sense, carrying on the Schaefferian legacy…I want to demonstrate that, perhaps to Schaeffer’s surprise (and chagrin), the claims of postmodernists such as Derrida and Foucault have something in common  with his own account of knowledge and truth (insofar as Schaeffer recognized the role of presuppositions.” p. 27, cf. p. 50    “Unless our apologetic proclamation begins from revelation, we have conceded the game to modernity.” Smith, p. 28    10.  That all knowledge comes from sense experience (empiricism)—things we see, smell, taste, touch, and hear.   After all, this claim itself is not derived from sense experience.    11.  That knowledge requires certainty. Certainty is psychological not epistemic;  it has nothing to do with  knowledge.   12.  Knowledge need not be objective.  Subjective truth and subjective knowledge are incoherent.  Notice how people  who talk of these don’t define them.  Is subjective knowledge different from mere belief?  If so, how?  “However, we need to consider these deep differences in interpretation rather than glibly supposing that the Christian account is objectively true and then castigating the Buddhist account for being merely an  interpretation.  In fact, both are interpretations; neither is objectively true.” P. 50, emphasis in the original.  “Language is a lens through which we see the world, albeit with some distortion, simply because this lens stands between us and the world.  As soon as there is a lens, there is distortion.” p. 36 13.  Claiming objective knowledge necessarily leads to oppression and abuses. “To assert that our interpretation is not an interpretation but objectively true often translates into the worst kinds of imperial and colonial agendas, even within a pluralistic culture.” p. 51 14.  If one has objective knowledge then one has not made an interpretive judgment.  Knowledge is always an interpretation, but it offers itself as the correct (i.e. true) interpretation. “If everything is interpretation, then even the gospel is only an interpretation and not objectively true.” p. 42  15.  If it is logically possible that one is wrong, then one cannot know it.  Rather, simply because it is logically  possible that one is wrong, it does not follow that one is wrong.  The Train Wreck of Truth and Knowledge: 1. Aristotle, Aquinas, and the Biblical writers: Knowledge                                 Blind faith 1. God                                        1. nothing 2. the soul 3. values 4. what other people think, feel, perceive 5. the real world of science 2. Empiricism: Knowledge                                 Blind faith 1. the real world of science             1. God 2. other people                                2. the soul                                                          3. values 3. Relativism: Knowledge                                 Blind faith 1. the “world” as my group sees it       1. God 2. group values                                     2. the soul                                                               3. universal values                                                                   4. the real word of science 4. Subjectivism: Knowledge                                 Blind faith 1. my feelings                            1. God                                                    2. the soul                                                    3. values                                                    4. the real of science                                                                     5. what other people, think,                                                            feel, & perceive                                                                            5. Postmodernism: Secular and Religious Fideism:  The categories of truth, knowledge, justified belief, evidence, and logic simply drop out.  Every set of beliefs is just as “rational” as any other. Knowledge Blind faith All that is available for everyone, Faith systems, Worldviews, Language games, Paradigms, As rational as anything else, Presuppositions, Mere Traditions, etc., etc.                                               There are two basic lines of argument against truth: 1.  The correspondence relation doe

    1h 22m

  4. Jun 3

    Science and Biblical Authority - Hans Madueme

    7641-ScienceAndBiblicalAuthority-HansMadueme from the 2017 Rochester L'Abri Conference - The Power of God to Transform Lives Science and Biblical Authority Assessments and reaction to "The fact is science has been instrumental in shaping the development of Christian doctrine" Also included: An insight as to why we have denominations {I found the mentioned books in Google play, but not free, "Editor"} Andrew D. White A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. I A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II John William Draper History of the conflict Between Religion and Science (Bio from our 2026 conference) Dr. Hans Madueme is professor of theological studies at Covenant College on Lookout Mountain, Georgia. Hans was born in Sweden and grew up in Nigeria and Austria. He originally trained as a medical doctor and completed his residency in internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic before shifting his focus to theology. He received his Master of Divinity and then completed his Ph.D. in theological studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His recent books are Defending Sin: A Response to the Challenges of Evolution and the Natural Sciences (Baker Academic, 2024) and Does Science Make God Irrelevant? (Crossway, 2025).

    1h 18m

  5. May 27

    Christianity in the Public Square - Greg Grooms

    7640 Christianity in the Public Square by Greg Grooms 2017 Rochester L'Abri Conference - The Power of God to Transform Lives Greg Grooms discusses 5 "gameplans", or sub-worldviews, for how Christians interact with the non-Christian world. (Salt and Light)

    1h 17m

  6. May 20

    The Transformative Power of Art: Music. Margie Haack

    The Transformative Power of Art: Music - Margie Haack  - With Denis Haack, and featuring Karen Choi Interview and Music. Lecture from 2017 L'ABRI Rochester Conference - The Power of God's Word to Transform Cultures https://www.rochesterlabriconferences.org Ransom Fellowship's Karen Choi Blog post https://ransomfellowship.org/article/karen-choi-paper-birch-2012/ Karen Choi Website https://karenchoimusic.com

    1h 6m

  7. May 13

    Transformation of the City: Lessons from Utrecht. - Wim Rietkerk - 2017 Conference Highlights: The Power of God's Word to Transform Cultures

    Transformation of the City: Lessons from Utrecht. - Wim Rietkerk - 2017 Conference Highlights: The Power of God's Word to Transform Cultures The lecture is From the 2017 Rochester L'Abri Conference; the speaker is from Dutch L'Abri In 1971, Wim and Greta helped found the Dutch L’Abri. Since then they have led the work in Holland.

    1h 18m

  8. 12/07/2025

    Cultural Transformation: A Proposed Model - Bob Osburn - 2017 Conference Highlights: The Power of God's Word to Transform Cultures

    Cultural Transformation: A Proposed Model - Bob Osburn - 2017 Conference Highlights: The Power of God's Word to Transform Cultures   A Senior Fellow with Wilberforce International Institute, which he founded in 2009, Bob Osburn trains international students as redemptive change agents and writes and teaches about international development, comparative worldviews, corruption, education policy, and wealth creation. For seven years he taught courses on religion and educational policy and religion and international development at the University of Minnesota, and currently teaches courses with The New International University and Wilberforce International Institute. He has a PhD in comparative and international development education from the University of Minnesota, a ThM from Dallas Seminary, and a BA from the University of Michigan. He is the author of Taming the Beast: Can We Bridle the Culture of Corruption? (2016) and, most recently, Developing Redemptive Change Agents: Discipleship That Helps Nations Flourish Rather Than Flounder (2021). Bob and Susan have been married for 49 years, are the parents of four sons, and grandparents to 13.

    1h 15m
See All (128)

About

Here we explore life’s issues with our weekly speakers from the Rochester L’Abri Community; aiming to give honest answers to honest questions from a Christian perspective.

Information

  • Creator
    Rochester L’Abri
  • Years Active
    2023 - 2026
  • Episodes
    128
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright 2017 . All rights reserved.
  • Show Website
    L’Abri Rochester

You Might Also Like