greetings.

it has been quite a while since i visited my page. probably being prompted by some interesting events in life that really, make someone think of the basics in life.

one would want to ask, why am i here today? as a pastor, i would easily say my purpose is to lead people to Christ, which in itself, easier said than done!

living and working among those who profess faith can be a challenge in itself but looking at some areas in which one is involved in, then all other things may be assumed for the glory that has been set before us.

today, i did alot of reflection on Quakers and what it really means to be one. one thing is for-sure, we are lairs who claim to be Christians. why do i say so? when we look at the bible and what is expected of us, i realize that we come to Christ not only with our expectations but with our rules and prejudices. this is a sad affair since in so doing we never really get to know God. enough said but in my search, i bumped on Jon Watts blog on why being told i wasn't a Quaker was the best thing that ever happened to me.

i hope that this reading will shed some light in thoughts of young men and women and all.

Why Being Told I Wasn’t a Quaker Was the Best Thing That Ever Happened To Me

Yesterday my co-minister and partner in crime Maggie posted a blog entry entitled “YOU’RE NOT A QUAKER (so please stop calling yourself one)”

The post has provoked some great discussion and obviously real feelings from some of the (many) visitors to the post in the past 24 hours. As you might imagine, some of the reaction is indignance at the suggestion that one Quaker can judge another’s Quaker-y-ness.Didn’t we do away with all those elders and the practice of writing Friends out of Meetings?

Beyond pointing out the obvious (Maggie simply wrote a blog post about her opinion, she can’t kick you out of your Meeting, everybody stay calm), I thought it might be worth posting the story of:

THE TIME WHEN JON WAS OPPRESSIVELY OPPRESSED BY A RESPECTED ELDER IN QUAKERISM WHO ACCUSED JON OF NOT BEING A QUAKER AND THEREBY DESTROYED HIS EXPERIENCE OF THE DIVINE FOREVER.

Just kidding. It was one of the best things that ever happened to me. Listen in…

Being Cracked Open

In my Sophomore year at Guilford College, I was struggling with a feeling that I didn’t fit in and that I wasn’t happy with or fulfilled by the Quaker Leadership Scholars Program. I brought my concern to the director of the program, a man who I respected deeply as a mentor. I suggested that perhaps I should get more involved in the program, perhaps become the clerk. Then i would feel more well-used and could also effect some cultural shifts instead of just complaining about the lack of coherent community in the program.

Instead of encouragement, I was surprised to find that my mentor (who genuinely liked me, by the way; I trusted him to be on my side) was not only not excited about the prospect of me as clerk, but began to question my involvement in the program itself.

At the root of his questioning was my relationship with Quakerism. He distinguished two categories of Quakerism: practicing Quakers and cultural Quakers. Those who are practicing Quakers have a personal relationship with God. Those who are cultural Quakers know the language, the codes of conduct, and all the outward forms of the religion but have not cultivated their own connection to the divine.

…and then he suggested that I was the latter.

Friends, I was floored.

No… I wasn’t floored, I was pissed.

Okay, I was floored AND pissed. This man just had the nerve to tell me… me, Jon Watts, Quaker extraordinaire, camp counselor at Shiloh Quaker Camp for four years, assistant clerk of Baltimore fuckin’ Yearly Meeting Young Friends, who has been a Quaker since the first day of my goddamned life – that I wasn’t a Quaker?!

Asshole.

He needs to get a new job, because that was pretty damn unQuakerly of him.

Not Knowing #1

I left Guilford the following year. It wasn’t until later that I put together the significance of this conversation with my mentor in my decision to leave, but I realized that I had gone to Guilford in large part seeking the same closeness that I had found in my friendships in the Baltimore Yearly Meeting Young Friends Program, and now The Man In Charge was telling me that I wasn’t going to find it here and that he didn’t condone me cultivating it.

I distinctly remember him saying “Community is very important, Jon, but there is no ‘C’ in ‘QLSP'” (which in fact stands for Quaker Leadership Scholars Program, for those keeping score at home). Part of his analysis of cultural Quakers was that they had left God out of the picture and now worshipped community instead.

In the year that I spent away from Guilford, I don’t remember thinking about that conversation with my mentor once. I most certainly did not go on a ‘quest for God’, whatever that meant (my only context for that particular word, by the way, was crazy right-wing Christians and Monty Python movies).

Not Knowing #2

We live in a culture in which we possess knowledge. We want to corral the truth and contain it for ourselves so that we can say that we own it. Knowledge is a valuable commodity and we are rewarded for being a knower of knowledge. No one is rewarded for not knowing. So poorly judged is a not-knower that it behooves us to make up answers to questions that we don’t know the answers to rather than admit a not knowing (or maybe I’ve just been watching too many of the Republican primary debates).

Such is the environment in which the Truth has been so deliriously shrunk and contained and pinned down until it is just this… a tv ad, a political campaign, a slogan on a sign, a blog post. A collection of symbols that causes your brain to retrieve pre-memorized sounds that represent a one-dimensional concept. God.

But really, your computer screen is made up of a billion particles of stardust which is the stuff of your lungs, the stuff of water, the trees and aurora borealis. The sun is burning it. You drink water that was once drank and urinated by a brontosaurus. The universe is like this. Not some shrunken, disheveled elf on your doorstep knocking loudly until you answer. Not a big imaginary white guy in a cloud, playing us like that sim ants game from the 90’s.

That’s not God. None of that stuff is God. Or rather, it all is. God is the culmination of every. single. thing I just mentioned, including, also, this weird symbol that I just found on my keyboard: ß . Including, also, the word ‘exluding’. Including all the tubes and shit in my television that lit up to display that comic book Monty Python White Guy With a Beard in the Sky to me when I was a kid in a Snuggy, waiting for the pancakes to be done. (is that when I used to watch Monty Python? Hm, probably not I’ll get back to you)

Not Knowing #3

I went back to Guilford. I hadn’t had some big revelation. I didn’t suddenly have a personal relationship with God or even have any clue what that meant. Honestly I kind of just wanted to get my degree and move on. But here’s what had shifted:

I knew that I didn’t know.

All of my knowing that I was a Quaker – heck, all of my knowing what Quakerism was – was flattened by this one mentor-who-seemed-to-care-a-lot-about-me-yet-said-this-really-shitty-thing-that-pissed-me-off. So now I mostly only knew that maybe there were a lot of things about being a Quaker that I didn’t know yet. Like, maybe a whole lot of things. Like, maybe the most important things.

So curiosity got the best of me. I went on a life changing investigation of the early Friends that led me to the life changing experience of writing the album that would change my life. And it changed my life.

“A Few Songs Occasioned” combined all of my seemingly unrelated gifts into one. It launched me on a vocational journey that has been simultaneously heartbreaking and unbelievably miraculous, and most importantly, it baptized me.

It convinced me of Quakerism – a convincement I never would have sought out or welcomed if I had remained stuck in my idea that being born into Quakerism, clerking a committee and playing a lot of Wink was enough make me a Quaker, I guess.

Nope!

“Birth-right” Friends… maybe you’re not a Quaker!
Once-a-year Gathering-ers… maybe you’re not a Quaker!
Seminarians… maybe you’re not a Quaker!
My-Grandfather-Knew-Rufus-Jones-ers… maybe you’re not a Quaker!!
I-clerked-such-and-such-high-fallutin-committee-ers… maybe you’re not a Quaker!!!!

(You can yell at me all you want in the comments, but ultimately it’s between you and God. I just wrote a blog post. Talk to God.)

And on a last note:

BAPTISM: YES WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IT.

peace OUT!
Jon

Hi.

It has been long but for sure worth it. I have been involved in marital issues and as a Clergy, I have come to realize that it is very possible to be lonely while in the presence of many or even the one that you love as your spouse.
I just thought of posting this trailer for as many as would want to follow through. It is a movie, just a movie but how true. many marriages are boring-as it is said- but this should not be so.

The rest of the writing is not mine but I though of sharing it just as is.

This has been done by Dr. Meg Barker. It is wonderful.

Sex and relationship therapy: Fiction and fact

This weekend I saw the new romantic comedy Hope Springs. The movie is about a couple in their sixties (Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones) who go to intensive couple therapy (with Steve Carrell) because Streep’s character is concerned about the lack of intimacy and sex in their relationship.

On one level I loved the movie. The performances were all astonishingly good, the comedy was pitched perfectly and had me laughing out loud, and I shed a tear or two in the darkest hour before the dawn because it was such a good depiction of how lonely it is possible to be in a relationship.

However, as soon as I left the theatre, I started to reflect on the messages about sex and relationships in the film and found some of them pretty problematic. In this post I’ll go through a few of the ideas from the film, saying why I question whether these are good sex and relationship therapy.

Spoiler alert: I have written in detail about the film so don’t read on if you want to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie like I did before engaging your critical faculties!

Fiction: Relationships are tough - Fact: Relationships are tough

One of the best things about the movie is that it doesn’t present a totally Hollywoodised version of relationships as some perfect happily-ever-after. The couple, Kay and Arnold, have not found that the love and sex that were present at the start of their relationship have stayed constant all the way through. They have changed over time, as all people do, and they have found they can’t communicate very well and don’t feel close any more. Kay captures a common experience well: ‘It shouldn’t be hard to touch a person that you love. But it is.’

Fiction: Older people can still want sex – Fact: Older people can still want sex

Another big plus was the depiction of people in their sixties as just as sexual beings as the people in their twenties and thirties who we are more used to seeing in films. This includes a number of realistic sex scenes which are a rarity in mainstream cinema. It is often assumed that people cease being sexual as they age, with a great deal of prejudice and ridicule around sex between older people, so it was nice to see this challenged. Also the therapist in the movie did not make the assumption that the couple should stop caring about sex, which many professionals do make when confronted with older people, or people with disabilities or health problems.

Fiction: It’s good to communicate in relationships – Fact: It’s good to communicate in relationships

The relationship between the main characters does improve and this seems to be due to the fact that they’ve started communicating with each other during therapy. However I did have some sympathy with Tommy Lee Jones’ character when he questioned whether blurting out all of the resentments that had developed over the relationship was really a good idea. In the early weeks of relationship therapy I often see clients individually (alternating weeks) so they can have a free space to talk about how the relationship is for them and think about the ways in which they might kindly communicate this to their partners.

Secrets and lies are not a great idea in relationships, but it is also valuable to learn what each other’s vulnerabilities are and to tread gently around these. Having some empathy for how what we say might be received makes it easier for the other person to hear it.

Fiction: Space can help a lot – Fact: Space can help a lot

One key moment in the movie was when both characters went off and had a day on their own. This seemed to enable them to become closer and take more of a risk with each other. I thought that this was a nice portrayal of how valuable space is for a relationship. Time apart helps to remind us of who we are with other people as well as with our partner, so we are less focused just upon the relationship and how difficult it is. We can also get some fulfillment from ourselves and from other people so that we stop expecting the relationship to be everything for us. For example, Kay got the reassurance she wanted from people she met in a bar and that took the pressure off Arnold. Arnold was able to calm down. Time apart also often means that we are able to see our partners more fully rather than fixing them as just one side of who they are (boring or difficult, for example).

Fiction: Relationships must be sexual – Fact: Relationships can be sexual or not

Perhaps the main problem with the movie is that it reinforces the common myth that the romantic relationships must be sexual all the way through and that not being sexual is a sign that there is a problem. This is a big ask given how long relationships last, and Esther Perel has written very well on the difficulties of sustaining relationships that are both warm and hot. Many relationships go through long periods of not being sexual, some are never sexual, some cease being sexual at a certain point, and some involve partners who get their sexual desires met in other ways (e.g. with other people or with pornography, erotica, fantasy and/or solo sex). Interestingly open relationships are twice presented as a big joke in the movie. Of course they might not be the thing for Kay and Arnold, but they do work for many people so it is a shame to ridicule them.

Asexual communities are currently raising awareness of the fact that it is perfectly possible to not experience sexual attraction. The therapist in Hope Springs seemed to assume that Kay and Arnold had to recapture their sexual relationship, rather than really exploring whether this was something that they wanted and, if so, why it was important, and the different possible ways of doing this.

Fiction: People should sleep together – Fact: It is fine to sleep apart

Another common myth reproduced in the film is that sleeping in separate beds/bedrooms is a sign of relationship problems. This is not necessarily the case at all. Some people love sleeping together and some hate it, and it may well change over a relationship (for example if people develop different sleeping routines or if one person snores or moves a lot in their sleep). Indeed having separate rooms to retreat to could be a very helpful way of getting the kind of space that can be so valuable to relationships.

Fiction: There is one thing called intimacy – Fact: There are many different kinds of intimacy

Carrell’s therapist also seems to equate sexual, physical and emotional intimacy and focuses on getting Kay and Arnold to be physically and sexually close. Personally I would have focused more upon their relationship in general rather than forcing physical/sexual closeness before they were communicating well. And, as mentioned above, it is perfectly possible to have each of these kinds of intimacy without the others.

Fiction: Sex is penis-in-vagina intercourse – Fact: There are many different kinds of sex

There is a moment in the movie where the couple are about to have sex and Arnold loses his erection. Kay is very unhappy after this and nearly leaves because she assumes that it means that he doesn’t find her attractive. Everything is better when they manage to have ‘successful’ penis-in-vagina intercourse. There are a whole load of sex myths in here. Clearly penis-in-vagina intercourse is represented as ‘real’, ‘proper’ sex, and sex is seen as requiring an erect penis and ending in ejaculation. There isn’t, for example, the possibility of sex which is focused on Kay’s pleasure, or the possibility of Kay and Arnold enjoying less genitally-focused forms of pleasure. Also erections are equated with attraction when these things may, or may not, be related (there are many other reasons why somebody might lose an erection).

Fiction: It is okay to go ahead with sex without much communication – Fact: Communication first is vital

When the therapist asks Kay and Arnold what they fantasise about sexually Kay struggles to come up with anything, and Arnold manages a couple of possibilities (oral sex and threesomes). The conversation is left there rather than pursuing Kay’s desires or really checking out whether she shares any of Arnold’s desires (teasing apart the cultural views of these activities from her own feelings). The real danger of this is that people will then feel forced into having sex that they don’t want.  At the end of the film Kay seems to be so relieved that she and Arnold are finally having sex that what she might enjoy sexually seems to have disappeared (she has been vague about whether missionary position sex is pleasurable or orgasmic for her).

If people don’t communicate about their sexual desires there is a significant risk that the sex they have will not really be something that they have consented to. It can be very painful to be a person who ends up having sex that they really don’t enjoy (like Kay when she attempts oral sex in the movie theatre because she thinks this is what Arnold wants). It can also be very difficult to be a person who realises that the person they are having sex with isn’t enjoying it (as Arnold speaks about as a key reason why he stopped having sex with Kay).

With somebody like Kay who struggles to know what she desires I would want to work with her on this before doing anything (e.g. reading erotic fiction, exploring her own body). Also it would be useful to explore the menu of what is possible physically and sexually to see whether there was any common ground (rather than pushing them towards one, restrictive, version of sex). It would be useful for Kay and Arnold to make a ‘yes, no, maybe’ list of all the sexual and physical practices that they are aware of, and whether they are interested in them (one of the possibilities I discuss in the sex chapter of Rewriting the Rules).

Overall it is great to see a movie depicting the challenges of romantic relationships and including sex and relationship therapy as a possibility. However it is about time that film-makers started to think a bit more critically about sex and about the diversity of possibilities for a good relationship.

God's Word

Recently, actually yesterday during the service, we had an opportunity to look at the Lord's word in as far as the Word is concerned. i realized that in as much as we claim to be Christians, many of us do not really understand the power that is in the book called the Bible.

The Lord Himself say that he is the Word (St. John 1) and in many aspects He reveals to us the beauty of being in touch with Him by allowing Him to influence our lives in all aspects of it. unfortunately, we do not realize the power that has been granted to us as believers in such a simple manner as this.

I tend to believe that  due to our background, which is heavily influenced by Animistic form of life, we often look for things that will make religion a reality by fetish procedures and we go as far as looking for titles or favor in the same only to realize that it has always been a lie from the Devil himself. This is so sad.

Jesus has given us His word in a very simple manner that just needs us to believe! yes Just BELIEVE! no rituals, no payments, no tasks that make you a freak or any of those things.
If we just believe all will be well with us. if we just seek Him and allow Him to influence us, lead us , teach us and guide us by His Word, we will never ever be in lack, or ashamed.

Just as i said jana, what shall you do with this knowledge? will you sit there and start rationalizing or will you just trust and obey? Before He spoke a WORD, I knew no sin and was dead in it, after He spoke the WORD Sin became real, when I understood the WORD I died to sin. Now the life that I live is not mine but Him living in me. Life's Good in Christ.

The Lord speaks to us every day and in many ways but at times we don't hear due to many noises both within and without us but he nonetheless speaks. this is His Word!    

Truth

Truthfulness is a virtue that is rare in the lips of many. I realize that when I was growing up, whenever i would be found in a mistake i would only reveal on a need to now basis and in most cases it may pass as a lie.

Unfortunately this is the same thing that we see in the society today. Truth is given on a need to now basis or rationed in such a manner interest is quickly lost from one in pursuit of it. This has slowly crept in the church as well and in most cases, lies have their places reserved in pews. This will range from marital unfaithfulness to other fors of corruptions even within the church circles.

What happened to truth? when is truth considered to be truth and not just honesty depending on the circumstance? Trully I dont know but as a christian I cant help but wonder if I or the people I associate with are true in their being so as to manifest in their actions or speech. But one thing for sure is that truth can be weighed and it always passes but what happens to the messanger who carries the truth be it in message or object?

To be a Christian in the truest sense, I suppose, it is necessary to be true to the word Christian. What do i mean? To be true to Christ and the Bible and its truths as they once delivered to the saints of old. Jude 3, 2 John 1:9, Acts 2:42. This is no simple matter because the lives of the people whether or not they appreciate the Gospel message which in itself is truth.

I believe that truth can draw people to commitment simply on the merit of being truth. if a persons purpose is based on truth or the seeking of truth, then he/she should ever have to implement demands for blind faith or blind obedience. Creative thinking should be respected and encouraged and if based on truth questions could be rare - I guess. So I ask myself, am I true to the calling upon mylife? What about you?   

Stanley Lusimba: Is God Logical?

Stanley Lusimba: Is God Logical?: Many a times we wonder as to whether we are who we really claim to be. What is this thing that makes us real? Is it our emotions? Could it...

The Pull into Generic Evangecalism

One of the tenets of the main stream churches, albeit in Africa is the fact that one has to accept Jesus Christ as the Lord and savior as well stipulated in the Bible. This is of course after one has had an opportunity to hear the good news from a preacher or an evangelist. This is a wonderful beginning but at the same time the beginning of all problems. This is because, there seems to be some aspects of the Bible that are easily accepted whereas others that are pushed to the side for one reason or the other. One would then really wonder whether these churches are evangelical as it purports to be or not. Let me explain.

Evangelical, a term literally meaning "of, or pertaining to the Gospel," and was employed from the eighteenth century onwards to designate the school of theology adhered to by those Protestants who believed that the essence of the Gospel lay in the doctrine of salvation by faith in the death of Christ, which atoned for man's sins. Evangelicalism therefore, stressed the reality of the "inner life," insisted on the total depravity of humanity (a consequence of the Fall) and on the importance of the individual's personal relationship with God and Savior. They put particular emphasis on faith, denying that either good works or the sacraments (which they perceived as being merely symbolic) possessed any salvational efficacy. Evangelicals, too, denied that ordination imparted any supernatural gifts, and upheld the sole authority of the Bible in matters of doctrine. This teaching is well found and based in the bible. The fact that one cannot atone for his or her own sins but is indebted to Jesus for the saving grace and the remission of sin is essential a belief. This is what I believe the Quakers insist as the “inner light”.

Where some of these mainstream churches have erred (my humble view) is when she (church)decides to what she wants or what she thinks is the best thing to do as opposed to what the Lord Jesus instructs us to do (John 15:14). Jesus goes on further to tell us that “From now on I call you not servants; for the servant knows not what his lord does: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you. You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. VS 15-16” The truth is that she knows the truth as it is given in the Word of God – the Bible but has chosen to be strange even to her Lord. How?

She has decided that she will not participate in the Lords sacraments even when it’s allover the Bible. What perturbs me is the reason given. For example, as one said in regards to water baptism, “you can enter a pool of water a dry sinner and leave as a wet sinner.” True as it may, who judges the hearts? Who knows the motives of men and women? Are people led into baptism just for the sake of it or are they taught and baptized based on their confession of Christ as Savior? It is not in the place of the shepherd decide whether one has or is experiencing the inner change? This is because this is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit. Granted, many have fallen by the way even after being undertaking these sacraments as it were but many more in their silence.

Could this be the reason why we do not have true believers ie those who worship in truth and in spirit? (John 4). When one looks at our musicians (not all but quite a number) who have never been disciple, and do not recognize biblical authority one may not be surprised by the productions that we see and hear on our radios and televisions and computers. The depravity in character and depth in the working knowledge of Christ is wanting. Will He find us faithful when He returns?

Therefore, back to the thought, when she throws out sacraments as symbols or outward signs, there are many questions that remain unanswered not only from Christians without but even those within it. This is one of the reasons why when some are confronted or asked about their faith find it difficult to explain because they read it in the word and chose to jump ship. Does Christ tell us to perform symbols or follow his commands? He says, do this in remembrance of me! Luke 22:19.

Is God Logical?

Many a times we wonder as to whether we are who we really claim to be. What is this thing that makes us real? Is it our emotions? Could it be our physiology? Is it the idea that we can think or let’s say reason? Mmhhh.

It often said, actually the psalmist records (Bible) that we are wretched beings psalm 66:8-12 and in this condition we can do nothing of our own. But what if we can put things in perspective – here being what we can reason out with some form of logic while also appreciating that logic of the world is prior to all truth and falsehood (Ludwig Wittgenstein).

 If God really loved the world that He gave His only begotten son what makes it so hard for us to believe John 3:16 (The Bible)? Could it be that we can’t give our own for such a thing as man? Or is It that our selfish ambitions/desires/nature overpowers our ability to appreciate the good that the Lord has for us? If love compelled Him to send His son to save mankind, and love being believed to be truth for all cases then what logic is this are we not seeing/following?

For one to pay your fare in a bus, it follows that you must be there to be paid for. You cannot be paid for in a vacuum or if you do not intend to travel at all. If that be true then man had to be in the world to receive this child that was sent to save him. But does he know that he is lost?

One person said that if one is not aware that they are lost, then the truth of one being lost will not hold water at all because it is not warranted. There is no particular direction that one is looking forward to or they are aware – so they think - that all is well after all. Thus if one thinks that they are lost then it will be upon such to bring in the light. Now this light has to be logical. That is, it must make sense! If it be based on truth then a lie or a life driven by lies thought to be truth must be overcome by all means, thus aAll logical truth and all truths that logic can warrant must turn upon meaning in the sense of intension. Because logic and the lo...- MOREll logical truth and all truths that logic can warrant must turn upon meaning in the sense of intension. Therefore, why did God send His son?

If man is to appreciate this, knowing that the level of thinking of man is far much lower than that of God, then God’s son must be able to articulate this logic in a manner that makes sense to the lost man because, logic and the logically certifiable comprise only such facts as are independent of all particular experience and are capable of being known with certainty merely through clear and cogent thinking. The fact here is that man is lost and he needs to be found /directed to some place. Thus he must be aware of his current state/situation that needs help! This is truth! The same must hold of any analytic truth: if it is capable of being known by taking thought about it, then it must be independent of meaning in the sense of extension and turn upon meanings only in the sense of intension.

God’s son had an intention. He intended –and still does – to help man find his place. This is true. But this situation must be recognized by man who is being sought after but God’s so. As Tweedledee puts it, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." This must make sense or doesn’t it? For this reason God’s son came to save man but reason itself is fallible, and this fallibility must find a place in our logic (Nicola Abbagnano). But let us be real for just a minute. Logic is not concerned with human behavior. It is concerned with relations between factual sentences (or thoughts). If logic ever discusses the truth of factual sentences it does so only conditionally. Let’s stop here a little bit. God did send his son. The condition that He laid before men was that they believe in Him so as not to perish. Sense! Therefore we can see that the logic behind God’s intention was to save. And this is true!

Thus, one would say: if such-and-such a sentence is true, then such-and-such another

sentence is true. Logic itself does not decide whether the first sentence is true, but surrenders

that question to one or the other of the empirical sciences (sociology, psychology etc). As it is

written, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life John 3:16. So, what is true in this

sentence? God sent His son. What is the other truth? The man may have life (does not perish).

I think He is logical. Don’t you?