Evangelizing Your Children (Part 2)
April 16th, 2008
Foundational Keys to Evangelizing Children
It is not enough for parents simply to avoid these common pitfalls (see yesterday’s post)—they must also seek to put into practice the following keys to child evangelism.
1. Setting a Consistent Example of Godliness
Evangelizing children consists not simply of verbalizing the gospel with one’s mouth, but also of exemplifying it in one’s life. As parents explain the truths of God’s Word, children have the unique opportunity to observe their lives up close and to see whether they seriously believe what they are teaching. When parents are faithful not only to proclaim, but also to live out the gospel, the impact is profound.
Because marriage is a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church (Eph. 5:22–33), the relationship between the parents as husband and wife is particularly significant. In fact, aside from the parents’ fundamental commitment to Christ, the single most important foundation for successful parenting is a healthy, Christ-centered marriage. Setting a consistent example of godliness is indispensable.
2. Proclaiming the Complete Gospel of Christ
The heart of evangelism is the gospel, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). If a child is to repent and believe in Christ, then, it will be through the proclamation of the message of the cross (1 Cor. 1:18–25; 2 Tim. 3:15; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23–25). Children will not be saved apart from the gospel.
For this reason, parents need to teach their children the law of God, teach them the gospel of divine grace, show them their need for a Savior, and point them to Jesus Christ as the only One who can save them. It is best to start from the beginning—God, creation, the fall, sin, salvation, and Christ in His life, death, and resurrection.
As they teach their children, parents must resist the temptation to downplay or soften the demands of the gospel and must proclaim the message in its fullness. The need to surrender to the lordship of Christ, for example, is not too difficult for children to understand. Any child who is old enough to understand the basic gospel is also able by God’s grace to trust Him completely and respond with the purest, most sincere kind of repentance.
The key is to be clear and thorough. Parents more than anyone have ample time and opportunity to explain and illustrate gospel truths, to correct misunderstandings, and to clarify and review the most difficult aspects of the message. The wise parent will be faithful, patient, and persistent, being careful to look at every moment of the child’s life as a teaching opportunity (Deut. 6:6–7).
One such teaching opportunity is found in the parents’ responsibility to discipline and correct their children when they are disobedient (Eph. 6:4). Rather than seeking simply to modify behavior, the wise parent will look at discipline as an opportunity to help his children become aware of their failure and inability to obey, and subsequently, their need for forgiveness in Christ. In this way, discipline and correction are used to bring children to a sober assessment of themselves as sinners and to lead to the cross of Christ where sinners can be forgiven.
As parents explain the gospel and exhort their children to respond to the gospel, it is best to avoid an emphasis on external actions, such as praying “the sinner’s prayer.” There is an urgency inherent in the gospel message itself—and it is right for parents to impress that urgency on the child’s heart—but the focus should be kept on the internal response Scripture calls for from sinners: repentance from sin and faith in Christ. As parents diligently teach the gospel and take opportunities each day to instruct their children in the truth of God’s Word, they can begin to look for signs that their children have indeed repented and believed.
3. Understanding the Biblical Evidences of Salvation
The evidence that someone has genuinely repented of his sin and believed in Christ is the same in a child as it is in an adult—spiritual transformation. According to Scripture, true believers follow Christ (John 10:27), confess their sins (1 John 1:9), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God’s commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matt. 12:50), abide in God’s Word (John 8:31), keep God’s Word (John 17:6), and do good works (Eph. 2:10).
Parents should look for an increasing measure of this kind of fruit in their children’s lives as they continue to instruct them in the truths of the gospel. In addition, parents should be fervent in their efforts to teach their children about Christ and their need for salvation, but they should also recognize that an essential part of that work is to guard them from thinking they are saved when they are not.
Understanding the biblical evidences of salvation—and explaining them to one’s children—is foundational to this work of protection.
4. Encouraging Possible Signs of Conversion
Because of the immaturity and fickleness of children, it is tempting for some parents to write off childlike expressions of faith as trivial, or even meaningless. In contrast, parents should encourage every sign of faith in their children and use the opportunity to teach them even more about Christ and the gospel. When a child expresses a desire to learn about Jesus, parents should feed that desire and encourage the child when they see possible signs of conversion.
Even if parents conclude it’s too early to regard their child’s interest in Christ as mature faith, they must not deride a profession of faith as false, for it may be the seed from which mature faith will later emerge. Instead, the parent should continue to point that child toward Christ, teaching the truth of God’s Word with patience and diligence, and always looking to the One who is able to open hearts to respond to the gospel.
5. Trusting the Absolute Sovereignty of God
The greatest need of children is to be born again. Regeneration, however, is not something that parents can do for them. Parents may pressure their children into a false profession, but genuine faith and repentance can only be granted by God who regenerates the heart. Put simply, the new birth is the work of the Holy Spirit and Him alone (John 3:8).
The salvation of children, then, cannot be produced by the faithfulness or diligence of parents, but only by the sovereign work of God Himself. Such a realization should bring comfort to parents. In addition, it should motivate them to bathe their evangelistic efforts in prayer to the One who does His work where they cannot—in the child’s heart.
Thanks Elders of Grace Church!
An additional warning to your typical (perhaps) reader is that those in vocational ministry risk overlooking (looking over, beyond) their own children as they “Go into all the world making disciples”. We can become so focussed on the uttermost that we lose sight of those closest to us!
If I had to choose which of your points are most helpful, I’d say:
5. Trusting the Absolute Sovereignty of God (Matt. 19:26).
1. Setting a Consistent Example of Godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-15).
3 John 4! Spiritual AND Biological!
mm
Absolute gratitude for this 2-Part series. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
God bless the elders of Grace Church.
As a mother of two precious children, not a day goes by that I don’t ponder these things.
Thank you for providing such constantly-needed advice and guidance on this huge issue.
When you say, “Trust in the sovereignty of God,” wouldn’t it be more realistic to say submit to the sovereignty of God? After all, according to reformed doctrine, the elect are a fixed number settled in eternity past. Each time I read a reformed author writing about the salvation of the children of the reformed, I seem to detect a kind of fuzzy hope being held out that somehow, if the reformed parents do everything they are supposed to do and avoid everything they are not supposed to do, then maybe all that doing and avoiding will have some impact on the absolutely fixed elect or nonelect status of the child. Wouldn’t it give God more glory if the reformed (who are so sure of election being fixed in eternity past) just came out and said, “If the child is elect he will be given the new birth; if he is passed over or reprobate, (depending on your precise understanding of the sequence of God’s thoughts in eternity past,) he will never be reborn and suffer the same fate as all those so designated by God?”
What am I missing here? Tell me, is or is not the outcome settled in eternity past?
Please don’t give me several pages of reformed verbosity with large portions of Whitfield, Calvin, and who knows who else.
Just answer this simple question; is or is not the child’s election settled in eternity past according to God’s pleasure?
Sincerely,
Alan House
Hey Alan,
There are far more qualified people here to respond better than I but I’ll give it a go. Yes, the elect will be brought to salvation through God’s effectual call. In the same way all of the elect will be brought to Him. That doesn’t begin to rule out the responsibility of Christians to “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” On the surface that could seem a paradox between Jesus’ message in John about no one could come to Him unless the Father draws them. Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is the point you dealing with. Scripture confirms that both God is sovereign and man is responsible.
Alan,
You’re right, a child’s election is settled in eternity past. That said, so are the means by which that child will come to faith.
On top of that, of course, is the truth that we are accountable to God for how we raise our kids.
The upshot of that is that we do trust God to save his elect, as parents we hope our kids are elect, as obedient Christians we raise our kids to be elect and trust in his sovereignty.
That last bit really is the tough one, trusting that, whatever we do and however much we try to instill God’s truth into our kids’ lives, God will do his will, and, his will being good, we trust it.
The important thing is not to separate God’s establishing of the ends from his establishing the means.
Alan,
You asked: “Just answer this simple question; is or is not the child’s election settled in eternity past according to God’s pleasure?”
The simple answer is YES according to Ephesians 1:4,5,11; Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9:10-24 I Peter 1:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:10, etc., etc., etc.
God has also determined that the proclamation of the Gospel by the saved is the means by which the lost should hear the Gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 10:14-17; the Book of Acts).
There is also plenty of Biblical ground for a believing parent to be hopeful that, by means of God’s sovereign design, their Godly actions and prayers will have some positive impact on the salvation of their own children (and non-family members as well). Again, God uses such means to bring His elect to Himself.
At the same time, our actions are not determinative of who will be saved. Thus, godly parents should be careful not to take undue blame on themselves if their children fail to respond to the Gospel.
So, I think you may be missing a lot in your understanding of Reformed soteriology. You’re also missing the obvious point that even a classic Arminian believes that God has predestined (or fixed) those who will be saved in eternity past. They merely change the motivator from God’s sovereign will to His prior knowledge of those who will believe.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
…even a classic Arminian believes that God has predestined (or fixed) those who will be saved in eternity past. Steven Lamm
From the so-called Arminian view, God “fixed” in eternity past only this plan of salvation: that whosoever believes on/in Christ will be saved. Those who are thus “in Christ” are the elect in Christ. From the so-called Arminian view, this is all that is “fixed” by God in eternity past. God did not predestin individuals per-se; rather, He predestined that whoever believes in Christ will be saved. He predestined a process, not an individual. Since God knows all, He knows who all will respond to the gospel and who will become His in Christ. Therefore, God knew in eternity past all who would respond to the gospel and be saved in Christ. But foreknowledge is not predestination. That is the so-called Arminian view.
I am not arguing for the correctness of the so-called Arminian view. I am simply pointing out that this view is quite different from what Steven Lamm claims it is in his post above.
I further acknowledge that the so-called Arminian view as stated above totally ignores the “no man comes to me except the Father, who has sent me, draws him” angle. (That truth should be a pretty good heads up for parents who want to push their children to “get saved”.) It may be true that God predestined a process rather than individuals; the elect are those who come to Christ. However, if it is true that no one comes to Christ except that God draws them, and if it is true that God knows everything, then God knew from before the foundation of the world whom He was going to draw to be “in Christ” There seems to be little difference between “fixing” from before the foundation of the world whom you (God) are going to call and simply “knowing” from before the foundation of the world whom you (God) are going to call. In either case, you don’t get to Christ until/unless God calls you. And He knew, from before the foundation of the world, whom He was going to call. Different words, same end result.
Seems to me the issue of contention is not the definition of predestination. Seems to me the issue is whether God eventually calls everyone and whether one can resist the calling of God (some respond, some refuse to). Jesus’ parable about the wedding feast and calling the folks to come, and everyone having some excuse why they can’t make it, seems to suggest that folks do have the ability to resist God’s call. But I won’t argue the point here. Only to point out that, if you have the slightest suspicion that Jesus’ parable about the wedding guests refusing the call was actually about the salvation process, that should be motivation enough to make certain your children hear the call of God as presented in His word (the Bible). We are supposed to present God’s call by presenting His word to our children. How and whether they respond is not our responsibility.
Richard P.,
I sense a possible tangent here (which I’ll try to resist…:)).
I believe the point Steve was making is that Calvinist or (Classic) Arminian, the result, for this one question, is the same.
The Calvinist understanding (which I hold) is that God has predetermined a fixed number of individuals to be saved. Ergo. you child will ultimately be saved or not, it’s a done deal.
(I’m not eliminating our role or God’s means, just making this one point…)
The Classic Arminian understanding is that God elect’s Christ, therefore saving all who believe on Him, not by virtue of their own individual election, but by virtue of Christ’s election.
Because God tells us in Romans, that he foreknows those who will be saved (we’ll overlook the Arminian misunderstanding of foreknowledge for now) that group must be a fixed number, otherwise, there is nothing for God to foreknow.
Ergo, your child will ultimately be saved or not, it’s a done deal.
I think that’s Steve’s point, and it’s a good one. In either case, we must trust the providence of God, that he will always do the right and good thing. If that means Johnny’s salvation, to God be the Glory. If that means Johnny’s damnation, to God be the Glory.
The end result is that we do our best and trust God, knowing that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend ultimately on our efforts.
Alan, if it is of any comfort, I don’t get it either. If I am praying for my non-elect child, it is in vain. All the prayer in the world can’t change a decision that was made from before the foundation of the world. This concept is a HUGE stumbling block to my walk. Steven Lamm, thank you for the Scriptures for me to try to digest.
Help me, one of whom you would call the elect, understand why God would give me a child to love (with a mother’s love) who has been pre-assigned to damnation by not being one of the elect? How does it glorify God for me to spend my life in prayer for a child who won’t get to heaven, damned as an infant? I’ve hesitated to respond with this issue here before because I am not as intelligent as most of you, and the words you use are way over my head. …but I am listening with a teachable spirit…
In either case, you don’t get to Christ until/unless God calls you.
I used the word “call” rather than “draw” after quoting “… no man comes to me except …” That was inadvertant. I mean “draw” wherever I used the word call. The Reformed view seems to be that God’s drawing / calling is irresistible. The so-called Arminian view is that all who are “in Christ” are there only because God drew them, but not everybody that God draws will necessarily end up “in Christ”. Some claim this definition implies the belief that God’s drawing is resistable. I won’t debate whether it is resistible. But a more comprehensive view sees that one cannot get to Christ without the drawing of God. God is drawing one to Christ, enabling that one to come to Christ (without which enablement that one could not come to Christ) – but, somewhere along the way, that one begins pursuing another goal different from Christ. He is not resisting God’s drawing so much as he is ignoring it. “Yeah God, I know you are there. I’ll get back to you in a minute.” And then maybe does or maybe doesn’t. I’m concerned that, if we teach our children that God’s drawing is irresistable, they won’t recognize it when they put God’s still small voice on hold while they are pursuing their own agenda. They may come to think “certainly I don’t need to be listening for what God has to say to me (spirit to spirit or through the Word). When He wants me, it will be obvious – because I won’t be able to resist Him. Until that happens, I’ll just go on doing my own thing.”
I think to be fair to Steve, he is correct in his definition of a CLASSIC Arminian ,which differs greatly from what most modern Arminians belive.
Daryl – You don’t make it clear whether you recognize this so I will be obvious – you and I are saying the same thing.
Richard,
I agree, I was just clarifying Steve’s point that Classic Arminians get this point in a similar way to Calvinists. It’s the Pelagians and semi-pelagians that miss it. (And for the record, many people on both sides confuse semi-Pelagianism with Arminianism.)
I would take issue with whether or not we should teach our children those things.
It seems to me that if a child knows that God’s will is irresistible, it would serve two purposes:
One, it would discourage the resisting of his will, knowing the ultimate futility of that.
Two, it would reassure the child that they won’t accidentally resist his will and so miss salvation. Odd as that sounds, it is something that I struggled with through my childhood and teenage years (and occasionally still do, until I remind myself that salvation is wholly outside myself!!)
Hello All,
David B, classic reformed-speak failure to answer simple question. But I appreciate your involvement.
Daryl, appreciate your response. “You’re right, a child’s election is settled in eternity past. That said, so are the means by which that child will come to faith.” You just made the child elect. By reformed understandings, very few persons (expressed as a percentage) are elect. You got off the track in the 2nd sentence.
Steve Lamb, nice direct answer! However, “There is also plenty of Biblical ground for a believing parent to be hopeful that, by means of God’s sovereign design, their Godly actions and prayers will have some positive impact on the salvation of their own children (and non-family members as well). Again, God uses such means to bring His elect to Himself.” The child has been made elect again! Of course, if the child is elect, God uses the parents wonderfully powerful, God designed influence! But, percentage wise, most are not elect, are they?
Richard P, thanks for your input. Completely off the deep end of reformed-speak.
Daryl #2, “In either case, we must trust the providence of God, that he will always do the right and good thing. If that means Johnny’s salvation, to God be the Glory. If that means Johnny’s damnation, to God be the Glory.
The end result is that we do our best and trust God, knowing that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend ultimately on our efforts.” Daryl, you are getting tooooooo plain spoken here for the reformed. I admire your courage. At the same time, it would be better to say that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend in any way, shape, form, or fashion on our efforts. Zip, Zero, Nada. Amen.
Richard P #2, No doubt you love God and are serving Him, but you are DEEPLY mired in reformed-speak which is unintelligible to all except the well read reformed.
Rob L, thanks for your input. Remarkably brief. Completely off topic.
Richard P #3, poor old Daryl is as of yet not able to scale the heights of your reformed-speak. That’s why it is not “obvious.”
Daryl #3, Oh Daryl, now you have shot waaaaaaaay out there into reformed speculative outer space. However, I am truly grateful we did get several responses in before you brought up the universally feared “P” word! (and the equally shunned “semi-P” word) Now this quote is, by far the spaceyiest we have seen so far “Two, it would reassure the child that they won’t accidentally resist his will and so miss salvation.” Here is stated the reformed doctrine of “ACCIDENTALLY resisting God’s will with the final result of missing salvation notwithstanding God’s sovereign election in eternity past according to His good pleasure!” Honestly! Pleeeeeeeeease! I may have to ask Scotty to beam me up if things get any weirder than that! Too much Whitfield and Boettner there! No disrespect meant, Daryl. But no one from east Texas will ever, ever understand that one.
Next question:
How would it make ANY difference if a non-elect person was given false assurance of salvation by some well meaning evangelistic type person who gets in a hurry and baptizes too soon (according to the reformed)? He’s non-elect! He is toast. Am i right? Once more, try to use plain English rather than reformed-speak so everyone can profit from this discussion. After all, Paul did say he’d rather speak five understandable words than, oh well, you know the passage, right?
Alan,
To answer your question, a non-elect person will not accept the gospel in the first place. That is why they are the non-elect. Charles Spurgeon put it this way.
“But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave their life of sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasure better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, He has chosen you to it. If you desire it, He has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?”
If Charles Spurgeon’s “reformed-speak” language is too difficult, then I am sorry. I would hate for you to miss out on the words of one of Christianity’s (and reformed theology’s) greatest spokesmen.
As has been mentioned already, God’s sovereignty in election does not eliminate man’s responsibility, and that is the answer to your question. You asked a loaded question in the first place. “He’s non-elect! He is toast. Am i right?” Yes and no. Yes in the sense that God’s election is unconditional, and no in the sense that we do not know who is the elect. That man had every chance to believe, yet refused. So what right (as Spurgeon said) does that man have to blame God for not being the elect when he did not want it anyway? This is not very difficult for someone with eyes to see.
ALan,
First, you said
“Daryl, appreciate your response. “You’re right, a child’s election is settled in eternity past. That said, so are the means by which that child will come to faith.” You just made the child elect. By reformed understandings, very few persons (expressed as a percentage) are elect. You got off the track in the 2nd sentence.”
You have no idea what I said, do you
(and your points 2 and 3 confirm that…)
I made no one elect, I simply said that if the child is elect, the means by which he is brought to faith as as settled in heaven, as his election (if he is elect) is. So parents, don’t worry, but do be faithful, God is using you…
Alan
Next you said:
“Daryl, you are getting tooooooo plain spoken here for the reformed. I admire your courage. At the same time, it would be better to say that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend in any way, shape, form, or fashion on our efforts. Zip, Zero, Nada. Amen.”
Which is, of course, exactly what I said, his final state is in God’s hands and too God’s glory, if that is too plain spoken for you…well what can I say?
Alan…lastly you got way off the tracks, ignored everything I wrote and tried to make your own point..
“Here is stated the reformed doctrine of “ACCIDENTALLY resisting God’s will with the final result of missing salvation notwithstanding God’s sovereign election in eternity past according to His good pleasure!” Honestly! Pleeeeeeeeease!”
I said no such thing!! It is apparent that you are simply trying to twist what I say plainly to your own odd-looking ends. What I actually said is this:
“Two, it would reassure the child that they won’t accidentally resist his will and so miss salvation”
In no way is that now or ever, reformed theology. IT IS NOT!! Come on man, be honest!! What I said was that the teaching of irresistible grace, besides being biblical, will reassure the child that they CAN’T accidentally miss the boat. While accidentally going to hell is not reformed theology, it certainly is how kids think.
Do me a favour, if your going to comment on what I say, then go back, read it again, and again, make sure you understand me and then quote me, in context.
And, lastly (for Steve’s sake) you said to Steve “But, percentage wise, most are not elect, are they?”
Got a reason for saying that? Got an inside peek into the Lamb’s Book of Life do you? Get a grip…
Alan,
Your last question presupposes that we can know the non-elect or that we shouldn’t even care…Of course it matters if we lead the non-elect to believe that they are elect.
Why it matters is twofold (in my mind):
A) Since we don’t know who is elect, and we earnestly desire all men to be saved we must encourage the unrepentant to repent. Their hardness of heart is in God’s hands, but we must combat it for who know but that God may grant repentance.
B) We must obey God and leading men astray is to lie to them. Ezekiel made it plain that the watchman on the wall is personally responsible for the blood of those who are not warned. Warning them resolves the watchman of responsibility and demonstrates love to all men, even the non-elect. As Paul said “I could wish myself accursed for the sake of the Jews, my kinsmen in the flesh”. If Paul loved his non-elect brethren so much, should we not also? And does love permit the provision of false security?
OF course it doesn’t.
I’m assuming your not reformed Alan. What you are claiming to be reformed teaching is correctly called hyper-Calvinism. About as akin to Calvinism as monkeys are to people. Looks similar sometimes, stands up even, but completely COMPLETELY different creatures.
Appreicate everyone’s remarks. Could we wrap up the first question by agreeing that:
1. If the child is elect and the parents do everything they shouldn’t and nothing that they should, the final result will assuredly be that the child will spend eternity in heaven.
2. If the child is not elect and the parents do everything they should do and nothing they should not do that the child will assuredly not spend eternity in heaven.
Are there any simple to understand, concise reasons that either of these statements are not correct according to reformed doctrine?
Yours in clear thinking,
Alan
Alan,
Not only reformed, but every Christian will say those two statements are correct. Everyone knows someone whose parents are not believers and yet God reached that person.
Everyone also knows Christian parents who have unbelieving kids.
That’s not reformed per se, it’s Christianity of all stripes.
I don’t think any Christian would say that those statements, in any way, absolve the parents of their responsibility to raised their kids right.
I think what you’re trying to get at is that if people believe those 2 statements they won’t raised their kids to be Christians. That’s about as far from Reformed Theology as it gets…
My question went beyond Alan’s questions:
If the elect are those who believe in Christ, and are foreknown but not predestined, and they cannot come to Christ without God drawing them, but may resist God’s drawing when/if He does draw them, what attitude should a parent take toward their childrens spiritual education? Should it be any different from the attitude of those who firmly believe in predestination per Alan’s two questions?
My answer is no. Why? Because, Arminian or Reformed, none of us knows the means by which God will draw a person to salvation. But we know that God uses His word to draw people to Christ. We teach the word, knowing full well we have no control over the outcome (see the parable of the sower and the seed). Best argument I’ve ever heard for not having kids.
My question went beyond Alan’s questions:
If the elect are those who believe in Christ, and are foreknown but not predestined, and they cannot come to Christ without God drawing them, but may resist God’s drawing when/if He does draw them, what attitude should a parent take toward their childrens spiritual education? Should it be any different from the attitude of those who firmly believe in predestination per Alan’s two questions?
My answer is no. Why? Because, Arminian or Reformed, none of us knows the means by which God will draw a person to salvation. But we know that God uses His word to draw people to Christ. We teach the word, knowing full well we have no control over the outcome (see the parable of the sower and the seed).
Richard P.
Amen and Amen.
Dear Sarah C.,
I am sorry that no one addressed your good, heart-felt question. If you would care to e-mail me from my church website, I will gladly correspond with you on this matter.
Love in Christ,
Jeff