The political pressure to redefine the meaning of marriage has recently become more intense and obvious in certain English-speaking countries. But you might have noticed that the vast majority of people in our society aren’t particularly concerned by these developments. Why is that? Here’s one possible reason: in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of modern Westerners, marriage has already been redefined. We just didn’t notice.
The redefinition of marriage didn’t necessarily happen all at once, with the passing of a single law. Rather, the redefinition of marriage happened slowly, almost imperceptibly. It wasn’t an act of parliament, but a change in our society’s general beliefs about the meaning and purpose of marriage. As I’ve been helped to see by a couple of recentarticles, a very significant, if gradual, redefinition of marriage has occurred through the separation of the concept of marriage from the concept of parenthood / procreation. In the Bible, and for many of our forebears, marriage and parenthood are seen as two sides of the same coin. In the modern mind, however, marriage and parenthood are two separate things: two distinct states or activities which may or may not be associated with one another, depending on our own personal preferences.
Marriage, in other words, is now ultimately about our own individual rights and self-satisfaction. And this affects, in a profound way, our attitude to children. Rather than welcoming children as children, we have an unsettling tendency to speak about them and to treat them as commodities which are designed to contribute something special to our own self-gratification. That phrase, “husband/wife, house, 2.5 kids, dog” was once a jocular dig at bland middle-class aspirations. Now the phrase has a chillingly ironic undercurrent. The “kids” belong in the same list as the house and the dog. Children are expendable commodities which, like the house and the dog, only have value if they are “wanted.” And, like the house and the dog, children are optional accessories—but of course they are accessories that we should all have a right to own if we so desire.
This might help us to understand our society’s relatively apathetic reaction to all these political pressures to redefine marriage. After all, if marriage is ultimately about fulfilling our own personal potential through a relationship with another person, then why not extend this right to anybody who wants it (including the right to own children)?
If this analysis is at least partly true, then we need to do more than join in campaigns to oppose the legal redefinition of marriage, don’t we? Join in the campaigns, of course; but we need to do more. We need to keep grasping and loving the biblical vision for human life, in which both singleness and marriage are not means for self-fulfilment, but opportunities to engage in loving service. We need to believe that marriage is not about self-gratification, but about living for the good of others, which always includes the desire for welcoming children (a desire which remains real even when tragically unfulfilled). We need to promote this view of marriage—by speaking it, by repenting, and by living it out, sacrificially.
But even more importantly, we need to keep remembering that a far more fundamental redefinition of marriage occurred long before the twentieth century. When the first man and woman rebelled against God, their own relationship—and that of their children forevermore—was turned upside down, disordered and subject to frustration. That’s why the answer—for all of us—is not ultimately going to come from the law, but from humbly listening to the forgiving and transforming gospel of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.
‘Jesus … said unto them: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”‘ (Mark 10:14, King James Version)
I recently led a series of talks and discussions at our church’s weekend conference. I’ve put the whole conference together here into one package for others to use (it would work with a small group or a larger church group).
flickr: Darwin Bell
To kick off, I started with the question, “Are all Christians commanded to evangelise?” But I quickly decided that it was the wrong question to ask. There are far more important and productive questions we should be asking ourselves. Questions like: “What is the gospel?” “What does the gospel have to do with human speech?” and “How can I speak the gospel, given my own life situation and gifts?” These were the questions I sought to address in the conference.
This is not a series of steps, or a bunch of sure-fire tips or recipes for evangelism. Rather, the aim of the package is:
To provide a biblical and theological grounding in the concept of human speech and its relationship to God’s salvation.
To learn from one another about different ways to speak the gospel, taking into account our different experiences, gifts and backgrounds.
The package is organised around a series of objections to the proposition: “God wants you to speak the gospel of Jesus Christ to other people.” I deal with each objection in turn, showing that the gospel itself renders the objection invalid. Here are the objections:
“I’m not good enough to speak to other people about the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
“I’m not gifted enough to speak to other people about the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
“I’m not really a ‘speaking’ kind of Christian.”
“I can promote the gospel better by my good works.”
“I can’t do it! I’ve seen people who speak the gospel, and I just can’t do what they’re doing.”
“My gifts are different; I can fulfil my role in the church in a different way.”
“I’m more comfortable speaking the gospel to insiders rather than outsiders.”
Booklet
The booklet includes both talk outlines and discussion questions (the talks and discussion questions are designed to go together as a single package):
Being an Aussie living in the UK sometimes leads to bizarre experiences. Like when I’m talking to a Brit, and he or she makes a joke based on the premise that Aussies are descended from criminals. That, in itself, isn’t a bizarre experience (usually the joke is quite witty and droll, in true British style). The bizarre experience comes when the person who made the joke, about 5 seconds later, apologizes to me because they’re afraid they’ve offended me.
I try to explain that Aussies are proud of being descended from convicts; indeed, if you can trace your ancestry back to the first fleet, you’re virtual aristocracy Down Under. Our de facto national song, Waltzing Matilda, is about a bloke who stole a sheep and got chased by the police. Our former Prime Minister, Keven Rudd, is descended from underwear and sugar thieves, and forgers. And he’s proud of it. Go Kev! The British joke-tellers never quite believe me, though. They seem to think I should be ashamed of being a member of the criminal classes. Bizarre.
But I’ve come to discover that there’s a reason why people might be so afraid of offending me. It seems that their joke about my convict heritage might, in fact, be against the law. You see, if I decide that the joke has offended me (even if they didn’t intend to offend me), then I might be able to initiate proceedings against them. This atmosphere of hyper-vigilance isn’t just a joke. It seems that proceedings have indeed been initiated against a blogger here in the UK for causing offence by carrying the following ad for the Coalition for Marriage:
The blogger in question (who styles himself on my favourite Archbishop), says:
Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the ‘Investigations Executive’ of this inquisition to keep all this confidential.
Since His Grace does not dwell in Iran, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Communist China or Nazi Germany, but occupies a place in the cyber-ether suspended somewhere between purgatory and paradise, he is minded to ignore that request. Who do these people think they are?
[...]
He is informed:
We intend to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council. We will then draft a recommendation for the Council based on your response to us. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.
…We require you to explain your rationale for the ad and comment specifically on the points raised in the attached complaint notification…
They need to see ‘robust documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its relevance and why you think it substantiates the claims. It is not enough to send references to or abstracts of documents and papers without sending the reports in full and specifically highlighting the relevant parts explaining why they are relevant to the matter in hand’.
Of course, I would be a hypocrite if I, too, didn’t endorse the views of the Coalition for Marriage. In my colonial homeland, I am an Anglican Minister, and I have conducted quite a few weddings using these words from An Australian Prayer Book, “A Service for Marriage (second form)”:
Our Lord Jesus Christ said of marriage that ‘From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.” So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’
…
Marriage should be honoured by all, and is not to be entered into lightly or carelessly, but with reverent and serious respect for those purposes for which it was instituted by God.
Marriage is a gift from God for the well-being of humanity, and for the proper expression of natural instincts and affections with which he has endowed us.
It is a life-long union in which a man and a woman are called so to give themselves in body, mind, and spirit, and so to respond, that from their union will grow a deepening knowledge and love of each other. In the joys and sorrows of life, in prosperity and adversity, they share their companionship, faithfulness, and strength.
In marriage a new family is established in accordance with God’s purpose, so that children may be born and nurtured in secure and loving care, for their well-being and instruction, and for the good order of society, to the glory of God.
I guess that now I have also displayed the ad (in this case, gratis), and reproduced the words of An Australian Prayer Book, I may have offended somebody. Please be assured that I am not intending to offend; I am simply seeking to endorse a campaign that is, quite transparently as far as I can tell, attempting to engage in a current and important political debate. This particular debate has been ignited by certain actions of members of Her Majesty’s Government. The various voices on the debate deserve to be heard. The Coalition for Marriage is one voice in this debate. It is a voice which clearly has popular support, and which I endorse. If you agree with me, sign their petition. If you disagree with me, don’t sign their petition. And disagree with me. And offend me too, if you like. That’s how a modern liberal democracy is supposed to work.
However: if any Brits do decide to be offended by this blog post, it might interest you to know that I am seeking to return from the UK to Botany Bay, in Sydney, New South Wales, in just under two months’ time. If you would please time your prosecution accordingly, I would be grateful. That way, you might get me a free trip to Botany Bay, and the opportunity to return home as a convict, which would enhance my reputation enormously in my colonial homeland. It might even mean that I have a chance at being Prime Minister one day.
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (2nd ed.; London: BCA, 1998), p. 1.)
All Christians should be like that little old lady. Not, of course, that we should insist on cosmic turtles. But there’s something that Christians should insist on, constantly, in every situation, to ourselves, and to everyone we see. It’s God’s grace. All the way down.
We’re saved by grace. When we were weak, when we were sinners, when we were God’s enemies, God showed his love for us. Christ died for us. Jesus’ death cancelled and satisfied God’s wrath against our sin. That’s what grace is, at its heart. But grace isn’t just a doctrine that we need to understand in order to become a Christian. Neither is grace just something that we have to “get right” so we can move on to other things. God’s grace shown to us in the Lord Jesus Christ is fundamental to everything else in our lives. We continue to live by God’s grace, day by day.
When we sin, we return to God’s grace for forgiveness. When we’re weak, we cry out to God, and so display God’s grace to ourselves and to the world. When we overcome sin, when we’re strong, when we’re tempted to be proud, we return to this great truth: we can’t boast. It’s all by God’s grace.
When we want to insist that God should do something for us in life, when we decide that God has to bring about this or that life situation or career or relationship, we come back to grace. We remember that we’re actually God’s petulant little children who really have no idea what’s good for us. But God knows what’s best for us. And he loves us. And he’ll listen to us. And he’ll give us what we need to live for him and to become like his Son, which is the best gift he could possibly give. So we pray, confidently and humbly, by grace.
When we’re disappointed because our expectations haven’t been met, again we return to grace. Grace reminds us of two fundamental truths: God doesn’t owe us anything, and God is infinitely good. Grace lifts our expectations beyond our tiny worldly dreams and fills us with hope. Grace changes our character and makes us rejoice, even in suffering.
When we’re complacent in our Christian lives, we remember that God’s grace has made us, saved us, seated us with Christ, and given us good works to do. When wish we could grow in our character, our perseverance, our love, our godliness, we remember that it all begins and continues and ends with God’s grace. When we despair that we aren’t growing, or persevering: we return to God’s grace, for forgiveness and strength.
Any ministry that we are given is a gift from God. It’s not “our ministry”. It’s grace. Our evangelism is full of grace. We’re just saved sinners. We don’t preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, the source of God’s grace.
When our hearts start to become proud because we think we’ve got our doctrine of grace “sorted out”; when we start to think we’re better than other people who haven’t properly understood God’s grace, then we come back to grace. There’s no room for pride here. Knowing about grace is a gift, not an achievement. We also need to remind ourselves that we can’t ultimately grasp it anyway. How could we? You can’t grasp grace. It’s grace. Grace grasps hold of us.
And when we start to feel guilty because we’re not properly taking God’s grace to heart; when we are overwhelmed by the realisation that our lives aren’t truly reflecting God’s grace: God’s grace is big enough to cover that guilt too, to cancel it and forgive it.
Our own experiences often affect how we read the Bible. Take Romans 16:7, for example:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Rom 16:7)1
There’s something in this verse that often catches the eye of the modern reader: a woman, Junia,2 is said to be “of note among the apostles.” This means that she was either a person of note to the apostles, or that she was herself “among the apostles.” Either way, the Bible seems to be saying that there was a woman who had a ministry role that was important in the early church. Surely then, as many argue, the example of Junia means that women today, too, can and should have significant ministry roles? At this point, our own experiences can play a big part, particularly our experiences of Christian ministry.
It’s quite common today for ministry to be understood individualistically. That is, we often think in terms of ‘the minister’ or ‘the pastor,’ i.e. individuals entrusted with the sole care for a church. If you read Romans 16:7 with this individualistic kind of ministry model in mind, you might conclude that the verse is an excellent proof-text to show that women should be allowed (indeed, encouraged) to be individuals entrusted with the main responsibility for a mixed congregation (otherwise, how could they ever be “of note?”). On the other hand, if you don’t like this conclusion, you might consider this verse as a troubling little blip in Paul’s otherwise quite excellent letter to the Romans, and you might spend a great deal of time and energy proving that the verse doesn’t mean that women can be individual ministers/pastors of mixed congregations.
But what if you don’t read the verse in light of this individualistic ministry model at all?
By God’s grace, I’ve experienced churches where ‘women ministers/pastors’ are part of team ministries. I’ve rejoiced in the godliness and perseverance of women ministers/pastors, and I’ve seen the fruit of their work, and benefitted from it immensely: in fact, I became a Christian through the work of a woman who was part of a team of evangelists. The women I’m speaking about haven’t had the job of formally teaching men in mixed adult congregations (as per passages like 1 Timothy 2:8-15); but they have had prominent and important ministries. Women, in other words, have been “of note among the ministers/pastors.” I think this is a good thing, and I think it’s worth promoting (and, I have to admit, at times I’ve failed to promote this ministry to the full extent it deserves).
This experience of mine makes me read Romans 16:7 in way that’s different to the kind of reading that comes from the ‘individualistic’ model of ministry. I notice different aspects of the verse, beyond the simple fact that there is a woman in it. One thing I notice is the striking emphasis on team ministry. Paul is commending two people, together. What’s more, he’s talking about a group of apostles. In fact, there seems to be an intimate ministry partnership between Andronicus, Junia and Paul himself: Andronicus and Junia are involved in Paul’s experience of ministry, suffering alongside him, in some kind of ‘imprisonment.’ Furthermore, when I look at Romans 16 as a whole, I see that it’s all about team ministry and ministry partnerships and fellow workers and suffering together. In fact, when I look back over Paul’s letter to the Romans, I see team ministry in all sorts of places. For example, even though Paul introduces himself as a singular ‘apostle’ (Romans 1:1), in Romans 1:5, he says that he is among a plural group ‘we,’ who have received ‘apostleship.’3 In Romans 10:15, Paul implies that he himself is among a plural group of people who are ‘sent’ (a word that is directly related to the word ‘apostle’) to preach the gospel.4
So coming back to Romans 16:7: what’s Paul’s actual point here? Paul wants his readers in Rome to remember and greet two people in particular who are very significant in relation to the apostolic team ministry.5 Of course, this doesn’t necessarily imply that Junia and Andronicus have exactly the same role as the apostle Paul. We don’t have to assume, for example, that either Andronicus or Junia had a special revelation from God or that they each received a personal ‘apostolic’ commissioning (Gal 1:10). Furthermore, we don’t have to assume that either Andronicus or Junia founded a church, or were leading a church, or that Junia (or Andronicus for that matter) was preaching to mixed congregations. In fact, we don’t really know what Andronicus and Junia did. We don’t know about their relationship, either: maybe they were married to each other, or maybe they weren’t. But that’s not the point. The point is that whatever they did was important, and was connected closely with Paul’s (very non-individualistic) ‘apostolic’ ministry.
So what is the significance of this verse for us? On the one hand, we shouldn’t claim too much for this verse, as if it is some kind of blanket approval for women to be the sole ministers in charge of congregations or to formally preach to mixed adult congregations. On the other hand, let’s not be defensive about this verse, either. It’s not just a problem to be explained away. Among other things, it affirms the significance and prominence of the ministry of a woman in the context of team ministry. Junia (along with Andronicus) is “of note among the apostles.” How, then, might we ensure that we ‘note’ (promote, recognise, etc.) the ministry of women in our own contexts?
A friend of mine who pastors a congregation told me of a young man in his church who was heading off to study at a theological college. This young man approached my friend for advice on making a choice: should he study Greek when he got to college, or should he study Hebrew? My friend’s response was legendary: “Well,” he said, “when you finish college and get up into your pulpit, do you want to be wearing only your shirt, or only your pants?”
If you insist to a friend that the ‘real meaning of Christmas’ is the birth of Jesus Christ, there are two kinds of response you’re likely to get.
If your friend is a traditionalist, they’ll probably agree with you. They might bemoan with you the fact that Christmas is becoming so commercial, and long for the good old days when the centre of nativity scenes was Mary and Joseph and baby Jesus rather than elves and Santa Claus. In that case, the traditions surrounding Christmas might give you a great opportunity to speak about the stunning implications of God becoming human in the person of Jesus.
But it’s also possible that your friend will disagree with you. They might tell you, for example, that what we now call ‘Christmas’ was originally a pagan midwinter festival which was ‘Christianised’ by the medieval catholic church. Or they might reply that they prefer to think of Christmas as a time of celebration, family, generosity and peace, and they don’t particularly need the religious element. If this is your friend’s response, then your claim that Christ is the ‘real meaning of Christmas’ might just seem to them like an out-of-touch religious traditionalism from a bygone era. Should you keep insisting on it?
Well, you’ve got to admit that the Bible won’t back you up. There’s no commandment in the Bible, “Thou shalt celebrate the incarnation on December 25th.” Nor does the Bible tell us the date of Jesus’ birthday; some people have even cheekily pointed out that midwinter is the least likely time for Jesus to be born, because there were shepherds in the fields at night. Anyway, the Bible warns us against making a big deal about festivals and seasons. An unhealthy obsession with seasons is, in fact, a sign that we’ve moved away from Christ himself (e.g. Gal 4:9-10, Col 2:16-17).
It’s also a bit hypocritical to argue that the word ‘Christmas’ is derived from ‘Christ’. After all, the word ‘Easter’ is derived from the pagan fertility goddess Ēostre, but we don’t insist that the ‘real meaning of Easter’ is an idolatrous fertility cult.
It’s not very easy to argue from history, either. Christmas has meant different things to different people at different times in history. In 17th century Cromwellian England, for example, Christmas was generally regarded as an excuse for drunkenness, greed and sexual abandon. This was one of the reasons that the ‘godly’ parliament of the time tried to clamp down on Christmas! In fact, historians point out that the modern Anglo-American obsession with Christmas as the most celebrated holiday festival of the year probably owes more to the likes of Charles Dickens and Prince Albert than to a long-standing church tradition.
So if you ever feel that you have to argue that Christ is the ‘real meaning of Christmas’, you’ve already lost the argument. Why not, instead, concentrate on Christ himself? Invite your friend to consider why, from your point of view, the birth of Jesus Christ is stupendously amazing, and why Christians continue to take the time each year to celebrate it. Christ’s coming into the world actually changes things for the better. When we take an honest look at the world around us, we can see that Christmas isn’t actually a time of celebration, family, generosity and peace. Without Christ, these are just hollow ideals. In reality, Christmas without Christ is a time of drunken office parties, stress, family bickering and rampant consumerism. What better time of the year, then, to celebrate the coming of God into our world? Jesus’ birth tells us that God has not abandoned us to our crazy messed-up lives. God himself has come to us. Through Jesus’ life and death, God has brought forgiveness, a relationship with God himself, transformation of our relationships with one another, and the hope of everlasting life and peace.
After all, we don’t just want to win people for Christmas. We want to win them for Christ.
I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:22-23)
A message about some of the latest language flashcard resources from my friend Rene Hamburger:
If you were planning to revise your Greek or Hebrew vocab or grammar, using Anki might be a great help!
Anki is probably the best and most popular free flashcard testing program that is available for a large number of platforms (e.g. Windows, Max, Linux, iPhone, Android). One of the great advantages over other programs is that it supports an automatic sync over the internet. So you can use it at home or on your smartphone on the go, and your flashcards will always be in sync!
If you are using paper cards, you might well want to stick with them. But there are actually several advantages testing software like Anki has over paper cards. Firstly, it is much better than us in keeping track of when certain cards should be reviewed next, so you are less likely to waste time reviewing cards you know very well (which will be a few hundred cards even after the first year of Greek or Hebrew) and less likely to forget cards, you didn’t review early enough. Secondly, there are lots of mnemonics on the vocab cards I uploaded, which again will make the memorisation much easier. Thirdly, it may save you time creating your own flashcards (which is, of course, not a bad way to learn them…).
Download one of the shared decks I put online (“File | Download | Shared Deck” on the desktop version of Anki):
“NT Greek Vocab (Oak Hill College)” Vocab following lists from Duff & Trenchard (about 1200 words)
“Biblical Hebrew Vocab (Oak Hill College)”: Vocab following lists from Kelley & Mitchel (also about 1200 words); this appears to be currently the only Hebrew vocab list available for Anki that works on Android.
“NT Greek Grammar (Oak Hill College)”: Grammar summary of Duff, so very basic
“Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Oak Hill College)”: Grammar summary largely following Kelley. This file does not work on Android yet, but the other three do.
For fonts you may need or for how to set it up on Android, follow the instructions which can be found in the “shared deck” download dialog and on the first card of the deck.
My friend Mike Taylor, who studied at Moore College in Sydney, is now principal of the Munguishi Bible College in Tanzania. Theological education is one of the most useful things we can provide for our African brothers and sisters. Mike is looking for supporters – perhaps you could help?
Here’s Mike’s letter:
Munguishi Bible College is the Diocesan Training College for the Anglican Diocese of Mt Kilimanjaro. It is situated in Arusha, Tanzania. We are a reformed evangelical College. Currently we have about 40 students, from all over Tanzania, who are trained to be ‘evangelists’ and ‘pastors’.
One such student is Musa (pictured here with his wife). He lives in a traditional Maasai area, with no access to electricity or water. Still only 22 he is head of his late Father’s extended family. He became a christian as a young adult, and has recently graduated from our 1 year Evangelist course. Christian Maasai are despised by their people and face many difficulties in proclaiming the gospel. Most Maasai, especially men, see the gospel as an affront to their custom and refuse to accept it. Musa patiently perseveres in proclaiming Christ against this hostility, and by the grace of God, the gospel is bearing fruit. We hope, under God, that Musa will return to do our Pastors Course, be ordained and continue church planting in ‘Maasai-land’.
All of our students are subsidised by donations to the college. They cannot study, and we cannot train them without the generosity of our brothers and sisters around the world. A student will typically pay about $70 per year for tuition and board. Realistically it costs about $1200. We continue to look for more partners in sponsoring students and funding our College to do this important ministry.
Munguishi Bible College has some income generating projects with a view towards self-sufficiency. We rent some land, and farm some more land. Our farm provides maize and beans for all the students and staff each year with enough left over to sell. Currently we are investigating a Solar-Light selling project run by the Anglican Church of Tanzania. This has enormous potential – but will take some time to bear fruit.
The college is carefully managed, and accountable to the Diocese and College Board. We strive for efficiency and accountability in all that we do. We meet the requirements of the Province of Tanzania for our Awards. Over the next few years we will start a Degree program. Our current budget is $70,000 per year. This budget includes Tanzanian faculty and other staff salaries, stationery, food and water, utilities, maintenance of buildings and other running costs.
It is our hope and prayer that you will partner with us in this strategic ministry. The church in Tanzania is crying out for humble, faithful, godly and well trained leaders—men and women who understand the gospel and proclaim the grace of Christ in word and deed. By God’s grace, Munguishi is producing faithful leaders for his church.
Please, will you consider giving a small grant to enable and sustain our ministry here. There are two ways of giving,
provide a scholarship for one student: $1200 per year.
give a donation directly to the College.
Thank you for considering this, and for your partnership with us.
Mike Taylor
Principal.
If you can help, please get in touch with Mike to let him know: mktaylor@cms.org.au
I recently completed a course in reading French at Durham University. While taking the course, I adapted my Greek and Hebrew flashcard program to test the 1,600 most common French words. The list of words was originally developed by Etienne Brunet, and translated by my teacher, David Tual. David has kindly given permission for the flashcard program containing his list to be made freely available online.
