there is a bunch of stuff out there now on the reversal of Jesus and how he choses the disciples. how the end message in Him choosing them was that he basically said that they had what it took. i think even more important is who he chose and why. Peter, Andrew, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John and the others. At the point that Jesus met them, He chose people who by society’s standards were in the margins. Mark was a Gentile doctor. an outsider. he was not a jew. let’s modernize that. he was not part of a selected few. the elite. the elected or chosen. he would be like a Native American healer. Jesus chose those not just on the outside, but way on the outside. and he told them by choosing them that they have what it takes to carry the message. the one’s that society said were worthless. and then on Jesus’ last day, he then tells all of them to use their choseness to go and transform the world and lives they interact with. But which lives. Jesus set the precedence. Spend time with those that society says are outcasts and valueless. he invites them to join in on the reversal. to pick people that others might actual say aren’t worth much. Jesus was for the outsider so much that he even at one point says to the religious institution that they will get into hell before the outsiders ever would. So. what if the gospel was about restoring hope to the hopeless? giving peace to those who couldn’t find it. what if it didn’t have anything to do with a programmatic approach called “four steps to peace with God”? or how sinful we all are? maybe it’s embracing the reality that God sees all mankind as fully restored now, not then and that He invites us to follow in the way of eyesight. in one story, Jesus basically says we are going to be judged by how we treat or don’t treat the one in need (The Good Samaritan), not by how much religion we can bring to the table. What are you bringing to the table?