12. Forming a Christian Mind

• We need to work on gaining a mature knowledge of the Bible and its application to all that we do.
• For many practical reasons we need also to study and understand God's creation.
• All truth is God's truth and we must be confident in seeking it wherever, including particularly through science which uniquely opens understanding of God's creation.
• We need in and through the churches to be better equipped in apologetics.

We know God primarily through Jesus, and hence we need to study the Bible. We organise that God-knowledge as theology, and need to apply it wisely in many aspects of life. Hence ethics. But there is also important practical knowledge about him and his creation from studying that creation in all its aspects. Hence science, as both process of learning and a body of knowledge (able to be applied through technology). Our understanding of all that knowledge must be coherent - any apparent disagreement represents a failure of hermeneutics or science.

12.1 Coherent knowledge and understanding

A fundamental consideration framing discipleship, guidance, vocation and our role in the world is what we know about God's nature, purposes and created world, and how we get to know it. Who wants to invest their life in something uncertain? Christianity is unique in its dependence on God having made himself known - in the created Earth and its inhabitants, the Old Testament and supremely in Jesus.

Christians thus have a particular approach to truth, and perception of what is true. Truth is not simply propositional but it expresses the very nature of God. The way we understand and think about the totality of God's creation and his special revelation in the Bible frames our life, our relationships and our behaviour.

The process of gaining knowledge and developing understanding can therefore be open and engaging, confident in opening the Bible and asking the Holy Spirit's guidance, s well as through scientific endeavour. In this context we can be open to thinking, discussion and challenge, not closed and retreating into rote learning sets of propositions that may be thrust at us, nor worshiping in a way which disengages our mind.

The Bible uniquely reveals God to us. It gives us access to knowledge about him and his manifestation in Jesus, and hence tells us what is involved in following him. It also tells us of God's purposes in his creation and for his people. It thus informs the way we think about every aspect of life and human nature, and especially it reveals God's grace to us.

This means we need to learn to read the Bible intelligently and faithfully, understanding the context of the writing, distinguishing one literary form from another, appreciating the multiple metaphors and their cultural context which lead us to an understanding of a transcendent God, and so on. In many churches we can soak up this methodology of exegesis (leading the meaning out of the text) in hearing the preaching. "What does it say? What does it mean in context? How does it apply to me now?" is one way of representing this. But we also need to grapple a little with interpretation or hermeneutics in pursuing this to relate one part of the Bible to another, and each part to our emerging framework of understanding of God and his purposes - which we might call theology.

But more broadly, to what extent do we get our rang of knowledge and understanding from the Bible and within the Christian fellowship, and to what extent from studying God's creation, i.e. through science? If we limit ourselves to the first, then there is a huge risk of an impoverished understanding of God's world and his purposes at the practical level in provision for basic human needs from it. Of course if we rely too much the latter, then it is easy to lose our bearings and misunderstand God's wider purposes. Science can never be a metanarrative, only a process of enquiry and explanation of the substance of God's creation. It can tell us how it works, not why, or where it is going.

A proper discipleship holds both together coherently, giving each its proper place and authority as our understanding grows. We can have great confidence that God's creation and his revelation in scripture are complementary, therefore we should have confidence in exploring both, knowing that they can never contradict one another since they have the same origin. This means pursuing and increasing a proper understanding of both science and hermeneutics, leaving aside the misrepresentations of militant atheists like Richard Dawkins as well as those of fundamentalist Christianity. The fact that very many of the world's foremost scientists have been Christians makes it clear that an understanding of God's word enhances an approach to understanding his works, through science. As Denis Alexander puts it: "Science for me is a holy enterprise because we have this great privilege of finding out a little bit more of how the created order works." He speaks of looking for coherence in the laboratory, as in life.

Having got that perspective sorted, we have the opportunity to explore the interface of Word and world, and bring a theological perspective to worldly affairs — thinking for instance of the applications of science and technology in medicine and reproductive biology. This involves both hermeneutics (interpretation of scripture) and epistemology (ways of knowing, how knowledge coheres) as well as basic science and ethics in respect to life science and environmental issues. Then there is apologetics to relate Biblical truths to the life experiences of people - see section 12.3 below.

In recent decades our scientific knowledge of God's creation has expanded greatly, and for many Christians this has provided an increasingly substantial basis for belief. First, it is now widely agreed that the universe began with what is colloquially called the "big bang" some 13.7 billion years ago. Christians don't have to look far to see an echo of Genesis 1:1-2. Secondly there is the anthropic principle, or fine-tuning of this universe, so that it supports life on Earth. John Polkinghorne writes:

"Four fundamental forces of nature operate in our universe. Their intrinsic strengths are determined by the values of four corresponding constants of nature. The fine structure constant (alpha) specifies the strength of electromagnetism; Newton's gravitational constant (G) specifies the strength of gravity; and two constants specify the strengths of the nuclear forces, g_s for the strong forces that hold nuclei together, and g_w for the weak forces that cause some nuclear decays and also control the interactions of neutrinos. The magnitudes of all these constants are tightly constrained if the universe is to be capable of producing life.

"If g_w were a little smaller, the early universe would have converted all its hydrogen into helium before it had cooled below the temperature at which cosmic nuclear processes ceased. Not only would this have meant no water, so essential to life, but there would also only have been helium-burning stars, which would not have lived long enough to support the development of life on one of their planets. If g_w had been somewhat bigger, supernova explosions would have been inhibited.

"The latter fact would have had serious consequences for the elaborate and delicately balanced processes by which the chemical raw material of life are made. Because the very early universe is simple, it only produces the two simplest elements, hydrogen and helium. They have too boring a chemistry to provide the basis for anything as interesting as life. That requires more than twenty further elements, above all carbon, whose chemical properties enable the formation of the long chain molecules that afford the biochemical basis of life. The only place in the universe where carbon is made is in the interior nuclear furnaces of the stars. All living beings are made of stardust. Untangling the chain of nuclear interactions by which carbon and the heavier elements were made was one of the triumphs of twentieth-century astrophysics. Fred Hoyle, who was a pioneer in this work, saw that stellar carbon production was only possible because there was a resonance (a large enhancement effect) occurring at a particular energy in carbon, and also there was the absence of a similar resonance in oxygen, which prevented the carbon's being lost because it had all got turned into oxygen. These detailed nuclear properties depend upon the value of g_s, and if that value had been somewhat different, there could have been no carbon, and thus no carbon-based life. When he realised this, Hoyle, atheist though he was, is reported to have said that the universe was a 'put-up job'. He could not suppose that such significant fine-tuning was merely a happy accident.

"Inside a star it is not possible to produce elements beyond iron, the most stable of the nuclear species. Two problems therefore remain: how to make the heavier elements, some of which are also necessary for life, and how to get the lighter elements out of the star that has made them. A supernova explosion solves both problems since the neutrino interactions that accompany it also make elements heavier than iron, provided that g_w takes an appropriate value.

"Stars have a second role to play in enabling life, simply by providing long-term (billions of years) and relatively stable sources of energy to fuel the process. This requires the ratio of electromagnetism to gravity to lie within close limits - otherwise stars would either burn so furiously that they could only live for a few million years, or so feebly that they were not much use anyway.

"Many other anthropic constraints could be mentioned."

"An anthropic universe is a very particular universe indeed. It is also worthy of note that, while multiple conditions constrain the constants of nature, yet there is a set of values consistently satisfying them all, a remarkable fact in itself about the constitution of the world. All scientists agree that the physical fabric of the universe had to take a very particular form if carbon-based life were to be able to evolve within its history. Where disagreements begin is in discussing what might be the significance of this remarkable fact. ^71a

If in Christian witness anyone sets up a major conflict between science and faith, then a major stumbling block is put in people's way, and they give a free kick to Christianity's detractors such as the militant "new atheists". It is possible to read scripture to infer that the Earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around the Earth, reading scripture with the same kind of literalism as some people apply to Genesis 1, but thankfully these are not asserted by any Christian groups that we are aware of. But using a similar hermeneutic some do assert that the Earth was created in six 24-hour days, and that was only a few thousand years ago.

The commonest and saddest expression of contrived conflict between science and faith today is strongly anti-science by suggesting that this young-Earth creationism has credibility, based on a fairly novel reading of a few verses of Genesis 1 (and not on any full reading of scripture). Any student or layman with any basic scientific literacy will know that the Earth is about 4500 million years old and that there is not the slightest scientific dissent from the clear evidence of progressive biological evolution over many millions of years. The evidence for an old Earth and a process of biological evolution is incontrovertible, in genes and rocks, genome and geology. We cannot proclaim Jesus as the Way and the Truth on the basis of lies about his creation, though some Christian polemic attempts this.^71b

Science is unique among 'academic' disciplines in helping us understand God's wonderful creation. It's an appalling witness for Christians to say, in effect, that science is nonsense and God is deceitful.

All this should also make us alert to the New Age views of many around us. While these vary greatly, an exultation of nature linked to a flirting with the occult and a rejection of traditional morality founded on Christian values are common features, and we need to be able to address those whose world view is formed accordingly. We do have something in common in rejecting a reductionist approach to science, and perhaps looking to what nature may say to us of its creator.

Science grew out of theology, but over hundreds of years the connection between science exploring the created world and theology exploring God's word has become obscured and science has drifted away from its theological context which acknowledges a Creator. Certainly science and theology are distinct disciplines addressing different but complementary questions. But both acknowledge that there is such a thing as truth in and about this world. Much academic and cultural discourse today denies this, making everything relative to the observer, and in that sense raises difficulties for both science and faith (as understood by Christians, being founded in reality rather than fantasy). This is - broadly - postmodernism, though Christians need to be a little wary also of modernism, since that can shut out non-scientific perspectives on creation and define faith in such a way as to make it merely subjective. However modernism does have the strong advantage of asserting that truth is knowable and that both belief and ethics should be constrained by it, whatever the limitations on our understanding.

An implication of perceiving the world as God's creation is that it is good to understand it better, and that acquiring such understanding through science may even be an activity of worship. In particular it is very important to understand the epistemological implications of perceiving God as both Creator of the world and author of Scripture - if he is both then the knowledge of both must be seamless and not disconnected. Augustine's 'two books' model is central - God's book of works (the created world) and God's book of words (the Bible) being complementary, and this seems to have been the basis of most Christian understanding down the centuries since. Only relatively recently have some Christians sought to drive a wedge between them. But that is a terrible mistake. If epistemological coherence and unity of truth is not effectively an article of faith, then there is no Christian basis for even discussing the whole issue.

Science and theology both involve exploring God's creation on the assumption that it is comprehensible, both are rational processes and they are complementary. Atheism is an anomaly. There is now wide agreement about the origins of everything that exists in the universe, including time, in an explosion of energy and light - the so-called 'big bang' some 13.7 billion years ago. There is also wide agreement that there must have been a cause for this, but atheist scientists refuse to concede the most plausible cause, nor credibly suggest any other. The biblical account is shown to be congruent if read as it traditionally has been. In recent years science has removed a plank of the traditional atheist platform by better defining this point of beginning. More fundamentally, the rationality of the universe enables science to proceed as rational enquiry, and though the notion predates Christianity, it was reinvigorated by perception of God's logos.

God has given us the tools to learn about his creation through science in order to engage his creation mandate ever more fully. One would hardly have confidence in a doctor whose professional knowledge of anatomy and physiology came largely from the Bible. Nor an engineer who depended simply on the Scriptures for maths and materials science. Nor a meteorologist who pointed only to biblical statements about God sending the rain. The same goes for all science and its outworking in technology and human affairs.

There can be no intrinsic contradiction or inconsistency in what is to be learned about God and his creation from whatever sources. Truth is necessarily consistent across both creation and scripture so our understanding needs to be coherent in respect to both. If there seems to be an inconsistency, we need to review our interpretation of the evidence or the validity of the evidence. While taking the Bible seriously, we must also take God's creation seriously. If we take creation seriously, we must take science seriously in exploring that creation which God delights in and in mediating its provision to people. We must never be drawn into setting up a false conflict, where people feel they need to make a choice between major elements of truth (made evident through science) and faith (based on the truth of God revealed in history and scripture), or live with unreconciled tension between the two. Regrettably, there are those practitioners both of science (interpreting creation) and of hermeneutics (interpreting the Bible) who try to make each say more than they properly can, and thereby set up spurious conflict.

A very worthwhile book covering not only science but also philosophy and morality in the context of atheist critique is Dinesh D'Souza's What's so Great about Christianity, 2007. A review is appended.

12.1 Discussion questions:
How do you understand God, his creation and his word? Do you see them as coherent, and all tied together?
How does this affect your approach to understanding both creation and scripture?
To what extent have you formed the habit of asking: "What does it say? What does it mean in context? How does it apply to me now?" as you read the Bible?
Do you agree that a proper understanding of science and scripture means that they can never contradict one another? Is the idea of God's two books helpful?
Does studying science lead you to a sense of worship?
In what contexts have you come across New Age world views? How do you go about countering them?

12.2 Challenges in relation to science and purpose, ethics

Reference is sometimes made to "atheistic evolution", and some militant atheists have sought to foster this view among Christians in order to discredit Christianity. But biological evolution is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is no more than a coherent scientific explanation of a massive amount of evidence for a process, which Christians believe to have been initiated and sustained by a generous creator. The explanation is overwhelmingly supported by science and provides the basis of medicine and biological sciences. Christians should resist the temptation to identify it either with a faith position (atheism) or a view about human perfectibility (humanism). We should always be alert to assertions about purpose and meaning which claim to be based in science (rather than providing its context) and which are thus illegitimate. And for our part we should avoid pitting biblical imagery against science in explaining how God's creation works or arrived at its present form - as distinct from why it works and what God's purposes are for us in it.⁷² There should be no support for anti-scientific views in the church, but rather a worship of the creator and an eagerness through science to learn how he works in his creation.

Those who package particular views of how the world works (such as "young earth creationism") with faith issues based on God's revelation in Christ have a lot to answer for when the faith and intellectual integrity of young Christians is imperilled. Today's "Intelligent Design" push is little better, with its implication that God is not able to be sovereign over processes such as biological evolution or whatever. We need to be confident in God's original and continuing sovereignty over all of creation, including its processes. We each need to develop at some level an integrated understanding of God's creation and providence which draws fulsomely upon both scripture and science and which allows us to enjoy the benefits of his provision through medicine and technology without schizophrenic denial of their scientific basis. Having said that, theories of the development of life and the cosmos are currently areas of debate among scientists, though the alleged crisis in evolutionary biology is far from evident, and always should be, even when the broad patterns are clear and settled. Christians are to be encouraged to engage in this debate, providing there is proper respect for both science and scripture, coupled with humility in articulating our understanding of each.

In relation to the application of medical technology, the central issue is a correct understanding of what constitutes a person made in God's image. Although the Bible offers few direct precedents about contemporary medicine, it says plenty about our place in creation, and what it means to be human, and it is important to draw on this when deciding how properly to apply technology in relation to health, reproduction, and relationships, and in defining the beginning of human life.^72a

A vexed issue - not really depending on science but sometimes invoking it - is same-sex relationships. While most Christians will allow for the state to give recognition to close long-term same-sex relationships, it seriously erodes the definition of marriage to apply that term to them. Marriage has hitherto meant a physically-complementary relationship with long-term commitment and procreative potential, based in God's design. It will be sad if the adjective 'heterosexual' becomes widely necessary with that noun.

In the humanities, where Christian ideas, or even Christian-friendly ideas, have little presence there is also a major challenge. Some are now even attacking the very idea of truth, not just Christian truth! Many Christians aren't sure how to respond in a way which both remains faithful to Christ and will also achieve good grades. It has been suggested that the truth problem can be traced back to a rejection of the idea of a universally common human nature, which occurred in the Enlightenment. However, it took time for the 'new logic' set in motion to unfold, eventually resulting in the relativism popular today.

Worst of all, relativistic ideas are infecting the church and causing a widespread breakdown in even the most basic orthodoxy in doctrine and ethics, with central truths and teachings⁷³ being dismissed as cultural accidents. It is difficult to take issue with a movement so embedded in our academic culture, but at the very least Christians need to be able to come through university still believing basic Christian orthodoxy. And even better, being able to recognise when what they are being taught is inadequate and contrary to Christian truths, and counter it rigorously. So there is much scope for fellowship and mutual encouragement among those grappling with these ideas, involving talking together, reading, and recourse to the wisdom and experience of Christian academics.

The point here is that going off the rails either schizophrenically in relation to how we know about God and his world, or by sliding into relativism, affects greatly our approach to life as Christians.

Another dimension of knowledge relates to understanding the past. It is a truism that those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them, but more broadly our generation can easily be absorbed with the present in a way that disparages what may be learned from past experience of those who have gone before. Where there is a disdain for the lessons of the past, this is foolish. A sense of history is important in defining our identity. For Christians it is doubly so because of the basis of our faith, and the repeated exhortations in Scripture to remember, reflect and learn. Even in the shorter term between generations, there is scope for the young learning a few things from the old!

Another important part of our learning about God is experiential, based of faith. This arises from our relationship with him through Jesus. Beyond but not divorced from propositional knowledge derived from the Bible is our experience of living in fellowship with a great and mighty God, and being guided by his Holy Spirit. We have the sense that God is bigger than all things in life and that he has it all under control. In some respects it is good to realise that we cannot know everything intellectually because it means that there has to be a certain element of faith that God is who he is, and we finally know that through the way that we have been impacted in our own lives. There has to be space for faith and belief in a God with whom we have a personal relationship. This involves trusting him as Lord and also as a friend who has everything under control and knows all even though we never will.

But having said all this there is an important ongoing responsibility for us to feed our minds with wholesome and positive material from reputable Christian teachers and writers. There are many good Christian books suited to any individual (as well as the junk or too-lightweight on one hand and the too-sophisticated on the other). More resources are available from reputable sources on the internet, for instance BeThinking.org in UK. A steady diet of these over many years has a great effect.

St Paul, after his monumental dissertation of the ways of God, comes down to the "so what": "Therefore ... Do not conform any more to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind," or as J.B.Phillips' translation has it: "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands and moves towards the goal of true maturity." ⁷¹ Our minds and the way we make them work as they are progressively changed under the influence of the Holy Spirit are central to faithful discipleship. If we lose the plot there we are greatly handicapped. Christian maturity has a lot to do with how we grow in understanding, as well as obedience, and learn to think Christianly about the world and our roles in it. Forming a Christian mind is not a matter of learning pat answers and resorting simply to proof texts. Nor is it separate from spiritual worship and practical obedience, in fact St Paul precedes the exhortation above by urging his readers to "offer your bodies as living sacrifices ... this is your spiritual act of worship", which leads to renewed minds.

In relation to all knowledge, a sense of humility will help prevent us from asserting more knowledge, understanding and wisdom than is appropriate. And a respect for knowledge and understanding will help us wisely reject shallow dogmatism. Increased understanding of God's creation, especially through science, should lead to worship - and in our experience often does so.

Finally, cynicism is not appropriate as a Christian mindset, and sits uncomfortably with any positive view of God and his world. As a default attitude it questions people's motives and the worthwhileness of much that we are faced with, even life itself. Yet it is unavoidable in some circumstances unless we switch off our critical faculties - who can avoid being cynical about many offers and claims that are made to us? It is hard to remain uninfected with the cynicism which pervades much public and especially political discourse. Of course a healthy skepticism which does not take things at face value and which questions a great deal is vital in life (as well as to science).

We should not be gullible or too-easily convinced, but cynicism which erodes trust can readily infect our attitudes rather broadly and become a very corrosive and soul-destroying cancer. It can prevent us seeing the positive things God is doing because we look only for the hidden negatives, and our default assumptions are suspicious and negative. A Christian mind needs to counter this and be open to perceiving God's action and purposes in many things, even if we don't understand them or even have some discomfort with them. At the same time we need to be wise, not naïve, often skeptical but very seldom cynical.

12.2 Discussion questions:
Have you encountered people trying to make science the basis of statements about purpose and meaning? How do you respond to them?
Where do you think the biblical teaching of humans being made in God's image is most applicable today?
Where would you say relativism poses the biggest challenge for you?
How does your experience of God relate to your more intellectual understanding of him?
What place is there in your thinking for scepticism? For cynicism?

12.3 Deploying a Christian mind - apologetics

Several things have contributed to a more pressing need in the churches today, and especially among its younger members, to engage with a range of issues and not merely know their Bible.

First is fundamentalism in the church and in other religious movements such as Islam. Fundamentalism is the mindless and reactionary grasping for certainly where it is inappropriate, often out of fear or at least insecurity. This is antithetical to the kind of Christian mind outlined in the previous chapter and is tragic and wrong in its lack of confidence in God's world, works and Word. Today there is not only Christian and Islamic fundamentalism prevalent but also atheistic fundamentalism led by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who rant against faith but have not taken the trouble to understand it. Se also review of D'Souza book.

Second is postmodernism which is based on the premise that absolute truth in science or anything else, notably faith, cannot be known. See also comments above. Although its influence is waning, there is still a generation of people influenced strongly by it, with detriment to their understanding of both science and revealed truth.

Both these add up to a demand for Christians to understand something of the interface between the Bible and culture so as to be able to talk with those strongly influenced one way or another by these movements. Apologetics - the reasoned arguments promoting or defending faith - needs to feature in preaching and teaching programs, not merely being left to motivated readers to pursue - though that is a necessary start.

Few will be capable of mastering a wide understanding of apologetics, but each of us can grapple with those areas where we are competent by virtue of vocation or simply interest, and where we reflect on relevant issues in our daily lives.

An understanding of how science relates to theology is important in order to counter some of the very damaging assaults on both from within the church and also academic circles. The issues expounded briefly in the previous sections are basic to this enterprise. If major parts of the church become infected with anti-scientific nostrums put forward as fundamentals of faith then any scientifically-literate Christian is faced with renouncing that faith or a challenge to their integrity in living according to two conflicting frames of reference and keeping their head down. Centuries ago, Saint Augustine cautioned against this in The Literal Meaning of Genesis: "If [non-Christians] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books [Scripture], how are they going to believe those books?"

Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project, has written a gentle science-based apologetic for the Christian faith from his standpoint as one of the world's most eminent scientists.⁷⁴ In respect to this issue in the US churches he writes: "By sending a message to young people that science is dangerous, and that pursuing science may well mean rejecting religious faith, Young Earth Creationism may be depriving science of some of its most promising future talents." But it "does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world." "To adhere to the faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide." So they turn away from faith with its anti-scientific baggage in order to opt for truth. Collins does not labour the point beyond "A Plea for Reason" lovingly addressed to "the evangelical Christian church", but he supports the view that this will progressively debilitate many of those parts of the US church which are not already spiritually compromised in other ways, espousing gay ordination etc.

Ian Barns has written of the need to recover "an authentically Biblical creation discourse within the life of Christian communities". Despite the efforts of theologians and philosophers, "at the level of most Christian congregations there is a significant gulf between Christian faith and science, particularly with respect to evolutionary biology. This is a great concern, since in the long term an authentic Christian engagement with modernity depends on the capacity of Christian communities to read the Scriptures in a way that engages with rather than reacts against developments in science and technology. It is within church communities that ordinary Christians should be able to find guidance for dealing with the metaphysical challenges of modern evolutionary biology. It is from within such communities that young Christians embark on university studies in science-based disciplines and other professions that take for granted a world view suggested by contemporary science. A lack of a faithful and intelligent creation discourse can make all the difference as to whether the children of the church learn to think Christianly in their secular pursuits, or instead compartmentalise their different worlds, or simply drop out."⁷⁵

One step away from apologetics is aesthetics. Being created in God's image means that humans are intrinsically creative, and part of that creativity relates to the arts, beauty and aesthetics. These are possible responses to the wonder of God's creation, considered aesthetically rather than with the utilitarian emphasis we have expounded earlier. Celebrating God's creation and responding to the beauty of God himself has produced wonderful works of art and music, and should continue to do so. That is a very proper outworking of the Christian mind and an endeavour which anticipates the full redemption of creation.

12.3 Discussion questions:
Which areas of apologetics do you find most interesting?
Would you say you are able to counter postmodernism in discussion with peers?
Do you agree with the quoted words of Francis Collins? Or of Ian Barns? Would you say this is a problem in your church or fellowship? If so, how might you counter it?
Where do you most readily see God's beauty expressed in the arts?

Back to top

Goto chapter   Previous  a, p, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5  Next