Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
When my son died in 2006, it was hard—even painful—for me to read my Bible. While I knew other bereaved parents and had struggled to understand why God would allow the death of their child to occur, it became all too real when my family experienced the same excruciating loss.
Grieving people can be filled with doubts and questions. These four books are a lifeline of much needed comfort, wisdom, and encouragement for Christians who are struggling to hold on to their faith:
A close friend of mine (who is also a bereaved parent) gave me this book right after my son died. I cannot adequately express the comfort I received from reading this firsthand account by someone who lost his wife, mother, and young daughter in a car accident due to a drunk driver. Jerry Sittser made me feel like I was not alone and that there was someone who understood my loss. This book will help grieving Christians to see God's sovereign and loving hand in the most difficult moments of life. Click here for Amazon link.
These reflections by C. S. Lewis weren't written to be published, but thankfully they were anyway. Lewis gives a raw account of his doubts regarding his Christian faith after losing his wife Joy to cancer. Lewis also finds his hope in God and encourages us to do the same along the way. Click here for Amazon link.
In this gem of a book first published in 1956, theologian Loraine Boettner (1901-1990) explains what the Bible says about life after death versus alternate views that are unsupported by Scripture. Be sure to read the section on why Christians should not want their loved ones who die in the Lord to return to this present world. Boettner helps believers to hold less tightly to this world and hope more in the glorious future that awaits them as God's children. Click here for Amazon link.
Scottish theologian Thomas Boston (1676–1732) buried six of his ten children, and his wife most likely suffered from a longterm mental illness. Based on a seven-part sermon series Boston preached on Ecclesiastes 7:13, The Crook in the Lot gives one of the most thorough, helpful, and comforting explanations ever written on God's sovereignty and wisdom in the afflictions we face in this life. You can buy the book by clicking on the title above, or you can print out the three-part exposition at Christian.net like I did. I carried one of the sections around with me everywhere I went for months after my son died. Every Christian who is facing one of life’s “hard providences” will benefit greatly from this resource. Click here for Amazon link.
This article has been updated since its original publishing date of November 20, 2017.
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
The preacher who wrote the book of Ecclesiastes lacked contentment until he came to the true conclusion by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about living life “under the sun.” He did, however, give us glimpses of contentment while “striving after the wind” of worldly pursuits.
God wants us to enjoy all the good gifts he has given us.
For example, rather than being anxious about food and drink and work (Matt. 6:25ff), the preacher writes,
There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God. (Eccl. 2:24)
Five times the preacher repeats the wisdom of contentment and even enjoyment in what we eat and drink and the work we do. He wants to make sure we understand that living under the sun, meaning while we live in this age on earth, is to be enjoyed by being content and happy with the meals God provides and while laboring in the work God gives to us. The grace of God gives us these good gifts in contrast to our "striving after the wind."
“Striving after the wind” is futile—it is like trying to grab a breath of air with your hand.
What does the preacher mean by “striving after the wind?” In Ecclesiastes 1:14, he writes,
I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
He uses the phrase “striving after the wind” nine times. Six of those times he relates it to “vanity” (e.g., Eccl. 2:17; 4:4; etc.). The Hebrew word that is translated as “vanity” could also be translated as “breath” or “vapor,” which fits “striving after wind.” “Futile” is another appropriate translation of the Hebrew word. In other words, “striving after the wind” is futile—it is like trying to grab a breath of air with your hand. You can’t do it. It is like a vapor that disappears in a moment. Many things that we pursue in this life hoping to find satisfaction and happiness and contentment in them are striving after the wind—futile vanities because they are like a breath or a vapor that evaporates in an instant.
We chase after things of the world only to be faced with our own mortality.
The preacher lists our common pursuits: wisdom and knowledge (Eccl. 1:17); pleasure (Eccl. 2:1); houses and landscaping (Eccl. 2:4-6); possessions (Eccl. 2:7); and wealth (Eccl. 2:8). All of these vaporize in a moment and even those that appear to last are given to others at that point of our death (Eccl. 6:2). Whether righteous or wicked, we all die like the animals from dust to dust (Eccl. 3:19-20). We chase after all these things of the world hoping to find contentment only to be faced with our own mortality—our death that takes us from this life naked as we came into it (Eccl. 5:15). In fact, the wisdom of God poetically reminds us,
It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart. (Eccl. 7:2)
We are to lay to our heart that at some point all of us will face the death of this body; therefore, we should be content with what God has given us, especially the enjoyment of the food we eat, the liquids we drink, and the labor of our work. All of these are gifts from God to give us joy and happiness.
“Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
Rather than striving after what doesn't last or merely becomes another’s after our passing, be satisfied with whatever God has provided to us. Don’t be lazy—don’t try to escape to a wilderness and demand God provide contentment. As God gives good gifts to us he often does so through the means of human labor—the work of a garden or farm, the patience that comes from waiting on the fruit of the vine, a fine wine, and the joy and satisfaction of serving others and the Lord through our vocations.
The preacher declares the end of the matter in Ecclesiastes 12:13:
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
And what God commands is that we are to love God and love our neighbor (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:36-40). We are to be content with the good gifts God gives to us while being careful not to anxiously strive after the wind, after the things that do not last. Rather, seek God through faith in his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, for only in him do we find the eternal contentment and joy in the life to come.
This article was originally published in Beautiful Christian Life’s June 2024 monthly newsletter, “Contentment.”
Prisonnières huguenotes à la Tour de Constance (salon de 1892); image from Wikimedia Commons.
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
Editor’s note: This is part three of a BCL series on Marie Durand by pastor and author Campbell Markham. Campbell’s translations of Durand's letters are included at the end of each installment. Clickhere to read part oneandhere to read part two.
The memory of those rivers of blood…makes nature tremble. — Antoine Court, 1756
A boulder toppling into a stream may alter and direct its course ever after. In the same way, certain historical events have changed and channelled the culture and mindset of entire peoples for many centuries. You cannot understand the English apart from 1066, Gloriana, Waterloo, and the Blitz. You cannot understand an American apart from the Pilgrim Fathers, the War of Independence, Gettysburg, and Pearl Harbor. You cannot understand an Australian apart from the Endeavour, Burke and Wills, the Ashes, and Gallipoli.
Marie Durand’s eighteenth-century church community cannot be understood apart from the sixteenth-century French Religious Wars, the Saint Bartholomew’s Massacre of 1572, the Edict of Nantes in 1598, the Dragonnades, the Revocation in 1685, and the Camisard Rebellion of 1702–1704.
The “French Religious Wars” describes a series of eight civil wars fought out between 1562 and 1598. An estimated three million people perished, fifteen percent of the French population. Although the antagonists wore their inherited religious labels of “Protestant” or “Catholic,” social and political struggles were the true causes of these wars. A right devotion to the religion of the Bible—which brings reconciliation with God and our enemies—would have extinguished the flames of war.
French Protestants saw these wars as the necessary armed defense of their property and lives from Catholic aggression, of their right to live and worship as Protestants. French Protestant scholars agonized over God’s purposes in these violent struggles and what form resistance should take: whether to passively and patiently suffer persecution, whether to take up arms against tyranny, or whether to flee. This practical-theological struggle continued well into the eighteenth century and is manifest in a number of Marie Durand’s letters and the dreadful decisions that she was required to make.
The Fourth Religious War erupted from the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, which commenced on August 24, 1572. This tragedy needs special mention because of the deep mark it left on both the Huguenot psyche and Catholic-Protestant relations for many generations. Certainly, its reverberations were felt by Marie Durand’s community in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Antoine Court, for example, the leader of the restoration of the Protestant church in France from 1715, wrote in 1756 about “the memory of those rivers of blood […] of that Saint Bartholomew’s Day, the thought alone of which makes nature tremble.” Louis Bourgeon, a specialist on the Massacre, wrote in 1987 how its scale and ferocity had left its mark well beyond the eighteenth century: “The history of Saint Bartholomew’s continues to this day to be the cause of a spirit of passion, conscious or not.”[1]
A number of causes underlay the tragedy. From 1560, three mutually hostile religio-political movements divided France: the Huguenots (French Protestants), moderate Catholics represented more or less by Catherine de’ Medici and her second son Charles IX (r. 1560–74), and the reactionary Catholic League associated with the house of Guise. Amplifying this hostility was the military threat of Protestant nations to the north of France, which had the potential to turn the Huguenots into a fifth column.
In August 1572, thousands of Protestants assembled in Paris for the marriage of Marguerite de Valois to the Protestant Henri III of Navarre. On August 22, Gaspard de Coligny (1519–1572), prominent Huguenot nobleman and Admiral of the French navy, was shot and wounded by a pro-Guise assassin. Coligny refused to leave Paris, putting Catherine and Charles in a bind. A Huguenot army stood to the north, and Protestants within the city threatened retaliation. Catholic Parisians, long antipathetic to the Huguenots, and perhaps fearing for the life of the King and the royal family, took up arms. Catherine and Charles agreed to a pre-emptive strike against Coligny and twenty to thirty Huguenot leaders.
The killing spiralled out of control, and some three thousand Huguenots were slain in Paris and tens of thousands in the provinces, including a thousand in Lyons, the so-called Vêpres lyonnaises. It was said that “the Seine ran red with blood”: the blood of murdered Protestant men, women, and children.
Pope Gregory XIII celebrated the butchery by having a special medal cast with the motto, Ugonottorum strages, “Slaughter of the Huguenots.” Many came to think that King Charles had personally joined in with the killing, shooting Huguenots from a first-floor window. Such memories, some real and some possibly not, have scarred the Huguenot mindset to this day.
The Saint Bartholomew’s massacre, decades of civil war, and deep cultural and religious aversion constituted the brittle context within which the throne descended upon the Protestant Henri Bourbon, King of Navarre from 1572, and sponsor of the Edict of Nantes.
The Edict of Nantes, so critical to Huguenot and European history, will be described in Part 4.
Marie Durand Letter 6 — to Anne Durand
[Written to her orphaned niece Anne, born 1729, after twenty-one years of imprisonment. It describes clothes that Marie had made for Anne and instructions about some complicated family finances. She assures Anne of her love.]
To Monsieur Chiron, at the Taconnerie, in Geneva,
to pass on, please, to Mademoiselle Durand,
in Onex, Geneva, with a package
The Tour de Constance, June 22, 1751
You are no doubt surprised, my darling daughter, that I have been so slow to reply to you. I wanted to sew you six blouses, and this was the cause of the delay. Be assured that I love you as much as if you were my own child, and so long as you are always very modest, you will find in me all the tenderness of a true mother. I have plans for you that you cannot imagine, and I hope, with the help of God, to make you happy one day. Pray to the Lord that he will bless and meet the needs of those who work for my freedom, and then I will bring you near to me. And I will do my utmost to ensure that you do not lack anything.
Your letter gave me great pleasure, for I feared that you no longer lived. The Lord returned you to full health; I am told. I give him thanks and pray that he will continue to do this for you.
You will receive six new blouses of white cloth, decorated with muslin. They are not elegant but will be useful. You will also receive a skirt of satin poplin, and a dress with two silk ribbons, two pairs of cotton stockings, and two woollen camisoles. If they fit you, let me know so that I can make you some more winter woollens. Moreover, you will receive a taffeta vest embroidered with silk lace. This is all I can say for the moment. Everything is folded in towelling and oil cloth, well packed.
I will give you, my darling child, all the help that I am able to give you. If I can retrieve some funds from my property, I assure you that it will only be for you, for I would not even withhold my heart to support you. But, my darling daughter, I must pay what is owed. I wait for God to provide these things.
I will make sure to order you a dress, a skirt and a vest, and stockings for winter. Tell me if what I have sent you fits; or if you would prefer things smaller, or whatever suits you. I will go without many things for this; but it doesn’t matter. I will do this for you, my darling child. I will also make sure to get you some blouses by what I earn from spinning.
I learned that you had sent to our lawyers the bill of exchange that you had with Rey. Urge them to pay you, to honour this bill. If you would like me to repay that which is owed you, I would give it to you with interest; and with your interest and whatever else I could add, this would relieve you. At the very least I would preserve your funds for you. But if you believe your relatives, you will get nothing of it, for I know that they are scarcely inclined to please you. Do not think that this is to pay my debts; I want only that they be paid from the sale of my goods. But I would like to preserve these funds for you, because with this sum and that which I could give you, I could set you up quite decently. While waiting, as I told you, for the interest, or as much as I can give you, the little pension or your little job could maintain you. As for me, I vow to you on my conscience that I do not want to profit from anything that is yours. After that, do as you like; but as I hope that God will deliver me, and if God gives me this grace, I will not leave you in a strange land. I would not want you to spend what is yours without benefit to yourself.
I have a favour to ask of you: to write to M. Peirot or to M. Blachon, to oblige M. Riou de Jarja to send me the receipt of the payment of a loan of four-hundred livres that my late father had borrowed in your favour. The said Riou only gave to your dear father one-hundred livres; and he wants me to pay him the full four hundred. He made it clear that the three-hundred livres will be for you. But you cannot trust in a conscience that you do not know; and this applies to Rey. Besides, he gave me very bad excuses, especially considering how badly this upset my affairs, because my debts would have been paid earlier if this had been settled. In which case I could have helped you sooner. So I plead with you to write to these lawyers to oblige that gentleman [Riou] to send me a receipt; that you claim nothing of this sum, and that you do not want anyone to make me repay anything that your dear father had not received. Plead with them again not to send a receipt in the name of the one who administers my goods, but only in my own name. I hope that you will give me this pleasure, and I swear to you on my conscience that you will have no cause to regret this, for I yearn only for you.
In reply, tell me how much it would cost for enough thread for a piece of lace, for something which will suit you. One of my friends, of great distinction, pleaded with me for this information. I will send you the money for the thread; and as for the style, she wanted to choose this for me; but I said that we had to know how much this would cost. We want to make quite fine lace, two fingers wide. Work out the cost and write it down for me. My friend produces good work, in my opinion; friends are always good.
Charge the bill for this letter to me, so that it doesn’t fall into your aunt’s hands, nor those of your uncle Brunel, so that you will not owe them a cent. As I told you, they are not by any means on your side, not even your grandmother. Do not repeat anything of what I tell you; do this for your own good; you only have me to support you. It will be better if I repay your grandmother, supposing they haven’t paid.
They tell me that you have married. I don’t believe this at all, and I will not advise you about this again. God will provide. Only be modest, and I will never abandon you. Be totally convinced of this my darling child, for my whole life I will make it my inviolable obligation to be your good and sincere aunt,
La Durand.
All my companions give you a thousand compliments. They pray for you with all their heart. Give my personal regards to all your friends. Your grandmother sends you her regards. She is very thin and is always the same. Reply as soon as you have received the package and pay attention to all that I have told you.
Don’t think that your grandmother cares a cent for you. She is very disgruntled but doesn’t act as if this were the case. Send her your regards, as you were accustomed to in whatever you write to me. And plead with her to insist that your uncle pay you. Make her really feel your misery. Tell her to return to me each […], whatever she can. Burn my letter.
[After twenty-two years of imprisonment. Marie offers to manage Anne’s finances, urges her to work hard, to be wise and godly, and not to rush into marriage.]
to Mademoiselle
Mademoiselle [Anne] Durand, at Onex, near Geneva
The Tour de Constance, April 27, 1752
The time must seem very long to you, my darling daughter, and no doubt you think that I have entirely forgotten you. But if that is the case, banish the thought. It does me a great injustice, for I would sooner forget myself. Know for certain that I have engraved you in the depths of my heart.
Always be very modest, my darling daughter. Let love for God, and fear of him, rule your conduct. Be assiduous in your work, for those who do not work must not eat, says Saint Paul. Besides, idleness is the mother of every vice.
I have not yet been able to do what I promised you, but with God’s help I will do it. For your sake I will deprive myself even of necessities.
About what is owed you, matters have been put right; they must give you a hundred pistoles. I spoke to your uncle Brunel; he says that if you would like him to, he will give me your money, and I will invest it for you, and you will receive the interest. If you agree with this plan you can be certain that I would not deprive you of a mite; on the contrary I will use what I have to help you more than I could help myself. If you judge this suitable, you can write to your uncle or to whomever you like; but at least take care not to do this badly. For since God wanted very much to favour you with this little inheritance do not lose it by your mistakes. In this way I leave you free to take account of whatever seems good to you, provided that it benefits you. Follow these instructions carefully.
Writing to you, I felt troubled by the thought that if I pay postage for these letters that they might not reach you. A woman promised to deliver this to you.
About the points you raised, I couldn’t yet order you the money. But if I can, believe me I will do it. Reply first with a receipt of my letter, for I ache to know your news. You can write to me by return post.
Your grandmother is still the same, she pays her compliments. All my poor companions kiss you. I repeat this to you again, my darling child: love virtue, be gentle, patient, and humble, genial to everyone you know. Moderate that vivacity which sometimes harms the body, and salvation. I swear to you that I will always love you more than myself. Pay full attention to all that I tell you.
Adieu, my darling child. I wish you stronger health with heaven’s gracious gifts and all kinds of favours; and I will never cease to have for you the same feelings of tenderness and friendship.
Your good and affectionate aunt,
La Durand.
Pay close attention to all that I say to you and send me your earliest reply. Let me know how you are going. You delighted me when you told me that you have no desire to marry. Always conduct yourself in this way. God will by his grace change the situation, and with his help we may yet be together.
[1] Jean-Louis Bourgeon, "Les Légendes ont la vie dure: à propos de la Saint-Barthélemy et de quelques livres récents," Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine (1954-) 34, no. 1 (1987): 102.
from Blog - Beautiful Christian Life https://ift.tt/DVExfcg
via IFTTT
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
What is a soul and what happens to the soul of a Christian upon physical death?
Upon death believers are immediately placed in the presence of their Savior.
In the Geneva Study Bible, theologians helpfully point out that
Each human being in this world consists of a material body animated by an immaterial personal self. Scripture calls this self a “soul” or “spirit.”[1]
Our souls will live forever, and believers’ souls will experience blessedness at their death. In Luke 23:42-43, we read:
And [the thief on the cross] said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
For Christians, the parting of the body and soul at death will immediately place them in the presence of Jesus Christ. The thief on the cross, Christian martyrs burned at the stake, and Christians succumbing to illness, old age, or sudden tragedy will instantly upon death have the comfort of being with their Savior. This comfort is so real and certain that the apostle Paul could write,
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” (Phil. 1:21-23; see also 2 Cor. 5:8)
The believer’s body and soul will be reunited when Christ returns at the consummation.
The believer’s separation from the body is only temporary. The Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563, is a highly regarded summary of the Christian faith and has the following to say about the resurrection of the body:
Q. What comfort does the resurrection of the body offer you?
A. Not only shall my soul after this life immediately be taken up to Christ, my Head, but also this my flesh, raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul and made like Christ’s glorious body. (Heidelberg Catechism, Q & A 57)
This world is uncertain, and the mode of leaving it is also hidden from us. We can rejoice, though, that our Savior Jesus Christ has in his resurrection defeated death and hell and thereby secured a place for us in heaven with him forever. He will welcome us into his loving arms the moment our eyes close in earthly death. Whether we live or die, he cares for us and will bring us through to himself.
Rejoice, therefore, that you have a steadfast loving Shepherd, Savior, and Lord who holds your life, body and soul, in his loving hands and waits to welcome you to himself.
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
“Consider the work of God: who can make straight what he has made crooked?” — Ecclesiastes 7:13
You may be wondering why God has allowed various afflictions in your life. In an introduction to eighteenth-century Scottish pastor and theologian Thomas Boston’s book The Crook in the Lot, J. I. Packer describes a “crook” this way:
But in Thomas Boston’s usage the crook is the crooked, that is the uncomfortable, discontenting aspects of a person’s life, the things that the Puritans called losses and crosses, and that we speak of as the stones in our shoe, the thorns in our bed, the burrs under the saddle, and the complaints we have to live with; and the lot is the providentially appointed path that God sets each of his servants to travel. (Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot: Living with That Thorn in Your Side, pp. 7-8)
It is helpful to consider God’s purposes in your adversities so that you can respond in a manner that brings glory to him. Here are seven reasons according to Boston why God makes a “crook” in a person’s lot, along with related Bible passages:
1. The trial of one's state, whether or not one is in the state of grace.
Even though we know from reading the book of Job that God allowed Satan to tempt Job to curse God through all the calamities Job faced, including the loss of his children, his wealth, and even his health, Job was not privy to that knowledge:
And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” (Job 1:8-11; see also 1 Pet. 4:12)
2. The excitation to duty, weaning one from this world, and prompting him to look after the happiness of the other world.
The apostle Paul, once a persecutor of Christians, came to a place in his life where he knew it was better to be with the Lord when his work in this world was finished:
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Phil 1:21-24)
3. The conviction of sin.
Joseph’s brothers were convicted of the sin they thought had been hidden for years when coming before the governor of Egypt (Joseph, although unbeknownst to them) to buy grain because of the famine.
Then they [Joseph’s brothers] said to one another, “In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen. That is why this distress has come upon us.” (Gen. 42:21)
4. The correction, or punishment, for sin.
While God forgave the repentant David for his sins of adultery and murder, David still faced consequences for his actions.
“Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.” (2 Sam. 12:9-10)
5. The prevention of sin.
Joseph had cause to be prideful when he was young because his father favored him, and dreams indicated that his brothers would bow down to him (Gen. 37:1-11). Although his years spent as a slave and a prisoner were great trials for Joseph (Gen. 39-40), he learned humility of spirit during that time, which would be needed for the work the Lord had for him to save God’s people from the famine to come. After Joseph asked Pharaoh’s chief cup bearer to speak to the ruler about his unjust imprisonment, he still remained in prison for two more years:
“In three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office, and you shall place Pharaoh's cup in his hand as formerly, when you were his cupbearer. Only remember me, when it is well with you, and please do me the kindness to mention me to Pharaoh, and so get me out of this house. For I was indeed stolen out of the land of the Hebrews, and here also I have done nothing that they should put me into the pit”….Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him. (Gen.40:13-15; 23)
6. The discovery of latent corruption, whether in saints or sinners, for the due humiliation of sinners.
Even Moses, who spoke with God face-to-face, failed to obey perfectly. After Moses struck the rock at Meribah to bring forth water instead of speaking to it as God commanded him to do, God did not allow Moses or Aaron to enter the promised land (Num. 20:7-11):
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.” (Num. 20:12).
7. The exercise of grace in the children of God.
Paul had a crook in his lot that he asked the Lord to take away, but God refused in order to show the power of Christ in Paul’s weakness:
So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
Christians do not need to fear the “crooks” God allows in their lives but can instead rest in God’s faithfulness. Boston reminds us to keep our focus on God’s grace, even in our suffering:
The truth is, the crook in the lot is the great engine of Providence for making men appear in their true colours, discovering both their ill and their good. And if the grace of God is in them, it will bring it out, and cause it to display itself. It so puts the Christian to his shifts, that however it makes him stagger for awhile, yet it will at length evidence both the reality and the strength of grace in him.
While we will not always know why God has made a crook in our lot, we can always trust that he is using it for good and his glory in the lives of his beloved children.
This article was originally published on June 4, 2019.
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
The colossal calling of parenthood is made up of zillions of seemingly insignificant events. Often it feels as if one blurry moment, phase, or season flows into the next before we can even make sense of it. My husband and I make rules and set boundaries and try to enforce them consistently. We try to remember that our aim is to orient our children’s hearts to be Christ-centered, rather than just seeking outward behavioral changes. But then time passes, and we see no fruit whatsoever. When obedience does occur, it often feels like our children are simply trying to avoid the consequences of misbehaving.
Are our efforts making a difference? Are the heartfelt talks, Scripture memorizations, and family devotions penetrating the hearts and souls of our little ones—or are we merely going through the motions? Well something happened recently that reminded me of what I am called to do as a mother and how the habits we create in our homes can—by God’s grace—make a life-changing impact on the hearts of our little ones.
One of Those Sunday Mornings
Attending church together as a family is something I look forward to every Sunday. But one week I could tell it was going to be one of those Sunday mornings. In the few hours between waking up and leaving for church, it felt like my husband and I had run a marathon—getting breakfast on the table, showering and dressing three small children, refereeing arguments, correcting bad attitudes.
By the time we settled into our pew, I had already snapped at the kids, rushed them out the door, and was short with my husband. If there was ever a Sunday I needed to hear God’s word, it was that Sunday, but I just couldn’t focus. My children seemed to have made a pact that they were going to be the neediest children on earth that day. There were bathroom breaks, endless requests, and my personal favorite—good old-fashioned whining.
I thought, why am I even here? I haven’t heard two consecutive lines of the sermon. My kids aren’t hearing a thing. Nothing is sinking in for any of us. I should have just stayed home and watched the Food Network. I looked around at all of the other children sitting through the service with their halos on, and I was discouraged. Obviously, I was doing something wrong and failing my children. I left church that day feeling incredibly irritated with my children and myself.
The Power of Ritual and Habit
But God, in all of his goodness, decided to open my eyes the following Sunday. We had made it (alive) through the service, and it was time for the Lord’s Supper. Holding my cup of wine, I noticed that my three-and-a-half-year-old daughter had filled the lid to her water bottle with water and was eagerly awaiting the moment when we would all partake together. It was the cutest thing I had ever seen. At her age she couldn’t fully understand what Communion is, but she wanted to partake in the ritual she had seen performed every Sunday since she was born.
In that moment, I was able to connect the dots. Our children won’t always understand what we are doing for them—or with them—the first, second, third, or maybe ten-thousandth time we do it. But it doesn’t mean that nothing is happening. There is power in ritual and habit.
Shaping Hearts and Minds to God’s Glory
The fact is that taking our children to church each Sunday to worship the living God—rain or shine, good attitudes or bad—is shaping their hearts and minds about what is important. Maybe we hear the whole sermon or only a couple of lines. Either way, God blesses us for our obedience to him. Our kids absorb things, even subconsciously, that God can use in their lives.
So, I just want to encourage all of you parents. We may not see the fruit of our labors today, but we serve an all-powerful God who often uses very ordinary means to accomplish his work. Continue to be steadfast in your efforts to point the hearts and lives of your children toward him. What an amazing opportunity we have as parents to help shape the habits of our little ones while they are still under our care.
This article was originally published on December 5, 2017.
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
My congregation lives within an 80 x 60 x 50 kilometre triangle, an area larger than the Principality of Liechtenstein. So I drive a lot. I don’t enjoy a view of the Swiss Alps, but I do get to listen to podcasts.
One word to describe Surprising Rebirth? Refreshing. Brierley is smart, informed, nuanced, and confident in the truth. He has a beautiful turn of phrase and oozes positivity. Listening to him I get the same kind of feeling as when I read C.S. Lewis’s Surprised by Joy, or J.I. Packer’s Knowing God.
The thesis of the series is in the title.
In the mid-2000s the so-called “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheist movement—Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and their (somewhat) fearless leader Richard Dawkins—scooped up millions of sales with books like The End of Faith (2005), The God Delusion (2006), God is Not Great (2007), and other vaunted takedowns of mainstream religion.
As sarcastic as Voltaire, as certain as Senator McCarthy, as pompous as Sir Humphrey Appleby, and as populistic as Abba, they made a lot of God-suppressors feel more snug in their idolatry.
Dawkins even fronted a bus campaign: “There is Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” Despite the lame hedging of the word “Probably,” it went down well in the burbs of Oxford. Not sure what famine-wracked Somalians would have made of it. Or incarcerated Uighurs.
But the devil has been cursed to only ever kick own goals.
The Four Horsemen’s arguments earned C-minuses all round from real philosophers—theists and atheists alike. Their arguments had all been raised and answered countless times across the past two millennia. Moreover, they failed to offer even a postage stamp of terra firma on which to build a life of meaning and purpose, but instead revelled in a universe that has, “at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Yet they failed, as Nietzsche and Camus did not fail, to follow through with their nihilist suppositions, persisting that basic human ethics—strangely reminiscent of the ethics of the Second Table—could still be derived from their god-free milieu.
People learned inductively that atheism was rather like an egg left too long in the sun—smooth on the outside, an agglomeration of stinky gas and nothingness within. Moreover, the Horsemen whipped up millions to begin talking again about the target of their attacks—God. Oscar Wilde said it: “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
Twenty years later it turns out that the New Atheists, rather like Pharaoh’s foremen but without their reasonableness, cause millions to lift up their heads to the possibility of something better—that there might in fact be real substance to the claims of Christian theism.
Justin Brierley tells the story in sixty-to-ninety-minute podcasts, thirty of which have appeared so far. I will engage with a few of the more remarkable of these and make some observations about the oeuvre as a whole.
In “The Rise and Fall of New Atheism” (Ep. 1), Brierley storms the beach with a bracing retelling of the rise of Dawkins et al. They flowed with Matthew Arnold’s “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the Sea of Faith. They had the wind in their sails. Yet how brittle it was. “Elevatorgate: How the Culture Wars Killed New Atheism” (Ep. 2) shows how the movement ripped itself apart over sexism, LGBT and trans rights, and other highly charged public debates. Yes, their impact lingered, but not in the way they hoped.
In “Thank God for Richard Dawkins” (Ep. 3), Brierley interviews a number of public intellectuals who turned to theism, and even to Christian faith, after the undergraduate naïveté of the Horsemen’s books opened their eyes to the better arguments of Christianity. An interview with prominent YouTube atheist Alex O’Connor (Ep. 4) is a case study of this.
“The Jordan Peterson Phenomenon” (Ep. 5) is one of the most exciting episodes, tracing the rise to popularity in 2018 of a gifted but unknown psychology professor at the University of Toronto. Peterson was the doctor’s hammer that tapped all kinds of reflexive tendons. First when he stood against state laws forcing people to use preferred pronouns as an attack on free speech, which Peterson argues is an attack on thought itself. Second for his 2018 Twelve Rules for Life, which has sold over ten million copies and urges people to take responsibility for their lives—young men in particular.
Then Peterson began to lecture on the Bible. Gifted pastor-preachers with half-empty churches were treated to the sight of thousands of predominantly young men paying up to a hundred dollars to pack out large lecture theatres to hear Peterson’s passionate, rambling, and often emotional reflections on Genesis. Reading the text through the prism of Jungian archetypes and symbols, he fails to understand it. Yet millions of people were now hearing from the weeping prophet of Canada all about God and the Bible and a God-given purpose and destiny for life.
In Episode 6, “The Meaning Crisis: Why we’re all religious deep down,” Brierley builds on the idea of the innate sense of meaning and purpose that Peterson was tapping into. He works backwards from the funeral for Elizabeth II, when “a latent spirituality surfaced.” Having been reared on a diet of “you can be whatever we want to be”—what Charles Taylor called “expressive individualism”—and having rejected theocentrism for anthropocentrism, young occidentals were unmoored. And terribly unhappy.
The great bonus of listening to Brierley is that you will discover, through his adroit choice of interlocutors, all manner of wonderful Christian communicators. In Episode 6 you will meet Graham Tomlin, a C of E bishop and author of the superbly titled Why Being Yourself is a Bad Idea (2020). Our anthropocentrism has meant that we are looking in the wrong place for meaning. Social media’s smashing of community has exacerbated this. Refusing to enter “the story of our society,” we have failed in our attempt to invent our own. Sociologist Max Weber described the “disenchantment” of the industrial West. But nature abhors a vacuum and we’ve learnt to worship other entities: ourselves primarily. This is not working well for anyone.
Interviews with Australian historian Sarah Irving-Stonebraker, who converted to Christianity from atheism, and social-psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who has catalogued the catastrophic increase in levels of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide since 2010—when a new generation was being shaped by smartphones and social media—trace the modern mental health crisis to an existential crisis, which itself derives from an identity crisis which is, at its heart, a spiritual crisis. Brierley sums it all up: “If we are made to live in a story that is bigger than us, then I don’t think we can simply play-act a part in something we know is ultimately just a fiction.”
At the moment New Atheism imploded, new voices began to be heard.
“The New Thinkers: A new conversation on God” (Ep. 7) introduces four highly prominent and well-regarded public intellectuals who are all making positive noises about Christianity: Douglas Murray, Tom Holland, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Louise Perry. Of the four, the human rights campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the only one who has come to belief in Christian theism (Ep. 8). She is a friend of Richard Dawkins, who has publicly expressed his disappointment in Ali’s conversion; though even Dawkins has recently called himself “a cultural Christian.” We should ask: “From whence that culture, Prof. Dawkins?” Ex nihilo nihil fit.
In “Paul Kingsnorth & Martin Shaw: A poet and mythologist convert” (Ep. 9), Brierley introduces two recent converts. Shaw is an academic and mythologist who read the Gospels and “found Christ disturbing.” He takes the same kind of line as C.S. Lewis, who was also deeply conversant in pagan mythology, that the echoes of truth heard in the stories of the gods came to be fully realized in the history of Jesus. Shaw finds that the church does best when it is “outnumbered and outgunned,” and that after generations of hostility and marginalization it is beginning to find its feet again in a time of unexpected opportunity.
“History Maker: Why Tom Holland changed his mind about Christ” (Ep. 10) focuses on the extraordinarily popular classicist and historian Tom Holland, author of Rubicon (2003) and Dominion (2019). Holland has done for history what Jamie Oliver did for cooking. I find his books a little sensationalist, but he has done a remarkable service in showing that so many of the ethical principles that we hold dear, and especially that of caring for the weak and downtrodden, can only be traced to the Bible and Christian history. Holland contends that the West is saturated in the Christian worldview and ethics, even if we have distorted our inheritance in strange ways. Even our atheists are Christian atheists: it is the God of the Bible that they suppress. (Brierley follows up on Holland in Episode 17, “Live In London: Tom Holland & Justin Brierley in conversation.”)
“The Sexual Revolution: Why Louise Perry changed her mind” (Ep. 11) is one of the highlights of the series. Perry is a journalist, anti-pornography campaigner, and author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution (2022). She is a fiercely articulate thinker who had bought into the mores of the sexual revolution until she began working at a rape crisis centre. She is today a non-believer “emotionally and intellectually drawn to Christianity,” who argues that the message that “God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong” brought about hitherto unheard of emancipation, dignity, and protection to women and children: “To point out the vulnerability of women, children, the poor, the enslaved, and the disabled is to argue in favour of their protection, not their persecution.”
Perry draws on the work of classicist Kyle Harper, who describes a “first sexual revolution” in the fourth to seventh centuries with the irruption of a Christian sexual ethic that steadily de-sanctioned the rights of powerful Roman men to sexually penetrate all and sunder in their households: whether male or female, slaves or children. The evil of rape, which hitherto was only prosecuted against the violation of high-status male-protected women, now included the violation of any person. The first sexual revolution tamed men and was good for maintaining strong families and care for women and children. For it is women who get pregnant and who bear the greatest burden of childcare. They cannot, like men, simply walk away from their progeny to build new lives, careers, and romances in other places.
Fascinatingly, both Harper and Perry analyse our society’s antipathy toward Christian sexual mores as antipathy toward Christianity tout court. Harper writes, “In our secular age, just as in the early years of Christianity, differences in sexual morality are really about the clash between different pictures of the universe and the place of the individual within it,”[1] and Perry, “When pro-life and pro-choice advocates fight about the nitty-gritty of abortion policy, what they are really fighting about is whether our society ought to remain Christian.”[2]
This begins to answer a nagging question: Why do so many secular organizations, who have no inherent interest in homosexual practice, fly the rainbow flag? Is it not because LGBT rights have become the cause célèbre of secularism? That the rainbow flag has become the battle standard of godlessness?
The fact that Jordan Peterson, Tom Holland, Louise Perry, and Douglas Murray do not claim to be Christian believers has arguably given them a greater hearing and influence in contemporary intellectual discourse than they might otherwise have had. I will be fascinated to see where they and our culture land in the coming decade or two.
“The Christian Revolution: Why the cross changed the world” (Ep. 12) goes over very familiar ground for Christians. We have long understood that crucifixion was intended to inflict maximum protracted agony and public humiliation and degradation upon the victim. It was designed to terrorize the subjects of the Roman Empire into meek submission. The pax Romana was established, paradoxically, in large measure upon such placards of intemperate violence. Brierley does a very good job of showing how the Gospel of the Crucified Saviour fundamentally inverted human values. Human success must not be measured by the triumphs of the highborn and powerful over the lowborn and weak, the intellectual over the simple, the beautiful over the plain, the popular over the despised. The Cross teaches us to value the humiliation and subjugation of self for the benefit of the other, to prize the amelioration of the weak rather than their exploitation.
That is why Christians, when they are repentant and trusting and in tune with their Master, have given their time, talents, education, privileges, and wealth to the service of the most vulnerable—widows and orphans, the unborn and abandoned, the sick and enslaved—rather than to self-service.
“Did The Resurrection Really Happen? A classicist discovers the living Christ” (Ep. 16) presents a fresh recapitulation of the arguments for why the resurrection of Jesus is an historical event that truly has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It focuses on the remarkable conversion story of twenty-first century Oxford scholar James Orr. But Brierley’s interview with John Dickson is one of the highlights of this episode; there are in fact numerous synergies between Brierley’s Surprising Rebirth and Dickson’s own really excellent Undeceptions podcast. It is no surprise that these two public Christian intellectuals have found each other.
In episodes 18 to 20 Brierley moves away from the historical evidence for the truth of Christianity to engage with natural theology, to how the natural sciences support belief in the God of the Bible. The desperately lazy idea that science and faith are opposed, or are at best mutually exclusive, is quickly swept away. Biblical faith—notwithstanding Kierkegaard’s false re-casting of the idea—is never described as believing in the illogical, unproven, or otherwise unbelievable (which is credulity), but as entrusting ourselves to God on the grounds of Spirit-awakened convictions in statements of truth.
Scientia is knowledge. Christians and scientists face in the same direction, wanting to know the truth about things. It is entirely natural that the modern scientific enterprise of discovering truth by rigorous observation and experimentation, the results of which are critically tested and systematized into general principles, arose (most notably) in the seventeenth century among European Christians who hungered for the truth and who believed that a God-created universe was of such a complexity, design, and rational order that truth could be discovered.
“A Goldilocks Universe: The surprising science pointing to God” (Ep. 19) is a very enjoyable exploration of the concept of fine tuning. It is a myth to suppose that scientists are drawing ever closer to fundamental explanations of things, as though the world is like a complicated watch that may be pulled apart into simple components that can be simply explained—end of story. On the contrary, every newly discovered component proves to be in itself a bewilderingly complex entity that must itself be disassembled into its constituent components, and so on, “world without end.” Thus, whereas nineteenth-century biologists saw single cells as quite simple inchoate blobs, molecular biology shows us that every single cell is like a city, teaming with complex machines and processes. Each part of the machine is itself a Tardis of extraordinary order and complexity, within which are untold other Tardis-like components. Furthermore, the matter of the universe exists within scores of physical constructs and forces that must function within extraordinarily miniscule tolerances. Adjust even one of these constructs by an infinitesimal degree and the cosmos as we know it ceases to exist. It looks a little bit like the universe might have been designed.
“The Logos Behind Life: The dissident scientists discovering a mind beyond matter” (Ep. 20) shows that scientists are discovering more and more that living cells exist and replicate according to vast banks of inbuilt information. Information, of course, can derive only from a mind. And although scientists have been able to describe in part how life replicates, they have not even begun to explain how life itself got going in the first place (or indeed why anything exists.) Every new discovery only adds to the complexity and only makes it more difficult to find such explanations. The trajectory of science is toward a mind, a Great Intelligence, lying behind the universe and its elements.
Brierley’s podcast is a brilliant exposé of evidence. But there is never a suggestion that conversion is merely an intellectual affair. His accounts of “surprising conversions” invariably describe people coming to faith within the context of community. Human beings are not just brains on legs. Our thinking develops, for better or for worse, within a communal environment. Many new converts describe how they learned about Christianity within the context of seeing others live out what they were learning, and of experiencing the love of the Christian community. We preach and teach the truth within community: and the richer and more loving that community is the better.
The series reminds us of the importance of other subjective factors too. No amount of evidence will budge an idolater, whose heart is “dead in sin and transgression.” A supernatural intervention is necessary. It is true that the Spirit enlivens the hearts of the spiritually dead by the true and powerful Gospel, by “demolishing strongholds” of lies, by persuading people of the truth with as much reason as we can master, and by loving Christian fellowship. But we must never forget that it is the Spirit who enlivens. A well-equipped smithy with hammer and tongs and bellows is a good thing. But not a single horseshoe will be made without the Blacksmith himself.
Surprising Rebirth is beautifully produced. Each episode is a journey: an important question about the truth of Christianity is posed, then various expert witnesses are heard both for and against. Brierley holds to the “steel man” principle of hearing only the best forms of opposing arguments put by its brightest and best proponents. Then conclusions are drawn, gentle but strong, and always with the sense that “this matter deserves serious consideration.” The production quality echoes the quality of the content: everything is beautifully clear and the whole is adorned with original music inspired by the Baroque, Southern Blues, and, I jest not, the Spaghetti Western.
Justin Brierley has produced a remarkable work and recently finished his first season of thirty episodes. I have been freely and confidently sharing episodes with both Christian and non-Christian friends, knowing that the material is of the highest intellectual and aesthetic quality.
What should we make, finally, of Brierley’s idée fixe, that there seems to be a change in the air, that there is a new wave of serious interest in Christian belief among public intellectuals and opinion-shapers?
We must always take the long view. Movements come and go. The New Atheism has waned, and so will any surprising rebirth of interest. I have been encouraged and even energized by Brierley’s work. He has equipped us with fresh evidence of the Christian faith, with a vigorous recasting of old evidence, and a renewed confidence in the intellectual and logical rigor of Christianity. He has given us a fund of podcasts to share with others on their journey. But we must always remember that Jesus has conquered sin and the curse at its root—“It is finished!”—and that he made a promise: “I will build my church.” Truth is like the great granite monoliths standing sentinel in Greens Pool and other southern beaches of West Australia. Winds, waves, and tides may obscure these mighty monuments for a moment, but they are solid and immoveable and must reappear to sight before too long.
If waves of opposition and enthusiasm come and go, the truth of Christ’s death and resurrection remains untouched. Our greatest need, and our greatest gift to others, is every day to plant our feet upon that Rock, and there to stand.
This article is adapted from “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God,” which was originally published at AP, the National Journal of the Presbyterian Church of Australia (PCA).
Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links, meaning Beautiful Christian Life LLC may get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through its links, at no cost to you.
A while ago I engaged in a light Twitter exchange with a few atheists after I posted the following tweet:
A few self-described atheists didn’t think this statement sounded too loving. One suggested that I needed to “open my heart.” Another said that “Christian love” is a joke over which no one is laughing anymore.
My point in the tweet was to highlight the truth that the Christian worldview, when truly embraced, enables a person to love those with whom they disagree. For example, as a Christian I believe the biblical doctrines about God, humanity, Christ, heaven, hell, and salvation to be true. Because of this, I do not accept worldviews like atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Hindusim, and Islam, to name a few, because these belief systems are contrary to biblical Christianity and therefore not true. Yet the Christian worldview, while simultaneously requiring me to reject contrary worldviews as false, enables me to love atheists and those who adhere to other religions for two basic reasons.
All men and women are made in the image of God.
First, the one with whom I disagree is made in the image of God. Even though adherents of other religions reject the God of the Bible, they are, nevertheless, God’s image bearers (Gen. 1:26). For this reason they are worthy of love and dignity. I can treat them respectfully by listening to their position and making sure that I can articulate their beliefs in a way they would find satisfying.
And despite our vast differences in worldview, Christ calls me to love my neighbor, to feed my enemy, to do good to those who hate me, and gently correct those who oppose the truth of the gospel (Matt. 22:39; Rom. 12:20; Luke 6:27; 2 Tim. 2:24-26). Now, if you’re not a Christian, you may not like that last statement. To say that your opposition to Christianity needs correcting is to imply that your worldview is wrong, an implication you may take as tantamount to rejecting you as a person. But the two actions (rejecting your worldview and rejecting you as a person) are not the same. But more on this point in a moment.
Salvation is all of grace.
The second reason the Christian worldview enables believers to love others is because it teaches us that our ability to embrace Christ is not the fruit of any moral or intellectual superiority. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christians are Christians entirely because of God’s grace. For no reason other than sovereign love and kindness, God has opened the eyes of believers to behold the glorious reality of Jesus Christ. When Christians are living consistently within a biblical worldview, they will sense a deep compassion and love for those with whom they disagree because they know it is only grace that makes them differ (1 Cor. 4:6-7).
I suspect, however, that one reason we have come to equate the rejection of our worldview with personal rejection is because our contemporary intellectual climate has disabled us from withstanding and responding to rigorous debate and disagreement. Frankly, our feelings are easily hurt, and when people disagree with us, point out our inconsistencies, or tell us—gasp—that we’re wrong about something, we take their opposition to our ideas as a personal attack.
But Scripture gives us insight into the real root of the problem.
The natural and predominant motion of the human heart is to hide itself from God.
Ever since Adam and Eve’s first sin, mankind has been hiding from God. Due to their real and perceived guilt, their failed attempt at self-atonement to cleanse the conscience, and the fear of impending judgment, the first man and woman sought refuge among the trees. They hid from God because they knew they were worthy of death. And Adam and Eve’s progeny are still hiding.
The natural and predominant motion of the human heart is to hide itself from God. When confronted with the reality of God’s majesty and holiness and the reality of our condemnation, we hide, and for good reason: we, like Adam, deserve death. But, unlike Adam, we no longer hide among the trees. Rather, we find refuge in sophisticated philosophical arguments, religious duties, outright denial of our sin, good works, or a combination of all of these. We will do anything we can to cover our shame and keep God from discovering our sin.
But God has provided a refuge infinitely better than trees and philosophical arguments or good works. On the cross, Jesus Christ bore the punishment and death that we deserve and now calls out to all men to hide in him. And Jesus is ready and willing to accept the worst of sinners if they will turn from their sin and trust in him.
Christians hold the line because they love people.
Like my tweet implied, in order for a Christian to truly love others, we cannot accept worldviews that are contrary to Scripture. Why? Because we believe that a person’s eternal destiny is dependent upon whether or not they embrace the truth about Jesus Christ and what he has done on behalf of sinners. To yield to worldviews that oppose biblical truth is not loving or open-hearted or kind, but hateful. Christians hold the line on biblical truth, not because they love opposition, but because they love people and want them to understand the gospel. Allowing the lines to blur between Christianity and other worldviews only promotes confusion and obstructs people from beholding the good news.
To reject your worldview, therefore, is not the same as rejecting you as a person. How can this be? Because rejecting your worldview may be the means by which I am able to introduce true knowledge to your heart and mind. Indeed, rejecting your worldview may be one of the most profound ways I can express my love to you, for I am willing to oppose what is eternally harmful to your soul and tell you the best news in the universe. If that's not true love, I don't know what is.
Thisarticlewas originally published atfromthestudy.comand was first featured at Beautiful Christian Life on April 1, 2028.
