Author: Jake G

Suffering Is The Soil Of Growth


Whenever I feel the weight of deep suffering in my life—when the questions are louder than the answers and hope seems far—I try to imagine what it would have been like to live during the 400 years of Israelite bondage in Egypt. I picture the burning sun overhead, the endless days of grueling slave labor, and the absence of rest. There was no Sabbath yet—Moses hadn’t arrived. The law wasn’t given. The only thing I would have to cling to was a faint promise passed down from generations: that God would send a Deliverer. That one day, the land promised to our forefather Abraham would be ours. But until then, it was just the desert heat and the weight of chains. And yet, somehow, that promise sustained them—and it sustains me, too.

The Reality of Bondage

The Israelites lived under the heavy burden of Egyptian oppression for centuries. Generation after generation knew nothing but slavery. They woke up to the crack of whips, worked under the unforgiving sun, and fell asleep with calloused hands and aching bodies. There was no respite, no break, no weekend. The idea of a “Sabbath” didn’t exist yet. Their suffering was not brief or occasional; it was systemic and generational.

For many of us, suffering may not look like physical slavery, but it often feels like we are shackled. We live through seasons where it seems like God is silent, and hope is distant. Emotional pain, financial struggles, relational breakdowns, chronic illness—these burdens press down on us. We begin to wonder if God sees, if He hears, or if He remembers.

The Long Wait for a Promise

God had made a covenant with Abraham long before the Israelites ever entered Egypt. He promised Abraham a land, a nation, and a blessing that would reach the entire world (Genesis 12:1-3). But in Genesis 15:13-16, God also made it clear that the fulfillment of that promise would not come quickly:

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions… for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

There is a staggering weight to those words: “not yet complete.” God was not only working on behalf of His people, but also weaving together justice for the land they would one day inhabit. The Israelites suffered while the sin of another people group reached its fullness. This is not a comfortable truth, but it is a divine one: sometimes our suffering is interwoven with a plan we cannot see, bound up in justice and mercy that are being timed with divine precision.

God Does Not Forget

Exodus 2:23-25 gives us a glimpse into God’s heart in the midst of long suffering:

“The people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. God saw the people of Israel—and God knew.”

That final phrase, “and God knew,” is one of the most comforting in all of Scripture. God’s knowledge is not detached. He doesn’t just observe—He enters in, He acts, and He delivers. And in His perfect timing, He raised up Moses to lead His people out of bondage. The deliverer came, just as He promised.

And centuries later, another Deliverer would come—the greater Moses, Jesus Christ. He didn’t just lead us out of physical slavery, but out of bondage to sin and death. His kingdom has been established, and though we wait for its fullness, the promise has already begun to unfold.

Christian Suffering Today

We still walk through wilderness seasons. We still feel the sting of unanswered prayers, the fatigue of carrying burdens that seem to have no end. But Christian suffering is never purposeless. It is shaped by a narrative of redemption. We don’t just suffer in silence; we suffer in hope.

When I feel stuck in the middle of a season that makes no sense, I try to remind myself: Abraham didn’t see the promised land fulfilled in his lifetime. The Israelites waited generations. Yet God was faithful. Always faithful. The same God who heard their groaning hears ours.

In our trials, we have the benefit of looking back on the full arc of God’s redemptive plan. We know how the story plays out. Jesus came. The Spirit dwells in us. The kingdom is here and still coming. That doesn’t take away the pain, but it infuses it with meaning and hope.

Encouragement for the Journey

If you’re walking through a season of suffering right now, I want to encourage you with this: God is not blind to your pain. He sees. He hears. He knows. Just as He remembered His covenant with Abraham, He remembers the promises He’s made to you in Christ.

The path may not be clear. The future might look uncertain. But we serve a God who fulfills every word He has spoken. Moses came. Jesus came. The promises have not failed, and they never will.

So hold on. Keep trusting. Your suffering is not the end of the story—it may very well be the soil in which God’s deepest work is being done. Trust in His providence, even when you can’t yet see the deliverance. Because it’s coming. It always does.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/15sc3nVy4A/

Beards of the Reformers: A Modern Symbol of Christian Conviction

Throughout history, the outward expressions of faith have often served as visible markers of deeper theological and cultural convictions. One such tradition, often overlooked, is the growing of beards among Reformed churchmen, a practice deeply rooted in the legacy of the Protestant Reformers—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox. These men, pillars of the Reformation, chose to grow out their beards as an act of protest against the Roman Catholic Church’s insistence that monks remain clean-shaven.

However, this was more than mere defiance—it was a declaration of biblical manhood and a theological statement that stood against the constraints of enforced celibacy. By allowing their beards to grow, these Reformers expressed a clear affirmation of marriage, family, and the priesthood of all believers. Today, in an era saturated with promiscuity, libertinism, and a distortion of biblical masculinity, the resurgence of bearded Reformed men could once again serve as a sign of commitment—not only to historic Protestant faith but also to the God-ordained institutions of marriage and fatherhood.

The Beard as a Sign of Reformation Heritage

To understand the significance of beards in the Reformed tradition, one must look at the historical context in which the Reformers lived. In the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, monks were required to shave their faces as a sign of their celibacy and devotion to their order. The act of shaving symbolized their separation from the world and their renunciation of marriage. The Reformers, in their opposition to monasticism and the unbiblical enforcement of clerical celibacy, deliberately embraced their beards as a means of differentiation.

John Knox, the fiery Scottish Reformer, wore his beard long as a sign of his identity as a preacher of God’s Word and a married man. John Calvin, known for his meticulous theological writings, also bore a beard as a reflection of his adherence to biblical norms rather than Catholic traditions. Even Martin Luther, who was once an Augustinian monk, let his beard grow as a declaration of his newfound biblical conviction that clergy should marry, as Paul instructed in 1 Timothy 3:2: “An overseer must be the husband of one wife.”

In this way, the beard became more than just a stylistic choice; it was a visual affirmation of biblical fidelity and a rejection of man-made restrictions on God’s design for marriage and family.

A Symbol for the Modern Churchman

In today’s society, Christian men who seek marriage and fatherhood often find themselves swimming against a cultural tide that promotes casual relationships, extended adolescence, and an aversion to responsibility. The biblical model of manhood—one of leadership, provision, and commitment to family—is increasingly seen as archaic, if not outright oppressive.

Growing a beard, while certainly not a requirement for godliness, can serve as a small but significant marker of one’s alignment with historic Christian convictions. In the same way that the Reformers used their beards to signify their rejection of clerical celibacy and their embrace of marriage, modern Reformed men can use their beards as a testimony to their commitment to biblical masculinity, marriage, and the raising of godly offspring.

The Biblical View of Beards and Manhood

Scripture itself speaks positively of beards as a symbol of dignity and wisdom. In Leviticus 19:27, God commanded the Israelites not to cut the edges of their beards, distinguishing them from the surrounding pagan nations. In 2 Samuel 10:4-5, the humiliation of David’s servants was marked by the shaving of their beards, signifying a loss of honor.

While the New Testament does not command the growing of beards, it is evident that in the cultural and biblical mindset, a man’s beard often signified maturity, wisdom, and respectability. In light of this, the act of growing a beard today can be a reflection of a desire to embrace biblical patterns of manhood in a world that often seeks to blur the distinctions between the sexes.

Reclaiming the Beard as a Counter-Cultural Statement

The world today is marked by a radical departure from biblical principles. The sexual revolution has devalued marriage, encouraged promiscuity, and led many young men to abandon their God-given responsibilities. The Apostle Paul warns against such times in 2 Timothy 3:1-5, describing a generation that would be “lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless…”

Christian men must respond by embracing biblical counter-cultural symbols—signs that mark them as distinct from the world’s wayward trends. Just as the Reformers grew out their beards as a sign of defiance against enforced celibacy and as an affirmation of marriage, modern Reformed men can reclaim this tradition as a declaration of their desire to marry, raise children, and lead their households in godliness.

This is not to say that every Christian man must grow a beard to prove his faithfulness. But in a time when masculinity itself is under attack, tangible symbols can serve as important reminders—both to ourselves and to those around us—of our commitment to biblical principles. A full, well-groomed beard can stand as an emblem of a man’s devotion to his faith, his family, and his role as a leader within the home and the church.

Conclusion: More Than Facial Hair

While the beard itself holds no salvific power, its historical and theological significance should not be overlooked. In the time of the Reformers, it was a mark of defiance against an unbiblical suppression of marriage. Today, it can serve as a mark of defiance against a culture that devalues marriage, promotes immorality, and seeks to efface biblical masculinity.

Growing a beard as a Christian man is not about legalism or empty symbolism—it is about identifying with a heritage of biblical conviction and a vision of godly manhood. It is a small but meaningful way to declare, “I stand with the Reformers. I stand with the biblical vision of marriage and family. I stand for Christ.”

So, to the modern Reformed man considering whether to grow out his beard, let it be a reminder of your theological heritage, your commitment to biblical manhood, and your desire to honor God in all aspects of life—including how you present yourself to the world.

William of Orange and Why Protestants Wear Orange on St. Patrick’s Day

Every year on March 17, people around the world celebrate St. Patrick’s Day by donning green clothing, drinking Irish-themed beverages, and taking part in parades. However, there is another side to this cultural and religious observance that is often overlooked. Some Protestants, particularly in Northern Ireland and other parts of the world, wear orange instead of green on St. Patrick’s Day. Why is this? The answer lies in the complex history of Ireland, the Protestant Reformation, and one of the most significant figures in British and Irish history: William of Orange.

Who Was William of Orange?

William of Orange, also known as William III of England, was a Dutch Protestant prince who became King of England, Scotland, and Ireland in 1689. Born in 1650 in The Hague, William was the grandson of England’s King Charles I and the husband of Mary, the Protestant daughter of King James II of England.

At the time, Europe was embroiled in religious conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, largely influenced by the Reformation. When James II, a Catholic, ascended to the English throne in 1685, tensions rose between Catholics and Protestants in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Many feared that James’s policies would lead to the reestablishment of Catholic dominance in Britain. This fear was especially strong among the Protestant nobility, who sought to preserve their religious and political freedoms.

In 1688, a group of English nobles invited William to invade England and take the throne from his father-in-law, James II. This event, known as the Glorious Revolution, resulted in James fleeing to France and William and Mary being crowned joint rulers. This marked the beginning of constitutional monarchy in England, limiting the power of the monarchy and reinforcing Protestant supremacy.

The Battle of the Boyne: Securing Protestant Rule

The significance of William of Orange for Protestants in Ireland is deeply rooted in the Battle of the Boyne (rhymes with “coin” or “join”), fought on July 1, 1690 (July 12 in the modern calendar). After James II fled England, he sought to reclaim his throne by rallying Catholic forces in Ireland. William, determined to secure his rule and maintain Protestant control, led his army against James’s Catholic supporters near the River Boyne in what is now Northern Ireland.

William’s victory at the Boyne solidified Protestant dominance in Ireland and Britain. It was a decisive moment that ensured Ireland would remain under Protestant rule, particularly in the northern province of Ulster. This battle is still commemorated annually on July 12 by the Orange Order, a Protestant fraternal organization founded in 1795 to uphold Protestant values and the legacy of William III.

Why Do Protestants Wear Orange on St. Patrick’s Day?

While St. Patrick’s Day is widely associated with Irish culture and the color green, it is also closely tied to Catholic tradition. St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, was a Christian missionary credited with converting much of Ireland to Christianity in the 5th century. Over time, his feast day became a major cultural and religious celebration, particularly among Irish Catholics.

However, Protestants in Ireland and other parts of the world have historically distanced themselves from the Catholic aspects of the holiday. Instead of wearing green, which is associated with Irish nationalism and Catholicism, many Protestants choose to wear orange in recognition of William of Orange and his role in securing Protestant rule in Ireland.

The Symbolism of the Irish Flag

The colors of the Irish flag—green, white, and orange—represent the religious and political divisions in Ireland:

  • Green symbolizes Irish Catholics and nationalists.
  • Orange represents Irish Protestants and unionists, in honor of William of Orange.
  • White signifies peace between the two groups.

Despite the flag’s symbolism of unity, the historical divide between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland remains a sensitive issue. This is why, for some Protestants, wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day is not just a fashion choice but a statement of religious and historical identity.

The Role of the Orange Order

The Orange Order, a Protestant fraternal society established in 1795, has played a major role in keeping the legacy of William of Orange alive. The organization promotes Protestant traditions and commemorates the Battle of the Boyne every year on July 12 with parades and celebrations, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Because of the Orange Order’s strong Protestant and unionist associations, the color orange has remained a symbol of Protestant identity, especially among those who support Northern Ireland’s continued union with Britain. This is why some Protestants choose to wear orange on St. Patrick’s Day—to affirm their historical and religious ties to William of Orange and the Protestant cause.

The Ongoing Religious and Political Divide

Though St. Patrick’s Day is now widely seen as a secular holiday celebrated across different cultures and backgrounds, the historical tensions between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland have not entirely faded. In Northern Ireland, sectarian divisions still exist, and symbols such as green and orange carry deep political and religious meaning.

In some cases, wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day can be seen as provocative, particularly in Catholic-majority areas. However, for many Protestants, it is simply a way of honoring their heritage and maintaining their distinct identity within Irish and British history.

Should Protestants Celebrate St. Patrick’s Day?

While many Protestants do not traditionally celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in the same way that Catholics do, there is no religious or historical reason why they cannot. In fact, St. Patrick himself was not Catholic or Protestant in the modern sense—he was simply a Christian missionary. Some Protestants today choose to celebrate the day as a recognition of Patrick’s role in bringing Christianity to Ireland, rather than as a Catholic feast day.

Ultimately, the decision to wear orange, green, or any other color on St. Patrick’s Day is a personal choice. For Protestants who wear orange, it is not necessarily an act of defiance but a way of acknowledging their historical roots and religious convictions.

Conclusion

The tradition of Protestants wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day traces back to the legacy of William of Orange and the battle for Protestant control in Ireland. His victory at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 secured Protestant dominance in the region, leading to centuries of religious and political division.

Though St. Patrick’s Day is now largely a cultural celebration, the color green remains closely associated with Irish Catholic identity, while orange serves as a symbol of Protestant heritage. Understanding this history provides a deeper appreciation for the complexities of Irish identity and the significance of symbols in cultural and religious traditions.

Whether you choose to wear green, orange, or something else entirely, St. Patrick’s Day is a reminder of the rich and sometimes turbulent history of Ireland and its people.

The Interwoven Tapestry of Scripture and the Faithful Response of Zacchaeus

Introduction: The Unity of Scripture

The Bible is not a collection of isolated stories but an intricately woven tapestry where every verse, chapter, and book connects to the whole. From Genesis to Revelation, God reveals His redemptive plan, showing His faithfulness, justice, and mercy throughout history. Scripture interprets Scripture—what is foreshadowed in the Old Testament finds fulfillment in the New, and what is revealed in the New illuminates the truths of the Old.

Jesus Himself affirmed this unity when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). The prophecies, the laws, the wisdom literature, and the narratives all work together, revealing Christ as the centerpiece of God’s plan. Even passages that seem disparate are connected by deeper theological themes—covenant, redemption, faith, and the kingdom of God.

The Gospel accounts are no exception. They do not merely offer isolated stories about Jesus but instead build upon themes found throughout the entirety of Scripture. Two encounters in particular—the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18:18-30) and Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10)—serve as powerful examples of this interconnectedness. In these parallel accounts, Jesus calls for the same kind of faith, yet only one man responds with the surrender and trust that God desires.

The Call to Surrender: The Rich Young Ruler and Zacchaeus

At first glance, the stories of the Rich Young Ruler and Zacchaeus seem to present two entirely different men. The Rich Young Ruler is a man of privilege, wealth, and religious devotion. He comes to Jesus, asking, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18). Zacchaeus, on the other hand, is a tax collector—a man despised by his fellow Jews, known for extortion and greed. And yet, these two men share a critical similarity: they are both wealthy, and they both have an opportunity to follow Christ.

Jesus’ response to the Rich Young Ruler is striking. He tells him to obey the commandments, and when the man insists he has done so since his youth, Jesus adds, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Luke 18:22). The young man, though morally upright, walks away sorrowful, for he is unwilling to part with his wealth.

Contrast this with Zacchaeus. Unlike the Rich Young Ruler, Zacchaeus does not approach Jesus asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Instead, he is so desperate to see Christ that he climbs a sycamore tree. When Jesus calls him down and declares that He will stay at his house, Zacchaeus responds immediately, saying, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold” (Luke 19:8).

Where the Rich Young Ruler hesitated and held onto his riches, Zacchaeus joyfully gave them away. Where one man walked away sad, the other leaped forward in faith. Both men were given the same test: to surrender their wealth in trust of Christ. But only Zacchaeus responded with the kind of faith Jesus desired.

The Hidden Longing for God in the Hearts of the Faithful

What made the difference? Why did Zacchaeus respond in faith while the Rich Young Ruler clung to his possessions? The answer lies in the hidden longing God places within the hearts of those who will respond to Him.

Throughout Scripture, we see this theme of a deep, inexpressible longing for God—an ache in the soul that cannot be satisfied by the things of this world. David expresses this longing in the Psalms:

“As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God.” (Psalm 42:1)

“Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.” (Psalm 73:25)

This longing is the work of the Holy Spirit, drawing men and women to God. Zacchaeus, though steeped in wealth and sin, had this yearning hidden in his heart. He climbed the tree not just to see Jesus, but because something inside of him was desperate for something more. When Christ called his name, it was as if the floodgates opened. His response was not one of reluctant duty but of overwhelming joy. He had found what his heart truly desired.

The Rich Young Ruler, on the other hand, did not recognize this longing—or rather, he allowed his worldly wealth to drown it out. He wanted eternal life, but not enough to let go of the things that he thought sustained him. His riches had become his god, and in the end, he walked away because his heart was not ready to surrender to the true God.

God’s Revelation Through Scripture and in Our Hearts

God hides this longing within the hearts of the faithful, but He also reveals it to us through His Word. Scripture does not merely tell stories; it speaks directly to our hearts, awakening in us a desire for something beyond this world.

Jesus Himself spoke of this mystery when He said:

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” (Matthew 13:44)

The faithful recognize this treasure when they encounter it. Zacchaeus did. He saw that following Christ was worth more than all the riches he had accumulated. His joy was not in what he had to give up, but in what he had gained—Christ Himself.

This is the pattern we see throughout Scripture. Abraham left his homeland to follow God’s promise. Moses left the riches of Egypt to lead God’s people. Paul considered everything he had as “rubbish” compared to knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8). These men responded to the hidden longing in their hearts—a longing placed there by God and revealed through His Word.

Conclusion: Our Response to the Call

The stories of the Rich Young Ruler and Zacchaeus are not just historical accounts—they are mirrors that reflect our own spiritual condition. When God calls us to follow Him, do we respond with faith, like Zacchaeus, or do we walk away sorrowful, like the Rich Young Ruler?

God has placed in each of us a longing for Himself. Some recognize it and respond; others suppress it, distracted by the temporary treasures of this world. Yet through Scripture, He continually calls us to Himself, awakening the desire for something greater—something eternal.

Zacchaeus’ response to Jesus was not just about giving away wealth. It was about recognizing that Christ was worth more. His heart had been stirred long before he climbed the sycamore tree, and when Jesus called his name, he knew there was only one answer: joyfully surrendering everything to follow his Savior.

May we, too, hear the call of Christ and respond with faith, for He is the treasure our hearts were made for.

The Strength in Vulnerability: Trusting God and Others in Our Christian Walk

Vulnerability is one of the hardest things to embrace in life. The world often tells us that strength means independence, self-sufficiency, and never letting people see our weaknesses. But as followers of Christ, we are called to something greater—a life of honesty, humility, and deep connection with God and others.

For many of us, opening up about our struggles, failures, or doubts can feel risky. What if someone judges us? What if they compare their struggles to ours, making us feel insignificant? What if they use our openness against us? These are real concerns, and yet, vulnerability is a crucial part of our spiritual growth and relationships within the church.

Let’s explore why vulnerability is essential, how to cultivate it wisely, and how to handle it when someone responds poorly to our openness.

The Biblical Call to Vulnerability

The Bible is filled with examples of people who were open about their struggles, pain, and weaknesses before God and others. Jesus Himself modeled vulnerability—He wept (John 11:35), expressed deep distress in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:38), and even cried out in anguish on the cross (Matthew 27:46). If Jesus, the Son of God, did not hide His emotions or burdens, why should we?

Paul also embraced his weaknesses, writing in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10:

“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 about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

Vulnerability is not a sign of failure—it is a demonstration of trust in God. It allows us to rely on His strength rather than our own and to build relationships based on honesty and grace.

Why Vulnerability Matters in Christian Community

1. It Fosters Genuine Connection

Surface-level relationships may be comfortable, but they don’t bring true healing or spiritual growth. When we open up to others, we create space for authentic connection. James 5:16 tells us:

“Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.”

Healing and encouragement happen when we are honest about our struggles and allow others to come alongside us.

2. It Allows Others to Support Us in Prayer

When we keep our burdens hidden, we deny others the opportunity to intercede for us. Galatians 6:2 urges us:

“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

Sharing our struggles allows our brothers and sisters in Christ to lift us up in prayer, offering the strength we need to endure trials.

3. It Reflects Christ’s Love and Grace

When we are vulnerable, we create a culture of openness and grace. If we pretend to be perfect, we unintentionally tell others that they need to do the same. But when we admit our shortcomings, we remind people of God’s grace. As Psalm 34:18 reassures us:

“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”

God draws near to those who are hurting, and as His people, we should do the same for one another.

How to Be Vulnerable with Wisdom

Being vulnerable does not mean sharing everything with everyone. It requires discernment. Here are some practical ways to cultivate healthy vulnerability in your faith and relationships:

1. Start Small

You don’t have to share your deepest struggles with everyone at once. Begin by opening up to a trusted friend, mentor, or small group. Allow yourself to experience the freedom of being honest without fear.

2. Seek Out Godly Counsel

The elders of the church are there for a reason. We elect them for their wisdom, spiritual maturity, and ability to shepherd the congregation. If you are struggling, don’t hesitate to reach out to them. Titus 1:7-9 describes elders as:

“…hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Elders and church leaders are equipped to guide you through spiritual battles, offer biblical wisdom, and help you grow in faith.

3. Set Boundaries with Unsafe People

Unfortunately, not everyone will respond well to your vulnerability. Some people may judge, compare, or dismiss your struggles. If you encounter someone who:

  • Guilt-trips you by making you feel like your struggles aren’t valid
  • Constantly gives unsolicited advice instead of listening
  • Uses your openness against you

…then it’s okay to set boundaries. Protect your heart, but don’t let one bad experience stop you from seeking authentic relationships.

A simple response to an unhelpful person could be:

  • “I appreciate your perspective, but I was really hoping for someone to listen.”
  • “I know you’ve had struggles too, but right now, I just need to share what I’m going through.”
  • “I don’t think this conversation is helping me in the way I need right now.”

If a person continues to disregard your boundaries, it’s okay to limit how much you share with them in the future.

4. Trust God More Than Your Fear of Rejection

At the end of the day, vulnerability is an act of trust—not just in people, but in God. Even if someone misuses your openness, God sees your heart and will not let your pain go to waste. Psalm 56:8 reminds us:

“You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your book?”

God cares deeply about your struggles, and He honors the trust you place in Him and His people.

Final Encouragement

I want to leave you with this: You are not alone in your struggles. Whatever you are facing, no matter how small or overwhelming it seems, you are deeply valued by God. The church is meant to be a place of healing, grace, and support. While not every person will respond perfectly, there are godly men and women—elders, pastors, mentors—who are here to walk with you in your faith.

Vulnerability is not weakness. It is strength in Christ. It allows us to experience His love more fully and to build relationships that reflect His grace. Keep seeking, keep trusting, and keep leaning on the body of Christ. You are not meant to walk this journey alone.

If you’ve been hurt by someone misusing your openness, don’t let it close your heart. Instead, bring it to God, seek wisdom in who to trust, and continue pressing into His love. For when we are weak, He is strong (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Enosh: They Began To Call Upon The Name Of The LORD

Introduction

Genesis 4:25-26 marks a critical turning point in biblical history. Following the tragic events of Cain’s murder of Abel, we see a glimmer of hope in the birth of Seth and, subsequently, his son Enosh. The passage states:

“Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’ To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” (Genesis 4:25-26, ESV)

This passage is significant for several reasons. First, it establishes the continuation of the godly lineage through Seth. Second, it introduces Enosh, whose name carries deep theological implications. Lastly, it marks the first recorded instance of collective worship and invocation of Yahweh’s name.

The Consequences of Sin: From Expulsion to Murder

Before examining the significance of Enosh and the subsequent calling upon the name of the Lord, it is necessary to understand the broader context. Adam and Eve had been expelled from the Garden of Eden due to their disobedience (Genesis 3). God had warned that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would bring death (Genesis 2:17). While physical death did not occur immediately, spiritual death—separation from God—became a reality. Sin had entered the world, corrupting all of human existence.

The first clear manifestation of this corruption was the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Genesis 4:8). Cain, driven by jealousy and rage, took the life of his righteous brother, an act that demonstrated the quick and devastating effects of sin. As the firstborn of Adam and Eve, Cain was expected to carry forward the human race, but instead, he brought forth bloodshed. This heinous act showed that sin was not merely an isolated incident but a growing malignancy that threatened humanity’s future.

The Birth of Seth: God’s Provision

Following Abel’s death and Cain’s exile, Eve bore another son, Seth. His name means “appointed” or “granted,” reflecting Eve’s recognition that God had graciously provided another offspring. The significance of Seth’s birth is monumental, as he becomes the father of a line through which faithfulness to God is preserved. Unlike Cain’s descendants, who became known for their rebellion, Seth’s descendants would be those who “call upon the name of the Lord.”

Enosh: The Fragility of Man

Seth’s son, Enosh, is a figure of great theological importance. His name, as noted by biblical scholar Kenneth A. Mathews, connotes the “fragility of man.” The Hebrew word Enosh is often used in Scripture to emphasize human weakness and mortality (cf. Psalm 103:15-16; Job 7:17). The naming of Enosh signals an awareness that human life is fleeting and ultimately dependent on God.

At this point in history, humanity had not yet acquired great wealth, power, or fame. There were no kingdoms, no vast empires, no accumulated fortunes—only the stark reality of life’s brevity. Unlike later generations who sought to make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:4), the early descendants of Adam were deeply aware of their mortality.

The Universal Problem: Death

The greatest existential crisis for humanity has always been the certainty of death. As Solomon later writes, “For the living know that they will die” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). This awareness of death, apart from God, leads to either despair or defiance. Some, like Cain and his descendants, sought to establish earthly legacies, attempting to defy their own mortality through human achievement. Others, like those in Seth’s line, turned toward God in recognition of their dependence on Him.

The ultimate distinction between the righteous and the wicked is how they respond to this reality. For the righteous, death is not the end; it is the beginning of eternal life in God’s presence. For the wicked, death is the terrifying reality of eternal separation from God’s holiness, goodness, and mercy. Jesus Himself warned of this reality:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” (Matthew 25:41, ESV)

This truth ought to shake every person to the core. If sin leads to death, and if death apart from God results in eternal judgment, what hope is there?

The First Revival: Calling Upon the Name of the Lord

Genesis 4:26 declares that “at that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” This phrase marks the first recorded act of public worship and corporate prayer. The Hebrew verb qara’ (“to call”) is used elsewhere in Scripture to indicate an earnest plea for divine help (cf. Joel 2:32; Psalm 116:4).

This act of calling upon the Lord was not merely a religious ritual; it was a declaration of dependence on God in the face of human mortality. The contrast between the lines of Cain and Seth becomes clear—while Cain’s descendants pursued cultural achievements apart from God (Genesis 4:17-22), Seth’s descendants turned to God in faith.

The Gospel in Genesis 4:25-26

The pattern set in Genesis 4:25-26 foreshadows the gospel message. Just as humanity’s only hope after the fall was to call upon God’s name, so too is salvation available today only by calling upon the name of Jesus Christ:

“For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” (Romans 10:13, ESV)

This call is not merely verbal but a heart-cry of repentance and faith. Seth’s descendants recognized their mortality and sought God, just as every person today must recognize their sinfulness and turn to Christ. Jesus, the greater Seth, came to undo the curse of death by offering eternal life to those who trust in Him.

Call Upon the Name of the Lord – NOW

The urgency of the gospel cannot be overstated. Death is certain, and eternity is at stake. The Bible warns, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). There is no second chance beyond the grave. Today is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2).

Do not wait. Do not harden your heart.

Just as Seth’s line turned to God in their frailty, so too must we turn to Christ, who alone offers the hope of eternal life. Call upon the name of the Lord—now.

Conclusion

Genesis 4:25-26 reveals a fundamental truth about human existence: we are mortal, fragile, and utterly dependent on God. The birth of Enosh and the subsequent call upon the name of the Lord mark a turning point in human history, setting the stage for a people who seek God in the midst of a fallen world. This passage ultimately points forward to Jesus Christ, the only One who can save us from death and grant us eternal life.

The question remains: will you call upon the name of the Lord? Eternity hangs in the balance. Turn to Christ today.

Stay Connected!

If you found this article insightful, I invite you to like and follow ReformedFaithInsights on Facebook! Join our growing community as we explore biblical truths, deepen our faith, and find assurance in Christ.

🔹 Engage with thought-provoking content
🔹 Discover biblical insights for everyday life
🔹 Be encouraged in your walk with God

Click link here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61573691531360

The Westminster Minority Amendment and Its Legacy: A Challenge to Reformed Orthodoxy

Introduction

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), completed in 1646, stands as one of the most comprehensive theological formulations of Reformed Christianity. However, during its drafting and ratification process, theological debates arose among the Westminster Divines, leading to several proposed amendments, including one that sought to revise the doctrine of justification by removing explicit affirmation of Christ’s Active Obedience. This amendment, presented by a minority faction in 1647, was ultimately rejected but has left a lasting theological footprint.

This article explores the historical development of this amendment, how it has influenced modern-day Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) congregations, particularly those affirming the Joint Federal Vision Statement (JFVS), and how it ultimately deviates from Reformed orthodoxy.

The 1647 Minority Amendment and Its Historical Context

1. The Westminster Confession’s Original Teaching on Justification

The majority of the Westminster Divines affirmed that justification includes the imputation of Christ’s entire obedience—both His:

  • Active Obedience (His perfect fulfillment of the law), and
  • Passive Obedience (His suffering and death on the cross).

This is clearly articulated in WCF 11.1, which states that believers are justified:

“not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them.”

2. The Minority Objection to Active Obedience

A minority faction within the Assembly dissented from this formulation, arguing that only Christ’s death (Passive Obedience) was necessary for justification. They proposed an amendment to remove or modify the Confession’s explicit reference to Christ’s obedience being imputed to believers.

Their rationale was influenced by Neonomian tendencies, which held that believers are justified by faith in Christ’s atoning work alone, but not by His lifelong law-keeping. Some believed that Christ’s Active Obedience only qualified Him as a sinless sacrifice, rather than being imputed to believers for their righteousness before God.

This amendment was ultimately rejected in 1647, as the majority upheld the full imputation of Christ’s righteousness—Active and Passive. However, this debate would later resurface in theological disputes across Reformed history.

The Influence of the Minority View on the Federal Vision Movement

1. The Emergence of Federal Vision Theology

The Federal Vision (FV) movement emerged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as a challenge to traditional Reformed understandings of justification, covenant theology, and sacramental efficacy. It was officially articulated in 2007 through the Joint Federal Vision Statement (JFVS), which many CREC churches affirm today.

FV theologians, such as Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart, and James Jordan, argue that justification is covenantal rather than forensic, meaning that righteousness is not imputed as a legal declaration but rather experienced within the covenantal relationship with Christ.

2. How the 1647 Amendment Resurfaces in CREC and FV Thought

The minority view of 1647, which opposed the imputation of Active Obedience, has been functionally revived in the Federal Vision movement in the following ways:

  • Shift from Forensic Justification to Covenant Justification – The Westminster majority upheld justification as a one-time forensic declaration, while FV theology blurs justification with covenant faithfulness, making it less about Christ’s imputed righteousness and more about covenantal perseverance.
  • Emphasis on Union with Christ over Legal Imputation – FV theologians often argue that righteousness is not imputed to believers in a legal sense but is instead shared with them through union with Christ. This downplays Christ’s Active Obedience as the ground of justification.
  • Rejection of the Law-Gospel Distinction – The Westminster majority clearly distinguished between the Covenant of Works (law) and the Covenant of Grace (gospel). However, FV proponents blur this distinction, making obedience to the covenant a condition for final salvation, rather than relying solely on Christ’s perfect obedience.

By de-emphasizing or outright rejecting the imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience, Federal Vision theology echoes the 1647 minority amendment and represents a significant departure from traditional Reformed orthodoxy.

How the Minority View and Federal Vision Deviate from Reformed Orthodoxy

1. The Imputation of Active Obedience is Essential to Reformed Theology

The Reformed tradition, as upheld by the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism, has always affirmed that Christ’s Active Obedience is essential for justification. Without it, believers would only be restored to a state of innocence, rather than having the positive righteousness of Christ accounted to them. In this context, the “state of innocence” refers to the condition Adam had before the Fall—morally pure but without confirmed righteousness. Before sin entered the world, Adam was innocent, yet he had not attained the positive righteousness required for eternal life. If Christ’s work only removed our sins through His Passive Obedience (His suffering and death), believers would be restored to a state of innocence similar to Adam’s before the Fall, but they would still lack the righteousness necessary for justification. However, Christ’s Active Obedience—His perfect fulfillment of God’s law—is imputed to believers, granting them not only the removal of sin but also the positive righteousness required to stand justified before God. Without this, salvation would leave believers sinless yet not fully righteous, falling short of the full requirements for eternal life.

Scripture supports this doctrine:

  • Romans 5:19 – “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
  • Philippians 3:9 – Paul seeks to “be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”

2. The Minority View (and FV Theology) Leads to Justification by Works

By rejecting Active Obedience, both the 1647 minority and Federal Vision theologians subtly shift the basis of justification from Christ’s perfect righteousness to the believer’s own covenantal faithfulness. This has serious theological consequences:

  • It blurs justification and sanctification, making perseverance a condition for maintaining righteousness rather than a fruit of it.
  • It makes obedience a co-condition with faith rather than a response to grace.
  • It contradicts the Reformation doctrine of sola fide by suggesting that final justification depends on a believer’s covenant faithfulness rather than Christ’s completed work.

3. The Danger of Covenantal Nomism in Federal Vision

The Federal Vision rejects the traditional Reformed understanding of law and gospel by teaching a covenantal nomism, where believers are justified by faith but remain justified by covenantal faithfulness. This undermines assurance and returns to a form of legalism, much like Roman Catholicism or the New Perspective on Paul.

Reformed theology, by contrast, teaches that:

  • Christ fulfilled the law perfectly in our place (Active Obedience).
  • His righteousness is fully imputed to us at the moment of faith (Justification).
  • Good works are the fruit, not the basis, of justification (Sanctification).

Conclusion: Reaffirming Westminster’s Orthodox Doctrine

The 1647 minority amendment seeking to remove the imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience was a theological misstep, rightly rejected by the Westminster Assembly. However, its legacy has resurfaced in Federal Vision theology, particularly within CREC congregations that affirm the Joint Federal Vision Statement.

This departure from Reformed orthodoxy is not merely a minor doctrinal difference but strikes at the heart of justification by faith alone. By rejecting Christ’s Active Obedience, the Federal Vision movement undermines the very foundation of the gospel, leading toward a works-based system of justification that is foreign to both Scripture and the historic Reformed tradition.

As the heirs of the Reformation, we must stand firm on the truth that justification is by faith alone in Christ’s imputed righteousness alone—a doctrine essential for both assurance and the glory of God in salvation.

Venmo: @reformedfaithinsights

Empathy in Perspective: Affirming Mnookin and Evaluating Rigney’s Concerns

Introduction

Empathy, the ability to understand and share another person’s feelings, has long been a subject of debate in psychology, philosophy, and ethics. While most view empathy as an essential aspect of human connection, its role in decision-making and moral reasoning is more contentious. Two thinkers, Robert Mnookin and Joe Rigney, offer contrasting perspectives on empathy’s function and potential dangers.

Mnookin, professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Lead in the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP), in his book Beyond Winning argues that empathy is an essential tool in negotiation and human interaction, allowing for better understanding without necessarily leading to agreement. Rigney, on the other hand, warns that empathy—particularly an unchecked, immersive form—can lead to moral compromise and the loss of objective truth. This article affirms Mnookin’s position, demonstrating that empathy is a necessary tool for communication and ethical decision-making, while critically assessing Rigney’s concerns about its misuse. However, it also acknowledges areas of agreement between the two, particularly in their recognition that empathy does not require moral alignment.

The Case for Mnookin: Empathy as an Essential Tool

Robert Mnookin’s perspective on empathy is practical and constructive, especially in contexts such as negotiation, leadership, and conflict resolution. In Beyond Winning, he defines empathy not as agreement or endorsement of another person’s perspective, but as a means to understand their motivations, concerns, and emotions.

Empathy Enhances Communication and Problem-Solving

Mnookin emphasizes that empathy is a powerful tool in negotiation because it allows individuals to engage meaningfully with others. For instance, a negotiator who understands their opponent’s concerns can anticipate objections, build trust, and find mutually beneficial solutions. This principle applies beyond negotiation, as empathy fosters productive conversations, even in deeply polarized environments.

Rigney’s concern that empathy can lead to emotional manipulation or moral relativism overlooks the fact that understanding another’s emotions does not necessitate compromising one’s own principles. Mnookin’s approach preserves moral integrity while ensuring that individuals engage in rational, informed decision-making.

Empathy in Leadership and Social Contexts

Effective leaders, whether in business, politics, or faith communities, must understand the emotions and perspectives of those they lead. Empathy allows for greater trust and cooperation, creating environments where individuals feel heard and valued.

For example, a pastor counseling someone struggling with faith or sin benefits from empathetically listening to their struggle. This does not mean endorsing sinful behavior but rather understanding the deeper emotional and psychological factors that contribute to it. Mnookin’s definition of empathy supports firm moral guidance while still engaging with individuals compassionately.

Evaluating Rigney’s Concerns: Is Empathy a Threat to Truth?

Joe Rigney’s argument against empathy focuses on its potential to distort moral clarity. He suggests that deeply identifying with another’s pain can lead individuals to compromise biblical truth out of a desire to validate feelings. While this concern is worth considering, it ultimately mischaracterizes the function of empathy in ethical decision-making.

Empathy Does Not Require Moral Compromise

Rigney’s core concern is that empathetic immersion leads to moral compromise, where one aligns with another’s emotions to the point of rejecting objective truth. However, Mnookin’s perspective directly counters this assumption, making clear that understanding is not the same as agreeing.

For instance, a counselor working with a struggling addict must empathize with their experience to offer meaningful guidance. This does not mean affirming destructive behavior, but rather recognizing their struggles in order to lead them toward a better path. Similarly, Jesus Himself demonstrated deep empathy—weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), grieving with Mary and Martha over Lazarus (John 11:33-35), and eating with sinners—while never compromising His message of repentance and transformation.

The Danger of Rejecting Empathy

If taken to its extreme, Rigney’s position risks discouraging compassionate engagement altogether. If Christians, leaders, or negotiators avoid empathy out of fear of moral compromise, they risk alienating the very people they are called to reach.

Moreover, scripture consistently affirms the role of empathy in moral life. Paul instructs believers to “weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15) and to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2). Jesus, in His ministry, demonstrated radical empathy without abandoning truth. Rigney’s concern about empathy leading to emotional manipulation is only valid if individuals fail to exercise discernment—but discernment is not an argument against empathy itself.

Where Mnookin and Rigney Might Agree

While their approaches differ, Mnookin and Rigney might find common ground in recognizing that empathy, when properly exercised, does not necessitate agreement. Both would likely affirm that understanding another person’s perspective is valuable, as long as it does not compromise core convictions.

  1. Empathy Should Be Paired with Discernment – Mnookin emphasizes intellectual empathy, which requires maintaining personal convictions while understanding others. Rigney would likely agree that empathy should not override moral truth, even if he is more skeptical of its application.
  2. Emotional Manipulation is a Real Concern – Rigney warns that some people may use empathy to demand validation of sinful behaviors. Mnookin’s framework provides a safeguard against this, as he explicitly separates understanding from agreement.
  3. Healthy Boundaries Matter – Both thinkers would likely agree that one should not be so absorbed in another’s emotions that they lose personal perspective. Mnookin frames this as strategic detachment, while Rigney frames it as moral integrity.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Empathy

Robert Mnookin presents a compelling case for the necessity of empathy in communication, negotiation, and leadership. His approach acknowledges that understanding others does not require moral compromise but rather enhances meaningful engagement. Joe Rigney’s caution against empathy, while raising valid concerns about emotional manipulation, ultimately overstates the dangers and risks undermining compassionate moral leadership.

Rather than rejecting empathy, Christians and professionals alike should seek a balanced approach: one that fully understands others’ emotions and struggles while maintaining truth and integrity. This perspective aligns more closely with Mnookin’s position, which recognizes empathy as a tool for connection rather than a threat to truth.

In a world increasingly divided by ideology and misunderstanding, the ability to listen, understand, and engage with others without losing one’s moral foundation is more critical than ever. Rather than dismissing empathy, we should embrace it wisely—using it as a bridge rather than a barrier to truth.

Venmo: @reformedfaithinsights

The Law and the Gospel: The Fulfillment of Justice and Love in Christ

Humanity stands before a holy God with a deep and undeniable need—a need that can only be fulfilled in Christ. The law of God, given as a revelation of His perfect righteousness, serves as both a mirror and a tutor. It reveals the standard of divine perfection and, at the same time, exposes the depths of our sin and inability to meet it. The law is not merely a set of external rules, but a revelation of God’s holy character, which convicts our hearts, minds, and souls.

The Law: A Mirror to the Soul

When God gave the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), He was not just giving behavioral guidelines, but revealing the perfect moral standard by which all humanity would be judged. The law goes beyond external actions and reaches into the very thoughts and intentions of the heart. Jesus affirmed this when He said:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” (Matthew 5:21-22)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)

The law is spiritual. It does not merely prohibit outward sins but judges the very thoughts and inclinations of the heart. The Apostle Paul himself, once a proud Pharisee, came to understand the crushing weight of the law when he wrote:

“Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” (Romans 7:7)

God’s law is relentless. It does not allow us to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves to others or by pointing to our good deeds. It condemns everyone under sin:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

The Gospel: Love and Justice Fulfilled in Christ

If the law shows us our guilt, then the Gospel shows us our hope. The law demands righteousness, and where we fail, it demands justice. Yet God, in His infinite mercy, did not leave us to perish under the weight of our guilt. Instead, He provided a way—a way that both satisfies justice and demonstrates the greatest love imaginable.

At the heart of the Gospel is the person and work of Jesus Christ. He did what no one else could do: He lived a perfect, sinless life, completely fulfilling the demands of the law (Matthew 5:17). And yet, in love, He willingly took upon Himself the punishment that we deserved.

“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

At the cross, divine justice and divine love met. The justice of God demanded that sin be punished, but the love of God provided a substitute—Jesus Christ, the righteous one.

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Christ bore the wrath of God, satisfying the demands of divine justice so that we, guilty sinners, might be reconciled to the Father. The full penalty of sin was paid:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'” (Galatians 3:13)

Yet the story does not end with the cross. Jesus – bodily – rose from the grave, demonstrating that His sacrifice was accepted and that death had been defeated (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Now, through Him, we are invited to come home to the Father, not as condemned sinners, but as beloved children.

The Call: Come to Christ

The Gospel is not merely an abstract truth—it is an invitation. It calls for a response. Jesus’ arms are open to all who will come:

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

There is no sin too great, no heart too hardened, that He cannot redeem. The blood of Christ cleanses all who repent and believe in Him:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)

How, then, shall we respond? The Bible is clear:

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

There is no work you must perform, no penance you must endure. Salvation is a free gift:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Today, the invitation stands. The Father calls you home. Christ has paid the price. Justice has been satisfied. Love has been displayed.

Will you turn from your sin and trust in Christ? Will you surrender your life to Him as Lord and Savior? There is no greater decision, no greater joy, and no greater assurance than to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. Come to Him today.

Venmo: @reformedfaithinsights

Effective Christian Evangelism: How to Share Your Faith with Confidence and Compassion

Evangelism is one of the core callings of every Christian. In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus commands us to “go and make disciples of all nations.” Yet, many believers hesitate when it comes to sharing their faith. Why? Because evangelism can feel like a confrontation—especially in today’s world, where religion is a sensitive topic.

However, what if evangelism wasn’t about convincing others but about understanding them? What if, instead of pressuring people to agree with us, we asked questions that led them to discover the truth for themselves?

This is where “No-centered” questioning from Jim Camp’s Start With No and Nonviolent Communication (NVC) from Marshall Rosenberg can revolutionize the way we share the gospel. These principles help us communicate without pressure, without defensiveness, and with true empathy—just as Jesus did.

1. The Problem with Traditional Evangelism

Many Christians approach evangelism as a sales pitch:

  • We present arguments.
  • We try to “win” the conversation.
  • We push for a conversion moment.

While well-intended, this approach often puts non-believers on the defensive. No one likes to feel pressured or manipulated into belief. Instead, we should engage with people in a way that invites curiosity rather than resistance.

Jim Camp’s Start With No provides a better approach: instead of persuading, we lead with questions that empower the other person to discover the truth themselves.

2. Why “No” is the First Step to Yes

Most people fear rejection in evangelism, but Jim Camp teaches that “No” is a powerful word. Why? Because people feel safe when they have the freedom to say no.

A non-believer’s first instinct when hearing about Jesus might be to resist. That’s okay! Instead of pushing back, we can embrace their skepticism.

Try This Approach:

  • Instead of asking: “Would you like to learn more about Jesus?” (which invites a forced “yes”),
  • Ask: “Would you be against having an honest conversation about faith?”

Notice the difference?

  • The second question allows them to say no, which lowers their defenses.
  • It shows respect for their autonomy, which builds trust.
  • It turns evangelism into a dialogue rather than a sales pitch.

By creating a safe environment, we open the door for deeper conversations.

3. Asking Interrogative-Led Questions to Reveal the Gospel

Instead of lecturing people about God, we should ask thoughtful, open-ended questions that make them think. Jesus often taught this way.

🔹 Example from Jesus: When a rich young ruler asked how to inherit eternal life, Jesus responded with a question: “Why do you call me good?” (Mark 10:18). This forced the man to reflect on who Jesus truly was.

We can do the same with non-believers today:

Key Evangelistic Questions

  1. “Would you be against discussing how people find purpose in life?”
    • This invites a deep conversation without pressuring them into a religious debate.
  2. “What do you think happens after we die?”
    • This question encourages reflection on the afterlife, leading naturally to the gospel.
  3. “If there was a God, what would He have to be like for you to believe in Him?”
    • This helps uncover barriers to belief and allows for meaningful discussion.
  4. “Would it be crazy to consider that Jesus might be different from what you’ve heard?”
    • This challenges misconceptions about Christianity in a non-threatening way.

By leading with questions rather than statements, we draw people toward the truth instead of pushing them away.

4. The Role of Empathy in Evangelism

Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication (NVC) teaches that people resist ideas when they feel unheard. If we want to reach people, we must first understand their fears, doubts, and experiences.

🔹 How Jesus Modeled Empathy:

  • In John 4, when Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, He didn’t immediately tell her she was a sinner.
  • Instead, He listened to her, acknowledged her life struggles, and met her where she was.
  • This openness led to her transformation.

How to Show Empathy in Evangelism

✅ Listen before speaking

  • When someone expresses doubts, don’t argue. Instead, say:
    • “That’s really interesting. Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?”
  • This shows you care about their perspective, not just about proving them wrong.

✅ Acknowledge their emotions

  • If someone had a bad experience with Christianity, instead of defending the church, say:
    • “I’m so sorry you went through that. I can see why that would make you skeptical.”
  • Validating feelings builds trust and openness.

✅ Find common ground

  • If they value justice, connect that to God’s justice.
  • If they seek love, show them how God’s love is different from the world’s love.

When people feel heard and understood, they’re more open to hearing the truth of the gospel.

5. The Power of Leaving the Door Open

Not every conversation will lead to an immediate decision for Christ. And that’s okay. Our job isn’t to convert—it’s to plant seeds.

Jim Camp’s Start With No teaches that when people feel pressured, they shut down. Instead of forcing a conclusion, we should give them space to process.

End the Conversation with an Open Invitation

🔹 Instead of: “You need to make a decision about Jesus today.”
🔹 Say: “Would it be absolutely out of the question for you to consider what we talked about today?”

By giving them control, we respect their autonomy while leaving the door open for future discussions.

6. Trusting God with the Results

Ultimately, evangelism isn’t about having the perfect argument. It’s about faithfully sharing the gospel with love and wisdom.

Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 3:6-7:
“I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.”

  • Our role is to plant seeds through thoughtful questions and compassionate dialogue.
  • The Holy Spirit does the work of convicting hearts and leading people to Christ.
  • Even if we don’t see immediate results, our efforts are never wasted.

Conclusion: Evangelism that Invites, Not Pushes

By combining No-centered questioning, open-ended evangelistic dialogue, and empathetic communication, we can share the gospel in a way that is:
✅ Non-threatening
✅ Engaging
✅ Respectful
✅ Spirit-led

This method allows people to wrestle with the truth on their own terms, just as Jesus often allowed seekers to do.

If you want to share your faith effectively, don’t fear rejection. Instead, trust that each conversation—whether big or small—is part of God’s greater plan.

So, the next time you talk to a non-believer, ask yourself: Am I here to win an argument, or am I here to help them discover the truth?

The answer will change the way you evangelize forever.

Venmo: @reformedfaithinsights