If we have no hunger for the word of God, and when we try to feed upon it, it is like ashes in our mouths, we are in trouble. If we can find more joy in an obscene Netflix series than a time of prayer and Bible reading, something is seriously amiss with our spiritual condition.

Many people think they have peace with God. Instead, their inner peace flows from a deceptive heart. There is a peace that passes all understanding, and it is one of the most blessed aspects of the Christian life. The foundation of this peace is the cross of Jesus, where our sins find forgiveness, and the wrath of God is satisfied. The moment we trust in the atoning work of Christ, we are at peace with God objectively. From there, that truth begins to give us peace subjectively as God sheds his love abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5).
The problem is many people believe they are at peace with God, but because of their sins, they are still at enmity with him. Though they experience no distress at the thought of God, it is not the peace of Christ they are experiencing. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Here are six telltale signs of a deceptive inner peace.
1. Peace Without Joy in Jesus
If you find yourself at peace about your spiritual state before the Lord, but there is no joy in Christ Jesus, you are experiencing the ease of a deceitful heart. Jesus is the only source of peace with God. Our enmity with God is the result of our sinfulness, and only Jesus and his work on the cross can save us. Jesus is the only source of peace with God, and if we think we have peace but do not rejoice in him, we are deceiving ourselves.
2. Trusting in our Own Merit
We do not have peace with God when we think God approves of us because of our character or good deeds. This confidence in our goodness is a sure sign that we are experiencing the calm of a spiritually dead soul. Even if we claim the merits of the blood of Jesus but believe our justification in Christ is a mixture of his death and our works, scripture says we are lost.
Read More
Related Posts:

Jennie’s team of female missionaries also set up centers for the elderly and a vocational school to prepare the orphaned girls to find occupations (at a time when education for women was limited in China).  At the same time, Timothy Richard held regular worship services and trained the boys. The center taught the women to sew, embroider, spin wool, and braid straw. While they worked, the women were encouraged to discuss the “wordless book” first created by C. H. Spurgeon.

In 1875, a serious drought in the north of China gave way to a dreadful four-year famine, with millions of deaths and a huge migration of people. Most casualties were in the province of Shanxi (an estimated 5.5 million deaths in four years). Timothy Richard, a Welsh Baptist missionary who had opened an orphanage in the area, wrote the renowned Hudson Taylor asking for some female missionaries to run it.
Brave Women
Taylor had a reputation for sending single female missionaries at a time when the concept was largely criticized. At this time, he was in England, nursing his failing health. After discussing this with his second wife, Jennie Faulding, she offered to go while he stayed in England with their children. She left with two single women, Anna Crickmay and Celia Horne. Anna and Celia were the first unmarried western women to go as missionaries into deep inland China.
Their courage was typical of female missionaries in China. Taylor’s first wife, Maria Dyer, had fought off a group of rioters in their home by stopping the hand of a murderer, grabbing and dragging into the house a man who had tried to throw a missionary off the roof, and then jumping off a fifteen-foot-high window to save her life. All this, while being six months pregnant. About ten years earlier, she had escaped from the same window by a rope on the day before she gave birth to her first daughter.
One of her predecessors, Mary Ann Aldersey (the first single woman missionary in China), helped two girls to escape their persecuting families by smuggling them out of their country.
The stories of these strong women could make for an exciting action movie. I might describe them more carefully in other articles. Here, however, I will focus on the work of Jennie Faulding.
Moving to China
Born in 1843 in London, Jennie graduated in 1865 from the Home and Colonial Training College. Graduating with her was her inseparable friend of thirteen years, Emily Blatchley. The same year, Jennie and Emily met Hudson and Maria Dyer Taylor at a prayer meeting. Deeply moved by the Taylors’ appeal for more missionaries, the young women continued to attend their meetings. By October, Emily had moved in with the Taylors as Hudson’s secretary and governess for their children: Grace, Herbert, Frederick, and Samuel.
In 1866, Jennie and Emily joined a group of volunteers in accompanying the Taylors back to China. Emily’s parents, who didn’t profess to be believers, didn’t have any objections, while Jennie’s father, a long-time supporter of Hudson, was hard to convince. The team finally left in May the same year, on the Lammermuir.
Once the ship arrived, all the missionaries dressed in Chinese clothes (the men even wore a fake braid, with the intent of letting their hair grow). This raised outraged objections from missionaries who found their attire unnecessary and demeaning, as well as a compromise with an idolatrous culture.
But Jennie soon discovered what Hudson had believed from the start: wearing Chinese clothes fostered acceptance and removed unnecessary obstacles. “If I had on English clothes,” she said, “the [Chinese] women would at first be afraid of me and, if I succeeded in winning their confidence, my dress would be the one subject of their thoughts.”[1]
Read More
Related Posts:

In his book, ‘The Beauty of the Lord’, Jonathan King makes a wonderful case that Beauty can be properly identified as a synonym for the glory of God. The implication is that Beauty is a divine attribute. King mentions such passages as Psalm 27:4; 96:6; and 145:5,12 which portray images of the crown, kingdom, and sanctuary of the Lord. These passages directly link to the theological concepts of God’s sovereignty and the kingship of Christ. This connection between the glory of God and Beauty is important because it generates a category for us to objectively evaluate whether something is beautiful or ugly.

Technology shapes the character of our everyday lives. Without it, we would have great difficulty getting to work, having our morning cup of coffee, and reading this article. My problem with technology is not that we have it, but that we have allowed it to shape our lives in a way that we barely recognize. What I mean is that technology is no longer a means of Godly stewardship, but that it now establishes its own worldview. 
The technological worldview urges us to buy, build, trade, and relate with the world in a way that resembles a vending machine. I put x in and out comes y. For example, many people go to work not because they know that it will stimulate the economy by producing valuable goods and services, but rather because it will give them a paycheck. Perhaps another example: the contemporary evangelical scene sees people attending church either because of the spiritual experience or to manipulate God by doing their Christian duty. In an extreme example, one could think of the use of pornography in American culture. Such a phenomenon arises out of a technological impulse that demands ease of access to something that—in a God ordered society—takes time, commitment, and genuine relationship to obtain. 
In a word, the technological worldview is bland. It’s ugly; and it’s ugly for some very specific reasons. My point in this article is to show that the only antidote to the technological worldview is a return to the classical and protestant vision of Beauty. 
Art, Technology, and Idolatry
At the outset, I want to make it clear that when I am discussing technology, I do not necessarily mean technological tools. These are things that can be genuinely useful and fall in line with the biblical notion of stewardship. I readily admit that technological tools have a place in God’s world, but it is the worldview behind the creation of tools that we ought to question. 
As I mentioned above, the technological worldview is ugly and in light of statements about beauty and ugliness it’s appropriate to turn to the topic of art. While art can certainly ascend to true beauty, there is an inherent danger in the human pursuit and use of it. In fact, it is the dangerous temptation that art poses to humanity that has aided in the development of the technological worldview. Technology has emerged out of a desire to reach the highest of human potential. While this aspiration is not entirely bad—think of all the lovely devices that you and I use to our genuine benefit—it has also caused us to become extremely self-centered and goal oriented. 
It is for this reason that I have taken to calling the technological worldview “the idol of the self.” This idolatry arises in the sphere of art as well. In his work of public theology, Abraham Kuyper writes about art and its dominion over humanity. While he does not directly correlate his work on art with technology, a retrospective eye sees the point clearly. He argues that, 
The human race cannot exist without a king. Once it has closed its eyes to the glory of Jesus’ kingship, the presence of sin could mean only one thing: humanity would proclaim itself king over nature, the world, and all of human life…what sets the tone and acts as the instrument for the new enthroned-humanities dominion is art, and it is through art that modern life attempts to satisfy its thirst for the ideal.1
Here we can see that the sphere of art and the sphere of technology occupy the same space. They both seek to “satisfy the thirst for the ideal.” By observing Kuyper’s further remarks, we notice an even stronger correlation between the two. He writes, “What art and religion have in common is that they depend on inspiration.”2 Here, Kuyper exposits the defining feature of art, religion, and technology. Even though he does not mention technology, its origin and the arts’ have a strong correlation. 
Both technology and its devices are derived from inspiration. This claim is rather obvious in regard to devices as they require an inventive mind to create them, but technology’s inspiration may not be so clear. Technology, unlike its subsequent devices, relies on inspiration not as a process, but as a fountainhead. The technological worldview presupposes inspiration by inventors, scientists, and the like in order to fuel their creation of inspired art: their devices. Thus, technology is not a virtueless endeavor, as it rises from human creativity to taking the place of religion as the inspired worldview. 
Herein lies the root of the problem. The technological worldview is a form of idolatry. Art, technology, and religion always derive their inspiration from the divine, but that “does not mean that art—or technology—itself acknowledges and recognizes this circumstance.” In its purest form, the quest for technological tools is not an unworthy pursuit in the realm of God’s created order. However, as Craig Gay notes in his work on Christian interaction with technology, it is an abandonment of the Christian worldview that drove the technological worldview into its idolized position.3 
When the technological worldview takes root in a society, it takes on the role of divinity. No longer is technological progress achieved in light of God’s inspiration, but technology itself becomes the inspiration for human creativity. In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes, “whenever scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to divinity be applied to any other.”4 In North America, the technological worldview is widely assumed and left unquestioned. The problem with this disposition is that it passively allows technology to take on the role of inspirator, where the bible attributes inspiration to God alone. It is, therefore, idolatrous. 
Read More
Related Posts: