Repenting of sin to fellow believers affirms the gospel and releases the power of the Spirit in your life and calling. This is a very tangible picture of how Jesus changes our hearts. If you want to experience this, consider what you need to repent of and who you need to repent to.

Have you ever had a distinct experience of the power and presence of God in your life? Scripture promises that the Holy Spirit has been given to us (Isa. 59:21; Luke 11:13; John 14:16–20), and we experience this promise in many ways. Think of a sermon that moved you to great thankfulness or to tears of conviction. Think of a “chance” encounter or text message when a brother or sister in the Lord shared a verse with you at a very specific time in your life. Think of a time of communion around the Lord’s Table or a time of praise when you’ve felt so loved by Christ and so cared for by His people. Maybe you’ve been praying for an issue to change or a mission to fulfill, and God has answered those prayers, perhaps even against all human expectation.

Yes, we are thankful for those and so many other evidences and experiences of our Father’s good grace to His children through Christ’s Spirit.
But I want to challenge you to embrace a biblical calling that, if applied, will lead to a great experience of God’s presence in your life and in the life of your fellowship. This is the call to repent of your sin.
Of course, we repent and follow Jesus when we commit to the Lord in faith. The Greek word metanoia literally means “about turn” (Acts 8:22). We are walking in darkness and in sin. We are convicted by the Spirit of Christ about our lifestyle. We “about turn” and march away from the sinful path and toward the life of righteousness. But this call to repent is more than the start of the Christian walk. It is the whole of our Christian lives. Calvin says: “The exercise of repentance ought to be uninterrupted throughout our whole life.”1
Read More

“California has no such power to determine whether churches are ‘essential,’ as the federal and state constitutions have already done so,” argued the lawsuit, in part. “Grace Community Church provides a spiritual service to the Los Angeles community that its congregation and its members rightly believe is essential, and the California State Constitution specifically protects their fundamental rights in this context.”

The state of California and Los Angeles have agreed to pay $800,000 in legal fees to settle their lawsuit with John MacArthur’s church over COVID-19 lockdown rules.
MacArthur’s Grace Community Church of Sun Valley had been involved in months of legal battles with state and local officials over his refusal to adhere to ongoing lockdown restrictions.
Jenna Ellis of the Thomas More Society, who helped to represent the church, posted a statement on Twitter Tuesday celebrating the $800,000 settlement.
“We are very pleased to see Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community Church’s First Amendment protections fully vindicated in this case,” read the statement.
“It has been a hard-fought battle to preserve religious liberty and we hope that this result will encourage Californians, and all Americans, to continue to stand firm that church is essential.”
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agreed to the settlement (its amount being $400,000) due in part to recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that overturned various public health measures in response to COVID-19 that specifically targeted houses of worship.
“After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some public health safety measures could not apply to houses of worship, resolving this litigation is the responsible and appropriate thing to do,” stated the county’s counsel, as quoted by the Los Angeles Daily News.
“From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Los Angeles County has been committed to protecting the health and safety of its residents. We are grateful to the county’s faith organizations for their continued partnership to keep their congregants and the entire community safe and protected from COVID-19.”
Last August, MacArthur and his church sued California over its ongoing ban on indoor worship services in response to the coronavirus.
Although Grace Community Church had initially adhered to the state lockdown rules, they returned to in-person worships in defiance of the state’s ongoing public health orders.
Read More

Other have spoken of the dangers of “mission creep” in the church. In other words, the church loses sight of its main gospel objective and thereby becomes ineffective. Is the focus on race “mission creep”? In the case of the PCA it certainly is. This sin has been clarified and condemned, and it is not controversial in the PCA. However, the PCA’s continued discussion on alleged acts of racism in or outside the church, outside of the actions of the discipline of the church, fosters an “us” and “them” mentality in the church based on race.

“Therefore my appeal is that the PCA re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.”
Moving Past the Issue
This series began by addressing three diagnostic questions as to where the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is in relation to racial sin. It is necessary to ask these due to considerable attention given to the issue of race in the denomination over the last number of years. These questions are:

Has the PCA made a clear and thorough declaration on the sin of racism?
Are there any new or extraordinary manifestation of this sin rearing its head in society or the PCA that would warrant additional teaching from God’s word?
Is the PCA neglecting shepherding of private or public unrepentant sins in this regard that should be addressed by church courts?

The first question is answered here; the second here; the third here. The fourth article is here. By way of summary, the PCA’s condemnation of racial sin is abundantly clear. There are no circumstances that justify revisiting previous statements. And as there are no appeals or complaints regarding racial sin moving up through the courts of the church, it is fair to assume that such sins are being effectively handled at a local level. For these reasons, the appeal of this series is that the PCA re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.
Other have spoken of the dangers of “mission creep” in the church. In other words, the church loses sight of its main gospel objective and thereby becomes ineffective. Is the focus on race “mission creep”? In the case of the PCA it certainly is. This sin has been clarified and condemned, and it is not controversial in the PCA. However, the PCA’s continued discussion on alleged acts of racism in or outside the church, outside of the actions of the discipline of the church, fosters an “us” and “them” mentality in the church based on race. Yet the church is one body (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:20; Eph. 4:4; Col. 3:15).
At the last General Assembly (GA) there was talk of majority and minority cultures, designations of “you” and “us” along ethnic lines, and justifications for public repentance in the PCA based on news reports from secular outlets. The language of majority/minority culture is foreign to God’s word. The Bible does not recognize the validity of “you” and “us” statements of difference in the body of Christ. These statements are derived from the philosophy of man.
In Fault Lines, Voddie Baucham critiques the social justice movement, especially as it appears in the church. In it he quotes a definition of Critical Race Theory (CRT) from the pen of one of its proponents: “CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture.”[1] Those are exactly the sentiments communicated through the language of majority/minority culture, or the “you” and “us” statements made during floor debate. Intentional or not, these terms reflect CRT and imports them into the PCA.
The notions of majority and minority culture seem to be driving the distinctions drawn in the PCA. However, when the Bible deals with differences in the church, they are not based on ethnicity as much as covenantal standing: Jew and Gentile. Certainly, ethnicity cannot be separated from that discussion, but it is accidental. The biblical point is always the inclusion of gentiles into the family of Abraham. But, for example, discussing Asians as a minority culture in a mostly Caucasian denomination divides up the Gentiles. The PCA is populated, by and large, by Gentiles. There are Gentiles with a variety of skin colors, but the PCA is mostly Gentile. All of the Gentiles have been grafted into the family of Abraham, have become the spiritual Israel. In Scripture there is no talk of a majority vs. minority culture. There are only sons of Abraham by faith. To speak of majority and minority cultures in the church is to deny 1 Cor. 12:12-13: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” The PCA must stop speaking of and championing the different ethnic varieties of Gentiles in the body of Christ, and return to being ambassadors of the whole of the Bride of Christ. So how is that done?
Color Blindness
First, the PCA must become “color blind.” Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Morgan Freeman (by no means a conservative, reformed theologian as far as I know) when asked about racial division in an interview with Mike Wallace stated the solution to racial difference was to stop talking about it. Wallace asked him, “How are we going to get rid of racism until…” Mr. Freeman cuts him off and says, “Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man, and I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman.”[2] In other words, treat each other as people. This sentiment is even more compelling for Christians who have a  theological reason for it. The church should treat anyone according to the biblical understanding of man as created in the image of God, no matter where he was born or what his status is (James 2:1-4). But I have been told that color blindness is not possible. I disagree. It is possible, and it should be pursued.
My father grew up in Charlotte, NC during the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. He grew up with segregated water fountains. Fast forward to the 70’s when he moved his family to the Netherlands. Our family lived in a “diverse” neighborhood, and one of my friends was Jairaj. His skin was not pasty white like mine. In the course of our “friendship”, Jairaj stole every penny from my piggy bank. However, while walking me through this betrayal my father never once mentioned ethnicity. My father explained Jairaj was not to be trusted because he was a thief, and never mentioned that he was East Indian. His ethnicity had nothing to do with it. In one generation, and through the gospel, my father had learned to look at character and not color. That change transformed his family into a place where Christian friends from Australia, South Korea, Japan, Ghana, the Netherlands, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa,  Mexico and other places would regularly be welcomed. There was no discussion about majority or minority culture. Sure, there were some things they did that we thought was weird, just as some of the things we did seemed weird to them. Certainly there were cultural differences, but the thing that united was a common love for God in Christ and a desire to worship Him. That is where the PCA must land.
Living as One Body
Second, the PCA must intentionally and uncompromisingly live as one body. There are different members with different functions, but they make up one body. Unity is lived out through word and deed. That is the reason why the language of majority or minority cultures is so damaging. The task of the body of Christ is with one voice to bear witness to His works of creation and redemption. That work is accomplished through people fulfilling different tasks as hands and feet of the body. However, the discussion is not around what color the hands and feet may be. It is rather to mobilize all the different parts of the body to be faithful in carrying out the Great Commission of evangelizing and discipling.
At the 48th General Assembly, I spoke to a brother about overture 45, which sought the flourishing of Asian Americans. There was a significant difference in opinion about the value of that request from Metro Atlanta Presbytery. In the conversation he stressed the pain of a minority culture (in this case Asian Americans) living in a majority culture. At the time I didn’t have time to process through what he said, but the more I thought about it, the more the terminology bothered me.
The point is not that there is no pain in the Asian-American community. I would expect there is. The problem is the shift in discussing pain in terms of ethnicity rather than the sin and misery that is in the world through the fall. There should be no surprise that there is pain among Asian Americans, just as there is in black, white community, and Indian communities. All communities, also those marked by racial diversity, suffer pain because all communities are affected by sin. Sin causes pain and all face the pain of sin in their day because they live after the fall. The body of Christ is unified as it realizes that all have been rescued from eternal pain through the work of Christ as a substitute on the cross. And this truth must be championed.
Commitment to Truth
Lastly, the PCA must be committed to biblical truth as its unifying principle. Instead of making statements about the pain of one ethnic group over against another, the task of the church is to speak primarily of the singular solution to that pain: the Lord Jesus X. The world’s comfort from pain is found in Him. Unity is not found in easy-to-make declarations. They cost very little, especially when there is as much agreement on the topic as there is in the PCA. But sharing the gospel in the world, practicing hospitality generously, and encouraging each other toward love and good works in the church is the hard work of building unity and love in the church. The unity of the human race is based in its original creation (Genesis 1:28), and the Gospel is the message that restores the unity that has been lost by sin.[3]
So please, my brothers, let us be done with discussions on race at the General Assembly. If there are sins of that nature in our denomination, they should be addressed through formal process in the courts. The PCA cannot allow the hot topics of the world to become the cause for “mission creep.” Instead, the PCA must re-focus on the gospel ministry of the church and make that its declaration rather than repeatedly making statements on race and its related issues.
It is my prayer this appeal will be received in the brotherly spirit in which it was written. It is meant to be an appeal. I pray that the Lord will use it for building the unity of His body.
Geoff Gleason is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Cliffwood PCA in Augusta, Ga. This article is used with permission.

[1] Voddie Baucham, Fault Lines, (Salem Books, Washington, D.C.: 2021), p. xv.
[2] YouTube, Morgan Freeman on Black History Month, n.d. (accessed August 2, 2021), https://youtu.be/GeixtYS-P3s.
[3] Pastoral Letter on Racism, p. 6.

Written by Anthony J. DeBlasi |
Friday, September 3, 2021
What surprise can there be that churches have been shut down, burned, their icons wrecked, their congregants scattered, demonized, and persecuted, their leaders pressured to turn against their own religion and their own church? Could it possibly be that Christ and His church still, after 2000 years, are mortal enemies not of the state but of malfeasance at top levels of society and government? Is it why they were never excluded from public affairs by the founders of the United States of America?

Whenever false liberals and allied progressives were cornered with the facts about their de facto subversion of Christianity (this was before “woke times”) they countered with egalitarian clichés like “who is to say” and “opinions are equal.” The Christians-in-Name-Only (CINOs) among them agreed. Now, from the ramparts of the wall they erected between church and state, “liberals,” “progressives,” and the fully brainwashed shoot down everyone who dares challenge their rant against Judeo-Christian teaching.
Christ spoke and the church was formed; so much for “who is to say” regarding Christianity. It was He and His apostles who had the say, meaning that whoever would be Christian either follow or not follow Christ and His church and accept the consequences of that choice. The teachings of Christ and His church are the backbones of Christianity, hence a firm Gospel for true Christians.
As for the notion that opinions are all equal, it must be pointed out that if all opinions were equal, no opinion would be worth taking seriously. Comparing the opinion of one who is addicted to drugs to the opinion of one who is unaddicted or comparing the opinion of a mentally ill person to that of a mentally well person indicates the flaw in the alleged equation. “Equality of opinions” is a fallacious notion. I touched on extreme cases to suggest the immense range of inequalities in judgment among people, including professionals and experts in their respective fields.
Big deal? In a democracy, where issues are settled by a vote of the majority, this is a huge deal. Cutting to the quick: Can a majority of voters be wrong? The honest answer, yes, resonates with Christians, remembering that a majority voted to crucify Christ.
The tendency of majoritarian rule toward mob rule by vote alerted America’s founders to configure a system of government that would make it hard for any faction to dominate and take control. The prerequisite for prior open and rigorous debate, followed by responsible action, was taken as self-evident. The “checks-and-balances” system of government crafted by the architects of the American government is intended to maximize cooperation and minimize selfish interests in the governance of the nation.
In a chronically wicked world, as proven over and over again in history, wisdom is not a luxury but a necessity. That is why morality must inform the conduct of government and why the founders of this nation did not exclude Providential wisdom from the conduct of government.
Read More

The real freedom that we have is freedom within the bounds of the law of God to honor it as a way of gratitude. People today are making the assumption that freedom is freedom to live outside the law of God. Simply put, “If you come to us, we won’t require anything of you.” We need to properly define legalism as putting a yoke over people for their justification before God, in addition to faith in Christ.

What is legalism? The charge of legalism is so carelessly flung around today that people have no idea what the term means. It’s become a catch phrase to write off any teaching of God’s moral law.
There are three ways this term is being misapplied and abused to attack churches that have remained confessionally Protestant.
First, churches that are serious today are characterized as legalistic. In fact, any church that is serious or formal anymore will “stand out like an organ stop” (quoting David Wells) and be labeled as those who are joyless and legalistic. People are equating legalism with formality, as if freedom means casualness before God. I’m reminded of the Lord’s complaint against Israel,
For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge.” (Jer 4:22)
Just before Israel’s impending judgment for apostasy, the Lord tells us that the worship became full of sheer “silliness.” No word could better capture the feel of today’s worship than silliness. We have forgotten the Lord’s warning, “By those who come near to me, I must be regarded as holy.”
Second, legalism is being carelessly used to attack people’s liberty. I have noticed the reverse problem of striking at a brother’s liberty because he wants to, for example, offer his first-fruits in the way that he dresses or looks. “They make all their people dress a certain way at that church.” Broad characterizations and generalizations are made this way and lumped together as a “legalistic” when, in fact, practices of people are often birthed out of genuine gratitude for the grace given. In other words, marketing mega-churches keep kicking the traditional churches as legalistic in matters of Christian liberty—they wear ties, they sing out of a song book, etc.
Third, and most dangerous, the charge of legalism is made against those who are sincerely trying to honor the law of God out of gratitude. Now none of these people would advocate that Christians should murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.; but when a Christian wants to, for instance, keep the second commandment and not make images or have icons for worship, since it is expressly condemned in that commandment, well, that is now said to be legalistic. If someone says, “I want to honor the fourth commandment and keep the Sabbath day holy” this is the kind of stuff being labeled as legalistic, when in fact, it is a law of God.
Read More

If the Ontario government mandates vaccine passports, they would not just be betraying our fundamental freedoms—they would be betraying their own words about systemic racism.

During the George Floyd protests last year, Canadian politicians said they believe black lives matter.
Since then, however—Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government have introduced vaccine passports for federal workers that marginalize black lives.
And now Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, is considering vaccine passports for Ontario. If Doug Ford mandates vaccine passports, he would also be marginalizing and segregating black people.
Do black lives still matter? Justin Trudeau has already affirmed that everything he said about systemic racism last year was a lie.
Doug Ford, however, has an opportunity to answer that question differently. Is everything he said about systemic racism last year a lie? Does he really oppose policies that create racial disparities? Is he really an ally to marginalized groups in Ontario? Do black lives still matter to Doug Ford?
A survey from earlier this summer reveals that black Canadians are the most unwilling group in Canada to get the vaccine. Particularly, black Ontarians make up nearly 60% of the black Canadians sampled in the survey.
The report from the survey says:
“At the time of this survey, a 20-point gap existed among those who received at least one vaccine between White Canadians (65%) and Black Canadians (45%).”
Some of the unvaccinated black Canadians include me, many of my relatives, and many of my friends. We are not “anti-vaxxers”, we’re just informed and responsible Ontarians practising our freedom of conscience. Many of us are immigrants who moved to this great nation because Canada promised to protect our fundamental freedoms.
Today, however, we’re being coerced and pressured into acting against our conscience. Many of us, including me—have decided we will not get the vaccine, at all costs. So many black people are prepared to be segregated and marginalized—again.
Read More

Written by R. Scott Clark |
Friday, September 3, 2021
Ministry is not an exercise of power. It is fundamentally service. It is the opposite of lording it over. The imagery here is not that of glass towers full of the powerful but of the Suffering Servant girding himself with a towel and washing his disciples’ feet (John 13;12).

It is an old habit but on Mondays I often reflect on the nature of pastoral ministry and the challenges pastors face.In truth, Monday is the second day of the week but for pastors everything leads up to the Lord’s Day. All their prayers and preparations have been pointing toward Sundays. For them it is the culmination of the week. On Mondays they naturally reflect on what happened and on how it went.
Background and Bona Fides
Yesterday and this morning I have been thinking about the church-growth movement in light of what the New Testament says (and illustrates) about ministry. When I was first introduced to the church-growth school of thought, in seminary, I reacted against it but after I was called as young seminary graduate, as an assistant pastor, to a small, near-urban congregation nine minutes north of downtown Kansas City, Missouri my new duties required me to give the church-growth school another look. Perhaps I had been too negative toward the church-growth movement? Perhaps I needed to be more open-minded? For most of six years I tried to learn what I could from the movement. I studied and practiced evangelism. We expanded the diaconal ministry per Tim Keller’s Jericho Road. We tried, within our limits, to implement The Phone’s For You (™) to capitalize on “the law of large numbers,” and Evangelism Explosion (™). I became an EE trainer and taught classes to the congregation and to young people who traveled from across the Plains to Kansas City in the summers for two weeks of ministry and fun. The CRC had SWIM. The OPC had SAIL. We called it Project Jericho. We were going to march around the city, as it were, until the walls fell. Weather permitting (and even when it did not) we stood in parking lots and evangelized. We made fliers for the local St Patrick’s Day parade calling attention to St Patrick’s Christian faith. The ink was not set and my tan gloves turned green. We knocked on doors. I preached in the City Mission. We recorded radio programs and commercials. I imitated Denny Prutow’s idea of a telephone answering machine with a gospel message. We advertised the number in the classified ads in the newspaper (the Craig’s List of its day). I recited that phone number so often that, 30 years later, I can still recite it in my sleep. We sent out hundreds of newsletters each month in hopes of connecting with people and attracting new members. We mailed out evangelistic audio cassettes (think podcasts). We held car washes to raise money for the local shelter for unwed mothers (as an alternative to abortion). Some of us picketed the abortion mill in Johnson County, KS and even the local hospital. I pushed to revise the liturgy and the music to make the church more “seeker-sensitive” and “contemporary.” We became a busy church. Like the Apostle Paul, “I am talking like a madman” (2 Cor 11:23; ESV) in order to say that I am not taking potshots from the sidelines. I gave the church-growth program a fair try.
One day, in passing, one of the young people in my congregation said something to me like this, “You spend all your time and energy trying to reach outsiders but you don’t seem to think about us very much.” That stung but she had a point. I worked hard on my sermons, Sunday School lessons, Bible studies, and catechism classes but I was very much oriented to church growth. I was not very much oriented to what I now understand to be be an ordained means of grace approach to ministry.
For all that I learned and tried one aspect of the church-growth movement, perhaps the most fundamental aspect, always made me uneasy and makes me uneasy to this day: the church-growth model was a theology of glory and it turned ministers, who should be theologians of the cross, into theologians of glory. The selling point of the various methods and mentalities was numerical success: look at this congregation.
Read More

If politicians and public health officials want more people to trust them, they would do better to try to refute opposing arguments rather than arrogantly dismiss them as “misinformation.” In spite of concerted efforts by civil leaders, public health officials, big media, and big tech to silence dissent during this pandemic, there have been a number of scientists who have contended that the prolonged use of government-imposed NPIs in a pandemic does far more harm than good. 

Framing Everything in Life as a Matter of Empirical Science Disregards the Immaterial and Transcendent Aspects of Human Existence, Succumbs to the Illusion of Control, Enthrones Experts, and Leads to Tyranny.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, one of the many repeated mantras has been that we need to “follow the science” when determining the public policy response to this highly infectious disease. While many have welcomed this assertion, it has not been without its critics. For example, one writer points out the danger to such an approach by noting the following:
As President Dwight Eisenhower said in his 1961 farewell address, public policy can ‘become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,’ which by nature lacks the temperament and broad thinking necessary to steer a democratic society. Instead, this elite’s conceptual blindspots and ignorance of broader human and spiritual concerns mean it is likely to steer us into the ditch of never-ending lockdown cycles to ‘slow the spread’ of a virus that is demonstrably uncontainable by governments and their edicts.
Similarly, former Bureau of Justice Statistics director Jeffrey Anderson argues that, while public health officials now play a prominent role in our governance, such people do not make for good rulers because “it is in the nature of their art to focus on the body in lieu of higher concerns,” and because they “are naturally enthusiastic about public health interventions.”
He adds,
Their guiding light is the avoidance of risk — narrowly defined as the risk of becoming sick or dying. The risk of stifling, enervating, or devitalizing human society is not even part of their calculation. Under their influence, America has been conducting an experiment in mask-wearing based largely on unsupported scientific claims and an impoverished understanding of human existence.
(For data on mask-wearing, see this, this, this, this, this, and this. It is important to remember that the controversy over masks is not whether people should be able to wear them without being given a hard time. Of course they should. Rather, the controversy pertains to whether some people should be allowed to force other people to wear masks against their will.)
“Experiment” is the proper word to describe much of what has been done in response to this pandemic. One wonders why previous generations did not respond to their pandemics by employing the strategies that have been implemented during the COVID-19 outbreak. After all, it is not as though there is anything technologically advanced about non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like stay at home orders, closures, compulsory mask-wearing, gathering restrictions, contact tracing, and physical distancing mandates. People had a basic knowledge of the way infectious diseases spread during the pandemics that took place in the late 1950s and late 1960s.
Why weren’t those pandemics dealt with in the way we have dealt with this one? What is it that has made so many people see the COVID response as reasonable even though the data has shown for some time that the virus is not deadly for the vast majority of those who contract it?
While there are surely a variety of factors that have contributed to what has happened with COVID-19, one of them may be connected with the fact that our society is significantly more secularized today than it was in earlier eras. That is, the widespread acceptance of prolonged, government-imposed NPIs that radically disrupt ordinary life and suppress civil and religious liberties is due in part to the waning influence of the notion that human life has a transcendent meaning, along with the increasing acceptance of a scientism that is focused entirely on controlling the material world.
C.S. Lewis had some important things to say about the threat of scientism. This does not mean that he was anti-science, though he knew that charge would be leveled against him. In a letter written in response to such criticism, he defined scientism as “the belief that the supreme moral end is the perpetuation of our own species, and this is to be pursued even if, in the process of being fitted for survival, our species has to be stripped of all those things for which we value it — of pity, of happiness, and of freedom.” One writer aptly summarizes Lewis’s concerns about scientism by saying that he “feared what might be done to all nature and especially to mankind if scientific knowledge were to be applied by the power of government without the restraints of traditional values.”
Lewis’s most focused treatments of scientism are found in his brief nonfiction work The Abolition of Man and in his fictional Space Trilogy. In the first volume of the trilogy, the scientist-villain (Weston) justifies his mistreatment of the hero (Ransom) by telling him:
I admit that we have had to infringe your rights. My only defense is that small claims must give way to great. As far as we know, we are doing what has never been done in the history of the universe… You cannot be so small-minded as to think that the rights or the life of an individual or of a million individuals are of the slightest importance in comparison with this.[1]
In the last volume of the trilogy, the plot revolves around how an organization called the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments (NICE) “follows the science” in its social planning efforts, with ruthless disregard for both animal and human life. At one point in the story, the narrator makes this observation:
The physical sciences, good and innocent in themselves, had already, even in Ransom’s own time, begun to be warped, had been subtly maneuvered in a certain direction. Despair of objective truth had been increasingly insinuated into the scientists; indifference to it, and a concentration upon mere power, had been the result.[2]
This is what Lewis sets his sights upon in The Abolition of Man, the main thesis of which is summed up in this quote: “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”[3] Michael Aeschliman unpacks this assertion as follows:
Without a doctrine of objective validity, only subjective, individual desire remains as a standard to determine action. In the hands of an empowered elite, the capacity to reorder society with the techniques of a vastly powerful and unchecked science is virtually limitless and, of course, open to monstrous misuses.[4]
Read More

The sorrow will be great and the difficulty beyond imagination, but as you are in the valley of trouble, God will speak tenderly to you (Hosea 2:14). He has filled you with his Spirit, who is infinitely greater than anything in front of you. Get ready because, in this darkness, you are about to see the brilliance of Christ’s glorious light and love like never before. 

To the Christians in Afghanistan, especially those of you about to die for your faith, I doubt you will ever have the chance to read this, but my heart breaks for you. The Lord knows your anguish. He knows the trouble you face, and he is aware of your powerlessness. He also sees your poverty, but he wants you to remember you are spiritually rich (Rev. 2:9). Do not trade what is eternal for what is temporary.
God’s word says not to fear what you are about to suffer. The devil is about to throw some of you into prison. Others will be beaten, and still, others will be killed. Be faithful unto death, and Jesus will give you the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). Most importantly, remember, though you may die now, you will not be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:11). You will stand in glory on the day of judgment.
If I, your brother in Christ, were in your place, I do not know how I would fare. My biggest fear would be, how will I have the strength to stand before my killers when they call me to renounce my faith in Jesus? Once again, the word of God and the working of the Holy Spirit are my only comforters. With the danger surrounding you, the enemy will do everything he can to tempt you to despair. However, the scripture reminds us, the Lord has not given us a spirit of fear; he has given us a spirit of power and love and of a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). This truth will be crucial to remember in the coming days.
No matter how weak we are in our natural selves, you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you. Remember who you are. You are a child of God. Think about that for a moment. You have the Spirit of Power dwelling in you. No matter how weak your body may become during this ordeal, or ours as we suffer with you, it is not your strength that needs to be strong; it will be his strength.
In Christ, he will give you all that you need to face even the most difficult challenges of your life. In your entire Christian walk, you may have never experienced the Holy Spirit’s power to the extent that you are going to need it in the coming days, but that is because you have never faced anything this terrible. Our Lord does not give us his power before we need it, but when there is a great demand, his supply will meet it. His strength is made perfect in weakness. Though there are a million things you may dread in the days ahead, you have this to look forward to; the power of God will be at work in you in ways you have only dreamed.
May we all rely on his power during this time, but the Spirit of Power is not all he has given us.
Read More