People who suffer for righteousness’ sake are poor in spirit—they are living with a humble awareness of their spiritual bankruptcy; they are mournful—they are repenting quickly and forgiving freely; they are meek—they are living before God and man with a gentle and quiet spirit; they are, righteous—they long to obey God’s every word and are laboring to see his justice extend throughout society; they are merciful—because they have received mercy they are gladly and deliberately extending it to others.

Jesus tells us to expect persecution. This is something I attempted to prove in an article a couple of days ago when I showed that at both the beginning and the ending of his ministry he warned that there would be a cost to following him. Yet Jesus knows that not everything that may look like persecution is actually persecution. And so he tells us that, when we come to times of suffering, we need to evaluate it to see if we are truly being persecuted.
There are times when Christians are put in prison because they refuse to follow the unjust dictates of an unjust government; but there are also times when Christians are put in prison because they break good and necessary laws that the rightful authorities have put in place. Sometimes Christians are shunned by family members because they refuse to bow down to the family’s idols; but sometimes Christians are shunned because they fail to honor their parents, or because they treat family members badly, or because they act like sanctimonious, entitled brats.
In the opening sentences of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says his people are blessed when they are persecuted “on my account.” And immediately before that he says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” And so Jesus tells us that we need to evaluate our suffering to ensure it is actually persecution and not just the consequence of our own sinfulness.
Peter, a man who knew a thing or two about suffering, offers some helpful guidance here in 1 Peter 4:12. Like Jesus, he says that we should expect to face persecution. Here’s what he says: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.”
It’s clear: persecution is the normal course of the Christian faith. It’s not strange and should not be unexpected.
I know many people who have suffered for their faith. Some have been disowned by their families because they have rejected the family’s religion; some have fallen out with friends because they couldn’t participate in activities they invited them to; some have had troubles at school or at work because they wouldn’t take pride in what others deem worthy of celebration; some have been imprisoned for their religious convictions.
Read More

Related Posts:

Although the assertion that women’s rights should be protected would have been uncontroversial only a few years ago, it is now seen as divisive and hateful even to suggest that biological males are robbing biological females of opportunities and awards. Incredibly, many progressives are in favor of accelerating this trend. But unless people are comfortable with Lia Thomas winning national championships meant for women and Rachel Levine being heralded as a pioneer for women, Americans of every background and political persuasion must be willing to stand up to gender identity ideology.

According to the NCAA, Lia Thomas is a national champion. After touching the wall first at the conclusion of the 500-yard freestyle, Thomas’s win was heralded by ESPN, The New York Times, and CNN as historic. And it’s true. Thomas’ championship-clinching swim at last week’s NCAA women’s national championship meet capped off a record-breaking season in which the University of Pennsylvania swimmer set multiple pool, school, and league records.
Of course, as most people know by now, this success has been overshadowed by the fact that Thomas (born William Thomas) is a biological male who identifies as a woman. And although Thomas’ victories have attracted national attention, few mainstream outlets or publications seem willing to discuss the danger the swimmer’s success poses to women’s sports or how this story fits within the broader trend of undermining women’s rights under the guise of LGBT rights. In short, the muted response to Thomas’ season is another reminder that many progressives are willing to sacrifice women’s rights if it means staying in the good graces of those leading the transgender revolution.
Although women’s collegiate swimming is not usually front-page news, Thomas’s story has rightfully received a fair amount of coverage over the past few weeks. Thomas, who swam for three seasons on the men’s varsity team before switching to the women’s team this season, is now recognized as one of the nation’s most accomplished woman swimmers. And in terms of swimming times and statistics, Thomas’ season really has been one for the record books.
The University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team participated in eight meets this season. In each of these meets, Thomas won at least one race and repeatedly won multiple races. At the Zippy Invitational, Thomas competed against swimmers from ten schools and won the 200, 500, and 1650-yard races. Thomas’ times of 4:34:06 (500-yard) and 15:59:71 (1650-yard) were pool, meet, and program records. At the Ivy League Championships, Thomas won the 100-yard free (a meet, pool, and program record), 200 free (a meet and pool record), and 500 free (a pool record).
In summary, in one season on the women’s team, Thomas won 19 events, three league titles, one national championship (500-yard freestyle), set multiple records, and finished the season as the top-ranked swimmer for Division I Mid-Major schools, as well as the highest-rated Ivy League and University of Pennsylvania women’s swimmer.
Transgender Tide
There are other stories besides Thomas’s collegiate swimming career that show how many progressives are willing to sacrifice opportunities and rights for women on the altar of political correctness For example, New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard was allowed to compete in women’s weightlifting at last summer’s Olympic Games in Tokyo, depriving a biological woman of a chance to represent her country.
Read More

We are seeking to imitate God’s fatherhood, and to follow in the Father’s Way. As parents, real noes are unavoidable, and they are good, like the walls around the city. But we must remember that, as parents, the main thing we are offering is a city of yes, a home of yes, filled with joy and life and gratitude for the abundance of all things that flow to us from the God of yes.
The Bible tells us that earthly fatherhood is derived from divine fatherhood. The apostle Paul bows his knee before the Father, “from whom every family [literally fatherhood] in heaven and on earth is named” (Ephesians 3:15). One implication of this basic fact is that earthly parents are to imitate the fatherhood of God. He is the model for our own fathering (and mothering).
In considering God’s fatherhood, parents do well to reflect on the relationships and rules he established in the garden of Eden, and especially on how he uses yes and no.
God’s World of Yes
Recall that God planted the garden in Eden and filled it with trees that were pleasant to the sight and good for food (Genesis 2:9). Then he put the man in the garden to work it and keep it (Genesis 2:15), assigning him a priestly guardianship of God’s garden sanctuary. And then God gave to Adam the moral design of this garden:
The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16–17)
Note three features of the rules God established in the garden. First, there was one no in a world of yes. Second, the yes came first. And third, the no was real.
All three of these features are crucial. God did not create a world of no, filled with prohibitions and restraints. He made a world of yes and gave it his enthusiastic endorsement. God provided Adam with a garden of delights, filled with beautiful trees and tasty fruit, and his first rule was “Eat from every tree (except one).” There is one no in this world of yes. For our purposes, let’s call this “The Father’s Way.”
Learning Parenting from Lies
We see the significance of the Father’s Way when the serpent assaults it. The serpent’s first question is “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1). In other words, the serpent asks, “Did God make a world of no?” In doing so, the serpent shrewdly turns the single prohibition into a total prohibition. He turns the one no into a world of no. This assault on the Father’s Way is why Paul describes those who forbid marriage and require abstinence from God’s good foods as liars who are devoted to the teaching of demons (1 Timothy 4:1–5).
At the same time, we must not forget that there was in fact a no. The serpent also assaults this aspect of the Father’s Way. When Eve rightly notes that there is only one no in the world of yes and that violation of the one no will lead to certain death, the serpent replies, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). Whereas the serpent formerly blew the single no out of proportion, now he shrinks the real consequence out of existence.
In sum, the serpent sought to depict God as a miser who makes idle threats. But our Father is not a miser who makes idle threats; he’s a giver who always follows through. That’s the Father’s Way. So what might moms and dads learn from God’s good design in the garden? How might we seek to imitate the Father’s Way?
Read More