Bullivant’s new book stands out as not just about nones in general, but about those Americans who used to affiliate with a religion but no longer do. Usually, that means leaving evangelical Protestantism, mainline Protestantism, Mormonism, or Catholicism. Bullivant makes a solid case for the importance of such people for understanding American religion moving forward, and with Nonverts he has put another very fine book into the world. It is worth reading and pondering. 

Christianity in America is currently going through a watershed period as society and culture continue to secularize. Among younger adults, for every one person who goes from religiously unaffiliated to affiliating with a religion, there are five people who switch in the opposite direction, toward no religion. Having no religious affiliation is increasingly becoming normal, and even the expectation among certain enclaves of American life.
The United States is more ex-Christian and post-Christian than ever before in its history. How did this situation come about? And what does it mean for the nation? The key number concerning the frequently referenced “rise of the nones” is likely familiar to many: Roughly one-quarter of American adults, or 59 million people, are “nones”—that is, atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular when it comes to religion. The proportion of “nones” in the US population hovered between 5 and 9 percent throughout the 1970s and 80s, but right around the year 1990, the percentage of nones began to climb to its current highpoint.
Less known is that only 30 percent of nones in the United States report having been raised with no religious affiliation. The rest, totaling about 41 million American adults, identified with some kind of religion earlier in life, but eventually left it. This segment of the population therefore is pivotal for understanding the shifting American religious landscape over recent decades. And it is those Americans—along with the social and cultural forces that tend to influence them—who are the topic of sociologist and theologian Stephen Bullivant’s book, Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America, recently published by Oxford University Press.
A Nation of “Nonverts”
Drawing from both survey data and interviews with a wide range of people, Bullivant provides a broad introduction to American adults who have thrown off their prior religious affiliations. The book is structured into nine chapters, which alternate between bigger-picture analysis/commentary and a series of “deep dives” into specific religious traditions. So, chapters 2, 4, 6, and 8 provide glimpses into disaffiliation from Mormonism, mainline Protestantism, evangelicalism, and Catholicism, respectively. Each of these tradition-specific chapters offers a helpful introduction to the character and troubles of each tradition. For anyone who wants to understand disaffiliation among one (or more) of those four traditions, these even-numbered chapters stand as quick and helpful overviews, brought to life by Bullivant’s skillful deployment of individual stories to represent larger themes.
Each of these chapters is, at the same time, broad and partial. They do not present findings that aim to be exhaustive or methodical. The chapters don’t analytically pick apart every conceivable reason that one might disaffiliate from a religion, the way past survey reports from Pew have done, for example. That’s not Bullivant’s purpose in writing. Instead, the chapter on “exvangelicals,” for instance, focuses on just three factors: purity culture, hypocrisy, and former President Trump. And readers hear about decades of sexual abuse scandals, devotional laxity, and simply not feeling it in various ways in the case of “recovering Catholics.”
As one would expect, Bullivant emphasizes that America’s “nonverts” are a diverse slice of the population on all sorts of metrics, such as age, race, and (to a limited degree) outlooks on politics. He also highlights that being religiously unaffiliated does not necessarily mean being entirely without faith of any kind, let alone an atheist. Only about 15 percent of nonverts are atheists, another 15 percent are agnostics, while 35 percent say they believe in a higher power of some kind (but not a personal God).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, May 9, 2022
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At the end of November 1939, during a period many Europeans and Americans considered a “phoney war” after the invading, dividing, and absorbing of Poland in September 1939 by Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. attacked its small northern neighbor, Finland. The hardy Finns had enjoyed independence for barely two decades, having been under Russian sovereignty for a century until the 1917 Russian Revolution which gave them the chance to secure their liberty, by force of arms, in 1918. On the surface, the fight in the winter of 1939-40 appeared more uneven than today’s Russo-Ukrainian war, with results equally inspiring to those pulling for the smaller nation.
In 1939, the Soviet Union held more than 100 million subjects; Finland’s population was 4 million. The Soviets had about 3,000 tanks at the outset (the war cost them 1,600); most Finnish soldiers – mostly citizen-soldiers – had never seen a tank. The Soviet air force had some 2,500 aircraft (nearly 1,000 were lost); the Finnish Air Force had not quite 100 machines at the outset, but acquired dozens more from friendly powers during the war, losing about 60 total. Stalin preferred to have a legal pretext for his planned invasion – and following Hitler’s example in Poland – manufactured a border incident intended to depict the Finns as the aggressors. Never mind that the only firing of guns came from the eastern side of the border. Diplomatic initiatives leading up to the unprovoked attack had, unfortunately, dampened the Finns’ preparations for war. When the attack came, a new government was formed immediately, one clearly committed to the nation’s defense.[1]
Ten days after the Soviet attack, foreign minister Molotov – his name soon linked with a homemade, anti-tank explosive later known as the Molotov Cocktail (quite popular in Ukraine nowadays) – claimed in a telegram, with breathtaking dishonesty:
The Soviet Union is not at war with Finland, nor does it threaten the people of Finland with war. . . . The Soviet Union maintains peaceful relations with the Finnish Democratic Republic, whose government on December 2nd concluded with the Soviet Union a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. This treaty settles all the questions with regard to which the Soviet government had negotiated fruitlessly with the representatives of the former government of Finland, now ejected from office.[2]
If readers are somewhat confused by the treaty of friendship reference, think Donetsk or Luhansk today.
Perhaps the most brazen portion of Molotov’s missive, however, was his reference to Finland’s government being “ejected from office.” As the saying goes, neither Finnish Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, nor his soldiers, got that memo. Although Mannerheim fought against Russians, first in 1918 and again in 1939-40, he had served thirty years as an officer under Tsarist Russia, including participating in the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896, of which he remained proud all his life.
Under Mannerheim’s leadership in 1939, following the initial shock of seeing tanks in battle for the first time in addition to overwhelming numbers of enemy troops, the Finns fought like tigers, helped by their familiarity with the forests in which many of them worked as loggers and trappers; and their native skills with firearms, severely cold weather, and skiing. In addition, the Finns had the incalculable moral advantage of defending their homeland. Molotov’s communication was revealing, too, in that it presumed the “former government” had fallen – a faulty prediction echoed by a Russian news announcement in late February 2022.[3]
The telegram further illustrated what the noted 20th-century British military historian, Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, wrote concerning the Marxist use of language:
A fundamental principle in Marxian dialectics is verbal inversion. When the accepted meaning of a word or an idea is turned upside down, not only are Communist intentions obscured [to the unsuspecting], but the mind of the non-Communist is misled, and mental confusion leads to a semantic nightmare in which things appear to be firmly planted on their feet, but actually are standing on their heads.
. . . Disarmament to one means one thing, to the other another thing; so also does peace. While to the non-Communist peace is a state of international harmony, to the Communist it is a state of international discord. . . . Communists hold that peace and war are reciprocal terms for a conflict which can only end when the Marxian Beatitude is established; since their final aim is pacific, they are peace lovers.[4]
Thus could Molotov claim unblinkingly that the invading Soviets were not “at war” with Finland, rather, they maintained “peaceful relations” with their neighbor’s government; similar to Russian denials of being at war today. Even closer to home for Americans, however, Fuller’s warning brings to mind the “verbal inversion” and “semantic nightmare” of terms like “systemic racism” that characterizes the madness of neo-Marxist, so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) – a juvenile, secular religion, not a theory – and its fraudulent, destructive offshoot, Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI). As eminent Professor Thomas Sowell writes, “The mystical benefits of diversity are non-existent, however politically correct it is to proclaim such benefits.” Simply put, if your loved one is to have surgery, do you want the surgeon to have graduated from a medical degree program that pursued diversity or meritocracy? One must choose.[5]
In the Winter War, the Finns held off the Russians during December 1939 and January 1940, during which they achieved stunning, overwhelming victories at difficult-to-spell-and-pronounce place names – at least for English speakers – such as Lake Tolvajärvi (mid-December) and Suomussalmi-Raate (late December-early January).
Tolvajärvi was north of Lake Ladoga which formed the northern border of the strategic Karelian Isthmus. The Finnish commander there, Colonel Talvela, later commented: “In situations like this, as in all confused and hopeless situations, an energetic attack against the nearest enemy was and is the only way to improve the spirits of the men and to get control of the situation.” No wonder Mannerheim thought so highly of him. Talvela was promoted to Major-General.
North of Tolvajärvi, the roughly west-to-east Suomussalmi-Raate Road (Raate was near the Finnish-Russian border), ran across the narrow “waist” of Finland where the Soviets hoped to cut the country in two. In that battle the Russians suffered from temperatures as low as minus 25 degrees C. (likely much lower), to which they were unaccustomed, limited food supplies, and aggressive harassing attacks by the Finns. Russian losses there were estimated at 30,000. News from the Finnish front captured the world’s attention and was the cause célèbre of the day.
Churchill, four months away from becoming prime minister, made a broadcast, stating: “Only Finland – superb, nay, sublime – in the jaws of peril – Finland shows what free men can do. The service rendered by Finland to mankind is magnificent. . . . If the light of freedom which still burns so brightly in the frozen North should be finally quenched, it might well herald a return to the Dark Ages. . . .”[6]
February and early March 1940 were a much different story, however. A new Russian commander, Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko, was named and given almost unlimited resources in men and materiel. In his memoirs, Mannerheim described the difference from December-January to February-March: “The enemy’s attacks in December could be compared with a badly-conducted orchestra,” as infantry, armor, and artillery were uncoordinated. By February, experienced and under Timoshenko’s leadership, they had learned to orchestrate their arms. Such improvements, in addition to the willingness to accept massive losses which the Russians could replace but the Finns could not, forced the Finnish government to sign a severe settlement in March, according to which they lost 12 percent of their population and some 25,000 square miles of territory including the Karelian Isthmus. But Finland survived and was to prosper again in years to come.[7]
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
In 2004, Dr. Räsänen, a physician and former Minister of the Interior, wrote a short booklet on the Bible’s teachings regarding sexuality, including a section on homosexuality. Bishop Pohjola’s church published the booklet. In addition, Dr. Räsänen was charged with tweeting a Bible verse in response to the liberal state church’s sponsorship of an LGBTQ parade and for taking part in a debate on the subject in 2019.
Gene Veith writes, “Three years ago, over a decade and a half after the publication of the booklet, the two were charged for inciting hatred against homosexuals,” despite the fact that Finland did not legalize same-sex unions – I will not call it marriage – until 2017. In 2022, finally their case has been brought to trial. By the way, Finland claims to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. If found guilty, the two could face fines and up to two years in prison.[8]
To turn a bizarre case into an even stranger dystopian, yet evangelistic, event, in January the prosecution elected to shift attention away from the two defendants. As Joy Pullmann of the Federalist writes, “Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as ‘hate speech.’ Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court.” In scenes that Bible readers of the Apostle Paul before the likes of Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24-26) might recall, the lead Finnish prosecutor actually read out Old Testament verses, quoting them to the court. When prosecutors then proceeded to question Pohjola and Räsänen concerning their beliefs, the two had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel in the courtroom. Bishop Pohjola and Dr. Räsänen have on multiple occasions “publicly affirmed that they are not motivated by hate, but by love in stating the historic, orthodox Christian faith.” Outside the court, Räsänen spoke to reporters with faithfulness and winsomeness: “The saving gospel of Jesus Christ has been given to us in the Bible. . . . The cross of Christ shows the greatest love for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.”[9]
How ironic that a miniscule number – in this case, only two – spiritual descendants of those outnumbered and outgunned patriots who, for 105 days during the fearful Scandinavian winter of 1939-40, fought heroically to preserve Finland’s independence should, in 2022, find themselves the subject of naked state-sponsored persecution fairly reeking of the very tyranny against which nearly 25,000 Finns gave all against the invading enemy.
Sadly, today Finland is only one of many Western nations, including the United States, in which the few – but steadily increasing – morally courageous stand in contrast to the cowardly majority that embrace, knowingly or otherwise, Fuller’s Marxian Beatitude in its current CRT/DEI/cancel-culture iteration, revealing a weak, sickly body politic and a culture unworthy of their forefathers’ courage and sacrifices.[10]
As the afflictions of aggressive, compulsive, humanistic ideologies are manifested irrespective of locale, tradition, or historical precedent, more and more erstwhile quiet Christians and other principled individuals are determining to “live not by lies.” Rod Dreher writes, “Under the guise of ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusivity,’ ‘equity,’ and other egalitarian jargon, the Left creates powerful mechanisms for controlling thought and discourse and marginalizes dissenters as evil.”[11] As my senior pastor says, the Lord is “gloriously unpredictable.” Moreover, David in the 11th Psalm writes, “If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?” The next verse answers: “The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven.” His sovereignty rules over all (Psalm 103:19). May today’s followers of Jesus Christ lift hearts in prayer for the upholding of true righteousness, beginning in their own little spheres, in their own little corners of Zion, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. As the prophet Zechariah writes, “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates” (8:16).
On 1 April 2022, the Center for Religious Liberty reported that on 30 March a Helsinki court dismissed all charges against Dr. Räsänen. (The brief report did not mention Bishop Pohjola.) While this was only one spiritual battle in a long conflict, let us give thanks to God. . . .
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Eric Lewenhaupt, trans., The Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim (London: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1953), 365, 369.
[2] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 328; Robert Edwards, The Winter War: Russia’s Invasion of Finland, 1939-40 (New York: Pegasus Books, 2008), 139-40 (Molotov quoted by Edwards), 192. Mannerheim wrote, “In-fighting with tanks was to provide some of the most heroic incidents of the Winter War, for to attack them with only this bottle in one’s hand required skill as well as courage” (328).
[3] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Edwards, Winter War, 157.
[4] J.F.C. Fuller, The Conduct of War, 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961), 211-12.
[5] Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays (New York: Basic Books, 2010 [2002]), chap. 20 (audiobook).
[6] Edwards, Winter War, 152-85 (Talvela quoted by Edwards), 223 (Churchill quoted by Edwards); Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 334-40.
[7] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 350-53; Edwards, Winter War, 204, 228.
[8] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Gene Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” The Aquila Report, 4 Feb 2022 (originally in patheos.com, 26 Jan 2022).
[9] Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” 26 Jan 2022 (Pullmann quoted by Veith). For additional reading on this case, see Joy Pullmann, “In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians on Trial for Their Faith,” The Aquila Report, 30 Nov 2021 (originally in thefederalist.com, 23 Nov 2021); [Mathew] Block, “Finnish Bishop Elect Charged Over Historic Christian Teachings On Human Sexuality,” The Aquila Report, 6 May 2021 (originally in ilc-online.org [International Lutheran Council]), 30 Apr 2021; Kiley Crossland, “Finnish Church Embraces Gay Marriage, Loses 12,000 Members,” The Aquila Report, 30 Dec 2014 (originally in wng.org, 4 Dec 2014).
[10] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 365, 370.
[11] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (New York: Sentinel, 2020), xii. Dreher took his book’s title from a letter of famed Soviet dissident and author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Related Posts:

In Leviticus 16, which is the very heart of the Pentateuch, the instructions for the Day of Atonement were given. This was the only day that the high priest was allowed to enter into the most holy place, which contained the ark of the covenant, for it was the day where the high priest would make a sacrifice to atone for the sins of Israel. Indeed, one goat was slaughtered before the LORD on that day; however, another goat was sent into the wild. Just as the sacrificed goat was meant to be a substitution for the rightful death that Israel’s sin had earned, the other goat was meant to carry the sins of the Israelites away into the wilderness, never to be seen again. This is the origin of the term scapegoat. Being delivered into the hands of the Gentiles is a foretelling that Christ’s death would be the great atonement of which both goats were only signs and shadows. Jesus would not only shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins, but He would do so outside the covenantal community, into the Gentile wilderness.

And they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. And they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.”
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Mark 10:32-45 ESV

The story of Elijah’s ascent to heaven has always intrigued me. Elijah clearly chose Elisha to be his successor because he knew that his prophetic ministry was coming to an end. And though we tend to think of Elijah’s direct trip to heaven via fiery chariots as being one of the most fascinating stories in the Bible, the whole account reads with a significant amount of heaviness. Elijah is going to be with the LORD, yes, but where will that leave Israel? Who is bold enough in the Spirit to call fire down from heaven to consume God’s adversaries?
Indeed, as they make the long journey, Elisha is greeted by prophets along the way, asking if he knows that his master is being taken from him. Elisha simply says, “yes, I know it; keep quiet” (2 Kings 2:3, 5). As Elijah crossed the Jordan and prepared to be taken up, he asked Elisha if he had one final request. “Please let there be a double portion of your spirit on me.” Elijah answered, “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you, but if you do not see me, it shall not be so” (2 Kings 2:9-10).
Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is marked by a far greater heaviness, for he was going not to be taken back to the Father but to be crushed by the Father. Although the prophets knew of Elijah’s departure, even the very wisest could not bring themselves to understand the plain plan that Jesus revealed to them. And in our text today, John and James make a request that seems reminiscent of Elisha’s so long before. Elisha’s request was granted so long as he had eyes to see Elijah’s departure, and while Jesus states that only the Father can grant the request that James and John desire, they will indeed become more like Him than they presently knew. Yes, they would reign with Him in His kingdom, but first they would share the cup of His suffering.
The Third Prediction // Verses 32-34
With this third prediction, Mark tells us explicitly for the first time that Jesus is going to Jerusalem. The Son of David, heir to that eternal throne, will be killed in the city from which He ought to rule. As He was walking, we read that the disciples followed behind in amazement, and those who walked behind the disciples were afraid. R. C. Sproul writes:
I believe Mark gives us this curious detail because of the resolute determination that the disciples saw in Jesus to go to His destiny. He had set His face like flint (Isa. 50:7) to go to Jerusalem, for He knew He was called to give Himself over to His enemies there, and He had taught his disciples what would happen to Him on more than one occasion (8:31-33; 9:30-32). Now, as He approached Jerusalem, Jesus did not linger. He moved quickly, keeping ahead of His disciples, going to His death with a firm step. Most of us, if we knew we were going to our deaths, would drag our feet. Not Jesus. He was prepared to obey the Father to the utmost end. The disciples could not get over it. They were amazed by His resolution and were terrified at what might befall Him at Jerusalem.[1]
Pulling the twelve aside a third time, Jesus gave them the most explicit and detailed foretelling yet:
See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.
While our eyes may be drawn to the details of mocking, spitting, and flogging, the disciples would have likely found the being delivered over to the Gentiles the most shocking portion to hear. I think that Sproul is right to see an allusion to the Day of Atonement here.
In Leviticus 16, which is the very heart of the Pentateuch, the instructions for the Day of Atonement were given. This was the only day that the high priest was allowed to enter into the most holy place, which contained the ark of the covenant, for it was the day where the high priest would make a sacrifice to atone for the sins of Israel. Indeed, one goat was slaughtered before the LORD on that day; however, another goat was sent into the wild. Just as the sacrificed goat was meant to be a substitution for the rightful death that Israel’s sin had earned, the other goat was meant to carry the sins of the Israelites away into the wilderness, never to be seen again. This is the origin of the term scapegoat.

Being delivered into the hands of the Gentiles is a foretelling that Christ’s death would be the great atonement of which both goats were only signs and shadows. Jesus would not only shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins, but He would do so outside the covenantal community, into the Gentile wilderness.

The Bold Request of James & John //  Verses 35-40
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” Mark does not tell us whether this happened immediately after Jesus’ final prediction of His death and resurrection, but under the leading of the Spirit, he has clearly intended to set the request of James and John against that backdrop. What exactly was their request? Let us read it as well as Jesus’ reply.
And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
Tim Keller summarizes this scene well:
To them, “in your glory” means “when you are seated on your throne,” in which case the people on the right and the left are like the prime minister and the chief of staff. John and James are saying, “When you take power, we would like the top places in your cabinet.” Here’s the irony of their request. What was Jesus’s moment of greatest glory? Where does Jesus most show forth the glory of God’s justice? And where does he reveal most profoundly the glory of God’s love? On the cross.
When Jesus is at the actual moment of his greatest glory, there will be somebody on the right and left, but they will be criminals being crucified. Jesus says to John and James: You have no idea what you’re asking.[2]
Christ’s triumphant and conquering glory will come through His horrific and brutal humiliation, through Him being delivered into the hands of the Gentiles to be mocked, spit on, and flogged. Notice the two images that Jesus uses to convey His imminent suffering: a cup and a baptism.
The cup is common image of God’s wrath within in the Old Testament.
Read More
Related Posts: