by

Frank Chodorov – The Individualist

Introduction

I am posting a blog article that I wrote several years ago (January 2009 to be exact) from a different blog site that I had set up at the time. That site no longer exists. Over the years, I have stated more than once that my political leanings align with libertarianism. I rarely discuss politics on this site, and I never support a political candidate on this webpage. The reason for that stance is not to come across as neutral or apolitical. I am not neutral, and I for sure embrace a political philosophy. That philosophy is neither progressive nor neoconservative. Given the rise of saber rattling neoconservatism and the hazardous emergence of the warmth of collectivism, I wanted to restate my libertarian principles here. In the midst of cleaning out my files, I came across this article I had written in 2009. I see no reason not to restate it here. One of my favorite libertarian (Classical Liberal) writers is Frank Chodorov. His thought underpins this article

Chodorov the Individualist

Frank Chodorov explicated the idea of individualism as passionately and rationally as anyone I have read to date. And I believe that the individualist spirit that contributed to what was once the freest country in the world is waning, and has been for sometime. At 60-years old, I come to this conclusion late in life. And I wish I could have learned the lessons about living much earlier in life. All the data, experiences, people, and facts existed for me to learn solid lessons about life. But like so many others, I passed them by, paid them no mind, and even in a period of my life, demeaned what they stood for. Well, I hope the old adage, it’s never too late to learn, is in fact an accurate assessment. I know difficult times are ahead for me because I didn’t learn the lessons early in life that I should have, lessons I want to explore in this essay. I am going to have to change a lot of old patterns, much wrong thinking, and sloppy ways of living. and I hope that those of you who happen upon this webpage and are reading this blog are willing to journey with me, bearing with me as I seek to carve out ideas where much greater minds than mine have already tread. If I use as a compass the thoughts and ideas of von Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, or Chodorov, hopefully that will keep me from going too awry.

As Chodorov so insightfully claimed, the road to collectivism is an easy path for most to follow, and today its siren song loudly wails. I established this website [humanaction.us at the time; today my thoughts have not changed but rather deepened regarding Classical Liberal principles] to espouse principles of individualism, a much maligned notion in today’s postmodern thinking [note the conflation of individualism with what is thrown around as rugged individualism]. I wish I could claim that I have always lived in line with the values I wish to propagate through Analysis of Power [the subtitle of the webpage I published at the time], however, I have not. Only in recent years have I come across the writings of F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Frank Chocorov. I have dedicated my website and E-Journal to Chodorov [today, what undergirds what I delineate on this page are my Christian spiritual beliefs]. His writings resonated with me in a way that is both inspiring and challenging. I am far from the destination that Chodorov designates as the individual. Yet I hope to reach that destination and live there. Both the URL and the title of my E-Journal reflect my beliefs in Austrian economics and individualism.

Frank Chodorov was the consummate individualist. In this inaugural issue, I want to highlight some of the themes that Chodorov developed more fully in his writings. So I inaugurate Analysis of Power with an apropos essay that outlines what is to be an individualist. Several themes stand out in Chodorov’s writings. I survey them below; any misstatements of Chodorov’s ideas are solely due to my ignorance.

The Right to Live

With everything under the sun today pronounced by the public-at-large as a right, I hate throwing around the concept of rights. But properly understood, it is a powerful, and more importantly, a truthful concept. There is nothing more basic to the individual than the right to live. For whatever reason, apparently the spirit to live has been poured into each one us. (Today I would more strongly point to the Imago Dei as that reason, and the only reason). If there are those among us who do not want to live, then we conclude rather quickly that something is drastically wrong with them. But the right to live is nothing more than an abstraction if we just stop at the phrase, the right to live. What does such a right actually entail? First of all, it is important to recognize that the right pertains to each individual. It is axiomatic, a given. It is not a right that belongs to me but not to you. It is not a right that belongs to some but not to others. It is not a right that belongs to the collective but not to specific individuals. Such a statement on a collectivist level would be meaningless. As an abstraction, however, a dangerous extension is inherent in the notion of the right to live. The right is not carte blanche. So we need to understand what is inherent in the right to live.

Liberty from Government

We talk about many forms of freedom today. You hear politicians wax eloquently about freedom, oppression, injustice, and social justice. However, when we listen closely to what they mean, we get a clearer understanding of what they are trying to sell. We hear such phrases as freedom from poverty, freedom from illness, or freedom from economic injustice. The sales pitch from demagogues who spew forth these phrases is that government is in place to provide all of us with these espoused freedoms (particularly if we vote for those spewing forth these platitudes). However, I have come to believe that such freedoms have little to do with what our Founders meant by liberty, a term that I prefer to freedom because the latter has been tainted by collectivist rhetoric. (I would add both neoconservative and progressive rhetoric). Our Founders, with all their flaws, and because they understood human flaws, established a Republic in which liberty was understood to mean, not freedom of government to make our lives for us, but but freedom from government, power, the State, (to guard against) that at its whim it would intrude upon our lives. It provides a framework within which people can pursue and carve out their lives as they see fit, so long as what they see fit to do does not prevent others from pursuing and carving out their lives.

The place of government in people’s lives is an issue that distinguishes individualists from collectivists. From an individualist perspective government is to provide a minimal rule of law that enforces contracts, protects private property among its citizens, and, on the level of the State, defends the borders from invasion. A corollary to collectivism, radical egalitarianism, has gripped the mind of the United States, and now many people look to government to educate them, provide them with health care, and to redistribute income in the name of social justice. We hear promises of politicians to make our lives better, to bring about a better society, to usher in better times, and to make us all equal. How many times have we heard the rhetoric and then come to understand that, for the most part, we have to be the ones who make our lives better? (This is not a denial of our social embeddedness and our need of working in conjunction with others.) I believe an important question regarding all these promises hinges on the notion of hubris: How can one person or one group of people actually know what is better for everyone else? For the individualist, not only is such knowledge impossible, but also it takes a sizable hubris-filled ego for someone to believe that he or she possesses such knowledge. If people believe such things about themselves and the knowledge they possess, then why shouldn’t they want power?

As a radical (I might drop this adjective today because of its conflation among people with so-called rugged individualism.) individualist, I believe that government not only lacks the ability to make people’s lives better, but also, even it could by some stretch of the imagination fulfill such a mandate, it lacks both the Constitutionality and moral authority to do so. Once someone provides a life for someone else, the provider has taken from the providee all sense of dignity that constitutes a free human being – unless the provider is an all-powerful being.

Limited Government

Liberty from government logically dictates what the Founders meant by the idea of limited government. Individualism is opposed to collectivism in all its forms. The only legitimate collective activities are those in which individuals freely choose to involve themselves. For an individualist, government in any form is coercion. Hence, an individualist tends to view government with suspicion and believes it should be severely restrained in all its activities, carrying out its minimal roles of protecting life and private proper, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud, all minimal activities that contribute to people’s ability to carry on commerce and trade. Beyond these activities, government begins to encroach on individual liberty. From the Classical Liberal perspective, government is granted limited power to protect citizens and to establish a framework whereby they carry out the pursuit of carving out a life for themselves. Government provides no guarantee that individuals will find such pursuits successful. It cannot guarantee that individuals will not encounter hardships and fail at their endeavors. It cannot guarantee that people can have the kind of lives they desire. Government, at its whim, cannot provide a life for an individual. To carry out such guarantees, government would have to use the very rewards of people’s labor it is called upon to protect. The Welfare State (and I would add the Warfare State) represents a prime example of such coercion, where property is taken (confiscated) to provide secure retirement, medical benefits, education, and a host of other so-called rights. Government – power – the State – possesses nothing by which to make such guarantees. Government, to make such guarantees, must take (confiscate) from those who produce. Consequently, such guarantees are fraudulent from the start.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Liberty from government and severely restricted or restrained government obviously dictates that government remove itself and stay out of everyday human affairs, particularly the free exchange of ideas, goods, and service. If an individual is to reap from his efforts and secure some type of living, then he should not turn to government to direct his steps in the endeavors he chooses to pursue. If he does, he forfeits the fruit of his labor to the power that so directs him. People choose their affairs, act in accordance with their desires, and do business and commerce with one another to obtain their desired ends. Their business plans, their business decisions, and what they acquire through their efforts are not submitted to the State for approval. The only say that the State has over such efforts regards fraudulent activities and the protection of property accrued through mutually beneficial commerce. Those who carve out their existence in this life do not owe government for such a privilege. Nor do they owe the collective in the name of some fabrication called the common good. Entrepreneurs by their very activities of producing, providing services, creating jobs, contributing to people’s standard of living impact the community for the good. That they carry out such activities for profit motive does not detract from the fact their work impacts society for the good. And they owe no one an apology for their profit motive.

In today’s climate taxes are viewed as the price that businesses must pay for their success and wealth. Never mind that such wealth and profit create jobs and a higher standard of living for people. Never mind that entrepreneurial capitalism has created a standard of living heretofore unknown throughout history for an enormous population of people. Those who complain about high taxes are labeled selfish, not caring about society, and not wanting to contribute their fair share to the community. The collectivist mentality (I would also label this the Statist mentality) is seen at its fullest in empowering the State to intrude upon business activities in the name of the common good.

The individualist says to the State, hands off. The State is to keep its parasitic hands off what people have produced for their own welfare. The State is to stay out of the way of entrepreneurs who best can decide to carry out their affairs, even when those decisions may not work out the way entrepreneurs desire. And when and if those decisions do turn sour, the one who is an entrepreneur to his core does not cry and whine to government for a bailout. When times are lean, tough, and difficult, the individualist shouts as loud as when times or bountiful and fat – Laissez Faire!

Personal Liberty and Responsibility

If I may choose a phrase from the existentialist’s handbook, an individualist defends personal liberty and responsibility. As free individuals, we can choose to carve out our lives as we see fit. There is a fine distinction, however, inherent in the right to carve out a life versus the right to a life I think I should have. The distinction turns upon the difference between opportunity and results. No other person can guarantee me that I will achieve in life what I want to achieve. In a free society, a rule of law allows me the right to give it a shot. But it does not promise me that the results I want will be forthcoming.

We live today in a culture populated by people bathed in a sense of entitlement and work life by playing the victim card. We blame everyone and everything for our plight, for not having the kind of life that we want. This mindset in turn sets us up for silver-tongued orators who guarantee us that they have the promise hand-in-hand. We vote for presidents like we are searching for a messiah. We expect to hear and see all the sweet and honey-filled promised morsels we hope to find in life. If we don’t have all the money we want, then we blame those who do have the amount of money we would like to have. Somehow or another they took it from us. It is inconvenient to get sick, but it is unfair to have to pay for getting well. And so we hear and are drawn like Odysseus to the sweet siren call of nationalized health care. People want an education, but it is unfair to have to pay for it. Nirvana in learning is straight ahead in subsidized education. A nice comfortable retirement is a dream, but it is unfair to have worked all one’s life and not have it, whether one had the foresight and fortitude to save for it or not. So now we will increase that magnanimous blessing called Social Security. What a deal! (Of course, our omniscient and omnipotent orators who know what we need and have the power to bring it all about for us are not retiring on Social Security. Do I smell demagoguery here?)

Private Property

If we have the right to live and the liberty and responsibility to make choices and try to bring about the life we want for ourselves, then we must have an avenue to accrue something from what we produce. Whether this accrual be pay, goods, property, or all three, what we have accrued is ours because we have worked for it. (Actually all three are private property – privately owned through personal effort.) Such accrual is the product of our labor; thereby, it is our private property. If I have the right to live, then I work, and my production is the means by which I carve out my living, preparing a life for myself. Although I do not believe that I have a right to a job (a confusion of today’s entitlement mindset), or the right to a particular results (a confusion of today’s radical egalitarianism), I work for what I earn or produce. And I can accrue the production of my labor and create property for myself. The very basis of my freedom – my right to live – is my private property. If it is confiscated from me, then the thief has robbed me, not only of my private property, but also of my right to live. The Founders of this country understood property in these terms, and were particularly leery of the government becoming a thief. Hence, they warned the populist about the power (dangers) of taxation. Since 1913, the government holds first rights to our property, carried out by a procedure called the income tax. From the viewpoint of an individualist, the income tax, as well as all taxes, is seen as confiscation. Income tax is legalized thievery, power – the State – stepping in to claim a part of one’s labor for its purposes. And one had best tow the line and fork it over. There are many forms today by which private property is constantly under assault by the State: eminent domain, inheritance taxes, professional licenses, property licenses such as car tags and inspection stickers. All these devices are legalized ways by which the State has step-by-step encroached upon citizens’ private property. To the degree that we lose control of our private property, we begin to lose the grip on our individual liberty.

Noninterventionist

Isolationism in foreign affairs is a term that carries negative connotations today. However, I proudly accept the label. Other libertarians prefer the term noninterventionist, but to me they mean virtually the same thing as long as one understands that these terms refer to government activities. Isolationism does not mean that individuals cannot freely choose to carry on commerce and do business around the globe, or Mars if they find someone there and can get the goods to and from them. Such activities emerge from inalienable rights that go into the pursuit of living. Isolationist or noninterventionist strategies refer, instead, to becoming entangled in the political controversies and conflicts of other nations. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned us of such meddlesome activities. Yet in the 20th Century and into this one, America has found itself engaged in conflict after conflict around the globe, spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the process (as well as the countless loss of life). Our military is ensconced all over the globe from the Middle East to Germany. Our military is positioned as a standing army for some countries, such as South Korea. It is one thing to make friends and develop respect for other countries and cultures on the basis of mutual exchange and commerce; it is another thing altogether for a government to become the policemen of the world. If our allies relish the kind of liberty we possess, then somewhere along the line, they need to stand up and be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take such liberties from them. A Biblical Proverb speaks poignantly to misguided interventionism:

Like one who takes a dog by the ears,/Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (1)

We need to rethink our understanding of national defense and not emotionally load galavanting around the globe with notions of patriotism. The true patriot does not allow the State to willy-nilly define defense or our national interests in a way that places brave men and women in harm’s way based on political expediency, nation building, and government power-broker deals that tend to always produce more international problems than they ever solve. We have witnessed these events over and over again in the billions of dollars we spend defending countries that refuse to defend themselves, and the more billions of dollars of so-called foreign aid that have disappeared into no-telling whose pockets – power begetting power.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: Personal Wisdom

If people are to carve out a life for themselves, then it behooves them to develop the kind of skills they need to get the job done. The problem with collectivism and the types of reformers it produces is that such crusaders become too meddlesome in other people’s affairs. I am drawn to the idea that the best way to any general reform is for one to embrace self-development (2). What skills do you need to establish the kind of life that you want? If you desire to achieve a certain lifestyle, then what do you need to develop in yourself so as to achieve what you desire? More to the point, what values do you hold? Are you living in alignment with those values? If not, what do you need to change? Do you truly value what you say you do?

Entrepreneurs are people who pursue a fulfilling life by putting their ideas to work. They know what they want in life, they know what they value about living, and they know what they need to obtain from life what they desire. They are honest with themselves about what skills they possess and which ones they do not possess. When it comes to what they lack, they find ways to fill in the gaps and develop their needed skill set so they can produce and benefit from their labor. They don’t play at being successful. They work at it with everything they have in them. If they do not do these things, then they are not successful, and they probably are not meant to be entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is something to which I aspire. However, I am not sure I have what it takes to become the kind of person I have described here. Many of us want to play the entrepreneurship game, but we do not want to do what it takes to succeed the way entrepreneurs succeed. We want the results that come to good entrepreneurs. But we do not want the process or effort that goes into making a good entrepreneur and producing the kind of results we desire. The process is hard, difficult, fraught with setbacks, disappointments, and sometimes failures so that one has to pick up and begin again. And above all, it takes vision that many people may not have and risks that others do not want to take. To aspire to entrepreneurship means asking difficult questions as to whether or not one has what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Today achievement is something that is belittled, demeaned, and viewed as an idea that is elitist. Radical egalitarianism has won the day. Entrepreneurs are punished for their successes by the tax code and the attitude the culture at large has toward them. They achieve because they are exploitive cries the collectivist. They achieve and continue to achieve because they are privileged rages the egalitarian.

Only when individuals come to understand that they are responsible for their lives and must develop the skills they need to live, will they truly become individuals. Otherwise, we fall into the mediocre thinking that dreams and pursuits are not worthwhile. Or worse, we walk with our hands out, our palms up, our dignity emaciated to receive a life that someone else promises us. One may not be an entrepreneur, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot be an individual and claim his or her place in life. We may work for entrepreneurs, benefit from them in a myriad of ways, and find our place in life in a way that suits who we are, what skills we possess, and what desires we have. In the end, we have one thing to do: live (3). We need to choose how best to live for ourselves. To do otherwise is to forfeit who we are and what we are all about as individuals.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I penned this blog article in January of 2009. For years I struggled as I turned my back on my faith as a Christian. Close to the time I wrote this article, God had begun working on me to get me back on track with my faith and what it truly means to have faith in the atoning work of Christ and to have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Although I would change very little about this article if I were to write it now, I want to highlight a couple o f things, one pertaining to the concept of individualism, and second pertaining to my faith in Christ.

As I alluded to in the article, the notion of individualism has been much maligned, more so today than when I wrote this article in 2009. So I want to say a quick word about what individualism is not. First, the notion of individualism as put forth by those such as Chodorov, libertarians in general, and Classical Liberals, in no form or fashion claims that an individual is totally independent of others, not socially embedded or connected, or does not rely on the social fabric and interconnection with others. There is no such reality as pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps by which one is totally isolated from and independent from others. Embracing the philosophy of individualism does not mean that one does not ask for help from others when such help is needed. Nor does it mean that one does not offer help where help is needed. Individualism means that one is responsible for ones own choices and actions as well as for ones self-development. Self-development is never done in total isolation. Whatever rugged individualism happens to mean by those who throw around such caricatures, it has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal understanding of the sanctity of ones individual life. Such caricatures are nothing more than gaslighting and conflation, creating a false dichotomy seeking to provide an argument against nothing that the concept of individualism ever claimed in the first place. Those who have spewed forth such claims have been taken to task by individualists themselves.

Regarding my faith in Christ, if I were to write this article today, I would focus more on the providence of God in our lives and the spiritual gifts with which He blesses us. Psalm 139 speaks to how God intimately knows us and that He has made us who we are. A large part of discovering our skills involves coming to know how He made us and resting in that understanding. Additionally, life is played out by increasing our wisdom, as well as the pursuit of wisdom through diligence, which many of the Psalms address pointedly. In seeking to become diligent, we must also rest in the truth of God’s providence (Psalm 46:10). We must, by God’s grace, be honest about who we are as we gain in wisdom of how He made and gifted us. Since the time I authored this article in 2009 until now, I’ve come to realize that I do not, in fact, have what it takes to be an entrepreneur. That is not who God made me to be. When we realize such truths about ourselves, we can either kick at the goads against them, or by God’s grace embrace them, seeking to live as God would have us live. I am truly thankful for the gifted individuals by and through whom God has blessed the world. If you possess the skills of an entrepreneur, then I hope you follow your calling out with every ounce of energy you possess. Above all, I hope and pray that you will be called by God to believe in Christ as your Savior.

References

(1) “Proverbs 26:17.” In the Holy Bible NASB, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

(2) Chodorov, F. (1980). “The Articulate Individualist.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 317-322). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press. (Originally published in Analysis, August 1946).

(3) Chodorov, F. (1980). “Henry David Thoreau.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 309-316). (Originally published in Analysis, November 1945 & February 1949).

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ February 14. 2026

ANALYSIS/Analysis of Power

by

John Stott: The Man and His Works

Introduction

John Stott (1921-2011) was an Evangelical Anglican pastor and theologian. He is one of the principal authors of the Lausanne Covenant, which promoted worldwide evangelicalism. Stott was mentored by Eric Nash, from whom he heard a sermon on Revelation 3:20. Stott credits Nash and that verse as leading God to move him to open the door to Christ, thereby transforming his life. Although he was raised in a Christian home, went to church regularly, and “had high ideals,” he had always, according to his own testimony, kept Christ at a distance. That is until he heard Nash’s sermon. He was then mentored by Nash, and developed under him into the Anglican Evangelical pastor he eventually became. Stott founded the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, through which he brought together evangelical intellectuals with the aim of developing courses and programs to communicate the Christian faith to a secular world. Through his work and ministry, he authored over fifty books, two of them being Basic Christianity, and The Cross of Christ, both of them having an impact on me.

The Works of John Stott

As stated above, Stott wrote fifty books in addition to pamphlets and tracts. I do not have the space here to explore all his works, but I will categorize them for interested readers who might want to explore and study his thought. The first work by Stott I read was Your Mind Matters. Both Stott and Francis Schaeffer had an impact on me as a young believer in the 1970’s. Although the history of Christianity is replete with those who endlessly wrote, studied, and pursued scholarship, there has, nevertheless, been a contingent within Christian circles that view intellectual pursuits with suspect, leading those in the secular world to view Christians as anti-intellectual. Both Stott and Schaeffer squelched that thought for me, helping me understand that yes, one’s mind does matter. Stott’s work introduces the basic claims of the Christian faith, and how those claims should lead us to live. God gave us a mind. If we don’t use it, then we are surrendering ourselves to superficiality. His work Basic Christianity is a guide for everyone seeking an understanding of the basic core principles of Christianity. How should being in Christ affect our daily lives? Both this work and Your Mind Matters provide a good introduction to the faith for those new to the faith. These two works will remain a constant go-to for believers regardless how long they have been Christians. One of Stott’s works that impacted me the most is one that he wrote later in life, The Cross of Christ. The cross is a universal symbol of the Christian faith. But what is its true importance for those of us who have been called to be in Christ? Stott presents a thorough exploration of the atoning work of Jesus, the Christ. He demonstrates how God accomplished the total work for our salvation. He is our justifier, redeemer, propitiator, and reconciler. This is a work that all believers in Christ should explore, study, and return to year after year.

Basic Introductory Works to the Faith

The following works are those that new believers in Christ will find useful as a springboard to their faith: Christian Basics: An Invitation to Discipleship (1958); Basic Introduction to the New Testament (1958); Basic Christianity (1965); Understanding the Bible (1972); Your Mind Matters (1972); Balanced Christianity (1975); The Authentic Christian (1995); Why I Am a Christian (2003).

Biblical Studies

The following titles are expositional works: The Preacher’s Portrait: Some New Testament Word Studies (1961); The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary (1964); Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8 (1966); The Message of Galatians (1968); Confess Your Sins: The Way of Reconciliation (1974); The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (1976); The Message of Ephesians (1979); The Cross of Christ (1986); The Sermon on the Mount [part of Life-Guide Bible Studies] (1987); Favorite Psalms (1988); The Message of Acts (1990); Men with a Message: An Introduction to the New Testament and Its Writers (1994); The Message of Romans: Good News for the World (1994); Acts: Seeing the Spirit at Work (1998); The Beatitudes: Developing Christian Character (1998); Galatians: Experiencing the Grace of Christ (1998); The Incomparable Christ (2001); The Life of Christ: A Guide for Daily Living (2003); Baptism and Fullness: The Work of the Holy Spirit Today (2006).

World-Wide Evangelical Movement

The following works reflect Stott’s outlook on world-wide evangelicalism as delineated in the Lausanne Covenant: Our Guilty Silence: The Church, the Gospel, and the World (1967); Christ the Controversialist: A Study in Some Essentials in Evangelical Religion (1970) Christian Mission in the World (1975); The Lausanne Covenant (1975); I Believe in Preaching (1982); The Contemporary Christian: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World (1992); Evangelical Truth: A Plea for Unity, Integrity, and Faithfulness (1999); Why I Am a Christian (2003); The Radical Disciple: Some Neglected Aspects of Our Calling (2010).

Conclusion

The works given above are not a complete list of Stott’s works. And there is so much more to say about Stott’s writings and personal work than has been written here. I encourage any believer in Christ who wants a basic understanding of the faith, and then the opportunity toward a deep-dive into the faith to read and study the works of John Stott. For anyone new to the faith, Basic Christianity and Your Mind Matters are excellent beginning points. For those that want to delve deeper into expositional Bible studies, listed here are several expositional works he authored over the years. Above all, I truly hope that Christians, young and old, will delve into his magnificent work, The Cross of Christ. Although Stott wrote for a few different publishers, most of his books, like those of James Sire and Francis Schaeffer, were published by IVP Press.

John Stott was rector emeritus at All Souls Church, Langham Place, London. Those who were close to him spoke of his death occurring around 3:15 in the afternoon, while being surrounded by friends and loved ones, reciting Scripture, and listening to Handel’s Messiah. John Stott is now with our Lord, Jesus Christ.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./January 14, 2026

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

by

Worldview: Naturalism

Introduction

Last month’s blog provided a general overview of James Sire’s works. One of the works highlighted in that overview is the one for which Sire is probably most remembered by Christians who follow his writings, The Universe Next Door. The subtitle of that book by Sire is A Basic Worldview Catalog. Sire delineates what he designates as nine worldviews, exploring how each worldview answers what he calls eight prime questions. As stated in last month’s blog, Sire’s The Universe Next Door went through six revisions, 2020 being the latest and last revision. He had originally delineated seven prime questions, and then added the eighth in the 2020 updated version of his book. The eight prime questions that each worldview seeks to answer are: 1) What is the prime reality or really real? 2) What is the nature of external reality (that is the world around us)? 3) What is a human being? 4) What happens to a person after death? 5) Why is it possible to know anything at all? 6) How do we know what is right and wrong? 7) What is the meaning of human history? 8) What personal life-orienting personal commitments are consistent with this worldview? There are many worldviews that challenge the worldview of what Sire calls Theism, and thereby Christianity, but one major worldview battle that Christians face emerges from the philosophy of Naturalism. That will be the focus of this month’s blog discussion.

Although those who have been given the epithet the New Atheists, (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens,) claim that their position is based on science, naturalism, nonetheless is a worldview. The battle between naturalism and Christianity is not between religion and science, but between two conflicting worldviews. To get a solid understanding of this worldview conflict, a good work to read and study is John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God. Lennox presents a thorough study of how these worldviews are indeed in conflict, and how the conflict between them historically came about. I hope to explore Lennox’s work sometime in the future on this blog.

The World View: Naturalism

What is the Prime Reality or Really Real?

Any worldview will seek to answer the question regarding the nature of existence. In naturalism, the nature of the cosmos is considered to be primary. Since there is no creator God, the natural realm becomes eternal, but not necessarily in its present form. Sire quotes Carl Sagan’s claim regarding the cosmos: The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Although naturalists can agree and disagree as to the form of matter having always been the same, where they agree is that there is no spiritual or transcendent force that gave rise to the cosmos, nor did anything spiritual or transcendent emerge from matter or the cosmos. Sire states regarding this worldview: In short matter is all there is. Ours is a natural cosmos.

What is the nature of external reality?

The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system. There was a time when naturalists or materialists held that the world was similar to that held by deists, the view of the world a machine, analogous to what is called a clockwork mechanism. However, modern scientists rightfully see the universe as more complex than a simple machine. Nonetheless, from their perspective, the cosmos is a closed system. What this entails is the view that the cosmos is not open to any kind of alteration or reordering from the outside by a transcendent creator (because no such Being exists), or by self-transcendent or autonomous beings. Sire points out that the naturalist worldview aligns with the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) that straightforwardly denies the existence of a creator and the miraculous. Naturalism is a pervasive worldview. The question emerges: In a naturalistic closed system, can one logically believe in free will and the ethics of right and wrong/morality and immorality?

What Is a Human Being?

From a consistent naturalistic worldview, human beings are viewed as complex machines. Human personality is the the epiphenomenon of chemical and physical properties of which we lack full understanding. The experience of consciousness and mind tends to challenge this idea, even from the perspective of some naturalists. However, to be consistent, the majority of naturalists see the mind as a function of machine. The human being is seen as a machine. Hence, according to naturalism, the self and soul are jettisoned, at least from a the perspective that such a notion describes the essence of being human. As human beings, we are part of the cosmos, which contains one reality: matter. Such reductionism can be over-simplified. Naturalists, such as Ernest Nagel point out the complexity of being human. . . . a mature naturalism attempts to assess man’s nature in light of his actions and achievements, his aspirations and capacities, his limitations and tragic failures, and his splendid works of ingenuity and imagination (Sire quoting Ernest Nagel). This brings up the thorny question again of free will and determinism. While some naturalists are strict determinists, others see a place for what they consider limited or restricted freedom.

What Happens to a Person at Death?

For the naturalist, death means the extinguishing of individuality and personality. Since human beings are made of nothing but matter, this position is the logical conclusion of naturalism’s view of the human being. Again, the Humanist Manifesto II states straightforwardly that the personality is a biological entity that functions in a social and cultural context. According to the Manifesto, there is no evidence that the personality survives death. The natural body is the sum of what human beings are.

Why Is It Possible to Know Anything at All?

This question gets at what philosophy designates as epistemology. How do we come to know things? What degree of certainty can we possess regarding our knowledge of things? The naturalists point to autonomous human reason granting our ability to know and understand to a limited degree the universe in which we are situated. This autonomous human reason they equate with the methods of science. It is this understanding of the mind and its operation that leads naturalists to pit science against religion. Those who hold to a theistic and Judeo- Christian worldview are labeled as anti-science. From the standpoint of naturalism, reason developed over a long period of time via the mechanism of natural evolution. The human being’s ability to reason is simply an innate ability that came about for humans via the mechanism of natural selection. Human knowledge then is the product of natural human reason and its perceived ability to grasp the truth of being in the world. The question that emerges is can we really know the world accurately? Many naturalists today would claim that language allows us to live successfully or unsuccessfully in the world. Hence, they turn to pragmatism as a philosophical approach to living. However, they hold that it is highly dubitable that we can know truth as truth about the world. More modern and poststructural positions see science in a different light from those who lived during the Enlightenment. However, consistent naturalists ground human reason in human nature – a product of nature – itself.

How Do We Know What Is Right and Wrong

A thorough worldview will take a stand on ethics, morality versus immorality. From the standpoint of naturalism, however, ethics did not play a major role in its historical development. Metaphysical notions gave rise as a logical extension of the a priori notions naturalists held regarding the external world. For quite sometime, naturalists held, for the most part, to ethics of their surrounding culture. The Humanist Manifesto II contain ethical norms similar to traditional morality with exceptions. However, the longer the existence of God is jettisoned as a legitimate belief, the wider the disagreements will become between a theistic and naturalist worldview. We are seeing that play out in the militancy by which the New Atheists attack Christianity. For the naturalist, ethics is autonomist and situational. Life has meaning, according to naturalism, because human beings themselves create such meaning. Hence, we are witnessing a split between what naturalists, especially those designated as the New Atheists, call science and the humanities. Postmodernism has brought its effect on science. However, many of the postmodern persuasion question whether science can offer human beings any accuracy regarding the world. The question that ethics gives rise to is: how do human beings derive an ought from what is?

What Is the Meaning of History?

From the standpoint of naturalism, if there is no Creator nor any transcendent meaning to existence, then history is simply linear with no overarching purpose. Human history is swallowed up by natural history. Human beings are merely along for the ride wherever natural history takes them. Since the goal of evolution was not focused on the emergence of human beings, there is nothing special and meaningful about human existence. Human beings appear on the naturalistic scene, and as self-aware creatures can make meaning of their existence, but the history they make has no inherent worth, nor is there an overarching goal to history. History will last as long as human beings last. When they go, then history will go.

What Personal Life-Orienting Core Commitments Are Consistent with Naturalism?

Naturalism itself implies no particular core commitment. Like ethics, commitments are chosen unwittingly, autonomously, and situationally. The naturalist claims that each individual is free to choose his or her core commitment. This raises the knotty question once again regarding the possibility of human freedom in a naturalistic system. Naturalism in practice is worked out in various forms of humanism. Humanism as a whole holds that human beings have dignity and value simply because they exist. One form of humanism is called secular humanism. This form of humanism is framed within a naturalist worldview. Such humanists would fall comfortably in responses to questions 1 through 6 above.

The second form of humanism is Marxism. Marxism and naturalism share certain assumptions, but Marx’s materialism was historical and dialectical, placing an emphasis on the economic factors of life as the primary determinants of history. Hence, history for Marx has meaning, and that meaning is found in class struggle. The goal of history is the new socialist individual, who will be less individualistic, working for the good of others. Marx likewise rejects any moral values as a basis for human motivation. Human beings create themselves through their work, and their work should be for the good of others. The sticky question that emerges with any worldview similar to Marx’s is can human beings really become good if they have the right environment? And then, what is the right environment? Marxism, like any form of naturalism, does not provide people with meaning and purpose. They are simply caught up in the dialectic of history that somehow will lead to Shangri-La.

Conclusion

The raging battle between worldviews of naturalism and theism is not a battle between religion and science, as individuals like the New Atheists would have everyone believe. Instead, the war is between two worldviews. Naturalism, as a worldview, posits no creator, no meaning in history, and that what people attain in this life perishes with them when they die. As a form of humanism, it provides no purpose and meaning for human beings. The church, however, has a challenge before it that has been with it since the Advent of Christ. What are we witnessing, as Christians to the world, what we and life in Christ are to be about? The history of the church has witnessed horrible persecutions of one another, the ugliness of religious wars, and petty divisiveness that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the faith. If we are to be the light and beacon on a hill that the church is called to be, then we must understand our calling in Christ, living out our worldview, which is diametrically opposed to the worldview of naturalism.

[References

Lennox, J. (2009). God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson plc.

Sire, J. (1976). The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. (Originally published in 1976, Sire’s The Universe Next Door underwent six editions over the years, each building on the previous edition (1976, 1988, 1997, 2004, 2009, 2020).]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./December 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview

by

The Works of James Sire

Introduction

Anyone who follows or by happenstance stumbles across this webpage know that it is dedicated to the Christian worldview. For that reason I want this month’s blog article to provide a general overview of several works authored by James Sire. Much of what I came to understand regarding the Christian worldview come from the writings of Francis Schaeffer and James Sire. Sire (1933-2018) was known mainly as a Christian writer, working for a number of years as the chief editor for InterVarsity Press (IVP). He obtained his Ph.D. in literature from the University of Missouri and held a professorship, teaching literature, philosophy, and the Christian faith. He authored 22 books covering those same areas of thought. He is known mainly for his book The Universe Next Door, which went through an evolution of six editions from 1976 to 2020. He delivered lectures at over two-hundred universities. Due to his focus on worldview and his defense of the Christian faith, he is known mainly as an apologist and his expertise in worldview analysis. Although Sire certainly excelled in the areas of apologetics and worldview analysis, he also wrote in many other areas that believers can read and study, finding a foundation for living out their faith in today’s postmodern world with its challenges to and attacks on, not only the Christian faith, but also on the notion of absolute truth.

Sire’s Focus on Worldview

As previously stated, Sire’s most well-known and probably most widely read work is The Universe Next Door. As the subtitle of the work indicates, this book is a catalogue of various worldviews, nine in all, surveying Christian Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Atheistic Existentialism, Theistic Existentialism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism, New Ageism, and Postmodernism. Sire doesn’t hold back from the fact that he writes as an evangelical Christian. His purpose is not to attack other worldviews, but to provide an overview of what they proclaim. I believe he provides a fair overview of each of the above delineated worldviews. More importantly, no one can write or discuss such ideas as these by totally surrendering or checking their worldview at the door. What one can do, however, is straightforwardly let his position be known and become aware of disagreements so as to write as balanced a presentation as possible. Sire accomplishes this task. The Universe Next Door went through six editions from 1976 to 2020. Through the years, Sire updated his discussions and added additional worldviews to the original work published in 1976. For the believer, this work provides a solid foundation for the different worldviews that he or she might encounter in day-to-day living, and since Sire taught at the university level, those believers who are ensconced in university life will find this work helpful in addressing the worldviews and philosophies that counter their faith in the classroom. The Universe Next Door is indeed Sire’s most popular work, selling over some 400,000 copies.

Sire’s catalogue of worldviews, however, is not his only work on worldview philosophy that believers in Christ can find helpful. He authored another study on worldview titled, Naming the Elephant (2004). He designates this work as a worldview analysis. He makes the case for the place of worldview and cultural analysis in this important work. He provides a historical overview of the various explanations of the concept of worldview, building on a similar work authored by David Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (2002). Sire explains his expansion and philosophical nuances of his definition and understanding of what a worldview encapsulates. As such, this book will be of use to the student in humanities, whether he or she is studying literature, history, philosophy, or religious studies. The book is more philosophical and academic than Universe. Nonetheless, Naming the Elephant is accessible and will provide solid ground for university students who encounter worldviews opposed and even antagonistic toward their Christian beliefs.

Additional books by Sire that believers will find helpful in the areas of worldview analysis and apologetics include: A Program for a New Man: An Alternative to B. F. Skinner, Aldous Huxley, & Herbert Marcuse (1973); Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (1980); Chris Chrisman Goes to College: And Faces the Challenges of Relativism, Individualism, and Pluralism (1983); Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All (1994; Sire eplores the philosophical realm of epistemology); Shirley MacLaine and the New Age Movement (1988); A Little Primer of Humble Apologetics (2006); Why Good Arguments Fail: Making a Persuasive Case for Christ (2006); Apologetics Beyond Reason: Why Seeing Really Is Believing (2006); Eclectic Apologetics: An Argument from Everything – Especially Literature (2014); Deepest Differences: A Christian-Atheist Dialogue (2009, co-authored with C. Peraino).

Sire’s Devotional Works

In addition to worldview analysis and apologetics, Sire authored some works that believers can read through as daily devotions. These include: Jeremiah Meet the 20th Century: 12 Studies in Jeremiah (1975); Beginning with God: A Basic Introduction to the Christian Faith (1981; As the title indicates, this short work by Sire is an excellent introduction to the Christian faith, particularly for new believers who want a solid springboard into their faith. Sire’s book comprises 13 chapters that can form an excellent group study format over a period of twelve to thirteen weeks. From understanding God’s name to coming grips with what it means to be in Christ, or relating to God as a personal God, this concise introduction to the Christian faith provides a foundation from which believers in Christ can begin their journey into the faith, moving toward sanctification and growth. Basic themes from the Bible are explored: God as the I Am; God as creator; human beings in the Imago Dei; the fall; sin; the believer’s life in Christ; believers as members of the family of God.); Meeting Jesus: 13 Studies for Individuals and Groups (1988); Discipleship of the Mind: Learning to Love God in the Ways We Think (1990; this work builds on what Christ proclaimed to be the greatest commandment); Jesus the Reason: 11 Studies for Individuals and Groups (1996; 2003); Habits of the Mind: The Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling (2000; 2022); Introducing Jesus (2001); a devotional study); Learning to Pray Through the Psalms (2005); Thirsting for God: Exploring Prayer Through the Psalms (2006); Praying the Psalms of Jesus (2007); Echoes of a Voice: We Are Not Alone (2014; Sire discusses those experiences that connects us with something that is beyond the realm of our immediate experience. He designates such experiences as echoes of a voice, drawing on Peter Berger’s nomenclature, signals of transcendence. As the title indicates, these are experiences that tell us in some way we are not alone. Such echoes may occur for us the first time we see an ocean, or our first encounter with a place such as Flathead Lake or Glacier National Park in MT. Sire distinguishes 4 different levels of theses echoes. Level 1 is simply a signal per se that leads us to think beyond its mere existence. Level 2 signals tell us that there is something about an experience that points to that which is beyond its mere material existence. Level 3 signals point to something that is personal that exists beyond ordinary reality, something that can bring peace or danger. Level 4 signals speak of the depths of the Thou, a Person who is ultimate being, and can be described only in terms of the holy and the divine – the mysterium tremendum. Sire explores these echoes or signals throughout this work, calling on us as readers to reflect and meditate on such experiences as signals of transcendence coming from the one true God as spoken of in the Bible.)

Sire’s Approach to Literature

Having received his Ph.D. in Literature, Sire also provides some thoughtful studies for believers and others in literary analysis. These include: How to Read Slowly: Reading for Comprehension (1978; Sire provides some poetic passages from Matthew Arnold, William Blake, and others on which to concentrate, learning to read and re-read slowly.); The Joy of Reading: A Guide to Becoming a Better Reader (1984). In the genres of biography and autobiography, Sire provides some insightful works: Vaclav Havel: The Intellectual Conscience of International Politics: An Introduction, Appreciation, and Critique (2001); Rims of the Sandhills: Why I Am Still a Christian (2012; An autobiography that traces Sire’s life from his early childhood, growing up in Nebraska through his journeys from his early school days to his stint in the military in Korea to his navigations as a college student, teacher, professor, and editor of InterVarsity Press. Along the way readers travel with him through his various lectures in the U.S. and Europe. One major theme that stands out is that Sire was always drawn towards ideas, wanting to be an intellectual in service to Christ and God’s Kingdom. In alignment with his interests with scholarship was his strong desire to understand various worldviews and how Christians could respond to a culture steeped in ideologies that contrasted with and were even antagonistic towards Christianity. This short book contains key bibliographic information regarding Sire’s works along with some of those that influenced him. While not exhaustive, they provide a solid beginning for those who would like to know more about Sire and who would want to read more of his works.)

Conclusion

The list of works above authored by James Sire provides believers in Christ a thorough foundation for dealing with worldviews that counter and/or are antagonistic toward their spiritual beliefs. Additionally, Sire provides some in-depth devotional studies that can offer a thorough foundation for believers in their day-to-day sanctification, whether they are university students or those who simply want to deepen their relationship with God. For students and connoisseurs of literature, he offers some insights on how to read slowly for comprehension. Finally, readers can learn much from Sire’s writings on Vaclav Havel, the dissident who stood against Russian communism that had invaded Prague. For Christians, readers can delve into Sire’s autobiography, Rims of the Sandhills, in which Sire discusses how he came to faith and maintained that faith through his life-long endeavors. For those Christians who seek to engage worldview analysis, one can’t find a better guide than the works of James Sire.

John V. Jones, Jr. Ph.D./ November 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview

S

by

We Are Barabbas

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. (Romans 2:23-25)

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteous of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Introduction

All four gospels address Pilate’s acquiescence to the Jews in his releasing of Barabbas while condemning Jesus to be crucified. All four gospel writers mention that Barabbas was either an insurrectionist, a robber, or a murder. At the time of Jesus’ trial, Barabbas had already been imprisoned and was condemned to die. How is it, then, that the case and release of Barabbas represent the Christian understanding of humanity in the world? Our full understanding of Barabbas comes through our understanding of Jesus’ propitiatory work through His substitutionary atonement.

The Substitution

When Jesus came to him to be baptized, John the Baptist declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). As the perfect Lamb of God, Jesus lived perfectly the Law of God, so there was no sin in Him. Only a perfect sacrifice can remove our sin once and for all. The Book of Hebrews proclaims the preeminence of Christ. His sacrificial atonement completes – fulfills once and for all – the sacrificial shedding of blood. The sacrifices as detailed in the Old Testament are but foreshadowings of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, the Christ. For it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). But through His fulfillment of the Law the blood of Christ ended the sacrificial system once and for all. Eternal life is granted to those who believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ. As the epigraph above, (2 Corinthians 2:21), proclaims: our sin was imputed to Christ and His righteousness as a free gift has been imputed to those who are called to be in Christ.

We Are All Barabbas

Barabbas was imprisoned. He was a condemned insurrectionist, robber, and murderer. As the epigraph above (Romans 3:23-25) tells us, before knowing Christ as our savior, we were all Barabbas in his condemnation. We were imprisoned and enslaved by our sins, our fallen nature. We were guilty and condemned before God. We were dead in our trespasses. When Pilate pardoned and released Barabbas, he was freed from the just sentence he had received, awaiting execution. Jesus Christ took his place. For those who believe in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, we are now the freed Barabbas. In Christ, the gavel has sounded, echoing in the court room. The Judge makes the pronouncement: Justified. One step remained: the recognition of our guilt and that it had been paid – atoned – for. We have to receive the pardon, that is admit our need for God’s grace.

Receiving the Pardon

Barabbas could have very well rejected his pardon. He could have proclaimed to be a sworn enemy of Rome, wanting nothing from them. Yet, he did not reject his release and pardon for his crimes. We too, as believers in Christ, had to recognize our need for the atoning work of Jesus the Christ. We had to profess before God our need for His grace and receive the gift of salvation. This is not a work on our part anymore than Barabbas in some way earned his pardon from Pilate.

In 1892, a man by the name of George Wilson committed a crime for which he was sentenced to hanging. Being approached by friends of Wilson, then president Andrew Jackson granted Wilson a pardon from his death sentence. Wilson, however, rejected the pardon. His case reached the Supreme Court in which John Marshal wrote, a pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of laws . . . delivery is not completed without acceptance . . . we have no power in the court to force it on him.

Our pardon before God is an act of grace. We must see our need and then believe in the atoning work of Christ. Scripture tells that faith too is a gift of God. In some manner beyond human fathoming, God’s providence and man’s responsibility before God are both Biblical truths. Those who do not recognize their need for Jesus’ atoning work reject it. They are in the stead of George Wilson.

Conclusion

We have no historical documentation that records for us what unfolded in Barabbas’ life following his pardon. We can hope that he came to know the teachings of Christ and took them to heart. After all his name, Bar-abbas, means son of the father, one who obtained his pardon because the Son of the one true living God the Father took his place. Our Christian worldview holds that we are Barabbas, justly condemned, but graciously pardon. We live in a world where we must recognize that every living soul is a Barabbas in need of a pardon, apart from which there is only condemnation. Hence, there is no meritorious difference among people when it comes to what God offers us through Christ. Those of us whom God has called to believe in Christ strongly and emphatically embrace the free gift that comes to us through His grace alone.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./October 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/WORLDVIEW

by

The Attributes of God: Navigating the Paradoxes in Life

For our Lord is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:9)

The lovingkindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting. (Psalm 103:17)

Introduction

We may call them tensions of existence, those seemingly contradictions that upon deeper reflection or examination form the paradoxes that make up our lives. How we navigate those paradoxes goes a long way in showing how we go about living our lives. And the way we live our lives speaks to the worldview we hold, regardless of the extent to which we are aware of our worldview. I have written before about what I call tensions of existence, [here] [here], but I want to restructure that discussion in light of worldview analysis from a Christian perspective. The paradoxes that fill out our experiences I believe are grounded in the character of God. Rather than being contradictions, they are tensions that give meaning to life when we come to understand that such experiences are grounded in the reality of who God is, thereby shedding light on how we can navigate such experiences in our day-to-day living.

I want to open a door to four areas in which we might experience living as comprising contradictions or tensions, exploring God’s word as to how we might settle into navigating those paradoxes that confront us: diligence/ceasing to strive; obedience/resting in God; human responsibility/God’s sovereignty in our lives; and finally what has been errantly considered as Pauline theology in contrast with theology attributed to James.

Diligence/Cease Striving

They will seek me diligently but they will not find me . . . (Proverbs 1:28)

Cease striving and know that I am God . . . (Psalm 46:10)

Throughout the book of Proverbs, diligence is contrasted with indolence. Want and poverty come upon the idle and lazy like night falling over the day. In contrast, the diligent provide for their means and the means of their family and loved ones. One of the major themes in Proverbs is its declaration to seek wisdom above all else, to pursue wisdom diligently. Other synonyms for diligence include assiduity (skillful living), persistence, and hard work. The warning of Proverbs 1:28 entails the frightening consequences of idleness, wherein one realizes the results of slothfulness in not pursuing wisdom, but cannot find wisdom although one seeks for it diligently. This provides a harrowing portrait of a wasted life.

Given that diligence comprises skills that are amassed across life via persistence and hard work, it is easy for us as fallen creatures to turn diligence into a harried lifestyle, full of anxiety and fear. We may come to believe that we must know everything, exercise perfection in all that we do, and build up a way of life that proves something to ourselves and others. (Many of the verses in Proverbs pertaining to diligence and hard work have been absconded in the false teaching of the prosperity gospel). To counter such a harried lifestyle, we must take to heart Psalm 46:10 – Cease striving . . . How do we on the one hand, diligently work out our lives, while on the other hand, cease striving before God? To understand striving, we must acknowledge those times we are trying to work according to our own strength, not being led by the Spirit of God (Galatians 5:16-18). Developing diligence does not entail a work-harried life, nor does ceasing to strive equate to an idle or passive way of living. Both exhortations from Scripture are true. We are to pursue wisdom diligently, building diligence into our lives, while simultaneously resting in God for the outcome and care He provides. Some people may want to call such an approach to life balance. But I think the notion of balance can be misconstrued. We work at life diligently, accruing the wisdom that Scripture calls us to build, while resting in God’s sovereignty that He will make our paths straight (Proverbs 3:6).

Obedience/Enter God’s Rest

But he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. (John 3:36)

For the one who has entered God’s rest has ceased from his works as God did from His. (Hebrews 4:10)

As believers in Christ, we know that we are to obey and keep God’s commandments. Scripture is replete with commandments to be obedient before God (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy, 11:1; Psalm 103:14; Isaiah 1:19; Luke 6:46; John 14:21-24, 15:23; 1 John 5:3, etc., etc.). Equally true is the warning against legalism, seeking to obtain righteousness through fulfilling God’s Law by our own merit. Paul’s entire epistle to the Galatians speaks to this human failing along with many of his other epistles as well as writings penned by other apostolic authors. How do we on the one hand, obey God, while on the other hand rest from our works as God did from His (Hebrews 4:10)? Just as we can turn diligence into a harried life, we can do the same with our pursuit of obedience to God. Hebrews 4:10 speaks to the truth that upon entering God’s rest, we have ceased from our works, i.e. seeking to earn our salvation through works. As believers in Christ, we can do the exact same thing with our sanctification whereby we strive to grow in the knowledge of God by becoming obedient to Him through our own efforts. God’s word tells us that His will for us is our sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Likewise, salvation and sanctification are gifts bestowed upon us through the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (Ephesians 3:14-19). Entering God’s rest means we embrace His grace to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in us to do His will (Philippians 2:12-13). As fallen creatures, we come up short every day in working out our salvation, many times per day. We have the solace, however, from 1 John 1:9 that when we do fall short, as children of God we can confess our moral failings, thereby restoring our relationship with God. Faith is the overarching power that allows us to pursue our sanctification but to enter God’s rest and cease striving.

Human Responsibility/God’s Sovereignty

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Exodus 33:19)

Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things. (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

Much of the discussion above can be consumed under the heading of human responsibility juxtaposed to God’s sovereignty over all things. The question that this apparent contradiction brings up is how, on the one hand, are human beings morally responsible for their actions, while on the other hand, God is understood as being totally sovereign over the universe and all that transpires there? While the Apostle Paul gets at this knotty problem through his epistles, he primarily addresses this paradox in Romans, chapters 8 and 9. From a reading of those two sections of his epistle to the believers in Rome, we obtain Paul’s teaching that God is totally sovereign, can do as He pleases, when He pleases, and however He pleases. Additionally, Paul tells us in Romans and other epistles that God is totally just, perfectly holy, and supremely righteous in all that He decrees. God is not the author of sin, nor does He tempt or cause anyone to sin (James 1:13). Although God is completely sovereign, human beings are morally responsible before Him. Given that He owes humanity nothing, anything good coming from God is a gift through grace from Him. At this juncture, we must look at the line where space-time meets with eternity. Human logic is a gift from God for our use to navigate the world in which we live. What finite logic cannot do, however, is totally comprehend God, whose ways are higher than our ways (Ecclesiastes 11:5). Both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are Biblical truths that we embrace although not totally understanding how they work together. While human responsibility signifies to us our culpability before God, God’s sovereignty is our comfort that no matter what occurs, He is in control. As stated above, we can enter His rest and cease striving, knowing He is God.

Justification: Faith and Works

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24).

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. (Romans 3:28).

These two statements, both by apostles of Christ, have caused much consternation for believers who make up the Body of Christ, the church. Early on, after his conversion, Paul made contact with Peter and James, sharing with them what he understood the gospel to comprise. They readily responded to Paul with a handshake of acceptance. (Galatians 1:18-19). Paul delineates these facts in his letter to the Galatians. In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul painstakingly lays out that individuals are not justified by their fulfillment of the Law of God. The Law, in fact, is a roadmap to the need for grace from God. The Law declares to us the fact of our sin nature, that we do in fact commit sin, constantly falling short of the requirements of the Law. Hence, the Old Testament sacrificial system is a type that pointed to the antitype fulfilled in the atoning work of Jesus, the Christ. Paul declares to the Galatians that one is justified, declared innocent before God, by faith alone in Christ’s atonement on the cross. To seek to live by the Law, therefore, is to add human merit to the work of Christ.

Those known as the Judaizers, Jews who knew James, the brother of Christ, infiltrated the church at Galatia, teaching the Christians there that in addition to faith in Christ, they must fulfill the requirements of the Law. Specifically, the Judaizers told the Gentile Christians in Galatia that they must be circumcised. Upon learning this, Paul writes his epistle to the Galatians, excoriating those who view getting right before God by adding certain requirements of the Law to faith in Jesus’ work of atonement. Because the Judaizers knew James, and because of particular verses in James’ epistles, some theologians have construed that Paul and James preached two different gospels, one by faith alone in Christ (Paul), and one by faith plus work (James). However, as stated above, James was one of the first apostles whom Paul made contact following his conversion. Afterwards he met with Barnabas, submitting his understanding of the gospel to him to make sure he was not running in vain (Galatians 2:2). A closer look at James clarifies the apparent contradiction between Paul and James, thereby clarifying the apparent contradiction we may experience in our understanding of faith and works.

Throughout the epistle of James, he denounces an empty mental assent to a belief in God that in turn produces no evidence in a person that he is a Christian. The foundational teaching of James is that one cannot claim to be a Christian while evidencing no change in one’s life that indicates that he belongs to Christ. He presents the same teaching as Paul of Abraham as an example of faith. While Paul stresses that Abraham was reckoned as righteous some 400 years before the Law was given to Moses (Romans 4), James points to Abraham’s offering of Isaac for sacrifice as evidence of Abraham’s faith (James 2:21-24). As Paul had pointed out, Abraham was reckoned as righteous because He believed God (Genesis 15:6), centuries before God gave the Law to Moses, and many years before God tested Abraham in commanding him to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Paul and James, therefore, are speaking to the same truth. We are justified by faith, but our justification should evidence changes in our lives that demonstrate that we are different individuals due to our faith. Indeed Paul equally emphasizes with James the relationship of faith to works. Paul lays out this truth in Ephesians 2:4-10. While we are indeed saved by God’s mercy, we are also God’s workmanship created for good works which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Ephesians 2:10). Are we then saved by faith alone? Yes. Are we to evidence works, or good deeds, in our lives? Yes. But we do not perform works to merit salvation. Our works are in response to the grace that God has bestowed upon us.

Conclusion: The Attributes of God

The verses that form the epigraph at the beginning of this blog, speak to the attributes that make up the character of God. When we explore and meditate upon the various attributes of God, we confront what we may believe to be apparent contradictions. As stated above, how we navigate the paradoxes that life sends our way speaks to the worldview by which we live. It incumbent upon us to comprehend our worldview as fully as we can. We are to live out the truths of God in our lives through faith as a witness to the world. How we understand those truths so as to live them out entails our Christian worldview. God is wrath/God is love. God is eternally sovereign/humans are finite and responsible. God is transcendent/God is immanent. God is beyond our comprehension, yet He has revealed Himself to us so that we can know what He intends for us to know (Deuteronomy 29:29). How are we to understand the apparent contradictions that seem inherent in the attributes of God? First, we must humble ourselves before God, setting aside our sin of pride, becoming open to the truth that because He is infinite and we are His finite creatures, human logic cannot envelop the nature of God. There are paradoxical truths to which we must simply hold. This we can know. Given all His attributes, God is not arbitrary. He is totally just. In terms of God’s wrath and His love, these two attributes are resolved, not in discounting God’s justice, but knowing that the price has been paid by Christ’s atoning work so that love and justice meet. God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26). Given the attributes of God who makes all things, and that we are fallen creatures, why shouldn’t we encounter life as a series of apparent contradictions that we are to navigate and understand in light of the character of God? God is the source of all that is good, holy, just, and righteous. And without compromise, God is the source of all that is compassionate, gracious, forgiving, and loving-kind. Without compromise is the key. Both sides of these attributes are grounded and resolved in the lovingkindness of God who satisfied justice through the payment of Jesus’ atoning work on the cross. Our Christian worldview can be lived out before the world by God’s grace. Likewise, given human responsibility, we can fall woefully short of living out what we believe before the eyes of the world. May we prayerfully seek God’s grace to be the kingdom of priests and the light that the the Body of Christ, the church, is called to be.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./September 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview

by

Biblical Wisdom for Independent Thinkers: How Scripture Guides Us in Seeking Truth and Living Freely.

Guest Author : Ava Addams

[Unfortunately, we live in a culture that caricatures Christianity as a faith whereby one must leave his or her mind at the door while entering the sanctuary. Ava Addams takes aim at such thinking in her article: Biblical Wisdom for Independent Thinkers.]

Biblical Wisdom for Independent Thinkers: How Scripture Guides Us in Seeking Truth and Living Freely.

We live in a world that constantly tells us what to think, how to live, and what to believe. Whether it’s the news, social media, or even well-meaning voices in our church communities, it can feel like we’re being pushed in a hundred different directions. But what does the Bible say about thinking for ourselves?

A lot of people assume that Christianity is about blind obedience—that faith means shutting off your brain and just going with the flow. But that’s not true. The Bible actually encourages independent thinking. God doesn’t want robots; He wants people who seek truth, wrestle with tough questions, and ultimately find freedom in Him.

So, how do we balance faith and critical thinking? How do we make sure that in our pursuit of truth, we don’t end up drifting away from God? Let’s dive in.

Does the Bible Encourage Independent Thinking?

Absolutely. Jesus Himself challenged the religious leaders of His day, calling out traditions that had strayed from God’s heart (Mark 7:6-9). He constantly invited people to think deeper—to not just follow the rules, but to understand why they existed.

Then there’s the story of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Paul came to preach, but instead of just accepting his words at face value, the Bereans “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” They weren’t skeptics for the sake of skepticism; they were seekers of truth. And they were commended for it.

That’s the kind of independent thinking God calls us to—one that is grounded in truth, not just rebellion for the sake of rebellion.

Faith vs. Reason: Do They Have to Clash?

Some people are afraid that asking too many questions will shake their faith. But the Bible is full of people who questioned God—Moses, Job, David, even Thomas after Jesus’ resurrection.

Look at the book of Job. Job didn’t just accept his suffering—he asked why. He wrestled with it. And instead of punishing him, God engaged with him. Job didn’t get all the answers he wanted, but he got something better: a deeper understanding of who God is.

Faith and reason aren’t enemies. In fact, real faith requires thinking. If we never stop to question, to dig deeper, or to seek understanding, we risk building our faith on shaky ground.

Freedom in Christ: Independent Thinking vs. Spiritual Bondage

A lot of people think independence means doing whatever you want. But the Bible defines freedom differently. True freedom isn’t about rejecting authority altogether—it’s about being free from the wrong authorities.

Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). That means freedom comes from knowing God’s truth, not just following the loudest voice in the room.

Paul warned against both legalism (being controlled by religious rules) and lawlessness (doing whatever we feel like). Instead, he pointed to a different kind of freedom—one that comes from living in the Spirit (Galatians 5:1, 5:13).

So, independent thinking isn’t about throwing off all authority. It’s about choosing the right authority—God’s truth over human traditions, His wisdom over the shifting opinions of culture.

Thinking for Yourself in a World of Misinformation

Let’s be honest: we live in a world full of noise. Everyone has an opinion, and not all of them are true. So how do we separate fact from fiction?

The Bible gives us a few tools for critical thinking:

  • Test everything. “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). Just because something sounds good—or even Christian—doesn’t mean it’s true.
  • Seek wisdom, not just validation. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” In other words, don’t just listen to one side of an argument—seek a fuller picture.
  • Pray for discernment. James 1:5 says that if we ask for wisdom, God will give it to us generously. When in doubt, pray for clarity.
  • Surround yourself with truth-seekers. Proverbs 27:17 reminds us that “as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Find people who challenge you in a way that leads to growth, not confusion.

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Independent Thinking

Here’s the thing: independent thinking is great, but we’re not meant to figure everything out on our own.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be our guide: “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That means we don’t have to rely only on our own logic—God Himself will help us discern truth.

The key is staying humble. There’s a danger in thinking that we always know best, but Proverbs 12:15 warns, “The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice.”

Being an independent thinker doesn’t mean rejecting all authority; it means being careful about whose authority we trust.

What About Church? Can We Question Leadership?

This is a tough one. Some churches encourage open discussion, while others see questioning as a threat. So, where’s the line?

The early church leaders debated theology (Acts 15), and Paul even confronted Peter when he was in the wrong (Galatians 2:11-14). That tells us that even church leaders should be held accountable.

At the same time, Hebrews 13:17 reminds us to respect godly leaders who truly shepherd well. The key is discernment—if a leader resists all accountability or shuts down questions, that’s a red flag.

Healthy churches encourage dialogue. Unhealthy ones demand blind obedience.

So, what does it mean to think independently as a Christian?

Final Thoughts: Independent Thinking Done Right

It means:

  • Seeking truth, not just accepting what we’re told.
  • Balancing faith and reason instead of fearing questions.
  • Finding true freedom in Christ—not in rebellion or legalism.
  • Learning to discern truth in a world full of noise.
  • Trusting the Holy Spirit to guide us.
  • Holding leaders accountable while staying humble.

The Bible doesn’t ask us to shut off our brains. It calls us to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37). Independent thinking, when done right, isn’t a rejection of faith—it’s a deeper pursuit of it.

Author’s Bio: Ava is an experienced writer and SEO specialist who excels at creating engaging narratives that deeply connect with audiences. Drawing from her expertise in Christian marketing, she has dedicated five years to refining her craft as a content creator and SEO strategist at a leading Christian Brand.

Guest Author: Ava Addams/August 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/Worldview

by

“Deep Calls to Deep”

Deep calls to deep at the sound of your waterfalls; All Your breakers and Your waves have rolled over me. The Lord will command His lovingkindness in the daytime; His song will be with me in the night, A prayer to the God of my life. (Psalm 42:7-8)

Introduction

I am reflecting on the tragedies that have fallen on countless families in the Hill Country of Texas, the many losses of life, numerous being children who were attending a Christian camp called Camp Mystic. In no way will I seek to stand in the shoes of those family members who have lost loved ones. I do believe that such experiences are inexplicable to the human mind. Rather than being distant during those hard-hitting moments, we have a heavenly Father who is never far from us. Our feelings, however, can get the best of us, and the questions of why can be never ending. However, this is not a time to question or stifle one’s emotions. Pronounce them and cast them before God because He cares for us. (1 Peter 5:6-7).

Psalm 42: Waiting on God

David’s psalm speaks to the experience of going through difficult times and his yearning for God’s nearness. Psalm 42 opens with the intense description of David’s longing for God: As a deer pants for the water brooks/So my soul pants for You, O God (v. 1). Another rendering of the word pants is longs for. Throughout the psalm, David describes his soul as being in despair and having become disturbed within me (vv. 5, 6, & 11). Like all human beings, he asks why this is the case. His response to his despair is to hope in God, for I shall again praise Him (vv. 5 & 11). But David’s reply to his despair is not perfunctory or wishful thinking. Another rendering of the word hope in God is wait on God. Although we see the resolve in this short psalm, David, like all of us had to place his faith and hope in God and wait out what God would do for him. The psalm provides no idea how long David had to wade the troubled waters that engulfed him. This is not easy, for faith is not about life being easy. 

Poetic Longings for God

The psalms are Hebraic poetry; therefore, they use metaphors and symbols. Deep calls to deep is possibly a metaphor for David’s deep despair calling on God’s deep understanding and lovingkindness. The breakers and waves are the troubles that have flooded David’s life. Yet he also states that these breakers and waves are Your breakers and Your waves. This is not a declaration that God is actively punishing David or arbitrarily flooding him with difficult times. It does mean, however, that God is sovereign. No matter what we experience, God is sovereign and near as we navigate troubled times in our lives. 

Then follows the statement: The Lord will command His lovingkindness in the daytime (v. 8). The word command can simply mean what it says, the Lord commands us in certain ways. Yet the Hebrew word used here, tsavah, can also mean that God establishes His lovingkindness in the daytime. God appoints His lovingkindness to be with the psalmist; He establishes His lovingkindness to be actively present with David. The thought is then completed by the statement: And His song will be with me in the night. Symbolically, the daytime speaks to things that we can readily see, while the night places us in the dark where we must cling to the promises of who God is. But there is not a time that God’s care ever forsakes us. God’s presence and lovingkindness will be with us in the day and through the night. 

Conclusion

As we remember our brothers and sisters in Christ in the Hill Country of Texas who are presently going through some devastating times, may we take solace that God has established His lovingkindness and presence to be with them as the flooding rains there are hard-hitting symbols of the reality that they are truly facing.

God’s presence and lovingkindness is and will continually be with them in the day and through the night.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./July 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

by

Worldview/Mind: The Mind of Christ

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Introduction

A worldview to some degree may be understood through an exploration of the categories that it comprises. In past blog articles, I have delineated five categories by which I seek to understand what goes into the formation of an individual’s worldview: 1)mind; 2)meaning-making; 3)ethics/valuation; 4)humility/finitude; and 5)thought/action. This month’s blog will focus on the over-arching category of mind. Because the goal of this blog is to proffer a Christian worldview, I will explore the category of mind by looking at how the Bible calls Christians to put on the mind of Christ. What exactly does that entail? As believers in Christ, how do we go about fulfilling that charge? And how does putting on the mind of Christ shape our worldview?

Mind, as a topic of exploration, is extensive with a plethora of research from such fields as neurology, neuroscience, cognitive science, just to name a few in addition to the centuries of philosophical approaches in the field of mind studies. Such a broad and in-depth research cannot be recapitulated in short blog articles composed on this sight. I have touched on some of this research [here] and [here]. But in this article I want to address how the Christian’s worldview is shaped when the believer adheres to the Biblical call to put on the mind of Christ. In addressing how mind, our deeply held beliefs and attitudes, shapes our Christian worldview, I specifically focus on two passages: 1 Corinthians 2:16 and Ephesian 4:23. Then I will speak to what Christ called the greatest commandment (Luke 10:27; Mark 12:29-31; Matthew 22:37-40) and how it shapes our view of God and, thereby, our worldview. Suffice it say upfront, to put on the mind of Christ is not something Christians fulfill by their own power. In line with justification, salvation, and sanctification, while human responsibility has its part, the growth and deepening of the Christian’s way of life occurs through the grace of God.

The Mind of Christ

FOR WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD THAT HE SHOULD INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Christians must build their worldview on one rock-bottom foundation, the truth of God. Such truth not only speaks to His existence, but to His power, His holiness, and His sovereignty. As believers in Christ, our worldview is built on God as the ultimate foundation, or it is built on nothing at all. In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13, addressing the holiness and power of God. Isaiah 40 establishes God’s power, holiness, and sovereignty, declaring that no one counsels God as to what He will do or how He will bring things about. Throughout the Book of Isaiah, the prophet warns Israel and Judah of God’s coming judgment upon them. But with His judgment, also exists His mercy. Isaiah 40 paints a beautiful picture of God’s sovereign power coupled with His lovingkindness, with the promise that He will gather His people as a flock of lambs and carry them in His bosom. Paul addresses both the sovereign power of God and yet another promise that believers have been given in the New Testament. We have the mind of Christ. As people who have been called to be in Christ by the sovereignty of God before the foundation of the world, we have this promise: we have been gifted with the mind of Christ. There is no Christian worldview if we do not stand on the bedrock promises of God. Mind, the way we think and believe, informs our Christian worldview only if we put on the mind of Christ. If we seek to establish a way of living in any other way, we are building a house on shifting sand.

What does it mean to have the mind of Christ? We have yet another promise as believers in Christ. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a Person, not some Star Wars like force. He indwells us to teach us the ways of God. We come to understand who God is via His word, prayer, relationships within the Body of Christ, the church, and becoming aware of the way His sovereignty and providence works in our lives. The Holy Spirit gifts to us the ability to understand the ways and purposes of God. Such understanding is our sanctification, the living out of what God has planned for us. Although we cannot see or know that plan from beginning to end, we walk in it daily by His grace, and we work out our sanctification. Then, and only then, will our worldview unfold. Hence our worldview is not something we build by our own strength. It becomes manifest through our relationship with God.

God predestined us to become conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:28-30). Being gifted with the mind of Christ also means that we are empowered to be more and more like Him. In this life, we will always fall short of that reality on a daily basis. But we have been granted the strength that comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit and the strength of Christ that also indwells us (2 Corinthians 12:9). Our Christian worldview will become manifest if we, by the grace of God, pursue our sanctification, allowing the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit to shape our lives. Sanctification is a daily task. It begins anew each day, yet it through time deepens us in our understanding of the ways of God so that we live out our lives through those ways. We build our Christian worldview only on the bedrock truth of God that He has gifted us through His word. We do not build our worldview via our own power; it manifests itself through our relationship with God, unfolding through our sanctification.

The Greatest Commandment

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. . . (Matthew 22:37)

Our worldview becomes manifest through our alignment with what Jesus called the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:27). The necessity of God’s grace is witnessed yet again in that the only way we have the power to obey the greatest commandment is by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit and Christ. How do we know if we are living out the greatest commandment? Jesus shines the light for us so that we know the way. We abide in Him (John 15:1-11). But how do we know that we are in fact abiding in Christ? Again, Jesus tells us. We abide in His love if we obey His commandments. Obeying the commandments of Christ is not a checklist experience; it is a way of living. Through God’s grace we pursue our sanctification and build our lives on His bedrock truth, Jesus being the chief cornerstone (Psalm 118:22; Acts 4:11-12). The constant need for the church is to stand on the word of God, His truth, so that we are manifesting what we believe in the eyes of the world. Over the centuries, the church has fallen drastically short of this charge in many ways. Nonetheless, our charge is to be the light and salt, a beacon on a hill for the world to see. We can only accomplish that spiritual reality by building our lives on the truth, which is Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Only Christians, those who believe in Christ for their salvation, can build a truly Christian worldview. Those who claim to hold to the teachings of Christ, yet do not accept His teachings concerning the Father, Himself, and the Spirit are seeking to build lives on shifting sand. There is a second exhortation that makes up the greatest commandment: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Our Christian worldview should reflect how we interact with others, those who are within the body of Christ, and those who are not. Throughout its history the church at times has fallen woefully short of that commandment. Our Christian worldview needs to evidence how we relate to others through the mind of Christ. Although the Imago Dei in human beings allow so much light for people to live, ultimately the truth of God resides only in the eternal logos, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). He is the chief cornerstone, the only pathway for building our Christian worldview. Apart from the mind of Christ, we will fall short in manifesting the truth of God in our lives.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./June 14th, 2025

THEMATIC/Worldview – Mind

by

Thought and Action

Galatians 5:22-23; 2 Peter 1:5-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:3a; James 1:22; 2:8, 14-26

Introduction

Over the course of this blog, I have delineated five categories that comprise a worldview: mind, meaning-making, valuation (ethics), humility/finitude, and thought/action. For this month’s blog article I want to focus on thought/action – do our actions align with what we claim to believe, do they provide evidence for the worldview that we espouse? I write from a Reformed Christian perspective, so I will speak to the building up of a Christian worldview (See Abraham Kuyper; Francis Schaeffer; James Sire; Os Guinness; Chuck Colson; Nancy Pearcey).

Thought and Action for the Believer in Christ

As Christians, we are called, not only to salvation, but to sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:3). Sanctification entails our lifetime growth in the knowledge of God, the study of His word, and the building up of relationships with other members of the body of Christ, the church. To claim to be a Christian, but to neglect these areas in our lives demonstrates a misalignment with what we claim to believe and how we live out our claim. Although we are not saved by works, the epistle of James informs us that works should evidence our faith (James 1:22; 2:8, 14-26). No doubt none of us are perfect in living out the claims of our faith, but our lives should indicate a change in the way we live as a believer in Christ in contrast to the way we lived prior to our salvation.

The Fruit of the Spirit

Although there is no checklist for the purpose of merit, there is Biblical teaching regarding what our growth in Christ should look like. The apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians speaks of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Interestingly, though nine characteristics are listed in those two verses, Paul uses the singular fruit of the Spirit. This passage is one indication of the change that should comprise our lives upon confessing Jesus, the Christ, as our savior. The apostle Peter delineates a similar list in his first epistle to believers in various churches (1 Peter 1:5-7). Again, these Christian virtues written for the purpose of our sanctification are not checklists that we mark off for the sake of merit or demonstrating our Christian beliefs. God works in our lives through grace in every way. The fruit of the Spirit manifests in our lives via the power of the Holy Spirit upon our inner being. Hence, the Christian worldview, although acknowledging that evidence for our faith is real, embraces God’s grace. Our relationship with God grows through grace and faith. The Christian worldview does not proffer any kind of meritorious action for our salvation or our sanctification. The fruit of the Spirit is God’s planting work within us.

Doers of the Word

As Christians, the alignment of thought (belief) and action should be evidenced by our being doers of the word rather than mere hearers of the word (epistle of James). Our worldview is not held merely intellectually, but we live it out consistently with what we claim to believe. The old adage, actions speak louder than words, indeed carry a truism that should inform us. Any mature believer in Christ knows that we fall short of this thought/action alignment everyday in someway. But such inconsistency should not be characteristic of our day-to-day lives. We should see that our way of living prior to our being called in Christ should diminish over time. Such a way of life should not characterize our lives now that we are in Christ.

Misalignment of Thought/Action

What does it mean (how should we explore the reality) when our actions do not align with our professed beliefs (when such a way of living becomes a marked characteristic of our lives)? Can we actually deceive ourselves as to what we claim to believe and value? I think it’s quite possible that we can. On the other hand, I believe people will be acutely aware that the way they are living does not align with what they claim to believe. They may not want to admit it, to themselves or to others. But the proof lies in what daily characterizes their way of living, what they consistently practice as a way of life. For the believer in Christ, this is one reason why it is important to be a member of a local body of Christ, a church. It is in this setting that other believers can approach us and admonish us. This is an important element for a Christian worldview. We all must take on the uncomfortable task at times of lovingly admonishing others in the body, as well as receiving admonishment ourselves.

Conclusion

We hold a Christian worldview not merely by intellectual assent. Such a belief system becomes demonstrable in the way we live day-to-day. God informs believers in Christ that His will for them is their sanctification. Hence our lives should evidence our growth in the knowledge of God, in the truth of His salvation to which He has called us, in a deeper understanding of God’s word, and in the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. The Greek word, ginosko, means to know something so as to act on what we know. Biblical knowledge entails an experiential and intimate knowledge of what is claimed to be known. It is the opposite of mere mental assent. We know God relationally and experientially because He has called us to such knowledge. As believers we approach God’s throne as members of the household of God, crying out to Him as Abba Father. Likewise Scripture tells us to make sure of our calling. Do our actions (the way we live day-to-day) align with our thought (what we claim to believe)? This requires diligence on our part to be aware of those times when we fall short of such alignment. Hence, the place of confession in our growth and sanctification.

This blog article spoke to the life that a Christian lives in Christ. One who holds a Christian worldview should see an alignment in what one claims to believe and how one lives the calling of a Christian day-to-day. There are other important truths regarding thought/action for the believer in Christ as one looks not only to the body of Christ, but in all areas of life, exercising dominion as Christians are called to do. That is another blog article.

John V. Jones, Jr, Ph.D./May 14th, 2025

CHRISTIAN THOUGHT/THEMATIC/Thought-Action