33 Sermon Illustrations on Depravity

That sin so easily besets and so dangerously deceives its subjects is accounted for by the declaration that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”

The anemone, or “windflower,” as its Greek name means, is fascinating to botanists and to all lovers of flowers because of two highly contrasted characteristics. One of these is what gardeners call its “sporting” tendency in color. The other is a constant quantity, which never varies. As for the former, all who know the anemone are well aware that this flower is so variable that the cultivator never knows what will be the tint of the blossoms on any plant. But the constant quantity is the great black spot in the heart of the flower. No matter what may happen to be the color of the petals, the dense dark center is always there. So it is with this our human nature. Education, culture, refinement, high accomplishments, hereditary advantages, natural amiability, may and do contribute toward the charm of many a personality; but the black spot of the depravity which is innate is not expunged by any of these expedients. (Text.)

During his first days at West Point, Randall Fewel tried hard to achieve a perfect room inspection, and one morning he thought he had succeeded. With white gloves on, the company commander checked every corner of the room, and the gloves came away clean. He was feeling proud of himself. But then the commander said, "Raise your left foot, mister!" and ran a gloved finger along the sole of his shoe.

Joseph Simon III was sentenced to 30 years, with 15 mandatory, for killing his friend Richard Van Ness, Jr. in Roxbury, New Jersey, on November 27, 1992. He pleaded guilty. The crime occurred after a party where there had been much drinking, and rumors say Van Ness ridiculed Simon for being homosexual. After shooting Van Ness through the stomach with a hunting rifle (the bullet passed through the house), he was left to suffer for several hours while those at the party debated what to do. His body was placed in a car and driven off a remote road where it was found the next day. [Ledgewood Baptist Church is in Roxbury, an affluent suburban community.]

The nation is on the verge of a crime epidemic, according to a report to be released this weekend at a conference of police chiefs. The report, compiled by the Police Executive Research Forum, says violent crime across America is “accelerating at an alarming pace.”

Although the hard facts echo earlier statistics from the FBI, what is striking are the anecdotes from the police chiefs and mayors. They say a new “culture of violence,” an “alarming element of viciousness,” is now attached to many violent crimes.

In this culture, the report explains, “arguments over seemingly minor issues escalate to the retaliatory murder of additional people.” In Trenton, N.J., for instance, an argument between two girls escalated into seven separate shootings over 24 hours. One chief said he’s frustrated with homicides in his city, and noted that they seem to be committed without any apparent motive.

“They occur for no apparent rhyme or reason. They come up over the smallest issue,” Richmond, California, Police Chief Chris Magnus is quoted as saying.

Some of the police chiefs blame the exacerbation of crime on a “thug mentality” that has been glamorized in music and movies. The sheriff of Las Vegas blames gangsta rap music and its effects on young people. An Arizona chief said some of our youth has become a “throw-away generation; nobody cares for them.”

“It appears that today there is a lower valuation of human life,” Louisville, Ky., Mayor Jerry Abramson told the authors of the report.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #9659]

Jesus’ teaching on human nature is often dismissed as unrealistic dogma. Many people feel that to say that man is not innately good is to disable human creativity. Yet in the proverbial wisdom of every culture Jesus’ view is sustained again and again, even in the form of tragicomedy. Let me illustrate what I am saying.

I have just returned from Australia, which is an incredibly beautiful country, but each time I visit somebody always reminds me that Australia was originally settled by "criminals" sent from Great Britain. That reminder is usually followed by a cynical explanation of why life is so easygoing. I therefore share this story as it was told to me by an Australian.

Two Aussies, he said, appear at the pearly gates of heaven, catching the doorman completely by surprise - he was certainly not expecting any Australians in heaven. He asked them to wait at the gate until he could verify their credentials with Peter. When Peter was informed of these applicants from "down under," he, too, was caught off guard and decided he would need to accompany the doorman back to the pearly gates to talk to these visitors. But when they arrived at the entrance the Australians were gone - and so were the pearly gates!

Is it not a revelation of our own understanding when people can parody themselves and show their own failures? We may mock this idea of the depravity of man or say that it demeans humanity in some way, but the truth is it resurfaces every day, in every life, and in every culture, for we are all criminals at heart. We do not like the word "sin," but have we not seen its expressions - in our own lives as well as in others’?

When we begin to look below the surface to who we are, the depravity of our nature - as difficult as it may be - is inescapable. But friend, until we recognize that, we will never understand the profound message of grace that God offers us, nor will we believe we are in need of it.

Jesus said to those who wished to stone a woman caught in adultery, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." As each dropped his stone He said to her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." Jesus calls us to examine the stones in our hands and in our hearts and to drop them at his feet.

_________________________

Copyright © 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

"But men are better than their theology. Their daily life gives it the lie. If a man is at heart just, then in so far is he God; the safety of God, the immortality of God, the majesty of God do enter into that man with justice."

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

There are some nature shows on TV which feature animals chewing up and swallowing chunks of other animals -- often while the animal being eaten is still alive.

And Americans have a fascination with such programs -- a fascination one cultural observer warns borders on depravity.

Alan Jacobs is a professor of English at Wheaton College and the author of a new book called A VISIT TO VANITY FAIR: MORAL ESSAYS ON THE PRESENT AGE. In an essay titled, "In on the Kill," Jacobs describes the growing popularity of graphic animal gore -- shows that feature lions chewing up zebras or tigers tearing into antelope. Some people shrug and say, "Well, that's just the way things are." Nonsense, Jacobs counters. A lioness will spend a dozen hours sleeping for every hour she spends hunting -- yet how often do these programs feature sleeping cats? Far from giving us "an unedited version of The Way Things Are," Jacobs writes, "filmmakers give us pictures of predation because they, and we, are interested in predation. We would rather see a praying mantis eat the head of her mate ... than watch a caterpillar eat a leaf."

These programs are, Jacobs writes, the modern equivalent of bear-baiting or cockfighting. Viewers justify their interest by saying, "I'm only watching what others have filmed," or "They're just filming what the animals are doing." But a fascination with killing is deeply unhealthy and can lead to our own degradation. By watching these kinds of programs, we render ourselves less humane by destroying the respectful kindness -- the HUMANITAS -- which is a characteristic of the virtuous person.

As Jacobs puts it, there may at times be good reasons for us to force ourselves to look at animals killing and eating other animals -- just as there may be good reasons for forcing ourselves to watch films about the Holocaust. "But if we do not have to force ourselves, if we look upon such scenes with pleasure and fascination, something is dreadfully wrong," Jacobs writes. And he adds: "Those who can look without flinching upon animals having the flesh of their bellies eaten while they are still alive are morally numb; those who seek out such scenes for their viewing enjoyment are depraved."

According to Jacobs, one of the reasons the viewing of cruelty is nearly as bad as perpetrating it has to do with the Fall. He quotes John Spencer, a seventeenth-century gentleman who chastised his brother for his addiction to cockfighting: "You make that a cause of your merriment which should be a cause of your grief, for you take delight in the cruelty of the creatures, which was laid upon them for the sin of man."

When it comes to acts of cruelty, sometimes the only proper response is to avert our eyes. This is not a denial of reality, Jacobs notes; it is an acceptance of the fact that reality is often terrible as creation groans because of human sin.

Jacobs is right. We need to resist the temptation to watch documentaries that revel in the cruelty of the animal world. Programs like that attack our HUMANITAS -- our respectful kindness -- and, therefore, twist our worldview in ways that are a detriment to ourselves and the culture around us.

FURTHER READING & INFORMATION

Alan Jacobs, A VISIT TO VANITY FAIR: MORAL ESSAYS ON THE PRESENT AGE (Brazos Press, 2001).

Alan Jacobs, "In on the Kill," FIRST THINGS, February 1997. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9702/opinion/jacobs.html

BreakPoint commentary no. 020208, "Must-Close-Your-Eyes TV." http://www.pfmonline.net/transcripts.taf?_function=detail&ID=2423&Site=BPT

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

The maker of all human beings is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to the serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart.

This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units.

This defect has been technically termed, Subsequential Internal Non-Morality,’ or more commonly known as S-I-N, as it is primarily symptomized by loss of moral judgment.

Some other symptoms include:

(a) Loss of direction

(b) Foul vocal emissions

(c) Amnesia of origin

(d) Lack of peace and joy

(e) Selfish, or violent behavior

(f) Depression or confusion in the mental component

(g) Fear

(h) Idolatry

The manufacturer, who is neither liable or at fault for this defect, is providing factory authorized repair and service, free of charge to correct this SIN defect.

The number to call for the recall station in your area is: P-R-A-Y-E-R.

Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN by pressing R-E-P-E-N-T-A-N-C-E. Next, download J-E-S-U-S into the heart. No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, the JESUS repair will replace it with:

(a) Love

(b) Joy

(c) Peace

(d) Longsuffering

(e) Gentleness

(f) Goodness

(g) Faith

(h) Meekness

(i) Temperance

Please see operating manual, HOLY BIBLE, for further details on the use of these fixes.

WARNING: Continuing to operate the human unit without correction, voids the manufacturer’s warranty, exposing owner to dangers and problems too numerous to list and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded. For free emergency service, call on J-E-S-U-S.

DANGER: The human units not receiving this recall action will have to be scrapped in the furnace. The SIN defect must not enter heaven or else heaven will be infected.

Author: The Creator.

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 1:24-25 NKJV)

The Heathen Judicially Abandoned to Their Own Folly

• wherefore, etc. — Ps 81:12, Eph 4:18-19, 1 Th 4:4 — judicial consequences of sin. “They dishonored God by vile corporeal representations of Him, and He punished them by corporeal debasements of themselves.” (Wordsworth)

• who — as being persons who (Vaughan) or, seeing that they (Wordsworth)

• [ex]changed — bartered

• truth…God — true idea of God

• lie — Isa 44:20, Jer 10:40 — idol, false God

• worshiped — religious homage

• served — conduct corresponding with their notion of the god they served. Hence worship of Venus led to lasciviousness

• creature — things made

• Creator — the Maker of all

• blessed — Gk., [eulogetos] a word applyingonly to God

• Amen — Heb. word=truth, or truly. “They trifle with the truth, until, at last; Delusions strong as hell shall bind them fast.” (Cowper)

A lie — Rev. T. Robinson

I. An idol a lie:

1. As professing to be what it is not;

2. As deceiving him who trusts in it.

II. Everything opposed to God a lie.

III. Everything a lie which

1. Disappoints man’s hopes;

2. Fails to satisfy the cravings of his immortal soul.

IV. That life a lie which is not

1. According to God’s will;

2. Directed to His glory;

3. The realization of His enjoyment.

The Goddess of Reason — In the Paris papers of August 1,1817, we find among the obituaries the following announcement: “Died, within these few days, in the hospital of pauper lunatics of Salpetriere, where she had lived unpitied and unknown for many years, the famous Theroigne de Mericourt (the Goddess of Reason), the most remarkable of the heroines of the Revolution.” This female (nearly in a state of nuditv) was seated on a throne by Fouché and Carnot, in the Champs de Mars, and hailed alternately as the Goddess of Reason and Liberty. There was something remarkable in the history of the latter days of this poor creature, and her life is not without its moral. She who was taught publicly to blaspheme her Creator, and dishonor her sex, was for the last twenty years of her miserable life subject to the greatest of human calamities — the deprivation of her reason. She repented severely of her horrible crimes, and her few lucid intervals were filled up by the most heartrending lamentations. She died at the age of fifty-seven. — Dr Cheever

“Practicing vice against nature, and that, in such strange and abominable instances of sin, that nothing could equal the corruption of their manners but the delusion of their judgments; both of them the true and proper causes of one another.” — Dr. South

The fall of man has created a perpetual crisis. It will last until sin has been put down and Christ reigns over a redeemed and restored world.

Until that time the earth remains a disaster area and its inhabitants live in a state of extraordinary emergency…

To me, it has always been difficult to understand those evangelical Christians who insist upon living in the crisis as if no crisis existed. They say they serve the Lord, but they divide their days so as to leave plenty of time to play and loaf and enjoy the pleasures of the world as well. They are at ease while the world burns…

I wonder whether such Christians actually believe in the Fall of man!

“I’m too often at ease and consumed with my self-interests, Lord. Open my eyes to see the tragedy of friends and acquaintances on their way to a Christless eternity. Do it for Jesus’ sake, Amen.”

When the NEW YORK TIMES is willing to consider the possibility that evil exists, you have to wonder what's really going on.

Joking aside, the TIMES ran an intriguing article, titled, “For the Worst of Us, the Diagnosis May Be 'Evil.'" [see #29525] It gives valuable insight into a secularized culture grappling with the question of what makes people do bad things.

Author Benedict Carey writes, “Most psychiatrists ... avoid the word evil, contending that its use would precipitate a dangerous slide from clinical to moral judgment that could put people on death row unnecessarily and obscure the understanding of violent criminals. Still,” he writes, “many career forensic examiners say their work forces them to reflect on the concept of evil, and some acknowledge they can find no other term for certain individuals they have evaluated.”

These psychiatrists are dealing with people who commit acts of almost unbelievable savagery. It seems that the more of these criminals they encounter, the less prepared they are to account for this kind of behavior. It's making some psychiatrists rethink a lot of their ideas.

At Prison Fellowship, we know. For more than thirty years we have labored in the prisons of America, and we have seen evil face-to-face — and redemption, too.

Carey explains, “A group at New York University has been developing what it calls a depravity scale, which rates the horror of an act by the sum of its grim details. And a prominent personality expert at Columbia University has published a 22-level hierarchy of evil behavior.... He is now working on a book urging the profession not to shrink from thinking in terms of evil when appraising certain offenders, even if the E-word cannot be used as part of an official examination or diagnosis.”

For the Christian, all this talk of evil feels just a little like going back to kindergarten. Evil is a concept so central to the Biblical worldview — a worldview that teaches us that the germs of evil can be found, not only in serial killers, but also inside every human heart. You'd think that would be common sense.

So why are psychiatrists just now beginning to face up to this — the existence of evil? Well, the idea of a “therapeutic culture,” as some call it, is a tempting one. If bad behavior is just an aberration that can be cured through medical or psychiatric treatment, it keeps us from having to deal with the uncomfortable idea that every person is capable of such behavior. It also reinforces the belief that this world is all there is, a belief that many scientists prefer. As forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz put it, “I think the main reason it's better to avoid the term evil, at least in the courtroom, is that for many it evokes a personalized Satan, the idea that there is supernatural causation for misconduct.” It's so much more appealing to believe that all misconduct can be explained in scientific terms.

The problem, of course, is, once you start exploring what human beings are capable of, that belief just doesn't hold water anymore. And the belief in evil suddenly doesn't look so silly or childish. It starts to look as if the Biblical explanation may have been the right one after all.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Theologians often live in ivory towers far from average folk who dismiss their lofty theological notions. Not so with eBay, the current theological teacher of the masses. This Internet company is constructed on a simple theological proposition: “PEOPLE ARE GOOD.” If you’ve not seen their powerful theological video [http://www.peoplearegood.com/]you should watch this convincing piece of theological persuasion.

Of course eBay needs this theological assumption. If I am supposed to send $150 to some unknown fellow in Florida for a brand new sleeping bag I need to trust him because PEOPLE ARE GOOD. eBay reminds me that people will toss a basketball back over the fence, people volunteer to take Meals-on-Wheels to sick folk, people hold elevator doors open for late-arriving people, people sometimes leave $10 tips for coffee, people in a crowd who see a guy’s briefcase flip open and all his papers are being blown away will rush in to help, people bump into a parked a car and when they can’t find the owner they’ll leave their address, people give blood and pick up trash, and when most people see a car stuck in the snow they’ll pitch in and help push it out — PEOPLE ARE GOOD.

Well, ARE THEY? Are people good? What do you think? Do you believe ALL PEOPLE ARE BASICALLY GOOD? Or perhaps you believe MOST PEOPLE ARE GOOD? Or, maybe you believe PEOPLE ARE GOOD MOST OF THE TIME? If you agree with eBay I suspect your sermons will sell in modern America. You might even splice eBay’s video into an upcoming worship service and it will bring a tear to eyes and inspire people to be better persons. While most Americans accept the presence of “a few bad apples” they generally believe people are good.

The only trouble is PEOPLE ARE GOOD isn’t orthodox. It flies in the face of St. Paul, Augustine, original sin, depravity and orthodox theology of the last 2000 years. This doctrine has been generally labeled heresy. Is it? Has the church been right about the nature of people, or is eBay right? Who is willing to stand up and promote one of the embarrassing doctrines of Christianity — PEOPLE ARE BAD. Whew — will you?

Of course, the bigger question is how to preach an unpopular doctrine to a nation who disbelieves it. Most Americans refuse to believe all humans are darkened and inclined toward evil continually. This is why the eBay campaign is so successful — it reinforces what Americans already believe. When we in the church proclaim that humanity is “totally depraved” they mostly roll their eyes. They suspect it’s not true. They trust eBay’s theology quicker than St. Paul’s or Augustine’s. So what will you do? Usually we’ve downplayed unpopular doctrines. I imagine most of us will take eBay’s campaign as a pleasant and helpful contribution to the American spirit. I suspect few will take it on and label it heresy. Face it; total depravity and original sin are obnoxious doctrines to Americans. However a few bold preachers and Sunday school teachers might mention it. Perhaps you are one? Which theological position do you have? EBay’s or that of St. Paul and Augustine?

______________________________________________

Selected responses that were sent in to Drury:

______________________________________________

You have exposed a touchy subject to the church today — we do not really believe humans are depraved. We might not go so far as eBay but we go half way — we believe most people are good, or people are mostly good. I presented a sermon on human depravity last year and got crucified — I was too plain. For now I just keep quiet.

______________

I’ve had reservations about the idea of the depravity of man even since seminary. I just don’t see it in the world. I see some men depraved. I see some “bent to sinning” in most men. But I do not see it as persuasive or determinative. I think I increasingly believe that men and women are born with a blank slate and the capability of doing either good or evil. Life and other people influence our blank slates but it is up to us which way to turn with each temptation. While eBay goes too far with “people are good” I’d say “People are neutral” and it is up to them to decide for good.

______________

You are the one who should answer your own question — you Arminians are the ones who pander to the popular theology of the world. You have even said it in your writing: “Ask any person off the street and you’ll find they reject Calvinist assumptions as irrational.” That’s the point of course — the person “off the street” is darkened by sin and “naturally” is an Arminian. To hold to truth requires saying things that are irrational and unpopular — something you Arminians just can’t bring yourself to do. Which is why you have just about all the growing churches and we pastor static or declining ones. But while you may be popular, remember that we are right.

______________

I have already used the eBay clip in worship here — and the people loved it. I made the point that people CAN be good and if we all pitch in we CAN make a difference in the world. It was a moving service.

______________

This campaign reminds us that the church is a novice cheapskate when it comes to persuading people. A company like eBay is more effective at preaching theology than the church. Churches who refuse to launch efforts in quality video, graphics and communication are destined to be led along by secular companies like eBay who knows how to communicate. Show me the church who commits 3% of their income to advertising. Churches don’t really care — they just say they care.

______________

I’ve been serving in a church where most people believe they are good. In the Methodist church I believe people have down played holiness so much and dismissed the teaching of original sin as obnoxious. I have been stuck in the trenches of mediocrity so long that I feel like screaming. I’ve been a voice for holiness. I believe that God wants us to live lives that are blameless and full of love for others. I fall in line with St. Paul and Augustine.

______________

I might lean towards eBay on this one but add that we do have this bent towards selfishness. Here’s my problem with Christians and their original/continual sin ideas: Many of them ONLY see the sin nature in people - “Lost” “Sinful” “Depraved” and fail to recognize OR acknowledge when someone (Christian or non) does something good or becomes someone better. Here’s my problem with eBay: They ONLY see that people are good despite a few bad apples and then fail to recognize the world’s deep bent towards greed, selfishness and charging too much for shipping. Yes, I want to acknowledge sin for sin and that humanity has a natural bent towards it...but I also want to acknowledge GOOD for what it is...the people who rebel against indifference, people who are full of compassion and kindness. We are sinful says Paul, but we were also CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. Doesn’t this say something about our natural bent towards GOOD??? May we recognize both and continue to help people out of one and into the other...

______________

You’ve used the people-are-good/people-are-bad choice to raise the issue of original sin and depravity and that’s OK. The deeper issue is whether all persons do good things or bad things instead of whether they are either inclined to good or bad. I would tend to the side that says we have some sort of disposition to do bad things even in spite of our noblest desires to do what is good. This is probably close to an “orthodox” understanding of original sin/inherited depravity. BUT, how then am I capable — even with this inherited depravity — to do what is good? Sometimes even persons who typically do that which is bad may do something that is good. Conversely, sometimes persons who typically do that which is good may do something that is very bad indeed. So as a proponent of truth, can I even broad brush-stroke individuals as either good people or bad people. The elephant over there in the corner with the mouse of original sin is free will. And that elephant, by some generosity of God’s economy has the capacity to stomp the mouse. However, according to fable the mouse frightens the elephant. Original sin is not an excuse or a tyrant; it is simply a matter of observing human nature. Shouldn’t our preaching and teaching take into account that not only do we have the presence of original sin on the negative side of the balance sheet, but that we have a formidable ally of free will to use on the positive side. Let us not forget that free will existed even before original sin was introduced into the equation of human experience. Did depravity exist prior to the sin in the Garden of Eden? Perhaps part of the message there is that original sin cannot be used as an explanation for choices that I make, regardless of what Adam and Eve did. My question is why the debate often fixates more on the good/bad issue rather than the choice/accountability one. I suspect it has something to do with our view of what the 3rd chapter of Genesis is really about. Is it more about explaining the root of all the bad in the world OR is it more about illustrating human doubt that God IS good? Focusing on the question of whether people are good or bad distracts us from that reality. And in contrast with God’s goodness, the answer to your question is clear. J

______________

What a great debate question! In my opinion, it's an assumption that non-christians have to confront before they can be converted, because it is directly involved with the other assumption, that good works or being a good person will get you into Heaven. There are so many people who base their Christian faith on their belief in a God and the fact that they are decent people. eBay's video is a stacked deck example in their favor. Of course people are good when they are gonna get money or goodies out of it. Kinda like judging a kid's behavior only on how he minds his parents the week before Christmas. What about feedback on your eBay account. Imagine if anyone could look at your feedback rating, at any time, to see how honest you really are. We could all have green or red lights above our heads. Now that's accountability! ;) Let eBay shut down all their safeguards, security measures, and feedback for a week and then make a new video. Ha! What would they call the new promo?

______________

You are exactly right. I am both a pastor and a casual eBayer who has bought and sold a few things, but this theme has bothered me too. Not that we should be nit-picking, but I do think it's vitally important to analyze subtle or not-so-subtle messages that culture sends us, and see if they line up with the Bible. Now if only you'd become a Republican, we could really start agreeing...(I'm kidding!) Great read,

____________________

The central Judeo-Christian admonishment to “do unto others as one would have done unto one's self” appears to be congruent with aspects of equity theory. If my leadership behavior toward others is informed by my preferred experience of other's behavior toward myself, my behavior is likely to reflect a sense of fairness, reciprocity and equitableness. Often, such behavior will elicit from others a positive, like response. However, Christ's teaching enjoins us to act in this manner regardless of the response it evokes. For many, if not most, the Rule is “ do to others as you expect them to do to you!” If one believes that others are depraved sinners that can always be relied upon to do the wrong thing, one will probably act decisively to preempt their negative impact on one's plans. If one regards others as emanations of the Godhead, sharing in the Ineffable's divinity, one is more likely to trust their potential and the quality of their motivations.

______________

I'm not sure what the people in my church think about my preaching this message. Without much doubt, the core will agree(at least mentally). The big question for me is: are we “totally' depraved? Is this not reformed doctrine? In the light of experience, it's hard to make this case. The Scripture says we are made in the image of God. Does that not still exist to some degree? So ... when does a person become 'totally' depraved? Was Hitler totally depraved? Stalin? Saddam? Evil certainly has done its work, but has it done it that 'totally'? I preach that unregenerated man is not capable of doing selfless good on a 'continuous' basis, that most times there is a selfish ulterior motive for our actions. Perhaps holding the elevator door or grabbing the guy's papers is a reflex action from the IMAGE. Maybe people remain honest because to be dishonest alienates then from society (in more ways than one)? Is not evil more insidious and covert than we think?

________________

I wonder if it is possible that at the back of people minds, they know that people are not necessary bad, but it is easier to live each day and to deal with people with the assumption that people are good. It has the feel good factor and maybe it is necessary to just go on each day. I suspect Pastors avoid it because they like to think that their congregations are living righteously from day to day. I hardly hear pastor talk about specific sins like pornography here in Singapore. In fact, while over here the government is thinking about allowing casino to be set up (there is none in Singapore), from churches have voiced that they are against it but pastors hardly preach about it or talk about addiction to it or even about greed. We like to assume that the person beside us in the pew have no problem with sin. Once in a while, we do get guest preacher who speaks very specifically. But it is just once in a while.

_______________________

Can I have it a little of both ways? I believe because of the fall humanity has an inherently evil nature...i.e. Sin flows naturally and we need a savior. I also believe we are created in God's image and as such have his mark on us, so although we are fallen and sinful we are capable of some good and capable of appreciating true beauty, etc. His mark on us does not redeem us, but leaves room for the undeniable good we see from some non Christians. Maybe that’s simplistic so I'll keep thinking...

_______________________

The eBay campaign is wrong — people are NOT good. However people CAN be good. People are totally depraved and mostly good at the same time. How? Because of God’s “leading Grace.” This is more than Calvin’s weak-brew “Common grace” but a powerful grace that reaches out to enable non-Christians act Christ-like. We Arminians call this “previenient Grace” and thus showing the eBay video in church is a wonderful way to give God glory for all the good in the world that HE enables by granting grace to us all “while we were yet sinners.” This leading grace of God makes humans look better than they are to that eBay assumes “people are good” because they cannot see the invisible hand of God’s grace reaching out to lost people enabling depraved humans perform Christ-like acts “on their own” — but of course it isn’t on their own at all — but by God’s (leading) grace . Run the eBay video in church this week and remind your people that every time they see an unregenerate person pick up trash or help someone push a car out of a snow bank — they are watching God’s grace at work. Praise be unto a grace-full God who extends His grace to all humans everywhere and draws them to Him. The only way a person on this planet can go to hell is if they resist this universal grace from God.

_______________________

I think that people are good in as much as they have been told they are. If you don't cheat your buyer then eBay will tell you that you are good. If eBay has enough people who don't cheat then they might be in a place to make the generalization that “people are good.” At the very least people are good for business. It all depends on perspective. If you are looking to

eBay for ultimate truth and you obey their rules then you are good. If you are looking to God however you are probably going to have a different picture of yourself.

_______________

It seems to me that the confusion arises out of the different ways we understand the word “total” in the concept of total depravity. If it is taken to mean that men are as bad as they can be, so that there is nothing good left in them, it leaves no room for the eBay perspective. But, if by “total depravity” we mean that depravity has influenced the entire man, it would be possible for men to do good things, even though even their best deeds are stained by depravity. I hold to the latter position. Men, who are bad by nature as a result of Adam's fall, can still do good things because they are created in the Divine image. That image, though marred in every aspect by sin, remains an essential element of humanity. So we need not fault every good work done by men; we can, in fact, even affirm some actions as laudable. But we must at the same time realize that the depravity that touches every aspect of humanness will continue to degrade the person, leading him ever deeper into deception and sin. This concept is supported by the warning in scripture that “evil men and seducers will wax (grow) worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” 2 Timothy 3:13 The “total” in total depravity cannot mean as bad as it is possible to get, otherwise there would be no way for evil men to grow worse.

____________________

To those who doubt the depravity of man: volunteer to teach in a 2&3 year olds SS class, you'll get the picture right away!

________________________

The bottom line is this: People are basically SELFISH. That is what we have to understand. Even the “good” people on eBay generally have an ulterior motive for being good -- to make money for themselves. While there is nothing specifically wrong with making money, if the people were totally altruistic, they would GIVE their things away. It is very likely that many people who sell things on eBay try to be trustworthy (and indeed they do act in a trustworthy manner) because they want to have a good reputation with buyers, so the buyers will give them a good rating, so they can in turn sell even more things to even more people. The thing about selfishness is that it is the root of sin. God wants us to be selfLESS -- meaning first living for Him and then, as a consequence, for other people. We can't live selflessly on our own. We need the empowering work of the Holy Spirit living within us to enable us to live this way. Sure, we can see isolated incidents of unregenerated people practicing random acts of kindness, but my contention is that even these acts are rooted in the selfish nature with which we are all born -- the nature that says “I can do it on my own.” God has made it clear that we can NOT do it on our own. We need the redemptive work of Jesus Christ in our lives to change us from living selfishly to selflessly living for Him.

_______________________

I enjoyed the question, “Are people good.” No need for entire sanctification if they are... I never could make that THE SKIES ARE SUNNY thing work for me as a pastor. I know too much. Is that doctrine easier to believe and teach if you don't actually pastor your people? If you only see them smiling on Sunday morning, can your theology start shifting toward a more optimistic version where people only need their weekly encouragement session? So many of the big churches have professional counselors listening to all the crud that the pastor used to have to concern himself with. I wonder if those counselors think people are basically good? My theory: The only people who have that view are ones who aren't living in the “real world.” I wonder if some pastor/CEOs are becoming spiritually irrelevant as they sip fruit coolers on the yachts of well-heeled, self-employed businessmen and “cast the vision” (raise major funds)for the next big project? Am I kidding? Sometimes I'm not even sure myself.

*

Few issues are more likely to ignite a lively debate than a discussion of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in this subject in Southern Baptist life, to the delight of some and chagrin of others. The Conservative Resurgence which began in 1979 was about the authority of the Bible. Those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God will take its doctrines seriously. Issues like predestination and election, freewill and human responsibility will naturally require our careful study.

Thankfully, our theological discussions are not those of other denominations in our day. Issues like the deity of Christ, the exclusivity of the Gospel, open theism, abortion, and homosexuality are settled for Southern Baptists because of our commitment to the clear teachings of Scripture.

However, some issues in the Bible are more obscure. There is often a mystery and tension to what we find when we examine all that the Bible says on some subjects. This is clearly the case when it comes to understanding God's sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation.

Unfortunately, there is more heat than light in many instances with shrill voices and unhealthy rhetoric — on both sides of the issue — getting too much attention. On one side you hear people saying that God hates the non-elect and damns babies to hell. They say that Jesus was a Calvinist and that Calvinism is the Gospel. On the other side you hear voices stating that Calvinism is heresy and that Calvinists do not believe in missions and evangelism. Some even suggest that the Southern Baptist Convention could split over this issue, though I am convinced this will not happen.

I believe we need to tone down the rhetoric. We need to seek biblical balance, theological sanity, and ministerial integrity in the midst of this discussion. Let me attempt to set the playing field for this important issue and then make some theological and practical suggestions as we work together for the glory of God and the cause of Christ.

A LOOK AT CALVINISM

The issue that is being debated today almost always revolves around the idea of Calvinism. To some, this is a theological landmine to be avoided at all cost, even if they are not sure what it means. For others it signals a recovery of biblical truth growing out of the Reformation of the 16th century and its emphasis on the great solas: Scripture alone, Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, for the glory of God alone. John Calvin (1509-64) was the great theologian of the Reformation. An outstanding biblical scholar, he heralded the theology of both Paul and Augustine (354-430). Like Martin Luther (1483-1546), he emphasized the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of man, and the necessity of grace for salvation.

Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught. This system would ultimately be codified through the now famous acrostic TULIP.

The history of Southern Baptists includes those on one side of the theological spectrum who have flatly rejected three or more of Calvin's five points and those at the other who have enthusiastically embraced all of them, with many Baptists falling somewhere in between. The reality is that the SBC has included “Five-Point Calvinists” and “Modified” Calvinists from the start. It should be stressed here that, from a denominational standpoint, in this discussion there is no “right or wrong.” Southern Baptists have always been diverse in many regards, and the theological realm is no exception. Neither the Southern Baptist Convention, nor its seminaries, endorse or promote a particular theological system or stance on areas not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message.

Frankly, I don't foresee that ever changing. So what follows is not an endorsement or promotion of Calvinism, but rather a review and condensed explanation of what some of our Southern Baptist brethren believe on the five points of the Calvinistic system. My hope and prayer is that a fuller understanding will help set the stage for what follows in the final section.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

This view holds that man is born with a nature and bent toward sin. Every aspect of man's being is infected with the disease of sin so that he cannot save himself, neither can he move toward God without the initiating and enabling grace of God. Man is not as bad as he could possibly be, but he is radically depraved. Most Baptists would agree on this point, at least in some measure. It is hard to deny it in light of Romans 3:9-20 and Ephesians 2:1-3.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

According to this view, God, in grace and mercy, has chosen certain persons for salvation. Those who hold this view believe that His decision is not based on human merit or foreseen faith, but in the goodness and providence of God's own will and purposes. Many would add, however, that the electing purpose of God is somehow accomplished without destroying human freewill and responsibility. Accordingly, no one is saved apart from God's plan, and yet anyone who repents and trusts Christ will be saved. The French theologian Moise Amyraut (1596-1664) referred to this as God's secret or hidden decree. There is an admitted tension in this position, but a tension that need not be viewed as contradictory. Calvinists commonly cite John 6:37-47 at this point.

Of course, this view is hotly debated among some Southern Baptists, with alternative interpretations of scriptural passages being offered and both sides genuinely believe they are operating from a biblical basis. The reality is Southern Baptists will likely debate this point until the Lord returns, but there is certainly no need for division or ill will over it.

LIMITED ATONEMENT

Most Calvinists view this as an unfortunate phrase, preferring the term “particular redemption” instead. The original stance of Calvin's followers was that the intent of the atoning work of Christ was to provide and purchase salvation for the elect. Thus the work of Christ would be limited to the elect, and His atonement was made for a particular people (e.g. His sheep, the Church, His Bride).

This is a real point of contention for many, and, in fact, most Modified Calvinists cannot embrace this teaching in its classic form.

However, let me offer a crucial observation that hopefully will foster some unity on this point. All Bible-believers limit the atonement in some way. To not do so is to advocate Universalism, the view that eventually everyone will be saved. Most Baptists would say the Bible teaches that the atonement is limited in its application, but certainly not its provision. In other words, in His death on the cross Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:1-2; 4:9-10) making a universal provision. However, the application is limited to those who receive the free gift of salvation offered to them by their personal faith in Christ. One can see then that all evangelicals limit the atonement in some sense, but do so in different ways.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

Most Calvinists would see this as another unfortunate choice of words that stirs up unnecessary debate. Instead, they would prefer the phrase “effectual calling.” This doctrine asserts that those who are predestined to be saved are called to salvation (Romans 8:30) effectually or effectively. They are not forced to come but are set free to come and they do so willingly. Timothy George strikes the balance of this teaching with human responsibility when he writes, “God created human beings with free moral agency, and He does not violate this even in the supernatural work of regeneration. Christ does not rudely bludgeon His way into the human heart. He does not abrogate our creaturely freedom. No, he beckons and woos, He pleads and pursues, He waits and wins” (Amazing Grace, p. 74).

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Those God saves, He protects and preserves in their salvation. Baptists have historically referred to this as the doctrine of “eternal security,” or in popular terminology as “once saved, always saved.” This is one point of Calvinism that almost all Baptists affirm. Sometimes misunderstood and falsely caricatured by those rejecting this doctrine, perseverance of the saints does not teach people can live any way they want and take advantage of God's grace. Rather, because of the greatness of the gift of our salvation, true believers will be grieved when they sin and will pursue a life that is pleasing to the God whom they love and Who keeps them safely in His hand (John 10:27-29).

This is a summary of “five-point Calvinism” or what its advocates call “the Doctrines of Grace.” Though it is not as popular among Southern Baptists as it was in the past, there has been a rise in interest in its teachings. And one should honestly acknowledge many wonderful and significant Baptists in the past followed these doctrines. This includes men like William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Luther Rice, Adoniram Judson, Charles Spurgeon, John L. Dagg, Basil Manly Jr., and James Boyce. John Broadus and B. H. Carroll would also have considered themselves Calvinists, though both would have affirmed only four of the five points. They did not advocate particular redemption.

How then should Southern Baptists, with such a rich and diverse theological heritage, respond to this controversial issue at the dawn of the 21st century? As people of The Book who rejoice in a remarkable history, how might we move forward together in unity in the days ahead?

FINDING BIBLICAL BALANCE: THEOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Grasping the magnitude of this issue is a daunting task for finite, sinful humans. A good dose of humility is certainly in order. As we attempt to both understand the Bible's teaching and work alongside of those with whom we may not see eye to eye, what are some theological and practical principles that can guide us? I would offer six suggestions.

1) In our doctrine of salvation, we should start with God and not man. The Bible affirms that salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2:9) and by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift -- not from works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). We should be God-centered in all of our theology, especially the doctrine of salvation. The Bible teaches that salvation is God's work. He is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). He takes the initiative. He is the true Seeker!

2) We should affirm the truth both of God's sovereignty and human freewill. “The Abstract of Principles” was the founding confession for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was penned by Basil Manly Jr. in 1859. Manly was a Calvinist, and yet Article IV on Providence reveals a healthy, theological balance in our Baptist forefather. Manly wrote:

“God from eternity decrees or permits all things that come to

pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures

and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be author or

approver of sin nor to destroy the freewill and responsibility of

intelligent creatures.”

Many Baptists believe the Bible teaches that God predestines and elects persons to salvation, but that He does so in such a way as to do no violence to their freewill and responsibility to repent from sin and believe the Gospel. Is there a tension here? Yes. Is there divine mystery? Absolutely! Many believe this is what Paul felt when, at the end of his magnificent treatment of this subject in Romans 9-11, he concludes with a doxology of praise and says, Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways (Romans 11:33). If you find it a challenge to fathom the depths of this doctrine then you are in good company!

3) Recognize that extreme positions on either side of the issue are biblically unbalanced, theologically unhealthy, and practically undesirable. Biblically, we affirm the truth of all of God's Word. Words like called, chosen, election, foreknowledge, and predestination are in Holy Scripture. We should embrace them, examine them, and seek to understand them, always remembering that intelligent and godly people will likely embrace differing interpretations. Words like believe, evangelist, go, preach, receive, and repent are also in the Bible. Biblical balance requires that we embrace and affirm these as well.

Theologically, we dare not be seduced into living in a theological ghetto that may espouse a nice, neat doctrinal system, but that does so at the expense of a wholesome and comprehensive theology.

Practically, we must not become manipulative and gimmicky in our presentation of the Gospel as if the conversion of the lost depends ultimately, or even primarily, on us. Neither should we be lulled into an antipathy toward personal evangelism and global missions. Attempting to construct a doctrine of double predestination wherein God elects some to damnation, hates the lost, and consigns non-elect infants to the fires of hell would be viewed by most in the SBC as irresponsible and lacking in biblical support. Any theology that does not result in a “hot heart” for the souls of lost persons is a theology not worth having. I fear that some extreme forms of Calvinism have so warped the mind and frozen the heart of its advocates that if they saw a person screaming at the top of their lungs “what must I do to be saved?”, they would hesitate or even neglect the Gospel for fear of somehow interfering with the work of the Holy Spirit.

If the initials J.C. bring first to your mind the name John Calvin rather than Jesus Christ and you fancy yourself more of an evangelist for Calvinism than Christ, then this latter word of concern is particularly for you. Never forget that the greatest theologian who ever lived was also the greatest missionary/evangelist whoever lived. His name is Paul.

4) Act with personal integrity in your ministry when it comes to this issue. Put your theological cards on the table in plain view for all to see, and do not go into a church under a cloak of deception or dishonesty. If you do, you will more than likely split a church, wound the Body of Christ, damage the ministry God has given you, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone. Let me give an example. I am pre-tribulational/premillennial in my eschatology. It would be inappropriate for me to interview with a church and continue the discussion if I discovered that it was committed to an amillennial position.

Now, let me address our topic. If a person is strongly committed to five-point Calvinism, then he should be honest and transparent about that when talking to a church search committee. He should not hide behind statements like “I am a historic Baptist.” That statement basically says very little if anything and it is less than forthcoming. Be honest and completely so. If it is determined you are not a good fit for that congregation, rejoice in the sovereign providence of God and trust Him to place you in a ministry assignment that is a good fit. God will honor such integrity.

5) Teach the issues to your people, especially your youth. Sometimes pastors get frustrated when they send their students off to college and seminary, and they come back different. Sometimes they go to a liberal institution, and they return questioning or jettisoning the faith. Other times they go to a conservative school and return as double predestinarian, supralapsarian extreme Calvinists. They now question the public invitation and personal evangelism training and redefine into insignificance the Great Commission. It has been my experience that this latter malady is more often caught from immature fellow students than from godly professors.

This observation is not intended to absolve our colleges and seminaries of their responsibility. It is to say, however, that we do our people no favors with a dumbed-down theology in the local church. I believe we should raise the biblical and theological bar in our churches, and we should do so immediately. I believe we should train our people so they mature to the point that we can consider the great theological debates between Augustine and Pelagius, Luther/Calvin and Erasmus, Calvinists and Arminians.

I also believe we should help them mature to the point that we can familiarize them with the five points of Calvinism, the humanism of the Enlightenment, and the destructive criticism of rationalism/antisupernaturalism and the Jesus Seminar.

Some may protest that these issues will be over their heads. I would strongly disagree. If our schools can teach our children chemistry and biology, physics and geology, algebra and geometry, political science and economics, then we can certainly teach them theology and apologetics, Christian ethics and philosophy. We, as the local church, can prepare them in advance for what they will encounter so that various ideologies can be carefully critiqued and extreme positions intelligently rejected for the errors they contain. Again, it requires a gradual and intentional maturing process — you don't teach calculus to a first grader — but to neglect this area is to fail in preparing them to deal with the critical theological and social challenges of our day.

6) Recognize that our Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a well-constructed canopy under which varying perspectives on this issue can peacefully and helpfully co-exist. Pelagians, Arminians, and Open Theists will not feel at home in our Southern Baptist family. We will love them while also disagreeing with them. Is there a place for differing positions on the issues of election, the extent of the atonement and calling, as well as how we do missions, evangelism, and give the invitation? I am convinced that the answer is yes.

Further, I believe we will be the better for it theologically and practically as we engage each other in respectful and serious conversation. As one who considers himself to be a true compatibilist, affirming the majestic mystery of both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, I have been challenged and strengthened in my own theological understanding by those less reformed than I as well as those more reformed than I happen to be. Because of our passionate commitments to the glory of God, the Lordship of Christ, biblical authority, salvation by grace through faith, and the Great Commission, we work in wonderful harmony with each other, and I suspect we always will.

7) Finally, as a denomination we must devote as much passion and energy to studying the Word as we have to defending it. Let us be known for being rigorously biblical, searching the Scriptures to determine what God really says on this and other key doctrinal issues. For the most part, we are not doing this, and our theological shallowness is an indictment of our current state and an embarrassment to our history! Furthermore, let none of us seek to be recognized so much for being Calvinists -- five-point, modified, or otherwise -- but rather for being thoroughgoing Biblicists and devoted followers of Jesus Christ!

CONCLUSION

The great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon was a five-point Calvinist. He was also a passionate evangelist and soul winner. On August 1, 1858, he preached a sermon entitled, “Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility.” The words of wisdom that flowed from his mouth on that day could only come from a capable pastor/theologian with a shepherd's heart and a love for the lost. We would do well to heed the counsel of this Baptist hero upon whose shoulders we stand today.

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet

I see and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and

that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great

measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act,

that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be

driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare

that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough

to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or

fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things

that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and

contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our

weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-

ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man

is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my

folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever

contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one

upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are

two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall

pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but

they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close

to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring....

You ask me to reconcile the two. I answer, they do not want any

reconcilement; I never tried to reconcile them to myself, because

I could never see a discrepancy.... Both are true; no two truths

can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is

to believe them both.

Here is a good place to stand. Here is a theology we can all affirm in service to our Savior.

________

Dr. Daniel L. Akin is president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.

Specifically among believers, let’s consider for a moment how popular it has become to promote a positive self-image, to affirm personal identity in self and to uplift confidence in one’s own ability.

Whether a mother uplifting her daughter’s self-image or a speaker proclaiming a message to make people “feel better” about themselves, is it biblical to promote high self-esteem for those in the body of Christ?

I’ve wrestled with this question in my early years of the faith. Uplifting and encouraging others always seemed to be a noble task the church should champion. In fact, why would anyone get upset at people promoting self-esteem among other Christians, making them feel good or uplifting them in their abilities?

This, however, is not a matter of what sounds best; rather, we must consider whether promoting high self-esteem lines up with Scripture. As believers, we have the blessed assurance of knowing our faith is firmly grounded in the absolute truths of Scripture (Psalm 1:1-3). In the Word, we find life (Proverbs 4:4), hope (Titus 2:13) and ultimate fulfillment (Psalm 3:2-6) because we find each page saturated with Jesus. Thus, if we are striving to be biblical, let’s hold the phrase “high self-esteem” up to the Bible and ask: Is promoting self-esteem a biblical concept?

Self-esteem can be defined as the subjective self-measure of an individual’s worth and value. According to psychology, when every humanistic need is met, mankind can reach their ultimate fulfillment, or “self-actualization.” Therefore, a self-actualized individual is one who has fulfilled all humanistic needs -- one of those being high self-esteem. Psychology teaches that the good in self can help one attain ultimate satisfaction. At its very core, this is not a biblical concept, but a psychological construct.

Why does this concept of esteeming self pose a problem for believers? Let me use a personal example. I may not remember the specific date the Lord saved me, but I will never forget what happened that day. I was lying on my bedroom floor, mourning the sinful life I was choosing to live. Granted, at the time I was about 8 years old, but the impact of God’s Word resonated so deep that it pierced my callused heart.

God’s Word showed me that I was a foul sinner (Romans 3:23), completely helpless in my current state (Romans 5:6) and fighting to see the destruction of God’s Kingdom (Galatians 5:17). The Spirit brought about my brokenness, and without a miraculous change (2 Corinthians 5:17) from God’s own choosing (John 6:44), my life was destined for destruction and death (2 Thessalonians 1:8). The constant teaching of Scripture depicted me as an individual always in this perpetual state of dependence and brokenness.

One thing is certain: once I understood this, I did not feel very good about myself or my abilities. In fact, none of the believers I know who fully grasp their depravity regard these truths as a boost to their self-esteem.

That is because our confidence, hope and fulfillment are not found in what I discover deep within myself. Even if there were a way to bring the deepest depths of my heart to light, I would only be deceived by the wickedness that comes from within (Jeremiah 17:9). Therefore, that which I choose to esteem should not be myself; rather, I exalt the God who is able to save.

Promotion of the self-esteem psychological construct deviates from Scripture because everything psychology suggests for man’s ultimate need is contrary to God’s Word. While psychology seeks to exalt man, God places believers on a completely opposite trajectory. God is glorified when man takes on a posture of decreasing self (John 3:30). The ultimate goal of seeking to promote high self-esteem is to teach man to depend on man, whereas the ultimate goal of Christianity is show man that, apart from God, he can do nothing (John 15:5). Therefore, may our churches always turn our hearts towards the ultimate fulfillment -- Christ.

But wait a minute....

Are you saying it’s unbiblical to promote confidence within my children, family and friends? How is it unbiblical to uplift their spirits by encouraging them?

Let’s be on the same page when it comes to defining the word “confidence.” According to Scripture, we are to “put no confidence in the flesh,” but only “boast in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:3). It’s true that we, as believers, are called to pursue mutual uplifting (Romans 14:19), encouraging one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11) and stirring our brothers/sisters toward love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). However, notice that we are to pursue these godly acts in order to point believers back toward the greatest fulfillment, which can only be found in Christ.

It is not unbiblical to uplift, encourage and instill confidence within fellow believers that will stir their affections toward Christ. It is contrary to Scripture when we turn those affections to our own abilities. Confidence and encouragement should always be found through the weakness of self, which points us to our hope of being eternally satisfied in Jesus Christ alone.

I became a Christian on July 7, 2015, after a very pleasant adult life of firm atheism. I’ve found myself telling “the story” when people ask me about it — slightly tweaked for my audience, of course. When talking to non-theists, I do a lot of shrugging and “Crazy, right? Nothing has changed, though!” When talking to other Christians, it’s more, “Obviously it’s been very beautiful, and I am utterly changed by it.” But the story has gotten a little away from me in the telling.

As an atheist since college, I had already mellowed a bit over the previous two or three years, in the course of running a popular feminist website that publishes thoughtful pieces about religion. Like many atheists (who are generally lovely moral people like my father, who would refuse to enter heaven and instead wait outside with his Miles Davis LPs), I started out snarky and defensive about religion, but eventually came to think it was probably nice for people of faith to have faith. I held to that, even though the idea of a benign deity who created and loved us was obviously nonsense, and all that awaited us beyond the grave was joyful oblivion.

I know that sounds depressing, but I found the idea of life ending after death mildly reassuring in its finality. I had started to meet more people of faith, having moved to Utah from Manhattan, and thought them frequently charming in their sweet delusion. I did not wish to believe. I had no untapped, unanswered yearnings. All was well in the state of Denmark. And then it wasn’t.

What I Already Knew

There are two different starting points to my conversion, and sometimes I omit the first one, because I think it gives people an answer I don’t want them to have. It is a simple story: I was going through a hard time. I was worried about my child. One time I said “Be with me” to an empty room. It was embarrassing. I didn’t know why I said it, or to whom. I brushed it off, I moved on, the situation resolved itself, I didn’t think about it again. I know how people hear that story: Oh, of course, Nicole was struggling and needed a larger framework for her life! That’s part of the truth, but it’s not the whole truth.

The second starting point is usually what I lead with. I was surfing the Internet and came across John Ortberg’s Christianity Today obituary for philosopher Dallas Willard. John’s daughters are dear friends, and I have always had a wonderful relationship with their parents, who struck me as sweetly deluded in their evangelical faith, so I clicked on the article.

Somebody once asked Dallas if he believed in total depravity.

“I believe in sufficient depravity,” he responded immediately.

What’s that?

“I believe that every human being is sufficiently depraved that when we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, ‘I merited this.’“

A few minutes into reading the piece, I burst into tears. Later that day, I burst into tears again. And the next day. While brushing my teeth, while falling asleep, while in the shower, while feeding my kids, I would burst into tears.

I should say here I am a happy, even-keeled soul. If this were the Middle Ages, I would be in a book under the heading “The Four Humors: Sanguine/Phlegmatic.”

Therefore, it was very unsettling to suddenly feel like a boat being tossed on the waves. I wasn’t sad, I wasn’t frightened — I just had too many feelings. I decided to buy a Dallas Willard book to read anthropologically, of course. I read his Hearing God. I cried. I bought Lewis Smedes’s My God and I. I cried. I bought Sara Miles’s Take This Bread. I cried. It was getting out of hand. You just can’t go around crying all the time.

At this point, I reached a crossroads. I sat myself down and said: Okay, Nicole, you have two choices. Option One: you can stop reading books about Jesus. Option Two: you could think with greater intention about why you are overwhelmed by your emotions. It occurred to me that if Option Two proved fruitless, I could always return to Option One. So I emailed a friend who is a Christian, and I asked if we could talk about Jesus.

I instantly regretted sending that email and if humanly possible would have clawed it back through the Internet. Technology having failed me, my message reached its recipient. She said she would be very happy to talk to me about Jesus. You probably already know this, but Christians love talking about Jesus.

I spent the few days before our call feeling like an idiot, wondering what on earth I planned to ask her. Do you ... like Jesus? What was Jesus’ deal? Why did he ice that fig tree?

And now we reach the part of the story that gets a bit hand-wavy. About an hour before our call, I knew: I believed in God. Worse, I was a Christian. It was the opposite of being punk rock.

Now, if you’ve been following along, you know already. I was crying constantly while thinking about Jesus because I had begun to believe that Jesus really was who he said he was, but for some reason, that idea had honestly not occurred to me. But then it did, as though it always had been true. So when my friend called, I told her, awkwardly, that I wanted to have a relationship with God, and we prayed, and giggled a bit, and cried a bit, and then she sent me a stack of Henri Nouwen books, and here we are today.

Since then, I have been dunked by a pastor in the Pacific Ocean while shivering in a too-small wetsuit. I have sung “Be Thou My Vision” and celebrated Communion on a beach, while weirded-out Californians tiptoed around me. I go to church. I pray. My politics have not changed; the fervency with which I try to live them out has. My husband is bemused by me, but supportive and loving.

No More Chill

I am occasionally asked by other Christians, “What happened during that hour?” I answer that God did not speak to me. Rather, like the protagonist in Memento putting his past together with Polaroids, I figured out what I already knew. What happened during that hour was the natural culmination of my coming to faith: I had been cracked open to the divine, I read books that I would have laughed at before the cracking, and the stars lined up and there was God, and then I knew, and then I said it out loud to a third party, and then I giggled.

This is why apologetics, in my opinion, are hugely unconvincing. (Dallas Willard, for the record, never debated unbelievers.) No one could have in a billion years of their gripping testimony or by showing me a radiant life of good deeds or through song or even the most beautiful of books brought me to Christ. I had to be tapped on the shoulder. I had to be taken to a place where books about God were something I could experience without distance. It was alchemical.

I have been asked if deciding to become a Christian ended my exciting new crying-multiple-times-a-day hobby. The truth is that I continue to cry a lot more than I did before either Be-With-Me-Gate or the Dallas Willard Incident. I am more undone by love, or kindness, or friendship than I would have thought possible. Last night I tried to explain who Henri Nouwen was to some visiting cousins, and they had to bring me Kleenex, which they did sweetly and cautiously, as though I might melt in front of them. This morning I read a piece in Texas Monthly that literally sank me to my knees at how broken this world is, and yet how stubbornly resilient and joyful we can be in the face of that brokenness. I never possessed much chill, to be honest. Now I have none whatsoever.

There are times I feel a bit like a medieval peasant, in that I believe wholly in God now, but don’t always do what he wants, or, like Scarlett O’Hara, put hard conversations with him off until I’ve done the thing I wanted to do. It’s a thrumming backdrop to the rest of my life. My Christian conversion has granted me no simplicity. It has complicated all of my relationships, changed how I feel about money, messed up my public persona, and made me wonder if I should be on Twitter at all.

Obviously, it’s been very beautiful.

________

Nicole Cliffe is cofounder and coeditor of the website The Toast and lives in Utah.

I became a Christian on July 7, 2015, after a very pleasant adult life of firm atheism. I’ve found myself telling “the story” when people ask me about it — slightly tweaked for my audience, of course. When talking to non-theists, I do a lot of shrugging and “Crazy, right? Nothing has changed, though!” When talking to other Christians, it’s more, “Obviously it’s been very beautiful, and I am utterly changed by it.” But the story has gotten a little away from me in the telling.

As an atheist since college, I had already mellowed a bit over the previous two or three years, in the course of running a popular feminist website that publishes thoughtful pieces about religion. Like many atheists (who are generally lovely moral people like my father, who would refuse to enter heaven and instead wait outside with his Miles Davis LPs), I started out snarky and defensive about religion, but eventually came to think it was probably nice for people of faith to have faith. I held to that, even though the idea of a benign deity who created and loved us was obviously nonsense, and all that awaited us beyond the grave was joyful oblivion.

I know that sounds depressing, but I found the idea of life ending after death mildly reassuring in its finality. I had started to meet more people of faith, having moved to Utah from Manhattan, and thought them frequently charming in their sweet delusion. I did not wish to believe. I had no untapped, unanswered yearnings. All was well in the state of Denmark. And then it wasn’t.

What I Already Knew

There are two different starting points to my conversion, and sometimes I omit the first one, because I think it gives people an answer I don’t want them to have. It is a simple story: I was going through a hard time. I was worried about my child. One time I said “Be with me” to an empty room. It was embarrassing. I didn’t know why I said it, or to whom. I brushed it off, I moved on, the situation resolved itself, I didn’t think about it again. I know how people hear that story: Oh, of course, Nicole was struggling and needed a larger framework for her life! That’s part of the truth, but it’s not the whole truth.

The second starting point is usually what I lead with. I was surfing the Internet and came across John Ortberg’s Christianity Today obituary for philosopher Dallas Willard. John’s daughters are dear friends, and I have always had a wonderful relationship with their parents, who struck me as sweetly deluded in their evangelical faith, so I clicked on the article.

Somebody once asked Dallas if he believed in total depravity.

“I believe in sufficient depravity,” he responded immediately.

What’s that?

“I believe that every human being is sufficiently depraved that when we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, ‘I merited this.’“

A few minutes into reading the piece, I burst into tears. Later that day, I burst into tears again. And the next day. While brushing my teeth, while falling asleep, while in the shower, while feeding my kids, I would burst into tears.

I should say here I am a happy, even-keeled soul. If this were the Middle Ages, I would be in a book under the heading “The Four Humors: Sanguine/Phlegmatic.”

Therefore, it was very unsettling to suddenly feel like a boat being tossed on the waves. I wasn’t sad, I wasn’t frightened — I just had too many feelings. I decided to buy a Dallas Willard book to read anthropologically, of course. I read his Hearing God. I cried. I bought Lewis Smedes’s My God and I. I cried. I bought Sara Miles’s Take This Bread. I cried. It was getting out of hand. You just can’t go around crying all the time.

At this point, I reached a crossroads. I sat myself down and said: Okay, Nicole, you have two choices. Option One: you can stop reading books about Jesus. Option Two: you could think with greater intention about why you are overwhelmed by your emotions. It occurred to me that if Option Two proved fruitless, I could always return to Option One. So I emailed a friend who is a Christian, and I asked if we could talk about Jesus.

I instantly regretted sending that email and if humanly possible would have clawed it back through the Internet. Technology having failed me, my message reached its recipient. She said she would be very happy to talk to me about Jesus. You probably already know this, but Christians love talking about Jesus.

I spent the few days before our call feeling like an idiot, wondering what on earth I planned to ask her. Do you ... like Jesus? What was Jesus’ deal? Why did he ice that fig tree?

And now we reach the part of the story that gets a bit hand-wavy. About an hour before our call, I knew: I believed in God. Worse, I was a Christian. It was the opposite of being punk rock.

Now, if you’ve been following along, you know already. I was crying constantly while thinking about Jesus because I had begun to believe that Jesus really was who he said he was, but for some reason, that idea had honestly not occurred to me. But then it did, as though it always had been true. So when my friend called, I told her, awkwardly, that I wanted to have a relationship with God, and we prayed, and giggled a bit, and cried a bit, and then she sent me a stack of Henri Nouwen books, and here we are today.

Since then, I have been dunked by a pastor in the Pacific Ocean while shivering in a too-small wetsuit. I have sung “Be Thou My Vision” and celebrated Communion on a beach, while weirded-out Californians tiptoed around me. I go to church. I pray. My politics have not changed; the fervency with which I try to live them out has. My husband is bemused by me, but supportive and loving.

No More Chill

I am occasionally asked by other Christians, “What happened during that hour?” I answer that God did not speak to me. Rather, like the protagonist in Memento putting his past together with Polaroids, I figured out what I already knew. What happened during that hour was the natural culmination of my coming to faith: I had been cracked open to the divine, I read books that I would have laughed at before the cracking, and the stars lined up and there was God, and then I knew, and then I said it out loud to a third party, and then I giggled.

This is why apologetics, in my opinion, are hugely unconvincing. (Dallas Willard, for the record, never debated unbelievers.) No one could have in a billion years of their gripping testimony or by showing me a radiant life of good deeds or through song or even the most beautiful of books brought me to Christ. I had to be tapped on the shoulder. I had to be taken to a place where books about God were something I could experience without distance. It was alchemical.

I have been asked if deciding to become a Christian ended my exciting new crying-multiple-times-a-day hobby. The truth is that I continue to cry a lot more than I did before either Be-With-Me-Gate or the Dallas Willard Incident. I am more undone by love, or kindness, or friendship than I would have thought possible. Last night I tried to explain who Henri Nouwen was to some visiting cousins, and they had to bring me Kleenex, which they did sweetly and cautiously, as though I might melt in front of them. This morning I read a piece in Texas Monthly that literally sank me to my knees at how broken this world is, and yet how stubbornly resilient and joyful we can be in the face of that brokenness. I never possessed much chill, to be honest. Now I have none whatsoever.

There are times I feel a bit like a medieval peasant, in that I believe wholly in God now, but don’t always do what he wants, or, like Scarlett O’Hara, put hard conversations with him off until I’ve done the thing I wanted to do. It’s a thrumming backdrop to the rest of my life. My Christian conversion has granted me no simplicity. It has complicated all of my relationships, changed how I feel about money, messed up my public persona, and made me wonder if I should be on Twitter at all.

Obviously, it’s been very beautiful.

________

Nicole Cliffe is cofounder and coeditor of the website The Toast and lives in Utah.