Knees that double, bones that shake

Every breath a brittle thread

Every prayer half-said

To Thee my cries, to Thee my groans

To Thee my sighs, these broken tones

They climb a sky that will not bend

Is there an end?

My throat, my soul are hoarse from calling

Dry as dust in desert air

My heart a field long left in famine

Left to crack beneath this care

Yet I call

Yet I call

From the hollow and the hunger

From the fear of going lost

Yet I call

Yet I call

If my only prayer is falling

Let my falling find the Cross

My heart is withered, scorched and thin

Like trampled soil that bears no green

As if Thy hand had turned away

Refused the rain

My thoughts turn ‘round and ‘round again

Circles carved in restless sand

I’m spinning in this silent room

LORD, are You moved?

My tongue is tied in twisted questions

Faith and doubt in tangled lines

Still Thy name keeps breaking

through them

Like a dawn I cannot find

Yet I call

Yet I call

From the hollow and the hunger

From the fear of being lost

Yet I call

Yet I call

If my only prayer is falling

Let my falling find the Cross

LORD, I fall

I fall, I fall

Like a stone through deep unknowing

Like the rain through wounded ground

LORD, I fall

Still I call

I fall, I fall

Like a stone through deep unknowing

Like the rain through wounded ground

Lord, I fall

Still I call

If I never see the reason

Be my reason here and now

Yet I call

Yet I call

From the hollow and the hunger

From the fear of being lost

Yet I call

Yet I call

If my only prayer is falling

Let my falling find the Cross

Words by J. Lewis

(music by OpenMusic)

That’s a deep question many believers have asked.

The short answer is this. Scripture doesn’t call us to spend much time tracing the source of a sinful thought so much as judging its nature, and responding accordingly. The Word of God gives us some light to speak carefully about the difference. So here it is in shorthand.

First, Scripture teaches that sinful thoughts arise from our fallen human nature. James says, “Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:14). The heart, even in the regenerate, still contains remaining corruption (Romans 7). Old sinful habits, memories, desires, and reflexes of the flesh surface without warning. The suddenness of a thought does not prove it is satanic, though it may be. The heart is a deep, dark labyrinth. Indwelling sin lurks in the shadows of the light, waiting for the right moment to attempt control.

Scripture also teaches that Satan actually does tempt, suggest, and provoke (Matthew 4:1–3; Luke 22:31; John 13:2). But he is not omniscient. He is not omnipresent. We need to understand that. He is called the tempter, yet he can’t possibly tempt every tempted person. Most are largely left alone because they are already his (John 8:44). Unless, of course, he is enlisting them in his war. Redeemed sinners on the other hand, will at times, face personal attacks from Satan’s daemons. His tactics are well known.

He casts fiery darts (Eph.6:16). He draws the heart away (James 1:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). He sifts as wheat (Luke 22:31). He accuses the brethren (Rev. 12:10; Zech.3:1). He disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) He seeks advantage through ignorance (2 Cor. 2:11). He snatches away the Word (Matt. 13:19). As the second greatest anthropologist in history, he has done his homework. He knows our weaknesses. So yes, the devil/s often works by way of thoughts that are foreign to new life, intrusive, blasphemous, even violent in their suggestion, especially when they happen during prayer or moments of spiritual seriousness. Yet the devil can’t sin for you. Your flesh is the dry tinder. Your lust is the gas. The devil presents the spark. There would be no fire if there were nothing to burn. He doesn’t create new material. He works with existing flesh.

So how do I know if sinful thoughts are from me, or from the devil?

The most important thing isn’t where the thought came from, but how you respond to it. When a thought enters, there is an incredibly brief moment where we either consent or resist. Is it welcomed, invited in, entertained? Is it embraced like an old lost friend? Then why does origin matter? It doesn’t. To be honest, if hell’s minions never visited me again, I would have all the tinder and gas I need to destroy myself. But on the other hand, a wicked thought that is resisted, fought against and wrestled into the light of the Son, is resisting sin. Regardless where it came from. Luther’s old line is so memorable, You cannot stop birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from building a nest in your hair.

I would also add that your conscience gives an important clue. When a sinful thought arises, does your soul recoil? That response itself is telling. The unregenerate may grieve the effects and consequences of sin, but only the child of God grieve sin as sin. Especially in the face of so loving a Savior. Even then the believer may be horrified by thoughts he never chose and never wanted. That horror is the proof of grace (Romans 7:22,23).

Beware of over-scrupulosity. What I mean is don’t become trapped in constant inward looking, asking unbearably deep questions to yourself. This usually leads to paralysis of soul and unrelenting despair. Think of the man in the iron cage in Pilgrim’s Progress. Scripture does not teach an inward spiral. It calls us to watch, pray (as we heard last Lord’s Day), resist, flee, and fix our eyes on Christ. Whether the thought came from outside or inside makes no lasting difference. The remedy is the same. Humbled by sin, we are called to “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). How do we resist? Through confessed need. Through faith. Through fresh dependence on the Spirit of Christ.

2 Corinthians 10:4, 5 
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”

Finally, I hope you will remember this. Christ “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Temptation itself is not sin. Understand that clearly. When sin presents itself, it is not the first thought that matters most, it’s the second. Many of the most distressing thoughts believers experience are exactly the ones they hate and love the most according to Paul (Romans 7:15-24). “On second thought” should be our reply to temptation.

And one last thing, if the devil can’t win you to sin by temptation, he will accuse you for being tempted in the first place, turning warfare itself into false guilt. It is a merciless tactic.

So ask fewer questions about origin, and more questions about response.

Did I consent to this thought?

Did I welcome it?

Did I fight it?

Did I bring it to Christ?

And when the cry is as short and sweet as, “Help, Lord!” you may rest assured that grace was already working.

Subscribe now

If I had to name one, and only one, it would be a deep, personal sense that God is real, holy, and near, and that we all live life before His face.

The rising generation doesn’t suffer from a lack of information. They are over-saturated with words, images, arguments, and explanations. What they lack is depth, gravity. Very little in their world presses on the soul with permanence. Everything is selectable, editable, scrollable, reversible. Identity itself is treated as something you can try on or take off. In that atmosphere, God becomes easily sidelined, abstracted, recognized, but not reckoned with in the soul.

They need to know, in the marrow, that the living God addresses them in the Covenant of Grace. That He sees. That He speaks. That He commands. That He invites. That He forgives. That He will judge the world in righteousness. Without that, the bible becomes trivia, doctrine becomes a burden, worship becomes atmosphere, and morality becomes pliable.

This is why biblical, reverent worship matters so much. Why preaching must carry scriptural authority, without pretended-performance. It’s why fathers and mothers walking humbly with God in the home, preaches more loudly than a thousand youth programs. Why the ordinary means of grace, regularly administered and attended, are more precious than religious baubles and bubbles, (to quote Thomas Brooks). Most importantly, the rising generation learns what is real, by what their parents today, treat as real. And they are watching us.

When a child grows up in a church where sin is called sin, where grace is offered without cheapness, and where the Word of God is spoken with fear and tenderness, something is pressed into his deepest and most pliable parts. He may wander. He may resist for a season. Yet he does not easily escape the sense that there is a God with whom he has to do. I find this most true, about the time they get married and have children.

In short, the rising generation does not most need relevance, or invention, or protection from the hard edges of the faith. What they need is the fear of the Lord, and believe the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ in an awakened, personal way. Everything else that will last through to the rising generation, will grow from that soil.

Subscribe now

If you have a question, you can email me. If I think the question is practical and helpful, I will post it here.

We live in an age that never stops changing. But should that spirit of change find its way into Christ’s Church? Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” He said this because even in the earliest days there were those who wished to alter the order and customs of the Church. It has been so ever since. The duty of Christ’s Church is to keep those scriptural traditions handed down through the ages and not to yield them, however unfashionable they may appear.

One place where change has crept in is the Lord’s Supper. Over time, both the sacrament and the way we administer it have shifted. In many Reformed congregations, the people no longer come forward to a table. Instead, the bread and wine (or grape juice) are passed from pew to pew. From this practice of remaining seated came another change: the single communion cup was replaced by many small, individual cups, a distinctly American innovation. Only a few generations ago, such a thing was unheard of in our churches. Yet now, more and more congregations are setting aside the common cup for these individual ones.

Some may ask, “Does it really matter? Would the Lord concern Himself with something so small as the number of cups?” The answer of this brief study is clear: yes, it does matter to Him.

The Common Cup in Scripture

The first place we must look for understanding is the night of the Lord’s own institution. The Evangelist Luke records: “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” (Luke 22:17). In that upper room, the Redeemer placed one cup into the hands of His disciples, not twelve, not several, but one. He blessed it, gave thanks, and commanded them to divide it (one content) among themselves. The act was both deliberate and instructive.

The Lord’s Supper was not an new creation, but the holy superseding fulfillment of the Passover feast. Mark and Paul both tell us that Christ instituted the Supper “after supper” (Mark 14:18; 1 Cor. 11:25). The Passover itself had long been marked by a shared cup; the rabbis speak of four ritual cups taken at different stages of the meal, but always in common. Our Lord took that familiar symbol and invested it with eternal meaning. He transformed the old covenant cup of hope into the new covenant cup of redemption. The form remained, one cup, shared among many, but the reality it pointed to was greater by far.

Thus, when the disciples received the cup from Christ’s hand, they did not each take a portion for themselves. They received what He gave, passed it to one another, and all drank of it. The unity of the vessel mirrored the unity of their salvation.

This is important to notice. It is a pattern repeated throughout the entire New Testament witness. In every passage where the Supper is mentioned, the Spirit speaks of the cup, always in the singular.

“And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” (Matt. 26:27)
“And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.” (Mark 14:23)
“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:20)
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16)
“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:25)

The same grammatical pattern holds without exception. The inspired writers use the definite article and the singular noun, to poterion, “the cup.” Nowhere in the New Testament do we read ta poteria, “the cups.” The Spirit’s precision is apparent. Scripture’s vocabulary is theology in miniature, and the unbroken use of the singular points us to divine intent: one Savior, one covenant, one blood shed for the remission of sins, and one cup representing that covenant in His Church.

This unity of expression carries a doctrinal weight. The Supper is a sacrament of communion, not of individuality. Its visible signs are meant to correspond to the invisible grace they signify. To multiply the cups is, even unintentionally, to obscure what Christ has made clear. The details of divine institution are never secondary. What God appoints, we do not alter; what Christ commands, we do not improve.

The command itself could hardly be plainer: “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” (Luke 22:17). The demonstrative pronoun this directs our attention to the one container Christ held. The action He requires (divide it among yourselves) reveals both the manner and the meaning of the act. They were to partake of the same vessel and share together what came from His hand. Again, in Matthew 26:27, the Lord presses the same point: “Drink ye all of it.” The emphasis rests upon the singular it, one cup, one Christ, one covenant.

This uniformity of form and meaning carries through the apostolic teaching. When Paul writes to the Corinthians, he identifies the cup as the “communion of the blood of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16). The term koinōnia means participation, fellowship, or shared life. The cup, then, is a reminder of Christ’s atonement, but it is also the visible symbol of shared redemption, the outward act that portrays inward union. To substitute a tray of individual cups for the single vessel is to turn the corporate fellowship of believers into a series of private gestures. It makes visible independence where Christ intended visible unity.

Some may argue that such distinctions are trivial, that what matters is the heart, not the form. But the Word of God does not treat His ordinances lightly. The Lord’s institutions are not human symbols; they are divine means of grace, and their form carries His message. To alter the sign is to obscure the thing signified. The church is not permitted to reimagine the symbols of grace according to convenience or preference.

Paul’s warning to the Colossians remains relevant: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col. 2:8). The spirit of the age will always offer reasons to modify God’s order (whether for health, for expedience, or for comfort), but those reasons spring from the “rudiments of the world.” The Reformed conscience must answer differently. Our rule is the Word, not the wisdom of men.

The Old Testament principle still governs the New Testament church: “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deut. 12:32). The Lord’s Supper is not ours to edit. Christ Himself, the Host and Head of the table, appointed one cup to be blessed, shared, and received by faith. To keep that form is not traditionalism, it is obedience.

In the simplicity of that single cup lies the testimony of unity: one blood, one salvation, one body, one Lord. It preaches to our eyes, nose, and lips the same gospel that the Word preaches to our ears, that all who drink by faith are joined to Him and to one another. That is why the church must hold fast the pattern given, guarding the form of sound words and the form of sound signs.

One in Christ

The common cup also symbolizes the unity that all believers share in Christ. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12:12: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.” Likewise, Galatians 3:28 declares, “…for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The shared cup proclaims this unity. Its meaning is diminished when replaced by individual cups, which emphasize the individual over the body. By its very symbolism, it shifts the focus from communion to independence, a spirit more akin to Baptist individualism than to Reformed catholicity. The Apostle writes again in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” The term communion (Greek koinōnia) means joint fellowship or shared participation.

Thus, the common cup visibly testifies to our oneness in Christ and the wholeness of His body.

The Common Cup in History

Scripture warns, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28). Our fathers have spoken clearly on this matter.

If we are the generation that removes their landmarks, we risk leading our children into greater departures. History tells us that it is the natural progression of each generation to take a step to the left of their parents. The first generation that takes liberty often gives birth to one that takes license. We must therefore tread carefully, lest we be remembered as those who uprooted the ancient boundary of the common cup.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 28, Question 75, reads:

Q. 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord’s Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits?
A. Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of Him, adding these promises: first, that His body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me… (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 28, Q&A 75, The Three Forms of Unity, 1563).

The Catechism assumes one cup, the cup, shared among communicants. Its very language reflects the practice of the Reformed churches of the sixteenth century.

Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author and commentator on the Catechism, explains:

“The rites which Christ has instituted are, that the Lord’s bread be broken, distributed, and received, and the Lord’s cup be given to all the communicants, in remembrance of His death.”
(Ursinus, Zacharias. Of the Lord’s Supper, and the True Doctrine and Pure Administration Thereof; With a Refutation of Both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. Translated by G.W. Williard, Columbus, Ohio: Scott & Bascom, 1852, p. 376.)

Our Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper further confirms this:

“The cup of blessing which we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ.”

Note the singular form: the cup. Only one container is blessed. To alter this to these cups would not only distort the biblical form (1 Corinthians 10:16), but also force the minister to bless dozens of separate vessels, a practice alien to Reformed liturgy and foreign to the institution of Christ. In congregations where wine is pre-poured before the service by the deacons or custodians, those cups are not blessed at all, since only the one vessels lifted and consecrated in prayer receives the blessing. To avoid this inconsistency, one would need to invent new liturgical formulas, precisely the kind of “man-made inventions” our Reformed fathers rejected.

Finally, our Church Order, Article 62, provides:

“Every Church shall administer the Lord’s Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God’s Word be not changed, and all superstition be avoided.” (Church Order of the Reformed Churches, Article 62.)

If, as we have shown, the use of a single vessels accords with Scripture and the testimony of our fathers, then fidelity to both the Word of God and our Church Order compels us to retain it. To multiply the cups is not a mere matter of convenience; it alters the symbolism established by Christ Himself.

The common cup, then, remains a confession, not only of our communion with the Savior, but of our communion with one another in His body.

The Dutch Reformed Fathers

In 1618–1619, the Synod of Dordrecht, one of the greatest assemblies of the Reformed Church, commissioned a group of ministers to compose an extensive commentary on the whole of Scripture. These Annotations upon the Holy Bible (published in 1637) became a monumental achievement of the Dutch Reformation, combining careful exegesis with profound pastoral theology. On Matthew 26:27, these annotations record:

“And took the cup, and having given thanks, gave (it) to them; and they all drank of the same [cup]: [Namely, as Christ had commanded them, Matthew. 26.27].” (The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible, Dordrecht, 1637, on Matthew 26:27.)

Here, the phrase “they all drank of the same” leaves no room for ambiguity. The fathers of Dort understood that Christ gave one cup to His disciples, not many. The unity of the act, its shared participation,was as essential to its meaning as the wine itself.

Among those who continued and deepened the theology of Dordt was Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711), one of the most beloved Dutch divines of the Nadere Reformatie (Dutch Second Reformation). Writing in his Redelijke Godsdienst (The Christian’s Reasonable Service), à Brakel captures both the theological and experiential beauty of the common cup:

“Even if the world, as their enemy, hates, despises, persecutes, and oppresses them, there is yet no reason for concern; they can readily miss its love, for they have better company and they refresh themselves in a sweet manner in the exercise of mutual love. They confess this unity in the Lord’s Supper by eating of the same bread and by drinking of the same cup. ‘For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread’ (1 Cor. 10:17).”
(à Brakel, Wilhelmus. The Christian’s Reasonable Service. Translated by Bartel Elshout, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992–1995, vol. 2, p. 577.)

For à Brakel, the act of sharing one cup is a confession of love within the communion of saints. The Supper is not a private experience of piety but a visible expression of corporate grace. To separate believers into individuals at that table, is to obscure that shared participation of one body and one blood.

Another eminent theologian of that era, Herman Witsius (1636–1708), author of The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, expressed the same conviction. He observes the careful language of Scripture itself:

“The third action of the guests is, to drink the consecrated wine out of the cup. It is remarkable, that our Lord said concerning the cup, not only ‘Take this, and divide it among yourselves,’ Luke 22:17, but likewise added a mark of universality, ‘Drink ye all of it,’ Matt. 26:27. And we are told how they complied with this command, Mark 14:24, ‘And they all drank of it.’”
(Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1990 [1693], vol. 2, pp. 455–456.)

Witsius’ emphasis lies not only on the drinking but on the universality—drink ye all of it. His observation that “they all drank of it” underscores the singularity of the vessel, the same cup that Christ Himself blessed. The grammar of the Gospel record itself bears witness to a shared participation, not a divided one. The act of dividing the wine into many cups reverses the very picture Christ painted: one Savior, one covenant, one communion.

It would be easy to multiply testimonies. The history of the Reformed Church, indeed, of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, presents a continuous witness to the practice of the common cup. From the Early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Augustine) through the Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Bucer), and into the Puritans, Dutch Second Reformation, and Westminster Divines, the unity of the cup remained unbroken. Only in recent times has this “ancient landmark” been displaced by convenience, custom, and fundamentalist Baptist influences.

To abandon the common vessel is to obscure a symbol Christ Himself established and our fathers faithfully preserved. The danger is not only historical amnesia, but theological erosion. For when the visible unity of the body is fractured in sign, it is soon forgotten in substance.

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set” (Proverbs 22:28). To hold the cup together is to hold the faith together.

Objections Answered

It cannot be denied that the introduction of individual cups arose for two main reasons. The first is theological: the spirit of individualism that marks our age, the “me-centered” religion of private faith and personal preference. The second is practical: the concern for sanitation and public health (Note: This was originally written in Alberta in 2009, pre-pandemic. It has undergone 2 revisions).

The first objection, rooted in the modern preference of self, has already been answered. In the Lord’s Supper, unity must always take precedence over individuality. The Table of Christ is both a mirror for self-reflection and a communion in one body and one blood.

The second objection, sanitation, deserves careful and sympathetic attention.

“The Yuck Factor”

Many sincere Christians hesitate to use the common cup because of what might be called “the yuck factor.” The thought of drinking from the same vessel as others, they fear, poses a heightened risk of contagion. This objection is not new; it is simply modernized with medical vocabulary. Yet, the question must be asked: does a perceived health concern nullify the divine command?

We believe not. The following considerations show why.

1. Two Thousand Years of Safe Use
   The common cup has been used since the night of the first Supper. Across centuries, cultures, and continents, believers have shared it without record of epidemic or plague caused by the sacrament. Are the dangers of disease more pressing today than in the days of Christ, when sanitation was far less advanced? Surely not. The Lord instituted the cup in full knowledge of human frailty and still commanded its use. To alter His command under the pretense of greater wisdom is to claim we know better than He.

2. Other Points of Contact Are Far Less Sanitary
   Every worship service involves far greater exposure to germs than the Lord’s Table. The handshake at the door, the pew, The Psalter, the doorknob, or the bathroom sink, all are touched by many hands. Even the trays and the bread, handled repeatedly, carry greater potential for transmission than the silver rim of a single cup. If fear of illness is the measure, one ought to avoid the entire gathering rather than the blessed vessel of communion.

3. The Nature of the Elements Themselves
   Communion wine, often fortified to twelve percent or higher, has antibacterial properties that inhibit the spread of disease. Furthermore, noble metals, particularly silver, possess natural antimicrobial qualities recognized even in modern science. The cup of blessing is not only symbolically sanctified but physically resistant to contamination.

4. Historical Testimony
   Countless ministers over the centuries have borne witness that no communicant under their care was ever made ill by the common cup. Such testimony, repeated through generations, is no small matter. The absence of harm across two millennia speaks with quiet trust to the providence of God in the preservation of His ordinance.

For these reasons, the fear of illness cannot overrule the command or the symbolism of the common cup. To invoke the “yuck factor” as grounds for changing Christ’s institution is to forget that the Supper is a holy ordinance, not a matter of convenience or hygiene. It is worth recalling the Lord’s rebuke to Peter when he resisted what seemed unclean: “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:15).

Are we wiser than our fathers? Are we wiser than God?

The Pragmatic Objection

Another objection arises from practicality. Some ask, “If one cup is commanded, why do some congregations use two?”

Here, Article 62 of the Church Order provides helpful guidance:

“Every Church shall administer the Lord’s Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God’s Word be not changed, and all superstition be avoided…” (Church Order of the Reformed Churches, Art. 62).

When larger congregations use two cups, one for each side of the table, it maintains the symbol with accommodation of space and time. The emphasis remains the same: one shared content among many participents, signifying one body and one faith. The duplication of the vessel for practical necessity does not fracture the unity it represents.

What does destroy the symbol is the distribution of a tray of individual cups to each communicant. This practice removes the visible expression of shared participation and replaces it with the symbol of personal identity. The result is not a table of fellowship but a row of private devotees.

The difference, then, lies not in number but in nature. Two cups at one table still proclaim one communion as they are poured from a common vessel. One hundred individual cups proclaim none.

In light of Scripture, the testimony of our fathers, and the unbroken witness of Church history, the objections raised against the common cup argue too little, and concede too much.

The “cup of blessing which we bless” (1 Corinthians 10:16) remains both the sign and seal of our unity in Christ. To divide the cup is to divide the sign; and to divide the sign is to blur the truth it was meant to proclaim.

A Plea to Return to the Common Cup

Unless the Lord Himself sends a reformation upon His Church, each generation will drift further from the previous. History bears solemn witness to this truth. The natural man does not move toward obedience, but away from it. Compromise begins as convenience and ends as corruption. What one generation tolerates, the next will embrace.

Some shrug it off as an unimportant matter, hardly worth defending. Yet if it truly were of no consequence, why alter it? Why introduce division into the Church of Christ over something so insignificant? The very act of change betrays that it does, in fact, matters. If it were a light thing, the old path would have been left untouched.

We readily confess that salvation does not hinge upon the number of cups used at the Table. Yet obedience does. The question is of faithfulness. What has the Lord commanded, and what has His Church received from the beginning? To tamper with Christ’s ordinances under the guise of progress is not reform, but decline.

The Holy Supper is a holy mystery, a means of grace to all who partake in faith. There, the believer communes with the crucified and risen Christ, feeding on Him by faith, tasting His promise in the bread and cup. Should we not, then, seek to walk in tender obedience to His revealed will, even in the smallest detail of His institution?

There is no Scriptural warrant for individual cups, none. There is, however, abundant testimony in Scripture, in the Confessions, and in Church history for the common cup. To alter what Christ Himself blessed and gave to His disciples is to let the hand of modernity touch the holy.

Let the Church maintain. Let her lay aside the inventions of convenience and retain the sign of unity given by her Lord. For as the Apostle says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16).

Works Cited

• The Holy Bible: King James Version. Cambridge University Press, 1769.

• The Heidelberg Catechism. 1563. In The Three Forms of Unity. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011.

• The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible. Dordrecht: Synod of Dort, 1637.

• à Brakel, Wilhelmus. The Christian’s Reasonable Service. Translated by Bartel Elshout, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992–1995.

• Ursinus, Zacharias. Of the Lord’s Supper, and the True Doctrine and Pure Administration Thereof; With a Refutation of Both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. Translated by G. W. Williard, Scott & Bascom, 1852.

• Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1990.

• Church Order of the Reformed Churches. Grand Rapids: Free Reformed Publications, 2018.

• Lewis, Jerrold. The Common Cup: A Command. Revised ed., 2009.

Appendix: A Pastoral Provision

Dec, 2025

During the height of the COVID pandemic, New Jersey became one of the nation’s epicenters of sickness and death. Our consistory felt the weight of two duties that seemed to press against each other. On the one hand, we were unwilling to suspend the administration of the Lord’s Supper, “This do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19), (1 Corinthians 11:26). On the other hand, we could not lightly dismiss potential transmission, nor ignore the fear of the weaker brother, whom Scripture commands us to bear with tender regard (Romans 14:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14).

In searching for a faithful path forward, we were guided by Scripture and by the Church Order that governs us. The original Church Order of Dort (1619), Article 62, gives helpful guidance:

“The Lord’s Supper shall be administered only where there is supervision of elders in an orderly manner according to the ecclesiastical form. And in such a manner as the consistory shall judge most conducive to edification.”

Further, it adds clarity to the boundaries:

“...provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God’s Word be not changed and all superstition be avoided.”

Together, these affirm two truths:

1. The manner of administration is entrusted to the prudence and judgment of the consistory.

2. The elements themselves may not be altered.

With these boundaries in place, the path became clear. Here I will describe our first pandemic communion. Around the Communion table, we placed simple Passover Seder or Kiddush cups (Brooklyn), uniform, unadorned, reverent.

At the center of the table stood a single common vessel, the wine consecrated with thanksgiving, following the apostolic pattern: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16).

The act of blessing rested upon the singular vessel (wine carafe), filled with the one element, representing the one blood of the one Savior. From this vessel I walked around the table, pouring a small measure into each communicant’s cup. In doing so, the congregation retained both sides of the biblical pattern: the singularity of the consecrated cup (Matthew 26:27–28), and the distributive command, “Drink ye all of it.”

At the close of each sitting, the communicants placed their cup into a cloth-covered basket at either end of the table.

While the present members rose from the table, and returned to their pews, the deacons quietly replenished each seat with a fresh cup for the second table sitting. It was smooth and unassuming as a visual. Both tables drank from the same consecrated wine, thus maintaining the unity of the element while making provision for the weaker brother (Romans 15:1–2).

We believe this arrangement preserved the integrity of the sacrament. It allowed us to maintain the elemental pattern revealed in Scripture (one bread and one wine blessed and given to the many, 1 Corinthians 10:17), while exercising the pastoral discretion entrusted to the consistory. It also honored the heart of the apostolic command: edification (1 Corinthians 14:26), unity (Ephesians 4:3), and love (John 13:34–35).

To this point we have kept this practice in place since 2020. We have had several wonderful Lord’s Suppers together with no complaint, signaling that this provision satisfies the hearts of all our communicants which, like every congregation, has a variety of opinion. It enabled us to continue in obedience without burdening consciences, without altering the elements, and without losing the signified communion of saints.

If you want to see how this is done, visit this link. The table first appears at the 1 hour and 33-minute mark.

The Spirit Has Already Spoken

When God desires His church to sing, He does not leave it to human initiative. The 150 Psalms were not compiled by accident. They were inspired, collected, and preserved by the Holy Spirit with a view toward the praise of the Church of God. The Psalms are, uniquely, songs. Not Scripture set to music, but Scripture as praise. They speak to God as much as they speak about Him. They form the prayer book, songbook, and devotional life of the covenant people across all ages (the Jewish Church, the Early Church, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Church, The Reformation/Second Reformation Church, The Secession Churches, and us today in the FRCNA).

Contrast the genre of the Psalms with Paul's epistles, the visions of Daniel, or the narratives of Exodus. These are inspired, infallible, and rich in doctrine, but they were never songs. Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to versify and sing Paul's letters. No command tells us to render Isaiah into meter and melody for the congregation. To treat all Scripture as equally singable is to erase the clear distinction and intent the Holy Spirit Himself has drawn.

The Psalms are the only portion of Scripture given explicitly by the Spirit to sing. They are songs by design, by nature, not by adaptation. When the Holy Spirit intended His people to sing in public corporate worship, He gave them 150 songs, and said, so to speak 'Here, sing these to US.” To suggest otherwise is to declare the Spirit's provision insufficient.

A Violation of the Regulative Principle

The Reformed and Presbyterian churches have long confessed the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW): that only what God commands in public worship is permitted. This is in contrast to other Protestant traditions that assume freedom where God is silent. We assume the opposite: unless God explicitly commands it, it must not be brought into His corporate worship.

Since Moses, this RPW principle had guarded the holiness of God’s worship. Just ask Aaron. It reminds us that when we come before the Triune God collectively, we are not there to express ourselves, but to respond to His revelation to us. It was this very principle that led the Reformers and Seceders to return to the Psalms alone as the songbook of the church. Calvin, Knox, and De Cock understood that singing what the Holy Spirit took time to write for us is the highest expression of worship. Only what God has commanded is an act of worshipful submission. To add what He has not commanded, however well-meant, is pure presumption.

The Psalms are sufficient. They contain the full range of human experience under grace: repentance, forgiveness, joy, grief, confession, praise, justice, mercy, covenant, and Christ. The entire redemptive work of God is sung, always more deeply than in our most doctrinally rich hymns. They are sung Christology. They are Spirit-breathed doxology. To look outside of them is not only unnecessary, but also unfaithful.

A Path Already Taken

This is not the first time the Reformed church has faced such recommendations. The Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) once sang only Psalms. A reading of their histories proves that their fidelity was not lightly held. Both the RCA and CRC in their inception (or immigration) was rooted in the Synod of Dort, in the Secession of 1834 (which also reformed the Song Book to Psalms only). At the founding of the CRC (USA) in 1857, one of its chief reasons for leaving the RCA was a protest against 800 unauthorized hymns.

But slowly, under pressure of cultural accommodation and aesthetic preference, they yielded.

Let's go back.

In 1789, the RCA added hymns to its Psalter. By 1869, its hymnal contained over a thousand hymns and the Psalms were nearly lost. In the CRC, the Psalter of 1912 marked a recovery of psalm-singing, but only for about half a generation. In 1934, hymns were added. In 1959, more still. By 1987, the "Psalter Hymnal" included 491 hymns, and in 2013, Lift Up Your Hearts presented a veritable buffet of global songs, contemporary choruses, and a scattering of Psalms.

This is the path we are being asked to walk.

Let us be clear: those who walked it before us never intended to forsake the Psalms. Each addition was presented to each synod as modest, controlled, safe. But the Psalms were displaced, not preserved. Once one small principle is surrendered, the outcome becomes inevitable.

The PCA, OPC, and CRC all bear the same scars. What begins with supplemental verses ends with doctrinal drift. The Psalms give way to man's desire. If we add one, why not nineteen? If nineteen, why not one hundred? Then theology follows. As Abraham Kuyper warned, "In the struggle between hymn and psalm, all nominal members favored the hymns; the truly pious were drawn to the psalms." De Cock is much stronger in his language, "Hymns were never introduced into the church, except to cause degeneration and contempt for the welfare of the church." "Where, therefore, were the hymns, or other whorish songs ever used in the days of the apostles in the congregations of the Lord?" In case you are wondering where he said this, it's in his pamphlet, "The So-Called Evangelical Hymns the Darling of the Enraptured and Misled Multitude in the Synodical Reformed Church and even by some of God's children from blindness, because they are drunk with the wine of her fornication, further tested, weighed and found wanting, Yes, in conflict with all our Forms of Unity and the Word of God."3

Why We Must Not Follow

It is also important to examine some of the very songs now being proposed or defended as Recommendations. Many of these selections, such as As Moses Raised the Serpent Up (John 3), Comfort, Comfort Now My People (Isaiah 40), If I Speak in Foreign Tongues (1 Corinthians 13), In the Beginning (John 1), O My People Turn to Me (a paraphrase likely rooted in the prophets?), Seek Ye First (Matthew 6), The Beatitudes (Matthew 5), and The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5), are taken from narratives, gospel instruction, or prophetic preaching. None of these genres are songs. They are not identified as such by the Spirit, nor are they framed in a poetic or musical form suitable for corporate praise.

Even the so-called Songs of Mary, Simeon, and Zechariah are misnamed. The Greek text of Luke explicitly states that Mary said (εἶπεν), not sang, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46); likewise, Simeon said (εἶπεν) his words upon seeing Christ (Luke 2:28–29). The same goes for the Angels of Christ's birth. No song there at all. These are records of speech, not prescriptions of song. There is no biblical warrant to treat these as anything to sing. Ask yourself, "What did Paul mean when he used the word hymn?" (Eph. 5; Col. 3) What did Jesus and the disciples sing on the night he was betrayed? καὶ ὑμνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον "and having sung [a hymn] they went out…" The verb ὑμνέω (hymneō) simply means to sing praise; it does not imply versified songs as we think of it today. What did the Hebrew church, and thus our Lord sing exclusively ? The term refers to Psalm-singing in both the Septuagint and Jewish usage of the time. So, to elevate man-made versifications to be sung in corporate worship is to treat as prescriptive what Scripture has presented as descriptive, which is a violation of the Regulative Principle.

In other words, each of these recommendations comes from a portion of Scripture that is undeniably inspired, but never intended by the Spirit for corporate singing. None bear the form, function, or Spirit-indicated use that the Psalms alone possess. To versify and sing them in worship is to treat all genres of Scripture as equal in liturgical function, which is a confusion of the Holy Spirit's design. The Psalms alone were given as Israel's, Christ's, and the Church's songbook.

It is also important to examine some of the very songs now being proposed or defended as "Scripture songs." Consider the following examples:

• Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2) – a prophetic utterance tied to a historical narrative.

• Song of Moses and Miriam (Exodus 15) – a historical celebration following a redemptive event.

• Song of Mary (Luke 1), Song of Zachariah (Luke 1), Song of Simeon (Luke 2) – all narrative-embedded praise, recorded within redemptive history, not given as liturgical material.

• As Moses Raised the Serpent Up (John 3), The Beatitudes (Matthew 5), The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5), If I Speak in Foreign Tongues (1 Corinthians 13) are didactic or instructional texts, not written in or for musical form.

• The Ten Commandments, The Lord's Prayer – moral and devotional instruction, not divine songs.

Some reasons are old. But others, perhaps, we have not yet seen clearly:

• The Psalms are already sufficient to instruct the church in doctrine, worship, and experience. We are not impoverished. (2 Peter 1:3)

• Other genres of Scripture were not intended for musical setting. The didactic epistles, histories, apocalyptic visions, and gospel narratives are not liturgical texts. To versify and sing them corporately is to treat all Scripture as functionally the same. This denies the Spirit's clear intent in giving a distinct songbook to His Church.

• When we sing uninspired words in God's worship, we teach without inspiration. In preaching, the minister is constrained by the text. In song, the people themselves proclaim theology at their discression. Should not that theology be God's?

• The church is shaped as much by what she sings as by what she hears. Versifications of Scripture set to music, however carefully selected, in the 21st Century, are often as formative as sermons. To introduce new songs is to introduce a new catechesis. What are we teaching our children? What boundary will they push, if we push this one?

• God gave His people a canon of praise. To add to it is to say His provision is incomplete. That is a weighty theological statement, one we dare not make.

• We are not wiser than De Cock, or Dort, or the Reformers. One hundred percent of Reformed history demonstrates that the addition of Scripture songs to the 150 Psalms is a historical regression. Unwittingly, our Dort fathers opened that door. Or rather did not close it tightly. Now we are being asking to walk through it.

• The Holy Spirit preserved the Psalms across dispensations. Christ sang them. The apostles sang them. The early church sang them. The Reformation/nader reformatie sang them, the Puritans, etc. We have no authority to lay beside them another set of so-called scriptural song.

Hold the Line!

If we are truly ready to make a change at Synod 2025, then let us reform ourselves. If Article 694 of the Church Order is to be revisited, and indeed, rewritten, let it not be to loosen its guardrails, but repair them, and complete the work of reformation. Let us then remove all remaining doxologies and Scripture songs not found in the Psalms. Let us remove from our worship of all that the Spirit has not commanded. Let us finally and fully align our practice with the original intent of Dort: to sing only the songs the Holy Spirit has written and placed right smack in the middle of His Word. Anything less is regression.

This committee's proposal and recommendations open a door. A door that the RCA, CRC, OPC, PCA, PCUSA, RCUS and a myriad of denominations that no longer exist have already walked through. It asks us to sing what the Spirit never commanded. It asks us to unlearn the lessons of Dort, of De Cock, of the Secession. It is, in theological terms, the beginning of decline.

We do not need new songs. We need to love The Psalter more deeply. The Psalms are not stale. They are life. They are not insufficient. They are inexhaustible. And they are the only songs God Himself has given His church to sing.

May Synod 2025 not only reject this proposal. Let it bear witness, with our forefathers, that the Psalms are enough.

So let us rethink our supposed “special place” in God’s eyes as a country. Israel was not just a nation—it was a nation-church. A people called, covenanted, wed to the LORD in an unrepeatable way. We are just another nation, beloved in our own eyes, but which happens to contain a church, a body of the elect, gathered by grace from every tongue and tribe. Whatever warnings we will come across in the Old Testament, directed at Israel, speaks to us as a church, both comprehensive and local… but not as a country.

Hosea’s Audience Was Not a Secular State

This distinction is critical in the age of swelling Christian nationalism. The temptation to blur the boundaries between church and nation, between God’s covenant people and political identity, is, at best, theologically confused.

Old Testament prophets did not cry out to a republic or a democracy. But to a people whose entire national structure was bound up in covenant. They had Sinai behind them. We do not. They had the Ark and the Tabernacle. We do not. They had prophets speaking by divine revelation. We have the completed Word. Their identity was shaped by redemptive history; ours is shaped by geography and constitution.

To read OT prophesies through the lens of American exceptionalism is to flatten the very meaning of covenant and twist the gospel’s trajectory.

America Has No Sinai

The United States of America, for all her providential mercies, has no burning bush, no Shekinah, no Davidic throne. Her Constitution is not the Law of God. Her shores were not crossed under divine mandate. God has preserved and restrained evil within her borders, but she is no more the “city on a hill” than Nineveh or Babylon once were. The Church is.

Whatever we may say about American history, it must be said in humility, not pride. God's patience with nations is never a mark of covenant, only of mercy.

But There Is a Remnant

Yet within this nation, God has placed a remnant. A church bought with blood. A people gathered by grace across many denominations and churches. They are not defined by flag, but by faith. Not by soil, but by Spirit.

The church, not the state, is the object of God's redemptive focus. The true heirs of Abraham are those united to Christ, not those who pledge allegiance to any earthly banner. And so, it is within the church, not the country, where Old Testament nation's prophesies find their present address.

Let It Strike Where It Should

Let the Old Testament prophesies speak. Let them cut. Let them expose every false trust and every idolatry of heart. But let them do so to the right people. Not in the halls of Congress, but in the sanctuary. Not to America writ large, but to the Church within her.

Let us not hold this prophecy like a cudgel over unbelieving culture. Let us receive it first as a scalpel for the Bride of Christ. The church must read, let's say, Hosea with trembling, not with a flag in hand, but with sackcloth.

The Gospel Is Bound to a Cross, Not a Flag

We should abandon the delusion that America is in any way a modern Israel. The gospel does not march behind or in front of the stars and stripes. It marches alongside a crucified and risen Christ.

Our hope is not in reclaiming a nation. It is in reviving a people, His people. The church.

The church alone is the covenant community. And the church alone will remain when the nations of this present age are long forgotten.

A Marxist Foil

Environmentalism, as it’s often packaged today, carries a whiff of Marxist DNA. Christians should smell it a mile off. It’s not really about the planet. It’s about raw, naked power. Marxism thrives on crisis. Class struggle morphs into climate struggle, with mankind cast as the oppressor and nature as the exploited proletariat. The solution? Central control. Guilt-driven by carrot and stick collectivism which never moves an inch toward our fabled utopian rest. Think Green New Deal or eco-socialism. Both are less about saving trees and more about toppling old systems, redistributing wealth, and erasing individual stewardship under one secular hive, where the Queen bee (Read ‘goverment’) pumps out drones to her feeding. Karl Marx’s fingerprints smudge our lens, as creation itself is prostituted out for revolutionary power.

Scripture recoils at this. Genesis 1:28 doesn’t apologize for mankind’s existince. It commends it: “fill the earth and subdue it.” Biblical stewardship is not exploitative; it flourishes under God’s blessing. Environmentalism flips this, shaming mankind for his very presence, a stain to be removed by self extinction. Job 41:11 “…whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine” rejects pantheistic Earth-worship. Creation always points to the Creator, not itself (Psalm 19:1). When environmentalists spoil priceless paintings, glue themselves to roadways, or push depopulation (the opposite of Musk’s birth-rate panic), they ironically mirror Babel’s pride (if not its purpose), stacking brick upon brick, to unseat God’s order. Musk and environmentalism are two sides of the same coin. Christians should reject both foils, not because the Earth doesn’t matter, but because its gospel is false.

Conservation as God’s Mandate

I am a conservationist. There, I said it. I love this planet. I have stood in awe for hours, just studying, marveling at our Savior’s creative Genius. At times it’s so beautiful, my eyes mist. I Often think in those moments, “how could something so beautiful be fallen at all?” But it is. A new, or renewed earth (depending on your hermeneutic), is what God has promised. In the meantime, conservation is the Christian’s true north for planet Earth. Genesis 2:15 hands Adam the fork and the shovel: “dress it and keep it.” As we have noted, ‘Abad (serve) and shamar (guard) are both verbs. They’re active, humble, rooted in God’s design for our flourishing. Conservation does not seek to save Earth for its own sake. We steward it for Christ’s sake, who made heaven and earth. Joseph didn’t waste Egypt’s grain, he stored it (Genesis 41). The Proverbs 31 woman doesn’t squander her household, she builds it. Conservation tills the garden we’re given, not plant an idol we dream up.

Environmentalists treat this planet like a victim to appease, conservationists, a trust to cultivate. Environmentalism is clenched fisted. Conservation is open handed, planting, pruning, preserving. Leviticus 25:2-5 ties this to rest, the land gets its Sabbath too, not because it’s sacrosanct, but because God’s. And He rested on it. Surely in part, to enjoy what He had made. Conservation rejects waste (think overfishing, plastic filled oceans, slashed forests) but also rejects despair. Earth’s doom isn’t in our our timeline. Restoration is. So conservation is practical: clean rivers, fertile fields, air we can breathe, not for Gaia’s applause, but for the King’s ‘well done.’ For that, there is a lot of work to do.

Musk, Mars, and the Point

Elon’s Mars sprint dodges all this. Why not flee a weed-filled garden you won’t tend, for greener pastures in the great beyond? Some environmentalists might cheer his “save humanity” rhetoric, but it’s just Marxism in a spacesuit, rocketing past God’s green earth. Conservation grips the plow here. Christians don’t abandon Earth for a Red Planet reboot. Instead, we should roll up our sleeves and tend the garden beneath us. Marxism wants this system torn down, and environmentalism is the ecological arm of Marxism, just as the Olympics are the physed arm of the UN.

The Christian Stance

The Christian should reject environmentalism outright. We don’t believe in “Mother Earth.” We believe in Father God. We should reject environmentalism, not because Creation is disposable, but because its cure is poison. A Marxist sleight-of-hand swapping God for nature. Young and old, embrace conservation! Not so much as a trendy badge, but as a biblical charge. We’re not Earth’s saviors or its scourge. We are its stewards for the One who made it. Jesus says, “Occupy till I come” (Luke 19:13) Let's tend His soil, until He returns and makes all things new.

Subscribe now

A Man Who Sows, But Doesn’t Tend

Musk’s life will be one of the great biographies of history. It’s hard not to agree that we’re watching, in real time, an addition to the list of the most transformative men in history. Moses, Plato, Paul, Augustine, Muhammad, Columbus, Gutenberg, Newton, Marx, Einstein. Course changers, History shapers.1 For good or ill. And each one has a back story that molded them. Stories that are every bit as fascinating as the transformation they brought. Musk’s story is bigger than rockets.

He’s fathered at least 13 children—five with Justine Wilson, three with Grimes, three with Shivon Zilis, one with Ashley St. Clair in September 2024, and rumors of another brewing.2 His father, Errol, sired kids across broken lines. A messy legacy of scattering that we won’t unpack. Interestingly, Errol is now making appearances on South African blogs and independent media sites on X. They can’t go after his amazing mother (a true gem it seems), so perhaps the machine is attempting to soil Musk’s by spotlighting his father? I don’t know. Musk, to his credit, has escaped the orbit of his dad, by and large. They have nothing to do with each other. But Musk’s life is still fingerprinted by his dad’s DNA,—divorces, custody fights, a daughter who calls him absent, a mother pleading online for their son’s care. It’s messy for a whole host of reasons, again, that we won’t get into. The point is he builds vast and astounding empires; SpaceX, Tesla, et al., but his kids are raised by nannies. I take zero pleasure in relating this. This isn’t needlessly pointing fingers. It’s an observation of a pattern. Musk sows widely, tends thinly. Mars fits the paternal male mold. “Earth you’re out. Mars, my love!” A new field to seed, not a home to tend. If stewardship begins with what’s closest—family, soil, soul—then running to the Red Planet looks like leaving the plow behind.

Earth’s Still Untended

Look at Earth. Land covers 29% of it.3 The Sahara stretches 3.6 million square miles, Antarctica 5.4 million, the Outback a million more.4 Oceans blanket 71%, yet we’ve mapped less than 20% of their floors.5 These aren’t barren like Mars; they’re already habitable, bubbling over with untapped potential. The Sahara gets enough sunlight to power the world twice over with solar farms.6 Oceans could host towns and cities (think submerged habitats in the Gulf’s warm shallows). Musk’s tech-billions could coax life from these places, working with Earth’s ecology—water, sun, wind. Instead, he aspires to inseminate (terraform) a planet with no breathable air (0.6% oxygen vs. Earth’s 21%), no liquid water, and soil too toxic for crops.7 Mars demands we import life; Earth begs us to tend to life that’s already here. Which sounds more Genesis 2:15?

Escaping the Hard Work of Home Tending

Why Mars? Musk talks population collapse, Earth’s fragility—fair worries. He’s said birth rates are “the biggest danger civilization faces,” which explains his careless actions a bit.8 We don’t need more children strewn wide. We need sons and daughters raised in stable homes, by parents who tend with care, forging citizens foundational to society’s soul. Maybe he hears a clock we don’t, ticking toward extinction? Well, we look to the scriptures that tell us neither heaven nor earth will pass until all is fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). Stewardship doesn’t flee the thorns. It grips the plow and breaks the soil. Noah didn’t flee the flood—he tended the ark (Genesis 6-9). The servant with one talent didn’t seek new anything, and he was judged for burying what he had been given (Matthew 25:14-30). Musk’s restlessness recalls Cain, wandering east of Eden (Genesis 4:12), not Adam tending it. His childhood under Errol’s chaos birthed a need to outrun disorder, to build where others break. Mars is his Babel. A tower to the stars, fueled by rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen. But tending means staying, weeding, repairing, waiting—like the farmer trusting God for rain (James 5:7).9

Tending as Worship, Staying as Faith

“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). For the Christian, tending is a kind of worship. Caring for our neighbor, planting a tree, cleaning a stream, raising a godly child, these are stewardships with real-Earth impact. Musk’s Mars dream—“extending human consciousness”—sounds visionary. It also sounds a lot like abandonment. It it sidesteps God’s gift. Psalm 115:16 draws the line: “The heavens, even the heavens are the Lord’s; the earth he hath given to the children of men.” Exploration can praise Him—probe Mars, mine comets, reach the great unknowns of the universe. But leave man where God created him. Christians need to be on their toes moving forward. Musk is trying to rewrite the script on us. The believer’s hope isn’t a new planet. It’s a renewed one (Revelation 21:1). We need to get busy. Christians should tend this garden until He comes, not chase a Martian dream. Christian, don’t abandon what you’re called to keep.

Earth’s climes: deserts, mountains, forests and seas whisper possibility. Mars screams “I’m leaving.” I think Christian stewardship chooses the whisper. We can’t leave a garden half-tended for a rock that can’t grow.

Footnotes

Utopia has always been the fool's errand. Musk says that Mars' governmental structure will get right, what human history has gotten wrong. He promises direct democracy, minimal government, laws with sunset clauses, and shared pan-human responsibility.

Elon's thoughts, pragmatically framed, are driven by what he sees as necessity. Earth may not survive mankind. So mankind needs to survive Earth. These words carry the unmistakable imprint of utopianism. It's subtle, no question. To his credit, Elon’s is not the naïve, idealistic utopianism of Star Trek, but certainly one that wears the garments of engineering, technology, and a certain kind of human inevitability. He doesn't speak of a perfect Martian society. He knows better. It's more of an insurance policy for humanity. A living, breathing, off-site backup of human civilization that would secure our species against natural catastrophe, or ourselves. Yet we still feel the old utopian impulse, albeit in a veneer of pragmatism. "We can do it better."

The promise is always the same: If only we could do it this new way, we might fix the ills and ailments of human history. We could create heaven on Mars without God.

Utopia is a beautiful lie.

Man has spent millennia breathlessly chasing it. Every attempt ends in ruin. Whether in the political experiments of totalitarianism, the scientific dreams of transhumanism, or the galactic aspirations of space colonization, the same delusion persists. If we can just remove the constraints of the past, we can fix what's broken in us. Yet, therein lies the fatal flaw, the one reality that corrupts every perfect plan—sin. It has broken us.

The first and only true utopia was Eden. It was not a work of man's hands but God's. It was a place where righteousness dwelt, untouched by death or decay. But even where perfection reigned, sin entered. Not by poverty. Not by ignorance. Not by oppression. But by curiosity. "Hath God said?", was the impetus of man's great demise.

So if utopia couldn't last in the garden of God, how could we imagine we can build one in a fallen universe? The first utopia was shattered by a single blow of defiance. Every attempt since has only multiplied our ruin. We forget that when Adam and Eve fell, all creation fell with them. Not just Adam, but the very created order itself. (Genesis 3:17-18) Above all corruptions, man's very heart was corrupted (Jeremiah 17:9), his mind and will enslaved to sin (Romans 3:10-12), and his heart darkened by pride (Ephesians 4:18). The world is no longer fit for a 'utopia,' and man is not fit to rule one.

Utopia is impossible. Not so much because of external obstacles (although they are many), but because of the inertia of corruption. Man does not fail to make a utopia because of a lack of knowledge, but because of the evil lodged within our core. His heart is incapable of standing in the presence of perfection, let alone sustaining it. This is why every utopian project, from Babel to Animal Farm, has collapsed under its own weight.

Let's take the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) for example. It was humanity's first utopian attempt. The people sought to build a city and a tower to reach the very heavens—even to God Himself, not out of love for Him, but out of ambition to take His place. Their goal was to escape the orbit of our Creator: to unite the world under one language, one purpose, one people against God. Sounds familiar.

God's response? He shattered their ubiquity. He confounded their language. He scattered man across the face of the earth. Why? Because any attempt at human perfection that ignores God is destined for failure. The pattern of history is set: man builds, God scatters. Man rises, God humbles.

Think of the French Revolution. It promised the end of tyranny and the birth of liberty. Instead, it birthed the guillotine, where men tried to force utopia on society, slaughtering all naysayers in the name of progress. Communism, another bold attempt, envisioned a world of equality, where wealth and power were distributed, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", as Marx put it. And how did that work out? Ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Transhumanism is the current iteration of Utopianism. Currently, we are all spellbound, trying to cross the boundary of humanity through technology, merging man with machine. Strangely, this is also Musk's doing. It is uncovering a myriad of ethical questions that yet need to be answered. But not here.

Then there is Mars colonization. Elon promises a fresh start. A world without the pollution, wars, or brokenness of Earth. A new history to be forged away from this failing Blue Marble. But the same sinful hands that corrupted it, will corrupt Mars. Mankind will take his fallen nature wherever he goes.

The Christian's hope is not in some man-made paradise. It is in the kingdom of the Son. We love science, exploration, and advancement, but not at the expense of hope. Our hope does not rest in trying to resurrect Eden from the dead. Christ alone is our hope. Only He will restore what's been lost. His kingdom alone will establish peace and righteousness. As Hebrews 11:10 says, we look "for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."

Utopia will never come through the hands of men. It will come when Christ returns. The greatest lie of utopianism is that man, given the right conditions, can fix our brokenness. But history has already judged. No revolution, no system, no technology can rebirth the human heart.

There is a utopia coming—but it is not by the work of our hands. It will come only at the return of Jesus Christ, the true King, the only Redeemer, and the rightful Builder of the New Creation.

So let the world dream of its utopias. Let them build their Babels. But as for us, we will wait upon the Lord.

Subscribe now

#9 Mars: Exporting Sin

To reach a favored bend, where the trout rise and the water deepens, we cross a large untamed meadow bursting with color and life. Goldenrod sways alongside the soft purple haze of wild bergamot, while the delicate lace of Queen Anne’s lace weaves through the green. The aroma is intoxicating—Clover, Rose Hip, Black Knapweed, Bird's-foot Trefoil, warm grasses, and the sharp bite of crushed goldenrod. Bees hum busily, and Viceroy and Monarchs drift overhead, crisscrossing coordinates through the field.

It is here, amid the wildflowers and waving grasses, that we often encounter one of creation's strangest illusions—the Hummingbird Moth. Darting from bloom to bloom, hovering with impossible precision, it flits through the air in perfect mimicry of its feathered namesake. Modern biologists tell us it is "convergent evolution," where different species independently evolve similar traits or behaviors. But if mimicry exists to ward off predators, why did this little buddy take after a harmless, gentle, fragile bird? It makes no sense.

The Great Mimicry Mistake

We’re told by evolutionists that most creatures that evolve to resemble something else do so for a reason. A non-venomous snake that mimics a venomous one.

Or an insect that looks like a thorn.

But the Hummingbird Moth? This particular moth, instead of picking something fearsome—a giant hornet, a miniature hawk, or even a terrifyingly large misquote— it chose to mimic a hummingbird. Of all things.

Now, hummingbirds are beautiful, don’t get me wrong. I could watch them all day. They are astonishing little creatures. But they are not exactly terror-inducing. They are, if anything, among the most vulnerable birds in nature. They are frequently preyed upon by hawks, larger birds, frogs, and yes, even large insects.

So if the Hummingbird Moth is a product of mindless evolutionary processes, why would it “choose” a disguise that makes it look like a snack rather than a threat?

The answer is simple: it didn't. It couldn't. It is an insect. It cannot recognize what it resembles, anymore than it can select what to mimic. And it certainly cannot shape its own biology through genetic mutations over millions of years to finally craft the perfect disguise. It’s silly, if not comical.

If mimicry is truly an evolutionary process, it requires a series of fortuitous accidents—mutations if you will, that somehow lead a moth toward looking like something entirely different than it was. But there are several glaring problems:

Mimicry requires an observer. If a creature is to mimic something, it must either observe it or be observed in such a way that gives an advantage. A moth does not know what a hummingbird is. It has no way to compare itself to a bird. If mimicry developed by random mutation, why would we not see thousands of failed attempts at mimicry in nature? Instead, we see perfected mimicry with no in-between forms.

Mimicry requires foresight. Evolution, as it is taught, is a blind and unguided process. A mutation must provide a survival advantage at every stage to be preserved. But a moth that is halfway to looking like a hummingbird is just a moth. There is no advantage in vaguely resembling a bird unless the resemblance is so precise that it fools predators. How, then, could an unguided process slowly shape an insect into something resembling a bird, if all the intermediate stages conferred no survival benefit?

Mimicry requires immediate function. If mimicry was a gradual, the the purpose is defeated. For millions of years, the moth would have looked like nothing in particular. Evolutionists mistakenly claim that gradual adaptations are kept because they offer even small advantages. But what survival advantage is there in looking somewhat like a hummingbird? None.

The Evolutionary Problem of Bad Mimicry

If evolutionary mimicry is an accident of random mutation, then why are there no halfzie mimics in nature? Why don’t we see moths that look almost like birds but haven’t got the details right? If natural selection were true, this would be a logical conclusion. But what we see in all of creation is highly specific, precise engineering, suggesting purpose, not accident.

In the case of the Hummingbird Moth, the evolutionary theory stumbles massively. Hummingbirds do not frighten predators; they attract them! Unlike creatures that mimic something dangerous to survive, the Hummingbird Moth has supposedly evolved to resemble a prey animal, a decision that, if natural selection were guiding the process, should have been eliminated from the gene pool rather than preserved.

Designed, Not Evolved

If we see an incredibly well-crafted replica of something, we assume a designer. No one finds a sculpted statue of a hawk and assumes that natural erosion happened to carve it that way. If an object is crafted with precision, it implies purpose and intelligence. Why then, when we see mimicry in nature, should we assume that it happened without intelligence? The Butterfly Moth does not prove evolutionary mimicry; it disproves it.

It is a perfect example of how creatures do not shape their own features over time, but rather, their forms, behaviors, and abilities are all part of God’s design. Evolution requires endless millions of years of minute changes with no direction. But in creation, they are already functioning with precision. The Hummingbird Moth’s resemblance to a hummingbird is not the work of time and chance, but of a Designer who created creatures with beauty, variety, and, sometimes, a little humor.

The Hummingbird Moth, in all its amusing mimicry, is not a success story for evolution—it is proof of the impossibility of the contrary. The next time someone points to mimicry as an example of natural selection, point them to the Hummingbird Moth, a fluttering reminder that design, not blind chance, governs creation.

P.S.

This would have been a far more intimidating choice. :-)

Since Eden, mankind has grasped for autonomy, looking for every and any reason to break free from the eye of God. Mars is just the latest iteration of mankind's rebellion—new technology, but the same sinful heart. Fallen man runs from God by nature, and Mars, lifeless as it is, might become another stage for our restless wanderings. But the Red Planet was not created for us; it was created for God's glory. How this works itself out in the end is God's prerogative. This much we do know: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men” (Psalm 115:16). It appears that won’t stop us from attempting to impose ourselves upon it—to try and terraform the Red Planet and, in doing so, attempt to alter humanity’s trajectory itself. Yet, just like Eden, sin will poison the very ground we touch on Mars. What man fails to grasp is that our rebellion follows us wherever we go.

Like Cain, who wandered east of Eden to build a city and establish his name apart from God (Genesis 4:16-17), we now set our sights on Mars as a refuge from the consequences of our fall. We imagine that a new frontier will free us from the impact of Eden—its wars, depravities, and ecological disasters. But the radiation belt on the way to Mars will not wash away our sin. It will neither absolve us of our guilt nor free us from God's judgment. Mars will just become Act Two of the same sad tragedy. Sure, the sands of Mars may be untouched by human hands, but they will not remain untainted by the human heart.

When we speak of becoming a "multiplanetary species," we fail to admit the reality of who we are. Our fingerprints are soot-covered; everything we touch is bespeckled with corruption. We are not taking the best of humanity to Mars; we are exporting our sin. There is no escape from the curse. As the psalmist reminds us, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3). Whether on Earth or Mars, this truth remains. We will exploit, hoard, deceive, and destroy. That’s fallen man. The same pride that built Babel will construct rockets to Mars, and the same greed that consumes Earth now will strip Mars of whatever it has to offer.

The tragedy of colonizing Mars is its utter futility. For all the billions spent, for all the technological marvels created, humanity will only succeed in multiplying its iniquity across the stars. Mars will not become a new Eden; it will become another footnote of human tragedy. The hope for humanity doesn't lie on the surface of the fourth rock from the sun, but in the Rock of Ages, Jesus Christ, this planet's Creator and Savior. For all its brokenness, Earth is still the staging ground of God’s redemption for mankind lost. To leave Earth in search of salvation elsewhere is to deny the very source of salvation itself.

The attempt to colonize Mars offers nothing more than a looking-glass—a reflection of humanity’s fallen heart. It will not save us; it will only expose us. True freedom, true hope, can’t be found in human autonomy. It’s found alone in the One who sets captives free. “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36). Welcome to the New World in Christ. He will properly legitimize all exploration—of both space and our own sinful hearts. Rather than colonizing Mars, Christians should focus on colonizing Heaven, magnifying the One who created us and who alone can redeem humanity: “He hath made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3).

“All people that on Earth do dwell,
Sing to the LORD with cheerful voice.”

Without Him, we will corrupt every frontier we touch.

Subscribe now

When exploration leads to greater awe of God’s handiwork, it fulfills its highest purpose. It becomes, in a way, an act of worship. Yet, like all good gifts, discovery must remain tethered to God’s revealed will. Without this anchor, human ambition drifts beyond its God-ordained purpose, turning discovery into defiance and curiosity into rebellion.

Earth: Man’s Forever Home

From the beginning, God established the Earth as humanity’s dwelling. In Genesis 1:28, the dominion mandate commands us to fill the Earth, subdue it, and exercise stewardship over its creatures. The specificity of this charge is significant: God created man to thrive within a confinement uniquely designed for human flourishing.

Secular scientists tells us Earth is a random dot among billions of galaxies. But that is far from true. There is nothing random about it. Earth is finely tuned to sustain life. From the atmosphere’s precise composition (~78% nitrogen, ~21% oxygen, ~0.93% argon, ~0.04% carbon dioxide, and variable water vapor) to the magnetic field that shields us from cosmic radiation. Think of Earth's perfect distance from the Sun, within the goldilocks zone where water can exist as a liquid, where its rotation provides a balanced cycle of day and night, regulating temperature and supporting ecosystems. The Moon’s gravitational pull stabilizes Earth’s axial tilt, creating predictable seasons, while the planet’s crust allows for tectonic activity that recycles essential minerals. Every detail, from the abundance of water to the intricate design of plant photosynthesis producing oxygen, is furnishing. This is our home. Truly, the heavens and Earth declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). Psalm 115:16 declares, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” Earth is God’s gift, and man’s sacred trust. Leaving it should provoke deep reflection on both motive and purpose.

When future Christians consider playing a part in colonizing Mars, they need to ask: Are we abandoning this trust? Mars, for all its fascination, is inhospitable to human life by design.

What Drives Us Beyond the Earth?

As this series unfolds, a recurring theme will arise: What drives man to leave Earth? The desire to explore space is not inherently wrong. It reflects our God-given curiosity. But when exploration shifts from discovery to permanence, it reveals a deeper spiritual problem. Are we fulfilling God’s purposes, or trying to rewrite them?

The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) stands as a sobering reminder of misplaced human ambition. Nimrod’s generation sought to build a tower into heaven—not to glorify God but to replace Him and make a godlike name for themselves. For all their efforts, God came down, scattered their purposes, and confused their language. Mars colonization betrays a similar impulse, where technological achievement becomes an idol, and escape becomes a replacement for dependence on God.

God’s Providential Boundaries

While we may never fully colonize Mars, my own sense is that we will attempt it. But as the Apostle Paul reminded the Athenians, God has “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation [home]” (Acts 17:26). These boundaries are established for our good and His glory. This Blue Marble, with all its fallen beauty and challenges, is humanity’s forever home until the consummation of all things. When the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father, He will make all things new (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Unlike past earthly frontiers, Mars is not designed for habitation. Its inhospitable conditions prove that it was not intended as a home. While studying the heavens and exploring other planets, mining them for their resources, etc., can be God-glorifying, establishing permanent human settlements on Mars defies the boundaries He has set. It has no furnishings; we have to import them.

Running Away from Home

Scripture quietly warns of the dangers of leaving home outside God’s will. Cain (the restless wanderer), Jacob (exile and hardship), Jonah (fleeing from God’s call), the Prodigal Son (rebellion and loss), Naomi’s family (seeking refuge in Moab), and Lot (enticed by Sodom’s economics) all demonstrate that stepping beyond God’s boundaries brings alienation, suffering, and loss. Their histories remind us to look at our motives before entering new frontiers, earthly or solar.

Space exploration must be framed within a theology of the future that prioritizes worship and stewardship over conquest and ambition. Christians must ask: Are we seeking to leave Earth? For what purpose? To what end?

Eschatological Hope: A New Heaven and a New Earth

Our ultimate hope is not in colonizing other planets but in Christ, the Creator and Redeemer of heaven and this earth. Revelation 21:1-5 points us to the day when He will renew creation, erasing sin’s brokenness and establishing perfection. Mars fascinates many of us, but it can never be a goal or replace the glory of the home God is preparing for His people. Part of that consummation and glory of it all will be a new earth. Remaining here to tend, increases our anticipation of that Day and excites us to treat the home He built for us with great tenderness.

For Christians, exploration is a noble endeavor when anchored in God’s purpose. Colonizing Mars oversteps that purpose. Earth remains man’s God-appointed home—a place of unparalleled beauty and opportunity for glorifying Him. We shouldn’t leave it…permanently.

Miss the Prologue?

Next up,

A Mind for the Ages, Yet Limited

Augustine was an extraordinary man—full stop, exclamation point! In my mind, he stands as the greatest thinker since the Apostle Paul, unmatched theologically and philosophically by any since. Yet Augustine, like all of us, was limited. He didn’t know what he didn’t know, which sometimes made him sound quite silly.

For instance, in City of God (Book XVI), Augustine operated within the geographical framework of his time, reflecting the Roman and biblical understanding of the world. He describes the whole Earth as consisting of Europe—primarily Germania, Greece, and Italy—alongside Africa, Asia Minor, and the Middle East. To him, this was the known world. He had no knowledge of the Americas, the British Isles (beyond vague references to Britannia), sub-Saharan Africa, or the vast reaches of Asia. The frozen North and South Poles? Forget it. Such ideas would have been pure fiction to him.

This leads to another of Augustine’s limitations: his view of the Earth's spatial composition. He considered the idea of a populated "underside" of the Earth utterly ridiculous. The concept of antipodes (pronounced an-TIP-uh-deez)—people living on the opposite side of the world—was, to him, nothing short of absurd. He dismissed the idea outright, declaring:

"But as to the fable that there are antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited."

Why was Augustine so opinionated? And how could such a brilliant man be so completely wrong? The answer lies in the resources available to him. He simply didn’t know what he didn’t know. And neither do we.

We Stand on the Event Horizon of a New Era

Consider someone born in 1900 and living until 2000. Their lifetime would have spanned several extraordinary eras of change. As a child, they would have witnessed the dawn of the household telephone, revolutionizing communication. By adulthood, the automobile had transitioned from a novel curiosity to an essential mode of transportation, reshaping cities and economies.

In their middle years, the radio brought news, music, and entertainment into homes, creating a shared cultural experience on an unprecedented scale. By mid-century, television completely changed how people consumed information and entertainment, sadly becoming the centerpiece of family life.

Toward the end of their life, they would have witnessed the dawn of the computer age. Machines that once occupied entire rooms had shrunk to personal desktops, and by 2000, the internet was becoming a global phenomenon, ushering in the Information Age.

Think about it: in a single lifetime, this person would have experienced the latter part of the First Industrial Age, the Second Industrial Revolution, and the entire Information Age. They would have seen more technological progress and medical advancement than all previous generations combined since creation's dawn. They lived through the greatest exponential acceleration of human advancement yet. What would that boy from 1900 have thought about his golden years in 2000? Impossible, that’s what. And what might someone born today think of our world one hundred years from now? A world they very well could see.

An Age Like No Other

Whether we like it or not, we’ve either arrived at—or are rapidly approaching—a shocking new age. We can deny it, critique it, or try to slow it down, but we can’t stop it. Look around. We’re living in the Age of Information, the Age of Artificial Intelligence, and what could be called the Age of Exploration 2.0. Except there’s no “new world” left to explore on Earth; all that remains is space—the final frontier.

But as man turns his gaze beyond the blue skies of Earth, I can’t help but wonder: are we reaching for something, or are we running from something? What drives us to dream of life among the stars? Is it altruistic hope? Partly. Is it abandonment of a mess? Sure. Do we think that a new home will bring about a better version of mankind? Yes. All these motivations are entangled. But is the deeper reason far darker than we think? Could it be that fallen man, in his deepest, innermost being, wants to escape this world’s Creator, Lawgiver, and God? Soon, he will have the technology to try.

The Age of Exploration 2.0 is here. It is the full intention of SpaceX to not only reach Mars but colonize it. Specifically, the plan is for uncrewed Starship missions to Mars by 2026, with the possibility of crewed missions following if the unmanned missions are successful.1 The goal?

“To make humanity a multi-planetary species to preserve and extend human consciousness beyond Earth.”

We may laugh at this now, but if the Lord tarries, our great-grandchildren may look back with puzzlement and marvel at “what we didn’t know.”

Is colonizing Mars a step beyond the boundaries God intended for Christians? If Mars is eventually colonized, should Christians be a part of it? Can we wrestle with this for our great-grandchildren? The Christian Church needs a theology of the future. Too many questions are coming their way, and we need to begin thinking these things through now. It’s a profound thing to wrestle with, as I’ve discovered—and the answer may surprise you.

Subscribe now

Each morning, we get up and step into the shoes of our calling. Yet the old nature couches at our door: Do more. Be better. Earn your worth. The battle feels relentless. The to-do list grows. The weight of unmet expectations presses heavy on us. We become prisoners of our own minds and striving, mistaking business for faithfulness, and and productivity for purpose.

But the gospel has a different theology of work. “Thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength” (Isaiah 30:15). Yes, this is speaking first about salvation, but that does not mean that secondary truths are absent. They appear when the aperture of the text comes into focus. The strength of a believer is not in endless striving, but in quiet submission to the One who holds all things— in salvation and work. Our efforts, untethered from His glory, are lighter than vanity. Yet when offered as dedication to God, they become holy things, bearing the mark of eternity.

This doesn’t mean we abandon work, far from it. God Himself ordained work before the Fall, commanding Adam to keep the garden (Genesis 2:15). It later turned into labor, along with the curse. (Ex. 20:9,10) Work is not a curse. Labor is. Labor is when work is over-burdened by toil, anxiety, and frustration. The sweat of our brow reminds us daily that we are fallen creatures, sinful, broken. When we forget this, we turn our labor into idolatry, measuring our value by what we achieve rather than by who we are in Christ. Too many of us define ourselves by what we do, not who we are. What we do should facilitate who we are, not define us.

A theology of work is not about abandoning effort either. The believer despises sloth. It’s more about reframeing it. “It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep” (Psalm 127:2). The striving that consumes us does not always come from a good place. We labor as though the outcome defines us, forgetting that God alone builds the house.

What would it mean to rest in God in our callings truly? To work, not for approval but from the soul’s understanding that your labor in the Lord is never in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58) And rest, able to enjoy life, for life’s sake. This kind of rest is not unproductive; it’s a form of faith. It is the quiet confidence of a heart settled before its Maker, knowing that He works all things together for His glory and our good.

When we can place things in their proper perspective, gratitude is the result. It transforms both our labor, and our leasure. Work becomes less laborious when we see it as worship. Rest becomes guiltless when we realize our limits and weaknesses, not to mention our temptations. Rest is a deeper recognition of God’s providence in giving us hands that can labor at all. “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17). When we see life through this lens, the mundane becomes meaningful. The smallest task and little enjoyments done in the confidence of our Lord become a testimony of His grace.

Suppose you think of a farmer planting seeds in Spring’s morning light. He doesn’t strive, fearing the rain won’t come, nor does he rest idly, expecting the harvest without labor. He works in faith, trusting the Lord of the harvest to give the increase. So must we. But a good farmer also knows what rest is and loves it. Just go into any diner in the Midwest in winter at 6 in the morning. You will see what Imean.

It’s a shift, from striving to faith-filled work. Striving, at its core, seeks to control what belongs to God alone. Faithful labor, on the other hand, surrenders the outcome to He who enables us to work. As Paul wrote, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6). The farmer plants. The tradesman builds. The teacher instructs. Yet, in all, God’s hand sustains.

This is the freedom of having a theology of work. Do you have one? To live faithfully in the place God has ordained, neither haunted by yesterday nor paralyzed by tomorrow. We are free to work diligently, knowing the results rest in His sovereign hand. And we are free to rest, too, trusting that the One who neither slumbers nor sleeps will provide for all our needs (Psalm 121:4).

If our lives are rivers flowing toward a never-ending eternity, then tributaries of worry and ambition will churn the water on our banks. But beneath lies a deeper, larger current of calm—the steadfast love of your Savior that never ceases (Lamentations 3:22). To live in that stillness would be a piece of heaven on earth, no? To know true peace, not as an escape from life but as an anchor to it.

The world tells us “What we do is who we are”. That is not how the bible describes us. To seek fulfillment in perishing things, the next achievement, the next stage of life, and the next accolade is to embrace that which will end in corruption. But God calls believers to glorify Him in the ordinary faithfulness of today. Whether you are caring for a child, filing papers, or hammering nails, each act can work with eternal purpose when done unto the Lord.

Let us reject self-focused striving. Let us embrace a theology of work and rest as acts of devotion, knowing that our labor is not in vain, nor our rest, when it is grounded in His glory. In Christ, we are not slaves to the noise of “more.” We are free to work, free to rest, free to live—to His glory and for our good.

Subscribe now

When considering the nature of human sinfulness and the soul, we find ourselves grappling with a concept that pushes human thought to its limits. The old debate between the creationist and traducianist views of the soul’s origin tries to solve how original sin is transmitted and how God interacts with His fallen creation. Is the soul created pure by God, and only tainted by its union with the body, as creationists suggest, or is it propagated along with the body, as traducianism teaches? In my reflections on these matters, I have found that traducianism presents a more consistent and satisfactory explanation of the transmission of sin. Here's why.

Creationism's Problem of Purity and Corruption

The creationist position maintains that God directly creates each soul at or near the moment of conception, infusing a pure and sinless soul into a body inherited from sinful parents. Plato, Aristotle, and Augustin taught that the soul is material, indivisible, and cannot be transmitted through natural human generation, but is divinely given. It nicely preserves the soul’s distinction as a special act of God's creation, but it also raises a significant theological dilemma: how can a pure soul, created by a holy God, become tainted by original sin through its union with a corrupt body?

The typical response is that original sin is transmitted through the body, which is itself affected by Adam's fall (Romans 5:12). The soul, though created pure, is corrupted upon its union with our fallen bodies. But this line of reasoning only raises new problems. If God is directly creating pure souls and placing them into sinful bodies, then He is intimately involved in the process of corrupting what He has just made pure. This raises a troubling question: is God, in some way, responsible for the corruption of the soul?

For creationists, the answer lies in maintaining the distinction between body and soul. But this approach begins to sound like a veiled form of Pelagianism, where the soul is not inherently sinful but becomes sinful through contact with an external environment (in this case, the body). If sin is truly "soulish" as well as material, this solution is unsatisfactory. The creationist explanation implies that the soul, though created pure, is corrupted by something outside of itself—leading us dangerously close to the Pelagian idea that sin is not inherent to the totality of our human nature.

One of the central weaknesses of the creationist view lies in the tension between the immaterial nature of the soul and its corruption through union with a fallen body. The creationist argument posits that the soul, which is immaterial, indivisible, and created directly by God, becomes tainted with original sin the moment it is united with a sinful body. However, this raises a significant philosophical problem: how can an immaterial soul, created pure by God, be corrupted by something material? If the soul is truly immaterial, it should not be subject to the same kinds of corruption that affect the physical body, since the nature of immaterial substances does not allow for contamination in the same way as the material world.

Yet, creationism assumes that the union of a pure soul with a fallen body results in the soul’s immediate corruption. This suggests a kind of transference of corruption from the body to the soul, which contradicts the very definition of the soul as immaterial, thus pure. (More on this later with my favorite theologian, Augustin of Hippo.) The creationist view then struggles to explain how a purely spiritual and divine act of creation—God’s making of the soul—can result in the soul’s defilement simply by its contact with a fallen body. In essence, it undermines the soul’s immateriality, which should, by its nature, resist the contamination that plagues the physical world. This flaw highlights a deep inconsistency within the creationist framework, leaving open the question of how an incorruptible soul becomes corrupted merely through its association with the body.

It is a solemn witness, written with the ink of Adam's rebellion and sealed by every generation since, that man in his entirety—both body and soul—has fallen from the estate of original righteousness. The original corruption of sin is not a cloak cast upon the body, leaving the soul untainted; but it is as a deep-rooted poison that infects the whole man. Will we then argue that the soul, being created pure by God in each birth, is only later marred by the contamination of the body’s corruption? Reasoning like this casts a long shadow over God's work. It prompts unanswered questions like: How could God infuse purity into what is already perverted by sin? Is He not holy, who cannot look upon iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13)? No, it is better to confess with trembling hearts that the sin of our first father has corrupted the very fountain of life itself, and that by natural generation both body and soul bear the grievous wound of original sin. Traducianism rightly asserts this, for both spirit and flesh are alike brought forth in sin, and only by the blood of the Second Adam are they redeemed (1 Corinthians 15:45).

God’s Creative Act and Original Sin

Another aspect of this problem concerns God’s direct creative activity. According to the creationist view, every time a human soul is created, it is a new and distinct act of God’s creative power. Yet, Scripture tells us that God ceased His creative work on the sixth day and rested from all His labors (Genesis 2:2). According to this position, every time a human soul is created, it is a new and distinct act of God’s creative power. However, Scripture clearly states that God ceased His creative work on the sixth day and rested from all His works (Genesis 2:2–3). This cessation was not partial; it was total—God rested from all His work. If God finished all His creative work by the end of the sixth day, how then are we to understand the ongoing creation of new souls after the fall?

Creationists argue that while God rested from the creation of physical things, He continues to create new souls. Where is the proof? This notion is problematic because it suggests that God is still performing acts of new creation, contradicting the clear teaching that He completed His work (very good). Exodus 20:11 affirms this, saying, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." There is no room in this text for the idea of ongoing acts of creation.

This creates a theological dilemma: if God ceased creating, how can He be continuously forming new souls? To suggest that God is still creating new souls would imply that His work of creation is not truly finished, which runs contrary to the doctrine of divine rest after the sixth day. The creationist view then faces the difficulty of maintaining that God’s direct creative acts continue—implying ongoing creation—which directly contradicts the biblical teaching of God's completed work.

Furthermore, if God is continually creating pure souls and placing them into sinful bodies, His ongoing creative work is now intimately tied to the transmission of sin, raising profound theological concerns. It suggests that God, who is utterly holy and without sin, is placing newly created pure souls into corrupt bodies, implicating Him in the process of original sin. This only deepens the problem of how a pure and holy God can create something that immediately becomes tainted by sin.Creationists must then argue that while God finished His initial work of creation, He continues to create new souls as part of His providential care over the world.

Since neither side wishes to think lightly of the holiness of God, we must avoid the thought that, in trying to guard God's holiness, He, in creating the soul, would expose His purity to the contagion of sin. How could He, the thrice-holy One, breathe the "breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) into what is already defiled? It is not in the nature of God to participate in the corruption of His creatures, even as He providentially sustains the fallen world. Is it not more reasonable to hold that the whole man—soul and body—is begotten in sin, as the Psalmist declares in Psalm 51:5—“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”?

David’s use of the word "shapen" (or "brought forth," in some translations) refers to his very formation or development within the womb. To be "shapen" in "iniquity" suggests that sin is present from the first spark of life, at the very inception of human existence. Sin is not something that occurs later in embryonic development or only affects the soul once it arrives in the body. It is part of the very fabric of human nature. If the soul were created pure and only later corrupted by God's infusion or ensoulment, it suggests, unknowingly, that God Himself is on the very borderland of the transmission of sin. This cannot be. The stain of sin is not a physical force that clings only to the body and then later corrupts its new tenant; it permeates the very essence of our nature. In Adam, all died—not in part, but in whole (1 Corinthians 15:22), not as "corruption in waiting," but at our very moment of conception.

Preexisting Souls

Some creationists see this flaw in their argument. To remove this, they posit that all souls were created simultaneously, along with the rest of creation, during the six days in Genesis. These souls are then "waiting" to be embodied at the appropriate time. This preserves the ceasing of God's creative work on day six because it suggests that God is no longer actively creating new souls—He simply draws from the already-existing pool of souls when conception occurs.

This addresses the issue of God’s ongoing creative acts after He rested, since it claims that no new creation of souls takes place post-fall. It also attempts to avoid the contradiction that arises in the traditional creationist view, where God is seen as continuously creating souls after day six.

The problem with the preexistence view is no explicit biblical text that suggests souls were created in advance and kept in a "bank." Scripture consistently presents God as forming and knowing individuals at the moment of their creation or conception, such as in Psalm 139:13–16: "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb... My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret."

It also brings us perilously close to the danger of Dualism, leading toward Platonism, a philosophy where souls are thought to exist independently of bodies and are temporarily "housed" in physical form. This dualistic thinking contradicts the biblical view of human beings as whole persons—body and soul created to be unified (Genesis 2:7).

If all souls were created in advance, the question remains how they become affected by original sin. The idea of waiting in a preexistent state doesn't explain how these souls, created purely by God, would become tainted by sin upon union with the body unless one reverts to a legal understanding of imputation alone. Most of the early Church Fathers, including Augustin, rejected the idea of preexisting souls, viewing it as speculative and inconsistent with the biblical account of God's creative activity.

Most creationists typically avoid this notion of preexisting souls, holding instead that God creates each soul individually at conception. While the concept of preexisting souls addresses the issue of God's rest on the sixth day, it introduces more significant theological complications. The Bible does not support such an idea, nor does it even hint at it, and it remains a minority view within both historical and contemporary Christian thought.

The Case for Traducianism

In contrast, the traducianist position provides a clearer and more cohesive understanding of human sinfulness. Traducianism teaches that both body and soul are transmitted together through natural human generation. Here, the whole person—body and soul—is passed down from parent to child, including the corruption of original sin. The sin is not something that comes from external contact. It is an inherent part of our humanity from the moment of conception.

Traducianism avoids the theological pitfalls of creationism because it does not require God to create a new soul at each conception, nor does it place Him in a position where He is infusing purity into corruption. Instead, human beings inherit both body and soul from their parents, and along with them, the guilt and corruption of original sin. This maintains the integrity of the doctrine of original sin and preserves God's holiness in the process.

Furthermore, traducianism offers a more unified view of human nature. Body and soul are not separate entities that come together after the fact; they are part of the same whole. Human beings are not just bodies with souls or souls with bodies—we are a unit, created in the image of God but fallen and corrupted through Adam’s sin. This understanding of the metaphysics of human nature better accounts for the pervasive effects of original sin on both our physical and spiritual selves.

Does it not make more sense that the Lord has ordained our sinful souls, as well as our sinful bodies, (thus corrupted DNA) should descend from parents to children? In this, the isolation of the human family is revealed and guilty by nature, and practice as a whole. Not broken into segregated pieces. When God fashioned Adam, He breathed into him the breath of life, making him a living soul (Genesis 2:7). And by His sovereign decree, this same life of the soul now flows through natural generation, from parent to child, binding them in the bonds of shared nature, both in sin and in the hope of salvation. What a holy office, then, parenthood is, to be entrusted with the transmission of souls! Though the sin of Adam is passed down, yet in God’s salvation, even this serves His purpose, that the soul, though fallen, might be drawn to Christ. The very soul that is generated through natural means is yet the object of supernatural grace.

A Question of Consistency

When we examine the creationist view in light of these theological concerns, we are forced to ask whether it truly holds up under scrutiny. Can a pure soul, created directly by God, become corrupted by contact with a sinful body? If so, this seems to create more problems than it solves. The moment of God's infusion of the soul into the body becomes a direct encounter with sin—a difficult concept to reconcile with God's perfect holiness. If the soul is truly "pure" at creation, how can it be immediately tainted by the corruption of the body without implicating God as the direct conduit of that transmission?

By allowing for the propagation of both body and soul through natural means, traducianism offers a more consistent solution. Sin is not something that comes from external contamination but is an inherent part of our nature as fallen creatures. It is passed down from generation to generation, affecting both body and soul alike. And most importantly, it preserves the doctrine of original sin without placing God in a position where He must directly interact with corruption in the act of creating new souls.

In City of God, Augustin emphasizes that a woman who is sexually exploited does not lose her inner purity or her moral integrity, as the violation is an external act that does not corrupt her soul (City of God, Book 1, Chapter 16). He makes a clear distinction between the physical defilement of the body and the spiritual purity of the soul, arguing that the soul remains intact, unsullied by the sinful acts of others. Yet in the transmission of the soul, he and other creationists argue that the touch of the soul with the body transmits original sin!

This position is inconsistent with his creationist stance. If the soul, newly created by God, becomes immediately corrupted at conception due to its union with a fallen body, why is it not similarly protected from defilement, as in the case of physical violation? Augustin’s distinction between bodily defilement and the soul’s integrity seems to suggest that the soul should remain pure even when united with a corrupt body at conception. Yet, in the creationist view, the body’s corruption transfers to the soul at the moment of conception, introducing sin into the soul’s very essence. This inconsistency exposes a weakness in the creationist framework, as it fails to adequately reconcile the soul’s supposed purity in cases of physical defilement with its immediate corruption at the start of life.

This is apples to apples as both have to do with the soul’s contact with sin. Yet, why would an immaterial, newly created soul be susceptible to sin just by being united with a fallen body? If the soul is pure, its immediate corruption through the body introduces a tension between the soul's immaterial essence and its vulnerability to sin. According to the creationist, this immateriality should theoretically make it impervious to corruption from the material world. Yet, the creationist position posits that the soul becomes tainted when it is joined to a fallen body.

Federal Headship

While the creationist’s use of the doctrine of federal headship explains the legal imputation of Adam's sin to humanity, it does not sufficiently account for the deeper issue of the soul’s corruption by it. Imputation, by its nature, is concerned with guilt, not with the transformation of the soul’s essence. These are two different categories. Under federal headship, Adam’s sin is credited to us because he acted as the father of mankind. But this is a legal transaction, not an intrinsic change in the soul’s substance. Herein lies the dilemma for the creationist: if God creates each soul pure and only the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed, why and how does the soul become sinful in nature upon union with the body? Traducianism resolves this tension by affirming that both the guilt and the corruption of sin are transmitted naturally through human generation, encompassing the whole person—body and soul. There is no need to rely on a legal fiction to explain the depth of human fallenness. Rather, it is the very propagation of our sinful nature, passed down from parent to child, that fully accounts for the total depravity of mankind.

Final Thoughts

Admirably, the creationist position seeks to preserve the purity of the soul and the holiness of God. Unfortunately, it ultimately raises more questions than it answers. Traducianism, on the other hand, offers a clearer, more consistent understanding of the transmission of sin and the nature of human beings. It maintains the integrity of original sin, keeps God’s creative activity untangled from sin’s corruption, and upholds the unity of body and soul in the transmission of our sinful nature. For these reasons, I find traducianism to be a more compelling and theologically sound view.

I admit readily that much of this is a great mystery. God has ordained that not only the body but our very souls, be transmitted through the union of man and woman. In this, we see the providential hand of the Almighty, who knits the immortal into the mortal, binding together the seen and the unseen in the womb of creation by natural propagation. And though the soul is born with the tincture of Adam’s sin, this inheritance of corruption does not detract from the dignity of the soul’s origin, nor from the glory of its Maker. For in this, the grace of Christ shines more brightly…that the soul, fallen by nature, might be lifted by grace, restored to God which first fashioned him. And so, in the propagation of souls, we see the unfolding of God’s salvation, that from the loins of sinful man, He should raise up a people holy unto Himself, born not only of the flesh, but of the Spirit (John 3:6).

Bear with me...

Old Testament References to the Messiah as a Rock or Stone

"But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)" Genesis 49:24

"Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel." Exodus 17:6

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

Psalm 118:22: "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Deuteronomy 32:4

"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." Isaiah 8:14

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." Isaiah 28:16

"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." Daniel 2:34-35

Jesus' References as Rock or Stone

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" Matthew 21:42

"And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:" Mark 12:10

"And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?" Luke 20:17

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Epistolary and Revelational References

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Romans 9:33

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." 1 Peter 2:4-8

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house." 1 Peter 2:5

NOTE: This thought is not in any way rooted in definitive dogma but offers a different lens to view our Lord’s teachings and His metaphors.

“Is not this the carpenter's son?” Matthew13:55

The Greek word "τέκτων" (téktōn) is traditionally translated as "carpenter" in most English versions. However, its meaning is actually broader. It can include various forms of craftsmanship, including stone masonry. The English word "tectonic" is derived from téktōn, which refers to the giant plate structure or movement of the Earth's crust over the Earth's lithosphere.

In ancient times, particularly in rural Galilee, the word (téktōn) could refer to a builder or craftsman who worked with both wood and stone. This is supported by historical and archaeological evidence indicating that construction in that region often involved far more stone than wood.

The scarcity of wood in the region and the abundance of stone would naturally lead craftsmen to specialize in masonry. Wood would have been reserved for specific uses, such as roofing or interior elements, but the main construction material was stone. We could never be dogmatic about this, and why would we? But it does perhaps add some contours and textures to Jesus, His own metaphors.

We often picture our young Lord, working alongside Joseph with a crude lathe, or heavy dowels, a hammer and some nails. However, archaeological findings in Galilee reveal that buildings were predominantly made of stone. Structures from that period, including homes, synagogues, and other buildings, were constructed using abundant local materials. This practical reality suggests that a téktōn in Galilee would likely be a stone mason.

Subscribe now

The Rock of Our Salvation

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is described as the church’s foundation. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Ephesians 2:20 further illustrates this, describing believers as being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone.

Now imagine Jesus, the stone mason's apprentice, meticulously selecting and shaping stones. Imagine Him helping his earthly father lay the foundation of a new home. This imagery aligns beautifully with Peter’s description of believers as "living stones" in 1 Peter 2:5, being selected, fashioned, and built into a spiritual house. Each stone, carefully chosen and placed, contributes to the strength and unity of the whole structure.

Working with stone is deeply grounding—an experience I’ve not shared, but countless craftsmen have through the ages. Jesus, working alongside Joseph, would have known this feeling intimately. The process of shaping stone requires creativity, ingenuity, patience, precision, and a vision for what the rough, unhewn rock could become.

To me, this brings a new dimension to Jesus' parable in Matthew 7:24-27 about the wise man who built his house upon the rock. The storms of life cannot shake a house with such a foundation. Here, Jesus possibly draws from His experience building sturdy structures as a youth. In the 17th century, when the translators of the Authorized Version published this edition, there was no “division of labor” for craftsmen as we have divided them today. “Carpenter’s son” was a very general, almost catch-all term for any ‘builder.’

Throughout His ministry, Jesus used building metaphors. In John 2:19-21, He speaks of destroying the temple and raising it again in three days, referring to His body. Now, this statement hits differently with the concept of Jesus as both the Architect and Cornerstone of our faith. He is the Master Craftsman who builds a spiritual house from the lives of His followers.

The Heavenly Craftsman

I can’t help but notice that in Revelation 21:14, the New Jerusalem is described as having twelve foundations, each inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles. This heavenly city, built with a Craftsman’s precision, has these precious stones:

• Jasper

• Sapphire

• Chalcedony

• Emerald

• Sardonyx

• Sardius

• Chrysolite

• Beryl

• Topaz

• Chrysoprasus

• Jacinth

• Amethyst

It might make little difference if Joseph was a carpenter or mason. That is why this is under “I Wonder.” For me, it opens a whole new view of the personal nature of our Lord's words. So often, He drew upon this trade in metaphor. Never once of wood except upon the structure which He died.

Imagine the depth of meaning in Christ referring to Himself as the Chief Cornerstone, the Rock upon which the church is built, the Stone the builders rejected. His parables about building on solid rock rather than shifting sands take on a tangible reality rooted in the daily labor He knew from His youth. It’s a reminder that our faith, like those ancient stones, must be shaped, crafted, and homed in that spiritual House.

Ultimately, whether working with wood or stone, the essence of Christ's message remains: He is our foundation, our strength, and our refuge. Perhaps looking at it from this perspective enriches our understanding and deepens our appreciation for the steadfast, unshakeable nature of His love and teachings. Let us build our lives on the solid rock of His words, finding strength and stability in His eternal foundation.

"The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted." Psalm 18:46

Subscribe now

Not because I’m holy,
Not because I’m right,
Not because I’ve fled from Sin,
Not because I fight, against that deadly foe,
Called sin, that strikes me blow by blow.

Not because I run so well,
Not because my sins I tell, my Priest in heaven Jesus Christ.
Not because I keep apace,
With godly men, and not disgrace,
The spotless name of Christ. I do.

I’m justified by God’s free grace,
Wherein my sin He did erase,
And stands me right before his face,
For works before me done,
The righteous work by God the Son,
Upon the cursed tree,
Three gifts bestowed on me:
A righteousness not my own,
A heart of flesh for heart of stone,
Bound up in faith alone.

I am Justified.

Through the brambleless meadows, where secret silence fell,

My weary mind sought comfort, a story not to tell,

I wish there was a river, to calm my mind in.

Beneath the morning sky, where light and shadow blend,

I saw familiar waters, but will those waters mend?

I’m hoping there’s a river, to calm my mind in.

~

Down the winding trail, my heart, in silence groanes,

Though whispering oaks commend me, no solitude atones,

I’m wishing for a river, to cleanse my heart in.

My thoughts, like scattered leaves, are tossed in the winds

Of past and present failures, selfish hopelessness, and sins.

I wish there was a river, to cleanse my heart in.

~

In the quiet of my walking, I longed for river peace,

To stand within those waters, but will my turmoil cease?

I’m trusting for a river, to wash my soul in.

Is there such a river, where waters clear and thin,

Wash away my sorrows and clean the wounds within?

I’m searching for a river, to heal my soul in.

~

This rocky bottom wasteland, where sinful self aspires,

Pride, like flying sparks, ignites ambition's fires.

I’m craving for a river, to quench my pride in.

Through time carved out by trial, where self-regard has thrived,

I seek a humbling water where arrogance is starved.

I’m seeking for a river, to drown my pride in.

~

In the cold wind of memory, my yesterdays all spin,

A coat of dreary colors, woven by loss and sin.

I’m hoping there is a river, to wash my past in.

Along the water's banking, regrets are cast and twinned,

Are these forgetful waters, to cleanse what has been?

I’m looking for a river, to wash my past in.

Into Chrystal-bright clear waters, where the Spirit whispers Truth,

I walk and hope for solace in waters meant to soothe,

I'm told that, "There is a River, to make me glad in."

Now, down the winding pathway, my heart finds scripture sweet,

In Word and prayer united, where earth and heaven meet.

I read, "There is a River, to make me glad in."

Beneath the morning sky, where light dispels the blend,

I step in Promised Waters, my broken heart to mend.

I see, there is a River, to make me glad in.

My thoughts, once so scattered, now in calm winds rest,

Past and present kiss, upon my Guide's strong breast.

In Christ, there is a River, to make me glad in.

In the stream of Holy Scripture, where living waters flow,

The rivulets and my heart, unite; Jesus makes it so.

I know, There is a River, to make me glad in.

There is a crimson River, its currents strong and wide,

In which the Word made flesh, and God and man abide.

His blood becomes my River, to make me glad in.

This River, Christ my Savior, my Ransom and my Guide,

In every pain of memory, my all, salvation wide.

I'm thankful for my River, Who makes me glad in Him.

These words are beautifully, subtly, deadly.

If all you have in mind on your sublime river is a sense of "Creator" and creature, your thoughts will never get very high. Plato proved that. At least they will never get as high as they should, or could. A river will gladly remind you of your smallness, and hint that Someone or Something greater made it all...but she will never tell you Who that someone is. Nature will never tell you that you are separated from Him by original and actual sin, and are undone in the Eyes of Him. Or that there is a Savior from all the troubles patiently waiting for you on the banks of that water. The river will no more tell you of your greatest need than offer you the solution to your greatest problem. As magnificent as creation is, she lacks the voice to articulate. She groans but does not speak. She declares but gives no Name. For that revelation, we need our Creator's Word, His Bride, His Voice.

So, the rivers may dance, and the mountains may sing, yet without the Word of God, they cannot testify for Whom they are rejoicing.

Inexplicably, nature's beauty stirs in most outdoorsmen (and women) a sense of wonder. This leads a soul to ponder. Ponder life. Ponder death. Ponder existence itself. We need more of that today, not less. But whom exactly are we pondering? Is it Zeus? Apollo? Thor, Allah, Hari Krishna? The Universe? Whom, exactly? Only through the Scriptures, expounded in the fellowship of the saints, and the preaching amongst Christ's body, can one come to understand the nature of God—not just as Creator, but as Judge and Redeemer. This Word, read, spoken, heard, sang, and tasted, are God’s means of grace. Let me speak it in fishermanese: the means of grace is the fly line upon which Christ is perfectly offered to hungry souls. It is the current in which believers gather, under the rills of the Gospel, whereby the Holy Spirit feeds the hearts of men and women, revealing not only their sin and separation from their Creator but also the glorious bridge of reconciliation made by Jesus Christ.

There, now you have something to go to the river with. Now, you can think deeply and rightly about your Creator. Go to the river. Just don't miss church, thinking you can somehow replace the Savior’s Bride, by following #theologians who think Christ’s body can be replaced by nature.

To rest upon a river rock, marveling at the craftsmanship of God in creation, is a good thing. Go to it often. But take pity on your soul, and let that marveling lead somewhere. Let that natural revelation lead you upstream to the Word, His special revelation, to our separation by sin, then to the foot of the cross, where the greatest love ever displayed and the most incredible story ever told unfolded. Where God made fishermen, fishers of men. Let creation lead us to the Creator, and then let the heart find her knowledge about Him in the River of God, the Word of God.

The Scriptures say,

While nature whispers, "God Is," it is the Word that shouts, "God Saves." Let everything that has breath praise the LORD, but not in the sanctuary of His creation, first. First, in the sanctuary of His Word, amidst the assembly of His Bride, among feedings of the means of grace, and then on the river.

Tight lines.

Subscribe now

"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." (Ps. 139:14). That's how I feel after reading Murray and Karel's 'A Christian's Guide to Mental Illness.'

I appreciated this book on a few levels. I like its ability to address the lay reader's most fundamental questions about this almost verboten subject, and do so in light of God's Word. I also liked reading this book, because I got the distinct impression that we are a once glorious, now fallen, beautifully complicated, mess of a race. With this everapparant underpinning, Murray and Karel explore the biological, psychological, and circumstantial elements of mental illness, recognizing whatever human advancements have been made in the field of study, but only permit that which comports itself with the Word of God, the greatest anthroplological work ever Written. On that note, I greatly appreciate Murray's nuance regarding his past view that depression is solely a spiritual issue, acknowledging that mental health is more complicated than the naked application of the Bible. He confesses a common misconception in many conservative Christian circles and opens up a much-needed dialogue on mental health. I once held that same opinion, that depression = unconfessed sin in your life. Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it's not. And as the book points out, if this were true, we'd all be walking depressionists. But I have come to learn that if you can break your arm, you can break your brain. It's that simple. Or should I say, complex? As God's "breathed into" creatures, we are as much metaphysical as corporeal, as much soul as body, eternal as ephemeral. Ignoring the fall's effects on our minds is missing a few vital centerpieces of humanity's puzzle. The book addresses these missing pieces.

Karel's clinical experience becomes evident in this book. It is a balanced book, as much as that word is abused today, by appropriately dividing the parts of mental illness according to its genus. Sometimes circumstance plays a part, sometimes biology, sometimes trauma, sometimes sin, and more often than we know, all these intermix in the suffering mind of the child of God.

The book is very readable, pastorally compassionate, but decidedly firm. I love that about the book. As a pastor well acquainted with believers' mental struggles, I often wonder where the help lies, and which help to render. We need faithful brothers and sisters trained in this ever-expanding field to help the rest of us navigate the gauntlet of opinions as we seek help for our loved ones or ourselves. When is a case in need of an actual physician? How do medications fit into this? Who can we recommend that is safe for our loved ones? What role can the body of Christ play in recovering mental strength? This book helps address these and other questions.

Murray and Karel have done an excellent service to the Church by opening the doorway into a new field of discovery, for conservative Christians. If God is in the macro of quantum physics, He's certainly also in the micro of my mind and heart. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, so let's seek help from our Maker. With that confession, read this book with an open mind. You will not be disappointed. Get it into the hands of elders, pastors, and as many in the pew as you think would benifit, for themselves, or for a loved one. Thank you to both brothers for writing it.

P.S.

It would be interesting to see a holistic expansion of this book. I hope this is not a one-and-done. We need volumes on this subject for the layman and minister alike. Key areas: new science (light therapy [ifrared, red, and blue light]), Christian meditation, a lost art, natural supplements, and the influence of technology on this field (especially online therapy and AI-generated therapy!). The next generation will be quicker to embrace the thesis of this book, but they will have a whole new set of questions for the 21st century and mental illness.

Subscribe now