The Difference Between Christian Boldness and Aggression

In these changing times, it has become imperative for Christians to stand their ground by articulating their faith in powerful and effective ways. The values of the world have never been the values of the Church. The difference is that the belief system of secular society is gaining ground because Christians have become too lazy and passive in their witness for Jesus Christ.

Now that we have realized our error, there seems to be an overzealous reaction to set things straight. Many Christians have seen the writing on the wall, and have subsequently answered the call to arms in hopes of salvaging any lost ground to the enemy. Instinctively, we may eagerly respond to the pangs of guilt for neglecting our responsibilities by witnessing to others with newfound passion and vigor.

The problem is that sometimes our zeal gets the better of us and we approach people in the wrong spirit. I encourage all Christians to take their faith more seriously, exemplifying a boldness of conviction which takes morality, duty, and salvation seriously. However, I believe that it is imperative for Christians to understand that there is a proper way in which to engage people when entering into constructive dialogue. The goal is to be bold which is often confused with aggressiveness. In this article, I will be explaining the positive and negative differences between the two attitudes.


The ideal behavior for Christians today is a tenacious boldness seasoned with love. Unfortunately, too many people of faith feel that being passive is a position of humility. But as we will see, there is a stark difference between passiveness and humility.

The Google definition of passive is accepting or allowing what happens, or what others do, without active response or resistance. This attitude is actually unbiblical. It takes on the notion that we have no right or means to spread the beautiful message of the gospel or to help those in need. When people embrace this philosophy they often mistake it as being meek. I argue that many people adopt this way of thinking because it gives them an excuse not to put themselves out in the world in such ways that may garner criticism from secular society.

God clearly calls Christians into action. James tells us to be “doers of the Word, and not hearers only” (1:22). Jesus tells us that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven,” and “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt. 7:21, 24).

Faith demands that we live out our newfound lives in Christ by taking certain action. Our actions and works will not ensure that we have a seat by Jesus Christ in the next life, because He alone has accomplished the work for salvation. But when we take our identity as children of God seriously, our lives will ultimately transform through grace, and we will sincerely desire to help and love others.

This all boils down to the fact that we can no longer sit quietly in our pews and wait for Jesus to come back. Hiding behind the doors of our churches is sheer selfishness. It is like we are content with our own salvation and unmoved by the multitudes of people dying in their sins.

The world is now a dark and scary place for Christians. It may seem like a daunting task to be so bold as to approach people in the name of Jesus Christ. But this is exactly what we are called to do—not just pastors or specific kinds of Christians—but all people who march under the banner of Heaven.


I believe that people often miss just how bold Jesus Christ was in His earthly ministry. We zero in on his gentleness and love and completely ignore that Jesus was a rebel who challenged the religious leaders of Israel.

Consider the fact that Jesus made the bold claim to be God. He knew full well how the people would react, but He was still compelled to tell the truth. Also remember how Jesus disregarded the warnings of the Pharisees about healing on the Sabbath Day, flipped over the money changers’ tables, and rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes by calling them “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “full of greed and self-indulgence,” “white-washed tombs full of dead bones and everything unclean,” and finally “snakes and a brood of vipers!” (Matt. 23:13-29).

These are not the actions of a passive person who is afraid of offending people. These are the actions of someone who is confident in their understanding of morality and absolute truth. Jesus made it a point to tell people the truth knowing full well that many would be offended. He did not consider the backlash of the ruling class relevant when it came to living out His ministry. And Jesus spoke boldly about the truth in order to give new life to a world dying through sin and separation from God.

But understand that this boldness of Jesus exhibited the demeanor of someone in complete control of their faculties. Jesus never once doubted or questioned Himself when teaching those with ears to hear. He always carried Himself with absolute and unwavering surety in all that He said and did. These are of course the marks of the Divine. But the life of Jesus is also our example for interacting with a hostile and blind society.

Boldness is an intrinsic characteristic of Christians. It is this very boldness that led Jesus Christ to the cross at Calvary and subsequent martyrs to their deaths. Many people die for their beliefs and actions. But Christians are often murdered or treated poorly for actively living out their faith knowing the risks. The findings of the Center for Studies on New Religions showed that 90,000 Christians were killed worldwide for their beliefs last year. The Clarion Project discovered that 600 million Christians were unable to practice their faith due to persecution in 2016.

This caliber of boldness is a testimony to those who critically observe Christians. It is this kind of tenacity that compels unbelievers to consider the gospel message more carefully. Christian boldness reminds the world that believers are fully convinced in their minds of the biblical claims. And this ultimately reveals to the world that if so many people are so bold as to profess the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then such claims cannot be carelessly dismissed if people are to approach the subject with honesty.

When the Pharisees and Scribes arrested Peter and John for preaching about Jesus Christ, they were amazed at their boldness:

When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus (emphasis mine, Acts 4:13).

After they were released they immediately began to pray to God. In their prayers they asked for sustained boldness to preach the good news: “And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29). We need to be praying for newfound and sustained boldness too.

The truth of the matter is that if Christians truly believe in their faith then they will profess it with eagerness and boldness. They will trust in the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit to put words upon their lips when they speak boldly in the name of Jesus Christ. If we are going to live out our faith, then we must remember that Jesus calls us all to pick up our crosses and follow Him. This is not figurative language pertaining to our daily burdens. It means that we must be bold and witness to people regardless of the consequences.


The negative aspect of boldness is when it takes on the form of aggression. Lucifer likes to take something good and create a counterfeit and evil version. This is exactly what happens when Christians go from being bold to being aggressive. The underlying difference between the two is that boldness is characterized by being firm and courageous, but aggression is an emotional attack that values the argument more than the person.

I often see this when Christians view atheists as the enemy instead of lost sheep who need a Shepherd. Christian aggression is often used to belittle and demean people who are outside of the faith. Whenever we reduce people to irredeemable heathens who have no hope we are playing at God.

The same aggression is also shown among Christians who differ in theology. I have noticed an unholy bitterness between many Liberal and Conservative Christians. It is all good and well to show a righteous anger over something that is against the will of God. But the problem arises when we arbitrarily judge those who think differently from us as ignorant and damnable people.

It is a shame and disgrace when Christians become aggressive over matters of theology to the point of condemnation and finger pointing. When we find a brother or sister who has a theology at variance with the Bible, our response should not be ridicule, but education through compassion.

In this day and age, I believe one of the most important verses in the Bible is Ephesians 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.” Paul reminds us of two central objects of Christian character and purpose.

It is imperative that we speak the truth to a world drowning in lies. And it is also imperative that we show love to a world shrouded in darkness and crippled by loneliness. The problem is that some Christians only do one of these commands. There are those who propound biblical truth in an aggressive spirit because they are concerned that sin will become commonplace in the Church as much as the world. Then there are those who ignore the truth of the Bible in order to focus on love.

We must learn to show both truth and love because the two are married to one another. You cannot separate them. When Paul writes so eloquently about love in the first letter to the Corinthians, he writes “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (Emphasis mine, v.6). Love and truth are intertwined to one another and cannot be from God if they are separated.

To ignore the truth is not loving at all. It only coddles a generation of selfish pleasures, and ushers people into a life of sin which causes them to be separated from God. And to neglect to show love misses the point of the gospel entirely. Jesus always spoke the truth boldly in a spirit of compassion and love. This is as apparent as the warmth of the sun. Anyone who reads the Scriptures carefully will come to the same conclusion. Consider this explanation from William Channing, a nineteenth-century humanist:

How calm was His piety! Point me, if you can, to one vehement, passionate expression of His religious feelings. Does the Lord’s Prayer breathe a feverish enthusiasm?… His benevolence, too, though singularly earnest and deep, was composed and serene. He never lost the possession of Himself in His sympathy with others; was never hurried into the impatient and rash enterprises of an enthusiastic philanthropy; but did good with the tranquility and constancy which makes the providence of God (McDowell, 162).

Jesus was never aggressive. His emotional equilibrium was well balanced even in the face of ridicule and death. The Pharisees illegally arrested Him and proceeded to belittle and taunt Him. Pilot threatened His life and imposed his supposed power upon Him. The thief on the cross jeered him with many observers in the crowd. Yet not once did Jesus retort with an emotional warning or threat. Instead He prayed for them because that is the kind of Savior we serve.

It is time for us to stop this nastiness of being aggressive. It is good to embark upon the business of our Father. But we must stop being forceful. God has already made the truth plain to people through His own witness and moral law which is written upon the hearts of mankind (Rom. 1:18-20). We must give people time and space to thoroughly understand the beckoning of the Holy Spirit. And we must be patient with one another in the midst of our differences. It does no good for anyone to be pushy and forceful through an autocratic attitude.

Jesus told us that the truth will set us free. Let us take comfort in the fact that we serve our Lord, and let us serve Him with unapologetic boldness that conveys the message of the gospels in a spirit of love.


McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. T. Nelson, 1999.

The Origin of Reason

It is widely agreed upon that reason exist. The problem is that you cannot defend reason by reason without finding yourself in a circular argument. But the origin of our reason is an important question to ask ourselves. When we look at the animal kingdom it becomes apparent that human beings are the only species to use reasoning at such a capacity to rule over the earth. Many other unique anomalies occur due to our reasoning e.g. Human beings have shown a remarkable proclivity for progress, possess a moral code, and are self-ware.

When considering all that we have achieved in our onward march, the question arises, “How is all of this possible?” It seems that there are two popular positions for our unprecedented capacity to reason: evolution and design. In this article, I will briefly explore these two positions.


It is often argued that evolution is a perfectly sound means of achieving the depth of reason that human beings have today. The argument coincides with the general premise of evolutionary advancement which claims that the fittest survive and continue to make progress. And therefore, reasoning is simply an evolutionary trait that effectuates progress and human flourishing.

People must be able to reason in order to make decisions that are conducive to their survival. This is self-evident and not up for debate. The theist and the atheist agree upon this point. The conflict arises when we begin to explore the origins of reason.

Those who boast that the evolutionary process is the best answer claim that there is no need for an intelligent Designer. But the theist sees a problem with this line of thinking. In fact, even the father of evolution himself saw the same problem. In an honest and sobering moment of reflection about what natural evolution ultimately suggested, Charles Darwin once wrote:

But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions (Darwin, 443).

This lingering doubt is further expressed in a letter to a philosopher named William Graham:

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (To William Graham July 3 1881).

This has become known as Darwin’s Doubt and has profound implications for an evolutionary worldview. If one is to surmise that the origins of life did not require an intelligent Designer then the concept of reasoning must be questioned. Herein are a few problems worth considering.

Random Reasoning

How can people trust a mind that has been formed by random events with no purpose? If matter came from nothing, then matter thinks and feels nothing. But somehow, by nothing short of a miracle, the universe created itself and formed human beings who have the capacity to think and feel. Keep in mind that we as intelligent and self-aware agents are capable of doing what the universe cannot. We have transcended our maker, in other words, by having the capacity to understand the universe around us—something the universe itself cannot accomplish. Yet we cannot create something out of nothing even though some people desperately cling to the belief that such a thing is possible.

It seems to me that this is a philosophical position more so than a scientific position. And this philosophical position is grounded in contradictions that makes it untenable. The counter argument that an intelligent Designer created the orderly and reasonable world around us seems more plausible.

Animal Kingdom Reasoning

Why should we assume that reasoning is an evolutionary trait? The positive claim is circular reasoning. The premises are (1) evolutionary reason helps people survive and (2) mankind has survived for millions of years, so therefore we can trust evolutionary reasoning. The problem is that the two premises assume the validity of one another. But a close look at the animal kingdom explicitly reveals that extensive reasoning is not necessary for survival. This is why the slogan for evolution is “Survival of the fittest” and not “Survival of the most reasonable.”

It is true that wolves and lionesses will lure their prey and orchestrate the most opportune moment for a lethal strike. But most animals are actually utilizing their instincts instead of profound reasoning. Animals have a propensity to survive through information they have inherited in their genes i.e. animals are programmed with an intuition for a proper diet, procreation, migration patterns and so forth. On the other hand, human beings are the only species to show a singular and unparalleled capacity for reasoning. Insomuch that there are various and nuanced levels of reasoning that we often use to understand reality and the world around us:

  • Abductive Reasoning: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses.
  • Analogical Reasoning: relating things in the form of an analogy.
  • Cause and Effect Reasoning: showing causes and the resulting effects.
  • Comparative Reasoning: comparing one thing with another.
  • Deductive Reasoning: starting from a general rule and moving to specifics.
  • Inductive Reasoning: starting from specifics and moving to to a general rule.
  • Systemic Reasoning: considering the whole as greater than the sum of its parts.
  • Modal Logic: arguing about necessity and possibility.
  • Traditional Logic: assuming that premises are correct.

This list is only a sampling of the various means and methods in which humans reason. Any reasoning accomplished in the animal kingdom is negligible in comparison. And yet we see that many animals have survived alongside humans for millennia. These animals seem to survive quite well without the depth of reasoning that we possess. It cannot even be stated that we as human beings survive in a more peaceful and enjoyable way due to reason. We have our own problems and wars despite this profound ability to think things through before acting. Not to mention that animals seem to be quite content with a simple life of ignorance.

Miraculous Species

Another problem for evolutionary reason seems to be how we as human beings are the only species to transcend into a state of self-awareness and logic. Today taxonomists boast that we have approximately 1.8 million known species on our little blue planet. Each year there are around 15,000 species reported. And if this is not enough to impress upon you the significance of life around us, consider that researchers have now calculated that there may be 1 trillion species in the world when factoring in the unclassified micro and macro species. Yet we are expected to believe that human beings are the sole species to transcend ignorance and reach the pinnacle of reasoning.

I find it difficult to believe that after millions of years of evolution, only one species has reached such a significant place in the animal kingdom. The very definition of miracle is something that transcends nature—it is something supernatural. Mankind is certainly a miraculous species that transcends the natural order and thereby points towards an intelligent Designer.


Now it is time to consider reasoning from a theistic perspective. But I must be fair and present the argument against intelligent design. Much like Darwin considered whether he could trust a mind that evolved from lower animals, theists must grapple with the notion that an all-powerful God could create minds to think and reason in a particular manner.

If God created mankind with a mind hardwired to love and believe in Him we would never be the wiser. We could assume that we have used logic and sought out the evidence for God, but it could merely be a delusion outside of our grasp like the madman who claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte and is fully convinced in his mind.

Earlier I wrote that trying to defend reason by reason is a circular argument that provides no answers. What I mean by this is that we cannot know for certain whether our minds have been compromised by evolution or creation. The only way to derive the truth from this dilemma is to follow the evidence to the most logical and self-evident conclusion. We do this every day when we make decisions without all the answers or data to insure that life goes on uninterrupted. We make the most rational conclusions possible and go on living. This is the same method the court systems use when jurors reach a consensus that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here I would like to spend some time presenting an accumulative case for the origin of human reasoning by intelligent design.

Free-will and Denial

Let us consider the implications behind the gift of free-will. Mankind has been blessed with the gift to think and make decisions on his or her own. The Scriptures reveal a loving God who wants people to come to Him on their own accord. When we consider this biblical description of God and His plan for humanity, free-will makes a persuasive case for reason being a reliable gift from God.

The first point that needs to be understood is that many people do not use their reasoning to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. If God truly was pulling the strings to make people think a particular way then we would expect everyone to bend a knee to God.

The second point is that the torture and sacrifice of Jesus Christ would have been futile and needless if God were simply manipulating the minds of people.

The third point is that if God were so willing to manipulate the minds of others, then He would have no reason to create life as we know it today. He could have simply created people to love Him in His heavenly Kingdom from the very beginning.

I Think Therefore I Am

In the seventeenth century, a philosopher by the name of René Descartes questioned whether he could know anything for certain. He surmised that it was possible that he could be completely delusional about reality, or something to the effect that a demon was manipulating his mind. And he was finally able to reconcile this doubt by a philosophical formation known as Cogito ergo sum. This is Latin for “I think, therefore I am.”

What Descartes came to understand is that the ability to question and doubt whether he could trust his mind, at the very least, proved that he had a mind and did exist. I find this important regarding our trust in God as the Giver of reason.

If people suspect that God may be deceiving them, then the so-called deception is not complete. The inability to completely deceive a person would further bring into question the omnipotence of God. But we should expect Him to have the power to control the minds of people if He were powerful enough to create life and reasoning in the first place. And so, it is with this that I believe the very means to question and doubt whether or not God has hardwired our minds is evident that He has done no such thing. Indeed, God has done quite the opposite by giving us free-will which is the foundation for reason.

Good and Moral Thoughts

It is worthwhile to consider the role reasoning plays in moral thoughts. Mankind is not a sterile species that is unconcerned with the well-being of others and the planet. Every day we are surrounded with situations where we must make moral decisions. It is like a proverbial crossroads where we calculate the pros and cons and moral ramifications for the choices we make.

Most people would agree that everyone makes moral decisions. But the question we must ask ourselves is how that is possible with an evolutionary origin for reason. Natural evolution has no need for a stringent moral code to ensure survival. It may be argued that a morally grounded society is an evolutionary necessity to foster progress. But from a naturalist perspective what we call morality is merely a genetic disposition to propagate the human species and survive.

Consider a man walking along a dirt road who hears a child yelling for help. He looks to the nearby lake and notices that the child is unable to swim and therefore drowning. Immediately two thoughts arise within himself: do I put my life at risk and save the child, or do I continue walking down the path to ensure my own safety? Now let us say that this man decides to put his life at risk to save the child’s life.

Richard Dawkins explains such a principle as “The selfish gene.” The essence of this argument is that people protect their communities to ensure human flourishing. But the very premise of this argument inadvertently destroys any notion of morality. The man who saves the child from drowning is doing so out of a selfish desire to pass on the genetic structure of his species. The child is not seen as a person of intrinsic worth, but merely a vehicle to propagate the species.

Admission to this naturalistic position gives license for stronger communities to overwhelm and takeover weaker communities. We see this take place in nature all the time. When resources become scarce or territory is threatened, one community will eliminate another and take what is theirs. If people are to be consistent with this position then there can be no argument against stronger countries killing off the citizens of weaker countries in order to ensure the progress of their own citizens.

Ethical morality, on the other hand, requires a person to put themselves at risk when they have nothing to gain. It requires people to do the right thing regardless of any advantage. It is selfless, and goes against any notions of survival of the fittest. The morally upright man saves the child because he values the child for the person they are, and if necessary, is willing to give up his life for theirs.

Morality in the sense that we understand it today is not compatible with a naturalistic worldview. If we are to champion the notion that human beings are moral creatures, then we must look beyond the natural order and towards a Creator who has made mankind in His image. It is only then that we can claim to have moral reasoning. We simply cannot subscribe to evolution as the origin of our reasoning if we claim to make moral decisions.


It is my opinion that there are too many problems with an unguided evolutionary worldview when it comes to explaining the origin of our human reasoning. If mankind has evolved without divine intervention then our intelligence has no positive trajectory and has evolved from unintelligent animals. It is much like the assertion that the universe was created out of nothing and for nothing.

How can I trust a mind that is born out of chaos? How can I trust a mind that is related to crude animals that do not seem to need such profound reasoning to survive? And why are human beings the only species capable of such thinking and logic when this planet abounds with a striking number of other species?

However, everything falls into place when I consider the argument for an intelligent Designer. I can trust my reasoning based on free-will, the ability to question, and how I observe people making diverse and contrasting decisions around me. I also know that mankind has great moral potential which is not possible in a naturalist worldview. It is for all these reasons that I suggest human reason derives from intelligent design.


Darwin, Charles, and Joseph Carroll. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selections. Broadview Texts, 2003.

To William Graham July 3 1881

Was God Good Before Creation?

About a month ago, I had a perplexing thought that I could not reconcile. I had been listening to an apologist debate an atheist on the radio about the goodness of God. As I listened intently, it was not long before I drifted into my own musings and began to break down the argument of God’s goodness.

Here I began to consider the implications of God’s eternal goodness. It is well known that Christians champion the infallible and perfect goodness of God. But another axiom of the Christian faith is that God’s goodness is infinite and eternal. In other words, the quality of God’s goodness has always existed. This is true since this quality is not a part of God, but in fact who God is as a divine being.

The dilemma is that not everyone will so readily agree to this philosophical position. Most Christians understand either theologically or intuitively that God is the very essence of good. But for those who do not subscribe to the Christian faith and engage in the finer points of philosophy, this claim needs to be substantiated.

In Eastern philosophy, namely Chinese philosophy, there is something called the principle of Yin and Yang. This is a concept that claims everything is understood through necessary and contradictory opposites. Consider the following illustrations:

  • You would not know what cold was unless you have experienced being hot
  • You would not know happiness unless at some point in life you experienced pain
  • You would not know darkness unless you knew light

The reason I bring this up is because there is some truth to this philosophy. C.S. Lewis once wrote about his musings pertaining to his understanding of justice before he became a Christian:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? (Lewis, 30).

And with all this, I arrived at the question, “How could God be good before He created anything in and outside of time?” Allow me to explain the thrust of this question.

Before God created anything at all—including angels, and predating the creation of the universe and our humble planet—God was a standalone Being. So how was God considered good? In order for good to exist something evil must exist. If there was no potential evil, then there was nothing to compare goodness with and therefore what we understand as goodness could not exist in the same sense.

If there were no agents of evil then the goodness of God would have been a universal quality that could not be elevated or have moral substance. Goodness would simply be the normative state since there was nothing else to compare with or define it as something better or ideal.

Let us return to C.S. Lewis and his analogy of a straight line. If goodness existed without evil when God was completely alone, then a proper diagram would be that goodness was a straight line. But without anything to compare goodness with it can only be a neutral straight line that does not allow for paradoxical moral ideas such as goodness and evil. And thus the concept of goodness is seemingly impossible without an opposing quality to give it substance and definition. So, it becomes philosophically problematic to deem God good since evil did not exist when He was the only entity in existence, and His goodness was simply a neutral quality that could not transcend anything.

Now, as a Christian, I believe that God is the embodiment of good and His goodness does not need to be defined outside of Himself. Nevertheless, I offer two logical answers, that must be understood together, in order to answer this conundrum for those who need to substantiate this claim.

God has Always Known About Evil Through His Omniscience

The first thing that should be understood is that God is omniscient. This means that God is outside of time and sees the past, present and future simultaneously. He knows what is going to transpire even before it happens. Therefore we should understand that God has always known about evil since it would occur in the future through the rebellion of the intelligent creatures He created.

This means that God knew about evil even before it began to exist. It stands to reason that God has always been good since He knew about the presence of evil that would one day exist and oppose His very nature.

The Triune God Showed Himself Goodness

I believe that we sometimes forget that God has always been involved in an eternal and loving relationship with Himself. God is one Being with three Persons. A being is what a person is i.e. humans are beings, so what we are is humans. But a person is who someone is i.e. I am a distinct and unique person created in the image of God. I have a unique personality, history, purpose and so forth. In the same way, God exists as one perfect Being comprised of three holy Persons: God the father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

God did not create human beings because He was lonely or somehow could not express love without us. It was because God wanted to share the love and goodness that He has always known within Himself.

This means that God has ultimately shown Himself the quality of goodness even before the creation of any other creature. This also means that goodness and love have always existed even without evil because God has shown Himself these qualities for eternity.

Omniscience of the Triune God

It is no longer difficult to concede that God has always been good when you understand the two aforementioned concepts. God has always known about the opposing immoral quality of evil that goes against His nature in every possible way, but chose, and still chooses, to show every Person within the triune Godhead unadulterated respect, goodness and love. This dilemma can be resolved once we understand that (1) God exists outside of time and therefore had the foreknowledge of evil before it came into fruition, and (2) because God exists outside of time, He has always existed in tandem with the presence of evil in the past and present.

The point is that God’s goodness can be measured through His knowledge and existence alongside evil since His infallible nature of goodness has never been tainted. Further, this is true because despite His omniscience of the future and co-existence with evil outside of time, God has shown Himself goodness for eternity.

Thus there has always been both good (God’s nature) and evil (the absence of God understood through God’s foreknowledge or an impending reality) that could be compared in order to establish one or the other. I therefore find it logically sound to propound that God has always been good even before there was any entity, or creation to give shape and substance to the moral claim.


Lewis, C. S., and Kathleen Edwards. The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. HarperOne, an Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.

The Errancy of the Progressive Christian Label

I have always heard the pen is mightier than the sword. I am inclined to believe that is true. There is an unquestionable power in words that carry serious implications and shape the way we understand reality. In the field of semantics, linguists study the definitions of words, and how people understand words in various and nuanced ways. Whenever we as people consider particular words, we may unconsciously color the meaning of words with our personal desires or human experience. That is why it is vital to consider the objective meaning behind words when we use them in our everyday conversations.

In this article, I aim to take a closer look at the truth behind the Progressive label many Christians have associated with their beliefs. I argue that this label is an inaccurate term that is deceiving in its biblical thrust. I would like to point our three ways that I believe the label Progressive is inaccurate due to being at variance with the Scriptures.

A Self-Avowed Label

It is important to understand that Progressive Christianity is a self-avowed label of which people boast. In other words, the term progressive is merely a description that some Christians have bestowed upon themselves based upon how they view their cause, and not because society saw it befitting to champion the movement due to a positive direction of the Church.

The ramifications of mislabeling a movement is that it gives license to continue in the destructive direction in which it is headed and causes confusion. Men and women of faith are easily convinced that they are making progress for the Church and people. And therefore very little introspection may occur as it is assumed that the revisionism of the modern Church has become a deus ex machina.

I would never make the claim that every person under the umbrella of progressive Christianity is completely ignoring the precepts and commands of God. But I do believe that many morals of the Progressive Church and secular society have become so interwoven insofar as to be indistinguishable from one another. And so I cannot in good conscience accept the label Progressive.

Humanity is not Morally Progressive

The second problem I have with this misuse of labeling is that it assumes humanity is progressing in a morally positive direction. But a cursory observation of world history in the 20th century alone is enough to pull the rug from under such a delusion. In an era when we are supposed to be more intelligent, humanitarian, informed, and compassionate, more than one-hundred million people were murdered in response to three evil men. As Dinesh D’Souza writes in What’s So Great About Christianity?:

In the past hundred years or so, the most powerful atheist regimes—Communist Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany—have wiped out people in astronomical numbers. Stalin was responsible for around twenty million deaths, produced through mass slayings, forced labor camps, slow trials followed by firing squads, population relocation and starvation, and so on. Jung Change and Jon Halliday’s authoritative recent study Mao: The Unknown Story attributes to Mao Zedong’s regime a staggering seventy million deaths… Hitler comes in a distant third with around ten million murders, six million of them Jews (D’souza, 218).

If that were not enough, there are still other staggering statics such as the amount of innocent unborn babies murdered since Roe vs Wade. The amount of babies murdered through abortion worldwide are 1,464,832,514. As I sit here at my computer watching the website that records live statics on abortion, there is one to two infants murdered every second. By the time I finish writing this sentence, twenty-five infants will have been aborted.

Though we should not be so surprised about the lingering evil in the world. A close reading of the Scriptures reminds us that even the chosen people of God rebelled against Him during their long history through a repeated pattern of progress and regression. The book of Judges tells us:

Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hands of these raiders. Yet they would not listen to their judges but prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them. They quickly turned from the ways of their ancestors, who had been obedient to the Lord’s commands. Whenever the Lord raised up a judge for them, He was with the judge and saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived; for the Lord relented because of their groaning under those who oppressed and afflicted them. But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their ancestors, following other gods and serving and worshiping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways (2:16-19).

The kings of Israel and Judah were no exception. There were thirty-nine kings other than Saul, King David, and Solomon. Of those thirty-nine kings only eight were deemed righteous. Time and again we read about the Jewish people turning their backs upon God to worship idols and give themselves up to every lust and passion of the flesh. We have not experienced any real progress from this kind of rebellion against God. It is true that there may be times of peace and progress, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking that this kind of prosperity is lasting and an actual reality in the present.

I know that my understanding of morality differs from many Progressive Christians, but there are some facts that are simply indisputable. Again, this is why I cannot accept the label Progressive.

Progression of the Church or the World?

The final issue that I want to address is the motive behind this idea of progression. The thought seems to be that the Church and the world are making positive progress. And here we come once again to semantics. In order to make the claim that progress has been reached we must first define what kind of progress—or more importantly—whose progress we are talking about.

The idea of progress has no positive meaning in and of itself e.g. mankind can make progress towards destruction. The word progress merely means forward or onward movement towards a goal.

Earlier I said that many morals of Progressive Christianity and secularism have become indistinguishable. Here we must ascertain if the progression of the aforementioned Christians is actually the kind of progression that is in alignment with the Scriptures and God. I would have to argue in the negative considering the lack of biblical morality that is so often propagated from the liberal side of Christianity.

The scope of this article is not to show a categorical comparison of every position of the Progressive Church with the Bible. The conflicting views of both liberal and conservative Christians are well known. Instead I will conclude this thought by repeating that I believe the ideology of this kind of progression can only be true if the connotation refers to the secular world far removed from the will of God. By aligning the morality of Progressive Christianity with Secular Humanism you will find little difference. This raises concerns about a biblical and Christian worldview because we have been called to change the world through Jesus Christ—not conform to the world.

It is for this reason that I cannot get on board with the self-avowed label, Progressive Christianity, when it comes to the morals and positions of the associated theology.

I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that I believe there are good Christian men and women who identify as a Progressive. I believe that many of these men and women are doing good in certain areas that are in accord with God’s will for mankind. The object of this article is not to demean or belittle people. I have merely set out to explain why I believe the label Progressive is misguided when it comes to the Christian movement to revise biblical morality by condoning and even embracing sins that have been clearly rebuked in the Holy Scriptures.


D’Souza, Dinesh. What’s So Great about Christianity. Tyndale House Publishers, 2008.