Book Review: Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World

Paul Gould’s recently released primer Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World (Zondervan, 2019) provides the reader with an overview of a branch of apologetics that, until recently, has not enjoyed very much time in the spotlight. Gould defines cultural apologetics as, “the work of establishing the Christian voice, conscience, and imagination within a culture so that Christianity is seen as true and satisfying” (21).

This, of course, raises a question about why this is work. If the Christian voice, conscience, and imagination were established, then Christianity would be naturally seen as true and satisfying. What gets in the way of that translation? Gould cites multiple factors, but easily the most prominent is what he calls disenchantment.

The first step towards disenchanting the world involves suppressing the truth about God. He writes, “When we fail to acknowledge God, this failure has catastrophic effects, corrupting our perception of reality” (45). When we are subject to this corruption, we end up emptying the world of any supernatural value. Gould explains, “Modern humanity, emptied of its soul, collectively side as sacredness vaporized into the crisp, cold air of this disenchanted age” (47). The first leads to the second, and the result is a world that we believe is stripped of the divine. This does not mean the divine is not here or there are not things that point towards God, but the world becomes flat. Hearts become numb. We don’t even realize that Christianity can be true or satisfying because we are so wrapped up in a culture held prisoner to reductionist materialism.

The answer to solving this dilemma is first to discover how to reenchant the world. Gould suggests two steps that need to be taken to move back toward a healthy view of this world and the reality of the supernatural universe that God created. First, our desires have to be awakened. He explains, “The Holy Spirit woos us through the beauty and imaginative stories depicted in these works of art. Ultimately this quest can only be satisfied with Jesus and the gospel” (73). The imagination provides the way for us to realize what we are missing but actually want. We begin to seek that which is good, true, and beautiful. We find ourselves on a journey toward reenchantment with our newly awakened desires.

This journey helps us “return to reality” in the words of Gould (82). Just as our tendency toward disenchantment began when we suppressed the truth about God, our journey toward reenchantment continues when we begin to recognize the reality of the world that we are privileged to be a part of. As Gould puts it, “For Jesus, nothing is mundane. The world is God-bathed, full of wonder and delight. The world is God-permeated” (82). Rather than seeing the world as boring, lacking significance, and ultimately pointless, we begin to actually recognize reality when we realize that this world is a much richer place than our culture teaches us. Once we embrace this picture of reality and come to realize that we don’t have to stay in the prison of reductionist, secular materialism, we can finally get to the point where we start doing the work of cultural apologetics.

The first way that Christians ought to do this is through the imagination. Gould writes, “As God’s image bearers, we are called to be artists and gardeners after his image [previously, he discusses Exodus 31 and Genesis 2, artists and gardeners respectively]. We should be creators and cultivators of goodness, truth, and beauty and what we make and how we attribute meaning” (103). By using our creative abilities, we are able to show the world around us that life actually has meaning. We can point people toward God. The existence of beauty is a sort of signal of transcendence that forces nonbelievers to come face-to-face with the reality that there might be something beyond the material. The imagination, pointed towards goodness, truth, and beauty, can do that.

Second, reason plays a vital role in all types of apologetics. Some people criticize cultural apologists for seeming to abandon reason, but Gould explains that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, he writes, “Truth calls. Reason guides. A cultural apologetic of return will not shy away from demonstrating the truth of Christianity” (144). Contrary to the popular, modern attacks of the New Atheists, but really coming into the mainstream during the Enlightenment, becoming a Christian does not mean that we have to sacrifice reason. Also, for more traditional, philosophical apologists, engaging in cultural apologetics does not mean that we disregard many of the more popular ways to answer the objections that non-Christians bring to the table. Rather, it is part of a portfolio of tools that the cultural apologist uses to communicate the truth of Jesus Christ.

Third, the conscience plays an understated yet undeniably valuable role in communicating the truth. By this, Gould is referring to the moral character of the church and individual believers. He puts it rather bluntly when he says, “For Christianity to be desirable, we must narrow the gaps between how things are and how things ought to be” (146). In a world where we find the church in the news for all the wrong reasons, it is really important for us to remember that our behavior puts us on the front lines. If we want to be effective cultural apologists and if we want anyone to take what we say seriously, we need to show them why Christianity is desirable. People are “longing for goodness” (148). This is a topic that is not always emphasized in apologetics, so this chapter adds a great deal of value for that reason alone.

Of course, even with these three areas uniting and Christian apologists doing the good work of trying to communicate the truth of Jesus Christ to the world around us, there are still barriers. Gould outlines two different types. The first kind are internal barriers which “pertain to us as the people of God, the church, and the content and character of our lives” (171). The second kind are external barriers which “are obstacles to face found in culture at large, barriers that must be overcome by those on the path to faith” (171). These barriers follow from the failure to adequately address the past three topics adequately. For example, the barrier of anti-intellectualism, an internal barrier, is essentially the failure to embrace reason. This chapter is where the rubber meets the road. As important as imagination, reason, and conscience are, our communication sometimes falls on deaf ears, and we need to recognize the various types of opposition that we may encounter.

Last but certainly not least, Gould comes to my favorite chapter in the book. I love this topic because it gives me hope. The final chapter is entitled “Home.” Gould really wraps it all up effectively when he concludes, “In the end, it you will either save your life by giving it away or lose it by trying to save it yourself; you will either find the happiness and home that God gives and enjoy it in creaturely response or is eternally start” (205). Christianity provides answers that no other worldview can provide. Naturalism fails, postmodernism fails, and other world religions fail. Only when we come home to God’s rest will be at the end of our journey. We will recognize our world for what it is, fully permeated by the presence of God. Helping other people get to that point as well is the entire purpose of practicing cultural apologetics.

Gould’s work is a valuable addition on an emerging field of apologetics. His citation list is a valuable resource in and of itself in this remarkably well-researched volume. As a small side note, I was very happy to see him cite three professors I have had the privilege of studying under: Holly Ordway, Michael Ward, and Mark Linville. As one who likes to fancy himself a cultural apologist, I would recommend this work heartily, particularly to those who have a hard time grasping why this discipline is important or how it differs from more traditional, philosophical apologetics. His depth and breadth of knowledge are inspiring to me and cause me to want to keep reading and studying further. Of course, I guess that is one of the chief purposes of this work, so I would say it is very effective.

In the interest of complete transparency, I was provided with a courtesy copy of this book from Zondervan for the purpose of providing an unbiased review.

Talking about Those Things We Aren't Supposed to Talk about

I like to talk to people. I like to talk to people about the things that you are not supposed to talk about like politics and religion. Why are we not supposed to talk about these things? We have this kind of bizarre idea that we don’t want to maybe create division with our friends over things that people have strong feelings about. For example, I might have a friend who is the most liberal person ever, and I am quite conservative. I might have a friend who is Buddhist, and I am a Christian. Because we have these deeply held beliefs that are different, we kind of think that if we start talking about them, somehow our friendship is going to go down the tubes.

That can happen. I do know people who have had very bitter disputes over these controversial topics sad to say. I have not really had any personally, but it can happen without a doubt. The question then becomes what should be our fundamental pursuit. I want friends. You want friends. We all want to get along with people around us, but at the same time, we are committed to what we believe is right. After all, that’s why we have beliefs in the first place. I am a Christian because I believe that Christianity is true. You might be an atheist because you find no evidence for the supernatural. You believe you are right in holding that position. If we didn’t have this desire to pursue truth, then I don’t know that any of us would have any beliefs. Why would we bother have a them if we didn’t actually believe them or lay any claim to them? It is a balancing act between wanting to preserve these friendships and wanting to pursue that which is true.

Honestly, I think that we want both to happen. At least for me, I don’t want to unnecessarily harm my friendship with them, but I want them to believe what is true. I desired to know what is true, and I think it is good for everyone to know that which is true. If they hold a wrong belief, I think it is good to help them see the error of their ways. If I knew someone who believed in the flat earth theory, I think it would be good if they actually believed in the reality of a round earth. I think it is objectively better for them to have accurate information than to be wrong. In fact, I think that a lot of the reason why many of us want to have these difficult conversations even though we get a little bit worried about the consequences of having them. We have a desire to want people to believe that which is true. That is natural, I think. Again, if this desire wasn’t there, we wouldn’t bother trying to tell other people why it is better for them to be right. We would just let them run around in their ignorance and not care.

I suggested at the beginning of this article that it is a bizarre idea to think that we should not talk about controversial things. I hope you can kind of see why I think this is a little bit bizarre. Avoiding having these conversations only satisfies one half of the equation. Obviously it preserves friendships because we don’t bring up the things that threaten to break those friendships apart. We avoid the touchy subjects that nobody wants to talk about. That said, we are intentionally silencing our desire to pursue truth and embrace right beliefs. You see, I think we ideally want both. We want to help people learn the truth, and we want to preserve our friendship. Therefore, I think our plan to avoid these topics completely is actually far less than ideal. We need to figure out a better way forward. We need a plan about how to have discussions about difficult topics while simultaneously not destroying our friendships altogether.

The first guideline I would suggest, and this is hard to do especially in our era of identity politics, is to agree ahead of time that discussions about ideas are not intentionally personal. Some of them may become personal, but they are not intended in that way. Yes, I oppose abortion and believe it is wrong. No, I do not hate every woman who has ever had an abortion. In fact, I love them as my neighbor because I am called to love my neighbor just like I love myself. When we talk about issues, we are not intentionally targeting each other, and we are not intentionally hating each other most of the time. There are some people who enter into conversation with bad intentions. I get that, and they are the exception to the rules I am outlining here. However, that said, I think that the first rule of thumb for talking about difficult subjects while not destroying friendships is realizing that we are not trying to hurt each other when we talk about ideas. In fact, we are trying to help each other towards truth.

Second, I think what we need to do to have these conversations effectively is to try to interpret whatever our discussion partner says in the best possible way. It may be the case that we ultimately end up disagreeing, but if I am talking to someone who says something that seems a little bit off base but there is some ambiguity, I should not automatically jump to threat level midnight. Instead, I should most likely be asking clarifying questions in a charitable way. I can actually encourage dialogue by asking the other person to explain his or her position. Again though, this is not to set up a gotcha moment necessarily. Rather, it should be done in a spirit of actually trying to understand where that person is coming from. We have a tendency to assume the worst, so if we start by assuming the best and trying to understand before we blow up, that will probably help these discussions proceed more effectively.

Following that, I think we need to realize that sometimes we are not going to agree. Even with all the best intentions and our best efforts to talk about certain topics, we may not convince each other to see something our way. Particularly when we are dealing with something that is deeply personal like politics or religion, change very rarely happens instantaneously. Even if something seems so obvious to me, it doesn’t mean that the person I am talking to is automatically going to change his or her life. It is possible, but we certainly should not expect that to happen every single time. Therefore, we have a choice to make, and I suppose that is where I should leave this discussion for today.

There are two options. We can give up. We can just say that because a particular person did not automatically transition to my position, the whole thing just has to be thrown out. We can’t be friends, we can’t talk and there is no purpose to anything that we do together. As you can tell, I don’t think that is the right approach. The other alternative is far superior. We continue pursuing truth. We continue talking. Even if I am absolutely convinced that I am in the right position, I can continue having these discussions, listening to the other person. If I am right, then there is no threat to my position, and I have the opportunity to continue sharing the truth with someone else. In fact, if I am right, then listening to other people try to bring down what I believe should in fact make my belief stronger and better prepare me to defend it responsibly in the future. If I am mistaken, then these discussions benefit me as well. It might help me find truth in an area where I was wrong. That is also a good outcome.

Don’t avoid talking about the tough stuff.

The Christian Bubble

Let me touch a sensitive topic here. Let’s talk about the Christian bubble. We all kind of know a little bit about what it looks like. It is a pretty comfortable place. It is a nonthreatening place. I can go into my Christian bubble, and my beliefs are probably not going to be challenged. I can simply say that Jesus rose from the dead, and everyone will agree with me by virtue of being members of this particular subculture. Nobody will think it is weird when we pray before we eat dinner. In short, we get it because we are all members of the same community.

Going outside of the bubble is a little bit different. If I try to explain to someone that the Holy Spirit lives within me, I’m going to encounter a series of questions. What is the Holy Spirit? Why is it inside of me? What does it do? Why do I care? The shared knowledge and assumptions that I encounter within my Christian bubble simply aren’t there when I go outside. That should not be surprising, but I do think it is a little bit intimidating for some people. Everything becomes different when you face an inquisitive audience that will not simply accept the same assumptions that we all have in the Christian bubble.

To be entirely honest with you, this was a large part of the reason why I wanted to start studying apologetics. I live in Vermont. It is not exactly the Bible Belt. A lot of my friends are not Christians, and a lot of them have really good questions. They want to understand why I think it is possible for a dead man to come back to life and why that even matters to me even if He did. They want to understand why I think that the universe came into being at the command of some all-powerful being that I can’t see. They want to know why I believe a book that has been around for a few millennia. These are questions that you never really have to answer within the Christian bubble. Because Christians share the belief that Jesus rose from the dead (nonnegotiable), God created the universe (although we debate on method/timing) and the Bible is trustworthy (although we banter over terms like inerrancy), we don’t normally have to justify our rationale. Perhaps at one point we had these questions but we had them answered, so we perhaps settle into complacency. We simply understand what each other is talking about, so sometimes we are not always as sharp as we ought to be.

That’s why apologetics is so important. We don’t live in bubbles. Try as we might, there are going to be those times when your faith is going to be challenged. People are going to bring questions, and you need to be able to have an answer. You might not convince the other person, but for the strengthening of your own faith, it is really important to understand why Christianity actually makes sense. I don’t know how many people I have heard tell stories about falling away from their faith because they were met with an objection that they simply did not know the answer to. It is really sad to be honest with you. What makes the situation worse is that most of the answers are out there somewhere. Christianity has a pretty proud intellectual tradition, and many of the greatest thinkers in the history of Western civilization dedicated their lives to explaining Christianity.

I know the immediate rebuttal on this though. You’re probably going to tell me that if you stay in the bubble, don’t need to have all of the info because, like I mentioned above, we don’t tend to challenge people of our own tribe as rigorously as people from the outside will. The questions that a lot of Christians ask other questions are safe. I do it as well. I get it. That said, you have to think that we were not meant to live in bubbles. From the beginning of the Christian movement, starting on Pentecost, you see a very outwardly focused movement. We don’t huddle down, hiding from everyone on the outside. We don’t necessarily wait for people to come to us, but we go to them. The entire missionary project is built on this commitment. Therefore, while there is a time and place for enjoying the comfort and security of the Christian bubble, there is also very little precedent for that in the early church.

And, by this, I am not taking a shot at people who have intentionally decided to live a certain way any type of community. Traditionally we associate monasteries with this type of activity, but I think that today we often times see these tendencies in Christian education or homeschooling communities. While these are types of bubbles, you have to remember that these communities are also outwardly focused. Monasteries and convents were often dedicated to service to their communities. Christian education or homeschooling also provides the service of educational alternatives. For some, it can be seen as a type of retreat or a type of bubble building if you will. However, at their best, monasteries and Christian educational communities are the types of places where there is a strategic withdrawal to prepare its members for service to the greater community. This is similar to the spirit I got from The Benedict Option. Yes, it is the construction of institutions specifically intended for Christians. Nobody doubts that. However, you need to look at the intention of those institutions. If they are focused on organizing for a greater service, then I think they still meet the criteria outlined above. They are not retreating simply for security. They are organizing for greater eventual impact through proper training, discipline and coordination.

Consequently, I know the Christian bubble is a nice place. I know it is a safe place. I know that we like to be comfortable, and we don’t necessarily want to run into challenges that may make us nervous. That being said, there is a real world out there, and people have real questions. My greatest fear for the future of Christianity is that by building too many bubbles, if they are the kind that do not have the organizational intent I referred to in the previous paragraph and are intentionally preparing people for service outside their walls, we weaken our intellectual foundation. That’s not what we want to do. Any bubble we are part of should intentionally prepare its members for life outside the bubble. That does not mean that we cannot have these times of Christian community. They are necessary. I have written that multiple times. However, the extension of these communities is our impact on the world around us, and a large part of that impact is going to be intellectual. People have questions, and we have answers. Let’s make sure we are the type of Christians who don’t become soft from time in our bubble but use the benefit of that community to strengthen ourselves and be prepared to engage outside.

Does Christian Satire Make You Uncomfortable?

I have to tell you that very little on my Facebook feed can make me laugh as much as the content from the Babylon Bee. For those of you who have never heard of it, this is a satirical website that sets its sightson religious and political topics. You know those types of things that you are never supposed to talk about, this website takes on those topics and dares you to laugh at them.

Naturally, I’m sure this makes some people uncomfortable. We are used to laughing at politics, but satirizing Christianity might hit some people a little bit close to home. While I find it hilarious to see them poke fun, I assume that some people are rather offended. They pick on everyone from Joel Osteen to John Piper. No one is immune to a little bit of ribbing, but I have the feeling that there were a lot of people who see this project as damaging the cause of Christ.

In a way, I can kind of appreciate their logic. We all know that the Gospel is serious business. By making fun of certain ministries, I am sure that some people feel like we are maybe alienating other brothers and sisters. They might say that we should try not to do anything that would perhaps damage the reputation of other believers in other ministries. Sure we don’t agree on everything, but some people might see this kind of satire as damaging.

I would like to contend however that not only is it very funny, but I actually think it has a therapeutic effect on the church as a whole.

Good comedy is funny because it is true. Comedians say things that you might think but would never be brave enough to save yourself. They point out the irony that you have thought about but never actually put into words. That’s why it’s funny. While some of the articles from the Babylon Bee are pretty edgy, I would also contend that they are often times diagnosing very real problems in the church itself. For example, here is a classic article from 2017 entitled, “Southern Baptists Announce Crackdown on Fun.” Edgy, sure. Potentially controversial to Southern Baptists, sure. Funny, absolutely (and this from a Baptist no less).

Is it the case that Southern Baptists want to ban all fun? Obviously not. This is satire for crying out loud. However, is it also true that sometimes, particularly Baptist churches (again, I say this as a Baptist), have a tendency to become rather legalistic. Do we like to hear it? Not so much. Is it true? I have to admit that sometimes it is. Satire is funny when we realize that small grain of truth that is being exaggerated.

Recognizing that truth in a way that kind of wakes us up through humor is actually a good thing in my opinion. Have you ever texted someone something and you spelled a word wrong? The funny part is that your phone does not necessarily let you spell a word wrong. You know that it probably AutoCorrected what you said, thinking that it knows what you meant. The results are typically ironically incorrect and often times funny. Your friend who received your message probably wrote something back laughing at you for your error. When your friend wrote back some type of funny remark, you probably smiled when you recognized your typo. Because your friend pointed it out in a lighthearted and humorous way, you weren’t necessarily upset but probably were extra careful to spell everything right the next time.

I think that this kind of satirical correction is similar. We kind of smile at these articles, but we also, if we are honest with ourselves, can see our own legalistic tendencies come to light. I think about those times when perhaps I was following rules, like a Pharisee, that I made up myself and added to the Gospel. Obviously I am not suggesting that we water down the Gospel, but we do quite easily fall into legalism. Sometimes articles like this, through poking fun at us, actually bring about a healthy period of self-reflection and consideration.

Second, I think that we all have a tendency to take ourselves a little bit too seriously. This is related to legalism in a way, but it is not always a bad thing to be able to smile at your own humanity. We can idolize ourselves. We can idolize other people. We can idolize different ministries. None of them deserve our worship. Sometimes a little bit of humor can help us keep things in perspective. We want to worship the One who deserves worship. If we start to put someone else in that spot, if it takes a little bit of humor to help us recognize our or their humanity and other imperfections, then I am okay with that. I know this makes some people uncomfortable. That said, it comes back again to my previous point. Sometimes these things have to be said, and humor is sometimes an effective, less threatening way to help regain perspective.

I think that really is the bottom line here. When we think about this kind of humor, some people take it as the ultimate insult. They see it as demeaning and highly problematic. All that being said, I would suggest that it actually can be helpful. Specifically, it can be helpful when people have a hard time seeing their own shortcomings. If we can laugh at ourselves, it means that we recognize our own faults. That recognition is the first step. Once we have that, we can advance to a point where we ideally address the problem. Sure satire can be done with a cruel tone. It can be done to humiliate someone else. I’m not really huge on that. That said, poking fun at someone I think can be therapeutic. It can help us find out things that are actually true and encourage us to solve those shortcomings. Secondly, it can help us not take ourselves so seriously which we all have a tendency to do. Even if it only does those two things and has no other benefits, I think there is a place for this type of satire, and I am going to remain a loyal reader of the Babylon Bee.

A Christian Looks at Change

I find it fascinating to think about change. Not many of us actually like change if we are entirely honest with ourselves. Some of us are better at dealing with it than others, but it is a little bit nerve-racking because you never really know how it is going to turn out. You really don’t know if it will be better, worse, pretty much the same or an entire train wreck.

The interesting part about change is that we all think we know how it is going to go before it actually happens. We don’t know, but we assume that we know and get nervous based on that assumption. You can already see the potential problem here. It is rather obvious, but it seems so unnatural to us. We understand that it is unreasonable to jump to a conclusion about change. We get that. However, resisting that feeling towards just seems wrong. We feel like it is much more natural to be all worried about change itself. And we feel it is natural because of our assumption that we already know what will happen.

I guess the major question then that we will have to answer is how to develop an appropriate perspective on change. We don’t want to be those people that always assume the worst, but we also don’t want to blindly run into change without any type of perspective or caution. We want to balance reasonability with a healthy degree of optimism. We want to be cautious, but we don’t want to blindly reject all change that could in fact bring about remarkable benefits. It really is a balancing act.

I have a few principles that maybe can help us think about change particularly from a Christian worldview.

First, we always have to consider why we are changing. Sometimes we change just for the sake of change. That’s always a dangerous proposition in my opinion. If we are going to change, we should have a definite direction and a definite reason for moving in that direction. This is not automatically assuming that change is good. However, just like any good road trip, if you start out without any sense of direction, you are going to be lost. If you’re changing for the sake of change and not for a very specific purpose, then I think we ought to be extremely cautious. In fact, I would say that we great deal of skepticism is actually merited. We need to make sure that we are changing for a reason that relates to a genuine problem rather than change in just because we feel the need to do something new or different. Honestly, we often times avoid many problems by simply letting things work that are working well.

That being said, if a particular change seems to be merited and necessary, then we have to consider, specifically as Christians, whether or not the particular direction we are going actually brings honor to God. I know that sounds like a cliché, but let me try to expand on that a little bit more. God created us in a certain way. We are people created in the image of God first and foremost, but we are also very specific people created in the image. You are different than me. As a result, there are ways that you are going to bring glory to God, and there are other ways that I am going to. The consequence of this type of worldview them points us towards where we need to go in God’s plan. There are many times where change is needed. We recognize that. However, because we can move in so many different directions, we need to make sure that the choice we make lines up with God’s will.

There is a challenge for you. It can be hard sometimes to figure out what God actually wants. How many of us have ever felt like we just wanted giant letters in the sky spelling out what we should do? Yeah, we have all been there. We want to know that when faced with change we are actually moving in the direction that God would have us to move. It is not always an issue of our stubbornness or our lack of obedience. Sometimes we really don’t know but really want to know.

What are we to do in these types of situations? How do we follow the will of God when it doesn’t seem all that clear? As a brief hint, He gave us a Book. You may think that I’m taking the easy way out here. You can’t believe that I possibly believe that the answers for living in the way God wants us to are in the Bible, but they really are. There is a great deal of wisdom in those pages. We need to remember that. If we are considering a change, we need to make sure it is something that will honor God. The best way to tell if it is something that will honor God is to find out if it lines up with the principles that God has included in His written revelation to us. If God is everything that Christians say He is, then as a loving God, He is not going to leave us stranded out in the middle of nowhere without assistance. Through the written word or the conviction of the Holy Spirit, there are ways to discover the answers we are looking for. I’m not going to lie and say that it is always immediate or obvious. That would totally be false. That said, if I want to find answers, I know where I have to start from a Christian worldview.

I think the final thing to reflect on when we think about change from a Christian worldview after considering whether or not change is necessary and if the change will bring glory to God is if we are ready to count the cost. When we make a change, we have to stick with that. Sometimes it is easy to reverse a change, and sometimes it is not. I think about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He made choices and changed the direction that his life could have gone. He had the opportunity to avoid all of the danger of Nazi Germany, but he went back. He changed his life in a way that cost him everything, but at the point when he ended up in captivity, his choice was made. He knew the potential cost, he stuck to it and he ultimately had to pay that cost.

I can’t help but think about that in my own life. It is really easy, especially after making a change, to want to run away. Change is hard. We don’t like it. Therefore, we might try to change because we find it necessary and change in the direction that God would have us to go. We might have all that in place, but we don’t like the inconvenience or cost that comes with it. If it is really worth it though, we will persevere through it. If it is really what needs to be done, and in the context of something that God would have us to do, it must be done, then it will be worth it.

Again, let me remind you that really no one likes change. That being said, there are a few things that we have to keep in mind. First, we need to change when it is necessary, but we shouldn’t just change the sake of change. Second, we need to change in the direction that God would have us to go. We have to be discerning and use all resources at our disposal to try to ascertain the will of God even if it seems unclear. Finally, we have to remember that change has a cost, so before change, we have to make sure that we are willing to pay that cost if we have to. I think keeping these three principles of mind will help us take a Christian perspective on change and hopefully become a little better at it then we naturally are.