Andy Bannister reports on a day of delightful partnership in Bristol

Andy Bannister reports on a day of delightful partnership in Bristol
Have you ever wondered why we find loneliness so tough? Whilst we are richer, healthier and better connected, studies show that we are lonelier than ever in our society. But why do we have this deep need for connection with others? Is it just an evolutionary drive, or something deeper? In this episode of Short Answers, we consider why connection is increasingly difficult in our fast-paced world. And how God might fit into this picture…
Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more Short Answers videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.
Short Answers is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.
Twenty years on, I can still remember the palpable sense of excitement as we sat in the packed cinema, the house lights dimmed, and the title card for The Fellowship of the Ring appeared on the screen. A cheer arose from the wildly enthusiastic audience (who had queued for several hours to get into this first screening) as the words of Galadriel (played by Cate Blanchett) solemnly intoned: “The world has changed. I see it in the water. I feel it in the Earth. I smell it in the air.”[1]
I am a massive Tolkien fan and have been ever since my teens and the day I first picked up a copy of The Lord of the Rings in a London bookshop. I still have that battered paperback on my shelf and I love the cover image by the artist John Howe, showing the wizard Gandalf striding across a hillside somewhere in Middle Earth. Since my teens I have continued to re-read The Lord of the Rings most years and I now have the pleasure of introducing it to my children. To further reinforce my fan credentials, I should let you know that I am writing this in a little wooden garden office we have affectionately named Bag End.[2]
Whether or not you’re a Tolkien fan, it’s hard to deny the huge influence upon literature and culture of his books The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, Tolkien has been described as the most influential writer of the twentieth century—whether you measure that by sales (over 600 million copies and showing no sign of slowing), or by the way that Tolkien almost singlehandedly invented the popular fantasy genre.
For a book that is now almost 70 years old, its continuing impact is impressive. The six films based on The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit have grossed over $6 billion whilst the new spin-off series, The Rings of Power cost Amazon $750 million, making it the most expensive TV series in history. All of this for a book written with almost no sense of commercial awareness—in the case of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien’s publisher had asked him to write another children’s book as a follow-up to The Hobbit. Tolkien went away and wrote for the next 12 years before finally delivering a thousand-page manuscript entirely unlike anything that had ever been written before. No wonder the publisher’s initial reaction was panic!
Given how utterly uncommercial The Lord of the Rings was, what explains its incredible success and cultural influence? It must be something more than just good storytelling, good writing, good luck, or a sufficient supply of nerds to sustain an industry. Professor Tom Shippey, a world expert on Tolkien, catches something significant when he observes:
“The Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit, have said something important, and meant something important, to a high proportion of their millions of readers. All but the professionally incurious might well ask, what? Is it something timeless? Is it something contemporary? Is it (and it is) both at once?”[3]
So what was it? I want to suggest that Tolkien said some incredibly important things about two of the most important questions that we face: namely the question of evil and the question of hope. What Tolkien discovered was that fantasy, far from being escapist, was a brilliant way to get us thinking about these themes without realising that we are thinking about them.
THE QUESTION OF EVIL
J.R. R. Tolkien was one of a generation of “traumatized writers” who lived through the horrors of the First World War, an experience that was utterly psychological devastating. In his first year of service as a soldier he fought in the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest battles of the war, and Tolkien would later observe:
“By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead”.[4]
The first World War (and later, the Second World War) shattered the naïve belief that many people had nurtured that the world was getting progressively better and that humans were (on the whole) pretty good and decent. Yet in both world wars, monstrosities were carried out by both sides, often by people who believed that the ends justified the means.
We need little reminding of the dreadful reality of human wickedness today. Whether it’s Putin waging war in Europe, the Chinese ethnically cleansing the Uighurs and Tibetans, human trafficking on an imaginable scale, civil wars ripping many countries apart, and, closer to home, Western societies increasingly vicious and tribalized, with new technologies like social media offering us new ways to be mean and beastly, it is clear that something is sick at the heart of humanity.
Tolkien certainly thought so and he considered most of the “answers” he heard about evil to be weak and unhelpful. And so he chose to explore the nature of evil and its effect on us through the medium of one of his most famous creations, the Ring.
The first thing to note are the temptations that the Ring offers to the characters in the story. It offers the power to overcome death (think of Sauron himself, or Gollum, or Bilbo to whom the Ring had given unnaturally long life). This temptation is ever present today, especially in a secular age where for many people staying alive is the only thing that matters. We’re terrified of death, hiding it away behind hospital doors or attempting to “solve” it with technological solutions such as euthanasia.
The Ring also tempts with the power of invisibility—the ability to do whatever one wishes with no fear of being seen. Again, there are echoes in our contemporary age with the tendency for many of us to behave more viciously on social media where we can hide behind the veil of anonymity.
Lastly, perhaps the greatest temptation of the Ring is the power to coerce the will of others, bending them to serve your ambitions, schemes, and designs. The contemporary examples of that temptation are too many to list—whether it’s manipulative politicians, vast media empires spinning their fabrics of half-truths, or closer to home, the tendency we all have in this identity driven age to make everything about me and my desires. As the famous nineteenth-century atheist Friedrich Nietzsche remarked, when you reject God, all that is left is the “will to power”.[5]
Yet Tolkien didn’t merely illustrate the temptations that are whispered in all our ears, but through the Ring explored the idea of creeping corruption, the insidious way that most humans do not become monstrous overnight, but through a repeated series of poor choices, risk becoming ever more twisted. Think of characters like Bilbo (who asks Frodo to let him have a “little peep” at the Ring and then in Frodo’s eyes becomes “a little wrinkled creature with a hungry face and bony groping hands”;[6] or Isildur (who refuses to destroy the Ring when he has the chance); or Boromir (who tries to take the Ring from Frodo by force because he thinks it can be used as a weapon against the enemy); or Gollum, or even Frodo himself. Tolkien repeatedly shows us that evil has an addictive quality—that though we think a little dabbling with it is harmless, each time we do so, it becomes easier to give in the next time, until ultimately evil overwhelms us, like the Ringwraiths in The Lord of the Rings, who freely chose the gifts of Sauron but ended up utterly consumed.
In J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, Tom Shippey points out that historically there have been two major views of evil.[7] The first view is that evil does not “exist”, but is simply the absence of good; for example those bits of my psychology that are perhaps a bit deficient. The problem with this view is it can lead to naivety (“All I need is a bit of positive thinking or some self-help”). The other ancient view is that evil is a thing, it actually exists, and is deadly serious. The problem here is that it can easily lead to a sense of superiority over others (“I’m okay because I’m a good person; not like those people.”).
Throughout The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien plays with the idea that there are elements of truth in both those views; for example, consider the scene in Bag End where Gandalf asks Frodo to give him the Ring for a moment. Frodo goes to hand it to the wizard and we’re told that:
“It suddenly felt very heavy, as if either it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.”[8]
But which is it? Is evil an actual thing—in which case the Ring is heavy because it is evil, imbued with the spirit of its master, Sauron, and it does not want Gandalf to handle it. Or is evil a mere absence, a shadow, an inner psychological weakness—in which case it is Frodo who does not really wish to hand it over.
Tolkien plays with these two aspects of evil throughout the book and not because he was sitting on the fence, but because he believed that both views of evil had something going for them, yet neither is sufficient. And he believed this because he was a committed Christian and his Christian faith was deeply embedded into the structures of The Lord of the Rings. As Tolkien wrote to a friend:
“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision … the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”[9]
As a Christian, one of the things with which Tolkien would have been very familiar was the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer that Jesus taught his followers and which is prayed regularly by billions of Christians around the world in church services and private devotions. Two of the lines of that prayer run like this:
Lead us not into temptation;
But deliver us from evil;[10]
That prayer seems to recognise that we need help with two things when it comes to evil—first, we need protecting from ourselves; second, we need help from the evil outside. Tolkien wove both those ideas into The Lord of the Rings and indeed in the key scene of the final book, they come to a climax. For on the very brink of the Cracks of Doom, when Frodo makes the decision not to destroy the Ring, the age-old question arises—is this Frodo’s own internal decision, or has the evil force of the Ring overpowered him? Tom Shippey came across a letter from Tolkien in which he comments that the scene at the Cracks of the Doom was deliberately designed to unpack the Lord’s Prayer as a “fairy-story exemplum”.[11]
Is evil internal or external? The Lord of the Rings would remind us that the answer is both—and that we are wholly naïve if we think we are not affected by evil, nor that we need help in overcoming both the evil out there as well as the evil within. Indeed, as another “traumatized writer”, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, reminds us:
“The line between good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through the middle of every human heart and through all human hearts.”[12]
THE QUESTION OF HOPE
Given a world in which real evil exists—an insidious, creeping evil that can tempt and overpower even the very good, what should our response be? This question leads to the second major theme of The Lord of the Rings, the question of hope.
There is a strong contrast running throughout Tolkien’s book concerning those who have given up all hope and those who, no matter the odds, still choose hope over despair when confronted by evil. On the side of those who have given up, one thinks of the wizard Saruman, who explains his choice to side with Sauron because:
“A new power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all … This then is the one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power … Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it.”[13]
Or consider the tragic figure of Denethor, the Steward of Gondor, who because of the death of his son, the lies that Sauron has been feeding him, and the fear of the battle that lies ahead, has wholly given into despair—a downward spiral that in the end costs him his life.
However, by way of contrast, we have King Théoden (who has also lost a son) who declares that even though they will probably be defeated, he will still lead his calvary in a final charge against the massed ranks of Mordor. Similarly there is Aragorn, at the Black Gates, leading the remains of his army into what appears to be a suicide mission but doing it “for Frodo”. Or Boromir, giving his life in a last stand against the Orcs despite the overwhelming odds. Or the Elves, for over a thousand years fighting what Galadriel calls “the long defeat”,[14] knowing that their time is ending, but nevertheless still opting to choose hope over despair. Repeatedly throughout The Lord of the Rings, the heroes make choices with catastrophic personal consequences because they believe that it is the right thing to do.
You will recall that Tolkien had lived through two world wars and had experienced leaders who had chosen to capitulate in the face of evil; think of Neville Chamberlain and his naive attempts to negotiate “peace in our time” with Hitler. Or so-called “neutral” countries during WWII, like Sweden, which turned a blind eye to evil in return for which the Nazis would leave them alone. Tolkien had little time for the idea that faced with overwhelming evil, the best thing to do was keep your head down, or surrender to despair.
Yet this is all very well, you may ask, but what if the odds are truly overwhelming? If the Swedes had resisted Hitler, wouldn’t they have been conquered? What if a Putin-like mad man really did hover his finger over the red button saying, “Allow me to do what I want, or I flick the switch?” Since he was a young man, Tolkien had loved the tales of Norse mythology which are fascinating because like so many mythologies and religious beliefs, end with a climactic battle between good and evil. But in that mythology, the forces of evil won and history ended with Ragnarök, the destruction of the gods.
Tolkien thought a lot about the issues this idea raised: if you knew that evil was going to win, should you just pick the winning side? Should you align with Mordor, switch over to Putin, side with the Nazis? Or was the right thing to do to fight for good, even if you knew that you were going to lose? Tolkien believed that courage meant that it was: as Sam Gamgee puts it powerfully in the movie version of The Two Towers:
“It’s like in the great stories, Mr Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? … [But] there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”
NO NAÏVE ANSWERS
Although Tolkien was a deeply committed Christian, this did not lead him to write naïve answers to life’s toughest questions into The Lord of the Rings. Sometimes Christians are caricatured as being tempted to simplistic “it’ll all be right in the end” answers, but Tolkien refused to go that route in his epic novel. However, as he wrote in a letter to a friend:
“I am a Christian … so I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’—though it contains some samples or glimpses of final victory.”[15]
And such glimpses of final victory can likewise be seen within The Lord of the Rings. For example, there are numerous hints of the idea of resurrection (for example Tom Bombadil’s command to the barrow-wight to go ‘where the gates are ever shut, till the world is mended’).[16] Even more powerfully, there is the concept of eucatastrophe, a word coined by Tolkien as the antithesis to ‘catastrophe’ to describe the way that just when things seem their very bleakest, sometimes it turns out that Providence is working something very different behind the scenes. Think of the moment where the armies of Gondor are about to be defeated at the Gates of Mordor whilst simultaneously at the Cracks of Doom all equally seems lost (Frodo has failed and Gollum has recaptured the Ring, only at that very moment to fall over the cliff, plummeting to his and the Ring’s destruction, thus bringing about the end of Sauron’s power). As Tolkien wrote in his essay ‘On Fairy Stories’:
“[Eucatastrophe] denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium [=good news], giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.”[17]
Tolkien was not willing to merely repeat the Christian story, nor to construct a simple allegory (a medium he said he was not fond of) but he scatters hints and pointers to the Christian story throughout The Lord of the Rings—from themes such as evil and courage, or self-sacrifice and self-denial, or joy and hope.[18] Indeed, it is surely no accident that Aragorn, the “king” in The Return of the King also bears an Elvish name, Estel,[19] which means “hope”—a pointer to the return of the true and greater king whose return is our only hope in the face of evil.
Why has The Lord of the Rings had such enduring power? Because Tolkien understood not merely that great stories can be truly captivating, but that the most captivating stories derive their power from the extent to which they foreshadow, hint at, and point to the greatest story of all—the story of the Jesus and his ultimate defeat of evil that has all the greater power because it is true.[20]
[1] In the book, those words are spoken by Treebeard the Ent, in the chapter ‘Many Partings’ in The Return of the King.
[2] I wanted to call it Rivendell but my nine-year old daughter, who possesses the gifts of sarcasm and honesty in equal amounts, remarked: “Daddy, Rivendell was the home of the elves, who were six-foot tall and blonde. You’re short and grey. You need a hobbit-y name.” And so Bag End it was.
[3] Tom Shippey, J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century (London: HarperCollins, 2000) p. xxvi. I owe many of the observations in this essay to Shippey.
[4] J. R. R. Tolkien, ‘Foreword to the Second Edition’, The Lord of the Rings.
[5] This is a concept that Nietzsche used repeatedly, initially in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883). See also Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (1901).
[6] ‘Many Meetings’, The Fellowship of the Ring.
[7] Shippey, Tolkien, p. 128ff.
[8] ‘The Shadow of the Past’, The Fellowship of the Ring.
[9] Humphrey Carpenter, ed., The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), p. 172.
[10] Matthew 6:13.
[11] Shippey, Tolkien, p.142.
[12] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956 (New York: HarperCollins, 2002) p.75.
[13] ‘The Council of Elrond’, The Fellowship of the Ring.
[14] ‘The Mirror of Galadriel’, The Fellowship of the Ring.
[15] J. R. R. Tolkien, ‘From a letter to Amy Ronald 15 December 1956’, Humphrey Carpenter & Christopher Tolkien (editors), The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (London: George, Allen & Unwin, 1981).
[16] ‘Fog on the Barrow Downs’, The Fellowship of the Ring. See too the discussion in Shippey, Tolkien, p.178.
[17] J. R. R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories (London: HarperCollins, 2014 [1947]) p.75.
[18] It is worth noting that when one consults the chronology of The Lord of the Rings found in appendix B of The Return of the King, one discovers that Tolkien has aligned his story with the key dates of the Christian story; for the Fellowship depart from Rivendell on Christmas Day, December 25th, and the Ring is destroyed on March 25th, the traditional date of Easter in the Old English calendar.
[19] See Appendix A, part V, The Return of the King.
[20] This was a point that J. R. R. Tolkien made to C. S. Lewis and was instrumental in the latter’s conversion; see Justin Taylor, ‘85 Years Ago Today: J. R. R. Tolkien Convinces C. S. Lewis That Christ Is the True Myth’, The Gospel Coalition, 20 September 2016, bit.ly/3GrDwUf.
It was great to travel to the Channel Island of Jersey, for a few days of ministry in churches, schools and out in the community. I also had the opportunity to lead the first ever Solas Confident Christianity conference on the island. About 35-40 people from three or four different churches came together for the event, based in St Helier, the island’s capital.
As usual, “How to talk about Jesus without looking like an idiot” was my opening session at Confident Christianity – and that is because it looks at the way that Jesus himself communicated, and I invited people to learn from him. Then we went into a session called “Good God / Bad World: Why Does A Loving God Permit Suffering?” That will always be a key subject to address, as it so often comes up in evangelism. One of the things we looked at there was learning to speak with pastoral sensitivity; not just intellectual or philosophical credibility when answering questions in this area. “What’s so unique about Jesus” – was our final session. It’s another really important subject to tackle in our context today as we share the gospel in a pluralistic world with competing truth-claims.
After some discussion-time there was the usual Q&A, which was (as is so often the case) a highlight of these events. Chatting to several of the people there during coffee breaks and at the end, it became clear that they had never been to an event of this kind before – and they weren’t aware of anything like it ever having been held on the island either. It felt that we were genuinely breaking new ground there, because while individual Christians in the fairly small church community there, have been active in sharing their faith; they hadn’t gathered together to get better equipped and trained and to encourage each other in evangelism. Having done a half-day Confident Christianity conference the churches have invited me back in 18 months time, because they think that a bigger event in the Spring/Summer for churches across the whole island will be worthwhile for them.
The connection between Solas and the St Helier churches began in the middle of 2020 – which as you probably remember was the middle of lockdown. I was contacted by Simon Lewis, who is a Maths teacher at Jersey College for Girls. They had come across our Short Answers videos, and had been using them in school’s Christian Union group. So, Simon emailed me and asked if I’d be willing to do an event for them online. The idea was not just go beyond showing our videos, and give the students the opportunity to interact with the content and ask questions. I was delighted to help them with that, and then subsequently received an invitation to visit the island in person. He sounded surprised that I said I would love to. One of the privileges of working for Solas is that I do get to see some wonderful places, meet great people, see what the churches are doing and be a resource for them too.
So it was great to be In Jersey, to make friends and work with the churches there. I look forward to being able to go back.
If you have friends, colleagues or neighbours from Muslim backgrounds, this episode is for you! There are incredible opportunities in our own diverse society to interact with followers of Islam. What are some of the best ways to introduce them to Jesus? Andy and Kristi have a guest from Australia with some helpful advice.
Richard Shumack is a philosopher of religion who is fascinated by how and why people hold their religious beliefs. He is the Director of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam, at Melbourne School of Theology and, with his wife Judy, is on the pastoral team at Springwood Presbyterian Church in the NSW Blue Mountains. His research specialty is certainty and doubt in religious belief, and he is the author of “Jesus Through Muslim Eyes”, and the philosophical apologetic “The Wisdom of Islam and the Foolishness of Christianity”. He loves Australian football, golf, eating curries, and making and playing acoustic guitars.
The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.
As part of my mission trip to the Isle of Jersey we did some schools work, and a Confident Christianity conference.However the church in St Helier wanted a complete set of Solas events and so set they up an outreach event too. That was really encouraging because when we travel to a town, village (or island!) to do Confident Christianity, we love having the opportunity to do some evangelism there too. In fact, increasingly when churches invite us to do training events we ask them to include some direct evangelism in the programme while we are with them, too.
The church in Jersey was very up for this challenge so they found a good neutral venue and booked it. The used a nice hotel not far from the church building which had a lovely medium-sized function room in it and hosted an early evening event there. Late evening functions usually involve a dinner, but starting at 6:00PM meant that they only had to provide lighter refreshments for the 50-60 people who came and filled the venue.
There were probably more Christians than non-Christian guests there for this one. There were some questions in the Q&A which were clearly from seekers though, which meant that it was worthwhile in terms of the purpose of the event. These type of things work best when the audience is at least 50% non-Christian, and the church there are already talking about how they can repeat the event but also diversify the audience a bit more next time too.
I spoke on my favourite non-cheerful topic, “Pain, Pandemics and Putin: Where Is Hope to be Found?”. The point of that talk is to do a big “compare and contrast” exercise. Given the rubbish going on in the world, is there any hope? On atheism, ultimately we’re all doomed – it is a very depressing world-view. Interestingly of course you can’t actually judge Putin credibly either. So you have a double problem, (a)– we’re all doomed and (b)- you have no basis for morality, because you’ve reduced it all to personal preferences. Christianity offers an answer to both those things, it both grounds morality and offers hope. But you have to be careful with those things – because it does not mean that our message is “become a Christian and all your problems will immediately be solved”, rather that in this world with all its many problems – hope can be found. Real hope is grounded in Jesus Christ, which 1 Peter describes as, “this sure and certain hope”.
The Q&A time was interesting too. One particularly important question took our evening into considering the uniqueness of Jesus. Obviously the questioner had agreed with what I shared about the inadequacies of the atheist worldview but wondered if all religions could solve the problem equally well. That allowed me to talk about why I think Jesus is uniquely the saviour.
The organisers seemed to be really pleased with the way the evening had gone and were already talking about “the next time we do one of these” on the night! What encouraged me is that it shows that the format works. If you go into those ‘neutral spaces’ people will come and engage. We sometimes ask Christians to imagine how uncomfortable you might feel going into a mosque to observe Friday prayers – and then realise that that is how a lot of non-Christian people can feel walking into a church. But that doesn’t mean that they are not interested in Jesus, the gospel, or the big questions of life, or that they wouldn’t happily step into a café, hotel or curry house to listen to a talk and ask questions.
Q&A is an important part of these evangelistic events too – we always encourage churches to include it in their outreach. Firstly a lot of people think that Christians involved in evangelism would rather bash them with a Bible than have a respectful conversation, which involves listening as well as speaking. So it’s important to allow people to change the subject from your talk and ask any question they want, or to push-back and disagree with an element of the talk if they want to as well. It puts people at their ease to know that their questions and views are welcome. Secondly, a talk like “Pain, Pandemics and Putin” really only opens up the whole issue of God and suffering – and Q&A invites people to respond to the way that they have been affected by pain and suffering, in ways that can’t be addressed in a short talk. Then it is really important to show people that we take their questions seriously and then to model ways of answering them which demonstrate compassion and show Christ by the way in which we answer, as much as in the content of the answers. Asking people’s names as they raise questions, never getting frustrated with awkward lines of questioning – are all important in this regard.
Starting to introduce Q&A into your outreach ministry can be very difficult if it is not something that you’ve been used to doing. It can be incredibly daunting at first, in fact. I’m a big believer that anyone can do it with a bit of practice, and if you are a pastor or leader why not take the radical step of introducing this within church, before you take it out as an evangelistic tool. One way to do that is to take questions at the end of a sermon, perhaps once a month. Allow people to text their questions in so that they have the anonymity to ask questions they might not freely do from the floor. Then do the same with the young people’s group, before trying a “sceptics night” when you invite people in to ask their questions. It’s amazing how quickly you can pick Q&A answering up. Of course, you need to know that one person can’t know all the answers so it’s OK to say when you don’t know or to say that you need to go away and do some research about something and get back to them.
So we were really grateful to the church In Jersey for setting all this up for their community and inviting us to participate in their gospel ministry.
Whether it’s people trashing one another on social media, or celebrities writing no-holds-barred autobiographies attacking all those who have wronged them, our culture is ever more judgemental. Likewise when we’re personally wronged; it’s easy to feel anger and wrath, much harder to forgive. But why is forgiveness so difficult to find — whether it’s offering it or receiving it? And does an increasingly secular age have a growing problem with forgiveness?
Please share this video widely with friends or family and for more Short Answers videos, visit solas-cpc.org/shortanswers/, subscribe to our YouTube channel or visit us on Twitter Instagram or Facebook.
Short Answers is a viewer-supported video series: if you enjoy them, please help us continue to make them by donating to Solas. Visit our Donate page and choose “Digital Media Fund” under the Campaign/Appeal button.
Who would you expect to have written the following words?
‘We need to re-erect the social guard rails that have been torn down. And in order to do that, we have to start by stating the obvious. Sex must be taken seriously. Men and women are different. Consent is not enough. Violence is not love. Loveless sex is not empowering. People are not products. Marriage is good’ (p.189).
An evangelical pastor like me? Some reactionary right-wing politician? Probably not a self-declared feminist writer and columnist for the UK’s left-leaning New Statesman called Louise Perry. But she writes these words as part of the conclusion to her provocative and persuasive book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century.
Perry is a feminist with a powerful case to make: that the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s and since has most benefited men, not women. With sex and sexuality as her focus, she argues that:
‘We have smoothly transitioned from one form of feminine subservience to another, but we pretend that this one is liberation’ (p.20).
She helps make her case by comparing quotes from a 1950s home economics textbook (focused on wives serving their husbands domestically) to those from contemporary women’s magazines (all about women today serving their men sexually). She continually draws on personal experiences, cultural events, multiple voices, and academic research to back up her central argument that the sexual revolution has cost women dearly. Her most persuasive chapters are those that tragically expose how increasing cultural promotion and acceptance of BDSM and pornography have warped male sexualities and led to more and more sexual violence towards women.
It is hard to pinpoint which part of the book will most appal the liberal feminists that are so often the target of her criticisms. Her insistence that men and women are different in their sexual desires and needs may be the most inflammatory in a culture in which any such differences are denied and women are often encouraged to behave more like men sexually. But her promotion of monogamous marriage might provoke more as she writes words like these:
‘The task for practically minded feminists, then, is to deter men from the cad mode [a cad is a man who treats a woman badly or unfairly]. Our current sexual culture does not do that, but it could. In order to change the incentive structure, we would need a technology that discourages short-termism in male sexual behaviour, protects the economic interests of mothers, and creates a stable environment for the raising of children. And we do already have such a technology, even if it is old, clunky and prone to periodic failure. It’s called monogamous marriage’ (p.181).
The appeal to the Christian reader in such arguments is obvious. Indeed, if anyone wanted to make a feminist-friendly argument in favour of Christian sexual ethics and understanding of marriage this book will do the job for you. I personally found it a massive encouragement to read a secular book that made the case so powerfully and persuasively for our cultural moment. If you’ve ever found yourself doubting the goodness of biblical teaching in these areas, this is a book whose main arguments will massively reassure you.
But, most of all, this book challenges our contemporary cultures – both secular and Christian – to mount a counter-revolution that doesn’t return us to the 1950s, but which seeks to build a world in which sex and sexuality are expressed in ways that allow both women and men to flourish – without harming each other.
This article first appeared at LivingOut here and is kindly republished with their permission.
Ed Shaw is the pastor of Emmanual
The book is available in many onlien shops including Amazon and Waterstones.
Atheist commentator Ian Dunt was not impressed with the funeral of Her Majesty Quuen Elizabeth II. What particulalry irked him was the use of Christian language, prayers, preaching and promises of eternal life, which he derided as “empty and platitudinous”. Andy Bannister disagreed with Ian, and so Justin Brierley invited them both onto his programme to discuss the issue. In this highly informative and good natured conversation the two world views of Christianity and Atheism are examined and contrasted.
Solas is often involved helping Christian Union groups at universities across the UK, as they put on evangelistic events and missions. It is a privilege to answer questions from students and help them think through aspects of the gospel message. Today we’re joined by someone involved full-time in student ministry, to hear about the questions, opportunities and priorities found in the student world.
Naomi Brehm is a UCCF Staff Worker in the North East of England, supporting the Christian Unions in Durham and Hartlepool. She studied a Physics Masters degree at Durham University, trained with OCCA The Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and now loves helping students to discuss big questions and explore faith for the first time.
The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.
Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray—
I woke. The dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.-
-Charles Wesley[1]
Macbeth knew that his wife, famously plagued with a guilty conscience, could be delivered only by some “sweet . . . antidote” that would wipe away the “perilous stuff that weighs upon her heart.” That antidote is the forgiveness of God. You will never be able to fully forgive others for their sins against you unless you first experience God’s forgiveness of your sins against him. Our guilt must be dealt with if we are to deal rightly with others’ guilt.
The Problem of Self- Forgiveness
It is common for counsellors to hear people say, “Yes, I asked for God’s forgiveness. But the problem is . . . I can’t forgive myself.” There is a large industry of self-help books and many kinds of therapy that attempt to help people with self-forgiveness. The vertical dimension— the relationship to God—is left out completely, and guilt is seen as strictly to be dealt with on the internal and horizontal levels.
The main ideas of self-forgiveness therapy include: (a) asking for forgiveness from anyone you’ve wronged, (b) taking responsibility for what you have done wrong, but then (c) learning lessons from the event, (d) being as compassionate to yourself as you would be to others, and finally (e) then moving on with life, accepting yourself.
While individual steps mentioned can be helpful, the overall approach falls short. We struggle to know if what we did really was wrong, and secular approaches have no way to help anyone judge between true guilt and false guilt feelings. Also, many have asked forgiveness of other human beings—they have done all required of them—but still can’t rid themselves of guilt and shame.[2]
How do we respond to someone who says, “I cannot forgive myself”? Modernity has declared that we are our own highest authorities. Gail Sheehy’s bestseller Passages spells this out as a foundational rule of life. You “find yourself” only as you free yourself from all other institutional claims and from all other people’s agendas and approval. Relationships should be tentative and engaged only as long as they support your chosen identity and interests. We alone can validate ourselves or judge whether something is good or bad. No one else has the right to tell us who we are or judge us by their standards.[3]
But what happens then when the self is weighed down in guilt nonetheless? No outside agent has the power to overturn the sanctions that the self inflicts upon itself. Who has the right to tell the modern self, “Your evaluation of yourself is all wrong”? The Bible reveals the core of this problem: “If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts” (1 John 3:20).
Here is the essence of what Christianity gives us. Only God is the final judge of who we are and what we have done. If—and only if—he is, then God can overrule our heart’s guilt and self-condemnation. If he says we are forgiven, then we are, and we can tell our hearts to quiet themselves. The secular framework, however, has nothing to give the wounded con science to heal it. It has nothing to say to the self who feels it is unworthy of love and forgiveness. Anyone who has seen the depths of their sin and what they are capable of will never be mollified by the bromide of “Be nice to yourself—you deserve it.”
In his book, Radical Self-Forgiveness, Colin Tipping sees the limits of a wholly secular approach and so incorporates Eastern mysticism. Tipping advises us to look at our life in a framework of reincarnation and karma. We are souls that exist in the present life to experience many things that will educate us for better practice in future lives. In this worldview, all things that happen to us and all things we do to others, even wrongdoing, are lessons we learn in order to grow through many lifetimes into perfection and bliss. To achieve self-forgiveness, we tell ourselves: “While I remain accountable for what I do in the human world, in purely spiritual terms nothing wrong ever happens.”[4]
Tipping deals with sin not by absolving it but by minimizing it. This is deeply unsatisfying because we know intuitively that the evils committed here are indeed evils. Christianity does not minimize the wrongness of sin yet still provides a powerful antidote for guilt.
The “sweet antidote” that Macbeth yearned for does exist. It is divine forgiveness. But to experience divine forgiveness requires making a crucial distinction—between true and false guilt. After doing this, it requires turning to God.
True and False Guilt
There are two kinds of guilty people. Some people should feel guilty for their deeds because some things are objectively evil and the perpetrators are guilty regardless of their beliefs and feelings about the deed. But we recognize another group of people who have inordinate guilt feelings that seem too great in proportion to the deed.
There are true guilt feelings and false guilt feelings, and a person who “cannot forgive themselves” must start by determining whether their guilt is warranted or not.
At this point Christianity is of enormous help. The only way to discern true from false guilt is if you have a standard by which to do so. In one of Jesus’s many critiques of the religious leaders of the day, he says, “You experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them” (Luke 11:46; cf. Mark 7:11–13). Jesus is referring to “the heavy weight of religious duties added to the law which burden the people . . . [and make them] devastated because of their failure to . . . please God.”[5] Jesus here shows that, while people should feel guilty if they violate the law of God—murdering, stealing, committing adultery—they should not feel guilty for failures to keep all the numerous, legalistic, man-made religious rules added to that.
Jesus’s distinction and warning can also apply to those who are part of legalistic religious bodies. They too can be racked with false guilt, because their culture or community or family or their own selves put unrealistic burdens on them. So the first step in helping someone with guilt is to ask if it is truly a violation of the will and Word of God. [6]
Nevertheless, making this distinction is not always simple. There are situations in which true and false guilt are intertwined in complex ways.
Many of us are wracked with guilt because we have said yes to so many people and then we find we don’t have time in the day or the week to do it all. On the one hand, you should keep your promises and be true to your word (Matthew 5:37; Proverbs 11:3, 20:25). But it is not God who has given you more than you can do—it is you yourself who have done that. You must not feel guilty for not being able to do all people request for you to do. You are only duty bound to do what God asks you to do in his Word.
What about the driver whose laughter at a joke on the radio causes a momentary lapse in attention, leading to an accident that seriously injures people? The driver’s guilt will be overwhelming. Yet there was no great moral lapse or violation of a law or rule. “It could have happened to anyone,” say the driver’s friends, rightly, but it doesn’t help him. There is certainly some warrant for regret that he was not driving more carefully and slowly, but his guilt, by using God’s Word as a standard, is disproportionate. A counsellor will have to help him see that if he is emotionally debilitated by this for years, or, worse, he will be only compounding the tragedy. Instead, he should secure God’s forgiveness for his lack of circumspection and then rely on the loving support of others who reinforce God’s acceptance of him.
Another example under this heading is “survivor’s guilt.” Many soldiers who lost comrades in arms in war survived and came home alive. But instead of feeling relief and peace, they find themselves filled with guilt. Why were they spared? This guilt, I think, comes because they know they were not more brave or skilful or virtuous than their deceased friends and yet somehow they feel they ought to have been. Again, the only way to deal with this understandable but persistent guilt is to look to the Word of God. It is God who determines why, in his plan, some people get sick and die in their twenties, or die in battle, and others continue to live on. There should be no guilt in that.
The distinction between true guilt and false guilt feelings is a crucial one to make. Why? Because time will not heal true guilt. There are absolute moral norms embedded in the universe, and your soul, made in the image of God, senses them (Romans 1:18–20, 2:14–16). The only way to deal with true guilt is to take it to the grace and mercy of God. On the other hand moral effort and prayer will not heal false guilt. The only way to deal with false guilt is to take it to the will of God and understand it, in light of his Word.
Taking Your Guilt to God
What, then, do you do with real guilt? There is no better place to look for an answer than Psalm 51, perhaps the most famous prayer of confession in the entire Bible.
Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. (Psalm 51:1–2)
The occasion for this prayer of David is described in the heading. He had an extramarital affair with Bathsheba, had her husband killed, and then took her as his wife. God exposed David’s sin to the world through the prophet Nathan. Then he began to pray.
What if I told you that, no matter how much you had blown up your life, there was a way to get through it? That way is what the Bible calls repentance, and repentance is a process. What does Psalm 51 teach us about it?
It teaches us that there are three things we must stop doing, two things we must start doing, and finally one thing to receive.
The Counterfeits of Repentance— Blame Shifting
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:3–5)
There is a true repentance that is “unto life” (Acts 11:18, KJV), that brings strength, freedom, and peace, but according to the Bible there is also false repentance, a sorrow or remorse that may masquerade as repentance but “brings death” (2 Corinthians 7:10)—brings frustration, continuing guilt, and despair. There are things that look like life giving, guilt removing repentance but are not.
One counterfeit is blame shifting. “I’m sorry, but you know it really wasn’t my fault.” But real repentance takes full responsibility for your sin. One way to shift blame is to justify our sin. The seventeenth century writer Thomas Brooks called it “painting sin with virtue’s colors.”[7] We look at ourselves and say, “I’m not greedy, I’m just thrifty”; “I’m not proud, just assertive”; “I don’t drink too much, I’m just the life of the party”; “I’m not abrasive, I just ‘tell it like it is.’”
Another way is to shift responsibility. “I wouldn’t have had an affair if you had been a better spouse.” “I shouldn’t have said that, but she provoked me. Anyone would have done the same.” “I’ve suffered a lot; I think I deserved this.”
A third form of blame shifting is insisting that the accuser is exaggerating. “Okay, that was wrong, but you are being far too sensitive.” “Sure, I probably shouldn’t have done that—but remember back when you did this other thing? That was terrible. Now stop pointing to me.”
The Bible’s opening scene shows the deadliness of blame shifting— Eve blaming the serpent, Adam blaming Eve and even God (“the woman you gave me”) for what they did. We can only begin to deal with our guilt when blame shifting ends. David prays, “You are right in your verdict, and justified when you judge” (Psalm 51:4). There isn’t the slightest effort to diminish responsibility. There are no excuses. True repentance looks its own responsibility full in the face and says to God, “In all that has happened to us, you have remained righteous . . . while we acted wickedly” (Nehemiah 9:33). There is no note of blaming God for being too harsh. There is no hint of blaming circumstances or anyone else for the sin. Only when there is no longer pretence or evasion can the conscience be cleared.
In light of what he has done, David adds a remarkable insight about his own heart: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Is David merely speaking about the classic doctrine of “original sin”—namely, that all human beings are sinful in their inward nature? Probably, but David’s concern here is not to teach theology. He is being much more personal.
David sees a family resemblance between the common sins of his youth and murder. He sees that they were not two radically different things. In the right circumstances, the capacity for cruelty that comes from self-assertion and self-centeredness in every person’s heart can, if nourished properly, become murder. It comes from the same seed.
In the popular BBC series Broadchurch, the mystery is who in this lovely little seaside town could have murdered a boy. The local detective, Ellie Miller, is dubious that anyone from the town could have done it. This is a tight knit community of good people. “We don’t have these problems,” she says. In response, Detective Inspector Alec Hardy argues with her.
Hardy: “Anybody’s capable of murder, given the right circumstances.”
Miller: “Most people have moral compasses.”
Hardy: “Compasses break.”[8]
The fictional detective inspector is telling us exactly what the Bible says at this point. You must not be in denial about your capacity for evil. You will do some really bad things in your life that will utterly shock you unless you get hold of this particular truth from the Bible. Blame shifting is therefore one of the most dangerous things you can do.
Here is the language of a repentant heart: “Yes, Lord, I have been mistreated, and I’ve had troubles, but I did not react to these conditions as I should have. It is my own sin that is the reason I am miserable today. I take full responsibility!” Repentance begins where blame shifting ends.
The Counterfeits of Repentance— Self- Pity
Another counterfeit is self-pity. “I really made a mess of my life!” But real repentance involves grief over sin itself and the offense and grief it is to God. False repentance is sorrow over the consequences of the sin and the trouble it has caused you. David has just wronged Bathsheba by using his kingly power to have an affair with her, a married woman, and has wronged Uriah, her husband, by having him killed. He also betrayed his people’s trust in him as king by abusing his power. Yet David says to God, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight” (Psalm 51:4).
How can he say that?
David’s statement is not primarily a piece of theological teaching—it is literally a cri de coeur. The doubling of a word in Hebrew indicates intensity of emotion—passion, longing, and love. His heart is breaking as he realizes what he has done he has done to the God who anointed him as king, saved him over and over again from the hands of a jealous King Saul, and installed him as the king of Israel.
David certainly is not saying that he did not sin against Uriah and Bathsheba, but rather that his sin against God—the God to whom he owes literally everything—was foundational to it all. David recognized that his sin against God was the cause of his sin against all the others. Martin Luther, in his Large Catechism, argues that you never harm others (commandments five through ten) without breaking the first commandment—“Have no other gods before me.” So if you lie in order to make money, then you have made money more important than God, a greater love, at that moment. If you lie in order to protect your reputation, you have done the same thing.
David grasps this. This concentration on our sin against God is the opposite of self-pity. Wallowing in self-pity may appear to be repentance, but it is not. When our wrongdoing brings down real world problems on our head, we cry, “I wish I hadn’t done that!” But our sorrow isn’t over how we wronged God or others but over the trouble it has brought to us. We are not truly troubled by the sin, and if the consequences go away, we slide back toward the wrongful behaviour. That proves that the seeming repentance was just self-pity.
Some years ago I was doing pastoral counselling with a married couple. The man continually lapsed into harsh, angry, insulting language to his wife that deeply grieved and hurt her. Over a three-year period he agreed to see me for counselling, but it became clear this happened only when she threatened to leave him. Then he came in and was willing to make changes to his behaviour. But those changes faded away as soon as the threat of separation and divorce receded. In other words, he was not primarily sorry for how he was wronging his wife, how he was dishonouring his God. He was not sorry for the sin but for himself. And self-pity never leads to change. To be sorry for the sin itself takes love. If he had really been loving his wife—and loving his God—he would have hated the sin itself, and it would then have begun to lose its attractive power over him. Self-pity led to superficial changes that never really affected his heart and therefore made no lasting change to his behaviour.
Self-pity looks like repentance, but it is self-absorption, and that is the essence of sin. Only if you see that you haven’t just broken God’s law but you have broken his heart, that you have dishonoured and grieved him, do you begin to change.
Just as real repentance starts where blame shifting ends, it also starts where self-pity ends. The British pastor Richard Sibbes wrote in his classic The Bruised Reed (1630) that self-pity ends only when you stop thinking about the consequences. Repentance is “not a little bowing down our heads . . . but a working our hearts . . . [until] sin is more odious unto us than punishment.”[9]
A near contemporary, Stephen Charnock, who wrote A Discourse of Conviction of Sin, makes a vivid distinction between what he called legalistic repentance—marked by self-pity—and truly “evangelical” or gospel based repentance. Legalistic repentance arises chiefly from a fear of punishment, while true repentance arises from a consideration of God’s goodness and therefore a sense of one’s own ingratitude and lack of love. So false repentance “cries out, ‘I have exasperated a power that is as the roaring of a lion I have provoked one that is the sovereign Lord of heaven and
earth, whose word can tear up the foundation of the world.” But an evangelically convicted person cries, “I have incensed a goodness that is like the dropping of the dew; I have offended a God that had the deportment of a friend. . . . Oh my . . . hard heart to run from so sweet a fountain to rake in puddles!”[10]
Here is the language of a repentant heart: “Yes, Lord, I am in sorrow because of the consequences of my sin. But they have only awakened me to the wrongness of what I have done—how it has wronged others and especially you, my Creator, Provider, and Redeemer.” Repentance begins where self-pity ends.
The Counterfeits of Repentance— Self- Flagellation
Finally, there is a kind of false repentance that is excessive. The person is filled with loud and intense self-loathing, cries, and tears. Listeners feel compelled to tell them they aren’t that bad, they aren’t that guilty. And that is the very point of such self-flagellation—it tries to pressure others and even God not to accuse but to excuse and pardon. The inner logic goes something like this: “If I beat myself up enough, surely this will atone for my sin and no one will ask me for anything else.”
The use of self-hating contrition as a way to atone for one’s sin rejects God’s forgiveness as much as its opposite—a proud denial that you have done anything wrong. They are both forms of self righteousness. The eighteenth-century Anglican minister John Newton wrote to a young man who was constantly depressed, with a sense of being sinful and unworthy. Newton was not put off. He wrote that it shows great spiritual pride and self-righteousness to shamelessly excuse oneself or indulge in morbid self-hatred. He wrote:
Your [understanding] of the gospel is sound, but there is a legal[istic] something in your experience which perplexes you. . . . You cannot be too [aware] of the inward and inbred evils you complain of, but you may be—indeed you are—improperly affected by them You express not only a low opinion of yourself, which is right, but too low an opinion of the person, work, and promises of the Redeemer, which is certainly wrong. . . .
Satan sometimes offers to teach us humility, but though I wish to be humble, I desire not to learn in his school. His premises [about our sinfulness] are perhaps true but he then draws abominable conclusions from them, and would teach us, that therefore we ought to question either the power, or the willingness, or the faithfulness of Christ.
Indeed, though our [self-recriminations] are good so far as they show dislike of sin, yet when we come to examine them closely, there is often so much self-will, self-righteousness, unbelief, pride, and impatience mingled with them, that they are little better than the worst evils we complain of.[11]
The reception of God’s forgiveness is simple—repent and ask for mercy! Yet many or perhaps most people never experience this grace because they don’t repent. True repentance begins where whitewashing (“Nothing really happened”) and blame shifting (“It wasn’t really my fault”) and self pity (“I’m sorry because of what it has cost me”) and self-flagellation (“I will feel so terrible no one will be able to criticize me”) end.
Turning to God
If blame shifting, self-pity, and self-flagellation are the counterfeits, what is the true repentance that connects us to God? There are two things to look for. For these we turn to a remarkable but often overlooked verse in the book of Proverbs.
In Proverbs 28:13 (ESV) we read: “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.”[12] First, we must “confess”—a word that is helpfully contrasted in the proverb with the word conceal. To confess is to make a full, clean admission of what you have done wrong, without qualification or excuse, without minimizing or relativizing. It is to take full responsibility. The Hebrew word ydh, translated here as “confess,” always has the sense of praising and thanking God. So confessing a sin is not merely telling the truth, nor is it an abstract “I deserve punishment of some kind.” Rather, it is admitting that you have been failing to love and honour God, and at this moment you begin to glorify him by admitting how you have wronged him and others.
One man recounts his experience of this. He had lived for years with a defensiveness and inner discomfort that darkened his life.
In my search for inner peace I pursued various religions and studied psychology but never received more than partial answers. . . . The pivotal experience came inexplicably and unexpectedly: I was suddenly aware what an enormous avalanche of wrongs I had [done and] left behind me. Before, this reality had been masked by pride and my wanting to look good in front of others. I had no excuses for myself—youth, circumstances, or bad peers. I was responsible for what I had done. On one page after another I poured it all out in clear detail. I felt as though an angel of repentance was slashing at my heart with his sword, such was the pain. I wrote dozens of letters to people and organizations I had cheated, stolen from, and lied to. Finally I felt truly free.[13]
However, Proverbs 28:13 moves on and says it is not enough to confess or admit a sin—you must also forsake it. To forsake is to make a full renunciation of the sinful behaviour, both in your heart attitude and in practical action. When John the Baptist led people to the brink of repentance, they asked, “What then shall we do?” He answered, “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance” (Luke 3:8, ESV), and by that he meant practical action that reversed their wrong behaviour.
Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:12–14, ESV)
So repentance means not only an admission of wrong but also a heart that finds the sin repugnant and therefore plans to change. Concrete steps are offered: “From now on I’ll never go to . . .” “From now on I will not do . . .” Bridges are burned; accountability structures are put into place.
Of course, many such plans fail or fail in part. Christian growth is a process. But without sincere renunciation and concrete designs for change, true repentance is not at work. False repentance is sentiment only. True repentance offers a change in behaviour.
A man named Leonard offered this account. He was a middle-aged businessman who was highly successful and well off. He wrote: I was, from a human point of view, a good person, keeping the laws and being responsible to the community. I was also religious, attending church faithfully, giving my money to good causes, and even trying to “witness for Christ.”
However, one Sunday he heard a sermon on being “poor in spirit.” It was a biblical call to be a humble person who cared nothing for one’s own status but who served others. He was deeply convicted. The sermon “made me fear that I was not so good as I thought.” He experienced a “new restlessness” and began to examine the ground motives of his life. To his shock, he came to see that he was driven by envy and a desire to prove himself better than others through acquiring wealth. He saw that the love of money was the driving force in his life but he had hidden that powerful drive from himself and others. “Now I was certain I was far from God [I] had a great need for his forgiveness and I wanted Christ to take away this terrible spirit of envy in my mind.”
He turned to Christ intent on changing his behaviour. He determined to be less ruthless in business, more generous to customers, employees, and stakeholders, and more generous with his wealth in general. He was ready to forsake his sin, but he knew he would not be forgiven for only good intentions. “I asked him to forgive me and trusted that His death took away my sins.” This was the turning point in his life. [14]
Finally, there is one thing to receive. After repenting must come rejoicing— rejoicing in the free mercy of God. Repentance without rejoicing leads to despair.
Proverbs 28:13 tells us that repentance entails a third action, namely, the willing reception and acceptance of God’s free mercy. The Hebrew word for obtaining “mercy” (Hebrew rhm) is the word for womb. Old Testament scholars tell us the word came to have its meaning from the feelings of parents toward their newborn infants. “The verb is always used in connection with the emotion of mercy from . . . parents to children.”[15] The love of a mother for the child of her womb is not something “merited” by the child—it comes simply because the heart of the mother powerfully moves her. In other words, the mercy God offers to the repentant person is completely free, undeserved, unstinting, and deeply personal, and this is an important part of repentance that is often missed. Real repentance in volves an acceptance of God’s free mercy.
False repentance, however, demands that forgiveness be earned. And this is why it is common to find people who do the first and second actions of repentance—confessing and forsaking—but insist that they don’t “feel forgiven” or even that they “can’t forgive themselves.” Many despair over their sin because they never believed their standing with God was by sheer mercy to begin with. Though they gave lip service to the idea of
God’s grace, they based their justification on their sanctification—their performance. That is, they believe God loved and accepted them on the basis of their moral performance and their relative freedom from sin and wrongdoing. When a person falls into sin who is still functionally operating on the belief that they are saved by their moral life, their very foundations are shaken.
Such a person wants to “work off” her sin, to atone for the sin, to earn forgiveness. She cannot take it to God and leave it there. She carries the guilt around as a way of paying for the sin herself, hoping that God and others will eventually declare that she has suffered enough and can be forgiven. But instead she should let the greater recognition of her sinfulness lead her to see the magnitude of God’s mercy and to greater amazement at his grace.
In summary, repentance begins when blame shifting, self-pity, and self-righteous despair end. It begins when confession, renunciation, and the acceptance of free grace take place. Then the clouds of guilt and shame can lift—and we can sing:
Sometimes a light surprises the Christian as he sings; It is the Lord who rises, with healing in his wings.[16]
Keeping God’ s Mercy “New”
The default mode of the human heart is to maintain control of one’s life by earning one’s own salvation. The idea of free grace, unmerited, is both insulting and unnatural to the self-absorbed human heart. Jean Valjean is famously overthrown by the bishop’s forgiveness in Les Misérables. He realizes that it robs him of the self-pity and self-righteousness that made him rationalize an angry and selfish life.
So even if we initially accept the fact of God’s forgiveness and acceptance, we need to spend the rest of our lives deepening our understanding of it and refreshing our experience of it.
One way to do this is to look up, study, and meditate regularly on the biblical texts that directly teach about God’s forgiveness.
A second way to grow in your experience of God’s forgiveness is to continually go deeper in the study of the various doctrines that are the basis for it. They include the doctrine of substitution (that Jesus paid the penalty for your sin fully and in your place) and the doctrine of justification (that when we put our faith in Christ, we have his righteousness, his perfect record, legally “imputed” to us).
Perhaps the single most comprehensive biblical theme that encompasses all these blessings is the idea that when we believe in him we are united with him, both legally and vitally, in his life and death (Romans 6:1–4) and his ascension (Ephesians 2:6). What can it mean that we died with him or that we are seated in the heavenly places now with him? As the hymn says, “I scarce can take it in.”[17]
We are so united in Christ in the Father’s eyes that when he sees us, he sees Jesus. Christians are so one with Christ that we are as forgiven as if we had already died for our sins, as if we had already been raised. We are so one with Christ that when the Father sees us, he treats us as if we deserve all the glory and honour that Jesus deserves. Over 160 times in the New Testament, Paul speaks of our being “in Christ” or “in him.” He calls himself “a man in Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:2). It utterly dominated Paul’s self-understanding and it must dominate ours.
One of the many wonderful dimensions of this great truth is found in 1 John 2:1, where the apostle writes that if we sin, we should remember that “we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”
Some years ago I read the outline of a chapel sermon delivered by Charles Hodge to the students of Princeton Theological Seminary in 1861. In the sermon Hodge explores the idea of an “advocate” before a court of justice for a person accused of a crime. Imagine the charges are against you, but you have a defence attorney. What is that relationship like? Hodge writes that the relationship of an advocate to a client should be one of great intimacy and power. If your defence attorney is brilliant in court, your case is brilliant. If she is eloquent in court, your case is eloquent. Whatever your attorney does is imputed to you. “The former [the advocate] personates the latter [the client], puts himself in the client’s place. It is while it lasts, the most intimate relation. The client . . . is not heard . . . not regarded. He is lost in his advocate. This is the relation in which Christ as our advocate stands to us. He appears before God for us. We are lost in him. He, not we, is seen, heard and regarded . . . Christ thus assumes our position.”[18]
Is Jesus radiant? Beautiful? Spotless? Is he “the fairest among ten thousand”? Then that’s how you appear to the universe’s bar of justice. You are lost in your advocate.
When I first read this sermon, it struck me in a powerful way. I began to realize that my overwork was a way of seeking to be my own advocate. It was as if I had the most brilliant defence attorney in the world and I kept getting up and saying, “Let me speak. Let me question the witness. Let me make the case to the jury.” But only Jesus Christ has an infallible case. He can say of me, “Father, I have fulfilled every demand of yours on his behalf, in his place. Now accept my friend, my brother, my son, because of what I’ve done.”
When our hearts condemn us, Jesus is infinitely greater than our hearts, and we can feel that greatness the more we know the teaching of the Word about God’s free grace and forgiveness.
In Luke 7 Jesus was eating in the courtyard of the home of Simon the Pharisee when “a woman of the city” approached him. The term was a euphemism for a sex worker. She knelt at Jesus’s feet weeping and anointing them in an act of devotion. Simon recognized her as a “sinner” and was amazed that Jesus accepted her public expressions of love rather than recoiling from her. Jesus responded with a parable of two debtors—one who owed ten times more than the other—who were both forgiven their debts by their lender. “Which of them will love him more?” Jesus asked Simon (Luke 7:40–42). He got the obvious answer—the one who was forgiven more.
Jesus proceeded to point out that Simon himself, who clearly did not see himself as a sinner in need of forgiveness, had given Jesus a fairly stiff and formal greeting, but the woman’s great love and warmth proceeded from the joy of the great forgiveness she experienced. The lesson is not in any way that it’s better to live a life of big, scandalous, notorious sins. As the entire New Testament teaches, Simon was as much in need of forgiveness, if not more, for his pride as the woman was for her immorality. If we turn to Christ for forgiveness, we will know love and joy through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The prophet Micah says God will “tread our sins underfoot” and “hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19). The famous Dutch writer Corrie ten Boom would often say that when God throws our sins into the deepest sea, he puts up a sign: “No fishing!” God has dealt with your sins. Don’t go back to them to feel guilty about them all over. Go forward in love.[19]
The Blood of Christ
Let’s return to Psalm 51. David knows he has sinned and “done what is evil in your sight” (verse 4). He knows he is guilty of “bloodguiltiness” (verse 14, ESV). And yet he has confidence that God will forgive him because of his chesedh—“steadfast love”—his unconditional covenantal love. David senses his complete unworthiness, and yet he has confidence that he is still accepted. If you feel only unworthy and not confident, then repentance will not work. You will beat yourself up, hoping God will have mercy. If you have confidence but not a sense of deep unworthiness, you will feel self pity and will not change. David is absolutely humble and sees he is unworthy, and yet is completely confident.[20]
We have no excuses, then, because on this side of the cross and the resurrection we see clearly what David could only know “through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12, KJV). David prayed, “Cast me not away from thy presence” (Psalm 51:11, KJV), and God did not. But that was because on the cross Jesus was cast away from the divine presence—he got what David deserved. Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46) so David didn’t have to.
This is the secret to really changing. It is not enough to say, “God is a loving God and I have broken his heart.” That is too abstract. Jesus was on the cross, looking at all of us, and saw us denying and betraying him, and yet, in the greatest act of love in the history of the world, Jesus Christ stayed. He saw what we are like and he stayed on the cross. When you see Jesus dying for you like that, and you know the reason he died is because of the sins you do every day, you will want nothing to do with your sins.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. (Romans 3:23–25)
In 1955 Billy Graham was invited to speak at Cambridge University to the students in Great St Mary’s Hall for a week of evening meetings. When it came out to the public that he was going to be doing that, letters appeared in The Times of London very upset that this fundamentalist Baptist American preacher was going to come and speak to Britain’s best and brightest about a primitive kind of religion based on blood and atonement and hell.
Graham admits that this got to him. He smarted under the characterization of being an uneducated provincial. So the first three nights he was there, he quoted intellectuals and scholars and sought to speak in more of an academic mode—but he could sense that his message was falling flat. And so he got down on his knees, prayed, and determined to throw out his prepared notes and simply preach about the blood of Christ and the cross.[21] Dick Lucas, who for many years was rector of St Helen’s Bishopsgate Anglican church in London, recalled in a taped sermon what he saw that last night.
I’ll never forget that night. I was in a totally packed chancel, sitting on the floor at Great St Mary’s [Church] with the Regius Professor of Divinity sitting on one side of me and the chaplain of the college (who was a future bishop) on the other side of me. Both of these were good men, but completely against the idea that we needed salvation from sin by the blood of Christ. Dear Billy Graham got up that night and began at Genesis and went right through the whole Bible and talked about every single sacrifice in it. The blood was flowing all over the great hall, everywhere, for three quarters of an hour. Both my neighbours were horribly embarrassed by this crude proclamation of the blood of Christ and also must have been sure that no bright, sophisticated, young British person was going to believe any of this stuff. But at the end of the sermon, to everyone’s shock, four hundred young men and women stayed to commit their lives to Christ. [There were only eight thousand students in the student body then.]
I remembered meeting a young pastor some years later, a Cambridge graduate, at Birmingham Cathedral. Over a cup of tea I said,
“Where did Christian things begin for you?”
“Oh, at Cambridge in fifty five,” he said. “When?”
“Billy Graham.” “What night?”
“It was Wednesday night.” “How did that happen?”
“Well,” he said, “all I remember is that I walked out of Great St Mary’s for the first time in my life thinking ‘Christ really died for me.’ ”[22]
The forgiveness of God finally became real to him, and he was never the same again.
What was unbelievable to the dons was that a man like that, preaching a sermon like that—so simple, about the blood of Christ forgiving sin— could have totally changed the life of a young person like that. But so it did. And it can for you.
This extract from Timothy Keller’s book: “Forgive: Why Should I and How Can I?” has been reproduced with the kind permission of Hodder Faith. (HB £18.99) The book, is highly recommended and is available at https://www.10ofthose.com/uk/products/28908/forgive
[1] Charles Wesley, “And Can It Be?” (hymn, 1739). This hymn recounts its author’s conversion.
[2] For a mainstream example of an internal/horizontal‑only approach to self‑forgiveness, see Keir Brady, “7 Tips For Practicing Self‑Forgiveness,” Keir Brady Counseling Services, undated, www.keirbradycounseling.com/self‑forgiveness.
[3] Gail Sheehy, Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1976).
[4] Colin Tipping, Radical Self-Forgiveness: The Direct Path to True Self-Acceptance (Boulder, CO: Sounds True, 2011), 133. “I am a spiritual being having a human experience What happens during my life are my lessons. I have come into the life experience with the desire to fully grasp what oneness is be experiencing the opposite of it—separation. I had made agreements with souls prior to my incarnation that they would do things not so much to me, though it will feel that way while I am in a body, but for me. I also enroll others while I’m here to give me opportunities to learn While I remain accountable for what I do in the human world, in purely spiritual terms nothing wrong ever happens.”
[5] Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 1118–19.
[6] Throughout church history pastoral caregivers have identified the spiritual problem of the “overscrupulous conscience.” See, for example, Charles Hodge, “Diseased Conscience,” in Princeton Sermons (1879; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2011), 122; William Bridge, “A Lifting Up in the Case of Lack of Assurance,” in A Lift- ing Up of the Downcast (1649; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1961), 128–51; Thomas Brooks, “Precious Remedies against Satan’s Devices” (1652), in The Works of Thomas Brooks, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1980), 91–117.
[7] Brooks, Works of Thomas Brooks, vol. 1, 16.
[8] Broadchurch, episode 6, directed by James Strong, written by Chris Chibnall, aired April 8, 2013 on BBC.
[9] Richard Sibbes, The Bruised Reed (1630; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), 12.
[10] Stephen Charnock, The Works of Stephen Charnock, vol. 4, The Knowledge of God (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 199.
[11] John Newton, “Let.11 to Rev.Mr.S,” in Works of John Newton, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 185–86.
[12] All three of these acts of repentance are found in Psalm 51 as well, but for the sake of clarity and brevity we will look at them only through studying Proverbs 28:13.
[13] Johann Christoph Arnold, Why Forgive? (Walden, NY: Plough, 2010), 175–76.
[14] From C. John Miller, “Completely Forgiven,” self‑published pamphlet, 1987, 10.
[15] Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 15–31, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), 417–18.
[16] William Cowper, “Sometimes a Light Surprises,” Olney Hymns (1779).
[17] Stuart K. Hine, “How Great Thou Art” (1949).
[18] Charles Hodge, Princeton Sermons (1879; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2011), 48–49.
[19] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Luke,” in ESV Expository Commentary, vol. 8, ed. I. Duguid, J. M. Hamilton, and J. Sklar (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021),
[20] There has been much discussion over whether God’s dealing with David was just. David had wronged both Uriah and Bathsheba and had broken the laws of God, the covenant that was the basis for his kingship. Should there be no just penalty for his actions? The Bible shows us that there was. Unlike Saul, who did not truly re‑ pent, David did. And so God allowed him to remain king. But the death of David’s son was a direct execution of God’s justice on David for his wrongdoing. Here, then, we see again God as both forgiving and just.
[21] This paragraph summarizes Billy Graham’s account in Just As I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 254–59.
[22] Dick Lucas, “Romans 3:9–31,” sermon, January 6, 1970, St Helen’s Bishopsgate, https://www.st‑helens.org.uk/resources/talk/3027.
The Confident Christianity conference went to Carrubbers Christian Centre in the heart of Edinburgh’s Old Town for a packed day looking at conversational evangelism, equality, values, suffering, the environment and more. Play the video for a report from the event.
From a cross-cultural guest, today’s episode picks up two different strands to sharing faith. First, how do we respond to those who reject their experience of church, even those who have suffered spiritual abuse? As well, what can the contrast between “Christian” and “secular” cultures teach us about conversations centred on Jesus? In both areas, it can be tricky to unpack the individual’s experience from the true gospel.
Inonge Siluka grew up in Zambia and moved to Scotland with her family when she was 14. She studied law at university after which she did some student ministry with UCCF and training with Cornhill Scotland. She works full time for a Cancer charity, and is also the founder of Restored Hope Zambia, a Charity that supports Church abuse survivors in Zambia. She is passionate about evangelism and theology and runs Overflow Chat, a blog and YouTube channel aimed at encouraging women and girls in their evangelism and faith. Inonge is a member of Greenview Church in Glasgow where is part of a community group and serves in the youth ministry.
The Persuasive Evangelism Podcast aims to equip listeners to share their faith more effectively in a sceptical world. Each episode, Andy Bannister (Solas) and Kristi Mair (Oak Hill College) chat to a guest who has a great story, a useful resource, or some other expertise that helps equip you to talk persuasively, winsomely, and engagingly with your friends, colleagues and neighbours about Jesus.
With the exception of Bible reading, few things seem to make Christians feel more guilty than prayer and evangelism. And so, you can imagine how I felt when asked to write an article about both! Yet the more I reflected the more I wanted to share. As we consider three big questions, my hope, to borrow from the disciples, is that God would teach us to pray as we try to say something about him to those we love.
In any conversation, the most important thing we need to realise is who we’re talking to. If a policeman has just asked us to roll down our car window for “a little conversation”, we are going to be more nervous than if we’ve bumped into a friend. Who we find ourselves talking to impacts the words we say. The same is true with prayer and perhaps especially when we are praying for the lost. When we pray we need to remember that we are talking to our Father in heaven. And what do we know about him? We know that he is a God who seeks out prodigals. Not only that, he is strong enough to save them. After all, this is what he did with us. He is the primary evangelist. He is building his church. As one reluctant missionary eventually learned, “Salvation belongs to the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). When we realise we are simply called to participate in what God is already doing, it changes our perspective.
As well as recognising who we’re praying to, it can be such a help to remember who we get to pray with. In western culture, self-expression and individualism are the air we breathe. You and I are constantly being told that what we think and what we want is ultimate. This can affect our view of discipleship. We may not say it aloud, but we can so easily start to think that the Christian life is simply a set of actions we perform on our own. But one of the great joys of being a believer in Christ is to know we belong to his body. And what concerns one part of the body should concern all of it. This has an important implication for our evangelism. If you have a friend who is not yet a Christian and you share their name and a bit of their background with your brothers and sisters, it not only takes some of the pressure off you, it is a privilege for them to pray for that individual. They may never meet them, but so many Christians came to faith as a result of such people and such prayers. When we think corporately it helps us remember that evangelism is not a competition.
As we pray for those who don’t yet know Jesus there are lots of things we can ask God to do. We can pray that he would speak to their consciences and reveal their need for forgiveness. Only the Holy Spirit can do that work. If they care deeply about injustice, as so many do today, we can ask God to help them see that a sense things should be fair, points to the fact we live in a moral universe. But I want to highlight two other things we can pray for our friends to feel: a sense of the goodness of God and the brevity of life.
We can ask God to give those we witness to a sense of his goodness. In his common grace God showers blessings on those inside and outside his family. The liberal, generous God we know, gives people who are not yet Christians homes, health, happy marriages and more. Yes, there is a crack in this world because of sin, there is darkness, and yet there is also so much that is wonderful. As she approached death, a character in a story C.S. Lewis wrote, said her great longing was “to find the place where all the beauty came from.” For Lewis this was autobiographical. The beauty he saw in creation became a signpost that led him from atheism to faith. We can pray for others to go on the same journey.
We can also pray for the brevity of life to hit home. A few years ago Neil Postman wrote an important book called Amusing Ourselves to Death. Today we could easily replace the first word in his title with another word—distracting[1] So much of modern life seems designed to prevent us thinking seriously about anything. But life is short and death is real and when we come to the end our iPhones will not be much comfort. If Covid-19 taught us anything it was that under our bravado we’re all afraid of death. But when the brute fact of mortality is faced, it can be the first step towards the risen Christ.
There are lots of ways we could put this into practice. In our church we recently started a prayer meeting before our evening service. It lasts half an hour and at the beginning we share the names of people we would love to see come to believe. They range from new colleagues to adult children who once professed faith. Their names are written on a white-board and at the end of the meeting we take a picture to prompt us to pray during the week. It’s not flashy, it feels simple, but there have been encouragements. Above all, it has reminded us of our need for God’s help, something so easy for us to forget.
[1] ‘I’m sure I once read an article online that proposed this change, but I can’t remember where, which kind of proves the point!’
“Forres Baptist Church ran a ‘Confident Christianity Conference’ hosted by Solas and led by Andy Bannister that proved to be a time of real blessing and encouragement. We had over one hundred people turn up to an event that was designed for people to become better equipped at sharing their faith in Jesus, which has to be a major encouragement! What a blessing to run out of parking spaces, not something many church events usually have to face, and to have people from so many local fellowships coming together to partnership in the gospel.”