A Conversation About Human Potential and Purpose

Jack and Ed discuss the proper attitude about what a man can do in life, and the proper approach to what a man should be.

Readership: All; Christians;
Author’s Notes: The content of this post is based on an e-mail conversation between myself and Ed Hurst at Radix Fidem.  My words are in black.  Ed’s words are in blue.
Length: 2,700 words;
Reading Time: 10 minutes;

Under last Monday’s post, Only noble born men are qualified to do housework for unicorns (2020 August 24), Ed Hurst left this comment.

“The false god of “human potential” has worked a great evil in the world.  All we really should aspire for is to please our Creator.”

Ed’s comment was directed toward women like the one in the post, those who go after worldly accomplishments, but who fail to achieve the most basic functions of femininity.  But after thinking on this, I know the same applies for men too.  This led me to examine my own life.

The Thinker, by the French sculptor, Auguste Rodin (1904).

Jack’s Perspective

For much of my life, I’ve carried a work ethic loosely based on Ecclesiastes 9:10 and 11:1-6.

10 ”Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.”

Ecclesiastes 9:10 (NKJV)

1 “Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days.
Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you know not what disaster may happen on earth.
If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth, and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie.
He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.
As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
In the morning sow your seed, and at evening withhold not your hand, for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.”

Ecclesiastes 11:1-6 (ESV)
The Sower, by Henri Naegely (1862-1875).

Most of my life, I’ve had no idea what I would be doing five years down the road.  I’ve always worked hard at whatever came my way, and I haven’t been ambitious in terms of long range plans.  (Sometimes I think I should have more of a long range plan, especially an economic plan.  I think this would have helped me build a career with fewer false starts.)  Sometimes I wonder if I would have shown more faith if I had just made an assertion like, “I’m going to be a teacher or professor” and worked diligently towards that end.  But the only real goal I set for myself was to earn a bachelor’s degree, and I struggled very hard at that.  But after that milestone was achieved, I feel like my Masters and Ph.D. came rather serendipitously, and the same goes for my becoming a professor.

I’ve always carried the idea that God wants men to work, to earn, and to provide for himself and his family.  I’ve assumed that God wants me to achieve as much as I can, and so whenever a good opportunity came along, I always accepted it with thankfulness as part of God’s plan and provision.

In terms of my mission in life, it is not so clear to me how this fits together, but by the time I was 35, I had reached the roundabout conclusion that my mission in life is to influence others however I may through teaching (and/or writing).

Going back to Ed’s statement, the questions in my mind right now are…

  • How much human potential does God expect a man (or woman) to achieve?
  • If a man doesn’t achieve his full potential, wouldn’t that be reminiscent of being a lazy steward?
  • Likewise, for modern women like Tomi Lahren and the woman in Monday’s post, there is a good deal of human potential that they have wasted, in terms of becoming faithful wives, mothers, and homemakers.  Are they not bad stewards of their personhood?

I guess this all boils down to an assumption that God does value human potential, but the question is about knowing which aspects of human potential God expects one to develop according to His plan and His glory.  As Ed put it, what would please our Creator?

This might be a complicated and confusing question, but I’m guessing there are some basic guidelines.  The most obvious guidelines are the male and female roles outlined in Scripture.  Men are to work at their life mission according to their respective calling, and women are to help the men and work in a domestic capacity.

The Gleaners, by Jean Francois Millet (1857)

Ed’s Insight

There’s nothing wrong with making plans if you sense a specific sense of calling in life.  Of course, you still need to be ready for all the unexpected things God does as you pursue that path.  There is a critical element in faith that we should expect the unexpected.  It goes back to the way God portrays Himself as a desert sheikh, and how that image included a ruler who should not and could not tell all of His subjects everything he had in mind.  There is an element of mystery that we humans need in order to serve faithfully and reach our divine potential.  Good men surprise their wives now and then, no?  It’s the same for the Bride of Christ.

That’s not the same as potential in terms of human reckoning.  Thus, I used the term “false god of human potential.” This is consistent with the teaching in James 4:13-16.

13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; 14 whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow.  For what is your life?  It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.  15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”  16 But now you boast in your arrogance.  All such boasting is evil.

James 4:13-16 (NKJV)

Without that sense of divine purpose, no plans we make are right, even if we achieve everything our human nature dreams.

The Last Dreamers, by Griegory Zieolkowski (2018).

What matters most is that there is no one-size-fits-all.  Some men should be so focused on the otherworld that they stumble along through life without accomplishing much that anyone remembers.  If they have peace with God, that’s all that matters.  Some men are called by God to dig right into the ambient social expectations and point out how they compare with God’s expectations.  There is a place for the mendicant wandering monk and for the rich entrepreneur in the Kingdom of Heaven, and for everyone in between those callings.  Whatever it is we might propose to define as “normal” needs to have soft boundaries.  We can’t call the mendicant “irresponsible” if he has been faithful to his calling.  That includes the mendicants who manage to get married and raise families in poverty.

We should define “good responsible manhood” to include all the special cases where men find peace with God.  A community still needs every peculiar type that Vox Day talks about in his Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.  We need a bunch of the Deltas and a few Gammas, and even an Omega or two, in order for society to have all the parts God intended for His Body.  A major element in a good solid faith community is taking in the strays nobody else knows how to handle.  We need a lore of teaching about taking care of those edge cases and putting up with the resource drainage, because in the Kingdom of Heaven, the people are the real treasure.  Jesus was a reject by worldly standards.

In sum, Ed is asserting that having peace with God is more important than one’s mission.  It makes sense.

Also, if one finds peace with God, then one’s mission will become evident through one’s convictions.

In addition, any Christ centered mission has to maintain that peace with God, or restore Shalom.  Perhaps that is the whole purpose of having a mission.

This pretty much answers my earlier question.  It’s just a matter of one finding peace with God and growing in Shalom/maturity.  Having a mission, and the nature of the mission, is a result of this.

Sisyphus, by Titian Vecellio (1548).

How Does One Find Peace and Purpose?

This seems to be an easy undertaking for some people, and very difficult for many others, even serious Christians.  I’m not sure if it’s because they can’t or they won’t, or maybe God won’t open the metaphysical door for them.  For me, the gospel is simple in concept, but it’s very hard to get plugged into God.  I’ve often wondered why it is so difficult for me (or anyone else) to get closer to God.

Of note, I discovered The Heart-Led Way since I started reading Ed Hurst’s blogs, Do What’s Right and Radix Fidem, in 2018.  The idea of “not using your mind to decide where your heart should be” is a perspective I picked up from reading his stuff.  Actually, this concept is mentioned in the Bible many times.  For example…

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.”

Proverbs 3:5-6 (NKJV)

And here…

17 ”This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”

Ephesians 4:17-24 (NKJV)
Father Gregorius Vicenzo, by Lorenzo Lotto (1548).

But even though this shift in cognizance is spelled out clearly in scripture, and even though I grew up in church and have attended all kinds of churches over the course of my lifetime, for some bizarre reason I never really understood this very important, perhaps crucial piece of faith until I started reading Ed’s writings.  Maybe it’s because The Heart-Led Path is not something you can just hear about and pick it up right away.  You have to continually focus on what’s going on deep in your heart and learn to navigate through life using your innermost convictions.

This kind of awareness is so far removed from the Western style of consciousness based on rationale, that I didn’t really understand the idea until I had read Ed’s stuff for several months, and even then, I didn’t really “get it” for another year.  Even now, I am still in the process of learning this.

I am still uncertain as to whether my past ignorance of The Heart-Led Way is the sole reason for my spiritual difficulties throughout life.  I suspect maybe it is, but on the other hand, maybe it is not as simple as this.

The Adoration of the Shepherds, by Giorgione (1505-1510)

An Exhortation to Discover The Heart-Led Path

I didn’t call it “heart-led” until a few years ago, myself.  Prior to that I spoke of having conviction, which is very nearly the same thing.  And I’ve known for most of my adult life that the Bible considers the heart the seat of the will, of faith and commitment.  Someone shared an article with me about how the heart is a sensory organ, and it made so much sense that it was easy to put that idea into the existing frame of reference.

However, I’ve always known that I’ve been led by something deep and quite different from those around me.  I’ve always known that there was a disconnection between what was and what ought to be, and I handled it rather poorly most of my life.  I never understood why I had that powerful sense that nobody else seemed to have.  Somewhere in adulthood I realized that many people do have it, but had been taught it was just their imagination, something they couldn’t and shouldn’t trust.  Except that was wrong.  Once I began to trust it more, it turned out to be the voice of God in my heart.

Hearing the voice of God, by Cat Culpepper.

Aside from one brief period of a few days, when the Lord was showing me something important, that voice has always been there for me.  My reactions to it had been chaotic for most of my youth, because I had no training how to hear it, but somewhere around age 30 I began learning how to live with it.  I once thought it was a sense of calling to pastoral ministry, and labored under that delusion for a very long time.  It was the only guidance I got from people I trusted, so I trained for it.  Only in the past decade did I realize it was not pastoral ministry, but a prophetic calling.  Eventually I came to the place where I knew I was supposed to be a teaching elder, not a priestly leader.

Somewhere in there, I came to discern that few people have that strong sense of prophetic voice in their souls, but that apparently everyone can be heart-led.  Honestly, I’m not happy with how that comes across in the English language, but I have no idea how else I can say it.  But I do hope that, in community with others, we can spread this concept.  I’m convinced that this is the path of peace with God.

God appears in a vision to the boy prophet Samuel, by Harry Anderson (1975).

Does it Resonate with You?

“I’ve always known that I’ve been led by something deep and quite different from those around me.  I’ve always known that there was a disconnection between what was and what ought to be…”

When I read those words, I felt that I had found a kindred soul.  For most of my life, I have been deeply disturbed to find that the Truths found in the Bible don’t reflect my experiences of reality.  They have always appeared to be two, vastly distinct worlds.  I have always been vexed about how the two might be reconciled, and angry that no one seems to recognize how their thoughts and behaviors reinforce the worldly system, and neglect to implement the Biblical system.  Even those who profess to be Christians fail to realize how far away from the Truth they stand, nor do they carry any apparent sense of guilt about this discrepancy.  From my perspective, there was hardly any detectable difference between believers and unbelievers.  Yes, I’ve even been angry at God for being so nonchalant, for not taking any action to harmonize this disparity.  Yet, God asks me to love and forgive all these people who have rejected me for not seeing the world as they do.  It is a disheartening task.

I agree that it can be disheartening to find oneself standing alone in faith, but after a while, I got used to it.  What’s left is to be obedient to Him for the sake of obedience itself.  Having to discard the Western obsession with product, and focus merely on getting the process right, was a major shift in thinking.

Where do you stand in the grand scheme of things?

Do you have peace with God?

Have you discovered The Heart-Led Way?

Have you found your purpose for living, your mission in life?

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Choosing A Profession, Decision Making, Determination, Introspection, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Perseverance, Purpose, Self-Concept, Stewardship. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to A Conversation About Human Potential and Purpose

  1. elizaphanian says:

    Thank you. That’s an immensely – providentially – timely post for me.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Ed Hurst says:

    Very well written, Jack.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jeff Barnes says:

    This first paragraph is more tangential than relevant to the article.
    Below is a quote from an article exploring differing understandings of original sin.
    “It is suggested by those in the Orthodox Church that the doctrine of ancestral
    sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and Divine compassion as the
    inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention
    to human guilt and Divine wrath. The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the Western Church where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist.” Having in addition been brought up in a Calvinist church whereby the doctrine of total depravity is emphasised, to me it seems little wonder that I have had trouble listening or trusting my heart. Learning about the orthodox teaching of synergy between God’s grace and our wills is helping me understand my connection with God. I never thought the doctrine of original sin was just and now I find that it is in fact a heresy contrary to early church teaching. I really wrestled with believing the gospel as it was taught to me because it had been presented as penal substitionary theory, now I can breath a sigh of relief knowing that is another heresy. I am not sure whether my spiritual intuitions are more on point than the average person or if being an independent minded thinker caused me to so uncomfortable with many Protestant heresies I had grown up with, but in any case I praise God for revealing to me the truth and beauty of Orthodox theology.

    I relate to this: “I’ve always known that I’ve been led by something deep and quite different from those around me. I’ve always known that there was a disconnection between what was and what ought to be…” In my view, that is typical of someone with introverted intuition as their dominant cognitive function or at least in a valued position. Jack I think you mentioned that your an ISFP, but do you know cognitive functions?

    I also see the giant discrepancy between the vision Jesus lays out for us and how the average Christian acts. And those that see they fall short, often fall into the sin of despair and then label it humility, (I got that from someone else, and I think it is a bit of pithy brilliance.). To me Jesus most defining trait, or the one most impressed on me was his virtue of humility, and if I look at myself and others our greatest sin tends to be pride.

    Like

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I can’t speak for Jack. I also won’t debate, but I am glad to explain. I profess to approach these things from outside both Western and Orthodox Christian history. In addressing Western evangelicals, from whom I departed, I typically use their terminology, but often use it to point to different conclusions. My intention is to study and think from the ancient Hebrew intellectual assumptions. I am convinced this is the perspective Jesus had.

      So I say that we are fallen, but I reject the Western punitive mindset. I don’t use the terminology of Original Sin, but teach that we are born in a fallen condition. In other words, I refuse to nail down logically all the details common to Western theology. As far as I am concerned, the truth cannot be described propositionally. The best we can do is indicate truth via parables and symbolism.

      By the way, I know all about the Myers-Briggs stuff and where it comes from; I assert it was based on wholly flawed assumptions about human nature. I refuse to be pigeon-holed by a test that offers almost no answers that fit me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        So you have read Carl Jung’s psychological types?
        Do you know much about socionics?
        There is so much misinformation in typology out there that many people dismiss that there is a underlying truth to it because they were only presented with a superficial system. God is a God of order and variety, do you really suppose that every human being starts off with same cognitive structures? And to believe in a tabula rasa model of the human mind is to be scientifically ill-informed.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Jeff Barnes,

        I am familiar with Jung’s and Meyers-Briggs types. It is very interesting, but not very useful. I think the Big 5 assessment can offer better insights. I have not heard of socionics or cognitive structures before, but I will read up on it.

        Could you please tell us how socionics and/or cognitive structure has been useful to you personally?

        Like

    • Jack says:

      @ Jeff Barnes,

      In the past, whenever I have taken a Meyers-Briggs personality inventory, sometimes I get ISFP, and other times I get ENFP. I’m not sure why this is, but I am an FP for sure. I understand that the Big 5 theory is much more useful and accurate. My most recent scores on the Big 5 are O-100%, C-21%, E-31%, A-71%, and N-56%. My low Extroversion score categorizes me as an introvert, but I suppose my high Openness and Agreeableness make me come across as an Extrovert. I get around my low Conscientiousness by choosing my career wisely and doing things I truly enjoy. Aside from these scores, people think I’m really serious when they first meet me, but after getting to know me, they find that I am friendly and funny.

      I’m not sure what you mean by “cognitive function”. Are you referring to a theory in psychology? If so, could you append a link so that I (and others) could do some further reading on the subject?

      Like

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        If I remember correctly, the last time I took the Big 5 my OCEAN scores were respectively in these ranges: very high, below average, very low, above average, above average. That seems remarkably similar to your own scores. I also relate to your other comments. May I ask if you have ADHD? I recently discovered I do and it has a significant influence on my personality, (higher openness, lower conscientiousness, higher agreeableness, and coming off as an ‘extrovert’ in social situations).

        Jungian cognitive functions are first described in Jung’s book. His psychological types form the basis of the MBTI theory as first described in Gifts differing by Isabel Myers briggs. Here is a link to understand the link between the MBTI code and the functions: https://personalityjunkie.com/functions-ni-ti-fi-si-ne-te-fe-se/

        Wikipedia tells me that: Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a pseudoscientific theory of information processing and personality types. It is distinguished by its information model of the psyche and a model of interpersonal relations. It incorporates Carl Jung’s work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński’s theory of information metabolism.

        Here is a comment describing some fundamental differences between the two systems, https://www.reddit.com/r/Socionics/comments/hoxqkc/socionics_and_mbti_a_brief_primer/

        I don’t think either MBTI or the Socionics model is entirely accurate, but there is plenty to learn from both. There are many ‘amateur’ typologists who come up with their own system or interpretations of MBTI. One must remember that the map is not the territory, so any model of human cognition is just that — a model. I myself find understanding the cognitive functions as expressed in a cognitive function stack to be the most helpful. The MBTI test tries to measure behaviour correlations, while socionics places a lot of emphasis on intertype relations on a sociological level. MBTI is considered pseudoscience, and as such Big 5 is heralded as being the most scientifically accurate model of human personality, but in my opinion, MBTI properly understood is significantly more personally useful.

        You ask how it has been useful for me. I will list some ways. I understand my own cognition and as such can engage in more metacognition. I understand my own personality and how it differs from other people’s. This makes you more compassionate and appreciative of the different ways of being in the world. Being fairly familiar with the system I am able to type friends and family, (make an educated guess of their type), and so understand how they experience the world. For instance, my dominant function is my mothers blindspot function. Before understanding MBTI theory this would cause me some frustration and confusion, but now I love her more for who she is, and am patient with her ‘weaknesses’. Many differences in opinion particularly political can be reduced to personality differences. I myself plan to read Haidt’s the Righteous mind, to better understand the impact of personality on political opinion. Your type does not exist in a vacuum, so understanding how differing types interact can be helpful for understanding or choosing friends or a marriage partner who will be more compatible with you. Any type can do any job, but it makes sense to utilise your specific ways of paying attention in the world by choosing a job or career more inline with your personality. This is a basic example, but if your a feeler then working with people might be more important than if you’re a thinker. I could go on, as there are many ways it has influenced my understanding of the world.

        Like

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        I forget to mention one way MBTI is very useful for me. I am able to find many others of the same type as me, learn from them, bond with them, and feel less alone in the world. It amazes me how much I have in common with those of the same type. Depending on your type you might not fit in with most people and society, and so understanding your type relieves you off a lot of pressure, so you can embrace your own way of being in the world.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Jeff —

      The difference in the treatment of ancestral sin is best viewed as a strong difference in emphasis.

      In the West, the courthouse analogy of salvation dominates — this is the case in the Catholic and Protestant variants of Western Christianity, following the theology of Augustine, which is generally dominant in both variants.

      The Eastern/Orthodox approach emphasizes the radical overcoming by Christ of the inherited sin unto death by the voluntary subjection to death of the one man for whom it was, due to the union in the person of Christ of his uncreated/immortal divine nature and his assumed human nature, not possible for death to contain, and his graceful imputation of that “risen”/death-transcendent human nature to Christians. The Western Catholic/Protestant approach emphasizes the radical atonement by Christ by substitution of his death of only sinless man for the penalty of death which was due, in justice, of all sinful men, and his graceful imputation of that atonement to Christians, that has dominated in the West.

      The difference in emphasis is real, and it permeates the way both West and East have respectively considered the Christian mysteries of salvation, but it is still a difference in emphasis and not a hard demarcation. The East, for example, in no way completely rejects the courthouse model — in fact, in the hymns we sing in the Orthodox Church on Holy Thursday evening (when we observe the first of three Good Friday services, “in advance” of Friday morning), we chant:

      “O Christ our God, who wast lifted up on the Cross, and as God, loosed the power of death, and eradicated the writ of ordinances against us …”

      and also later in the same service,

      “You ransomed us from the curse of the Law, by your precious blood; You shed forth immortality upon mankind, being nailed to the Cross …” and so on.

      Now, granted, these references are not the dominant ones, by any means — in fact, when one reviews the texts of the Orthodox services for Thursday and Friday of Holy Week it is quite striking how seldom the words “sacrifice” and “atonement” are to be found there. Yet the ideas are present, at least a little bit, but are not at all the emphasized ones. So the upshot of that is that Eastern Orthodoxy does not fully reject the courthouse analogy and the related subsitutionary atonement soteriology that is dominant in the West, but rather emphasizes much more strongly the hospital analogy and the overcoming of the sin unto death by the death of the deathless man and our conformity to his deathless human nature by grace — this in fact is the main emphasis of all of our services during Holy Week and for Pascha/Easter itself, as well.

      It should also be noted, for good order, in case you are not aware, that there are indeed Western Rite Orthodox — that is Christians who are under an Eastern Orthodox bishop but who, with the approval of that Bishop and the larger Orthodox church of which he is a bishop, follow the Western Christian liturgy and its related devotional and spiritual practices. There are not many of these, but they do exist (around 30 parishes or so I think in North America), and they generally follow liturgical and spiritual practices that are very similar to the pre-Vatican II Catholic ones (including things like the rosary and the Stations of the Cross and the like), and have the corresponding emphasis on substitutionary atonement and the courthouse soteriology without the Eastern Orthodox bishops under which they are jurisdictionally located batting an eye at this (although there are certainly some Eastern Orthodox priests who do!).

      Having said all of that, I do also myself find the Eastern approach to soteriology to be more upliftiing spiritually and it has been more beneficial to me personally spiritually than the courthouse version has, although I do respect that for many Western Christians the courthouse approach and its related spirituality and devotional emphasis has been and continues to be a source of great spiritual sustenance and growth.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I am a long way from getting used to it but have came to the same conclusion; “What’s left is to be obedient to Him for the sake of obedience itself.” This article has greatly encouraged me.

    Like

  5. Ed Hurst says:

    @Jeff Barnes:

    I’ve read more of Jung than I ever wanted. I’m familiar with socionics and a lot of other nonsense. Consider this: I consciously reject the underlying assumptions behind all of Western Civilization, which would surely include the assumptions of all the various Western psychological models I’ve examined. The literature does offer interesting insights here and there, but most of it misses the whole point. Not one of those models offers a human norm that is consistent with Scripture, because Scripture assumes a worldview radically different from the West.

    Like

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      I am not sure what all the underlying assumptions behind Western civilization would all include. MBTI is about human psychology, so I don’t see why it has to conflict with any norms in scripture. On the other hand enneagram is a system about human spirituality, so I would be interested to hear your opinion of it (assuming you have come across it).

      Like

      • Ed Hurst says:

        Didn’t have much interest in pursuing enneagram, so I know next to nothing about it. Broadly, you’ll find that most Western psychology presumes a Western background. Most of it works poorly when taken out of that context. For example, Muslims with little exposure to Western culture do not respond well to Western treatment programs. To some degree, it’s the same with American natives. There is virtually no treatment program among natives that takes their different culture seriously. The assumptions about human nature and reality itself are quite different. Western psychology is not universal; it is the only culture in the world that presumes the self is rooted in the intellect; virtually every other culture assumes it is rooted in the heart. Westerners assumes the heart is the seat of sentiment, whereas the Bible considers the heart an entirely separate and superior faculty, the seat of commitment and faith.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. SFC Ton says:

    If a man has a mission he won’t have peace

    Like

  7. Pingback: The gospel is relevant to all, not just guilty bad boys. | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s