Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
Monday, February 17, 2014
How to Make Yourself Work When You Just Do Not Want To
By Heidi Grant Halvorson, HBR, February 14, 2014
There’s that project you’ve left on the backburner—the one with the deadline that’s growing uncomfortably near. And there’s the client whose phone call you really should return—the one that does nothing but complain and eat up your valuable time. Wait, weren’t you going to try to go to the gym more often this year?
Can you imagine how much less guilt, stress, and frustration you would feel if you could somehow just make yourself do the things you don’t want to do when you are actually supposed to do them? Not to mention how much happier and more effective you would be?
The good news is that you can get better about not putting things off, if you use the right strategy. Figuring out which strategy to use depends on why you are procrastinating in the first place:
Reason #1 You are putting something off because you are afraid you will screw it up.
Solution: Adopt a “prevention focus.”
There are two ways to look at any task. You can do something because you see it as a way to end up better off than you are now—as an achievement or accomplishment. As in, if I complete this project successfully I will impress my boss, or if I work out regularly I will look amazing. Psychologists call this a promotion focus—and research shows that when you have one, you are motivated by the thought of making gains, and work best when you feel eager and optimistic. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, if you are afraid you will screw up on the task in question, this is not the focus for you. Anxiety and doubt undermine promotion motivation, leaving you less likely to take any action at all.
What you need is a way of looking at what you need to do that isn’t undermined by doubt—ideally, one that thrives on it. When you have a prevention focus, instead of thinking about how you can end up better off, you see the task as a way to hang on to what you’ve already got—to avoid loss. For the prevention-focused, successfully completing a project is a way to keep your boss from being angry or thinking less of you. Working out regularly is a way to not “let yourself go.” Decades of research, which I describe in my book Focus, shows that prevention motivation is actually enhanced by anxiety about what might go wrong. When you are focused on avoiding loss, it becomes clear that the only way to get out of danger is to take immediate action. The more worried you are, the faster you are out of the gate.
I know this doesn’t sound like a barrel of laughs, particularly if you are usually more the promotion-minded type, but there is probably no better way to get over your anxiety about screwing up than to give some serious thought to all the dire consequences of doing nothing at all. Go on, scare the pants off yourself. It feels awful, but it works.
Reason #2 You are putting something off because you don’t “feel” like doing it.
Solution: Make like Spock and ignore your feelings. They’re getting in your way.
In his excellent book The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can’t Stand Positive Thinking, Oliver Burkeman points out that much of the time, when we say things like “I just can’t get out of bed early in the morning, “ or “I just can’t get myself to exercise,” what we really mean is that we can’t get ourselves to feel like doing these things. After all, no one is tying you to your bed every morning. Intimidating bouncers aren’t blocking the entrance to your gym. Physically, nothing is stopping you—you just don’t feel like it. But as Burkeman asks, “Who says you need to wait until you ‘feel like’ doing something in order to start doing it?”
Think about that for a minute, because it’s really important. Somewhere along the way, we’ve all bought into the idea—without consciously realizing it—that to be motivated and effective we need to feel like we want to take action. We need to be eager to do so. I really don’t know why we believe this, because it is 100% nonsense. Yes, on some level you need to be committed to what you are doing—you need to want to see the project finished, or get healthier, or get an earlier start to your day. But you don’t need to feel like doing it.
In fact, as Burkeman points out, many of the most prolific artists, writers, and innovators have become so in part because of their reliance on work routines that forced them to put in a certain number of hours a day, no matter how uninspired (or, in many instances, hungover) they might have felt. Burkeman reminds us of renown artist Chuck Close’s observation that “Inspiration is for amateurs. The rest of us just show up and get to work.”
So if you are sitting there, putting something off because you don’t feel like it, remember that you don’t actually need to feel like it. There is nothing stopping you.
Reason #3 You are putting something off because it’s hard, boring, or otherwise unpleasant.
Solution: Use if-then planning.
Too often, we try to solve this particular problem with sheer will: Next time, I will make myself start working on this sooner. Of course, if we actually had the willpower to do that, we would never put it off in the first place. Studies show that people routinely overestimate their capacity for self-control, and rely on it too often to keep them out of hot water.
Do yourself a favor, and embrace the fact that your willpower is limited, and that it may not always be up to the challenge of getting you to do things you find difficult, tedious, or otherwise awful. Instead, use if-then planning to get the job done.
Making an if-then plan is more than just deciding what specific steps you need to take to complete a project—it’s also deciding where and when you will take them.
If it is 2pm, then I will stop what I’m doing and start work on the report Bob asked for.
If my boss doesn’t mention my request for a raise at our meeting, then I will bring it up again before the meeting ends.
By deciding in advance exactly what you’re going to do, and when and where you’re going to do it, there’s no deliberating when the time comes. No do I really have to do this now?, or can this wait till later? or maybe I should do something else instead. It’s when we deliberate that willpower becomes necessary to make the tough choice. But if-then plans dramatically reduce the demands placed on your willpower, by ensuring that you’ve made the right decision way ahead of the critical moment. In fact, if-then planning has been shown in over 200 studies to increase rates of goal attainment and productivity by 200%-300% on average.
I realize that the three strategies I’m offering you—thinking about the consequences of failure, ignoring your feelings, and engaging in detailed planning—don’t sound as fun as advice like “Follow your passion!” or “Stay positive!” But they have the decided advantage of actually being effective—which, as it happens, is exactly what you’ll be if you use them.
Why Ukraine’s future may hinge on its oligarchs
By Sabra Ayres, CS Monitor, February 14, 2014
Kiev, Ukraine—Three months into Ukraine’s political crisis, the standoff between antigovernment protesters and the Ukrainian government shows no signs of abating. Opposition and ruling party lawmakers are at loggerheads over constitutional reform, a key political resolution that seems to be going nowhere.
Meanwhile, the country’s economy, already staggering before the Euromaidan protests began, is at risk of imploding as Ukraine teeters on the brink of default.
But behind the scenes is a handful of the country’s wealthiest businessmen, who control an enormous amount of Ukraine’s economic output through their holdings in metallurgy, chemical production, and mining, and other industries. This clan of oligarchs, with their economic interests and close ties to embattled President Viktor Yanukovych, could be critical to ending the political turmoil.
“It’s definitely time for them to act, they are personally losing money as this revolution continues,” says Vadim Grib, the head of the private equity fund Tekt in Kiev. “We have no more time here.”
Ukraine’s oligarchs got rich during the privatization sales of former Soviet-owned industries and factories shortly after independence in 1991. The country’s main industries of mining, metals, chemical production, and energy distribution were snatched up by individuals, who then reaped millions in profits.
Corruption and politics have always had a close relationship in Ukraine. The oligarchs have benefited for two decades from close relations with government officials, who have at times turned a blind eye to their activities in exchange for support. At other times, politicians have enabled their oligarch supporters to get richer through key government appointments and a lack of transparency in government contracts.
As a result, many of the oligarchs have remained loyal to President Yanukovych and the ruling Party of Regions.
Among the most influential of the oligarchs is Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov. Like Yanukovych, Mr. Akhmetov is from the eastern Donetsk Oblast, and is considered to be the financial backer behind Yanukovych’s political rise.
Akhmetov’s fortunes are in the country’s steel and coal mining industries, energy distribution, and banking. Forbes Ukraine estimates that he’s worth about $15.4 billion. Akhmetov’s financial support for the Party of Regions also secured him a loyal bloc of deputies in Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada.
Another oligarch with considerable wealth and influence is Dmytro Firtash, whom Forbes Ukraine estimates to be worth $673 million. Mr. Firtash’s main interests are in chemical plants and media holdings, and he also has a group of loyal deputies in the Rada supportive of Yanukovych.
Since protestors took to the streets on Nov. 22, after Yanukovych backtracked on signing a trade and political agreement with the European Union, the pro-Yanukovych oligarchs have remained largely quiet.
One noticeable exception came in late January, when the protests turned violent during clashes between government riot troops and demonstrators, leaving at least four dead and dozens injured. Akhmetov broke his silence by issuing a statement, published on his company’s website, urging an end to the use of force and calling for more dialogue with between Yanukovych and the opposition leaders.
And more recently, one oligarch—Petro Poroshenko, the owner of the Roshen confectionery company—stepped away from the others and openly supported the Euromaidan protests. On Feb. 9, Mr. Poroshenko told a gathering of an estimated 50,000 protestors on Kiev’s central Independence Square, or Maidan, that the fall of the hryvnia’s value proved that the economy “cannot function under such corruption.”
“You have been robbed of 10 percent of your income,” he told the crowd.
Another oligarch, Viktor Pinchuk, has been openly pro-European, although he has not shown support for the opposition leaders. His $3.8 billion fortune has interests in metals and media, and he has ties with both Russia and the West.
As Ukraine’s economic situation grows more desperate—putting the oligarchs’ fortunes at risk—many observers hope that they will step in and push Yanukovych to find a settlement with the opposition.
This week, the national bank reported a 13 percent drop in international currency reserves since January. Ukrainians panicked as the national currency, the hryvnia, decreased in value, and the international credit rating agency Fitch significantly downgraded Ukrainian sovereign debt.
There’s another motivation for the oligarchs to act quickly: Many of the oligarchs’ businesses—particularly in the mining, heavy industry, and energy distribution industries—operate in dilapidated, Soviet-era facilities that are extremely energy-inefficient, and heavily dependent on government subsidies. The 2014 state budget allocates 13.3 billion hryvnia, or about $1.6 billion, in direct subsidies to the coal mining enterprises alone, according to Viktor Maziarchuk, an analyst at the International Center for Policy Studies in Kiev. That’s about 3.6 percent of the entire 2014 budget.
An escalation of the civil unrest in Ukraine would put those funds in jeopardy if the economy deteriorates further.
Stepan Kubiv, a parliament member from the opposition Fatherland party, says he thinks some of the powerful oligarchs will act only when they get solid guarantees that their businesses will be safe if a new government replaces Yanukovych.
The best hope for a political solution is a proposal by the opposition to revert the country to a parliamentary republic. The move, by reinstating a 2004 constitutional amendment, would strip the president of much of his power, redistributing it to the 447-seat unicameral parliament.
Yanukovych and the ruling party in parliament have agreed to consider the reforms, but in a detailed process that could last as long as six months, a path that opposition leaders caution would only inflame tensions on the street. Time, they say, is not on Yanukovych’s side.
The United States and the European Union have said they are ready to help Ukraine with an economic aid package, but much depends on the Yanukovych at this point, Assistant Sec. of State Victoria Nuland said on Friday during her visit to Kiev.
Ms. Nuland made it clear that passing parliamentary reforms is part of the donor countries’ expectations. “Nobody is willing to give economic support, from the United States or from the IMF or from Europe, to an unreformed Ukraine,” Nuland told a press conference in Kiev on Feb. 7.
If the pending economic collapse isn’t impetus enough for the oligarchs to urge Yanukovych to act, economic sanctions from the EU or US could be. Many oligarchs have close economic ties to the West, such as real estate, bank accounts, and other assets. The US has said that it has already revoked visas for several Ukrainian officials, but antigovernment protestors say economic sanctions would have more impact.
By using their economic clout, Ukraine’s elite clan of oligarchs could pressure Yanukovych to find a political compromise quickly in order to save the economy, and their businesses, says Volodymyr Panchenko, the director of the International Center for Policy Studies in Kiev.
“The oligarchs could definitely change the situation, and it should be done this week,” Mr. Panchenko says.
Kiev, Ukraine—Three months into Ukraine’s political crisis, the standoff between antigovernment protesters and the Ukrainian government shows no signs of abating. Opposition and ruling party lawmakers are at loggerheads over constitutional reform, a key political resolution that seems to be going nowhere.
Meanwhile, the country’s economy, already staggering before the Euromaidan protests began, is at risk of imploding as Ukraine teeters on the brink of default.
But behind the scenes is a handful of the country’s wealthiest businessmen, who control an enormous amount of Ukraine’s economic output through their holdings in metallurgy, chemical production, and mining, and other industries. This clan of oligarchs, with their economic interests and close ties to embattled President Viktor Yanukovych, could be critical to ending the political turmoil.
“It’s definitely time for them to act, they are personally losing money as this revolution continues,” says Vadim Grib, the head of the private equity fund Tekt in Kiev. “We have no more time here.”
Ukraine’s oligarchs got rich during the privatization sales of former Soviet-owned industries and factories shortly after independence in 1991. The country’s main industries of mining, metals, chemical production, and energy distribution were snatched up by individuals, who then reaped millions in profits.
Corruption and politics have always had a close relationship in Ukraine. The oligarchs have benefited for two decades from close relations with government officials, who have at times turned a blind eye to their activities in exchange for support. At other times, politicians have enabled their oligarch supporters to get richer through key government appointments and a lack of transparency in government contracts.
As a result, many of the oligarchs have remained loyal to President Yanukovych and the ruling Party of Regions.
Among the most influential of the oligarchs is Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov. Like Yanukovych, Mr. Akhmetov is from the eastern Donetsk Oblast, and is considered to be the financial backer behind Yanukovych’s political rise.
Akhmetov’s fortunes are in the country’s steel and coal mining industries, energy distribution, and banking. Forbes Ukraine estimates that he’s worth about $15.4 billion. Akhmetov’s financial support for the Party of Regions also secured him a loyal bloc of deputies in Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada.
Another oligarch with considerable wealth and influence is Dmytro Firtash, whom Forbes Ukraine estimates to be worth $673 million. Mr. Firtash’s main interests are in chemical plants and media holdings, and he also has a group of loyal deputies in the Rada supportive of Yanukovych.
Since protestors took to the streets on Nov. 22, after Yanukovych backtracked on signing a trade and political agreement with the European Union, the pro-Yanukovych oligarchs have remained largely quiet.
One noticeable exception came in late January, when the protests turned violent during clashes between government riot troops and demonstrators, leaving at least four dead and dozens injured. Akhmetov broke his silence by issuing a statement, published on his company’s website, urging an end to the use of force and calling for more dialogue with between Yanukovych and the opposition leaders.
And more recently, one oligarch—Petro Poroshenko, the owner of the Roshen confectionery company—stepped away from the others and openly supported the Euromaidan protests. On Feb. 9, Mr. Poroshenko told a gathering of an estimated 50,000 protestors on Kiev’s central Independence Square, or Maidan, that the fall of the hryvnia’s value proved that the economy “cannot function under such corruption.”
“You have been robbed of 10 percent of your income,” he told the crowd.
Another oligarch, Viktor Pinchuk, has been openly pro-European, although he has not shown support for the opposition leaders. His $3.8 billion fortune has interests in metals and media, and he has ties with both Russia and the West.
As Ukraine’s economic situation grows more desperate—putting the oligarchs’ fortunes at risk—many observers hope that they will step in and push Yanukovych to find a settlement with the opposition.
This week, the national bank reported a 13 percent drop in international currency reserves since January. Ukrainians panicked as the national currency, the hryvnia, decreased in value, and the international credit rating agency Fitch significantly downgraded Ukrainian sovereign debt.
There’s another motivation for the oligarchs to act quickly: Many of the oligarchs’ businesses—particularly in the mining, heavy industry, and energy distribution industries—operate in dilapidated, Soviet-era facilities that are extremely energy-inefficient, and heavily dependent on government subsidies. The 2014 state budget allocates 13.3 billion hryvnia, or about $1.6 billion, in direct subsidies to the coal mining enterprises alone, according to Viktor Maziarchuk, an analyst at the International Center for Policy Studies in Kiev. That’s about 3.6 percent of the entire 2014 budget.
An escalation of the civil unrest in Ukraine would put those funds in jeopardy if the economy deteriorates further.
Stepan Kubiv, a parliament member from the opposition Fatherland party, says he thinks some of the powerful oligarchs will act only when they get solid guarantees that their businesses will be safe if a new government replaces Yanukovych.
The best hope for a political solution is a proposal by the opposition to revert the country to a parliamentary republic. The move, by reinstating a 2004 constitutional amendment, would strip the president of much of his power, redistributing it to the 447-seat unicameral parliament.
Yanukovych and the ruling party in parliament have agreed to consider the reforms, but in a detailed process that could last as long as six months, a path that opposition leaders caution would only inflame tensions on the street. Time, they say, is not on Yanukovych’s side.
The United States and the European Union have said they are ready to help Ukraine with an economic aid package, but much depends on the Yanukovych at this point, Assistant Sec. of State Victoria Nuland said on Friday during her visit to Kiev.
Ms. Nuland made it clear that passing parliamentary reforms is part of the donor countries’ expectations. “Nobody is willing to give economic support, from the United States or from the IMF or from Europe, to an unreformed Ukraine,” Nuland told a press conference in Kiev on Feb. 7.
If the pending economic collapse isn’t impetus enough for the oligarchs to urge Yanukovych to act, economic sanctions from the EU or US could be. Many oligarchs have close economic ties to the West, such as real estate, bank accounts, and other assets. The US has said that it has already revoked visas for several Ukrainian officials, but antigovernment protestors say economic sanctions would have more impact.
By using their economic clout, Ukraine’s elite clan of oligarchs could pressure Yanukovych to find a political compromise quickly in order to save the economy, and their businesses, says Volodymyr Panchenko, the director of the International Center for Policy Studies in Kiev.
“The oligarchs could definitely change the situation, and it should be done this week,” Mr. Panchenko says.
Loving the Lord with Our Minds
By M. Fontaine
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.—Mark 12:301
Even though we may share a collective faith with specific doctrines that we embrace as a community of faith, we should also be personally convinced, and persuaded in our own mind of the beliefs and faith that we hold to as individuals.2—Because we know in our hearts, or have made the choice to embrace them due to personal faith or experience that this is what God wants for us, what’s right for us.
The Lord told us specifically to love God with all our mind.3 He didn’t just refer to our heart and soul, but also to our mind. God gave human beings mental faculties and He created us to be intellectual beings, capable of rational thought, intellectual growth, critical thinking, and reasoning. He also gave us a conscience to guide us in making choices that are morally right.
The Bible says that “whatever is not of faith is sin,”4 so if we don’t have the faith for something, then it can be a sin for us. For this reason, it’s important that we are at liberty to explore our beliefs and determine where our faith lies on issues and points of doctrine, and to build our views accordingly.
God expects us to use the tools and talents that He has given each of us, and there is nothing inherently wrong with developing and using your intellectual abilities. He asks us to glorify Him in the process. Using our mental faculties and being capable of critical and rational thinking are not meant to undermine our faith. Realistically, some people do reason themselves out of their faith. But in other cases, they serve to strengthen people’s faith. It depends on how they are used. Paul, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, C. S. Lewis, and other great Christian thinkers used reasoning and logic to strengthen their and others’ faith and understanding of doctrine and to help to shape the faith and intellectual viewpoints of Christianity of their day.
We can use our intellectual abilities to glorify God and to affirm our faith, just as we can use any other skills and talents He has given us. We can use our minds to better love God, as Jesus commanded us to do. We can also use our intellectual abilities to further our education, our understanding of the world, and for career opportunities. As is the case with all gifts from His hand, He expects us to be faithful stewards of the mental and intellectual abilities He has given us, to invest them wisely, and to allow them to benefit ourselves and others.
Accepting all points of doctrine and believing completely by faith is not a natural approach for everybody in all cases. Just as the Lord made people very different in their personalities and physical makeup, there are also different kinds of faith. Whether your faith is such that you need time and study to reach a place of belief, or whether you embrace concepts with little questioning, the end goal is what counts—a living faith.
It’s not unusual to go through crises of faith and to doubt or question points of doctrine, even foundational Christian principles. The Lord often works through such battles of the mind and spirit and uses them to strengthen us. He can use this process to help us to go back to the foundation of our faith, to reaffirm our belief, and to ensure that we are well grounded in the foundation of our beliefs. It can help us to reach an understanding as to why we believe the doctrines we hold to be true, and the scriptural foundation for them.
Many Christians have experienced crises of faith or grappled with bouts of doubt. Some noteworthy examples, such as Martin Luther, Mother Teresa, and Adoniram Judson, come to mind. Their crises of faith and the battles they fought to reach a place of faith and understanding have been documented. The result of their experiences, however, was a stronger faith, a deeper understanding of God and the intimate relationship He seeks with each of us. Their battles and victories have inspired many. I would venture to say that their struggles also gave them a deeper understanding of the battles people face in affirming their faith and how such battles can be used to ultimately strengthen their faith. I’m sure many of you have had similar experiences.
Rather than looking at doubts and crises of faith as only a potential threat to our faith, to be resisted and pushed out of mind and heart, we can also see these as potential stepping stones to a strong and mature Christian faith. They can serve to help us to go to the foundation of our faith and to affirm it. They can help us to reason and understand our faith both spiritually and intellectually, to research and to discover “whether these things be so,”5 and to reach a place of personal and reasoned faith. A faith built on these premises will not be easily swayed when challenged by contrary arguments or beliefs, or intellectual reasoning from those who are unbelievers. Ultimately, the result can be a stronger and more seasoned faith.
Of course, doubts and skepticism continue to be tests of our faith which, like all tests, can either strengthen or weaken our faith, depending on how we respond to them. Facing doubts is part of being human; it’s how we handle them that makes all the difference. I encourage you to take the steps you need to strengthen your faith when you have questions or doubts about a point of doctrine, so that you can resolve these in your heart and mind. There may be times when the Lord asks you to wrap something up in a bundle of faith. At other times, He may lead you to work through an issue until you reach a place of peace and understanding.
Analyzing, discussing, and debating points of doctrine can be healthy for your faith, as it requires you to research, dig deep, and learn to articulate and defend your views and the scriptural foundation for them. There is also a lot written in the Bible about understanding and accepting and using our minds as a vehicle for our faith. The Lord once said, “Come now, let us reason together.”6 He can strengthen and consolidate our faith through our gaining a greater understanding of its foundations.
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.—2 Corinthians 10:3–57
Originally published September 2010. Adapted and republished February 2014 @tfi.
1 NIV.
2 Romans 14:5
3 Matthew 22:37.
4 Romans 14:23.
5 Acts 17:11.
6 Isaiah 1:18.
7 NIV.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.—Mark 12:301
Even though we may share a collective faith with specific doctrines that we embrace as a community of faith, we should also be personally convinced, and persuaded in our own mind of the beliefs and faith that we hold to as individuals.2—Because we know in our hearts, or have made the choice to embrace them due to personal faith or experience that this is what God wants for us, what’s right for us.
The Lord told us specifically to love God with all our mind.3 He didn’t just refer to our heart and soul, but also to our mind. God gave human beings mental faculties and He created us to be intellectual beings, capable of rational thought, intellectual growth, critical thinking, and reasoning. He also gave us a conscience to guide us in making choices that are morally right.
The Bible says that “whatever is not of faith is sin,”4 so if we don’t have the faith for something, then it can be a sin for us. For this reason, it’s important that we are at liberty to explore our beliefs and determine where our faith lies on issues and points of doctrine, and to build our views accordingly.
God expects us to use the tools and talents that He has given each of us, and there is nothing inherently wrong with developing and using your intellectual abilities. He asks us to glorify Him in the process. Using our mental faculties and being capable of critical and rational thinking are not meant to undermine our faith. Realistically, some people do reason themselves out of their faith. But in other cases, they serve to strengthen people’s faith. It depends on how they are used. Paul, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, C. S. Lewis, and other great Christian thinkers used reasoning and logic to strengthen their and others’ faith and understanding of doctrine and to help to shape the faith and intellectual viewpoints of Christianity of their day.
We can use our intellectual abilities to glorify God and to affirm our faith, just as we can use any other skills and talents He has given us. We can use our minds to better love God, as Jesus commanded us to do. We can also use our intellectual abilities to further our education, our understanding of the world, and for career opportunities. As is the case with all gifts from His hand, He expects us to be faithful stewards of the mental and intellectual abilities He has given us, to invest them wisely, and to allow them to benefit ourselves and others.
Accepting all points of doctrine and believing completely by faith is not a natural approach for everybody in all cases. Just as the Lord made people very different in their personalities and physical makeup, there are also different kinds of faith. Whether your faith is such that you need time and study to reach a place of belief, or whether you embrace concepts with little questioning, the end goal is what counts—a living faith.
It’s not unusual to go through crises of faith and to doubt or question points of doctrine, even foundational Christian principles. The Lord often works through such battles of the mind and spirit and uses them to strengthen us. He can use this process to help us to go back to the foundation of our faith, to reaffirm our belief, and to ensure that we are well grounded in the foundation of our beliefs. It can help us to reach an understanding as to why we believe the doctrines we hold to be true, and the scriptural foundation for them.
Many Christians have experienced crises of faith or grappled with bouts of doubt. Some noteworthy examples, such as Martin Luther, Mother Teresa, and Adoniram Judson, come to mind. Their crises of faith and the battles they fought to reach a place of faith and understanding have been documented. The result of their experiences, however, was a stronger faith, a deeper understanding of God and the intimate relationship He seeks with each of us. Their battles and victories have inspired many. I would venture to say that their struggles also gave them a deeper understanding of the battles people face in affirming their faith and how such battles can be used to ultimately strengthen their faith. I’m sure many of you have had similar experiences.
Rather than looking at doubts and crises of faith as only a potential threat to our faith, to be resisted and pushed out of mind and heart, we can also see these as potential stepping stones to a strong and mature Christian faith. They can serve to help us to go to the foundation of our faith and to affirm it. They can help us to reason and understand our faith both spiritually and intellectually, to research and to discover “whether these things be so,”5 and to reach a place of personal and reasoned faith. A faith built on these premises will not be easily swayed when challenged by contrary arguments or beliefs, or intellectual reasoning from those who are unbelievers. Ultimately, the result can be a stronger and more seasoned faith.
Of course, doubts and skepticism continue to be tests of our faith which, like all tests, can either strengthen or weaken our faith, depending on how we respond to them. Facing doubts is part of being human; it’s how we handle them that makes all the difference. I encourage you to take the steps you need to strengthen your faith when you have questions or doubts about a point of doctrine, so that you can resolve these in your heart and mind. There may be times when the Lord asks you to wrap something up in a bundle of faith. At other times, He may lead you to work through an issue until you reach a place of peace and understanding.
Analyzing, discussing, and debating points of doctrine can be healthy for your faith, as it requires you to research, dig deep, and learn to articulate and defend your views and the scriptural foundation for them. There is also a lot written in the Bible about understanding and accepting and using our minds as a vehicle for our faith. The Lord once said, “Come now, let us reason together.”6 He can strengthen and consolidate our faith through our gaining a greater understanding of its foundations.
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.—2 Corinthians 10:3–57
Originally published September 2010. Adapted and republished February 2014 @tfi.
1 NIV.
2 Romans 14:5
3 Matthew 22:37.
4 Romans 14:23.
5 Acts 17:11.
6 Isaiah 1:18.
7 NIV.
