Moral Foundations, Necessary or Not?

All laws must have a moral backing, that is, a moral law as their foundation. Contrary to those who say that "You can't legislate morality," I say, "If you don't legislate morality, what do you legislate?" Without that moral foundation, any legislation is simply argumentum ad baculum, or (paraphrased) in English, "persuasion from the barrel of a gun." You will do what we say simply because we want you to do it. The only obligation that you have is to the government and there is no one greater than us to whom we are accountable. And if you don't like it, lump it.

Without some higher authority morality is reduced to ice cream; you like vanilla, I like mocha almond fudge. Except we're talking about morality here, so it becomes, you prefer not taking other peoples' stuff, I like to help myself to any of your possessions that catch my eye. Who's to say who's right? In fact, without that objective, authoritative moral standard, even asking the question "who is right," is nonsensical. If there is no higher standard there is no right or wrong, just personal preference; your decision not to steal is no better than my decision to steal.

Some people who want to deny the necessity of an objective, authoritative (thus God-based) moral foundation argue that we get our morality through periods of trial and error, discovering what works.

But who's to say what works for any given society? Certainly, cutting the hearts out of living victims kidnapped from other local tribes by the thousands seemed to work quite well for the Aztec civilization. African slavery worked great for most of the world (including most of Africa) for hundreds of years. Purging their society of the aged, the handicapped, and the Jews looked like it might "work" for the purposes of the Nazis. Without a moral standard outside of human government and culture, these atrocities cannot be judged as "wrong." Without an authoritative moral standard, the strongest statement one can make about these events is, "Personally, I don't like that." Seems pretty weak to me.

"But," the secularist argues, "all those examples involve hurting other people. Thus, we can say such actions are immoral." Really? Where does one, outside of an objective, authoritative moral standard, have the ability to say that hurting people is wrong? Let me put it another way: You claim there are no transcendent moral standards, but we shouldn't hurt people. If that's true, then isn't "not hurting people" a transcendent moral law? To say that there is not an authoritative Law Giver who we are obligated to obey, but at the same time claim that we are obligated not to hurt people is a contradiction. May I also point out that if we agree that "not hurting people" IS a transcendent moral law, then couldn't there be other transcendent moral laws as well?

The strongest statement the secular legal scholar can make is, "I don't like being hurt, therefore I chose not to hurt other people." Wonderful! That's an excellent reason for you not to hurt people, not for anybody else not to hurt people. What if I like hurting people? By what authority, other than one's personal preferences, could I then be told to change my behavior? There is none.

Without a God, who is The Moral Authority, people have no obligation to help or be concerned for others, all societies from the most violent and degraded to the most kind and altruistic are on the same level, one can't be said to be better than the other (the idea of "better" implies an objective standard). Words like "corruption" and "justice" become meaningless. There can never be such a thing as a moral reformer, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.; in fact, in what 99.8% of people would surely consider a bizarre twist, in a world where culture, society, or government truly was the highest authority, M. L. King, Jr. would be considered immoral (I'm not going to take up more space here demonstrating why that would be).

Without God, the whole philosophical basis for a justice system or a legal system breaks down completely. And the result are truly ugly to behold.

God and Your Job

Recently, I have handled a number of questions from friends and acquaintances asking about "God's will for their life" with a particular emphasis on jobs and vocation. Does God have a specific job he wants you to do, or a specific company He wants you to work for?

The question is closely tied to the common Christian assumption, widely held today, that God has some special blueprint for your life; where you will live, who you will marry, what job you will have, etc., etc,. Certainly God knows all of these things, but the question is whether God is making these decisions for you and if you need to figure out what His choices are before you can make a move.

Does God have this blueprint for you and He's dropping little hints here and there, trying to get you to figure out what He wants you to do? Personally, I have a hard time thinking of a more hurtful or confusing teaching within the mainstream Christian Church today than this one.

Having studied the Bible with the same questions in mind, I found that the Bible communcates God's will in two different and distinct ways; what many have come to refer to as "God's Sovereign Will," and "God's Moral Will:"

God's Sovereign Will: What God designs or decrees. We can only discover what God's sovereign will is in two ways, through hindsight and through what is revealed in scripture. We see what happened yesterday and realize that what occured did so by God's sovereign will. God establishes rulers and authorities, kings and kingdoms; He has supreme authority overeverything that happens. It is God's sovereign will that lost be condemned and the saved be sanctified and redeemed; we see this in scripture. There are a number of prophesies in scripture which inform us of God's sovereign will for the future. That said, the vast majority of the time we don't have access to God's sovereign will for the purpose of decision making.

God's Moral Will: What God desires. This tells us how we should live: that we should submit ourselves to His authority, that we should live righteously and not sin. God's Moral will is completely revealed to us in Scripture. It does not give individual guidence to Christians, but applies to all Christains equally.

As far as what many Christians call "God's Individual Will" for each one of us, I can't find that taught anywhere in scripture. I know of many passages which are used to justify such a teaching, but when read in context they don't actually have anything to do with such an "Individual Will". It appears clear from the Bible that God doesn't decide things like occupation, spouse, and living location for us, He dignifies us with the responsibility of making significant choices ourselves.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that God doesn't care about the decisions that we make, but that he allows us to make the decisions that are best for us, and is pleased with our choices as long as they are in accordance with His moral will as revealed in scripture. As far as how to apply God's will to your life, it really is very simple: The Bible doesn't tell us where we should live, but what kind of neighbor we should be. It doesn't tell us what job we should take, but what kind of employee or employer we should be. It doesn't tell us who we should marry, but what kind of spouse we should be. The Bible doesn't tell us who we should have a freind, but what kind of friend we should be.

In short, if you think that you need to change occupations...DO IT! If you truly desire to honor God, you will honor him whether you decide to stay in your current position, or leave to do something new, as long as your decision is in line with His moral will as clearly communicated in the Bible.

Advice for Young People Considering College

I work a great deal with the High School kids in my Church; I teach on Sunday mornings and I am considering facilitating another small discussion group one night a week; so I am exposed to a lot of the issues, problems, and questions that young people today, especially in the Christian tradition, are dealing with. One issue that I am particularly passionate about is decision making, how one goes about making wise decisions.

This subject is especially relevant to high-schoolers as they are quickly approaching some major changes in their life, some major decisions that will have very real and serious ramifications for years to come, possibly for the rest of their lives. What do I do after high-school? Should I go to college? What school should I attend? What career do I want to pursue? Should I get married?

In this vein, a friend recently wrote me to ask how I had decided on pursuing (and eventually completing) my degree in Engineering. I would like to share my response, as I think it contains some good advise (if I do say so myself), specifically about picking a career, but also how to deal with life questions generally.

I got into engineering for two reasons:

1. I liked technical drawings. I always enjoyed looking at technical drawings and I figured I would probably enjoy creating them too. It turns out that I was right, and that had I natural talent for it (I was far-and-away the top student in every technical drawing class I ever took).

2. I wanted a career that would provide a comfortable income and relative job security. Engineering does both. Engineers are paid well and there is always a demand for them.

While I started with technical drawing classes, which I continued to love, I found that I also enjoyed most of the other engineering classes I that began taking (advanced math, physics, dynamics, testing, technical writing, problem solving, etc.). My enjoyment of the material I was studying and the potential for a solid, respectable career, confirmed the wisdom of the choice for me. That’s pretty much it.

Apart from that, let me give you some advice. I don’t have a very high view of going to college simply for the sake of getting a degree. I know too many people who have spent a great deal of time and money getting degrees in things like theater or “liberal arts” and upon graduating have no career prospects. Three years after completing their education they are working at Safeway, a decent job, but not what most people want to do for the rest of their life.

In my opinion, college is a tool to provide one with the resources that one needs to get started in the career of his choice. Think hard about what you want to do after college, and then take classes and get a degree that will help you achieve that goal. Maybe the career you want to have in 15 years doesn’t require a college education (there are plenty of great options that don’t), if your ideal career doesn’t require college then the 4+ years and all the money you will spend there are wasted. Start working toward what you want right now instead of waiting years and wasting money that could be better used in achieving your specific goals.

If you don't know what you want to do right now, then go out and experience real life for a while. Get a job, work, and see what it really takes to get by in real life. A year or two of doing this and most young people will discover what they would like to do with themselves. I cannot tell you how valuable this is! Until you know what you really want to do you'll just float in University limbo, or worse, spend a lot of time and money getting a degree you have no use for and setting yourself back four, or five, or six years.

My point is this: Decide what you want to be doing in 15 years, both in your working life and in your domestic life. Think hard about what you need to do to achieve those goals and make realistic plans. If you have an idea about a specific career, seek out people who work in that field and ask for their advise about what to do, most people like helping.

Once you have a plan, buckle down and get to work. Nothing worth having is going to be easy; I worked for nearly seven years in college before graduating, and even then I had difficulty finding a stable job. It’s taken me almost 4 years since graduating to get into a career I enjoy, want to continue in, and will provide my family with a decent living.

I hope that helps. It’s the best advice I can give you right now.

The Bible and Women in the Church

Recently, I was asked by an acquaintance what I thought the Bible says regarding women teaching in church. This is one of the questions that elicits gut emotional responses in most Christians; I have known commentators on every side of the debate ignore information that needed to be dealt with and make dogmatic stands when they have no reason to do so. To the best of my recollection, I have only ever heard one commentator make a truly convincing argument on this Biblical issue. I hope that I did better in the letter to my friend, which is reproduced below:

The issue you raised of women teaching in regard to the Church/Bible being out of step with what we consider modern "human rights" is an interesting one. May women teach in the Church?

There are only three passages that I am aware of that are appealed to in order to make the argument that God doesn’t allow women to teach. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul spells out the requirements that one must meet who desires to be a leader in the local church:

1 Timothy 3:1-2
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…

Paul goes on and on. Clearly, this level of leadership is restricted to men, as that leader must be married to a woman. But this passage says nothing about whether women should be allowed to teach. We know there were a great many members of the local church who taught and yet were not members of the leadership; this is true today, I myself have held lengthy teaching positions in two churches, yet I would never have been considered a member of the Church leadership. Therefore, women cannot be excluded from teaching based upon this passage.

The next is located in 1 Corinthians 14:33a-35, in which Paul writes:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

It seems clear, taken in isolation, but what is really going on in this passage? If you read the paragraphs above this section, and the paragraphs below this section, Paul is addressing problems that are disrupting worship in the church at Corinth. This section is only one small part of a larger passage in which Paul is attempting to promote orderly worship.

Look at the sentence that immediately follows verse 34 (the verse cited to support women not teaching):
If they [the women] want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Verse 34 provides insight into the specific problem Paul is writing to address in the previous verse. Apparently, women (who were generally far less educated at that time) were asking questions of each other, or their husbands, or the teachers during the service, and thus were causing a disruption of worship.

Paul doesn’t address teaching in this paragraph, he addresses talking during the service; much like kids today who disrupt the lesson for everyone else when they speak out of turn in class. If what Paul means here is that women shouldn’t be teaching, then verse 34 is a non sequitur. It makes absolutely no sense.

This leaves us with the final passage:

1 Timothy 2:11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I know this seems to be set in concrete, but let me put forward a possible alternative interpretation that I believe does complete justice to the text and to all of Paul’s other teaching.

The Greek word for ‘woman’ in this passage is ‘Gune.’ While 'gune' is the most common Greek word found in the NT for ‘woman,’ it also happens to be the most common word in the NT for ‘wife’ as well. The Greek word used for ‘man’ in this passage is ‘aner.’ 'Aner' also happens to be the most common word in the NT for husband. It was the translators’ decision to interpret these two words as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ because they believed that the context of the passage called for it to be this way.

But is this right? The vast majority of the time, when these two Greek words are found together in a passage, they are translated as ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ unless there is very clear reason not to. Although I am not a Greek scholar, I don’t see any such reason in this passage, nor have I ever heard one presented beyond the personal beliefs of the interpreters on this issue.

So let’s insert the other linguistically acceptable translation and see if it works as well or better than the traditional one:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to teach or to have authority over a husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But wives will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This alternative works. It does justice to Paul’s teaching in other letters and it makes sense in light of the surrounding passages. What was the relationship between Adam and Eve, seeing as Paul is justifying his preceding argument upon the relationship that existed between them? Nearly all who point to this verse as a prohibition on women teachers say the relationship in view was the first man and women. Maybe. But, in my humble opinion, the relationship could just as easily be that of the first husband and wife! In fact, I find this possibility more likely, as this is how Adam and Eve would have related to each other.

It also makes sense in light of the following passages where Paul asks the Church in Rome to greet his fellow servants in Christ:

Romans 16:1-4, 6, 12, 15
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them…Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you…Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord…Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.

(Aside: It is unclear whether Julia is a man or a woman. In every instance of this name in ancient texts but two the sex of the bearer of that name is unknown. In one of those instances the bearer is female, in the other the bearer is male. So without further information, it is impossible to say whether the Julia in this passage is a man or a woman.)

I don’t believe that when Paul is talking about the great work these women have done for him and the church, he is referring to baking food for the local meeting. These women’s names are mixed up with men’s names, men who we know were teachers.

Acts 18:24-26
Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

In both the Old and New Testaments there were prophetesses, teachers of the people (I might also point out that prophet’s spoke with the authority of God, so when a prophetess spoke it would behoove both women and men to listen and learn):

Exodus 15:20
Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dancing.

Judges 4:4
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

Luke 2:36-37
And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers.

Acts 21:8-10 On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.

It seems pretty clear that there is no prohibition on women teaching, and even teaching men, but rather on women holding leadership positions in the church. So again, your stated opinion that the Bible in some way contradicts our ideas of human rights (at least on this issue of the equality of the sexes) is flat out wrong (I hope you’re pleased to hear that). Instead, the Bible was far ahead of its time.

The Problem of God and Evil

I have not addressed "God and the Problem of Evil" yet on this blog, it is a very interesting argument (at least I find it so) but it can also get very detailed and complicated. I don't want to go in depth right now, but just give the lay theist who might find this blog a very powerful little tool to help them out if they are ever asked about this issue.

This tool is short and sweet and was first proposed by Rabbi Milton Steinberg, and it goes something like this:

"The believer in God has to account for the existence of two things: evil and suffering. The atheist has to account for the existence of everything else."

If one is intellectually honest, and one wants to use the problem of evil and suffering against God, then one must also acknowledge that all the good and just in the world can justifiably be used as evidence for God.

Does God Punish Us for What We Believe?

In recent months I have become increasingly aware of a problem many Christians are creating which is keeping them from reaching the irreligious who otherwise might be very open to the gospel message. Christians are giving unbelievers wrong ideas about God, salvation, and judgment, the primary messages of Christianity, by responding to the question, “why do I need Jesus?” with the answer, “If you don’t believe in Jesus you will go to hell.”

What’s the problem with this statement? Isn’t it true? Well…Yes and no.

When Christians hear the phrase, “If you don’t believe in Jesus you will go to hell,” there are a lot of other things that come packaged with it, salvation by grace, mercy, justice, etc. When a non-Christian hears that phrase they hear that God is capricious, caring more about what you believe than what you do. This is a major stumbling block for non-Christians considering Christianity, and it’s a completely unnecessary one if only Christians would be more careful in how they communicate the Gospel. The gospel is offensive enough without Christ’s followers adding to the offense with badly chosen words.

So how should we communicate the truth of “If you don’t believe in Jesus you go hell,” in a more effective, more precise manner?

We need to understand the Gospel better. While it’s true that those who don’t believe in Jesus will go to hell, their lack of belief is not the reason they go there. People go to hell because of their moral transgressions against God. While it is true that those who die without Christ will face judgment and hell, it is not one’s beliefs that earn hell, but one’s actions. God does not judge based on belief, He judges and condemns those standing before Him based on their rebellion and moral criminality. It is only because of the grace of God offered through Christ, that I and other Christians can receive the mercy of God, which we have not earned and don’t deserve.

We Christians have failed in communicating the need for Jesus to the unbelieving world. We have gotten so caught up in talking about Christianity with other Christians that many of us have forgotten that non-Christians don’t understand our buzzwords; and speaking “christianese” confuses them at best and gives them the wrong impressions about what God really does and offers at worst.

Head Knowledge Versus Heart Knowledge

Growing up in the Church, I have often heard people say, “The problem is you only have head knowledge, but you don’t have heart knowledge.” The thinking is this: You can have all the “head knowledge” you want, but if you don’t engage the heart (an emotional response) with that knowledge, you will be a spiritually dead (or at least spiritually weak) Christian; and will be more likely to fall-away or backslide should you run up against an intellectual roadblock.

The fact that I have never once heard this idea reversed (i.e. “The problem is, all you have is heart knowledge; you need to get a little head knowledge.”) exemplifies the preference among much of evangelical Christianity for emotion over thought when it comes to the Christian walk.

Favoring emotion over knowledge is a tremendous problem facing the Church today. Like many troubling sayings in the Church, the problem arises not from the saying itself but because the saying has been repeated so often for so long and without any explanation or supporting scripture that it has taken on a whole new meaning in the minds of many people. This misunderstanding has caused Christians, in some cases, to completely discount and eliminate the rational aspect of the Christian life in favor of an almost exclusively emotional response.

This really hit home for me while I was perusing a discussion thread titled, “Discerning God’s Voice,” on one of the Christian Internet forums that I visit from time to time. The thread posed the question how one knows the “will of God,” with a specific example of a decision being faced by the thread originator. Nearly all of the responses leaned heavily toward an emotional answer to the question; here are several examples:

“..if you don't know shelf it, set it aside until you can discern it more in your heart and with God.”

“God’s will always leaves us with a sense of peace at the end.” (sense of peace = emotional tranquility. Apparently, this sense of peace is how we know we are within God’s will, according to many of the posters.)

“…when you heard those words in your head, did the feeling after leave you at peace or with more confusion and questions?” (The originator of the post talked about “hearing a voice in his head” and was wondering how to tell whether the voice was from God.)

“Yes, if you are feeling peace in everything, that is the Holy Spirit.”

The most egregious example was this one:

“God leads us by peace! God doesn’t scare us! God speaks in a still small voice, in our bowels = in our belly. Never listen to your head; the mind is at enmity against God. Listen to your belly, close your eyes and listen, focus on where the voice comes from, either head or gut.” Go with the gut!!!” (I could do another long post responding to all the problematic statements here. I disagree emphatically with every sentence this poster wrote.)

(Emphasis added in each example)

The problem as I see it is this: While it may be that having only “head knowledge” can lead to a spiritually dead Christian, it is almost inevitably true that having only “heart knowledge” leads to immature Christians; which, in the present evangelical landscape, is a far larger problem than spiritually dead Christians, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of spiritual deadness out there as well, but almost by definition all the spiritually dead are also immature, and when you add them to all the “spiritually alive” (or at least emotional) Christians who are fundamentally immature as well, you get a problem which affects a huge percentage of Christianity (and the fact is, those who are spiritually mature are unlikely to be spiritually dead).

I am drawing a parallel between “head knowledge” and maturity because without information about God and his law/will, one will never move beyond a purely emotional response to Him and grow out of immaturity. Such “thoughtful maturity” is often called “wisdom” by the Biblical authors. Wisdom doesn’t come through emotional “heart knowledge,” it requires information which only comes through the study of and meditation on the Word of God. In other words, it requires “head knowledge.”

While there is encouragement for the believer to seek after and/or apply human wisdom in countless passages in both the Old and New Testaments, I can’t think of a single example of a Biblical exhortation for the believer to seek an emotional experience. If you know of any, please provide me with the citation (obviously, we are told to love God, but as any married couple can tell you, and in the immortal words of DC Talk: “Love is a verb.” Love can be associated with an emotion, but true love persists even when the emotions fade away, as they do in every relationship from time to time). Let me highlight just a few examples of wisdom from the Bible:

Proverbs 4:5-13
Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding!
Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth.
"Do not forsake her, and she will guard you;
Love her, and she will watch over you.
"The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom;
And with all your acquiring, get understanding.
"Prize her, and she will exalt you;
She will honor you if you embrace her.
"She will place on your head a garland of grace;
She will present you with a crown of beauty."
Hear, my son, and accept my sayings
And the years of your life will be many.
I have directed you in the way of wisdom;
I have led you in upright paths.
When you walk, your steps will not be impeded;
And if you run, you will not stumble.
Take hold of instruction; do not let go
Guard her, for she is your life.

Not only does this passage encourage the acquisition of wisdom, at the very end it points out that instruction (or learning) is absolutely essential to gaining and retaining wisdom, and wisdom is absolutely essential to life.

Ephesians 5:15-16
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.

Ecclesiastes 10:10
Wisdom has the advantage of giving success.

Proverbs 24:6
For by wise guidance you will wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.

Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2
Therefore when we could endure it no longer, we thought it best to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith…

(This passage is a demonstration of the application of wisdom)

Acts 15:1-12, in which the early Church elders gathered to discuss the issue of circumcision for gentile believers, clearly highlights the need for wisdom over an emotional response. We are told that the Church elders discussed and debated the issue, not that they waited for a feeling of peace about the subject or a word spoken to them from God. Although they doubtlessly prayed for wisdom throughout their debate, in the end they made their decision based upon the words of Jesus and the prophets, and the work they clearly saw God doing amongst the gentile believers. This decision had everything to do with the knowledge they had from their study of the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. Head knowledge.

There are many, many more examples that could be cited (especially from the Book of Acts), but this article is already plenty long.

My point is this: Head knowledge is essential for wisdom and maturity in Christ, both of which believers are instructed to pursue. Heart knowledge bolsters faith and helps us in enthusiastically serving God. However, when heart knowledge unsupported by head knowledge fails (as all emotions do from time to time) the believer has nothing to support him and is lost in confusion and darkness. Head knowledge supports the believer through the emotional deserts that all Christians go through.

Study your Bible; study the thoughts of great thinkers and philosophers in the Faith. Acquaint yourself with the workings of the world. Don’t be naïve. Take the time to acquire some head knowledge; it will serve you well and maintain your faith through hard times, help you make good decisions, and it will guard your heart.