Sometimes Criticising Victims Is the Right Thing to Do

You will quite often hear people objecting whenever someone criticises the victim of an accident or assault. They see ‘victim-shaming’, as they call it, always to be unloving and out of place.

Of course, if someone is a victim through no fault of their own, it would be completely wrong to criticise that person. Or, if the victim was at fault in some way but has seen the error of their way, speaking critically to them would be unnecessary.

However, sometimes people become victims of accidents or assaults because they have done something wrong and they are not willing to admit that it was at all their fault. In such cases, criticising the victim, with the aim of making them feel regret for what they did, is often a loving thing to do.

The benefit of feeling regret

It should be very obvious that for anyone to feel regret for any sin they have committed is a good thing. Regret helps to foster an attitude of repentance and discourages the sinner from repeating the sin.

We see this sort of thinking in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, where the apostle Paul writes:

‘As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.’ (ESV)

There is no need for me here to discuss the details of the situation in Corinth that Paul is referring to in this passage. What is important for our purposes in this article is that he clearly sees the benefit of regret as it leads to repentance. He refers specifically to ‘godly grief’, but this is really just another way of describing regret that God approves of and uses for good.

Of course, feeling regret leads to repentance from all sorts of sins, whether or not a sinner is the victim of an accident or an assault, but sins that lead to being a victim are certainly included in this.

Dangerous driver

Here are some examples of where criticising victims, to try to make them regret what they have done, would be a helpful and positive thing.

Firstly, suppose there is a 17-year-old boy who has just learned to drive. His ego gets the better of him, and he thinks he is a much better driver than he really is. So he drives far too fast on a winding road, crashes his car and breaks his leg.

He is the victim of an accident that was entirely his fault.

Now, immediately after this accident, it would be wrong to speak critically to him. At that time, he needs a ton of sympathy and support.

Also, later on, if he has clearly learned his lesson and sees how stupid he was, there is no good reason for approaching him to criticise him.

But suppose that after a few months it seems obvious that he hasn’t learned his lesson. He is bragging to his friends about crashing his car, treating his broken leg like some sort of a war wound.

In a situation like this, if someone can get this young man to regret what he did, it will be a very helpful thing to do.

If he doesn’t reach the point of feeling regret, there is a real possibility that he might do it again, and maybe next time he might die or be permanently injured or kill someone else. Or he might influence a friend to drive in the way he did.

So he is a victim, and it is good for him to be criticised for the sin he committed – in this case, driving recklessly – that led to him being a victim. Love is sometimes tough, and in this case criticising the victim for the purpose of making him feel regret would be an example of tough love.

Disobedient boy

As another example, suppose there is a 10-year-old boy, and his parents say to him:

‘There are lots of great places around here where you can play with your friends. But don’t go to that park over there, because there are often bigger boys there, bad boys, who might hurt you.’

Suppose that this boy then, for no good reason, disobeys his parents, goes to the park, and is beaten up by the bigger boys.

He is the victim of an assault that was partly his fault.

When I say that it was partly his fault, I hope it is clear that I am not trying to reduce the guilt of the attackers. The guilt of the attackers is a separate thing from the guilt of the boy who committed a sin to put himself in the position where he was attacked. These are separate sins. But in the overall picture of what happened, it is still right to say that it is partly his fault. If he hadn’t disobeyed his parents, he wouldn’t have been beaten up.

Immediately after this assault, it would be wrong to speak critically to this boy. At that time, he needs a lot of comfort and support.

Also, if he has learned his lesson, there would be no place for speaking critically to him at a later time either.

But suppose that after a couple of months it is clear that he hasn’t learned his lesson. He has again disobeyed his parents by going back to that park, risking another beating. In this case, trying to make this boy regret what he did that led to him being beaten up would be a positive thing, both for himself and for any of his friends who might be badly influenced by him.

This is another example, then, of where criticising a victim is a form of tough love.

Sexual assault

Another good example has to do with people, especially young women, who go out drinking and are sexually assaulted because they are too drunk to make good decisions to protect themselves.

Of course, many sexual assaults occur through no fault of the victim. But there are many other occasions, when the victim is partly at fault, because they wouldn’t have been assaulted if they hadn’t committed the sin of getting drunk.

Again, I want to stress that when I say it is partly the victim’s fault, I am in no way trying to reduce the guilt of the attacker. The guilt of the attacker is a separate thing from the guilt of the person who committed a sin to put themself in the position where they were sexually assaulted. These are separate sins. But in the overall picture it is still right to say that in cases like these the victim is partly at fault.

Of course, immediately after the trauma of a sexual assault, the last thing that anyone should do is speak critically to the victim. At that time they need an ocean of sympathy and support.

I also think that a large majority of people who are sexually assaulted because they get drunk do learn their lesson. But if they don’t and they go out drinking heavily again, criticising them to try to make them feel regret would be a good thing to do. In such cases, this would be an example of tough love, both for their own benefit and the benefit of anyone they might negatively influence.

Just as a little side note on this issue, I would advise anyone who goes out on a Friday or Saturday night to have one or at the most two drinks. And I am sure that if young people followed this advice, the number of sexual assaults would decrease, probably by a lot.

As another little side note, I also want to say that it angers me when those who claim to be outraged at sexual assaults refuse to advise people to drink in moderation, even though they must know that doing this would decrease the number of these awful events.

Criticising the actions of those who are repentant

I have already said that if someone is at fault, partly or entirely, for becoming a victim, but is repentant and has learned their lesson, there is no place for approaching them to criticise them.

However, even if they are repentant, there is still a place for sometimes criticising their actions when speaking to other people. If others might be tempted to commit similar sins and also become victims, anything we can say to discourage that behaviour would be helpful.

 

See also:

The Importance of Sympathy and Empathy in Christian Living

Christians Should Expect to Offend People

Some Steps That Christians Can Take to Avoid Judging People

Should Christians Forgive Those Who Are Unrepentant?

In What Order Should Christians Choose to Help People?

There was some controversy recently when the American Vice President, J. D. Vance, made some suggestions about the order of priority in which people, including Christians, should help those in need.

Vance stated:

‘. . . there’s this old school concept – and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way – that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community. And then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world.’

Vance made his remarks in the context of trying to justify the U.S. government’s cancellation of most foreign aid. Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of pushback against him from people who wanted the aid to continue.

So what should Christians make of what Vance said on this topic? Does he have a point, or is he making a mistake?

Some relevant biblical verses

As Christians trying to understand this issue, the first thing we need to do is turn to the Bible.

Importantly, there are biblical verses that support a principle of Christians especially helping people who are close to them in some way.

1 Timothy 5 includes some relevant verses, as follows:

‘But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.’ (1 Tim 5:4; ESV)

‘But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.’ (1 Tim 5:8; ESV)

‘If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.’ (1 Tim 5:16; ESV)

These verses make it clear that Christians have a special obligation to help blood relatives. And because our resources to help others will always be limited, these verses certainly support a principle of prioritising helping them over helping others.

Another relevant verse is Galatians 6:10, which says:

‘So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (ESV)

This verse is clear that Christians have a special obligation to help spiritual relatives, i.e., fellow believers in Jesus Christ. And, again, because our resources to help others will always be limited, this verse supports a principle of prioritising helping them over helping others.

Expanding the list

So the Bible encourages us to prioritise helping blood relatives and fellow Christians.

But what about other groups of people, such as those in the town where we live or the country where we live?

I think that the principle of helping blood relatives in 1 Timothy 5 can naturally be expanded to include these groups too, and that they should be prioritised to a certain extent. It would seem strange not to do this.

Some examples of prioritising helping those close to us

If, then, Christians have children who lack decent clothes and there are other children who also lack decent clothes, they should prioritise clothing their own children.

Or, if there are some fellow Christians in a foreign country who are in dire poverty and also some non-Christians in the same country who are in the same level of poverty, Christians should prioritise helping their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Or, if there are people in our town who are hungry and others in a more distant town who are also hungry, I think we should typically prioritise feeding those who live nearby.

This list could be extended with other similar examples.

Priorities in tension with each other

Of course, sometimes priorities will be in tension with each other. So, for example, if there are fellow Christians on the other side of the world who are in some great need, and there are non-Christians in our own town who are in equal need, who should we prioritise helping?

I think there is no simple formula to answer this question and that God’s will will vary from case to case. It isn’t my intention in this article to get into details like this. I am interested in the main points of this issue.

But generally speaking, it makes sense for Christians to prioritise helping groups who are close to them: their own families, fellow Christians, people who live nearby and people of the same nationality.

Not going too far

So Christians should prioritise helping various groups of people who are close to them in some way. Importantly, however, there is a limit to how far this principle should go.

What prioritising groups close to us shouldn’t mean is that we always find excuses to give to these groups instead of outsiders. There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, feeding your own children before other people’s children, and on the other hand, giving many luxuries to your own children while other people’s children go hungry.

In other words, it is right to prioritise getting groups close to us to a certain level of material provision, but there is no justification for getting groups close to us to a level of material provision that is leaps and bounds above that of suffering people who are more distant from us.

Galatians 6:10, that I quoted above, points us in this direction. When this verse says that we should do good to everyone and especially to fellow Christians, this clearly implies that we should normally expect to be doing at least some good to non-Christians. And, given that doing people good often involves meeting their physical needs, such as providing food and clothing, the verse surely implies that we should help non-believers in this way.

So Galatians 6:10 clearly teaches that we should help people in one group that is relatively distant from us, i.e., non-Christians. But the same principle surely applies to other groups that are relatively distant from us too, such as those who are not blood relatives, those who don’t live close to us, and those who are of a different nationality.

Governments of countries

So far I have been talking about how individual Christians should approach the issue of how to prioritise helping people. But it seems to me that the same sort of principle should certainly be made about the governments of countries.

Firstly, a government should help its own citizens in need before it helps those in another country.

If, for example, there were devastating earthquakes in Indonesia and Pakistan at the same time, it should be obvious that the Indonesian government should prioritise bringing help to affected people in their own country before helping those in Pakistan. And likewise the Pakistani government should help its own people first.

But secondly, just as the principle of prioritising certain groups for help shouldn’t be used as an excuse by individual Christians not to help outsiders, so the same is true of governments.

A government can always find useful ways to spend money to help its own citizens. But it often happens that, for one reason or another, people in other countries urgently need help in some way. When this happens, countries should be generous in looking out for each other. This is surely the will of God.

Getting back to J. D. Vance, I am aware that I can’t see what is in his heart with certainty, and I don’t want to judge him without knowing all the facts. Nevertheless, I do think I should say that the impression I get is that he is looking for excuses not to help people around the world who are in need. Some of the aid money that the U.S. government has cancelled really does seem to be money that was used to help people in significant need.

Vance gives the impression of wanting to solve almost all of America’s problems before helping others. If that is true, there is nothing in Scripture that would support such an attitude.

 

See also:

Christians Must Be Generous in Giving to the Poor

The Ministry of Kindness

The Importance of Sympathy and Empathy in Christian Living

The Prosperity Gospel Is a False Gospel

Did an Actual Snake Speak to Eve to Get Her to Sin?

In the third chapter of Genesis we read the account of how a snake persuades Eve to sin by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I am convinced that this account is not supposed to be interpreted literally. In other words, I believe that historically there was no actual snake or snake-like figure that plotted against Eve or spoke to her. Instead, what we have here is a fictional story that symbolises how human sin began when Satan tempted Adam and Eve.

There are many Christians, however, who insist that this story is supposed to be taken literally, and who claim that an actual snake, or Satan in the form of a snake, or Satan speaking through an actual snake, persuaded Eve to sin. In what follows I will explain why I disagree with these interpretations of the passage.

The passage

Let’s start by setting out the text of Genesis 3:1-6. It reads as follows:

1 Now the snake was more crafty than any animal of the field which the LORD God had made. And it said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, “You are not to eat from any tree of the garden”?’

2 The woman said to the snake, ‘We are allowed to eat fruit from the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said, “You are not to eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you are not to touch it, or you will die.”’

4 The snake said to the woman, ‘You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’

6 The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Satan making himself look like a snake

Some of those who interpret this passage literally claim that it refers to Satan manifesting himself as a snake to Eve and speaking to her. Under this interpretation, there was no actual snake involved. Rather, Satan just made himself look like a snake, and spoke to Eve in this way.

This interpretation is on the wrong track, however.

To begin with, we must note that the first sentence of v. 1 tells us that the snake was more crafty than any animal of the field. The way that the snake is set alongside other animals and compared to them surely shows that we should understand the snake in the same way that we understand the other animals. These other animals in the storyline are surely real animals. So in the first sentence of v. 1 the snake should be understood as a real animal too.

In the second sentence of v. 1 we read, ‘And it said to the woman’. The subject of this clause is the snake that has been referred to in the first sentence. Because the snake in the first sentence is a real snake, this means that in the storyline it is a real snake that speaks to Eve.

However, if this passage were simply about Satan manifesting himself as a snake, there would be no real snake involved. It would just be some sort of snake-like appearance. Therefore, the fact that the storyline refers to a real snake seems to rule out the idea that this passage is about Satan making himself look like a snake to Eve.

Satan speaking through an actual snake

There are other Christians who attempt to interpret this account literally by drawing a parallel between the account and the story of Balaam’s donkey in Numbers 22:28-30. Those who take this view rightly accept that the account portrays a real snake speaking to Eve, not just a snake-like appearance of Satan. But they claim that Satan spoke through the snake in a way similar to the way God spoke through Balaam’s donkey.

This interpretation should also be rejected.

To start with, in the story of Balaam’s donkey there are two actors, God and the donkey, and God miraculously speaks through the donkey. By contrast, in the Genesis account there is only one actor, the snake. There is not the slightest hint in the text that a second actor is involved who speaks through the snake.

Furthermore, when the passage says in the first sentence of v. 1 that the snake was the most crafty of the animals, this clearly implies that each animal has a certain amount of craftiness in itself. And this obviously includes the snake. Each animal is somewhere on the implied scale of craftiness, with the snake at the top.

Therefore, when in the rest of the passage we are told that the snake uses craftiness to tempt Eve, it must be its own craftiness that it uses. The whole point of referring to the snake’s craftiness in the first sentence is to prepare the reader for the snake using craftiness in the rest of the passage. After reading the first sentence, the reader understands that the snake has craftiness, so the snake’s use of craftiness in the rest of the passage now makes sense.

However, if Satan simply spoke through the snake in the way that God spoke through Balaam’s donkey, it would be Satan’s craftiness that was involved, not that of the snake. So, because it is clearly the snake’s own craftiness that is used, it cannot be about Satan speaking through the snake.

Just a snake miraculously plotting against Eve

The two interpretations I have mentioned, then, both fail. We should have no hesitation in saying that in the storyline of this passage there is a real snake that uses its own craftiness to tempt Eve.

But is it possible that this storyline should be interpreted historically? In other words, is it possible that this literally happened?

There are some Christians who would answer yes to these questions, and who claim that an actual snake was miraculously enabled to plot against Eve and tempt her to sin.

This is also a mistake. Snakes, like all other animals, are not moral creatures. By God’s design, animals are unable to know right from wrong or plot against people to get them to sin.

I would suggest that the idea of an animal being miraculously enabled to know right from wrong is a contradiction in terms. 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 refer to ‘irrational animals’, and these verses show that animals exist on a vastly lower level than human beings. By God’s design, the ability to reason in the way that humans do or to know right from wrong is something that is impossible for an animal. An animal can no more know right from wrong than a rock can know right from wrong.

I think it would be correct to say that God could miraculously transform a snake into a creature with knowledge of right and wrong. But importantly, it would then cease to be a snake. It would cease to be an animal. But in Genesis 3:1-6 the snake clearly remains a snake. It remains an animal. And there is also not the slightest hint in this passage anyway of any miracle taking place.

The idea, then, that an actual snake was miraculously enabled to plot against Eve makes no sense.

A symbolic story

All attempts to interpret this passage literally and historically therefore fail. Instead, we should see the passage as a fictional and symbolic story.

The snake in this passage certainly symbolises Satan. The passage is teaching us that Satan was instrumental in leading Adam and Eve to fall into sin.

But on the level of the story, it is the snake as an animal that plots against Eve and tempts her to sin. And this cannot reasonably be taken literally and historically. To interpret this passage literally is to seriously misunderstand the type of literature that is present here.

We should also note carefully that in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 Satan is described as ‘the ancient snake’, which surely refers back to this passage in Genesis. These verses in Revelation fit perfectly with seeing the snake as symbolising Satan in Genesis 3.

 

See also:

Beware of Taking Genesis 1-3 Too Literally

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally

Beware of Interpreting Bible Prophecies Too Literally

Were the Gospels Designed to be Works of Pure History?

Is It Right to Say That God Hates the Sin but Loves the Sinner?

If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you will probably have heard the saying, ‘God hates the sin but loves the sinner’. You might even have said these words yourself.

There are some Christians, however, who object to this saying. They point out that the Bible refers to God hating sinners, and they claim that the saying is actually misleading.

So what should we make of this disagreement? Is this a helpful saying or not?

In my view, it is a helpful saying, although it is also true that there is a sense in which God hates sinners. Let me explain what I mean.

God hates sin

To begin with, we need to be clear that the first part of the saying – ‘God hates the sin’ – is always correct. There is no sense in which God loves sin or is in any way neutral about it. He only hates it. That’s nice and simple.

Different senses of love and hate

When it comes to the second half of the saying – ‘but loves the sinner’ – things are not so simple. The reason why this is not a simple issue is that we can think of different ways in which God loves and hates people.

It is actually very common in language generally for words or phrases to have more than one meaning, and this is true of love and hatred. There is one sense in which God hates sinners and doesn’t love them. And there is another sense in which God loves sinners and doesn’t hate them.

Let’s take a moment to think about each of these things in turn.

God hates sinners

Firstly, the Bible is clear that there is a sense in which God hates sinners.

In Psalm 5:5 David says:

‘The boastful cannot stand in your sight; you hate all evildoers.’ (CSB)

Note that this verse doesn’t say that God hates the actions of evildoers, although that is certainly also true. It says that He hates the evildoers themselves. So these words make it clear that God hates sinners.

Similarly, in Psalm 11:5 David writes:

‘The LORD examines the righteous, but he hates the wicked and those who love violence.’ (CSB)

This verse is equally clear that God hates sinners.

So the Bible teaches that God hates sinners, but in what sense does He do this?

I would suggest that God hates sinners in the sense that He is disgusted by them. Sinners repulse Him. He is also repulsed by the actions of sinners, but we can’t neatly distinguish between His disgust at the sin and His disgust at the people themselves. God hates sinners themselves in this sense.

The opposite of hating someone in the sense of being disgusted by them, is loving someone in the sense of admiring and being drawn to them. And it can’t be true that God loves sinners in the exact opposite sense to the sense in which He hates them. So, in this sense of loving, we can say that God doesn’t love sinners.

In one sense, then, God hates sinners and doesn’t love them.

God loves sinners

But there is another kind of love and hatred that we need to consider.

The Bible is clear that there is a sense in which God loves sinners.

In John 3:16, for example, we read:

‘For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.’ (CSB)

In this verse ‘the world’ means the people who populate the world. And the Bible tells us in many places that all people are sinners. So the verse is clearly implying that God loves sinners.

Similarly, Romans 5:8 says:

‘But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ (CSB)

This verse is explicit that God loves sinners.

So the Bible teaches that God loves sinners, but in what sense does He do this?

This love is essentially about desiring the wellbeing of the people who are loved. Even though people are sinners, God wants good things for them. God loves sinners in this sense.

The opposite of loving someone in the sense of desiring their wellbeing, is hating someone in the sense of desiring their harm. And it can’t be true that God hates sinners in the exact opposite sense to the sense in which He loves them. So, in this sense of hating, we can say that God doesn’t hate sinners.

In one sense, then, God loves sinners and doesn’t hate them.

Hating the sin but loving the sinner

We have seen that there is a sense in which God hates and doesn’t love sinners, and that there is another sense in which God loves and doesn’t hate sinners.

He hates sinners in the sense of being disgusted by them, and He loves sinners in the sense of desiring their wellbeing.

This means that if we are thinking of this sense of loving, it is indeed correct to say that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. Although He hates what sinners do, in love He still desires what is good for them.

So the saying, ‘God hates the sin but loves the sinner’, is a good one. However, it doesn’t give the whole picture on the issue of God’s love and hate for sinners, because there is also, as we have seen, a sense in which God hates sinners.

Christians should hate and love sinners in the same ways that God does

We have seen, then, what God’s attitude to sinners is. But what about Christians? Should we aim to hate and love sinners in the ways God does, or should we do something different?

Importantly, in Ephesians 5:1 we are told to be imitators of God, and there is no good reason for thinking that we shouldn’t imitate Him in His attitude to sinners.

Besides, various Bible passages point in this direction anyway.

For example, in Psalm 31:6 David says:

‘I hate those who are devoted to worthless idols, but I trust in the LORD.’ (CSB)

Similarly, in Psalm 119:113 the psalmist writes:

‘I hate those who are double-minded, but I love your instruction.’ (CSB)

And again, in Psalm 139:21-22 David says:

‘LORD, don’t I hate those who hate you, and detest those who rebel against you? I hate them with extreme hatred…’ (CSB)

There is no good reason for thinking that Christians today shouldn’t follow these examples. So we should hate sinners in the way God hates them.

But we should certainly also love sinners in the way God loves them.

For example, in Matthew 5:44-45 Jesus says:

‘But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. For he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.’ (CSB)

There is no doubt that the enemies and persecutors of Christians that Jesus refers to here are people who are unrepentant of various sins. This passage therefore clearly implies that Christians should love sinners.

And note how the passage draws a parallel between the love of Christians for sinners and the love of God for sinners. Just as He loves sinners by giving them sunshine and rain, we should also love sinners in ways that are appropriate for us.

In the sense that God hates sinners, then, we should do likewise. And in the sense that God loves sinners, we should also do likewise. We should hate sinners by being disgusted by them, but we should love them by desiring their wellbeing.

 

See also:

The Justice and Mercy of God

Imitation as a Principle of Christian Living

Should Christians Forgive Those Who Are Unrepentant?

Christian Teachers and Evangelists Should Speak Often about Hell

The Importance of Being God-Reliant Rather Than Self-Reliant

As a general rule, the world is clearly very impressed by people who are self-reliant. Everywhere we look, we can find this attitude being praised and admired.

For example, there are many films that make self-reliance one of the key qualities of the hero or heroine. The audience are encouraged to think highly of and even idolise characters who can manage on their own and don’t need anyone else’s help.

The same attitude can often be found in music too. Take, for instance, the well-known song by Sister Sledge, ‘We Are Family’. This song includes the line:

‘Have faith in you and the things you do. You won’t go wrong.’

In the eyes of the vast majority of people, you could hardly find a more innocent and uncontroversial lyric as this.

Or how many times, in all sorts of contexts, have you heard a person say to someone else, ‘Believe in yourself’?

This is meant to be seen as positive encouragement that no one would disagree with.

God’s way is very different

As so often, however, the Christian way is very different from the world’s way. In fact, it is difficult to overstate how wrong self-reliance is. To be self-reliant is actually to fail completely to live as a human being should live. It is a million miles from how God designed us to be.

In reality, God made us to be completely dependent on Him for everything, to be constantly looking to Him for help and direction. We are creatures, under the hand and under the authority of our Creator who loves us, and we need to recognise that this is our place. Instead of being self-reliant, we should be God-reliant in whatever we do.

Biblical passages against self-reliance

The tone of the whole Bible is against self-reliance, even if this is not always made explicit. However, there are also many passages which more plainly show us how wrong it is.

For example, in Jeremiah 17:5 God says:

‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.’ (ESV)

In this verse God doesn’t just say that it is a mistake to have the attitude of self-reliance. He says that someone who does this is cursed! This is pretty blunt, isn’t it?

Or take John 15:5, where Jesus tells us:

‘Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.’ (ESV)

With these words, Jesus makes it clear that self-reliance is going to be fruitless as far as doing things for Him is concerned.

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 12:9 the apostle Paul refers to an occasion when Jesus said to him:

‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ (ESV)

And then in the next verse he remarks:

‘For when I am weak, then I am strong.’ (ESV)

To be in a position of weakness is a far cry from any form of self-reliance.

This list of Bible passages could be continued at length.

Doing everything with Jesus

In order to become more God-reliant and less self-reliant, one thing we can do is make it our goal to do everything we do with Jesus. I don’t just mean that we should try to tackle every problem we encounter with the Lord’s help. I mean that we should aim to treat everything we do as a joint venture with Him, whether or not there is anything difficult about it.

That is not to say that we should try to be constantly conscious in our minds of doing everything with the Lord. I think that would be unrealistic and would probably be exhausting. I just mean that deeper down, in our spirits, we should attempt to rest constantly in Him and do everything we do with Him.

Believing that we can do what God enables us to do

Despite all I have said so far, there is a sense in which sometimes Christians need to believe that they can do more than they think.

For example, there are times when God has given a Christian a gift, but this person wrongly thinks that they are not able to do what they are actually able to do. They then need to be encouraged to believe that they are able to do it.

But this is very different from self-reliance. This is really about understanding what God has done in us, and how He can work through us.

 

See also:

Getting into the Habit of Doing Everything with Jesus

The Gravity of the Sin of Pride

Trusting God When We Are Not Sure What to Do

The Radical Nature of the Normal Christian Life