(Post renamed from “Aren’t Muslim Radicals & Christian Radicals who commit violence the same?”)
What is the difference between Islamic radicals such as ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. and Christians who bomb abortion clinics, the Westboro Baptist Church people who hold up “God Hates Fags” signs, and the litany of Christians throughout history who have done horrific acts in the name of Jesus and the Bible such as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, torturing Anabaptists, genocide, or burning women at the stake as witches?
Don’t both holy books (the Bible and the Qur’an) contain commands to do such things?
Don’t both radical groups feel they are simply being faithful to their God and their holy book?
One thing I can do is talk about the Bible, a book I have studied at length and know well. Please read my interview with an ex-Muslim for his view on the Qur’an’s passages about killing, an interview he received death threats because of.
All of the Bible’s texts about killing are found in the Old Testament (Genesis – Malachi, the last of which was written ~400 years before Jesus) and reside under what is called the old covenant. In very updated language, the old covenant could be thought of as “the old rent contract” or “the expired rent contract.” That is: the rent contract between God and the Ancient Near East’s Hebrews, which does not apply to us today. (i.e. God is the landlord, the people are the tenant)
The terms of this expired rent contract were that the Hebrew people would obey the commands God gave them in his law, namely that they would worship him alone. If they did this, they would be given the land of Israel (then called the land of Canaan, first promised to their ancestor Abraham in ~2100 B.C.) and their crops and herds would be fertile, they would enjoy good health, and they would be at peace. The purpose of this covenant was not world domination, it was to have one location where they were to be a light to the rest of the world from, declaring to a culture of many gods what it looked like to obey and serve the one true God (Isaiah 49:6). If they did not obey God and they “cheated on him” by worshiping other gods, God would bring disease and bad crops on them and eventually they would be removed from their land and would lose it altogether. See Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 for the very specific terms of this agreement, called blessings and curses. In Exodus 24:1-8, Moses and the people signed this rent contract with God. They made the conscious decision to agree to it and to hold up their end of the bargain. This would have been around 1400 B.C.
There are two very very very very very very very important things about this expired rent contract that we must must must must understand, and they are both things the Bible is crystal clear about. These aren’t some cryptic, mystical, or hidden messages, nor do they require PhD’s in biblical scholarship to figure out. They are right there on the page for us to read:
1.Within the expired rent contract itself is a clear expiration date, and that date has passed! It no longer applies to us.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Written around 600 B.C., as a part of the final warnings before the Hebrews lost the land of Israel to the Babylonians because they had repeatedly broken the old covenant)
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
The new covenant being referring to here is what Jesus brought 600 years later (Luke 22:20). Old rent contract expired, new rent contract in Jesus activated. God is the landlord, you and I are the tenants. Plain and simple: any commands in the Old Testament that have to do with killing someone for sinning or worshiping other gods or anything of the sort do not apply anymore because Jesus created a new and better covenant with us. In fact, the entire Old Testament was pointing to Jesus’ coming and doing this. Jesus is the fulfillment of the old covenant (Matthew 5:17, see below).
You can take issue with the way God decided to reveal himself to a lawless and barbaric ancient world, but ponder this: what happens when God himself takes issue with his own commands and comes and changes them accordingly?
I purposefully wrote that in a provocative way to prove a point: not that God had to fix his error, but that the Old Testament commands were temporary and only applied within an ancient barbaric polytheistic culture that we have no way of relating to. And we aren’t simply saying, “Oh those things don’t apply to us, times have changed.” No. GOD HIMSELF came and directly said this to us! The Bible is chronological. Don’t read the first part without reading the last part. Don’t watch the first part of the movie without watching the middle and the end.
2. Jesus fixes / updates the killing commands within the expired rent contract
(Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, speaking)
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them…
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
It really can’t be any clearer than this. “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” is a direct quote from the expired rent contract, found in Leviticus 24:17-23. Anyone who ever points to any verse in the Old Testament and says “oh that’s deplorable” or they take any of those passages try to apply them to today, i.e. like people who bomb abortion clinics or like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition of centuries past are 100% ignoring how God himself updated all of these commands for us under our new, contemporary rent contract with him.
“Eye for eye and tooth for tooth” was a drastic improvement over “life for eye” and “life for tooth,” which were the barbaric law of the day in B.C. 1400. God gave his people what they could handle within their current cultural construct. But whether you like or dislike that point makes little difference in comparison to how clear Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, is about how we are to treat our enemies and those who mistreat us today.
You are not to bomb abortion clinics.
You are not to hold up signs that say “God Hates Fags.”
You are not to kill people who don’t want to convert to Christianity.
You are not to burn people at the stake.
You are not to torture people of a different religion or doctrine than you.
And on and on and on…
All of the people who have done these things over the past two millennia are in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE of Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, and are DIRECTLY DISOBEYING the words of the Bible, God’s word.
(This is why Martin Luther and Co. had The Protestant Reformation from 1517-1648 to bring the Church back to Jesus’ teachings of the Bible and away from all of the false teaching being spilled out by the Church during the Crusades and murderous Inquisitions.)
The people doing these violent acts “in the name of Jesus” can call themselves “Christians” if they want, but they’re not. Their ultimate salvation is between them and the Lord but they certainly are not demonstrating Christ; they are demonstrating the opposite of Christ.
And this is the difference between Islamic “radicals” and Christian “radicals”… The evil acts that Christian radicals do are in direct disobedience to the Bible / Jesus’ commands. Whereas the evil acts that Muslim radicals do are in direct obedience to the Qur’an / Muhammad’s commands.
Consider the following chart:
Is there an old and new covenant within Islam? Not that I’m aware of. If there is, in all sincerity, someone please let me know. Is there a higher authority than Muhammad within the Qur’an or the other holy writings of Islam? Not that I’m aware of. If there is, in all sincerity, someone please let me know. Was Muhammad speaking symbolically or metaphorically here, even though he physically practiced these very acts? If so, in all sincerity, please explain how.
My point in this is not to bash Muslims. There are tons of good people who are Muslims who would never kill or be violent to anyone. Somehow they have rationalized the above commands from Muhammad, the highest of all their prophets and one who has the utmost sacredness to them. I would be more than happy to post the views of how those commands are rationalized if a practicing Muslim would be willing to send them to me. In the meantime, my point is simply to show a stark difference between Jesus’ and Muhammad’s teaching and to show that when an ex-Muslim brings this up as a reason he left Islam to follow Jesus, one cannot simply dismissively say,
“Well yeah but the Christian Bible has the same types of killing commands in it and Christian radicals have done the same things as these radical Muslims.”
My point is a hope that many Muslims will leave Islam and follow Jesus, who loves them so much and offers his amazing grace to them.
Christians, myself included, have not always obeyed God’s biblical commands to love our enemies as we are supposed to. And I repent of that on behalf of us all. But if you want to know about God, please don’t look to me or to any other man, but look to Jesus, God-in-the-flesh, and to the place where you will find his very words, the Bible.
In a culture where most people believe all religions are the same and there is nothing inherently wrong with any of them, I know this might be offensive to some. I apologize for the offense, it doesn’t mean I don’t love you. But if something was true, or something you have been believing your whole life wasn’t, and these things were both clearly written down in the two most widespread holy books of all time, wouldn’t you want to see this?
Some posts I’ve written previously on these tricky passages in the Old Testament:
- Understanding Weird Parts of the Old Testament: Old vs. New Covenant
- Where the old covenant came from and why it doesn’t apply to us.
- Why the old covenant is still God’s Word to us and why it is still useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting (i.e. 1 Timothy 3:16)
- Why the entire Bible matters, even if Rob Bell says it doesn’t
- Why the Weird Old Testament Laws Ever Existed
- Richard Dawkins: God commanding Wars, Genocides, Infant Killing???
- You can’t have the New Testament Jesus without the Old Testament God
- Why God Was Justified to Bring Harsh Judgment in the Old Testament
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
Wow. I just finished reading the previous post and anonymous comments arguing this point. So glad you posted this, definitely eye opening and educational as always!
Thanks for posting this, Noah. It really does help clarify the position from the previous post.
Something to keep in mind is that Jesus’ words about turning the other cheek and always allowing others to borrower, etc cannot be understood in an absolute/literal sense. If they were the Pharisees would have been able to borrower from/rob/sue Jesus and the early church into abject poverty, all the while reminding them that they could not resist.
Instead, more than once, Jesus himself resisted his enemies by evasion, beating them on at least one occasion at the temple. Paul resisted his enemies by invoking Roman law, going so far as to make his enemies publicly pay in pride by having them escort him from their city after they beat him without a trial. I think it would be helpful to develop your exegesis here more thorough to avoid confusion (perhaps you have a post that already addresses this).
Also, the democracy of the US gives us a say in what laws will govern us. This begs the question as to what laws Christians should vote for. Looking forward to your response.
It seems that we always start this conversation with “To what extent can I explain this teaching away?” rather than “How can I live more fully into these truths?”
Dear Anonymous, which teachings are you referring to? I’m talking about living fully into the teachings that have been specifically given to me by Jesus. Not the teachings given to the ancient Israelites 3500 years ago and specifically told by me later in the Bible they aren’t for me and that I’m not to live into them.
If Jesus’ words can’t be taken in the absolute/literal sense, what do they mean in a metaphoric/allegorical sense? Usually when people say something like this they actually means that Jesus’ words can’t be taken at all, and that the exact opposite might be just as true. I have certainly been guilty of this!
My new rule of thumb is that any conversation about the words of Jesus should start with “How can I better follow this?” rather than “To what extent can I not follow this?”
Greetings Miah,
It sounds like you’ve met some people with strange ideas about the Scripture if they are saying that the meaning of Jesus’ words cannot be understood. IMHO, most of Jesus’ words are fairly easy to understand in context. The general rule I follow is to take things literally until I have a compelling reason to do otherwise.
As I outlined in my discussion above, there are compelling reasons to understand Matthew 5:39ff as teaching a principle rather than a literally example that everyone must follow unthinkingly. A more thorough discussion of the topic can be found at http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/did-jesus-teach-pacifism. I haven’t checked yet, but Noah may treat the topic more fully here as well (btw, he’s very brave to do this blog … it is hard to catch all the implications of an issue in a single article and it opens him to criticism, which I have only ever seen him receive graciously, God bless him).
You said, “My new rule of thumb is that any conversation about the words of Jesus should start with “How can I better follow this?”” This is a good rule. It must start, I am sure you would agree, with understanding the words properly in the context of the rest of Scripture.
Thanks for the bravery props on doing this blog Brian 🙂 –You are right it is very hard to catch all the implications of the very complex issues I blog about. Thankfully later in the comments section or messages sent to me, folks like yourself help correct or fill in areas I’ve missed, which I’m very grateful for! I want to be a good learner as well!
Hi Miah, I agree with Brian that most of Jesus’ teachings are pretty straight-forward. I left a reply for a previous comment of Brian’s where I refer to Matthew 5:29-30 where would see Jesus’ words as hyperbole to make a point, not as “literal” — maybe that will be helpful for you? But I also have a guess from your question that maybe when you say “Jesus’ words” you are referring to everything in the Bible from Genesis – Revelation? I could be wrong on that, just making an inference on the nature of your question. Where you’re thinking that the commands I talk about in the above post from the Old Testament about killing etc are actually Jesus’ words. If that’s your question, some further clarification that might be helpful: The words of the Old Testament are not Jesus’ words / the commands of the Old Testament are under the Old Covenant, which doesn’t apply to us. Here’s a post I did on that if it’s helpful: http://www.atacrossroads.net/why-the-old-testament-promises-and-laws-dont-apply-to-us/
But that doesn’t mean the God of the Old Testament is a different God than the God of the New Testament. I think of one of the best ways to think of Jesus is that he is FULLEST revelation of who God is in a way we can understand and interact with him (Colossians 1:19), which means God in the Old Testament was not a full revelation of who he is — that God revealed himself more and more to his people as redemptive history progressed, i.e. David knew more about who God was than Abraham did, because David had some of the Old Testament Scriptures and history whereas Abraham only knew God’s name and one promise.
Let me know if that helps or if you were asking something else. I 100% agree we are to ask “How can i better follow this?” to the Bible commands that are for us, but it’s just very important to distinguish which commands are for us and which ones aren’t–but thankfully the Bible makes this distinction clear.
Hi Brian, those are some thought-provoking responses, thanks! It is a good point that Jesus was not “literal” in a command like Matthew 5:29-30 when he says to tear out your eye or cut off your hand if they are making you stumble into sin. He was using hyperbole here (important to note: hyperbole is different that allegorizing a text, which is what moderate Muslims do with Muhammad’s commands, when the text never calls for allegory). How do we know Jesus was using hyperbole? It’s pretty obvious in that command itself, that he was trying to make a point, but we also see that he never practiced the “literal” following of this command nor did his disciples and in this entire sermon to the people, he is referring to internal change not external religiosity, which he calls out again and again. I think the same could be said, like you point out Brian, of his commands to turn the other cheek when slapped or to lend to anyone who asks without expecting repayment. It’s actually very foolish on both a stewardship level and a hurting-more-than-helping level to lend to anyone who asks. He is going after an inner change and “turning the other cheek” might look different depending on the context. i.e. if someone breaks into my house to harm me and my family, I’m not going to “turn the other cheek” in not fighting back against them and protecting my family, but I would allow Jesus’ command to change my heart so that I’m able to love and forgive this person. Which does not contradict them being judged in our penal system, as that would be the most loving them for other people they might harm in the future.
Is this the sort of thing you are asking about? I think it’s a great point you bring up and honestly, is making me think! Let me know if I’m getting at what you’re asking and/or your thoughts on this
Thanks Cori!
So your name is “Anonymous” and you say things like “live into these truths?”
Um…
Giving “Anonymous” the benefit of the doubt, he may have been replying on the fly. Personally, I seldom begrudge anyone their anonymity on the web so long as they are polite: it can be a dangerous place to surf.
(a related thought: often Muslims have to post anonymously so they can give thoughts contrary to Islam without fearing for their safety)
Great point. Thanks for posting this and I look forward to any followup with Muslims who choose to reply.
Have only read portions of the Quran and don’t understand all the facets of Islam but not all of Islam is a 180 from Christianity. If you check out the 99 names of God on wikipedia, the majority express the character of God that Christians also hold. Islam itself means “submission to God,” while not the same as the Christian taking up the cross, the thought that God is holy & worthy and that should humble you. From what I can see of calling for violent acts, the later Quran is similar in tenor to the earlier Bible altho with different foundations. The few Muslims I’ve talked with also have this longing for God that all/most people do and Islam has been presented/accepted as that answer. As a system of thought, it isn’t necessarily illogical. And while against the darkness of violent Jihad, the passion and commitment to their beliefs that makes them all in is not totally unadmirable. How different would this world be if Christians genuinely loved their enemies with the same commitment that Muslim extremists seek to kill theirs?
For me, the single almost simple point that separates Islam and Christianity and opens this huge abyss between them is Christ. In Christianity all things are only possible in a living way in Christ. Make/hold Christ as less than He is in truth and entry in/union with God is no longer possible, or even knowable. In Islam, Jesus is honored but He’s not all. As a Christian, the issue with Islam is that it holds Jesus as only a prophet, not as an invitation from God.
When God opened Peter’s heart and mind to be able to go to Cornelius, Peter’s able to say, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him,” and then he goes on to share about Jesus and his life, “…that He is the one.” He ends with, “To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.” It says that while he said these things, the Holy Spirit came on those hearing.
I’ve been guilty in the past viewing things in an us/them way. When a Boko Haram slaughters hundreds of villagers, still need to avoid falling into anger and being blinded to things. Muslims too have this hunger to know/taste/touch the reality of God and to know that God loves them. . . hard-pressed to be angry or hold Muslims guilty when they just have not heard the invitation seen in Christ. And we do a huge disservice to both the Gospel and Muslim countries when we send more cruise missiles than Christ-bearers to them. Church here would do well to turn off the news and political talk about Muslims and do better viewing the lost as God does, needing Jesus.
You’re right Alan, the key differentiator between Islam and Christianity is not violence vs non-violence, it is that Islam does not believe Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Also, great line: How different would this world be if Christians genuinely loved their enemies with the same commitment that Muslim extremists seek to kill theirs?
….and that’s what keeps this very muddled up. Muslim countries see America as a Christian nation. They call us a “nation of the cross” and then we send cruise missiles to them. Even my ex-Muslim friend that I interviewed ( http://www.atacrossroads.net/death-threat-muslims-lansing-post-deleted-reposted-anonymously/ ) who now lives in Michigan wondered why God brought him to Michigan to be a missionary when everyone in America was already a Christian. I had to explain to him that not many here are actually followers of Jesus, I explained how pluralism / relativism is the predominant worldview here, and that our nation is definitely not a Christian nation.
Spot on Noah. Forget if your friend became a Christian in Iran but if so, thinking it won’t take him long to find that the reputation of the church exceeds the reality. That Christianity is tied so closely with America in the minds of non believers overseas does so much harm to the believers there.
The quote below maybe puts in words best the lack of vitality in the church here. . . amazing thing is that it was written in the 1800s. He’s talking about how beliefs in general over time become dead in those who hold them and uses Christians as an example. It’s from “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill.
“To what an extent doctrines intrinsically fitted to make the deepest impression upon the mind may remain in it as dead beliefs, without being ever realised in the imagination, the feelings, or the understanding, is exemplified by the manner in which the majority of believers hold the doctrines of Christianity. By Christianity I here mean what is accounted such by all churches and sects—the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws, by all professing Christians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. The standard to which he does refer it, is the custom of his nation, his class, or his religious profession. He has thus, on the one hand, a collection of ethical maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible wisdom as rules for his government; and on the other, a set of every-day judgments and practices, which go a certain length with some of those maxims, not so great a length with others, stand in direct opposition to some, and are, on the whole, a compromise between the Christian creed and the interests and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these standards he gives his homage; to the other his real allegiance. All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbour as themselves; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor. They are not insincere when they say that they believe these things. They do believe them, as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never discussed. But in the sense of that living belief which regulates conduct, they believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to act upon them. The doctrines in their integrity are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put forward (when possible) as the reasons for whatever people do that they think laudable. But any one who reminded them that the maxims require an infinity of things which they never even think of doing, would gain nothing but to be classed among those very unpopular characters who affect to be better than other people. The doctrines have no hold on ordinary believers—are not a power in their minds. They have a habitual respect for the sound of them, but no feeling which spreads from the words to the things signified, and forces the mind to take them in, and make them conform to the formula. Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.
“Now we may be well assured that the case was not thus, but far otherwise, with the early Christians. Had it been thus, Christianity never would have expanded from an obscure sect of the despised Hebrews into the religion of the Roman empire. When their enemies said, “See how these Christians love one another” (a remark not likely to be made by anybody now), they assuredly had a much livelier feeling of the meaning of their creed than they have ever had since. And to this cause, probably, it is chiefly owing that Christianity now makes so little progress in extending its domain. . . Even with the strictly religious, who are much in earnest about their doctrines, and attach a greater amount of meaning to many of them than people in general, it commonly happens that the part which is thus comparatively active in their minds is that which was made by Calvin, or Knox, or some such person much nearer in character to themselves. The sayings of Christ coexist passively in their minds, producing hardly any effect beyond what is caused by mere listening to words so amiable and bland.”
Hi Noah,
Regarding your point “to show a stark difference between Jesus’ and Muhammad’s teaching and to show that when an ex-Muslim brings this up as a reason he left Islam to follow Jesus.” I fear that one of the mistakes both critics and followers of Chirst frequently make is arguing by outrage.
Deciding whether or not Jesus’ teachings are true based on their level of brutality (or lack thereof) is not valid. On the one hand, I am glad for anyone coming to Christ, even if it is by broken logic, but the reality stands that Islam is not wrong simply because it is brutal and viscerally unappealing. God promises eternal damnation to anyone who fails to bend their knee to Him. We are simply lucky that He did not command Christians to act the way Muslims do. Fortunately, Islam is wrong because it is patently false: a pretender to Divine truth and can be demonstrated easily as such by looking at its origins and how it conflicts with Scripture.
Now, much can be said about how Jesus’ teaching of leaving vengeance to God is a far happier way for us to live than the brutal alternatives: it is! I’m so glad for it! And in point of fact, no one genuinely converts because a sword is at their throat. I fully believe this is why God does not ask Christians to convert the world by it: because HE wants us to have the dignity of freely choosing or rejecting Him.
I hope I am making sense here. If you feel I have missed something, please point it out.
In Christ,
Brian
Thanks for pointing this out Brian, and I’m definitely tracking with you. Sorry for the delay in responding. I think what you’re saying, in other words, is that God is God and we are not—-we can’t use our autonomy to decide what kind of God we want God to be (something we see all the time in contemporary culture). Saying “Islam is violent” is not a reason to say it’s not from God because you’re right, sinners deserve violence! This is the premise of the violence in the Old Testament, which you point out well. Just like God brought a flood to judge sinners or opened up the earth to swallow them up, he also did use human armies at certain times in history. And like you said, thankfully God came himself and gave a new law where this old way of direct earthly judgment on sinners is no longer applicable. But that doesn’t mean judgment isn’t still deserved for all of us, apart from the forgiveness of Jesus. Or that at the end of the day, God can do whatever He wants because He is God and we aren’t, like we see in the story of Job. Thankfully God is holy and not evil, though in our sinful state we can’t fully comprehend that truth and so as accused sinners we accuse the Holy One. Yes it’s “strong coffee” for a world that only drinks foofy lattes, but it’s true and it’s also necessary to truly understand/appreciate/enjoy the magnitude of grace Jesus gave us. We so often think we aren’t so bad and that we are entitled to Jesus’ grace, which really really cheapens it (and lessens the transformation it’s able to enact in our lives). Thank you for bringing up this powerful point Brian!