Randy Alcorn's Blog, page 102

Making the Prolife Case for Life, in 250 Words

In his Desiring God article on the prolife movement, Scott Klusendorf, president of Life Training Institute, provides this simple and straightforward argument for human life:

By all means, preach a biblical view of human value. But students in local churches also need to know how to make an essential pro-life argument and convey it to non-Christians. The basic shape of that argument looks like this:

Premise #1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise #2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Pro-life advocates defend that argument with science and philosophy.

We argue from science that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. You didn’t come from an embryo; you once were an embryo.

We argue from philosophy that there is no relevant difference between you the embryo and you the adult that justifies killing you at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.

Instead of arguing at a fever pitch, Christian students can be taught to ask thoughtful questions aimed at giving people something to think about. Two of my favorites are,

“Do you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life, or do only some have it based on something none of us share equally?”

and,

“If it’s wrong to hurt people because of skin color or gender, why is it okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location?”

The goal of asking is not dominance but thoughtful engagement.

By the way, I highly recommend Scott’s book The Case for Life. It’s well-researched, well-written, logical, and clear, containing many pithy and memorable statements. Those already prolife will be equipped, those on the fence will likely be persuaded. Readers looking to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves will find much here to say.

For more on abortion and the sanctity of life, see Randy’s books Why ProLife?, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, and Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?

Photo by Bich Ngoc Le on Unsplash

Should Christians Ever Participate in Violence?

My son-in-law Dan Franklin, married to my daughter Karina, is the teaching pastor and an elder at a wonderful church, Life Bible Fellowship in Upland, California. He shares some great video blogs on their site, and the following was one I thought was really excellent. Those who have ever wondered whether the Bible permits Christians to be involved in the military or the police will find some helpful principles to think through here. Dan wrote the text below to correspond to his video. Good food for thought! —Randy Alcorn

Violence is a major subject in current American culture. As we reflect back on mass shootings, the topics of guns and violence fill our minds and our conversations. Part of this discussion comes to the role of Christians in society.

Specifically, I want to ask (and answer) the question, “Is it permissible for Christians to ever participate in violence?” Is it immoral for Christians to be involved in owning guns, serving in the military, working as police officers, or committing violence in defense of self or others? I want to answer this question through three core statements.

Scripture is filled with examples of just violence.

Many of us think of the Ten Commandments and the command not to kill (better translated “murder”). In isolation, this command would seem to say that Christians should never be involved in killing or violence. However, it is impossible to read the Old Testament and conclude that the command means that godly people can never participate in violence.

The Old Testament is filled with stories of people acting violently and being commended. This is not to say that all violence is commended (certainly not!), but that there are many times when a person who participated in violence is seen as having acted justly. This is true of Abraham when he rescued Lot (Genesis 14). This is true of David when he killed Goliath (1 Samuel 17).

This is true of Joshua when we carried out the death penalty on Achan (Joshua 7). And this is true many times when Israel participated in wars. Clearly, Scripture presents the idea that a call to godliness is not a call never to participate in violence.

But are things different now that Jesus has come? Are these simply Old Testament examples that we have outgrown? I don’t think so. While there are definitely differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding how God’s people are called to live, these differences are mostly because of two realities: (1) Jesus fulfilled certain practices (food laws, sacrifices, the priesthood) and (2) God’s people are no longer an identifiable nation with borders and a military.

Therefore, there could still be godly people participating in the military and as police officers, because Jesus and the New Testament authors teach that we live in legitimate governments that can be supported (John 19:11, Romans 13:1, 1 Peter 2:13).

Non-violence is not the same as non-retaliation.

In the New Testament, I fail to find a call to non-violence. Instead, we find a call to non-retaliation. Jesus calls us to non-retaliation in the Sermon on the Mount when he tells us to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5). Paul calls us to non-retaliation when he tells Christians to stop suing each other (1 Corinthians 6). Peter calls us to non-retaliation when he calls us to repay curses with blessings (1 Peter 3). Jesus did not retaliate and, because of this, we now walk in forgiveness and new life.

While Christians are called not to retaliate physically, verbally, or in any other way, this does not exclude violence. The reason for this is that a police officer is not enacting revenge when he tackles a violent suspect. A member of the military is not retaliating when he shoots an enemy combatant. They are instead acting in line with the state.

This is not to say that the government will always be just. Christians must be willing to disobey authority if we are commanded to do evil. That said, governments certainly have the potential to be just and the authors of Scripture present them as legitimate. Keeping law and order, participating in the military, and acting in self-defense do not fall into the realm of retaliatory actions. They can be just ways of participating in violence, even though violence is always a tragic path.

If something is good for someone to do, then it is good for Christians to do.

There are some who say that it is fine for Christians to live in a society in which the military and police officers protect us, but that Christians should not participate in these professions. I believe that this is not a biblically defensible position. If serving as a police officer is a good thing for a non-Christian to do, then it is a good thing for a Christian to do.

Peter speaks of the Christian calling to do good in society (1 Peter 2:11-12). Sometimes the good thing to do in a horrible situation is to participate in violence in order to prevent a worse and more unjust situation. Christians are not called to keep their hands clean while others do their dirty work. We are called to do good, even when it might involve sad acts of violence because of the evil choices of other people.

Clearly, this article is not exhaustive. Feel free to give feedback or raise questions. Christians are not called to delight in evil or violence or weapons. We grieve the fact that we live in such a broken world. We live in a world that desperately needs Jesus. We live as people willing to choose blessing over retaliation. And we also live as people who are willing to call some violent actions “good” if they are courageous actions that protect others from further violence and injustice.

Photo by Matt Popovich on Unsplash

John Piper Answers the Question, “Does God Scare Us into Saving Faith?”

Are you tired of all the evil and corruption in this world? Do you long for a world in which such things don’t exist? Then you long for a Heaven without evildoers. And that requires either that God forces everyone to repent, come to Christ, and embrace His righteousness, or that God provides an alternative residence for those who do not. Hell is that place.

It saddens me to think of people suffering forever. But if there were no Hell, that would diminish the very attributes of God that make Hell necessary and Heaven available. Just as most people in prison don’t think they belong there, so most of us can’t imagine we deserve Hell. But when at last we begin to grasp that we do deserve it, we praise God for His grace on a far deeper level.

God doesn’t force Himself on anyone. If a woman were given a choice between being buried alive in a swamp and marrying a certain man, she would choose to marry the man. But what man would want such a wife? God doesn’t need our love, but He does want it. He doesn’t want people who merely desire to escape Hell. He wants people who value and treasure Him above all else, who long to be with Him.

Therefore, Christ freely offers to everyone the gift of forgiveness and eternal life: “Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (Revelation 22:17).

In this article, John Piper answers the question, “Does God Scare Us into Saving Faith?” Given the way that the doctrine of an eternal Hell is under attack even in many Christian churches, this is an important topic to think though:

“Trust Me or I Will Hurt You”: Does God Scare Us into Saving Faith?

By John Piper

How is the gospel invitation different from “Trust me or I will hurt you”?

If you don’t believe that hell is real, then this is not a serious question for you. If you believe hell is real, but don’t believe God ever sends anyone there (but only that they go there against his will), then it is still not a serious question for you. But if you believe that hell is real, and God actually sends people there, then this question needs a thoughtful answer.

Real, Terrible, Punitive

I do believe hell is real and that God sends people there. Of course, we have no way to know if hell is real, or if God sends people there, unless God reveals that to us. He has done this, especially through Jesus. No one in Scripture spoke of hell more than Jesus did. And no one spoke of it in more terrible terms. And no one made it more clear that it was a divine punishment, not just a self-inflicted consequence.

Jesus calls it “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:46), “eternal fire” (Matthew 18:8), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17), “place of torment” (Luke 16:28), “outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12; 22:13), “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:42, 50; 22:13; 25:30), being “in anguish” (Luke 16:24), “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48).

And he teaches that people do not go there voluntarily; they are “cast into hell” by God (Luke 12:5; Matthew 5:29; 18:9; Mark 9:45), “thrown into the outer darkness” (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). God is the Judge who makes these reckonings. Hell is a sentence on evil, not merely a sequel to evil. It is “judgment.” “How are you to escape from the judgment of hell?” (Matthew 23:33, my translation). Therefore, God is to be feared: “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

Why Will Anyone Be in Hell?

Sometimes we are told that the wrath of God is coming because of various sins: “Sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness. . . . On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:6; Ephesians 5:5–6; Hebrews 13:4). Or due to shedding “the blood of his [God’s] servants” (Revelation 19:2), or because of “unrighteousness” in general (Romans 2:8).

But beneath these specific acts of sinning is the deeper offense against God and his Son. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness” (Romans 1:18). “Whoever does not obey the Son . . . the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). Christ comes “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). Wrath comes on those who “do not obey the truth” (Romans 2:8), “refuse to love the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:10), and thus “suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18).

Ultimately, therefore, people are in hell because an offense against an infinitely worthy person is an infinite offense. God is infinitely worthy, and all sin is ultimately against him. Discrediting and demeaning and dishonoring God is the root and essence of all sin. Paul calls it “falling short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), exchanging God for his creation (Romans 1:23) — that is, preferring anything more than we prefer God (Jeremiah 2:13), and trusting ourselves more than him (Romans 14:23). The root of all law-breaking is Godward — hostility toward God (Romans 8:7).

Is God Like an Abusive Husband?

So the question we are asking is not frivolous. If there is a hell, and if God is the one who sends people there, and if the reason they go there is a failure to trust, and love, and enjoy, and honor God, how is this different from an abusive husband who says, “Kiss me or I will hurt you”? Or a peevish potentate who says, “Bow to me or I will take off your head”? And lest anyone think that the question is far-fetched, remember Psalm 2:12: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way.”

It seems to me that an answer to this question takes shape in two steps.

Step One: Already in Trouble

The God of the gospel, who requires faith in Christ (Acts 16:31), and warns of judgment (Romans 2:16), is different from the abusive husband and the peevish potentate in that God comes to a humanity that is already under wrath and on death row awaiting execution (John 3:36; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 2:3). In the gospel, he does not say, “Trust me or you will get in trouble.” He says, “Trust me, because you are in trouble, and I have a way to get you out.”

In effect, he says, “I am sending my Son to die in the place of those who are already condemned to die. I will ‘not spare’ him (Romans 8:32). I will give him up to the worst suffering, so that you may have a Savior and live. And if you cannot see what this means, let me make it explicit. It means I love you.” “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

No abusive husband or peevish potentate can say this. They have an opposite mindset. They are out to get, not to give. They are acting out of need, not fullness. They are a sucking siphon, not a satisfying spring. Their demands are not like the gospel. They are only threatening pain, not offering to rescue from pain. They are ready to hurt you, not planning to be hurt to spare you. But in the gospel — even in the demand of the gospel — God is giving himself to save you from being hurt.

That is the first difference between the gospel and “Trust me or I will hurt you.”

But this first step of the answer is not the last word. It leaves unanswered the question: How did humanity get in trouble in the first place? The answer is that God sentenced humanity to hell because of its sin. And sin is against God. And therefore, the question remains. When human beings first come under the wrath of God, how is it different from “Trust me or I will hurt you”?

Step Two: Wooing Before Warning

While God definitely warns people that the judicial sentence of suffering awaits them if they spurn him as their treasure, he does not lead with warning but with wooing. And this is more than a matter of sequence. It has to do with the very essence of what he demands.

The abusive husband and the peevish king demand actions: a kiss and a bow. Therefore, they can lead with threats, because a kiss and a bow can be given with no affection but only fear. Threats can constrain bodily actions, but cannot constrain beautiful affections.

But God demands affections first, not actions. Actions only have moral significance if they flow from a heart of affection for God. Judas-kisses do not honor Christ. Bowing before the potentate, while your heart is sworn to another, may suffice on earth. But it is far short of what God demands. It is not a commendation when Jesus says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Matthew 15:8).

Praise or Die?

Therefore, Jesus does not lead with the slogan, “Praise me or you die.” He does indeed say, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” and “will lose it [his life]” (Matthew 10:37, 39). But that warning is not the first or decisive motive for loving him.

In fact, the key point here is that threats and warnings cannot function as direct motives for what God demands. To be sure, he does demand certain behaviors. But beneath every behavior that God commands (whether “do not kill” or “practice hospitality”) is an implicit, and often explicit, command for dispositions of the heart that make hospitality and not killing morally beautiful in God’s sight. For example, Jesus said that the real issue behind murder is anger (Matthew 5:21–22), and Peter said that all hospitality should be “without grumbling” (1 Peter 4:9). The affections of the heart are always decisive in whether a bodily action is beautiful in God’s sight.

From the beginning, the most basic affections that God demanded from human beings were that he be trusted (Proverbs 3:5), loved (Deuteronomy 6:5), enjoyed (Psalm 37:4), honored (Romans 1:21), and, from these, obeyed in all things (Deuteronomy 4:40).

Threats Cannot Directly Awaken Trust

But this means that threatening with pain can never function as a direct motive for what God demands. First, because what he demands, beneath all other demands, is trust, love, joy, and honor. Second, because none of these can be awakened or sustained directly by threats of punishment.

Try it. If you do not feel trust for someone, and they put a gun to your head and say, “Unless you feel trust for me, I will kill you,” what happens? You cannot make the feeling of trust rise in your heart. You can force yourself to act certain ways that may look like trust. But the true affection of heartfelt trust cannot be coerced by threats. Neither can love, joy, or honor. That is simply not the way the human heart works.

What I mean by saying that these affections cannot be awakened or sustained directly by threats is that the threats and warnings do have an indirect role to play. Otherwise, God would not have given them to us, which he has. “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way” (Psalm 2:12). “I warn you . . . that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

But these warnings in Scripture do not function directly on our affections of trust and love and joy and honor. Instead, they wake us up to the fact that our hearts are so rebellious and so deserving of punishment that we desperately need the mercy of God to make us a new kind of person. In this way, the threats convict us that the problem lies not in God, but in us. We are defective and hard and blind and resistant. Therefore, we cannot see or feel the true beauties of God’s manifold perfections. Our affections are not alive to God as they should be. Therefore, God uses warnings and threats to wake us up from our deadness and hardness and blindness. He leads us to the cross and shows us “the unsearchable riches of Christ” (Ephesians 3:8). That is where the affections of trust and love and joy and honor are fed.

What about man before the fall? How did the warning function there? There was only one: “The tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). The function was not to wake Adam up from deadness, but to stand as a sentinel against trusting self more than God. Not the warning of one tree, but the wooing of thousands, was God’s plan to be loved.

Wooing of Bounty and Rescue

In pursuit of our trust and love and enjoyment and honor, God leads with wooing, not warning. With joy-awakening splendors, not fear-awakening dangers.

If we think of humanity before its condemnation, we see God leading with the free gift of bounty. “The Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” and he said, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden” (Genesis 2:9, 16). Only one was withheld.

And if we think of humanity after its condemnation, we see God leading with the free gift of rescue through the gift of his Son. “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:17). He leads not with the menace of wrath, but the message of rescue. “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God” (Romans 5:9).

“Trust Me or I Will Hurt You” Obscures

I conclude, therefore, that the gospel is not expressed, but obscured, by the words, “Trust me or I will hurt you.” 1) The words conjure up images of an abusive husband or a peevish potentate and thus obscure the truth that God acts out of fullness for our good, not out of need for our affirmation. 2) They obscure the fact that we are already hurt and already under the sentence of being hurt more, and God comes to us in that condition with words of rescue as a blood-bought gift. 3) These words obscure the fact that the essence of what God demands of us (trust, love, joy, and honor) cannot be awakened or sustained directly by threats. God has made us so that it is psychologically impossible for the most satisfying affections to be directly produced by threats.

He has made us to glorify him by enjoying him as the supreme treasure of the universe. That enjoyment is the overflow of our heart. It is a spontaneous response to the glory of his immeasurable perfections, or it is nothing. By its very nature, and by God’s design, it cannot be coerced.

This post originally appeared on DesiringGod.org.

For more on the subject of hell, see Randy’s chapter “Hell: Eternal Sovereign Justice Exacted upon Evildoers,” from his book If God Is Good.

Photo by Ashton Bingham on Unsplash

True Repentance Is More Than Just Words

We live in an age when politicians and nearly everyone else only admits to as much wrongdoing—if they admit it at all—as is necessary to minimize it and then move on with their lives. But what does true repentance look like?

Repentance begins with our personal walk with God, our families, and those closest to us. Sometimes it needs to go further than that—for example, to those we work with and under, depending on how broadly we have wronged people. To be repentant means to not just be sorry about sin, but also to be committed to doing whatever is necessary to keep from falling back into it.

Repentance is more than reciting well-rehearsed words while trying to minimize our losses. Genuine repentance is vulnerable. It confesses not just as much as what has been found out, but more. It doesn't withhold information (e.g. from our spouses or friends) in the hope of preserving an image or a reputation. It puts itself at the mercy of others; it does not presume to direct or control them and how they respond to us.

Read Psalm 51, an expression of pure repentance. Notice there is no explanation of the extenuating circumstances—of how busy King David is, how lonely the man at the top is, how irresponsible it was for Bathsheba to be bathing in sight of the palace, how Uriah was a neglectful husband. David didn’t rationalize or justify or qualify his sin. He owned up to it, 100 percent. He simply admitted he was wrong.

God says through John the Baptist, “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8). The sincerity of our repentance is demonstrated by how willing we are to take the steps necessary to nourish our souls and reprogram our minds from Scripture, so we can draw on Christ’s power to be restored and live righteously.

“A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51:17).

“Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19–20).

Image: Christianpics.co

They Sang a New Song: Charles Spurgeon’s Reflections on the Heavenly Hymn in Revelation 5

In a sermon on “The Heavenly Singers and Their Song,” Charles Spurgeon wrote this:

“They sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth’” (Revelation 5:9-10). I must take away the poetry for a moment and just deal with the doctrines of this heavenly hymn.

The first doctrine is that Christ is put in the front; His deity is affirmed. They sing, “Worthy are you.” A strong-winged angel speeds his way over Earth and Heaven and down the deep places of the universe, crying with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll?” (Revelation 5:2). But no answer comes, for no creature is worthy. Then came One of whom the church cries in its song, “Worthy are you.”

Yes, beloved, He is worthy of all the praise and honor we can bring to Him. He is worthy to be called equal with God; He Himself is God, very God of very God. And no man can sing this song, or ever will sing it, unless he believes Christ to be true deity and accepts Him as his Lord and God.

Next, the doctrine of this hymn is that the whole church delights in the mediation of Christ. Notice that it was when He had taken the scroll that they said, “Worthy are you to take the scroll” (Revelation 5:9). To have Christ standing between God and man is the joy of every believing heart. We could never reach up to God except that Christ has come to bridge the distance between us. He places one hand on man and the other upon God. He is the mediator who can lay His hand upon both, and the church greatly rejoices in this.

Remember that even the working of providence is not apart from the mediation of Christ. I rejoice in this, that if the thunders be let loose, if plagues and deaths around us fly, the child of God is still under the mediator’s protection. No harm shall happen to the chosen, for Jesus always guards us. All power is given unto Him in Heaven and in Earth, and the church rejoices in His role as mediator.

But now notice: in the church’s song, what is her reason for believing that Christ is worthy to be a mediator? The church says, “Worthy are you . . . for you were slain” (Revelation 5:9). Ah, beloved, when Christ undertook to be her mediator, this was the extreme point to which His pledge to be her substitute could carry Him—to be slain! Jesus is never more glorious than in His death. His substitutionary atonement is the culmination of His glory, as it was the very utmost depth of His shame. Beloved, we rejoice in our mediator because He died.

A thing that is redeemed belonged originally to the person who redeems it, and the redeemed of the Lord were always His. “Yours they were,” said Christ, “and you gave them to me” (John 17:6). They always were God’s. You cannot go and redeem a thing that does not belong to you. You may buy it, but you cannot redeem it. Now that which belonged originally to God became indebted through sin. We, having sinned, came under the curse of the law. And though God still held to it that we were His, we were yet under this embargo: sin had a claim upon us.

Christ came and saw His own, and He knew that they were His own. He asked what there was to pay to redeem them, to restore His ownership. It was His heart’s blood, His life, Himself that was required. He paid the price and redeemed them, and we tonight sing, “By your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9-10).

He has, by redeeming us, separated us to Himself and made us a holy people, bought with blood in a special sense out of all the rest of mankind.

This redemption is the grounds for the distinction of God’s holy people: “By your blood you ransomed people for God” (Revelation 5:9).

God never wearies of the precious blood, nor will His ­people who know where their salvation lies. They do not, even in Heaven, say that it is a dreadful word to mention. I heard a man the other day say of a certain minister, “Oh! We want another minister; we are tired of this man. He is always talking so much about the blood.” In the last great day, God will be tired of the man who made that speech.

Randy again: Spurgeon wrote some hymns and published a new collection of worship songs in 1866 called Our Own Hymn-Book. It was mostly a compilation of Isaac Watts’s psalms and hymns. Spurgeon paid close attention to the doctrines contained in hymns. He was publicly critical of a particular hymnbook that portrayed God as distant and uninvolved in human affairs. As usual, his criticism gained him a great deal of negative press in return.

It is the hymn of Revelation 5 that Spurgeon chooses as his passage in this sermon, expressing that the entire physical universe was created for God’s glory. But humanity rebelled, and the universe fell under the weight of our sin. Yet the serpent’s seduction of Adam and Eve did not catch God by surprise. He had in place a plan by which He would redeem mankind—and all of creation—from sin, corruption, and death. Just as He promises to make men and women new, He promises to renew the Earth itself. How? By the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God. There is no other way.

If, due to the Fall, God would have given up on his original purpose for mankind to fill the Earth and rule it (Genesis 1:28), He surely wouldn’t have repeated the same command to Noah after the Flood: “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, NIV). Still, until sin and the Curse are permanently removed, people are incapable of exercising proper stewardship of the Earth. Redemption buys back God’s original design.

“God never wearies of the precious blood,” Spurgeon says, “nor will His people who know where their salvation lies.” The gospel is far greater than most of us imagine. It isn’t just good news for us—it’s good news for animals, plants, stars, and planets. It’s good news for the sky above and the Earth below. Albert Wolters says, “The redemption in Jesus Christ means the restoration of an original good creation.”

God’s redemptive plan climaxes not at the return of Christ nor in the millennial Kingdom but on the New Earth. Only then will all wrongs be made right. Only then will there be no more death, crying, or pain (Revelation 21:1-4). And only then will we all begin to see the breadth and depth of the universe-piercing power of the blood of God.

Excerpted from We Shall See God, in which Randy Alcorn has compiled profound spiritual insights on Heaven from the sermons of Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest theologians of all time.

Photo by Igor Rodrigues on Unsplash

Progressive Christianity and Three Ideas That Can Lead to Outright Unbelief

When I wrote my book If God Is Good, on the problem of evil and suffering, I devoted an entire chapter as a case study on Bart Ehrman, author of the best-selling book God’s Problem and a self-described “former evangelical Christian.” Erhman has become a sort of atheist poster boy, presenting himself as a reverse C. S. Lewis, compelled by intellectual honesty to abandon his faith.

Just as Christians elevate the testimonies of former atheists who have come to Christ, so atheists elevate Ehrman. He writes in his book God’s Problem, “I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood.” He borrows from Lewis, who said, “I came into Christianity kicking and screaming.”

In the years since my book was published, it’s become increasingly popular for people to share their “de-conversion stories,” talking about how they moved from belief in Christ and the Bible to a design-it-yourself type of spirituality, or even out right atheism. So what are some common factors in the process of abandoning their faith, and how does that relate to progressive Christianity, which frequently abandons trust in Scripture as God’s inerrant Word? In the following article, Alisa Childers addresses this and writes about “3 Beliefs Some Progressive Christians and Atheists Share.” She points out:

This isn’t to say that every Christian who holds progressive views on certain issues is on a direct route to atheism. Progressive Christianity covers a spectrum. But as Campolo describes, letting go of historical doctrines can be addictive. He explains, “Once you start adjusting your theology to match up to the reality you see in front of you, it’s an infinite progression.”

Thanks, Alisa, for this insightful article. —Randy Alcorn

3 Beliefs Some Progressive Christians and Atheists Share

By Alisa Childers

“Listen. I gotta break it to you . . . I’m post-Christian. . . . I don’t believe it anymore. I don’t believe any of it.”

These are the words former Christian minister Bart Campolo recalls speaking to his famous evangelist father, Tony Campolo, after leaving the faith of his youth. He explained that his journey to secular humanism was a 30-year process of passing through every stage of heresy. In other words, his theology “progressed” from conservative to liberal to entirely secular.

He predicted that in 10 years, 30 percent to 40 percent of so-called progressive Christians will also become atheists. Progressive Christianity is tough to define, because there isn’t a creed or list of beliefs that progressive Christians officially unite around. However, progressive Christians tend to reject the historic biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality, and generally deny or redefine doctrines such as the atonement and biblical authority.

As a result, Campolo believes that for the most part, progressives have already abandoned Christianity, simply redefining terms in an effort to hold on to some semblance of their faith. He believes the generation behind them will recognize the shallowness of this new theology—and, with nothing invested in remaining a Christian, they’ll basically say, “Let’s just call it what it is,” and leave the faith altogether.

De-Conversion Stories

The trajectory Campolo identifies isn’t difficult to spot. Husband-and-wife Christian recording duo Gungor recently made headlines when Lisa described her husband’s year-long conversion to atheism in a Buzzfeed video titled, “I Stopped Believing in God after Pastoring a MegaChurch.” The video highlighted the couple’s spiritual evolution from faith to “heretical” to unbelieving . . . and back to belief. Although Lisa’s own atheism lasted only a day, the faith she and Michael have finally come to embrace looks little like historic Christianity. After stating he no longer feels “spiritually homeless,” Michael identified himself as an “Apophatic mystic Hindu pantheist Christian Buddhist skeptic with a penchant for nihilistic progressive existentialism.”

The Gungors aren’t alone in this pattern. Mike McHargue, better known as “Science Mike,” tells a similar story of deconstruction, temporary atheism, and a return to a faith that is foreign to the Christianity he previously practiced. He told Relevant magazine that after he started blogging and podcasting his story, he received thousands of emails from people who share the same experience. Even the famously skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman passed through a progressive Christian phase on his way out of evangelical Christianity and into atheism. He now believes “it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. And that’s how I understand myself.”

Bands like Caedmon’s Call composed the soundtrack for many evangelical youth. That’s why it’s especially sad to learn that former member Derek Webb recently announced he’s walked away from his faith, finding the Christian narrative to “not be true.” He describes his latest album, Fingers Crossed, as a “tale of two divorces,” referencing the divorce from his wife, and from God. The album features a song called “Goodbye for Now,” which laments,

So either you aren’t real
or I am just not chosen
maybe I’ll never know
Either way my heart is broken.
So goodbye for now.

These “de-conversion stories” (see “Jen Hatmaker and the Power of De-Conversion Stories”) have become almost a rite of passage in the progressive church, giving rise to podcasts, websites, and conferences entirely devoted to the process of deconstruction. In fact, Webb’s album has been described as “an anthem for deconstruction,” inspiring a podcast called The Airing of Grief, where listeners can share their de-conversion stories.

The two belief systems have some significant underlying beliefs in common.

Time will tell if Campolo’s theory that progressive Christianity leads to atheism is valid. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but it’s worth noting that the two belief systems have some significant underlying beliefs in common.

Here are three atheistic ideas that some progressive Christians espouse and may lead them into full-blown atheism.

1. They May Adopt a Belief That the Bible Is Unreliable

“[The Bible is] a profoundly human book” (Rob Bell).

“If we are fixed on the Bible as a book that has to get history ‘right,’ the Gospels become a crippling problem” (Peter Enns).

“Anything in the Bible that looks miraculous or contrary to the normal functions of the natural world is not factual, but rather is mythological” (James Burklo).

“What business do I have describing as ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ a text that presumes a flat and stationary earth, takes slavery for granted, and presupposes patriarchal norms like polygamy?” (Rachel Held Evans).

Think these are the musings of hardened skeptics? The declarations of atheists bent on destroying Christianity? No. These are actually the words of progressive Christian writers and scholars about their own holy Book.

No one would think twice if they heard an atheist deride the supernatural stories in Scripture. But they might be surprised to learn that progressive Christians share this skepticism. Progressive Christian writers David Felten and Jeff Procter-Murphy consider it a given that the virgin birth, Jesus’s healing miracles, and the resurrection are metaphorical. Progressive author Rachel Held Evans suggests that Christians should be less concerned about the historical validity of these miracle stories, and more focused on the theological points they teach.

2. They May Have an Unresolved Answer to the Problem of Evil

For atheists, one of the most consistent defeaters of belief in God is the reality of evil and suffering. Throughout the ages, even many Christians have wrestled with this ancient dilemma: If God is good, why is there evil? If he’s all powerful, why doesn’t he do something about it? Sadly, when someone can’t come to a place of resolve and peace with these questions, the temptation is to redefine the faith they’ve held—or to leave it altogether.

In an interview on a popular Irish television show, atheist Stephen Fry was asked what he might say to God if he died and discovered he did indeed exist. He responded, “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right.” Fry ended by saying if God exists, he’s an “utter maniac.”

Instead of saying ‘Just have faith’ or ‘You shouldn’t question your faith,’ we should provide a safe place for people to ask tough questions and process their doubts.

Similarly, when addressing his recent conversion from Christianity to atheism, Derek Webb said, “Either it’s all chaos—or there is a god who is both all-loving and all-powerful, and he’s just a f***ing a**hole. It’s got to be one of the two.”

Lisa Gungor expressed that one of the tipping points in her own faith deconstruction was a visit to the Auschwitz concentration camp. Shortly after, while processing her cousin’s bout with cancer, she described hitting rock bottom. Her temporary atheism circled back to a kind of faith after the birth of her second child. Although she doesn’t use a label to describe her current belief system, she refers to God as “Divine Mother,” saying: “I love the way of Jesus. I don’t have a definition for that.”

Former atheist C. S. Lewis wrote:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

For Lewis, the problem of evil led him to faith in God. But in the case of progressive Christians and atheists, it often leads to further deconstruction and unbelief.

3. They May Affirm a Culture-Adapting Morality

Many atheists believe an action is moral or immoral based on its effect on the well-being of humanity. With no need to bring God into the picture, this view of morality ends up following certain societal norms.

It’s not so different for progressive Christianity. With the Bible evicted from its seat of authority, that authority will generally shift onto self. Personal conscience, opinion, and preference becomes the lens through which life and morality is evaluated and interpreted—and this will usually be informed by the current cultural milieu.

In 2016, Jen Hatmaker sent shockwaves through American Christian culture by announcing she now affirms same-sex marriage. LGBT activist Matthew Vines tweeted that this made her “one of the highest-profile evangelicals” to do so. She’s hardly the only self-professed evangelical who no longer holds to the historic Christian position on sexuality and marriage.

For atheists, morality has never been informed by the Bible, and for progressives, the Bible is being renovated to accommodate some of our culture’s moral standards.

Atheists in the Making?

After his conversion to secular humanism, Campolo decided he still had something to offer as a minister. But instead of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, he now teaches the tenets of humanism as University of Cinncinatti’s humanist chaplain. Using the skills he cultivated as a Christian minister, he operates much like any other chaplain, meeting with students to give guidance and advice.

If Campolo is right, many progressive Christians are on a path to full-blown atheism. And he’ll be there to offer the de-converted support and friendship in a world without God.

The teachings of the Bible aren’t progressive—they’re eternal.

This isn’t to say that every Christian who holds progressive views on certain issues is on a direct route to atheism. Progressive Christianity covers a spectrum. But as Campolo describes, letting go of historical doctrines can be addictive. He explains, “Once you start adjusting your theology to match up to the reality you see in front of you, it’s an infinite progression.”

For Campolo, sovereignty was the first to go. For others, it’s a belief in biblical norms regarding sexuality and gender, or the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Whatever it may be, once a person makes their own thoughts, feelings, and opinions the authoritative source for truth, their spirituality will reflect what they prefer, rather than what’s true. And the farther a Christian walks down this path, the farther they get from a genuine relationship with God. Tim Keller aptly notes,

What happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You won’t! You’ll have a Stepford God! A God, essentially, of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction.

Christian Response

So what can we do to prevent this from happening in our churches and families?

As Natasha Crain recently pointed out, committed Christians in America are now a minority, and we need to prepare ourselves and our kids for that reality. We need to truly understand what it means to take the narrow road and fix our gaze on the beautiful reward that awaits those who walk it. We need to thoughtfully and intelligently interact with questions of faith with compassion and clarity. Instead of saying “Just have faith” or “You shouldn’t question your faith,” we should provide a safe place for people to ask tough questions and process their doubts.

Truly following Jesus has been countercultural since the first century. Christians have always had to stand up against the spirit of the age, and when we fail to do so, it can be a step toward unbelief. The teachings of the Bible aren’t progressive—they’re eternal. So we must “hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful” (Heb. 10:23).

After all, the contemporary views that many people call “progressive” aren’t progressive anyway: they’re very old, echoes of that primordial question, “Did God really say?” (Gen. 3:1), signs of the most wicked rebellion imaginable. And we all know where that ends up.

This article originally appeared on The Gospel Coalition , and is used by permission of the author.

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

Do You Want God to Oppose You in Your Pride, or to Give Grace to You in Your Humility?

A while back I was asked to share some thoughts on 1 Peter 5:5 for a study series for my church. Here’s the video, and below is an edited transcript. I’ve made some substantial edits and additions, so the words below have a fair amount not in the video.

First Peter 5:5 (ESV) says:

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

What’s translated here as “humility,” or “humble yourselves” in the following verse, is a Greek word that means “low-lying.” It was used derisively by the Greeks and the Romans. To be accused of being humble was very negative because both those groups were proud people.

And we as Americans, as well as citizens of nations around the planet, are certainly proud people! We see this in sports, in politics, and sometimes even in preaching styles. Sadly, there are people who get up in their churches and on their television programs and posture and wear their prominent jewelry or flashy clothes and seemingly try to draw attention to themselves.

We see this sometimes with athletes, with some of the self-glorifying celebrations and the intimidation of their opponents. We see it sometimes in business people and musicians and actors and writers and for sure in politics. It’s rampant.  (Of course there are truly humble pastors, athletes, musicians, business people, and politicians. I know a number of them, so this isn’t a generalization, just a recognition that the pride problem is widespread.)

These kinds of things were normal to the Greeks and Romans, and are normal in America, but they’re not to be normal to the church, the body of Christ. We’re to see with God’s perspective, and He regards humility as something beautiful. Christ is our ultimate example of humility, as we see in John 13, when He washed the feet of His disciples.

“God opposes the proud,” this text says. That’s a word used for battle, and to oppose means to be at war with. Do you really want to be at war with God? No! Be at war with Satan. Sometimes for a great cause, you’ll be at war with people, even though you love them and pray for their conversion. But you and I never, ever want to be at war with God. That's a war we can never win! What could be more foolish than to pit yourself against God? Whatever God says He opposes is exactly what we should not be doing. So it’s not just wrong to be proud—it’s just plain stupid.  

“But he gives grace to the humble.” What could you want more than God’s grace? Our Christian lives begin with grace and we are saved by grace, but we are also sanctified by grace and will be glorified by grace. We need grace today, every bit as much as the first day we came to faith in Christ. “He gives grace to the humble.” Want more grace from God? Then here’s the formula: humble yourself. Or do you want God to fight you, go to war against you, and defeat and humiliate you? Then go ahead and be proud. It’s that simple.

“Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another.” Notice it says all of you. There are no exceptions to this. No pastor or elder or leader inside or outside the church can get away with pride and arrogance. And notice it says, “Clothe yourselves with humility.” Not “let yourself be clothed.” This is not Downton Abbey, where there’s a lady’s maid to dress the women, and a butler to dress the men. You have to put on your own clothes. God calls us to be servants, and no one dresses the servant!

This is active, not passive. We’re not to sit around and wait for God, or anyone else, to clothe us with humility. We actually have to clothe ourselves. You’ve probably noticed your clothes don’t magically appear on you each day. You have to go to the effort to select them and put them on. Likewise, humility doesn’t come naturally. We need to practice it by serving others, genuinely caring about them, and respecting them and listening to them and putting them, not us, first.

Again, I think the “all of you” is significant in this verse because there are no exceptions. Jesus said, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).  If Jesus, the Creator and Master, came to serve, shouldn’t we follow His example?

Humility isn’t pretending that we’re unworthy so we’ll look good, or because we’re proud of being humble. Humility is truly realizing we are unworthy—and yet God has called us, loved us, sent His Son to the cross for us, and empowered us to live a life of service. True leaders are servants. That’s why Peter tells elders and pastors they must be “eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3). 

We might consider it a compliment to be called a servant. Someone might say, “You’re a real servant!” and we’ll wear that as a badge of honor. But how do we feel when we’re actually treated as servants? That’s the real test of our humility. Don’t serve others so you can be praised for being a servant. Serve others from a humble heart, realizing it is an honor to serve, as Jesus did. Nothing is more fulfilling than following His example. The true servant of God is one who follows the command “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Romans 12:3).

So do you want God to think highly of you? Do you want Him to say, “Well done, my good and faithful servant”? I certainly do. Isaiah 66:2 tells us how: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.”  

One of the great needs of our time, I think, is doctrinal humility, where we don’t attempt to reinvent the Christian faith, thinking our new interpretations of Scripture (especially those that just happen to conform to the changing values of our culture) are better that those of the supposedly ignorant people who preceded us in church history.

Some people say today, “Jesus talked about hell, and I get that, but I just don’t think a God of love could send people to an eternal hell.” So they’re tempted to start revising and airbrushing God’s message, and trying to make the gospel appear more positive in our culture. But it doesn’t work, and it’s not loving because when we love people, we will warn them and tell them the truth. We’re to do it in humility, but we are to warn them, not adjust God’s message.

The prodigal son left in pride, and returned in humility. What did his father do? He did what God the Father does for us: he wrapped his arms around him in grace. God opposes the proud, and we see that in the older brother, who’s proud of his virtues. But God gives grace to the humble and that’s what the father did for the prodigal son when he repented.

So remember, it’s not only wrong to oppose God by being proud—it’s utterly foolish. It will never work out well for us.  John Flavel, the great English Puritan of the 1600s, said, “They that know God will be humble; they that know themselves cannot be proud.” A. W. Tozer, one of my favorite writers, said, “God being Who and What He is, and we being who and what we are, the only thinkable relation between us is one of full lordship on His part and complete submission on ours.”

First Peter 5:6 says, “Humble yourself therefore under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.” God has a time when He will lift us up, but if we go through our lives trying to lift up and exalt ourselves, it will not only fail, but it will also rob us of the opportunity for God to elevate us and others to speak well of us. Those things will only happen if we’ve avoided promoting ourselves out of pride, and served Jesus and others in true humility.

As usual, Charles Spurgeon said it well: “Many people have often been humbled, and yet they have not become humble. …The most hopeful way of avoiding humbling affliction is to humble yourself. Be humble that you may not be humbled.”

For more on pride, humility, and our need for grace, see Randy’s devotional Grace: A Bigger View of God’s Love. 

These daily meditations with Scriptures and inspirational quotes will enable you to grasp more fully the grace God has lavished on us and give you a bigger view of God’s love for those who are His.

Photo by Naassom Azevedo on Unsplash

Artificial Intelligence: The ERLC’s Evangelical Statement of Principles

We know that God isn’t against technology. After all, He gave us the creativity to make it, and technology helps us govern the earth as He commanded. I have always loved science (and science fiction) and artificial intelligence doesn’t scare me, it fascinates me.

Still, because of sin, technology can be used for bad as well as for good. With great potential for good comes great potential for evil. That's why I encourage you to read this statement from the ERLC (Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) on the emergent technology of artificial intelligence (AI).  These are important things for Christians to be thinking through in advance.

Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles

Preamble

As followers of Christ, we are called to engage the world around us with the unchanging gospel message of hope and reconciliation. Tools like technology are able to aid us in this pursuit. We know they can also be designed and used in ways that dishonor God and devalue our fellow image-bearers. Evangelical Christians hold fast to the inerrant and infallible Word of God, which states that every human being is made in God’s image and thus has infinite value and worth in the eyes of their Creator. This message dictates how we view God, ourselves, and the tools that God has given us the ability to create.

In light of existential questions posed anew by the emergent technology of artificial intelligence (AI), we affirm that God has given us wisdom to approach these issues in light of Scripture and the gospel message. Christians must not fear the future or any technological development because we know that God is, above all, sovereign over history, and that nothing will ever supplant the image of God in which human beings are created. We recognize that AI will allow us to achieve unprecendented possibilities, while acknowledging the potential risks posed by AI if used without wisdom and care.

We desire to equip the church to proactively engage the field of AI, rather than responding to these issues after they have already affected our communities. In light of this desire and hope, we offer the following affirmations and denials about the nature of humanity, the promise of technology, and the hope for the future.

Read the rest.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

What About Capitalizing Pronouns Referring to God?

I’ve been asked by readers over the years, “Why don’t you capitalize the pronouns referring to God in your books?”

The old practice of capitalizing pronouns of deity has been done in very few Bible translations historically, and was abandoned by most Christian publishers years ago. I continued to do it for years but it created inconsistencies since I would capitalize pronouns of deity, then quote Scripture that didn’t. The inconsistency stood out. The only alternative would be to quote from NASB or NKJV, both of which capitalize pronouns of deity, but neither of which is my preference for purposes of clarity.

On our website and blog, and on social media, we usually capitalize pronouns referring to deity. I never would have stopped doing it in my books if my publishers hadn’t changed their policy. (EPM has chosen to capitalize the pronouns in our self-published books.) I think there’s not really a big down side. It not only shows reverence, but also sometimes increases clarity—as in “Jesus and Peter were talking, and then suddenly He said to him, ‘Look out.’” But where it’s not possible, i.e. in my books with publishers, I’ve gone with their policy.

Of course, I would never agree to Christ or God not being capitalized. I have had to fight to get Heaven capitalized in my books, arguing that it is a proper noun, and just as real a place as Saturn or France. I argue the same for capitalizing the New Earth—if we capitalize New England, why not the redeemed creation that Scripture calls the “New Earth”?  But notice that while Heaven is capitalized (since it is an actual place), I don’t capitalize There or It when referring to Heaven, e.g. “If we go There” or “Without a doubt, It is a happy place!” Only the actual word Heaven is capitalized, and industry standard is similar with pronouns referring to deity.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church explains it this way on their website:

We follow the style, which does not capitalize pronouns relating to deity. This intends no disrespect to God; it is the usage of the historic English Bibles: Wyclif (1380), Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), Geneva (1557), Rheims (1582), and King James Version of KJV (1611). Moreover, it is the style followed by the New International Version (NIV) and English Standard Version (ESV), as well as by our denominational magazine New Horizons. The NASB and NKJV do capitalize pronouns relating to deity (introducing something which is not in the Greek or Hebrew, I might add).

I also like this answer from Got Questions:

Many people struggle with this question. Some, believing it shows reverence for God, capitalize all pronouns that refer to God. Others, believing the “rules” of English style should be followed, do not capitalize the deity pronouns. So, who is right? The answer is neither. It is neither right nor wrong to capitalize or not capitalize pronouns that refer to God. It is a matter of personal conviction, preference, and context. Some Bible translations capitalize pronouns referring to God, while others do not. 

In the original languages of the Bible, capitalizing pronouns referring to God was not an issue. In Hebrew, there was no such thing as upper-case and lower-case letters. There was simply an alphabet, no capital letters at all. In Greek, there were capital (upper-case) letters and lower-case letters. However, in all of the earliest copies of the Greek New Testament, the text is written in all capital letters. When God inspired the human authors of Scripture to write His Word, He did not lead them to give any special attention to pronouns that refer to Him. With that in mind, it follows that God is not offended if we do not capitalize pronouns that refer to Him.

If you capitalize pronouns that refer to God to show reverence for His name, fantastic! Continue doing so. If you capitalize pronouns that refer to God to make it more clear who is being referred to, great! Continue doing so. If you are not capitalizing pronouns that refer to God because you believe proper English grammar/syntax/style should be followed, wonderful! Continue following your conviction. Again, this is not a right vs. wrong issue. Each of us must follow his/her own conviction and each of us should refrain from judging those who take a different viewpoint.

Photo by Amador Loureiro on Unsplash

Is There Any Evidence for Mary, the Mother of Jesus, Being the “Black Madonna”?

Question from a reader:

Does any evidence exist for Mary, the mother of Jesus, being the "Black Madonna"? I have a Bible that shows illustrations and says most art depicting Mary as black was destroyed by Caucasian church leaders.

Answer from Stephanie Anderson, EPM staff:

While Wikipedia isn’t always necessarily a reliable source, this information about the Black Madonnas may be helpful:

Important early studies of dark images in France were done by Marie Durand-Lefebvre (1937), Emile Saillens (1945), and Jacques Huynen (1972). The first notable study of the origin and meaning of the Black Madonnas in English appears to have been presented by Leonard Moss at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on December 28, 1952. Moss broke the images into three categories: (1) dark brown or black Madonnas with physiognomy and skin pigmentation matching that of the indigenous population; (2) various art forms that have turned black as a result of certain physical factors such as deterioration of lead-based pigments, accumulated smoke from the use of votive candles, and accumulation of grime over the ages, and (3) residual category with no ready explanation. (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna)

It’s not uncommon for cultures around the world to depict Jesus (and also Mary) in their art as appearing like their own people do. We know there’s been the tendency in European and American culture to make Jesus appear like a blond, blue-eyed white man, but that’s certainly not accurate. Jesus’ ethnicity was Jewish, and as a Middle Eastern man, his skin would have most likely been some shade of brown. By extension, we can surmise that Mary would have had similar coloring.  Randy wrote this about Jesus’ appearance:

Jesus certainly would have had dark skin, and wouldn’t at all be called “white.” A purebred Jew or Arab with sunbaked skin (including carpenters like Jesus who cut their own wood and worked outside more than inside), is typically very dark, and very unwhite in appearance. When working with the artists who illustrated my graphic novels Eternity and The Apostle Paul, I noticed the tendency was to make Jesus look like a white guy with a decent tan, and I pushed to have his skin darker. It went against the grain to make him look like a Middle Eastern Semite, but of course that’s what He was and in His resurrected body’s resurrected DNA, that’s what He'll always be.