September 28, 2025

One of the earliest descriptions we have of the New Testament church involves its effort to care for the physical needs of its members (Acts 2:44-45). The earliest example is of a body of people who cared deeply for one another and took practical steps to ensure that all the needs within the community of believers were met. Later in Acts when Paul goes to Jerusalem to address potential issues between Jewish and gentile Christians there is a discussion of doctrinal agreement but added to that is a request to “remember the poor” Paul points out that this was something he was already eager to do (Gal 2:1-10). Jesus’ ministry is described as one which “preaches good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18; Mat 11:5). 

It’s hard to imagine a human heart that has concern for people’s souls that is unconcerned for their physical provision. James describes a person whose faith is dead with the example of seeing a brother who is in need and doing nothing about it. Jesus expressed his compassion by healing and preaching. We often see these two elements together (Mat 4:23; 9:35; Lk 9:6; 9:10). Paul admonishes us to do good to all men especially those of the household of faith (Gal 6:10). 

Perhaps even to a greater degree than our other priorities, helping people with their physical needs is linked to helping people with their spiritual needs. It’s a cliché but with good reason; people don’t care how much you know unless they know how much you care. If we want to reach people with the gospel of Christ there is no better way to build credibility than demonstrating our intentions by our behaviours and addressing people’s needs in a meaningful way. 

It must be noted at this juncture that we can’t overstate the importance of benevolence, but we must also understand that it is not and end in itself. I have known to many churches and to many individual Christians who do something kind or helpful and then stop there, never having mentioned the gospel. We can grant that occasions may crop up in which we help someone and don’t get an appropriate opening for the gospel. However, we need to maintain a constant awareness that our primary goal is to establish a relationship between men and God. It is not enough to satisfy physical need and our own ego while ignoring the eternal. 

May God Bless us in our efforts to reach people with the saving truth of the gospel

~ Kevin Cleary

September 21, 2025

     In Matthew 24 and Luke 21 Jesus describes his coming. In doing so he describes the nations being in anguish and heavenly bodies shaking. This has led many to suggest that he must be referring to the final destruction of the earth at the end of time. Jesus however seems to be using the same language used in the Old Testament to describe his “coming”. The reason the Old Testament becomes important is we must look to the prophets to find apocalyptic language like that found in Matthew 24. When we have looked at this, we will find that even figurative language does not always indicate that end time events are being considered. In the Old Testament God is said to come in different ways and at different times. In Isaiah 19:1 describes God coming in the clouds which is very similar wording to what is found in Matthew 24 but here it has reference to the destruction of Egypt. In Daniel 7:13+14 the Son of Man coming on the clouds refers to the founding of the Kingdom on the day of Pentecost (Jones). Again, this is a reference to something other than the end of the world but the same language is used that is found in Matthew 24. Although coming is not mentioned, language similar to that found in Matthew 24 appears in Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 34:4-5 and Ezekiel 32:7 all describing judgments on nations. In all these cases language that is grandiose and sensational is used to describe different events. We can see then that similar language even exact quotations can talk about different events. D.R. Dungan sums up the principal “It must be remembered that that figures are not always used with the same meaning- a lion may not always symbolize the same thought… nor need a sheep, water, or fire always be employed for the purpose of expressing the same calamity or blessing.” In these cases, we might wonder why such dramatic language is employed the explanation is twofold. First God’s coming in judgement is always a big event. Second God’s coming in judgement on a specific nation or city serves as a foreshadow of the greater judgement to come. 

     Each of the Old Testament examples and the example of Jerusalem in Matthew 24 are meant to remind us that God’s judgement is real and must be taken seriously. Someday the Lord will descend with the shout of an archangel and this physical universe will cease. The destruction God brings beforehand remind us not forget this. We are living in a temporary world and must pay attention to those things which are eternal.

~ Kevin Cleary

September 14, 2025

It’s hard to know exactly what to call Charlie Kirk. Was he an influencer? A political pundit? A preacher? A debater? Certainly, a husband and father. I didn’t agree with everything that Charlie Kirk said, in fact I was watching his content in preparation for a reaction article and series of videos where I was planning to disagree with some of his misses related to scripture. I must admit I would be terrified to voice some of my disagreements face to face. 

In the many hours of listening to Charlie discuss and debate I was constantly impressed with the grace and respect he showed. There were many people he spoke to who said things which were highly inflammatory. Charlie would never respond in kind at most he would dismiss those who were not willing to have a cordial conversation. 

I am writing this because on a personal note I feel some indebtedness to Charlie Kirk. My oldest son 15 discovered Charlie Kirk a year or two ago. He was very taken with his approach and ability to discuss difficult matters. Largely because of watching Charlie my son developed and interest in Christian apologetics and has spent hours reading and researching matters related to the evidence for Jesus and the Bible. He has learned to think deeply and critically about many issues. Hardly a day goes by that he and I and often the rest of the family don’t end up in a detailed theological, philosophical, or political discussion. Whatever my son goes on to do in life I have seen a fire for truth and reason develop in him and the spark was Charlie Kirk. 

We live in a world where people often avoid difficult conversations, where we are told that religion and politics are not polite conversation. Charlie Kirk showed us that meaningful dialogue on these matters is both critical and possible. Charlie was not soft or mealymouthed, but he was respectful. He didn’t hide his mistakes he posted full videos warts and all. He would often relent when he knew his partner had a point. These are all lessons that we can learn from. 

My prayers go out to Charlie Kirks family and friends and the organization he started Turning Point USA. I pray that others will take up the mantel of open respectful discussion. I pray that Christians will learn that discussion is powerful and should not be avoided even when there is risk involved. 

I was listening to friends speak about Charlie the day he died. Cabot Phillips stood out. He described one of his first speaking engagements. He said he was backstage with Charlie expressing his trepidation. Charlie encouraged him saying “If you tell the truth you don’t need to be afraid.”  Encouragement we all need to hear. 

~ Kevin Cleary

September 7, 2025

I remember a story William Woodson told to illustrate the postmodern notion of truth. It was a story about a first grade class who decided to adopt a rabbit as the class pet. They got the new rabbit and all the children were excited and happy to care for and play with the new class member. One of the first things the children wanted to do was give their pet a name. A number of names were suggested and they talked about which one suited the rabbit best. During the discussion one of the children said shouldn’t we know if the rabbit is a boy or girl? The teacher at this point stepped in and offered to help. She examined the rabbit closely and could not identify the sex. Then they called the pet shop and asked them but they didn’t know the sex ether. Finally the teacher decided it was not that important and she would just have the children vote to decide the gender of the new pet. There was no problem since the children didn’t care and their joy from the pet would not be affected in any way by what gender it was.

This is a very light hearted story and we can all understand the teacher’s dilemma. But this way of thinking is not only applied to classroom pets. In fact the intent of Postmodern Philosophers and Academics was to deny the existence of truth as a category. Jean-Francis Lyotard defined postmodernism as “incredulity toward metanarratives.” That is any claim to universal/ widely applicable objective truth is to be rejected. We might ask why take issue with metanarratives and truth? Philosopher Steven Hicks has well argued that in fact what the founders of postmodern thought were trying to do was salvage socialism since it had historically failed so miserably every time it was instituted. How could we ignore empirical evidence and continue to cling to an ideology that only works in the imagination of its advocates? Develop a system of thought which minimized the value of empirical evidence. 

There may however be another reason at least some of the postmodern thinkers sought to abandon overarching truth. Dr. Woodson’s story may have a deeper application than he made of it. Today we understand that rejecting truth has been specifically and militantly applied to gender. With the mainstream thinking seeming to be that we would need to ask the rabbit for it’s pronouns and  only in that way could we arrive at a definitive answer. This phenomenon likely plays a key role in at least the thinking of Michel Foucault was deeply sexually depraved. Foucault is the most cited scholar of modern times his influence on postmodern thought and cultural Marxism (Critical Theory) is deep and pervasive. Jordan Peterson once commented that Foucault was highly intelligent and that he turned that powerful intellect to one primary goal satisfying his depraved sexual desires (I have changed the wording to be more appropriate) . Is it any wonder then that Foucault’s intellectual descendants have specifically targeted sexuality? 

Despite the known science describing physiological, mental, emotional, and psychological differences between boys and girls across cultures and even species we are told gender and sex are to be differentiated and further that the expression of these is a social construct. Dr. Woodson described many areas in which postmodernism had moved many even among the lords people away from truth. He suggested a good response to postmodernism was a return to a biblical worldview. No doubt including a biblical understanding of gender and sexuality.

~ Kevin Cleary

August 31, 2025

     If you want to experience a wide array of personal opinion and hear some emotionally charged testimony just bring up the subject of marriage. There are as many views on marriage as there are people who have thought about it. Ask five people and you will likely hear everything from marriage is the best thing that ever happened to me all the way to marriage was the biggest mistake of my life. It begs the question, does it have to be that way? Further, does anybody know what makes a good marriage and even more difficult, does anyone know how to have a good marriage? What accounts for all the diversity anyway?

     There are answers available but like any truth sometimes it’s not easy to hear and even when it is it’s not always easy to implement. For example everyone knows that our body weight is controlled by a simple bit of math. If we consume more calories than we burn we will gain weight. Conversely if we burn more calories than we consume we will lose weight. What a simple and widely accepted truth. Yet millions of people struggle with weight every day. This example will help us get to a more important point. There is no doubt that our bodies were designed to get energy and building materials for life from the food we eat. However, like anything we have a choice about whether or not we use it as it’s designed to be used. Who hasn’t pried something open with a butter knife? This using things in ways they weren’t designed for that gets us in trouble. When we use too much food for pleasure and fulfilment we get in trouble. 

     The same principle can be applied to relationships. We as humans are a social animals. God designed us that way. However, we sometimes abuse our social capacity in ways that diminishes or even ruins what God made for good. Pedophiles, Narcissists, Cult leaders, Sex addicts, kidnapers, rapists, all pervert the social part of humanity into something negative. Even highly manipulative sales people, or bullies are going beyond God’s design for healthy social interaction. Other examples could be given but the point is that we can make a choice to take something good and abuse it or misuse it until it becomes bad and harmful. This is actually the basis for almost all the things that the Bible calls sin.

     When we apply this principle to our marriage relationship we realize that we must apply Godly standards to our closest relationship. This starts with Genesis 2:24 one man one woman for life. Of course there are many other important principles. The question is will we live by Gods standards trusting that he knows best or will we try to go our own way?

~ Kevin Cleary