Contents:
- Introduction and Background
- Origins and Introduction
- God Calling
- Jesus Calling
- Content Review
- Conclusion
Introduction and Background
Jesus Calling by Sarah Young is one of the most-read and successful devotionals in the evangelical world. Its exponential sales and influence have led to spin-offs, including children’s editions. The author, Sarah Young, passed in 2023, and her denomination, the PCA, the Presbyterian Church of America, voted to investigate the book and its appropriateness within Christian circles. The investigation was prompted by the widespread influence of the book and resistance and critiques against it in Christian circles, especially in Presbyterian/Reformed circles.
The resistance and critiques began with the book’s origins and original introduction. Yet, even after the introduction (and some of its other content) was revised, problems remained in the devotional’s format, which will be discussed later. Most critiques of the work focus on these two aspects, source and format, while the content is generally overlooked. Given that I have been requested to review this book many times, I decided to do so and ensure that I read through all of its contents before doing so. First, we will discuss the book’s introduction and origins.
Origins and Introduction
When you purchase a copy of Jesus Calling, you’re receiving a revised edition, though on most copies I’ve looked at of this book, you wouldn’t know it, as it doesn’t indicate which edition you have. The revision also happened ‘quietly’ with no explanation or reference to the revision and original introduction, whereas it is typical to produce an introduction or preface to a new edition. The original introduction provides one of the bases for the general weariness and critiques of the book, which explains its removal. And with the revision not being addressed by the publisher or author before her passing, it only generated more concern and controversy.
The revision primarily includes omissions and slight additions that seem to be geared towards off-setting concerns of the previous edition. The relevant sections of the original introduction are as follows:
“During that same year I began reading God Calling, a devotional book written by two anonymous listeners. These women practiced waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and paper in hand, recording the messages they received from him. The messages are written in the first person, with ‘I’ designating God…The following year, I began to wonder if I, too, could receive messages during my times of communing with God. I had been writing in prayer journals for years, but that was one-way communication: I did all the talking. I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more. Increasingly, I wanted to hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day. I decided to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed he was saying. I felt awkward the first time I tried this, but I received a message. It was short, biblical, and appropriate…messages began to flow more freely and I bought a special notebook to record these words. This new way of communicating with God became the high point of my day. I knew these writings were not inspired as Scripture is, but they were helping me grow closer to God. I have continued to receive personal messages from God as I meditate on him…This practice of listening to God has increased my intimacy with him more than any other spiritual discipline, so I want to share some of the messages I have received…”
Young further encourages the reader to write down words received from God, but also states that only scripture is inspired. The concern of critics has been principally the sufficiency of scripture, which is challenged by Young’s yearning for more than scripture and her passing down words given to her by God to her readers from Jesus’s perspective. In other words, the book is written as if Jesus is speaking directly to the reader, “I will do this…” and these words were allegedly given to Young by God. Both of these aspects of Young’s book appear to leave her statement concerning the sufficiency of scripture as a weak safety net.
On the revisions to the introduction, it is worth pointing out that it omits references to the book God Calling and God “speaking.” The former source material and its influential method will be discussed soon. The line about yearning for more than scripture was also removed, and reference to writing down what God was saying was revised to “whatever I heard in my mind…” now stating that Young “wasn’t listening for an audible voice.” References to “receiving a personal message” and “recording these [God’s] words” were additionally removed. Furthermore, the reference to “wanting to share messages I received” was revised to say, “I want to share some of the writings I have gleaned from these quiet moments.” The methodology of writing what was “communicated” to Sarah “with pen in hand” is retained, but now qualified with sitting in God’s presence rather than receiving messages. The overall shift appears to be from sharing God’s words to her now just sharing her thoughts.
God Calling
Regarding the methodology and inspiration of Jesus Calling, Young brought up the book “God Calling,” which was initially published in 1935 by two “listeners” through editor AJ Russell. In its preface, the Voice Divine, the author expresses how she sought guidance through quiet time with a pencil and paper in hand, waiting for messages from the divine. The author said she failed with a wandering mind while her friend successfully wrote down “beautiful messages given to her by our Lord himself and every day from then these messages have never failed us.” She states,
“We felt all unworthy and overwhelmed by the wonder of it, and could hardly realize that we were being taught, trained and encouraged day by day by HIM personally, when millions of souls, far worthier, had to be content with guidance from the Bible, sermons, their Churches, books and other sources.”
The preface discusses the nature of the general messages before saying more about the revelation, “totally unexpected interpretations of his own words were given.” Visions of the Lord followed as well, and the book, God Calling, is said to be “guided by our Lord himself” and is
“no ordinary book. It is published…to prove that a living Christ speaks today, plans and guides the humblest, that no detail is too insignificant for his attention, that he reveals himself now as ever as a humble servant and majestic creator.”
This book speaks of the writers and their readers as becoming channels for the divine, empowerment, claiming divine power, utilization of said power, and discussions around the work of “the universal spirit – my spirit” that is more akin to mysticism or new age than Christian-specific teachings. The writers express that this deity is the center of every man’s being, akin to panentheistic notions wherein God is present everywhere in the sense of being interrelated with every part of the universe. Such teachings later would be utilized and developed into what we call the Prosperity Gospel/Word of Faith movements, which have some affinity with the conception of the laws of attraction found in New Ageism. The latter posits that a person’s thoughts and actions can determine, control, or affect their reality. For example, in the entry for January 20th in God Calling, we read,
“If you realize your high privilege (being one with God), you have only to think, and immediately, the object of your thought is called into being. Indeed, well may I have said, set your affections on things above, not on things of the earth.
To dwell in thought on the material, when once you live in Me, – is to call it into being. So you must be careful only to think of and desire that which will help, not hinder, your spiritual growth. The same law operates too on the spiritual plane.
Think Love and Love surrounds you and all about whom you think, Think thoughts of ill-will and ill surrounds you, and those about whom you think. Think health – health comes. The physical reflects the mental and spiritual.” [January 20]
Beyond this, the book is fairly vague or general. It speaks mostly of growing in dependence on God and little on sin and repentance (though it does speak to them at times). To its credit, it ends on December 31st with Jesus as the only name by which individuals will be saved,
“Jesus. That is the Name by which you conquer. Jesus. Not as cringing suppliants but as those recognizing a friend, say My Name — Jesus. “Thou shalt call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.” And in that word “sins” read not only vice and degradation, but doubts, fears, tempers, despondencies, impatience, lack of Love in big and little things. Jesus. “He shall save His people from their sins.” The very uttering of the Name lifts the soul away from petty valley-irritations to mountain heights. “He shall save His people from their sins.” Savior and Friend, Joy-bringer and Rescuer, Leader and Guide — Jesus. Do you need delivering from cowardice, from adverse circumstances, from poverty, from failure, from weakness? “There is none other Name . . . whereby you can be saved” — Jesus. Say it often. Claim the Power it brings.”
Credit where credit is due on the exclusivity and power of Christ, though in tandem with its expressions on the power of words and the claim that just saying the name Jesus claims power, makes one weary again in the practice of blending New Age ideas into Christianity to, from their point of view, further spiritualize Christianity.
The methodology these writers used to gain revelation from God has been labeled as automatic writing in critiques. This is a practice in New Age and occultism whereby writing is produced involuntarily or unconsciously when an individual is focused elsewhere. It can occur in an alert state, hypnotic trance, or séance.[1]
“During the late 19th century, at the height of popular interest in the phenomenon, inspiration for automatic writing was generally attributed to external or supernatural forces. Since the advent, around 1900, of theories of personality that postulate unconscious as well as conscious motivation, the inspiration for automatic writing has been assumed to be completely internal.”[2]
In the words of pop mediums, automatic writing involves opening oneself to allow spirit(s) to use individuals as a writing tool.
The difficulty with the charge of automatic writing in God Calling, and subsequently Jesus Calling, is that automatic writing is properly (or formally) understood as writing without being conscious of what one is writing (hence “automatic” writing). From what I’ve been able to tell, the writers of God Calling and Sarah Young were consciously writing down what they perceived as words from God. Automatic Writing is more akin to the notion of an Ouija board’s plank being moved automatically without the effort of the handlers. In other words, formally, it is involuntary, unconscious writing. However, God Calling and Jesus Calling are the authors who write down thoughts that come to their minds. Some have tempered the critique by saying this is too close to automatic writing or basically indistinguishable since it has a spiritual element involved. However, by definition, this critique is difficult to maintain.
That said, the larger category to which automatic writing belongs, channeling, can be applied to what is occurring. Channeling is just the broader term for communicating with nonhuman consciousness, which can be understood in various ways. In the case of God Calling, using the “Spirit Guide” to describe the source of their work becomes significant, as this is what the “channeling being” is usually designated to be in New Age contexts. Channelers also
“teach that by applying their techniques, they can generate a good fortune, or even come to control reality, merely by using their thoughts and mental energy. Many New Age books hold that the divine consciousness that suffuses the universe is something into which they can tap to succeed in life, business, or romance. Some even attempt to explain the power of prayer in this way.”[3]
Channeling, i.e., a form of divination, as a mode of receiving divine revelation, is problematic, namely because it is denounced as an abomination in scripture. Abominable practices for receiving divine revelation in scripture as listed in Deuteronomy 18:10: divination, fortune-telling, interpreting omens, witchcraft, charmer, medium, necromancer, or one who inquires of the dead. The text continues, “for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.” (v. 12). Further, “You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this.” (v. 13-14). The text has more information on false prophets, but this is sufficient for our purposes here.
These practices are condemned in the New Testament when we read about the fate of false prophets who are thrown into the lake of fire (Matthew 7:19; 2 Peter 2; Revelation 19:20; 20:10). Within the pronouncements of Revelation 21:8 and 22:15, there is an inclusion of “sorcerers,” which is a broad term encompassing the one who does the extraordinary through the occult and magic.[4]
Understanding the Old and New Testament together on this issue, those who practice the things mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:10 (divination, fortune-telling, interpreting omens, witchcraft, charmer, medium, necromancer, or one who inquires of the dead) can expect to be in company with those not found in the Book of Life. Paul also condemns the practice of magic and sorcery in Galatians 5:20, listing them as an act of the flesh, equal to idolatry, and thus having no part in a believer’s methods.
This is ultimately to say that the methodology, regardless of who the source of these revelations was in God Calling, is problematic and contradictory to scripture. Whether the authors intentionally utilized divination is ultimately irrelevant when considering what is claimed to have been produced, texts deemed from God, and even “totally unexpected interpretations of his own words were given.” This element of unexpected interpretation allows for a disregard of context and opens the door to imagination and contradiction, making the work effectively ‘untouchable,’ even when it contradicts scripture, as the fresh interpretations are allegedly from God.
It is worth noting that works such as the Encyclopedia of New Age beliefs have noted the reality of this book’s New Age ideologies and tendencies. These works speak out against channeling in the same way I mentioned. They also note where channeling fundamentally clashes with a worldview derived from scripture and misinterprets scripture to do so.
Jesus Calling
With this in mind, why the reference to God Calling and language that is similar to God Calling was omitted in the revision of Jesus Calling’s introduction is obvious. Sarah Young expressed that her method and format followed these women’s methods and that the book was a treasure to her, enough to follow in said methods and even inspire her book’s title. She followed in their steps, wondering “if I, too,” could do what they did. The biblical principles regarding revelation, as applied already above, then apply to this work.
This is not a swift condemnation of Young herself, but rather that the work has little merit when considering its method of origin. Even now, revised, this dubious claim to have messages directly from God to share with us in personal pronouns from Jesus’ mouth is alarming. Perhaps the book would have been less disagreeable if Young had written the devotional from her perspective without speaking as if she were Jesus relaying the alleged words of Jesus.
Maintaining the sufficiency of scripture against Young’s “it’s not enough” comment concerning scripture remains a primary concern for most critics. Tim Challies will say,
“Far and away the most troubling aspect of the book is its very premise—that Sarah Young hears from Jesus and then dutifully brings his messages to her readers. Jesus Calling makes the boldest, gutsiest, and, to my mind, most arrogant claim of any book ever to be considered Christian. The publisher describes the book in this way: “After many years of writing her own words in her prayer journal, missionary Sarah Young decided to be more attentive to the Savior’s voice and begin listening for what He was saying. So with pen in hand, she embarked on a journey that forever changed her—and many others around the world. In these powerful pages are the words and Scriptures Jesus lovingly laid on her heart. Words of reassurance, comfort, and hope. Words that have made her increasingly aware of His presence and allowed her to enjoy His peace (italics mine).” There is no way to avoid her claim that she is communicating divine revelation, a claim that raises a host of questions and concerns, not the least of which is the doctrine of Scripture alone which assures us that the Bible and the Bible alone is sufficient to guide us in all matters of faith and practice.”[5]
Challies makes other criticisms, some of which have also been expressed here. Worth sharing is the summary of Young’s tone and content. To the former, my observations are the same. The Jesus in Young’s book sounds as we expect a modern woman to sound. However, this critique is brushed off or ignored through the revision of the devotional’s introduction. Content-wise, the emphasis is on trusting Jesus more; you’ll do better when you do so. As Challies notes, “she speaks seldom of sin and repentance and even less of Christ’s work on the cross.”
With this said, I need to point out two things before continuing.
1) Jesus Calling cannot just be equated wholesale with God Calling and its many errors. This is done in various critiques as if the two books are exactly the same. While an evident influence is present and documented in various contexts, blindly equating them is not a good approach. Ultimately, we don’t know what Young saw with the book, whether she recognized errors and took corrective approaches with her volume, or anything like that; to say one way or another is speculative. The work must ultimately be weighed by its own words and methods. To the latter, we do know the methodology for producing the book is the same. To the content that is to be seen in the words penned.
2) A major component of the broader critiques of the work in terms of examining its contents rather than style (i.e., being written from the perspective of Jesus) centers around the debates on cessationism and continuationism. Where you fall on the spectrum of that debate will affect how you view the book against the backdrop of its original introduction. If your position allows for any type of impression, prophecy, etc., with an understanding that such is not on par with scripture, then you’ll view the book as less problematic and knowingly go in weighing it against scripture to check it as Paul instructs for prophecy. However, the book being written from Jesus’ perspective itself can and has even turned off those on the continuationist side of the spectrum. If you reject impressions, prophecy, etc., entirely and posit that it would always be equal to scripture or God speaking infallibly, then the book is shut down immediately. Any errors in it (which there are) prove that it is corrupt and should be thrown away. The devotional being written from Jesus’s perspective doesn’t do Young favors regarding the book’s perceived authority.
The revised introduction, however, complicates matters regarding the notion of the widespread dangers of Jesus Calling, even as her methodology was flawed and her positioning of the book was worthy of rejection. Why? Because when it hits the shelves, a) to find the original introduction is difficult and not something people are generally looking for, and b) when they read the revised introduction and move into the book, they see reflections of a woman on paper, albeit written in a problematic format.
That means, in theory, it would be treated as any other devotion at the outset, which is where critiques are best left. What is the content? Is it dangerous? Is it another Jesus and another Gospel? Debating the topic of cessation or continuationism is an uphill battle with the current publication of the work. And so, you’ll note that my approach when moving into the review is to focus on the content.
Content
Reminder: This will not be an academic review of the book but a casual review.
My approach to reviewing Jesus Calling was to work through the book broadly, highlighting what stood out to me and taking notes where theological flags or questions popped up. I did not vet all of the scriptural citations, but I can tell you that many citations are typical out-of-context popular devotional texts, and many get reused, such as Psalm 46:10.
As books go, I asked myself (and my wife) a couple of times, “How did this devotional get so popular?” The reason for the question is simple: the book is painfully repetitive when you go through it page by page. Perhaps going day by day, as intended, makes it better for us forgetful human beings, but when the curtain of daily devotion is removed, Jesus Calling is challenging to get through.
The book hammers on the same phrases, cliches, and content several times over. Many of the daily devotions, if not the majority, are basically the same, just reworded. It’s much like listening to a particular band that somehow made it big with 12 albums that sound exactly the same, with an accompanying monotonous three-chord formula. Your metaphorical ears perk up when something different appears, but it lasts for a fleeting moment, and you’re back to the cookie-cutting press. I don’t understand this book’s immense popularity, even when reflecting on the comforts it attempts to impart to its readers.
The book’s content, broadly speaking, is: Abide in Jesus in all circumstances. How it gets there for 365 days ranges from phrases that make you ask, “What does that even mean?” to decent metaphors at other times, vague cliches, keywords like Light, Presence, and Love, and occasionally a sentence that makes you say, “What?” It reads like fortune cookie theology, broad and sweeping generalizations you can take as you want. It does have its good moments, but for the most part, there’s not much to it.
The broad theme of “abide in Jesus in all circumstances” allows me to begin the positive aspect of Jesus Calling, giving credit where it is due. Young does call for dependence upon Christ, conformity to Christ’s likeness, control of the Holy Spirit, renewal of the mind, seeing God’s providence even in trials, trusting in trials, focusing on faith and joy, avoiding distractions, and focusing on the sufficiency of Christ for fulfillment, peace, joy, etc. In some of these, she expresses the concepts in vague or fluffy language, and in some contexts, it does come across as sounding New Age, like Jesus tapping at your consciousness to seek entrance (Jan. 8th). Other times, her writing is general enough that it is hard to pin as exclusively New Age. In many cases, it sounds like Young is just trying to sound poetic or spiritual, which also fits the bill of New Age generalizations. In my opinion, God Calling’s influence is most apparent in Young’s writing style.
In the very few instances where Young mentions soteriological themes like Jesus’ death, atonement, and his righteousness, she’s sound. On August 9th’s entry, she says,
“Wear my robe of righteousness with ease. I custom-made it for you to cover you from head to toe. The price I paid for this covering was astronomical – my own blood. You could never purchase such a royal garment, no matter how hard you worked. Sometimes you forget that My righteousness is a gift, and you feel ill at ease in your regal robe.”
In another entry, “I have clothed you in my robe of righteousness, and this is an eternal transaction: Nothing and no one can reverse it” (April 19). This is solid, and other sentiments expressed in the devotional could throw the one who has merely piggybacked on critics without reading the book for themselves. For example, on October 26th’s entry, we read,
“I am all you need, just when you need it. Your deepest desires find fulfillment in me alone. This is the age of self-help. Bookstores abound with books about taking care of number one and making oneself the center of all things. The main goal of these methodologies is to become self-sufficient and confident. You, however, have been called to take a road less traveled: continual dependence on me. True confidence comes from knowing you are complete in my presence. Everything you need has its counterpart in me.”
She, in another entry, states, “It is good that you recognize your weakness. That keeps you looking at me, your strength. Abundant life is not necessarily health and wealth; it is living in continual dependence on me” (March 16) and when speaking to the importance of priority of Jesus in the midst of a busy life she states, “Do not seek me primarily for what I can give you. Remember that I, the Giver, am infinitely greater than any gift I might impart to you.” (March 27).
Given the tendency for New Age or Word of Faith ideologies to emphasize self-help, seeking God for what he can give you, and health and wealth, it was surprising to see that Young has these few moments where she pushes back against such notions. However, theologically, that is probably the deepest her text goes. Most of the emphasis is on being positive, living in light, in the presence of God, etc, which does end up coming across more as generalized self-help akin to Joel Osteen but, at least, with a continual focus on Jesus.
From my perspective, New Age influence comes out in the blending of Christ abiding in us and Young’s focus on the reader looking inwardly and seeking the voice within: “Sometimes you can find me in your surroundings…at other times, you must draw inward to find me” (February 2nd).
Young tells the reader, in many ways, to discern the voice of Jesus and understand his love for them. “Many voices vie for control of your mind, especially when you sit in silence. You must learn to discern what is my voice and what is not.” (March 3). The issue is that Young’s general statement here provides no means of actually discerning such things; instead, “Ask my Spirit to give you this discernment” is thrown out without reference to knowing the word.
A new believer reading through Jesus Calling, being told to listen for Jesus’ voice and to trust the Spirit in the quiet, with no written objective standard to discern whose voice is whose, is dangerous, as many times we will go with whatever appeals to us emotionally, regardless of the truth. And because Young’s devotional is so heavy on God loving us for who we are and predominantly only positives, such as peace, security, etc., this can be extremely problematic.
In her March 8th entry, she tells the reader to strive to seek Jesus: “To find me and hear my voice, you must seek me above all else.” In the entry, the means to doing this is by talking to Jesus and sitting in the light of his presence, thus a subjective experience that cannot be adequately tested. This is a recurring theme, and if there were an entry or two focusing on the importance of the Word for discernment, revelation, and growth, I don’t really recall it, making it difficult to say the book is balanced on that front. Further, when speaking about seeking Jesus’ voice by talking to him and sitting in his presence, she follows up with, “If it is contrary to my will for you, I will gradually change the desires of your heart.” This is vague and leaves the question looming: how do I know your will? What is the standard? When is it Jesus, me, or something else?
We are told in various ways, “I speak to you from the depths of your being” (March 19), but with little means of actually discerning. In fact, in that same entry, Young says, “do not listen to voices of accusation, for they are not from me. I speak to you in love tones, lifting you up. My Spirit convicts cleanly, without crushing words of shame.” The vagueness of conviction coming “cleanly” aside (whatever that means) sets individuals up for indulgence in sin and justifies it with the subjective words of Jesus.
There are many cases when this type of attitude avoids legitimate correction. In fact, I cannot help but think of some men and women, the latter of which are the target audience of this devotional, I have heard who felt peace, love, and joy, in leaving a spouse who has done no wrong for another, because they fell in love with another. Young’s book leaves them vindicated in their emotions of pleasure and joy, their sense of peace. More than that, framing dissenting voices as “voices of accusation…not from me” without more substantial qualification sets those individuals up for doubling down in rebellion. Those trying to correct the sinner are just “voices of accusation, not from God” when God has “blessed the decision.”
I have personally seen this subjective theological principle applied in numerous circumstances, and it is concerning to see it in Jesus Calling apart from any positive expression of accountability. Additionally, a lack of meaningful discussion on sin and its seriousness makes this an even worse combination.
In addition to this, there is an emphasis on uttering words and the name of Jesus as if uttering the words has an effect in themselves: “My name, properly used, has unlimited power to bless and protect” (December 3). The theme is not on the same level as those who would treat the name of Jesus as a magical incantation for their purposes, but it is something to consider in the overall picture of Jesus Calling. In my mind, it is another element of word of faith and new age syncretism, making coincidence unlikely.
It has to be said, however, that these elements are fairly subtle. While many can argue that subtleties are the most dangerous, I think when considering the influence a devotional like this could have on a new believer, “New Age” is not the primary issue, but instead, the issue of doctrinal and practical standards mentioned already is the true concern. This, coupled with the fact that the entire book is written as if it is Jesus talking, makes me weary as one forms and adopts this ‘voice’ of Jesus as if it were not just the musings of a middle-aged woman.
Theologically, there’s not too much to say about orthodoxy and heresy, as the book is shallow. However, there are some peculiar statements. Some are (again) too close to Word of Faith ideology for comfort: “I made you in my image, precariously close to deity” (April 21st). In some texts, I couldn’t help thinking that Young seems to be making stuff up at times: “Your laughter rises to heaven and blends with angelic melodies of praise” (June 17).
Still, there are some things to note. On June 6th’s entry, a questionable point of anthropology comes up as Young states, “You had a darkened mind before you sought me wholeheartedly.” What exactly is meant by this is dubious, but what came to mind was Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, which I won’t expand on here but will leave as a note. On March 5th, we also get a peculiar picture of providence when Young states, “I can fit everything into a pattern for good, but only to the extent that you trust me,” as if God’s success or working for our good depends on us.
On August 3rd’s entry, we read, “I have trained you to pray – ‘help me, Holy Spirit” to which we ask Where was this taught? This entry actually moves me to a point that I took issue with regarding Young’s devotional. In this line, Young does pull from Christian theology that affirms we can address any member of the Trinity in prayer, but scripture never explicitly teaches us to pray to the Holy Spirit. So what’s my beef? First, Young says Jesus trained the reader to do such when Young has been training the reader to do such. Second, concerning this particular entry, why did we neglect the Lord’s prayer when it was, in fact, Jesus who taught us to pray, “Oh, Father.” Overall, there is a bigger flaw: the Father is only mentioned three times in the devotional’s main text throughout this work.
The Holy Spirit is not explicitly mentioned until page 154. We see implicitly that the Holy Spirit is a person on page 291 in October, and he is only explicitly called such on page 318. Before this, the Spirit is “my Spirit” or is referenced vaguely. The Father, however, is mentioned in only a few texts, one of which is heretical.
First, having so few references to the Father is just uncharacteristic of Jesus if we’re talking about messages from Jesus. There’s no mention of praying to the Father, glorifying the Father, or even adoption from the Father; in fact, in many of the texts where “children,” “sons,” and “daughters” are mentioned, it’s from Jesus’ perspective. Biblically/theologically, we are heirs in and with Christ and children of the Father. Jesus is the means of adoption unto the Father. Having so many references from Jesus as if we are children of Jesus, while excluding the Father, is quite strange.
There’s no discussion of access to the Father, reconciliation, and openness to the throne, through Jesus, despite all of the talk about peace, which is just generalized and vague. Where is the peace with God? It is peculiar to have this significant disconnect, especially if it is indeed “Jesus” Calling. Jesus was all about the Father’s business, and the lack of Trinitarianism in Jesus Calling, or even less rigorously, the lack of mention of the Father and Holy Spirit (until much later on) legitimately had me wondering if Young was a Unitarian or Modalist for a good chunk of the book.
When I reached one of the few texts that mentioned the word “Father” in the July 6th entry, I just sighed as it opened, again written from Jesus’ perspective, with “I am your Father-God.” This, indeed, is heretical as the Son is not the Father. Young’s citation on the page is Isaiah 9:6, which could be used to justify the devotional had we not a) interpreted Isaiah 9:6 properly and b) the New Testament. The entry is a significant blunder given how prominent a problem modalism is in evangelical circles in our day and age.
In the other two texts, we see a distinction made, “each day is a precious gift from my Father” (February 3rd) and “I was tempted to display more of my awesome power than my Father’s plan permitted” (December 20), however, the three Father texts could be understood in a modalistic framework. If not for the 1-2 texts indicating personhood of the Spirit, we’d lack any coherent Trinitarianism.
Another entry that stuck out to me in particular is the entry for December 25th. It reads,
“Try to imagine what I gave up when I came into your world as a baby. I set aside my glory so that I could identify with mankind. I accepted the limitations of infancy under the most appalling conditions – a filthy stable. That was a dark night for me, even though angels lit up the sky proclaiming, Glory! To awestruck shepherds”
A couple of things bother me about this commentary on the incarnation. First, the language of setting aside glory is often used in kenotic Christologies and is unfavorable due to such. Did Christ set aside his divinity, divine attributes, or something of the kind, “so that I could identify with mankind”? No. Now, we don’t know what Young means here, but if that is what she means, then we have another position contrary to orthodoxy. The divine Son’s glory is merely veiled by the assumption of a human nature, but is not set aside or removed.
Second, and not very important, is the comment on the filthy stable. This is a cultural interpretation not grounded in the nativity narrative in scripture, just as the picture of no room at the “inn” has become a staple in nativity narratives. The picture of Jesus alone in a stable rather than in the lower level of a familial home is also a cultural interpretation that needs to be challenged. Again, if these are the words of Jesus to Young, why do they reflect late developments in pop-culture understandings of the Nativity?
Third and most importantly, Young, as Jesus says, “That was a dark night for me.” But on what grounds? According to what text? What implications does this have on Trinitarian relations? Why would it be “dark” if Jesus exemplified Godly humility, as in Philippians 2:5-11? What does the Lord of Glory have to do with self-pity? Young is interjecting a significant interpretation into the text to say the least, and is doing so, again, as Jesus. This again highlights a problem with approaching the text as if Jesus were speaking.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Jesus Calling is a puzzling work in its immense popularity and theological content. On the one hand, it occasionally presents sound and even comforting truths about dependence on Christ, the sufficiency of His grace, and the assurance of His righteousness. These aspects should not be ignored, as they reflect elements of orthodox Christian teaching and can be acknowledged when discussing the devotional with one who favors it. Acknowledging such a thing and that the book may positively impact someone because of these elements will help others take the critiques offered more seriously. On the other hand, the devotional is fraught with repetitive, shallow content, vague language, and, at times, problematic theology that raises serious concerns.
The book’s emphasis on subjective experience over the objective truth of Scripture and the lack of guidance on discerning Christ’s voice biblically, while teaching one that Christ sounds like a middle-aged evangelical woman, makes it a poor choice for new believers. Even a continuationist can take issue with this lack of objective grounding to test everything. The virtual exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit until late in the text, the occasional questions of unorthodox Christology, and some unfounded assertions only add to the discomfort. The book’s subtle flirtations with New Age ideas, obvious influence, and susceptibility to misapplication further compound these issues.
So, is Jesus Calling worthy of one’s attention? For seasoned Christians who approach it critically, with a firm grasp of Scripture and a discerning mind, it might offer moments of devotional reflection, but its benefits are minimal compared to its shortcomings. For new or ungrounded believers, its lack of theological depth, its inclination toward subjective spirituality, and its potential to mislead make it an unwise resource.
In the end, while the devotional has managed to strike a chord with many, its deficiencies demand caution, if not outright avoidance. While the scriptural citations are nice, and you would hope they would lead you to the text of scripture, the reality is that very few check citations in said formats, and too many fans of the work have expressed that Jesus Calling reflects or are the words of Jesus. How Young couldn’t see this coming with how she framed this devotional is beyond me.
The question is raised: are the charges that Jesus Calling is “heretical” or “another Gospel” or “another Jesus” fair? Regarding the question of another Jesus, I think this is a valid critique, if for nothing else than how it was written. It will shape the ‘voice’ of Jesus in the reader’s mind, and that voice is different from the Jesus we find in scripture. It doesn’t sound like Jesus and usually says things Jesus does not say. It is adding words to Jesus’ mouth, attributing words to him, regardless of whether the book was trying to do so to personalize it. In terms of “another Gospel,” it is hard to say because the Gospel isn’t fully mentioned in the work. The closest it gets is the exclusivity of Christ and the righteousness of Christ through faith, which is sound. So, is it another Gospel? I’d say no.
What about heretical? The work could be heretical on the grounds already established regarding another Jesus, but with this put to the side for now, I would say formally, no. While there is a heretical statement concerning the Father, this is one of three hundred and sixty-five entries. What about the New Age materials? They are subtle and vague, and many of them do not cross the bounds of orthodoxy in how they are presented. Still, while the work may not be heretical formally, it could be said to be dangerous and false in many ways. As mentioned, I find the emphasis on subjective words from Jesus with no standard very dangerous, especially for new or theologically inexperienced Christians.
In an environment with so many good devotionals that are not only reassuring for the believer but have depth, there’s little reason to bother with Jesus Calling. Instead, pick up a classic like Morning and Evening by Spurgeon, Be Thou My Vision by Gibson, or The Valley of Vision.
[1] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (1998, July 20). automatic writing. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/automatic-writing
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gilhooly, 40 Questions about Angels, Demons, and Spiritual Warfare
[4]BDAG, s.v. “φάρμακος,” 1050.
[5] https://www.challies.com/articles/10-serious-problems-with-jesus-calling/
No responses yet