January, 2026 - God’s Good Creation

Audio Podcast

The Christian Hope

Most Christians, if you asked them what they hope for after death, would probably say something like this:

“I’ll go to heaven.”

And that answer isn’t wrong.

But it’s not the whole story.

In fact, when that answer becomes the entire story, it quietly reshapes how Christians think about their bodies, their work, their suffering—and even the world itself.

This short series exists to recover something larger, richer, and far more biblical:

The Christian hope is not escape from the world, but resurrection and new creation ¹.

The Problem We’re Addressing

Over time, many Christians have absorbed a view of the future that sounds spiritual—but actually shrinks the Bible’s vision.

It goes something like this:

Earth is temporary
Heaven is permanent
Bodies don’t matter much
History is winding down toward evacuation

But when you read Scripture carefully—from Genesis to Revelation—that is not the story you find.

The Bible does not begin with souls in heaven.

It begins with God creating a good world (that’s what He called it) and dwelling with humanity in that world.

And it does not end with humanity leaving creation behind.

It ends with God dwelling with humanity in a renewed creation.

Why This Series Matters

This matters because what you believe about the future shapes how you live in the present.

If your hope is escape, then:

the body (the material world) becomes secondary
work becomes temporary
suffering becomes meaningless
creation (the material creation, that is,) becomes disposable

But if your hope is resurrection and new creation, then:

bodies matter
faithfulness matters
justice matters
and acts of love are never wasted

Christian hope, rightly understood, is not passive.

It is deeply formative.

What This Series Will Do

In this three-part series, we’ll walk through Scripture with the help of two careful biblical theologians: N. T. Wright (Oxford) and G. K. Beale (Reformed Theological Seminary).

Not because they are novel or trendy, but because they help us see what the Bible has been saying all along.

Here’s where we’re going:

Episode 1

Why “Going to Heaven” Is Not the End of the Story

We’ll clarify the difference between:

being with Christ after death
and the final Christian hope of resurrection

We’ll see why the New Testament treats resurrection—not heaven—as the centerpiece of Christian expectation.

Episode 2

From Eden to New Jerusalem

We’ll briefly trace the biblical story from the Garden of Eden through Israel’s temple, Jesus himself, and finally Revelation chapters 21 and 22. It will be a quick study, but I think you will benefit from it.

Along the way, we’ll see that God’s goal (end – telos) has always been:

to dwell with his people in a renewed world.

Episode 3

Resurrection, Renewal, and Living the Future Now

Finally, we’ll explore how this hope reshapes daily life.

What does resurrection mean for:

the body?
work?
suffering?
mission?
the way Christians face death?

This episode is about living today in light of tomorrow.

The Larger Story of God

If some of this sounds unfamiliar—or even unsettling—that’s okay.

This series isn’t about winning arguments.

It’s about recovering a hope that is:

more biblical
more embodied
more realistic
and ultimately more hopeful

The goal is not to discard heaven.

It is to place heaven within the larger story God is telling.

Invitation

The Bible’s final vision is not of souls escaping earth.

It is of:

God coming down to dwell with humanity
Creation renewed
Resurrection completed

That is the hope Christians are invited to live toward.

And that is the hope this brief series explores.

Thanks for listening. I hope you’ll join me as we explore why “going to heaven” is not the end of the story.

Podcast Resources

N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission
G. K. Beale & Mitchell Kim, God Dwells Among Us

+++

NEXT – EPISODE 1

Why “Going to Heaven” Is Not the End of the Story

I welcome any questions or comments. [Don’t worry, your personal info will not be given to anyone.] Thanks!

The Supreme Court: By Jesse Collins – CC 3.0

In a healthy constitutional republic, courts interpret laws; they do not redefine reality. Judges are charged with reading legal texts, not resolving questions of basic human biology that ordinary citizens have understood for centuries. Yet our cultural moment has produced an inversion: courts are increasingly asked to decide whether obvious truths about sex still count as truths at all.

That tension was on full display during yesterday’s Supreme Court arguments challenging state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that reserve girls’ and women’s sports for girls and women. These cases are not really about athletics. They are about whether the law must affirm a fiction—namely, that biological sex is either unknowable or irrelevant.

Why Female Sports Exist at All

Sex-segregated sports exist for a reason. Biological differences between males and females are real, measurable, and consequential—especially in competitive athletics, where strength, speed, and endurance matter not only for fairness but also for safety.

Female sports were created precisely because competing against males would disadvantage women and girls. To claim that excluding males from female sports is discriminatory misses the point entirely. The distinction is not arbitrary; it is grounded in biology.

That is why these cases almost always involve males seeking access to female sports rather than the reverse. Males who identify as female are not barred from sports altogether. They are barred from competing as females.

Sex Discrimination—or Biological Reality?

The challengers argue that laws preserving female-only sports constitute unlawful sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. But this argument collapses on contact with reality.

Sex-based distinctions are not inherently unjust. The law has long recognized that some forms of sex discrimination are legitimate when they reflect real biological differences rather than irrational prejudice. This is why sex-based classifications receive less stringent judicial scrutiny than race-based ones. Biology is not bigotry.

Female-only sports discriminate on the basis of sex by design—and rightly so.

The Question That Ends the Debate

During oral arguments, Justice Alito asked the question that cuts through all the legal gymnastics: What does “sex” mean for purposes of equal protection and federal civil rights law? How can courts determine whether discrimination has occurred if they cannot define the category at issue?

The response was astonishing. The challengers conceded that they had no definition. Sex, we were told, has no fixed legal meaning.

That should have ended the case.

When Congress prohibited discrimination “on the basis of sex,” it used a word with a clear, public meaning—one rooted in biology and universally understood when those laws were enacted. If that definition governs, laws protecting female sports are plainly lawful. If federal law is silent, then states are entitled to define sex reasonably for themselves. Either way, a biological definition cannot violate federal law.

The Absurd Alternative

The only alternative offered is worse: a system in which schools must police hormone levels, medical histories, and bodily alterations to determine who qualifies as female enough to compete. Such a regime would be invasive, unworkable, and deeply unjust—especially to girls.

The truth is neither complicated nor cruel. Boys are not girls. Men are not women. A legal system that cannot say so is not advancing equality; it is abandoning reality.

Companion Post

Reality Restored: A Federal Court Upholds the Truth About Sex and the Human Body

+++

Celebrate God’s Good Creation

Month: January 2026

Heaven is Not the End – Rediscovering the Christian Hope – Intro