Childhood

George Verwer Jr. was born on July 3, 1938, in Ramsey, New Jersey, to Dutch-immigrant parents who loved their son, provided a stable home, and weren’t overly strict.

Life was fun, and George sought to live life to the full. He did not remember having an unhappy day in his childhood. He thought of himself as a hot-shot athlete in primary school, though he wasn’t quite good enough to make it into high school athletics.

His entrepreneurial mischievousness was evident at an early age. He was the sort of kid who once lit the local woods on fire but also started his own fire-extinguisher business alongside his stamp-collecting mail-order business. At one point he hatched a scheme to buy and then sell “girly magazines” magazines for a profit—though he never got around to doing so. He was against drinking, but he loved go out and dance, staying up all hours of the night listening to the latest music from the 1950s. He had a lot of girlfriends, but he wanted to be “clean” and not to go too far. He always had something witty to say and could make all of his schoolmates laugh. Each year he walked home with a lot of cash on “Goosey Night” (the night before Halloween), where windows got broken and things got stolen.

Conversion

If George had been asked if he was a Christian, he probably would have said yes. On Sundays his mother took him to the local congregation of the Reformed Church in America (his unbelieving father stayed home), but he didn’t hear the Bible preached from the pulpit of this mainline congregation. It seemed to him to be more of a social club than anything.

But someone began praying for George. Dorothea Clapp and her family lived across the street from the high school, and her son Danny had been the president of the Student Council during George’s freshman year. For seventeen years Mrs. Clapp prayed faithfully for the students at Ramsey High to know the Lord. When sophomore George Verwer came across her radar screen, she put him on her prayer list (she called it “the Holy Ghost hit list”) and prayed that he would trust Christ and become a missionary some day. She had a Gospel of John, distributed by the Pocket Testament League, and sent it to him in the mail as a gift. George read it on and off over the year, but to little effect.

One day he was at the store, looking to buy one of those girly magazines, when he noticed a magazine featuring the 35-year-old evangelist, Billy Graham. George picked up the magazine, read the article, and realized that Graham was someone special.

In the spring of 1955 a man who lived on the same street as George invited him to attend an event in New York City, where Graham would be the guest speaker at Word of Life’s 15th anniversary rally in Madison Square Garden, hosted by Word of Life founder and evangelist Jack Wyrtzen.

So on March 3, 1955, George and several others—including a girl from his high school and Sunday School—loaded into a bus and made the 30-mile journey down to Madison Square Garden in Manhattan.

When George boarded the bus that Thursday afternoon, he had no thought of becoming a Christian. But at the end of Graham’s sermon, he issued an invitation, exhorting his listeners to come and to make a decision for Christ. But George didn’t move. As others began to walk the aisle, Billy continued to implore them to come as a hymn like “Just as I Am” played in the background. And George began to feel conviction for his sin and to sense his lostness. The thought was overwhelming in his mind: “This is the truth; my search is over; this is the most important thing in life.” He and the girl he was with both walked forward that night to trust in Christ. And his life would never be the same.

George found his faith almost immediately tempted. As they walked out of Madison Square Garden that night as born-again believers, a street gang member said something to George, who answered back. The guy promptly proceeded to knock George down. A gang leader emerged who told his member to back off, and George sensed the grace of the Lord. George would later say that he was often knocked down frequently in life—too often by “the lust of the eyes”—but the Lord had always kept and sustained him.

It wasn’t until a few days later that George sensed full assurance, while walking across a field to get on the bus to go to school, having been helped by George Cutting’s well-known booklet, Safety, Certainty, and Enjoyment for the Christian. He then proceeded to read Billy Graham’s bestseller, Peace with God: The Secret of Happiness (published in 1953), and he received much of this theological grounding from Graham sermons and publications.

Evangelist

When God converted George Verwer, he not only made a new creation, he also created an evangelist. His senior year he was elected Student Council President, and he used this position to distribute 1,000 copies of the Gospel of John. He also began giving away free Christian books—a habit he continued for nearly 70 more years. He personally gave away hundreds of thousands of books, hoping to reach the million-mark for personal copies handed out. By God’s grace George saw several classmates accept the Lord through his passion to call others to embrace the good news.

Missionary

After he graduated from high school he attended Maryville College, a private Christian college in Tennessee. That first semester he had an idea: perhaps he could return to Ramsey High School while on Christmas break and host a rally at his old school. Amazingly, the public high school agreed, and the auditorium was packed with 600 students. George Verwer Sr. even attended to support his son’s new endeavor.

When it came time to call his listeners to faith, George was amazed to see 125 students stand up, professing their desire to follow Christ. Most surprising of all was that George Sr. stood among them. His father had become his brother.

Later that year George was shocked to learn that 7 out of 10 people in Mexico had no access to the Scriptures. The solution seemed obvious to George: he needed to go there and get them the Word. His friend Dale Rhoton said he would pray with George about this. After they prayed together for a few minutes on their knees, George turned to Dale and asked, “Well, are you ready to go?” Dale responded, “George, it takes longer than that.” George was disheartened and confused: “Why does it take people so long to see it?”

In the summer of 1957, George and Dale, along with their friend Walter Borchard—each 18 years old—sold their possessions, loaded a 1949 Dodge panel van with 20,000 tracts and 10,000 copies of the Gospel of John in Spanish, and drove to Mexico. They called their ministry “Send the Light,” and it was legally incorporated the following year. They returned to Mexico in the summers of 1958 and 1959.

By this time George had transferred to Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. He met and was attracted to a young woman named Drena. During their first meeting, he told her, “Probably nothing is going to happen between us, but I’m going to be a missionary, and if you marry me, you’ll probably end up being eaten by cannibals in New Guinea.” They were married in Milwaukee in 1960 after George graduated. They skipped their honeymoon and headed straight to Mexico for missions. They were committed to not spending any money. When they got to Wheaton, George offered their wedding cake to the gas station attendant in exchange for gas. The worker, a Christian, filled up the tank and let them keep the cake. But at the next stop, the attendant took the cake in exchange for a tank of gas. They got to Mexico without spending a penny.

Operation Mobilisation

By 1960 George and his friends turned their attention to Europe, seeking to mobilize local churches for global missions which would be led by indigenous rather than foreign missionaries. By 1963 they expanded the work to India and the Middle East, and in 1970, the ministry—now called Operation Mobilisation (OM)—purchased its first ship.

Today OM is involved in over 140 countries (including Latin America, Central Asia, the former Soviet states, the Middle East, and Europe). They have around 3,500 workers, and it’s estimated that over 250,000 people have participated in an OM outreach.

Final Chapter

George Verwer handed over the leadership of OM in 2003 at the age of 65. But he did not “retire.” Even into his 70s and 80s, Verwer had the energy of someone half his age. He wore his trademark globe jacket, speaking next to (and often holding) an inflatable globe of the world as a visual aid, seeking to motivate students to read and to pray and to share and to go. One moment he would be bounding around the stage, making his audience laugh, and then without warning he would prick their consciences with the reality of the unreached who so desperately need to hear the good news.

Legacy

George Verwer was a man who never got over the goodness of the good news. His passion was to see all the peoples of the world finally and eternally glad in Christ.

Few people in the second half of the 20th century have done more to mobilize for the unreached and the unengaged, and few have equipped more believers and unbelievers with gospel literature. And it all began with a faithful mother and neighbor who committed to pray and to send a student the Gospel of John, and continued with a businessman who took the risk of inviting a student to an evangelistic rally, and it continued with a young evangelist who preached the message of the cross. God is always pleased to use the foolishness of the weak to accomplish great things for the fame of his name.

In placental mammals, the presence of a Y chromosome determines sex.

Normally, cells from females contain two X chromosomes, and cells from males contain an X and a Y chromosome.

Occasionally, individuals are born with sex chromosome aneuploidies [meaning, they are extra or missing], and the sex of these individuals is always determined by the absence or presence of a Y chromosome.

In everyday language:

• a male has a Y chromosome;
• a female does not have a Y chromosome.

When it comes to defining men and women, male and female, a distinction can be made between “sex” (a binary biological reality of being male or female, ordered toward reproduction, even if reproduction never takes place) and “gender” (psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural expressions of being male or female).

Gender activists are working hard these days to change federal laws and regulations (like Title IX), so that “sex” includes the social construct or psychological perception of “gender identity”—which guts the term “sex” of its meaning.

That has led other legislators to attempt to define “sex” in a biological way. But sometimes they do this in a way that is hasty and imprecise. They need the help of someone like analytic philosopher Jay Richards.

He says that a good and precise definition of sex will do three things:

1. It will capture the central concept of biological sex—the orientation of male and female bodies for reproduction.
2. It will refer to what happens under normal development—while accounting for disorders.
3. It will accommodate the fact that organisms have and do different things at different stages of development.

Leave any of those three out, and the definition will suffer from imprecision and open the door to counterexamples and objections.

So what would be a good definition?

Here is what he proposes:

A human male is,

minimally,

a member of the human species who,

under normal development,

• • produces relatively small, mobile gametes—sperm—at some point in his life cycle, and
  • has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of that gamete.

A human female is,

minimally,

a member of the human species who,

under normal development,

• • produces relatively large, relatively immobile gametes—ova—at some point in her life cycle, and
  • has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of that gamete.

Note these two important caveats:

(1) Minimally. These definitions don’t say everything there is to say, but they say nothing false. In other words, everything they say is true, even if there is more truth to be told (e.g., about being created in the image of God for a particular mission).

(2) Under normal development. This acknowledges that abnormalities and disorders exist. We know, for example, that human beings are bipeds (under normal development, they have two legs). But we also know that if a chromosome or an event in utero disrupts the development of legs, or if a later accident causes the loss of legs, that we do not say that the person is a member of another species of “interspecies.”

So what do we do if a newborn lacks a secondary sex characteristic (like a penis) or has ambiguous genitalia or has a chromosomal anomaly?

Richards responds:

We would not, and should not, conclude that the child is not a human, or has no sex, or is some third sex. In most cases, we can with a bit more investigation determine that the child is male or female, and so would have the usual features of that sex except for a disorder that disrupted normal development.

Even if we could not determine the sex of an individual, we would treat this as an epistemic limit. We would not, or at least should not, treat such a person as a member of a third sex, or of no sex.

In short, Richards says:

• Current efforts to redefine sex to include “gender identity” would dissolve sex as a stable legal category and create legal chaos.
• In response, public institutions must shore up their defenses.
• One key way to do that is by defining sex—including male and female—precisely in law.

You can read the whole thing here.

See also this piece by biologist Colin Wright in The Wall Street Journal.

• Because he was making outrageous claims about his identity.

Why would anyone take these claims seriously?

• Because this followers claim that he rose from the dead?
• If he did, that gives considerable weight to his claim.
• If he didn’t, his claims can be safely dismissed as just another interesting but tragic figure of history.

So: Did Jesus rise from the dead?

To answer that question, we need to ask two more questions:

• What are the facts that require explanation?
• Which explanation best accounts for these facts?

These two videos from William Lane Craig’s ministry, Reasonable Faith, provide an overview of answers to each one.

Historical Fact #1: The tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was discovered empty.

This discovery is reported in

• six independent sources
  • Luke 24:1–12
  • John 20:1–8
  • 1 Cor. 15:3–5
  • Mark 16:1–8
  • Matt. 28:1–10
  • Acts 2:29–32

• some of these are among the earliest materials to be found in the New Testament.

This is important because

• when an event is recorded by two or more unconnected sources, historians’ confidence that the event actually happened increases;
• the earlier these sources are dated, the higher their confidence.

Women were said to have discovered the tomb.

• This is likely historical, because in that culture, a woman’s testimony was considered next to worthless.
• A later legend or fabrication would have had men making this discovery.

Jewish authorities’ response to the empty tomb:

• They said that Jesus’ followers had stolen his body,
• thereby admitting that Jesus’s tomb was in fact empty!

Jacob Kremer: “Most scholars, by far, hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.”

Historical Fact #2: Many people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

In one of the earliest letters in the New Testament, Paul provides a list of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances.

He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Finally, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor. 15:5–8)

Furthermore, various resurrection appearances of Jesus are independently confirmed by the Gospel accounts.

On the basis of Paul’s testimony alone, virtually all historical scholars agree that various individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

Gerd Lüdemann: “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

Historical Fact #3: The followers of Jesus believed in the resurrection.

After Jesus’ crucifixion, his followers were

• devastated,
• demoralized, and
• hiding in fear for their lives.

This is not what they as Jews were expecting.

Jews:

• had no concept of a messiah who would be executed by his enemies,
• had no concept of a messiah who would come back to life.
• believed only in a resurrection that was a universal event on judgement day after the end of the world, not an individual event within history.
• believed that crucifixion as a criminal meant that someone was literally under God’s curse.

But . . .

• They became so completely convinced of Jesus’s resurrection that when threatened with death, not one of them recanted.
• Even the Pharisee, Paul, who persecuted Christians, suddenly became a Christian himself, as did Jesus’ skeptical younger brother James.

Luke Timothy Johnson: “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”

N. T. Wright: “That is why as an historian I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”

Naturalism is the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes.

The four most popular naturalistic explanations are as follows:

Naturalistic Explanation #1: The disciples faked the resurrection.

• The disciples stole Jesus’s body from the tomb.
• The disciples then lied about seeing Jesus alive, thereby perpetrating the greatest hoax of all time.

Problems

• It is hopelessly anachronistic; it looks at the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of Christian history instead of from the standpoint of a first century Jew. (Remember, resurrection was a universal event at the end of the world with no connection to the Messiah.)
• It fails to address the disciples’ obvious sincerity.
  • People don’t willingly die for something they know is not true.
  • These people sincerely believed the message they proclaimed and were willing to die for.

No scholar defends the conspiracy theory today.

Naturalistic Explanation #2: Jesus didn’t really die.

• Jesus didn’t really die;
• He revived in the tomb somehow, escaped, and managed to convince his disciples he was risen from the dead.

Problems

• It’s medically impossible.
  • The Roman executioners were professionals.
  • They knew what they were doing and made sure their victims were dead before taken down.
  • Jesus was tortured so extensively that even if he was taken down alive, he would have died in the sealed tomb.

• This theory is wildly implausible.
  • Seeing a half-dead man who crawled out of the tomb desperately in need of bandaging and medical attention would hardly have convinced the disciples that he was gloriously risen from the dead.

No New Testament historians defend this theory today.

Naturalistic Explanation #3: The body of Jesus was displaced from the first tomb and the disciples found it empty.

• Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus’s body in his tomb temporarily because it was convenient;
• Later he moved the corpse to a criminal’s common graveyard;
• The disciples visited the first tomb and found it empty;
• They concluded that Jesus must have risen from the dead.

Problems

• Jewish laws prohibited moving a corpse after it was interred except to the family tomb
• The criminals’ graveyard was located close to the place of execution so that burial there would not have been a problem.
• Once the disciples began to proclaim Jesus’s resurrection, Joseph would have corrected their mistake.

No current scholars endorse this theory.

Naturalistic Explanation #4: The disciples didn’t really see Jesus but were all hallucinating.

• They just imagined that he appeared before them.

Problems

• Jesus appeared
  • not just one time, but many times;
  • not just in one place, but in different places;
  • not just to one person, but to different persons;
  • not just to individuals, but to groups of people;
  • and not just to believers, but to unbelievers as well.

• There is nothing in the psychological case books on hallucinations comparable to these resurrection appearances.
• Hallucinations of Jesus would have led the disciples to believe at most that Jesus had been transported to heaven, not risen from the dead, in contradiction to their Jewish beliefs.
• In the ancient world, visions of the deceased were not evidence that the person was alive, but evidence that he was dead and had moved on to the afterworld.
• This theory doesn’t even attempt to explain the empty tomb.

The four most popular naturalistic theories fail to explain the historical facts.

They are universally rejected by contemporary scholarship.

The other possibility is the explanation given by the original eyewitnesses:

God raised Jesus from the dead.

Unlike the other theories, this makes perfect sense of

• the empty tomb,
• the appearances of Jesus alive, and
• group of dejected followers suddenly transformed by a radical new belief in a risen messiah and willing to die for that belief.

But is this explanation plausible?

• If it’s even possible that God exists, then miracles are possible.
• Surely it’s possible that God exists.
• And if miracles are possible, then this explanation of the resurrection cannot be ruled out

So how do you explain the resurrection?

Look at the Bible. The pastor has to do with it at every point of his work. He must come to it in everything he undertakes. He is nothing without it.

It is all in all to him in his office.

It is more to him than any—than all—other books that were ever penned.

The Bible contains his credentials as an ambassador of Jesus Christ.

It is the message which he is appointed to reiterate with all fervor to his fellow-men.

It is the treasury from which he can ever draw the riches of divine truth.

It is the Urim and Thummim to which he has constant access, and from which he can learn the mind of Jehovah with all clearness.

It is the audience-chamber where he will be received into the presence of the Lord and hear words of more than earthly wisdom.

It is the armory from which he can be clothed with the panoply of salvation.

It is the sword of the Spirit before which no enemy can possibly stand.

It is his book of instructions where the great duties of his office are clearly defined.

Murphy then quotes W. E. Schenck to the effect that the Bible alone contains the warrant of the sacred office he bears:

In it alone is found the record of his great commission as an ambassador of God.

It alone authoritatively exhibits and defines the official duties he must perform.

It alone tells him of the glorious rewards he may expect if he be found faithful.

Nay, more, it contains the subject-matter for all his preaching and his other professional labors.

Murphy adds:

It is a shame for a preacher not to be a master in the knowledge of the Book of books, which is everything to him.

The proper Christian answer to that question depends on the meaning of the term.

In their 2003 essay “The Meanings of Evolution,” Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas explain the term is actually used in six distinct ways:

1. Evolution as change over time
2. Evolution as gene frequency change
3. Evolution as limited common descent
4. Evolution as a mechanism that produces limited change or descent with modification
5. Evolution as universal common descent
6. Evolution as the “blind watchmaker” thesis

“Mere evolution” (that is, evolution meanings 1–4), they argue, is “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” to use language from the National Academy of Sciences. Mere evolution encompasses a vast number of specific cosmological, geological, and biological theories that “incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.”

On the other hand, they argue, “a significant minority of scientists dissent on evidential grounds from the theory of universal common descent (evolution #5), and an even greater group dissents from the blind watchmaker hypothesis (evolution #6).”

Here are their explanations for each definition:

1. Evolution as Change Over Time

Nature has a history; it is not static.

Natural sciences deal with evolution in its first sense—change over time in the natural world—when they seek to reconstruct series of past events to tell the story of nature’s history.

• Astronomers study the life cycles of stars;
• geologists ponder the changes in the earth’s surface;
• paleontologists note changes in the types of life that have existed over time, as represented in the sedimentary rock record (fossil succession);
• biologists note ecological succession within recorded human history, which may have, for example, transformed a barren island into a mature forested island community.

Although the last example has little to do with neoDarwinian evolutionary theory, it still fits within the first general sense of evolution as natural historical progression or sequence of events.

2. Evolution as Gene Frequency Change

Population geneticists study changes in the frequencies of alleles in gene pools.

This very specific sense of evolution, though not without theoretical significance, is closely tied to a large collection of precise observations. The melanism studies of peppered moths, though currently contested, are among the most celebrated examples of such studies in microevolution. For the geneticist, gene frequency change is “evolution in action.”

3. Evolution as Limited Common Descent

Virtually all scientists (even many creationists) would agree that Darwin’s dozen or more famed Galapagos Island finch species are probably descended from a single continental South American finch species. Although such “evolution” did not occur during the brief time scale of the lives of scientists since Darwin (as in the case of the peppered moth), the pattern of biogeographical distribution of these birds strongly suggests to most scientists that all of these birds share a common ancestor.

Evolution defined as “limited common descent” designates the scientifically uncontroversial idea that many different varieties of similar organisms within different species, genera, or even families are related by common ancestry.

Note that it is possible for some scientists to accept evolution when defined in this sense without necessarily accepting evolution defined as universal common descent— that is, the idea that all organisms are related by common ancestry.

4. Evolution as a Mechanism that Produces Limited Change or Descent with Modification

The term evolution also refers to the mechanism that produces the morphological change implied by limited common descent or descent with modification through successive generations. Evolution in this sense refers chiefly to the mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic variation or mutations. This sense of the term refers to the idea that the variation/selection mechanism can generate at least limited biological or morphological change within a population.

Nearly all biologists accept the efficacy of natural selection (and associated phenomena, such as the founder effect and genetic drift) as a mechanism of speciation. Even so, many scientists now question whether such mechanisms can produce the amount of change required to account for the completely novel organs or body plans that emerge in the fossil record.

Thus, almost all biologists would accept that the variation/selection mechanism can explain relatively minor variations among groups of organisms (evolution meaning #4), even if some of those biologists question the sufficiency of the mechanism (evolution meaning #6) as an explanation for the origin of the major morphological innovations in the history of life.

5. Evolution as Universal Common Descent

Many biologists commonly use the term evolution to refer to the idea that all organisms are related by common ancestry from a single living organism.

Darwin represented the theory of universal common descent or universal “descent with modification” with a “branching tree” diagram, which showed all present life forms as having emerged gradually over time from one or very few original common ancestors. Darwin’s theory of biological history is often referred to as a monophyletic view because it portrays all organisms as ultimately related as a single family.

6. Evolution as the “Blind Watchmaker” Thesis

The “blind watchmaker” thesis, to appropriate Richard Dawkins’s clever term, stands for the Darwinian idea that all new living forms arose as the product of unguided, purposeless, material mechanisms, chiefly natural selection acting on random variation or mutation. Evolution in this sense implies that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations (and other equally naturalistic processes) completely suffices to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Although Darwinists and neo-Darwinists admit that living organisms appear designed for a purpose, they insist that such “design” is only apparent, not real, precisely because they also affirm the complete sufficiency of unintelligent natural mechanisms (that can mimic the activity of a designing intelligence) of morphogenesis. In Darwinism, the variation/selection mechanism functions as a kind of “designer substitute.”

As Dawkins summarizes the blind watchmaker thesis:

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye.

The Discovery Institute summarizes five areas of science that pose serious problems for the neo-Darwinian model of chemical and biological evolution:

1. Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
2. Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
3. Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
4. Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
5. Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

1. Genetics

Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.

Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection that has no goals.

Such a random and undirected process tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity.

As National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has said,

new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.

Similarly, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that

“mutations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “no matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

2. Biochemistry

Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.

Our cells contain incredible complexity, like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans.

Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA.

Darwinian evolution struggles to build this type of integrated complexity.

As biochemist Franklin Harold admits:

there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.

3. Paleontology

The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.

The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and possible candidates for evolutionary transitions are the exception, not the rule.

This has been recognized by many paleontologists such as Ernst Mayr who explained in 2000 that

new species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

Similarly, a zoology textbook observed that

Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.

4. Taxonomy

Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”

Biologists hoped that DNA evidence would reveal a grand tree of life where all organisms are clearly related.

It hasn’t.

Trees describing the alleged ancestral relationships between organisms based upon one gene or biological characteristic very commonly conflict with trees based upon a different gene or characteristic.

As the journal New Scientist put it,

different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories.

The eminent microbiologist Carl Woese explained that such “phylogenetic” conflicts

can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, form its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.

This implies a breakdown in common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a common ancestor.

5. Chemistry

The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

The mystery of the origin of life is unsolved and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems.

Basic deficiencies in chemical evolution include a lack of explanation for how a primordial soup could arise on the early earth’s hostile environment, or how the information required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions.

As evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted,

we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.

1. Who do you mean by “we”?
2. What do you mean by “free will”?

Those aren’t just academic questions. Without clarifying definitions and distinctions, the discussion can’t get off the ground.

The reason we need to define “we” is that the answer changes along the lines of redemptive history, with humanity being in one of four stages:

• created
• fallen
• redeemed
• glorified

The reason we need to define “freedom” is that there are at least two very different ways to define the term:

• True freedom would be “the ability to love and serve God unhindered by sin” (Robert Peterson, Election and Free Will, 131).
• Freedom of choice or spontaneity is “the ability of human beings to do as they wish” (Peterson, Election and Free Will, 126).

Using Peterson’s discussion, I put together the following chart:

This can also be mapped unto an older taxonomy using Latin nomenclature to describe differing relationships to moral ability:

So to answer the question, start by asking a couple of your own, then introduce these definitions and distinctions.

At its essence, they argue, marriage is a comprehensive union—

• a union of will (by consent) and body (by sexual union);
• inherently ordered to procreation and thus the broad sharing of family life; and
• calling for permanent and exclusive commitment, whatever the spouses’ preferences.

If the law defines marriage to include nonmarital relationships (such as same-sex partners), then many people will come to misunderstand marriage, which is not only a personal and social reality but also a moral reality—that is, “a human good with an objective structure, which it is inherently good for us to live out.”

Recognizing such relationships as a “marriage” would “obscure the shape, and so weaken the special norms, of an institution on which social order depends.”

They will not see it as essentially comprehensive, or thus (among other things) as ordered to procreation and family life—but as essentially an emotional union.

. . . they will therefore tend not to understand or respect the objective norms of permanence or sexual exclusivity that shape it.

Nor, in the end, will they see why the terms of marriage should not depend altogether on the will of the parties, be they two or ten in number, as the terms of friendships and contracts do.

In summary, to the extent that people misunderstand the true definition of marriage, to that extent:

• It will be harder to see the point of marital norms.
• It will be harder to live by marital norms.
• It will be harder to urge others to live in accordance with these norms.

You can listen below as he reads Psalm 67:

Current Voices

Forthcoming Voices

How to Listen at ESV.org

To listen to the Bible at ESV.org, simply create a free account and navigate to a passage of Scripture. Click on the megaphone icon in the upper left corner of the screen and select “Change Voice.” From there, choose between the voice options, then press the play button to begin hearing the Scripture read in your selected voice.

How to Listen on the ESV Bible App

To listen on the ESV Bible app on iOs and Android, navigate to a passage of Scripture, click on the megaphone icon and then select a voice in the lower left-hand corner.

Biblical reasoning, according to the late John Webster, is

the redeemed intellect’s

reflective apprehension of God’s gospel address

through the embassy of Scripture

enabled and corrected by God’s presence

and having fellowship with him as its end.

Jamieson and Wittmena’s biblical reasoning “rule-kit” involves a set of theological principles and their corresponding exegetical rules.

• By principle they mean “a doctrinal commitment, a constituent element of the catholic Christian faith.”
• The corresponding rule “turns an aspect of that principle into an exegetical guideline and guardrail, ‘operationalizing’ a theological principle for exegetical purposes.”

Think of it this way:

• the principle is the grammar of Scripture—the source of how various parts of Scripture speak about God and Christ.
• the rule is how Christians are to read Scripture with the grain of its own grammar—exhibiting guidelines that are intrinsic to Scripture itself.

The following chart lays out their seven principles and ten rules.

The first three rules are essential foundation and background; the last seven help readers to identify in Scripture the identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that fit with the the first three.

R. B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2022), 239–41. Used by permission

I have often said that the sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.

Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans, Pascal’s Pensees Edited, Outlined, and Explained (Ignatius, 1993), writes:

We ought to have much more time, more leisure, than our ancestors did, because technology, which is the most obvious and radical difference between their lives and ours, is essentially a series of time-saving devices.

In ancient societies, if you were rich you had slaves to do the menial work so that you could be freed to enjoy your leisure time. Life was like a vacation for the rich because the poor slaves were their machines. . . .

[But] now that everyone has slave-substitutes (machines), why doesn’t everyone enjoy the leisurely, vacationy lifestyle of the ancient rich? Why have we killed time instead of saving it? . . .

We want to complexify our lives. We don’t have to, we want to. We wanted to be harried and hassled and busy. Unconsciously, we want the very things we complain about. For if we had leisure, we would look at ourselves and listen to our hearts and see the great gaping hold in our hearts and be terrified, because that hole is so big that nothing but God can fill it.

So we run around like conscientious little bugs, scared rabbits, dancing attendance on our machines, our slaves, and making them our masters. We think we want peace and silence and freedom and leisure, but deep down we know that this would be unendurable to us, like a dark and empty room without distractions where we would be forced to confront ourselves. . .

If you are typically modern, your life is like a mansion with a terrifying hole right in the middle of the living-room floor. So you paper over the hole with a very busy wallpaper pattern to distract yourself. You find a rhinoceros in the middle of your house. The rhinoceros is wretchedness and death. How in the world can you hide a rhinoceros? Easy: cover it with a million mice. Multiple diversions.

Preamble

We live in an age with much confusion about what it means to be a man and a woman as God intended. The questions surrounding the nature of biblical manhood & womanhood, and how men and women ought to live in God’s world, are more pressing than ever.

We hope to approach this subject with humility and love. We are all broken people, and we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). We acknowledge the pain and struggle that can surround these issues. Our hope is to articulate our beliefs in a way that does not condemn but rather invites people to joy in Jesus Christ.

The purpose of this document is to clearly affirm and deny what we, the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elders, believe and do not believe about the complementarity of men and women, specifically in regard to the created order, marriage, and the church. The scope of these affirmations and denials is intended to be broad in theological vision. We recognize that we cannot answer every specific question, nor can we apply these truths to every situation. Rather, we hope to provide a clear picture of what we believe and do not believe in order to lay the groundwork for applications in specific contexts.

Creation

1. God’s Good Design

We affirm that God created mankind in his image as male and female with equal personhood and worth, and that he commissioned them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and to rule and subdue it together.

We also affirm that differences between men and women are part of God’s good design and plan (Genesis 1:26–28, 31).

We deny that male and female are indistinct from or interchangeable with one another, or that the differences are inconsequential (Genesis 1:26–27, 2:21–24; Matthew 19:4–5).

2. Sexual Difference

We affirm that when God created human beings, he established a male-female binary that is normatively displayed at the chromosomal level of human biology (Genesis 1:27, 2:18–25; Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 11:8–12).

We deny that any so-called gender identity that contradicts the biological markers of male and female assigned by God can be legitimately chosen or changed based on personal preference, subjective feeling, or societal norm (Psalm 139:13–15).

We also deny that any human condition resulting from the Fall removes or cancels the image of God in any individual or puts anyone beyond God’s call to salvation and saving grace.

3. The Fall

We affirm that because of the Fall, sin has marred the sexual experience of humankind, resulting in various disorders (such as intersex conditions and gender dysphoria), which display the brokenness of creation (Genesis 3; Romans 8:20–23).

We deny that the presence of various disorders is evidence that God intended other modes of existence outside the male-female binary and that such disorders or dysphoria ever legitimize behaviors contrary to this divine intention (Genesis 1:26–28; Matthew 19:4–5).

3. Masculinity and Femininity

We affirm that men ought to display uniquely masculine ways of being and that women ought to display uniquely feminine ways of being in every sphere of life, which are fitting to God’s good design in creation, even if the expressions of masculinity and femininity may vary in limited ways from culture to culture (1 Corinthians 11:13–16, 16:13; 1 Timothy 2:8–13; 1 Peter 3:3).

We deny that these masculine and feminine ways of being can be reduced to mere social constructs, while also denying that they should include unhelpful cultural stereotypes that are not in step with the Bible.

Marriage, Family, and Singleness

5. Definition and Purpose of Marriage

We affirm that God created and intended marriage to be the loving, lifelong union of a man and a woman, and that marriage is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.

We affirm that one of the purposes of marriage is procreation; nevertheless, a husband and wife may still glorify God even if they are unable to have children (Genesis 1:28, 2:24; Song of Solomon 2:7; Matthew 19:4–6; Luke 20:34–36).

We deny that any union between two men, two women, more than two people, or any other unbiblical arrangement constitutes a legitimate marriage.

6. Marriage Roles

We affirm that God, in his wisdom, appointed unique and complementary roles within marriage, according to creation, and as a type of the relationship between Christ and the church (Genesis 2:15, 18; Ephesians 5:22–33; 1 Peter 3:1–7).

We deny that the distinct, God-given roles of husbands and wives or of fathers and mothers are inconsequential, interchangeable, or indistinct from one another.

7. Husbands

We affirm that, as Christ is the head of the church, a husband is the head of his wife and should display sacrificial and loving headship in marriage, bearing a particular accountability before God in the leadership of the home (Ephesians 5:22–33, 1 Peter 3:7).

We deny that a husband’s headship is inherently oppressive to his wife.

We deny that either spouse should ever domineer, manipulate, neglect, or abuse the other spouse, and we deny that these behaviors should ever be overlooked or permitted when brought to the attention of church leaders.

8. Wives

We affirm that, as the church submits to Christ, a wife should submit to her husband and should display joyful respect and help in marriage (Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1–6).

We deny that a wife’s submission is a result of sin’s corruption of God’s design.

We also deny that either wives or husbands should follow their spouses into sin.

9. Singleness

We affirm that just as marriage is a gift from God, singleness is also a gift from God to be enjoyed as an excellent path for faithful and fruitful service in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:6–8, Matthew 19:10–12).

We deny that singleness should be given less respect or honor as a way of life in service to Christ.

We also deny that singleness should be used as an excuse for sinful behaviors.

10. The Telos of Marriage

We affirm that the ultimate point of marriage is to picture the relationship between Christ and the church, which will be consummated when the church, Christ’s bride, will be united to Jesus in glory, at which point marriage will cease to exist in its earthly form (Luke 20:34–36; Ephesians 5:31–32).

We deny that earthly marriage is the ultimate goal of the Christian or that one must pursue marriage to portray the gospel with one’s life.

The Church

11. Unity in Christ and Calling

We affirm that men and women share equally in the manifold blessings of salvation through Jesus Christ and that he commissioned them to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18–20, Acts 2:17–21, Galatians 3:28).

We deny that men and women’s unity in Christ removes God-given distinctions between the sexes in the home, church, and society.

12. The Office of Elder

We affirm that the office of pastor/elder in Christ’s church is to be occupied by faithful men, whose work includes shepherding the flock, guarding faithful doctrine, and teaching God’s word in corporate worship gatherings and other contexts (1 Timothy 2:12, 3:1–7; Titus 1:6–9; 1 Peter 5:2–3).

We affirm that the New Testament teaching on male pastors/elders is rooted in the order of creation (1 Corinthians 11:8–9; 1 Timothy 2:13–14).

We also affirm that elders should seek the valuable perspectives and contributions of women in the church for the sake of the faithfulness and fruitfulness of both women and men (Romans 16:3; Philippians 4:2–3).

We deny that the prescription of male pastors/elders is intended for only one specific culture or time period and not universally binding.

13. Spiritual Gifts

We affirm that God has given men and women various spiritual gifts to glorify him, love and serve others, and build up the body of Christ.

We affirm the apostle Paul’s instruction that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12) and also that there are biblically appropriate contexts for women to teach (Acts 18:26; 1 Corinthians 11:4–5, 12:27–31; Colossians 3:16; Titus 2:3–5).

We affirm that the gifts and ministry of women are essential to the church.

We deny that women are less gifted than men, and we deny that giftedness is an entitlement to an office or certain responsibilities in the church.

The elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church recognize that the issue of ethnic harmony has become a source of some significant confusion and division.

We lament that many people have experienced the painful effects of ethnic partiality and injustice. We are all broken people, and we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2).

We seek to humbly put ourselves under the word of God. We pray that the word of Christ would dwell in us richly (Colossians 3:16) and that the love of Christ would control us completely (2 Corinthians 5:14).

We are eager to maintain the oneness of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3), and we have a fervent longing to love one another by speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

We believe that this cause of love and clarity requires both affirmations and denials.

We have tried to speak clearly and concisely about what we are for and what we are against.

We believe that in the absence of biblical clarity, ethnic harmony becomes a “wax nose” that we can shape and twist any way we like. It is possible to use the same terminology but utilize a different standard of reference. We simply cannot allow politics or secular culture to define our terms or determine our beliefs. Jesus puts his finger on ethnic harmony and says, “Mine.”

Therefore, the aim of these affirmations and denials is to rightly represent the voice of Jesus Christ. The One who designed ethnic diversity has unparalleled authority and has the final word on the whole issue. The lordship of Christ over the church means that his designs and his purposes should be brought to the forefront of the discussion rather than fading into the background while we mimic secular assumptions, arguments, and solutions. We must think deeply and biblically about how Christ aims to be made much of in ethnic harmony.

1. The Image of God

We affirm that God created every human in his image with equal worth in his sight (Genesis 1:26–27, 5:1–2, 9:6; James 3:9).

We deny that humans can treat other humans unjustly without offending their Creator. God does not show partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17), nor should we (Proverbs 18:5, 24:23, 28:21; James 2:1–13; cf. Jude 16). Therefore, ethnic partiality is sinful.

2. Race

We affirm that we all share one race—the human race. We share the same bloodline. We all have the same original parents, Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20, 5:1–2; Acts 17:26).

We deny that the modern category of race matches what the Bible says about humans. According to contemporary usage, race is primarily physical or biological—focusing, for example, on skin color, facial features, and hair texture.

The category of ethnicity matches more closely what the Bible says about humans. Ethnicity is primarily cultural—that is, it includes shared physical characteristics and ancestry but also includes characteristics such as culture, language, and geopolitics.

We acknowledge that it is important to understand the role that the term race has played in our nation’s history and throughout the world. The concept of race is part of a painful past; it is a social construct that has been used in the service of oppression with ongoing implications of superiority and inferiority.

We deny that Christians should uphold divisions along racial or ethnic lines. Racism is sinful because it dishonors God by exhibiting an explicit or implicit attitude, belief, or practice that values one race over other races.

3. People Groups

We affirm that God’s global plan to save sinners includes people from every ethnic group (Genesis 12:1–3; Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 10:9–43; Romans 1:5; Galatians 2:11–16; 3:8, 14, 16, 28–29; Colossians 3:11; Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 14:6)—both Jews and Gentiles (Genesis 12:1–3; Deuteronomy 7:6–8; Matthew 28:18–20; Galatians 3:8, 14, 16, 28–29; Colossians 3:11).

We deny that any one people group has more value in God’s sight than another. We exist to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.

4. Interethnic Marriage

We affirm that God approves of interethnic marriage (e.g., Numbers 12; Ruth 4:13–22). Opposing the concept of interethnic marriage manifests deep-rooted ethnic partiality.

We deny that God approves of interfaithmarriage—that is, marriage between a believer and an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1).

5. Our Neighbors

We affirm that we must love our neighbors across ethnic lines—even when such love is countercultural, costly, and inconvenient (Luke 10:25–37).

We deny that ethnic groups should perpetuate antagonistic us-versus-them relations.

6. Church Unity

We affirm that the church must maintain the unity (including ethnic harmony) that Christ powerfully created (Ephesians 2:11–3:6, 4:1–6; Colossians 3:11).

We affirm God’s calling on all Christians to love one another as Christ loved us by means of kindness, forgiveness, and humble self-sacrifice (Ephesians 4:32, Philippians 2:1–8; Colossians 3:12–15).

We deny that any self-defining characteristic is more significant than our identity in Christ.

7. Ethnic Diversity in the Church

We affirm that the church should prize and welcome the ethnic harmony that Jesus purchased with his blood because that glorifies God.

We deny that ethnic diversity should be an end in itself that we pursue at any cost.

We deny that diversity should be treasured above biblical fidelity and sound doctrine.

8. Justice

We affirm that the church must love and do justice, which entails treating all peoples from all ethnicities justly and encouraging its members to pursue justice in society. Justice is making righteous judgments according to the standard of God’s righteousness (1 Kings 3:28; Proverbs 29:4).

We recognize that individuals and groups with power have often exploited the vulnerable for their own gain (Exodus 1:5–14; James 5:1–6) and that sinners can create unjust systems (Esther 3:7–14, Psalm 94:20–21, Isaiah 10:1–2). We should examine suspected examples of systemic injustice on their own merits, seeking to destroy ungodly strongholds and taking every thought captive to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).

Although worldly systems of thought can make accurate observations, we reject all systems of thought that view relationships primarily through the lens of power—that is, those with more power are inherently oppressors, and those with less power are inherently oppressed (see Colossians 2:8).

We deny that only those with more power can be guilty of showing ethnic partiality. Any person of any ethnicity can be guilty of showing ethnic partiality (cf. Acts 6:1; James 2:1–13).

9. Political Engagement

We affirm that when pursuing justice in society, Christians should distinguish between clear biblical commands and issues that require wisdom.

For a clear biblical command, there is a straight line from a biblical or theological principle to a political position (e.g., the Bible forbids murder, so we oppose abortion).

For an issue that requires wisdom, there is a multistep process from a biblical or theological principle to a political position (e.g., immigration policy).

Fellow church members should agree on what the Bible clearly commands, and they should recognize Christian freedom on issues that require wisdom (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8).

We also affirm that believers should consistently hold their kingdom citizenship as primary over their citizenship in any nation on earth (Philippians 3:20; Ephesians 2:19; Hebrews 11:13–16).

We deny that we must completely agree on issues that require wisdom in order to be fellow church members. Such issues include tax policy, government spending priorities, accounting for ethnic disparities, presenting American history, specifying systemic injustices, and analyzing policing and America’s judicial system. Christians should respect fellow church members who have differently calibrated consciences on such political issues. Further, insisting that Christians agree on such issues misrepresents Christ to non-Christians. Consequently, we reject any attempt to fuse together one’s national/political identity with one’s Christian identity in a way that equates or conflates allegiance to country with allegiance to God.

10. The Mission of the Church

We affirm that the mission of the church is the Great Commission: “Make disciples of all nations” by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and by teaching them to observe everything that Jesus commands us (Matthew 28:19–20). God has commissioned local churches, acting corporately, to teach everything Jesus commanded and to equip saints for their various ministries (Ephesians 4:11–12). While Christians care about alleviating present earthly suffering, we care especially about alleviating eternal suffering by verbally proclaiming Jesus as Savior and Lord and calling all to repent and believe (Acts 14:27; Romans 10:14–17, 15:18; 1 Corinthians 15:1–2, 11; Colossians 1:28).

We deny that doing justice is equivalent to the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1–2). Good works are the fruit of regeneration and conversion (Titus 2:14, 3:14).

We also deny that the church’s corporate mission is identical to the mission God has given individual believers. God has not commissioned local churches, acting corporately, to advocate across the whole range of issues that comprise the work of government.

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation.

The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.

It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society.

It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.

It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.

Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

In their new book, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis comment:

Mother Teresa is correct: the individual’s right to life does not depend on our consent, but the brutality of abortion is possible today because enough citizens have agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to close their eyes to the truth about what abortion is. That truth is almost too painful to acknowledge, and many have learned to look away instead.

We talk about abortion with euphemisms such as “women’s rights,” “reproductive freedom,” “bodily autonomy,” and the “right to choose.”

But the right to choose what?

Rarely in our public debates do we argue about what abortion is. No one who supports abortion wants to talk about what really happens in every abortion procedure, because that reality is grisly and horrifying. It can persist only when we refuse to acknowledge this violence and the many ways that it damages our society and our solidarity with one another.

For a typical American who doesn’t spend much time thinking about abortion, consider what it would mean to admit that, for the past fifty years, our country has legally sanctioned the killing of more than sixty-five million human beings.

Think of the millions of women who have had abortions, many of whom did so based on misguided conceptions of freedom and autonomy, but many of whom did so because they felt pressured or abandoned. Large numbers of both sets of women have suffered physical harm and psychological trauma as a result, and yet they struggle to give voice to those harms in a culture that claims abortion is either no big deal or a cause for celebration.

Consider the relationships and marriages blighted by abortion, women used and abused by men, children who lost a sibling, grandparents who never got to meet a grandchild. No family has ever been better off because of abortion.

Think about the doctors who performed these abortions, who used their medical expertise to kill the vulnerable patient in the womb. It might be difficult to feel sympathy for them, but how can a person perform abortions and not be harmed by having committed such an evil? As Aristotle teaches, we become what we do. Those who kill become killers.

Think of the countless politicians and activists who have enabled and promoted abortion, pretending it is a simple, harmless medical procedure, akin to having a tooth pulled.

Think of those who have done nothing to stop this terror.

Think of those—ourselves included—who haven’t done enough.

These are the costs of admitting the truth about abortion, just a small part of why many prefer to turn away and pretend it isn’t true at all. But acknowledge it we must, because ignoring it will only make the problem worse. All of us are affected by the lethal logic of abortion. A society that endorses abortion devalues the life of every single member, as it allows mothers to destroy their children and sanctions violence against the most vulnerable members of the human community. Each of us enters life dependent on our families, particularly on our mothers, and though our level of dependence fluctuates throughout the course of our lives, we remain dependent on one another. A healthy society doesn’t deny or try to eliminate dependency; it helps people meet the needs of their neighbors and bear one another’s burdens.

You can find the Anderson/DeSanctis book here:

J. I. Packer lamented over 30 years ago that evangelicals talk together about almost everything except this great reality, and he reminded us that this was not true for the Puritans.

When Christians meet, they talk to each other about their Christian work and Christian interests, their Christian acquaintances, the state of the churches, and the problems of theology—but rarely of their daily experience of God.

Modern Christian books and magazines contain much about Christian doctrine, Christian standards, problems of Christian conduct, techniques of Christian service—but little about the inner realities of fellowship with God.

Our sermons contain much sound doctrine—but little relating to the converse between the soul and the Savior.

We do not spend much time, alone or together, in dwelling on the wonder of the fact that God and sinners have communion at all; no, we just take that for granted, and give our minds to other matters.

Thus we make it plain that communion with God is a small thing to us.

But how different were the Puritans! The whole aim of their “practical and experimental” preaching and writing was to explore the reaches of the doctrine and practice of man’s communion with God.

Fellow evangelicals: how are we doing on this?

Perhaps it is time to give this a read and make Packer’s observation passé.

Christianity is both a doctrine and a life, and . . .

[T]he object of true faith is both a proposition and a person. . . .

Christianity, objectively considered, is the testimony of God concerning his son, it is the whole revelation of truth contained in the Scriptures, concerning the redemption of man through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Subjectively considered, it is the life of Christ in the soul, or, that form of spiritual life which has its origin in Christ, is determined by the revelation concerning his person and work, which is due to the indwelling of his Spirit.

—Charles Hodge, “What Is Christianity?” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 33, no. 1 (1860): 119.

A Christian is one

who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, as God manifested in the flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption;

and who is so affected by a sense of the love of this incarnate God as to be constrained to make

the will of Christ the rule of his obedience, and

the glory of Christ the great end for which he lives.

—Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (1863), 133.

What do all of us know?

1. We know God himself.
2. We know God’s decree.
3. We know God’s judgment—that those who practice sinful things deserve death.

What is our responsibility?

We are without excuse.

How clear is the evidence for God’s knowability?

What can be known about God is plain.

Who showed us the evidence for God?

God himself has shown us what can be known about him.

What is it about God that every one of us knows?

We have clearly perceived God’s invisible attributes (= his eternal power and divine nature).

Where do we see God’s invisible attributes?

In the things that God has made.

What do we fail to do in response?

1. We fail to honor God as God.
2. We fail to give thanks to God.
3. We fail to acknowledge God.

What do we do instead of honoring and thanking God?

We suppress the truth.

How?

By our unrighteousness.

What do we claim about our thinking?

We claim to be wise.

What are we in reality?

We are fools.

What happened to our minds?

We became futile in our thinking.

What happened to our hearts?

Our foolish hearts were darkened.

What is the result?

We exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling

• mortal man
• birds
• animals
• creeping things

We exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

What did we do with created things?

1. We worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.
2. We served the creature rather than the Creator.

What is the result of this idolatry?

God gave us up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.

What kind of impurity?

The dishonoring of our bodies among ourselves.

How did we become entangled in dishonorable passions?

God gave us up to dishonorable passions.

Which dishonorable passions did women commit?

Women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.

Which dishonorable passions did men commit?

The men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

What does God do to us for failing to acknowledge him?

God gave us up to a debased mind.

To do what?

To do what ought not to be done.

What are we filled with?

All manner of

• unrighteousness
• evil
• covetousness
• malice

We are full of

• envy
• murder
• strife
• deceit
• maliciousness

What are we?

We are

• gossips
• slanderers
• haters of God
• insolent
• haughty
• boastful
• inventors of evil
• disobedient to parents
• foolish
• faithless
• heartless
• ruthless

What do we know?

God’s decree.

What is God’s decree?

Those who practice such sinful things deserve to die.

What do we do?

1. We do these sinful things.
2. We give approval to those who practice these sinful things.

What does God do in response?

God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

Is there any hope?

The gospel.

What is the gospel?

The power of God for salvation.

For who?

To everyone who believes—to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

What is revealed in the gospel?

The righteousness of God, from faith to faith.

As Habakkuk 2:4 says, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Romans 1:16–32

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I wanna acknowledge church-hurt betrayal is a real thing, but that is the most self-righteous pronouncement [for leaving Jesus] I think a person can say.

Are you serious?

Like, the disciples don’t bail on Jesus because of Judas. They got their eyes on Jesus. They’re blown away by Jesus. They’re not looking around going, “Oh man, all these people were following him, and look at, they’re inconsistent.”

You’re inconsistent. I’m inconsistent. This is the only community there is that celebrates the fact that we’re all in process.

Like, nobody’s there yet. Like to demand that you get grace and nobody else does is self righteousness. And to punt on Jesus, because some Christian you know isn’t up to your standards, is a dangerous place to stand before a living God. . . .

It’s one of those kind of generational moments where everywhere you look somebody’s dogging the church.

Gosh, she’s always been a mess. Church has always been a mess. They’re just social media now.

But accountability isn’t abuse and calling people to holiness isn’t controlling. It’s the Book. We’re losing a ton of people that are looking at the brokenness of the church like it’s brand new. No, gosh. Would you feel comfortable her if it wasn’t?

I’m not talking about toxic, abusive wickedness. There is something like that that needs to be exposed and people need to be removed and people, but man, I mean, I’ve been president of Acts29 for over a decade, man. It’s like 700 guys. They love Jesus. And then they’re doing the best they can. They’re not in this for money or power, just trying to love God’s people, and the sheep bite, man. But we don’t, we don’t talk about that. “The sheep don’t bite. They’re all just, you know, abused by power hungry people.” It’s ridiculous.

I would also recommend this video from John Piper, where a pastor asks him how he would respond to those who are tempted to give up on the church due to the failings of pastors like Mark Driscoll.

Piper makes five main points:

1. We are not in a unique situation: historically, and today, we are letting Jesus down regularly.
2. From a biblical perspective, God has historically been willing to use people to speak gospel truths who have motives and attitudes that are defective.
3. Don’t throw out the baby of truth with the bathwater of sin. To walk away from Jesus because Jesus’s representatives are failures is to make an absurd choice. It would mean walking away from the one hope of your life.
4. God must be the kind of general over his army that willingly accepts tactical defeats for strategic victories.
5. If you say you love Jesus but you are giving up on the church, you are not following Jesus.

As the essential comparison in ancient philosophy is between Plato and Aristotle, the essential comparison in medieval philosophy is between Augustine and Aquinas.

It is not so much a contrast doctrinally between a Christian Platonism and a Christian Aristotelianism as a contrast personally between two different sets of remarkable talents and temperaments.

Augustine speaks from the depths, Aquinas from the heights.

Augustine’s insight is into man existential, Aquinas’s is into man essential.

Augustine is the master of metaphor, Aquinas of concepts.

Augustine’s head and heart are in a rich, stormy marriage; Aquinas’s heart and head are in perfect, quiet unity.

Augustine has less practical confidence in human reason than Aquinas does because he knew from experience how wounded and self-deceptive it could be, while Aquinas was born, lived, and died in the light. This gives Augustine a richness and a passion but also a one-sidedness and a straining that contrasts with Aquinas’s ease and balance.

It is the playboy who wanted to do without God and grace, and who experienced the weakness of nature and natural reason, who shows us our own deepest needs, sufferings, and failures. It is the perfected saint who shows us the essential nature of God, ourselves, and our philosophical cosmos as clearly as anyone ever has.

Yet their teaching is essentially the same both in principle and in practice.

The common principle is that grace and faith must precede and perfect nature and reason, but when it does, nature and reason are indeed perfected, not diminished.

The common practice is that both enable our thought to be one with our prayer.

—Peter Kreeft, Socrates’ Children: The 100 Greatest Philosophers, Volume II: Medieval Philosophers (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2019), 81–82.

Jesus was born in a tiny, irrelevant town in the Roman Empire and raised in another small village.

He had to walk from one place to the next, and as an adult he never traveled more than two hundred miles from the town where he was born.

He had none of the resources people use today to make an impact: no social media platform, no podcast audience, no clever videos, and no website. He didn’t even have the resources people used in the first century to make an impact: he never held a political office, never ruled a nation, never led an army, and never authored a book.

His family was insignificant. The locals suspected he was an illegitimate son, his mother was a poor peasant woman, and his father couldn’t afford much.

Jesus didn’t receive an expensive education, never married, never had children, never owned a home of his own, and didn’t possess much more than the clothes on his back.

As an adult, his own brother was suspicious of his ministry, a work that ended after just three short years.

Public opinion turned against him, most of his followers abandoned him, one disciple betrayed him, and another denied him. He was rejected by the religious, hunted by the powerful, mocked and unjustly persecuted by his enemies.

He suffered an unfair trial, was publicly humiliated, brutally beaten, and unduly executed in the most horrific way.

Even then, the few followers who remained had to borrow a grave to bury him.

Yet this is the man who changed history, inaugurated the Common Era and forever transformed the most important and revered aspects of human culture.

How is it possible that a single man—a man like Jesus—could have this impact?

You can read his answer here.

We’re seeing a realignment within evangelicalism right now with some, derisively called “Big Eva” spending way, way, way too much time lecturing evangelicals on their faults. I tread carefully here because I have friends in this camp who I love dearly, but can y’all just give it a rest a bit? Maybe spend a few weeks going after the Wokes instead of the constant chastisement against a whole bunch of people who have been nothing but chastised by the media and cultural elite over the past four or five years? Female friends in this camp, can you speak up against the normalization of transgenderism and girls becoming boys and boys getting into girls’ sports?

Can y’all just go maybe one week without speaking into the house and maybe preach out of the house? Show the grace you expect to be shown whether it is shown to you or not.

Concurrently, can those of you who blast Big Eva maybe recognize they aren’t the enemy and instead of spending all your time attacking the prominent evangelicals you feel like have wounded you or the faith, actually try exercising some grace? Maybe recognize your treatment of them over political disagreements might just have played a role in their current views and attitudes. I mean, are you guys not aware of the truly vile stuff directed their way over the past four years merely for publicly opting out of a lot of insane stuff? Maybe all of you should chat instead of subtweet.

I love you all and I’m really finding all this infighting and tribalism tiresome. To be clear, I firmly view a lot of it as tribal performance art for people, including a lot of Christians, who have defined their identities based on their online personas. I know a lot of people think they’re just holding each other to account, but I’ve never known someone to be effective at accountability by coming off with disdain for the person they want to hold accountable.

Y’all, this may come as a shock to each of you, but Russell Moore, Rick Warren, David French, Tim Keller, John MacArthur, Douglas Wilson, Owen Strachan, and Voddie Baucham are all going to be in the House of the Lord one day and if you don’t think so, maybe you need to search your heart and see what’s wrong. You may not realize this, but God is still sovereign even without your mean tweets and the Holy Spirit still moves among us even without your 10,000 word think pieces.

Maybe pray for each other more than you subtweet and write about each other. It’s wearing me out just as a spectator and I know I am not alone. I’m really not trying to sound condescending to any of y’all in any part of this divide, but it really is wearing me out feeling like I’m in the middle of a family feud where both sides act like the other half of the family is from South Alabama and hates sweet tea. I, by the way, I, Erick Erickson, am the one who despises sweet tea.

Maybe, and I say this lovingly, maybe a whole lot of Christians are so busy defining themselves and others as Big Eva, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Non-Denominational, Calvinist, Neo-Calvinist, Post-Calvinist Neo-Evangelical and more, and against each other that they’ve forgotten they’re to be defined by Christian love. Maybe we’ve gotten so busy lecturing each other on our faults or disloyalties we’ve forgotten the whole loving your neighbor and Great Commission stuff. And maybe those in positions of leadership need to realize there are others they’re inspiring to tribalism, not to the trials of the Christian life. Maybe instead of picking sides, pick Jesus.

It’s hard for the world to know us by our love for one another when we’re all so busy hating on each other in order to build our credentials. The fight is with the world, not each other.

Carry on, but can y’all all take a time out against each other? Please?

Read the whole thing.

[Jesus] is addressing the religious leaders who are going to hand him over to the Roman authorities to be executed. Yet in the story the elder brother gets not a harsh condemnation but a loving plea to turn from his anger and self-righteousness. Jesus is pleading in love with his deadliest enemies.

He is not a Pharisee about Pharisees; he is not self-righteous about self-righteousness. Nor should we be. He not only loves the wild-living, free-spirited people, but also hardened religious people.

Friedrich Nietzsche—obviously operating from an opposing worldview than Keller—offered a similar warning in 1886 about becoming what you critique:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Here is his big idea:

Pastors should strive to teach and disciple members on the topic of race and racism, yet we should do it in a way that makes the Bible primary . . . and in a way that puts power into the service of truth, not truth into the service of power.

There are two ways, he says, that we can do this:

The biblical way, I propose, is the way of race consciousness.

The postmodern way, I believe, is the way of race essentialism.

When it comes to the gospel and sin, race and racism, he lays out his basic convictions from biblical teaching:

I believe majority and minority [believers] alike are “one new man” in Christ, and our churches embassies of heaven (Eph. 2:11–22; Ps. 133:1).

Yet I also believe judgment begins with the household of God, which means we should keep our eyes continually open for places of necessary repentance (1 Pet. 4:17), sins intentional and unintentional (Leviticus 4), including racial sin, and that only fools refuse to listen (Prov. 12:15; 13:1). “Search me, O God, and know my heart . . . And see if there is any grievous way in me” (Ps. 139:23–24).

I believe Scripture pronounces woe against individual and structural sins (e.g., Isa. 10:2; Esther 3:7–14, Mark 7:1–13, Acts 6:1; etc.), and racial injustice can come in both forms.

Insofar as Paul names the ethnic and political categories of “Jews or Greeks, slaves or free” as comprising different parts of “the body” (1 Cor. 12:13), and then, a few verses later, calls us to “suffer” with those parts of the body that suffer (1 Cor. 12:26), I believe he calls us to be conscious of ways that that suffering might show up across different ethnic and political boundaries.

And I believe as a matter of pastoral judgment, not biblical principle, that we should be especially watchful in our American churches. Several centuries of racism doesn’t quickly fix itself.

Finally, I believe, based on John’s vision of many tribes, tongues, and nations gathered around God’s throne in Revelation 7:9, that diversity is not a problem to be solved but a gift to be enjoyed.

He argues that pastors should pursue the race conversation inside their churches, being “race conscious.”

What would a biblically grounded race consciousness look like and do?

A race consciousness listens and learns.

It studies history and asks people from different ethnic backgrounds about their lived experience.

It certainly seeks out hurt, suffering, and injustice.

It requires us, quite simply, to be conscious of race or ethnicity (whichever term you prefer for now) as an existential factor in this world that shapes people’s lives. So it was articulated in the 2006 in article 17 of the Together for the Gospel affirmations and denials.

Race consciousness offers a hard-to-categorize blend of both color blindness and color consciousness in our friendships and pastoral analyses. Loving a minority friend means being conscious of his experience as a minority, but it doesn’t mean always and only seeing him as a minority. Our common humanity and union in Christ must also be color blind. “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11).

He then recommends three books that he thinks will serve us toward that end:

1. Start with Shai Linne’s The New Reformation: Finding Hope in the Fight for Ethic Unity (Moody, 2021). It offers a way of talking about race and racism by trying to build on biblical categories, not ideological ones. He talks about “ethnic hatred” from Jonah, “ethnic pride” by pointing to Goliath, “ethnic favoritism” as an implication of James 2:9, “ethnic oppression” by pointing to the Egyptians’ oppression of the Israelites, and so on.

2. Read Mark Vroegop’s Weep with Me: How Lament Opens a Door for Racial Reconciliation (Crossway, 2020).

3. And then for thinking about how to love and pastor church members coming from different perspectives on this topic, read Isaac Adam’s remarkable Talking about Race: Gospel Hope for Hard Conversations (Zondervan, 2022).

Leeman goes on to reflect on his personal experience of why and how the evangelical conversations about race started to change somewhere after 2014 with the rise of race essentialism:

Little by little I found that, in personal conversations, books, and online I was asked to adopt an interpretation and perspective that appealed less to immediately discernible facts and more to an overall pattern or narrative. And that interpretation was a racialized one. On one occasion, when facts pointed in the opposite direction, I was essentially told the facts didn’t matter because the narrative did.

Now, I’m personally persuaded by the histories which argue that the creation of race and the racialization of the world several centuries ago did in fact begin with white supremacy as a justification for racism and slavery. The trouble is, when you begin to look at the world through racialized lenses, how and when do you take the lenses off? In fact, the conversation began to insist that we should not try to de-racialize the world. You don’t ever get to take the lenses off. Instead, today’s orthodoxy counts “color-blindness” as just another form of white supremacy and forced assimilation. We’re forever stuck inside of racism’s original race-essentialism. I am my color. You are your color. And there’s no off ramp.

Furthermore, the orthodoxy began to stress the importance of systems, but it also indicts heart motivations and viewpoints, even as it claims not to. Furthermore, the emphasis on “systems” or “structures” isn’t merely about laws and practices and values that we have concretely identified, as when one talks about Jim Crow or redlining or even more subtle practices and traditions that can be drawn into the light and named. I don’t know anyone on the left or right who objects to indicting something demonstrable, individual or systemic. What’s harder is that the systemic indictment lingers even when nothing can be concretely identified. Instead, the indictment becomes a presupposition, a foregone conclusion, an All-Seeing Eye. The indictment engulfs us like a cloud—a kind of false consciousness labeled “whiteness” that envelops everything—a very way of being involving heart, mind, and soul, as in, “Of course, you’d say that. You’re speaking out of white privilege.” The proof of the indictment is sometimes concrete, but often not, appealing either way to the patterns of history: “350 years of history must mean guilt continues. That’s the pattern. Ongoing inequalities prove it.” And sometimes the indictment is right.

I’m not sure what the best label is to call this thing—CRT? Anti-racism? I tend to think identity politics is best, but I don’t want to get hung up on that. The bigger picture I watched on social media and that I experienced in my own relationships is that a conversation about race consciousness morphed into a conversation that increasingly felt like race essentialism. People moved from emphasizing history to a kind of historicism which reads all of history through an ideological lens; from celebrating diversity to demanding particular policies as a sign of repentance. In short, in the first decade and a half of the 21st century, many of us were having the civil rights conversation. Then something changed. The civil rights tradition was swallowed up by something I’d call more thoroughly postmodern.

Leeman expands on the “CRT” (Critical Race Theory) discussion and connects it to Phariseeism:

Speaking of CRT, defenders are quick to say it’s merely a legal theory. Indeed, that’s precisely what it is. It’s a theory that legalizes all of life in racial terms. Rules and traditions, work and play, health and sex, cities and nations and empires, your heart and mine, even older ways opposing racism—all this it judges through the law of racialization and oppression. Where the deconstruction project’s gender conversation critiques authority, the postmodern race conversation, in a way, does the opposite. It legalizes everything. It creates law. CRT is Moses on racialized hyperdrive. It is one of the premier Phariseeisms of today, offering a God’s-eye view on our society and culture that places them under permanent indictment. We’re guilty until proven innocent.

What’s difficult is, so long as racial sin exists, evidence will forever remain available to validate the theory. Real, ongoing, nameable sin supplies oxygen to the diffuse, non-named, universal indictment. . . . Satan loves to be first in line to show compassion to real hurt, but then leverage it to declare everyone guilty.

As the larger race conversation changed, the personal conversations grew more tense, harder. At least once I said, “My heart is with you and this cause, but my conscience cannot follow you there.” And the reaction would be sharp. “You should be listening, not talking.” Relationships strained and, in some cases, broke.

Compounding the strain, I watched Christian voices on the right—by my lights—insult, malign, slander, and misrepresent Christians on the left. These are real injustices and warrant their own conversations. Yet within a few years two sides hardened against one another. Trust had vanished. . . .

Leeman—good 9Marks man that he is—brings in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18 on church discipline:

Jesus is not interested in mob justice, and so he emphasizes the role of due process: “that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” And of course Jesus’s emphasis on due process is consistent with the entirety of Scripture (e.g. Gen. 9:5-6; Exod. 18:19-23; Lev. 5:1; Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15-20; Prov. 6:16-19; 18:17; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19).

To be sure, Matthew 18 has a local church process in mind. Yet I think the value Jesus places on due processes for correcting sin can be extended broadly: we should generally treat people as innocent until concrete evidence exists that requires us to do otherwise. Even the secular courts do.

That, in turn, raises the issue of “due process”:

A crucial change in the race conversation, best I can tell, is the demotion of due process, a phrase that, these days, incites sighs of exasperation and anger on Twitter. We have moved from “innocent until proven guilty” to a “guilty until proven innocent” based on the narrative. Yet abandoning due process isn’t just a technicality. It’s putting ourselves in the position of God. It assumes we possess sovereign Knowledge.

To be sure, I understand why people who have experienced abuse or injustice become impatient with due process. Part of life’s futility, says Solomon, is that, even in the places where we’re supposed to receive justice, we receive more wickedness (Eccl. 3:16). Yet we cannot throw out due process. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Somehow the Bible manages to concede that we’ll receive wickedness from the house of justice and to emphasize due process over and over and over.

Imagine living with a certain demographic in your church as if they were guilty of lust until proven innocent. You don’t wait until something concrete rises to the surface, requiring a Matthew 18 rescue-intervention. Instead, you say to this group, “Well, you’ve been guilty of lust for the last twenty years of your life. I assume you’re still guilty, at least until you prove to me otherwise.” This, to me, does not sound like a charitable, gospel-centered church I would want to join, but one given to Phariseeism. And I say this believing that lust and sexual sin are ongoing individual and systemic problems, probably still hiding in the hearts of many folk in the church. We must teach about lust in all its forms. Still, we live with one another charitably assuming the best and treating one another as innocent until proven guilty.

My sense is, the excesses and Phariseeism of race essentialism has hindered many pastors from teaching about race and racism, which brings us to the last part of my own story. Over the last few years, I admit I’ve taught on race considerably less, because I cannot go where the conversation has gone. I’ve dipped in a toe, but confusion resulted.

Still, we need to be able to talk about race and racism. . . . Ethnic partiality in all its forms remain, and it will until Christ comes again. And so pastors must teach and disciple.

Finally, Leeman offers four ways that we can be race conscious, teach against racism, and not propogate race essentialism:

First, we must build our language and categories around Scripture, as Shai Linne demonstrates in the book mentioned above. We can use other resources and stories . . . but only to assist us in understanding Scripture and applying Scripture.

Second, I’ve tried to carve out a pathway in this article for helping people talk about race without yielding to race essentialism by calling it race consciousness. I trust that can be improved on. Yet it involves both law and gospel. The law helps us to be aware of racial transgression and to repent when necessary. The gospel helps us to experience forgiveness and extend that same forgiveness so that we might be one new man. To put this another way, race consciousness combines color blindness and color consciousness.

Third, we should learn from history, but refrain from an implicit historicism of oppression.

That means, fourth, we treat one another as innocent until proven guilty, insisting on due process before handing out indictments. Folks used to call this giving each other the benefit of the doubt. Apart from due process, we will necessarily remain divided and tribalized. There is no way around that.

Whether or not you agree with every jot and tittle, I would say that Leeman has given us a lot of food for thought here, and an onramp for future discussions.

A lot of pastors are struggling, particularly after the various shifts during the pandemic. People are leaving churches over pandemic restrictions, the election, racial injustice, political differences, etc. Many pastors are leaving ministry. Have you ever dealt with something like this during your ministry, or is this something unique to our time today? How did you navigate tricky political/ideological waters?

Tim Keller:

I’d say that the culture is definitely more polarized than it ever has been, and I’ve never seen the kind of conflicts in churches in the past that we see today.

In virtually every church there is a smaller or larger body of Christians who have been radicalized to the Left or to the Right by extremely effective and completely immersive internet and social media loops, newsfeeds, and communities. People are bombarded 12 hours a day with pieces that present a particular political point of view, and the main way it seeks to persuade is not through argument but through outrage. People are being formed by this immersive form of public discourse—far more than they are being formed by the Church.

This is creating a crisis.

No, I haven’t faced anything like this in the past.

However, the way to navigate such waters is still to follow the book of Proverbs’ prescription for your words. They must be honest, few, extremely well-crafted, usually calm, always aimed to edify (even when critical) and they must be accompanied with lots of silent listening.

You can read her whole interview with Keller, part 1 and part 2.

There is a lot of wisdom and insight, like this:

Looking back, is there anything you wish you had done differently in ministry? 

Absolutely. I should have prayed more. No question.

In short, Gibson has mined the best of the Christian tradition to take a gospel-centered worship service structure and apply the same sort of pattern to our personal time with the Lord.

Here’s a fuller description:

You can read chapter 1 online for free, and learn more about it below.

On December 3, 2021, 37-year-old Jaime Jaramillo and an alleged girlfriend were confronted by Mr. Jaramillo’s wife in a grocery store parking lot in Mesquite, Texas. A domestic disturbance ensured, and the Mesquite Police Department was called. Mr. Jaramillo ended up shooting Police Officer Richard Houston in the chest before shooting himself in the head.

Officer Houston—a 46-year-old husband and father of three, who had been with the Mesquite Police Department for 21 years—died.

Mr. Jaramillo survived.

The Houstons’ oldest child, Shelby, age 18, eulogized her father at his memorial service, held at Lakepointe Church in Rockwall, Texas. You can watch a clip of her remarkable message above.

I remember having conversations with my dad about him losing friends and officers in the line of duty.

I have heard all the stories you can think of, but I’ve always had such a hard time with how the suspect is dealt with.

Not that I didn’t think there should be justice served, but my heart always ached for those who don’t know Jesus—their actions being a reflection of that.

I was always told that I would feel differently if it happened to me. But as it’s happened to my own father, I think I still feel the same.

There has been anger, sadness, grief, and confusion. And part of me wishes I could despise the man who did this to my father.

But I can’t get any part of my heart to hate him.

All that I can find is myself hoping and praying for this man to truly know Jesus.

I thought this might change if the man continued to live, but when I heard the news that he was in stable condition, part of me was relieved.

My prayer is that someday down the road, I get to spend some time with the man who shot my father—not to scream at him, not to yell at him, not to scold him—simply to tell him about Jesus.

I’m a guy who is highly competitive.

Every year, I want the church to grow.

I want my knowledge to grow.

I want my influence to grow.

I want our staff to grow.

I want our church plants to grow.

I want everything—because I want to win.

I don’t want to just be where I’m at.

I don’t want anything to be where it’s at.

And so for me it is success and drivenness and it is productivity and it is victory that drives me constantly.

I—that’s my own little idol and it works well in a church because no one would ever yell at you for being a Christian who produces results.

So I found the perfect place to hide.

And I was thinking about it this week.

What if the church stopped growing?

What if we shrunk?

What if everything fell apart?

What if half the staff left?

Would I still worship Jesus or would I be a total despairing mess?

I don’t know.

By God’s grace, I won’t have to find out, but you never know.

Francis Schaeffer:

As there are no little people in God’s sight, so there are no little places. . . .  Nowhere more than in America are Christians caught in the twentieth-century syndrome of size. Size will show success. If I am consecrated, there will necessarily be large quantities of people, dollars, etc.

This is not so.

Not only does God not say that size and spiritual power go together, but He even reverses this (especially in the teaching of Jesus) and tells us to be deliberately careful not to choose a place too big for us. We all tend to emphasize big works and big places, but all such emphasis is of the flesh. To think in such terms is simply to hearken back to the old, unconverted, egoist, self-centered Me. This attitude, taken from the world, is more dangerous to the Christian than fleshly amusement or practice. It is the flesh.

—Francis Schaeffer, No Little People (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1974), 18.

J. I. Packer:

I have found that churches, pastors, seminaries, and parachurch agencies throughout North America are mostly playing the numbers game—that is, defining success in terms of numbers of heads counted or added to those that were there before.

Church-growth theorists, evangelists, pastors, missionaries, news reporters, and others all speak as if

(1) numerical increase is what matters most;

(2) numerical increase will surely come if our techniques and procedures are right;

(3) numerical increase validates ministries as nothing else does;

(4) numerical increase must be everyone’s main goal.

He detects four “unhappy consequences” of these assumptions:

First, big and growing churches are viewed as far more significant than others.

Second, parachurch specialists who pull in large numbers are venerated, while hard-working pastors are treated as near-nonentities.

Third, lively laymen and clergy too are constantly being creamed off from the churches to run parachurch ministries, in which, just because they specialize on a relatively narrow front, quicker and more striking results can be expected.

Fourth, many ministers of not-so-bouncy temperament and not-so-flashy gifts return to secular employment in disillusionment and bitterness, concluding that the pastoral life of steady service is a game not worth playing.

Packer then offers his assessment:

In all of this I seem to see a great deal of unmortified pride, either massaged, indulged, and gratified, or wounded, nursed, and mollycoddled. Where quantifiable success is god, pride always grows strong and spreads through the soul as cancer sometimes gallops through the body.

Shrinking spiritual stature and growing moral weakness thence result, and in pastoral leaders, especially those who have become sure they are succeeding, the various forms of abuse and exploitation that follow can be horrific.

Orienting all Christian action to visible success as its goal, a move which to many moderns seems supremely sensible and businesslike, is thus more a weakness in the church than its strength; it is a seedbed both of unspiritual vainglory for the self-rated succeeders and of unspiritual despair for the self-rated failures, and a source of shallowness and superficiality all round.

The way of health and humility is for us to admit to ourselves that in the final analysis we do not and cannot know the measure of our success the way God sees it. Wisdom says: leave success ratings to God, and live your Christianity as a religion of faithfulness rather than an idolatry of achievement.

—J. I. Packer, A Passion for Faithfulness: Wisdom from the Book of Nehemiah (Wheaton: Crossway, 1995), 207–209.

(Packer says that he would like to see Kent and Barbara Hughes’ book, Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome, “made required reading for every pastoral aspirant.”)

Abortion was rampant, especially in ancient Rome, and the early Christians, like the Jews, consistently opposed it.

For some ancient citations to this effect, I’ve reprinted some relevant sections from an essay in the back of the ESV Study Bible on “The Beginning of Life and Abortion,” which offers a concise overview on the extrabiblical Jewish and early Christian literature in contrast to Roman culture:

First-Century Judaism Condemned Abortion

For example, the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 184–186 (c. 50 B.C.–A.D. 50) says that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.”

Included among those who do evil in the apocalyptic Sibylline Oracles were women who “aborted what they carried in the womb” (2.281–282).

Similarly, the apocryphal book 1 Enoch (2nd or 1st century B.C.) declares that an evil angel taught humans how to “smash the embryo in the womb” (69.12).

Finally, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that “the law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus” (Against Apion 2.202).

Roman Culture Sanctioned Abortion

Cicero (106–43 B.C.) records that according to the Twelve Tables of Roman Law, “deformed infants shall be killed” (De Legibus 3.8).

Plutarch (c. a.d. 46–120) spoke of those who he said “offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan” (Moralia 2.171D).

Early Christian Literature Condemned Abortion

Against the bleak backdrop of Roman culture, the Hebrew “sanctity of human life” ethic provided the moral framework for early Christian condemnation of abortion and infanticide.

For instance, the Didache 2.2 (c. A.D. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”

Another noncanonical early Christian text, the Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. A.D. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.”

There are numerous other examples of Christian condemnation of both infanticide and abortion. In fact, some biblical scholars have argued that the silence of the NT on abortion per se is due to the fact that it was simply assumed to be beyond the pale of early Christian practice. Nevertheless, Luke (a physician) points to fetal personhood when he observes that the unborn John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth came into the presence of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus at the time (Luke 1:44).

Early Christian Rescued and Adopted Abandoned Children

For instance, Callistus (d. c. A.D. 223) provided refuge to abandoned children by placing them in Christian homes, and Benignus of Dijon (3rd century) offered nourishment and protection to abandoned children, including some with disabilities caused by unsuccessful abortions.

Here’s the thesis of his latest video:

Augustine affirmed sola Scriptura.

In fact, he could not have been clearer in affirming it.

I will embed the video below for him to make his case, followed by notes on his presentation:

Three Clarifications

Ortlund provides three clarifications or framing remarks:

1. The goal of this video is not prove that sola Scriptura is right. The goal is simply historical accuracy. What Augustine believed is interesting and relevant, but it’s not decisive for sola Scriptura. Someone who rejects sola Scriptura could simply say that Augustine was wrong.
2. I do not believe that I am taking these quotes out of context. If you have a concern about that, read these quotes in context for yourself.
3. We need to define sola Scriptura, because obviously we have to know what we are talking about in order to know be able to recognize it in Augustine or anywhere else.

Definition

Ortlund offers the following definition of sola Scriptura:

Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice.

Tradition has a place. Creeds and councils can be binding and authoritative. But all that is subsequent to Scripture is reformable in light of Scripture.

Caricatures

Ortlund points out at least four alternative caricatures are ruled out by this definition. Sola Scripture does not mean that:

• the Bible is the exclusive source of all theological knowledge;
• the Bible is the infallible rule for every subject (whether chemistry, geometry, etc.);
• the Bible is the only authority for each individual Christian, regardless of their historical circumstances;
• it can be amalgamated with other Protestant doctrines concerning Scripture (such as perspicuity, sufficiency, etc.).

The bottom line?

We must avoid defining sola Scriptura by its street-level practice, and instead define it by its official articulations. The fact that something is visible at the street level does not mean it isn’t a caricature.

(He recommends a few theologians to read on this: Francis Turretin, William Whitaker, Martin Chemnitz, Richard Hooker.)

Quote #1 from Augustine

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4)

Ortlund makes two observations about this quote:

1. Augustine draws a clear distinction between Scripture and all subsequent writings with respect to their authority and truthfulness.
2. Augustine maintains that councils, even plenary (ecumenical) councils, can err and be corrected by later ones.

Quote #2 from Augustine

As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you” (Philippians 3:15). Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (Reply to Faustus 11.5)

Ortlund observes:

Augustine continues to observe the church’s role in the preservation of Scripture, but to distinguish Scripture from everything subsequent to the apostolic times in terms of infallible vs. fallible.

Quote #3 from Augustine

I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. . . . As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. (Letter to Jerome [no. 82])

Ortlund notes:

Augustine maintains that he believes Jerome held the same view.

But What about Other Quotes from Augustine?

In some passages, Augustine even goes further, coming close to the Reformed idea of the sufficiency of Scripture:

Among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life. (On Christian Doctrine 2.9)

Some people try to evade the force of these statements by pointing to other things Augustine said, and he certainly did have a high view of the church. For example, he wrote:

for my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

Ortlund argues that this statement is not at odds with elevation of Scripture over councils and bishops. It comes from his Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, where he is arguing with a Manichee, who sought to enforce a gospel of his own. That is in no way at odds with saying the Scripture is of unique authority.

Calvin comments:

Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church.

Is Augustine Unique among the Fathers in His Understanding of Scripture?

John Chrysostom, in his 33^rd homily on Acts, poses a scenario along these lines:

What about when a pagan wishes to become a Christian, but he sees all these rival groups in the church, and doesn’t know which one to pick?

He answers:

What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, ‘I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?’ How shall we answer him? ‘Each of you’ (says he) ‘asserts, “I speak the truth.”’

No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.

Three observations from Ortlund:

1. John erects the Scriptures as the ultimate test by which to measure these competing claims.
2. John distinguishes the Scriptures from arguments because they are “simple and true,” whereas arguments simply cause confusion.
3. John nowhere appeals to an infallible magisterium.

In fact, John anticipates the challenge of interpretative pluralism next:

“But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and you interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?” And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment?

John assumes that you have the ability to convince this person of the truth by the Scripture. At one point he even questions their sincerity if they cannot!

If he should say what you say about the Christians — ‘There is such a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge’ — but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. . . . Let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy.

John argues that the heathen maneuvers the conversation into that level of skepticism, that person is basically making excuses. He assumes that the truth can be discerned among competing options by the Scriptures functioning as paramount.

Conclusion

“None of this is a defeater for non-Protestant views of Scripture and tradition. Augustine (and John) are not infallible. But they certainly show the reasonableness of sola Scriptura. My hope is that these patristic testimonies will at least encourage people not to dismiss the idea so quickly, or to caricature it.”

You can read the rest of his message here and see how he came to view embrace the church, despite her flaws and failures.

You can look for the availability of the film and tickets in your area here.

An elder C.S. Lewis looks back on his remarkable journey from hard-boiled atheist to the most renowned Christian writer of the past century.

The Most Reluctant Convert features award-winning actor Max McLean as the older Lewis and Nicholas Ralph—breakout star of PBS Masterpiece’s All Creatures Great and Small—as young Lewis. Beautifully filmed in and around Oxford, this engaging biopic follows the creator of The Chronicles of Narnia from the tragic death of his mother when he was just nine years old, through his strained relationship with his father, to the nightmare of the trenches of World War I to Oxford University, where friends like J.R.R. Tolkien challenge his unbelief.

Written for the screen and directed by two-time Emmy and BAFTA winner Norman Stone (BBC’s Shadowlands), The Most Reluctant Convert brings to life the spiritual evolution of one the 20th century’s sharpest minds and keenest wits.

To read about this time period in Lewis’s life, see the first two volumes of Harry Lee Poe’s trilogy:

• Becoming C. S. Lewis: A Biography of Young Jack Lewis (1898–1918) (Crossway, 2019)
• The Making of C. S. Lewis: From Atheist to Apologist (1918–1945) (Crossway, 2021).

Picture two Jews, by the name of Smith and Brown. Remarkably Jewish names.

The day before the first Passover they’re having a little discussion in the land of Goshen, and Smith says to Brown, “Boy, are you a little nervous about what’s going to happen tonight?”

Brown says, “Well, God told us what to do through his servant Moses. You don’t have to be nervous. Haven’t you slaughtered the lamb and dobbed the two door posts with blood—put blood on the lintel? Haven’t you done that? You’re all ready and packed to go? You’re going to eat your whole Passover meal with your family?”

“Of course I’ve done that. I’m not stupid. But, it’s still pretty scary when you think of all the things that have happened around here recently. You know, flies and river turning to blood. It’s pretty awful. And now there’s a threat of the first-born being killed, you know. It’s all right for you. You’ve got three sons. I’ve only got one. And I love my Charlie, and the Angel of Death is passing through tonight. I know what God says; I put the blood there. But it’s pretty scary, I’ll be glad when this night is over.”

And the other one responds, “Bring it on. I trust the promises of God.”

That night, the angel of death swept through the land. Which one lost his son?

And the answer of course is: neither.

Because death doesn’t pass over them on the ground of the intensity, or the clarity, of the faith exercised. But on the ground of the blood of the lamb. That’s what silences the accuser.

The blood silences the accuser of the brothers as he accuses us before God. He silences our consciences when he accuses us directly. How many times do we writhe in agony asking if God can ever love us enough, if God can ever care for us enough after we have done such stupid, sinful, rebellious things after being Christians for 40 years?

What are you going to say, “Oh, God, I tried hard, you know. I did my best. It was a bad moment”?

No, no, no.

I have no other argument! I need no other plea! It is enough that Jesus died, and that he died for me!

We overcome him by the blood of the lamb. There is the ground of all human assurance before God. There is the ground of our faith. Not guaranteeing intensity of faith—so fickle are we.

It’s not the intensity of our faith but the object of our faith that saves. They overcome him on the ground of the blood of the lamb.

that system of values, in any given age,

which has at its center our fallen human perspective,

which displaces God and his truth from the world, and

which makes sin look normal and righteousness seem strange.

It thus gives great plausibility to what is morally wrong and, for that reason, makes what is wrong seem normal.

—David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 4.

If you want to begin receiving these blog posts as an email newsletter, click here.

You know, I always think about this in relationship to the thief on the cross when he arrives at the portals of heaven. You imagine that interview process?

“What are you doing here?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, who sent you here?”

“What? No one sent me here. I . . . I . . . I’m here!”

“Well, are you . . . Have you been justified by faith? Do you have peace with God?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, do you know anything?”

“Yeah.”

“What do you know?”

“The man on the middle cross said I could come here.”

Ligon Duncan—the Chancellor/CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary and the John E. Richards Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology—delivered the memorable clip above at the 2018 Together for the Gospel conference.

Loving our neighbor is hard. In fact, we can’t do it. If the gospel were “love your neighbor and live” it would be profoundly bad news. None of us loves our neighbor purely or perfectly. None of us loves our neighbor in the way Jesus taught in John 15: “Greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.”

But the good news of the gospel is that we have a neighbor who loved us and laid down his life for us. And this neighbor didn’t lay down his life for his friends, but for his enemies. We can enjoy God’s blessing and know his grace because our Savior obeyed the first and second great commandments for us. This good news releases us from condemnation and sets us free to love our neighbor as ourselves.

This truth is gloriously manifested every Lord’s Day around the communion table.

As we gather in Jesus’ name, we hear Jesus say the words “take and eat.” It’s as if Jesus, recalling the words from Genesis 3 about Eve “taking and eating” of the serpent’s fruit, says, “watch this, Satan!” Then he repeats the words by offering himself as a sacrifice: “take and eat. This is my body, given for you.” What were once words leading to condemnation are now, on the lips of Jesus, words of salvation. This is what enables us to love our neighbor. We’ve been set free from the bondage of sin to finally be who God made us to be. In Christ, we now image God again by loving him and our neighbors as ourselves. Brothers, let no one say that anyone can outdo us in love.

Halfway through, Packer covers what he has argued thus far:

I have already said that God ordinarily guides his children in their decision-making through Bible-based wisdom.

I have dismissed the idea that guidance is usually or essentially an inner voice telling us facts otherwise unknown and prescribing strange modes of action.

I have criticized the way some Christians wait passively for guidance and “put out a fleece” when perplexed, rather than prayerfully following wisdom’s lead.

He acknowledges that at this point, some readers might be muttering in response.

Some readers may believe that I have played down and thereby dishonored the guiding ministry of the Holy Spirit. One cannot say what I have said in today’s steamy Christian atmosphere without provoking that reaction. So there is need now to discuss the Holy Spirit’s role in guidance in a direct way.

The last thing I want to do is to dishonor, or lead others to dishonor, the Holy Spirit. But the fact must be faced that not all endeavors that seek to honor the Holy Spirit succeed in their purpose. There is such a thing as fanatical delusion, just as there is such a thing as barren intellectualism. Overheated views of life in the Spirit can be as damaging as “flat tire” versions of Christianity that minimize the Spirit’s ministry. This is especially true in relation to guidance.

So, Packer asks, “What does it mean to be ‘led by the Spirit’ in personal decision-making?” The phrase, he points out, is from Romans 8:14 and Galatians 5:18 and speaks not of decision making but of resisting sinful impulses. But, he acknowledges, “the question of what it means to be Spirit-led in choosing courses of action is a proper and important one.”

The Spirit leads by helping us understand the biblical guidelines within which we must keep, the biblical goals at which we must aim, and the biblical models that we should imitate, as well as the bad examples from which we are meant to take warning.

He leads through prayer and others’ advice, giving us wisdom as to how we can best follow biblical teaching.

He leads by giving us the desire for spiritual growth and God’s glory. The result is that spiritual priorities become clearer, and our resources of wisdom and experience for making future decisions increase.

He leads, finally, by making us delight in God’s will so that we find ourselves wanting to do it because we know it is best. Wisdom’s paths will be “ways of pleasantness” (Prov. 3:17). If at first we find we dislike what we see to be God’s will for us, God will change our attitude if we let him. God is not a sadist, directing us to do what we do not want to do so that he can see us suffer. He wants joy for us in every course of action to which he leads us, even those from which we shrink at first and that involve outward unpleasantness.

Packer knows that virtually no Christian would deny what he has written here. But he also knows that some would say this is only “half the story.”

Part of what being Spirit-led means, they would tell us, is that one receives instruction from the Spirit through prophecies and inward revelations such as repeatedly came to godly people in Bible times (see Gen. 22; 2 Chron. 7:12-22; Jer. 32:19; Acts 8:29; 11:28; 13:4; 21:11; 1 Cor. 14:30). They believe this kind of communication to be the fulfillment of God’s promise that “your ears shall hear a word behind you saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it,’ when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left” (Isa. 30:21 RSV). They are sure that some impressions of this kind should be identified as the Spirit-given “word of knowledge” in 1 Corinthians 12:8. They insist that this is divine guidance in its highest and purest form, which Christians should therefore constantly seek. Those who play it down, they would say, thereby show that they have too limited a view of life in the Spirit.

Packer responds:

Here I must come clean. I know that this line of thought is sincerely believed by many people who are, I am sure, better Christians than I am. Yet I think it is wrong and harmful, and I shall now argue against it. I choose my words with care, for some of the arguments made against this view are as bad and damaging as is the view itself. The way of wisdom is like walking a tightrope, from which one can fall by overbalancing either to the left or to the right. As, in Richard Baxter’s sharp-sighted phrase, overdoing is undoing, so overreacting is undermining.

He then distinguishes the real issue from what he is not insisting or implying:

The issue here is not whether a person’s life in the Spirit is shallow or deep, as if the further one advances spiritually, the more one will seek and find guidance through prophecies and inward revelations. Nor is the issue whether God has so limited himself that he will never communicate directly with present-day Christians as he did with some saints in biblical times. In my view there is no biblical warrant either for correlating spiritual maturity with direct divine guidance or for denying that God may still directly indicate his will to his servants. The real issue is twofold: what we should expect from God in this regard and what we should do with any invading impressions that come our way.

When Christians feel that God has directly told them to say or do something, Packer says they should face up to the following three facts:

1. If anyone today receives a direct disclosure from God, it will have no canonical significance. It will not become part of the church’s rule of faith and life; nor will the church be under any obligation to acknowledge the disclosure as revelation; nor will anyone merit blame for suspecting that the disclosure was not from God. If the alleged disclosure is a prediction . . . , Moses assures us that there is not even a prima facie case for treating it as from God until it has come true (Deut. 18:21ff.). If the alleged disclosure is a directive (as when a leader claims that God told him to found a hospital, university, mission, or crusade of some kind), any who associate themselves with his project should do so because wisdom tells them that it is needed, realistic, and God-honoring, not because the leader tells them that God directly commanded him (and by implication them) to attempt it.

People who believe they have received direct indications of what God will do or what they should do should refrain in all situations (worship services, board meetings, gatherings of family or friends, preparation of publications, or whatever) from asking others to agree that direct revelation has been given to them, and Christians should greet any such request with resolute silence.

2. Guidance in this particular form is not promised. For it to occur is, as we have said, extraordinary, exceptional, and anomalous. No Scripture leads us to hope or to look for it. Isaiah 30:21, which may seem to point this way, is actually a promise of wise teaching through wise teachers. No one, therefore, who believes that he received a direct revelation at any time should look for this event to recur. The idea that spiritual persons may expect this sort of guidance often or that such experiences are proof of their holiness or of their call and fitness to lead others should be dismissed out of hand.

3. Direct communications from God take the form of impressions, and impressions can come even to the most devoted and prayerful people from such murky sources as wishful thinking, fear, obsessional neurosis, schizophrenia, hormonal imbalance, depression, side effects of medication, and satanic delusion, as well as from God. Impressions need to be suspected before they are sanctioned and tested before they are trusted. Confidence that one’s impressions are God-given is no guarantee that this is really so, even when they persist and grow stronger through long seasons of prayer. Bible-based wisdom must judge them. . . .

Some people conclude that the Holy Spirit never gives specific impressions and that every claim to them must be a delusion. Packer says this is wrong.

Impressions—not revelations of information but focusings of concern—belong to Christian living. When we say we have a “vision” or “burden” about something, we are referring to an impression. When our concern is biblically proper, we are right to regard our impression as a nudge from the Holy Spirit.

Nehemiah speaks of what “God had put into my heart to do for Jerusalem” (Neh. 2:12 RSV), and by prayer, persuasion, and push, Nehemiah got the job done. Paul and Silas “attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them” (Acts 16:7 RSV)—that is, an inner impression restrained them. God, as they soon discovered, was leading them to Greece. Paul’s “mind could not rest” while evangelizing Troas, because Titus had not come (2 Cor. 2:13; mind is “spirit” in the Greek, meaning a mind enlightened by God’s Spirit). So Paul left, construing his restlessness as God prompting him to go in search of Titus rather than continue the Troas mission. These are biblical examples of saints pulled or pressed by God in particular directions. This is an experience that most Christians know.

My point is not that the Spirit of God gives no direct impressions, but rather that impressions must be rigorously tested by biblical wisdom—the corporate wisdom of the believing community as well as personal wisdom. If this is not done, impressions that are rooted in egoism, pride, headstrong unrealism, the fancy that irrationality glorifies God, a sense that some human being is infallible, or similar misconceptions will be allowed to masquerade as Spirit-given. Only impressions verified as biblically appropriate and practically wise should be recognized as from God. People who receive impressions about what they should believe or do should question such impressions until they have been thoroughly tested.

Nor can one be certain even then about one’s impressions. Some impressions seem to be instances of clairvoyance, sanctified for restraint or encouragement (as in recorded cases of Christians feeling constrained to leave trains and planes that later crashed or when C. T. Studd saw in the margin of his Bible the words “China, India, Africa,” the three parts of the world where he subsequently served as a pioneer missionary). There is no certain way to test such impressions. Sometimes one will not be able to tell whether they are a message from God or a human fancy. The correct conclusion to draw is that as we seek to do what by biblical standards best serves God’s glory and the good of others, God will be with us—just that.

The radios of my youth would crackle with atmospherics, making clear reception impossible. All forms of self-centeredness and self-indulgence, from surface-level indiscipline and lawlessness to the subtlety of grandiose elitism or the irreverence of not obeying the guidance one has received already, will act as atmospherics in the heart, making recognition of God’s will harder than it should be and one’s testing of impressions less thorough and exact. But those who are being “led by the Spirit” into humble holiness will also be “led by the Spirit” in evaluating their impressions, and so they will increasingly be able to distinguish the Spirit’s nudges from impure and improper desire. “He . . . teaches the humble his way” (Ps. 25:9 RSV). Blessed, then, we may say, are the pure in heart. They shall know the will of God.

[W]ords, being tools of thought and tokens of meaning, are neither magical nor impregnable, and we abuse our minds if we think otherwise. Anything you really understand you can express in more than one form of words, and no verbal formula is exempt from the possibility of reinterpretation, misinterpretation, and debasement by those who come after its framers.

It is well to remind ourselves of this as we weigh two words which twentieth-century English-speaking theologians have regularly applied to the view of Scripture as God-given verbal revelation which this book has been setting forth. The words are infallibility and inerrancy, both denoting qualities which adherents of this view ascribe to the Bible.

The first thing to say, in light of the last paragraph, is that nobody should feel wedded to these words. We can get on without them.

If we speak of Holy Scripture as altogether true and trustworthy, or as wholly reliable in its own terms, making no false assertions, claims or promises on its own account (however many lies told by good men, bad men, and devils it records), we shall be expressing in formula terms exactly what these words mean.

If we prefer these formulae to the words themselves (both of which, be it admitted, have turned into noses of wax, malleable and often misshapen in recent discussion), that is our privilege, and none should want to deprive us of it.

Conversely, adherence to traditional terms does not necessarily argue the profoundest grasp of what they stand for; it may only be a sign of a traditional mind.

Yet this is an age in which the view I am stating is often dismissed without argument, and indeed without understanding . . . In such an age, it is more useful to explain and defend the words, and rebut the criticisms, than to renounce the words because they have been mishandled. Rightly understood, they are useful theological shorthand, and by explaining them we can clarify and develop some of the implications of what this chapter has said so far. Briefly, then (or as briefly as we can!):

[1. The Meaning of the Terms]

First, their meaning.

Infallibility is the Latin infallibilitas, signifying the quality of neither deceiving nor being deceived.

Inerrancy is the Latin inerrantia, meaning freedom from error of anything, factual, moral, or spiritual.

Infallible as a description of the biblical Word of God goes back at least to the English Reformation.

Inerrant is an adjective that gained currency in the second half of the last century, in debates that arose from the budding “higher criticism.”

Both words take color from the contexts in which they were mainly used; thus, though they are virtually synonyms, infallible suggest to most minds Scripture determining a faith-commitment, while inerrant evokes rather the thought of Scripture undergirding an orthodoxy. But for practical purposes the words are interchangeable.

[2. The Significance of the Terms]

Second, their significance.

Though negative in form, they are positive in thrust, like the Council of Chalcedon’s four negative adverbs about the union of Christ’s two natures in his one person (“without confusion,” “without change,” “without division,” “without separation”). What those adverbs say is that only within the limits they set is truth about the incarnation found.

What infallible and inerrant say is that only those who accept as from God all that Scripture proves to tell us, promise us, or require of us can ever fully please him. Both words thus have religious as well as theological significance; their function is to impose on our handling of the Bible a procedure which expresses faith in the reality and veracity of the God who speaks to us in and through what it says and who requires us to heed every word that proceeds from his mouth. The procedure, best stated negatively, is that in exegesis and exposition of Scripture and building up our biblical theology we may

not (i) deny, disregard, or arbitrarily relativize anything that the writers teach,

nor (ii) discount any of the practical implications for worship and service which their teaching carries,

nor (iii) cut the knot of any problem of Bible harmony, factual or theological, by allowing ourselves to assume that the writers were not necessarily consistent with themselves or with each other.

It is this procedure, rather than any particular results of following it, that our two words safeguard.

[3. The Justification for the Terms]

Third, their justification.

The ground for affirming that Scripture is infallible and inerrant is its inspiration, which we defined earlier in this chapter in terms of God-breathedness or divine origin.

No Christian will question that God speaks truth and truth only (that is, that what he says is infallible and inerrant). But if all Scripture comes from God in such a sense that what it says, he says, then Scripture as such must be infallible and inerrant, because it is God’s utterance.

What our two words express is not confidence that by our own independent enquiries we can prove all Scripture statements to be true (we can’t, of course, and should never speak as if we could), but certainty that all Scripture can and should be trusted because it has come to us (in Calvin’s phrase) “by the ministry of men from God’s very mouth.”

[4. How the Terms Are Misunderstood]

Fourth, how these words are misunderstood.

Critics persistently suppose that both words, highlighting as they do the divinity and consequent trust of the Bible, express or entail a policy of minimizing the Bible’s humanity, either

by denying its human literary sources or ignoring the marks of its human cultural milieu, or

by treating it as if it were written in terms of the communicative techniques and conventions of the modern West rather than the ancient East, or

by professing to find it in “technical-scientific,” as distinct from “naïve-observational” statements about the natural order, when the “technical-scientific” study of nature is less than five centuries old.

It is understandable that Christians who have not weighed the differences between our culture and that (or those!) of the biblical period should naively feel that the natural and straightforward way to express their certainty that the contents of Scripture, being divine, are of contemporary relevance (as they certainly are) is to treat Scripture as contemporary in its literary forms. No doubt many have done this, believing that thus they did God service.

But our words have no link with this naivety; they express no advance commitment of any kind in the field of biblical interpretation, save that whatever Scripture, rightly interpreted (interpreted, that is, a posteriori, with linguistic correctness, in terms of the discernibly literary character of each book, against its own historical and cultural background, and in the light of its topical relation to other books), proves to be saying should be reverently received, as from God.

[5. The Self-Involving Logic of the Terms]

Fifth, the self-involving logic of these words.

For me to confess that Scripture is infallible and inerrant is to bind myself in advance to follow the method of harmonizing and integrating all that Scripture declares, without remainder, of taking it as from God, however little I may like it, and whatever change of present beliefs, ways, and commitments it may require, and of seeking actively to live by it. Both words are often seen as belonging to worlds of doctrinaire scholasticism, but in fact they express a most radical existential commitment on the Christian’s part.

[6. The Objections to the Terms]

Sixth, the objections to these words.

Some deprecate them because using them, they think, has a bad effect.

Affirming inerrancy is thought to cause preoccupation with minutiae of Bible harmony and factual detail to the neglect of major matters, and to encourage the unhistorical kind of exegesis that we glanced at two paragraphs back, and thus to thwart good scholarship.

Asserting infallibility is held to spawn a superstitious bibliolatry which reveres the Bible as a sort of everyman’s-enquire-within-about-everything, and also, thwarts good scholarship.

It may be replied that none of this is necessarily so, and that it is worth disinfecting both words from association with these failures in responsible biblical interpretation. But if it is still thought best to eschew the terms as tainted, the point is not worth pressing; as we said, we are not wedded to words.

Others, however, reject the terms on the grounds that factual, moral, and theological error in the Bible is now proven.

Here I must limit myself simply to replying: not so at all.

A responsible biblical scholarship exists with inerrancy as one of its methodological presuppositions; it appears no less successful in embracing and making sense of the phenomena of Scripture than is the scholarship which lacks this presupposition. (All scholars, of course, borrow from and interact with each other, and share a community feeling in consequence, whatever their presuppositions, but that is not the point here.) As long as a consistent Bible-believing scholarship can maintain itself in debate on problem passages, it is sheer triumphalist obscurantism to say that error in the Bible has been proved. And even if adequate Bible-believing scholarship were lacking, “proved” would still be too strong a word, for the various skeptical hypotheses are never the only ones possible.

Researchers working on Covid-19 vaccines have smashed speed records, bringing new vaccines from development to distribution in less than a year. They did this with the help of billions of dollars of unprecedented global investment—but also, in some cases, with a new type of vaccine technology. There are four traditional types of vaccines, and they all require the growing and handling of live pathogens in a lab, a time-consuming process than can add months or years to development. But two new types of vaccines skip that step altogether by moving that work from the lab to our bodies. mRNA vaccines, like the ones from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna; and Adenovirus vaccines, like those from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca; do this by sending genetic instructions directly into our cells, which then produce the harmless protein the body needs to learn to fight Covid-19. Because these proteins are produced from within cells rather than injected from the outside, they may be less likely to provoke adverse reactions in the recipient. The result has been a host of vaccines developed faster than ever. But it’s also ushered us into a new age of vaccine technology, one in which we can send our own bodies the instructions on how to protect themselves. That technology is already being used to drive research on vaccines for HIV and cancer. These new types of vaccines are weapons we developed to fight the coronavirus—but their real impact is just beginning.

HT: @JohnDyer

(For an update on the new Covid variants, see this FAQ from Joe Carter.)

Christian Discipleship and the COVID-19 Vaccine

For those open to hearing a considered Christian case for these vaccinations, consider reading this piece by Matthew Arbo, C. Ben Mitchell, and Andrew T. Walker:

Why We Plan to Get Vaccinated: A Christian Moral Perspective

They address three ethical areas raised by COVID-19 vaccines: (1) safety and efficacy, (2) complicity with evil, and (3) compliance with authority.

Here is their conclusion:

According to the New Testament, faith and obedience to Jesus Christ in discipleship involves dying to self, taking up his cross. The apostle Paul goes so far as to describe it as no longer the person who lives but Christ that lives within them (Gal. 2:20). Disciples love God and love their neighbor, as God commands. Loving another person can involve many things, but it at least involves seeking their good, a good that includes their health and vitality.

It is not possible to properly love a person and to act unnecessarily to jeopardize their health. By this, we mean displaying wanton disregard for the health of others. If by the minimal burden of wearing a mask, we can potentially protect others from grave illness, then it seems we have a moral obligation to wear a mask. The same can be said for COVID-19 vaccinations. If by being vaccinated we can protect others from illness, then we have a corresponding obligation, given our Lord’s command to love neighbors, to be vaccinated. Vaccinations not only protect me, but also protect other vulnerable members of society. At the same time, we acknowledge that the call to love one’s neighbor does not justify—carte blanche—all action taken to lessen transmission or the forfeiture of one’s own conscience.

A disciple may be vaccinated out of love for God and neighbor, but perhaps also because it is wise. Christians are not rash or foolish about their lives. They are instead sober-minded and ready, on the basis of evidence furnished by reality itself, to form judgments on particular courses of action. It seems wise to be vaccinated, because doing so may protect one’s own life and the lives of others.

Being vaccinated likewise demonstrates that we care about the common good. We wish for all to enjoy a whole, joyful life for as long as the Lord provides. Disciples of Jesus do not wish for anyone to be cut off from the fruits and joys of human community and fellowship, but for all to give and receive in grace and hope. Vaccinations assist us in joining together to share in the goods we have in common.

At the same time, we also acknowledge the sincerity of those whose consciences disagree in good faith. Perhaps there are parents who, once a child vaccine is developed and approved, are sincerely fearful that the rushed nature of the vaccine’s development has long-term unknown costs. Despite our own convictions about the rigorous protocols to ensure safety and efficacy, we believe that Christian liberty requires that each person be free to choose whether or not to receive these new vaccines.

Still, blanket appeals to Christian liberty are not sufficient. They require evidentiary substance. The libertarian-minded citizen who reflexively rejects any claim of authority has not adequately met the necessary threshold to refuse vaccination. Those appealing to Christian liberty or conscience have the burden of demonstrating what goods are procured, secured, or respected that surpass the goods associated with vaccination. We are not saying such arguments are impossible to make or possibly worthy to act upon. However, we do believe the goods associated with vaccination outweigh the risks or goods born of refusing vaccination.

Because we believe that concerns about vaccination do not rise to the threshold necessary to justify forgoing it, we believe that it is strongly morally advisable to get vaccinated. However, even if this rises to the level of a moral “ought,” that does not mean we think churches should discipline their members if they refuse to get vaccinated. Nor does it mean that an individual who forgoes the vaccine is necessarily sinning. Vaccination is a salutary act born of Christian love for neighbor and community, not a test of faithfulness.

Christians, pastors, and local churches should approach this conversation with forbearing love. We should refuse the temptation to harshly or condescendingly judge those with whom we have disagreements.

You can read the whole thing here.

On Twitter, Andrew Walker wrote up an important brief thread on vaccination, Christian liberty, and Christian love, which I’ve included below:

Two years ago, I wrote an article on what I call “ethical triage”— ranking moral obligations that differentiate and respect both absolute obligations and prudential wisdom. I proposed the categories of “may” (permissible), “should” (advisable), and “must” (obligatory).

Using these categories, let me suggest that vaccination falls into the advisable category. I think prudence increases, additionally, as one considers herd immunity, increased age, and comorbidities. That I find this advisable is not, however, to shame. Posture and tone matter.

Consideration of the common good is important, but it does not altogether vitiate individual autonomy and moral responsibility. This calls into question the supremacy of “Neighbor Love” (which is valid, of course). That cannot be pitted against conscience. Sorry, it cannot.

(CAVEAT—this implies one making a conscience claim has a conscience properly calibrated and informed by correct information and morally germane principles.)

Saying otherwise introduces a troubling principle of subsuming the individual to the collective, even if for ostensibly good purposes. America has a long tradition of conscientious objection and that should be respected.

What does advisability mean? It means I’m duty-bound to state convictions that I think are accurate and have greater evidentiary and argumentative weight. But I cannot necessarily bind from Scripture those who are not sinning by what Scripture defines as an unambiguous sin.

Much of the moral discourse around vaccines and obligations is concerning. Obligations from a Christian worldview imply binding the conscience to the point of church discipline. I cannot do that concerning vaccination, even if I disagree with counterarguments.

To be clear: I think one should absolutely get vaccinated if they can do so in good conscience. This is what I’ve told my students. I’ve also told them that not getting vaccinated requires accepting the consequences of their actions as moral agents.

Introducing categories of ethical triage within the church is the difference between tearing ourselves apart by heavy-handed condemnation or reflexive dismissal (from both perspectives).

My hope is that we could talk about this without immediately adverting to accusing those who get vaccinated as weak supplicants and those who abstain as unloving conspiracy theorists. Be chill. Be loving.

Their latest project is a four-part summary of an essay by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George: “What Is Wrong with Abortion,” in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, ed. Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005): 13–26.

(Dr. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Dr. Lee is a professor of philosophy who holds the John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Chair in Bioethics and directs the Center for Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville.)

The videos are below, followed by my brief summary to get you oriented.

We live in an age that has little time or patience for careful philosophical moral reasoning. I’d encourage readers to set aside some time—perhaps with a family member or friend—to watch these videos and to think through the logic of them. If you don’t get the thesis or an objection or their response to it, pause the video and go through it again and think about these things.

These videos take hundreds of hours to produce, but the end product can be viewed in just over a half hour. I promise that it will be worth your time.

Introduction

Lee and George point out that many people who oppose abortion have not considered the philosophical foundations for the view that abortion is immoral.

Thesis

The choice to have an abortion is objectively immoral.

Why? Because abortion kills a human being.

This human embryo is a whole (albeit immature) living member of the species homo sapiens. It is the same kind of entity as you or I, only at an earlier stage of development.

Objections

There are two main objections to this argument.

1. The No-Person Objection. The embryo may be human, but it is not a person. Therefore abortion is not wrong since it does not involve the death of a person. (Dualist versions of this objection define “person” in terms of being or existence—the thing that is you. Evaluative versions say that “person” is a value judgment—someone who is valuable and therefore a bearer of rights.)
2. The Not-Intentional Killing Objection. The embryo may have a right to life, but it does not have the right to use its mother’s body for life support. So abortion is not a case of intentional killing but rather a case of denying assistance or of eviction.

Responses

Lee and George carefully demonstrate what is wrong with both objections.

1. Against the dualist form of the no-person objection, they show that at conception a person comes into being. Agains the evaluative form of the no-person objection, the physical organism is intrinsically valuable and a bearer of rights (specifically, a right to life).
2. Against the non-intention killing objection, they argue that it is wrong for  parents to choose an abortion (death) over the significantly lesser harms of carrying and caring for the child because parents have a special obligation to the child in virtue of their biological and social relations with the child.

Conclusion

Their thesis stands; the objections fail: abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral.

If you want to support seeing more videos like this, contribute to PayPal.Me/wardenclyffeacademy.

Piper’s response can be listened to in the video above, is worth hearing in its entirely.

Piper points out that this man is obviously in significant bondage to the root sin of selfishness and pride, which we today would call narcissism.

He then explains how the Bible would diagnose the five sinful, damaging mistakes this man is making and should be held accountable for:

1. He thinks that creation has a built-in subservience for women.
2. He infers from creation a built-in superior-inferior relationship. 
3. He infers from his superior-inferior paradigm for men and women that he may therefore rightly treat his wife in demeaning ways.
4. He lives now with anger and aggressiveness in his prison cell.
5. The result of living in the bondage of sin and delusion is acting like a jailer or a pathetic child throwing a temper tantrum.

He then closes with this counsel for her:

Now, she didn’t ask me for any counsel; she just wanted me to say something that might be helpful in general when women are dealing with a man like this. But let me go ahead and say what I think. I’m assuming there hasn’t been physical abuse. She didn’t say that. And the reason I’m telling you that is because what I’m about to say would be different if there were. In other words, if he is brutalizing her, then she is, I think, obliged — rightly and legally — to go to the police and to the ways that the arm of our government has set for helping women or men deal with that kind of brutality.

But short of that, she should be stepping forward — and I do hope she’s in a church where this is possible. I hope she can go to trusted elders, tell them her situation, and ask for them to intervene. I think it’s part of the elders’ job at a church to step into the lives of the sheep — men and women — and to be a part of their protective shield, and to give them guidance and wisdom for how to move forward.

Piper also addresses a question from a woman about emotional or verbal abuse in the home, and Piper applies Scripture to his response, showing that this would require discipline (depending on the spouse’s response) and possibly excommunication. He argues: “There should be in every Christian marriage a web of relationships in the church, in the community, and among friends that can exert correcting, rebuking, and healing influences.”

Fertilization
Olivia’s life begins and her gender, ethnicity, hair color, eye color, and other traits are determined.

Week 1
Olivia implants in the lining of her mother’s uterus, where she’ll live for the next 9 months.

Week 3
By week three, Olivia’s heartbeat can be detected, her brain and gastrointestinal tract have begun to form, and the cells for her nerves, blood, and kidney have appeared. Her mother may know of Olivia’s existence through a pregnancy test at this stage.

Week 4
At just four weeks, the buds of Olivia’s arms are and legs are visibly forming, and the right and left hemispheres of her brain are beginning to take shape.

Weeks 5–6
At weeks five and six, Olivia moves spontaneously and reflexively, her bones begin to develop, and her brain activity can be recorded.

Weeks 7–8
Olivia can bring her hands together, she can hiccup, she has had over one million heartbeats, and her ovaries and the cells needed for future generations of children are present.

Weeks 9–10
Olivia’s stage of human development now classifies her as a fetus. She can suck her thumb, swallow, grasp an object, touch her face, sigh, and stretch out in her mother’s womb.

Weeks 11–14
Olivia can play in the womb and her taste buds have matured to discrete tastebuds. By week 14, Olivia’s lips and nose are fully formed, she makes complex facial expressions, and her mother can finally feel her movements.

Weeks 15–16
The neuron multiplication of Olivia’s brain is mostly complete and she is sensitive to touch. At this stage of development, ultrasounds can detect speaking movements in her voice box and her teeth are beginning to grow.

Weeks 19–21
By 19 weeks old, her heart has beaten over 20 million times. At 21 weeks old, Olivia could survive outside of the womb with medical assistance.

Week 27
Olivia can recognize her parents’ voices and will react to sudden loud noises. Her eyes respond to light, and she also has a functioning sense of smell.

Week 38
Olivia exhibits breathing movements, she can produce tears, her umbilical cord is typically twenty to twenty-four inches long, and she will weigh between six and eight pounds at birth.

John’s gospel has quite a different feel from the first three Gospels. . . . The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) show us “His body”—they tell the story from the outside, as it were. But the nearer John’s gospel gets to its climax the more we learn about what was “going on inside” our Lord.

This is preeminently true in chapters 13 through 17. Here we are invited to listen in as Jesus patiently instructs His closest friends as they sit around Him during a Passover meal.

It would have lasted several hours—truly memorable hours with the Master!

The narrative begins with Jesus showing His disciples that “he loved them to the end” (John 13:1)—and what true love is really like.

Characteristically, He gives a sign—He washes the disciples’ feet.

Then He provides an explanation and asks: “Do you understand the meaning of this sign? Do you see what it means for Me? And do you understand the implications it has for you?”

Doubtless the room had fallen silent. This was a very private gathering—only Jesus and the Twelve.

No house-servant had welcomed them; no one had washed the street grime from their sandaled feet. And clearly, they had all been too proud to do it—either for Jesus or for one another. In fact, Luke tells us that the disciples had been arguing with each other about which of them was “the greatest” (Luke 22:24–27). In sharp contrast, Jesus told them, “I am among you as the one who serves.”

Perhaps it was at this point that He rose from table.

In this world, disciples did not wash each other’s feet—that was a servant’s work. But now the Master is doing it!

When Jesus kneels down before Simon Peter, however, it is too much for him. Appalled and resistant, he breaks the silence: “Lord, do you wash my feet?”

Jesus answers: “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me” (John 13:8).

Clearly something deeper is going on here than Jesus merely removing dust and dirt. This is a prophetic action—like those performed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. He is acting out a parable of the gospel, showing them by means of a dramatic sign both who He is and what He has come to do. Here, in the foot-washing, He reveals both His person and His work, both His identity and the purpose of His ministry.

One of the best ways to understand the inner significance of these verses is to look at them side by side with the Apostle Paul’s teaching about the Lord Jesus in Philippians 2:6–9:

Point by point, Jesus is acting out symbolically what Paul describes theologically—how He came from the highest glory of heaven, into the depths of our human condition, took the form of a slave, and accomplished our cleansing from sin by His death on the cross, and then was exalted to the right hand of the Father.

—Sinclair B. Ferguson, Lessons from the Upper Room: The Heart of the Savior (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2020), 8–11.

For the video version on this teaching, go here.

The sixth deadly sin is named by the Church acedia or sloth.

In the world it calls itself tolerance; but in hell it is called despair.

It is the accomplice of the other sins and their worst punishment.

It is the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, loves nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive only because there is nothing it would die for.

We have known it far too well for many years. The only thing perhaps that we have not known about it is that it is a mortal sin.

—Dorothy L. Sayers, “The Other Six Deadly Sins,” in Letters to a Diminished Church: Passionate Arguments for the Relevance of Christian Doctrine (reprint, Thomas Nelson, 2004), 98.

C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, April 16, 1940

“Put first things first and we get second things thrown in: put second things first and we lose both first and second things. We never get, say, even the sensual pleasure of food at its best when we are being greedy.”

C. S. Lewis to Dom Bede Griffiths, April 23, 1951

“When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. Insofar as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.”

—C. S. Lewis to Mrs. Johnson, November 8, 1952

“The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog-keeping.

The man who makes alcohol his chief good loses not only his job but his palate and all power of enjoying the earlier (and only pleasurable) levels of intoxication.

It is a glorious thing to feel for a moment or two that the whole meaning of the universe is summed up in one woman—glorious so long as other duties and pleasures keep tearing you away from her. But clear the decks and so arrange your life (it is sometimes feasible) that you will have nothing to do but contemplate her, and what happens?

Of course this law has been discovered before, but it will stand re-discovery. It may be stated as follows: every preference of a small good to a great, or partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice is made.

. . . You can’t get second things by putting them first. You get second things only by putting first things first.”

—C.S. Lewis, “First and Second Things,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 280.

For an outstanding study of Lewis’s understanding of the Christian life, see Joe Rigney, Lewis on the Christian Life: Becoming Truly Human in the Presence of God (Wheaton: Crosssway, 2018).

And for the most comprehensive study of Lewis’s life, see Harry Lee Poe’s trilogy in the making, with two volumes out so far: (1) Becoming C. S. Lewis: A Biography of Young Jack Lewis, 1898–1918 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019); (2) The Making of C. S. Lewis: From Atheist to Apologist, 1918–1945 (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021)

The New Testament scholar Murray Harris—who has been called one of the great Greek minds of our day—talks about why this is not true.

The following is an excerpt from his book Navigating Tough Texts: A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament:

It is true that in the Jewish Talmud and other Jewish documents we find statements such as “When a child experiences the taste of wheat (i.e., when it is weaned), it learns to say ’abbā and ’immā” (Berakot 40a in the Babylonian Talmud) (= our “dada” and “mama”).

However, even if the term abba began as a childish babbling sound (and this is far from clear), at the time of Jesus it was a regular adult word meaning “Father” or “my Father” (as terms of address) or “the Father” or “my Father” (as terms of reference).

That is, abba was not a childish term of the nursery comparable to “Daddy.” It was a polite and serious term, yet also colloquial and familiar, regularly used by adult sons and daughters when addressing their father. Ideas of simplicity, intimacy, security and affection attach to this household word of childlike trust and obedience. So to bring out the sense of warm and trusting intimacy that belongs to the word, we could appropriately paraphrase it as “dear father.”

If Paul had wanted to convey the sense of “Daddy,” he could have used a Greek word he undoubtedly would have known – papas or pappas that means “papa” or “daddy,” a child’s word for “father.”

There are four further reasons it is inappropriate to translate Abba by “Daddy.”

First, in all three NT passages where the word abba occurs (Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), it is immediately translated by the term “Father” (the Greek articular nominative, ho patēr, used in a vocative sense).

Second, Jesus himself directed his followers to address God as “our Father,” pater hēmōn (Matt 6:9).

Third, each of the seventeen prayers of Jesus (not counting parallels) recorded in the Gospels begins with “Father,” presumably Abba in each case.

Fourth, for Christians, young or old, to address God as “Daddy” is totally inappropriate, for in English usage the term is too casual and flippant and unassuming to be used in addressing the Lord God Almighty, the Creator and Sustainer of all things, not to mention the fact that “daddy” is often abbreviated to “dad.”

It may be that an improper sense of familiarity with God on the part of some Christians prompted Peter to say, “If you address as ‘Father’ the One who judges each person’s work impartially, live in reverent fear of him during the time of your exile on earth” (1 Peter 1:17).

That is, to address God as “our Father in heaven” in the Lord’s Prayer is to remember he is the all-knowing and impartial Supreme Judge of every person, who therefore must approach him with reverential awe, not as though he were simply another commonplace “Daddy.”

He points out that critiques can and should be made but contrasts what we see today with the posture of the apostle Paul:

St. Paul was certainly well aware of the failings of Christians, even of the wickedness that they could perpetrate in the church’s name, as his blunt letters to various congregations indicate. But he never ceased to present the church—flawed, divided, morally compromised as she was—as the meaning and hope of history.

Trueman is not just critiquing those on the left. He writes:

[There is] a rather unpleasant truth about the loudest voices in the conservative Christian world: They seem united only in their apparent belief that a posture of righteous indignation and demands for extreme sanctions against those who hold different opinions are essential parts of courageous Christian discipleship.

Here is his conclusion:

The church’s exile from mainstream culture is going to be hard, but the Bible makes it clear that she wins in the end.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against her. That is the source of our hope at this time, and so it is pastorally cruel and theologically irresponsible for Christians to obscure this truth with endless complaints about “the church’s” past behavior and present inadequacies.

By all means, call out the moral failings of Christians, congregations and denominations, left and right; but be specific, do so without slander and vitriol, and make a clear distinction between the church and the specific failings to which you allude in order to promote clear thinking.

And remember—if your critique of Christians is not balanced by a Pauline emphasis on the church, the body of Christ, as the answer to the world’s problems, you ultimately offer no true Christian commentary on the contemporary scene. For as soon as you see the church herself as part of the problem, you have lost the gospel and deprived yourself and your audience of hope.

You can read the whole thing here.

This made me want to ask a few godly leaders I trust and respect for one song that they would like to have played at their funeral.

Below is an entry from theologian Scott Swain, president of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.

[See the other entries: Joni Eareckson Tada, Russell Moore, Michael Reeves, John Piper]

I have instructed my wife and children on several occasions that Anne Cousin’s hymn, “The Sands of Time Are Sinking,” is to be sung at my funeral. Though they don’t appreciate me bringing up the morbid topic of my death, they know why I want this song sung.

Cousin’s hymn, written in 1854, is based on the letters of seventeenth-century Presbyterian minister and theologian, Samuel Rutherford.

The song is replete with allusions to Isaiah 33, Genesis 49, Revelation 14, Song of Songs, along with many other biblical texts and images, which makes it a fitting instrument for allowing “the word of Christ” to “dwell richly” in those who sing it (Col 3:16).

The subject of the hymn is the glory of Jesus Christ, Scripture’s handsome King (Ps 45:2) and our happy hope (Titus 2:13). Verse after verse, the song celebrates Jesus Christ as the one in whom our Christian pilgrimage will reach its final resting place and realize its fullest joy.

Each verse concludes with some version of the refrain: “Glory, glory dwelleth in Emmanuel’s land.”

I can hardly sing Cousin’s hymn without tears. Because “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine,” Jesus brings me, “a poor vile sinner,” “into his house of wine” (cf. Gen. 49:11–12). Wonder of wonders! What better to celebrate at the hour of death, and for all eternity?

—

The sands of time are sinking,
The dawn of Heaven breaks;
The summer morn I’ve sighed for,
The fair, sweet morn awakes;
Dark, dark hath been the midnight,
But dayspring is at hand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

The King there in His beauty,
Without a veil is seen;
It were a well spent journey,
Though sev’n deaths lay between;
The Lamb with His fair army
Doth on Mount Zion stand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

O Christ, He is the fountain,
The deep, deep well of love;
The streams on earth I’ve tasted,
More deep I’ll drink above;
There to an ocean fullness
His mercy doth expand,
And glory, glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

With mercy and with judgment
My web of time He wove;
And always dews of sorrow
Were lustered with His love;
I’ll bless the hand that guided,
I’ll bless the heart that planned,
When throned where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

Oh! I am my Beloved’s
And my Beloved’s mine!
He brings a poor, vile sinner
Into His “house of wine;”
I stand upon His merit,
I know no other stand,
Not e’en where glory dwelleth
In Immanuel’s land.

The bride eyes not her garments,
But her dear Bridegroom’s face;
I will not gaze at glory
But on my King of grace;
Not at the crown He giveth,
But on His pierced hand;
The Lamb is all the glory
Of Immanuel’s land.

This made me want to ask a few godly leaders I trust and respect for one song that they would like to have played at their funeral.

Below is an entry from John Piper.

[See the other entries: Joni Eareckson Tada, Russell Moore, Michael Reeves]

According to actuarial tables I am supposed to die when Steve Green’s song, “God and God Alone,” turns 50. That would be sweet. My wife will have the final say of what happens at my funeral, but if I get my way, the first word uttered will be the word “God” in the first, unannounced song, “God and God Alone.”

There are four reasons, because the song has four verses which celebrate four cherished realities.

1. Divine Creation

God and God alone
Created all these things we call our own
From the mighty to the small
The Glory in them all
Is God’s and God’s alone

God made everything that is not God. He stands in need of nothing. He owns it all. We don’t own anything. Everything is a stewardship. The aim of the owner is that we use his world so as to make him look more valuable than the world. Every glorious created thing is a gift. We exist to show that “The glory in them all / Is God’s and God’s alone.”

2. Divine Beauty

God and God alone
Is fit to take the universe’s throne
Let everything that lives
Reserve its truest praise
For God and God alone

God’s “fitness” to take the universe’s throne is owing to the beauty of his own intrinsic perfections. He is not “fit” because there is a law outside himself that he conforms to. There is no pre-existent blueprint which he exists to fit. There is nothing above him or outside him, but what he fitly creates and rules from his throne. All that happens is his blueprint, including every note struck at this funeral, or not.

Thanksgiving is what we render for God’s benefits. Praise is what we render for God’s beauty. In the end, beauty is what ultimately and perfectly fits the way God is. To see that, and savor that, and show that, is why we live. Therefore, “Let everything that lives / Reserve its truest praise / For God and God alone.”

3. Divine Sovereignty

God and God alone
Reveals the truth of all we call unknown
And the best and worst of man
Won’t change the Master’s plan
It’s God’s and God’s alone

God’s plan stands. Ours fail or fit his. This is what it means to be God. “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’” (Is. 46:9–10).

Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand” (Prov. 19:21).

The worst of men, like Pilate and Herod, did their best to stand against God’s plan. But only fulfilled it. Without this evil-wielding sovereignty there would be no cross, no blood, no salvation, no gospel. I praise God that the plan that stands “Is God’s and God’s alone.”

4. Divine Delight

God and God alone
Will be the joy of our eternal home
He will be our one desire
Our hearts will never tire
Of God and God alone

Not heaven. Not escape from hell. Not the forgiveness of sins. Not eternal life. Not the resurrection of a glorious body. Not reunion with loved ones. Not every tear removed. Not health restored. Not the inheritance of all things. Not the new heavens and the new earth. But God and God alone will be the joy of our eternal home. He will welcome us into his joy. “Enter into the joy of your master” (Matt. 25:21). He will be the joy of all our joys.

No created thing is inexhaustible in soul-satisfying wonders. All of them would become boring in a thousand years. But not God. For “in the coming ages he will show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:7). It will take all future ages to exhaust the “riches of God’s grace,” because they are “immeasurable.” Therefore “Our hearts will never tire / Of God and God alone.”

Dane’s meditation on Psalm 42 below has been a great encouragement to me. I’d encourage you to go and read the psalm first, then the following.

The psalmist is deeply discouraged. He says to God that it feels as if all “your waves have gone over me” (v. 7). Some adversities are so great that they cannot be handled in the same way as some of the other, more minor disappointments and frustrations of life. This particular type of adversity passes a threshold that the garden-variety trials do not reach. Imagine wading out into the ocean. You begin to feel the waves coming against you. First your ankles, then your knees, and so on. As you continue further into the water, eventually a wave comes that cannot be out-jumped. It washes over you. You are now submerged and completely terrified.

What is someone who professes faith in Christ to do when the waves of life wash over him? Will his faith prove to be genuine? Or will he spurn Christ and rush toward the false harbors of this world?

At such a moment of trial, we are forced into one of two positions: either cynicism and coldness of heart or true depth with God. A spouse betrays. A habitual sin, left unchecked, blows up in our face. We are publicly shamed in some way that will haunt us as long as we live. A malignant, inoperable tumor. Profound disillusionment in some way. It feels like “a deadly wound in my bones” (v. 10).

When that moment comes, sent by the hand of a tender Father, will we believe what we have confessed about God to be true, or will we suspect him of deserting us? The two lines of professed-belief and heart-belief, to this point parallel, are suddenly forced either to overlap completely or to move further apart. We cannot go on as before. And why does this happen? Because God will not let us remain the people we would be as long as the waves reached only our waist.

But above all else, when life implodes, remember that his own dear Son went through the greatest nightmare himself, in our place. The tidal wave of judgement from God washed over Another so that it need never wash over us.

This made me want to ask a few godly leaders I trust and respect for one song that they would like to have played at their funeral.

Below is an entry from Michael Reeves, president and professor of theology at Union School of Theology in Bridgend and Oxford, United Kingdom, and the author most recently of Rejoice and Tremble.

[See the other entries: Joni Eareckson Tada, Russell Moore]

As a teenager, I wanted to have Elgar’s “Nimrod” played at my funeral, as Winston Churchill had at his. Its poignant, melancholic grandeur appealed to my towering pride, for I wanted people to think much of me.

Now I would choose “Thine Be the Glory.”

My reasoning is simple: in the face of death I want people to look to the living, loving Jesus, conqueror of sin and death, and so sing a gospel hymn of triumph. Looking to him they will find the comfort they need. I also love how the tune captures the sense of the truth that death has lost its sting, and the feel of Jesus scattering our fear and gloom.

Thine be the glory, risen, conqu’ring Son;
endless is the vict’ry Thou o’er death hast won.
Angels in bright raiment rolled the stone away,
kept the folded grave-clothes where Thy body lay.

Thine be the glory, risen, conqu’ring Son;
endless is the vict’ry Thou o’er death hast won.

Lo, Jesus meets us, risen from the tomb.
Lovingly He greets us, scatters fear and gloom;
let His church with gladness hymns of triumph sing,
for the Lord now liveth; death hath lost its sting.

Thine be the glory, risen, conqu’ring Son;
endless is the vict’ry Thou o’er death hast won.

No more we doubt Thee, glorious Prince of life!!
Life is nought without Thee; aid us in our strife;
make us more than conqu’rors, through Thy deathless love;
bring us safe through Jordan to Thy home above.

Thine be the glory, risen, conqu’ring Son;
endless is the vict’ry Thou o’er death hast won.

This made me want to ask a few godly leaders I trust and respect for one song that they would like to have played at their funeral.

Below is an entry from Russell Moore, public theologian for Christianity Today.

[See the other entries: Joni Eareckson Tada]

My funeral service is already written out (and has been for about twenty years), and while there are several hymns included, all of which mean much to me, two stand out. Those hymns are “Just As I Am” and “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

Here’s why I chose them.

Both of these songs have to do with growing up as a child at Woolmarket Baptist Church in Biloxi, Mississippi.

“Just As I Am” was, like in many revivalist churches of the era, a standard “invitation hymn” played during the Altar Call, in which those wishing to profess faith or to ask for prayer were welcomed to the steps of the front of the church. I think as a child I always assumed this had been the case going all the way back to Augustine, and was surprised to learn that it was rooted instead in the relatively recent Billy Graham crusades of the mid-twentieth century.

I know many people criticize and caricature the so-called “invitation system,” and surely there was some manipulation involved with some. But, for me, those moments focused and reminded me of several things. First, I would remember that we weren’t a social club or a political society but an outpost of God’s mission calling the lost to the gospel. Second, I was always reminded both that I am a sinner and that God’s love for me in Christ wasn’t about my performance or my lists of accomplishments: that I stood before him “just as I am,” clothed in Christ. This hymn communicates for me the cross—that there God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The second hymn, “Onward Christian Soldiers” is likewise often caricatured—as militant or triumphalist. When I hear it, though, I remember marching into my church’s sanctuary for Vacation Bible School assemblies, with one of us carrying the American flag, another the Christian flag, and another the Bible. We would then pledge allegiance to all three. This was the closest thing we had to a formal liturgy, but it was enough to remind me that life in Christ is momentous, that we were part of something much larger than ourselves: the kingdom of Christ. And it reminded me that the eternal future waiting for us would come after much struggle but was exuberantly joyful. That hymn is included to remind whoever loved me and is there that my life story is not over at that funeral but is, by God’s grace, just beginning.

Those two songs represent both cross and kingdom, both grace and glory, both redemption and resurrection—and that’s what I would like to be the last word in this life and the first word in the next.

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bid’st me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come! I come!

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot;
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt;
Fightings within, and fears without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind;
Yes, all I need, in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Has broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Onward Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See, His banners go!
Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus,
Going on before.

At the name of Jesus
Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver
At the shout of praise:
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise!

Like a mighty army
Moves the Church of God:
Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod;
We are not divided,
All one Body we—
One in faith and Spirit,
One eternally.

Crowns and thrones may perish,
Kingdoms rise and wane;
But the Church of Jesus
Constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never
’Gainst the Church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise,
Which can never fail.

Onward, then, ye people!
Join our happy throng;
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor
Unto Christ, the King;
This through countless ages
Men and angels sing.

The original idea to do this book was made by Professor Don Lewis, a church historian, faculty colleague, and fellow church member with Packer. Lewis explains in the introduction how the book came about and the process that was used to turn Packer’s classroom teaching on Anglicanism into a book.

“This book is in a sense J. I. Packer’s last will and testament to the church he served for so many years. Reflecting on both the history and the theology of Anglicanism, he offers Anglicans and others a vision of the historic riches of the Anglican tradition and a vision for how the past can be used to address the present and the future. Distinctively Protestant yet catholic in spirit and tone, these pages reflect the thought, churchmanship, and piety of the man. I will always regard Packer as the great Presbyterian theologian we never had. But our loss was Anglicanism’s gain, as this book so admirably demonstrates.”

—Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College

“The subject matter of this book is vast, and only someone with particular gifts of theology, Christian commitment, and skillful communication could attempt to cover it. Packer succeeds with consummate mastery, lucidly guiding the reader through what he refers to as ‘a jungle of lush growth of all sorts.’ The result is a compelling, informative, and instructive read that should have its place in the lives of all Anglicans, theologians and laity alike. I recommend it most highly.”

—Benjamin Kwashi, Archbishop, Diocese of Jos, Nigeria; General Secretary, Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON)

This made me want to ask a few godly leaders I trust and respect for one song that they would like to have played at their funeral.

Joni Eareckson Tada is up first in the series. Here is her response:

Okay, if we’re not talking about hymns like “For All the Saints” or “Thine Be the Glory,” then I’d ask Laura Story to take a break from her busy schedule and come sing her anthem, “Blessings.”

I first heard it over a decade ago when I was still new at dealing with intractable pain.

I was sitting backstage at a disability conference, watching an interpreter sign the song for those who were Deaf. I was struck by her hand signs for the lyrics, “When darkness seems to win, we know that pain reminds our heart that this is not, this is not our home.”

Forgetting that I was moments from speaking, a reservoir of tears spilled over and I began sobbing—regrettably, I’d been nursing the thought that God was asking too much of me—agonizing pain on top of quadriplegia. This simple song put an end to that.

So, at my funeral, I want people to experience what I did that day, that their hardest trials are really their mercies in disguise. They are mercies because they force us into the arms of Jesus where, otherwise, we might not be inclined to go. When we see trials that way, our unruly hearts learn that this world is, in no way, our home.

We pray for blessings
We pray for peace
Comfort for family, protection while we sleep
We pray for healing, for prosperity
We pray for Your mighty hand to ease our suffering
All the while, You hear each spoken need
Yet love is way too much to give us lesser things

‘Cause what if your blessings come through raindrops
What if Your healing comes through tears
What if a thousand sleepless nights are what it takes to know You’re near
What if trials of this life are Your mercies in disguise

We pray for wisdom
Your voice to hear
We cry in anger when we cannot feel You near
We doubt your goodness, we doubt your love
As if every promise from Your Word is not enough
All the while, You hear each desperate plea
And long that we’d have faith to believe

When friends betray us
When darkness seems to win
We know that pain reminds this heart
That this is not our home

What if my greatest disappointments
Or the aching of this life
Is the revealing of a greater thirst this world can’t satisfy
What if trials of this life
The rain, the storms, the hardest nights
Are your mercies in disguise

Blessings lyrics © Capitol Christian Music Group

1. Filter images, not just websites
Other products on the market, like Disney’s Circle or Covenant Eyes, allow users to set filters on their wifi network to block websites. I use Circle and think it’s helpful. But many of the most popular websites feature a mix of appropriate and inappropriate content—Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, etc. It just is the nature of the modern Internet (and this is largely driven by the advent and embrace of user-generated content). In this kind of world, the all-or-nothing approach of blocking or allowing entire websites just doesn’t work.

Only Canopy allows users to filter content within websites. Canopy will allow you to view appropriate content on those sites, while filtering out what’s inappropriate, because it uses computer vision to analyze images on your screen as they are being loaded, and filters out inappropriate content real-time. With Canopy, you get the good without the bad and avoid all of those fights with your kids. No other technology does this.

2. Filter video not just still images
Canopy can work like that because it recognizes inappropriate content in video in addition to still images. This is also unique in the world of filters available to consumers and super-important since video is making up a greater and greater share of online content.

3. It works in the background
Internet filters offered today work one of two ways. Wifi filters block websites you deem inappropriate when you are attached to a particular network – but they don’t work when you leave that network. Browser filters block sites when you use that browser—but don’t prevent you or your kid from using a different browser. Canopy works in the background of your device, regardless of the browser you use and regardless of what network you are on.

4. It can prevent sexting
Canopy doesn’t just work on your browser, it works on your device. So when your kid receives a text message with sexual image, Canopy can filter it out. If your kid tries to snap an inappropriate photo of him or herself, Canopy will lock the image and send the parent a warning. Once locked, the image can’t be edited or shared.

Sean Clifford is the CEO of Canopy, a tech company in Austin that uses the most effective technology on the planet to block pornography. He was kind enough to answer some questions about their amazing technology and the vision behind their work.

Before we get into the details of how the technology works and why pornography is such a massive problem in our world today, let’s begin at a more personal level: Why do you care so much about this?

My wife and I have four children. We want to give them a chance to be kids. We want to provide them the space to develop a healthy understanding of intimacy. We would love for them to meet a great person, get married, and have happy marriages. All of those things become significantly harder in a world saturated by pornography.

As someone who cares about families flourishing, I think pornography is one of the greatest challenges we have to confront. It causes a tremendous amount of suffering, warps imaginations, impedes healthy relationships, destroys marriages, and more. This is borne out by survey research, medical studies, and a thousand heart-breaking anecdotes that I could share. Right now, it is hard to avoid even if you don’t seek it out.

Lastly, this topic touches on two of the most important questions of today: Can we live well with technology? And can we successfully regulate our appetites in a culture that is reluctant to suggest any sort of limits? We are in trouble if we don’t get these answers right. Canopy isn’t the entire solution, but it is a critical piece.

Can you tell me more about Canopy?

Canopy is a tech company on a mission to create a world of healthy tech users. We think the Internet is amazing, but recognize that it isn’t always safe for children. We are hopeful to change that by shifting the choice of what is seen from search engines, marketers and strangers back to families.

Our first product is a next-generation Internet filter that protects kids from online pornography, wherever it appears. One of the big challenges of navigating the digital world is that explicit content no longer is limited to pornography websites. It can appear anywhere and everywhere, which renders many of the traditional safeguards ineffective.

To confront this challenge, we are bringing advanced tech to the fight. Our software leverages cutting-edge technology that was developed, tested, and deployed in Israel. With these advances, our filter can detect sexually explicit content in real time and seamlessly remove it. We also employ the image-recognition AI to deter sexting by flagging if photos saved to the device contain nudity or minimal clothing.

You have made the argument that pornography has changed over the last few decades. What is the difference between “old porn” and “new porn,” and what sort of generational divide are you seeing when it comes to understanding just how harmful pornography can be?

A lot of people’s perception of pornography is stuck in the Sixties. They think Playboy: a few nude photos in a magazine that’s really hard to find. That’s “old porn” and it’s amazingly tame compared to what our kids are exposed to today.

“New porn” is much more addictive, harmful, and difficult to avoid. It’s a totally different problem than what parents faced with Playboy.

Let’s start with addiction. Video pornography is just more compelling than photos. Add the instant availability of the smartphone and the endless novelty of new content, and you have the most tempting and bingeable pornography ever made. It’s no wonder millions of Americans say they are addicted.

Next, let’s talk about the harmful impact of “new porn.” We know from the scientific literature that pornography is formative. It shapes our tastes, our perception of what’s normal, and the brain itself. For example, over time users have to watch more and more intense content to get the same effect. That means that a teenage boy with normal sexual desires can—after years of consuming pornography—find that he’s developed unhealthy and extreme tastes. That’s not a recipe for healthy, real-life relationships.

The real tragedy—and the problem we are determined to tackle—is just how hard “new porn” is to avoid. You don’t have to go looking for it, it now comes looking for you. It’s on social media, on group chats, and on “good” websites that you’d never expect to have explicit content.

Today, if parents don’t take action, it’s virtually inevitable that their children will be exposed to pornography. Statistically, it’s likely to happen before they graduate from elementary school. That’s terrifying.

There are growing criticisms of pornography as harmful to public health. But it seems to me that there are two kinds of health warnings that cultural gatekeepers can offer. On the one hand, there are poison warnings (ingest this, and it could kill you!); on the other hand, there are ingredient warnings (too much salt in your diet can have negative repercussions, so use it in moderation). I think a good swath of the elites’ analysis of pornography falls more into the latter category. Agree or disagree?

That assessment accurately describes the consensus perspective of the last 20 years, but things are changing. More and more folks are realizing that porn should come with a “poison warning” and not merely counsel for “moderation.”

Thanks to advances in science and medicine, we now know a lot more about how pornography impacts the brain and body. Studies suggest that porn can be overwhelmingly addictive, rewire the brain, and result in physical symptoms like erectile dysfunction. Moreover, as the very nature of porn shifts from “old porn” to “new porn,” its impact is much more pronounced. Pornhub is exponentially more addicting than Playboy, and that is starting to appear in the research.

Concern about pornography’s impact on children is not new, but it has taken on a greater weight as the nature of pornography has become more intense and the age of exposure continues to drop.

How does Canopy’s software work?

First, I should note that Canopy is a software program that works on smartphones, tablets, and computers. There is a dashboard app for parents to control settings and a child app that installs the filter, and it takes about 15 minutes to set up. At a high level, we designed Canopy to deliver families a porn-free Internet experience.

Our next-gen Internet filter was made possible by a few big tech breakthroughs. Our tech team developed an advanced artificial intelligence system that can detect pornographic content with over 99.7% accuracy. They also identified a way to scan and filter traffic in milliseconds, as you browse, to prevent exposure from happening in the first place.

Thanks to these advances, Canopy blocks porn websites, even if they are brand new and have never been scanned or tagged before.

Another unique feature is that we can seamlessly filter within web pages, serving the good without the bad. As explicit content no longer is limited to porn websites, this is a critical capability.

We also have a sexting prevention feature that can detect if photos saved to the device contain nudity or minimal clothing. Once an image is flagged, the child has the choice: delete the inappropriate photo or send it to a parent to review. That’s a powerful deterrent that can stop someone from sending a bikini or lingerie photo, which is typically the gateway to sending nudes.

A lot of readers use or have used various platforms, tools, and filters so that they don’t see pornography. How is Canopy different from what is currently on the market?

At a high level, one key distinction is that we are focused on prevention, not accountability. There are some good tools out there for accountability. Our goal is to prevent exposure. Turning to the customer experience, our product is unique in a few ways:

First, we block pornography that other filters miss. Most filters rely on a list of known bad websites, so they might miss new porn sites and pornography that appears on sites that contain both good and bad content. As our software filters traffic in real time, it can catch a lot more.

Second, by filtering within websites, Canopy can deliver the good without the bad. Traditional filters offer a blunt, all-or-nothing choice that blocks too much or too little. Do you want all of Twitter or none of Twitter? We like to think that we bring a scalpel instead of a butcher’s cleaver.

Third, Canopy is the only tool out there that scans and analyzes photos on the device to deter sexting. There are no other products on the market that offer that functionality.

Finally, we are tirelessly working to make Canopy as tamper-proof as possible. A filter that you can delete or circumvent isn’t very helpful. For example, we developed an uninstall prevention feature to prevent removal without permission, and when we can’t filter within apps, we grant parents the ability to limit access. We are always tracking how tech savvy teenagers get around filters (and frequently they do). Many of their approaches are ingenious, but they won’t work with Canopy.

Tell us a little bit more about your parent company and its track record in Israel.

Canopy is the U.S. expansion of Netspark, an Israeli technology company that has pioneered some incredible advances to keep families safe online.

An amazing figure, Rabbi Moshe Weiss, helped found the company to ensure that families could partake in the digital world without all of the toxic content that comes with it. Netspark has been active in Israel for more than a decade and now protects more than 2 million smartphones, tablets, and computers. Through partnerships with the Israeli Ministry of Education, Netspark’s technology helps safeguard more than 90% of the schools.

Beyond the numbers, the company is beginning to have an impact on the culture and has helped create a new social standard. We hear stories from our colleagues of parents asking other parents if their devices are protected in advance of a sleepover. They tell us of girls informing guys they need a filter on their devices in order to date and high school students taking it upon themselves to get a filter because they want to live free from temptations.

It is an encouraging case study and inspires what we would like to achieve here in the States.

If readers want to give Canopy a try, is there a discount code they could use for a free trial?

We’d love that! They can visit canopy.us and use the code “TGC” for 30 days free and 15% off forever.

And we really want to hear from folks who embrace this mission. Anyone can send us a note at feedback@hicanopy.com. We are committed to getting this right and welcome both feedback and new ideas for ways we can help families.

In July of 2021, Crossway will publish Garrett Kell’s Pure in Heart: Sexual Sin and the Promises of God, and in September 2021, Crossway will publish Ray Ortlund’s The Death of Porn: Men of Integrity Building a World of Nobility. I highly recommend both books.

As I seek to [move a man toward the logical conclusions of his presuppositions], I need to remind myself constantly that this is not a game I am playing.

If I begin to enjoy it as a kind of intellectual exercise, then I am cruel and can expect no real spiritual results.

As I push the man off his false balance, he must be able to feel that I care for him. Otherwise I will only end up destroying him, and the cruelty and ugliness of it all will destroy me as well.

Merely to be abstract and cold is to show that I do not really believe this person to be created in God’s image and therefore one of my kind. Pushing him towards the logic of his presuppositions is going to cause him pain; therefore, I must not push any further than I need to.

—Francis Schaffer, The God Who Is There (1968), in Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1990), 138.

J. I. Packer once offered a tribute to Schaeffer, called “No Little Person.” His description of Schaeffer’s manner should be the aim of every evangelist and apologist, indeed, every disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ:

There was no guile in it, no party narrowness, no manipulation, only the passionate persuasiveness of the prophet who hurries in to share with others what he himself sees.

If you want to read Schaeffer, Crossway has been redesigning and retypesetting a number of his classic works.

[Secular1, or Secular as Temporal]

1. In classical or medieval accounts, the “secular” amounted to something like “the temporal” — the realm of “earthly” politics or of “mundane” vocations. This is the “secular” of the purported sacred/ secular divide. The priest, for instance, pursues a “sacred” vocation, while the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker are engaged in “secular” pursuits.

Following Taylor, let’s call this secular1.

[Secular2, or Secular as Areligious]

2. In modernity, particularly in the wake of the Enlightenment, “secular” begins to refer to a nonsectarian, neutral, and areligious space or standpoint.

The public square is “secular” insofar as it is (allegedly) nonreligious; schools are “secular” when they are no longer “parochial” — hence “public” schools are thought to be “secular” schools. Similarly, in the late twentieth century people will describe themselves as “secular,” meaning they have no religious affiliation and hold no “religious” beliefs.

We’ll refer to this as secular2.

It is this notion of the secular that is assumed both by the secularization thesis and by normative secularism.

According to secularization theory, as cultures experienced modernization and technological advancement, the (divisive) forces of religious belief and participation wither in the face of modernity’s disenchantment of the world.

According to secularism, political spaces (and the constitutions that create them) should carve out a realm purified of the contingency, particularity, and irrationality of religious belief and instead be governed by universal, neutral rationality.

Secularism is always secularism2.

And secularization theory is usually a confident expectation that societies will be become secular2 — that is, characterized by decreasing religious belief and participation. People who self-identify as “secular” are usually identifying as areligious.

[Secular3, or Secular as an Age of Contested Belief]

3. But Taylor helpfully articulates a third sense of the secular (secular3) — and it is this notion that should be heard in his title: A Secular Age. A society is secular3 insofar as religious belief or belief in God is understood to be one option among others, and thus contestable (and contested).

At issue here is a shift in “the conditions of belief.” As Taylor notes, the shift to secularity “in this sense” indicates “a move from a society where belief in God is unchallenged and indeed, unproblematic, to one in which it is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace.”

It is in this sense that we live in a “secular age” even if religious participation might be visible and fervent.

And it is in this sense that we could still entertain a certain “secularization3 thesis.” But this would be an account not of how religion will wither in late modern societies, but rather of how and why the plausibility structures of such societies will make religion contestable (and contested).

It is the emergence of “the secular” in this sense that makes possible the emergence of an “exclusive humanism” — a radically new option in the marketplace of beliefs, a vision of life in which anything beyond the immanent is eclipsed.

“For the first time in history a purely self-sufficient humanism came to be a widely available option. I mean by this a humanism accepting no final goals beyond human flourishing, nor any allegiance to anything else beyond this flourishing. Of no previous society was this true.”

It is now hard for me to hear this old hymn without also thinking about this word from John Piper at T4G 2014 on the sovereign God of the universe who softly and tenderly calls his own.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Mark Yarhouse explains:

Many people struggle with how to make sense of sexual ethics if a person does not choose experiences of same-sex attraction.

However, the Christian sexual ethic does not hinge on the causes of sexual orientation.

Whether an impulse comes “from within” or is the result of one’s environment or, more likely, if an impulse is the result of some combination, Christianity teaches that believers evaluate their impulses in light of God’s revealed will for behavior and whether a pattern of behavior ought to characterize the Christian over time.

As Christians, we know that “nature” and “nurture” have a complex inteprlay under the sovereignty of God with regard to our development in both positive and negative ways. David Powlison helpfully breaks down nature into creation nature (our nature as the result of being created in God’s image) and sin nature (our nature as a result of falling into sin), and then sin nurture (ways in which rebellion is modeled and encouraged) and grace nurture (ways in which godly behavior is modeled and encouraged).

Putting it all together, we can see there’s a lot of ground between “born this way” and “a conscious, punctiliar, autonomous choice.”

In the video at the top of this post, Professor Christopher Yuan—author of Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story—explains about what we know and can conclude about genetics and sexual attraction.

For further reading, see:

• Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? 
• Sam Allbery, Is God Anti-Gay?
• Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story—
• Rosaria Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert
• Jackie Hill Perry, Gay Girl, Good God
• Christopher Yuan and Angela Yuan, Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope

I was thrilled in 2009 when Zondervan published Greg’s signature book, which has more recently been released in a 10th anniversary edition: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Here’s an endorsement I wrote for the first edition:

In this wise and compelling book, Greg Koukl—who has thought long and hard about not only what to say but how to say it—provides a game plan for equipping believers through an artful method of careful thinking and winsome conversation.

If you struggle with how to talk about your faith and respond to questions and objections in a meaningful and effective way—and most of us do—there is no better book to buy, read, and put into practice. I could not recommend it more highly!

I recently led a video course for an adult Sunday School class at our church, watching Greg lead through this material. I was reminded once again what a master teacher he is and how wise and careful (and realistically doable) this material is.

STR is now offering free courses. You can see a sample of the material from the Tactics course at the top of this post.

Q. 143. Which is the ninth commandment?

A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are,

• the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;
• appearing and standing for the truth; and
• from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever;
• a charitable esteem of our neighbors;
• loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;
• sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities;
• freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency;
• a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them;
• discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers;
• love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;
• keeping of lawful promises;
• studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are,

• all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature;
• giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;
• passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil;
• rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;
• forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others;
• speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice;
• speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring;
• misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;
• denying the gifts and graces of God;
• aggravating smaller faults;
• hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;
• unnecessary discovering of infirmities;
• raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense;
• evil suspicion;
• envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any;
• endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;
• scornful contempt, fond admiration;
• breach of lawful promises;
• neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

It does not matter whether 50,000 espouse its cause,
or only five,
or only one.

Truth does not reign by the ballot box,
or by the counting of heads:
it abideth for ever.

All the tongues of men and of angels cannot make truth more true;
and all the howlings of devils and doubters
cannot transform it into a lie.

Glory be to God for this!

—C. H. Spurgeon, “An Address for Sad Times,” in Only a Prayer Meeting! (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1901), p. 146.

Like many other fools, I use my phone for my alarm clock.

Picking up my phone before I’ve even sat upright or set my feet on the floor used to mean not just turning my alarm off but quickly and casually checking email, looking at my calendar appointments and obligations for the day, and even scrolling through social media apps.

For the longest time, this meant that even if my first task of the morning was time spent reading the Bible, I typically came to God’s Word with other words already occupying my mind.

The Holy Spirit was kind to convict me about whose words take first priority in my day. I still use my phone as my clock, but the very first thing I do after turning off the alarm in the morning, before I’ve even sat up, is open up one of my Bible apps and ponder whatever the Lord has for me that morning.

My substantive Bible study time will come later when I’m more fully awake, but I still want his words to be the first words I hear each day. This practice is not primarily a function of study, though it’s usually impossible not to think for a while on the passages I’m encountering in these moments. It is primarily a function of worship. I want my daily thoughts and affections to have their agenda set by God. And I want to bring this spirit of worship with me later when I dive into Bible study more deeply

—Jared C. Wilson, Gospel-Driven Ministry: An Introduction to the Calling and Work of a Pastor (Zondervan, 2021), 47–48.

• The Imperial Diet was the general assembly of the imperial estates of the Holy Roman Empire.
• Worms [pronounced more like verms] was a German town on the western bank of the Rhine River.

On April 17, 1521, Luther arrived in Worms after completing his 15-day, 300-mile journey from Wittenberg.

At 4 PM he was taken to the Bishop’s Court and waited for two hours to see the Emperor.

Then at 6 PM he appeared before the Diet, led by Charles V, the 21-year-old Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and Johann Eck, his 33-year-old spokesman.

Along with them were the Roman advisers and representatives, Spanish troops, and the German political elite.

Luther was asked two questions:

1. Do you acknowledge having written these twenty books lying here?
2. Are you prepared to retract them as a whole or in part?

Luther was taken aback; he was expecting debate, not a yes or no answer. After Luther’s lawyer Hieronymus Schurff objected, “Let the titles of the books be read!” Luther responded in a barely audible voice: “The books are all mine and I have written more.”

As to the second question, Luther responded: “This touches God and his word. This affects the salvation of souls. Of this Christ said, ‘He who denies Me before men, him will I deny before My father.’ To say too little or too much would be dangerous. I beg you, give me time to think it over.”

The assembly reluctantly gave him 24 hours to think it through. He responded the next evening with his famous answer.

Meanwhile, where is God?

This is one of the most disquieting symptoms.

When you are happy, so happy that you have no sense of needing Him, so happy that you are tempted to feel His claims upon you as an interruption, if you remember yourself and turn to Him with gratitude and praise, you will be—or so it feels—welcomed with open arms.

But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find?

A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside.

After that, silence.

You may as well turn away. The longer you wait, the more emphatic the silence will become. There are no lights in the windows. It might be an empty house. Was it ever inhabited? It seemed so once. And that seeming was as strong as this. What can this mean? Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in our time of trouble?

But praise be to God. It’s only Friday. Sunday’s coming.

The Gospel Coalition has posted an excellent essay from Benjamin C. F. Shaw laying out six facts that support the credibility of the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead:

1. Death by crucifixion was not something that the followers of Jesus were likely to invent.
2. Burial account fits with all historical evidence that we have.
3. The claim of the empty tomb was easily verifiable, but there are no contradictory accounts.
4. The apostles claim to have met the resurrected Jesus face-to-face.
5. These apostles were willing to suffer and die for these claims.
6. Those who were very unlikely to be converted to this belief were, nonetheless, converted by means of personal experiences of the resurrected Christ.

The two videos below, from the Reasonable Faith ministry of William Lane Craig, they focus on three main facts that need to be explained:

1. The discovery of Jesus’s empty tomb
2. The appearance of Jesus alive after his death
3. The disciples’ belief that Jesus rose from the dead

Today, you almost certainly know someone who identifies as transgender—especially if they are teenage girls.

In the 5-minute video above, Abigail Shrier—author of the important book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters—analyzes this disturbing trend, why it is happening, and why it will lead to harm instead of help.

Shrier—a Jewish author—has done outstanding reporting on this phenomenon. Do note, though, that her primary critique is not against transgenderism per se but rather on the social phenomenon of contagion among teenage girls who never reported experiencing gender dysphoria growing up.

The best overall general book critiquing transgenderism is Ryan Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement.

The best book that tells the cultural history of how we has a society came to accept the notion that a man could be a woman trapped inside a man’s body is Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution. (Coming in February 2022 will be a shorter, more accessible version of Trueman’s book, entitled Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution.)

Here is how they start their summary overview article on the theme.

Temple

Israel’s temple in the Bible is described as the place where God’s space and humanity’s space are one. In fact, the whole biblical drama can be told as a story about God’s temple.

The temple is a place where heaven and earth meet.

The ancient Israelite temple was a gigantic symbol that visualized God’s desire to live together with his human creatures and rule the world through them.

If you were to ask any ancient Israelite to tell you the most important place on earth, you would get a clear and consistent answer: the temple in Jerusalem. It’s the place where heaven and earth meet, where the creator God has chosen to take up residence among his people. It’s a sacred place where Israel’s priestly representatives enter into God’s presence on their behalf to express thanks, confession, and praise. This building attracted Israelite pilgrims for centuries and was a cornerstone of their covenant relationship with God.

Was the temple just a building?

But this amazing building did even more. It told a story through its visual symbolism, a story that reaches back to the beginning of humanity’s story as told in Genesis chs. 1-3. There God appoints humanity as his royal and priestly representatives to rule the world on his behalf. And when the biblical authors start describing creation and the garden of Eden, any ancient Israelite reader would have understood these as temple images.

Read the rest here.

For a book-length work on this, see J. Daniel Hays, The Temple and the Tabernacle: A Study of God’s Dwelling Places from Genesis to Revelation.

These videos, using replicas and computerized animation, do a nice job of visually orienting readers to the tabernacle and the subsequent temples in Jerusalem in the redemptive plan of God. Note two things: (1) Having worked closely with Leen Ritmeyer (one of the world’s leading experts on these reconstructions) on the ESV Study Bible, I think these renderings are quite accurate. (2) These videos are produced by Mormons. So I would not recommend subscribing to the videos at the end, as you are invited to do.

Sermon excerpts from John Piper taken from the Sing! National City Tour at the SSE Arena in Belfast, Ireland.

We are unworthy of the cross. Yet, because of the cross, we are worthy. That is the paradox at the heart of the Christian faith: our worth is not in what we own, what we do, or how hard we try. It is found only in the death of Christ. The Worthy One, the Son of God, laid aside his glory to take our sin upon him. He was crucified for the unworthy, the undeserving. By his sacrifice, he crowns us with worth, showing that he loves us at the infinite cost of his own life.

In this new edition of the song “My Worth Is Not in What I Own” (featuring We Are Messengers), John Piper points us again to the foot of the cross, where we find our worth in the Savior who gave himself for us.

I would like to commend it, in a qualified way, while critiquing the actual argument.

I trust readers know how much I admire David. He is a bright legal mind and a deeply principled and courageous man. He is one of the few Christians who is able to bring gospel-centered arguments into the public square. (You have to admire a man who writes a weekly column for a non-religious publication and includes a worship song at the end of every post!) He is regularly and shamefully maligned and slandered, even though he is usually on the side of the angels!

I know you don’t need to see these kinds of things about everyone you critique, but I want to say it.

Before I go further, it’d probably be helpful if you read the whole thing first if you haven’t. (And while you’re at it, consider subscribing to the Dispatch—they have great writers offering conservative fact-based reporting in a hyper-partisan age.)

David begins by noting that when there’s a mass murder, we all immediately want to know why.

He makes the following points:

(1) This impulse is understandable and good.

(2) This impulse, in practice, can be toxic and destructive if we use it to spike a political football or to dunk on our ideological opponents.

But . . .

(3) It is still necessary to know why such evil happens, even if our sacred cows are harmed in the investigative process.

On the sexual angle, David writes: “the evidence of the shooter’s sexual confusion and dysfunction continued to mount. And so it’s important to focus on what we do know, on where the evidence is leading us now.”

No argument from me so far.

So what’s the evidence?

David writes:

(1) The shooter is a Christian young man, baptized in a local Baptist church.

(2) He struggled so deeply with sexual sin that he was a patient at a local Evangelical treatment facility, called HopeQuest.

(3) He reportedly told a former roommate at a different recovery center that his “very salvation was at stake” if he couldn’t overcome his sexual sin.

We can add to the evidence a quote from earlier in David’s essay:

(4) He shot the women because “they were a temptation for him he wanted to eliminate.”

(David adds: “we don’t automatically take a killer’s word as the final explanation for his motives.” David says this about the racial angle—don’t take this as evidence that there was nothing racial in his motives; the act speaks for itself. But I think it should also apply the sexual angle as well.)

Now keep these four things in mind as we go, because they do an enormous amount of work as the foundation for what follows in the essay.

David writes: “The shooter’s stated beliefs and deadly actions represented a hyper-violent and extreme manifestation of a toxic theology that long corrupted a slice of Evangelical Christianity.”

So at this point he’s drawn a connection, based on the purported evidence, between the shooter’s beliefs, actions, and a toxic form of evangelicalism.

The rest of the piece elucidates this “toxic theology,” namely, “purity culture,” which he distinguishes from mainstream / normal / conventional traditional teaching on sex.

Again, keep that distinction in mind.

David does acknowledge that “some purity teaching was both orthodox and beneficial, other teaching kept lurching towards the same extremes.”

I could quibble with some of the analysis in this section, mainly at the level of prevalence—simply because I don’t know. Were “hundreds of thousands of families” hanging onto Gothard’s teachings? Maybe. I’d just like to see some data for that at some point, not just anecdotal evidence. The piece also sort of lumps Josh Harris and Bill Gothard together. I think Josh was more on the orthodox side (though certainly not without blindspots!), and Gothard was obviously on the extreme side.

But suffice it to say: I agree with all of the critiques of Gothard-level toxicity. That’s not my concern at all about the article.

My questions are about the overall argument of the piece. Does it hold together? More formally, Is the argument sound? Is it a valid argument with true premises that lead inevitably to the conclusion?

To answer that, we have to ask: What is the connection between the killer and toxic purity theology and culture? The piece assumes a connection but never gets around to demonstrating one. And that leads to the weird experience of reading something where I agree with virtually every single word and yet find that the actual argument doesn’t hold together.

I think a barbaric act of murder requires a healthy dose of epistemic humility when we have such fragmentary evidence. It’s okay to acknowledge how much we don’t know. And yet within minutes or hours of the sheriff quoting that the killer said he wanted to “eliminate temptation,” there were prominent Christians writing stern warnings to Southern Baptist pastors and seminary presidents and people who had criticized Beth Moore about the life-and-death repercussions of their theology.

There were prominent Christians writing news articles and opinion pieces quoting a boilerplate evangelical sermon the pastor of the killer’s church had delivered the previous Sunday on the second coming of Christ.

There were prominent Christians writing about reckoning with our role in shaping the culture that gave rise to these events.

There were prominent Christians connecting the killer’s motives to the teachings of John Piper and Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth on modesty.

One professor at a Christian university even tweeted a link to the name and address of the church and simply declared, “He was radicalized here.”

David approvingly quotes Karen Swallow Prior’s line, “Culture cultivates,” and elaborates:

A culture that defines a person by their sexual sin cultivates misery. When it places women in a position of guarding a man’s heart, it cultivates abuse. And sometimes, when a man’s heart is particularly dark, it can even cultivate murder.The problem with purity culture is not Christianity. The problem with purity culture is that its extremes are not Christian at all.

Another thing I agree with!

But what’s the evidence that the shooter, who would have been in youth group during the presidencies of Obama and Trump, was taught the toxic purity culture that peaked in the 1990s?

My argument is not “no evidence will ever or could ever exist,” but rather “no one actually knows, and therefore we shouldn’t draw that connection until and unless evidence emerges.”

If I was a betting man, I would actually put a hefty wager on this young man having heard the normative / traditional / orthodox teaching on sexuality that David French taught his youth group instead of the toxic legalism that Bill Gothard taught.

And if that’s true, then the argument of this piece basically falls apart. It could become a good standalone article on purity culture, but not a very illuminating one of the killer and his theological culture.

(By the way, if you want to hear from the church itself, you can read their statement.)

So my encouragement to everyone: let’s slow down on drawing connections that might seem obvious but are actually quite tenuous.

While I’m at it, let me commend a brief post by Samuel James, offering a few thoughts. Here are the first two as a teaser:

1. When a mass murderer tells police that he was “eliminating temptation,” I don’t think the right response is to assume he is telling the truth even by his own perspective. Maybe he really thinks that’s what he was doing. But maybe he killed eight people because he despaired at life and was angry, and decided later that “eliminating temptation” was a rationale that made sense and kept him from committing suicide.

2. In any event, it is definitely the wrong response to assume that his parents, friends, or pastors taught him—explicitly or implicitly—to do this. If you’re tempted to think this way, imagine that the group that mentored him are not someone you dislike such as “purity culture evangelicals,” but somebody different.

You can read the whole thing here.

Update: Before I wrote up this post, Kevin DeYoung did an outstanding podcast episode on this subject. I recommend it highly.

Dane and I met when he was a college student and I was a seminary student, working at Desiring God. We sat together at a table surrounded by older, wiser godly people: Ray and Anne Ortlund (his grandparents), Ray and Jani Ortlund (his parents), John Piper (my pastor and boss at the time), and Dane’s siblings.

After that, Dane sent me occasional handwritten letters by snail-mail, encouraging me to press on in the faith. Dane wasn’t into calligraphy or expensive pens. The letters were written with cheap pens on notebook paper. But there was something endearing about a young man who still believed in such things even in an age of email.

I started at Crossway in early 2006. Dane started in the summer of 2010. So we worked together for ten years—first as colleagues, and then he eventually became my boss.

In October of 2020 he left to take his very first pastorate—in the midst of a global health crisis that introduced countless challenges into the world and the church.

Dane is a world-class New Testament scholar, able to operate at the highest level. (Maybe he’ll complete and publish some day his technical monograph on Markan eschatology.) But it says something about the man that he went into Bible publishing, and then to pastoring a local church, when he easily could have been a full-time academic.

When I would walk into his office, I was less interested in what was on his bookshelves than what was on his desk. It was always an ESV Bible, a Greek New Testament, a Hebrew Old Testament, and an unabridged work by an old dead Puritan like Thomas Goodwin or John Owen or John Bunyan, replete with his enthusiastic pencil underlinings and marginal notations.

In August of 2018, Crossway’s book publication committee (on which Dane sat) formally considered his proposal for a book entitled, Gentle and Lowly: The Heart of Christ for Sinners and Sufferers. Dane recused himself from the discussion.

Dane and I had talked about the book’s possibility months before. But his inclination was to let the ideas marinate—for decades. He thought he’d finally be ready to write it when he was in his sixties. I reminded him that none of us knows his day or hour, and thus it might never be written. And why not help the church now rather than making it wait that long? He agreed.

For every book that reaches this level with our committee, the acquisitions editor writes a memo. I don’t think I’ve ever shared one of these publicly before, since this is proprietary internal information not for public distribution. But I can share with you some of what I wrote that summer, nearly two and half years ago:

I genuinely enjoy writing these memos. But they are not always easy. We try to be relatively objective, representing the author (as an advocate for the project) but more fundamentally, representing Crossway (as an analyst of the project).

So how do I introduce or review a book written by someone who is not only a friend but also a beloved colleague? How do I avoid the appearance of hyperbole when I think the proposed work is not only the most important thing he has written but also has the potential to be a classic that serves and instructs and encourages and chastens and edifies the church for years to come? . . .

The prospects of publishing a book like this is the kind of thing that gets me up in the morning. I think it will have very strong sales and will be a breakout book by Dane.

He officially submitted the book to us on May 9, 2019, with — as he put it in his cover email — “fear and trembling.”

I was right about the sales and the ministry effect of this work—not because I have some prophetic insight, but because the book is that manifestly good and true and right.

As Reformed theologian Michael Horton put it: “Dane Ortlund leads us into the very heart of God incarnate—not only what Jesus did for us, but how he feels toward us. That’s right: feels toward us. Anchored in Scripture and drawing on the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, this book is medicine for broken hearts.”

Lord willing, Crossway will have printed over 1.5 million copies of the book by the end of this summer. I have heard from countless people that they are buying multiple copies of the book and that it has deeply impacted their lives for good. (My colleague Samuel James wrote about what the book’s popularity tells us about our view of God’s love.)

I love Dane Ortlund.

I miss him at Crossway—he had the loudest laugh, often offered penetrating spiritual and exegetical and theological insight, and had a buoyant spirit that is contagious. (And I’m told he is also the fiercest ping pong player.)

I thank God for Dane Ortlund.

I am deeply honored that he is a Crossway author and that Crossway had the privilege of publishing this modern classic.

I was created in the image of the living God.

By his grace, I have been rescued from slavery to sin and am now a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My identity as an image bearer of God gives me dignity.

My identity as a redeemed servant of the Lord, united to Christ, comes with covenantal obligations, including how I think about my life and my death.

The principles and presuppositions of the Word of God require that I reject active euthanasia (directly and intentionally taking one’s own life or the life of another). It is never an act of love or faithfulness to use medical means (or any other means) to hasten human death.

In addition to this—and this is perhaps more disputed among Christians—I have now come to believe that that one can in faith (that is, without sin) decline ineffective or excessively burdensome medical treatment.

Dr. Kathryn Butler articulates the principle in her book, Between Life and Death: A Gospel-Centered Guide to End-of-Life Medical Care (Crossway, 2019):

We can:

1. seek aggressive treatments when they offer hope of recovery but
2. decline aggressive treatments

a. when they only prolong death, or
b. when they inflict suffering without commensurate benefit.

Many Christians—myself included—have assumed that being pro-life means extending life as long as possible. If, for example, a feeding tube can provide the food and water, or a ventilator can pump oxygen, then we should always use all the means at our disposal to preserve a human life.

Professor Bill Davis, a Christian philosopher at Covenant College and a PCA elder, makes an interesting observation about this in his thorough and helpful book, Departing in Peace: Biblical Decision-Making at the End of Life (P&R, 2017), showing that the answer to this question—Should we do everything medically possible to sustain life?—has changed even though God’s Word has not changed.

CPR and breathing machines changed death and dying.

Before these life-sustaining measures became common in the 1960s, doing everything medically possible did not result in long periods of unconsciousness before death. If someone’s heart stopped beating, there was nothing to be done. If someone’s breathing stopped, there was no way to breathe for that person. Someone who was unconscious might wake up, but if his or her heart or lungs stopped working, the person was dead.

Now, fifty years into the age of life-sustaining medical treatment, “do everything” covers a much wider range of medical possibilities. It is now possible to keep someone’s heart and lungs working for months even when the person is unconscious and his or her organs are too weak to function without help. When life-sustaining treatments are used to help in curing an infection or an injury, the treatments are a great blessing even when they are quite expensive.

Often, however, life-sustaining treatments do not contribute to a cure, at least not humanly speaking. Ventilator support for someone who is unconscious from a massive head injury is not part of a medical plan to cure the injury. God can always intervene supernaturally, but life-sustaining treatments may be extending physical life only by imposing serious burdens on the person who is sick. . . .

Here is the biblical principle that Professor Davis argues for:

God’s Word permits us in some cases to say no to life-sustaining medical treatment.

He continues:

If I had written on this subject one hundred years ago, I would have rejected this key principle.

Yet the Word of God has not changed.

What has changed is the range of medical options.

I was born in 1960, four years before CPR became a standard part of a medical-school education. Kidney dialysis, defibrillators, and ventilators (machines to support breathing) were developed even later than CPR. In 1960, people who are today kept alive “by machines” would all have died from their diseases. The medical advances of the last sixty years have been exciting, but they have also made it harder to think through our obligations about medical care. The Bible teaches that we must accept medical attention that is likely to cure us of our diseases. As Christ’s servants, we are called to maintain our health so that we can serve him well.

Before the development of life-sustaining medical treatments, this obligation to use medical means to maintain our health would have meant that we were obligated to use all available medical means to stay alive.

God’s Word commands us to defend life, but it does not command us in every circumstance to use medical techniques to extend it as long as possible.

Butler also reminds us—based on her years as a trauma surgeon—that in some scenarios, end-of-life interventions can actually cause harm. For example, ventilators cause pneumonia; CPR breaks ribs; tube feeding increases mortality among people with advanced dementia. Such adverse effects can warranted if the condition is reversible and the interventions can be a means of ushering someone back to health and bringing them home. But in cases when such care is futile, continued medical interventions can be a failure of stewardship and neighbor love.

What Should You Do Next?

I recommend the following steps:

1. Determine to complete an advanced directive. This allows you to put in writing, in a legally recognized document, your desires in advance. This is an act of love for your loved ones to make your wishes known. Don’t wait until you are sick or until you are retired. Everyone age 18 or older should have one.
2. My first choice would not be the standard state forms, which require you to check a box, yes or no, for various scenarios. The logic on the forms can be a bit confusing and have led some readers to misinterpret what it is asking. If, however, this is what you want to use, make sure to use this invaluable resource from Bill Davis, where he has filled out each state’s form in a biblically acceptable way.
3. I personally recommend instead the Five Wishes Document, which has written by a pro-life leader in consultation with the American Bar Association’s Commission on Law & Aging and is recognized in all 50 states. It is written in plain language, allows you to add your own narrative, and to express your wishes for more than just the hard cases.
4. For help in thinking through the issues, I highly recommend consulting Butler’s book and Davis’s book. They are both wise and mature Christians, with different expertises, but complementary perspectives. You could start with this article by Dr. Butler for the general idea and biblical orientation. The biblical principles collected in the back of Davis’s book, which he argues for throughout the book, are incredibly thoughtful and careful.
5. (If you want something thorough, philosophical, and biblical on active euthanasia, consult a book like John Feinberg and Paul Feinberg’s Ethics for a Brave New World, chapter 4).
6. If you are an elder or teacher in the church, consider teaching a Sunday School or Wednesday evening class on this. Bill Davis has done all of the hard work for you. See his free four-week-long study guides and lesson plans for personal and group study available here.

What Is Liturgy?

Many theologians have called the order of service a “liturgy.” The Greek term leitourgia referred to work done for the good of the public. When used in the context of a church gathering, “liturgy” refers to the “work” or ministry of exaltation and edification for which God gathers his people—or better, that God himself performs in and through his people.

Let me disclose that I’m ambivalent about the word “liturgy.” It’s become trendy, and I’m not sure if writers who use it always mean the same thing. I usually prefer to speak of the “order of service.” But for the sake of joining and hopefully contributing to the conversation, I’ll use “liturgy” in this chapter. For me, liturgy refers to the order of the worship service, particularly how it reveals and reinforces the nature of the service itself.

To be sure, some may associate the idea of liturgy with high-church formalism and rote tradition. But in reality, every church has a liturgy. No matter how simple or complex, how short or long, each church’s order of service expresses a set of theological values. And in turn, the liturgy gradually inculcates those same values in the church’s members.

Liturgy as Corporate Discipleship

We should see the church’s worship service—the whole thing, not just the sermon—as a mass discipling activity. Mike Cosper says it well: “The gathering isn’t simply a single spiritual discipline; it’s a host of them. It’s a way of taking the experiences of prayer and worship, which we so often compartmentalize and individualize, and unifying them in the life of the congregation.”

Since the gathering is such a powerful corporate discipling tool, we should treat liturgy with care. Here’s how Bryan Chapell puts it:

Whether one intends it or not, our worship patterns always communicate something. Even if one simply goes along with what is either historically accepted or currently preferred, an understanding of the gospel inevitably unfolds. If a leader sets aside time for Confession of Sin (whether by prayer, or by song, or by scripture reading), then something about the gospel gets communicated. If there is no Confession in the course of the service, then something else is communicated—even though the message conveyed may have not been intended.

Imagine a diamond ring. The order of a worship service acts like the prongs that hold up the gleaming jewel of the gospel. Our liturgy should support and undergird the message of God’s grace in Christ that we proclaim. Ideally, like the best prongs, the liturgy is unobtrusive—it gets out of the way so that the gospel shines bright and unhindered. Conversely, a poor liturgy is like a set of prongs that overshadow the diamond. The gem may still be present, but it’s obscured. If a church isn’t careful, its order of service can muddle rather than illuminate the good news.

Two Examples

To see how this works in practice, imagine two different church gatherings. Each congregation is the same size. They use the same musical instruments: keyboard, guitar, bass, and drums. More importantly, they affirm the same basic theological beliefs. But their liturgies differ in consequential ways.

The first was typical at the church I served at in my early twenties. It’s a common evangelical liturgy. It begins with an energetic gathering song. Next, a pastor welcomes the church and invites everyone to greet those sitting nearby. He then offers a brief prayer asking God to bless the meeting. After that, the band leads a “set” of three praise songs, often in a sequence moving from an upbeat song about God, to a medium-tempo song reflecting on what God has done, and concluding with a slow song of adoration to God. The worship leader closes the set in prayer, echoing the words of the previous song. A video clip introduces the theme of the sermon. The pastor then steps up to a bar table, reads a text of Scripture, delivers his message, and prays. He invites the congregation to sing a closing song, after which he gives a benediction. The band launches into the chorus of the final song as folks get up and leave their seats.

The second gathering is a service at Igreja Presbiteriana Barra Funda (Barra Funda Presbyterian Church) in São Paulo, Brazil. An elder begins the service by reading a call to worship from 1 Peter 2:9-10. He then offers an opening prayer. The congregation sings the hymn “The Church’s One Foundation” in Portuguese. Next comes a scripture reading from Leviticus 26:1-13. The congregation sings a song entitled “Your People,” and then a member leads a prayer of praise. Another song, “Across the Lands,” follows. Then the pastor preaches from Acts 2:42-47. On this particular Sunday, the congregation reads their membership covenant aloud and sings the hymn “Wine and Bread” to prepare for the Lord’s Supper. A pastor leads in a prayer of confession, then the church celebrates communion. Finally, the pastor offers an intercessory prayer before concluding the service with a benediction.

What do these different liturgies communicate? What values do they reveal?

Let’s start with the second one. At Igreja Presbiteriana Barra Funda, the order of service intersperses Scripture readings, prayers, and songs, which allows these various elements to interpret and shed light on one another. Notice how the readings from 1 Peter 2 and Leviticus 26 focus on the people of God. The titles of the songs show the same theme. These hymns and texts were chosen to set up the sermon text from Acts 2, which describes the fellowship of the Jerusalem church. We can see from the different prayers that various parts of the service center on praise, or confession, or petition. In sum, this liturgy deliberately guides the church through an engagement with God centered on his Word. God speaks to begin the gathering; his people respond in prayer and song. God speaks in other Scripture readings and in the sermon, and his people respond by celebrating the Lord’s Supper and bringing their intercessions to him in another prayer.

Contrast the gathering at Barra Funda with the first order of service I mentioned. That liturgy isn’t sinful or wrong per se. But I wouldn’t classify it as wise, healthy, or commendable. It has at least four weaknesses.

First, this service—presumably unintentionally—divides worship through song and worship through sermon. In fact, folks who attend services like this all too often describe the singing as the worship, as if the other parts of the service aren’t also part of how we glorify God. The structure reinforces this misunderstanding. There’s a staging change (from music stands to bar stool and table) and a video clip as a sort of liturgical buffer between the singing section and the sermon section, making them feel separate and disconnected.

Second, this liturgy begins with us speaking to God in song followed by him speaking to us. That order is confusing. God first reveals himself to us by his Word. As we saw earlier, God works in and through us in corporate worship. He empowers our response to him. So, although this service may be designed to appear casual and approachable, it ironically asks too much of congregants. It expects them to be ready to jump into energetic songs of praise without hearing a reminder of who God is and what he has done for us in Christ.

Third, this order of service leaves two of the most essential elements of corporate worship out to dry: prayer and Scripture reading. There is no other Scripture reading in the service, aside from what the pastor might read in his sermon. And the prayers serve as transitions, not as substantive elements of worship in their own right.

Fourth, aside from within the set of songs, the service doesn’t develop any broader narrative or theme. There’s no sense of movement from considering God’s character to praise, or from hearing God’s law to confession, or from meditating on the gospel to thanksgiving. The best meals come in multiple courses that build upon each other in succession. This meal, however, lacks such a deliberate progression. It feels like the burger and fries from a drive-thru.

Look at the structure of your church’s most recent gathering. What is the “story” that it tells through the arrangement of the various elements? Is it a story worth instilling in your congregation, week after week?

If the liturgy emphasizes God speaking in his Word and his people listening, it fosters a congregational attitude of submitting to Scripture. If the service includes substantive prayers of praise, confession, petition, and thanksgiving, it will both teach folks to pray and reinforce the church’s identity as a people of prayer. If the liturgy regularly underscores the depths of our sin before exulting in the heights of God’s love in Christ, it trains the congregation to value Jesus’ sacrifice. If the liturgy makes the sermon central, it teaches the church to esteem preaching as vital to its life and health.

A Word of Caution

At this juncture, though, I need to add a warning. Some theologians and leaders seem to talk about liturgy as if it is the primary tool that will bring greater health to Christian churches. They treat liturgical reform as The Answer to any number of problems in evangelicalism today. The argument goes something like this: since the order of our worship shapes our desires, then getting liturgy right is the key for Christian formation and growth. Are believers materialistic? The pattern of the liturgy will train their hearts to desire God’s kingdom more than this world. Are believers individualistic? Liturgy shapes their identity as part of the community of faith. Are believers unconcerned with justice? The right order of service will awaken in them a passion for equity and righteousness. And so on.

I agree that liturgy is a powerful force to shape our hearts. That’s why I’ve spent this whole chapter encouraging you to be as thoughtful as possible about the order of your church service. Liturgy provides a skeleton, and it matters to have a skeleton as strong and well connected as possible. But you need more than a skeleton to have a living, breathing body. The actual content of each element of the service matters more than the order in which they are arranged.

Recall the excellent order of service from Igreja Presbiteriana Barra Funda we surveyed earlier. What if the hymns were changed to songs that lack key truths about God’s grace for us in Christ? What if the prayers and the sermon no longer had a distinctive evangelical message but instead obscured or even conflicted with the gospel? You’d still have the Scripture readings, yes. But other than those, the service would be devoid of truth. The Word of God might be read, but the gospel would never be preached. What I’ve just described is the case in many mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic churches today. They serve a meal that may be artfully arranged, but the food on most of the plates is rotten.

To switch analogies, a liturgy is like a pipe through which the water of the gospel flows. Pipes matter. Indeed, although it’s sometimes barely perceptible, the material of the pipe adds its own flavor to the water. But water quenches thirst. Water gives life. Better to have leaky pipes flowing with pure water than amazing pipes hooked up to an empty well. If we care more about the order of service than the content of each element of the service, we may ironically end up neglecting the proclamation of the gospel.

We should strive to fill our services with the life-giving water of the Word of God. The Word, rightly proclaimed—through Scripture and sermon, through song and prayer, illustrated through baptism and the Supper—is what gives life to the church (see Rom. 10:17, Col. 1:5–6, James 1:18). Scripture insists that God gives life to the dead through the declaration of a verbal pronouncement—so much so that he called Ezekiel to preach to a valley of dry, dead bones (Ezekiel 37). Our liturgy will flavor how we understand the message, but ultimately it’s the message itself that God uses to save and transform his people.

Analyses like Whitehead and Perry’s turn out to be little more than exercises in institutionalized “Bulverism.” Instead of showing why someone is in fact wrong, they attribute objectionable beliefs to some identity and thereby, illogically, dismiss them.

Bulverism, coined by C.S. Lewis, is that ubiquitous logical fallacy that consists in the charge, “You’re only saying that because you’re a _____ (man/woman/Democrat/Republican/Christian/atheist/etc.).”

The worst forms of Bulverism are those that trade on constructed labels or identities like “Christian nationalism.”

They begin by observing some set of correlations (people who believe X are also more likely to believe Y), and then construct a label to describe that correlation.

Then, they turn around and propose that this label is the cause of the beliefs it describes, thus confusing correlation and causation and at the same time reasoning in a circle.

Since they’ve decided in advance that they don’t like some element of this belief matrix, this causal connection becomes the justification for dismissing the entire system.

Lewis explained his coining of the term in his 1941 essay, “Bulverism”:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.

The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — “Oh you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.”

That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

Once you understand the “Bulverism” fallacy, you start to see it everywhere. (Especially, one might add, in books and hot takes about contemporary “evangelicalism.”)

Here is a creative way to work through Lewis’s argument:

In this new video above, Joe Rigney sits down with John Piper about his magisterial new book on Providence, a volume over 700 pages that is a culmination of his life study and work.

If you order the book from WTS, you get the hardcover for 50% off and the eBook immediately for free.

An overview:

From Genesis to Revelation, the providence of God directs the entire course of redemptive history. Providence is “God’s purposeful sovereignty.” Its extent reaches down to the flight of electrons, up to the movements of galaxies, and into the heart of man. Its nature is wise and just and good. And its goal is the Christ-exalting glorification of God through the gladness of a redeemed people in a new world.

Drawing on a lifetime of theological reflection, biblical study, and practical ministry, pastor and author John Piper leads us on a stunning tour of the sightings of God’s providence—from Genesis to Revelation—to discover the all-encompassing reality of God’s purposeful sovereignty over all of creation and all of history. Piper invites us to experience the profound effects of knowing the God of all-pervasive providence: the intensifying of true worship, the solidifying of wavering conviction, the strengthening of embattled faith, the toughening of joyful courage, and the advance of God’s mission in this world.

Read Chapter 1

Some endorsements:

“In what is perhaps his most important book so far, John Piper demonstrates with great cogency and exegetical skill that God’s providence ‘is his purposeful sovereignty in which he will be completely successful in the achievement of his ultimate goal for the universe.’ This book will enlarge your vision of God and thereby strengthen your faith.”
D. A. Carson, Cofounder and Theologian-at-Large, The Gospel Coalition

“John Piper, with his characteristic clarity and focus on the biblical text, shows us the pervasiveness of God’s providence in the Scriptures. Piper lingers over the biblical text, and we see in text after text that God rules over all of reality, from the smallest atom to horrific disasters. As we have come to expect from Piper, he turns our eyes to the infinite greatness and beauty of God, while reminding us that God’s providence constitutes amazing good news for those of us who know Jesus Christ.”
Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“There are many books by John Piper that I would recommend to believers because of the depth and freshness of thought in his writings. Providence will rank among the highest on the list. The breadth of God’s providence that is covered here is breathtaking. Piper leaves no stone unturned! Read it and see for yourself. This is a landmark work!”
Conrad Mbewe, Pastor, Kabwata Baptist Church, Lusaka, Zambia

“While some see God’s hand only in miracles, and others don’t see his hand at all, providence is the wonderful truth that God is sovereign in and over everything that happens. Combining passion with a curious spirit, John Piper has cherished and proclaimed this truth throughout his ministry. This engaging book is not just about one doctrine, but ranges throughout the alpine vistas of God’s work in our world, our redemption, and our lives today. It is deeply faith invigorating.”
Michael Horton, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Seminary California

“In this remarkable book, John Piper reveals the personal side of sovereignty, helping us glimpse the intricate complexity, winsome beauty, and ultimate purpose of God’s plans in action. Piper is able to write about a multifaceted doctrine in a way that is easy to grasp and so practical!”
Joni Eareckson Tada, Founder, Joni and Friends International Disability Center

“John Piper’s magisterial book is a robust antidote to the weak view on God’s providence held by many Christians today. His exposition of the subject is thorough in scope and saturated with biblical insight. Piper is a model of the pastor-theologian as he not only describes providence but also shows how our understanding of providence can deepen our lives.”
Tremper Longman III, Distinguished Scholar and Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Westmont College

The 14-minute documentary focuses especially upon 1970s when Sproul founded the Ligonier Valley Study Center in the Laurel Mountains of the Alleghenies. As someone who was profoundly affected years ago by Sproul’s teaching on the holiness of God, I found the this brief film to be quite moving and encouraging.

Here is Michael Reeves after reading Nichols’s biography:

I couldn’t put this book down, for it doesn’t just tell the fascinating story of a life well lived; it takes you on R. C.’s own journey. Through it you see where the fire came from. Through it you get the thrill of soaking up his passion for the gospel of Christ, for biblical truth, and for the beauty of God in his holiness. But my hope for this book is not that it might provide a nice reunion for those of us who knew and loved R. C.; my prayer is that the Lord might use it to inspire more faithful Reformers, more God-fearing defenders and proclaimers of the faith, more like R. C. Sproul.

You can read chapter 1 online.

You can listen to the introduction and first chapter of the book online.

The Wisdom Pyramid: Feeding Your Soul in a Post-Truth World

Brett McCracken

With the quick tap of a finger we can access an endless stream of addictive information—sports scores, breaking news, political opinions, streaming TV, the latest Instagram posts, and much more. Accessing information has never been easier—but acquiring wisdom is increasingly difficult.

In an effort to help us consume a more balanced, healthy diet of information, Brett McCracken has created the “Wisdom Pyramid.” Inspired by the food pyramid model, the Wisdom Pyramid challenges us to increase our intake of enduring, trustworthy sources (like the Bible) while moderating our consumption of less reliable sources (like the Internet and social media). At a time when so much of our daily media diet is toxic and making us spiritually sick, The Wisdom Pyramid suggests that we become healthy and wise when we reorient our lives around God—the foundation of truth and the eternal source of wisdom.

“The foolishness of the world sometimes feels overwhelming. The Wisdom Pyramid lifts that fog away, revealing just how full God’s world is with goodness, truth, and beauty. By turning to these sources, in proper order, the wise will find folly fading into the background, and the world will look like—and be—a different place. Wisdom, as this book reminds us, is right there in front of us if only we will turn our eyes upon it.”

—Karen Swallow Prior, Research Professor of English and Christianity and Culture, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; author, On Reading Well

Learn More | Read Excerpt

The Person of Christ: An Introduction

Stephen J. Wellum

Some people think of Jesus as a great prophet or a wise philosopher; others see him as an important religious leader or even a revolutionary. In this addition to the Short Studies in Systematic Theology series, Stephen Wellum challenges these claims as he argues for the divinity of Jesus according to Scripture and in line with creedal Christianity. In this brief introduction, we are invited to rejoice in the centrality of Christ—who as both God and man reconciles us to God.

“Stephen Wellum distills years of reflection and scholarly writing on Christology into an easy-to-read form. In brief compass, he leads the reader through the biblical foundations for the doctrine of Christ’s person and work and then through the historical debates in which the language of Christological orthodoxy was forged and refined. There is deep material here, but Wellum has a gift for expressing even the most subtle of theological issues with clarity and conciseness.”

—Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College

Learn More | Read Excerpt

Practicing Thankfulness: Cultivating a Grateful Heart in All Circumstances

Sam Crabtree

What we believe about God is evident in how we exhibit thankfulness for all he has done. In this book, pastor Sam Crabtree encourages us to express glad-hearted thankfulness for God’s unending provision in all circumstances. Through the daily practices of expressing gratitude—saying “thank you” to a neighbor, serving others in practical ways, or simply thanking God for his many gifts—we recognize the absolute and total lordship of God and his sovereignty over all things.

“After more than fifty years living as a quadriplegic, I can definitely say that godly gratitude is the key to contentment. This remarkable work provides thorough biblical support as to how God-focused gratitude alters a Christian’s orientation to himself, to others, and ultimately to the Lord himself. The pages are filled with practical guidelines to help a believer seize every life situation as a powerful opportunity to cultivate a glad and thankful heart.”

—Joni Eareckson Tada, Founder, Joni and Friends International Disability Center

Learn More | Read Excerpt

What the Bible Says about Divorce and Remarriage

Wayne Grudem

The topic of divorce is a complicated one, even among Christians. The Bible provides some clear answers, but gray areas remain. In this short booklet, theologian Wayne Grudem offers a thought-provoking analysis of what the Bible says—and doesn’t say—about divorce and remarriage.

“Fresh contributions to the longstanding debate over divorce and remarriage are rare. The relevant biblical texts have been picked over for centuries, and the lines of debate have hardened. And yet, somehow, Wayne Grudem has given us that rare, fresh insight into the Bible that changes everything. Grudem affirms the traditional Erasmian view, which allows for divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual immorality and desertion. But he also shows—based on new research on 1 Corinthians 7:15—that divorce and remarriage are permitted in cases of abuse as well. Grudem offers compassionate, biblical advice to those wrestling with the ethics of divorce. Anyone who wishes to understand what the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage must reckon with this book.”

—Denny Burk, author, What Is the Meaning of Sex?

Learn More | Read Excerpt

What the Bible Says about Birth Control, Infertility, Reproductive Technology, and Adoption

Wayne Grudem

Advances in technology offer couples wanting to have children more options than ever before—fertility treatment methods; prefertilization genetic screening; and embryo adoption. With all of these options available, plus the blessing of adoption, it can be difficult for Christian couples to determine which to consider when the Bible doesn’t give explicit direction. Wayne Grudem applies biblical truth and ethical reasoning to help Christians navigate these questions as they seek to live out God’s word in an ever-changing society.

“As a physician and medical educator, I’ve seen patients and medical students struggle with the issues addressed in this book. Wayne Grudem’s work presents a perfect blend of ethical, moral, technical, and biblical approaches to these critical topics. It will provide understandable guidance for health-care professionals as well as the general public.”

—Jacqueline Chadwick, MD, family physician; medical educator

Learn More | Read Excerpt

The Heart of Anger: How the Bible Transforms Anger in Our Understanding and Experience

Christopher Ash and Steve Midgley

We all struggle with anger at times: Our plans suddenly fall through, we lose a prized possession, or our reputation is called into question. More often than not, when anger knocks at the doors of our hearts we easily allow it to take over. But what if getting to the heart of our anger also reveals the way to transform it?

Christopher Ash and Steve Midgley address this question by bringing to bear what the whole Bible has to say about sinful anger—revealing that anger is the sinful response when something we value more than God is taken away or threatened. They reflect on biblical portraits of human anger, God’s righteous anger, and how only the gospel of Jesus Christ brings true freedom—transforming a heart of anger into a heart filled with the love of God.

“I found myself jotting down quote after quote as I read through this book filled with so much insight into the Scriptures, as well as insight into human behavior. Then I came to the question, ‘What can Christ do for our anger that anger management courses cannot?’ and in the pages that followed, I realized I had just struck gold—gospel hope for those who recognize the damage anger is doing in their lives and relationships and their need of a source outside themselves to deal with it.”

—Nancy Guthrie, Bible teacher; author, Even Better than Eden

Learn More | Read Excerpt

Corporate Worship: How the Church Gathers as God’s People

Matt Merker

Christians worship God at church every week, but many don’t know exactly what worship is or why they do it. For some, it’s a warm-up for the sermon. For others, it’s a “me-and-Jesus” moment. What is the biblically informed way to view corporate worship?

In this book, Matt Merker shows that corporate worship is the gathering of God’s people by his grace, for his glory, for their good, and before a watching world. He offers biblical insights and practical suggestions for making worship what it truly is meant to be: a foretaste of God’s people worshiping together for eternity in the new creation.

“Matt shows pastors, music leaders, and all of us how to keep our focus on the Bible’s priorities for corporate worship: God’s glory, the church’s growth, and proclaiming the gospel to the world. As Matt himself says, you do not need to agree with every specific application for this volume to be a major help in planning and preparing for the Sunday service. Rather, this book reminds us all to rediscover the wonderful reality that God gathers us together as a united body to hear his word and sing his praise.”

—Keith and Kristyn Getty, hymn writers; recording artists; authors, Sing! How Worship Transforms Your Life, Family, and Church

Learn More | | Read Excerpt

Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross: Experiencing the Passion and Power of Easter (Redesign)

Edited by Nancy Guthrie

From architecture to jewelry, the symbol of the cross is commonplace in our society. But how many of us truly appreciate the depth of meaning behind it? This collection of readings edited by Nancy Guthrie draws from the writings and sermons of twenty-five classic and contemporary theologians such as Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, and Joni Eareckson Tada, inviting us to focus on the wonder of Christ’s sacrifice.

Learn More

ESV Panorama New Testament (Cloth over Board, Gray)

The ESV Panorama New Testament is designed for readers to engage with large sections of Scripture. By significantly expanding the size of each page while maintaining a more typical type size, this edition provides an optimal reading experience for those interested in viewing many of the New Testament books in their entirety on a panoramic, two-page spread. The unique layout features generous spacing between each line, which assists readers as they identify and mark repeated words or themes. This large-format New Testament is ideal for personal use, inductive Bible study, sermon preparation, and college and seminary classes.

Learn More | Read Excerpt

ESV Gospel of John (Paperback, Black)

The Gospel of John has always been one of the most-read books of the Bible, and this special paperback edition makes it easy to share with others. It includes a short gospel presentation, the ESV text of the Gospel of John, and favorite verses from this Bible book.

Learn More | Read Excerpt

ESV Student Study Bible (TruTone, Black and Hardcover, Flowers Design)

The ESV Student Study Bible is adapted from the ESV Study Bible and is ideally suited for students who are serious about God’s Word—who want to learn more about what the Bible teaches and how the Bible applies to all of life.

With 12,000 clear, concise study notes, the ESV Student Study Bible provides numerous other features—including nearly 900 “Did You Know?” facts, 120 Bible character profiles, and 10 topical articles. It also features a glossary of key terms, more than 80 maps and illustrations, an extensive concordance, and 80,000 cross-references. These and many other features make it the most comprehensive and content-rich student Bible available today.

Learn More | Read Excerpt

At First Things, Anderson writes about the controversy:

The people who did read the book discovered that it is an accurate and accessible presentation of the scientific, medical, philosophical, and legal debates surrounding the trans phenomenon. Yes, it advances an argument against transgender ideology from a viewpoint. But it doesn’t get any facts wrong, and it doesn’t engage in heated rhetoric.

Moreover, it was praised by experts: the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a longtime psychology professor at NYU, a professor of medical ethics at Columbia Medical School, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah, a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, an eminent legal philosopher at Oxford, and a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton.

But for a heretic-hunting Left, none of that matters. It’s not about how you say it, or how rigorously you argue it, or how charitably you present it. It’s about whether you affirm or dissent from the new orthodoxy of gender ideology.

The editors at National Review call attention to Anderson’s intellectual credentials but also his calm, clear, and compassionate disposition as an advocate for truth in the public square:

Anderson, who is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, represents what might be called the Princeton School of social conservatism, and he has published works in association with scholars such as Robert P. George, among others. He is a serious thinker and analyst (after Princeton he took a doctorate in political philosophy from Notre Dame), not a Breitbart troll.

They go on to write:

The book, published in 2018, recently has been removed from Amazon, as well as from Amazon subsidiaries Kindle, Audible, and AbeBooks. Amazon maintains, in theory, a policy of contacting publishers and discussing the removal of controversial books before acting, but Amazon has not followed that policy in this case. At least the traditional sort of book-burners felt the need to explain themselves.

Alan Jacobs comments:

To me, the most interesting point for reflection is this: The censors at Amazon clearly believe there is only one reason to read a book. You read a book because you agree with it and want it to confirm what you already believe. Imagine, for instance, a transgender activist who wants to understand the position held by Ryan Anderson and people like him in order better to refute it. That person can’t get a copy of the book through Amazon any more than a sympathetic reader like me can.

But another, deeper belief lies beneath that one: It’s that ideas like Anderson’s are not to be refuted but rather, insofar as it lies within Amazon’s vast power, erased — subjected to Damnatio memoriae. And the interesting thing about that practice is that it is simultaneously an assertion of power and a confession of weakness. Amazon is flexing its muscles, but muscles are all it has. Its censors don’t want anyone to read Anderson’s book because they know that they can’t refute it. They have no thoughts, no knowledge — only reflexes. And reflexes will serve their cause. For now.

Just the News was able to reach Amazon for comment and provide this update:

Amazon declined to provide any explanation, offering instead a link to its book content policy.

A review of those policies suggests that sometime in the last few months Amazon made a major change to the ways in which it moderates book content on its servers, imposing a much stricter standard on books than it had previously done.

The link provided by Amazon this week claims in part that, where books are concerned, the company “[doesn’t] sell certain content including content that we determine is hate speech … or other material we deem inappropriate or offensive.”

Internet archives show that as recently as August of last year, Amazon’s book content policy did not include any mention of “hate speech.” At that time, the company stated only that “we reserve the right not to sell certain content, such as pornography or other inappropriate content.”

On the older page, the company directed users to “guidelines for other categories of products,” such as products featuring “offensive and controversial material.” That policy stipulated in part that Amazon “does not allow products that promote, incite or glorify hatred,” but the rule explicitly noted that the policy did not apply to books.

The company did not reply to a followup query asking when the policy had been changed, and why.

So if you want to hear for yourself the sort of arguments that can get you banned from Amazon, watch the talk at the top of this post, or see the information about the book below. The book can be purchased directly from the publisher or from retailers like Barnes and Noble. (For now.)

Summary

Can a boy be “trapped” in a girl’s body? Can modern medicine “reassign” sex? Is our sex “assigned” to us in the first place? What is the most loving response to a person experiencing a conflicted sense of gender? What should our law say on matters of “gender identity”?

When Harry Became Sally provides thoughtful answers to questions arising from our transgender moment. Drawing on the best insights from biology, psychology, and philosophy, Ryan Anderson offers a nuanced view of human embodiment, a balanced approach to public policy on gender identity, and a sober assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

This book exposes the contrast between the media’s sunny depiction of gender fluidity and the often sad reality of living with gender dysphoria. It gives a voice to people who tried to “transition” by changing their bodies, and found themselves no better off. Especially troubling are the stories told by adults who were encouraged to transition as children but later regretted subjecting themselves to those drastic procedures.

As Anderson shows, the most beneficial therapies focus on helping people accept themselves and live in harmony with their bodies. This understanding is vital for parents with children in schools where counselors may steer a child toward transitioning behind their backs.

Everyone has something at stake in the controversies over transgender ideology, when misguided “antidiscrimination” policies allow biological men into women’s restrooms and penalize Americans who hold to the truth about human nature. Anderson offers a strategy for pushing back with principle and prudence, compassion and grace.

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Our Transgender Moment
2. What the Activists Say
3. Detransitioners Tell Their Stories
4. What Makes Us a Man or a Woman
5. Transgender Identity and Sex “Reassignment”

Endorsements

“During this ‘transgender moment,’ a government-enforced tyranny of false presumptions about nature besieges the American family. When Harry Became Sally provides the empirical information needed to refute the transgender suppositions, and—in a most original way—makes historic sense of this social misdirection by noting how the ‘gender-fluid’ pseudo-scientific claims of today’s transgender ideologues derive from dubious arguments previously passed around amongst second-wave feminists. Learn from Ryan Anderson how another craze about the workings of the mind has come to beset American households and put thousands of people at risk.”

—Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

“When Harry Became Sally is an eminently readable and insightful guide for all who find themselves perplexed by today’s debates on gender identity. Ryan Anderson’s analysis of the ideas that are fueling the transgender movement, their human costs and their political implications will be a valuable resource for parents, educators and policy makers.”

—Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University, and author of Rights Talk and A Nation Under Lawyers

“For an informed and sensitive presentation of gender identity issues, When Harry Became Sally is a must-read book. It is especially a must for those in psychiatry, psychology and counseling.”

—Paul Vitz, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, New York University, and Senior Scholar, Institute for the Psychological Sciences

“I always read Ryan Anderson with great admiration. When Harry Became Sally is an always focused, informative, fair-minded, lucid and fact-based guide to just and reasonable policies in place of government– and corporation-mandated falsification of science, medicine, public records and history; suppression of free speech and family rights; and many-sided, often irreversible injustice to the vulnerable.”

—John Finnis, Professor of Law & Legal Philosophy Emeritus, University of Oxford

“‘Do no harm’ is a fundamental tenet of medical ethics. But sadly—as shown by Ryan Anderson’s careful examination of the research—people with gender dysphoria are now commonly given treatments that involve grave health hazards and few (if any) lasting benefits. Regardless of political persuasion, all concerned citizens, especially parents, policymakers, and healthcare professionals, should give serious consideration to the evidence presented in this thoughtful and balanced book.”

—Melissa Moschella, Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, Columbia University

“Ryan Anderson forthrightly calls out the suspension of disbelief that has led us into ever more bizarre denials of reality, blindfolding our eyes and our heads in the name of political ideology and ensuring the suffering of the mentally ill. Everyone concerned with the welfare of children should read When Harry Became Sally.”

—Margaret A. Hagen, Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University

“People who experience gender dysphoria deserve to be treated with compassion, kindness, and respect—just like everyone else. It is wrong to despise them, ridicule them, or disrespect them in other ways. As Ryan Anderson shows in his rigorously argued critique of transgender ideology, we can speak and stand up for the truth while loving those who identify as transgender as our neighbors. When Harry Became Sally confirms Anderson’s standing as one of our nation’s most gifted young intellectuals, and without doubt the most fearless.”

—Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University.

“Ryan Anderson takes up the challenging topic of the ‘transgender moment’ in a clear and biologically well-informed manner. He writes in a thoughtful and accessible manner, and he succeeds in his goal of providing ‘a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.’ When Harry Became Sally raises important questions for anyone who is sincerely concerned about the wellbeing of those struggling with their gender identity.”

—Maureen Condic, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah

Keep I pray you the good deposit,
by which I live and work, and
which I desire to have as the companion of my departure;
with which I endure all that is so distressful, and despise all delights;

the confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

This I commit unto you today;
with this I will baptize you and make you grow.
This I give you to share, and to defend all your life,

the one Godhead and power, found in the three in unit, and comprising the three separately;
not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities nor inferiorities;
in every respect equal, in every respect the same;
just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one;
the infinite conjunction of three infinite ones, each God when considered in himself;
as the Father, so the Son;
as the Son, so the Holy Spirit;

the three one God when contemplated together;
each God because consubstantial;
one God because of the monarchia.

No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendor of the three;
no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one. 

When I think of anyone of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me.
I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest.

When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.

—Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 40.41.

• Jawhist (used the name Yahweh for God), mid-ninth century BC, southern kingdom of Judah
• Elohist (used the word Elohim for God), eighth century, northern kingdom of Israel
• Deuteronomic (used the book of Deuteronomy), seventh century, during the reign of Josiah
• Priestly (Leviticus and other parts with a priestly interest), fifth and sixth centuries, Babylonian exile and after

These various sources were stitched together over the centuries to provide a literary whole that contained contradictions.

My professors—who were not biblical scholars—didn’t offer in-depth arguments. This wasn’t an area of speciality for them. But they were quite confident in it nonetheless, and it was the sort of thing that could easily shake the confidence of any of the students who assumed that this was the Word of God.

Old Testament scholar Duane Garrett—whose book Rethinking Genesis has been called “the most convincing refutation of the documentary hypothesis now in print”—writes:

A creature stalks the halls of biblical studies. It is routinely raised up from the grave in classrooms and it haunts textbooks and monographs that deal with the Hebrew Scriptures. Wherever it roams, it distorts the analysis of the text of the Bible, confounds readers, and produces strange and irrational interpretations. This undead creature sometimes goes by the quasi-mystical sounding sobriquet “the JEDP theory,” but it is better known by its formal name, the documentary hypothesis. The time has come for scholars to recognize that the documentary hypothesis is dead. The arguments that support it have been dismantled by scholars of many stripes—many of whom have no theological commitment to the Bible. The theory is, however, still taught as an established result of biblical scholarship in universities and theological schools around the world. Books and monographs rooted in it still frequently appear. Laughably, some of these books are touted for their “startling new interpretations” of the history of the Bible while in fact doing little more than repackaging old ideas. If the sheer volume of literature on a hypothesis were a demonstration of its veracity, the documentary hypothesis would indeed be well established. Nevertheless, while the dead hand of the documentary hypothesis still dominates Old Testament scholarship as its official orthodoxy, the cutting edge research of recent years has typically been highly critical of the theory.

In his new commentary on the book of Exodus, Christopher Wright deals briefly with the theory, noting that “the whole scheme has come under severe scholarly critique and outright rejection in some quarters. There is agreement on all sides (including conservative ones) that the Pentateuch is a complex and composite piece of literature that incorporates various kinds of writing, sources, and topics around a broad thematic unity. But the neat linear scheme of cleverly interwoven documents stretched out over Israel’s reconstructed history is no longer convincing, and many alternative accounts of how it all came together now vie for acceptance in the biblical academy.”

Wright adds why he has never had much use for the theory himself:

Speaking for myself, I never did find the JEDP scheme convincing, and not just out of loyalty to my evangelical understanding of the nature of Scripture (which did not, in my view, compel me to accept every traditional view of the authorship of biblical texts, unless clearly stated in the Bible itself, or to reject per se the assumption that beneath the final text of the books we have in our Bible lie earlier source materials). Rather, my skepticism was on two fronts.

On the one hand, the whole scheme seemed to me highly unlikely as comparative evidence of such “cut and paste” processes in any contemporary literature. It seemed a very modern and Western way of conceiving how “authors” might go about their work with “documents” on a desk in front of them, and even in that context to be based on very dubious criteria for confident source identification.

On the other hand, I never recall finding such source dissection and allocations of biblical texts of any benefit whatsoever in the exegetical and hermeneutical task—that is, of discerning the meaning, intentions, and implications of the text for anyone who comes to it as in some sense authoritative Scripture with a view to understanding and communicating its message today. (Christopher J. H. Wright, Exodus, The Story of God Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and Scot McKnight (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2021], 4–5.)

In sum: (1) it is implausible, and (2) it does not help.

For those interested in older resources on this question, see The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (available free online) by William Henry Green, who held the chair of Biblical and Oriental Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1851 until his death in 1900.

The great scholar and rabbi Umberto Cassuto (1883–1951)—who held the chair of biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and wrote commentaries on Genesis and Exodus—gave a series of eight lectures in 1940 offering one of the first mainstream critiques of the documentary hypothesis, published as The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. His argument was that the documentary hypothesis rested on five pillars. He then sought to show, in detail, that upon closer examination all five pillars were without substance. As a result, “this imposing and beautiful edifice has, in reality, nothing to support it and is founded on air. ”

Here is a summary of his conclusions:

Pillar #1: the variations in the use of the divine names. “These changes depended on the primary signification of the Names and on the rules governing their use in life and literature, rules that applied to the entire body of biblical literature and even to post-biblical Hebrew writings, and are rooted in the literary traditions common to the peoples of the ancient East. Since we saw that these factors fully solved the problem of the changing of the divine names—leaving nothing unexplained—on the basis of principles that are radically different from those of the documentary theory, we came to the conclusion that the first pillar is void of substance.”

Pillar #2: the inequalities of language and style. “These linguistic disparities, insofar as they really existed, could be explained with the utmost simplicity by reference to the general rules of the language, its grammatical structure, its lexical usages, and its literary conventions—general rules that applied equally to every Hebrew writer and every Hebrew book. We thus saw that in this respect, too, there was no question of different documents, and that the second pillar was only an empty delusion.”

Pillar #3: the differences in the subject matter of the sections. “Where there were actual discrepancies between the sections, they were not of a kind that could not be found in a homogeneous work. On the contrary, such incongruities were inevitable in a multi-faceted book like the one before us, which contains materials of varied origin and character, and consequently presents its themes from different viewpoints. Hence we concluded that the third pillar was also incapable of withstanding criticism.”

Pillar #4: the duplications and repetitions. “Underlying both of them was a specific intention, which not only was reflected in the final redaction of the sections but was evident even in their original composition. We consequently decided that the fourth pillar was not stronger than the preceding three.”

Pillar #5: the composite sections. “This hypothesis relied on evidence that in truth did not point to a composite text; on the contrary, exact study revealed unmistakable and conclusive indications of a close connection between the parts of the section that were considered to belong to different sources. From all this, we judged the last pillar to be likewise without foundation.”

They wrote about their latest project:

When Christianity Explored approached us with this task, we were intimidated (but also incredibly excited) by the opportunity to tell this story that has been told millions of times in a fresh way — while keeping the core message clear. Blending every kind of animation we know from cel to 3d, it’s been one of the most challenging projects we’ve worked on to date — made possible by all the amazing designers and animators that partnered with us to make it happen.

You can watch it above, narrated by Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile.

Worship is
the continuous outpouring of
all that I am,
all that I do, and
all that I can ever become
in light of a chosen or choosing god.

Jonathan Gibson focuses on the normative aspect of worship. It is explicitly Trinitarian, and he makes the rare moves of including angelic worship; including the past, the present, and the future; and embedding a worshipful response within the definition itself.

Worship is
the right, fitting, and delightful response of moral beings
—angelic and human—
to God the Creator, Redeemer, and Consummator,

for who he is as one eternal God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and
for what he has done in creation and redemption, and
for what he will do in the coming consummation,

to whom be all praise and glory, now and forever, world without end. Amen.

Daniel Block discusses the nature of true worship, emphasizing the acts of worship.

True worship involves
reverential acts of homage and submission before the divine Sovereign
in response to his gracious revelation of himself and
in accord with his will.

Bruce Leafblad puts the goal of communion with God front and center and includes the grace of God and the use of both mind and heart.

Worship is
communion with God
in which believers, by grace, center their
minds’ attention and
hearts’ affection
on the Lord,
humbly glorifying God in response to his greatness and his word.

John Piper distinguishes between the inner essence and the outward expression of worship, connects the notional and the affectional, and uniquely (among the definitions cited here) including note only acts of praise but acts of love as well.

The inner essence of worship is
to know God truly
and then respond from the heart to that knowledge by
valuing God,
treasuring God,
prizing God,
enjoying God,
being satisfied with God above all earthly things.

And then that deep, restful, joyful satisfaction in God overflows in
demonstrable acts of praise from the lips and
demonstrable acts of love in serving others for the sake of Christ.

Bob Kauflin gives a definition that includes the use of mind, affection, and will and is one of the few that explicitly mentions the Holy Spirit.

Christian worship is
the response of God’s redeemed people to His self-revelation that exalts God’s glory in Christ
in our minds, affections, and wills,
in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Our most recent episode is an interview with Tim Keller (b. 1955), the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, the chairman and co-founder of Redeemer City to City, the co-founder of The Gospel Coalition, and a New York Times bestselling author.

To each of us fortysomethings, he is a gracious friend, an insightful counselor, a wise encourager, and a father in the faith.

We talked about his cancer, what books shaped him, defining evangelicalism, Christian celebrity, and Brad Vermurlen’s important new scholarly study, Reformed Resurgence: The New Calvinist Movement and the Battle Over American Evangelicalism (Oxford University Press, 2020).

Here are the timestamps for the episode:

Promoting, Celebrating, and Articulating Systematic Theology [0:01–1:30]

Keller: I’m Fighting Sin Not Cancer [1:30–17:03]

Keller’s Top Book Recommendations for Forming Pastors and Leaders [17:03–21:37]

Tim Keller’s Other Spiritual Gifts [21:37–27:13]

Why Keller and Carson Have a Soft Spot for British Evangelicalism [27:13—34:20]

Reading at a Rural Church; Eating in a Big City [34:20 –39:41]

Reformed Resurgence: The Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement [39:41 – 51:06]

Evangelical Celebrities [51:06 – 54:33]

How to Define Evangelicalism: Models vs. Institutions [54:33–1:00:34]

More About the Pastor Celebrity Experience [1:00:34–1:10:20]

Post-Movement Evangelistic Strategies [1:10:20–1:12:25]

Encouragement [1:12:25–1:15:20]

For the three of us, it was a deeply edifying, encouraging, insightful episode. We hope you find it to be the same.

• Frank Thielman’s short biblical theology of new creation
• Gerald Bray’s short systematic theology of the attributes of God
• Mike Reeves’s new books (a full version and an abridged one for groups and giveaway) on the joy of fearing the Lord
• Paul Tripp’s 40-day devotional for Lent
• Lydia Brownback’s second volume—this one on 1–2 Peter—in her Flourish Bible Study series
• Sharon Betters and Susan Hunt’s working on aging with grace in an age of anti-aging
• Jani Ortlund’s book for ministry wives
• The ESV Preaching Bible, Verse-by-Verse Edition.

The New Creation and the Storyline of Scripture

Frank Thielman

The Bible begins with the story of one perfectly good God creating a perfectly good universe. Forming two perfectly good human beings in his own image—Adam and Eve—was the crown jewel of his creative expression. Through humanity’s sin, however, God’s creation fell into a fallen state—yet he promised to bring restoration. In this book, Frank Thielman traces the theme of the new creation through the Bible, beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation. He shows us that at every turn, God invites his people to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6), exemplifying the new creation to a needy and watching world until the return of Jesus.

“Well-known author Frank Thielman succinctly unfolds the central plot of the whole Bible. He does not just retell the story; he explains it. And he does not merely explain it; he applies it so we can see the Bible’s point right now: ‘This is the great hope of the follower of Jesus in the midst of life’s many present difficulties.’ To grasp that hope, read this book! It is a delightful, deeply biblical, clear, and compelling narration and proclamation of God’s antidote to our world’s painfully visible breakdown. There’s a new world order taking shape. This book equips and invites the reader to join in right now.”

—Robert W. Yarbrough, Professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary

Learn More | Read Excerpt

The Attributes of God: An Introduction

Gerald Bray

God is the Creator of all things. As Creator, he is unique and cannot be compared to any of his creatures. Throughout history, the church has recognized the importance of studying and understanding God’s attributes. In this addition to the Short Studies in Systematic Theology series, theologian Gerald Bray examines the attributes of God, presenting their biblical foundations, systematic-theological structure, and practical relevance for the church today. Bray separates the attributes into two categories: God’s relational attributes (which focus on how he interacts with his creation) and his essential attributes (which describe his essence and relation to time). As Christians better understand the attributes of God they will see, delight in, and apply what Scripture reveals concerning who God is and what he is like.

“Recently, evangelical theologians have shown a renewed and welcome interest in the biblical, classical doctrine of God; but for lay people the debates often seem weighed down by technical jargon and historical obscurity. The result is that the practical importance of this theological renaissance for praise, prayer, and everyday life is often missed. In this context, Gerald Bray’s helpful summary of the nature of God’s attributes is a welcome addition to the growing body of literature, offering clear exposition and practical application in the tradition of forebears such as Stephen Charnock. In addition, a helpful appendix lets the reader situate contemporary theological discussion against the backdrop of catholic debates from the early church up until today.”

—Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College

Learn More | Read Excerpt

Rejoice and Tremble: The Surprising Good News of the Fear of the Lord

Michael Reeves

Fear is one of the strongest human emotions, and it is one that often baffles Christians. When they turn to the Bible, the picture seems equally confusing: Is fear a good thing or a bad thing? While God commands his people to fear him, they are also told to fight fear. Michael Reeves brings clarity where there is confusion as he encourages readers to rejoice in the strange paradox that the gospel both frees them from sinful fear and leads them to godly fear. This book argues from Scripture that godly fear is the opposite of being afraid of God or his punishment, as if he were a tyrant. Instead, it is the intensity of the saints’ love for, delight in, and enjoyment of all that God is. Rejoice and Tremble examines what it looks like when a believer is filled with a right and healthy fear of God, and how this fear is the means by which the people of God exhibit to the world the divine qualities of holiness, blessedness, happiness, wholeness, and beauty as they point to Christ Jesus.

“Modern people often view the fear of God with disdainful suspicion, but Michael Reeves shows us that godly fear is really nothing other than love for God as God. Reeves also helps us to see that the greatest factor in promoting the fear of God is knowing his grace in Christ. As John Bunyan said, ‘There is nothing in heaven or earth that can so awe the heart as the grace of God.’ This wonderful book not only teaches but sings, leading us to ‘rejoice with trembling’ (Ps. 2:11).”

—Joel R. Beeke, President and Professor of Systematic Theology and Homiletics, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary; author, Reformed Preaching; coauthor, Reformed Systematic Theology

Learn More

What Does It Mean to Fear the Lord?

Michael Reeves

The Bible says that a wise person fears God and keeps his commandments. But what does it actually mean to rightly fear God while also trusting him? In What Does It Mean to Fear the Lord?, Michael Reeves calls Christians to see God as the object of their fear—a fear marked not by anxiety but by enjoyment of God. In Scripture, God’s people are commanded to put off sinful fears and instead cultivate a healthy and happy fear of their awesome God. As believers learn to truly fear the Lord, they will take part in the pivotal role the church plays in exhibiting to the world his divine qualities of holiness, blessedness, happiness, wholeness, and beauty.

“Ours is a day of great fears—fear of financial collapse, fear of terrorist attacks, fear of climatic disasters, fear of a deadly pandemic—all kinds of fears, except the most important of all: the reverential fear of God. How needed then is this marvelous study of a much-neglected theme, one that is central to the Scriptures and vital to human flourishing.”

—Michael A. G. Haykin, Chair and Professor of Church History, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Learn More | Read Excerpt

Journey to the Cross: A 40-Day Lenten Devotional

Paul David Tripp

Lent is one of the most significant times of the yearly Christian calendar. It is often associated with solemn observation and preparation—mourning past and present sin and letting go of the worldly things that keep the heart from experiencing God more fully. In this 40-daily Lenten devotional, best-selling author Paul David Tripp invites readers to set aside time from the busyness of their lives to focus on the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus. Each short reading encourages believers to abide in the abundant joy found in Christ as they encounter the Savior more fully and follow him more faithfully.

“Paul Tripp has once again led us past feel-good platitudes and into focused, Christward reflection. Through tension and tenderness, lament and thanksgiving, the Lenten season will transform us when it leads us to the cross of Christ.”

—Ruth Chou Simons, Founder, GraceLaced Co.; author, GraceLaced and Beholding and Becoming; coauthor, Foundations

Learn More

1–2 Peter: Living Hope in a Hard World

Lydia Brownback

When the apostle Peter wrote his letters, the young church was facing intensifying persecution, and Peter encouraged believers to persevere through hardship. This 10-week study explores the theme of suffering in Peter’s letters, displaying how God uses hope, humility, and holiness to prepare believers for their final home in heaven.

The Flourish Bible Study series is designed to equip women—from baby believers to seasoned saints—to study God’s word. Bible study teacher Lydia Brownback guides women chapter by chapter through multiple books of the Bible, helping them come away with a deeper understanding of God’s word, its context in redemptive history, and how it uniquely reveals God and his gospel.

“The brilliant and beautiful mix of sound teaching, helpful charts, lists, sidebars, and appealing graphics—as well as insightful questions that get the reader into the text of Scripture—make these studies that women will want to invest time in and will look back on as time well spent.”

—Nancy Guthrie, Bible teacher; author, Even Better than Eden: Nine Ways the Bible’s Story Changes Everything about Your Story

Learn More | Read Excerpt

Aging with Grace: Flourishing in an Anti-Aging Culture

Sharon Betters and Susan Hunt

There are many blessings that come with age: retirement, grandchildren, travel, and life experience. Today’s culture, however, marginalizes old age, often portraying it as burdensome and hopeless. Many older women can feel like an encumbrance rather than a blessing to their friends and family members. In response to these struggles, Sharon Betters and Susan Hunt encourage women to find hope through both real-life and biblical accounts of women who rediscovered gospel-rooted joy later in life. In each chapter, readers will be encouraged as they experience afresh a gospel that is big enough, good enough, and powerful enough to make every season of life significant and glorious.

“My childhood dream was to one day become a ‘godly old lady.’ At the time, that goal didn’t seem particularly daunting. Now that I’m in my sixties, it sometimes feels like climbing Mount Everest. Always a few steps ahead of me, Susan Hunt has encouraged and inspired me to press on in my journey. She has also been a spiritual ‘grandmother’ to the True Woman ministry since it launched. She has given us all a vision of flourishing in old age, for the glory of God and the good of his people. In this book, Susan and Sharon Betters have teamed together to provide perspective, wisdom, and hope for women coming behind them. They call us to keep our eyes on Christ—the prize—and to persevere to the summit, dependent on his grace every step of the way.”

—Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth, author; Founder, Revive Our Hearts and True Woman

Learn More | Read Excerpt

Help! I’m Married to My Pastor: Encouragement for Ministry Wives and Those Who Love Them

Jani Ortlund

A woman marries a man, not his ministry, but all too often her husband’s calling infringes upon many aspects of their life together. What if ministry life isn’t what they bargained for? What happens when their children aren’t perfect? How do they deal with church gossip, or even slander? As a pastor’s wife of almost 50 years, Jani Ortlund addresses these questions along with many others as she offers encouragement and guidance to ministry wives, reminding them that God works out his delightfully good purposes in and through their sacrifice.

“While being a pastor’s wife is not an office in the church, it comes with hidden expectations and undefined responsibilities. While knowing intimately the integrity of the man behind the pulpit holds enormous blessings, living in the constant, unyielding spotlight can weary the soul. A pastor’s wife must learn how to feed on the word of God, turn the other cheek, cling to Christ, embrace the means of grace, protect her children from criticism and callings that they did not choose, and support a husband whose calling demands he lay down his life again and again. And all of this is done in the public eye. A pastor’s wife needs a trustworthy friend, and she will find that friend in Jani Ortlund’s book. Jani’s wisdom has been refined by almost fifty years of being the wife of her pastor. Her writing style is simple, straightforward, and sane. Practical, poignant, and personal, this book is—like Jani—wise and tender and most of all, faithful to the call of Christ to join in the ‘fellowship of His sufferings’ (Phil. 3:10 NKJV). I love this book.”

—Rosaria Butterfield, Former Professor of English, Syracuse University; author, The Gospel Comes with a House Key

Learn More

ESV Preaching Bible, Verse-by-Verse Edition

The ESV Preaching Bible, Verse-by-Verse Edition builds upon the foundational features of the ESV Preaching Bible with a new verse-by-verse format. The primary vision behind this edition was to create a Bible specifically tailored to the task of preaching. To that end, this edition maintains a preacher-friendly layout with each verse on its own line to ensure ease in public and personal reading. This elegant Bible features a highly readable type, enlarged and bolded verse numbers, extra-wide margins, high-quality paper, a durable smyth-sewn binding, and a premium goatskin cover guaranteed to last a lifetime.

Learn More

When the LORD restored the fortunes of Zion,
we were like those who dream.

Then our mouth was filled with laughter,
and our tongue with shouts of joy;

then they said among the nations,

“The LORD has done great things for them.”

The LORD has done great things for us;
we are glad.

Sandra McCracken, “We Will Feast in The House of Zion”:

Chorus
We will feast in the house of Zion
We will sing with our hearts restored
He has done great things, we will say together
We will feast and weep no more

We will not be burned by the fire
He is the LORD our God
We are not consumed, by the flood
Upheld, protected, gathered up (Chorus)

In the dark of night, before the dawn
My soul, be not afraid
For the promised morning, oh how long?
Oh God of Jacob, be my strength (Chorus)

Every vow we’ve broken and betrayed
You are the Faithful one
And from the garden to the grave
Bind us together, bring shalom. (Chorus)

I recall once being asked a trick question: If you had access to all the latest machinery in a sophisticated science lab, what would be the most effective way to get all the air out of a glass beaker? One ponders the possible ways to suck the air out and create a vacuum. Eventually, the answer is given: fill it with water.

That is the point of Chalmers’s famous message. It is intended as an illumination of 1 John 2:15:

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Chalmers poses for himself the question: How shall the human heart be freed from its love for the world? (How shall the air of world-love be removed from the soul-beaker?) This “love” is not a duty one performs. It is a delight one prefers. It is an affection before it is a commitment.

He says there are two ways one might seek to remove this controlling affection from the heart. One is to show that the world is not worthy of our affection and will let us down in the end. (This argument corresponds to using a pump to suck the air out of the beaker.)

The other is to show that God is vastly more worthy of the heart’s attachment, thus awakening a new and stronger affection that displaces the former affection for the world. (This corresponds to pouring water into the beaker to displace the air.) Hence “the expulsive power of a new affection.” Chalmers himself states his purpose,

My purpose is to show that from the constitution of our nature, the former method is altogether incompetent and ineffectual and that the latter method will alone suffice for the rescue and recovery of the heart from the wrong affection that domineers over it.

You can read the whole foreword here, and purchase the book here.

It’s good to mourn, it’s healthy to be sad, and it’s appropriate to groan.

Something is wrong with us, something is missing in our hearts and our understanding of life, if we are able to look around and look inside and not grieve. You don’t have to look very far to see that we live, work, and relate in a world that has been twisted and bent by sin, so much so that it doesn’t function at all in the way God intended. The sin-scarred condition of the world is obvious in your home, your neighborhood, and your church. We see it in government, politics, business, education, entertainment, and the internet.

In Romans 8, Paul captures the sad condition of the world in three provocative phrases that should break our hearts: “subjected to futility” (v. 20), “its bondage to corruption” (v. 21), “in the pains of childbirth” (v. 22).

We should be rejoicing people, because we have, in the redemption that is ours in Christ Jesus, eternal reason to rejoice. But this side of our final home, our rejoicing should be mixed with weeping as we witness, experience, and, sadly, give way to the presence and power of evil. Christ taught in his most lengthy recorded sermon, the Sermon on the Mount, that those who mourn are blessed, so it’s important to understand why.

Mourning means you recognize the most important reality in the human existence, sin.

Mourning means you have been hit by the weight of what it has done to you and to everyone you know.

Mourning says you have considered the devastating fact that life right here, right now, is one big spiritual war.

Mourning means that you have come to realize, as you get up in the morning, that once again you will be greeted with a catalog of temptations.

Mourning means you know that there really are spiritual enemies out there meaning to do you harm.

Mourning results when you confess that there are places where your heart still wanders.

But mourning does something wonderful to you. The sad realities that cause you to mourn also cause you to cry out for the help, rescue, forgiveness, and deliverance of a Redeemer. Jesus said that if you mourn, you will be comforted. He’s not talking about the comfort of elevated feelings. He’s talking about the comfort of the presence and grace of a Redeemer, who meets you in your mourning, hears your cries for help, comes to you in saving mercy, and wraps arms of eternal love around you. It’s the comfort of knowing that you’re forgiven, being restored, now living in a reconciled relationship with the one who made you, and now living with your destiny secure.

Mourning sin—past, present, and future—is the first step in seeking and celebrating the divine grace that is the hope of every-one whose heart has been made able to see by that very same grace.

There has always been something of this unreality about Trump’s behavior in the presidency. From the very beginning, it has seemed that Trump almost fully inhabits a boorish, narcissistic psychodrama playing in his head. Through the power of his personality and celebrity, he has been able to draw others into that fantasy world for decades, and through the power of the presidency he has now been able to project it onto the real world and draw yet more followers into it.

This hasn’t left Trump simply dysfunctional in the presidency. He has proven to have a solid political sense and a nose for where his voters are. And he made some good appointments and some policy moves that any Republican president would have been proud of. And yet, the entire time, if you had spoken to people around Trump, you would have heard mind-boggling stories of their direct experiences with him—tales of a president bizarrely disconnected, obsessive, impervious to information, fixated on personal loyalty, endlessly repeating patent nonsense.

All of this somehow held together for his first three years in office. It often took unprecedented acts of insolence and insubordination from his staff, and of course he was still an outrageously irresponsible president. But he averted catastrophe. Then, however, came the year of plague and of election, when Trump’s escapism and unwillingness to face reality became untenable. He tried to talk the pandemic out of existence and then to wish away the election results. But the yawning distance between his fantasy world and the real world finally became unbridgeable.

This is what we are seeing play out now, and what was most disturbing about Wednesday’s events. The riot at the Capitol itself was inexcusable, and we can hope that at least some of those involved will be prosecuted and punished. But more troubling by far was the way in which their actions were embedded in a fantasy spun up by conspiracists, and especially the way in which the President of the United States took up his place in that fantasy world and sought to govern from within it.

In his tweets and video statement on Wednesday, Trump asked the Capitol rioters to go home while also praising them and thanking them. You could almost see him struggling to separate his fantasy world from the real world and proving unable to do it. He seems plainly incapable of performing his job at this point as a result, and even more of the people around him than usual have said so since Wednesday morning.

The curious power and appeal of Trump’s conspiracism is deeply intertwined with its irresponsibility. At its core is a form of self-pity. The president blames others for disrespecting and abusing him, and therefore refuses both to take ownership of his obligations and to face reality. This has proven an intoxicating mix for an extraordinary number of Republican politicians and voters in the Trump era, and it has utterly defined the president himself.

If Trumpism means anything, it would seem to mean this distinct kind of irresponsibility. It’s not the same as populism—which always risks entanglements with demagogues but also has legitimate concerns and priorities that deserve to be heard and should not be confused with one man’s failings. It’s not any particular policy agenda or set of reforms, as President Trump clearly doesn’t care about any of the particular ideas that others have sought to attach to him. Ultimately, Trumpism is a style, an ethic that amounts to a dangerous and highly toxic irresponsibility.

That ethic did not begin with Trump, of course. Forms of it are now widespread, not only in our politics but also throughout many American institutions. It shows itself in a tendency to performative outrage and exaggerated victimhood, both of which are failures to take ownership of one’s particular roles and obligations. And it shows itself in a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy, expression and action.

But Trump has embodied it in an exceptionally concentrated form, and at the highest levels of our government—in a job that uniquely requires responsibility, and is defined by the need to deal with reality. A recovery of responsibility, broadly understood, is called for in many arenas of American life. But putting Trumpism behind us would certainly be a start.

Read the whole thing.

The most fundamental attribute of God’s being is its simplicity.

God is “simple” in the sense in which the word is used in chemistry—his nature is not compounded of different elements.

An analogy with water may help us to understand what this means and why it matters. Water is a compound substance made up of hydrogen and oxygen, and it can be separated into its component parts.

God is not a compound. If he were, he could not be the ultimate being. His parts would all be logically prior to him. Presumably there would also have to be some force that produced “god” out of those different parts, and that force would also be a greater being than the resulting “god” is. Such a being does not and cannot exist, and therefore we have to say that God is “simple”—he is what he is, and that is all there is to it.

Divine simplicity means that whatever we say about God applies to the totality of his being. God is not partly invisible or partly immortal. When we meet with God, we meet with him in the fullness of his being, because he cannot be anything less than that. There is much about God that we do not know, but we can be certain that whatever is hidden from our eyes is consistent with what has been revealed to us. Paul told the Corinthians: “Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully” (1 Cor. 13:12). In other words, we have partial knowledge of the fullness of God, not full knowledge of only a part of him. That knowledge will expand, but as with an image in a mirror, it will come into better focus, not be something completely different from what we already know.

Divine simplicity also means that God’s attributes interpenetrate each other. Theoretical analysis is useful because it allows us to concentrate on different aspects of his being, but we cannot extract one attribute, like invisibility, and treat it as if it had nothing to do with the others. Whether we think of God as immortal, impassible, or eternal, what we say about him is true of everything in him. If God is righteous, then he is immortally and eternally righteous. If he is impassible and invisible, then his righteousness is also impassible and invisible.

Divine simplicity prevents us from calling personality a divine attribute. If it were, there would be only one person in God, not three.

Simplicity also makes it impossible to say that God is wrathful by nature. Wrath is the way disobedient people experience God’s justice, but it is not a divine attribute. If it were, God would be angry with everybody all the time.

In these and other similar ways, simplicity serves as a check on our analysis of God’s being and helps us to understand what can (and cannot) be classified among his attributes.

God’s simplicity is not explicitly mentioned as such in the Bible, but it is consistent with what James says about the Father of lights, “with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). James is speaking primarily about God’s consistency in giving gifts to his people, which will never be diminished or taken away, but he justifies that statement by referring to the nature of God, which is consistent with itself.

The doctrine can also claim support from a number of biblical passages that say things like: “Hear O Israel, ‘The Lord our God, the Lord is one’” (Deut. 6:4, quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29).

Isaiah 44:6 goes further and says, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

And this statement is echoed in Revelation 1:8, where God reveals himself to John as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.

Another important verse is Ephesians 4:6: “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

None of these texts speaks directly of the divine simplicity, but they all bear witness to God’s oneness and exclusiveness—there is no other god besides him.

Properly understood, “simplicity” covers both “unity” and “perfection,” terms that have sometimes been used to indicate divine attributes thought to be distinguishable from it. In reality, they go together. If God is who he says he is, then his simplicity ties everything together, and as James put it, there is no variation in him.

It was listed as one of the top ten books of the year for the Wall Street Journal, with Yuval Levin writing: “A rare achievement: a rigorous academic book that is also accessible, engaging and wise. . . . By sketching out an ethic of mutual obligation rooted in our common vulnerabilities, the book opens a path toward a more humane society. . . . Among the most important works of moral philosophy produced so far in this century.”

Professor Snead is director of Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law at the university. He is one of the world’s leading experts in the field of “public bioethics,” which looks at how science, medicine, and biotechnology should be governed in the name of ethical goods.

The novelist Walker Percy once wrote: “Everyone has an anthropology. There is no not having one. If a man says he does not, all he is saying is that his anthropology is implicit, a set of assumptions which he has not thought to call into question.” That’s the big idea behind the book. At its core, he argues that bad anthropology makes bad law. In its place he calls for a wise, just, humane, and fully human approach to public bioethics. And that, he argues, must begin by remembering the body. Our embodiment entails certain obligations and virtues—which are uncovered and elucidated in this brilliant treatment.

The conclusion to the book—excerpted below—provides a nice summary of the argument. Every sentence is worth reading carefully.

The fundamental purpose of law is to protect and promote the flourishing of persons.

Accordingly, the richest understanding of the law is an anthropological one, obtained by inquiry into its underwriting premises about human identity and thriving.

In order to be fully wise, just, and humane, the means and ends of the law must correspond to the reality of human life, humanly lived.

The defining character of this reality is embodiment—the fact that we experience ourselves, one another, and the world around us as living bodies.

As living bodies in time, we are vulnerable, dependent, and subject to natural limits, including injury, illness, senescence, and death.

Thus, both for our basic survival and to realize our potential, we need to care for one another. We need robust and expansive networks of uncalculated giving and graceful receiving populated by people who make the good of others their own good, without demand for or expectation of recompense.

The goods and practices necessary to the creation and maintenance of these networks are the virtues of just generosity, hospitality, and accompaniment in suffering (misericordia), as well as gratitude, humility, openness to the unbidden, tolerance of imperfection, solidarity, respect for intrinsic equal dignity, honesty, and cultivation of moral imagination.

Viewed through the lens of the anthropology of embodiment, all living members of the human family are worthy of care and protection, regardless of age, disability, cognitive capacity, dependence, and most of all, regardless of the opinions of others. Everyone can participate in the network of giving and receiving, even if only as the passive recipient of unconditional love and concern.

There are no pre­ or post­ personal human beings in the anthropology of embodiment. Through the nurture and protection of these networks we survive, and eventually become the kind of people who can give to others in proportion to their need, without the hope or expectation of receiving. In this way, we take responsibility for sustaining such networks of care so that they can endure for future generations.

But, more deeply, it is through becoming a person capable of unconditional and uncalculated care of others that we become what we are meant to be. By virtue of our existence as embodied beings in time, we are made for love and friendship.

Our modern dominant anthropology in the three perennial conflicts in public bioethics—the legal disputes over abortion, assisted reproduction, and end­ of­ life decision­ making—is insufficient. It is rooted in expressive individualism, a reductive and incomplete vision of human identity and flourishing. While this captures a truth about human particularity and freedom, it misses crucial aspects of embodied reality.

Through the lens of expressive individualism, there are no unchosen obligations, relationships are instrumental and transactional, and natural givens offer no guidance for understanding or negotiating the world.

Vulnerability and dependence—that of others and even our own—are not intelligible.

And those around us whose freedom and agency are diminished or absent because of age, disease, or disability, are invisible and not recognized as other selves to whom we owe duties of care (in the absence of a prior agreement).

Again, this is a careful, brilliant book showing how the philosophy of expressive individualism simply cannot account for what it means to be an embodied human. Snead shows in clear and painstaking detail how this works out in abortion, assisted reproduction, and end­-of­-life decision­ making.

(At time of writing, the book is out of stock at Amazon, but you can get it directly from the publisher.)

[Verse 1]
Should nothing of our efforts stand
No legacy survive
Unless the Lord does raise the house
In vain its builders strive

To you who boast tomorrow’s gain
Tell me, What is your life?
A mist that vanishes at dawn
All glory be to Christ!

[Chorus]
All glory be to Christ our king!
All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing
All glory be to Christ!

[Verse 2]
His will be done, His kingdom come
On earth as is above
Who is Himself our daily bread
Praise Him, the Lord of love

Let living water satisfy
The thirsty without price
We’ll take a cup of kindness yet
All glory be to Christ!

[Chorus]
All glory be to Christ our king!
All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing
All glory be to Christ!

[Verse 3]
When on the day the great I Am
The faithful and the true
The Lamb who was for sinners slain
Is making all things new

Behold our God shall live with us
And be our steadfast light
And we shall e’er his people be
All glory be to Christ!

[Chorus]
All glory be to Christ our king!
All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign we’ll ever sing
All glory be to Christ!

Be self-critical. Before and during your writing, anticipate objections. . . . A truly self-critical attitude can save you from unclarity and unsound arguments. It will also keep you from arrogance and unwarranted dogmatism—faults common to all theology (liberal as well as conservative).

Don’t hesitate to say “probably” or even “I don’t know” when the circumstances warrant.

Self-criticism will also make you more “profound.” For often—perhaps usually—it is objections that force us to rethink our positions, to get beyond our superficial ideas, to wrestle with the really deep theological issues. As you anticipate objections to your replies to objections to your replies, and so forth, you will find yourself being pushed irresistibly into the realm of the “difficult questions,” the theological profundities.

In self-criticism the creative use of the theological imagination is tremendously important. Keep asking such questions as these.

(a) Can I take my source’s idea in a more favorable sense? A less favorable one?

(b) Does my idea provide the only escape from the difficulty, or are there others?

(c) In trying to escape from one bad extreme, am I in danger of falling into a different evil on the other side?

(d) Can I think of some counter-examples to my generalizations?

(e) Must I clarify my concepts, lest they be misunderstood?

(f) Will my conclusion be controversial and thus require more argument than I had planned?