Soon after, Michael A. Kirk (a neuropsychiatry researcher) and Hunter Madsen (a public relations consultant) expanded their blueprint into a full-length 398-page bestselling book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (Doubleday, 1989).

Here were the seven steps they laid out.* Their plan, remarkably and tragically, resulted in one of the fastest and most decisive moral and cultural revolutions in history.

God’s truth does not change, but culture does. Here was their plan, which has worked for a long time now, though it will ultimately not prevail as a rejection of God’s good and gracious design.

Step 1: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible. . . . Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided. . . .”

Step 2: Portray gays as victims

“Portray gays as victims of circumstance and depression, not as aggressive challengers . . . to make straights feel very uncomfortable . . . and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion.”

Step 3: Desensitize the public

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public . . . to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. . . . No big deal.”

Step 4: Marginalize extremes; emphasize the mainstream

“Cocky mustachioed leather‑men, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials. . . . Conventional young people, middle‑age women, and older folks of all races . . . would be featured.”

Step 5: Promote the “born gay” narrative

“We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay. . . . To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms. . . .”

Step 6: Muddy the moral waters

“Use talk to muddy the moral waters . . . publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings.”

Step 7: Make opponents look bad

“We intend to make the anti‑gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types. . . . The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes. . . .”

* The plan was actually six steps, but I’ve expanded broken out one of their points since it had two parts.

There are a number of things about the narrative of the women that can perplexing when we seek to harmonize their actions across the four accounts. The sheer number of Marys sometimes adds to the confusion! And it even can be difficult to untangle the Greek grammar. For example, is John 19:25 about three women or four?

Option 1

• “his mother and
• his mother’s sister,
• Mary the wife of Clopas, and
• Mary Magdalene”

Option 2:

• “his mother and
• his mother’s sister, [that is,] Mary the wife of Clopas, and
• Mary Magdalene”

Under option 1, the reference is likely to Salome (which would make the sons of Zebedee—James and John—the cousins of Jesus).

However, option B is more likely, meaning that Mary the wife of Clopas is Mary’s sister (or sister-in-law) and thus Jesus’s aunt.

We don’t pretend to offer definitive solutions in our book, but I thought it might be helpful for those preaching or thinking through this material to highlight the relevant entries in our reference guide at the end of the book. There is more information on these important women than we have often recognized.

Here are the list of the key women.

• Joanna (wife of Chuza)

• Mary Magdalene

• Mary (mother of Jesus)

• Mary (mother of James and Joses/Joseph)

• Mary (wife of Clopas)

• Salome (mother of James and John)

And here are some descriptions and where their stories can be found:

1. Joanna (wife of Chuza)

• She was among the first women to discover the empty tomb (Luke 24:10).
• She was the wife of Chuza, the household manager or steward of King Herod Antipas (Luke 8:3).
• She was a follower of Jesus.
• She helped to provide financially for Jesus’s ministry, along with Susanna and many others (Luke 8:3).

2. Mary Magdalene

• She was a Galilean woman probably from the town of Magdala (on the west bank of the Sea of Galilee).
• Jesus delivered her from seven demons (Luke 8:2; Mark 16:9).
• She was a follower of Jesus (Matt. 27:57).
• She was a witness to the crucifixion and burial (Matt. 27:61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; John 19:25).
• She was among the women who went to the tomb on Sunday (Mark 16:1; John 20:1).
• She was the first person to see Jesus alive (Mark 16:9).
• She told the other disciples (Luke 24:10; John 20:18).

3. Mary (mother of Jesus, widow of Joseph of Nazareth)

• She gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
• She married Joseph of Nazareth.
• She helped to raise Jesus.
• She was present at his execution and burial.
• She witnessed his resurrection life.
• From the cross Jesus entrusted his widowed mother to John’s care, and she went to live in his home ( John 19:25-27)—perhaps because Mary’s other sons were not yet believers ( John 7:5; see also Matt. 13:57; Mark 3:21, 31; 6:4).

Jesus was the oldest of at least six half-siblings.

Joseph and Mary’s other sons (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:2-3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19) were:

• James (author of the biblical book of James)
• Joseph/Joses
• Simon
• Judas/Jude (author of the biblical book of Jude)

She also had at least two daughters (Mark 6:3).

4. Mary (mother of James and Joses/Joseph)

• She was a witness of Jesus’s crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances.
• Her sons were named James the Younger (hence her husband must have been named James) and Joses/Joseph (Matt. 27:61; 27:56; Mark 15:40, 47).

The fact that two Marys in the story have sons with the same names (James and Joseph/Joses) shows the commonality of certain names in first-century Galilee. The name Mary, in particular, was exceedingly common in first-century Palestine, hence the need to distinguish between different Marys in the Gospels, whether by way of their hometown (Mary Magdalene) or in association with their husband (Mary of Clopas) or sons (Mary mother of James and Joses).

5. Mary (wife of Clopas)

• She was a Galilean witness of Jesus’s crucifixion.
• She may be identified as Jesus’s “mother’s sister” ( John 19:25)—though see discussion under Salome below.
• According to Hegesippus, as quoted by the historian Eusebius, Clopas was the brother of Joseph of Nazareth (Hist. Eccl. 3.11; 3.32.6; 4.22.4). If so, Mary and Clopas were Jesus’s aunt and uncle. Their son Simeon (Jesus’s cousin) became a leader of the Jerusalem church succeeding James the brother of Jesus.

6. Salome (mother of James and John)

• She was of Jesus’s female followers in Galilee.
• She witnessed the crucifixion.
• She went to the tomb on Sunday (Mark 15:40; 16:1).
• The parallel passage in Matthew 27:56 makes it likely that she is the mother of the sons of Zebedee (i.e., James and John).

In a piece we wrote for Christianity Today online, Andreas and I looked at Five Errors to Drop from Your Easter Sermon. Here is a comment on the role of the women that may be helpful to remember:

As you preach this Easter, do not bypass the testimony of the women as an incidental detail.

In the first century, women were not even eligible to testify in a Jewish court of law.

Josephus said that even the witness of multiple women was not acceptable “because of the levity and boldness of their sex.”

Celsus, the second-century critic of Christianity, mocked the idea of Mary Magdalene as an alleged resurrection witness, referring to her as a “hysterical female . . . deluded by . . . sorcery.”

This background matters because it points to two crucial truths.

First, it is a theological reminder that the kingdom of the Messiah turns the system of the world on its head. Into this culture, Jesus radically affirmed the full dignity of women and the vital value of their witness.

Second, it is a powerful apologetic reminder of the historical accuracy of the resurrection accounts. If these were “cleverly devised myths” (2 Pet. 1:16), women would never have been presented as the first eyewitnesses of the risen Christ.

To our God be the glory
To our God be praise
He alone, the name above all names

I will boast ever only in the Lord my God
For I know
His glory is my good

You can watch the video below, followed by the lyrics:

1. I have seen my Father’s glory
Revealed in Jesus Christ
And the more that I behold Him
The more He satisfies

When I gaze upon His beauty
When I see Him as I should
Then my eyes are lifted upward
For His glory and my good

2. There is hope in every trial
For I can trust the Lord
He will turn my heart towards Him
And help me bear the thorn

So in faith I follow Jesus
On the road not understood
For I know that He is working
For His glory and my good

To our God be the glory
To our God be praise
He alone, the name above all names

I will boast ever only in the Lord my God
For I know
His glory is my good

3. See the open arms of Jesus
Upon the cross that day
What they understood as weakness
Deserves my every praise

For the charge that was against me
It was nailed into the wood
Yes I know that He has saved me
For His glory and my good

4. Would I gladly be made nothing
That Christ would be made more
Would I seek the only kingdom
That far outweighs them all

I will stand before my Father
Where the faithful saints have stood
And with joy my heart shall praise Him
For His glory and my good

“His Glory and My Good” Words and Music by Jonny Robinson, Rich Thompson and Ben Fielding ©2024 CityAlight Music CCLI 7235691

I thought it was a very fruitful conversation. One of the questions I asked them was something like this: “Is it a good idea for a pastor to teach a Sunday School class or to preach a sermon on Christianity and politics? If you were to do so, what are the two Bible texts you would expound (and one of them can’t be Romans 13)?”

I also ask them how they would respond to someone in their congregation who had more Anabaptist or more theonomic inclinations.

DeYoung (a Presbyterian) and Leeman (a Baptist) disagree to some degree on some issues, but also model how to listen with the aim of understanding and to talk through them constructively.

1. Pray.

2. Seek counsel from a godly pastor (or from elders).

3. Keep your priorities straight.

The gospel must be

• truly affirmed,
• clearly preached, and
• faithfully lived out.

A serious lack in any of these expressions of the gospel is very dangerous.

The preaching must be

• faithful to Scripture,
• personally challenging, and
• central to the congregation’s life.

You will only grow spiritually where Scripture is treated as the highest authority.

• Also very important is to consider

• how the church regulates
  • baptism,
  • the Lord’s Supper,
  • church membership,
  • church discipline, and

• who has the final say in decision making.

In short, read chapters 5 to 13 in What Is a Healthy Church? 

4. Ask yourself diagnostic questions such as:

• Would I want to find a spouse who has been brought up under this church’s teaching?
• What picture of Christianity will my children see in this church— something distinct or something a lot like the world?
• Would I be happy to invite non-Christians to this church? That is, would they clearly hear the gospel and see lives consistent with it? Does the church have a heart for welcoming and reaching non-Christians?
• Is this church a place where I can minister and serve?

5. Consider geography.

Would the church’s physical proximity to your home encourage or discourage frequent involvement and service?

If you’re moving to a new area, try to locate a good church home before you buy a house.

Dever also offers some counsel on what to do before you decide to leave a church:

Before You Decide to Leave

1. Pray.

2. Let your current pastor know about your thinking before you move to another church or make your decision to relocate to another city. Ask for his counsel.

3. Weigh your motives.

Is your desire to leave because of sinful, personal conflict or disappointment?

If it’s because of doctrinal reasons, are these doctrinal issues significant?

4. Do everything within your power to reconcile any broken relationships.

5. Be sure to consider all the “evidences of grace” you’ve seen in the church’s life—places where God’s work is evident.

If you cannot see any evidences of God’s grace, you might want to examine your own heart once more (Matt. 7:3–5).

6. Be humble.

Recognize you don’t have all the facts and assess people and circumstances charitably (give them the benefit of the doubt).

If You Go

1. Don’t divide the body.

2. Take the utmost care not to sow discontent even among your closest friends.

Remember, you don’t want anything to hinder their growth in grace in this church.

Deny any desire to gossip (sometimes referred to as “venting” or “saying how you feel”).

3. Pray for and bless the congregation and its leadership. Look for ways of doing this practically.

4. If there has been hurt, then forgive—even as you have been forgiven.

Whenever anyone asks me about church recommendations for an area I don’t know—whether because of relocation or visiting on vacation—I almost always use the church search tools at TGC and 9Marks.

Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward him.

How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom his heart reposed” [cf. Matthew 3:17]?

How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father toward others, if he were himself hateful to God?

This is what we are saying: he bore the weight of divine severity, since he was “stricken and afflicted” [cf. Isaiah 53:5] by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God.

—Institutes, II.xvi.11

Which king ever displayed the sign of his dominion upon his shoulder,
and not in a crown upon his head or a scepter in his hand,
or some mark of appropriate apparel?

No, only the new king of the new ages, Christ Jesus, the king of new glory,
has lifted up upon his shoulder his own dominion and majesty,
which is the cross,
so that henceforth, as the previous prophecy stated, he reigned as Lord from the tree.

—Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19.1–3, SC 399:164–66, in Isaiah, ed. Robert Louis Wilken, 128; cited in Daniel J. Treier, Lord Jesus Christ, 133.

In that first decade (2013–2022), host Tony Reinke produced 1,881 episodes with John Piper. At around 10 minutes per episode, that adds up to over 313 hours of content, or 2.3 million words in its edited transcribed form.

The podcast has been played 230 million times, or about 125,000 times per episode.

Now, Tony has put together an absolutely remarkable achievement: Ask Pastor John: 750 Bible Answers to Life’s Most Important Questions (Crossway, 2024).

It’s 534 pages. You may be tempted to think it’s the podcast in printed form. (If that was the case, the book would be over 4,600 pages!).

Or you may think it’s an anthology of the best of the best episodes.

But it’s neither of those.

Tony calls it “a guided tour, a narrated synthesis of our 750 most popular episodes, mostly on situational ethics. . . . This book is a core sample of John Piper’s mind and theology. ”

He explains further:

This book doesn’t replace the podcast, it complements it as an easily browsable companion guide, a summary of our most popular episodes, particularly focused on the situational dilemmas we will face. It’s a CliffsNotes version of our most popular episodes to aid meditation, retainment, and recall.

Books can be easily stacked on shelves. Even magazines can be kept in a box or basket. But podcasts are strictly digital things—ephemeral audio files meant to stream, play, and then disappear like a soundwave in the air. But APJ was designed, from the start, to endure as a permanent audio archive.

What you hold in your hands is a guided tour—a topically arranged encyclopedia to a podcast archive. I don’t intend for that to make immediate sense, because I think this book inaugurates a new genre.

Basically, my prayer is that by making dozens of the major podcast themes browsable in print this book will make the archive more useful to you at the very moment when you need it. This book doesn’t have an index; it is the index. An index to serve you as you serve others.

Tony notes, “even though we maintain a huge digital archive—fully transcribed and searchable—many people cannot easily find those episodes when they need them.”

Tony also wants to celebrate John Piper’s investment in this podcast. (For every 10-minute episode, Piper spends about an hour in preparation.) Tony writes:

His answers are not simply the product of a concordance. John Piper is a renowned New Testament scholar, world-class preacher, and veteran pastor with over three decades of church leadership practice added to his personal experience in marriage, parenting, and grandparenting.

He watches his life and doctrine more closely than anyone else I’ve known (1 Tim. 4:16).

And he was born to answer Bible questions. He has a keen eye for the crux, skilled in rapidly pinpointing the core problem in a given dilemma, a gift I’ve seen operate in tense meetings, complex email chains, and now in hundreds of APJ responses.

While there’s always much more to say on a topic, he can isolate the main thing that needs to be said in a ten-minute episode.

His willingness to invest hundreds of hours of preparation into his responses, personal piety, earnestness, devotion to Scripture, skill in pinpointing core issues, and deep experience are the ingredients to the secret sauce of the podcast’s popularity now, and of its potential to endure for decades ahead.

Again, I’m in awe of the synthesis that Tony has produced. Perhaps you want to take that commendation with a grain of salt, given my role at Crossway. So I’ll let others seek to persuade you of the value and the achievement:

“My first thought on seeing these pages was that perhaps not since Richard Baxter penned his massive Christian Directory has a book like Ask Pastor John been offered to Christians. From the vast number of questions to which John Piper has responded over a decade of podcasting, these pages contain 750 of the most listened-to answers. And while Piper’s ministry is separated from Baxter’s by more than three centuries, a common thread binds them together—the deep-seated conviction that the God-breathed Scriptures make us ‘wise for salvation’ in the fullest sense because, in providing teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, they are sufficient to equip us ‘for every good work’ (2 Tim. 3:15–17). The value of these pages is as evident as it is manifold. At one level, theological, pastoral, and ethical questions are assessed, analyzed, and consistently answered by bringing them to the touchstone of Scripture. But in addition, this is done with a rigorous and determined attention to both the wording and the interior logic of God’s word with a desire to help us to think God’s thoughts after him. And this in turn serves all of us as a pattern to learn and apply in our own Bible reading, and as a model that encourages us to live according to Scripture. In addition, the step-by-step care with which John Piper seeks to handle Scripture helps us—as he would wish—to discern how what he says applies in our own lives, and, indeed, where it might not. And so as a theologian he guides our understanding, and as a pastor he encourages us to grow in discernment so that we are not simply becoming automatons but are learning to think through and apply God’s word by ourselves, for ourselves, and to ourselves. We owe a debt of grateful thanks to John Piper for the labor of love and devotion of time and pastoral care this book reflects, and to his long-time colleague Tony Reinke, who—from an archive of over two million words!—has expertly selected and edited these pages. Here is one of those rare contemporary books that can be described as ‘should be in every Christian home,’ and to which we can turn again and again for guidance from God’s word, encouragement in Christ, and challenge to walk according to the Spirit.”
—Sinclair B. Ferguson, Chancellor’s Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary; author, The Whole Christ and Worthy

“I don’t know what is more remarkable, that the Ask Pastor John podcast has nearly two thousand episodes and over 230 million listens or that Tony Reinke has distilled all that content in order to give us a guided tour of 220 hours of audio recordings. Have you ever wished you could sit down with John Piper (or any wise, seasoned pastor) and ask him all your practical, nitty-gritty questions about life, ministry, parenting, sex, Bible reading, divorce, abuse, dating, gambling, eating, drinking, movies, demons, depression, poetry, and selfie sticks? Then this is the book for you. Even if you don’t agree with Piper on every jot and tittle of application, you will find that he is always thoughtful, always careful, always pastoral, and always tied to the Bible. Read the book straight through, a little each day, or use these five hundred pages as an encyclopedia on situational ethics and practical theology. Either way, I can’t imagine any Christian who wouldn’t be helped (and fascinated) by the hundreds of topics covered in this amazing resource.”
—Kevin DeYoung, Senior Pastor, Christ Covenant Church, Matthews, North Carolina; Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte

“Throw a hard question at John Piper and he will isolate the main challenge and address it with a sage answer, drawn from the Bible, delivered in a kind tone that lacks even a hint of hubris. He willingly answers all sorts of dilemmas, from hard Bible verses to the daily struggles of the Christian life to culturally charged questions that border on the embarrassing to the bizarre. For years I have been an avid listener because each episode draws me deeper into God’s word. Pastor John has spoken so wisely on such a wide array of topics that I am always ferreting through past episodes to learn more. But that vast archive can be daunting. With many years of experience as the host, Tony Reinke has pulled together the 750 most popular episodes from their first decade together into a single guide touching on dozens of themes. This book is an index to the podcast archive, drawing together multiple episodes on single topics, making it easy for me to find the audio I need, when I need it. As a podcast listener, I couldn’t be more pleased. I’m thankful to Reinke for compiling this encyclopedia and—now for over a decade—drawing out, documenting, and helping us all more richly benefit from America’s most beloved theologian!”
—Joni Eareckson Tada, Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center

“This book is a remarkable achievement, cataloging John Piper’s answers to hundreds of challenges and dilemmas in the Christian life. A modern-day Table Talk, reminiscent of Martin Luther, this book is like sitting across a table from a Bible-saturated pastor addressing issues that are timely and issues that are timeless. You likely won’t agree with every answer. I didn’t. But what I appreciate about this book is how, even when I disagreed, Pastor John pointed me back to the Scriptures and pressed my nose deeper into those pages where, through studying and savoring, I find the unerring words of life. I am thankful for this encyclopedia of wisdom and insight. It increases my love for God and his word.”
—Trevin Wax, Vice President of Research and Resource Development, North American Mission Board; Visiting Professor, Cedarville University; author, The Thrill of Orthodoxy; Rethink Your Self; and This Is Our Time

“For years, the Ask Pastor John podcast has served me as a go-to reservoir for pastoral encouragement and practical help. There is nothing else like it. If you’re serious about your joy in Jesus, turn these pages and find accessible, God-centered answers to life’s biggest questions. The book is brilliantly organized; few will sufficiently appreciate what Reinke has pulled off here.”
—Matt Smethurst, Lead Pastor, River City Baptist Church, Richmond, Virginia; author, Before You Open Your Bible and Before You Share Your Faith

Here is the table of contents:

I was recently reminded of the section below adapted from his 2017 book, Making All Things New: Restoring Joy to the Sexually Broken. It has stayed with me and encouraged me and instructed me.

The key to getting a long view of sanctification is to understand direction.

What matters most is not the distance you’ve covered.

It’s not the speed you’re going.

It’s not how long you’ve been a Christian.

It’s the direction you’re heading. . . .

Some people, during a season of life, leap like gazelles.

Let’s say you’ve been living in flagrant sexual sins. You turn from sin to Christ, and the open sins disappear.

No more fornication: you stop sleeping with your girlfriend or boyfriend.

No more exhibitionism: you stop wearing that particularly revealing blouse.

No more pornography: you stop surfing the net or reading the latest salacious romances.

No more adultery or homosexual encounters: you break it off once and for all. Never again.

It sometimes happens like that. Not always, of course, but a gazelle season is a joy to all.

For other people (or the same people at another season of life) sanctification is a steady, measured walk.

You learn truth.

You face your fears and step out toward God and people.

You learn to serve others constructively.

You build new disciplines.

You learn basic life wisdom.

You learn who God is, who you are, how life works.

You learn to worship, to pray, to give time, money, and care.

And you grow steadily—wonder of wonders!

Other people (or the same people in another season) are trudging.

It’s hard going.

You limp.

You don’t seem to get very far very fast.

Old patterns of desire or fear are stubborn.

But if you trudge in the right direction—high praises to the Lord of glory! One day, you will see him face-to-face. You will be like him.

Some people crawl on their hands and knees for a long or short season.

Progress is painful.

You’re barely moving.

But praise God for the glory of his grace, you are inching in the right direction.

And there may be times when you’re not even moving—stuck in gridlock, broken down—but you’re still facing in the right direction.

That’s Psalm 88, the “basement” of the Psalms. The writer feels dark despair—but it’s despair oriented in the Lord’s direction. In other words, it’s still faith, even when faith feels so discouraged you can only say, “You are my only hope. Help. Where are You?” That kind of prayer counts—it made it into the Bible.

There are times you might fall asleep in the blizzard and lie down, comatose and forgetful—but grace wakes you up, reminds you, and gets you moving again.

There are times you slowly wander off in the wrong direction, beguiled by some false promise, or disappointed by a true promise that you falsely understood.

But he who began a good work in you awakens you from your sleepwalk, sooner or later, and puts you back on the path.

And then there are times you revolt and do a face-plant in the muck, a swan dive into the abyss—but grace picks you up and washes you off again, and turns you back.

Slowly you get the point. Perhaps then you leap and bound, or walk steadily, or trudge, or crawl, or face with greater hope in the right direction.

We love gazelles. Graceful leaps make for great stories about God’s wonder-working power.

And we like steady and predictable. It seems to vindicate our efforts at making the Christian life work in a businesslike manner.

But, in fact, there’s no formula, no secret, no technique, no program, no schedule, and no truth that guarantees the speed, distance, or time frame. On the day you die, you’ll still be somewhere in the middle. But you will be further along.

When we lengthen the battle, we realize that our business is the direction.

The eternal Son of God, enjoying the communion of the blessed Trinity,

gives human beings a creaturely share in such blessedness,

becoming the Bridegroom through whom we will enjoy the eternal consummation of our union with God.

The book is Lord Jesus Christ, New Studies in Dogmatics, ed. Michael Allen and Scott Swain (Zondervan, 2023).

Treier’s argument proceeds by way of ten theses. I thought these were so clear and helpful, tethered to biblical texts, that it’d be worth reproducing here for your edification.

1. The Son of God

As epitomized in Ephesians 1:3–14,

Jesus Christ is the Son of God,

who enjoys eternal communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

2. The Unique Image of God

As epitomized in Colossians 1:15–29,

Jesus Christ is the unique Image of God,

who embodies the divine Wisdom active in the creation of the world.

3. The Messiah

As epitomized in Luke 24:13–35,

Jesus Christ is the Messiah,

who fulfills God’s covenant promises.

4. Immanuel, God with Us

As epitomized in Isaiah 7:14,

the Old Testament anticipated the first advent of Jesus Christ as Immanuel, God with us, incarnate in a fully human life.

5. The Word

As epitomized in John 1:1–18,

Jesus Christ is the Word,

whose incarnation is God’s ultimate self-revelation.

6. The Lord

As epitomized in Philippians 2:5–11,

Jesus Christ is the Lord,

whose humiliation as Servant revealed the glory of God’s love in rendering the ultimate human obedience.

7. The Savior

As epitomized in Luke 4:14–30,

Jesus of Nazareth is the Savior,

whose earthly mission inaugurated God’s kingdom in person.

8. The Son of Man

As epitomized in Mark 10:32–45 (with Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in the background),

Jesus Christ is the Son of Man,

whose passion was the once-for-all act of atonement through which God redeemed us.

9. The Mediator

As epitomized in Hebrews 7:22–8:6,

Jesus Christ is the theandric Mediator between God and humanity,

whose bodily resurrection and ascension inaugurated his exaltation.

10. The Bridegroom

As epitomized in Revelation 21:1–22:5,

Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom,

whose return will bring the consummation of creation and redemption, glorifying the covenant people to be fully at home with God.

It was during this time that he dictated sonnet 19, “When I Consider How My Light Is Spent,” reflecting on this change in his life and wrestling with the purposes of God in his disability:

When I consider how my light is spent,
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide;
“Doth God exact day-labor, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, “God doth not need
Either man’s work or His own gifts. Who best
Bear His mild yoke, they serve Him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at His bidding speed,
And post o’er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait.”

“If we care about the future of the church—the future of the church is in Africa, because the next generation of the church is going to be there—then we ought to help them by providing Bibles, study Bibles, and sound doctrine. We should flood the continent with God’s Word.”

—Karen Elliott, Executive Director of the Rafiki Foundation

To help, go to crossway.org/donate/onemillionbibles/.

The church as the community of Christ’s kingdom on earth is a theo-political order.

While all things are under the rule of Christ, it is his saving rule that constitutes his kingdom (Col. 1:13).

The church is the heavenly polis on earth, the new humanity whose hearts have been circumcised by the Holy Spirit. Its breadth reaches out to all peoples; its depth renews the heart (Jer. 32:39; Ezek. 11:19).

We have no abiding city here; the church cannot be identified with the kingdoms of this world (Heb. 13:14).

But we do have a city with foundations, whose builder and maker is God. As such, the church exercises heavenly citizenship in the fellowship of the saints (Heb. 11:10, 16; 12:28; Phil. 3:20).

The community exists on earth, but is governed by the keys of the heavenly kingdom, with spiritual, not physical sanctions (Matt. 16:19; Rev. 3:7).

—Edmund P. Clowney, The Church, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1995), 189.

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.