Homeward Bound

4 Things We Added to the Bible

2026-04-15T06:15:00.000-05:00

I'm a nerd. Always have been, always will be. After college my nerdiness shifted some of its focus from science and science fiction to the scriptures. Yep, you can nerd out on the Bible. I haven't learned any esoteric secrets, but lately I've come to realize that a lot of what's rattling around in my head isn't exactly common knowledge, either, so we're going to start a series we'll call Bible 101. Some of the facts I'll share may only be interesting; others may have apologetic value or help us interpret the scriptures. Let's dive in by looking at things in our Bible that aren't actually in the inspired text.

Chapters
There's a more complicated history, but the chapter divisions we use now were developed in the 1200s by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. A tradition says he was reading as he rode on a mule, and whenever the mule stopped, he would mark a chapter division. And some of them feel that random, such as when the seventh day of the creation account gets bumped to chapter 2.

Chapter numbers allow us to say "Psalm 23" instead of "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" to refer to that psalm. But the downside is we tend to think of them as hard breaks in thought when they usually are not. We often start reading one chapter without thinking about what came before. John 14 flows out of John 13. Romans 8 is a response to Romans 7. We rarely read Romans through in one sitting, much less John, so my practice has become, wherever I left my bookmark, I back up and read the last paragraph before proceeding. This helps maintain a sense of the logical flow of the text.

Verses
If we added chapters, it should be no surprise we added verse numbers. The history is complicated, but the version we currently use was made in the 1500s, and the Geneva Bible was the first English Bible to print them.

Like chapter numbers, verse numbers are so very useful. And they create the misconception that verses can stand alone. We pull favorite quotes out of books all the time, but we know they exist in a context. Somehow we lose that with Bible verses very easily. "Judge not lest you be judged" is the opening sentence in Jesus' instructions on the topic, not the whole thought. Even when we read the Bible, we can easily focus on one sentence, one "verse", and let it trip us up instead of letting the paragraph tell us what it means like we would in literally any other book. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason likes to say, "There are no verses in the Bible." The numbers are useful for referring to a particular passage, but don't let them trick you into thinking they are standalone ideas.

Section headings
By now this is probably obvious, and if you've got two different translations, you've already seen that different versions will have different section headings. These are added to modern Bibles by editors trying to help us to recognize pericopes (that is, thought blocks) and to find things when we're skimming, looking for "that more than conquerors passage".

Different editorial teams will break the text into different blocks and give them different headings. And you can change them. As I study books, I develop my own outlines and label the sections as something that helps me remember what the passage teaches.

For example, the ESV labels Titus 1:8-16 "Qualifications for Elders". But that stretch goes into more than just elders. I wrote "Leaders to Rebuke False Teachers". Titus 2 is labeled "Teach Sound Doctrine". I wrote "Teach Lives that Adorn the Gospel". Are my sections headings better than theirs? They remind me of what I learned, and that's all they need to do.

Quotation marks
Actually, there is no punctuation at all in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts; what we have is the product of decisions by translators. But the quotation marks really raise some issues.

If I could go back in time, I would teach the apostles about quotation marks. As it is, we cannot be 100% sure whether they're quoting or paraphrasing. When they quote the Old Testament and it doesn't match anything we have, is it because they were working from a different textual tradition or because they were paraphrasing? Some have suggested they didn't really see a difference between a quotation and a paraphrase.

In 1Corinthians 7:1, was Paul quoting the Corinthians or making a statement? The NASB reads:

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

The ESV reads:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Which is it? We cannot be sure. There are several places in Paul's letters where it'd be really, really useful to know whether he was quoting what they'd written to him. Translators just have to use their best judgment.

This even affects the words of Jesus. In John, it can be hard to tell whether it's Jesus or the narrator speaking. Did Jesus utter the words of John 3:16? Translators go both ways on the issue.

Some questions we have about the scriptures simply cannot be answered. And that's OK. It'd be nice if 1Cor 7 was a little clearer, and we'd like to know if Jesus said those words, but God's message to us in his word is clear enough for us to understand what we absolutely need to understand. A few niggling questions around the edges don't change that.

Part of Bible 101

Image via Pixabay

The Atoning Sacrifice

2026-04-08T06:18:00.000-05:00

Many Christians today want to "unhitch" the church from the Old Testament. Then there are those who say we cannot fully understand the New Testament without the Old. I'm firmly in the second camp. Let's walk through an OT passage that really illuminates the teaching of the apostles.

The book of Leviticus has ended many attempts to read the Bible. Frankly it's pretty boring. On the surface. If we dig in a bit, that changes. We did this recently in my Bible study group, and they were a bit reluctant to tackle a passage in Leviticus, but "oh no" changed to "oh wow" by the end.

I encourage you to take a few minutes to read Leviticus 16. I'm going to proceed as if you did. There are a lot of cool details we can't go into here, but a series of questions will help us get to the real meat of the passage.

What does this teach us about God?
This passage begins with a reference to events recorded in chapter 10. God had given the priests very explicit instructions on what to offer the Lord in the tabernacle. Two of Aaron's sons perhaps got a little tipsy and decided to get creative. God struck them down. Here God says the priests cannot just come before him any time they want or they will die. God had chosen to appear over the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle, and God is holy. His glory cannot be casually viewed (Ex 33:20), and his holiness must be respected. If not, his wrath will break out against them. Wrath is the natural reaction of holiness to sin. God had made his dwelling among them, but he is still high above them.

And yet this passage is about giving them a way so their sin can be forgiven and they can safely live with this holy God. So God's grace shines out in the midst of this passage about his holiness.

What does this teach us about humans?
"This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. ... From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering" (v3, 5).

This passage assumes you know what a burnt offering and a sin offering are as explained in chapters 1 and 4. Normally each is one animal, but this time the sin offering for the community requires two goats, and each sin offering must be accompanied by a burnt offering. Today three animals die instead of one.

The burnt offerings and sin offerings will have been offered many times throughout the year. And now they've got to do it again. The message here is that they've sinned much more than they realize. And that it takes a lot of blood to cover all their sins.

What does this teach us about sin?
"Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household" (v6). The English word "atonement" speaks of reconciliation. People like to break it down as "at-one-ment", and that's not a terrible way to look at it. The Hebrew word we translate "atonement", though, literally means to "cover". They were reconciled to God by having their sins covered by blood.

This passage gets interesting when we focus on what gets covered and why:
"He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and ... shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites..." (v15-16).

Aaron must make atonement for the Most Holy Place, the entire tent, and the altar. Sin is so corrupting it even contaminates inanimate objects. Chapter 18 says their sin can even defile the entire land. It's only after the sin that has contaminated the Most Holy Place, tabernacle, and altar is covered that the sins of the people can be atoned for.

What does this teach us about Jesus?
Jesus said all the Law and the Prophets speak of him. The New Testament tells us "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood" (Rom 3:25, see also Heb 2:17, 1Jn 2:2, 4:10).

On the Day of Atonement, one goat covered their sin's effect on the world, one goat took away their guilt, and the ram covered their sins. Jesus fulfilled all of those roles.

How does Christ change this?
No need to scratch our heads and pontificate; Hebrews 9-10 answers this directly. I recommend reading the whole thing, but let's look at some highlights.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. ... But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. ...

But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Heb 10:1-4, 11-14)

These sacrifices are no longer necessary because Christ, our great high priest, was also our perfect sacrifice, dying once and for all so that our sins could be forgiven. He is the mediator of a new covenant, and after he made atonement for us he went into the perfect temple in heaven where he reigns until he returns to bring salvation to his people and put his enemies under his feet.

How should we respond?
Hebrews answers that, too. The passage offers us three succinct application points.

Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God,...

1. "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water."

Take full advantage of what Christ did for us. The veil is torn! "Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need" (Heb 4:16).

2. "Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful."

Live like the matter is settled. Life is hard, but our victory in Christ is assured.

3. "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching (Heb 10:19-25)."

Encourage one another to live lives that honor Christ and make the gospel attractive. While there's still time.

Image via Pixabay

Was the Cross Divine Child Abuse?

2026-04-01T06:13:00.000-05:00

God sent his Son to die for our sins. That's one of the most basic statements of the gospel story. And many today respond by declaring the cross "divine child abuse". How can we respond to that?

The idea that the best news ever could be considered evil can startle Christians when they hear it. I have no doubt many who share this objection are just being inflammatory, but once other people, especially young people, hear it, it takes hold because it seems like it's just taking a look at what we say from a different perspective. "I never thought of it that way" can turn into horror quickly. So while it's tempting to take this as an attack from the angry "new atheist" crowd, we need to remember we're answering people, not movements, and many of these people are actually quite sincere. Give them the benefit of the doubt. We want to assume they're honestly bothered by this and ease their concerns, not attack their motives.

When we respond, we don't want to be defensive. The first thing I would say is "I understand how people think that." The Father sending his Son to die in our place is shocking. We call it amazing grace for a reason.

It's always best to ask people why they believe something; we don't want to answer the wrong objection. But there does seem to be a pattern: They have misunderstood the gospel. They characterize it as God being quite happy to punish the Son, who was unwilling but had to go along with it. They take Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:35-36) and the so-called cry of dereliction (Mark 15:34) as proof that Jesus was an unwilling victim.

What they're forgetting is the Trinity. Specifically, they're forgetting that God is one.

Any time people tell the gospel story in a way that pits the Father and the Son against each other, they're making this mistake. The Son was not rescuing us from the unforgiving Father. That Father was not inflicting the cross on his unwilling, innocent Son. God has eternally existed as three distinct persons who have always been in perfect harmony. God created. God was rebelled against. God saved.

At the cross, the God whose moral law has been violated took the sins of the world on himself.

This isn't Modalism; the Father sent his Son. But this is also not Arianism; the Son is fully God. Under any kind of Arianism, the cross is cruel: God sets one of his creatures apart to pay for the sins of other creatures. Only the Trinity explains how the Father can send his Son and at the same time God can be on the cross.

And this is not some scheme the Father imposed on the Son. This has been God's plan since the creation of the world (eg, Matt 25:34, Titus 1:2, Rev 13:8). No one has forced this on the Son; he laid down his life of his own accord (John 10:18).

So what do we make of the prayer in the garden? A few days earlier, Jesus had spoken about his mission:

“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27)

But mere hours from the cross, from not only one of the cruelest deaths man has ever designed but also bearing the weight of our sins, his human nature quite naturally reeled. He said to his Father, "If you've come up with any other ideas, I'm open to them." Then he said, "But if not, I'll stick to the plan."

And afterward, he still insisted the Father would rescue him if he asked (Matt 26:53).

What do we make of the "cry of dereliction"? Hanging on the cross, as the sky grew dark, the Lord cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Surely that is proof Jesus was forced into this and was now abandoned by God!

No. That is proof all of this was planned long before. His cry points us to the promise:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish? ...

I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
“He trusts in the LORD,” they say,
“let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.
All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.

But you, LORD, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me. ...
I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
You who fear the LORD, praise him! ...
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help. (Psalm 22:1, 6-8, 16-19, 22-24)

Jesus' cry pointed his generation — and ours — to the prophecy of his suffering and the promise of his victory. God, on the cross, was carrying out the plan he had made before the beginning of time. Christ, on the cross, was carrying out the mission he had come for: the rescue of his creation from their own rebellion. This was not child abuse. It was amazing grace.

Image via Pixabay

March Digital Smorgasbord

2026-03-25T06:02:00.000-05:00

This week I'd like to share some articles I hope you'll find interesting. As Holy Week is upon us, we lead off with some pieces that will help us prepare for Good Friday and Easter.

✧ Not Greater Than Our Master

[O]ur Western cultural moment is ambivalent about humility as a virtue, and not just when it comes to relating to other cultures. Humility, obedience, and submission are not among the virtues praised in Western culture. And the church has not escaped unscathed. ...

In light of our cultural moment and the ever-present tendencies of our own hearts, this article seeks to explore servanthood in three parts. To begin with, it will provide a brief introduction to Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord. From there, it will demonstrate how fundamental the Servant of the Lord was to Jesus’ identity. Finally, it will reflect on how Jesus’ Servant identity shapes our own identities and actions.

This is a longer piece, but it's well worth your time.

✧ God’s Defining Act Becomes Our Defining Moment

In the Exodus, the Red Sea functioned like a line-in-the-sand, defining moment that the Israelites would come back to again and again in their hearts, to remind themselves how present God was with them and how actively he was working on their behalf. ...

God often works through our efforts and activity. It’s invisible; it seems hidden, so to speak—and because he does that, we can start to forget that he is with us, or we might even start to doubt that he is present with us. So God gave the Israelites an event he wanted them to come back to again and again, a defining moment that reminded them of God’s presence and his faithful activity.

So what's the defining moment for Christians, and how does that guide us?

✧ What We Get Wrong about Nicodemus and Joseph

We know from the Gospels that Jesus’ ministry provoked mostly widespread opposition from religious leaders, both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But the Bible also shows specific examples of religious leaders who earnestly sought to understand Jesus and eventually became followers of Christ. Of these, Nicodemus is perhaps the most prominent. ...

It’s easy to question why Nicodemus came to Jesus at night, away from the crowds. Those of us who have never faced any opposition for our Christian faith, who probably have more fish stickers on our cars than we do unbelieving friends, might not get what it is like to live as a Christian in a desperately hostile environment, but we would be foolish to consider Nicodemus a coward in this moment.

These two "minor characters" from the Passion accounts can challenge us if we understand them.

✧ On the Apostolic Preaching

Sometimes Christians forget how ancient Christianity is. Sure, we all know that Jesus lived, died, and rose again 2,000 years ago, but we forget that for the past 2,000 years there have been Christians worshipping Jesus, thinking about Jesus, living for Jesus, dying for Jesus, and writing about Jesus. The world of the earliest Christians is distant and foreign to us living so much later, but it is a world worth exploring! I would recommend On the Apostolic Preaching by Irenaeus of Lyons as a good starting point.

This is a good introduction to an accessible work from a (today) lesser-known Church Father.

✧ What is the Unforgiveable Sin? (video)
Jesus' words about this are terrifying, and so many people worry about whether they've committed this sin. Gavin Ortlund gives a great explanation of what it really is.

Image via Pixabay

A Lesson in Love

2026-03-18T06:16:00.000-05:00

Seems to be fairly common for kids to get into a competition of sorts with their parents. Mom or Dad says, "I love you"; the child replies, "I love you more." It's adorable how wrong they are. It's also instructive.

On the flip side, it saddens me when people say, "My pets are my children." No they're not. We all love our pets. We love our parents, our siblings, and our spouses. None of that compares to how we love our kids.

Of course, sadly, there are unhealthy parents out there, but most parents are united in a borderline insane love for their children. Forget mama bears; don't get between a mama and her children. I enjoy seeing a father walking along holding his little girl's hand, knowing he's in absolute heaven and she has no idea.

I'm sure I was not alone in being completely unprepared for this. When we were expecting our first child, we did all the things modern couples do. We studied each sonogram picture like it was a treasure map. We tried to make the baby's room the perfect, welcoming environment. We talked about hopes and dreams and fears and all our baby might be.

Then she arrived. The nurse took her aside, cleaned her up a bit, and I got to go over to the bassinet to see her. She was blotchy, crusty, cranky, and indescribably beautiful. I went back to my wife who asked, "How is she?" I burst into tears. Which panicked my wife. I pulled myself together: "No, no, she's fine. She's ... perfect."

I'm told mine was not an uncommon reaction. Actor Ryan Reynolds, for example, told an interviewer how he loved his wife more than anything in the world. Then she gave birth. As he looked down upon his child, "I knew I'd use her as a human shield" to protect that baby.

OK, Reynolds is always over the top, but you get the point: You think you know what love is, then that hits you. There's just no way to warn people. It's an order of magnitude beyond anything they've ever felt, and there's no way to describe it. They have no clue what's waiting for them. All we can do is smile knowingly and wait to enjoy the show.

At some point, for me it was the next day, the realization kicks in, "Is this how my parents feel about me?" Then you feel you need to apologize for so much. I'm not saying I actually apologized, but I felt like I should.

Then the next child comes along. Is that love split in two, shared between your children? No, a fresh supply seems to arrive with each child. You have more than enough love for two or four or, presumably, twenty. There seems to be an inexhaustible supply.

So what's the point in this little walk down memory lane? Only that, when the scriptures tell us God loves us, we have no clue.

Yes, God's not simply a bigger, more powerful version of us. He's an entirely different kind of being. He's not old, he's eternal. He's not stronger, he's all-powerful. He's unimaginably different. But he made us to love, so it's reasonable to think that his love is similar in ways to our love.

Just so, so much more. "As high as the heavens are above the earth" more (Psalm 103:11).

What kind of love does it take to die for those who hate you? What kind of love takes enemies and makes them children?

I love my dog, but if my kids were starving, I'd feed them the dog if necessary. But God took on flesh to die for me.

We hear it so often, we can become numb to hearing that God loves us. Don't shrug it off, "yes, I know that." Be amazed by it again. God's love for you is as much greater than your love for your children as your love for them is greater than your love for a pet. Only more so.

And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (Eph 3:18-19)

Image via Pixabay

Who Do We Help?

2026-03-11T06:00:00.000-05:00

We live in a world full of poverty and oppression. There is real, soul-crushing need out there, and everyone's asking for help. You see it when you open the news. If you ever give any money to any aid organization, you'll get mail from all of them, eager to tell you about the deep needs they're trying to meet. It can be both heart-breaking and perplexing: What can I do? You're only one person, you only have so much money. When there's so much real poverty in the world, who do we help?

The question is further complicated when we listen to some of the voices out in the world. I recently ran into a quote from the (in-)famous ethicist Peter Singer¹ insisting that our obligation is to give to whomever has the most need, and in Western societies, that is not your neighbor but people on the other side of the world. Many people find his argument compelling, so that again raises the question of who we should give to.

As I've read through the gospels this year, I see a pattern, and in that pattern, I think Jesus is answering that question for us.

In the first chapter of Mark, after his baptism and temptation, Jesus went to Capernaum. Visiting the synagogue, he taught and then freed a demon possessed man. He went to Simon's house and healed his mother-in-law. "That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons ..." (Mark 1:32-34).

It seems really minor, but I think it's important: Again and again, we see Jesus heal people he came across or people who were brought to him. He did not heal everyone in the world, everyone in Galilee, or even everyone in a town.

He could have. The gospels make it clear distance was no object to him. Jesus healed the Syrophoenician Woman’s daughter without ever seeing her (Mark 7:24-30), and the centurion's servant without meeting either of them (Luke 7:1-10). Moreover, we know Jesus could know things about people who were not in his presence (John 1:45-48).

This suggests to me that our primary responsibility lies with those right in front of us. And that's consistent with what we see elsewhere in the New Testament.

Your first duty is to take care of your family. "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1Tim 5:8).

Jesus said to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31) but to love other believers "as I have loved you"(John 13:34), with the kind of self-sacrificial love shown by Christ. So Paul said to "do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal 6:10 ESV).

So our first duty is to our household, then to our other family, then to the household of faith, our family in Christ. Then, I would say, the poor around us.

We also have to remember our goal is not merely to meet physical needs but to shine the light of Christ in our good works (Matt 5:16). The poor widow on the other side of the world needs help, but so does the widow in your town, and in helping her you can show her the love of Christ. A donation to a faceless international aid organization will not earn you the opportunity to share the gospel with someone who needs to know Christ.

I'm not saying we should never give money to aid those in faraway places. Personally, I find it deeply offensive that, in the 21st century, people still do not have access to clean water, so I have to give to that cause. But when we feel overwhelmed by the need of so many, I think the example of Jesus tells us the best place to do good works is right in front of us.

1 from Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Image via Pixabay

Prophets and Priests

2026-03-04T06:04:00.000-06:00

There's a distinction between two religious offices of the Old Testament we need to be clear on. This will help us to properly understand the Old and the New Testaments, and it will clear up some of the confusion people have as we live out our faith in the 21st century.

The main religious figures of the Old Testament were the priests and the prophets. The two roles were similar, but there were important distinctions.

The priests oversaw the operation of the temple. They made sure worship was according to God's design. And, of course, they performed the sacrifices that were required by the Law of Moses. It's this latter role that is the key to understanding the office of the priest: No one else could perform these sacrifices. The priest was an intermediary; he stood between the people and God, interceding on their behalf. The priest represented the people to God.

The prophets are associated with fantastic visions of angels and shouts of impending doom, but their role can really be summed up with one phrase: "Thus sayeth the Lord...." Sometimes they saw the future. Sometimes they had wild visions of heaven. Always they represented God to the people. Sometimes their role was to bring a new revelation from God, but usually they reminded the people of what God already said.

These two roles were quite separate. Moses was a prophet; he never performed any sacrifices. Aaron was the priest; he never heard directly from God. Both the priest and the prophet stood in the gap between God and man, but they were facing different directions.

How does this affect the New Testament? We are priests, not prophets.

Peter says believers are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1Pet 2:9). In Christ, we are the nation of priests Israel had declined to be. That means we do not need anyone to stand in the gap for us, to represent us to God. Our great High Priest has already made the only sacrifice we need, so we can "approach God's throne of grace with confidence" (Heb 4:16). We need no human intermediary to grant forgiveness of sins or to ask anything of our God and Father.

But priests are not prophets. Priests did not hear the voice of God. I don't deny the New Testament says some believers are given the gift of prophecy. We can debate exactly what that means, but it's clearly a gift given only to some.

In the scriptures there were very few people who got direct, open communication from the Lord. Why then do so many people believe all Christians should expect personal revelation from God?

There are two things we run into. First, there are a lot of people out there who think they have a direct line from God. They're always getting "a word from the Lord". Frequently that "word" seems to be something someone else needs to do. This may also result in their being unwilling to trust scholarly works like commentaries; they don't need books because the Holy Spirit will tell them what the scriptures mean, and they'll tell you the same. They behave as if they are prophets in continual communication with God and think this is normal for Christians.

We can also encounter believers who doubt their salvation because this doesn't happen to them. They may be heart broken because they've never received "a word from the Lord" like those other people.

Both groups need to hear that this is not the normal Christian experience. The former need to be careful they aren't giving their personal preferences or every idea that pops into their heads the label "Holy Spirit". They need to learn to respect the teachers the Spirit has given to the church and to have the humility to listen to them, because every prophecy is supposed to be tested against scripture (1Thes 5.20-21), and when the scriptures mean whatever you want them to mean, that's not a valid test.

The latter group needs to be comforted that they're OK. There's nothing wrong with them. They want to get special guidance from the Lord; we all do. But as the old saying goes, 95% of the will of God is in the Bible. Focus on putting that into practice and that other 5% will work out.

Every believer has access to God that was unimaginable before Christ. Rejoice in that. Rest in that. Take full advantage of that. And don't let the claims of the "super spiritual" disturb you.

Image: Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh, James Dabney McCabe, 1877 via Wikimedia Commons

February Digital Smorgasbord

2026-02-25T06:14:00.003-06:00

This week I'd like to share some articles I think you'll find helpful or edifying.

✧ The Christian Life Is More than ‘Tryin’ to Get the Feeling Again’

Many of us, when we first came to faith, felt electrified by the gospel and captivated by the Spirit. Scripture leaped off the page. Every sermon hit home. Worship moved us to tears. Prayer came easier. We craved togetherness with the community of faith.

For many of us, when those initial excited feelings fade, we wonder if we’ve lost “the love [we] had at first,” as Jesus said to the Ephesian church (Rev. 2:4). If I’m no longer “in love” with the Lord the way I once was, and if I no longer feel the same joy and enthusiasm about spiritual activities, am I backtracking? Am I regressing?

Because we tend to measure God’s activity by our experience, we think he’s only “showing up” when we feel a certain way. We assume he’s near only when we feel passionate.

So what happens when we don’t feel that enthusiasm anymore?

✧ A Present-Day Inkling Has Been Hiding in Plain Sight
Did you know How to Train Your Dragon was a Christian story? I did not.

Cressida Cowell's 'How to Train Your Dragon' series is a triumph in Christian storytelling. ...

Hiccup the character is much the same in the books as he is in the films, but what doesn’t quite come across as clearly in the movies is Hiccup’s unabashed role as a Christ figure.

✧ 10 Single-Volume Commentaries, Suggested by Logos Users
The links in this list are to the Logos version, but these are all available on Amazon or at ChristianBook.com. If you don't have a good single- (or in one case, two-) volume commentary, there are some excellent choices here. The NIV Application Commentary on the Bible is a particularly useful tool because of the focus on application.

✧ New Research Confirms Jesus’s Miracles
"Confirms" probably isn't the best word here, but this article provides an interesting look at new research into a term used in Josephus' controversial statement about Christ.

It turns out that once we’ve understood paradoxa for what they are, a compelling confirmation of Jesus’s miracles comes to light from a first-century Jewish chronicler. I speak of course of the famous historian Flavius Josephus.

✧ You’re Wrong About What Sex Trafficking Looks Like (video)
Here's a video I dearly wish were unnecessary.

We’ve been taught to look for trafficking in all the wrong places. This video exposes the lies that keep exploitation hidden in plain sight, and what noticing it actually requires. We’ve been taught to look for trafficking in all the wrong places. Most people are oblivious to human trafficking, mistaking it for obvious kidnappings, which prevents recognition and reporting. This video explores why, despite advanced technology, human trafficking continues to grow, emphasizing the critical need for human trafficking education. It highlights the importance of understanding the true nature of sex trafficking awareness to better identify and combat this pervasive issue.

Image via Pixabay

Our Fashionable Sin

2026-02-18T06:13:00.000-06:00

I put on an old pair of jeans and was informed that they are fashionable. I've never been in style before, so I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. Moreover, my daughter will happily adopt them if I'll part with them. Apparently "distressed dad chic" is a thing. I might let her wear them just to see how she plans to keep them up.

Fashions in dress come and go and sometimes come back. Bell bottoms made a brief return, and somehow mullets came back in style. Fashions in sin do the same. Every generation is prone to some sins more than others, and they usually don't even notice.

Too often a sin can be so much part of the air we breath we can't even see it. How many otherwise godly people, how many brilliant theologians accepted slavery or carried their generation's racism thoughtlessly? We may find our generation terribly concerned about some sin or virtue, but that can be a distraction from our real affliction.

CS Lewis mentioned this in The Screwtape Letters. Screwtape tells his protégé, "We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic."

What sins are our generation blind to? The first that springs to mind: Everyone is so angry. And it's toxic, mentally and spiritually. Jesus had harsh things to say about anger:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matt 5:21-22)

How does this fit into Screwtape's plot? We think we love the truth and hate evil, which is certainly a Christian virtue. But we believe that whatever we prefer is the truth and anyone who disagrees is evil. We do not see those who disagree with us as mistaken, misguided, or even stupid. We see them as wicked. Both sides of the partisan divide do this, in and outside the church.

"But what they believe really is evil!"

Let's say that's true. What does Jesus say about people who really are evil?

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:43-48)

We should stand up for what we believe in. We should try to convince those who disagree they are in error. We cannot hate them or suggest they are "not real Christians" because they have different politics. This generation may behave that way, but Jesus' people are supposed to be better. Let's hold ourselves to his standard.

Image via Unsplash

A How-To Commentary

2026-02-11T06:14:00.000-06:00

Bible reading isn't Bible study. Simply moving your eyes across the page is an important part of the process, but it's as different from Bible study as walking on the beach is from hunting buried treasure. But "Bible study" doesn't necessarily mean inductive Bible study, either. There are a variety of ways we can dig deeper into the scriptures. I want to share an unusual commentary that demonstrates ten different approaches to studying the Bible.

Galatians is an odd little book. It deals with a historical question from the early church that seems quite foreign to us. The arguments get a bit weird, even taking Old Testament history metaphorically. It can be hard to know what to do with it. But besides being inspired scripture, Galatians is also tremendously important in the history of the church, so we really should have a thorough understanding of it. That's where commentaries come in.

Commentaries normally explain the things non-scholars don't know or have a hard time understanding. This one, though, does something a little different. Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty by Merrill Tenney shows you how to dig in and attack a book from several different angles. Because Galatians is such a short book, he is able to cover a lot of ground in the text while also demonstrating these different methods of study. Any of these approaches alone will give you a deeper understanding of the book you choose. All of them together would give you a very comprehensive knowledge. But which you employ is up to you; it's a buffet, not a checklist.

The first presented he calls the synthetic method. It involves multiple readings of the book while looking out for specific things. "The readings need not follow each other in immediate succession, but each reading should seek to deal with some different aspect of the total organization and teaching of the book, and at the end of that reading the results should be committed to paper."

The first pass (or a few, if necessary) looks for the main theme of the book. Then we read again with that theme in mind, paying attention to how that theme is emphasized throughout the book. The next couple of passes involve reading with attention to the structure, with the intent to outline the book with respect to the progression of that theme. Finally, we want to write down that outline. We now have a thorough knowledge of the structure of the book and the way the author develops his theme and a resource we can refer to in the future.

He also demonstrates how to explore the theological framework of a book. As he says, the books of the Bible aren't primarily theology texts, but they all contain a great deal of theological content, sometimes discussed directly and systematically, sometimes implied. Getting at that implied doctrine is very important.

There are three aspects of the theological method that may be pursued in the study of any book of the Bible: (1) the endeavor to define the assumptions that underlie the teaching of the book; (2) the topical codification of the explicit teachings which are prominent in the text; and (3) the separate treatment of any section of the book that may be predominantly theological in character. The application of the teaching thus discovered is the final task of the expositor.

He then walks us through studying Galatians' implicit doctrine of God and explicit teaching on justification by faith, including how it is developed over seven arguments in chapters three and four.

Tenney also demonstrates the "critical" method, which looks into the origin and transmission of the book, the biographical method, which studies the author and anyone else mentioned in the book, and the devotional method, which by itself would take the average Christian's time in scripture much deeper, and several more — ten in all. Any of these methods would give you a better understanding of any individual book. Employing all ten would enable you to really own that book.

I read this book as part of a deep dive into Galatians. Now I intend to try at least a few of them along with an inductive study on another short epistle or three, then a longer book. If we could do this in all 66 books of the Bible, our knowledge of the Bible would be amazing, and I can't help but think that having that much Bible in us would have powerful results.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in knowing the scriptures better. If you only learn to employ one method he teaches, it would be money well spent.

Image via Pixabay

Only Israel Needs to be Saved?

2026-02-04T06:14:00.000-06:00

Old heresies never die. They always return repackaged with a new name, a new face. And occasionally someone puts a new spin on one. "You must become a Jew to be saved" was the first error the church confronted. But what would you say to someone who tells you, "Only Jews needed to be saved"?

The internet made it so crazy ideas can spread around the world, and instead of just being something your buddy said after a few beers, now it can look like it has serious scholarly support. So there is no limit to what your friend or your child or that cousin you only see at the Memorial Day cookout can stumble upon.

Every kooky heresy has its die-hard supporters; these folks will be hard to dissuade. If your friend or child or cousin are simply curious, intrigued by this new idea they've come across, I think we can poke holes in these things more easily — take the shiny off and show them how silly it is.

The "Israel Only" folks return to the old idea that Jesus only came for the Jews. The new part is that only Israel needed to be saved:

IO shows from the scriptures that salvation and redemption were only meant for old covenant Israel, which means nobody today is saved and redeemed, nor has anyone needed salvation and redemption since the first century. IO essentially destroys the premises upon which the post-AD70 version of Christianity relies on. IO offers people the opportunity to understand why they were never sinners and why Jesus never needed to save them.¹

So it's not about adding a new (or rather, old) set of rules to Christianity. It's about doing away with Christianity altogether as a mistaken ideology that should have died out centuries ago. How do we answer that?

One of them self-published a book of arguments for this position, and he helpfully spelled out what it would take to disprove their view:

To overturn IO, one would need to demonstrate from Scripture that non-Israelite nations were ever under Israel's Law or its curse, that they were judged at the end of the age, that they are described as olive branches, sheep, elect, or covenant heirs, that Christ's New Covenant included them as such, or that the gospel was intended to continue beyond the end of the age.²

I appreciate him laying that out; most people don't tell you how to disprove their views. But I don't think that's what we need to do to "overturn" IO. Everything in that paragraph is based on their premises. We should respond to IO by pulling the rug out from under it. I think we can do that by showing two things:

People were judged apart from the Law of Moses
The idea that only those under the Law of Moses needed to be saved from their "covenant violations" should die in Genesis. Adam and Eve and all of their descendants were cursed apart from the Law of Moses. The humans of Noah's day were judged apart from the Law of Moses. Sodom and Gomorrah were judged without the Law of Moses. This continues throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Egypt, the Canaanites, Edom, and the Moabites were all judged without being part of a special covenant with God. When Jonah told Nineveh of the judgment that was coming upon them, it was not based on the Mosaic Covenant.

Instead, people were, are, and will be judged by a moral law we all know (eg, Rom 1:18-32) yet fail to live up to. The scriptures insist again and again "there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins" (Eccl 7:20) and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Is this only for those who know the Law of Moses? No. "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law" (Rom 2:12).

All means all. All are sinners and subject to judgment. If Christ only came for Israel, that's not good news but the worst news. Fortunately ...

Jesus came for the whole world
The idea that the Messiah was only for the children of Israel is also refuted as early as Genesis. When God called Abram, he promised "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3). All still means all. And Paul, in Galatians 3, insists this promise refers to Christ. In Isaiah, God says of his Servant,

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” (Isa 49:6)

When Jesus met a Gentile Roman centurion with great faith, he proclaimed, "many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 8:11). This begins to be fulfilled when Peter meets another centurion in Acts 10. This becomes a full blown issue by Acts 15, where the issue is Gentiles who have no connection to the Law of Moses. But the church welcomes these people in, and James quotes:

"After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things—
things known from long ago." (Acts 15:16-18)

This culminates in Revelation. The IO crowd makes a big deal out of the fact that "144,000 from all the tribes of Israel" are sealed (Rev 7:4-8). But they ignore the next verse:

I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. (Rev 7:9)

Every means every. This is not just the lost tribes of Israel; it's every tribe, every nation. God's plan was never to save just the children of Israel but to do away with the distinction between Jew and Gentile.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Eph 2:14-16)

The Lord's plan was to take salvation to the ends of the earth, and that's what he taught his apostles. That's why they and then their disciples spread the gospel to Ethiopia, India, France, and beyond.

1 copied from a social media post
2 Michael Bradley, Concealed In Covenant: The Case For Israel-Only

Image via Pixabay

How Should We Address Christian Anti-Semitism?

2026-01-28T06:27:00.000-06:00

An insidious disease threatens to worm its way back into Christianity. It has come and gone repeatedly over the centuries. Every time we think it's cured, there's a relapse. What can we say to the infected? Let's look at what should be the most astoundingly obvious statement in history: Jesus was Jewish.

In case you missed the alarms some have been raising, anti-Semitism is doing its best to creep into the hearts and minds of America's youth, and its most alarming successes are among disaffected young men who also claim to be Christians. Though much of it is found on the wildest fringes of the internet, some of it has moved into more mainstream areas, even finding converts among ethnically Jewish Christians.

If you're curious how on earth such a thing could happen, visit the above links. I want to think about what we should say to anyone in our lives who believes this drivel.

The idea of hating Jews should be immediately offensive to Christians on two accounts: First, we're not allowed to hate anybody. Our Lord, who prayed for mercy for those who were murdering him, taught us to love our enemies, to bless those who curse us, and to pray for those who persecute us (Luke 6:27-28). Hating anyone is rebellion against his teaching and his example.

But hating Jews should be especially offensive to us because our Lord was and is Jewish.

I have seen (and will not link to) video of a "pastor" mocking the notion that he will one day bow before a Jew. Yes, he will, as will everyone else. Jesus' Jewish bona fides should be obvious to anyone who's ever read a gospel, but let's lay out the evidence.

Jesus was Jewish by birth
Two of our gospels give us the bloodline of Jesus, but Matthew starts with it. It may be the most ignored passage in the New Testament; people want to read about Jesus, but the book starts with a genealogy. Who wants to read that? But Matthew's words are important:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham. (1:1)

In that one sentence, we learn that Jesus is a descendent of two of the biggest figures in Jewish history. But he is more than that: he is the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, to David, and to Israel as a whole.

Jesus was Jewish by religion and culture
Luke's account of the birth of Jesus is immediately followed by an account of his Jewishness:

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” (2:21-24)

Jesus was raised by pious Jewish parents in accordance with Jewish law and custom. He lived his life as a pious Jew. When the "woman with an issue of blood" reached out and touched him, she actually touched the "fringes of his garment" (8:44) — that is, the tassels faithful Jews (then and now) put at the corners of their garments (Num 15:38-39). He observed Hanukkah (John 10:22) and kept Passover (Luke 22:7-8).

Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah
It amazes me that the first person Jesus appears to have been open with about his identity was a Samaritan. Samaritans and Jews got along about as well as Israelis and Palestinians today. When Jesus met "the woman at the well", she immediately launched into a theological debate between Jews and Samaritans. Then she said,

“I know that Messiah is coming.... When he comes, he will tell us all things.”

Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” (John 4:25-26)

Jesus' enemies claimed he was Jewish
Every gospel agrees on the charge that was made against Jesus. The complaint lodged by the Sanhedrin against him to the Romans is the charge they placed over his head on the cross:

The written notice of the charge against him read: the King of the Jews. (Mark 15:26)

The Jews didn't deny he was Jewish. The Romans knew he was Jewish. Their complaint was his claim to be the King of the Jews, the prophesied son of David.

So Jesus was Jewish. Very Jewish. Not only was Jesus Jewish, every Christian was Jewish until Acts 10. It was a big deal when they started getting Gentile converts.

Objections
Some have tried to make a distinction between "Hebrews" and "Jews", saying Jesus was the former but not the latter, that there were no "Jews" until after the destruction of the temple and the Pharisees became the dominant religious group. Nonsense. The terms were used interchangeably even in the Old Testament (eg, Jer 34:9). Jesus' people were called Jews in the New Testament well before the fall of Jerusalem (eg, John 4:9, Rom 1:16).

Others will say Jews today aren't the same as Jews then, that religious and cultural practices have changed dramatically since the first century. And water is wet. Yes, their religion and culture have changed; modern Christians wouldn't recognize first (or second or third) century Christian religious practices, either. Things change; that doesn't make it acceptable to hate Jesus' cousins.

Conclusion
We cannot make Jews out to be enemies of Christ or Christians, nor can we make them out to be subhuman or hate them in any way at all.

Yes, the New Testament authors accused "the Jews" of opposing Christ (eg, John 19:14-15). And today we speak of "the Americans" or "the British" knowing full well we do not mean all Americans or all Brits but a group of them, and usually just the leaders. There were bad people among the Jews of Jesus' day; there are bad people among the Jews of our day. There are bad people who claim to be Christians. All humans are sinful, and there are evil people in every group in every generation. That does not justify broad brushing any group.

Jesus does not give us the privilege of hating anyone. Common decency does not give us the right to hate anyone. Good sense says we should not hate the people our Lord came from. We should do everything we can to send this pernicious error back to the shadows.

Recommended reading:
How the Gospel Drives Out Antisemitism
This article addresses the claim that the Bible says "the Jews" were responsible for killing Jesus.

Image via Pexels

January Digital Smorgasbord

2026-01-21T06:13:00.000-06:00

This week I offer some interesting content from across the interwebs.

✧ Abortion in the Early Church (video)
It's Sanctity of Life week, and you may hear someone make the oft repeated claim that Christians didn't care about abortion until the 1970s, so I'll lead with this video by Gavin Ortlund which demonstrates that the Church has always opposed abortion.

✧ The Great Omission
Jen Wilkin warns us that we can read our Bible plan every year and still not be biblically literate, and that affects how we live.

A Bible literacy crisis has flooded the halls of local churches and left many Christians unable to recall basic information contained in Scripture. Some may not consider this important knowledge for Christians to learn, but Great Commission faithfulness demands our attention.

✧ Show Up with Real-Time Theology
Though we don't want to live our lives reacting to the news, there are times we should be able to give a thoughtful, Christian perspective on what's going on in our world.

We develop a uniquely Christian vision of the world when we focus on a particular cultural topic and then articulate how that topic intersects with our theological confession and the biblical narrative. What are the mechanics of “seeing” theologically in a society that constantly presents new and radical questions?

Developing a theological vision requires at least three steps.

✧ How to Have a Day Job and an Intellectual Life
Young people who love to wrestle with big ideas often think they need to go into academia. John Ehrett explains why that is more limiting than we think and suggests they get a job in the marketplace and then work out how to continue their intellectual life. His suggestions are something older folks can use, too.

I think it’s worth asking whether, for the average twentysomething who loves the life of the mind, this route makes a lot of sense. Against this backdrop, the value proposition of a “normal” job starts to look a little more appealing. (At least, this has been my calculus.) The hard part of working a “normal” job isn’t subsistence. It’s finding the time and motivation to pursue the reading and writing you love. And these problems are solvable.

✧ From the archive: The God Who Separates
Finally, please allow me to blow the dust off an old piece addressing a passage often misunderstood as forbidding interracial marriage.

Image via Pixabay

Living in a Wicked World

2026-01-14T06:20:00.000-06:00

People can be horrible. As the apostle said, they are "foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures." They spend their lives "in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another." This is the natural state of fallen mankind. So how do we deal with living among them?

Does that description resonate with you? Does that sound like someone you know? Maybe it's more like the people you encounter on Twitter or see on the news.

It sounds familiar. Does it also feel familiar? Because the apostle was talking about us:

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. (Titus 3:3)

It's still what the unbelievers around us are, but we need to remember this is what we were. This is the way we lived and thought and acted until God saved us:

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)

We were foolish and disobedient, slaves to our lusts and appetites, living in hatred and envy. But God didn't leave us that way. He saved us, not because of any good thing we did, but because of his mercy. He poured out his Spirit on us and even made us heirs with Christ, having the hope of eternal life.

How should we respond to those gifts? By turning to the lost around us and showing them the kind of patience God has shown us:

Remind [the church] to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. (Titus 3:1-2 ESV)

The commentaries I looked at agree the first three probably all relate to government. This is hardly the only passage in the New Testament instructing us to submit to and obey those who govern us. We don't like hearing that, because the government is so frequently horrible. But we can never let ourselves forget that Paul and the rest were writing while living under pagan, and often abusive, Roman rule.

So this means we have to obey laws on everything from taxes to immigration to speed limits. We don't have to like the laws. In fact, as Tim Keller pointed out, it's not "obedience" if we do — that's just doing what we think is right. "Obey" suggests we'd rather not but do it anyway.

And we're not just told to submit and obey; we're told to be ready for "every good work." When referring simply to other people, I would think it means to help in any way we can, to jump on opportunities to be kind. How does that apply to government? We should be the best citizens we can. Not gonna lie, as someone with a strong libertarian streak, that's a little horrifying to me. I mostly want government to just go away. But here it sits, and we're supposed to look for ways to serve.

Leaving the subject of the government, we're told to speak evil of (NIV: slander) no one. How's that fly in our political climate? Slander seems to be the default setting of many of our neighbors. We cannot join in that. Instead, we're to avoid quarreling. We're to be peaceful or considerate. The last phrase in verse 2 is apparently hard to translate, but the commentaries suggest it means to be humble and gentle, which the ESV's "perfect courtesy" probably captures as well as anything.

We should treat the people around us, foolish and sinful as they are, with perfect courtesy, refusing to take part in their worst habits, and treating them with respect. Is this hard? Absolutely. We are still attached to our fallen flesh, and it really wants to do unto others as they have done unto me. It's hard, but we're called to better than that.

Why? The scriptures offer various answers to that question, but I think we should go with the one Paul offers earlier in this letter. In this way we "adorn the doctrine of God our Savior" (Titus 2:10 ESV).

The world around us is dark and seems to be getting darker. The lost seem to be getting more wicked, and even the supposedly saved keep engaging in shameful behavior. We were just as wicked when God showed us mercy. Let us live lives that make the gospel attractive. Make them wonder why we don't act like them. And even if they do not believe, we can live such good lives among them that, though they accuse us of doing wrong, they see our good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us (1Pet 2:12).

Image via Unsplash

The Best Book I Read Last Year

2026-01-07T06:20:00.000-06:00

This time of year we see a lot of "books of the year" lists. I hate to say it, but there wasn't much that really wowed me lately. That's why when I asked myself, "What was the best book I read last year?", my mind went straight to this one book. And since it's self-improvement season, I figured this was a good time to share it with you.

I want to say out the outset, sometimes it's just not the right time for a book. One that didn't grab me this year may really wow me in a couple of years. My favorite book of my favorite author is one I started then set aside for a couple of years, but when I tried again, I devoured it. In fact, I bought today's book a few years ago on a recommendation, started to read it ... a year or two ago, but set it aside and didn't finish. But when I found it and started over, it really resonated with me. So don't give up on something if it doesn't grab you the first time you try it, especially when people tell you how good it is.

The book is The Last Men's Book You'll Ever Need by David Moore. The first thing I should say is the title is tongue in cheek. Moore says he hopes the book will "slow the sale of faddish men's books", and I agree. This isn't a book about finding your inner warrior or eating raw meat. It's about spiritual formation and training yourself in godliness. No one denies that there are certain issues men today struggle with: for example, pornography, loneliness, or anger. The message here is that what Christian men need most is to grow into a mature follower of Christ.

As a result, the second thing I should say is women can totally profit from this book. Moore even says as much on the first page.

One thing I don't like about this work is the chapter titles. When I'm considering a book, I want to use the table of contents to, well, get an idea of what it contains. This one, like so many, has "clever" chapter titles that don't tell you much about the chapter (until you've read it). So I annotated mine with descriptions of the chapter's contents for future reference.

The first chapter teaches that everyone's road to Christian maturity looks different. Some fortunate few may go straight from point A to point Z, but most will have back tracks, side quests, or more scenic routes. Telling everyone their path must/will look a certain way just leads disillusionment. After reading that, the title "Stop the PowerPoint Presentations of the Christian Life!" may make more sense.

Subsequent chapters cover topics like making Jesus the center of our lives, dealing with sin in our lives, being a lifelong learner, growing in faith, dealing with family conflicts before they become crises, work, rest, and more.

Most of these topics have been given a book-length treatment elsewhere, but this little book packs a lot of punch, which he delivers with sly humor and interesting stories. It may not be the final word on any topic, but it'll give anyone a lot to chew on.

This is an older book, but copies are still out there. If you want this, you'll be able to get it. If not this, find something that will help you live the Christian life. But be selective. As Moore says,

The best teaching on the Christian life will always draw us to the sufficiency of Jesus. Knowing Him gives us wisdom on how to live life in all its wonderful diversity—whether that be raising godly children, handling one's finances, or knowing how to be a good friend.

So find a good book that points you to Jesus and grow as we all travel this road to glory.

Image via Pixabay

Looking Back and Looking Forward

2025-12-31T06:13:00.000-06:00

The new year is a natural time for new beginnings and second chances. It's a great time for building a new habit or making attempt number 20 at .... But before we do all that, we should take some time to reflect.

Life is change, and many of those changes are unwanted and unpleasant. But many of them are good. Stop and consider where change has been good this year. Maybe you were able to break a bad habit or build a good one. Were you able to save some money? Perhaps you finally had the hard conversation you needed to have with someone. Spend some time reflecting on any victories, whether large or small. Thank God for them, but also congratulate yourself on the part you played. You stuck to it, did the hard thing, and the benefits are worth it.

We also want to consider our spiritual lives. All of us should ask, "Do I look more like Jesus today than I did a year ago?" OK, sometimes a year isn't long enough. When someone first comes to Christ, change can be dramatic. After a few years, change is slow, even asymptotic. If you're 1% more like Jesus now than you were a year ago, it probably doesn't feel like much. So look back 10 years. And maybe ask someone who knows you well what they think.

Ask, "Do I love the scriptures more than I did?" "Do I know the scriptures more than I did?" You may not have spent every day you meant to in the Bible, but did you gain something from the time you did spend?

If this reflection is positive, thank God for his grace. Also, acknowledge your part. The Spirit does not drag us kicking and screaming to holiness. If you're more like Jesus, it's because you've been following Jesus. Acknowledge that: You did what you set out to do.

If this reflection is not positive, that tells us where we need to make changes. If you think the growth should be faster, you can consider what you should change. If you still struggle to read the scriptures, consider where and why you tend to tap out in your reading plan; is there a different way you could do it? Don't give up. Try to come at the problem from a different direction.

On the subject of Bible reading, if you still struggle to develop a daily habit, I suggest not trying to read the whole Bible yet. There are large chunks of the Bible that are very hard to push through, even if you have a strong habit. Let them go for now. Reading one chapter of the New Testament a day — and you can still skip the genealogies — is an easy way to start. Then you can up it to two chapters, reading through twice in a year. Once you have spent a year or two actually reading the NT (pretty much) every day, go back and try to get through the Old Testament.

Dramatic change is not the norm; it's usually slow and incremental. Be patient with yourself, acknowledge your successes, and evaluate yourself honestly. Then decide how you will try to improve in the next year. Life is a marathon, not a sprint, so let's take the long view and correct where we need to.

And I pray that the coming year will be a year of blessing and growth for everyone.

Image via Unsplash

The Turning Point

2025-12-23T06:48:00.000-06:00

Halfway through any episode of Doctor Who, everyone ends up running for their lives. Halfway through a mystery, everything the detective thought he knew turns out to be wrong. There is a narrative structure that is almost universal. And it tells us something about the Christmas story.

I want to write fiction when I grow up, so I've studied the craft for a while now. Everyone wants to write something original, but it turns out only stories that follow certain patterns really stick with people. These story structures go back into ancient times.

The usual way to think of this structure is as three acts. In the first act, the author introduces the characters, establishes the world, then a problem appears. In the second act, the characters attempt to solve that problem, usually only making things worse, at least for a while. Then in the third act, the protagonist faces the problem head on, solves it, and a new normal is established.

Halfway through the second act, everything changes. This is the turning point. Depending on the kind of story, this can take different forms.

In an adventure story, it tends to be where everything falls apart. In the standard Doctor Who story, the Doctor and his companions arrive and start exploring the time and place they're visiting. Something seems odd, and the Doctor decides to poke it with a stick. This takes them into Act 2. They find all kinds of things that aren't right, and eventually the bad guys end up chasing them as they run for their lives. That's the turning point. They try to deal with the danger they've discovered, and eventually the Doctor comes up with a plan. That takes us into Act 3 as the plan is put into motion, and eventually everything comes to a head in the climax where the Doctor will defeat the villain of the week, hopefully putting everything right in the place they're visiting. Then he and his friends move on.

In a common form for crime dramas, our detective gets called to a crime scene and starts to investigate the murder. A suspect quickly appears, so the detective chases him down and begins to interrogate him and look into his alibi. About the half way point, that alibi turns out to be good, so the detective flounders, trying to find a new suspect. The good guys finally put the pieces together to move us into Act 3, where they chase down the real criminal and bring him to justice.

The form that interests us today will, again, introduce the main character and the world, then a problem appears to end Act 1. Act 2 begins with the protagonist reacting to the things that happen, but at the turning point, he goes on the offense. Instead of reacting, he's acting. Finally, things come to a head as he faces down the forces that oppose him and defeats them.

It's not a perfect parallel, but I propose that this is a good way to think about the storyline of the Bible — of history, really.

God creates his good world, but sin enters in. For a while, it seems to be damage control. God reboots humanity in the flood. Then he chooses a family to make a people for himself. They're horrible. He spends over a thousand years trying to teach them to behave, rescuing them again and again from their own messes.

Then the turning point comes: He begins to act to fix the root problem. In our story, the main character, who's always been the protagonist, is somehow born and placed in a manger. He's going on the offense now.

Because history isn't fiction, the next leg of the story is short. Our hero appears to die, but it doesn't stick. He rises from the dead, and now we're in Act 3, waiting for the climactic battle between good and evil. Because history isn't fiction, this leg of the story is long. We've waited centuries for the resolution of this story. But because this story is true, the story behind all stories, we know that day will come.

This week we remember the turning point, the day when God went on the offensive. The best way to keep Christmas is to focus on the hope that we have. Our hero will save the day. He came to rescue us, and rescue us he shall. God will triumph over evil. The new normal will be established: a world with no more sorrow, crying, or pain. Celebrate the turning point by celebrating the victory to come. Maranatha!

Image via Unsplash

How Not to Refute Someone

2025-12-17T06:11:00.000-06:00

You may have noticed some consternation regarding Kirk Cameron. Apparently he's questioning whether hell lasts forever and ever. And the internet is very concerned.

If you're like me, you said something like, "Oh, a celebrity with weird theology, how novel," and went on about your day. However, one response caught my eye as such a good example of what not to do, I thought a closer look would be useful.

Quick background: On Kirk Cameron's podcast, he and his son discussed whether what is usually referred to as "eternal conscious torment" in hell is just. They asked whether the Bible actually teaches that or something like annihilationism, where the soul is eventually destroyed. For those who'd like to learn more about annihilationism, Gavin Ortlund (who does not believe in it) posted a video on the topic a few months ago.

For the record, I would love to believe in annihiliationism if only I could find it in the Bible. I cannot. Even though I disagree with Cameron on this, I don't think everyone has responded well to him.

Such as the headline that caught my eye, "The Deadly Danger of Remodeling Hell", written by the venerable Al Mohler. Already, the piece is asserting that Cameron's position is not just wrong but dangerous. How does he prove that?

After briefly introducing the Camerons' podcast, Dr. Mohler lays out the basics of their position. Then he waves away their argument ("They exchanged some banter about word studies—not particularly helpful"), says this is "old hat and worn-out", and asserts this is the path to liberalism. Then he quotes a proof text he asserts teaches his position, restates the traditional view, and wags his finger at Cameron for questioning this essential doctrine.

Dr. Mohler is adamant annihilation is unbiblical, but he never really explains why. He admits they discussed word studies. He does not discuss them at all. He doesn't address the passages they brought up.

But he appeals to the slippery slope: "Historians of American theology point to the rejection or radical modification of the traditional doctrine of hell as a signal of the emergence of liberal theology in early America, organized as a movement by the end of the 19th century." Every philosophy student is taught correlation is not causation. That may be where liberalism tends to start, but that does not prove it will always result in liberalism.

He says this is "old hat" and cites Edward Fudge from the 20th century, but surely Dr. Mohler knows this view is far older than that. Ortlund, whose specialty is church history, points out something similar can be found in some early church fathers. Even John Stott said he was sympathetic to the view. It is not a sure path to liberalism.

He quotes one prooftext on the nature of hell, but he certainly knows adherents of annihilationism offer many prooftexts of their own. Perhaps he could have spent more time addressing them and less making snide comments about Kirk Cameron.

Dr. Mohler says, "One should pause before presenting a podcast like this ... and ponder the arrogance of trying to correct what has for so long been the faith upheld by the faithful." That's true. We should not take dissenting from our forefathers in the faith lightly. But that doesn't mean we can never disagree with them. This made me watch the video of Cameron's podcast, and I see no sign he's saying this lightly. Has he studied it very carefully? I have no idea. But we shouldn't assume the worst. Dr. Mohler follows that statement with, "More importantly, trying to correct what is so clearly revealed in the Bible". That is, in fact, the question. Cameron is asking whether that's really what the Bible teaches.

We are assured giving up the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is dangerous. But that only matters if it's true. If it's not true, we shouldn't care one bit how "dangerous" proponents think it is to abandon it. When someone espouses what you believe is aberrant doctrine, the response should be to refute the error and defend the truth, not to mock your opponent or state the importance of your view.

Dr. Mohler's article seems more like lecturing a disobedient child than arguing with a brother who disagrees with him over a theological position which is considered by most to be within the pale of orthodoxy. Cameron says the traditional view gives "ammunition to the enemies of God.” Mohler insists Cameron's view does the same. I'm more concerned about our behavior and how that gives ammunition to the enemies of God. The lost around us are not concerned about the minutia of our theology, but they watch how we treat each other. "And they will know we are Christians by our love."

Image via Pixabay

Red vs Black

2025-12-10T06:20:00.000-06:00

We're Christians; we follow Christ. So why do we care what anyone else says? Makes sense, but many today ask, "Why do we care what people who aren't Jesus said in the Bible?" Are the red letters more important than the black ones?

I love the red letters, but we cannot be "red letter Christians." The red letters themselves tell us so.

Red letter Christians are people who believe the red letters, the words of Jesus, carry more weight than the other words in the scriptures. If anything in the black letters seems to contradict the spirit of the red letters, the red letters win. Some would even say we should only regard the red letters as binding.

The problem is this position ignores the nature of the gospels, is wrong on the nature of scripture, and goes against what Jesus said.

The Nature of the Gospels
We need to think about the nature of the gospels. This should be obvious, but it's worth stating: We do not have a single word written by Jesus. Every word of his comes to us second or third hand. First, we have to trust that the authors didn't make it all up — not without reason, but a certain amount of trust is required.

Second, what we have is curated by someone else. Mark, tradition tells us, passed on what Peter taught him; we only know what he thought was important of what Peter thought was important. If Matthew and John were eye witnesses, we still only have what they chose to share. Jesus preached for three years; his recorded words can be read in an hour. We only have what was passed on to us. Who made these decisions? The people responsible for the black letters.

The real target of the red letter Christians is generally Paul; they don't like a lot of things he said: He's misogynistic and judgy. We can't trust him. How is he even an apostle? A story in Acts? You can't trust Acts; it was written by Paul's follower. But they trust the same follower to transmit the words of Jesus faithfully? How do we know Luke didn't make up the parable of the good Samaritan? I realize how this sounds, but the point is valid: They trust the red letters which only came to us through the hands of the people they do not trust.

The Nature of Scripture
But it's not just the New Testament authors they want to demote. The Old Testament is similarly attacked. "Moses isn't Jesus." Here they make two related errors. First, they discount or disbelieve the inspiration of scripture. "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2Tim 3:16). Scripture may have been written down by Moses or David or Isaiah, but the ultimate author is God.

Which leads us to their second error: They disregard or disbelieve the deity of Christ. If Jesus is who he claimed to be, he is the God who breathed the scriptures. He's the God who did the saying when Moses says, "Thus sayeth the Lord." Pitting Jesus against Moses is trying to pit Jesus against himself.

Jesus on Scripture
The RLC response will be that "only Paul said that all scripture is God-breathed, and Paul's writings aren't scripture." You'd expect people who claim to respect the words of Jesus so much to read them more carefully. Let's look at a few things Jesus said about the scriptures:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Matt 15:1-6)

When Moses wrote "God said", Jesus takes that as God speaking. These are the words of God Almighty.

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? (John 10:34-36)

"Scripture cannot be broken." Jesus had the highest opinion of the scriptures people today want to dismiss.

While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “The Lord said to my Lord ..." (Mark 12:35-36)

According to Jesus, when the prophets spoke, God the Holy Spirit was behind it. They did not write what they pleased but, as Peter put it, were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2Pet 1:21).

And Jesus promised the same Holy Spirit would work in the apostles to remind them of everything he taught them (John 14:26) and to teach them more things, guiding them into "all truth" and even revealing what is yet to come (John 16:12-13).

"But Paul wasn't one of the Twelve. That doesn't apply to him." Peter thought it did, even calling his letters "scripture" (2Pet 3:16).

If you never see anything in the scriptures you don't like, you're not reading carefully enough. There are many commands we'd remove if we could. We'd love to soften God's requirements or modify the consequences of our rebellion. Jesus does not give us that option. If we're going to follow Jesus, we need to take up his attitude toward the scriptures.

The decrees of the LORD are firm,
and all of them are righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb. (Psalm 19:9-10)

Image via Unsplash

Jesus and the Pharisees

2025-12-03T06:19:00.000-06:00

When people attack traditional Christians for being traditional Christians, there are certain standard moves. Whether it's coming from progressive pastors, cafeteria Catholic comedians, or skeptical scientists, one of the favorites is to compare us to the Pharisees, "the people Jesus denounced most harshly". Let's talk about why that falls flat. Let's look at exactly why Jesus was so harsh with the Pharisees.

Before we proceed, let's define some terms. "Traditional Christians", aka "conservative Christians", are the Christians who, as the Church has done for 2000 years, believe the scriptures basically mean what they say and try to act accordingly. This group is traditional in comparison to "liberal Christians", theological modernists who re-interpret the supernatural out of the scriptures, and "progressive Christians", theological postmodernists who re-interpret anything they see as "mean" out of the scriptures.

The Pharisees were the Jewish sect at the time of Jesus who were seen as strictly interpreting and strictly following the Law of Moses and other commands in the Hebrew scriptures. Superficially, that does sound like modern traditional Christians. When you read the gospels, it's easy to see the Pharisees as the villains. Sure, Jesus had conflicts with the Sadducees, the Herodians, and ultimately the Romans, but he spent a lot of time arguing with the Pharisees and occasionally calling them harsh names.

The question is why he called them those harsh names. The pop culture idea says, "Jesus opposed the religious people." Yes, he opposed them. Yes, they were religious. So were the Sadducees, in their way. So was Jesus. It was not that they were religious; it was the content of their religion.

In the passage where Jesus denounced them most harshly, he explained why he opposed them:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. ... You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are." (Matt 23:13, 15)

Jesus wasn't harsh with them because they were "religious". He was harsh with them because they were leading people to hell. How were they doing that?

"You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’" (Matt 23:16)

One way they led people astray was by working out elaborate ways to dodge oaths. In other words, they let people lie. This is why Jesus warned people not to take oaths (Matt 5:33-37); we're supposed to be honest at all times.

This isn't the only command they abrogated with their traditions. On another occasion, Jesus chastised them for teaching people to break the 5th Commandment:

“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." (Matt 15:3-6)

They claimed to be zealous for the Law of Moses, but they worked out ways to justify breaking it and taught them to other people.

Another way they led people astray was by focusing minutia while ignoring the spirit of the Law:

"You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." (Matt 23:23)

Notice, they were supposed to tithe meticulously, but they let their obedience to the laws that were easy to follow substitute for obedience to the laws they didn't want to follow. Tithing just costs money. Showing mercy is hard. But if the reverse were true, showing mercy would also not be a substitute for their tithe. As James put it, "he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' also said, 'You shall not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker" (James 2:11). Breaking the law is breaking the law. We're not to pick and choose.

The end result was a righteousness that was purely superficial:

"You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matt 23:27-28)

The Pharisees were holy only as long as you didn't look too close. And they taught the same. They led people to sin by reinterpreting the scriptures in a way that made it seem righteous.

Do traditional Christians ever do that? We can't deny that some will err to one side or the other. There are those who focus on "good deeds" but fail to examine their own hearts; there are those who are so inwardly oriented they never do good to anyone else. But these are always deviations from the norm, things that should be and are chastised and hopefully corrected.

But there are theological systems that make it a point of pride to tell people certain sins are not sin. They squint at the scriptures and find ways to re-interpret — or simply dismiss — passages that offend modern sensibilities, whether it's with a four-point sermon on why you don't have to listen to Moses or Paul about sex or a touchy-feely message about how God just wants us to be happy.

It's the liberal and progressive traditions who lead people to hell in the style of the Pharisees. That makes rescuing people from their teaching a gospel mission. We need to be ready to answer the progressive heresies that we may hear our friends and family repeating. Because the gospel of Jesus Christ only seems like good news when we realize how much we need his grace.

Image: The Pharisee and the Publican, Gustave Dore' via Project Gutenberg

November Digital Smorgasbord

2025-11-26T06:10:00.000-06:00

This week, I've got a selection of articles I've come across I think you'll find useful.

✧ Add Cultural Apologetics to Your Evangelism Tool Kit
There are several ways people think about apologetics. Then there are different ways people approach the task of apologetics. This article is about the latter. Trevin Wax says we need to begin the task further upstream than we used to.

With the fading of a Christian framework in society, these cultural touchpoints (God’s existence, the unseen realm, the definition of sin, our understanding of salvation) can no longer be assumed. An evangelist’s work becomes more complex. We often have to start further back—whether we’re talking about God’s existence, or distinguishing between cultural conceptions of sin and what the Bible says about human depravity, or making a case for the goodness and beauty of the church.

If traditional apologetics is about making arguments to defend Christian truth, cultural apologetics is about making arguments that showcase Christianity’s beauty and goodness, using cultural touchpoints as an opportunity for gospel witness. It’s a precursor to evangelism. It sets the stage so the gospel’s beauty can be accentuated.

In what follows, I offer two reasons (and one caveat) why cultural apologetics should no longer be a neglected tool but a necessary way of engaging people in a secularizing world.

✧ God Calls Me to Give. But to Everyone?
As we approach the season of giving, this offers a way to sort through all the folks who ask for our help.

One obvious guiding priority is to give financially where there is the most need. To this, we all agree. But our world is increasingly interconnected. I can simply click a button to give financially to help people almost anywhere. If the only guiding principle is the need, I would get stuck in the paralysis of indecision.

But Scripture takes me beyond simply looking at the greatest needs to also seeing that God has given me greater responsibilities to help certain people. I propose looking at financial giving through a concept I call “circles of priority.”

✧ The ‘2 Roads’ Approach to Evangelism
Many souls have followed the Romans Road to Christ, but Joe Carter says it can fail to connect with people today. He suggests a correction, based on a work by Trevin Wax.

We trust that God’s Word has the power to save (James 1:21) and that someone’s response to the gospel is based on the Holy Spirit’s work (1 John 2:20–27). Yet while we know that only the Spirit changes hearts, we can seek to make our gospel presentation one that engages the hearer’s comprehension and understanding as far as it depends on us. Our approach to sharing the good news of Jesus can thus significantly influence how it’s received, especially in today’s post-Christian cultural landscape.

While there’s no one-size-fits-all approach that will always work, I want to recommend a framework that presents two powerful evangelistic pathways—the Romans Road and the Ephesians Road—and demonstrates how this combination can work together to create a more complete and compelling gospel presentation.

✧ (Almost) every apocryphal gospel explained in 10 minutes (video)
If you've ever wondered about the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, and all the rest, this is a quick overview from an orthodox perspective.

Image via Pixabay

When Sin Keeps You from Sin

2025-11-19T06:15:00.000-06:00

I'm a nerd, so gadgets appeal to me. Naturally, ~~Dick Tracy~~ smart watches are cool. I'd love to have ~~spy~~ smart glasses. Those cars with all the digital displays on the dashboard look like space ships! Fortunately, being deeply cheap keeps me from being broke. But I can take it too far. I will occasionally catch myself spending half an hour dithering over two options separated by $5. Thus one character flaw trumps another.

Sin can operate the same way.

Ugh, sin again? While the last post was percolating, I came across something by Charles Spurgeon that really hit me, showing a different way we don't recognize our sins. There's a real problem in the western church today, and it will do us good to spend some time reflecting and trying to root out the sins that so easily entangle us.

Spurgeon's observation was that "sin may be bound by sin, and one ruling passion may hold the rest in check."

One man is kept from licentiousness by covetousness: he would be glad to revel in vice if it were not so expensive; another would be a rake and a spendthrift, but then it would not be respectable, and thus his pride checks his passions. This restraint of sin by sin is no proof that the nature is one jot the better, but that it puts on a fairer appearance, and is more likely to deceive.

When a man doesn't blow up at another man because the other is twice his size, that's not godly self-restraint; it's cowardice. In the same way, a man who doesn't beat his wife because he's worried what the neighbors will think isn't virtuous; he's a people pleaser. We can be glad he doesn't beat his wife, but it's still a different sin.

While this was percolating, I stumbled across a video of Jase Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, sharing how anger and pride kept him from drunkenness and sexual sin. It's worth your time to watch.

When one sin keep you from another, that's not holiness. Jesus' strongest charge against the Pharisees was the superficiality of their morality:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matt 23:27-28)

A "small" or a quiet sin may keep us from a less socially acceptable one, but it's still sin, still something Christ had to die for. He doesn't want us to put on a good show; he wants us to be like him, and that requires putting to death all sin.

Spurgeon continues:

Nothing will answer with inbred sin but the killing of it. ... Sin will be our death if we do not put it to death. Checks and restraints are of small value; what is needed is the root-and-branch cure—crucifixion with Christ. To cure sin by sin is a mere piece of stage-playing, which will never answer before God.

We mustn't accept the mere appearance of virtue. God wants holiness, hatred of sin because we love God. So we should search ourselves. Am I merely behaving, appearing superficially righteous because of a deeper sin? Or do I truly want to love God with my life?

Search me, God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:23-24)

Inspired by Charles Spurgeon, Flowers from a Puritan's Garden, "The Benumbed Snake"

Image via Pixabay

Lewis on the Subtlety of Sin

2025-11-12T06:14:00.000-06:00

What if we're sinning and don't even know it? One of the passages in The Screwtape Letters that has really stuck with me is the chapter where Screwtape explains that gluttony isn't what we think it is, that it's far more subtle and easier to commit than we assume. His discourse opens up a whole world of possibilities, and it's quite unsettling.

If you're unfamiliar, The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis presents letters from a senior demon to his nephew Wormwood, a junior assigned to tempt a particular human (it appears every human has one). It describes how the devils get at us, how they manipulate us into sinning, embracing lies, and avoiding the truth. It's worth reading regularly.

In one letter, Screwtape chides his nephew for disparaging gluttony as a means of catching souls:

One of the great achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe. This has largely been effected by concentrating all our efforts on gluttony of Delicacy, not gluttony of Excess.

"Gluttony of delicacy"? Yes. He goes on to describe a woman (no doubt quite thin) "enslaved to this kind of sensuality, which is quite concealed from her by the fact that the quantities involved are small." She doesn't think of herself as a glutton because she doesn't want much. She'll turn away a feast and demand to be given only "a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast."

Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before her, she never recognises as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others. At the very moment of indulging her appetite she believes that she is practising temperance.

She is "a positive terror to hostesses and servants" because she can never just take what is set before her. Screwtape says "her belly now dominates her whole life."

Which is something St. Paul wrote about. In Philippians, he mentioned those whose "god is their stomach" (Phil 3:19), which may be more than gluttony, but it's certainly included. When we allow our physical desires to direct our lives, they become our god. This opens up the world of gluttony. It's not simply the habit of overeating; it's the insistence on sating our desires. The person who puts away enough food for three people is easily recognized as a glutton. The person no one would dream of inviting to dinner because they're always obsessed with some "healthy" diet trend — be it avoiding gluten or counting macronutrients — is less easily recognized.

The problem with the woman Screwtape described was not that she liked weak tea and crisp toast. It was that she could not just eat what someone offered her. She made her desires the most important thing in everyone's life. And she couldn't recognize it for what it was.

Which begs us to ask, what other sins work that way?

One obvious example: Lust is normally thought of as visual. A man sees and then desires and then thinks (and thinks). Or he desires, so he goes looking for something to see. But smut can be purely text. Graphic sex scenes in print can be as stimulating as video. Men and women both are ensnared by this, but it appears women are more prone to it. How many people don't think of it as lust or pornography because it's not visually based?

Do you know a gossip? We think of a gossip as someone who enjoys talking about people behind their back, telling what doesn't need to be told. But a gossip needs an audience. The person who's always willing to listen, even if they never share, is committing the same sin. They treasure knowing these secrets, but "I never tell anyone" keeps them from thinking of themselves as a gossip.

I know someone who struggles with anger. But it's not yelling, throwing things, or hitting people. His anger manifests in very quietly belittling his targets — "putting them in their place." Sometimes it might even be well-deserved, but it's done with anger, to punish rather than to correct. Thankfully, he recognizes that for what it is, but how many don't think of themselves as "an angry person" because their anger is quiet?

All of this makes me wonder and makes me worry, what do I not recognize as sin? I have no doubt there are other sins with another subtle, less obvious face. Does one live in me? Does one live in you? We should regularly ask the Lord to reveal anything we don't recognize as sin in our lives to us. Then we should kill it.

Image via Pixabay

Fix Your Brain

2025-11-05T06:30:00.000-06:00

Over the last few years, I've been feeling like my brain was slowing down. Maybe gumming up is a better description. My memory was getting worse, my attention span was getting shorter, and I just didn't feel like I was thinking as clearly. At first I thought it was probably just age, maybe a little laziness thrown in. Recently I decided it was more than that, and acting on my gut suspicion, I got on the road to turning it around.

I know I'm not alone in this, so let me share how I'm fixing my brain.

How do I know I'm not alone? First, there's a lot of data out there showing this is a big problem. Second, even the kids are noticing it. There's a recent trend on TikTok where Gen Z and younger kids are responding to their impulse to constantly distract themselves by intentionally sitting and doing nothing for up to an hour a day. You may be thinking "Doing nothing is what they do all day!", but this is different: They're putting away their phones and literally doing nothing. They're trying to break their habit of pulling out a device every time they're bored. I'm glad to see it.

If you're addicted to your phone, you may need to take that kind of drastic measure; maybe not. My problem wasn't my phone. I've never been prone to scrolling endlessly on my phone. I do that on my computer. I have a job where I spend a lot of time waiting with nothing to do. So I scroll. Since 2020, I've been working mostly from home, and after work, I'm prone to logging off and just staying at my computer, scrolling. Not that I was scrolling TikTok or Instagram reels. I do have a Facebook account, but I also spent a lot of time reading articles, blogs, and other short form text content.

And my tolerance for length was getting pretty low. Give it to me in 1000 words or less. Long articles better have headings so I can skim. I lost the patience to read anything long, anything that required much thought.

So I made myself log off, get up and go in another room, and read a really long book. It was one of those things I'd bought and had been meaning to read for a while. I followed that with another. Then another. It's been several months now, and I can feel a difference. The gears have been greased; things are working better in my head. I'm sure it's not completely fixed, but I'm moving in the right direction.

I really think we're all in the same boat here. Sure, everyone's not equally bad; some literally cannot put down their phone, while others simply don't make the time to read anymore. We can all do better. We need to. It's not just better for you; it's better for our society.

You need to make time to read. Books. I know you're busy. The kids are in all kinds of activities, something's not working on the car, the dishes need to be done, the fence needs painting, and on and on it goes. If you make the time, you'll be glad you did.

Make it easy. Pick something you've been wanting to read. You may already have the book in your house. If not, splurge and get a nice copy. Preferably on paper. I still read Kindle books, but hard copy has real benefits. Put your phone on "do not disturb" and read for a while.

If there's no book you've been putting off, try reading a commentary on your favorite book of the Bible. I'd suggest one that's not too technical, either a teaching commentary or a devotional one. If that doesn't appeal to you, let me offer some suggestions:

If you've never read CS Lewis' The Great Divorce, it's amazing. You want something more of a classic? How about Pilgrim's Progress? There are modern English versions if you prefer. If you'd rather "learn something", try William Mounce's Why I Trust the Bible. If you want something more devotional, it's a great time to start Advent: The Once and Future Coming of Jesus Christ by Fleming Rutledge.

Or just pick up the latest novel everyone's talking about. The main thing is to focus on long form reading for an extended period of time. If you've only got 15 minutes a day, do it — you'll read the average book in a month. You can read 12 books a year at that rate. Or you can read War and Peace twice. Whatever. But if you can read longer, do.

Whatever you read, however much you can read, I encourage you to read. Fix your brain. You'll be better for it. We'll all be better for it.

Image via Pixabay

Your Digital Smorgasbord

2025-10-29T06:09:00.000-05:00

This week is an all-video edition of our digital smorgasbord. I've got a selection of interesting and helpful videos for your perusal.

⬨An Atheist Sci-Fi Franchise Just Went Full Christian
"Star Trek has long had a complicated and changing relationship with religion. ... It came full circle when the captain of the Enterprise got down on his knees and started reciting the Lord’s Prayer in the Star Trek: Strange New Worlds season 3 premiere."

I wish they'd make a follow-up to this, because there were other, more subtle, hints of the Christian faith in season 3. It's a little much to say they "went full Christian", but treating religion and religious ideas with respect may hopefully open minds, or at least soften attitudes, of viewers who were hostile to Christianity.

⬨Learn from My Students' Mistakes
Those of us who don't know Hebrew or Greek can benefit in Bible study by comparing translations. If we don't make these mistakes. Mark Ward has some important lessons for us.

⬨Our hostile culture
Are you a "grace giver" or a "truth teller"? Do you know what your particular weakness is? Do you have a theology of losing friends? The whole conversation with Mike Winger, Natasha Crain, and Katy Faust is worth watching, but the 4 minutes after my time stamp is excellent.

⬨AI Destroys Everything, Including Atheism
"AI only needs to seem right rather than be right", and "if you accept naturalism and evolution, you can't think of your cognitive faculties as being reliable, as giving you the actual truth about the world." How do these two statements go together?

Glen Scrivener comments on a recent video about AI slop, with the help of an argument made by Alvin Plantinga, and shows how it defeats naturalism.

Image via Pixabay