Here are some things that have been on my mind during this Easter season:
In the sermon on 4/7/24 on Matthew 27:57-28:20, I made the assumption that the guards at the tomb where Jesus was buried were Roman. The question was asked afterward if they could have been Jewish guards. The text is not clear and arguments can be made either way. On the one hand, why would the Jewish leaders go ask Pilate to station a guard if they could have simply used their own temple guards? The word for “guards” used by Pilate in Matthew 27:65 is the standard word used for Roman watchmen or soldiers. Also, why would the Jewish leaders tell the guards they will appease the governor if he gets angry about them falling asleep on the job (Matthew 28:14)? On the other hand, why does Pilate tell the Jewish leaders “you have a guard” (Matthew 27:65) in response to their request if he is referring to Romans rather than Jews? If the guards are Romans, why would the guards go make a report about the empty tomb to the Jewish leaders rather than Roman officials in Matthew 28:11? Further, Roman soldiers could be executed for falling asleep on the job, so why agree to tell a story that could get them killed? A good case can be made either way, and the text is not definitive. I’m inclined to view them as Roman guards; doing so allows us to have a nice symmetry with the Roman soldiers who were there at his death (Matthew 27:54) as well as at his resurrection. And perhaps most decisively, the Babylon Bee agrees!
I also recently mentioned historian and journalist Molly Worthen who converted to the Christian faith in the last couple years. You can find an interesting article along with a link to an interview with her here. Worthen’s story is a testimony to the grace of God, of course, but also a good reminder that the historical and theological claims made by orthodox Christians really do stand up to scrutiny. We do not have a blind faith. We have a faith that is fully rational, and grounded in the facts. The problem is not that the Christian faith is lacking support; it is that all too often that support is not investigated by unbelievers or explained clearly by believers. It’s amazing how many skeptics over the years have been convinced of the truth of Christ’s resurrection by engaging in deep study. If you’re looking for a defense of the gospel accounts of the first Easter, and you’re an ambitious reader, I would recommend N. T. Wright’s massive work The Resurrection of the Son of God.
Larson Hicks and I recently had the pleasure of interviewing David Bahnsen on our podcast, “Got a Minute?“. David discussed his new book, Full Time, with us. David argues that work is the meaning of life, that we have misconstrued the place of work in our lives by seeking “work/life balance,” and that pastors need to do a much better job teaching their congregations a theology of work. While overwork can be a problem, Bahnsen makes a case that most Americans (including American Christians) are far more prone to underwork and laziness than workaholism. I’d recommend the book to anyone, especially young adults, but if you don’t have time to read it, our podcast summarizes a lot of its content.
It’s become obvious that many Christians in our state do not really understand what is at stake in IVF — our state legislature and governor recently passed a law that grants blanket immunity to IVF, apart from any substantial ethical considerations. Likewise, many politicians at the national level do not really understand the issues involved. IVF destroys more lives each year than abortion. Here’s an article by Huntsville attorney Caleb Byrd on the issue that brings some clarity. Larson and I did a podcast with him which will be available soon. Breakpoint also has some helpful articles on the topic. Of course, when IVF involves surrogacy, it becomes even more ethically objectionable. It’s worth noting that progressives accuse conservatives of wanting to reduce women to breeders (a false charge!), but the progressive defense of surrogacy actually does just that.
———————————————————————–
Churches that grew by winning popularity contests and appeasing the masses in neutral world are going to get killed in negative world unless they change tactics. Any ministry based on accommodating cultural sensibilities in the last few decades is going to end up like the mainline denominations a generation or two ago. If ministry is built on the principle of accommodation to the world, it will have to continue moving leftward as the Overton Window shifts that direction.
By contrast, churches that have grown by teaching that Bible and that have pastors who can withstand storms will probably thrive in the years to come.
We celebrate religious “liberty” victories instead of discipleship victories. But the goal of the church is not to carve out a place at the table. It’s to transform our nation into a Christian nation, a discipled nation.
Darwinism/evolution is the biggest hoax in the history of humanity. That papacy is the second biggest hoax in history, but since many popes have fallen for the hoax of Darwinism (and Darwin didn’t fall for the hoax of the papacy), it has to be considered bigger. The climate change scam is now in the running for the third largest hoax ever pulled on the human race.
For most people, when it comes to wealth, Proverbs 30:7-9 describes the wisest, best, and happiest way to live — not too much, not little, but just enough to be comfortable and content. Obviously, an obsession with money, trying to get rich quick, etc., are problems. There is no virtue sin being poor. A slow, steady and disciplined approach to wealth building really does pay off and will get most people into the middle category Agur describes.
That being said, there are some who could (and who do) handle extraordinary prosperity very well. And it’d be great have more mature Christians in that ultra, ultra wealthy category because the next Christendom will not be built for free. It takes money to build civilization (just as it takes money to tear one down, eg, Soros). Go here for more.
The public schools are really the front lines in the culture war. The public school is where most Americans get neutered and brain washed. It’s where the FLGBTQ agenda gets pushed, it’s where kids get immersed in therapy culture, it’s where numerous spiritual toxins are injected into the lives of America’s children. The public schools represent an established secular/atheistic religion, a pseudo-church, using tax dollars to propagate idolatry. Christians have to learn to see public education as the enemy. The public schools might be failing to educate, but they are not failing. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do.
It was frustrating that in Nancy Pearcey’s recent book on the war against masculinity, she never once mentioned the role of public education, even though that’s the place we are castrating (figuratively, but now sometimes literally) our boys.
Teachers are basically an established and protected secular priesthood who now supposedly know even better than parents what kids need. Abigail Shrier’s book Bad Therapy shows that schools are now more therapy centers than places of learning. The schools are the place the social engineering experiments take place. The schools, especially wherever SEL (social-emotional learning) curricula is dominant, are the places where are kids of being turned into counselees more than students.
If all I knew about women was what I gleaned from reading Shiela Gregoire, I would have to conclude women have no sense of humor, no sense of responsibility, no real competence, cannot handle being told they have certain duties, and must be the most fragile, weak creatures in the universe
Thankfully Gregoire is wrong about women. She’s also wrong about men and marriage. Evangelical women need to ditch her and find better, more biblically sound Titus 2 women to serve as their mentors.
In Shrier’s Bad Therapy book, she dismantles Bessel van Der Kolk’s popular book, The Body Keeps the Score. While I basically think Shrier is correct, I do think van der Kolk has some insights worth preserving. But I would want to reframe Van der Kolk’s view.
For example, I do think sexual sin is against the body and can “traumatize” the body in ways we carry with us; Paul identifies sexual sin as having a unique impact on the body I 1 Corinthians 6. Of course, that is doubly true for those who are sinned against sexually, eg, sexual abuse.
But I am skeptical of a lot of what Van der Kolk says.
Shrier blows the lid off all the “body memories” stuff and points how easy it is to manipulate memory (our own or someone else’s, especially a child).
Van der Kolk feeds the view that everyone is victim, trauma excuses and explains all of life’s problems, etc. Shrier’s book is a healthy corrective, I think — a call to make resilience normal again, to take responsibility for yourself instead of blame others (especially parents), etc. She acknowledges trauma is real, but trauma inflation is real too
Why are people today so lacking in resilience? Shrier traces it back to bad parenting, based on bad therapy. I think that’s a big part of it, but we can go even deeper in assessing the problem. It’s not just bad parenting, it’s the lack of parenting altogether, especially due to family breakdown. The emotional reserves that enable people to be resilient usually arise from a stable family background and so many grow up without that today – that is the one form of really widespread trauma in our culture. Resilience used to be normal because growing up in a stable family was normal. People who do not grow up in healthy family cultures are inevitably going to be fragile and therefore easily traumatized.
While family breakdown is the primary form of trauma people experience today, it’s the one form of trauma many will not acknowledge. Rob Henderson’s book Troubled explores this. Henderson’s book is full of insights, especially in the last couple chapters when he moves from his childhood memoir to the lessons he has learned, especially what he terms “luxury beliefs” (the is, beliefs the elite adopt to viture signal their moral superiority, which cost them very little but which are very harmful to those lower on the social ladder). Henderson points out that while many think education will solve the problems young people face, education is no substitute for a stable home life.
What exactly counts as “trauma”? It can be hard to define, but one thing is certain: Most of what people call “trauma” today is just ordinary life. We are are the most prosperous and comfortable people who have ever lived but we’re being told (and children are especially being told) that we all have insurmountable trauma irrevocably imprinted upon us, which explains (and excuses) our widespread procrastination, promiscuity, anxiety, attention deficits, etc. It’s really ridiculous at this point.
Following up on my Hebrews 12 sermon from 5/5/24:
A questionnaire has been floating around on the internet lately. I assume it’s legit. It lists questions asked of new converts in South Asia, where obviously there is much more hostility to Christ than there is in America. Examples include, “Are you willing to leave home and lose the blessing of your father?,” “Are you willing to lose your job?,” and ultimately, “Are you willing to die for Jesus?” The American church is still very much focused on comfort and downplays the cost of discipleship. But these questions are good ones for all Christians to ponder even if they are more hypothetical for some of us than others. In the language of Hebrews 12:3-4, can we struggle against the hostility of sinners and stay faithful?
In the sermon, I passed over part of 12:14: Pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. In a way that statement is a summary of the whole passage. Break it down:
- We must strive. That is, we must make every effort. The Christian life does not pit works against grace; rather, true good works flow out of grace. God’s grace does not cancel out our efforts, but enables our efforts. The Christian life is a strenuous life. The Christian life is hard by design. The Christian life requires an active and vigorous and energetic pursuit.
- The goal of our striving is holiness. We might think of holiness as a moral category, but it is fundamentally a liturgical category with moral implications. To be holy is to have access to holy space, to the sanctuary, to the presence of God. To pursue this holiness means, basically, live as those who are worthy of entering God’s presence (cf. Psalm 15, 24, etc.). Walk worthy of the access you’ve been granted to the heavenly Most Holy Place. What kind of person belongs in God’s presence? Be that kind of person. Be holy as God is holy.
- Only those who pursue holiness in this way will see the Lord. In other words, good works are not an optional extra tacked onto the Christian life. Hebrews 12:14 is a good prooftext for the necessity of obediecne to salvation. We are not saved by our works (as if they could be meritorious) but we will nit be saved without them. The beatific vision — our ultimate escchatological hope of knowing God face to face — is reserved for those who work at obeying God in the here and now. If you want to see God’s face in eternity, you must seek God’s face right now, you must seek to obey God right now, you seek to be holy as God is holy right now.
I recently went on the Crosspolitic podcast to talk about my book, Measures of the Mission. There was a couple parts of the conversation I wanted to say a little bit more about. I mentioned that many Christians today operate with a two chapter version of the Biblical story (fall in Adam, redemption in Christ) rather than a four chapter version of the story (creation, with God’s original design and program for the human race; fall in Adam; redemption in Christ; consummation in the resurrection and new creation). I want to unpack the implications of the two chapter version of the biblical story a little more.
Why do some Christians have a problem with alcohol? Why do some Christians think you have to be a pastor or missionary to really serve God? It’s because they start with the fall rather than creation. If we start with creation, we can see that alcohol and work (aka dominion) are good in themselves; however much sin may have twisted them, they are fundamentally good. If we start with the fall, we will only see alcohol as a danger, never as a gift for our enjoyment. We will think the only kind of work that matters must be work that has a redemptive focus because redemption is all that matters. Starting with creation gives us a much bigger vision for what the Christian life can and should be. It gives us a much bigger worldview.
Another example: Why do some Christians think that power, especially political power, is always tainted and so Christians should avoid it? A worldview that starts with the fall rather than God’s creational design has greatly weakened the church by cutting us off from God’s creational purposes and design.
One more note on the Crosspolitic conversation. When they asked me what I would do if I were President, I largely deflected. But I don’t want to be misunderstood. I certainly do think cultural change comes from the top down as much as from the bottom up. (Typically, the most explosive movements in history, e.g., the Reformation, have a bottom up and top down component. Without the help of high ranking magistrates like Frederick the Protector, Luther would not have survived and the Reformation would have been stillborn. But the Reformation would have also flamed out quickly if not for populist help, provided largely by the printing press and enterprising publishers who got Luther’s works into the hands of the masses. The Reformation connected highly educated elites like Calvin with powerful and sympathetic political rulers who spearheaded change, but it also spread largely through the energetic reception it got among the masses.) My point is that we should be careful not to think that top down solutions are exclusively or even primarily political. When I say (along with the likes of Doug Wilson), “There is no political solution,” I am doing two things. First, I am pointing out that our political maladies are symptoms of even deeper spiritual problems. Not even our political problems have an entirely political solution. And thus I am also pointing out that even if we managed to get a “Christian prince” into office (ala Wolfe), as of right now, the American people would reject him. Of course that takes us back to this chicken and egg problem. How can we get a Christian prince elected unless we first change the hearts of the electorate? And is it possible to change the hearts of the masses unless powerful, connected, and influential leaders start speaking truth to them? Again, we need both — elites who are willing to lay their elitism on the line for Jesus and plebs who are willing to embrace the truth widely and deeply.
To put it another way, good statesmen do not grow on trees. A political solution requires politicians who are going to do the solving. Where will these men come from? Such men are the product of a culture, of training, of discipleship. We aren’t producing such men right now, and that is a spiritual problem. We are also not producing an electorate who will vote for them. American voters have passed over many godly candidates and chosen ungodly men when wiser, holier men were available. This too is a spiritual problem requiring a spiritual solution. Politics alone cannot fix this.
That being said, when I say “there is no political solution,” I am NOT saying we should ignore politics in order to focus on evangelism. Wolfe has rightly criticized those who substitute piety for political action. We should be politically active. But we should be realistic about the fact that even a small dedicated hardcore body of Christians would have a hard time steering the Titanic that is current American culture apart from some kind of widespread revival and reformation. Further, it’s hard for me to believe that Jesus will give us a faithful and wise magistrate until the American church shapes up.
I saw a Facebook post the other day that quoted Shakira (whoever that is) talking about how she knows true love is possible because she has seen it in her parents 50 year marriage but she has not been that “lucky” her self. Sorry, Shakira, but having a happy marriage is not a matter of “luck.” It’s a matter of virtue and skill, of wisdom and effort. Thinking of it as luck is a way of absolving oneself of responsibility for bad choices. Just admit it: You are terrible at relationships. You never learned the skills needed to be successfully married.
The same could be said of parenting. Obviously, many things can happen in a child’s life outside of the parent’s control. But in general, in parenting, as in marriage, as in every other area of life, you reap what you sow. Doing the hard work or training, teaching, and disciplining a child, all in the context of love, almost always produces a faithful, happy, productive adult. It’s not luck. It’s called faithfulness.
Several interesting trend lines are unfolding between the sexes right now. Young men are getting more conservative. Young women are getting more progressive and leaving the church at such a high rate that female church-goers will probably not outnumber male churchgoers before long. Why is this?
I think Santiago Pliego made a good point: Whereas women want to please and fit in, men don’t mind being disagreeable. Women want to fit into the cultural zeitgeist and tend to be collectivists. Men are tired of pretending (e.g., a man can become a woman) and yearn to make contact with reality even if it means they have to stand alone against the tide.
I think there’s another factor (which is no doubt related). Today, young men have many conservative and Christian voices speaking to their needs and interests. Think of Jordan Peterson or Jocko Willink. Think of Matt Walsh. The manosphere, which is used to be dominated by neo-pagan men seeking tips on how to fornicate is now largely dominated by Christians. Many of the men who were teaching red pill concepts 10 years ago have now black pilled themselves into irrelevance (e.g., Rollo Tomassi) while many pastors and other mature Christian men have filled the void for young men who want to make something useful of themselves. These men are focused on growing in competence, stewarding one’s body well, learning how to make money and invest, and other useful skills.
By contrast, who are young women listening to today? Taylor Swift? She’s not going to help any woman mature or improve herself or figure out life. Most of the dominant voices for women, whether in politics or entertainment or in the influencer category, are full-bore feminists. There are some exceptions — Allie Beth Stuckey is inconsistent but can be helpful. She interviews a lot of interesting people and is generally an anti-woke conservative Baptist. Suzanne Venker has a smaller following but she is helping a lot of young women figure out the lies of feminism before it’s too late. There may be a few other women are positioned on the right (e.g., the tradwife stuff, which seems quite weird), but they tend to send mixed signals. There really isn’t anyone with a large following for women today who is giving the rising generation of ladies the kind of biblically sourced wisdom they need. Given the culture’s message of fornication + careerism as the path to happiness for women, resulting in delayed marriage (if at all) and few (if any) children, it’s no surprise women are drifitng leftward.
My suggestion: Everyone (men and women) needs to read a heavy dose of Scott Yenor (my favorite sociologist).
What does all this mean? Just as there has been a great opportunity to reach disaffected young men over the last 10-15 years, so now there is emerging a great opportunity for the church to reach disaffected and confused young women.
Natural rights are real but always have limitations.
For example: If you murder someone, your right to life is forfeited
If you steal, your right to some of your property is forfeited because you have to make restitution
You do not have an absolute right to free speech or religious liberty because these rights are set within a moral framework. You do not have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or slander someone.
Even your right to bear arms can be forfeited if you are a criminal
Rights are granted by God — but for precisely that reaso, rights can also be revoked, as God’s law requires.
Miscellanies:
Anyone who identifies their feelings with reality is a narcissist.
I told my kids as they were growing up that life would be full of problems, but it was up to them to choose what kinds of problems they’d face. They could either deal with the problems that come from being faithful to God, or they could deal with the kinds of problems that come from disobeying God. The former kinds of problems are much better to deal with than the latter kind of problems.
The church does not write good worship music today because we no longer know what worship is. We think worship is an emotional experience and try to use music to create that experience. In reality, worship is a command performance before the throne of God. It is about receiving God’s gifts and responding with thanks and praise. The emotional experience flows out of truth; it cannot substitute for the truth. The point of music is not emotion per se, but glory. of course, the right kind of glory should provoke emotion, but emotion is not the goal of the service or the singing, it is a by-product.
To put all of that another way: We have replaced “liturgy” with “worship.” Instead of gathering as the church to receive God’s gifts in Christ and respond with the gift of thanks and praise in Christ, we now come together to have an emotional experience, mainly ginned up by music, but with screens and lights (or lack of light) aiding the whole show.
In a therapeutic age, personality replaces character, charisma replaces virtue, and “servant-leadership” replaces rule.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” This is the essence of presuppositional apologetics. Without the sun, everything is dark.
Decisions should always be made out of conviction, never out of anxiety.
It’s been rightly said that progressives reproduce not in the bedroom (they have a birth rate of about .7 right now, well below replacement rate). Instead, they reproduce in the classroom. If Christian parents do not want to be breeders for progressives, they need to give their kids a covenantal education.
The Bible only knows of two kingdoms, the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. What classical Protestant political theory refers to as the the two kingdoms, three estates, etc. are perhaps more helpfully called spheres (following Abraham Kuyper).
It’s amazing how deeply the feminist movement has made inroads into the conservative, evangelical Reformed church. We now have a plethora of what I call “strong independent thin complementarian women.” These thin complementarian “boss babes” really think they are checking the biblical boxes when it comes to sexuality, but they are really aren’t.
Doug Wilson has rightly said that hard teaching makes for soft hearts; that is to say, faithful, hard words from the pulpit will make the hearts of the people soft and obedient to the Word. Likewise, hard discipline makes for soft, pliable, obedient children.
\We need hard preaching/teaching in the church and hard parenting in our homes; this is the only way to create people with soft hearts. Hard teaching in the church is not yelling and screaming from the pulpit. It’s the firm and uncompromising application of God’s Word to the people. And hard parenting is not abusive or tyrannical; it is measured, proportional, and consistent discipline that inflicts pain for the sake of bringing about correction. Pastors who love their people will preach hard truths. Parents who love their children will care about them enough to discipline them even when it is difficult or inconvenient. Hardness in pastoring and parenting produces softness (of the right sort) in congregants and children. If we want Christians who can do hard thigns for the glory of God, who can endure hardships as faithful soldiers of the cross, it starts with hard teaching and hard discipline.
Faithfulness never goes to waste.
Courage is rarer than genius. Moral courage is harder to come by than physical courage.
No doubt, anti-white racism is real — there is especially a bias against white men. The examples of this “reverse racism” or “revenge racism” seem to be multiplying every day. But it’s important to understand this anti-white hartred is not really about race. The white male is a stand in for Western (that is to say, Christian) civilization. Think of the statues that get toppled. Whether it is Robert E. Lee or Christopher Columbus, the point is not to dishonor those men but to destroy whatever remains of the civilization that created them and of which they were a part. The changing of symbols points to a deeper shift: a changing of gods.
Stephen Wolfe once tweeted something to the effect that “white evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America.” I suppose I could grant this if Wolfe would grant that white progressives are the main driving force behind America going morally insane. But if you set the problem up that way, not that the “white” part gets cancelled out. What we are left with is evangelicals vs. progressives in a battle for moral sanity or insanity in America. I do not see why race would be brought into it. There are plenty of whites who are not Christian or conservative and there are plenty of non-whites who are. The Christian faith has no necessary tie to a riacial group. So why structure the discussion along the lines of race? It seems to me this kind of thing is actually part of the moral insanity. It also seems to me that its a sure way for Christians and conservatives to keep losing.
In any cultural conflict, the person (or group) with the strongest convictions will win. In a marriage, if a husband wants to lead his wife in a particular direction, he has to hold his convictions more strongly than she holds hers; otherwise, he will eventually give in and fail to lead. One reason Muslims and LGBTQers often win in the culture war against Christians is because they hold their convictions more strongly than we hold ours.
Politics must be a matter of great importance from time to time so that it can be a matter of very little importance most of the time. In a battle of those who just want to be left alone (which desribes most conservatives) versus those who really want to win, those who want to win will always defeat those who just want to be left alone. So: if we want to be left alone, we have to want to win.
Cultural reformation in our situation requires a three legged stool. Major political transformation is beyond our reach, but if we can reform church, family, and school, these can be the building blocks of kingdom renewal. When these institutions get synergy, with the Christian church forming Christian families, which in turn start Christian schools to disciple their children, we will start to make headway.
There’s anecdote that floats around from time to time. It goes something like this. A man was trying to decide between staying at his Reformed church or joining the Roman Catholic church. He went to his Reformed pastor, who gave him a book to read. He went to the Roman priest, who prayed with him. The man joined the Roman church. The point the anecdote is supposed to make is that Reformed types tend to be too intellectual, too bookish, too argumentative. But I think the whole anecdote (whether it ever actually happened or not) is a sham. There is no dichotomy between prayer and rational argument. The same Paul who told us to pray without ceasing also argued and reasoned with men in the synagogues (and in his epistles). Prayer is not more pious or spiritual than making well-reasoned arguments from the Scripture, any more than arguments can make prayer superfluous we need both.
Evangelicalism was a twentieth century movement that was supposed to correct the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalism and bring greater respectability to the Christian faith. Mark Noll wrote his book “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” to lament that there was no evangelical mind. In other words, evangelicalism has given us the worst of both worlds. It has not maintained the gritty courage and dogged biblical fidelity that characterized fundamentalism. But it has also failed to develop a robust intellectual culture that could push back against modernity’s rationalism. Instead, evangelicalism has become obsessed with relevance and respectability, which has allowed it to be steered further and further to the left as it chases the Overton Window and tries to look cool and winsome in the eyes of the its cultured despisers.
As we move further and further into negative world, institutional ownership will become more and more important. Do you own the platform on which you deliver content? Do you own physical space in which to meet? Starting schools, businesses, etc. are more critical than ever. If we depend on others for our physical and virtual meeting spaces, we could quickly find ourselves squeezed out.
TPC Pastor's Page 