This week I’m joined by for a discussion of his article, “The House Church Myth.”

We examine:

• The good and bad reasons people are drawn to the house church idea

• What church history REALLY shows about what the way early Christians met

• How Christianity developed out of its infancy toward what we have today

• Some actual early church practices we might consider moving toward

You can follow Michael at testeverything.substack.com

Watch below, listen above, or listen on the go with the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

In recent years, I’ve learned of the tremendous health benefits of beef liver. Just one small serving per week catches you up on all kinds of vitamins and other key nutrients that we often lack now that the standard diet has moved away from liver and other organ meats.

There’s only one problem: beef liver smells absolutely horrible, and it tastes even worse.

There are ways you can package it to mitigate the poor flavor, with onions, sauces, and/or seasoning. You can combine it with something more palatable, like ground beef, to dilute the disgustingness—though you also dilute the nutrients per serving in the process.

The tough reality is, if you want to get the benefit in a strong enough dose, you’re probably going to have to deal with the unpleasantness.

Unfortunately, beef liver perfectly illustrates how a lot of people view Christianity.

They know it’s good for them, but obedience and dying to self are so distasteful that they either avoid it altogether, try to jazz it up with all kinds of add-ons, or mix it in with the worldly flavors they prefer so they can get still get some of the benefits without dealing with anything too hard to swallow.

Christianity isn’t liver, though. It’s an acquired taste, to be sure, but…

The more you try it, the more you realize it’s just as enjoyable as it is good for you.

In worship we often sing, ‘Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus,’ because it is. Psalm 34:8 told us that: “O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!”

The world doesn’t see it though, because they can’t get past the initial challenge of acquiring the taste.

As a teenager, my brother and I would have conversations with hockey teammates who couldn’t understand skipping games for worship, not cussing, or not living a party-going lifestyle. One of them literally asked, “So as a Christian, you just don’t get to have any fun?”

Most Christians—especially those who have come out of a worldly lifestyle—understand the silliness of such a question. They’ll tell you how vapid the lifestyle of living for a good time eventually becomes.

But the way of the cross is indeed foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18), as they just can’t understand that which is blatantly obvious to all who have been saved by God’s grace. What looks and smells like beef liver to the unsaved actually tastes great, once you’ve had the faith to give it a try and acquire the taste.

But this is not just a problem for the unsaved

No, this beef liver view of obedience enters all of our hearts at some point, even after our conversion. Our fleshly mindset still can take over any time the Word steps on our toes and calls us to change.

When God commands us to forgive that person we don’t want to forgive, it can look like beef liver—good for us, but completely unappealing.

Taste and see.

When we run into the Biblical principles that run afoul of our cultural programming, like what I’ve been writing about gender roles and headship, we might think it smells like beef liver.

Taste and see.

When we have to be confrontational and stand up against sin or incorrect teaching, the nerves can make it feel like we’re being asked to choke down liver. We can even convince ourselves that “the way of Jesus” actually means we’re not supposed to take a stand.

Taste and see.

It’s in those moments we must remember that even though God calls us to do difficult things, He does not call us to do things that will make us miserable. It takes time and submission to learn to do things God’s way, but as we acquire the taste we learn each time that we were missing out on the better life every single day we clung to our own way.

They’re the same picture

Jesus called us to deny self, take up our crosses, and follow Him (Luke 9:23), and He also promised us the abundant life (John 10:10).

The longer you’re a Christian, the more you learn that these aren’t separate statements. They are the means and the end, two inseparable sides of the same coin. The more we die to self, the more abundant our lives will be.

We can always look backward and see it, but it’s harder to look forward and see it.

Any teaching that hits close to home and makes us mad at the person who brought it to our attention is an inflection point: does the Bible teach this, and am I trusting that the reward for my seeking will be a greater grasp of God’s love and a happier life rather than a disgusting aftertaste?

Too many turn back or stay right where they are, afraid to take another taste of that which will only give them a better life.

We believe in God, but trusting in the acquired taste is how we believe God. As Hebrews 11:6 says, we have to believe that He is AND that He rewards our diligent seeking. The beef liver view only believes half of the verse. Faith is how we learn to believe the second half.

Taste and see that the Lord is good. And the next time the plate looks distasteful, remember the last time you tasted. God’s way isn’t just the healthiest. It’s the sweetest, too.

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

Notes

This week’s Think Deeper Podcast takes on one of the most challenging, most pressing questions of our day: Is porn addiction grounds for divorce?

In the final video recapping my debate with Jeremiah Nortier on the essentiality of baptism for salvation, I examine 5 of the most absurd arguments Jeremiah made and show how many hoops have to be jumped through to deny baptism’s part in salvation.

Watch below, or listen on the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

I discuss an encouraging new study by Gallup on young men's rapid return to religion, including:

• Theories on what’s driving it

• What the stats say about young men and women’s different trajectories

• The worst thing we could do with this momentum

Watch below or listen above or on the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Have theories of your own? Let me know with a comment!

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

As I continue to study on masculinity, femininity, and the divergence of gender roles, I have found there are three camps when it comes to interpreting Ephesians 5:22—“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.”

• There are those who take it literally. They are a slim minority.

• There are egalitarians who perform textual mental gymnastics to try to make the verse mean the opposite of what it says. They are a sizable, vocal minority.

• There are those who say they believe it, but functionally do not take it seriously at all. This is the overwhelming majority.

That final group is the main focus of my writing on this topic. There was a time when the husband was clearly the head of his home, but in practical terms, that isn’t really the case in most Christian households anymore.

We simply stopped believing Ephesians 5:22, and that is reflected in our view of headship and the way we talk about it.

A few weeks ago I put a call out to my Facebook group (join us!), with the following request:

As I continue the study on gender roles, I want to compile a list of as many “humorous,” commonly used anti-headship quips as I can.

For example:

“I’m the head of the household, and I know that because my wife said so.”

Over the years I’ve heard a ton of these, and so I’m sure I’m missing some now. Got any you can share?

Sadly, the responses were plentiful. Here’s what the group had to say:

• “The husband is the head, but the wife is the neck that turns the head.”

• “Best two phrases you can learn as a husband: ‘Yes dear’ and ‘You’re right!’” This “joke” was recited to me numerous times while I was engaged.

• I have seen a note that says, “All husbands choosing paint colors must have a signed note from their wife” posted at our local paint store.

• The bathroom signs that say “Men to the left because women are always right”

• “Mr. Right” and “Mrs. Always Right” matching mugs

• Men control 70% of the money in this world and women only control 30%, but women control 100% of the affection in this world so therefore they control 130% of the money.

• My X used to ask me, ‘Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?’

  And she meant it.

• I wear the pants in my house! My wife just picked them out for me and tells me when to get dressed.

• A pastor announced, “If you know your wife is controlling you, move to the left”.

  All the men in the church moved to the left except one man.

  The pastor was happy there was at least one strong man, and asked, “How come your wife can’t control you?”

  The man quietly replied, “It’s my wife who told me not to move”.

• The husband says, “Let me check with the boss,” or one of his friends tells him to “check with the boss.”

• Happy wife, happy life. If Mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy.

• Behind every successful man is a woman telling him he’s wrong

I’ve heard almost all of those at some time or another, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you have, too. I’ll throw another one in for good measure—“Looks like your wife has her hands full with all those kids, and that one big kid!”

Many will hand-wave all of these quips away as harmless and just in good fun, but notice a few things…

The jokes don’t go the other way

If a man quipped that his wife needed to choose between being right or being happy, the word “abuse” would probably be floated by somebody. Young brides aren’t told to start practicing saying “Yes, dear.”

The whipped, henpecked, dare I say submissive husband who needs to learn to get in line is a regular feature of our cultural view on marriage, and the church has unthinkingly swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The TV repeatedly tells us that men are stupid and immature and need to be bailed out by their wives.

Comedian Nate Bargatze is about to release his new bumbling idiot dad movie, another in a long line of Hollywood products pushing the trope. Remind me: when was the last time a poor, put-upon husband had to repeatedly bail out his incompetent wife in a movie?

To be clear, I’m not arguing the jokes should go the other way. Rather, I’m arguing that if the jokes really are this harmless and not a way to undermine Biblical roles, then people would have no problem being consistent and going both directions. In my view, mutual respect should keep us from tossing these barbs at each other.

The seriousness is undermined

This stuff matters. Homes work well when they work according to God’s design, and well-running homes lead to happy men, women, and children, strong churches, and better-run societies. So much is at stake here, but it’s a joke to us. And the results show.

On top of that, we still uphold half of the bargain. Men are expected to sacrificially care for their families, and regularly get reminded to step up and carry out their responsibilities. But then we take away the actual authority to do the job, along with any honor that comes with the role. That’s a lousy deal.

It violates the Scripture

I don’t think anyone makes those jokes with this in mind, but the end result is that the funny little quips completely subvert the Scriptures. That’s not so funny at all.

“He’s the head but she’s the neck that turns the head” and “He wears the pants, but she picks them out” obviously mean one thing: we’re going to say he’s in charge, but deep down we all know she is.

Go read Ephesians 5:22-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7 and see if either apostle either said or implied the kinds of things we say and imply. Peter said Sarah called Abraham “lord.” We teach men to call their wives “the boss.”

The Alternative

Plenty of Christian couples don’t make those jokes, but occasionally you’ll meet a husband and wife who go the opposite direction. They constantly speak highly of each other. It’s clear to all who know them that she respects him and submits to his leadership, and he loves and cherishes her deeply.

Isn’t that better? In a world that pits husbands and wives against each other and eggs women on to disrespect their husbands (contra Ephesians 5:33) and men on to resent their wives (contra Colossians 3:19), shouldn’t Christian couples be showing a different way—a way that not-so-coincidentally makes everyone happier?

Can’t a woman appreciate the sacrifices her husband makes to lead and care for the family? Can’t a man praise his wife like the husbands in Proverbs 31 without demeaning himself and talking about how she’s his superior in every way?
Wouldn’t it be cool if young people had a positive vision of what they’re signing up for, with a young man aspiring to be a respected leader and provider for a woman he cherishes, and with a young woman aspiring to submit to and make a home for the man whose name she proudly takes?

No, instead, we joke to the young man that he better get ready to be whipped into submission. We joke to the young woman to keep him under her thumb and to use her leverage to get what she wants. Not great!

I know people really think they’re being funny with these jokes, but in practical terms, we don’t believe the Bible verses that these jokes subvert. Any time we find we haven’t believed God, the response is obvious: repent, and go a better way.

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

Notes

This is the fifth in an ongoing series of posts about masculinity, femininity, and our differing roles. See previous posts linked below.

In this debate recap video, I examine 3 arguments against baptism from my debate against Jeremiah Nortier, featuring:

• The one I wish I had answered better

• The one Jeremiah thinks was his best argument

• The actual best argument that Jeremiah forgot to use

And, why they don’t hold water.

Watch below, or listen on the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

You can catch the full debate on the Church Reset podcast or on YouTube here

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

Spencer Hall joined me to talk about the unfortunate practice of "One strike fellowship," where any disagreement is enough to get someone labeled as "unsound" or "a false teacher."

And, we discuss how to handle disagreements in the churches of Christ

Watch below, listen above, or listen on the go with the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

Check out Spencer's article on the issue here:

Spencer Hall

The Danger of One-Strike Fellowship

There is a quiet culture that has crept into many churches today—one that few will openly defend, yet many have felt the effect of. It is the idea that fellowship hangs by a thread. One wrong conclusion. One different interpretation. One perceived misstep, and suddenly, the table is pulled back! We may not say it out loud, but the message is often heard…

Read more

a month ago · 7 likes · 1 comment · Spencer Hall

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

As you may have noticed in my recent material, there has been yet another dustup in the churches of Christ over alcohol.

To be honest, I’m quite sick of talking about alcohol itself, and I don’t feel the debates over oinos and shekar and all the other related points are worthwhile anymore. It just is what it is, and minds are made up.

These controversies reveal three much more significant underlying issues

First, their approach leaves no room for wisdom

In response to the alcohol discussion, I saw a couple of posts along the lines of, “If you think drinking isn’t a sin, why not just get up in the pulpit with a beer to show that you can?”

Well, first of all, most preachers don’t take a drink to the pulpit, save for maybe a sip of water for a scratchy throat, so that’s a weird suggestion.

But second, that could become an obvious stumbling block in the moment, which would be a sin unto itself (Romans 14:21).

And third, what do you think “all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable” means (1 Corinthians 10:23)? God wants us to use our brains.

It’s not a matter of “If it’s a sin, don’t do it, and if it’s not—go for it!” There are things that we are technically within our rights to do, but that doesn’t mean we should. How do we know the difference? We have to use wisdom. Sometimes we have to go beyond just reciting proof texts.

But that’s the problem with these guys’ approach: it’s not only that everything is black and white. It’s that everything has to be black and white, or else.

There is no room for “I wouldn’t, and I don’t think you should, but I can’t make you.” No room for “Sure, you CAN. But what choice would best honor God?” Everything is law.

But why do you think the New Testament doesn’t have a Leviticus? Why does it lack a clear enumeration of its rules like what we find in the Old Testament? Wouldn’t it have been easier for God to just spell it all out for us in one place like that?

Galatians 3:23-25 tells us that the Law was a tutor, or schoolmaster, to lead us to Christ. The idea is that we were meant to outgrow it. That doesn’t mean you outgrow obedience and holy living. It means you get to the point of doing it by instinct rather than by consulting a checklist. You’re not supposed to be calling Mom and Dad asking what you can and can’t do at 42 years old.

And when you outgrow the tutor, you can start going beyond proof texts and develop the wisdom to live by principles. Wise Christian living includes all the proof texts, of course. But it goes beyond that into “trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:10).

We have to practice a Christianity that requires us to turn our brains on, meditate on the text and the principles it gives us, pray for guidance, and seek out not just what we have to do, but also what we ought to do.

Otherwise, what we produce are a bunch of script-memorizing people who think their duty to God is fulfilled by checking a list of boxes.

Second, their approach mandates spiritual immaturity.

This approach that refuses to allow for any gray area presents itself as the mature version of Christianity, but in reality it is a result of immaturity.

Once again, little children need everything spelled out for them. Older children can learn to live by principles. They generally know what they should do before having to ask, because their parents have used their time together to hone the children’s sense of right and wrong.

According to the Scriptures, this kind of discernment is spiritual maturity. “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed exactly how we should use discernment, but also how the Pharisees had missed it in their immaturity. The Pharisees treated the Law like a checklist, but Jesus showed them how to engage their hearts to meet the spirit of the Law and not just the letter.

“You have heard it was said… but I say unto you…” He wasn’t changing the laws or adding to them. He was explaining the spirit of those laws that they missed because they were focused on checking boxes. It’s clear Jesus wanted them to use their brains instead of just referring to a cheat sheet of dos and don’ts.

How immaturity plays out

Thus, you end up with people constantly asking “Is it a sin?” and “But can you BIND that?” Not everything has to be a command that we’re seeking to bind. We’re allowed to teach principles and use wisdom to discern what is good, better, and best when it comes to applying those principles.

This approach is why we at Focus Press get so much pushback on pushing the importance of marriage and children, the advantages of homeschooling over public education, the good of moms staying at home, and so forth.

We are not binding any of these things. We are teaching that the Scriptural principles involved indicate these are better choices than others. There’s not just a right and a wrong, conversation over. There’s a good, a better, and a best, and it’s up to Christians to help each other work those out—even if we’re going to disagree sometimes.

Refusing to entertain such discussions and returning to Law just keeps us from developing the maturity God desires us to have. You end up with people who can recite, but not reason.

Third, their approach is based in fear rather than the joy and liberty found in Christ.

In Romans 8:15, Paul wrote, “For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’”

The approach these guys take to the Bible absolutely creates a spirit of slavery that leads to fear. That’s why I wrote a whole book on Christian assurance—because so many who have grown up in the churches of Christ have a paralyzing fear. When everything is an essential issue, and every teaching is life or death, it’s no wonder people live in constant doubt.

What if they’ve misunderstood something? Then they’re a devil-loving, truth-hating false teacher. What if they’re doing something wrong and don’t even know it? Then they’re unrepentant and hell-bound, because grace doesn’t really cover anything.

What a horrible way to live. When Christians are constantly under the burden of doubt and unable to experience the joy of the Christian life because of an approach to the text that insists there is no room for difference of understanding on even non-Gospel issues, we must say that the fruit is rotten.

If Christianity is supposed to bring a peace that passes understanding, and yet most people under a system of teaching don’t have any peace because they’re not arrogant enough to say for sure that they’re going to get a 100 on heaven’s doctrinal entrance exam, then the system needs to be scrapped.

Rethink the system

Wisdom isn’t allowed. Maturity is discouraged. Fear abounds.

This is no way to live the Christian life.

Building out an alternative is well beyond the scope of this article, but it has to be a system that gives Christians the grace and freedom to make use of wisdom, knowing full well that sometimes doing so will end up in people coming to different conclusions. They’ll answer to God for them, and you’ll answer to God for you (Romans 14:10).

Yes, some things do cross a line and break fellowship. But it can’t be everything.

We can’t treat the Bible as a script to be memorized and mastered. Treat it as a treasure map that gets you closer and closer to God the more you internalize it and practice it. Then, you can treat your Christian brothers and sisters as fellow travelers who are on the same journey, even if they take a mildly different route from time to time.

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

For more on recent controversies, check out this week’s Think Deeper Podcast here

In this debate recap video, I look at the verse that those who deny baptism’s essentiality for salvation can’t get around.

And, I break down the problem with Jeremiah’s favorite defense: calling everything a “Word-concept fallacy!”

Watch below, or listen on the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get an e-copy of my latest book!

Subscribe now

In my first debate recap video, I look back on a bizarre claim made by Jeremiah Nortier in our debate on baptism, regarding Naaman and his ability to boast in his works.

Watch below, or listen on the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

And, if you’re going to Lads 2 Leaders Nashville this weekend, stop by and say hello!

For the full debate, you can view it on the Focus Press YouTube channel, or listen on the Church Reset podcast!

Share

A Dave Ramsey caller shared her story of her husband’s apparent misconceptions. Dave’s response gives us a perfect example of so much of what is wrong with the modern Christian view of marriage, headship, and gender.

Watch below, or listen on the go with the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

Share

Today’s audio is actually from a video I did with Marco Arroyo back in December 2024, but I’m resharing the video here and posting the audio to the Church Reset podcast because suddenly it’s become highly relevant again.

In this episode:

• Marco and I discussed the church of Christ’s “Deep State” that controls allowable opinion and lines of fellowship.

• We talked about the cancel culture that makes so many afraid to have open discussions about the Scriptures lest they lose their job or even their friend and family relationships.

• And, we talked about where this kind of influence comes from and how it hinders our unity.

Watch below, or listen on the Church Reset podcast (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app)!

Share

Subscribe now

Last week, the brotherhood police in the churches of Christ were at it again as Terrance Brownlow-Dindy of the Texas School of Preaching took aim at Todd Clippard over the issue of alcohol. This time, he was joined by Don Blackwell of GBN in a joint public confrontation.

Todd wrote a well done piece laying out his position, but the damage has already been done. More fractures have been caused, more reputational damage has been done. Why? Because that’s what they do.

I commented on it on my Facebook account to say:

It’s time the rest of us band together and tell the dividers and the slanderers, “Enough.”

The responses to that have given me a few angles that I believe need a little bit more examination.

The confrontation needs to be public

I have seen many comments and posts decrying the division going on and the public nature of the confrontation.

I’m sorry, but some of you are going to need to develop the stomach for this kind of thing, at least for a little while.

Until you do, the brotherhood police’s tactics are going to keep working. They publicly blast people, start gossip backchannels, destroy reputations, put faithful people’s livelihoods and ministries at risk, and sever friend and family relationships.

And the only reason it works is because everybody in the middle wants to privately shake their heads about how unfortunate it all is, but never actually name names and take a stand.

The ivory tower lectureship set won’t risk their seats. Others will cancel speaking invitations and quietly distance themselves from good guys like Todd, even if they don’t disagree with him or don’t think it matters that much. They do this because that’s just way easier than dealing with the discomfort of pushing back.

This is simple stuff. It’s The Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven, A Bug’s Life, and all those movies about the many realizing they don’t have to keep getting stepped on by the few. But the only way that happens is if the many start talking about it.

When Paul opposed Peter to his face “in the presence of all” (Galatians 2:11-14), I’m sure there were people in the room who thought Paul was way out of line for causing a scene.

But Paul didn’t walk in there and take the Gentiles aside and go, “Wow, what a bummer that those guys are treating you that way. Sorry that happened to you, brothers.” No, he did the right thing and publicly called out the problem. Hundreds of millions of people know about Peter’s sin because Paul confronted it and then wrote the encounter down. Sometimes that’s needed.

“There goes Jack, thinking he’s Paul,” somebody might respond. No, I’m not an inspired apostle. But does this not set a precedent for publicly calling out men in leadership who are causing division in the church?

“It makes the church look bad”

This has been one of the common claims, that airing our dirty laundry publicly is a hindrance to the church’s image. I understand the point, but I disagree. Many outsiders think we’re exactly the kind of church Terrance wants us to be—constantly purity-spiraling, devouring each other, preaching everybody but a tiny circle of people into hell.

Publicly pushing back and saying “We’re going to be a movement that gives each other some grace, and we’re not going to be the kind of movement that allows bad faith actors to fracture us over every tiny detail” is, in my view, a good thing for the church.

If you were an outsider, which would you want to be part of:

A church that sits by while anybody who disagrees on the long-debated issue of alcohol undergoes public reputational death?

Or, a church that polices itself whenever somebody attempts to do that?

The first is what we’ve been doing. The second is what we’re attempting. You tell me which one has more appeal?

A bad incentive structure

Consider the incentive structure in place when rooting out “false teachers” is a path to the top and a way to establish oneself as a “faithful brother” and “defender of the Gospel.”

Why else do you think we see the same guys repeatedly popping up in comment sections labeling everybody and their dog a false teacher? Because this is what “good preachers” do in this approach to Christianity.

What’s worse, is you see young guys coming up who immediately start taking aim at “false teachers” in ministry as a way to prove their mettle. A while back I got a private message from somebody I don’t know and have never met asking me my position on the New Heaven and New Earth doctrine. No intro, just a doctrinal grilling.

And, wouldn’t you know it, he’s labeled me a false teacher to mark and avoid. Sadly, many of us have this exact kind of encounter we can share. That’s what this rotten version of Christianity produces. Test the fruit.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matthew 23:15).

(Lest the accusation get turned around… I’m not trying to climb the ladder here because 1) I’m not on it and never have been, and 2) If I was aiming to get on the ladder, writing this piece is the dumbest thing I could possibly do.)

False teachers, you say?

While we’re on the topic of the “false teacher” label… the casualness with which that term gets thrown around is downright shocking. These guys use it to mean some combination of “person who disagrees with me” and “person who is wrong about anything in the Bible.”

That is not the Biblical meaning of the term. In 2 Peter 2:1-3, false teachers are described as sensual, greedy men who are bringing swift destruction on themselves. Galatians 1:9 says anyone who teaches a contrary Gospel (as they often accuse us of doing) is accursed. In Matthew 7:15-20, they are called ravenous wolves who will be known by their fruits.

Yet in the hit piece against Todd Clippard, they repeatedly refer to him as a brother. In my comments, I’ve been called a false teacher and brother by the same person at the same time. Sorry, you’re going to have to pick one. False teachers are not your brothers.

They will use “mark and avoid” in Romans 16:17 and not keep reading into 16:18, where the men they are to mark and avoid are called slaves of their own appetites and NOT slaves of Christ.

This, once again, is the cowardly disfellowship of the brotherhood police.

If somebody advocated we put a pride flag out front, throw a rock band on stage, and have a lesbian pastor take over the church, they wouldn’t be calling the guy who suggested it “brother.” None of us would.

But this way they can have their cake and eat it too. They can be the staunch defenders of “TRUTH” without actually siloing themselves off from everybody who dares disagree with them on anything. And, they get to cast themselves as loving by still sprinkling the term “brother” in there.

What they don’t realize is, by their standard of measure it will be measured to them (Matthew 7:2). If doctrinal perfection is your standard of fellowship and faithfulness, you had better not be wrong about a single jot of the Scriptures.

But, that’s what leads to their refusal to entertain even the slightest discussion about allowing for matters of opinion or agreeing to disagree, because it would bring their whole system crashing down. The vicious cycle rolls on.

We don’t have to keep putting up with this

I maintain that we need as many of us as possible calling these tactics out, praying for repentance, and refusing to let ourselves be divided by these games. And, I maintain that, as unfortunate as it is, we need to have the stomach for confrontation until it stops.

A lot of people have disagreed, and you’re free to do that. But as I always say, saying “I don’t like that” isn’t a solution. Tell me how we’re going to put a stop to the bullying and brotherhood policing.

I’m open to a better way if you have one, but until I see one, I maintain we all need to speak up and say “Enough is enough.”

Share

Subscribe now

As promised, the debate is finally here for on-demand audio or video streaming!

Thanks to everyone who has asked for viewing info and shown support! I’d love to hear what you think, and what follow-up questions you might ask me or Jeremiah if you got the chance.

You can watch the YouTube video of the debate below, listen via the Substack app or the audio link above, or on the Church Reset podcast feed (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

It would help me a lot if you subscribe to the Church Reset podcast and to the free email list here!

Host: You can check out Chris Arnzen’s radio show at ironsharpensironradio.com

Opponent: Jeremiah Nortier is “The Apologetic Dog” on YouTube

Share

If you’d like to support my work, consider becoming a premium subscriber today and get a digital copy of my new book, You Are Saved, along with 8 other eBooks!

Supporter Options

We had a pretty crazy first day of the baptism debate. I learned from Jeremiah that:

• The second half of Romans 10:10 doesn’t count, because verbal confession is a work like baptism

• In 1 Peter 3:21, the “now” does not mean now, and the “saves” does not mean “saves”

• In 2 Kings 5, Naaman can claim he healed himself of leprosy because he did works by getting in the water

Pretty wild stuff!

Part 2 of the debate is about to go live, and once again you can tune in by going to ironsharpensironradio.com and clicking on the listen live button a little ways down the page.

Once again, if you can’t tune in today or you missed part 1, the debate will be posted in full on YouTube and to the Church Reset podcast this weekend.

Be sure you’re subscribed to the email list here and to Church Reset (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app) to get it when it’s ready!

Subscribe now

Hey folks, here’s your heads up that my debate over baptism is about to go LIVE at 4 PM ET.

I’ll be debating Jeremiah Nortier, the self-styled “Apologetic Dog,” with me affirming and him denying the proposition, “Is water baptism essential for salvation?”

You can tune in with the listen live link at ironsharpensironradio.com - and be sure to come back for part 2 tomorrow at the same time!

If you can’t listen live, I will be posting the audio to the Church Reset podcast and my YouTube channel this Saturday, Lord willing. Make sure you’re on my free email list here if you want to get notified when the full debate is up for on-demand consumption.

Share

Subscribe now

One of the biggest issues in our teaching about this topic is that we have a ton of teaching on what headship is NOT and precious little on what it IS.

Of the two main examples we are given regarding what headship looks like, neither is particularly helpful.

A Simplistic Example

Occasionally you’ll see the example of things like choosing movies, restaurants, and inconsequential matters of preference.

In these, we’re told the man is not to run his wife over and demand his way, but to defer.

Funny enough, those are the kinds of things that don’t need headship. These are the kinds of decisions they should make together, each one deferring to the other at times. As we looked at in the previous entry on the headship false dichotomy, his role is not a choice between forcing her to eat Mexican every time they go out, or being forced to take her to eat Italian every time they go out.

It’s an easy example to pick on, though, because the stakes are so low. It’s also an easy target because almost everybody can agree that a guy who never gets his wife her favorite food is immature and selfish.

It’s the important stuff that requires a clear hierarchy—how the children will be disciplined and educated, the family’s religious beliefs, career and financial decisions, what kind of content will be allowed in the home, and so forth.

A better example that still misses the point

The other major example is the concept of the Tie Breaker Vote on big decisions.

The idea is that every decision should be worked out as a team, unless a genuine gridlock happens. As the old, unfunny joke goes, “We agreed that she’d make all the minor decisions, and I’d make all the major ones. Fortunately, in all these years we’ve never had to make a major decision!” Well, buddy, what if you actually have to make one someday?

In those exceedingly rare cases where it does happen, theoretically it will fall to the man to make the final decision.

However, in the “servant leader” system, the thinking goes that if he doesn’t concede and use his vote to appease her, he’s still being selfish. Saying “I see your point, honey, but for the good of the family we’re not doing that” can easily be cast as being controlling.

Interestingly, in Tim and Kathy Keller’s wildly popular book, The Meaning of Marriage, they discuss one such decision they had to make.

Would they move to New York City for Tim to take what ended up becoming his career-defining ministry work? Or would they stay put, as Kathy and the children wished?

Tim, being the “servant leader,” conceded to their wishes. But then, going against basically everything they taught previously in that section of the book, Kathy took a courageous—and correct—stand:

“Oh, no, you don’t! You aren’t putting this decision on me. That’s abdication. If you think this is the right thing to do, then exercise your leadership and make the choice.”1

She was exactly right. But what she said undermined the entire concept of the Tie Breaker Vote. That idea is just an illusion. It was always going to be his choice to make and his responsibility to bear, whether he made the decision or not. That’s the case with every decision, including the ones where he doesn’t have a preference and lets her pick.

In this case, and in many cases, she had a preference, which she is completely entitled to. And he would be a fool if he did not listen to her reasoning. But, as she reminded him, the buck was always going to stop with him. The man doesn’t take the lead in rare instances. In God’s eyes, he’s always in the lead, whether they acknowledge it or not.

In other words, marital hierarchy isn’t a “Break glass in case of emergency” tool God gave us, but the default operating system.

Thus, the Tie Breaker Vote is also an easy, but unprofitable, example of actual headship.

Subscribe now

An Actual Example

Sometimes it’s hard to find actual examples, because our culture has done everything in its power to avoid ever dealing with real headship. Thankfully, one produced itself just in time for this article.

In a recent tweet, a man mentioned how he had told his wife he didn’t want her reading books by a certain Christian author anymore due to theological concerns. This created quite a stir, with many suggesting he wildly overstepped his bounds. Critics argued he was being controlling, taking her rights away, treating her like a child, and so forth.

Those accusations don’t help answer the actual question at hand, though.

The question at hand is, does the man have authority over the content that comes into his house? Or, can he just make suggestions?

Let’s reframe that question: if a man identifies a threat, seeks to remove it from his home, and is ultimately vetoed, is he actually the head? Is she submitting? Obviously, the answer to both questions is, “no.”

Turns out he’s not supposed to use his authority to lead his wife away from the serpent that is enticing her to sin. He’s only supposed to use his authority to take her to her favorite Italian restaurant.

See, this is the kind of issue that reveals how much modern gender and marriage discourse has avoided the tough conversations.

We use simplistic hypotheticals like the restaurant question, which allow us to skirt around questions like these. Then, we teach the doormat model of headship, which gives us our answer to such situations without having to actually engage with them.

Remember, headship is not a tool to break out in the rare circumstance that it’s needed. Headship means the husband decides the direction of the house and takes the responsibility on himself every day to make sure the house continues to move in that direction. He is to be continually sanctifying his wife with the water of the Word (Ephesians 5:25-27) and raising his children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (6:4).

This isn’t some “it’s good to be the king” doctrine. This is “you had better take this seriously, because souls are on the line” doctrine. A good man will take that duty seriously and execute it well, and countless Christian families have been blessed

To be clear, he absolutely should confer with her and factor her preferences and advice into his calculation. And if he’s using this authority often, there’s probably a deeper issue on one or both sides.

But ultimately, the decisions are his, because he will be the one to give an account for how he led his family. And her job is to submit to the decision, whether he’s going about it in the way she believes he should or not.

“For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” (1 Peter 3:5-6)

What about the flip side?

Here’s where it gets tough: what about when she has concerns with the content he’s consuming?

On the one hand, if it’s something clearly sinful, like pornography, she has every right to confront him. If he won’t handle it, she has every right to talk to their elders about the problem. But, that’s less a matter of marital roles and more a matter of Christian duty when you see anyone in sin.

But what if the material is not exactly sinful? What if the roles were reversed and she was worried about the books or podcasts he’s listening to, and what they teach about Christianity, or politics, and such?

Scripturally, she does not have the same authority to draw a line. She has every right to appeal to him and make a case if she believes he’s on a bad trajectory, but ultimately, that’s where it ends. She will not give account for the way she led him like the way that he will give an account for how he led her. It doesn’t work that way.

If he is wise, he will listen to her view. Many a wise Christian woman has helped her husband avoid disaster.

Sometimes he might concede that she’s right, and other times he might not. Once again, if he’s wise, he’ll give her an explanation of where he stands and why he’s sticking by his decision.2 However, even if he doesn’t, she is still not in a place of authority to overrule him.

The rubber is meeting the road

These are difficult discussions to have, especially since we are so entrenched in a culture that revolts against headship of all kinds.

As I noted in the previous entry, some will certainly see this as a call to have husbands run roughshod over their wives. To reiterate, that is not what I’m calling for. Consider for a moment, you’ve likely seen so much content on what headship does not mean, that discussions about what it does mean might feel foreign and uncomfortable.

There’s a delicate balance between making the tough decisions a leader should make while still showing the love and care that helps those that follow. But for too long we’ve defaulted to love and care without leadership—which isn’t truly love at all—and any correction back in that direction is going to look like an overcorrection.

Being the head of the household has to mean something, and this example is just one way we can recover that kind of meaning.

Share

Notes

• DEBATE STARTS THIS THURSDAY! You can listen live at ironsharpensironradio.com. I will be sending out a link just before the debate starts, so if you want to get notified…

• Click below to subscribe! Subscriptions are free, unless you want to support my work by chipping in a few bucks a month. Both options are available at the link. Please pray for a successful debate, and keep an eye out for that email!

Subscribe now

I review Joe Rigney’s book, ‘Leadership and the Sin of Empathy’ and tell you why you MUST pick up this book, especially if you’re a church leader.

As always, you can watch below or listen on the Church Reset podcast feed (Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app).

I’m rather pleased to see how many of you have subscribed to the Church Reset podcast and download the article read-throughs and audio drops there, so thanks to all who follow me there!

Grab a copy of Leadership and the Sin of Empathy at https://amzn.to/4lwFA06 (Affil. link)

Share

There’s a long-standing, widespread belief that progressive Christianity is the far nicer and more loving wing of the religion.

Because of this, there’s a sense that the two sides of the coin are balanced in their errors. One side is loving, but less truthful, and the other is truthful, but less loving.

I want to challenge the progressive churches’ reputation, though.

Are they really more loving? Sure, they seem nicer, and more open, and more charitable, but how did they get that way?

And, do they have to compromise on truth the way they do? Can a church be just as nice as them, yet still cling to truth?

Why are they soft on sin, downplaying LGBT transgressions, softening the Bible’s stances on divorce and remarriage, soft-pedaling abortion, etc.?

Why do they shrink back from the inspiration of Scripture and “unhitch” from the OT events the world likes to disparage? Why are they often ashamed of the Bible’s teachings on miracles, or creation, or hell? Why do they seem embarrassed by the Bible’s teachings about male leadership and the forbiddance of women preachers?

Why are they so hard on the things that the world also hates, like racism and right wing politics, and so soft on the things that the world loves?

I just recently grasped what’s going on here:

Progressive Christians aim to help people draw near to them rather than to God.

That’s the fatal flaw that introduces all of this error, and what makes their apparent niceness a mirage.

It’s obvious that truth often keeps the unrepentant from drawing nearer to God. But if we water it down, come up with elaborate Greek explanations to twist it, or just straight up ignore it, we can remove that roadblock and bring people in to our community. Mission accomplished.

The problem is, those people are no nearer to God. If they attend such a church for 50 years and are never called to repent of their favorite sin, they still won’t be any nearer to God.

This is why “love” has come to be redefined as “being nice.” And, this is also why many people believe that progressive churches that focus less on doctrine are much nicer.

It’s almost like they’re playing a good cop-bad cop routine with God’s Word, with God and Biblically-based churches being the bad cops. “Hey, sorry those guys were so mean to you and said you had to repent and change your thinking. I’ll be your buddy!”

Well, the conservatives…

This is the part where someone gets ready to drop a comment pointing out the flaws on the other side. Yeah, I know there are errors on the other side. I’ve spent plenty of time addressing those and trying to guard against them myself. The conservative errs not in trying to show others how nice we are, but in trying to show how smart we are.

But I’m going to say the same thing I have to tell my kids every time two of them get in trouble: I’m not talking about someone else’s problem right now. Let’s stay on topic.

Jesus’ warning

In the Sermon on the amount, Jesus told us a good way and a bad way to draw attention by what we do:

“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16 NASB95)

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:1)

In both verses, Jesus is talking about people who are practicing good works in a public way that other people are going to see. What’s the difference? The faithful group glorifies God with their works. The unfaithful group glorifies themselves.

How do we know where our spotlight is shining? Just see if it’s drawing people nearer to God, or to us. If people are being brought in, yet they are not abandoning their sins and being transformed by the renewing of their minds, we’re just attracting them to ourselves.

Remember what I said at the start about the reputation progressive churches have for being so kind and giving? The biggest reason people know how kind and giving progressives are is because they never hesitate to broadcast their good deeds.

Their light shines directly on themselves. And many draw near to them. God remains distant, but at least everyone knows how nice they are.

Share

• As always, subscribing is free. If you’d like to support my work, you can become a supporting subscriber here

• Please keep me in prayer for next week’s two day debate on the topic of baptism, hosted on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio!

In last week’s post I said that I’m going to be looking at men’s and women’s roles in the coming weeks.

Unfortunately, I’m almost certain I already know how this series will be misconstrued by those who disagree.

“So, men just get to do whatever they want?”

“Wow, he must run right over his wife.”

“Sounds like you just want men to dominate women.”

That’s not what I’m saying, but that’s what it will look like and be taken as by some. Why?

Most gender discourse in Christianity sets up a false dichotomy—one we should strongly reject.

False dichotomies serve the purpose of attempting to convince the listener that only two options exist: a preferred option, and a distasteful alternative that most people will reject without a second thought.

But there’s the issue: we don’t have only two options.

In many cases there’s at least one more option. False dichotomies are developed to keep anyone from considering any alternatives.

In the choice of Biblical headship, the false dichotomy sets up a choice between dictatorial leadership, or “servant leadership” which sounds nice and Biblical, but in practice almost aways means being a doormat.

So much ink has been spilled to explain why husbands don’t get to run over their wives—which, amen, brother—but the baby is usually thrown out with the bathwater in the process, eliminating headship altogether in favor of door-mat-ism.

These are not the only options, and Scripture sets us straight.

The Bible’s Balanced View

In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus said:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
(NASB95)

This establishes the idea that when Jesus makes someone a leader, He is not giving them a pass to run roughshod over those in their care. In a marriage, this means that a husband’s headship is not license to do whatever he wants, but must serve lovingly, as Jesus did (cf. Ephesians 5:25). That’s the point everyone agrees with, though.

On the other hand, we have 1 Timothy 3:4-5 and 3:12. Elders and deacons, called to be exemplary men of the church, are both listed as men who rule their households well. Modern translations have softened that to manage, but that’s not what it means. Per BDAG, it’s defined as “to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of).”1

That’s a word that’s also used for elders in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 1 Timothy 5:17. They, too, are supposed to rule without “lording over.”

This is a hard truth to square if we’re going to keep our false dichotomy:

According to the Bible, a man can rule his household well… and yet not violate Jesus’ command that leaders must serve.

A man’s rule over his house or the church certainly can be sinful chauvinism, but it doesn’t have to be. Under the false dichotomy, he either throws his weight around to get his way at every turn, or he never puts his foot down on anything lest he look like he is “lording it over.” Submission, then, means either getting run over, or submitting “if you feel he’s doing his job right.”

Ideally, a man should love his wife and children, care for them, and know them and their wants and needs. Their perspectives should be factored in to every decision he makes for the home. However, those are not the only factors.

Sometimes he’s going to give their views full consideration and still decide to go another direction. This does not mean he has trampled anyone. It means he has made the decision he feels will best serve his goal of having a God-honoring, healthy family.

What that means for submission

As for submission, that means she needs to accept his direction of the home, whether she likes it or not, and whether she thinks he considered her perspective well enough or not. Too many times we give a pass here.

Yes, it’s true that he’s easier to follow when he is loving and considerate, but her submission was not given that condition as an out. It’s just as true that it’s easier for him to love her well when she is respectful and submissive, but no husband gets a pass for not loving his wife just because she isn’t playing her part well enough. Wives don’t get that pass either.

The husband has to work diligently to know the Word, prayerfully submit to God, seek wise counsel, stay in touch with his family, and make decisions knowing that he will bear the weight of them. This is not some easy way out. Domination is an easy way out. Abdication is an easy way out. True leadership is not.

The wife has to work diligently to be a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Peter 3:4) while sharing her thoughts with her husband, to trust him to lead even if she doesn’t agree with his leadership, and to train herself to not fear when she lets go of the reins (1 Peter 3:6). This is not an easy way out, either. Getting run over is easy. Leading from behind through manipulation to get one’s way is easy. True submission is not.

Walk down the middle

We can teach the Biblical ideals of father-ruled homes and elder-ruled churches and man-ruled countries without turning it into brutal dictatorship. (If you bristle at the word rule, remember that God’s word choice and not mine.) And, we can teach service and consideration without turning them into door-mat-ism.

Here’s the problem, though: in a culture that has been taught door-mat-ism as leadership, any actual leadership will look like overreach.

So, as I explore gender roles in the coming weeks’ posts, I’m writing this post to have something I can point back to every time someone makes the charge that I’m advocating male dictatorship. I’ve said no such thing, and truly overreaching leadership should be rebuked.

But I also maintain that headship is not inherently dictatorial. It may look that way to those who believe all submission is oppression, but that does not make it so. Reject the false dichotomy.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

• My baptism debate on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio is coming up in two weeks (3/19)! Keep an eye out for streaming details as the date nears, and please pray that I would represent the truth well.

• We also found out recently that - somehow - we’re having twins for the second time! Please say a prayer for my wife and the little ones, and for me as I strive to care for my family.

• You can grab a complimentary digital copy of my new book You Are Saved when you become a supporting subscriber!