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!

Over the last few days, this post from some congregation called “Mt. Washington Church” went viral, and as this touches on one of my pet subjects—church, and how we view outsiders—I have thoughts.

The Valid Point

It is a blessing and a joy to have children in the church building. It’s a sign that a congregation has a future, and if we’re thinking beyond ourselves at all, that will excite us.

And, as someone who finds “Children’s church” to be a deplorable practice, I concede that if we’re going to have kids in the worship service, it is not going to be a noise-free experience. Babies cry. Toddlers get tired and throw tantrums. Even older kids can get fidgety or start talking too much.

Those things are going to happen, and if every little peep gets a dirty look, young parents are going to get discouraged pretty quickly. We should especially give grace to visitors and new Christians as they’re “learning on the job,” so to speak. No newcomer should be nervous about bringing their kid to worship.

On the other hand…

Yes, if kids are going to be in the room, they will probably be loud. They can’t learn how to behave in worship if they aren’t there, it’s true. But if they ARE there, they need to learn.

That’s what this post misses. It doesn’t say “we’ll work with you to train them.” It says they’re not a distraction, implying that we will sacrifice all else just to make sure a noisy kids’ parents keep showing up.

Quietness and sitting still do not come naturally to kids, so they have to learn. And learning these things takes months and months and months of reenforcement. In an ideal church culture, the younger women would seek out the older women who have been there and done that. The older women might even sit with the family to help out.

Instead, people get offended at the suggestion that their kid isn’t allowed to scream through the sermon. To counter this, somebody decides we have to tell them that their loud kid is welcome.

What a weird false dichotomy: either your kid gets to interfere with everyone’s attempt to worship God, or you don’t come at all.

As my wife has sat with 4 small children numerous times while I was up in the pulpit, believe me, we know how difficult it can be. Even when I was not preaching, there have been plenty of Sundays when one or both of us felt like we heard virtually nothing and could barely keep up with the songs while we were correcting behavior and comforting infants.

If we had just let the kids go wild, we still wouldn’t have been able to worship properly, either. If we threw up our hands and decided to stay home, guess what? We still wouldn’t have been able to worship properly. Neither of those are good options. You go, you train through the season of life, and God blesses the effort.

It’s about serving others

You bring your kids because you know you need to worship God, yes, but also because 1) it’s best for them (see Deuteronomy 6) and 2) we are members of one another, called to assemble and consider how to build each other up (Hebrews 10:23-25).

Considering others includes not interfering with their worship, and it’s strange that a church would tell people they don’t need to think about that. They can say that it’s not a distraction, but everybody who’s been in church for more than a couple of months knows that uncontrolled, loud kids can absolutely be a distraction.

Yes, I know the post was written to visitors, but it sets up either a bait-and-switch, where eventually the kid’s behavior would have to be addressed even though they promised it wouldn’t be, or it preempts the church’s ability to say anything whatsoever. There are much better ways to say it than “We want loud kids.”

When preaching, I’ve had to try to compete with the screaming kid who the parents wouldn’t take out, and I can tell you that nobody in the room heard a word I said for the duration of the uproar.

To be clear, I’m not talking about a 15 second distraction as someone took the child to the back. I’m talking about a constant ruckus throughout the sermon. Yes, that loud kid and his parents were welcome. But it was inconsiderate of the parents to allow such behavior to go on.

What’s the solution?

Once again, it’s good to tell people they are welcome even with little kids who are prone to make some noise. And no, we shouldn’t shoot them dirty looks or berate them when kids do what kids do.

But neither should a church just let it happen without any guidance. A message like this viral one tells people that your attendance matters, and we won’t expect anything of you once you’re in the building.

Worship might not be done “decently and in order,” and perhaps nobody will ever be able to pay attention to the sermon again. But the important thing is that we all now know how much nicer this church is than everybody else.

Are we trying to help shape people and households into Christlikeness, or not?

Treating them like customers, and living by “the customer is always right” makes it impossible to do so.

So yes, let it be known that we want kids around, and we know that’s going to raise the volume a bit. But don’t act like we have to choose between a silent, dead, older church, or a free-for-all with no parental expectations.

Share

Subscribe now

• As always subscriptions are free. If you’d like to support my work, you can do that here and pick up 9 eBooks as a token of my thanks!

• It’s always good to get out on the road, meet Christians, and share the Word with them! If your church is

Every time I finish a book I’m reminded how difficult it is to pick what to work on next. I’ve been so focused on assurance for so long that changing gears and picking another topic to throw myself into has been a challenge.

However, looking back at the last couple of years’ worth of writing and podcasting, a clear picture has emerged regarding the most pressing need of our day.

The way I see it:

- The world won’t be fixed while the church is weak

- The church will be weak until it confronts casual Christianity

- Casual Christianity won’t be fixed until consensus-based leadership is done away with

- Consensus-based leadership in the church won’t go away until we reestablish gender roles and get rid of consensus-based leadership in the home

Basically, everything rests on a return to traditional, Biblical gender roles—not because they are some magic bullet, but because they are the most basic step in mankind’s faithfulness to God.

Before there were nations, Israel, or the church, there was one man and one woman who became one flesh. From there, Genesis is the long, sad story of familial missteps, but it is made right in the end by Joseph’s typological foreshadowing of Christ. If the type of Christ can heal family wounds, how much more can the real Christ?

As our churches and society decline, faithful obedience to God in the most fundamental elements of our humanity is the path to restoration.

I’ve put a decent amount of content out on masculinity and femininity over the years, but I’ll be putting even more emphasis on it in the coming weeks. It might even end up as a book. Why?

Because I believe the overwhelming majority of today’s teaching on the matter of men and women is not just unhelpful—it’s actively harmful.

As they say, the lie closest to the truth is the most dangerous. Most Christian material acknowledges that there are males and females, recognizes that God created the two to be different, and then, right before the most critical step on the journey—division of roles—changes the road signs to divert everybody to a smooth, easy path that keeps them from being what God intended.

What has passed for Biblical teaching on manhood, womanhood, and marriage for the last 60 years or so must be abandoned if we are going to keep this ship from sinking.

This isn’t just some nitpick, either.

The cost of our disobedience is enormous:

Homes that aren’t led by the father.
Youths who grow up without a path for what they’re supposed to become.
Churches that are quietly steered by the women’s caucus.
A culture governed by weaponized envy.
Cratering birth rates.
Staggering divorce, cohabitation, and illegitimate children rates.

It’s family, church, and civilizational suicide we’re talking about here. Beyond all of that, though, it’s just not working out. People will defend this setup to the death, despite the fact that no one is happy in it.

Women bear the exhausting weight of have-it-all feminism, as I noted in my piece on the Barbie movie a couple years ago. Men are given responsibility without authority, a combo that always sets up for failure. Mental health is a major issue we can’t seem to solve. Sexless marriages are on the rise. The fruit is rotten.

We rage against our telos and then wonder why we aren’t fulfilled.

To fix this, though, it’s going to require some uncomfortable conversations. We’re going to have to talk about submission without practicing death by a million caveats. We’re going to have to talk about headship without equating it to dictatorship. We’re going to have to talk about masculinity and femininity in a way that accounts for innate, hard-wired differences in design and purpose.

We’ll start next week with a look at the false dichotomies of male leadership. Be sure you’re subscribed by email (free!) and podcast (Church Reset on Apple, Spotify, YouTube) to follow along!

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

A brief note about subscriptions…

You may have noticed that, other than book giveaways, everything on this site is now FREE!

However, locking articles does drive more premium subscriptions, and the added income from those has been a tremendous boost to give my family a little more financial breathing room. In other words, giving everything away free does make it tougher to gain paying subscribers.

So, I want to thank all those who are premium subscribers for your invaluable support. And I want to encourage non-premium subscribers to consider upgrading. Having a steady growth of premium subscribers without using the paywall is a huge boost and helps me keep everything available free.

Thanks for subscribing, and for your consideration!

The practice of asking someone to come with you to a worship service can sometimes be denigrated as “not real evangelism.” To be honest, I’ve said that myself. In hindsight, that claim needs some serious revision.

No, it isn’t a full preaching of the Good News, as the Word “evangelism” implies. But it can be a great first step.

Thankfully, Forest Antemesaris recently wrote a piece entitled ‘In Defense of Inviting People to Church.’ It’s a good read, and I fully agree with the case he lays out. It’s especially cool to see the part a simple invitation played in bringing him to Christ.

Before publishing it, Forest graciously reached out to say he wasn’t attempting to give a rebuttal of my piece, ‘Worship Isn’t For Visitors.’ And, I didn’t take it that way.

In fact, I believe the ideas actually go together hand-in-hand.

Making our worship less geared toward visitors would actually make invitations more effective.

My caution has been against a reverse-John 6 mentality. In that chapter, Jesus whittled His following down to the true seekers, those who were there not for the bread, but the Bread of Life. Making worship too accommodating of visitors is often an attempt to keep giving them bread in hopes that they’ll get a taste for the Bread of Life along the way.

But when the Bread of Life is served, they see something different than what they can get anywhere else. Inviting someone to an experience they can find from the comfort of their couch doesn’t move the needle. Inviting someone to come to the foot of the mountain of the Lord does, though.

Much has been made of the “smells and bells” appeal of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, where the rich pageantry gives a feel of holiness that many find compelling.

We don’t need all of that, though. We just need to take ourselves seriously.

Strong, passionate singing with songs grounded in the Scriptures, maybe even a Psalm or two.
Deep preaching for the members that isn’t watered down for the uninitiated or aimed at converting them.
Sharp dress.
Well-prepared worship leaders.
Avoidance of being too jokey.

Give people the sense that the stakes are enormous and we mean every word that we say.

I’ll keep this brief so you can take a minute to read Forest’s piece. But don’t hesitate to extend the invitation as the opportunity arises. And, if you have any say in it, make sure the outsider is coming in to something foreign to anything they’re going to take part in any other time in their week.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

A brief note about subscriptions…

You may have noticed that, other than book giveaways, everything on this site is now FREE!

However, locking articles does drive more premium subscriptions, and the added income from those has been a tremendous boost to give my family a little more financial breathing room. In other words, giving everything away free does make it tougher to gain paying subscribers.

So, I want to thank all those who are premium subscribers for your invaluable support. And I want to encourage non-premium subscribers to consider upgrading. Having a steady growth of premium subscribers without using the paywall is a huge boost and helps me keep everything available free.

Thanks for subscribing, and for your consideration!

I haven’t exactly hidden my concern for the future of the churches of Christ.

Having been in numerous half-empty church buildings where members lament their former glory days, and knowing that many congregations have closed or will in the coming years, I believe it would be irresponsible to not be alarmed.

At the same time, I hate pessimism and any implication that ours is a lost cause, and that we might as well just give up. I don’t want to be unrealistically optimistic, but I will take real glimmers of hope where I see them.

Two recent possible positive signs have caught my eye

One of these is statistical, and one is more based on vibes and anecdotes.

Looking at the charts

A lot of eyes were turned our direction by a recent data post by analyst Ryan Burge. According to data he scraped from the enormous Cooperative Election Study published by Harvard University, the churches of Christ are the only Christian group not on the brink of age-related collapse.

This graph charts each church’s population by age. As you can see, most are very top heavy, with one exception: the Church of Christ. A second chart adds to the picture.

According to this chart, the churches of Christ are the most proportionately balanced of all of the top 20 most popular groups in the survey. By percentage, we have double the Gen Z population and 1.5-2x as many Millennials as almost everyone else.

If this data is true, then we are in prime position to hold strong in the future. While everyone else nears the brink of aging out of existence, we are well-stocked with future members.

Unfortunately, this study might not be useful at all. No congregations were contacted. It actually wasn’t even a religious study at all—that data just happened to be collected as part of a study on voters’ views and habits. Most of the respondents were users of the survey site YouGov, and their religious affiliation was self-reported.

In other words, this study doesn’t show that the churches of Christ skew younger than other religious groups. Rather, it only shows that respondents to this particular survey who self-identify as members of the churches of Christ skew younger than respondents from other religious groups.

So, it’s possible that the data is true. But it’s also possible it’s not.

While I haven’t been in even 1% of our congregations, I have almost certainly been in more than most people… and this just doesn’t pass the eye test at all.

Even Burge theorized that the outlying church of Christ results stemmed from users ignorantly picking the most generic name if they didn’t know how to categorize themselves.

So… optimism canceled? Well, not quite.

Even if the numbers of this particular survey don’t mean much, I do want to share a little bit of optimism that is a bit more tangible.

First, there are thriving congregations

When I posted about the survey, a number of Christians commented or messaged me to say that, while they couldn’t speak for everyone, their congregations reflected the even demographic distribution. And, they all reported positive signs of all kinds, showing that their local situation makes them very optimistic for the future.

In that, we should all rejoice. Strong congregations anywhere can lead to strong congregations everywhere. It also makes sense that parents of children are coming together in congregations with other kids, rather than staying scattered with one or two families per congregation.

From that foundation, we should pray for a strong retention rate that is well-placed to help the church move forward into a stronger future.

(Of course, this doesn’t mean older people don’t matter. We want them saved, too, and our congregations are richer for having them. But it’s also a measure of their faithfulness when they build churches that will be sustained long after their deaths, which is why the youth percentages matter.)

Second, the churches of Christ are making waves

One of my complaints has been that we have been so cloistered and focused on our intramural debates that when some major event happens and people are sent looking for religious answers, the churches of Christ aren’t on anyone’s radar at all. We often seem to be off the beaten path as our own little sect that they don’t want to engage.

But that may be changing.

We live in a time in which people will go online and look for answers on what the Bible teaches long before they wander into a church building. That being the case, I think exciting things are happening in that realm. People from the denominational world are interacting with our teachings in new ways all the time.

Aaron Gallagher took on a couple of Eastern Orthodox men in two discussions and held his own so well that his opponents deleted the second video. He has another debate with an EO coming up Thursday night, 2/19.

And, that debate is happening on Marco Arroyo’s channel. Marco does reaction videos to various religious videos and gets regular interaction with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and others of various denominational stripes.

He hosted a few of us for a livestream last week in which we had numerous people from outside the church in the comments, asking questions about the churches of Christ and challenging our views. Mike and Jake Hisaw do similar work, reaching thousands of people.

There are also popular YouTubers who are taking aim at us, trying to debunk our doctrines. That’s noteworthy in itself, that we’re on their radar enough to make them feel that we’re worth of their engagement.

Outside of the debate circuit, Luke Taylor has nearly 150,000 subscribers for his Bible study channel, 2BeLikeChrist. Guys like Caleb Robertson are getting constant engagement from outsiders. In the last couple of days I’ve come across others I didn’t even know about who are teaching tens of thousands of followers. There are plenty more I haven’t named who are doing great work in their own right. I’m not on TikTok, but I know we have brethren who are reaching large crowds on there, too.

This isn’t to leave anyone out, but rather just to say that folks in the churches of Christ are making inroads in ways that haven’t always been the case.

And, I believe our Scriptural arguments hold up very, very well. The more exposure we can get in the public square of social media, the more we can help people see the plain teaching of the Word.

The fields are white

So, whether the charts are right are not, there are certainly good things happening in the churches of Christ. We can rejoice in that, pray for even more growth, and excel still more.

Within and without, there is plenty of work to do. What a blessing it is that we get to do it.

Share

Notes

• I have a debate of my own coming up on March 19th and 20th! More info to come, but please pray for me as I prepare.

• As always, the articles are free and support is purely optional. If you’d like to become a supporter, go here to subscribe and then go here to pick up 9 eBooks as a token of my thanks!

• Grab a copy of You Are Saved today! Shop here

I’ve written for years on how Christianity has come to treat church like a business instead of a family, or a restaurant instead of a pot luck (as detailed in my book).

But recently, I’ve started to see another unfortunate parallel:

Modern Christianity treats the church like a gym

How so?

One thing in common

At the gym, I consistently see the same group of people. Some of them are there every time, and some of them show up sporadically. I know some of their names. Others I don’t really talk to.

I’m sure they all have jobs and families, a life outside the gym, but I don’t know. Our connection extends little beyond our shared gym attendance and interest in our health.

For many Christians, this is their experience in the church. Despite being given numerous one another commandments, and despite this being our eternal family, and despite Jesus commanding us to have a love for each other that transcends all other love (John 13:34-35), much Christian fellowship remains at arm's length.

Because Christianity is just one piece of our compartmentalized lives rather than the foundation upon which the rest of our lives are built, our connection can remain limited to our niche shared interest.

Encouragement… from a distance

I genuinely do hope the other people at the gym do well and hit whatever goals brought them to the gym. And, I assume they hope the same for me. Sometimes I even encourage them, and sometimes they encourage me.

Beyond that, we don’t have much involvement with each other and certainly don’t share any obligation to make sure each other are doing well. I don’t have to think about making them a better gym member the way I’m supposed to think about helping my fellow Christians grow. In fact, in the church it’s one of the reasons we come together (Hebrews 10:23-25).

In the church, we need each other (1 Corinthians 12). I can’t be as strong as I can be without other Christians, and they can’t be as strong as they can be without people like me. That’s a big reason we come together.

Self-driven accountability

Plenty of the gym’s regulars have fallen off over the years and nobody bats an eye. Maybe they’re coming in at a different time. Maybe they’re going to a different gym. Maybe they gave up the habit entirely. It’s not really my business or responsibility to know.

It’s not even the gym owner’s responsibility. He’s not going to call them and ask where they’ve been, or revoke their membership if they miss too many days.

In the church, many people think that their spiritual life is ultimately nobody else’s business. “That’s between me and God,” they’ll say.

The church is there to provide a way to fulfill the obligations necessary to go to heaven. They know they have to attend worship and take the Lord’s Supper, but even that is their own choice. They don’t have to attend on Wednesday night. They don’t have to consider their ways and make any changes. They don’t have to listen to wisdom on anything that isn’t explicitly commanded.

If anybody so much as suggests that it would be a good idea to consider any of those things, they’ll just go find another, less nosy gym. Er, church.

That’s not Biblical at all, though. We are accountable to those who rule over us (Hebrews 13:17). Our ministers are to reprove, rebuke, and exhort us when we need it (2 Timothy 4:2). The spiritual are to restore those who stumble, and we are to bear each other’s burdens (Galatians 6:1-2). We are to exhort each other day after day (Hebrews 3:13).

In most gyms, you are accountable to yourself. In the church, you are accountable to God, your leaders, and your brothers and sisters.

Which will it be?

Gyms are great, but the church isn’t meant to be one. The body we’re taking care of is not our own, but a much bigger one of which we are blessed to be a part (Romans 12:5).

How do you view the church? Is it a place where you go to work on your spiritual health, and maybe give a head nod to the people around you as they work on theirs?

Or is it the household of God, where you go to build up your family and join in a cause that is bigger than yourself and your own salvation?

Subscribe now

Notes

• As always, the articles are free and support is purely optional. If you’d like to become a supporter, go here to subscribe and then go here to pick up 9 eBooks as a token of my thanks!

• This week’s edition of The Bulletin got some interesting feedback. Check it out below: Don’t “Forgive Yourself”

  Bible 101

  Don't "Forgive Yourself"

  These articles are written to encourage Christians, and to be used by churches for their weekly bulletin. All I ask is that credit is given with my name and the web address, bible101.substack.com…

  Read more

  2 months ago · 6 likes · 4 comments · Church Reset | Jack Wilkie

One of the biggest stories of the second Trump administration has been the much-contested release of the FBI’s files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

For years, rumors and allegations have swirled about just how far-reaching and deeply evil his operation was, who he was working for, and who all was involved. Now, files have begun to be released, adding barrels of fuel to the fire.

Obviously, this has created a significant amount of discussion.

I put an informal poll out to friends on a couple of social media platforms, and in each case the majority said they were, at minimum, aware of the story, with many “keeping tabs” and plenty of others “deep diving” into the details.

Subscribe now

As a Christian, does a story like this matter?

Should Epstein be on our radars? In a world in which social media is giving us something to react to every single day, so many of which are forgotten overnight, what should we make of one that is so enduring and so dark as the case of Jeffrey Epstein?

We need to practice a lot of caution and wisdom in matters like these. Some of us need to step back from the story. At the same time, others would do well to plug in, even if only just enough to get a sense of what’s going on.

Let’s make both cases:

Why you SHOULDN’T read up on Epstein… or at least should pull back

I’ve reached the point where I’m probably in this camp.

As Nietzsche wrote, “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” At a certain point, we know how dark the world can get, and continually fixating on it is not helpful for us.

More importantly, the Bible commands us to think on things that are true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, of good repute, excellent, and worthy of praise (Philippians 4:8). That obviously doesn’t prohibit us from acknowledging and confronting evil.

But what we need to know is commensurate with our ability to act. FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi need to know a lot, because they have the power to do a lot (or, at least you would think they do).

For you and I, knowing some of these things can inform our voting, give us something to pray about, and help us grasp the battle of good and evil in the world today.

But at a certain point we’re just giving ourselves a case of learned helplessness by looking into all this evil without any way to do anything about it. Two weeks in to the major releases, I’m sure there is more to uncover… but what good is each new crumb really doing us?

Why you SHOULD read up on Epstein

There is wisdom in not obsessing over all the news of this evil world, to be sure. But that has its reasonable limits, too. Some take pride in their lack of engagement, but total ignorance isn’t healthy, either.

John the Baptist knew about Herod’s illicit marriage (Matthew 14:3-4). Jesus knew about the collapsed tower and the Galilean massacre (Luke 13:1-4). Paul was up on contemporary culture (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). It’s not wrong to keep tabs on the news.

In the case of this story, some Christians need to take a glimpse at the abyss from time to time. So much of the softness toward sin we see in modern Christianity comes from being fully insulated from the wickedness in the world.

There are those who will tell you the imprecatory Psalms, the ones that pray for the wicked to be crushed, have their teeth shattered, and so forth, are not for Christians to pray today. They will tell you that the Sermon on the Mount forbids us from such language. They will say that Christians are not to view anyone as an enemy. They will equivocate all sins as equal evils.

Those Christians need to take a look at the level of evil revealed in news stories like the Epstein files.

We have to know the world if we are going to engage it, and especially if we are going to guard ourselves and our homes against the influences that are working on us. As I said above, I don’t believe it does any of us good to obsess over such dark stories.

However, getting a reality check about the evils in the world today is a good thing for Christians to do from time to time. The world is not a place where we can all hold hands, sing Kum-ba-ya, and make everybody feel good all the time.

I’ve seen posts from atheists and other non-Christians who say that things like the Epstein files are driving them toward Christianity. When they see how dark and perverted evil can get, they want to find a light to meet it.

If they meet Christians who are pretending everything is all rainbows and sunshine, refusing to acknowledge the spiritual warfare that is at our doorstep, they’re going to go looking elsewhere.

Christianity is the only answer for the depravity on display in the world today. We had better not be hiding it from those who seek it. To show it properly, we need to know what darkness is out there, and what the nonbeliever is being confronted with.

Take stock

You don’t have to stay plugged in to every news item that comes across the feed. You don’t have to make a post to tell everyone where you stand on every major discussion.

More than anything, we need to know about the battles before us, we need to ground ourselves in God and His Word, and we need to go about doing good.

Take stock of where you stand, and proceed with wisdom.

Share

Subscribe now

NOTES

• As always, subscribing is free. If you’d like to support my work, consider becoming a premium subscriber and get 9 eBooks as a token of my thanks! Go here for more

• New Think Deeper Podcast drops today on genocide and slavery in the Bible. Use the subscription links at Focus Press to get the episode when it comes out.

• Thanks to everyone who has helped You Are Saved to a perfect 5-star rating so far! If you haven’t picked up a copy, get one today!

  Shop now

  

In a world of so much busyness, when choosing to do one thing inevitably means choosing not to do multiple other things, we all want to pick the most worthwhile uses of our time.

“Bang for your buck” is one of the single biggest factors in any decision we make.

That being the case, one of the most impactful items any home can add to their schedule is the practice of family worship.

Why?

In Deuteronomy 6, Moses charges fathers and grandfathers with passing the faith on to their children. Part of that charge is the command to “Teach them diligently” morning and night, going and coming.

This does not mean “make sure your kids get to Bible class and youth group events.” It means that parents, fathers especially, have a duty to teach their children how to follow God by regularly discussing the Word in the home.

In our 2013 Focus Press survey of those who left the church, 61% of respondents said they regularly attended Bible class in their youth. Only 13% rarely or never attended. On the flip side, 74% said the Bible was studied together 1-2 per week or less in their home.

In other words, those who fell away had parents who got them to church but didn’t teach the Word at home.

That doesn’t mean a regular family devotional would be a magic bullet that guarantees faithfulness, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

• It tells everyone in the family that God is a priority every day and not just one or two days per week.

• It gets Dad to realize his place as spiritual head, and Mom to follow his lead.

• It gets the kids learning the Bible and helps them develop the habit of asking Dad and Mom questions about it.

• It helps them learn the songs so they can pay attention and participate in worship on Sundays.

• It fills the home with the fragrant aroma of praise and gratitude to God and lifts the mood of everyone involved.

There is literally no downside. The only challenge is making it happen.

What and how?

You don’t have to be spending 2 hours a day doing deep dive exegetical studies on the book of Ezekiel. Reading small sections, noting the truths they teach, and making application where necessary goes a long way. A few we’ve done:

• Read a set number of verses in Proverbs each night, picking one or two to comment on

• Read a Psalm and discuss what it says about God and His relationship to man

• Read one section per night through the Gospels

• Read one entry from a book of major Bible stories

• Read a chapter of an epistle

The content will be age-dependent. When little ones begin to understand and participate, simple Bible lessons on the major stories, or one or two verse lessons will go a long way. Sing songs they can keep up with, and let it grow with them.

Memory verses are also a great practice, and kids can start on that way earlier than most people think. Keep it simple and start every night by reciting it together. You can also find a catechism that aligns with your beliefs and teach your family key doctrines by learning one or two answers at a time.

Ask around the table for any questions or thoughts. Sometimes they’ll have something, sometimes they won’t.

After a few minutes of discussion and commentary, sing a few songs together.

Take prayer requests. Perhaps ask everyone to pick one thing they’re thankful for.

Say a closing prayer. If any discussion spills over, great! If not, put your Bible away where you’ll have it ready for the next time.

(Don’t have kids, or at least not any at home? That’s no problem at all. It just means you might even have a little more time to spend, and can go deeper with your discussions. Married couples should certainly be in the Word together, whether they have kids around or not.)

When?

Busyness is probably the biggest challenge of all, but it’s worth overcoming it to make sure to get it done.

One survey found that 84% of the Silent Generation had family meals together each day growing up. That fell to 76% among Baby Boomers, 59% for Gen Xers, 46% for Millennials, and 38% for Gen Z. Yes, there are always exceptions—hopefully temporary in most cases.

But, generally speaking, if your family is too busy to share a meal around the table together, something needs to be cut back. Shared meals are the biggest ways human beings connect, and if a family can’t do that together, how much parenting is really taking place?

The goal should be to have at least one meal around the table together each day. With that habit in place, family worship time is an easy add-on. It probably won’t happen seven days a week, particularly if you’re going to Sunday night worship and Wednesday night study. But at least 3-4 devotionals per week should be the aim.

Forming the habit

Like anything else, what gets prioritized gets done. If there is time for TV shows, sports games, social media scrolling, or even important things like dishes and laundry, then there is time to spend 10-15 minutes with the Lord. Just don’t leave the table until you’ve had your devotional.

It’s also important to note that, if Dad’s at home, he needs to be driving the habit. In Ephesians 6:4, he was the one charged with bringing up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That means he can’t be a passenger in the process. If Mom has to nag him to do it, neither of them are going to be happy, the habit will be harder to form, and it won’t be as impactful as it could be.

For this reason, church leadership needs to lean on their men to take up this habit and equip them to carry it out. It’s one thing for a wife to keep nudging her husband to do family devos. It’s another for the elders to let the men know that this is something they expect from the men of their congregation, and occasionally ask how it’s going.

Why not start today?

As I said at the top, I don’t know if there is any practice you can add to your life that would be more impactful than regular family worship. Rarely is it the big events that make the biggest differences in life, but rather the slow, faithful, regular contributions that add up over time.

If you’re already practicing this, keep up the good work! Don’t hesitate to try to recruit others to the practice.

If you haven’t, why not start today? It might be awkward at first, but it only takes a few times before it’s a habit. It probably won’t be long before the kids will remind you of it, set the Bible out for you, suggest their favorite songs, etc. Give it a shot.

If your wife has been nudging you to do it, it’s okay to acknowledge that her desire for it is good. Make it what you want to do and not just what she wants you to do.

Make your home a place where God’s Word is opened and His name is praised. You won’t regret it for a second.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

• This post isn’t meant to be a sales pitch, as you genuinely don’t need to spend a dime to get started. However, if you’re looking for some kind of resource to help you, check out our Family Worship Guide or A Closer Walk with Thee books at Focus Press.

• The Christian Chronicle invited me to offer an op-ed on Christians and immigration, which you can find here

• Think Deeper Podcast is on a two-part series on the challenges facing the church. I plan to write more on this particular point soon, but you can hear what I have to say on the episode:

The entire first month of 2026 has been dominated by headlines out of Minnesota, where ICE’s immigration enforcement has been met with great resistance. Numerous protests have occurred, some resulting in protestor fatalities.

It’s hard to look away. Many Christians have stepped up with their usual “love your neighbor” moral high ground claim. But issues like these take more than drive-by analysis.

Just claiming you’re the loving one doesn’t make it so. Neither does it untangle the web of issues that have to be considered. It’s important we look at the situation piece-by-piece and figure out what is and is not right from a Biblical point of view.

Here are some high points to keep in mind as we think through immigration

Nations exist, and they have borders

God is the one who separated mankind into nations He was so serious about it that when men would not comply, He forced our hand by confusing our languages (Genesis 11). Paul tells us God separated us as a vehicle for the Gospel (Acts 17:26-27).

Because the church is not divided by nationality (Galatians 3:28), some Christians believe the world shouldn’t be, either. But the church was never meant to erase nations. The proof? Just run a concordance search on “nation” in Revelation (5:9, 7:9, 21:24-26, especially).

Nations are to serve their own people

This is a no-brainer that somehow gets cast as selfish and immoral. The American government’s duty is the wellbeing of the American people. Just because we have prospered more than other nations, it does not mean that the doors have to be open to everyone who wants a piece of the pie.

Despite the way some would tell it, we didn’t have prosperity because we got lucky. We had it because we (largely) honored God and had a hard-working, innovative people. Those people built it for their own kids and grandkids, not for everyone on earth.

And currently, we’re not doing well enough to be the world’s benefactor. We’re $40 trillion in debt. Our young people can barely afford to get married, buy houses, and have kids. We are seriously ideologically divided even before adding millions of people who hold radically different ideologies.

What is in America’s best interest is obvious. When the government pursues this, they honor God, who made them His minister to us (Romans 13:1-2).

It is immoral to break a nation’s immigration laws

There are only a handful of places where this is even controversial. Missionaries can tell you how hard it is to get even temporary residency in other countries, along with the consequences that fall on those who cheat the system. Mongolia is apparently allowed to limit immigration, but America isn’t. Weird.

It does not matter why they came or how long they’ve been here. To illegally immigrate is to buck a government’s rightful authority, to trespass on the citizenry, and to cheat those who immigrated legally.

The only reasonable consequence is to be sent home immediately. A trial by peers is not possible, as a jury cannot be staffed by fellow illegal immigrants. Nor is it feasible to give 20 million people their day in court. The idea that if enough people can hop the border, the border will disappear is a solution no reasonable person would ever consider.

Legal immigration is permissible, at the host nation’s pleasure.

Should a nation decide that it no longer serves their people to have high levels of immigration—or any, for that matter—they are free to end it. They are especially free to do so if it is found that a group is exploiting their hospitality or treating the citizenry as adversaries (see: the H1b and Somalia scams).

Adding words like “refugee” and “asylum” don’t grant magical privileges. If they did, you could see how they could become an immediate target for abuse. I would argue that they already have.

Everybody likes citing the sacredness of “Our Democracy” as the American system of government, until the people vote that it’s time for the guests to go home.

Aquila and Priscilla didn’t take to the streets with whistles when the Jews were expelled from Rome (Acts 18:2). They just went, as Rome was within its rights to make such a decision.

The Bible says to welcome and love sojourners, but that’s not all it says.

It’s true that we are to welcome the sojourner and love him as our neighbor. But that verse is not the mic drop it is made out to be.

First of all, the situations are wildly different. Our world is so much more complex than theirs in terms of borders, passports, and all the red tape involved. They also did not have a welfare state that could be exploited.

Secondly, “sojourning” meant going for a temporary stay to escape a hardship or do business before returning home. It was unthinkable that one would abandon his motherland to go set up a permanent residence in a foreign country unless complete assimilation was in mind (Exodus 23:12; Leviticus 24:22; Deuteronomy 31:12). They also knew they were not going to be entitled to the same rights as citizens (Leviticus 25:44-46; Deuteronomy 23:8, 20). (H/t to this great X thread.)

The idea that some other nation could move into Israel and set up a massive idol to their demon god (like the one in Texas) would have been treated as a complete abomination—because it is. When people start citing Leviticus, make sure they’re looking at the whole thing.

We should treat the people around us with love and kindness, no matter where they’re from. But that does not mean they are the same as citizens. Nor does it rule out hoping they return to their homeland. Sometimes that’s what loving your neighbor means—both your foreign one and your American one.

Obstructing the enforcement of legitimate laws is both a crime and a sin

The Americans who are taking to the streets to block ICE vehicles, blow whistles, and start altercations are in the wrong, period.

There is a time and place for peaceful resistance. For example, when government says you can’t go to church lest you catch a virus, you aren’t sinning by going to church.

But since the laws against illegal immigration are morally justifiable, and they fall within the government’s legitimate sphere of authority, then to take to the streets to prevent them is to “oppose the ordinance of God” (Romans 13:2).

Much has been made about the violent and sadly fatal skirmishes with law enforcement. These do not delegitimize the laws or the enforcement thereof. Some seem to think the government has a right to make these laws and even try to enforce them… unless a band of protestors throw a big enough temper tantrum. Then the project has to be abandoned.

Sorry, no. If anything, the crackdown on the protestors should be harder. Government is supposed to make evildoers afraid (Romans 13:3). These protestors oppose legitimate enforcement of laws, often at the defense of violent criminals. They are doing evil, and God calls government to make them afraid to continue.

Media lies work like a charm

How many Christians screeched about a 5-year-old being detained before the truth came out, that agents brought him out of the cold and bought him McDonalds so he wasn’t left alone?
How many Christians spouted the “Renee Good didn’t hit him with her car” line before more definitive footage came out?
Parroting the latest rage bait without wrestling with all the angles of this issue might help you feel like a crusader for good, but it doesn’t help anybody or offer any solutions.

As wrote,

But here’s the truth: it isn’t Christlike to be gullible. It isn’t Christlike to believe and share debunked propaganda. It isn’t Christlike to be led by your emotions. It isn’t Christlike to outsource your critical thinking skills to the left-wing activists in the mainstream media.

So why are Christians so gullible? It’s because they’ve been trained to think “love” means whatever it feels like in their happy place.

On top of the gullibility, there’s a lot of “I’m ok with what they’re doing, I just don’t like how they’re doing it” being said. As somebody who has received dozens of tickets from the tone police, I can tell you what that means: they’re not ok with what’s being done.

If they were, they’d offer answers to all the complexities like “What protocol would you follow for an abandoned 5 year old?” and “How would you make sure your job is still carried out if protestors block the road, blow whistles in your face, and begin to get physical?”

A difficult situation, but not all that complex

The real sticking point, I suspect, starts back at the top of this article. People might acknowledge nations and the legitimacy of borders in theory, but the minute any kind of restriction happens, it all goes out the window.

Yes, I’m certain mistakes have been made in the enforcement of these laws. Every person at every job makes mistakes, and in a high stakes environment such as this, it’s inevitable. Where those mistakes are made, I hope they are learning from them and correcting them. But that doesn’t delegitimize the entire effort.

And yes, these are human lives we are talking about and not just numbers on a graphic. And of course, we are to be compassionate. But this is not working out for anyone. Ethnic resentment rises in all directions. Safety and economic wellbeing of our people have to be prioritized. Compassion doesn’t mean saying “Just do what you want!”

Most importantly, the nation is not the church. The two both answer to God, but their duties are entirely different. The church is to do good to all, especially the household of faith. The government is to care for its citizens. For the longest time, they haven’t, and they’re just barely starting to now.

But it’s time for America to be American again, and don’t let anyone emotionally browbeat you in to thinking that displeases God.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

Think Deeper Podcast this week covers the biggest challenges facing the church in 2026. Watch on YouTube or listen on your podcast app!

As always, subscribing is FREE. If you become a supporter, you can pick up 9 BOOKS as a token of my thanks, including the brand new You Are Saved!

When I was in preaching school, arguably the biggest rule in the student handbook was DO NOT PLAGIARIZE.

We were there to learn to study the Bible and share it with others, and so to download someone else’s sermons and preach them as our own, or to copy and paste a research paper and avoid doing the study ourselves was an egregious sin.

If that’s what we were going to do, there was no point in even attending.

On a recent episode of Think Deeper, I pointed out that if downloading another preacher’s sermons and preaching them without attribution is a fireable offense (as it should be), then AI-generated sermons should receive the same punishment.

Ai-generated articles should receive the same level of skepticism. Churches would be wise to start putting anti-AI clauses in preacher contracts.

Here’s what you have to understand about the “articles” and “sermons” ChatGPT and Grok write:

They don’t write at all. They’re slapping together a conglomeration of the best results from an elaborate Google search.

They’re taking things real writers have already written, combining them without attribution, and handing it to you in a sleek package.

That’s right: AI-generated writing is just plagiarism with extra steps. Plagiarism, of course, is both lying and stealing, as you’re taking someone else’s work from them, and then lying by putting your name on it.

To give you an example - I was researching different views in my study on Revelation and came across a site that made a claim that I found dubious. I researched it some more and decided the author had his facts wrong. When I was done, just for the fun of it, I punched the question in to GPT. It copied that dubious author’s claim almost word for word.

How do I know it’s a problem?

AI detection tools have proven pretty useless. I’ve tested them by writing an article an immediately dropping it in to multiple detectors, only to be told that a large percentage of it was done by AI. That’s no use.

But that doesn’t mean people can’t tell. Spend any time using an AI LLM and you start to see how it talks. Lots of em dashes—you know, these things—is a tell. The outlining can be pretty obvious. Short, repetitive, punchy sentences start to pile up.

More than anything, AI allows an enormous increase in output. It can take hours to think up an article idea, consider how to structure it, write 1,000 words, revise it, and publish it. It takes 5 seconds to enter a prompt specifically requesting a 1,000 word article on a given topic. If you put some effort into shaping the article with the LLM’s help, it might take 5 minutes.

For sermons, it’s a lot harder to tell. There are no verbal em dashes. One preacher recently argued that AI for sermon prep is great, because it frees up time to do all kinds of other ministry work.

But in the long term, people are going to notice. You can’t hide a lack of study, a lack of wrestling with the text.

And, again, AI isn’t actually studying the Bible for you. It’s reproducing someone else’s Bible study. Taking from better men who put the work in and deliberated at length over the text and standing up like you did too is unconscionable. As recently wrote, it’s trading our eventual birthright for a bowl of stew today.

I’m not entirely anti-AI.

If you think of GPT as a fancy Google search, it can save time on some things. But when you start getting it to do your thinking, you’re playing a dangerous game. And more than anything, getting it to steal someone else’s work for you is something we all need to pledge to make entirely off-limits.

This is all still fairly new, so it’s entirely possible a lot of folks don’t know how it works. But that can only be an excuse for so long. Don’t let AI make you a lying thief.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

Grab a copy of You Are Saved today!

Shop Now