I semi-jokingly made a post the other day about printing up t-shirts of the above image, but the response was so great that I actually made it happen. Grab a shirt or a mug at my Etsy store.

At the same time, I got a number of comments about the list, and I thought it presented a good opportunity to talk about the “steps of salvation” as they’re often understood.

To be clear first of all, the black and white design is based on a very popular shirt of recent years in which recognizable lists of names or other nouns were printed in this exact fashion—”John& Paul& George& Ringo." or “Jerry& Elaine& George& Kramer.” etc.

That might help explain the brevity of the message, as I got a number of comments and messages suggesting changes. To answer a few specific ones:

Missing words

The most common addition to the five steps of salvation is “Live faithfully.” I think the spirit behind the suggestion is right, as the Christian life begins, not ends, with the plan of salvation. However, if we understand the first five correctly, the sixth isn’t really necessary.

Repentance is a change of life. Confession is not just a verbal acknowledgement that Jesus is real, but that He is Lord. Belief means not just believing in Him, but also believing Him (see Hebrews 11:6). And, baptism is our death to self and resurrection to a new life (Romans 6:3-4). So, faithful living is fully implied when each item on the list is understood properly.

Another good suggestion was to add “love God” to the list. It’s true, there is no salvation without loving God. I think there’s a better case for this one than for live faithfully. However, I would like to think that if someone can be made to understand their need of forgiveness and how God loved us enough to give it to us (John 3:16), then they will respond with love for God. To paraphrase Luke 7:47, he who is forgiven much, loves much.

Missing verses

No, the shirt doesn’t have verses. That’s where you come in! I think of the shirt merely as a conversation starter. Beyond that, I think every Christian should have a basic grasp of some verses to back up our understanding of the Gospel.

Though you can use Romans 10:17, you don’t really need a verse for hearing. Anybody you’re talking to is already in the process of that step.

Repent and be baptized can be grouped together under Acts 2:38: “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

Believe and confess can go with Romans 10:9-10: “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

Memorization is good for us, and it only makes sense that we would be able to back up our view of the plan of salvation from the Scriptures.

Are they really “steps?”

Ironically enough, I’m not a big fan of the framing of “steps of salvation.” Steps are one-time measures we take, something we complete and move on.

But when it comes to salvation, we don’t ever stop listening to the Gospel. We don’t just believe once. Repentance is a lifestyle, not an event. Confession becomes a life motto. And though baptism is the one that we do only once, its consequences reverberate throughout our lives.

Thinking of them as five steps makes salvation just a bit too formulaic and can put salvation back on us, instead of Christ if we’re not careful.

So why the five steps?

Because it’s an easy on-ramp to a conversation about salvation that can lead to discussions about all of those extras—what Jesus has done, why we should love God, the importance of living faithfully, and so forth.

And, baptism alone makes the list pop. It’s the hottest of hot-button issues in the religious world, and always has been. If you want to start a conversation about the Bible, few words work quite as well as “be baptized.”

An acceptable oversimplification

So, the five steps of salvation make for a very poor substitute for a conversation about salvation. On the other hand, they make a solid door opener to such a conversation, and those are the kinds of conversations we should be seeking to have.

If you want to grab a shirt or a mug and help me fund future book designer and editor costs, you can do so here.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

As always, this article is free. Other than book content for paying subscribers, I’ve decided against putting my articles behind a paywall. Even my latest book is free.

However, that all comes with a cost. Paywalled articles drive more premium subscriptions, and that’s income I’m passing up to make everything free.

If you’d like to support me in this work and help continue to make the free content feasible for me, you can go here.

Baseball has a bit of a Pride Month problem, and the outcome is going to be fascinating to watch.

If you’re not much of a sports fan, you might not know that nearly every major pro sports team in North America celebrates a “Pride Night” to celebrate LGBT people at some point during their seasons. These events often include special rainbow uniforms or hats, some worn in-game and others just for warmups.

As Major League Baseball is the only one in season during June, they take full advantage of the “opportunity.” The Texas Rangers are currently the only team out of 30 who do not have a Pride Night of some kind.

The controversy

During their Pride Night on June 12, the San Francisco Giants donned caps with the ever-expanding rainbow flag in place of the usual orange of the interlinked SF logo. That’s when four of their pitchers decided to take a stand.

One of them stuck with the traditional hat rather than wearing the Pride version. The other three wore the Pride cap, but wrote “Genesis 9:12-16” right next to the logo. This, of course, points to God’s promise of the rainbow following the flood.

Starting pitcher Landon Roupp explained the decision by saying,

"It's just about God's covenant and a promise that he makes to us that, you know, his faithfulness and his mercy. That's just kind of something I believe in, and I stand firm in that, and I'm thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what we want ... and express what we want."

The three followed the example of now-retired Dodgers superstar Clayton Kershaw, who wrote the verse reference on his hat for his team’s Pride Night in 2025.

While Kershaw escaped any response from the league last year, the Giants quartet did not. The league warned them that writing on the uniform is not permitted, though they insisted it was not about the tar content of the message.

Perhaps thanks to the Giants pitchers’ boldness, a smaller league faces an even bigger protest. The York Revolution, a team in the independent but MLB-affiliated Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, had to forfeit their game on Thursday, June 18 as several players refused to wear the scheduled Pride Night jerseys.

And, it’s not just a baseball issue. A few years ago, the NHL limited their participation in themed nights due to player protests of rainbow uniforms, though most teams eventually brought a Pride Night back in some way.

Lessons from the MLB’s Pride problem

It’s much too early to tell what will come of this, but it does feel like the start of something rather than a one-off. While we wait and see, there are a few lessons we can take in the meantime.

Somebody is going to win

Those who hate God will not leave us alone. “Coexistence” and “tolerance” were lies meant to get us to stand down until they got enough cultural sway to enforce their views.

Therefore, our aim can’t be just to get them to stop walking over us. We have to normalize Christian morality. That does not mean we force everybody to believe what we believe, but it does mean we need to get back to a place where the Bible is the default operating system.

Our loss isn’t inevitable

For a long time it sure felt like we were just going to have to come to terms with living in a world that drove further and further into degeneracy with no looking back. Now we have plenty of reason to believe that we have more reason for hope than we think.

We can absolutely make strides in influencing the world. Even the smallest bit of pushback causes an uproar, which shows just how fragile the opposition is.

Sometimes hope comes from the darkest places

It probably didn’t escape your notice that this took place in San Francisco, essentially America’s answer to Sodom and Gomorrah. Last year’s protest by Kershaw occurred in Los Angeles, a city right on San Francisco’s heels when it comes to debauchery. That in itself is worth pondering.

Sometimes the Christians living in such areas have a much greater sense of the darkness around us and therefore feel a stronger impulse to stand up to it. Those of us in the Bible Belt can be guilty of passivity as we assure ourselves “things are way better here,” while the Atlanta Braves and Nashville Predators don their rainbow jerseys.

Let’s learn from our friends and brothers in more Godless places and start taking stands before things get worse.

Just take a stand

So many things like this would not have happened if Christians had taken a stand. As I’ve argued before, the only reason we have youth sports on Sundays is because all the churchgoing families didn’t put their feet down. The same is true with the Pride Night problem.

The American pro sports leagues are packed with players who point to heaven when they score a touchdown or throw a strikeout, who kneel for a postgame prayer, and who have Bible verses in their Instagram bios. If even 20% of them had looked at the first rainbow jersey they were handed and said “That’s not happening,” then it wouldn’t have happened.

The same point applies to anyone who was told to put pronouns in their email signature or call a man “her.” One or two people saying no might be enough to embolden others to stand up, too.

Yes, the players would have been called bigots. Others may be fired. Jesus said the world was going to hate His disciples. Sometimes you stand up and people join you. Other times you stand alone and get thrown into the furnace. In either case, God is with those who do His will.

Someone might counter that all of this is easy for a preacher to say from a pulpit, where he won’t get fired for taking a stand against the LGBT agenda, or for me to say as I work for a Christian publishing company. That’s true to some degree.

However, I’ve been putting feelers out for secular work to make sure my family is financially secure, while knowing full well that there are about a half dozen articles on this easily-found site that make me not just unemployable but untouchable to most corporations. Oh well. The Lord will provide.

One other stand worth considering…

Maybe Pride Nights should have been our line in the sand as sports fans. Plenty of people boycotted the NFL for a time over the kneeling for the anthem controversy. Isn’t this worse?

I’m not all the way to a boycott yet, but maybe I should be. Though I’d never dare set foot in an arena or stadium on Pride Night, the money from the next game goes into the same people’s pockets. Maybe it shouldn’t be our money.

Praying time

I really do think we might be on the brink of an LGBT rollback that was unthinkable as little as two years ago. It would be a tremendous good for our society if LGBT causes stopped receiving the red carpet treatment. This momentum is an encouraging sign in that direction, and we should pray it continues.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

• As always, this article is free. Other than book content for paying subscribers, I’ve decided against putting my articles behind a paywall. Even my latest book is free.
  
  However, that all comes with a cost. Paywalled articles drive more premium subscriptions, and that’s income I’m passing up to make everything free.
  
  If you’d like to support me in this work and help continue to make the free content feasible for me, you can go here.

‘Eden Has The Answers’ is a working title that will almost certainly not be the final one. If you’d like to offer a suggestion, go here!

“Speak your truth.”

As this little phrase wormed its way into our cultural consciousness, it was a clear sign that something was very, very wrong. Over seven billion people can’t have their own truths. If there are that many truths, then there are effectively no truths.

Thus, the idea of “my truth” is a complete rejection of God and His rule over all things. Anywhere man names himself the arbiter of truth, he has ruled out a Divine lawgiver. Like Eve in Genesis 3, he has decided that he can override God’s commandments and become his own source of good and evil.

The probably is, finite, mortal mankind make for very poor gods.

We are not capable of creating objective truth. For a time, man tried to find objective truth through science and other disciplines, but that failed to answer the big philosophical questions.

Instead of realizing that that road led straight back to God, man tried out the only other alternative: subjective truth. There is no objective truth to be created or discovered, we decided. It’s all up to the individual and their lived experiences. I can’t tell you what’s right, and you can’t tell me what’s right. You be you, and I’ll be me.

How’s that working out for us? About as well as one should expect. In the last 100 years we have seen…

• Anything goes, Godless systems of governance that have enslaved and killed tens of millions of their own citizens.

• Men and women who have killed over one hundred million of their own children, leading to the rejection of the blessing of children altogether, as seen in plummeting fertility rates.

• Soaring divorce numbers that gave way to cynical avoidance of marriage in the form of casual hookups, porn, and/or cohabitation.

• The glorification of sexual perversion of all stripes, including the sexualization of children.

• A battle of the sexes spawned by feminists that started small and ended with men in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

• Racial animosity and its various overcorrections that have pitted man against man for centuries.

• Crises of loneliness and poor mental health that have reached epidemic levels.

• Environmentalism that views man as a plague on the planet, equal to or even less valuable than animals.

In all of these things, mankind has been raging against nature. But nature can’t ever successfully be raged against, at least not for long. Why not? Because God made it. The earth and all that is in it are His, and He sustains it all by the power of His Word. It only works properly when it is submitted to His design.

As Psalm 127:1 says, “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it.” It is clear that man has long been laboring in vain. We can’t have a house worth living in when we’re following our own plans rather than submitting to God’s blueprint.

But that doesn’t mean all hope is lost.

The Christian would argue that the Bible has the answers to all of these issues. The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture insists that God has given us the instruction we need for life and godliness. When we trust in the truths He has given us instead of leaning on our own understanding, life just works.

However, in this book, we’re going to go one step further.

We’re going to examine how the answers to all of today’s biggest problems were established not just in the Bible, but in the Bible’s first three chapters. By the time Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, we had a rock solid foundation for everything we need to know. The first humans had a clear picture of how to properly live human life under God’s watchful eye.

To be sure, the answers are developed more fully throughout the rest of the Scriptures, and history has borne out their wisdom. We will certainly draw on the rest of the Biblical text to see how it built on the principles found in Eden. But the blueprint for happy, fulfilled, God-honoring life on earth has been in place since the very beginning.

The only questions are, 1) Will we seek God’s answers from Eden? and 2) If we find them, will we submit to them?

It is my aim to point you to God’s answers in this book, and by picking it up you are on the journey to answering the first question in the affirmative. But the answer to the second question remains to be seen.

Are you prepared to submit to God’s plan instead of making your own? Will you live by His truth, even if it’s difficult? Or will you go back to the comfortable convenience of “your truth,” regardless of the consequences?

Will we learn from Adam and Eve’s grave error and instead let God be God? Or will we follow in their footsteps and try to make ourselves like God by casting off His authority?

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

Be sure you’ve subscribed for free to get updates about the book!

If you’d like to support this book project and get a complementary download of it when I’m done, along with downloads of all of my other books, become a supporting subscriber!

Consumer Christianity is evolving and expanding its reach. As it does, compromise comes along with it every step of the way.

It started simply with worship.

Tent revivals bled into Sunday morning and suddenly everything was designed around providing an experience that visitors would like. Shorter sermons, fewer songs, more basic content… just make sure they want to come back.

And it worked! Who can argue with the numbers?

Then it took over whole churches with the seeker-sensitive, attractional model.

Give the people what they want. Figure out how to turn them into delighted customers rather than dedicated disciples. Build your church around programs and tell people what we can do for you. Make sure they really like us when they come in the building.

And it worked! Who can argue with the numbers?

Subscribe now

Now it’s reached the Gospel itself.

“Don’t discuss certain sins or take strong stands—that’s off-putting to the world!” That evolves into “Don’t expect Christians to pursue a higher standard of holiness.” If we preach on challenging topics like the Biblical design of men and women, modesty, politics, and such, people might leave.

And we can’t afford to have people leave. So just stay away, tell people to generically “love God and love others” without getting into specifics, and hope they’ll get the idea.

And it worked! Who can argue with the numbers?

Here’s the problem: Jesus doesn’t care about numbers.

He cares about faithfulness. He doesn’t pander to consumers—He calls only those who will take up a cross and follow (Luke 9:23).

We have to rediscover worship as God’s regular table fellowship with His family. Consumer Christianity totally misses the point of worship, and in order to stop this cycle we have to get back to understanding worship the right way. Stop building it around what will be most palatable to the carnally-minded and start giving God the attention and praise He is due.

We have to give up the consumerist approach to church. We preach the Gospel to people. We aim to convert them to Jesus and the abundant life He offers. That is a wholly different idea than trying to convert them to liking what we as an organization have to offer.

And, we have to grow the backbone to ditch the soft-pedaled Gospel and start tearing down strongholds. God’s Word meets people where they live. It is not some ivory tower, philosophical truth we assert that does not mix with the nitty-gritty of daily life.

It meets us where we live. It meets us right where we most don’t want to submit, and when it does so, it offends us. But the Gospel can’t save if it doesn’t offend, because then people will never know they are lost and in desperate need of a Savior.

We have the best news in all the world. Why not just believe it?

This article first appeared at focuspress.org in 2020.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

• I had the privilege of making a return appearance on Scripture Matters Podcast to talk about my book, ‘You Are Saved.’ You can tune in here.

• As always, subscribing is free. If you want to support my work, you can become a premium subscriber and get all of my ebooks as a token of my thanks.

• Beyond that, I’m looking to pick up some congregations or individuals as monthly supporters. For info, email me at jack@focuspress.org

For the last couple of weeks, I’ve had numerous discussions with and about the Non-Institutional churches of Christ (NICOC hereafter), both in preparation for and response to our Think Deeper Podcast episode on the topic.

You can watch the episode for a bit of a background if you’re not familiar, but a very basic summary is that the NICOC and the Institutional or Mainline churches of Christ (MCOC hereafter) had a sharp parting of the ways 70-80 years ago over whether the local church had authority to send contribution funds to parachurch organizations.

Our guest, Jacob Hudgins, was a wonderful representative for the view, and we had a very cordial discussion. Everything that follows in this piece is neither an attempt to speak for his point of view or to argue back against what he said in the episode.

Rather, I want to look at the prospects for unity between the NICOC and the MCOC going forward from here.

I am not under the illusion that one podcast episode would be sufficient to bridge the gap or spur widespread reconciliation efforts. However, it has stirred up a considerable amount of discussion, which I think has been helpful when it comes to clarifying what next steps look like.

I fielded suggestions regarding what needs to happen next, and I’d like to respond to a few of them here.

Get together

To me, this is the best, most viable suggestion. Visit the other congregation in your area. Have a meal together, wherever both are comfortable having it. Find out each one’s framework for unity, and see where it goes from there.

That’s all we can realistically do. There is no mass solution. This is not like labor negotiations, where two sides send their representatives and everybody lives by what is decided. As we are not a denomination, no group of preachers on either side can reach a conclusion that everybody will abide by.

Even with our one hour episode, we’ve received comments suggesting that it was too cordial, and that our guest did not put us in our place enough. If that’s what happens from one podcast episode, how much more would that happen if a widespread framework for unity was suggested?

Having one on one conversations and working locally are far better solutions. Widespread unity won’t happen unless there is small scale unity first.

Police our sides

I believe this is also a necessary part of a solution. I’ve had people wade into my comments lobbing bombs at the NICOC, and where I’ve seen it, I’ve tried to rein in their strong rhetoric.

I appreciate where I see the same policing being done in the opposite direction. When somebody says the MCOC are out of the Book of Life because we don’t care about the Bible’s authority, I hope that someone who is seeking unity would tell them to back off.

Unity is going to be a lot harder if we don’t push out the hardliners who want to open old wounds and slam the other side.

Stop using labels

I have been chided numerous times for using terms like “side,” “wing” and “Non-Institutional,” under the idea that such terminology is divisive or that the widely used terms should actually be scrapped to fit the commenter’s view of how the issue should be characterized. To those I say, terms like these only arise to describe already-existent realities, and we can’t communicate clearly if we make up our own terms.

Yes, we should avoid using inflammatory terms like “Anti” and “Progressive” for each other, but beyond that, we should aim to avoid being sensitive to terms. Communication necessitates distinctions of some kind, and we don’t get our own dictionaries.

Wrangling over the use of terms before the discussion even starts isn’t terribly conducive to unity.

Make our cases from Scripture

Some have suggested that further discussion of the sticking points is needed to open up the Scriptures and let both sides (yes, I’m calling them sides, because they are sides of an issue) make their cases.

The only way that makes sense is if one thinks that more talking will convince the other side to concede and change their minds. With books and articles and archived footage that has been compiled for over six decades, why would we think there is going to be a mass changing of minds now?

I am not in favor of continuing the debate. At a certain point a decision has to be made, which leads us to…

The options before us

There are a few options for where we go next, though—once again—none of them can be accomplished on a broad scale. Still, here are the possible options I see (and if I’ve missed any, let me know).

One side convinces the other

It has happened in some individual cases, but as I noted above, there is too much data that shows this is not a realistic conclusion to expect.

One side forces the other to comply

That’s not much of a unity solution, is it?

It may have been different in the past, but at this point in time, I don’t believe many on the MCOC side intend to make the NICOC folks participate in our fellowship meals or institutional support. Will the NICOC folks be united with us if we continue in these practices without forcing them to join?

To me, that’s where the issue hangs in the balance. Sometimes the answer seems to be yes; sometimes the answer appears to be no.

A 2017 meeting between the two camps led to numerous articles in Truth Magazine about the various areas of disagreement, but I couldn’t help but notice that the NICOC prescription came down to this: if we’re going to have unity, the MCOC will have to repent and change their ways. In their own words, we were placed in the same camp as today’s progressive churches, the kinds with whom we do not cross paths.

I don’t mean to be harsh by saying this, but I also think it should be obvious: if you invite people to a meeting, say you’re interested in unity, and yet your proposal is “Repent, agree with us, and change your ways,” don’t be surprised when it doesn’t go well, and future invitations are declined. Also, don’t slam them for “not wanting unity” when they decline those subsequent invitations.

That’s not a plea for unity. It’s an ambush.

We decide it’s a Romans 14-style matter of opinion

I believe this is where most MCOC folks stand, but I also believe this is NOT where most NICOC folks stand. And that’s alright. They are allowed to view it as something deeper.

We leave it to church autonomy

If we are going to be local church maximalists, which most of us would agree we should, then why can’t the church down the road hold some differing views? Does church autonomy allow for any differences? Are we allowed to demand another eldership submit to our own eldership?

Obviously, there has to be a line at which autonomy goes too far somewhere—otherwise, we’d be universalists.

But that brings us back to the central question. Does the MCOC’s use of funds cross that line?

If that is one’s position, then unity is not going to happen, and we should stop pretending it might. If you truly think those who paid for a fellowship hall are sinners bound for eternal damnation, or are at the very least in jeopardy for their insubordination, stand by it.

If one’s position is that it doesn’t break the line of fellowship, but it is a conviction you can’t break, that makes our path to unity fairly clear. I suspect the overwhelming majority of MCOC folks will meet you in the middle and seek to extend fellowship in a way that doesn’t violate your conviction.

We can argue about whose court the ball is in, but if both sides are open to fellowship in a way that doesn’t demand the other completely cave in, then it shouldn’t matter who’s the first one to extend an olive branch. Just start talking.

Leaving with some optimism

I don’t speak for anyone but myself with any of this. I am a complete outsider to the centers of influence in the MCOC. Having established that, take this for whatever it’s worth:

I believe we are closer to unity than it might look.

The missing ingredient is time. As Steve Wolfgang noted in his discussion with Caleb Robertson, history turns over in 60-80 year cycles as old ways and conflicts pass out of living memory. We’re approaching that timeframe for this divide.

And, I can’t help but notice that many of the most inflammatory comments I’ve received on either side have been from older folks, and the most openness has come from the younger. Even some of those older folks who offered compliments on our episode could not help but do so with the backs of their hands. Others have been prickly, and immediately gave themselves a pass because of the painful experiences of the past.

A lot of hurt feelings and distrust remain. There’s a good chance unity can be much easier to find for those who don’t carry such wounds.

No matter where you stand, we all should pray for unity just like Jesus did. If you’re like me, you might read a statement like that and nod, “Yeah, we should,” and then forget. So I’m going to ask you to take a minute right now and pray for unity, grace, soft hearts, and understanding.

We’re far closer than we have acted, and it’s time we change that.

Share

Subscribe now

Well, it’s June again. And despite some of the rollbacks of the last couple of years, “Pride Month” is still very much a thing.

It took them decades of plotting and working to make it happen, and so it’s probably going to take some time for us to make it stop happening.

But just saying we will not stand for the culture of LGBT+ism won’t be enough to turn the false rainbow tide.

We have to get over our aversion to standing FOR a pro-family culture.

“What aversion?” you might ask. “We’re pro-heterosexual marriage and believe a man is a man and a woman is a woman.”

To that I would say, we have settled for a bare minimum.

When I say that marriage should be prescribed as normative, the comments section floods with people pointing to Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 to make the argument that there is no normative path—disregarding that the vast majority of humans were made with desires that can only be filled in marriage.

When I say that we should be encouraging young people toward preparing themselves for and pursuing marriage in early adulthood, Christians push back by saying either they can’t be ready by then or should spend their early 20s pursuing other experiences.

When somebody has one kid too many, it’s not uncommon for church members to be the quickest to make passive aggressive comments. “You know what causes that, right?” “You guys are done, right?”

When you describe a masculinity that is anything other than emasculated “servant leadership,” many immediately write it off as domineering and unChristlike.

When you read Bible verses about women having a quiet and gentle spirit and submitting to their husbands, caveats start flying to gut the verses from any actual, practical application.

Until this changes, we won’t have a complete response to Pride Month.

You can’t beat something with nothing. You can’t win a culture war without a culture (and yes, you’re in a culture war whether you want to be or not).

Similarly, you can’t say “Not that” without prescribing a “This.” People are always moving in one direction or another. We have to have a direction we’re recommending. Yes, it will require a broad brush, and yes, there will be exceptions.

This is obviously not about shaming those who have yet to find a spouse, those who are divorced, or those who are unable to have children. In fact, they are the exceptions that prove the rule of the goodness of marriage and family.

There has to be a normative picture to pursue, and ours should come from the Bible

We don’t do this because it’s a path to success. We do it because it’s right—but not coincidentally, what is right is also a path to success.

Good, godly men married to good, godly women raising children to be faithful is the backbone of human society, all the way back to the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:26-28). That’s exactly why the other side’s most sacred “values” are abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and transgenderism.

We cannot answer those positions with neutrality toward childbearing, indifference toward marriage, weak complementarianism, and a lack of clarity on masculinity and femininity. A thin Gospel that does not offer a positive prescription of what the average Christian ought to be and do is not Biblical, and it will not be able to stand in the face of degeneracy.

To that end, I recommend that churches join in with states like Tennessee in celebrating a Nuclear Family Month. Preach on manhood, womanhood, marriage, and childbearing. Speak of the goodness of God’s design for marriage, and the blessing of children.

Let the church know that the family is to be celebrated because God gave it to us for the purposes of solving our loneliness and giving us the unit we need to take dominion over all the earth (Genesis 1:28, 2:18).

Being against evil is great. But being for good at the same time is even better.

Share

Subscribe for free, or become a supporting reader and get digital downloads of all of my books!

Subscribe now

Notes

• This week we posted what has already become our most-watched episode in the 4 and a half year run of Think Deeper Podcast! Check out our interview on Non-Institutional churches of Christ here

• For more on Pride Month, see these entries from previous years
  

Pop psychology and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

As we as a society have grown more self-aware about our mental health and the industry terms have entered the cultural vocabulary, there is no mechanism for preventing the potent concepts from being misused.

Suddenly everyone is an expert, throwing out diagnoses and analysis with a sense of authority because of the weight the terms carry.

In 2016, psychologist Nick Haslam put a finger on the problem by coining the term “concept creep.”

Wikipedia summarizes the idea as “the process by which harm-related topics experience semantic expansion to include topics which would not have originally been envisaged to be included under that label.”

To give an example, “trauma” originally had a useful meaning. Now it has come to mean “anything bad that ever happened to someone.” Similar terms like abuse, narcissism, gaslighting, and toxic have undergone the same kind of expansion.

The appeal is obvious: if I can label someone with a therapy-coded term, it’s a scientific diagnosis that can’t be argued against.

If I tell myself you’re being mean, maybe I can give you a little grace and assume you’re having a bad day. If I tell myself you’re an abusive gaslighter, I have no obligation to you and you have no opportunity to redeem yourself. You’re just irredeemably evil and I have no obligation to treat you with love.

It also works the other direction, where we can give ourselves a pass by laying blame due us onto the therapy dictionary.

The two create an incredibly convenient blend of taking zero responsibility for ourselves and feeling no sense of duty to anybody else.

If I act poorly, it’s because of my trauma. If you act poorly, it’s because you’re a toxic narcissist.

Then you add the third ingredient: boundaries.

The idea of boundaries is a necessary one, as some people will not stop taking from you or encroaching upon your life until you tell them otherwise. As Cloud and Townsend (the doctors who coined the term for therapeutic use) point out, even God sets boundaries in His relationships, so it clearly is good and proper—within reason.

But boundaries are another victim of concept creep, as millions of people have taken “boundaries” as a pass to not make any effort or do any forgiving in their relationships. “One strike, and you’re done. Gotta have boundaries!”

Lest we feel any guilt over drawing a boundary too far afield, we fall back on all the concept creep therapyworld labels to assure ourselves it’s ok.

“My parents are toxic.”

“My spouse is a narcissist.”

“That preacher is abusive.”

Again, sometimes these accusations are accurate on some level. But, thanks to concept creep, the terms are useless. Without specifics, who knows if it’s a legitimate claim or an exaggeration or fabrication being weaponized to avoid personal responsibility?

Marriages march all the way to divorce court with one or both spouses feeling perfectly justified because they could recite all the therapeutic terms that showed why they were 100% in the right and their spouse was [insert whatever combo of diagnostic labels it took to help them feel justified].
People destroy friendships and treat others like human garbage with the approval of their own DSM-coded consciences.
Family members have been completely cut off because someone’s “boundaries” meant attempts at reconciliation were a bridge too far.

Where is Christian duty in all of this?

Before we use these terms, shouldn’t we check with the Word as to what God requires of us toward our friends, family, church family, and even enemies?

“So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.” (Colossians 3:12-13)

“[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7

Truth be told, somebody may well be, say, a narcissist. I may need to set proper boundaries so I don’t allow him to get away with things that will harm both of us. But if I place him in the “narcissist” box and never see him otherwise, I will fail every “one another” command God ever gave me.

Shouldn’t we do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matthew 7:12)?

Lest that still sound too difficult, there’s one more question that must be asked:

Aren’t you glad Jesus didn’t label you “toxic?”

Aren’t you glad He modeled the commands He gave us: “Bear with one another,” “Forgive one another,” “Tolerate one another,” “bear one another’s burdens?”

None of us would stand a chance if our God dealt with relationships the way weaponized therapy-speak tells us to. We want grace and mercy. We had better be prepared to give them.

As for the therapy world, the tools we use can make our lives better, but we must never let them supersede our duty to God.

Hit the brakes before the next time you throw out a weaponized therapy term at somebody, and ask yourself what your real goal is—to score a point, or to please God and love the people He’s put in front of you?

Share

Subscribe for free, or become a supporting reader and get digital downloads of all of my books!

Subscribe now

Notes

• This week’s Think Deeper Podcast episode is on track to become our most-viewed of all time! Join us and guest Jacob Hudgins for a friendly discussion on the Non-Institutional churches of Christ

I’ve been working through Malachi for our Minor Prophets teaching series on Focus+, and every time I visit the little book I’m reminded of a challenging truth:

Sometimes, our worship is the LAST thing God wants.

This truth demolishes the idea of box-checking Christianity. Just because we showed up and went through the rituals doesn’t mean God was pleased. In fact, sometimes it makes Him even more upset.

Let’s talk about the two times the Bible tells us God doesn’t want our worship.

First, God doesn’t want our worship when it’s half-hearted.

In Malachi, God was furious at the dishonor that was being shown toward Him, as those post-exilic Israelites offered Him lame, blind, and sick sacrifices—sacrifices they would never offer their governor (1:7-8).

Where David had insisted he would never make an offering to God that cost Him nothing (2 Samuel 24:24), these people were doing the opposite. In v.9, God essentially asks, “Did you really think I was going to be happy to receive that?”

He goes even further in v.10, saying He wished someone would shut the gates so they couldn’t even attempt to offer a sacrifice. “‘I am not pleased with you,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘nor will I accept an offering from you’” (1:10b).

God was so disgusted with their half-hearted offerings that He would rather they not even be allowed to show up.

It’s a great reminder to take stock of what we’re offering to God. Are we giving Him the Sundays that aren’t taken up with more “important” things, like youth sports or a trip to the lake?
Are we showing up with divided attention, checking scores or scrolling social media during worship? (As an aside—yet another reason to bring a paper Bible, by the way.)
Are we walking as living and holy sacrifices, or giving ourselves up as lame and blind by being covered in worldliness?

While churches are sometimes called to “close the gates” on the unrepentant via church discipline, we shouldn’t need to let it get that far. The point is not to stay home on Sunday if you’ve been half-hearted. The point is to repent and go offer Him our best this Sunday.

Second, God doesn’t want our worship if we’re not right with our brothers.

In Matthew 5:23-24, Jesus told His listeners that they shouldn’t make an offering if they hadn’t first reconciled an outstanding problem with a brother. This sentiment is reflected elsewhere, as in 1 Peter 3:7, where husbands are told their prayers would be hindered if they don’t treat their wives well, and 1 John 4:20, where we learn that we can’t say we love God if we hate a brother.

It’s too easy for Christians to be at sharp odds with each other and think they can keep on walking with God without a problem. Jesus told us it doesn’t work that way.

I even once had somebody ask during a Bible class about peacemaking, “Can I just sit on the other side of the building from someone if I have a problem with Him?” Ridiculous.

See the conflict through God’s eyes. He loves you. He loves the brother with whom you’re feuding. But He’s not going to bring you into eternity having separate relationships with each of you since you can’t get along with each other, like estranged brothers showing up to the family reunion on different days to avoid each other.

So, He doesn’t want us worshiping Him if we’re hanging onto grudges with each other.

Worship is all-encompassing

What we do together on Sundays is not ever a matter of checking a box God has given us in order to punch our ticket to heaven, with no regard to how it gets done. No, it’s something we do for Him, and as such we have to do it in His desired way.

So, as Sunday approaches, take stock: are you ready to give God your best, or would He want the gates closed on you? Are you right with your brother? Or would He want you to set your offering down and go make amends first?

Worship is too important for us to offer it on our terms. It has to be done on His terms, or not at all.

Share

Subscribe for free, or become a supporting reader and get digital downloads of all of my books!

Subscribe now

Notes

• Don’t forget, you can now grab a download of my latest book, You Are Saved, for FREE!

“Actions speak louder than words,” and “Kids will do what you do, not what you say” are two clichés we all understand, but sometimes need to take more seriously.

This is particularly applicable when it comes to what we do as Christians.

Every choice you make as a church member teaches your children an important lesson about the church.

Here are four of the biggest lessons they are learning from your words and actions.

You teach them the importance of the church by committing to attend.

They need to see that church is a non-negotiable part of our lives and that God comes first in all things. When attendance is optional and we let all kinds of other activities take precedence, we shouldn’t be surprised when the church doesn’t matter to them as they become independent and make their own decisions.

You teach them what matters in a church by your choice of where to attend.

If you choose a congregation because the lessons make you feel good, their takeaway will be that making people feeling good is the point of the church.
If you choose one because of the offerings they’ve catered to you, you teach them that the church is an organization that is there to serve the individual rather than the other way around.
If you choose one purely because it’s a convenient distance from home, they’ll learn that the character of the church matters far less than our own comfort.

When it’s time to choose a congregation to be a part of, two reasons should outrank all the others: biblical teaching, and opportunities to serve. From these they’ll learn that the Bible is of utmost importance and that we are servants of the church, not customers.

You teach them by your words the value of Christ’s church.

If they hear us lifting up our church family in prayer, speaking well of them, and praising them, they will see the value of having a church family. On the other hand, if they hear us picking apart the preacher or the song leader or sharing the latest gossip or speaking negatively about our fellow members, it will teach them all kinds of bad attitudes.

It will teach them to think of themselves as superior to others. It will teach them to be judgmental. And, ultimately, it will teach them to have little value or love for their church family.

Instead, we must find ways to teach our children to love the people who make up the church. Speak highly of your brothers and sisters. See the good. Encourage them and build them up when you’re together.

Though the people around us are never perfect, we can teach our children to love as Jesus loved by caring about our church family. And, we teach them humility and grace when we show them the importance of loving people through the ups and downs.

You teach them by your fellowship that the church truly is a family.

When we tell people that church is a family and then only see each other briefly each week, know little about each other, and rarely help build each other up and bear each other’s burdens, they’ll start to see “church family” as little more than a weak metaphor.

Teach your kids that you mean it when you call your fellow members your family. Have your fellow Christians in your home. Attend the funerals and weddings with your kids in tow. Pray as a family for the needs of the people in your church. Teach the kids to shake hands and remember names at worship.

One way or another, they’ll learn

We want our kids to love what we love and carry on our values and traditions. But of all of these, the church must be first. What shall it profit a kid if he can root for the family sports teams, make the family recipes, and yet forfeit his soul?

The same way you pass on those other traditions is how you pass on the faith. Show your kids you love the church. Show them that participation is important to you. Show them that God matters above all else in your family. Deuteronomy 6 practices create a Deuteronomy 6 people. Teach your kids to love God and His church.

Share

Subscribing is free—but if you’d like to support my work, you can do so here!

Subscribe now

Notes

• Don’t forget, you can get my latest book You Are Saved: The Christian’s Assurance FREE!

• This week’s Think Deeper Podcast covers the parallels between Israel’s Divided Kingdom and modern day America, with lessons for churches, families, and today’s Christians.

Hey folks, I’m excited to share this offer that I’ve been thinking about doing for a while…

You can now get a digital copy of my latest book You Are Saved: The Christian’s Assurance below for FREE!

I know how widespread of a problem lack of assurance is in the church, and I want to help as many people as possible understand the assurance we have in Christ.
So, yesterday, I got the thumbs up from Focus Press to give the book away to anyone who wants to read it.

You don’t have to become a paying subscriber or even join the free email list—though you can if you want. Just grab the download and enjoy!

I want to thank all of those who have helped the book to a perfect 5-star rating through 50 reviews between Amazon and GoodReads. It has also been well-received as a Bible class at congregations that have taught through it for a quarter.

If you want a paper copy, you can grab one at Amazon. If you’d like to get a bundle discount for a group or Bible class study, head over to Focus Press.

Finally, I would really appreciate it if you guys would help me spread the word about this giveaway!

Feel free to share this post, share the link in any relevant social media groups, tell your church family about it, etc.

Share

You Are Saved

1.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

If you’d like to download it without a Substack login, you can go to the Focus Press site.

In John 6 we see the account of Jesus feeding the 5,000.

The crowd’s instant reaction was to declare that He truly was the prophet they had been anticipating and was the one they wanted as their king. Even as He got away with His apostles and crossed the sea, they still pursued Him.

Isn’t that exactly what we’d want? Thousands of people who believe in Jesus and are ready to follow Him, even making Him their king?

Even the greatest of our seeker-sensitive, producer/consumer churches couldn’t dream of starting with a dedicated following 5,000 strong. If Jesus believed in our business-like approach, He would have been well on His way.

He would’ve kept the meals coming, even offering variety because, like Israel in the desert, people aren’t going to stay on board for a steady diet of the same meals that brought them in. He would have set the apostles about the business of making sure each demographic was being kept content and connected.

In short, He would have done whatever it took to keep those numbers up and offered them whatever they needed to stay.

And yet, despite this situation that many church leaders would give their right arm to have, Jesus did the unthinkable.

First, He ran away and left the crowd behind (6:15). Then, when they persisted in following Him, He told them straight to their faces that they only wanted Him for the free meal He provided (6:26).

Finally, when the people refused to pick up on the hint that He didn’t want them following Him because they didn’t accept Him as He was, He went for the one of the most strange-sounding teachings He could give. “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you’” (6:53).

The crowd struggled greatly with this teaching (6:52, 60)—“He wants us to do what?”

The result? “From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more” (6:66).

All of those followers… gone. Even after His greatest miracle of rising from the tomb, we see only 120 gathered in the upper room in Acts 1. He turned a following of 5,000 into a following of 120. At His ascension He left behind a group that was 1/40th the size it had once been.

Not exactly a great church growth strategy, right?

Did He really have to send them away though? Sure, they were following Him for the wrong reasons, but maybe over time they would have come around if He could have just kept offering the right things to keep them coming.

Likewise, people who come to our churches because we have advertising that speaks to them and their wants might not be coming for Jesus, but maybe if we keep them coming, we can turn them into real followers eventually.

Thankfully, Jesus did not and does not think like us.

Jesus knew that if they didn’t accept Him as Lord, it didn’t matter how dedicated they were; they were unfit to carry out His purpose.
It’s the same reason why He turned away the would-be followers who wanted to say farewell or bury their dead in Luke 9:57-62.
It’s the same reason why He turned away the rich young ruler despite the man’s supposedly impeccable dedication to law-keeping.

If people didn’t value Him above all else, He knew they weren’t fit for discipleship.

That’s why the people He ended up making His followers were those who dropped their nets and left their boats or hopped up and left the tax booth behind. He meant what He said when He told the disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23).

Jesus didn’t want customers who liked Him for what He had to offer them. He wanted disciples who were ready to take up their crosses for Him.

Why did Jesus demand so much more commitment than modern churches do? Because He wasn’t here to amass a crowd. He was here to train people to be like Him in order to launch the kingdom, a worldwide project predicated on preparing people and sending them rather than attracting people and keeping them.

He knew that unless people were following Him as both their Savior and Lord of their entire lives, they weren’t fit for carrying out the goals of the kingdom.

With such a lofty, worldwide purpose in mind, His method was to establish a church to carry it out. Why would He want a church system that turned around and viewed crowds and success exactly the opposite of the way He did?

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

For more thoughts like these, check out my book Church Reset: God’s Design for So Much More - now just $9.99 on Amazon!

We have had 10+ years now of much-needed tough love messaging to young men.

People like Jordan Peterson have called them to step up, take responsibility, and become competent and virtuous. Various corners of the Christian world have also echoed that call.

And, in a lot of ways, it has worked.

Young men are growing more religious. Many of them want to settle down, marry, and have kids.
Laziness and aimlessness are frowned upon in ways they weren’t before.
Pornography addiction is no longer a “Most guys do it but nobody talks about it” issue. The calls to walk away and the resources to help are abundant.

There is certainly still plenty of work to do, but young men have come a long way.

But that leaves the question... who is going to challenge the women?

Who is the Jordan Peterson for women?
Where are the older Christian women who are calling Christian girls to abandon their feminism, swallow their prideful superiority complex toward men, and pursue a “gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God?”

For every stat that shows a notable segment of young men turning things around and getting serious about their lives, there’s a stat for women that goes the other way.
They are less interested in marriage and children.
They are more socially liberal and less interested in traditional morality.

And the mere suggestion that something is wrong with the way young women are being brought up, and maybe something should change, brings the fiercest backlash.

That should be the job of their mothers and older Christian women. But the problem is, these values are coming FROM the very women that should be helping root them out.

It is the older Christian women who will often lecture girls for getting married “too young.”

It is the older Christian women who will often share their un-asked-for opinion when a Christian family has “too many kids” in their eyes.

It is the older Christian women who often quietly run their homes and their churches rather than practicing the role God placed them in.

It is the older Christian women who often give the strongest pushback to the idea that young women should be encouraged toward being “workers at home” as the Bible says.

It’s great that young men are starting to turn things around. But, at some point, they’re going to need women to join them in the effort.

And that’s going to require somebody giving young women the kind of uncomfortable but vital tough love that the young men have been receiving. Where is it going to come from?

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

• The latest Church Reset podcast is up! I discussed ‘The Delayed Marriage Disaster.’ Watch/listen at the link, or check the Church Reset feed on your podcast app

On this week’s stream, I examine some statistics regarding the increasingly higher ages at which Americans are getting married.

Topics:

• Discussing some possible reasons why the median age is climbing so high

• Explaining why this matters so much more than most people think

• Offering suggestions for how to help young people toward prioritizing marriage and childbearing

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

NOTE: I’ve been doing the livestreams at 12 CT on Wednesdays, to mixed results. I’m thinking about moving to a regularly scheduled weeknight stream. Help me pick when by answering these polls!

Share

As summer begins, modesty becomes a topic worthy of addressing yet again. It remains one of the most controversial, and therefore most avoided, topics of modern Christian life.

(Let’s get this out of our system early: “Well men need to control their eyes!” Yeah, yeah, we all know. Everybody agrees on that one, so let’s put CS Lewis’ fire extinguisher back on the shelf and stay on topic.)

Of course, we can point to 1 Timothy 2:9-10, where women are told not to dress themselves up fancily but to be clothed properly, “modestly and discreetly,” and “as is proper for women making a claim to godliness” (NASB95).

Some will claim that the passage is solely focused on drawing attention to oneself by lavish dress. That certainly is in mind, but I can tell you something that draws attention way more quickly than a fancy necklace. That’s not being crude, that’s being realistic.

The BDAG definition of modesty includes, “a respect for convention.”1 The question then is, whose convention? A godless, hypersexualized society’s convention? Not hardly. Our standard must be higher.

But beyond the typical appeal to 1 Timothy 2:9-10, I find the word translated “licentiousness” in Jude 4 to be compelling in this discussion, too. Elsewhere it is translated as sensuality, lewdness, or filthy conduct. It can partially be understood as a lack of self-control.

Every time someone rolls their eyes at the modesty discussion, they appeal to licentiousness: “I can do what I want.” No, you can’t. We were explicitly told not to turn God’s grace into license to do whatever we want.

But as much protestation as there is about modesty, it’s really a made-up debate.

Everybody agrees that modesty is important. They just disagree about where the line is.

I mean, does anybody really want to argue that people should be free to walk naked through the grocery store? No, of course not. Should people be allowed to show up to the park in their underwear with kids around? I really, really hope that would be an obvious no for everybody.

So, assuming we’re on the same page there, we’ve established that everybody believes modesty is necessary. After that, it’s just a matter of haggling on the details. That’s where the discussion takes a weird turn.

For some reason, modesty may be the only virtue that is given situational exceptions.

Those exceptions are: formal dress situations (weddings, high school dances, etc.), the gym, and swimming areas. Lest any white knights come riding to the defense of immodest women, the latter two situations apply almost just as much to men.

Inexplicably, things that people wouldn’t be caught dead in elsewhere suddenly become acceptable in those specific instances. Shorts that are too short for walking around Walmart are considered just fine as swimwear. A top that almost completely exposes cleavage is rarely seen in a church building… unless it’s part of a white dress that’s being worn down the aisle. Why?

Imagine if we made these kinds of exceptions for lust. “Ok guys, it’s important that you don’t lust. Unless you’re at a wedding, a formal dance, the gym, or a swimming area. Then, the principle goes out the window. Have at it.”

I’m sorry, what? That’s insanity. If the principle is to have a sufficiently covered body, why should there be a pass on prom night?
Why is it okay to wear less material than underwear in public, around children?
Do the presence of sand and the ocean suddenly make that normal?
What is it about weight training equipment that makes shirtlessness necessary for men, or skin tight, midriff-baring attire necessary for women?

Isn’t the point to not draw attention to oneself and to be sufficiently covered as is becoming a Christian? Why would there be times when that is not necessary?

It’s an absurd framing that has just been commonly accepted, largely without thinking. But our standards should be higher. And, they should be consistent.

As we enter peak immodesty months, don’t lose sight of the kind of light you want to reflect to the world.

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

Marco Arroyo joins me to talk about what may be the biggest advantage the churches of Christ have as the religious landscape changes.

Check out Marco's channel at ‪@IBSMarco‬

Watch below, listen above, 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!

Where do Christians go after death? The options:
- Paradise/Abraham’s Bosom
- Heaven
- Unconscious rest
- Straight to Judgment Day

In exactly 100 votes (so far) in my Facebook group poll, 79% said we go to paradise. I make the case that, though that used to be the case, Christians now go to heaven at death.

See what you think, and let me know if you agree or disagree!

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

Share

Subscribe now

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!

I’m not sure how or when it happened, but somehow in recent years, Jeremiah 29:11 has vaulted into being one of the most-referenced verses in the entire Bible.

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (ESV).

You’ll find the verse on cards, posters, or Facebook images. You’ll hear it in devos or at graduations. It’s become the go-to verse for reassurance and to project a bright future for young people. “God has plans for me!”

Of course, many have accurately pointed out that the verse is often used totally out of context and that it was no guarantee of prosperity in the lives of the audience, who were actually the Israelites who had been taken away into Babylonian captivity.

But that discussion has been had before, and that’s not the problem with Jeremiah 29:11 that frustrates me. There’s nothing wrong with the verse when used in its context. It’s a perfectly fine Bible verse with a valuable meaning. But the way it is commonly used puts the focus in the wrong place.

The unbalanced focus on and misuse of Jeremiah 29:11 is a symptom of a larger problem in Christianity today:

we put far too much focus on ourselves.

It’s used in much the same way Philippians 4:13 has been, putting the focus on our earthly lives and how everything will work out within them. This can create a dangerously self-focused approach to the Bible. It has lead to many modern worship songs being more focused on what God does for us than who God is.

It also is often a part of the prosperity or health-and-wealth doctrine. And, it can be a factor in people adopting the leading religious ideology in the US today, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. In this framework, the emphasis is on living a mostly moral life (moralistic) and leaning on God for support and comfort (therapeutic) without having to submit to His absolute rule in our lives (deism).

If popular Christianity were in the right place, we’d be quoting a different verse on all of those posters, wristbands, and cards and in speeches and devotionals.

Just two verses later, Jeremiah writes “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” Yes, that verse is subject to its context as well, but it’s also a promise that is reiterated throughout Scripture (Psalm 27:8, 37:4; Matthew 6:33, 7:7; Acts 17:27).

There’s something wrong with our Christianity when verse 11 is the one that we hang our hats on in Jeremiah chapter 29 rather than verse 13.

It’s the difference between a Christianity that is looking upward to God vs. one that is looking outward to the concerns of this life. It’s the difference between humbly submitting ourselves to God’s will vs. asking Him to join us in carrying out our will.

Every verse has value, and sometimes we do need words of reassurance in the Scriptures. But that’s the whole point of why we’re using the wrong verse—the idea that there’s anything more comforting or reassuring than the truth that we can be called children of God if we simply seek Him and walk after His footsteps is crazy.

Philippians 3 and 4 illustrate that point beautifully as Paul wrote about abandoning all else to pursue Jesus and noted that because of that purpose he could endure whatever life situation he faced. True comfort comes from knowing God and walking with Him daily, not hoping He’ll pave a smooth path for our lives. Yet, we’ve decided 4:13 is the one we need to put all our focus on.

What if we started tweeting and Facebook posting the verses about seeking God above all else rather than the ones more focused on us? What if our devos and graduation exhortations emphasized that God’s plan for our lives is for us to pursue Him with all of our energy?

Maybe we’ll see less of the kind of religion that caters to man’s interests rather than God’s commands. Maybe we’ll see more young people staying engaged with church rather than having a loose relationship with God on their terms as they cease to see Him as a Being who is there to serve their lives. Maybe we’ll see the kind of deeper Christianity that carries a person through all of life’s difficulties.

And, most importantly, maybe we’ll see the kind of Christianity that makes God’s name known for who He is rather than for what He does for us.

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

Think Deeper Podcast was a fun one this week: Bible Character Hot Takes.

Catch it on YouTube or go here for subscribe links

In this stream, I discussed the show “The Chosen” and explained my reasons for opposing it. Topics include:

• Are Jesus shows a 2nd Commandment Violation?

• Whose version of Jesus are we believing?

• How The Chosen challenges the sufficiency of Scripture

• The problem of surmising

• The difference between misleading preaching and misleading TV shows

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

Share

Subscribe now

If you’re enjoying the articles and videos here at Church Reset, consider supporting my work for a few bucks a month! Go here for details

And, make sure I don’t end up in your spam/junk folder. Add churchreset@substack.com to your email contacts so you don’t miss a post!

So much has been said, here and elsewhere, about the painful lack of leadership in our day. Where are the men we can look to to lead the way and put a stop to the decline we’ve seen in the culture, the church, and the home?

As we look for such men, and as we look to build up the next generations of leadership, there’s one particular obstacle we’re going to have to overcome.

One of the biggest reasons we have a shortage of leadership:

lack of moral credibility.

The best leaders are the people we can put our trust in, and men who have skeletons in the closet or clear moral shortcomings are not the kind of people who create trust in their followers. It’s only natural for the crowd to ask questions like:

Is this person’s character consistent with his message?
Is he willing to apply his judgments of right and wrong to himself?
How is he going to lead us somewhere he isn’t willing to go?

There’s a reason elders have to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2). In any setting, if the people under a man’s authority don’t trust him, their relationship will inevitably be strained and his ability to drive change will be hindered. Of course, this extends to leaders of any kind—parents, husbands, elders, elected officials, bosses, whoever.

However, as I’ve been writing on roles in marriage, and that is humankind’s most basic relationship from which all others flow, I’m going to stick with that one for the purpose of this article.

As the head, the husband won’t be a perfect human being, but his actions should be consistent with the culture he’s trying to establish in the home. When they aren’t consistent, he should acknowledge his error and do better. But when he won’t do this…

Two things happen.

One, his wife (and eventually his kids) may take the excuse to stop listening to him. If he’s not going to live by his proclaimed standard, why should they?

Two, he won’t have any ground to stand on to call them back to the right path. And he’ll know it. Even if his sin is secret, he won’t have the confidence necessary to accurately call balls and strikes.

This is why he must constantly be putting his sins to death, whether it be a porn or gambling addiction, anger issues, unkind words, laziness and lack of discipline, or anything else he knows he shouldn’t do. He must have himself under control so his wife can trust his vision and his whole family can see he is serious about the standard he is calling everyone to live up to.

As an example, perhaps he’ll need to talk to his wife about letting some of her work around the house fall behind. If he’s not taking care of his work, though, he’ll either keep his mouth shut and they’ll both suffer the consequences of their laziness, or he’ll call her out with both of them knowing he’s a hypocrite.

Moral credibility makes the conversation so much easier. He can sympathize with her challenges and admit his own struggles, yet still rest on the point that they each have a job to do and that he’s just helping lead her to join him in a shared purpose.

One problem, one reminder

The problem

Who decides whether he has moral credibility? Those who are in subjection to the leader can’t be the sole arbiters of his moral credibility. If they are, then they are the actual leadership. It’s easy to see how this can be—and often is—twisted to oppose someone who is doing the job of leading.

When he makes difficult but necessary decisions (as we looked at here), she might start throwing out words like “abusive.” Sometimes that word is valid. Other times it’s just a weapon.

As Joe Rigney wrote, “Christians came to implicitly adopt the subjective logic of victimhood—I’m hurt, therefore you sinned”— and thereby succumbed to the tyranny of the sensitive.”1

We can’t give in to the tyranny of the sensitive. Not all criticism is valid. Moral credibility is not lost just because someone doesn’t like where a leader is going, no matter how many moral terms they can tack on to their criticism.

So, what is a wife to do? She does not have to submit if he is telling her to sin. And if he is in sin and is a Christian, there are things she can do. If he has a pornography addiction, for example, she would not be out of bounds to enlist the help of her elders out of care for her husband’s soul. (Though, it is not grounds for divorce, as we covered in the recent TDP episode).

However, his shortcomings do not make her the head. Nor do they take away his leadership. The hierarchy God established makes the man accountable to God (and to his elders, in some ways).

Her parents and/or friends are not the head. A therapist is not the head. With regard to most matters of the household, the elders and preachers aren’t the head. The husband is. As God is the man’s direct head, we should not take matters out of God’s hands and put them in our own.

Ultimately, the man has to stand before God each day and look at himself in the mirror that is the Bible to see if he is being who he claims to be. If he has what Paul calls a “clear conscience” (2 Timothy 1:3), he’s in a much better place to lead his home.

The reminder

Underlying all of this, we have to remember this basic truth: the wife must acknowledge that his authority is not contingent on his moral credibility. So much modern Christian teaching says that it is. “If he’s leading like Christ, then she’ll submit…”

As a matter of fact, 1 Peter 3:1-2 says exactly the opposite. Even if he’s not being who he’s supposed to be, she is still commanded to submit. According to God, that’s the most likely way for her to win him over.

So what should not happen as a result of reading this is for a woman to write off her husband’s leadership for some moral failing. It is far better for him to have moral credibility, but her duty is unchanged either way.

Problems solved

The beauty of it is, his moral credibility and her patient submission make any necessary confrontation so much smoother.

For a low-stakes example, let’s say he’s neglected the kitchen trash an extra day and things are starting to get piled on top. In a situation where roles are askew, she might blast him for his indolence or bug him constantly until it’s done. Or, even if she does everything politely, he might resent her reminder and feel nagged, knowing deep down she’s right but not wanting to admit it.

In a properly-ordered household, he has consulted with her to establish a household division of labor, and in that setup, he’s in charge of the kitchen trash. She can gently remind him that it’s getting a bit full. Since he is committed to setting the tone for the household and doesn’t want to be inconsistent or hypocritical, he isn’t offended at her for reminding him to do what he already said he intends to do. Rather, he thanks her for the reminder and gets the job done.

Things get more complicated with high-stakes examples, but the principles remain in place. Let’s say she has a tendency to undermine his authority with the kids. If he has a sports gambling problem, though, he might feel inadequate to call out her sins. He knows he has his own issues, and she might just deflect any correction by turning the spotlight around. Scoreboard pointing starts to become a habit.

On the other hand, when he has moral credibility that comes from a clear vision for the family that he is living out transparently to the best of his ability, he can point out to her how she’s hurting the household’s cohesion and that it needs to stop. That doesn’t guarantee she’ll listen, but it puts the conversation on a much more solid ground to begin with.

Everything in its place

So much will change for the better if we can start developing more and more leaders who are worth following. But no matter how much charisma they have and no matter how good their ideas are, they will always be hindered if there are unaddressed moral failings in their back pockets.

Men of virtue who cast a vision and then go on to embody it are what it will take to turn our world around. And that won’t happen on a large scale if it isn’t happening in the home first.

Be a man of virtue. Keep your moral credibility.

(If you’re interested in developing men of virtue and would like to help me brainstorm a bit on resources and potential in-person events, email me at jack@focuspress.org)

Share

Subscribe now

Notes

As you’ve probably noticed, my output is higher than ever. Between articles, podcasts, and videos, this work is reaching thousands of people every day for at least 5 days out of every week.

It’s also a great blessing to hear that a number of congregations are benefitting from my work, whether by teaching through my books or by using articles and videos to craft lessons and sharpen talking points about the real-life challenges Christians want to hear about.

That being the case… I could use your help. Understandably, in a tough economy, supporter numbers are dipping a bit. If you or your congregation have been blessed by my work and you have the means, I humbly ask you to consider either:

• Supporting me here for $8/month or $80/year. Go here to upgrade.

• Supporting me at Bible101 for $6/month or $65/year. Go here to support.

• Becoming a personal supporter via tax-deductible donations at Focus Press. Email me for info

• Setting up support from your congregation. Email me for info

I went live to take a look at "The Salt and Light Resistance" letter and it’s bold, scary, unfounded claims about the threat of Christian Nationalism.

Find the letter here
Christian Chronicle Coverage here
Post-woke Christian's response here

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