Those who use satanic imagery to advertise self-definition through uninhibited sexual assertion may not believe in an actual Satan. They, nevertheless, do his bidding. If we seriously reckon with the hard evidence of destruction, especially to young girls’ bodies and psyches, promoted by entertainers who claim to inspire children, then it is hardly a leap to believe in the existence of some malevolent entity who specializes in deception and destruction.

At the 2023 Grammys, pop icon Madonna took the stage holding a dominatrix riding crop and expressing: “Thanks to all the rebels out there forging a new path.” She then introduced trans artists Sam Smith and Kim Petras as they performed a song entitled “Unholy.”
Many were shocked by the performance, replete with demonic imagery. This was hardly innovative. In 2021, the Lil Naz X released his 666 shoes featuring a pentagram and drop of human blood, and a music video in which he gives Satan a lap-dance. In 2022, Demi Lovato released an album in which she sings that she is “Like a serpent in the garden,” “the fruit that was forbidden/I don’t keep my evil hidden. … I’m the sexorcist.”
Satanic themes have long been a fixture of American music, going back, at least, to legends of Robert Johnson trading his soul to the devil. ACDC released “Highway to Hell” in 1979. Van Halen released “Runnin’ with the Devil” in 1978. The Rolling Stones released “Sympathy for the Devil” in 1968. This is Spinal Tap was hilariously mocking all of this as far back as 1984; As Thomas More observed five centuries ago, “the devil, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked.” Perhaps, we who recognize Christ’s victory over darkness could do with more mockery and less doomsday forecasting when faced with blatant displays of the demonic. Jesus has already put Satan and his minions to cosmic shame by his work on the cross (Colossians 2:15).
The “Unholy” performance was unique in being the first time that an erotic ritual of devil-worship was targeted at children on a major network during prime time.
Read More
Related Posts:

Newton realized that sometimes we engage in controversy professedly “for the glory of God” but are blind to the ways in which our own motives impact and play out in our speech and actions. The rubric “for the glory of God” must transform how Christians respond to controversy. “For the glory of God” does not call for a monolithic response to every controversy. Circumstances alter cases. We do not cast pearls before swine.

John Newton (1725–1807) is best known today for his great hymns (including “Amazing Grace” and “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken”). But in his own day, he was perhaps more highly prized as a letter writer—“the great director of souls through the post,” as someone described him. Such was the value of his correspondence that he published several volumes of his letters (including one of his letters to his wife, which called forth the comment by one reviewer, his friend Richard Cecil, that wives would be in raptures reading such love letters while “we [husbands] may suffer loss of esteem for not writing them such gallant letters”).
In several of his letters, he comments on the subject of controversy. He had a distaste for it. (It would be an unhappy thing to have a “taste” for it, would it not?) He also had a sense of being unfitted for it. He remarked that it was “not only unpleasing to my taste, but really above my reach.” But lack of experience is not necessarily an obstacle to one’s ability to give biblical counsel. Newton constantly sought to give such counsel. (Did he not encourage William Wilberforce in the great public controversy of slave trading?) In a day when only a paltry number of Anglican ministers were evangelical, he was particularly conscious that Calvinists, being much in the minority, might feel pressed into controversy too frequently.
It is surely for this reason that one of his chief concerns was that if we are to engage in controversy, our perspective needs to be dominated by the issue of the glory of God. “If we act in a wrong spirit,” he writes, “we shall bring little glory to God.” The first question of The Westminster Shorter Catechism is relevant here as everywhere: How do I speak, write, or act in situations of controversy so that God may be most glorified?
This is the principle. But it needs to be particularized. Newton realized that sometimes we engage in controversy professedly “for the glory of God” but are blind to the ways in which our own motives impact and play out in our speech and actions. The rubric “for the glory of God” must transform how Christians respond to controversy.
“For the glory of God” does not call for a monolithic response to every controversy. Circumstances alter cases. We do not cast pearls before swine.
Here are three illustrations of controversy. In the first, silence is the appropriate God-glorifying reaction; in the second, confrontation; and in the third, patience. Why such different responses?
Read More
Related Posts:

Were the Puritans aligned in their eschatological views? Not quite. This article examines various Puritan theologies of eschatology that emerged between the 17th and 18th centuries, focusing on seven prominent Puritan writers and their unique perspectives. We’re going to look at Owen, Goodwin, the Mathers (father and son), Edwards, Turreting and Wittsius.
Each of these Puritan writers offers unique interpretations of eschatology that draw on specific passages from the Bible, particularly the book of Revelation. Their arguments, however, were not without their weaknesses. For example, premillennialists like Cotton Mather faced the challenge of reconciling their beliefs with passages that suggest a more spiritual interpretation of the end times, while postmillennialists such as Jonathan Edwards grappled with the problem of evil in a world where Christ’s reign was believed to be imminent.
Consider this article an opportunity to reflect on the diversity of positions within a group of Christians often thought of by some as homogenous; within the Puritan movement, there was substantial variety even as these men agreed on the central tenets of the gospel.
John Owen’s Progressive Revelation
John Owen (1616-1683) believed in the progressive revelation of God’s truth. In his work “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom” (John Owen, “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom,” in Shaking of the Kingdoms of the World (1651) in Works, 8:312-39.), Owen posited that the Second Coming of Christ would be preceded by the triumph of the gospel, which would occur through the gradual conversion of people around the world. This understanding of eschatology is rooted in the idea that God’s purpose and plan for humanity are revealed incrementally throughout history, culminating in the full realization of God’s kingdom on earth.
Owen’s eschatological perspective can be seen as a response to the pessimistic outlook of many of his contemporaries, who believed that the world was in a state of irreversible moral decline. By contrast, Owen emphasized the transformative power of the gospel and the potential for spiritual renewal in the hearts of individuals. He argued that as more people embraced the message of Christ, the world would gradually be transformed and prepared for Christ’s return.
One of the main strengths of John Owen’s progressive revelation is its emphasis on the unfolding nature of God’s plan for humanity. This view aligns with the broader biblical narrative, which demonstrates a pattern of God revealing His intentions and purposes over time through various covenants, prophetic messages, and ultimately, through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Owen’s approach to eschatology is rooted in the understanding that God’s truth is gradually disclosed, which is consistent with the structure of Scripture.
Despite the optimism of Owen’s eschatology, critics have noted that his reliance on the progressive revelation of God’s truth leaves room for ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, some have questioned how the triumph of the gospel can be measured and when it will be sufficient to usher in the Second Coming of Christ. Additionally, Owen’s interpretation can be challenged by biblical passages that suggest a more sudden and cataclysmic end to human history, such as the descriptions of the “day of the Lord” found in both the Old and New Testaments (see Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Oba 15; Zeph 1:7,14; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 6:17; 16:14).
Thomas Goodwin’s Premillennialism
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) focused on the millennial reign of Christ. He argued for a literal interpretation of the 1,000-year reign described in Revelation 20:1-6, positing a physical resurrection of some saints and a spiritual reign of Christ as a precursor to the millennium and then Christ’s physical return and the final judgment (Works, 1:521). In The World to Come (1655), he detailed his arguments in favor of this interpretation, which is commonly known as premillennialism.
Goodwin’s understanding of the millennium is rooted in a belief in the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy, particularly the visions described in the book of Revelation. He contended that the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth was a crucial component of God’s plan for humanity, during which time believers would enjoy a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity (Goodwin, 1672). By adhering closely to the text, Goodwin’s view provides a straightforward understanding of the end times, which can be appealing to those who seek a concrete and unambiguous eschatological timeline (Goodwin 1672). Goodwin’s eschatology emphasized the future vindication of the faithful and the ultimate establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.
However, critics of Goodwin’s premillennialism have noted that his interpretation relies on a mostly literal reading of Revelation, which is a highly symbolic and apocalyptic text. Although Goodwin acknowledged that many things in Revelation were symbolic of events, places, or people in church history, his was a historicist reading that leaned heavily literal. Some argue that the 1,000-year reign should be understood metaphorically, representing a spiritual reality rather than a physical one. By interpreting the 1,000-year reign in a strictly literal sense, Goodwin’s view may struggle to account for the broader context and purpose of the book of Revelation, which is intended to convey spiritual truths through symbolic imagery. Additionally, critics argue that Goodwin’s interpretation overlooks other passages in Scripture that suggest a more spiritual or metaphorical understanding of the end times.
Increase Mather’s Postmillenialism
Increase Mather (1639-1723) was known for his postmillennialist beliefs. He argued that the millennial reign of Christ would be a spiritual reign characterized by the conversion of the Jews and the triumph of the gospel. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (Mather, 1669), he detailed his interpretation of the end times and the significance of the Jewish people in the unfolding of God’s eschatological plan.
Read More