We can now face death with such confidence that we can even talk back to it as Luther did when his precious Magdalene died. As both John McClean and Martin Luther declared in their own way: “Death, you are defeated, for the Author of Life has risen again from the grave!” And that means that all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will also live, even though they die (John 11:25-26).

One of the most anguished stories I’ve ever read was about what happened to Martin Luther’s daughter Magdalena. Barely fourteen years of age, she was stricken with the plague.
Broken-hearted, Luther knelt beside her bed and begged God to release her from the pain. When she had died and the carpenters were nailing down the lid of her coffin, Luther screamed out: “Hammer away! On doomsday she’ll rise again.”
A few years ago, Rev. Dr. John McClean, the Vice Principal at Christ College Sydney, tragically lost his sister to cancer. She was a young mum with three young children and, inspired by Luther’s words, this is how he started the sermon at her funeral (it is used with the author’s permission).
Dr. McClean said:
“Death, you must be pleased with your work, especially today. You’ve scored a great prize. You’ll be crowing, or cackling, or whatever your cry of triumph is.
It certainly looks like you won. You must be proud. You’ve torn Anne away from us and cut off so much promise. She had so more to do. She and her husband only had 16 years and had so many adventures still to come; she’d just started raising 3 great children;
her writing and research and teaching were blossoming; she had music to enjoy and friendships to grow and a house to create.
And instead, you — death — have given her two years of pain and now taken her away. You’ve turned the good and beautiful into a waste. We’re left wondering what it’s all for: if a life like Anne’s can just end. What’s left of her work and talents and love. As she watched the pictures before the service and heard about Anne’s life, we remembered all we lost. It hurts, we’re gutted. You’ve won.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by J. Chase Davis |
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
On our heavenly pilgrimage, we don’t settle for the ghettoization of Christian communities….We stand ready to defend our own with all the biblical masculine virtue we have to throw ourselves into the battle wherever it rages. We march forth, taking ground; we live with strength and courage because the Lord is with us. We don’t aim to lose. We aim to win because our victory is secure in Christ. 

[American Reformer] Editor’s note: The following is a lightly edited version of a speech delivered at the Burn the Ships Conference in Boulder, Colorado on July 27, 2024.
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.—C.S. Lewis
Because modern Christians have been taught and believed lies about reality, they have completely misunderstood the nature of reality. One of those lies involves the nature of our heavenly pilgrimage, or our spiritual life. We have been taught that our heavenly pilgrimage is solely immaterial or “spiritual.” Meaning that the things that concern our pursuit of Christ are only immaterial concerns or soul level questions. I believe two tools have been used to reduce our heavenly pilgrimage to such a state. First, the induction of egalitarianism and, second, its subsequent demonic sister, the vice of tolerance.
Egalitarianism
Here, we are not merely talking about the theological concept of egalitarianism. We are talking about that, but it is much bigger than that. In our day, there is a wildly held falsity propagated about the nature of reality and mankind. This is the notion that we are all equal, all people and all cultures are equal. We are told that all people are equal in any and every way.
In more conservative contexts, this is sometimes laundered under biblical teachings about the imago Dei. In more liberal streams, it is glossed over with verses about there being neither male nor female, no Greek or Jew in Christ. We are taught to believe that men and women are equal in any and every respect. The worst stage of this cancer has been revealed in transgenderism, thinking that men can become women or women can become men. No longer, we are told, is there any biological reality to maleness or femaleness. It is all a social construct.
More broadly, this falsity flies under the radar, using verses such as “judge not” when referring to various cultures. We are told that we cannot judge the morality or immorality of any culture or people other than our own. Why? Because they are only doing what they have been taught how to do. We are told that if given the same opportunities and privileges, they could be successful; in fact, they might even be better than us. All cultures are equal.
Closer to home, we are taught to feel an inherent shame about our very biological makeup as men. Your testosterone is not given by God, but instead a cancer you must rid yourself of. Your assertiveness and aggression are not Christlike. Your confidence and desire to win is anti-biblical. Your willingness to fight is not reflective of the meekness of Christ. On and on, they drone.
This is the lie of egalitarianism that even among men, there is no one better or worse, no one stronger or weaker; we are all one and the same. And Christians have bought this lie hook, line, and sinker. But nature abhors a vacuum, and all men know this is a lie. When you play a game of pickup basketball or throw the football, you remember the old ways. And the old ways are designed by God. Like a dog who instinctually chases a cat, even the most effeminate man will somehow discover a prior to undisclosed masculine drive when he enters the area. Because God designed men to be this way. Christ did not come to obliterate your masculinity, and he did not come to lower your T-level. Grace does not destroy nature. Christ came to restore your manhood.
Egalitarianism reduces Christianity to a consumer good. By twisting the Bible into an egalitarian framework, we have deceived ourselves into thinking that Christianity is just one option among others, which are all equal. The Christian religion is just believed to be another option among many. We adopt the anti-Christian ideal of principled pluralism and subjugate our religion to market demands. Our churches become branded such that we compete with others, not in terms of holiness or excellence but in programs and marketing. Christians themselves conceive of the church in market terms, determining the goodness of the church only in terms of success in reaching the lost.
Tolerance
The second lie is what I call the vice of tolerance—we have represented Christianity in terms of its emotional effect on other people, namely pleasure. Therefore, if people have a negative emotional experience or feel pain from our witness and our journey to the heavenly city, then we assume we must be doing something wrong. Why? Because Jesus is not mean.
We have remade Jesus in our own image regarding what it means to be a good person. There is a version of Christian tolerance that is virtuous, but today, that is not what is lauded. Instead, we see hypocrisy from those who claim tolerance and yet display nothing but contempt for Christians, particularly Christian men. It is good to overlook an offense. It is good to live in peace and harmony. This is a blessing from the Lord. But the enemies of God do not intend to live in peace and harmony with you.
G K Chesterton wrote, “Tolerance is the virtue of those who believe in nothing.”
Excessive tolerance or the vice of tolerance is more tempting than intolerance. Why? Because the coward risks no pain. It is a vice of pleasure. The person guilty of the vice of tolerance risks nothing and, therefore, can gain nothing. But they can at least preserve some sense of pleasure in knowing that they don’t have to endure pain, whether the pain of social ostracization or the pain inflicted on someone else by openly disagreeing with them. In a culture of pleasure and decadence, the idea of ever causing any pain to someone else, like what they call emotional distress, is seen as wicked.
Much of our conception of our Christian witness and sharing the gospel cannot fathom this reality today. The idea that we should cause another pain in what we tell them is seen as anti-gospel. We live in a world obsessed with pleasure. Avoid pain at all costs. Comfort by any means.
And yet, the comfort we truly need only comes from God, who comforts us with his salvation and presence. And we can only receive that comfort by facing the pain of our condemnation and the reality of our human condition apart from God. We rightly conceive of the gospel as good news. But there is no good news to speak of if people have no concept of there being bad news. The good news of the gospel is not perceived to be good if people have no familiarity with what is bad, to begin with.
There is no gospel without pain. Without pain, the news we share is simply one option in the marketplace of ideas at best. But to preach the gospel, people must hear the law to understand their standing before God. There must be condemnation in order for there to be reconciliation. This is not legalism. This is just faithful gospel preaching.
It is not cruel to speak the truth about sin plainly. In fact, to avoid speaking about sin plainly leads people to hell. Yes, this will create enemies. That is part of the deal when you come to Christ. You will have enemies. There will be people who hate hearing the good news. The aim is not necessarily to make enemies for the sake of making enemies. The aim is to proclaim the truth of God, knowing that enemies will be made. And we should pray for our enemies, especially by praying the imprecatory Psalms.
Christ says that we will have enemies, but because of these lies of reality, egalitarianism, and the vice of tolerance, which create what we might refer to as an unreality or anti-reality version of Christianity, we cannot even conceive of other people as enemies. After all, who are we to judge?
What a pox on this house of ours. We have twisted ourselves in knots to butcher the Bible to justify pacified men, a pacified church, and, therefore, a pacified society that is easy to control. We submit to the yoke of tyranny, so long as we can just conveniently order something to our doorstep. Christ did not die for his church to be pacified. He died for his church to march to the beat of his drum as we go forth into the world, making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey what He has commanded. But we have traded this vision of the church at war for a utopian vision of a pacified church filled with pacified men, just hoping if we are winsome enough, they won’t take our children from us and put them on puberty blockers.
This was one of the critiques Nietzsche made against Christianity, or his conception of it at least. For many, Christianity has become a pacifier, like you would give a baby. Churches gather in the name of self-soothing. Sermons cater to people’s felt needs. Worship services are created to fill one with good emotions that soothe one from the pain of life.
Nietzsche saw this. He conceived of a concept called ressentiment. This is the concept that if one is filled with such jealousy because of an inferiority complex, one becomes hostile to others. Furthermore, projecting their own insecurity, they will conclude that those who are superior to them are morally repugnant and inferior themselves. To understand Ressentiment, you must understand master and slave morality in Nietzsche. He’s telling a story about the origins of humanity that challenges Christianity.
It goes like this. There were people, and the bigger, stronger people took from the little weak people. Think like Conan the Barbarian. These bigger strong people Nietzsche conceived of as masters and the weaker people he conceived of as slaves. The master conceives of the good and not good in different terms than the slave. What’s good is getting food, being stronger, getting women. What’s not good: not eating, being smol, not getting women. This is the mindset of the master for Nietzsche.
When the master sees the slave, he doesn’t even think of the slave. “I don’t even think about you.” When the master encounters another master, they admire them, even if they end up fighting each other. The master, this big, strong brute, might give things to other masters to show his power.
How do the slaves feel? The slaves are naturally conflicted. Why? The slaves also think that getting food, house, and women are good, BUT they look at the master and think he is bad because he wants what they want, but the slave cannot prevent it. The master takes what they have, and they can do nothing to stop it. They are filled with resentment. The slaves can’t see the desires in their hearts as naturally good because the master has the same desire. The slave can’t look at another slave and respect them.
This resentment leads to slave morality. Master mentality honors who you are and your natural goods. Because it is good to get food, be strong, and get a wife. Slave morality looks at good things and is suspicious of them. They can’t imagine life as a master because they resent the master. They hate that the master is strong, gets food, and gets the woman. They resent him and create an entire moral framework to justify it. They end up filled with jealousy and contempt for anyone with money, power, and sex.
Nietzsche thinks the world is filled with slave morality and hatred of anyone who is rich, powerful, and competent. And he says that the point at which the slaves began running society began with Christianity. He suggests that Christianity creates this slave morality because in his day the liberal churches were doing this. They were creating entire theological frameworks based on sentimentality, not reality. Of course we as Christians not believe this, but his critique based on the evaluation of many churches and Christian men seems to have some truth to it.
This slave mentality leads people to build the world around them in such a way to accommodate their slave morality. They build a cage to cope and seethe with their conception of reality. They will construct a reality in which they can cope and seethe in their resentment. Slave morality resents those with money, power and success. In fact, from many pulpits and articles you would get the idea that Jesus does not want you to have money, power, success, or find a wife. We are told that being like Jesus means the only good thing to do with power is to give it away. The only good use of our natural God-given ambitions is to avoid them because they might become an idol. And that you should just settle for singleness.
Boiling under the surface of all of this, many Christian men live with a disquieting resentment. They are taught to hate themselves and deny how God made them all in the name of following Jesus. Is it any wonder that men oftentimes want nothing to do with a church that, by all accounts, hates them? Rather than encouraging men towards excellence, churches often just teach men that they are defunct women. Men are taught that they are spiritually deficient if they didn’t cry during church or talk about Jesus as they would a boyfriend.
This all creates a pacified church obsessed with soothing our pitiful state. In the name of egalitarianism and the vice of tolerance, Christian men are deceived into thinking something is wrong with them in their creational design.
Because of this anti-reality teaching, egalitarianism, and the vice of tolerance, Christians live in the undesirable state of having no principles on which to fight, no enemies who they are to fight, and therefore can not even fathom praying the imprecatory Psalms, much less being animated by Christian virtue and honor in manly warfare in our pilgrimage to the heavenly city.
Instead, our heavenly pilgrimage is conceived exclusively in quietist and anabaptist terms. This is not a call to arms or a call to revolt. It is simply to say that everyone who came before us had no qualms conceiving of reality according to God’s design. I often wonder about the fortitude of the men who came before us, who took up arms against a British Empire that was far less tyrannical than the American empire. It bothers me when I look around; we seem to lack the moral conviction and clarity that the men who came before us possessed.
It was common in the old days to understand that Christians, churches, and Christian societies would have enemies that must be defeated. The Puritans often provided a type of chaplain service to their town or colony before they went to battle. Even today, Christian chaplains pray for their men’s success on the field of battle. In sports, chaplains pray for the success and victory of their football team.
We must recover and appreciate these simple acts as reflections of what we should be doing in all of life, whether in business or politics. We must recover a martial spirit of victory or death. We must embrace the conflict of a world that wars against the Creator. And to that, we must reject egalitarianism, which flies under the guise of feminism most prominently, and reject the vice of tolerance. We must embrace God’s design for the world. God’s world is built hierarchically. And it is built to flourish where wickedness is not tolerated, and righteousness abounds.
In a world of hierarchy, there will be conflict. There are tribes and factions, some stronger and some weaker. God’s Word maps onto reality and describes how to navigate these waters. However, the utopian egalitarian vision of the world in which everyone is equal in any and every respect also produces conflict. But because it is not reality-based but a fantasy, Christians are often at a loss as to how to navigate the conflict because the Bible assumes hierarchy, not egalitarianism. It would be like trying to look at the rule book for golf when you are playing football. You won’t succeed. Many Christians struggle and fail in their heavenly pilgrimage and all that it entails because rather than conceiving of the world according to God’s word, they have assumed the lies and tried to apply the Bible to the lie. They try to apply God’s reality to anti-reality and wonder why they fail. They assume they are playing a sport the Bible was not created for. We accept the rules of the enemy and wonder why we fail. In the worst cases, the Bible becomes a manipulative cudgel to suppress the actual conflicts we need to have. Now, instead of making war against Satan and his demons, we are called to monger peace, avoid conflict at all costs, play nice, and never offend anyone. What man would be drawn to such a religion?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Glenn D. Jerrell |
Thursday, July 28, 2022
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.

Introduction
When one is not a commissioner to a General Assembly (GA), the temptation to answer a speech while it is being given is absent because you don’t have the privilege of the floor. Listening to the proceedings at a GA is a true learning experience. That was my situation during the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). It is helpful to sit back and just take it all in. This article contains observations based on certain speeches on Overture 2 and Mike Myers’ two articles (here and here) published in the Aquila Report, as well as some historical reflections.
Overture 2, proposed to the 2022 GA of the OPC by the Presbytery of Ohio, approached abuse with a wide range of considerations that pastors, sessions, congregations, and presbyteries would find helpful in support of their gospel/shepherding ministries.
As an onlooker, it appeared that the opposition to Overture 2 by Mr. Myers and others ended up squandering a full hearing for the GA, the Ohio presbytery, and for themselves. How? The opposition sacrificed a comprehensive study of abuse, trading it for a partial, more limited consideration of the subject and leaving the larger controversy for another day. In the end, a substitute motion replaced the recommendations of the Presbytery of Ohio in Overture 2, which had also been supported by the Advisory Committee that examined the proposed overture. Adoption of the substitute meant that the church did not interact with all the points raised by both the presbytery and Mr. Myers, and further, the lengthy consideration of Overture 2 consumed so much time that important matters from other presbyteries received short shrift.
Mandate 1 of Overture 2I.A.1. Of Overture 2: “Collect, study, and develop resources related to the many forms of abuse that manifest themselves in the church (sexual, domestic, ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, psychological, etc.).”
The substitute that prevailed squeezed much of the life out of Overture 2. What was adopted certainly needs attention but what the 88th GA adopted eliminated consideration of a wide range of issues our churches are facing today. The church needs help and instruction in recognizing both the spectrum of sins involved in abuse and the too often overlooked need of supporting the victims of abuse. Tragically, some of the concerns in Overture 2 must wait for another day for GA help. The committee the GA established could serve the church well by identifying areas that need further study.
Mandate 2 of Overture 2I.A.2.: “Produce and recommend to the church resources to equip pastors, sessions, and presbyteries to recognize and respond to allegations and and instances of abuse in ways that honor Jesus Christ, comport with the laws of the land, and promote justice for victims and perpetrators.”
Overture 2 was carefully thought out and well written. It shows due diligence. How do we respond to claims of abuse? Do we doubt the accuser? Do we affirm the accuser? Do we take the claim seriously? How do we protect the accuser? And what about the accused? How does the church respond to the accused? Do we believe them? Do we take their claims seriously? We need resources. When an adult says I was sexually molested as a child and I still dream about it, how does the church respond? When do you bring in the police? How do we respond to a congregant who seeks help with a manipulating minister or ruling elder? We need to practice listening. Hearing the stories of abused OPC members, of those who have felt pushed out of the OPC, and of a multitude of other situations, the depth of the problems and the need for instruction becomes clearer and more urgent. What about those who don’t feel safe at a presbytery meeting, or in a local church. These situations exist, they are real life. The Presbytery of Ohio obviously has a passion for pastoring the people of God in a full, rich, and loving way. Perhaps this could become a class for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC?
Mandate 3 of Overture 2I.A.3. “Recommend to a future General Assembly, if appropriate, possible amendments to the Book of Church Order that more explicitly address the sin of abuse.”
Yes, there are some changes that might be considered to better serve in a wide array of abuse cases. Our current book provides adequate protection for the accused but what about the accuser? They also need consideration and protection. All need shepherding. What about protections for the victims of sin, that is a man or woman, a boy or girl, those in the pew? The subject matter of Overture 2 must not be forgotten because the OPC needs to address the pastoral questions raised by abuse. “Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them” (Ecc. 4:1 ESV).
The four grounds provided for Overture 2 (see below) provide the rationale for the recommendation of the Presbytery of Ohio.
Mandate B of Overture 2B. “Authorize the committee to invite Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse to assist the Committee as non-voting consultants.”
At the Assembly, the above quoted section of Overture 2 sparked a significant amount of controversy. Those in favor of II.B of Overture 2 ended up making a number of speeches during debate, but not as many as the opponents.  An amendment to replace the words “Christians knowledgeable on the topic of abuse” with “North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) officers” failed. But the substitute reveals gaps in biblical thinking. The substitute would have severely restricted who may be consulted. It was asked “will it be required that these Christians hold reformed convictions?” This substitute would have had the effect of failing to consult with
1) Reformed churches around the world;
2) men and women in the OPC holding the general office of believer; and
3) knowledgeable men and women in the church universal.
Does not the “NAPARC officers” amendment contain an implicit assertion that only Reformed Christian officers have contributions to be made on the subject of abuse, and that there are no contributions to be made by non-Christians, thus denying common grace?
The above gaps reflect a less than robustly biblical engagement with God’s people and the world around them. Each of the points above were mentioned in speeches made on the floor. The Assembly listened and the “NAPARC officers” substitute was defeated.
Ground 1 of Overture 2“Allegations and instances of misuse of power of various kinds (commonly termed ‘abuse’) have become increasingly known in our society and in the church. Reports, testimonies, and confessions of abuse raise complex legal, theological, and pastoral issues we cannot minimize, ignore or dismiss.”
The suggestion made that Overture 2 is possibly opening the doors of the OPC to a woke understanding of abuse is baffling.  Where are the signs of the OPC going woke? This suggestion sounds hollow. Is the article questioning whether large areas of the sin of abuse exist? The best way to avoid being accused of following the world is not to ignore issues raised by the world, but to outthink the world on these issues.
Ground 2 of Overture 2“The sins of abuse are expressly forbidden by Scripture and the Westminster Standards. (For example, see 2 Timothy 3:2–5; Jude 7; Exodus 21:15; Deuteronomy 22:25–27; also, WLC 135 and 139) and are especially heinous as they are ‘against the express letter of the law,’ ‘many commandments,’ ‘admit of no reparation,’ often involve various other aggravations (WLC 151); and have devastating and life-long effects on victims (2 Samuel 13:1–22).”
Is there a psychologizing of sin in this overture, especially in II.2 above, as has been suggested by Mr. Myers? The desire of Overture 2 is very plainly to identify abuse as sin and to deal with it biblically. There is no hint of separating abuse from sin. Mr. Myers’s article states, “There seems to be a movement in the church seeking to dislocate abuse from the category of sin.” Overture 2 seeks to deal with abuse as the sin that it is and nothing less.
We should not allow a justified opposition to our culture’s concern about micro-aggression to blind us to the real suffering that God’s people undergo in our fallen world — sometimes even at the hands of those who should be protecting them.
Ground 3 of Overture 2“It is the responsibility of the elders of Christ’s Church to exercise their authority, jointly and severally, to shepherd those under their care by guarding against such sinful behavior; to care for those victimized by the sins of others; and to exercise judicial discipline for such sins in terms of the goals expressed in Book of Discipline I.3.”
Good Presbyterianism should be caring because the sheep are cared for with Christ’s love.  Authority with a servant’s heart, as we know, may be used to care and shepherd the people of God for their good; on the other hand, authority can be sinfully wielded and twisted, thus inflicting damage on the sheep.
Ground 4 of Overture 2“Giving careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse will help us recognize and remedy gaps in our theology and practice in order that we might more effectively minister to victims of abuse with the hope and consolation of the gospel and more readily confront perpetrators of abuse with the need for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.”
Are we not to bear the burdens of others? The multiple trials, complaints, and appeals in our assemblies are humbling. Are we informing our consciences with the study of these questions in the light of Scripture? Do we have a sense of rightness that exposes any self-righteousness? We need to discuss these issues in our judicatories to make us aware of the dangers of sin. It needs to be done in a brotherly and loving way without intensity and anger blasting those with whom we disagree and whom we shepherd. Good procedures are a blessing but they are not the purpose of our existence and they are not the gospel. Our imperfections reflected by the issues raised in Overture 2 deserve to be heard in our prayers of confession each Lord’s Day. Where we have fallen short in understanding the complexities and consequences of abuse, we need the assistance of Overture 2 to help us seek to recognize abuse and help those who are the oppressed, the wounded, and the traumatized.
As Rachael Denhollander suggests in a tweet, we need to give “…careful study to the complexities and consequences of abuse….” There are “…incredibly important dynamics to understand with abuse, especially the way abusers wield the trauma they have caused, and the victim’s self-defense to flip the narrative.” There is much about abuse that we do not recognize as fully as we should. We need to be humble and take these things to heart!
ConclusionMuch of the material in this article is gleaned from the minutes of the General Assembly. I did not take time to go through the PSE minutes to document this. Since the issues were given their final appeal at GA and final decisions were made by GA, I thought it best to look at the record from the settled outcome. The most painful reflection that ought to be pursued is not addressed in this paper: do the fissures in the PSE still exist? What is being done to heal the wounds? Answering that goes beyond what I am writing here, but is important to note.
Overture 2 still provides a thorough look at what we need to be learning and thinking about. The Overture remains available for any presbytery, session, individual, or group to use. Although the mandate of the committee has been narrowed, the ideas do not need to be shelved. The real-life questions and stories remain. The PCA has recently completed its own report on the subject of abuse. Both the OPC and the PCA studies will supply some help but both are unduly limited in their approach. Overture 2 is certainly the boldest and best path.
Glenn D Jerrell is a Retired Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC); he is living in Knoxville, Tenn.
Related Posts: