May the Lord be with you and bless today, my friends.

On sale this week at Westminster Books is a new book by one of my favorite writers, Samuel James.
The Unexpected Story of Miguel Núñez
I very much enjoyed this long-form article about the life, ministry, and influence of Miguel Núñez.
The List on the Door
“We kept a list inside our pantry door when we lived in the mountains. It was an evacuation list. And like the earthquake supplies we stored under the stairs, I kept it updated, just in case.” Andrea goes on to think about evacuation lists and both earthly and heavenly treasure.
“One of the greatest of the Reformed orthodox.”—Carl R. Trueman
The translation of Petrus Van Mastricht’s Theoretical-Practical Theology into English gives us a window into one of the greatest minds in Reformed theology. “His grasp of the tradition, his ability to interact with contemporary issues, and his careful articulation of orthodoxy exemplify the best of Protestant theology after the Reformation.” (Carl Trueman) (Sponsored Link)
A Subtle Attack Against Motherhood
This one is very much worth thinking about. “There is a trend in social media that makes it seem as though we are fighting our way through the torture of raising children, as if they are like an enemy. Culture tells us that their needs are a burden, their inexperience in life is something to make fun of, and their emotional meltdowns are viral content for entertainment.”
Fit for Office: How Some Exercise Extends Ministry
“As with any topic related to Christian living, discussing physical exercise in the life of a pastor runs the risk of twin dangers: legalism and antinomianism. Those two terms are tricky to understand and apply, but my point is hopefully simple: the antinomian pastor doesn’t think he is under much obligation to look after his body, whereas the pastor given to legalistic tendencies in this area has many commands on how to stay fit and healthy.”
The baobab: The strangest tree on Earth
CMI takes a look at the strangest tree on earth.
Communication by Design
Andrew considers an especially powerful example of good design and applies it to pastoral ministry.
Flashback: Grandchildren Are the Crown of the Aged
It’s one thing to have children who imitate their parents and walk in wisdom, but another still to have grandchildren who do the same.

God will either give us what we ask for in prayer or give us what we would have asked for if we knew everything he knows. —Tim Keller

I have been meaning to write a review of the latest book by my friend Leonardo De Chirico: Same Words, Different Worlds: Do Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Believe the Same Gospel? Leonardo is a pastor and scholar in Rome whose primary area of expertise is a Protestant perspective on Roman Catholicism. In this review, written by missionary Glenn Ainsley, you will learn why this book is interesting, informative, and helpful.

Like most evangelical Christians who were raised under the influence of the American “Bible Belt,” Catholicism has always been near, but never influential. It has always been known, but never understood. To me, and many other American evangelicals, the idea of Catholic doctrine has always been limited to a fuzzy concept of confessional booths, prayers to the saints, transubstantiation, purgatory, and some sort of global connection to a man in white on the other side of the world. This “segmented” understanding of Catholic theology fosters an indifferent and unprepared approach towards sharing the gospel with our Roman Catholic friends. In the unlikely event that we do arrive at the gospel in conversation, it will likely avoid all of the assumed “secondary” doctrines mentioned above to focus on our friend’s most self-damning belief of salvation by works. Unfortunately, our poor understanding of Catholicism will render our witness ineffective when we learn that our friend does, in fact, profess “salvation by grace”. At best, we walk away confused. At worst, we will never engage our Catholic friends again.
In Same Words, Different Worlds, Leonardo De Chirico addresses the underlying misconceptions that cripple so many American evangelicals’ understanding of and interaction with Catholic theology. The book shows “why the Roman Catholic words are similar to those of the gospel and yet the Roman Catholic language is different from the gospel’s language” (2). To rephrase the purpose, this book will help evangelical believers to understand why their Catholic friends confess the same gospel as us in words, but live it so differently in practice. We are using the same words to describe dramatically different worldviews. De Chirico demonstrates that a correct understanding of Catholic theology, and therefore an effective gospel conversation with our Catholic friends, requires a “holistic” understanding of Catholic doctrine based on a clear definition of the words they use to build that doctrine. The author effectively does this in the following ways:
The first chapter of this book is dedicated to an honest evaluation and response to many common arguments meant to minimize the differences between evangelicals and Catholics. These arguments are propagated in the name of ecumenical unity based on a common history and / or future. As the reader will see, however, much of the assumed history only looks the same on paper and does not reflect a common theology in practice.
The second chapter begins a thorough investigation into the definitions of many common theological words used by both evangelicals and catholics. It is not enough to base ecumenical unity on the fact that both traditions use phrases like “the word of God” or “the sacrifice of Christ.” Salvation, justification, grace, and mission are all words embraced by both traditions, but they express and invoke totally different meanings of theological importance between the two. If one wishes to communicate clearly with his or her Roman Catholic friends, it is of utmost importance to understand how our common vocabulary has been twisted into unbiblical mutations by the Catholic church.
Most evangelical Americans will find the third chapter extremely helpful as De Chirico helps to remove the ambiguity behind distinctly Catholic concepts like the papacy, mariology, and indulgences. These terms, while mysterious to the majority of evangelical Americans, encompass a large part of the identity of Roman Catholics. In a very brief but efficient manner, De Chirico offers a historical and biblical assessment of these distinctly Catholic traditions and how they influence the church’s understanding of key doctrines.
Although moving beyond the definition of ambiguous words, I found chapter four to be the most enlightening section of the book. After establishing the historical and theological differences hidden under shared vocabulary, De Chirico introduces two different axes that hold together the unity of Roman Catholic theology. It is in this chapter that one begins to truly understand how all the ambiguous and fringe practices we recognize as distinctly Catholic, along with the distorted meanings of shared vocabulary, work together holistically within the Catholic worldview.
These two axes, defined as 1) a nature-grace interdependence and 2) as a Christ-church interconnection help to frame where and how the extra-biblical doctrines and devotions that seem so foreign to evangelicals have developed over time. Once one comprehends the Catholic understanding of grace existing within nature, rather than as something that comes to us from outside our nature, their salvific doctrines and their devotion to the sacraments begin to make sense to us. Once we understand the intrinsic relations Catholics have made between the physical presence of Christ in the church, practices such as their veneration of the Eucharist and their confessions and prayers become better understood. Both of these axes are built on biblical terms that have either been redefined or misinterpreted in a way that liberates Catholic theologians from the orthodox confines of the authority of Scripture. If the evangelical church fails to recognize this, it runs a grave risk of seeing unity where discord exists. It runs a great risk of affirming orthodoxy in Catholic theology that is intrinsically unorthodox.
As an American, now living in a distinctly Roman Catholic and southern European context, this book has been instrumental in helping me to form a mental framework for the culture and the worldview around me. This book represents 10 years of research and discussion around vast and complex amounts of theological material. It has been organized and presented in a manner that delivers clarity to scholars, pastors, and laypeople alike. Regardless of the reader’s current interest in, interaction with, or proximity to the Roman Catholic church, this book should be highly recommended as a means to better understand and dialogue with those who claim we are all brothers.
Same Words, Different Worlds is available for purchase at Amazon. Glenn Ainsley is a missionary with IMB and worships at Chiesa evangelica battista riformata in Ferrara, Italy.

Buy from Amazon

Who would have thought it? Who would have thought that a question so straightforward would prove so controversial? Who would have thought that providing the age-old answer to the simplest of questions would be enough to cast you out of polite society? Yet here we are.

The question, of course, is this: What is a woman? This question is at the core of a new documentary by Matt Walsh—a documentary that is meant to expose the danger and contradictory nature of contemporary gender ideology. This ideology does away with the male/female and man/woman binaries and replaces them with spectrums so that people are not simply men or women and not simply male or female, but can instead define themselves according to their feelings. At the same time it completely separates sex and gender so that a male body can belong to a woman as easily as a man. Everything we once took for granted has been deconstructed and reversed.
With this in the background, Walsh travels around the United States—and briefly to Africa—to interview people and to engage in some light trolling. He wishes mostly to get an answer to the big question: What is a woman?
He begins with an interview of a gender non-conforming gender affirming therapist who insists “some women have penises and some men have vaginas.” This individual, though female, says she cannot answer the question of “what is a woman?” because she herself (they themself?) is not a woman.
With no answer there, he turns next to the streets of New York City where he speaks to a group of women who range from young to middle-aged, yet are unable to answer the question except to say that it is bound up in an individual’s self-identification. They know they are women, but they don’t know why. Heading to San Francisco, he sits down with Dr. Marci Bowers, a male-to-female transgendered doctor who is considered among the preeminent sex-change surgeons in the world. The doctor says that a woman is a combination of your physical attributes and what you’re showing to the world through the clues that you give—still not a very helpful answer.
He speaks to Michelle Forcier, a pediatrician whose work involves “reproductive justice” and “gender affirmation care,” which is to say, helping children and teens dispute the gender they were assigned at birth and transition to another. She insists that telling a family of a newborn baby that the child’s genitals offer any substantial clue as to whether he is male or she is female, is simply not correct—it’s an outdated and harmful way to think about things. From there it’s off to Tennessee to speak to Dr. Patrick Grzanka who is a professor of women, gender, and sexuality studies but who, despite such lofty academic credentials, can do no better than “a person who identifies as a woman,” violating the rule that a word must not be defined by using that word. And so it goes, even to a women’s march in which, ironically, the people marching for women’s rights seem unable or unwilling to answer the question of what constitutes a woman in the first place.
As the documentary continues, Walsh begins to integrate the voices of those who are dissenting from this ideology. Miriam Grossman, an adolescent and adult psychiatrist, does much of the heavy lifting. She is outraged by the ease at which people—and especially young people—are being subjected to what is really no better than medical experimentation as they are injected with hormones and subjected to life-altering surgeries. A couple of young female athletes explain how they were forced to compete against—and lose to—biological males. Carl Trueman makes a couple of brief (too brief!) appearances to explain some of the history behind this gender ideology. Jordan Peterson brings his trademark outrage to a few clips. Perhaps strongest of all is an extended interview with Scott (Kellie) Newgent who medically transitioned from woman to man and is now filled with regrets, understanding that she is not a man and never can or will be, despite all the surgeries and hormones. Her body, and indeed her life, has been ruined by it.
The film is not without its missteps. I don’t understand the benefit of visiting the Masai and hearing how they view men and women, interesting though it may be. Then Walsh takes a few cheap shots, tosses out a few easy insults, and interviews a few soft targets (like the naked dude wandering the city streets and the person who identifies as a wolf). And it is here that I think we ought to consider this: When we have the truth on our side, we can engage with an opponent’s best arguments with every bit as much confidence as their worst. Hence some of the soft targets could as easily have been replaced by people making a much stronger argument. This, in turn, might better equip viewers to engage with those who hold to this gender ideology. There may be a place for satire or outright mockery, but there is also a place to take on and refute the absolute best arguments an opponent can offer. I would have liked to have seen Walsh do a little bit more of that.
As I watched the documentary I found myself wondering: What is the purpose of a production like this? Is it meant to persuade those who disagree with its premises? Is it meant to affirm the convictions of those who already agree with its premises? Or does it have a different purpose altogether? While I found What Is a Woman a surprisingly strong film, I suspect it will mostly serve the second purpose. I don’t expect it to convince those who are not already convinced—not least because, at least for now, the only way to watch it is to subscribe to The Daily Wire. I was willing to part with a month’s fee to watch it, but doubt many of those who buy into this gender ideology will be willing to do so. And so it will, I suspect, largely preach to the choir.
Parents will want to know there are a few images that are somewhat explicit and a few words they may not want their kids to hear, largely in the context of interviews. This isn’t a film to watch with the littlest ones. But I think it could be a good film to watch with teens since it reflects the world they will be growing up in and the world they will need to make their way through. Though Walsh’s treatment is not entirely serious and certainly not academic, and though he could have engaged with some stronger arguments, he does a good job of exposing the contradictory nature, moral confusion, and physical danger of modern day gender ideology. And that makes this a film worth watching.
(If you’d like to dive a little deeper into the subject, you might consider reading Affirming God’s Image, which is written from a Christian perspective, or Irreversible Damage which looks at how this ideology is particularly harming young women. Of course Carl Trueman’s Strange New World (the short book) and The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (the longer one) are essential reading as well.)