The next decade is going to be a challenging time, as we face continued cultural pressure, and as the cadre of Gen-X leaders approach retirement and will need replacing. We need to learn the lessons of mistakes made in the past, but also to continue to sustain and develop our strengths. 

I enjoyed listening to Kevin DeYoung, Justin Taylor and Colin Hansen reflecting on the Young, Restless and Reformed movement on Kevin’s podcast (you can find it here). They did not just have a ring-side seat watching the events that they discuss but were key participants. They set out to explain what the movement was, what it achieved, why it has fragmented and to assess the current context in the US. Although YRR was a US phenomenon, it has had a significant impact in the UK, and there are parallels with our own evangelical context.
In large measure they are positive. They regard the YRR movement as a period of revival which became institutionalised over time, as all revivals in history have done. I was especially struck by the comment that the Great Awakening only lasted 3-4 years. They point to the recovery of Calvinistic theology and a lasting publishing legacy of good books, especially by Crossway.
They acknowledge a number of weaknesses, including the fact that some leaders rose to prominence too quickly, or were accepted on the basis that they seemed to be on the right trajectory – although they also point out that the key leaders (eg Piper & Keller) were in their 50s before they came to greater prominence.
They make several astute observations, including identifying YRR as a Gen-X movement, that reacted against the Boomer-led ‘Seeker Sensitive’ movement. Some of the fragmentation has occurred as new generations (Millennials, Gen-Z) have emerged.
They also note the key role played by digital technology. YRR gained momentum because the internet has enabled sermons and resources to be widely shared, but before social media had taken centre stage. They rightly chart the subsequent difficulty of leadership in a social media age and the way in which any leader or movement that gains success is likely to be attacked and critiqued by its detractors. This has led to a growing reluctance of the younger generation to become leaders because they fear the toxic environment they will inhabit.
The YRR movement fostered a wide unity amongst reformed evangelicals from numerous streams and managed at points to maintain a broad tent, stretching from a John Macarthur to a Mark Driscoll. The unity was rooted in a Calvinistic soteriology and a commitment to complementarianism, which were perhaps key issues in the evangelical sub-culture at the time. The movement also addressed the reality of suffering, for example, in the way that it responded to Matt Chandler’s cancer diagnosis. People joined together on platforms at T4G and TGC.
There is no doubt that there has been significant fragmentation, and this is in part because of the difficulties the YRR movement has faced in dealing with new cultural and political challenges. They date the fragmentation as starting from 2015, and key issues that have caused it are the rise of Trump, race issues, Wokeism, COVID, the hyper-speed social change on eg LBGT issues and evangelical leadership scandals and implosions.
Kevin DeYoung makes the interesting observation that there was a presumption within the YRR that they were not just conservative in theology but also politically conservative and that this presumption has been shown to be false as the political divides in the US have become more sharply polarised. He refers to the way that black leaders were drawn into the YRR movement and its institutions, but did not fit because they had different political views on, for example, race. I found that incredibly sad, as it amounts to saying that the gospel unity was only superficial and that what really brought people together was an assumed political congruence. The lack of unity on culture and politics has been exposed by events.
Read More
Related Posts:

Successfully navigating the challenges of exile flows from faith in God’s sovereignty, confidence in our identity as his people, and a determination to remain loyal to him. Outwardly we might look identical to the world, as Daniel and his friends looked identical to the other young men taken into the king’s service, but inwardly we are set apart. Subsequent challenges will expose the uncompromised ultimate loyalty to God that has been there all along.

The Book of Daniel is a handbook for the people of God in exile. It covers the long service of Daniel to Babylonian and Persian rulers from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus. He and his compatriots face severe trials and threats, and yet stand firm in their faith and loyalty to the God of Israel. They witness to him and commend him to their pagan masters. The result is that Israel is ultimately able to return from exile to their land, finally cured of their addiction to idolatry and syncretism. They have learned that the LORD is the sovereign God who holds history and human kingdoms in his hands.
The foundations for this lifetime of faithfulness, service and witness are laid in Daniel 1, where the themes that dominate the book emerge. Chapter 1 shows that God is sovereign, that his people must remain loyal to him and that he will bless them if they do so.
The book begins with Nebuchadnezzar besieging Jerusalem at the time of King Jehoiakim, plundering some of the articles from the temple & deporting some of the young men from the royal family and aristocracy.
It is hard to fully grasp what this must have meant for Daniel and his friends. Their God had seemingly failed them. They were effectively enslaved by the Babylonian king. They were likely made eunuchs to serve in his administration.
However, right at the beginning of the book it is made clear that the LORD was sovereign over this defeat and deportation (1v2). It was the LORD who gave Nebuchadnezzar his victory over Jehoiakim. Nothing happens that is outside of his sovereign purpose. Despite appearances, Nebuchadnezzar is not the one who is in control. His gods are not triumphing over the God of Israel. This is the fundamental theological truth that runs through the book. It is its primary message, from which everything else flows.
Having brought Daniel and his friends into his service, Nebuchadnezzar demands that they be assimilated into Babylonian culture.
Read More
Related Posts:

The fact that we are able to express the faith that justifies is only a consequence of the fact that we have been regenerated from spiritual death. The ordo salutis needs to shape our theological understanding of salvation. The emphasis on creation-new creation also highlights the sovereignty of God in salvation. It anchors and grounds the doctrine of predestination in Ephesians.

One of the things I had not noticed before in Ephesians is the importance of the creation-new creation dynamic. It comes at significant points in the letter. 
1v4 – God’s election of his people before the creation of the world 
2v9 – salvation (=from spiritual death to resurrection life) is new creation in Christ Jesus 
2v15 – unity of Jews and Gentiles in the church is the creation of a new humanity in Christ 
3v9 – God’s eternal plan to unite Jesus and Gentiles in Christ was from eternity before he created all things 
4v24 – the Christian life is a process of putting on the new self re-created to be in the image of God in true righteousness and holiness 
5v30 – the pattern for submission between husbands and wives is rooted in the original good creation and reflects God’s eternal purpose that the church as wife of Christ will submit to her loving husband 
Read More
Related Posts:

The Christian life is not about gaining more blessing, but entering more deeply into the reality of the blessing we already have, and living in the light of it. Paul’s response is thanksgiving and prayer. Thanksgiving for what God has done for us and prayer that we may have every greater knowledge of God.

This morning I was reading Ephesians 1 in my personal devotions. This is one of the most glorious passages in the Bible and my personal favourite. It is what I come back to time and again when I want assurance and encouragement.
It reminds us of the objective fact that we are blessed in Christ. Not just slightly blessed but fully blessed. We may not feel this, but the reason is because we tend to focus on present material comfort, or tangible ministry successes, as the sign of God’s blessing, whereas Ephesians reminds us our blessings are spiritual and heavenly. They are present but look ahead to our eschatological future.
Broadly there are 4 key blessings – each with an outcome.
We have been chosen from eternity. This results in our adoption as God’s sons. A secure status in him.
We have been redeemed. This results in being set free from sin – both forgiveness and release from its power.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Bible God has given us, and commanded us to teach our kids, does not shy away from reality. God’s plan is not for us to try to preserve childhood innocence for as long as possible. Our children are not innocent, and innocence doesn’t prepare them for life in this world.

Last week Utah banned the Bible from primary schools on the grounds that it is violent and vulgar. How should we respond to this as Christians?
The Bible is without a doubt a book that is full of vulgarity and violence, together with graphic sexual details and imagery. If it were made into a film true to the visual imagery used it would be X-rated and many Christians would regard it as pornographic. It would be a video nasty attracting the ire of Mary Whitehouse for sure.
It is an interesting exercise to consider which stories are left out of children’s Bibles/story books. They are usually a sanitised cannon within a cannon. What is said plainly in Scripture is conveyed euphemistically. The worst stories are left out. Judgment is downplayed or rendered sentimental (I have never understood why Noah and the Flood are so popular when it involves mass death!). There is usually no place for the Song of Songs, the Epistles, Sodom and Gomorrah, Judah and Tamar etc. There is little of the law included (except the 10 Commandments with adultery sanitised) or the details of the law, much of which has to do with sexual behaviour.
The real question is whether God intends this to be kept from children. I suspect that we are shaped more by a romantic vision of childhood that owes more to Rousseau than Scripture, and Victorian notions of childhood innocence. In most of the world, and certainly, in Bible times, children were familiar with harsh reality and the simple ‘facts of life’ from a much earlier age. After all, families shared a single room and yet there were multiple children! Kids on farms know a lot about sex.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Bible treats the issue of human sexuality as one of primary importance. It is a salvation issue. Those who practice, teach and encourage sexual sin of any kind without repentance are in great eternal danger. This is not simply an issue of differing interpretation between brothers and sisters in Christ. It is not something on which we can agree to disagree and yet remain in fellowship. If we are to stand firm for the truth of the gospel in our generation, we need to first recognise the nature of the issue at stake. We need to undertake theological triage and treat the issue of human sexuality with the seriousness that it deserves.

There is no greater internal challenge facing the church in the UK than the pressure to revise the orthodox historic teaching on human sexuality and accept and affirm same-sex relationships. Some denominations have already decided to perform or bless same-sex marriages, including the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, and the United Reformed Church. The Baptist Union still formally upholds the biblical understanding of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual relationship but allows individual churches to perform same-sex marriages if they wish. The Church of England is in a lengthy process of consultation and deliberation (Living in Love and Faith) as to whether to allow gay marriage, and five bishops recently broke cover to demand that the church revise its teaching and practice to allow same-sex marriages. The Bishop of Oxford reiterated his support for same-sex marriage, and his re-reading of Scripture to justify this, in an article in the Telegraph on Saturday. 
In essence, those who want to change the teaching and practice of the church take the view that loving homosexual partnerships are pleasing to God and ought to be celebrated and affirmed. They argue that the Biblical teaching condemning homosexual practice is either limited to abusive homosexual sex and does not prohibit same-sex relationships akin to marriage, or that the Bible’s teaching has been superseded in the present day, either by extrapolation of a claimed ‘redemptive trajectory’ or the assertion that in the light of developments in science, psychology and societal attitudes the Holy Spirit is saying something different to the church today from what he said in the Scriptures when they were first written. Some of those making these arguments claim to be evangelicals committed to the authority of Scripture, such as Steve Chalke and Jayne Ozanne.
I will not provide a comprehensive rebuttal of these arguments in this post. Suffice it to say that the idea that the Biblical passages condemning homosexual sex are confined to abusive relationships has been discredited by scholars of all theological persuasions. The Bible consistently teaches from Genesis to Revelation that sex was given by God exclusively for heterosexual marriage, which was created for the procreation of children and the modeling of the eternal relationship between Christ and his church, not merely for the psychological wholeness or personal fulfillment of men and women. There is no ‘redemptive trajectory’ argument that could be applied to homosexual relationships because redemption restores God’s good creation. The abolition of slavery cannot be equated with gay marriage because there was no slavery in pre-fall creation. Homosexuality was never part of the original good creation, as Romans 1v24-27 makes clear. The idea that the Holy Spirit is saying something different to the church today would be to entirely undermine the doctrine of Scripture and to claim that God is either a liar or a being who changes his mind about sin.
My purpose is this post is rather to argue for the significance of this issue. I am increasingly convinced that the affirmation of the biblical teaching on human sexuality is a primary issue, not a secondary issue over which honest Christians may disagree in interpretation and conscience. It is not in the same category as many ‘disputable matters’ that evangelicals are used to treating as ‘secondary,’ for example issues such as baptism, church government, eschatology, women’s ministry, charismatic gifts, etc. Over such issues, it is possible to disagree without breaking fellowship, as the disagreement does not indicate that a person cannot be accepted as a believer in the Lord Jesus. Such issues may be of ecclesiological importance, but they are not determinative of soteriology, in contrast to issues such as the deity of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and justification by faith alone, which are essential to salvation.
In several major talks this year I have made the assertion that the issue of human sexuality is a primary issue, with consequences for how we view those who seek to argue for the acceptance and affirmation of same-sex relationships in the church. I made my views clear in my plenary talk at the European Leadership Forum in May, on ‘What is an Evangelical,’ and in my Keswick Lecture at the Keswick Convention in July. I made the same assertion at the recent FIEC Leaders’ Conference preaching fromJude v1-16.
These are the reasons why I think that human sexuality is a primary gospel issue, and the implications that should flow from this:
1 The New Testament states that it is a primary salvation issue.
The only reason for believing that homosexuality is a primary gospel issue is because this is the way that the New Testament treats it. To be more precise, the New Testament makes clear that a person who commits sexual sin without repentance, believing it to be morally good and acceptable to God, thereby showing that they are outside the Kingdom of God. Their behaviour is to be taken as categorical evidence that they are not converted believers in the Lord Jesus and have no right to bear the name of ‘Christian.’ They are either unbelievers or apostates who have fallen from their profession of faith.
The principle that high-handed (ie proud and unrepented) sexual sin disqualifies from the Kingdom of God is thus true of all sexual sin, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Some of the New Testament references refer to ‘sexual immorality’ in a broad sense, which includes homosexual sex, but other references explicitly state that homosexual sex disqualifies a person from the Kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5v3-7 states:
‘But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.’
In these verses, Paul makes quite clear that people who profess to be Christians with their lips but practice sexual immorality with their bodies without repentance have no inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ. They are those who say ‘Lord, Lord’ about Jesus but who do not truly know him, and he will cast them into judgment as evil doers. The gospel does not just forgive our sins but delivers us from our sins. A person who continues to sin sexually after conversion without repentance, sorrow, grief, and efforts to resist future temptation is showing that they are not truly regenerated. They remain dead in their trespasses and sins.
Revelation 21v6-8 makes exactly the same point, contrasting those who will enter the new creation because they have maintained their faith in Christ with those who have continued to live a life of sin:
‘He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.”
In exactly the same way as Ephesians 5v5, Revelation 21v8 makes clear that those who unrepentantly continue in sexual sin, which includes homosexual practice, will be cast into judgement rather than enter the kingdom. Those who ‘live in sin’ can have no hope of living in the eschatological Kingdom of God – unless they repent and turn from their sin.
In 1 Corinthians 6, the exclusion of those who continue in homosexual sex without repentance from the Kingdom of God is made explicit. The wider context concerns a case of high-handed heterosexual sin committed by a man who is proud of what he is doing and who refuses to repent. In 1 Corinthians 6v9-10 Paul states that his sin, and the sins of others who are unrepentant, will exclude them from the Kingdom:
‘Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.’
Paul could not be clearer. Men who continue to have sex with other men without repentance are excluded from the Kingdom of God.
Read More
Related Posts: