Written by Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley |
Friday, September 13, 2024
One of the most beautiful ways in which God’s Word describes the church is through vivid metaphors that illuminate the identity and corporate life of the church in union with Christ. Some of these metaphors, such as Christ’s bride and body, are so familiar to Christians that we often fail to think about the amazing implications that such images have for the church. Other metaphors are less well known but also are worthy of our attention and meditation.

There is a richness to the church that defies human comprehension. God draws from a treasury of terms to describe his magnum opus, including words related to the family (seed, sons, and brethren), the gathering of worshipers (assembly, congregation, and church), the identity of a distinct group (people and nation), the holiness of his people (saints and priests), the divine cause of their existence (the elect, called, and faithful), their submissive allegiance to Christ (disciples), and God’s great love for them (special treasure and inheritance).
One of the most beautiful ways in which God’s Word describes the church is through vivid metaphors that illuminate the identity and corporate life of the church in union with Christ. Some of these metaphors, such as Christ’s bride and body, are so familiar to Christians that we often fail to think about the amazing implications that such images have for the church. Other metaphors are less well known but also are worthy of our attention and meditation.
1. A Flock
One of the oldest metaphors for the church is the flock of God. A flock of sheep depends on a shepherd for guidance, provision, and protection. Jacob blessed Joseph in the name of “the God who has been my shepherd [ra‘ah] all my life long” (Gen. 48:15 ESV; cf. 49:24). The Lord is the “Shepherd of Israel,” who leads his people “like a flock.”1 Hence, David says, “The Lord is my shepherd” (Ps. 23:1). Israel also had human “shepherds,” sometimes translated as “pastors,” especially the kings from the house of David.2 When God’s people lack a qualified leader, they are “sheep” without a “shepherd.”3 The Lord brought David from tending his father’s sheep to “feed” (ra‘ah) or “shepherd” the people of God (Ps. 78:70–72). Hence, we see that the shepherd-flock metaphor is deeply rooted in God’s covenantal promises to the patriarchs, the nation of Israel, and David. This was another way of saying that he would be their God and they would be his people through his appointed king.
With the incarnation of the Lord, the flock of God becomes centered on Christ and defined by its dependence on him. Christ is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11–15). He is also “the door of the sheep,” through which they find salvation and life (John 10:1–10). Christ says he came for the “lost sheep” of Israel (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; cf. Jer. 50:6). His disciples are his “little flock,” to whom the Father gives the kingdom (Luke 12:32). His love for sinners is like that of a shepherd seeking lost sheep (Luke 15:4–7), and the church should seek people who go astray (Matt. 18:12–13). His death is not the end; he takes up his life again and calls his sheep from inside and outside Israel to make one flock (John 18:16–18).
2. A Garden, Vineyard, or Field
Agricultural metaphors, such as garden, vineyard, and field, communicate that the church flourishes by God’s blessing and must bear good fruit. Isaiah told a parable in which “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,” and though God gave his vineyard every advantage, it produced oppression instead of the fruit of justice (Isa. 5:1–7).4 Christ tells his own parable of the vineyard, in which the tenants mistreat the owner’s servants and kill his son rather than render up the fruit they owe him (Matt. 21:33–41). Christ’s application is sobering: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. 21:43). The identity of this fruitful “nation” is revealed in Christ’s parable of “the true vine,” in which he says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:1, 5). Christ claims to embody the true Israel, in which no one can participate except by union and communion with him.5
The image of God’s people as a living, botanical organism shows us the unity of the church through the ages. The prophets spoke of Israel as an “olive tree” (Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6). Paul compares God’s people to an olive tree in which both “root” and “branches” are “holy” to God (Rom. 11:16). When some of Abraham’s physical offspring rejected Christ in unbelief, these “branches” were “broken off” by God, but he grafted new branches, Gentiles, into the same tree, warning them, too, that they would remain only by faith (Rom. 11:17–24). Though many Jews presently do not believe in Christ, God is able to graft them into the tree when they turn to the Lord in faith (Rom. 11:23). There is one tree, one people of God, rooted in the patriarchs and including all who believe in Christ alone for salvation.
Paul describes the church as a field cultivated by the ministry of the Word: “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6–7). Paul explains, “You are God’s field” (1 Cor. 3:9 ESV).6 The lesson is that preachers, like servants hired by a farmer, are responsible to work faithfully but only God can cause the church to grow by his grace.
3. A City, Jerusalem, or Zion
From the beginning of David’s monarchy, Jerusalem, also called the city of David or “Zion,”7 had a central place in God’s plan.8 Solomon built God’s house there according to the Lord’s covenant with David (2 Sam. 7:4–17), which itself was a partial fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel (2 Sam. 7:23–27). In Scripture, the city can represent the whole people of God.9 For the prophets, Zion became the focal point of Israel’s hope, symbolizing the redeemed and faithful people of God who enjoy his presence and serve his purpose to influence the world.10
Read More
Related Posts:

While “The Forge” deserves credit for wanting to address the real problems of struggling men and boys, it fails to speak to the very people it says it wants to help. Christian parents of such boys would be better off passing on this movie and following other sources for their boys, and following the example of the movie’s Cynthia by praying for them instead.

(REVIEW) The focus of “The Forge” on the modern plight of young men in society is laudable. But the film’s inability to empathize with these men, or offer a compelling vision for their lives, will turn them away from Christianity more than draw them to it.
Before we had the Erwin Brothers (“I Can Only Imagine”) or Dallas Jenkins (“The Chosen”), the undisputed kings of the faith-based film industry were the Kendrick Brothers. With films like “Facing the Giants” and “Fireproof,” Alex and Stephen Kendrick were Christian household names throughout the 2010s. At their height, The Kendricks’ movie “War Room” was No. 1 at the American box office.
The Kendrick Brothers films pioneered the “faith-based inspirational drama” that still defines the Christian film industry to this day. Their films would typically center on a social issue, whether it was marriage (“Fireproof” and “War Room”), fatherhood (“Courageous”) or abortion (“Lifemark”).
READ: Christian Movies A Useful Tool When It Comes To Discipleship And Evangelism
They would then have a character preach the gospel to the protagonist dealing with that problem and show them that the answer was to repent and make Jesus Christ their lord and savior. The Kendrick films were often accused — I think rightly — of being more sermons than movies. But there was no denying their popularity within Christian circles. Even now, with them being eclipsed by more popular Christian filmmakers, they still have a loyal audience.
Now, with their latest film, “The Forge,” the Kendrick brothers turn their attention to a social issue that has dominated social media in recent years: The boy crisis.
“The Forge” follows Isaiah, a high school graduate living at home with his mom, Cynthia (Priscilla C. Shirer, playing the sister of her character from “War Room”), with no plans for the future. After his mom threatens to start charging him rent to live there, Isaiah is taken under the wing by a man who promises to help him become the man God is calling him to be.
The film deserves credit for tackling the problems of wayward young men. Men in our society are falling behind in school, dropping out of the workforce, abandoning marriage and parenthood and increasingly ending their lives. So it’s great to see faith-based industry films trying to address helping men achieve their potential. Furthermore, the empathy shown to moms of such sons is vivid, with Cynthia struggling with wanting the best for her son but being unable to draw it out of him because she’s not a man and “it’s hard for a woman to call out the man in her son.”
The scenes where she responds by seeking support from her friends and praying to God about it together are honest and heartfelt. And when her son does turn around, her shock and gratitude for how God has turned things around is genuinely moving. Once again, the faith-based film industry does a great job of giving a far-too-rare voice to the experiences of Christian moms.
But therein lies the problem. This is clearly not a movie for the men who are lost; this is a movie for their moms. Worse, it’s a movie that will probably not inspire lost men to turn around, but rather push them further away.
The film largely ignores putting us in Isaiah’s point of view or understanding his perspective. The movie starts out with a parade of scenes where Isaiah is a stereotypically frustrating young man. He plays video games instead of doing his chores or looking for a job. He rolls his eyes at his mom when she confronts him and whines when she threatens to charge him rent. He obnoxiously tries to hit on a girl at a coffee shop and is disrespectful to her dad. Each of these scenes ends with an eye roll or a lecture from the adults in the room, whether that’s his mom, the coffee girl’s father or an office receptionist.
Why does Isaiah play so many video games? Why does he have so little ambition? Why doesn’t he listen to his mom? The film either ignores those questions or reduces them to “because his dad left” without digging much deeper.
The thing is, we have pretty good information on why men today are struggling. Dr. Jonathan Haidt points out in “The Anxious Generation ” that overprotectiveness of children has undercuts boys’ confidence growing up by keeping them from going on adventures without supervision — which they can’t gain confidence without having.
Schools reward girls’ natural sit-still-and-listen style of learning while punishing boys’ active, hands-on learning style, as The American Psychological Association points out. Add that to men feeling stigmatized for their masculinity, as Dr. Richard Reeves’s book “Of Boys and Men” unpacks, and many men don’t see the point of trying to succeed.
Read More
Related Posts:

Grace turns boasting upside down. When we live according to God’s grace (and especially according to His gift of salvation in Christ), we recognize that everything we have is a gift from God (1 Cor. 4:7); we can do nothing on our own (John 15:5); weakness is the way of strength (2 Cor. 12:10); all things work together for good for those who love God (Rom. 8:28); we live by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7); and whatever we do, we do for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

So much of our trouble in the Christian life involves the use of possessive pronouns. J.C. Ryle wrote in his Expository Thoughts on Mark: “The life of Christianity . . . consists in possessive pronouns. It is one thing to say ‘Christ is a Savior.’ It is quite another to say ‘He is my Savior and my Lord.’” In other words, everything we need for the Christian life is found in being able to speak about Jesus with possessive pronouns. But at the same time, we also get ourselves into trouble when we use possessive pronouns in other ways. We talk about my plans and my time and my rights, and we set ourselves up for disappointment and dissatisfaction when things don’t go our way. It is the problem of presumption, and at the heart of it is the old, stubborn struggle against pride.

Presumption is not a new problem. When the Apostle James wrote to Christians living in the first century, he warned them about dangers that continue to plague Christians in the twenty-first century—dangers such as a sharp tongue and a materialistic lifestyle and boasting about the future. James wrote:
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”—yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. (James 4:13–16)
Read More

Related Posts:

At times it may be necessary for me to vote for a better pro-choice candidate in order to avoid the election of a worse one and the dire consequences that would ensue. However, were I to cast such a vote, I would feel compelled to contact the candidate, explain that I am voting for him in spite of his position on life, and urge him to reconsider it, seeing that it is dangerously wrong. However, my decision in this matter may different from my neighbor’s. Each of us is shut up to the Ruler and Judge of men and nations. Let us therefore earnestly seek his mind, and then, having found it, vote as our conscience dictates.

Note: I recently submitted this article, in a slightly different form, to a number of media outlets and pro-life organizations. I post it here, not only to make the case that the GOP is endangering its very existence, but also to encourage Christian citizens to enter the public square and bring much-needed biblical perspective to the burning issues of the day. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth in the earth. God grant her the wisdom, ability, and courage to boldly fulfill that high calling.
___________
Before I reply to the question above, a little history is in order.
In the mid-19th century most American abolitionists had found a home in the Whig Party. But in 1852 the party leadership included a pro-slavery plank in its platform. The abolitionists bolted, and just four years later the Whig party exited American history, stage-left. It was replaced by a Republican Party dedicated to this fundamental principle: Self-evidently, it is wrong, at all times and in every place, for one person to kidnap, sell, buy, or enslave another.
It is just this stubborn adherence to principle that, for the last 50 years, has drawn millions of pro-life Americans into the GOP, which, until now, has held firmly to a similar principle: Self-evidently, it is wrong, at all times and in every place, for anyone to murder a pre-born human being by abortion.
Imagine, then, our shock and dismay, as we who are pro-life Americans watched President Trump and much of the GOP reject the historic GOP position on abortion and the sanctity of human life.
The litany of the President’s statements to this effect is depressingly familiar. He has told us that the SCOTUS got it right: abortion is a 10th Amendment issue properly left to the states and the (diverse and ever-shifting) will of the voters.1 Though he personally opposes late term abortions, he is fine with letting blue states permit them, even up to birth. He thinks current abortion law in Florida (and some 15 other states) is too restrictive (6 weeks). He has pledged not to sign any federal law restricting abortion. He states that his administration will be “great for reproductive rights”. Professing love for wanted babies, he is keen on in-vitro fertilization, an enterprise fraught with moral hazard and inevitable manslaughter; as for unwanted babies, they are on their own. Perhaps most disturbingly, he and his surrogates surreptitiously marginalized pro-life members of the GOP Platform Committee in order to eviscerate the party’s deeply principled, highly detailed, and longstanding pro-life plank. Alas, all too many Republicans, fearing election loss, have fallen in line.
But might this much-lamented pivot to a pro-choice stance on abortion lead—Whig-like—to the death of the GOP? For the following four reasons, I would answer yes.
1. It forfeits the blessing of God and courts his judgment. Christians believe that righteousness exalts a nation, but that sin is a shame to any people (Proverbs 14:34). They believe that God will honor those who honor him, especially if they do so by defending the helpless victims of oppression and violence (1 Samuel 2:30; Proverbs 24:11-12). They believe that the primary purpose of government is to promulgate and administer God’s law (Romans 13), and that his law includes, as a high priority, solemn sanctions against murder (Genesis 9:5-7: Exodus 20:13). They also believe that abortion is a form of murder, that deep-down everyone knows it, and that when any citizen, candidate, judge, party, legislature, or nation suppress such knowledge in unrighteousness, they are courting God’s judgment (Romans 1).
But one needn’t be a Christian to see all this. Thomas Jefferson, a deist who committed the new nation to the self-evident “laws of nature and nature’s God,” solemnly warned Americans that God is just, and that his justice will not sleep forever. Surely events have proven him right. Observe the (post-Roe) decay of our national character, culture, unity, institutions, public policy, economy, military readiness, and standing in the world. Is this not the hand of Almighty God, withdrawing his favor? But in view of 60 million deaths by abortion, one is compelled to ask: What has kept God’s hand from destroying us altogether?
Read More
Related Posts:

Missions is the invitation to participate in the gospel’s advance around the world. It’s the privilege to see God’s Word at work. But you don’t have to leave your country to see and participate in its powerful effect. We might be discouraged when we experience resistance to our witness from family, friends, and society. But the stories of the gospel’s spread in hard places should embolden us to continue sharing the gospel. 

A car pulled up beside me as I briskly walked down a street in East Asia. The driver said, “Get in.” I hesitated a moment. Who was this telling me to get in the car? What would happen if I did? I looked at my translator. She motioned for me to get in. She knew what was happening. Still a little unsure, I opened the car door and sat down.
I was in this country to explore the possibilities of gospel work among an ethnic minority. The government was hard at work to hinder the church’s spread in this region, and it was especially strict with minority groups.
Around the world, resistance to the gospel takes many forms. Governments, religious leaders, extremists, and even family members seek to hinder its advance. The repression can be subtle or intensely violent. But whatever the severity of the persecution, God’s Word isn’t bound. It continues unhindered.
Unhindered Gospel
The book of Acts concludes with Paul under house arrest in Rome, waiting for his trial. Luke, the author of Acts, wanted the reader to see through Paul’s imprisonment and chains. He ends the book with the word “unhindered” (28:31, NASB). Despite resistance and persecution, the gospel spread throughout the known world in the span of one generation. 
This last word in Acts describes the progress of the gospel to the present day. No matter where the resistance or persecution comes from—government, society and family, or local religions—the gospel spreads unhindered.
1. Governmental Repression
When I got in the car that night in East Asia, I was relieved to find out the driver wasn’t an undercover policeman. He was a local pastor. As we drove, he explained the daily pressures his congregation faced from the government. He’d been interrogated and harassed by authorities many times.
You can imagine my surprise when the pastor explained to me through the translator, “Of all the Puritans, the most important to us were those who traveled together on the Mayflower.” The Pilgrims who braved the Atlantic for religious liberty were his heroes. He resonated with their desire to worship God in freedom.
We drove for about an hour to a forested area beyond the reach of surveillance. Worshiping in the woods allowed a measure of freedom. We waited there until church members began to join us.
Read More
Related Posts:

Christian, you don’t belong in this world — how often do you consider that? Do you openly acknowledge it, and make plain through speech, that you seek a homeland (Hebrews 11:13–14)? And does the hope of home, the glory of home, the God who is your home, equip you to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against your soul?

Then it came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said, and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house, he would sell me for a slave. (The Pilgrim’s Progress)
These words from Faithful still expose the sweet talk of the old self. We need the Holy Spirit to bring it hot to mind: whatever our lusts promise, however they compliment, when they get us home, they mean to throw us in a pit and sell us for a slave.
The apostle Peter rings the alarm: “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (1 Peter 2:11). For somebody to assault your body is treacherous enough, but here we find an assault on the soul — and that by our own mutinous passions. Peter pleads, Don’t embrace your soul’s murderer; don’t welcome your soul’s foe through the front gates. These are compelling entreaties for anyone who knows what a soul is. One assumes that discovering our flesh with soul-daggers up its sleeves would be enough to motivate any reasonable person to mandate pat downs at the gates. But then again, we are not always reasonable.
Weaponized Hope
The liquor of sin makes us drunk and stupid. Sin crouches at the door, and its desire is for us. How adamant its demands, how loud its knockings, how dear and costly and bloody the necessary resistance — “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell” (Matthew 5:30).
With such a seductive tyrant, Peter sends another mighty reason to defend the gate, one easy to overlook: “Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul.” He does not appeal to us as farmers or carpenters or even as soldiers; he implores the church to kill sin based on our identity as pilgrims and outcasts. Refuse the world’s lusts as a people of the Spirit, a people not of this world, a people not yet home. Heaven’s joys will slay earth’s sins.
Has your heavenly hope ever reached its blade down to earth and stabbed your strongest temptations? Peter wants you to wield your heavenly citizenship; he wants your heavenly home and future to fill the skies with swords that everywhere reach down and behead the lusts of the flesh. “Christian,” Peter urges, “this world is not safe for you — its passions deceive, its pleasures enslave, its glories will perish. Our feet are not yet in Zion. The world and all its desires are passing away, sinking like a cannon-torn ship into the abyss. If you allow them, the appetites of the old you will fasten you to the deck.”
But Peter also reminds us that a paradise awaits the faithful: a place you half-expect is too good to be real, with a Person you only half-believe will sit you at his table and serve you after all you’ve done (Luke 12:37). But the grace of our Lord is not like man’s, and he has prepared a place, solely from his good pleasure, for us who receive the kingdom. And he sends his apostle with a message: “Beloved, as sojourners and exiles, ready any minute to be called away to feast at my table, make war against that which makes war against your future with me.”
Moses, an Illustration
Isn’t Moses a vibrant example for us? The author of Hebrews thought so.
Read More
Related Posts:

Understanding how language works is crucial here. Learning about figurative language is necessary. Related to this is another figure of speech known as hyperbole. This too is found throughout Scripture. As I stated several years ago: The use of hyperbole has to do with overstatement or exaggeration for special effect. Proverbs, poetry and prophecy especially use this often. It helps the author to convey feelings and emotion.

Have you ever posted something on the social media, say, a powerful quote from a great Christian, only to get some believers complaining about it? You are trying to encourage and edify and stir up other Christians but some folks will come along and pick a fight over it.
They will say things like this: “You should not exaggerate.” “Don’t stereotype things or people.” “You need to stop making so many generalisations.” “Not every Christian does that.” “Not all churches are this bad.” We have all heard words of warning or rebuke like this before. And quite often, such words are correct and necessary.
Generally speaking, it is not helpful to exaggerate, to stereotype, or to generalise. But sometimes, actually, it is right and proper to do all three things! Indeed, we not only find all three used quite often in the Bible, but by any number of great Christian preachers and teachers.
These are forms of literary devices. They are aspects of figurative language. And they are all things found on the lips of Jesus, the prophets, the disciples, and many others. I have written about these matters before, but I find that I need to revisit the topic now and then.
And that is because I often come across those who dislike it when they find examples of this, and this is usually because they do not understand how figurative language works, and how effective these literary devices can be. This happened to me again recently on the social media, so I wrote this in response to one person:
As I have written before, it is quite customary of all prophetic voices, even the biblical prophets, to do just that: to use generalizations. It is a literary device to give greater effect. Which sounds better and will have a greater impact, A or B?

A “Snakes! Brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell?”
B. “Um, I do not want to sound harsh here, but some of you – not all of you – are not really very nice people. Some of you are a little bit like certain animals. And it is possible that maybe some of you might go to a place that is not heaven. But I don’t want to appear judgmental here.”

Jesus and the prophets would have no prophetic voice at all if they allowed their words to die the death of a thousand qualifications. So there actually IS a place for generalisations and the like. Comprende?
My example may not be the best way to present this, but I think you get my drift. The prophets used such strong language all the time, and that included plenty of generalisations, and plenty of cases where everyone was included.
As I wrote ten years ago:
‘The church is in a mess.’ ‘We have cowards in the pulpits.’ ‘There is rampant sin in the pews.’ ‘Believers have lost their backbone.’ I and others are often making statements like this. They are all-inclusive or stereotypical statements. Examples of this are legion of course. I might say any number of things which use rhetorical devices of all-inclusion or generalisation:

-we have become slaves to the world-where are all the men of faith?-God’s people love the world more than God-we are nothing like the New Testament church-we are in great need of repentance-why are we so far from where Christ wants us to be?

Does that mean I or others believe there are no true believers or churches anywhere? Of course not. We are using deliberately strong language to make a point – and to also include ourselves in such warnings or concerns. We all know (did I just make another all-inclusive claim?) that God is at work in the world and many good things are happening. But we also realise there are many problems.
Read More
Related Posts:

Count the cost. Don’t be naive. You could have a mass exodus of close friends leaving the church. The church could split. You could get fired. Any number of things could happen, so it is best to be prepared for anything. Prepare your own soul. Meditate on Matthew 5:11–12 and the book of 1 Peter. Pray that God will strengthen you to “suffer for doing good” (1 Pet. 3:17). Read memoirs and biographies of your Christian heroes who courageously endured great trials. Acknowledge your own errors. If you’ve changed your view on something (or many things), acknowledge them publicly. Don’t be afraid of saying, “I used to think X, but now I’ve come to believe Y. Let me show you from Scripture how I came to this conclusion.” 

Over the past ten years or so, pastors have navigated some of the most morally complicated and emotionally turbulent ministry environments they’ve ever experienced. The world has changed around us in unprecedented ways that we’ve only just begun to comprehend.
One of the most helpful explanations of these cultural changes is the “Three Worlds of Evangelicalism” rubric proposed by Aaron Renn. His core observation, which began as an essay and later developed into a book, is that American society has grown increasingly hostile towards Christianity. Christianity was once regarded as a positive good for society by Christians and non-Christians alike. Renn calls this “positive world.” As the new millennia approached, that perception softened as Christianity was demoted in favor of a pluralistic “marketplace of ideas.” Renn calls this “neutral world.” But from around 2015 onward, our society’s view of Christianity has turned decidedly dark. Renn calls this “negative world.”
This simple formulation has great explanatory power to comprehend the immense ministry pressure modern pastors face, many of whom were trained in “neutral world” ministry tools that have become obsolete in the “negative world” we now occupy. This is not some abstract sociological phenomenon for professors to discuss in the faculty lounge. Nor is this merely an online phenomenon where keyboard warriors spar on social media about controversies that will blow over when a new controversy erupts. It’s much more practical and personal than that.
Whether we want to accept it or not, the “negative world” of 2024 is not the same as the “neutral world” of 2004. Every pastor must unflinchingly reckon with this new reality, though many will not be inclined to do so. Why?
The Challenge
Busy pastors have little time or interest in keeping up with the latest cultural trends or evangelical gossip. That’s what “discernment bloggers” spend all their time worrying about. But ordinary pastors I know don’t care about that stuff. It seems petty and immature. They want to preach the Bible, share the gospel, and disciple their people.
Besides, cultural discernment seems best left to the niche specialists who pay more attention to social trends than everyone else. Most pastors don’t have the time or energy to figure out how to “understand the times” like the men of Issachar (1 Chron. 12:32). It can be tedious trying to pay attention to who’s saying what, what they are saying, what they are refusing to say, and who they are associated with.
Many pastors are beginning to awaken to the cold, hard realities of the negative world. Bad ideas travel at lightning speed through the Christian subculture faster than pastors can keep up. Influential Christian thinkers are no longer seminary professors or experienced ministry practitioners. Now, the most influential Christian thought leaders often have zero theological or biblical training. Instead, they have an iPhone and charisma. Their ideas trickle down from social media channels to your small groups and Sunday school classes. The most pressing doctrinal issues of our day are framed more by influencers than those who have dedicated their lives to rigorous theological study. Ordinary people in our churches read their social media posts, listen to their podcasts, and watch their TikToks. Allie Beth Stuckey, a 32-year-old Christian influencer and social media star, probably has as much influence over the minds of Christian women as their pastors.
Observant pastors try to maintain a bird’s eye view of their congregations. They notice certain trends that play out in the lives of their people, such as those who demanded masks and jabs during COVID, who supported #blacklivesmatter by turning their profile pictures into black squares on Facebook, and an alarming number of kids in the youth group claiming to be gay or trans.
As a pastor begins to realize that something has radically shifted in our culture, it hits him hard. This is his “men of Issachar” moment, where the sober fact dawns that his ministry world has been turned upside down. The state of the world is much darker than he’d realized before, and he can no longer afford to pretend otherwise.
I’ve been through this and heard similar testimonies from more pastors than I can count. One pastor said, “As the world got crazier, my thinking got clearer.” He realized that naiveté was a luxury he could not afford. God called him to “shepherd the flock of God,” and their souls were at stake. He could not allow himself to be naïve, turning a blind eye towards the evil as it encroached upon his people. He was becoming more sober-minded, choosing to courageously face unpleasant ministry realities.
He is now a pastor who, after recognizing the “negative world, realizes he is leading a church that still thinks it is in the “neutral world.” He needs to make some changes to prepare for what lies ahead. So what should he do?
Counting the Cost
First, he realizes that if he talks about the truth of reality as he sees it and with the urgency the moment requires, his congregants could become angry, panic, and revolt. If he tells them what he really thinks, they may push back and send him packing. But if he says nothing, their errors will go uncorrected, and they’ll be left increasingly vulnerable to whatever heresy some 19-year-old kid with a YouTube account happens to be saying.
As pastors awaken to the evils that have taken hold of our society, I’ve noticed some of them becoming more vocal online. Plain-spoken boldness is a muscle they’ve not exercised in the past, but they’re hitting the weights now. As they express unpopular opinions, with the perceived requisite of great care and nuance, they are like kids at the pool checking the water by dipping their toes. The same happens in churches. Little by little, they get bolder in the pulpit, inching dangerously close to the line of controversy without crossing it.
There is a legitimate fear these pastors experience. I get it. They don’t want to be seen as unhinged provocateurs recklessly stirring up controversy. These pastors are trapped in broadly evangelical churches with anxious people who have a low threshold for conflict. The functional liberalism of some portion of the congregation is a conditioned response to the neutral world tools that formed them, such as gospel centrism, winsome third-wayism, faithful presence passivity, and punch-right-coddle-leftism. All these ministry strategies were effective at drawing left-leaning urban millennials, the most coveted demographic of the neutral world church planting boom. But now, these same left-of-center millennials are the pastor’s biggest liability. If a pastor, waking up to the importance of biblical fidelity in a negative world, crosses the line, they’ll sabotage him.
Some of the left-leaning urban millennials he reached a decade ago with neutral world tools have now become key donors, ministry leaders, and elders. Some of them are now in the prime of their careers, comfortably cocooned in their middle-class lives. He’s afraid of losing them. He wants to courageously lead and protect them, disciple them towards greater faithfulness, and equip them for the dark days ahead. But they are reluctant to change. Some of them now occupy the most visible positions of influence in the church. Anxious people crave familiarity and routine. They like their neutral world church mirage and don’t want any red-pilled pastor leading them out of it.
But these congregants don’t realize that the neutral world is gone. The negative world is here. And from how things are going, we’re headed for a clown world circus show in the years ahead.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Ben C. Dunson |
Thursday, September 12, 2024
One of the greatest benefits of explicitly stated creeds is that they protect the church from unwritten and unstated creeds. Everyone has beliefs about what the Bible teaches. But beliefs that are not publicly accessible in simple, clear, written form are not subject to public scrutiny. Furthermore, they are not open to correction because there is a denial that they even exist. “I just believe the Bible,” say some. Yes, all fine and good. But the point at issue is always: “What does the Bible mean?” Creeds provide a publicly accessible standard and safeguard in articulating a church’s official teaching. As such, they can be amended as needed. No such safeguards exist for unstated creeds that exist only in one’s mind.

It is not uncommon to hear someone within a denomination that subscribes to a specific confessional document or binding polity statement complain that their denomination is elevating human teaching above God’s word itself. This sentiment seems to be plausible to a good number of people. I encountered one version of this complaint this year at the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly. It was specifically about whether women can serve in the role of deacons. The argument, presented on the floor of the General Assembly, was that the PCA’s Book of Church Order, especially a proposed clarification being voted on at GA, is more rigid on this point than Scripture itself.
One way to defend the PCA’s confession (the Westminster Confession of Faith) or polity (the Book of Church Order) is jure divino Presbyterianism (divine right Presbyterianism), which contends, as John Lafayette Girardeau (1825–1898) put it, that “that what is not commanded, either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures, is prohibited to the church. She can utter no new doctrine, make no new laws, ordain no new forms of government, and invent no new modes of worship.” Assuming, then, that the Westminster Confession and the PCA’s Book of Church Order are truly biblical, Presbyterians are bound to strict adherence to these documents.
There is, however, another approach to defending our church’s constitutional standards. It is in many ways more prosaic and commonsense, but is also to my mind based on irrefutable logic for those who value honesty and who operate in good faith within our denomination. It is an approach that I encountered years ago in a short introductory essay to Robert Shaw’s (1795–1863) exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith by the Scottish Presbyterian pastor and seminary professor William Maxwell Hetherington (1795­–1863).
Why Creeds and Confessions?
Hetherington’s argument unfolds as follows. Because of sin the human mind is prone to error. Thus, even the simplest of statements can be understood in a large number of ways. Not all of these can be correct. Hetherington does not initially discuss the Bible. He simply notes a reality all people regularly face: a failure to agree on the meaning of some piece of written communication. A large number of people might even affirm that they agree with a given statement, but it would be impossible to know whether they are in actual agreement unless and until they explain that statement in their own words. “This,” Hetherington notes, “would be really his Creed, or Confession of Faith, respecting that truth.” If all agreed on that point in said “creed” or “confession” they would have a common confession about the meaning of the statement in question. This confession (whether actually capturing the meaning of the statement or not), if stated clearly, could then be used as the grounds for admission into a body of people who together hold that truth.
Thus far, Hetherington argues, few people would find such a process problematic. No one would be infringing on the liberty of anyone else or attempting to control their personal convictions about anything:
If any man cannot agree with the joint testimony borne by those who are agreed, this may be a cause of mutual regret; but it could neither confer on them any right to compel him to join them, contrary to his convictions, nor entitle him to complain on account of being excluded from a body of men with those opinions he did no concur. No man in strict integrity, indeed, could even wish to become one of a body of men with whom he did not agree on that peculiar point which formed the basis of their association.[2]
This is a matter of simple and basic honesty. No one forced anyone to join together unwillingly in affirming his “creed.” It was freely subscribed to by all as an agreed upon declaration of the meaning of a given statement or statements. At the same time, no one could fault the body affirming that “creed” for excluding others who do not hold to it. Why would anyone want to be a member of a body the holds to a creed they do not believe is accurate anway?
Hetherington then moves to consider these principles with regard to religious truths. It often happens that even those committed to the inerrancy and absolute authority of Scripture do not agree on what the Scriptures teach. Any number of such people, for example, might say that they affirm Paul’s teaching on deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8–13. It would be impossible to know, however, whether those people were in agreement about the meaning of that passage until they explained it in their own words.
Read More
Related Posts:

“In order to uphold our ordination vows, before God, our Father, the Lord Jesus, our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth, and to adhere to the Holy Scripture with utmost honesty and integrity and therefore obey God over the ungodly whims of hierarchal human manipulations, this new presbytery is being constituted on this day, Monday, 19 August, in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus 2024.”

On August 19, 2024, five ministers in good standing of Second Presbytery, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, gathered in Greenwood, SC, along with elder representatives from three former ARP churches to constitute Veritas Presbytery, an independent unaffiliated presbytery. These founding ministers, Tony Locke, John Paul Marr, Peter Waid, Mark Wright, and Seth Yi, took a page out of the ARP Church history books in following the pattern of the Associate Presbytery of Scotland which was organized at Gairney Bridge, near Kinross, on Dec. 6, 1733. Ebenezer Erskine, James Fisher, William Wilson, and Alexander Moncreiff seceded from the Church of Scotland and therefore were sometimes called “Seceders.”
The roots of Veritas Presbytery stem from a properly called Second Presbytery meeting on August 13, 2024, in Due West, SC. The stated purpose of the meeting as notified by the Stated Clerk, David Griffin, was to “provide for open response and any actions related to the dissolution of Second Presbytery for congregations and ministers.” During that meeting, the following motion was approved (25 Yes, 19 No) by Second Presbytery, “That Second Presbytery grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1, per FoG 9.65 and 10.3.E, K.” (Minutes pg. 1) This motion enabled congregations to be dismissed from Second Presbytery and ministers to be transferred into their respective Presbyteries with the authority of Second Presbytery.
On August 18, 2024, the Newberry, Troy, and Unity congregations at their properly called congregational meeting voted to be dismissed from Second Presbytery. From the three congregations, there was only one dissenting vote, and five abstentions. That evening, an email was sent by the respective clerks of session to Mr. Griffin notifying him of their congregation’s vote to be dismissed. The next day, a hardcopy letter of the same notice was delivered to Mr. Griffin.
Prior to the constitutional assembly on August 19, all five of the founding ministers had secured a letter of good standing from Mr. Griffin. A service of worship was conducted in which hymns were sung, Scripture read, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith 20.1-4, prayers offered, and a sermon preached on 1 Peter 5:1-4. Several items of business related to the constitution of Veritas Presbytery were accompanied. The following declaration was proclaimed:
“In order to uphold our ordination vows, before God, our Father, the Lord Jesus, our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth, and to adhere to the Holy Scripture with utmost honesty and integrity and therefore obey God over the ungodly whims of hierarchal human manipulations, this new presbytery is being constituted on this day, Monday, 19 August, in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus 2024.”
Included in the business was the reception of the Newberry, Unity, and Troy congregations into Veritas Presbytery. Elders from these congregations presented their transfer paperwork in accordance with the actions they took at their congregational meetings.
That afternoon, August 19, the newly elected Moderator, John Paul Marr, notified Mr. Griffin in writing of the five ministers’ transfer and reception into Veritas Presbytery via email and a certified letter. However, Mr. Griffin replied in an email of his unwillingness to remove these transferred ministers from the roll of Second Presbytery. He concluded by stating, “If you are not properly transferred to another ecclesiastical body by September 1, you will no longer be considered ordained.”
Similarly, Mr. Griffin sent the following email to the clerks of session of the newly received congregations. [email]
“I am writing to let you know that I received your communication regarding your congregation’s vote to leave Second Presbytery and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination. However, be advised that a Complaint has been filed against Second Presbytery’s actions, accusing Second Presbytery of violating the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I would advise you to refrain from any legal action until such time that the appropriate church court can act upon this Complaint. There may be legal ramifications given the constitutionality of your actions, based not on the action of Second Presbytery, but instead on the Standards of the ARP Church. As such, I cannot remove your congregation from the roll until such time that this matter is adjudicated.”
There has been no additional communication from Mr. Griffin or anyone else from General Synod regarding the Complaint (see Minutes above) that was filed against Second Presbytery which was dissolved on September 1.
Since its constitution, Veritas Presbytery has met on two other occasions. At those meetings, two more ministers in good standing from Second Presbytery, Jonathan Cook and Stacey Cox, were received into membership. Other ministers and elders have attended as guests where they have been allowed to ask questions about Veritas Presbytery.
Since September 1, Catawba Presbytery of the ARP Church has unilaterally assumed the role of Second Presbytery in presuming authority over the ministers and congregations of Veritas Presbytery. The State Clerk of Catawba Presbytery, Benjamin Glaser, has circulated the following email and letter to an unknown number of stated clerks of Presbyteries in SC:
Good Morning,
Pray y’all are doing well. This email serves as official correspondence from Catawba Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church to let you know that the following men in the attached letter have demitted office and are no longer to be considered ordained ministers in Christ’s church. Likewise it is the position of Catawba Presbytery and the ARPC that the congregations recognizing themselves as the “Veritas Presbytery” are in fact member churches of Catawba Presbytery and should be treated as such.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. 
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser Pastor, Bethany ARP Church Stated Clerk, Catawba Presbytery
[Attached letter]
September 3, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
Greetings in the name of our common Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This letter is to inform our NAPARC brothers that the following men have demitted their office due to their failure to transfer their credentials by the September 1st date allotted through actions of the 220th ARP General Synod in June of 2024 and are no longer to be considered ordained ministers in Christ’s Church.
Jonathan Cook, Eldredge Kelley, Peter Waid, Craig Weiberdink, Mark Wright, Seth (Soku) Yi
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at you leisure.
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser Pastor, Stated Clerk of Catawba PresbyteryJohn Barron, Moderator of Catawba Presbytery
Furthermore, Mr. Glaser mailed the following letter to the sessions of Veritas Presbytery congregations.
Good Morning,
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the pure hope of His gospel grace we greet you in the beauty of His love. Catawba Presbytery in its dedication to serve our common Savior welcomes you to the fellowship which has only been broadened in blessing to now encapsulate all of the State of South Carolina. As we seek to find ways to grow in mutual beneficence I wanted to send this letter as a word of welcome and provide you with contact information if you have need or have any particular questions when it comes to our new bond.
As part of this witness it is our duty to inform you that it is the position of Catawba Presbytery that your pulpit is considered vacant due to the failure of your pastor to follow the proper transfer procedures as provided for in submission to our Form of Government (FOG 9.62A-B, 10.3A, 10.3S). Because he has failed to maintain his ministerial credentials in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or a recognized denomination it is our understanding that he is now not an ordained minister and therefore unable to fulfill the requirements of his duties, including overseeing the sacraments. While we understand that your congregation voted to join another group, and while we have no desire to hold anyone captive, we must strive to follow the spirit of 1 Corinthians 14:40 and do all things decently and in order in the keeping of the vows we took as officers in Christ’s Church.
We look forward to working with you in order to name an interim moderator and be of help in this time of transition.
Blessings in Christ,Rev. Benjamin Glaser, Stated Clerk of Catawba PresbyteryJohn Barron, Moderator of Catawba Presbytery
Despite the proper steps that these congregations and ministers have taken in accordance with the will of Second Presbytery (at the time of action) and the ARP FoG, the Stated Clerk and Moderator of Catawba Presbytery are refusing to accept these actions and allow these congregations to live in peace. These officers are using their office to “hold captive” these congregations who were dismissed from Second Presbytery and the ARP Church. What sort of brotherly love and charity is this overreach of presumed authority? To what lengths will these men go to keep harassing these Veritas congregations? Are these men acting any differently than the PCUSA, UMC, or the Episcopal Church in trying to rule over these congregations? How is this advancing the work of Christ’s Church?
Veritas Presbytery along with her member congregations are moving forward. They desire nothing more than to focus their time, energy, and resources to advance the Kingdom of Christ. Those who are interested in learning more about Veritas Presbytery can visit https://veritaspresbytery.com or email [email protected] to communicate with our moderator.
Seth Yi is a Minister in Veritas Presbytery and is Paster of Newberry Reformed Presbyterian Church in Newberry, SC.
Related Posts: