Every one of us is now experiencing the sad effects of living in a broken world, a world where uncertainties confront us each day. This is our reality; we cannot ignore this truth and push it aside. The real question is not whether we will encounter and experience uncertainty but how we will respond to the uncertainty of the things that we encounter.

Most of you have heard the well-known saying: Nothing in life is certain except death and taxes. While there may be some certainty to this quip, much more can be said. Everyone experiences the reality of life and its uncertainties to one degree or another. Some face uncertainty in their relationships; some are uncertain whether they will be married. Some have uncertain diagnoses regarding health, whether they will continue to suffer or heal; others have uncertainty regarding employment, whether they will be able to provide for the needs of life. Some may experience the uncertainty of their own or a loved one’s salvation. When we begin each day, we are uncertain how it will end. While there are uncertainties involving our personal lives, there is also uncertainty at a community and global level. Questions about wars, riots, immigration, pandemics, and the fallout from these events are all uncertain. We will undoubtedly be affected by them. The Apostle Paul often used the expression “we know.” We, too, could use it and say, “We know that life is uncertain.” Our experiences in life are filled with uncertainties. Some people naturally focus on the uncertainties of life more than others, but none can add a day to their lives, none can predict the future, and none can guarantee the outcome.

So what is it about uncertainty that makes us uncomfortable or fearful? Part of it is that we are not in control, even though we have believed the lie—as Adam and Eve did—that said we would be in control. Our experience of suffering or happiness is connected to the outcome of our uncertainty. As long as we are able to control our environment and the outcome of things, we imagine that everything is fine. As long as our selfish hearts’ desires are satisfied, we are content.

Read More
Related Posts:

Despite the race’s fallen condition, Christians view human life as a blessing to be preserved, multiplied, and redeemed; and the human mind and spirit as resources more inexhaustible than any material we consume. We bear a certain resemblance to our Maker in that we can, in our limited and creaturely way, also create. Which is why a lack of new humans is not good news, and why I’m happy to see that some mainstream publications are starting to realize this.

For a long time, if you encountered a writer warning about declining global birth rates, it was a safe bet you were reading a right-leaning or Christian publication. But that appears to be changing. In the last couple of years, mainstream news outlets seem to have caught on that the problem civilization now faces is not too many but too few babies, and some are sounding the alarm. Recent stories in The Spectator, The New York Times, and The Washington Post all clearly describe why a shrinking and aging society is a bad thing and try to identify the causes behind this population “bust.” 
The fear of a population “bomb” haunts mainstream psyche greatly due to Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb, where he famously declared in the opening line that, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” and predicted mass starvation due to overpopulation.  
This of course never happened, and in fact, global food production vastly outpaced population growth, making it easier than ever to feed everyone. Facts aside, the baby-banning ideology persists. 
Earlier this month, The Washington Post editorial board ran a response to the surge of critical comments they’ve received on stories about declining birth rates. As anyone familiar with the comments section under controversial (or really any) articles can imagine, a litany of bad arguments had been unfolding. One commenter wrote that, “Endless growth—whether that’s of the population or the economy—is an unachievable fantasy.” Another declared, “Now is the time to reject growthist ideology for good.” Many cited climate change, overcrowding and, of course, running out of food as reasons to encourage lower birth rates.  
Read More
Related Posts:

As Christian brothers and sisters united together in Christ, we must take time to be part of each other’s lives. True fellowship means knowing each other intimately. Fellowship is not done merely over a meal but in the sometimes private areas of life such as listening to a friend in pain or hardship. It means working to know the heart of others by sincerely striving to learn about them, their families, their work, and their difficulties.

I remember growing up in the church in the late sixties and early seventies when the word “koinonia” became popular to describe the special relationship that exists among members of the body of Christ, his church. Today, this Greek word is often translated in the Bible as “sharing” (e.g., Heb. 13:6) or “fellowship” (e.g., 1 John 1:3-7). It is not used very often in Scripture, nineteen times in the New Testament, but in common usage it often finds its way into the language of the church such as naming places and events—“Fellowship” Hall, “Fellowship” Meal, and spending some time in “fellowship.”
One aspect of Christian fellowship is sharing.
Fellowship is not a word unique to Christianity though (some academic benefits are called “fellowships”). When this English word developed in the late Middle Ages it was used to describe close friendships, companionship, and unity among members of a group. But what does it mean in Christian circles where it seems to be most often used when Christians gather together? What does it mean, from a biblical perspective, to have “fellowship”? One aspect of Christian fellowship is sharing.
Sharing is an important part of Christian fellowship. As members of the body of Christ we are to be a sharing people, not only in terms of the good things of life, material things, financial benefits, meals, and hospitality, but also in suffering.
Read More
Related Posts:

Jesus notes a proverb that was just proven true. A prophet has no dishonor, except in his hometown. When a prophet goes on tour, he is applauded and respected as God’s authoritative emissary, but he comes home and gets no respect. And Jesus extends this proverb to include his relatives and his own household. This implies that his mother and siblings are not supportive of Jesus. They are ashamed of him and judge him as taboo. Our Lord forms this proverb based on the Old Testament. He claims for himself the office of prophet, and he resembles the prophets of old.

There is a sentiment going around nowadays with increasing frequency, which can be summed up as, “That offends me!” People seem to get offended at the drop of a hat as though there is no greater sin than to offend someone. If you offend someone, then you have deep moral failings and phobias that need to be acknowledged and fixed. The offender is always in the wrong, while the offended one is blameless and beyond reproach.
If someone is so easily offended, maybe the issue isn’t with others but with them. At times, it is surely wrong to be offensive, but what if there are times that it is equally problematic to be offended? And it is this line of reasoning that our Lord sets before us as he takes the weekend to visit his hometown:

[Jesus] went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands?Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.” And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief. (Mark 6:1-6)

Our Lord just raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead. A mom and dad got to hold the warm flesh of their girl, who was just moments before a cold corpse. The power of our Savior shattered the grip of death, and it tenderly hands a daughter back to her dad. Yet, Jesus is not one to let the grass grow underneath his feet. The Father sent him to be a traveling preacher, so he must continue his journey. And Mark places him next in his hometown. The approximately thirty-mile walk from the Sea of Galilee to his family estate is glossed over without event.
Nazareth was the family residence for the clan of Jesus.
We know from chapter 1 that Jesus is from Nazareth. An impure spirit even called him Jesus of Nazareth. Mark, though, is not interested in the name of this village, but he underscores that this is the fatherland of our Lord. This is where Jesus grew up, went to school, and found a job. Despite any connections his family had with Bethlehem, Nazareth is the family residence for the clan of Jesus.
Estimates put the population of Nazareth maybe as high as 1,600 in the first century, not very big, and family extended beyond just your immediate household to include cousins, aunts, and grand-parents. In a small village like this, it was not uncommon to be related to half the town. Yet, your hometown was not just about the address of where you went to elementary school. Rather, in the ancient world, your origin forecasted your destiny. Heroes hailed from prestigious locations. Insignificant hamlets gave birth to people of little consequence. Your fatherland determined your station and lot in life.
And if you attempted to advance beyond your station, it was looked upon with suspicion and contempt. A warm welcome is by no means guaranteed for our Lord. Though, as is his habit, Jesus heads to the synagogue on the Sabbath to do some teaching, and the elders are happy to let Jesus fill the pulpit for the day.
The Nazarene congregation’s response to the teaching of Jesus takes a sour turn.
The people hear Jesus’ teaching, and they are amazed and astonished. This is not a happy surprise; rather, it is disturbing and overwhelming. They are impressed—but not in a good way. Where did this man get these things?
The people of Nazareth are bothered by a gross mismatch. On the one hand, these teachings are impressive and excellent. They admit Jesus’ instruction is full of wisdom; it is astute, profound, and relayed with the confidence of an expert. Yet, how can such big words come from such a small man? Note they won’t even name Jesus. They point to him as this man and basically charge Jesus with plagiarism, with stealing intellectual property. Where did this guy get such teaching? Who gave him such wisdom? It sure couldn’t come from him!
By this question, the people actually testify against themselves. To give or grant wisdom is a biblical idiom; it is found throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament. And everywhere it appears, the clear and unambiguous answer is God. God alone is the true source and giver of wisdom. They recognize wisdom in Jesus, but they consider it unthinkable. They question not just the possibility of it, but the suitability of it. And they think the same about his mighty works. How can this guy do miracles? It just feels wrong to them.
The people think teaching is for rabbis and intellectuals, not for illiterate carpenters like Jesus.
The people of Nazareth make this clear by answering their own questions: Where did this guy get such excellent instruction? Is he not a carpenter? There is no way a carpenter should be able to teach like this. Teaching is for rabbis and intellectuals, not for illiterate carpenters. Now, the word here for carpenter is the more general word meaning smith.
The word smith refers to a craftsman, who can work with a variety of materials. In Greek sources, this word does more often refer to a craftsman of wood and lumber, a carpenter. Yet, in the Old Testament it is used for those who work with wood, stone, bronze, or iron. Jesus could be a blacksmith, a stone-mason, or a carpenter. We don’t know his preferred material.
Either way, the point of mentioning Jesus’ profession is about class; namely, the contrast between the class of smiths and that of the intellectuals. A smith would generally be illiterate, except for business dealings, while the skill of wise instruction comes from those who were wealthy and could afford fancy private schools or tutors.
The Nazarenes are affronted that Jesus exceeds and overreaches beyond his station.
Being a smith was not necessarily a shameful thing; in fact, skilled craftsmen were an important part of human capital for a city. Yet, the educated elite did look down on them, as being below them. The sophisticated nobility were too good for such labor as working with their hands, to get sweaty and a tan.
More so, if a blacksmith attempted to be a scholar, to rub shoulders with nobles, then it was dishonorable. The smith was exalting himself above his station; he was doing things not proper for him.
Read More
Related Posts:

First, we must understand how civil authorities’ policies and actions influence our world for good or ill. This obligates Christian citizens to civic awareness, banishing ignorance and acquiring an understanding of the form and function of the government under which one lives with attentiveness to its principals, principles, proposals, and proceedings. Second, we need to employ wisdom concerning how best to pray for kings, governors, and magistrates to sustain conditions where obedience to the gospel may flourish without governing officials impeding the free proclamation of the gospel. 

We Christians are bound to obey God’s Word, which instructs us to submit to civil authorities and to pray for them (see, for example, 1 Tim. 2:1–2). Within the confines of our churches, many Evangelicals respond simplistically to these directives, supposing a gulf divides Christ Jesus from public policy issues. Some leaders are quick to utter, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities”—but only to squelch intelligent and critical assessments of our current governing officials’ policies. Their public prayers for “kings and all those in authority” are vague. Their petitions are full of passive-voice verbs, unaware that they can petition the King of kings himself to turn the king’s heart “wherever he wills” (Prov. 21:1). Scripture obligates us to be responsibly informed citizens praying earnestly that the Lord God will raise up civil authorities to reward doers of good while punishing evildoers, but also that the Lord will frustrate and impede government officials whose policies and actions are contrary to God’s established created order. God’s ordained order includes our prayers as his means to incline the hearts of civil authorities to do his will.
Christians Are to be Responsibly Informed Citizens
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in the Roman Empire capital, admonishing them and us to “be subject to the governing authorities” God instituted for our good. To resist them is to resist what God has established (Rom. 13:1–2). Governing officials whom God appoints are to threaten and punish evildoers and encourage and reward doers of good. Thus, the Lord calls on Christians to be conscience-governed citizens, not merely subjects seeking to avoid God’s wrath. This requires us to be well-informed about our roles and responsibilities as citizens, regardless of the government under which we reside. This active engagement is crucial, and it excludes uninformed detachment and passivity. Included in obeying God concerning governments are paying taxes and honoring the dignity of the office civil authorities occupy (Rom. 13:3–7). As John Calvin affirms, we are obligated “to obey kings and governors, whoever they may be, not because we are constrained, but because it is a service acceptable to God; for he will have them not only to be feared but also honored by a voluntary respect.”[1]
Yet, responsible citizenship, including within the United States of America, requires more from Christians. That the apostle sent directives concerning a governing official’s obligations in his letter to the church in Rome and not to the emperor’s palace implicitly obligates Christians to instruct and admonish one another concerning our roles as citizens but also to hold those who govern accountable because:
(1) God appointed them to their roles in government (Rom. 13:1).
(2) They are ministers of God for the well-being of those whom they govern (Rom. 13:4).
(3) Their primary role is to uphold proper order and justice—punishing evildoers and rewarding doers of good (Rom 13:4).
(4) They are in positions of authority not to serve themselves but to serve those for whom they are entrusted with governing (Rom. 13:3–4).
Christians Are to be Responsibly Praying Citizens
Some years after writing his letter to the Roman believers, while confined in Rome with a chain by Caesar’s authorities for preaching the gospel (Acts 28:16–31), the Apostle Paul wrote ministry directives to Timothy, his young associate in the gospel. He admonished:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1–4).
Paul desires gospel ministers to lead Christ’s church in praying for the full range of people—not every person without exception–but all peoples without distinction. The Apostle characterizes the kinds of prayers to be made on behalf of others with four terms: (1) supplications, petitions presented to God concerning specific needs, (2) prayers, in general, (3) intercessions, urgent and bold requests for God to act on behalf of others, and (4) thanksgivings, gratitude to the Lord for all his kindnesses and provisions (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3–4). Without enumerating all the kinds of people for whom Christians are to pray, he identifies one prominent group, all who hold governing positions, “for kings and all who are in high positions.” Here, Paul refers to the Roman emperor, likely Nero, who holds him in custody. Then he refers to provincial governors and local magistrates; before many of these, Paul stood as an accused criminal.
Prayers for officials within every level of government are to have one principal objective, “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” What does this mean? Paul’s admonition calls us to pray that God will establish and sustain conditions favorable to Christian living and the proclamation of the gospel. The desired outcome is “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life”—as in, that we would not get fined, arrested, or beheaded for merely living out our Christian faith. However, because Paul realized he was writing his apostolic letter to reach far beyond his own location and time, he does not specifically tell us how we are to pray for government officials. His directive calls on us to pray with understanding and wisdom.
Read More
Related Posts:

“I don’t understand at all why pro-life Americans say they won’t vote for Donald Trump,” said the Hungarian pro-life activist sitting across from me. Well, let me explain—and say why European pro-life voices, however few, are urgently needed to steady the political thinking of their American counterparts.
Pro-life American Christians have been in crisis during this election season as Trump has steadily abandoned pro-life policies, and attempted to establish his pro-choice bona fides. The loudest cry of alarm went up when Trump last week said he would vote for a Florida ballot initiative that would effectively restore the permissive Roe v. Wade standard in state law. Trump’s campaign walked that back, which temporarily doused the fire, but make no mistake: pro-life conservatives are running scared.
They—we, because I am one of them—should be. It was always a fiction that Trump was pro-life. Only the truest of the MAGA faithful believed it. Nevertheless, Trump provided the Supreme Court justices who finally achieved the great goal of the pro-life movement for nearly fifty years: slaying the Roe dragon.
European readers should be aware that the effect of this was not to ban abortion, but simply to declare that there is no constitutional right to the procedure, thus, in the American system, leaving the decision to state legislatures. The Dobbs decision of 2022, which overturned 1973’s Roe ruling, returned the abortion issue to democratic political deliberation.
So far, Dobbs has been a Pyrrhic victory for the pro-life side, which has lost all seven of the state referenda on abortion since Dobbs—even in red states. Trump has been backpedaling on abortion because polls show that the pro-choice line is popular with American voters. Many pro-lifers, for decades the most reliable GOP voters, are shell-shocked by the Trumpified party’s swift collapse on abortion.
They shouldn’t be. America is a pro-choice country. According to a Gallup poll, only 12% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Almost three times as many—35%—believe it should be legal in any circumstance. Fifty percent say abortion should be legal under some circumstances (3% had no opinion). So: 85% believe in some form of legalized abortion.
Plus, 60% polled say that overturning Roe was a bad thing. That figure is not new. As Gallup says that number has been stable for the more than three decades that it has been polling on the question. It was easy for Americans who don’t feel strongly about abortion rights to downplay the issue in their voting when Roe was the law of the land. Now that abortion has been put back into political play, being pro-life has become an election liability.
What’s more, when it comes to in vitro fertilization (IVF), Americans overwhelmingly endorse it. An overwhelming 82% endorse the practice, while only 10% oppose it. IVF involves the lab creation of surplus embryos, which are usually frozen and stored. If one believes that life begins at conception, there’s no way around it: these embryonic human lives will one day die when they are thawed. There is no way to be consistently pro-life and pro-IVF—but a lot of American pro-lifers are. In fact, if the argument for or against abortion rights stands or falls on the moral status of the embryo at conception, you could argue that the only consistent thinkers about abortion are idealists at both extremes.
The messy truth is that most Americans are squeamish about abortion, but most see it as a socially necessary evil. In a democracy, you should not be surprised when politicians shift their positions to go where the votes are.
In Trump’s case, there is a major difference between his moderate pro-choice position and Kamala Harris’s view. Trump wants to leave it to the states to decide. Conservative states can tailor their laws to the views of the majority there, and liberal states can do likewise. Harris, though, believes in imposing unrestricted abortion on every state, through federal law.
And this is what my Hungarian pro-life activist friend was getting at. She was visibly shocked that this is even an issue for American abortion opponents. Why would you see no meaningful distinction between someone who won’t give you everything you want on the life issue, versus someone who would take away everything you have, and shove her pro-abortion beliefs down your throat?
Besides, said the Hungarian, the Democratic Party is so opposed to what conservative Christians believe on other key issues—LGBT rights, religious liberty, and others—that the idea of U.S. Christians abandoning Trump to punish him is simply bizarre.
I told my companion that I agreed with her, and that her view is the result of living as a pro-life Christian in a culture and on a continent that has been de-Christianizing for several generations. America is not yet in that post-Christian spiritual desert, but its people are moving there quickly. I suspect that pro-lifers, most of whom are Christians, have been shocked by Trump’s walking away from pro-life orthodoxy because they haven’t confronted how post-Christian America has become in our lifetimes.
Put another way, they are shaken up by this because they—because we—are part of what it likely to be The Final Christian Generation.
This is a reference to The Final Pagan Generation, a 2015 book by historian Edward J. Watts. The title refers to Roman pagan elites born at the beginning of the fourth century, when the Empire changed gradually from pagan to Christian.
What made them the “final” generation is not that pagans ceased to exist in Roman society after they died out. Rather, as Watts tells it, they were the last generation in Rome’s history to have lived in a time when paganism was the default religious mode of their civilization.
Read More
Related Posts:

While each chapter is brief (perhaps around a dozen pages each), they are filled with practical and helpful material, based on basic biblical and theological truths. One way to give you a flavour of the book is to look at a few of these chapters, and present some useful quotes from them. In his chapter on enjoying the shelter of Jesus he reminds us that Jesus is with us in the storms of life. 

Christianity is Christ. Jesus is the most important person to ever walk this earth. He is also God incarnate, and the living Saviour of those who come to him in faith and repentance. As such there are countess books about him, be they devotional, historical, theological, academic, popular or scholarly.
Oftentimes a useful volume on Jesus is one that is devotional in nature but undergirded by solid theology and biblical depth. The new Tim Chester book Enjoying Jesus (The Good Book Company, 2024) falls into this category. It has a solid theological foundation (chiefly reflecting a Puritan and Reformed perspective), coupled with a vibrant and spiritually uplifting set of short but powerful chapters.
The British pastor had already done a similar book, Enjoying God (The Good Book Company, 2018). If you have that volume and were blessed by it, you know what to expect here. One assumes that Enjoying the Holy Spirit will also appear at some point.
In his Introduction he informs us of what he seeks to do in this book: “I’m interested in what it means to have a real, living relationship with Jesus. What is the give-and-take, the to-and-fro of our day-to-day interaction with Jesus? How is he acting towards you in this moment, and how should you respond?” He goes on to say this:
Before we delve deeper into the ways in which we can relate to Jesus day by day, we need to establish something important about the dynamics of that relationship. First, our union with Jesus doesn’t depend on us. Our relationship with Jesus is created by Jesus through the Holy Spirit—it starts with him and not with us. We didn’t go searching for Jesus; he came to earth to redeem his bride, and now he sends his Spirit to win our hearts….

But second, our on-going experience of that union (what John Owen calls our “communion” with Christ) is affected by our actions. When we resist Christ or ignore him, our sense of being connected to him weakens. When we respond to him in faith and love, then our sense of connection deepens. We are saved by Jesus into a two-way relationship with Jesus.
All up Chester looks at 14 areas in which we can and should enjoy Jesus. These include:
-Enjoying his glory-Enjoying his compassion-Enjoying his reign-Enjoying his presence-Enjoying his voice-Enjoying his intercession
While each chapter is brief (perhaps around a dozen pages each), they are filled with practical and helpful material, based on basic biblical and theological truths. One way to give you a flavour of the book is to look at a few of these chapters, and present some useful quotes from them.
In his chapter on enjoying the shelter of Jesus he reminds us that Jesus is with us in the storms of life. Of interest, during this past week Melbourne has had some big storms with wild winds. Many folks lost power and some even lost their lives as large trees crashed onto their cars, and so on.
I have some quite large trees around my house, and for a few nights there as the winds were howling so ferociously, all I could do was pray and ask God to protect me, my home, my dog, my cat – and I prayed for my neighbours as well. As I was praying I recalled the windstorm the disciples were in and how Jesus calmed the raging waves.
Chester begins his chapter with that very story as found in Luke 8. He then says this:
The word of Jesus to the storm is described as a rebuke: “he … rebuked the wind and the raging waters”. Then, as they reflect on what just happened, the disciples use a related word: “he commands even the winds and the water” (v 24-25). Both “rebuke” and “command” indicate authority. The wind and waves obey Jesus because he’s their boss. Perhaps the one thing the disciples get right in this story is calling Jesus “Master”. Jesus is the master of the disciples, but it turns out he’s also the master of the weather.

This makes Jesus a useful man to have around in a crisis! It turns out that being in the boat with Jesus was the safest place to be, even in the midst of a storm. Jesus is a refuge for his people.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
The person thinking about IVF or wrestling with whether to use preferred pronouns as demanded by his or her employer needs to know how to make a decision that could well be costly and painful. We need good Protestant ethicists who are able to come up with solutions to the various challenges that we face, solutions rooted in our Christian understanding of what it means to be human. 

Most Americans are in favor of abortion under certain circumstances. This is not all too surprising when one considers that, for many, the values and practices of the sexual revolution are an intuitive part of daily life. This is due in large part to the common intuition that human beings are autonomous, unencumbered individuals whose primary purpose is the pursuit of personal happiness. The widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce was the harbinger of many great changes, from gay marriage to transgenderism to the shift in abortion rhetoric; what was once a “necessary evil” is now a “reproductive right.”
The immediate question for many is what will happen after the November election. It’s unlikely that the U.S. will have a strong pro-life option at the ballot box, at least one with a credible chance of power. Beyond that, however, lies a real pedagogical challenge for the churches, particularly the Protestant churches. In times past, the moral intuitions of society at large and those of the Protestant churches (at least the orthodox ones) were largely consonant with each other. The churches taught, for example, that homosexual practices were wrong, and that tracked with the general outlook of the culture. The reasoning in each case might well have been very different. The churches no doubt looked to biblical texts; society perhaps operated with the residue of such an approach, a form of “cultural Christianity.” But the result was that the churches never really had to do any significant thinking in this area. The culture carried the issue.
Today the situation is far different. In the space of a few decades, the moral intuitions of society have not simply parted company with those of Christianity—they have come to stand in direct opposition to many of them. That changes the pedagogical dynamics of church life. The churches now need to teach Christian ethics more explicitly and more thoroughly, because that is where the wider culture will challenge Christian discipleship most powerfully. Indeed, it is already doing so, and orthodox Protestantism seems ill-equipped to address this.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Thomas R. Schreiner |
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
Luke encourages us to pray always. We should not become practical atheists who cease to hope in God. If we stop praying, it is because we are beginning to think that God is not faithful, that he does not care, that he will not really help us out. But the real issue is not whether God is faithful but whether we are faithful.

And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected man. And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’” And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”—Luke 18:1–8
Is God Like an Unjust Judge?
In Luke 18 Jesus tells of a judge who does not fear God or respect human beings. Judges have authority and power and social status. The Torah calls upon them to rule justly: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” (Lev. 19:15). In addition, the fundamental requirement for all in Israel was to fear the Lord (Deut. 6:13, 24; 10:12, 20; 1 Sam. 12:24; Eccles. 12:13; Job 28:28; Prov. 1:7), for those who fear him worship him alone. Because he feared God, Nehemiah did not oppress the people financially (Neh. 5:15); in contrast, those who speak against the deaf or mistreat the blind do so because they do not fear the Lord (Lev. 19:14).
Since the judge does not fear God, he does not respect people, especially those who, like the widow, are poor and disadvantaged. As we read in Exodus 22:22, “You shall not mistreat any widow.” Indeed, the Lord “executes justice for…the widow” (Deut. 10:18). Deuteronomy 27:19 calls a curse upon those who pervert the justice that widows deserve (cf. Isa. 1:17, 23; 10:2; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Zech. 7:10). The judge, however, since he does not fear God or respect people, does not care about what the Torah requires. The widow, however, is indefatigable, and she repeatedly petitions him for justice.
The judge, however, continues to refuse her request. He acknowledges what we saw in Luke 18:2: he neither fears God nor respects people. He does not care, therefore, about the widow’s rights or the justice of her case. Still, he eventually decides the case rightly on her behalf because the widow will not leave him alone; she keeps bothering him about the case until he gives her justice. Why does the judge finally do so (cf. Luke 11:8)? Because the widow will “beat [him] down” if she keeps coming to him. The verb translated “beat down” (Gk. hypōpiazō) is translated various ways: “wear me out” (CSB, NASB, NET, NRSV, RSV, ASV); “weary me” (KJV); “attack me” (NIV). Some understand the verb literally (the ESV and NIV could be taken this way); the judge fears that the widow will give him a black eye, that she will end up punching him in the face or resorting to some other physical violence. It seems unlikely, however, that the judge would fear physical violence from a widow. The verb, then, should be taken metaphorically—but metaphorically of what? Others say that the judge fears getting a “black eye” in the eyes of the community, of being shamed for his behavior. The problem with this reading is that we have already been told that the judge does not respect people; he does not care what they think of him. The best option, then, is represented by most translations: the judge is growing weary of his encounters with the widow. Her persistence day after day is wearing him out, and it is easier on him to grant her request than to keep dealing with her.1 He is tired of being bothered day after day.
Jesus proceeds to apply the parable to his hearers. He argues from lesser to greater: if the unrighteous judge who despised God and mistreated people granted justice when petitioned, then God will certainly grant justice to his elect who voice their concerns to him day and night (cf. Rev. 6:10). The reference to “day and night” fits with Luke 18:1 and the behavior of the widow. It fits with verse 1 because those who do not lose heart continue to pray “day and night”; it fits with the widow because she was not deterred despite the reluctance of the judge to grant her request.
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: