God calls us to be peacemakers, and when we strive to do what He calls us to do, He will reward our faithfulness and bless our efforts. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Sadly, in this fallen world in which we live, conflict is a normal part of everyday life. This is true not only among unbelievers but also among Christians. As it says in Job, when two sinful people are put together, you will inevitably see conflict. As long as we are in this world cursed by sin, conflict will arise. This is not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, how long, and how bad. Like many other aspects of the Christian life that require pursuit and perseverance in activity, working through our conflicts biblically is not a passive endeavor. We need to look no further than the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:9 when He says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” It is worth noting that He said peacemakers, not peace lovers, peace supporters, or peacekeepers. Peacekeeping and peacemaking are very different concepts. One comes from the world, the other comes from God’s Word. Sadly, the two are often confused for each other and people think they’re honoring God as they try to keep the peace when in reality they’re actually dishonoring Him since He has instructed us to make peace, not keep the peace. We don’t want to dishonor God and His Word, so we need to make sure we have clarity on these terms and definitions.
Let’s start with the world’s peacekeeping strategies. The first way the world recommends keeping the peace is by letting time heal. We’ve all heard the saying, “Time heals all wounds,” but time is actually incapable of doing any such thing. Time in its own right doesn’t heal or change anything. The only thing time does is pass. Even if time could heal, healing is not the ultimate objective for the Christian. What is needed, rather, is confession, forgiveness, and repentance.
The next worldly conflict-resolution strategy we need to avoid is trying to bury the conflict. It’s a common strategy in which we busy ourselves with life in hopes the other person will eventually forget whatever the conflict was about. Trying to forget about what happened, willing ourselves to forget what the other person said, and trying to keep ourselves so busy that we no longer have time to think about it only works for so long. This approach only adds to the pile of unresolved grievances, hurts, and complaints. As time goes on, this can lead to anger, bitterness, and even hatred.
Read More
Related Posts:

First graders who can “discuss, identify, and explain important LGBTQ+ symbols” will be considered “prepared graduates” under the newly implemented standards. 

Colorado’s new LGBTQ social studies standards, which include first grade lessons on LGBTQ history, transgenderism, and the rainbow flag, is age-inappropriate and pushes a radical agenda, some parents in the state complain.
“I don’t want my first grader learning anything about LGBTQ issues at all in school,” a Colorado father of a first grader who asked to remain anonymous told The Daily Signal. “If there was no agenda, then it wouldn’t be taught. For the schools or the district to have an agenda is the same to me as indoctrination.”
The Colorado State Board of Education approved the new social studies standards in November 2022 to take effect in fall 2024. The standards incorporate the “historical and civic contributions of LGBTQ+” in first through 12th grade history and civics curriculum.
The Colorado Department of Education did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
In first grade civics, the education department recommends children read  “Sylvia and Marsha Start a Revolution,” the story of two black transgender “women” who “helped kickstart the Stonewall Riots” and “dedicated their lives to fighting for LGBTQ+ equality,” according to the description of it on Amazon.
Other in-class reading includes “The Story of Pete Buttigieg—Mayor Pete,” a children’s biography of the first openly gay presidential candidate, now the federal secretary of transportation, and an article about the current governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, who is gay.
“Indoctrination to me means that the schools feel there is a necessity to override parenting, given there’s inherently going to be some inconsistencies with many families’ parenting and instruction to their children, and any school’s social agenda of this sort,” the first grader’s dad said.
Colorado state Rep. Brandi Bradley opposes the standards because they teach children a “false narrative” and lead them down a path “to lifelong sterility and mutilation,” she said, referencing transgenderism.
“This is child abuse, plain and simple,” Bradley, a public school mom, told The Daily Signal. “It’s pedophilia. It’s sexual perversion.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Training and empowering leaders…requires more than just a good plan or a thoughtful process. It requires the wisdom of self-awareness, the power of grace, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Does your church have deacons? And if so, do you know who they are and what they do?
If the answer to these questions is “Yes,” you’re in the minority. Few American churches have a thriving diaconal ministry.
The average church website lists pastors, staff members, and directors who oversee various aspects of ministry, but rarely will you find deacons listed among the leadership. One popular megachurch in Georgia described its ministry structure this way: “There are no deacons, per se… Instead, individuals are chosen by a ministry within the church to represent that group at a quarterly meeting with the senior pastor and other key staff members.”
But what should we expect from a “Children’s Ministry Director” or “Women’s Ministry Director” or “Lay Counselor?” What qualifications must these individuals have? What biblical authority do they carry?
If we allow these roles to be filled by qualified deacons, then we have a clear set of biblical parameters to follow. But if we ignore the Bible’s teaching about deacons, we leave God’s people without clear biblical expectations for their leaders. And we risk weakening of the authority of Scripture as modern ministry titles eclipse the timeless importance of God-ordained offices.
What is a Deacon?
The apostles, of course, appointed elders to lead the first churches: “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:21–23). But we also see the apostles entrusting the practical needs of the church to a second group of leaders:
“And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’”Acts 6:2–4
The apostles seemed to envision two distinct ministries within the church: pastoral and practical. Some leaders were to devote themselves to “prayer and the ministry of the word.” Other leaders were to focus on meeting practical needs. The offices of elder and deacon correspond to these two types of ministry. Though elders and deacons aren’t specifically mentioned in Acts 6, the basic differentiation between pastoral and practical ministry lays a foundation that the rest of the New Testament will build upon.
In his commentary on Philippians, J. Alec Motyer observes:
The impression we receive in the New Testament is of local churches loosely federated under apostolic authority, with each church managing its own affairs under the leadership of overseers (who are also called elders) and deacons. Deacons were obviously a distinct office, but we are told nothing about the functions a deacon was meant to fulfill….And if we ask why their representative functions are not more closely defined, then surely the answer is this: ministry arises from the nature and needs of the church, not vice versa.Alec Motyer, The Message of Philippians, BST Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 25.
Read More
Related Posts:

All things work together for our eschatological glory and good—in part, due to the Spirit’s prayers. What God planned of our salvation from eternity past will certainly come to be. We will be perfectly conformed to the image of His Son and glorified with Him.

The Holy Spirit helps us on our way to heaven. He lives within us, empowering us for good and enabling us for service, and He endeavors by praying for us to the Father. Romans 8:26–27 teaches us about the Spirit’s ministry of intercession.
Some of what Romans 8:26–27 teaches is fairly clear. Our human weakness limits our ability to pray as we ought, and, when our prayers are insufficient or absent due to ignorance, the Spirit intercedes for us according to the will of God. Other matters are not so clear, however. What are the groanings of the Spirit? And how does the Spirit groan within our hearts?
In context, “groanings” recalls the groaning of creation and the sons of God (cf. Rom 8:22–23). This groaning is a longing to be freed from sin and corruption and to be fully redeemed—to be glorified and thus no longer living in perishing bodies, fighting our indwelling sin, and suffering on occasion. But the Spirit Himself is God and must therefore groan in some other way. As He lives within us, His groanings are for us—not only that He would bring about our glorification one day, but also that He would enable us to overcome until then according to the will of God (cf. Rom 8:18–25).
Read More
Related Posts:

Those godly believers we all admire and want to be like are the ones who have been through the fire. When the ungodly suffer they are shamed, but when God’s people suffer they love God even more and rejoice in their sufferings.

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we boast in hope of the glory of God.Romans 5:1-2 (LSB) 
I shared in a previous post how I had in an incident in a Bible Study class while attempting to teach about the Doctrine of Election back in 2006 by a couple of men who were dead set on stopping me from simply reading certain texts from Sacred Scripture. I have had similar experiences when teaching on the Doctrine of Justification, which is what this post is about. Justification by Faith is a doctrine that was the storm center of the Reformation. It was also a major concern of the Apostle Paul. As we study his epistles we can plainly see that he considered this doctrine to be the heart of the gospel. (Romans 1:17; 3:21-5:21; Galatians 2:15-5:1) It also shaped both his message (Acts 13:38-39) and his devotion and spiritual life (2 Corinthians 5:13-21; Philippians 3:4-14)
Justification is a judicial act of God pardoning sinners (Romans 4:5; 3:9-24), accepting them as just, and so putting permanently right their previously estranged relationship with Himself. This sentence of justification is God’s gift of Righteousness (Romans 5:15-17) as well as His bestowal of a status of acceptance for Jesus’ sake (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Both the 1689 London Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly deny that justification involves an infusion of righteousness. Instead, they make it clear that Justification by Faith does not change a person directly. It is a sentence or declaration of a person’s change of status. Justification involves the forgiveness of the sins of those who are called, as well as “accounting and accepting their persons as righteous.” Justification is a declaration on the part of God relevant to the believer. It is a judicial or forensic proclamation about the person’s relationship with God.
If Justification is wholly outside of the believer, meaning it is simply a declaration of righteousness, how is that beneficial to believers in the here and now? Let’s look at some scripture. I placed a passage from Romans at the top of the article. Here it is again.
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we boast in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:1-2 (LSB) 
What can we learn from these two verses? First, our justification is based on our faith. Is this faith that we generate or is it part of the gift of salvation?
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (LSB) 
The Greek grammar of these two verses tells us that the antecedent of “gift” is “faith.” Grace can’t be the antecedent because the word essentially means gift. It isn’t the faith that saves us. We are saved by grace through faith and that is not our doing, instead it is the gift of God. Look at the next two phrases. This gift of faith cannot be earned. Why? Our salvation is a work of God and He has structured it in such a way that there is no possibility of any of us taking credit for it. We cannot boast because we are saved. Why? God saved us by His good work.
Read More
Related Posts:

If we are seeking to equip our children in kingdom service, then our children will need to be adequately equipped for the kinds of battles that they are going to be facing. We owe it to our children to take these matters seriously. We may be dead before the full weight of these shifts are felt culturally, but they will be the lived reality for our children and grandchildren. We owe it to our prodigy to speak up and to shout a warning. If not now, when; if not us, who?

We are not in an age of change, but a change of age.
We are amid a 500-year historical geo-political inflection point. The world as we have known it is changing, so profoundly that our histories going forward are going to be altered.
We are not talking here about the accumulation of incremental changes, but the wholesale changes of assumptions, global actors, and personal experiences. We are facing a paradigm shift—the likes of the fall of Rome (475 AD), the collapse of Constantinople (1453 AD), and Luther at the Diet of Worms (1521 AD).
The issues facing the church are significantly deeper and longer lasting than the shift from a Neutral to a Negative World. We are shifting from a Negative World to an outright hostile world.
This hostility is not conscious or explicit but implicit, not personal but foundational, and not political but cultural. It is an invisible hostility that makes it even more dangerous. This makes the new social reality the church is facing far more significant than we have previously imagined.
The first step is to wake up to the depth of the situation facing the church and to get our diagnosis aligned to reality. In this process of diagnosis, you cannot trust the mainstream media or the normal purveyors of academic insight as the elite culture is complicit and sometimes even the source of the disease.
The Four Civilizational Shifts
There are four primary shifts that we are currently facing as believers: from Christian to post-Christian, from classical liberalism to Nietzschean nihilism, from Global West to Global East, and from Enlightenment rationalism to post-Enlightenment re-enchantment.
Shift One: Christian to Post-Christian. We are living in a world that is functionally divorced from any reference to the sacred. We have shifted from societies based on fate and faith to one based on fiction. Moreover, the foundational basis of society, namely traditional marriage, has been rejected. The fruit of marriage, namely the procreation of children, has also been rejected. Replacing these historic foundations to social life is an unchecked hedonism reinforced by a world without boundaries, that is unchecked license.
The late University of Pennsylvania sociologist Philip Rieff described our contemporary world in this manner: “No culture has ever preserved itself where it is not a registration of sacred order. There, cultures have not survived. This kind of society where the notion of a culture that persists independent of all sacred orders is unprecedented in human history.”
In the past cultural conflicts were between competing sacred symbolics. Not so today. What makes our contemporary culture war distinctive is that it is a negation against all sacred orders and the verticals in authority that mediate the sacred to society. This is an entirely new historical situation. What this means is that we cannot simply return to older approaches as they are no longer relevant to our cultural situation.
Shift Two: Classical Liberalism to Nietzschean Nihilism (Individual Rights to State Power). The assumptions of the Enlightenment which gave rise to the political ideology of classical liberalism have been rejected by the leadership class. There is a much-debated question whether a democratic society can survive when its underlying assumptions are no longer believed by those who are being governed by it. Social solidarity requires shared social beliefs. When these are abandoned, as is increasingly the case by the political elites, then politics naturally defaults and devolves to the will-to-power in a world where the leadership class believes in nothing.
This is the experiential definition of nihilism. We have today a competition between left wing and right-wing forms of nihilism. Classical liberalism is defunct. By elevating individualism and progress into guiding social values, liberalism destroys the traditions and norms that allow human beings to make sense of life and find their place in the world.
American Christianity is on the decline, small-town America is hollowed out, drug abuse rates are rising, suicide is an accept outlet for many, particularly men—all symptoms of a spiritual crisis brought on by liberalism’s philosophical assault on the sources of social stability.
This is the combined argument of Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed and University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter’s Democracy and Solidarity. No one has yet provided a meaningful future political solution to this problem apart from doubling down on past assumptions in an ongoing culture war between populism and elitism. What concerned analysts have agreed on is that there is no easy or quick fix. This reality is going to be with us for some time.
Read More
Related Posts:

Another problem with dragging politics into Christian forums is its effect on other believers. If political claim A is presented in Christian forum B, it implies that A is the Christian position. Other believers who disagree are implied to be anti- or unchristian for differing, put in the difficult position of arguing against the implied ‘Christian’ position, and reduced to being political themselves to defend the legitimacy of Christians adhering to their own position. It is unfair to them, in other words, and would seem to violate the thrust of Romans 14’s ethical principles as applied to citizenship and political involvement.

C.S. Lewis once said that there is an advantage in believers “comparing notes,” that is, not always presuming to teach in an authoritative manner but sharing their experiences so that their audience may ponder how they match their own.[1] Consider this article to be in that vein. The contemporary world is full of blessings. And while I think they outnumber difficulties for most of us most of the time, life at its best in this world still retains plentiful causes of suffering and frustration.
Of the many irksome things in the contemporary world, one of the most irksome is the dragging of politics into Christian forums. Before proceeding further, let me state that: a) this is nothing new, as much of the history of the church has also been the history of Christendom, with its mingling of Christian faith (of wildly varying degrees of sincerity and accuracy) with all other elements of life in this world; b) this phenomenon of dragging politics into faith is an easy – dare I say, natural – thing to do, one which most of us have succumbed to at some point, and one which is probably the majority position among believers; and c) in discussing it I do not say that it ipso facto proves those that do it are hypocrites or false professors of faith. But though common historically and contemporaneously, and though not necessarily discrediting one’s faith claims, it is wrong.
One, it misdirects such forums from their proper purpose of declaring eternal, spiritual truths about Christ Jesus and sets their focus on the temporal affairs of this world. God says:
Seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:1b-3).
He then goes on to tell us to kill those passions (“covetousness” and “anger, wrath, malice, slander”) which politics brings out, both by its nature and by the intentions of its practitioners (vv. 5-9).
But politics would have us walk by sight, not faith (comp. 2 Cor. 5:7), by the grievances we do see rather than the promises of God we await. It would have us trust our own understanding (comp. Prov. 3:5-6; Jer. 17:5), seeking the advantage of earthly kingdoms – which belong to Satan (Matt. 4:8-9) – that will soon perish, instead of Christ’s kingdom, which “is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36) and is that “better country” (Heb. 11:16) that endures forever (“of his kingdom there will be no end,” Lk. 1:33). Christ said being weighed down with the cares of this life chokes out his word in our hearts (Matt. 13:22), that same word which we are elsewhere told is the seed of our faith and our new birth in Christ (1 Pet. 1:23). Pray tell, what is politics, if not a preoccupation with the cares of this life?
Politics is the enemy of faith and piety, and in many people it drives out the Christian form of both: once wed politics and piety and politics becomes your piety. Thus also with faith. This process of politics subverting faith is dangerous because it is subtle and frequently effective, which is why there are multitudes of professing believers and churches that loudly declare all manner of political causes, often in Christian terminology, all while not declaring Jesus’ basic message of “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) as he intended.
Again, meshing politics and faith does not always end there, and there are many people who stumble into the error without losing a sincere faith; but many people have made shipwreck of their faith by sailing rather for earthly shores than setting their minds on Christ’s kingdom. There is in fact an immense difficulty on this point, that of distinguishing between false teachers who make the faith political to subvert it, and sincere believers who are simply caught up in a common if mistaken trend (as is frequent, Gal. 2:11-14), and whose political preoccupations are straw that will be consumed in judgment while they themselves are yet saved (1 Cor. 3:9-15). The best thing, then, is to assiduously avoid politics except where it has a clear moral element (e.g., abortion) or a clear effect on our faith (e.g., a law forbidding its exercise). Key word ‘clear’: there are some people who regard everything as having a moral element. Of such people I have nothing to say except that God will deal with them as he sees fit, and hopefully bring many to repentance.[2]
Another problem with dragging politics into Christian forums is its effect on other believers. If political claim A is presented in Christian forum B, it implies that A is the Christian position. Other believers who disagree are implied to be anti- or unchristian for differing, put in the difficult position of arguing against the implied ‘Christian’ position, and reduced to being political themselves to defend the legitimacy of Christians adhering to their own position. It is unfair to them, in other words, and would seem to violate the thrust of Romans 14’s ethical principles as applied to citizenship and political involvement.
Consider an example. In a recent Gospelbound podcast, Collin Hansen interviewed Allen Guelzo about the state of American democracy, doing so in reference to Guelzo’s new book Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment. They can hold what historical and political opinions they please, and I do not here impugn the sincerity of their faith. But it is wrong to drag those opinions into a Christian forum or imply they have anything to do with the gospel.
Lay aside the enormous impropriety of referring to anything other than the Christian faith as “our faith” in a Christian forum, and consider that the views they mention are ones about which we might differ in good conscience. No one who reads Proverbs can doubt that it is permissible to be a Christian monarchist (16:10-15). No one who reads the Pentateuch or Judges fairly can deny that, as shown by their depraved deeds and the consequences thereof, the voice of the people at large is often not – most emphatically NOT – the voice of God, and that they show their unfitness to rule themselves (Ex. 32:25; Jdgs. 21:25). Viewed from the other direction, it is legitimate to believe in a hierarchical, oligarchical, or representative government of some sort (Ex. 18:13-26; Acts 6:3).[3] An allegiance to democracy is not a part of being a believer, in other words.
I don’t doubt that Hansen and Guelzo would agree with me on that point. But what kind of message do they send to believers living under despotism, or to novice believers here? Does it not imply that the faith has a political angle, that a Christian should be concerned about democracy? Could someone in such circumstances receive grace to sustain or edify in the face of struggles? In many cases no: all this talk about Lincoln would be quite alien and meaningless to him – whether a foreigner or a typically ambivalent-to-history American – and he would go away from a podcast named after the gospel (at the website of a group named after the gospel) unfed, associating the gospel with American history and politics and not the things of the Spirit and Christ’s kingdom.
Or again, one can differ about the historical claims. I know local Presbyterians who would say, and that in high dudgeon, that all of the talk about democracy is mistaken because our national government was intentionally framed as a republic, not a democracy. There is good evidence for that view. James Madison, the so-called “father of the constitution,” says in Federalist No. X that “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” and contrasts them with “a republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”[4] He later spoke of the erroneous “confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasoning drawn from the nature of the latter.” As for whether Lincoln is to be lauded as the savior of our traditional form of government, one suspects those Presbyterian “neo-Confederates” I pondered in my last article would demur on the ground that he presided over a war that destroyed one national, eleven state, and many hundreds of local governments that were popularly-elected.
Such difference of opinion on historical interpretation and proper political system is why it is irksome to hear Hansen say (about 42:27) “I’m gonna make my students here at Beeson Divinity School listen to this podcast to help them understand why I teach Abraham Lincoln in a course designed to train pastors,” and that he ranks Lincoln’s second inaugural address as one of “the two greatest works of public theology in American history.” There is indeed a further problem, one which bears consideration as an example of how fascination with a past political figure can bear mistaken notions in the present.
Guelzo admits (44:08) that Lincoln read Scripture as moral literature and culturally-relevant, not as inspired revelation: “he did not embrace a particular revelation, the authority of the Bible for himself personally, he recognized that it was authority, an authority in his time, and so he will in fact quote it.” Or again, “he will read it as he read Shakespeare, as something that will teach him important lessons.” If he didn’t personally regard it as authoritative – and Guelzo says Lincoln “doesn’t read it in the sense that a believer will read the Bible” – then why would he quote it at all, unless it be that he used it for pragmatic reasons as a bit of civil religion?
One might then conclude that his second inaugural address was not good public theology, but actually willful hypocrisy, the saying of what he didn’t personally believe because he knew it would be well received and politically advantageous. Pardon me, but isn’t it of the essence of one form of profanity when something is converted from its use as a sacred thing devoted to God’s service and instead employed in the common affairs of men? By Guelzo’s telling, that is what Lincoln did with Holy Scripture; it is, indeed, pretty much all he did with it publicly.
And yet we are to laud him in Christian forums and commend his “public theology” brilliance to pastors in training? Is that what it means to be “gospelbound”? The thing seems terribly naïve, a foray in hero-worship that creates a hero where there is none from a Christian standpoint—for misusing scripture for worldly purposes is wicked.
Now you will notice that my example here is rather obscure and academic: I have used it for that reason so that I might not have to attempt to make my point by a consideration of current electoral contests or by other points of political controversy. But my arguments stand, both in regards to it and to other, more immediately pressing and popular matters of politics. It is wrong to use a Christian forum, be it ecclesiastical or parachurch, for political purposes.
Doing so might roil few people’s blood, as with my example, but it might also so much discomfit others as to drive them from one’s church. Again, even defending against someone else’s political claims, as I have sometimes done, is difficult owing to its tendency to distract from a proper focus on Christ. And so, as I finish ‘sharing my notes,’ I ask: do we wish our faith to be a refuge from worldly woe? If yes, then can we agree that it is best to keep it free of non-essential things about which we can and will disagree?
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks/Simpsonville (Greenville Co.), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation. 

[1] “A Slip of the Tongue,” p. 184 of The Weight of Glory
[2] It is tempting to see a similarity of such people to the Pharisees, because, like that mistaken group, they find a matter of intense moral and spiritual consequence in the most mundane of everyday affairs.
[3] My argument in citing Acts 6 (the election of the first deacons) is one from the greater to the lesser: if representative government is good for the church of God that endures forever, will it not suffice for temporal nations? But I recognize that some peoples are not fit for representative government at some times and need to be ruled from above by a strong government.
[4] Granting that the franchise was widened between the constitution’s adoption and Lincoln’s day, the adherents of this view would say the nation was still (then and now) a republic, not a democracy.
Related Posts:

The Woke-Right crowd commits idolatry as they do the bidding of those aligned with the Left. Unlike the vague slanderous charge of political idolatry to those on their right, those in the Biblicist category can clearly define the idolatrous participation of those to their Left. The secular ideology of Social Justice can and has been clearly defined by Christian leaders fulfilling their responsibility of, “rebuking those who contradict sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9). Only one group is truly following the Lord on these important matters, while the other two are doing the Evil One’s bidding, all while slandering those obeying the Lord Jesus Christ.

There seem to be essentially three categories of Christians in the American Evangelical church at the moment. This can be nuanced a bit, but generally speaking, Christians, and especially Christian leaders, fit into one of these categories.
The first is on the left fringes of evangelicalism. This is a category full of political activists for leftist causes while still professing to hold to the central tenets of the Christian faith. Second, there’s a group that I am going to call “Biblicists” (I do not mean this in the more recent, pejorative sense, but in a more classical, Protestant understanding). I’ll define this group as those who believe the Bible is not only inerrant but also sufficient for all of life. This includes church life, family life, and the public square. This group is fully opposed to Woke ideology because they understand that it’s a divisive, Satanic system, confusing the Gospel wherever it goes. They don’t see Woke ideology as having insights any more than Christians don’t see false religions like Mormonism and Islam as having insights.
Finally, there’s a group that some have identified as the “Woke-right. These are not social activists but are willing to give credence to those to their left because they believe there are valuable insights there, and because they place an immeasurably high value on “unity.”
I want to address the third group, the “Woke Right,” and specifically the vague charge they make to those on their right.
Who Are the “Woke Right?”
The Woke-Right believe that they are the “biblical ones,” and those to their right are practicing extra-biblical, pharisaical idolatry in their passion over politically conservative perspectives and issues. Those to their right often insist that public theology is black and white. In other words, to vote for a Democratic candidate is not a biblical option because the Democratic platform is diametrically opposed to biblical ethics in every way. But though one platform is not an option (while the other platform, while imperfect, can still be an option) the Woke-Right is most concerned with those who would dare to take a stronger stance on the matter.
I’ve personally heard many pastors in this category say, “I have concerns about the extremes of Social Justice, but I’m more concerned about political idolatry among the people too far to the right.” So, they take a middle-of-the-road position. The leadership in this category has little to no concern with those to their left. I say little to no concern because when they have addressed the issue of race, people on the left fringes are platformed, like Jarvis Williams, not someone strongly on the right, like Voddie Baucham. What they say concerning those on their right is that they are carriers of the great threat of “Christian Nationalism”, but when you ask them to define what they mean by Christian Nationalism they are typically unable to do so. The best they can do is call it, “political idolatry..
In other words, those on the right care too much about forcing their conservative political views on to others, while rejecting what they see as legitimate concerns by those to their left.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Olympics are an example of what Augustine called the city of man. A city of man is self-serving and, ultimately, doomed to fall away. In our world, progressives claim to promote justice but make common cause with genocide in the name of intersectionality. Many conservatives are quick to take on a religious mantle when helpful but just as quick to drop it when no longer useful. Detached from the reality of the City of God, which aims to serve God and is therefore eternal, our imitations of righteousness are doomed to fail and to fall, often spectacularly. It’s all a show, one that doesn’t take the human condition seriously.  

Even after the controversy of a bizarre opening ceremony, the Olympic Games showed why it is unparalleled in the sports world. Just think of the memes generated from this year’s games. In just a few weeks, we got the “super-chill” Turkish marksman, a Clark Kent of American men’s gymnastics, and the Australian break dancer.  
Far more than the memes, of course, were stunning athletic performances. Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone broke her own world records, but never failed to give glory to God. Katie Ledecky became the most decorated U.S. female Olympian. As one writer described the swimmer, “She is beautifully human. Vulnerable. Not a machine, despite the power with which she moves through the water.” Simone Biles completed a personal redemption tour while also leading the women’s gymnastics team to gold. Also returning to gold was the young U.S. women’s soccer team, now in a new season after the retirement of the grandstanding Megan Rapinoe. And, of course, NBA rivals Lebron James and Steph Curry led Team USA in a come-from-behind win over Serbia before defeating France for the gold. Curry hit four straight three pointers in the last two and a half minutes to secure the win and his place as the greatest shooter anyone has ever seen. 
This year’s debacle notwithstanding, the opening ceremonies are, typically, a highlight. The drama, spectacle, and pageantry are, in a sense, a glimmer of Eden, an attempt to portray what humanity can be. Vigor, commitment, health, and determination are on full display as the nations of the world offer their treasures.
Read More
Related Posts:

Technocratic pro-natalists often desire to create a certain kind of a child: a healthy child, a smart child, or a “wanted” child. Indeed, with the expansion of embryonic genetic selection technology and the potential of artificial wombs or in vitro gametogenesis—an experimental procedure that genetically modifies anyone’s DNA into viable gametes—parents may use technology to customize their future children. This “Silicon Valley” style of pro-natalism exploits a parent’s desire to raise healthy and happy children by offering them a false promise of control.

My husband and I have one little girl and we are expecting our second child at the end of this year, six weeks before our third wedding anniversary. We represent a growing minority among Generation Z. In 1965, five in six adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four were, or had been, married. Since 1970, however, the marriage rate has fallen by sixty percent. Today, approximately one-third of Gen Z is on track never to marry, with many preferring to remain in unstable cohabitating arrangements. 
What began as a marriage recession has turned into a full-blown birth dearth. In 2023, the birthrate fell to its lowest point of 1.62 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. The future of the United States, along with that of every developed nation except Israel, is threatened by demographic decline. Our economy, Social Security, military readiness, eldercare, education, and more depend on new generations of children. On an individual level, this decline reflects a much darker reality. Happy, hopeful people have babies. If we are not having babies, what does that say about the health of our nation? 
The causes of this birth dearth are varied: rising infertility among men and women, the atomizing force of technology, the high cost of living and raising children, and the decline in marriage and church attendance. Abortions have increased since the Dobbs ruling—perhaps due to the increased availability of medical abortion—as have intentional sterilizations, especially among younger men and women. Each of these factors, individually and in concert, has resulted in what Tim Carney calls a “family unfriendly” culture where children are seen as impositions or, at best, luxury goods. 
Pro-natalism, a movement against the decline in births, is making headlines as it draws prominent champions like Elon Musk. While we should be pleased by this development, we should distinguish between “mere pro-natalists,” who simply want to see more babies born, and those who prioritize family formation as the basis for increasing birth rates. Mere pro-natalists can serve as excellent allies against our anti-child culture, but the lack of concern for family formation risks perpetuating the very social pathologies that gave rise to the birth dearth in the first place. 
By overlooking the prior decline in mother-father marriage rates, the fertility crisis is reduced to a national collective action problem for someone else to solve. Mere pro-natalism also tends to view children, and their mothers, as means to a greater end: saving the world, the nation, the economy, or finding meaning in one’s life. As the failure of China’s efforts to increase births shows, instrumentalizing motherhood in this way can actually discourage women from childbearing.
Read More
Related Posts: