Written by Michael F. Bird |
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
The Parable of the Prodigal Son is striking in how it exemplifies Jesus’ overall mission and message. For Williams, Jesus was more than a religious talent and literary master. His teaching was part of a messianic career, climaxing in his death and resurrection, a career that was part of the story of God’s plan to create and renew the world. As Williams suggests, Jesus’ genius if rooted in both his identity and his origin: he came from God and he is God. 

It’s wrong to reduce Jesus to a moral teacher or mere philosopher. Jesus was not a wordsmith selling word salads, nor a crank peddling new ideas, nor a sophist showing off his rhetorical verve, nor an intellectual establishing his own academy à la Plato. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, even “Immanuel.” Be that as it may, while Jesus is more than a teacher, he is certainly no less than one, and his teaching remains poignant, powerful, and challenging even today. This is where The Surprising Genius of Genius: What the Gospels Reveal About the Greatest Teacher by Peter J. Williams comes in. Williams’ thesis is that Jesus is just as much a genius as Aristotle, Mozart, or Einstein. Jesus’ teaching contains “impressive factual knowledge” along with an “impressive depth of insight, coherence, and simplicity.” For Williams, the Christian revolution that rocked the Roman world and birthed western civilization goes back to the “genius” of Jesus.
Williams takes as Exhibit A Jesus’ Parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11–32. The genius of Jesus is evident, claims Williams, by virtue of three things found here. First, the sheer cleverness of the parable itself. It’s the third of three parables about lost things: lost sheep, a lost coin, and then a lost son. These parables serve to defend why Jesus dines with the “deplorables,” sinners, and tax collectors, much to the consternation and disapproval of the Pharisees and scribes. Williams points out that the story is both brief and beautiful, creates tension, and mentions family, a farm, famine, pigs, poverty, and a fattened calf. The ingratitude and indulgence of the younger son makes us angry; we’re then shocked and surprised by the mercy of his father, and even sympathetic to the anger and jealousy of the older son. Yet, as Williams notes, the story is not really about the prodigal but about the older son, because he, just like the Pharisees and scribes, refuses to join the celebration that someone lost has been found, as in Jesus’ fellowship with sinners. The lost son’s redemption is not the main point; he is but a prop to show the hard-heartedness of Jesus’ critics, who think they possess “a greater share of God’s favor”—a brilliant narrative bait and switch.
Second, the parable alludes to and echoes various Old Testament stories. Jesus was no trained scribe, but he was able to weave in allusions and echoes of the Old Testament in ways that might have impressed even the “experts.” In particular, Jesus’ parable rehearses many themes and key motifs from the Book of Genesis. To begin with, there are a number of OT characters who had two sons, most notably Isaac (Esau and Jacob).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by C.J. Williams |
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
The study of Old Testament types is not an end unto itself. It achieves its purpose, and we receive its benefit, only if the Lord Jesus Christ is exalted as He should be. The purpose of biblical typology may be discerned from two different outlooks—namely, from old covenant and new covenant vantage points. From the former perspective, typology served to breathe life into the promises of God by personifying and illuminating the promise of redemption.

What is typology? In essence, it is the way that God used history to bring His promises to life. God’s plan of redemption, brought to its fullness in the work of Christ, was not carried through history by the words of prophecy alone. Rather, it touched down in the experience of God’s people as particular individuals and events illustrated the promises of God in the covenant of grace. More specifically, the person and work of Jesus Christ was imprinted on the history that led to His incarnation. People and events in Israel’s history offered prophetic glimpses of the coming Savior and His work, reassuring them of the promise of His coming. This makes typology a vital link between the Old and New Testaments, which reassures us today of the continuing power and relevance of the Old Testament as a revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Greek word typos is used variously in the New Testament, usually translated as “form,” “image,” “pattern,” or “example.” In 1 Timothy 4:12, for instance, the Apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to “set the believers an example (typos) in speech, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” Some texts, however, use typos as a more precise term to designate elements or patterns in Old Testament history that were designed to foreshadow New Testament realities. Paul refers to Adam as a “type of the one who was to come,” explaining how Adam foreshadowed Christ as a representative of mankind (Rom. 5:14–21). The writer of Hebrews, contrasting the heavenly high-priestly ministry of Jesus with the earthly ministry of human priests, characterized the latter as those “who serve a copy (typos) and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:4–5). A type is a foreshadow of something or someone greater, which we call the antitype.
Not every superficial parallel between the Old and New Testaments is an instance of typology, but only those that substantively foreshadow the redemptive work of God through Christ. Other examples include David (Matt. 22:41–45), Jonah and Solomon (Matt. 12:39–42), Moses (Heb. 3:1–6), Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1–19), the tabernacle and its sacrifices (Heb. 9:1–15), and the Temple (John 2:18–22). By a simple metaphor, Paul posits the typology vested in the Paschal Lamb: “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7).
Read More
Related Posts:

Why is it comforting that we have a new identity in Jesus Christ? The phrasing of the question shows that Gordon is making an appeal against the expressive individuals that we all are. We almost impulsively reject the notion that anything outside of ourselves could define our identity and that we would find that comforting. Yet the new identity that Jesus Christ imparted upon all whom He has redeemed is still the only true and lasting comfort, both in this life and even in death. The answer contains four sentences. Because the first sentence must be understood in light of the second, it may be more helpful if the answer read: “Because God has redeemed my life with the precious blood of his Son and has also delivered me from the lie of Satan in the Garden, I am being remade into the image of Christ, to have a true identity–in body and soul, throughout the whole course of my life, to enjoy God and glorify him forever.”

In the preface, Gordon says that he based this catechism upon the Heidelberg Catechism, which was approved in its final version in 1563 and was written by Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus (who were both in their twenties when they first wrote). While the Westminster Shorter Catechism is unrivaled for instructing in sound doctrine, the Heidelberg remains in use nearly five hundred years later largely because of its devotional warmth. We see this distinction in the opening questions of both catechisms. The Westminster begins with establishing the end or purpose (telos) for all of mankind. In other words, it begins with what we were created to do. The Heidelberg, however, begins with the only source of real and lasting comfort that can be found in this broken and sin-stained world. As we will see, Gordon’s use of the Heidelberg is most evident in these first two questions.
Question 1
Whenever I first read the questions to my wife, I don’t think I even finished reading the answer to this first question before she asked me: “Why does a catechism on sexuality begin with identity?”
And that is a great and necessary question to answer right from the start. I answered Tiff that she likely thinks of identity in the much the same way that anyone would have throughout most of human history. My identity is who I am, and that is likely to be expressed through many external factors. I am the son or daughter of X and Y. I am the husband or wife of Z. I am the father or mother of my children. I am a citizen of… And the list goes on.
For the ancients, understanding one’s identity was crucial for being able to live out the virtue of piety, which meant doing one’s duty to whomever that duty was owed. For the Romans, Aeneas was the standard of such piety. Throughout the Aeneid, he repeatedly sets aside his own interests and happiness in order to do his duty to the gods, his country, and his family. The most famous example comes in book 2, where Aeneas escapes the burning of Troy while leading his son by the hand and carrying his elderly father on his back. That was an act of masculine piety, guiding the next generation while also shouldering the weight of the previous generation. Indeed, the Roman government saw the catechizing potential of that image, so they imprinted it upon their coins. Again, to live piously required understanding one’s identity or place within society so that you could properly fulfill your duty.
Yet you may have noticed that that notion is rather foreign to us today. Samuel James writes:
Over the past several years, Christian theologians and others have described the emerging generation of Western adults as belonging to the spirit of “expressive individualism.” The scholar Robert Bellah defines expressive individualism this way: “Expressive individualism holds that each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed in individuality is to be realized.” In other words, what most people in the modern, secular world believe is that the key to their happiness, fulfillment, and quest for meaning in life is to arrange things so that their inner desires and ambitions can be totally achieved. If these desires and ambitions align with those of the community or the religion, great! But if not, then it’s the community or the religion that must be changed or done away with. Life’s center of gravity, according to expressive individualism, is the self.
pp. 5-6
For our discussion, this means that most Americans today do not approach identity as a statement (this is who I am) but as a question: Who am I? This is crucial to understand because as Carl Trueman notes:
at the heart of the issues we face today is the phenomenon of expressive individualism. This is the modern creed whose mantras and liturgies set the terms for how we think about ourselves and our world today. It is the notion that every person is constituted by a set of inward feelings, desires, and emotions. The real “me” is that person who dwells inside my body, and thus I am most truly myself when I am able to act outwardly in accordance with those inner feelings. In an extreme form we see this in the transgender phenomenon, where physical, biological sex and psychological gender identity can stand in opposition to each other. I can therefore really be a woman if I think I am one, even if my body is that of a male. But expressive individualism is not restricted to questions of gender. When people identify themselves by their desires–sexual or otherwise–they are expressive individuals. And to some extent that implicates us all. The modern self is the expressive individual self.
That is no exaggeration on Trueman’s end. We are all, in some sense, expressive individualists. James opens up his book with David Foster Wallace’s fable about the fish. An older fish swims past two young fish and asks them how’s the water. As the older fish swims away, the young fish look at each other and ask, “What’s water?” The point of the fable is that it is incredibly difficult to notice what is all around us. Expressive individualism is the water that the modern West swims in, and failing to notice it does nothing to change the fact that we are still swimming in it. Even simple notions like being a cat or dog person or a morning or evening person give away that we are all expressive individualists to some degree, since the very notion that I can be defined by what I like or dislike is fundamentally modern.
Practically, this means we and virtually any person that we know has an ingrained propensity to look within ourselves for happiness, fulfillment, and meaning. And it makes sense right? Shouldn’t we know best how to best satisfy and comfort ourselves? Despite the reality that we live in most comfortable, wealthiest, and safest time in human history, the pandemic levels of anxiety and depression screams that something isn’t quite right. Indeed, for the first time in human history young people are more likely to kill themselves than be killed by almost anything else. The world has never been better, but in some ways, we have never been more broken.
The Heidelberg began by speaking comfort into a world filled with pain and death that were ever-present and inescapable, asking:
What is your only comfort in life and death?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
The two fibres in question are linen and wool, and they are mixed on two occasions: in the High Priest’s ephod (Exodus 28 & 39) and in the tabernacle’s curtain (Exodus 26)—which are the same thing, because the High Priest’s outfit marks him out as a walking, talking tabernacle. You can’t mix because mixing is a holy thing. Only the high priest wears a garment of mixed fibres. Only the tabernacle is woven with them. Only in God is mixing allowed. Which might help us think about the wisdom here: the Church of God is a holy place where mixing is allowed. 

When someone wants to point out that Christians don’t believe the Bible—often because they want to poke holes in a Christian sexual ethic—they turn to one of two places, mixed fibres or shellfish.
Both are laws from the old testament, one part of the food laws which I’ve written on before, the other one of those esoteric things which seems bizarre to us. All the Law was given for our instruction, though, so it must teach us.
Before considering what it might have to say to us, it’s worth pointing out the common gotcha—perhaps most famous in a scene in the West Wing—completely misunderstands how Christians have understood the Law. For all there is debate about exactly how we should think of these things, Christians have always thought carefully about how these things work and decided that some are to be kept and other understood as wisdom to us. It’s not a gotcha at all. It’s also worth drawing your attention to the way that sexual purity laws function differently in Leviticus to mixed fibres or food laws, they aren’t the same sort of thing—perhaps a topic for another time!
So, what are we meant to do with Leviticus 19’s prohibition on mixed fibres? It’s clustered with a law against breeding different kinds of animals together and a law against planting different kinds of seeds in a field. We should immediately think that the clustering is meant to make us notice something about not mixing with different ‘kinds.’
I’m sure we could jump to all sorts of conclusions which would be out of step with the Biblical witness, but it must have something to do with this.
Read More
Related Posts:

God created man to first work, not to worship.  Work was the beginning of his worship. Work must not be viewed as a utilitarian instrument (for example, a means to give more to the church), but work itself is a holy ministry toward others in that work is producing goods and services that provide for the needs, comfort, and joy of others.  Again, in my opinion, if the first half of the 4th commandment (working six days) received as much attention as the second half (resting one day), then the kingdom of God would be greatly advanced.

David Bahnsen in his latest book Full-Time: Work and The Meaning of Life challenges a few theological presuppositions prominent in the modern evangelical and reformed world regarding the relationship between faith and work. This also includes an interesting chapter on the rather new concept (over the course of history) of retirement.
David is the son of the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, well known in reformed circles as a scholar, and who is often associated with the theological views of Theonomy.  After David’s father died at a young age, David tells the reader in the book that he lost his best friend while just a young college student. This was a very difficult time in his life, and maybe the most helpful therapy, besides his faith, in dealing with his loss was work.  And work he did!
David is today the founder, Managing Partner, and Chief Investment Officer of the Bahnsen Group, a private wealth management firm managing over $4.5 billion in client assets.  For those familiar with the financial world, he is a regular guest on several national media outlets such as Fox Business, CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox News.
Because of his love for Christ’s Church, especially as it is expressed in the reformed faith, he deals with some suspect theological assumptions that come from modern pulpits (often unawares) regarding the place of work and retirement in the life of every Christian.
David is very balanced in his book.  By balanced I mean he is always predicting potential objections to his statements and qualifying them so as not to be misinterpreted as one who is rushing off into some extreme view.  I call this the “However Rule.”  I have written enough to know that some of the most important terms in writing are words like however, but, or on the other hand.
Readers can quickly draw errant deductions from a written statement, and a good writer will know when and how to neutralize those false deductions. He will then add qualifying statements.  In other words [yes, I am a writer too], David is very balanced in the book, qualifying his stated views where there might be a temptation to mis-understand him.
So, what are some of the errant suppositions about work that are so prevalent today in the reformed and evangelical world?  I think in answering these questions, it should be noted that he begins in the Book of Genesis and not in the New Testament.  He has what some have termed a Creational Worldview (see Creational Worldview – An Introduction by P. Andrew Sandlin). Let me cover just a few of his themes in the book.

The Prodigal Son in the Basement Playing Video Games

He offers several reasons for this phenomenon including the societal characteristics of a decline in family values, and an increase in both loneliness and isolation. Later, he looks at the labor-participation rate today as compared to that of many years ago.  The conclusion is heart-shattering.
In my own opinion, I believe what the modern church may be missing is that work with purpose may be the best medicine to prevent depression. It may be the best antidote, far exceeding anti-depressants and therapy.  Certainly, work is not the answer to every problem, but we need to reevaluate its critical importance in the arena of mental health. I think the modern church has relegated work to a material necessity which is juxtaposed to what is considered the higher realm of true spirituality. This is contradictory to the purpose of the creation of man in Genesis which was to work in a material world.

Work is Not the Curse in Genesis

After the Fall, childbearing for the woman became very difficult, however, children were not the curse of God but the pain in labor was the curse.  Children are a blessing.  Likewise, after the Fall work became accompanied by the sweat of the brow, thorns, and thistles.  However, work itself was not a curse, but rather the sweat, the thorns, and the thistles were the curse.  Work was given to provide man with purpose, identity, and dignity.  Redemption in Christ restores that purpose given before the Fall.
God created man to first work, not to worship.  Work was the beginning of his worship. Work must not be viewed as a utilitarian instrument (for example, a means to give more to the church), but work itself is a holy ministry toward others in that work is producing goods and services that provide for the needs, comfort, and joy of others.  Again, in my opinion, if the first half of the 4th commandment (working six days) received as much attention as the second half (resting one day), then the kingdom of God would be greatly advanced.

What About the Clergy Work Ethic?

I will not say much about this theme.  Indeed, most pastors are hard-working men, but in some circles, slackness is becoming a problem. The change in church structure often leaves men preaching almost half the time during the week as compared to their ministerial forefathers. The larger the church the greater the temptation.  The title of this chapter in his book is “Pouting Pulpits & Part-time Pastors.”

The Retirement Disaster

David calls retirement a 30-year vacation. For some of us who could not retire until age 65, it could be viewed more as 10-year to15-year vacation. Yes, people do need to slow down as they get older, but to stop working can be a bad as death itself. I could never stop working.  I think I work as much today (in my late 70’s) as I ever did.
Many years ago, there were no retirement plans.  You retire when you died.  Today, work is for the purpose of “getting to the point you do not have to work.” Although the modern world has created many blessings that allow us to live longer and heathier, the loss of older men in the workforce is also the loss of wisdom and mentorship in the workforce.  David believes this is a great loss.

The Problem with the Virtual (Home) Workplace

Although this topic is included as an appendix in the Book, David’s views on working from home as opposed to going to the office are interesting.  He is against it.  You may not agree with him on this, but he makes several good points.
In conclusion, I have only covered a few parts of the main points in his Book. I have not even touched on his excellent analysis of how successful Chirstian men deal with the envy of others, or how a Christian man of wealth may be tempted to wallow in guilt because of his success.  My goal is to just give you enough bait to catch your attention.
To get the rest of the story, I do highly recommend this book.  It would be an excellent source for a Bible Study, especially for men.  Our view of work is very important since we do so much of it.  The book contains much wisdom which David himself has gained over the years as he went from working in a movie theatre at 15 years of age to a multi-billion-dollar financial advisor.  Being raised in the home of a preacher and scholar who was shunned by so many of his own colleagues teaches a son a great deal too. You need to buy the book and work at reading it.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

What we see on social media cannot be construed as what is broadly true, sociologically speaking. However, social media can be incredibly insightful, as it allows us to encounter people who are different than us and challenge our preconceived notions about a people, group, or subject. It enables us to connect with people we normally wouldn’t in our local communities who have the potential to positively impact our view of the world.

It’s worth asking: What is social media good for? It’s not good for everything, and in many ways, it is, in fact, bad for us. I think it’s important that we continue to sound the alarm about the problems social media (and technology, more broadly) poses to our flourishing as we continue to progress further and further into the digital age and more generations are raised with devices. That said, social media isn’t all bad. There are things that it is good for. I thought it would be worth mentioning a few of those things.
Networking
David Fincher’s 2010 Oscar-winning movie isn’t called The Social Media; it’s called The Social Network. It wasn’t that long ago that we referred to these social websites as networks rather than media. That’s because their primary function wasn’t to mediate content to us, but to connect us with other people. To this day, this remains the best use of the social internet.
Patrick and I first met over Twitter (ummm, X) and worked together for six months before we ever met in person. I’ve made many other meaningful relationships because of social media, but that’s mainly because social media was the starting point, not the ending point. The relationships that have been the most meaningful have progressed from tweets to texts to calls to Zoom calls, and sometimes meeting in person. Some of these relationships have had a tremendous impact on my life, leading to job opportunities, significant worldview shifts, and just general encouragement and helpful feedback. The best reason to be on social media remains connecting with actual people.
Exposure
If you’re an artist, activist, writer, or any other kind of content creator, you no longer have to wait for the gatekeepers to choose you. You can find an audience and speak directly to them. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. With consistency, determination, and skill, you can bypass the traditional avenues of being discovered and have your voice heard by those who want to hear it. It doesn’t take that many, either.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by D. Eaton |
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
Paul says, “All things are lawful, but not all things build up” (1 Corinthians 10:23b). Unlike the first limitation we covered, this is not asking whether or not it will build us up. Instead, it focuses on those around us. We know this because of the following verse, which says, “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1 Corinthians 10:24). If there is something we are permitted to do, but it will spiritually harm our neighbor if we do it, we should abstain.

Just because we are free to do something in the Christian life does not mean we should. There are limits to Christian freedom, but how do we know what those limits are? Paul is quite clear in 1 Corinthians: anything not deemed sinful by the Word of God is permissible. He says, “All things are lawful.” The freedom in this statement is profound. Many people speak of Christianity as a list of restrictions, but the “Thou shalt nots” appear regularly in Scripture because they are so few compared to the list of things we can do. Compiling a list of the things the believer is free to do would fill 100 Bibles. Christianity is a religion of freedom, but simply because all things are lawful does not mean all things are expedient.
Whether or not a Christian should abstain from something permissible is always a personal matter. When it comes to Christian liberty, the problem arises when a Christian decides he should refrain from something that is permitted and then begins to apply that restriction to every other child of God. The answer to someone doing that is, “All things are lawful.” But how can we decide whether we should abstain from something Scripture does not forbid? Paul gave us three criteria that we can use to help us determine if we should limit our freedom.  
1. Does It Hinder Me from Progressing with Christ?
Here is how Paul puts it. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful” (1 Corinthians 6:12a). Another translation says, “but not all things are expedient.” The words “helpful” and “expedient” speak to making progress, specifically in your walk with the Lord. Maybe there is something lawful, but when you do it, it becomes like a weight that slows you down as you run the race. In that case, throw off every weight which so easily entangles you.
Read More
Related Posts:

Covenant Presbytery took up the Jonesboro matter again; this time with the hope of reconciliation between members of the Jonesboro congregation and the original Session. This is very good news. It would be a wonderful testimony if the Presbytery not only reconciled with the Jonesboro 7, but also with those who left the visible church following the abuse by the original temporary Session largely from IPC Memphis. While the actions of that temporary Session have been nullified by the PCA General Assembly, there are nonetheless lingering personal, relational, and spiritual consequences due to the way judicial process was “abused” by the temporary Session.

Seven heads of households from a PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas met with their temporary Session. They explained to their elders at that meeting their desire to consider candidates for pastor other than the current church planter (and a member of the temporary Session). The men were shocked by the temporary Session’s response. The temporary Session’s actions would likewise shock and scandalize many from across the PCA. You can read about the travails and vindication of the Jonesboro 7 here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, and Part Five.
The Principle of Non-Intrusion
In the Fall of 1834, wealthy and powerful Lord Kinnoul selected Mr Robert Young to serve as pastor of a Presbyterian congregation in Auchterarder, Scotland of which Lord Kinnoul was the patron. The congregation had the opportunity of sitting under Young’s ministry for a period of time. When the moment came for the congregation to determine whether to approve the man to be their pastor, the congregation decidedly rejected him:
only two individuals, Michael Tod and Peter Clark, could be found to express approbation by signing the call. Five-sixths of the congregation, on the other hand, came forward solemnly to protest against his settlement [installation].1
The congregation requested their patron, Lord Kinnoul, select another man to serve as minister. But Lord Kinnoul refused and took the matter to the civil courts.
On what was very likely a cold day, March 8, 1838 a Scottish court issued a judgment against that Auchterarder congregation, which stated in effect, “in the settlement of pastors, the Church [presbytery] must have no regard to the feelings of the congregation.”
The little congregation appealed, but on May 2, 1839 the appeals court ruled the opinion of the congregation was “considered of no value in any way…” regarding the selection of a pastor.2
There were numerous similar cases in the Scottish Kirk at this time; the civil courts determined regarding the selection of ministers: “No regard was to be paid to any opinions or feelings of the parishioners.”3
But the people of God continued to protest to the Scottish presbyteries, insisting they should have the right of approving a minister. When the church courts refused to heed their pleas, the people vacated the church buildings and formed new congregations; they would not accept a minister forced upon them by the civil government or the presbytery. The intrusion of the government and church courts into the selection of a congregation’s minister is deeply offensive to the principles of biblical church polity.
Thomas Brown summarizes:
During the whole of the Church’s history it had been held that the call of the people was essential before a minister could be settled. The congregation must invite before the Presbytery could ordain. Here were cases, however, one after another, in which the parishioners were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the presentee. Was the call, then, to be treated as a mockery?…Was it to be tolerated that, the members of Christian congregations must submit to have obnoxious presentees forced on them?4
This led to what is called “The Great Disruption” of 1843 in which several hundred ministers departed from the Kirk of Scotland, being committed to the principle that neither the civil government (e.g., an aristocratic patron) nor the church courts may “intrude” upon a congregation’s right to select her own minister. They formed the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
This “non-intrusion principle” is now universally accepted as vital to presbyterianism.
The ‘Non-Intrusion Principle’ & the PCA?
The principle underlying the Great Disruption of 1843 is at the core of the PCA’s Book of Church Order (see the article I wrote at PCAPolity.com for more on this). A congregation’s right to select her own minister is nearly absolute. No church court may force a minister upon a congregation without its consent, not even a temporary Session.5
This makes what happened in Jonesboro, Arkansas all the more remarkable and scandalous.
Following that meeting with seven heads of households, the temporary Session (largely comprised of elders from wealthy and influential IPC Memphis) investigated, indicted, and summoned the seven men for trial because they objected to the Session’s preferred course of action: to have one of the Session’s own number considered first for the position of pastor.
During the trial, however, no evidence was presented of the men’s guilt. Nonetheless, IPC Memphis Ruling Elder David Caldwell did testify at trial that he had a feeling the Ninth Commandment was violated by the Jonesboro 7.6 Ordinarily, feelings are not admitted into evidence in the courts of the PCA. But in this case, the PCA General Assembly’s Judicial Commission (SJC) noted the “basic principles of due process” required by the PCA Constitution were violated by that temporary Session.7
RE David Caldwell was later elected to be the Moderator of Covenant Presbytery in 2024. As moderator, his role is to ensure meetings and debate are conducted in accordance with the PCA Constitution.
The temporary Session found the men guilty, censured them, and barred them from the Lord’s Table as well as participation in congregational meetings, which also meant they could not vote on the call of a pastor (as some SJC judges noted during their review of the Session’s actions).
When the men appealed their decision to Covenant Presbytery, the temporary Session resigned and recommended the MNA Committee of Covenant Presbytery close the little church plant in Jonesboro, calling its culture toxic.
What was it that made the congregation toxic? Was it that seven households objected to the man whom the temporary Session – a group of men largely from IPC Memphis who did not live in Jonesboro – wanted to offer to the congregation?8
It is unclear what made the church plant’s culture toxic. But you can imagine the impact that label had on the members of Christ Redeemer PCA church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Faithful elders across the denomination are working to further perfect and refine our polity in hopes that the abuse of process endured by the Jonesboro 7 and others is not repeated.
The Cost to the Church
The Jonesboro 7 and their families represented upward of 40% of the congregation. The temporary Session understandably did not inform the rest of the congregation of the investigation, indictment, and trial of the Jonesboro 7, yet nonetheless a cloud settled over the congregation for some time as a result.
When the judgment of the temporary Session was finally announced and notice of appeal was given, the little congregation was in utter disarray. You can get a sense of the pain and hurt felt by the congregation at this meeting where some members of the temporary Session explain their decision to resign and recommend the church plant be terminated by Covenant Presbytery.
Indeed, the Jonesboro 7 persevered through the abuse of process by the temporary Session and the erroneous decisions of Covenant Presbytery and were ultimately vindicated by the PCA General Assembly. But not all the members of the church plant persevered through the congregation’s difficulties, which the temporary Session brought upon them.
While the biblical polity of the PCA prevailed and vindicated the Jonesboro 7 against the usurpations by a temporary Session of elders largely from IPC Memphis, there have still been costs.
A number of the church plant’s members and regular attenders were so shocked by the abuse of process and the bad report that was given to Covenant Presbytery by the former members of the Session that they have left the visible church entirely.
Read More
Related Posts:

I’ve reflected on my first words after being shot and not being able to talk for 2 months. These words seem very appropriate now, “Hallelujah! Thank you, Jesus, sweet sweet Jesus.” While the road to recovery continues, today’s verdict gives us a sense of peace. We have found solace in God’s faithfulness and His mercies which are new every morning. 

As many of our followers on Gentle Reformation will know, two years ago this month our son-in-law, Tommy, was shot in the line of duty in his third week on the job as an officer for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD). We have chronicled the journey the Lord has taken Tommy and Emory on with the following posts.
Abiding in the Almighty’s Shadow | Emory recounting the night of the shooting
Continuing to Abide in the Almighty’s Shadow | A six-month update that includes local Indy newscasts. This link is of Emory reading Psalm 91 on air.
Shattered | Emory’s article on the first anniversary after the shooting
WRTV Article | This article gives details of the trial this month with a video news report
3GT Interview | An episode where you hear Tommy & Emory explain their journey
Last week on February 13-15, the trial was held for the man who shot Tommy. The courtroom scene was intense, especially because this man chose to represent himself, took no responsibility for his actions, made terrible lies and accusations against those involved in this case, and was able to directly examine Tommy.
Yet, after a relatively brief time of deliberation, the jurors brought back guilty verdicts for all nine counts against him, including two counts of attempted murder against Tommy and the officer credited with saving Tommy’s life. We rejoice over this display of justice.
Read More
Related Posts:

According to Christ, every word will be judged, which reveals that there will be a greater condemnation for some people than for others. In Luke 12:47-48, Jesus contrasts two servants who were given a command to follow, and one received a “severe beating” while another received a “light beating.” This too illustrates a difference in punishment that will be issued at the return of Christ.

The doctrine of hell is one that is often neglected or avoided simply because of the weightiness and darkness of the subject. However, it’s critically important that Christians speak about hell in the way that the biblical text speaks about hell. Our doctrinal positions should be formed on the basis of Scripture rather than our feelings about a specific subject. Is your doctrine of hell different than Jesus’ doctrine of hell?
What Did Jesus Teach About Hell?
In Jesus’ earthly ministry, he preached many sermons and taught on various subjects which are visibly evident in his most famous sermon known as “The Sermon on the Mount.” The preaching of Jesus was not exactly light. As the Prophet greater than Moses, Jesus thundered the truth of the Kingdom of God including heaven and the judgment of God in “the hell of fire” (Matt 5:22). Jesus pointed to the certainty of both heaven and hell. Jesus likewise spoke of the eternality of both heaven and hell (Matt 25:46).
The Lord Jesus himself frequently described hell as a place of righteous judgment upon rebels and lawbreakers. We see evidence of Jesus’ doctrine of hell in multiple passages (Matt 5:22; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 24:51; 23:33; 25:30; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 13:28). In these texts, we see weighty language of wrath, retribution, and punishment that point to the holy vengeance of a sovereign God who must judge sinners.
In Jesus’ parable in Luke 16 regarding the rich man and Lazarus, the doctrine of divine judgment in hell is illustrated vividly as the rich man immediately drops into the abyss of hell after his death. In the flames of hell, the rich man requests a drop of water to cool his tongue, because he states that he was in “anguish” in the flames of judgment (Luke 16:24). In contrast, Jesus points to the fact that the poor man (Lazarus) was in complete comfort in the presence of Abraham (Luke 16:25). The presence of Abraham was a means of illustrating a place of blessing since the Jews idolized Abraham as their Jewish hero. The parable points to the severity of the divine vengeance of God.
When we examine Jesus’ parables and his preaching on the doctrine of hell, it’s clear that he intentionally employed key words to underscore the severity of hell.
Fire: Jesus often used the imagery of fire to illustrate the punishment awaiting the unrepentant. In Matthew 25:41 we find these words by Jesus, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’” (ESV).
Outer Darkness: This term highlights the separation from God’s presence and the despair associated with eternal punishment. In Matthew 8:12, Jesus said, “while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (ESV).
Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth: This is descriptive language indicating the anguish and regret of those facing judgment. In Matthew 13:42, Jesus  warned that those who experience the final judgment of God will be thrown “into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (ESV).
Degrees of Punishment
The Bible teaches that hell will be more severe for some people than for others. While all unbelievers who die outside of the grace of God will experience the wrath of God for eternity in hell, we must recognize the clear teachings of Scripture that point to varying degrees of punishment in hell.
In Luke 10 and Matthew 11, a parallel passage is found in both Gospels that points to the reality of different degrees of punishment in hell. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Jesus actually taught that hell would be more severe for those who lived in cities like Capernaum than for those who lived in the wicked city of Sodom. Notice the words of Jesus from Matthew 11:
“Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”1
Read More
Related Posts: