If you were to attain your worldly desire, you might find yourself in a better position amongst your peers, but your soul would not have improved. Possessing things does nothing to improve the inner man, but possessing contentment does. Finding contentment in God conforms us closer to the image of Christ—something possessions cannot do.

We are consumers at heart. Many people today believe that life’s goal is to strive for abundance so they can consume abundantly. The underlying assumption is that this is the way to happiness. However, possessing contentment is better than possessing anything you believe will make you happy. It is common to think, “If I only had this one thing, then I would be satisfied,” but if we cannot be satisfied without it, we will likely not be satisfied with it. Jeremiah Burroughs gives us four reasons this is the case.
Before he lays out these reasons, he gives us an example of a King who wanted to go to war against another nation. One of his political advisors was concerned about this decision, so he asked the ruler, “Why is it necessary to go to war against the nation?” The king replied, “Because then we will be able to conquer the neighboring nation easily.” His advisor asked, “And what then?” The king answered, “Then we will have access to three other nations lined up beyond that. The advisor pressed further, “Then what?” The king smiled and said, “That is the glorious part. Then we will be quiet, take our ease, and feast every day. We will be merry with each other continually.” The advisor asks, “We are secure as a nation now, without any threat. Can you not sit down and be merry now?”
This short-sightedness is the condition of many of our hearts.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the end, Basham desires not to tear the church down but to build it up. She desires to see the pure gospel truth that saved her soul taken up and preached without compromise, without apology. It is that saving gospel, undiluted by political pandering and corporate double-speak, that “still brings dead girls to life.”

Sometimes, a book comes along that creates irreconcilable differences between sociopolitical factions. Other times, a book comes along that diagnoses them. Megan Basham’s Shepherds for Sale is the second kind of book. According to its critics, it’s a shrill, dissident right propaganda screed, designed to foment civil war within the evangelical church. But to anyone who hasn’t spent the past decade in a particular kind of echo chamber, Basham’s thesis will ring true: Civil war has been upon evangelicals for a long time, whether it was welcomed or not.
To say the book has hit a nerve would be an understatement. Its heated reception was inevitable, given its audaciously wide scope; chapter topics include antiracism, the #ChurchToo movement, Covid, LGBTQ issues, and more. Much of the material was not new to me, because I have been independently logging these rifts in real time, not just among evangelicals but within my own Anglican tradition. (Parts of the LGBTQ chapter follow my First Things article on the many errors of the “Side B” movement.)
Despite the juicy title, not everyone in the book’s large cast of evangelical characters will emerge as a pure heretical sell-out. This has been a common critique, but Basham herself pre-empts it in the introduction, where she acknowledges that people’s motives can be complex, and degrees of compromise can vary. As she’s documented, big leftist money has certainly changed hands, yet not every commentator will follow David French to the point of stumping for Kamala Harris, and not every pastor will follow Andy Stanley to the point of guiding his flock over a cliff into blatant heresy. Even so, there remain many ways for a “shepherd” to be stubbornly blind.
Basham’s highest-profile rebuttal so far has come from megachurch pastor J. D. Greear, who appears in several chapters. The chapter on “critical race prophets” details how he participated in a witch-hunt against members of First Baptist Church Naples who rejected a black pastoral candidate. Their swift and ruthless excommunication as racists, cheered on by multiple high-profile Southern Baptist voices like Greear’s, is the most shocking injustice Basham documents in her book. Greear pleads ignorance in his long complaint, claiming that he accepted the account of church leaders “in good faith.” In a detailed reply, Basham responded, “No. One cannot in good faith publicly label ordinary members of a church racists without clear evidence.” Their exchange vividly demonstrates why the loss of institutional trust among rank-and-file evangelicals is so profound, and most likely irrevocable.
One way to crystallize Basham’s thesis is that for far too long, certain “elite” evangelicals have seen themselves as a kind of Protestant magisterium, delivering wisdom to the rank and file while mutually refraining from in-house criticism. Meanwhile, they themselves have uncritically deferred to people who claim “expert” authority, whether on behalf of an “oppressed” group (immigrants, women, black people, gay people) or on behalf of science (environmental science, epidemiology). Not every member of the new magisterium has been equally vulnerable on every issue, but all have sought approval in the eyes of their preferred experts, and all have bought into some manifestation of the leftist logic that if one doesn’t subscribe to a particular political solution, one must not care about the problem it claims to solve. Whether as dupes or as willing collaborators, they opened all manner of doors that should have been firmly shut, and ordinary churchgoers have reaped the consequences—
Read More
Related Posts:

In Psalms 42–43, the same psalmist who spoke of his inner turmoil and downcast soul also prayed, “Vindicate me, O God, and defend my cause against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me!” (Ps. 43:1). This prayer of vindication is for Christ’s lips as well. Though sorrowful in Gethsemane, he would be vindicated at his resurrection. Though facing the unjust actions of an ungodly generation, Christ’s victory over death would be the divine vindication of his teachings and claims and identity. 

When the author of Psalms 42–43 wrote about the circumstances and taunts he’s facing, the reader can easily imagine the psalmist’s angst and frustration. People taunt the psalmist, saying, “Where is your God?” (Ps. 42:3, 10). Enemies oppress him (42:9; 43:2). Ungodly people act unjustly and deceitfully toward him (43:1).
But the problem isn’t only external. The psalmist describes his inner life as one of turmoil, and he does this three times in Psalms 42–43: “Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God” (42:5, 11; 43:5).
His soul is downcast and in turmoil. The psalmist isn’t stoic, so he’s affected by his hardships. But in response to the state of his soul, he exhorts himself. He calls himself to hope. He directs his attention to God. This response is important because the psalmist knows he is not hopeless. His circumstances have not removed him from God’s reach or God’s love.
The sorrowful soul of this psalmist has been something that readers throughout the ages have resonated with. At some point or another, through seasons short or long, we can read Psalms 42–43 and feel like we know what the psalmist means.
Do you think Jesus experienced inner turmoil? The writer of Hebrews says, “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence” (Heb. 5:7).
Read More
Related Posts:

Several years ago, I was invited to a church to help lead their annual leader training. At this annual meeting, they eat dinner together, talk about their overall ministry philosophy and goals, and then break out into age segments for more directed and specific training. During the dinner, I happened to be seated close to a group of older ladies who chatted happily and enjoyed their chicken casserole as much as I did. But then came the time for a special presentation.
One of the casserole-enjoying ladies was, evidently, named Ms. Peggy, and she was to be honored that night. She was retiring from teaching one of the children’s Sunday school classes because she was moving to an assisted living home. But here’s the kicker – she was retiring after having taught that Sunday school class for 70 straight years.
70.
Think about that. That means she taught children who, only a couple of years earlier, had lost their fathers during World War II. It means she shepherded children through things like the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. It means that her Sunday school class excitedly talked about the Apollo Moon landing one Sunday. It means she was teaching the Bible during the tumultuous years of Vietnam. And on 9/11, she was still there. Sunday after Sunday. Week after week. Year after year. It’s remarkable.
And while it’s easy to think such a thing remarkable after 70 years, I wonder if 65 years ago we would have the same reaction to Ms. Peggy. Probably not.

We can pray for the help of the Holy Spirit. We need God’s help to believe God’s word. One of the most important claims the Bible makes about itself is that it was “breathed out” by God the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; cf. 2 Pet. 1:21). The Spirit of God is not a subjective feeling but a living, supernatural person—someone who has the divine power to confirm our minds and hearts in the truth of Scripture. John Calvin wrote beautifully about the Spirit’s work in his famous Institutes.

When We Have Doubts
If we are honest, we have to admit that what happened to Eve is a temptation for us as well. Sometimes we have our doubts about the stories we read in the word of God, about its moral convictions and the promises it makes.
We know how truly human the Bible is, and we wonder if it is also fully divine. We question whether Adam and Eve were the parents of the entire human race. Can we square biblical teaching with scientific evidence? Our culture struggles with the Bible’s sexual ethics, and maybe we do as well: two sexes, two genders, and one definition of marriage, in which a man and a woman are united in a lifelong covenant. Is the Bible right about the sanctity of life inside and outside the womb? Is it for or against women? Does it have a righteous view of justice, including racial justice? Does it give us a true perspective on the fundamental unity and the eternal diversity of humanity? Is it really true that our bodies will rise again and that we will all stand before God’s throne for judgment?
In the face of such questions and objections, many skeptics believe (!) that the Bible is “scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, and culturally regressive.”1 Most of us can relate. If we read the Bible carefully, eventually we encounter something we find hard to accept, and maybe difficult to believe at all. The question is this: What should we do when this happens?
By way of answer, here are several practical steps we can take to give us growing confidence in the word of God.
First, we can confess that we are not neutral observers but are predisposed not to believe what God says. This is one of the sad results of humanity’s first, morally fatal transgression. As soon as Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they hid from God—a clear sign that they were no longer aligned with his divine holiness. God called to Adam and said, “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9). This showed that the first man had ended up far from God. Adam’s sin has noetic effects on all of us; in other words, it distorts our spiritual ability to reason. Spiritual doubt comes more naturally to the fallen human heart than genuine faith does. Missiologist Lesslie Newbigin reminds us: “We are not honest inquirers seeking the truth. We are alienated from truth and are enemies of it.”2 If this is true, then we need to doubt our doubts and stay skeptical about our skepticism.
Second, we can keep studying the Scriptures. When we do, we will find out how reliable they are. The Bible is easily the best-attested text from the ancient world. We have—by far—more well-preserved manuscripts of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments than we do of any other history book or sacred text from antiquity. We know what the Bible says.
Furthermore, the general trajectory of biblical scholarship is to confirm rather than to deny biblical history. To cite one notable example, some scholars used to cast doubt on the historicity of David, despite all the biblical evidence to the contrary. Those aspersions were set aside for good when archaeologists discovered a stone artifact at Tel Dan in 1993 and saw “the house of David” among its inscriptions. This proved that David’s reign was engraved in stone as well as written in Scripture. Or consider Luke’s assertion that Jesus was born “when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:2).
Read More
Related Posts:

DISCLAIMER: The Aquila Report is a news and information resource. We welcome commentary from readers; for more information visit our Letters to the Editor link. All our content, including commentary and opinion, is intended to be information for our readers and does not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Aquila Report or its governing board. In order to provide this website free of charge to our readers,  Aquila Report uses a combination of donations, advertisements and affiliate marketing links to  pay its operating costs.

All goodness that has ever existed among angels and men has all come from the same source. And the whole is so much greater than the sum. Add all of the goodness together from all time, from all men, from the whole globe, and what you get is just a drop from the ocean that is God. 

Have you ever seen a good dad? Maybe you had one. Hopefully, dads, you are one. Have you ever seen those godly characteristics of a good dad really shine? Maybe some extreme compassion for a little one, or a wise word spoken to strengthen and encourage. Maybe you’ve seen godly discipline and correction. When we see this, we are encouraged and marvel at God’s work.
Have you ever seen a good husband? A man who lives in an understanding way with his wife and truly loves his bride. Maybe you’ve heard him speak highly of his wife and really value his wife. He doesn’t follow the world and think of her as a “ball and chain,” but rather he rises up and calls her blessed. The wife feels safe and treasured. When you see this, you marvel at God’s work.
Read More
Related Posts:

I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses.

A seminary classmate recently linked me Rev. Seth Yi’s article entitled The ARP Tightens its Grip on Congregations and Ministers. Although my friend now serves as a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Teaching Elder, he interned with an Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) congregation, and he wanted to know my thoughts as an ARP Minister regarding the Second Presbytery controversy.
I was surprised by Rev. Yi’s allegations that our denomination is experiencing an “ongoing crisis” and his construal of the ARP Form of Government (FOG). Incongruously, he seems to believe that Synod did not have the authority to dissolve Second Presbytery but that presbyteries are empowered to grant carte-blanche advance approval for congregations to withdraw and ministers to transfer.
I told my PCA friend that in his several articles, Rev. Yi has apparently misread our governing documents, leading to incorrect assessments of how ARP courts operate. In particular, I noted the following actions:

The Appointment of the Special Committee

Rev. Yi claims the Special Committee to Investigate Second Presbytery’s Handling of Allegations Against Chuck Wilson was “unquestionably unconstitutional” because members were not appointed by the Synod Moderator. This view misconstrues the language of the Form of Government (FOG) 13.13.B.(2): “The moderator, chairman or nominating committee shall appoint [a special committee’s] members whenever authorized by the court or board” (emphasis mine). This is not an absolute requirement that the moderator must populate all special committees because the conditional phrase “whenever authorized by the court” clarifies that the moderator may only appoint special-committee members upon authorization. Robert’s Rules helpfully explains that authorization may be given either by motion from the floor or by standing rule, and Synod’s Manual of Authorities and Duties (MAD) contains no standing authorization regarding special committees. Since there was no special authorization by motion from the floor, it was in good Presbyterian order for the Synod itself to populate the committee by approving the members specified in the main motion.

Synod’s Consideration of the Special Committee Report

Rev. Yi also believes Synod violated the ARP constitution when it took up the Report of the Special Committee (Index 11). He is, of course, entitled to hold his opinion in good conscience, but the opinions of individual members do not determine order in a Presbyterian court. In fact, FOG 12.25.C. says that the General Synod has responsibility to hear appeals to “make final decisions in all controversies respecting doctrine, order, and discipline,” so, effectively, any controversy over whether Index 11 was in order according to the Form of Government was settled by the fact that General Synod voted to hear the report and enact its recommendations.
Both Rev. Tanner Cline and Rev. Yi asked the chair to declare the entirety of the report out of order due to the committee’s composition, the scope of its work, and the submission of its report. Technically, these appeals are likely themselves out of order because the speakers were actually objecting to the considerations of motions, not merely raising points of order. Even had the appropriate motion been raised, though, Index 11 and its recommendations would still have been taken up because Synod’s MAD requires a two-thirds majority to carry an objection to consideration. As it was, a clear majority voted to sustain Moderator Alan Broyles’ ruling that the report was in order, and this resolution of parliamentary questions by the assembly’s judgement was also good Presbyterian procedure.

The Authority of General Synod to Dissolve a Presbytery

Most importantly, Rev. Yi argues that the General Synod had no right to enact the dissolution of Second Presbytery on the basis of his reading of FOG 12.22, which states: “The General Synod shall advise Presbyteries in its processes, but not the outcome, of the actions of the Presbyteries, in order to: A. Organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church” (emphasis mine). While I feel the force of his argument—and the language here is undoubtedly confusing—it seems to me that crucial wording has again been overlooked.
First, this section of the FOG speaks most clearly of “the actions of the Presbyteries.” That is, while it clearly prevents the General Synod dictating any presbytery vote to dissolve itself, it arguably does not limit the actions of Synod itself to that end. In fact, a close reading suggests the singular possessive pronoun “its” refers back to “the General Synod,” meaning that the essential processes of presbytery organization and dissolution belong to Synod itself with presbyteries also playing a secondary role in receiving congregations and ministers as a result. In this part of the process, the higher court may not simply dictate the outcome.
This reading seems most reasonable because it is difficult to understand how Synod could be excluded from the organization, reception, transfer, dismissal, or dissolution of entire presbyteries. FOG 10.1 declares that “the Presbytery is the essential court of the Presbyterian system in administering its general order, the higher courts being constituted simply by a wider application of the general principles of the Presbytery” (emphasis mine). By analogy then, if the Presbytery has power to “unite, divide, organize, dissolve, receive, dismiss, and transfer congregations” (FOG 10.3 E.), the higher court would be able to “organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries” (FOG 12.22). Certainly, the power to act directly upon other presbyteries is not conferred upon the presbyteries themselves anywhere in the Form of Government. One or more presbyteries may not simply vote to receive into the ARPC a breakaway presbytery from a different denomination. Neither may one presbytery sovereignly dismiss another ARP presbytery. This exact logic was on display during day three of the 2024 General Synod when the higher court voted to grant Canadian Presbytery’s petition for dismissal to form a coordinate Canadian ARP Synod.
Additionally, the Presbyterian principle of oversight and accountability through graded courts would seem to demand that Synod be able to dissolve one of her presbyteries if necessary. This principle seems to find expression in FOG 12.24 I., which gives the General Synod power to “oversee the affairs of the entire denomination, directing such measures as are necessary for the promotion of the peace, purity, and prosperity of all congregations under its care.” Ultimately, these are the concerns, I believe, that drove Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery and reallocate her congregations. Many men—myself included—arrived at Bonclarken prepared to vote these recommendations down but found themselves convinced by floor debate that the peace and purity of Christ’s Church required such an unprecedented step.

The Second Called Meeting of Second Presbytery on August 13

Sadly, in contrast to Synod’s disputed authority to dissolve Second Presbytery, actions taken by Second Presbytery itself on August 13, as reported by Rev. Yi, represent clear constitutional overreach.
First, Rev. Yi’s description of the August 13 proceedings describes a second meeting of Second Presbytery being called immediately following the close of a previous called meeting. This is presented as necessary because Moderator Billy Barron refused to allow an amendment to one item of business. I was not present at the meeting and so cannot say whether Rev. Barron ruled correctly, but I will note that Robert’s Rules permits amendments in regular order to a main motion specified in the notice of a special meeting. Whatever the case may be, there are proper remedies to violations of parliamentary law, and these remedies do not include demanding another meeting be called without giving sufficient notice. This unconstitutional action plainly violated FOG 10.12, which requires that “at least one week’s notice of called meetings shall be given to all members of the Presbytery specifying the time and place of the meeting and the particular business for which the meeting is called.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Release Her Congregations Before September 1

Likewise, the Form of Government speaks clearly to the process of how ARP congregations may withdraw from the denomination, and that process cannot be modified by any motion at the presbytery level. Second Presbytery again violated our constitution when they voted to “grant dismissal or transfer to any minister or congregation who requests so in writing to the Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery prior to September 1.” This motion cited FOG 10.3.E and 10.3.K as justification for the action, but these sections cannot be read to empower a presbytery to grant dismissal in whatever manner it sees fit. FOG 10.3 only enumerates the presbytery’s authority and duties.
The actual process for congregational withdrawal is detailed in FOG 3.13, where any congregation that has voted for withdrawal is required to advise the presbytery “in writing at its next stated meeting.” At that meeting “the Presbytery shall appoint a commission to counsel, advise, and mediate with the local congregation…. If the commission decides that it is in the best interest to proceed with the withdrawal, they shall conduct a second election and certify the results thereof to the stated meeting of the Presbytery, one year after the meeting upon which the application for withdrawal was received.” In simple terms, the constitutionally mandated process for withdrawing from an ARP presbytery requires a minimum of two stated meetings and at least one year; it cannot be accomplished in twenty days, and one called meeting. The penalty for failing to comply with these prescribed procedures, according to FOG 3.13 G., is that the “congregation shall forfeit all its right, title, and interest in and to its property to the Presbytery within which it is located.”

Second Presbytery’s Authority to Preemptively Release Ministers to Transfer

In the same way, FOG 9.65 and 10.3.K. do not vest presbyteries with untrammeled authority to transfer ministers. As noted above, FOG 10.3 enumerates the duties and authorities of a presbytery in a general way, so the specifics of how ministers are actually transferred to another denomination are clarified by FOG 9.65. That particular section, however, simply states: “The procedure for transferring ministers to another denomination shall follow in substance the procedure for transfer to another Presbytery within the ARPC.” Therefore, Second Presbytery is bound to follow the process specified in FOG 9.62, the “Procedure for Transferring Ministers from Another Presbytery.” There, any transferring minister is required to initiate the process by “informing his Presbytery of his desire to be transferred, and securing a letter of standing which shall be presented to the receiving Presbytery prior to any examination and approval for reception.” This letter of standing in the dismissing presbytery “shall be issued only after the pastoral or other relationship has been dissolved” (FOG 9.62.C.).
In Presbyterian polity, a pastoral call is a covenant involving a congregation, a minister, and the presbytery which oversees both, and this covenantal relationship is sealed by oaths and vows solemnly sworn by all the parties before God. Accordingly, under the ARP FOG, there is no possibility of a minister transferring his own credentials into another ecclesiastical body while this pastoral covenant stands. Clearly, a single omnibus presbytery motion cannot obviate fundamental Presbyterian principles or constitutional requirements. A preemptive blanket “grant of transfer” does not constitute presbytery’s action to dissolve a call, without which no certificate of standing may be issued, and a valid letter of standing is prerequisite for any transfer to be in order, whether within the denomination or outside it.
Our polity also does not contemplate a minister transferring his credentials without the letter expressing presbytery permission for the simple reason that he has sworn vows to “submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery” (FOG 9.24.F.). Notably, that authority extends to the reception and dismissal of gospel ministers (FOG 10.3 K.), just as the lower court properly receives and transfers members of congregations (FOG 6.8.E.&F.). This such a serious matter that FOG 9.67 requires ministers who “accept work not under the jurisdiction of any ARPC court or agency” without permission from their presbytery to be either divested of office without censure or charged with violating ordination vows.
Summary
As stated above, I do not believe that the current situation in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church should be characterized as an ongoing constitutional crisis. My belief is based on my reading of our ARP Standards, which are, of course, subordinate to the Holy Scriptures. Since reading is the art of noticing details and understanding them in context, all good biblical exegetes resist the temptation to extrapolate endlessly from one or two clauses. The same basic hermeneutical principles apply to denominational standards, as well, and I am convinced that the full context of the ARPC Constitution fundamentally supports Synod’s authority to dissolve Second Presbytery. Unfortunately, for the same reasons I am equally convinced many of Second Presbytery’s recent actions are expressly prohibited by our Form of Government.
Following stated procedures when releasing ministers and congregations from their covenant obligations is not tyranny. On the contrary, it is right Presbyterian polity in good and decent order. Conversely, any theory which treats presbyteries as autonomous ecclesiastical bodies unbeholden to any higher court is actually a polity of Independency, simply one step removed from the local congregation.
I am praying all parties will work together to keep the covenants we have made as members of ARP courts and congregations during this sad and difficult time. All members of our congregations have solemnly promised God that they will submit to the government and discipline of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (FOG 4.5.A.). Likewise, all ARP elders have also vowed “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Session and to the higher courts of the Church” (FOG 8.17.), with all ministers similarly promising “to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery in subordination to the General Synod“ (FOG 9.30.5.).
This holy submission isn’t merely a function of church polity. Instead, it is the true expression of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, who humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8). If we are to truly be the Body of Christ, we must have his same mindset, doing nothing from rivalry or conceit, but instead humbly counting others more significant than ourselves as we look to their interests (Phil 2:3–4). After all, when brothers dwell together in peace and unity, it is very good and a pleasant thing to see! So whether we join to live as one in the same presbytery or whether our denominations are as far apart as Hermon is from Zion’s hill, we are all obligated to be full of affection and sympathy, being of the same mind, having the same love, and comforting one another in love (Phil 2:1–2). In this way, Christ’s Church will truly be peaceful, pure, and prosperous (FOG 4.5.A.; FOG 8.17.; FOG 9.30.5.).
Alex Lott is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is Pastor Starmount ARP in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Related Posts:

There is a need for enterprising Christians to create clothing that is both biblically modest and elegant.  Christ is Lord of our lives and our wardrobes, so let us joyfully submit to that lordship.  We belong to Christ as His precious Bride, which our clothing should reflect.

For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.2 Corinthians 5:2-4, ESV
We recently examined our identity in Christ through the examples of Job’s wife, the woman who anointed Jesus, and the bride of Psalm 45 adorned with modest yet elegant clothing that reflects her status. Since she represents the Church, her modesty indicts the immodesty so prevalent in our churches. Under the influence of feminism, liberal mainline Protestant churches, most evangelical churches, and even some “Reformed” churches have become very effeminate and created idols in that effeminate image. They cater to womenand echo the culture’s glorification of women and subsequent demonization of men, quick to call out sins prevalent among men—like aggression and lust—but not sins more prevalent among women—like gossip, disrespect, quarreling, and dressing immodestly.  Men and women can commit all of these sins but are prone to some more than others, which is certainly true of immodesty.  This post will examine what Scripture—not culture—says about modesty so that we can all bring our wardrobes under the lordship of Christ.
My Body, My Choice?
As a single man, I approach this topic with the same trepidation as other topics primarily affecting women, like the roles of wives and submission in marriage.  Nevertheless, Scripture actually has much to say about modest apparel—more than most American churches do.  One reason churches don’t address it is that we have been so thoroughly infected by our culture that modesty elicits a visceral reaction.  People counter any attempt to place biblical boundaries on clothing by calling it legalistic and essentially saying with abortion supporters “my body, my choice”.  How can I make that parallel since abortion is about another person’s body whereas clothing is only about our own bodies?  Scripture clearly teaches that our bodies do not belong only to us.  In marriage, both spouses’ bodies belong to each other (1 Corinthians 7:3-4), but all of us belong to someone else: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).  We emphasize our adoption as children of God—and rightly so, for it is glorious—but we often neglect the fact that Scripture also refers to us as slaves: “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:16).  Every person is a slave to sin or of God.  As Christians, we were set free from slavery to sin in order to be not only children of God but also slaves of righteousness.  Jesus Christ is not only our Savior but also our Lord, so we are to do everything for His glory (Colossians 3:17), which includes what we wear.  Therefore, it is just as absurd to say “my body, my choice” with clothing as with abortion.
Biblical Theology of Clothing
Clothing is a central issue in Scripture.  Before the Fall, Adam and Eve did not require clothing (Genesis 2:25), but immediately afterward they were keenly aware of their need to cover themselves and their shame—and nakedness has been shameful ever since.  Thus clothing was mankind’s first invention (Genesis 3:7).  God judged their hastily-created clothing inadequate, so He made garments that adequately covered them at the cost of another creature’s life (Genesis 3:21).  Thus it is also shameful to be inadequately clothed, which is especially evident in the prophets who link even partial nakedness to judgment (eg. Isaiah 47:2).  Jesus Christ as the perfect sacrifice took on shame hanging naked on the cross just as Adam and Eve were naked and ashamed in the Garden.  The risen and reigning Christ is no longer naked but fully and elegantly clothed—and the Holy Spirit conforms us that image.  Thus we see the glorified saints in heaven fully clothed (Revelation 7:9.13-14), so we too will not be unclothed but further clothed in glory (2 Corinthians 5:2-4).  In our lives we must therefore not only put off sin but put on righteousness (Romans 13:12, Ephesians 4:22-23, Colossians 3:9- 10).  Christ has removed our sin and covered us with His righteousness, but that does not change the fact that we have sinned, meaning even in eternity we will require clothing.  Therefore, any desire to cover less skin is regressive and contrary to sanctification.  The necessity of clothing also makes it absurd for a Christian to use clothing pridefully to display wealth, status, or prestige.  A. W. Pink observed:
If we duly considered the proper and principal end of apparel, we should rather be humbled and abased when we put it on, than pleased with our gaudy attire. Clothing for the body is to cover the shame of nakedness that sin brought upon us….Raiment, then, is a covering of our shame, the ensign of our sin, and we have no better reason to be proud of our apparel than the criminal has of his handcuffs or the lunatic of his straitjacket; for as they are badges of wrongdoing or insanity, so apparel is but the badge of our sin.  Arthur W. Pink, “A Crying Sin of Our Age” in Free Grace Broadcaster Issue 216: Modest Apparel, Pensacola, FL: Chapel Library: 2010: 8.
Modesty Defined
Therefore, Scripture commands modest attire for all, but particularly women: “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Peter 3:3-4) and “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” (1 Timothy 2:9-10).  At this point, some will argue that these passages are prohibiting ostentatious displays of wealth and have nothing to do with how much of the body is covered.  But the historical context does not support that view:
This instructed Christian women not to imitate the outrageous dress and hairstyles that were commonplace among the Roman nobility…the unofficial uniform for Roman court women, a uniform that was distinctive and attention grabbing. At the same time, these Roman courtesans were notoriously immoral when it came to sexual matters. These women did not dress properly, modestly, and discreetly.Robert G. Spinney, “Thinking Like a Christian About Modest Apparel” excerpt from Dressed to Kill, Tulip Books: 2007 in Free Grace Broadcaster Issue 216: Modest Apparel, Pensacola, FL: Chapel Library: 2010: 3.
Read More
Related Posts:

The fallout of the French Revolution would prove that Pascal’s arguments about God…and his observations about the human condition, were right….Even today, Pascal’s writing has lost none of its fire, nor has the fruits of his intellect, passion, and eloquence dedicated to God diminished.

On August 19, 1662, French philosopher, mathematician, and apologist Blaise Pascal died at just 39 years old. Despite his shortened life, Pascal is renowned for pioneering work in geometry, physics, and probability theory, and even for inventing the first mechanical calculator. His most powerful legacy, however, is his Pensées, or thoughts, about life’s biggest questions, including God and the human condition.
Pascal’s intellect garnered attention at an early age. At 16, he produced an essay on the geometry of cones so impressive that René Descartes initially refused to believe that a “sixteen-year-old child” could have written it. Later, Pascal advanced the study of vacuums and, essentially, invented probability theory.
His life radically changed the evening of November 23, 1654, when Pascal experienced God’s presence in a powerful way. He immediately and radically reoriented his life and thinking toward God. He described the experience on a scrap of parchment that he sewed into his jacket and carried with him the rest of his life:
FIRE—God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars. Certitude, certitude. Heartfelt joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ. My God and thy God. Thy God shall be my God. 
From that moment, Pascal dedicated his life to serving God through his writing. His ideas on apologetics were collected and published after his death in a volume entitled, Pensées, or “Thoughts.”
Best known of his ideas is “Pascal’s Wager.” Facing uncertainty in a game of life with such high stakes, he argued, it makes far more sense to believe in God’s existence than to not: “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
Pascal also offered keen diagnoses of the human condition, such as this:
Read More
Related Posts: