So we evangelicals cannot criticise the Evangelicals for Harris campaign while overlooking Trump’s evil. Voting for the lesser evil in Trump can be a righteous act, but it’s unrighteous to ignore the evil, even if it’s lesser than Kamala Harris’ greater evil. Donald Trump’s position on abortion is deplorable and Kamala Harris’ position is demonic. Despite his great track record on abortion when he was president, Trump isn’t campaigning against abortion. Kamala Harris, however, is campaigning for abortion.

The evangelicals for Harris campaign is a contradiction in terms. “Evangelicals for Harris” is as absurd as Jews for Pharaoh, Christians for Emperor Nero, or evangelicals for Satan.
There is no such thing as “Evangelicals for Harris.” If you’re voting for Kamala Harris, you are not an evangelical. Everyone knows this, including Evangelicals for Harris.
Earlier this week Evangelicals for Harris held a Zoom meeting hosted by Ekemini Uwan, an anti-white and pro-abortion “public theologian” who has said:
“Lets be honest, evangelical really means white Christians. The term has always been problematic because it is narrow in that sense.”
“I don’t classify as an evangelical because it’s tightly bound to whiteness.”
“When I see ‘evangelical’ I know they are not talking about me or my kinsmen.”
“I’ve never considered myself an evangelical.”
So why would a person who doesn’t consider herself an evangelical host a meeting for a campaign called Evangelicals for Harris? 
As Megan Basham says in her bestselling book, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda, leftists know the best way to lure evangelical voters away from conservatism is to fund evangelical leaders who will frame leftist policies as Biblical precepts.
In the book, Basham writes:
“[in 2012, a left-wing cause named Atlantic Philanthropies] issued a report on its failing efforts to break down opposition to gay marriage in Ireland…the report highlighted the resistance of Ireland’s devout Catholics and Protestants. ‘Organized religion is at the heart of the LGBTI oppression and needs to be deconstructed,’ the authors wrote. But they quickly identified the roadblock they would face in achieving the aim: ‘How can one deconstruct an institution that provides hope and comfort to millions of desperate people?’ Rather than go on opposing churches, the gay lobby would need to co-opt them. “An engagement needs to come from groups within the churches,” the report advised. “LGBTI organizations need to appropriate Christian values for a progressive rights agenda.”
This is why Evangelicals for Harris exists. This is why they are encouraging people who hate evangelicalism to pose as evangelicals.
Read More
Related Posts:

Yet for all of Paul’s hard words, Galatians is fundamentally a letter of grace. It is a bitter and often painful grace, but it is grace, nonetheless. Even though the Galatians are in very real danger of committing apostasy, from the very beginning the apostle is declaring that the well of God’s grace has not run dry. This is why the apostle extends his usual greeting into giving the Galatians a brief reminder of what exactly the gospel of Jesus Christ is.

Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peacefrom God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,who gave himself for our sinsto deliver us from the present evil age,according to the will of our God and Father,to whom be the glory forever and ever.Amen.
Galatians 1:1-5 ESV
When preparing for a new series through a book of the Bible, I always give a great deal of thought to what I am titling the series because I want the title to act as a concise snapshot of what the main theme of the book is. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians proved surprisingly difficult in this matter, since nailing down the overall theme can be a challenge. Of course, there is no shortage of ideas. If Galatians is primarily a polemic against legalism, then we could call the series “Not by Works of the Law,” “Captive Under the Law,” or even “The Curse of the Law.” But if Galatians is foremost a defense of justification by faith alone, then we could call it “Justified by Faith” or simply “Through Faith Alone.” But maybe Paul’s broader goal is to defend the true gospel, which would make the title “No Other Gospel” quite fitting.
Yet the most pervasive theme from the first verse to the last is Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is in the person of Christ that each of the other prominent themes of Galatians are rooted. We are set free from the curse of the law only through Christ becoming a curse in our place. The beauty of our being justified in God’s sight through faith alone is made possible only in Christ. And this good news is rightly called the gospel of Christ. Indeed, the great concern of Paul throughout this letter, which explains his intense and often harsh tone, is that the Galatians were in danger of being severed from Christ (5:4). thus, I propose a simple title for capturing the heartbeat of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “Christ Alone.”
From Paul to the Galatians: Verses 1–2
As is typically the case with ancient letters, this one begins by identifying the author: Paul. This is, of course, the Apostle Paul, who was formerly called Saul and who actively persecuted the church until Christ called him to Himself. Although we do not know for certain when this letter was written, most scholars argue that it is the earliest of Paul’s letters, likely penned before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. R. C. Sproul remarks that his mentor John Gerstner described Paul’s personality and character with an acrostic of his name:
P stood for “polluted” because Paul understood that he was the chief of sinners, and the A referred to his “office” as an Apostle. But the most striking significance to me was that Dr. Gerstner said the U in Paul’s name stood for “uncompromising” and the L stood for “loving.” (Galatians, 2)
It is here in Galatians that we find those final two characteristics meeting together. Paul’s deep love for the Galatians leads him to an uncompromising stance on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Paul then immediately refers to himself as an apostle. Although the word apostle simply means one who is sent, he uses it here to refer to an ecclesiastical office that belonged only to those who received a direct revelation of Jesus Christ. Since it is probable that Paul’s authority as an apostle was being called into question by the influencers, he follows his claim to apostleship with the statement: “not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ…”
By saying “not from men,” Paul is emphasizing that the source of his apostleship did not come from any human authority but directly from God. “Nor through man” is to say that there was no intermediary. Christ Himself set Paul apart to be an apostle. Again, this is what distinguished the apostles from ministers today. The only authoritative offices, elders and deacons, are both appointed and affirmed by the church and can also be removed from office by the church.
Paul’s apostolic authority came instead “through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Obviously, it was Jesus Himself who appeared to Paul, but just as Jesus said that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father, the apostle rightly understood his call through Christ to also be a call from the Father. Furthermore, in answer to those who would deny the divinity of Christ, notice the intimate union in Paul’s mind between Christ and the Father, as well as the distance he places between Christ and ordinary men. Of course, we joyfully affirm that Jesus became truly man, but crucially, He was not merely a man. He is the God-man, truly human but also truly divine.
“who raised him from the dead” John Brown gives a wonderful answer for why Paul included this phrase:
This was a truth ever present to the apostle’s mind in its pre-eminent importance; and consequently he was always ready to give it utterance. It is not unlikely that, in mentioning it here, he meant to suggest the idea,–that as an apostle called by the Savior raised from the dead by the power of the Father, he was certainly not inferior to those who had been called by him in his suffering state. For it does not seem to have been one of the circumstances of which the false teachers in different churches availed themselves, in endeavouring to lessen Paul’s authority, that he had not, like the other apostles, been the companion of Jesus Christ while on earth. (Galatians, 22)
Although verse 1 is more than enough to establish the authority of Paul as an apostle of the risen Christ, he also adds “and all the brothers with me.” This probably refers to those ministering alongside Paul, although it could also be the general believers of which city Paul was writing from. Either way, since this is only letter where Paul cites another group of believers as giving their explicit affirmation of Paul’s words, we can assume that Paul was doing so very intentionally. Indeed, this seems to be simply one more authentication of Paul’s authority. Perhaps the implication to the Galatians is: if the testimony of the Father and the about me is not sufficient, then just know that all the brothers who are with me agree with everything I am about to write. In other words, “Paul is no lone ranger, a renegade working in isolation from the rest of the early church. The gospel he preaches and the gospel the Galatians first believed is the same gospel preached by Paul’s cohorts and many others” (Wilson, Galatians, 21-22).
“to the churches of Galatia” Here we learn the recipients of this letter. Unlike most of Paul’s epistles, this one was not directed to a particular city but to a region. There are two possibilities about which Galatians Paul was writing to. If he was speaking of Galatia in an ethnic sense, then he would have been writing to the Celtic people in northern part of the providence of Galatia. If he was speaking of Galatia in a geographic or political sense, then it is likely that he was addressing area of Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium, which are cities where he preached the gospel in Acts 13-14. The absence of personal names often seems to indicate familiarity in Paul’s writings, so I would assume the latter to be the more likely option.
Regarding the word churches, DeSilva gives us this caution:
The translation “congregations” is preferred here to “churches” given the connotations of the latter in English as established places for worship. The Greek ἐκκλεσία refers to an assembly of people without reference to a building or place, which is more in keeping with early Christian identity and practice. (3)
Read More
Related Posts:

Biblical theology involves understanding the storyline of the Bible, but it is more than just a march through the pages of Scripture sequentially. It takes work and discipline and intentionality in every step along this march through the biblical narrative to see how the parts of the story are connecting, how continuity of God’s work and promises is maintained, and how God is progressively revealing his glorious saving plan and redemptive purposes to his people in the world he has made. This is why one wonderful way to engage in biblical theology is to trace theological themes or ideas, examining their development from Genesis all the way through Revelation.

Divinely Inspired Words
The Bible doesn’t come to us as an academic textbook, with carefully delineated topical headings organized according to theological themes. Certainly, God could have chosen to reveal himself differently. He could have given us a long lists of rules. He could have given us something like an encyclopedia of theological doctrines.
But, as we know, that is not how God has chosen to reveal himself to us in his inspired word. In the pages of Scripture, we discover stories, poems, and songs. We find prophecies, visions, parables, and letters to early churches and individual Christians. God’s word, divinely inspired through at least forty different human authors over thousands of years is artistically and beautifully composed and wonderfully literarily diverse. What a gift for us to discover our God through the pages of Scripture and through all of the distinct human authors and different biblical literary genres!
Systematic Theology
However, from the earliest days of the Christian church, biblical scholars and faithful pastors have discerned the important benefit of bringing careful organization and explanation to the theological truths and doctrines that the Bible clearly teaches God’s people. Some of the earliest articulations of what today we would call “systematic theology” emerged in and through the church councils of the third and fourth centuries as the early church fathers battled various heresies (particularly relating to the person of Jesus Christ), and early creeds were formed as fundamental summaries of Christian doctrine.
The Nicene Creed, as one example, affirms clearly both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ (doctrines which had both been under attack by pernicious false teachings), as well as the glorious authority of both God the Father and God the Son, from whom God the Holy Spirit proceeds. To put it simply, systematic theology is the careful organization and articulation of the theological truths of Scripture.
Systematic theology uses human categories to summarize what the Bible teaches about all kinds of things. What is God like? What is the nature of sin? What can we know about creation, the church, about human beings, and about the end of the world when Jesus Christ returns? When we engage in systematic theology, we systematize (or organize) our theological understanding of the clear truths and doctrines that God’s word teaches us.
Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is a different way of studying and organizing Scripture’s teaching of core Christian doctrine. Rather than utilizing categories and topical organization, biblical theology involves tracing the development of theological truths throughout the pages of Scripture in conjunction with the development of the biblical narrative.
Read More
Related Posts:

The story of Owen and Baxter offers us several valuable lessons. Here’s one: at the outset of any conflict, we should try to stand back from the confronting issues and try to understand what other factors might be at work in our own hearts and in the hearts of those around us. Paul admonishes us: “if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18). His meaning is obvious. We are not responsible for the actions of the other person, but for our part, we should do all we can to live in peace with those around us.

When the Issue Isn’t the Issue
Recently, I found myself in a disagreement. In my work context, I have been setting a new direction. I discovered that a colleague I respect was worried it was the wrong direction, so we sat down to talk about it. After forty-five minutes of amicable and professional discussion, it was clear we still took a different view. And then something interesting happened: my colleague trusted me by opening up about her early life as the child of alcoholic parents. She explained how the changes I was proposing undermined the sense of her place in the world that she had built up over her adult years. Her honest reflection changed the whole complexion of our conversation.
I think that story illustrates an important dynamic in many conflicts: the issue may not be the issue. In other words, the concerns that we think are driving the disagreement are not the real issues at all, or at least may not be all of the issues or even the main issues. Beneath the surface or behind the immediate triggers of conflict lie other dynamics that remain out of sight to the combatants. In this case, the self-knowledge of my colleague was extremely helpful. At least she could recognize what was going on inside of her and had the courage to share that with me. But not everyone has that level of self-awareness. Sometimes we don’t know ourselves at all. As the Scriptures acknowledge, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). So when disagreement breaks out, all sorts of issues may come into play that have little to do with the presenting concerns but have everything to do with hidden realities of the heart of which our opponent has no awareness, or even we have no awareness. If that happens, we are in trouble, for who can resolve what they cannot see?
An Example from History
There’s another story that illustrates the same dynamic, but this one is nearly 400 years old. John Owen (1616-83) and Richard Baxter (1615-91) were two of the most significant figures within seventeenth-century English Puritanism. Both were dedicated, effective pastors; both were prolific authors and theologians; both were influential leaders of their respective streams within the Puritan tradition. So they shared an enormous amount of common ground. But they did not like each other, and the conflict between them, once it began, was lifelong. A while back I set out to understand why they came to such a deep and bitter animosity. I excavated the different layers of their relationship to identify the varied reasons why it went so badly wrong. I learned that the three most consequential reasons for their mutual dislike were all in place before they even met.
Read More
Related Posts:

One day, Britain as we knew it will be gone. Some may so, “Well that’s always the case; nations always change.” Perhaps so; but how did it change? According to what principles? Along what lines? Who gets to decide how it changes? If the Nazis had won the Second World War, would it have been right to simply accept the “change” that would have been wrought in Britain as a result? Would it not have resulted in a distinct loss of identity? “Don’t be absurd! That was different!” may be the reply. Perhaps. But if a government—whether your own or another nation’s—decides to do things which will drastically undo the foundations of what you believed your country stood for, and you essentially have no say in it, one may start to observe a few parallels.

For many people, home no longer feels like home. They do not know where or how they belong anymore. Such fragmentation did not happen by accident, but by policy. Those who disagreed with the mass renovations to their societal home were not consulted. There was no planning permission. No referendum. It just started to happen. And then it kept happening.
Those who opposed it too strongly were soon demonised as hateful and unwelcoming. It became increasingly inconvenient to oppose it, so most simply gave up. They opted to keep their heads down and try to live their lives as normal, as if the industrial diggers all around them were not really there, upturning the foundations they thought they knew.
The Rupturing of Foundations
As I write this, I can see literal diggers across the road from our house, tearing down hedgerows of what have been—for centuries—horse fields, paddocks, and woodland, in order to build 400 new houses.
Local residents here long before us had been fighting the “development” for over a decade, and finally lost on appeal last year. It has caused much sadness, even anger, in the area (there is a local Facebook group called “Rage” dedicated solely to the development, for example!).
Even knowing it was going to happen did not prepare many of the neighbours—even my own family—from visible upset at the physical destruction to the surrounding environment. This is natural greenery which many have known to be there for decades, something we can see being tangibly undone before our eyes.
Things like this are happening in similar places across the country. There are many reasons for the housing crisis but few can argue it is not determinatively exacerbated by the kind of mass scale immigration—undergirded by the doctrine of multiculturalism—which requires a country to need over two hundred thousand new houses per year.
But aside from the particular issue of the destruction of the English countryside, what is currently happening across the road is also an apt metaphor for what many people feel about what is happening across the nation. They are seeing their culture and traditions torn away before their eyes. They are feeling utterly helpless to do anything about it. They are worried they might be labelled “selfish” for wishing that it was not happening, let alone saying so out-loud.
Death By Ideology
The tensions borne from the rupturing of a culture can be made to sound sensible by the all-encompassing ideology of “multiculturalism” but they cannot be buried for long. They have a tendency to erupt. This is what we have seen in recent times, however regrettable the events have been.
Douglas Murray warned about this problem almost a decade ago in The Strange Death of Europe. At the time, Murray was deemed something of a pariah for talking about immigration in civilisational terms, especially for highlighting the particular danger of a culturally embedded religion like Islam taking root in Britain as a result.
Indeed, the infamous political spin-doctor of New Labour, Alastair Campbell, recently suggested that Douglas Murray be investigated by the police for writing such a book, arguing that it may have helped incite some of the recent riots. As Konstantin Kisin highlighted regarding Campbell’s accusation, you can tell something’s very wrong when people are castigated not for being proven wrong but for being proven right!
As Murray pointed out—and has continued to point out—multiculturalism is essentially an ideological myth. It is the idea that multiple divergent cultures and traditions can be peacefully imported into co-existence with a dominant and/or host culture without causing the kind of real-time aggravated tensions we have seen manifested in recent times.
One may always be able to point to positives here and there about the comingling of cultures, of course. There can indeed be moments of mutual appreciation and learning when different ways of life coalesce. Not only this, but there are also negative—often horrendous—examples in history of where dominant cultures have sought the kind of conformity that refuses to tolerate peoples different to them.
The fear of becoming—or seen to be becoming—anything like such negative examples is powerful. It is this fear that dupes so many British people today into believing that multiculturalism not only makes sense, but believing that to disagree that multiculturalism makes sense probably indicates a fascist, racist, or xenophobic trajectory.
This is why the ideology of multiculturalism is so dangerous, because it seems so unassuming, so virtuous, so “obviously” true, as though we shouldn’t even need to think about it. People who adopt it tend to see the world not with it but through it. This is why they often cannot see it as an ideology. Multiculturalism is seen as the fundamental solution to societal disharmony when, in fact, it has caused—and will continue to cause—major societal disharmony by ignoring the significance of what culture truly means to people.
This is the case not only in those cultures now being drastically altered by uncontrolled mass immigration, but even among migrant communities themselves. The desire of immigrant populations (especially Muslims) to cling to the cultural and religious moorings of their own families and traditions rather than assimilate under the multicultural banner is hardly surprising. No doubt, many will continue to make use of the multicultural vision, but only in order to assert their own cultural values.
It’s understandable that people from other cultures wish to preserve their own way of life when they come to a different place. It’s not a strange thing at all. What is strange—as Murray well observed—is that the host culture (western Europe and its anglophone siblings) does not seem to think there is anything particularly worth preserving. In fact, as was reemphasised to me on a trip to Washington earlier this year, we are increasingly taught to be embarrassed of our cultural heritage rather than proud of it.
The Melting Pot and Islam
The myth of multiculturalism is that everyone can put a little of their own cultural “spice” into the melting pot without fundamentally upsetting the overall flavour, consistency, and viability of the whole.
No doubt this is possible here or there. There are plenty of examples of mutual flourishing in the growth and development of cultures. All cultures have already done this in one way or another at some point in their formation, and will continue to do so. But cultures adapt best when they do so gradually, organically, and according to established principles, rather than via swift revolution (violent or bureaucratic).
Read More
Related Posts:

We think transformation will be quick, and sometimes it is. But generally speaking, God isn’t in a rush. There’s a certain kind of holiness and beauty that develops only after decades of walking with God. You can’t microwave it. But when you see it, it’s a beautiful thing.

Take a look at your body right now.
Unless you’re really young, you probably see signs of decay. Our bodies start the process of aging and decline at a cellular level well before we notice any significant changes.
Generally, this process begins in our late 20s to early 30s. During this time, the body’s ability to repair and regenerate cells starts to decrease gradually. The rate of decline differs based on genetics, lifestyle, and overall health, but it impacts everyone.
Eventually, your skin will change. Your hair may thin or turn gray, or it may even fall out. Your muscle mass and strength will decrease. Your vision and hearing will decline. You will experience cognitive changes and more.
As the saying goes, “Eat well, stay fit, die anyway.” It’s inevitable.
You will not only experience physical decline. Arthur Brooks writes about other kinds of decline that will take place:
Unless you follow the James Dean formula — “Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse”—you know that your professional, physical, and mental decline is inevitable. You probably just think it’s a long, long way off….
…in practically every high-skill profession, decline sets in sometime between one’s late thirties and early fifties.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Monday, August 26, 2024
Lawrence Krauss, Arizona State University Professor (School of Earth and Space Exploration and Director of the Origins Initiative) wrote a book entitled, ‘A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing’. As part of the promotion for the book, Krauss appeared on the Colbert Report where he was interviewed by comedian Stephen Colbert. During the interview, Krauss tried to redefine “nothing” to avoid the need for a supernatural first cause, “Physics has changed what we mean by nothing… Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence… if you wait long enough, that kind of nothing will always produce particles.” (Colbert Nation, June 21st, 2012). Now if you’re not careful, you might miss Krauss’ subtle redefinition.

Even as an atheist, I understood the challenge offered by the “Standard Cosmological Model” (the Big Bang Theory) when examined from my naturalistic worldview. This model infers a “cosmological singularity” in which all space, time and matter came into existence at a point in the distant past. In others words, “everything” came from “nothing”. I knew this presented a problem for me as a naturalist; if the universe had a beginning, the “principle of causality” inclined me to believe there must have been a cause. But, what could cause something as vast as the universe? Could it have caused itself to come into existence, or must the first cause of all space, time and matter be non-spatial, atemporal and immaterial? How could “everything” come from “nothing”?
I’ve written about this in God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. In this book, I examine the universe as a “crime scene” and investigate eight different pieces of evidence through the filter of a simple investigative question: “Can the evidence ‘in the room’ be explained by staying ‘in the room’? This question is key to determining whether a death scene is a crime scene, and I typically play a game I call “inside or outside the room” whenever I am trying to determine if a death is, in fact, a murder.
If, for example, there is a victim in the room with a gunshot injury lying next to a handgun, but the doors are locked from the inside, all the DNA and fingerprints in the room come back to the victim, the gun is registered to the victim and there are no signs of an outside intruder, this is simply the scene of a suicide or accidental death. If, however, there exist fingerprints or DNA of an unknown suspect, the gun does not belong to the victim, and there are even bloody footprints leading outside the room, I’ve got to reconsider the cause of this death. When the evidence in the room cannot be explained by staying inside the room and is better explained by a cause outside the room, there’s a good chance I’ve got a murder. When this is the case, my investigation must shift direction. I must now begin to search for an external intruder.
I think you’ll find this investigative approach applicable as you examine the case for God’s existence. If all the evidence “inside the room” of the universe can be explained by staying “inside the room”, there’s no need to invoke an ‘external’ cause. If, on the other hand, the best explanation for the evidence “inside the room” is a cause “outside the room”, we’ll need to shift our attention as we search for an “external” intruder.
Read More
Related Posts:

The sentimental tolerance of our day suggests that relational harmony requires that truth be relative: what’s true for me need not be true for you. Only then can we get along. But biblical tolerance involves treating others charitably and respectfully even when we believe they are in error. Truth remains objective, absolute, and outside us. We can share meals, play sports, and study with non-Christians, honoring and being blessed by the imago Dei in them, while (as opportunity allows) vigorously refuting non-Christian beliefs (from materialism to amorphous spirituality) and winsomely presenting arguments for the Christian faith.

College represents a minefield of temptation for the Christian student. It is often the first time a young person raised in a godly home is under the direct, ongoing influence of both professors with secular agendas and classmates with immoral ambitions. Character-polluting influences can be readily discovered even at many Christian colleges, where freedom from Mom and Dad results in some experimenting with sin, perhaps manifesting an unconverted state.
But college also represents an incredible opportunity for unparalleled spiritual and intellectual growth. How can a Christian thrive at college instead of flirting with sin or rejecting his faith? First, by not negotiating Christian morality (Eph. 5:3–11). Befriending non-Christian or marginally Christian students need not include practicing activities that clearly displease God or defile your conscience. Second, by loving God with your mind—seeking to be the best student you can possibly be, given the measure of gifting with which you’ve been entrusted, fruitfully cultivating your God-given talents into skills that prepare you for the vocation with which you will serve the Lord after graduating. In the meantime, being a student is a vocation, and the work of a student is intrinsically good and a gift from God. Apply yourself in this season of preparation. Third, by seeking to grow in godliness within a community that provokes you to vigorously kill sin (Rom. 6:12–14; Heb. 12:1–2), to put away childishness, and to “expect great things from God and attempt great things for God” (William Carey). In short, college should be a launching pad into all that accompanies responsible Christian adulthood.
Christians in secular universities sometimes wonder to what extent they can learn from non-Christian professors. Not wanting to be conformed to the pattern of this world (Rom. 12:2a), they may minimize the value of academics, giving larger priority to Christian relationships and campus fellowship organizations. But if Daniel and Joseph are any indication, it is possible (and commendable) to excel in even hostile environments (Dan. 1:20; Gen. 39:2).
Read More
Related Posts:

Eccher offers the reader five theses that he hopes “will guide you in your own remembrances of a vilified and lauded Reformer” (p. 201). To be sure, when one reads of a figure like Zwingli, there are times of both inspiration and horror. In a day when diligent study can sometimes be taken less seriously, one can be inspired by Zwingli’s strident work in studying the Scriptures in the original languages. Zwingli, as a Renaissance humanist, embodied the often-coined mantra ad fontes — an ongoing call to consistently return to the sources, to return to the Scriptures and to faithfully study, read, and preach them. Yet on the other hand, one also reads of the lengths Zwingli went to bring the reform he envisioned. Such a vision led him to stand idly by as his former friend —Felix Manz —was drowned for his Anabaptist beliefs. Zwingli wanted reform, but he wanted it on his terms.

It may be tempting to think that the year 1517 — when Luther famously wrote his Ninety-five Thesis — brought about the Reformation and hence clearly demarcated a unified Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. It may be tempting to think this way, but it is not accurate.
The Reformation was far more complicated. For one, the first Reformers were not actually looking to break away from the Catholic Church, but to reform it. It would only be many years later that such reform was unrealized, and a subsequent break ensued. Secondly, the Reformation was bigger than Luther and Wittenberg, Germany — others across Europe were looking to bring reform independent from Luther’s leadership and theology. The Reformers did not always see eye to eye, and this led to different movements and hostility between these movements. One contemporary of Luther who had his own vision of reform was Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), and he wanted to see this vision take shape in Zurich, Switzerland.
In Stephen Brett Eccher’s recent book, Zwingli the Pastor: A Life in Conflict, Eccher looks to add to the scholarship on Zwingli studies, an influential and important first-generation Reformer. Eccher is clear to state that this book “is not a traditional biography” but a study of Zwingli’s ministry as a pastor in Zurich, with attention given to “how conflict shaped and informed his pastorate, while also providing the context for his developing theology” (p. 4).
Following a biographical sketch in the introduction, the book is divided into six chapters. Chapter one is on Zwingli the preacher. Eccher highlights the central place of the Scriptures in Zwingli’s reform work and his commitment to preach lectio continua (through books of the Bible) rather than according to the liturgical calendar. This continual, faithful preaching of Scripture was central to Zwingli’s ministry. As Eccher succinctly put it, “Gospel seeds sown produced Reformation fruit” (p. 36).
Chapter two is on the changes Zwingli made to the worship practices more generally. Here one reads of Zwingli slowly and progressively looking to bring reform as he moved the church away from Catholicism and toward the Reformed faith. This change was not something that happened overnight. One significant shift came about through Zwingli’s iconoclasm. Zwingli worked with the Council as the “shared commitment to remove images was to be carried out in an orderly manner” (p. 67). Another thing of note is that, by 1525, Zwingli stopped using public singing.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R. Albert Mohler Jr. |
Monday, August 26, 2024
It is increasingly clear that the Democrats really are the party of sterility and death. No less than The New York Times predicted that the DNC will be a display of “unbridled abortion politics.” Unbridled indeed. Harris and Walz represent the most ardently pro-abortion ticket in American history.
The Democrats are gathering in Chicago this week for what they predict (and fervently hope) will be one big festival of joy and party unity. The ever-smiling focus of attention will, of course, be on Vice President Kamala Harris, the party’s nominee for the highest office in the land. Keep in mind that major Democratic leaders had discounted Harris’ political future just weeks ago. Now, the party’s leadership celebrates a new energy and attitude with Harris at the top of the ticket and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. Chicago is planned as one big and very unexpected celebration.
Of course, the unexpected dimension points to the fact that the Harris-Walz ticket only came about because party leaders carried out what amounts to a coup against President Joe Biden. Once the cratering incumbent agreed to exit the race and endorse his vice president, the stage was set for delegates in Chicago to give Biden an exit worthy of a retiring hero. If you know how political conventions work, it says everything that Biden’s address to the delegates will come tonight, opening night, which is the lowest rank among the evening sessions. In other words, the message to Biden is “Thank you very much, and now get off the stage so we can get on with business.”
Read More
Related Posts: