There’s one piece of masculinity that the movie misses. This missing piece I think is the key to why the movie has flown under the radar for so long: a compelling purpose. Men long for a compelling goal and purpose for their life which justifies sacrificing themselves, whether it’s their God, their country, or their family. First Man puts the question “Is this mission worth it?” front and center, with politicians, reporters, and activists asking the question “is the mission worth it, in money and in lives?” So it’s not a question they ignore in the story. The problem is their answer.

This great guest post by New York filmmaker Joseph Holmes is a look at the film First Man, a biopic about Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. It’s a film that’s seen a revival of interest as a positive portrayal of classic masculinity. I’ve been thinking of adding more cultural coverage like this to my newsletter, so please let me know what you think – Aaron.
The movie First Man has gone through a minor revival of interest lately. Both with film enthusiasts on X and–more interestingly–in conservative and pro-masculinity circles. Conservative commentator Matt Walsh called it “perhaps the best biopic ever made” and Lomez called it a great film “about masculinity, and the costs and requirements of great civilizational achievement”. The consensus is that it promotes a positive view of traditional masculinity that we rarely see in a post-Barbie landscape.
The revival of interest in the movie is well-deserved. The film is deeply underrated, and there is a lot to recommend it to those who are interested in great filmmaking and traditional masculinity. But there is also a good reason it didn’t generate this level of enthusiasm when it first came out.
Directed by Oscar-winner Damien Chazelle (La La Land), First Man follows the true-life story of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling), the first man to set foot on the moon, in 1960s America as he and NASA risk death and disgrace to try to put a man on the moon before the Soviets do. He must do this while trying to repair his relationship with his wife Janet (Claire Foy), which has struggled since the loss of their daughter.
First Man is undeniably a stunning piece of filmmaking. Damien Chazelle is one of the best technical directors working today, having the mastery of the craft to capture a perfectly choreographed musical (La La Land) and the chaos of Hollywood debauchery (Babylon). Here, he deftly balances a grounded human drama with a quiet epic scale that puts you in the shoes of the first people to cross the lunar threshold. He seamlessly switches between wide shots of giant spacecrafts and the vast reaches of space with tights and mediums on Neil’s face and his family, making us feel like these tiny normal people inside this big experience. 
Ryan Gosling gives one of his finest performances as he puts us deeply in the feelings of a man who doesn’t like to show his feelings. The brilliance is in that the more overwhelmed he is emotionally, the less he shows. Chazelle guides our interpretation of his inner life in these moments as well, giving us a wide view of Armstrong alone, or holding tight on his face to show how his emotions are shutting him out from other people.
What stands out when you watch the film today is its affirming portrayal of many traditionally masculine traits. Neil Armstrong is a “traditional man” in almost every sense of the word. He’s the breadwinner for his stay-at-home wife and kids. He risks his life with his male colleagues to beat the Soviets to the moon. He’s an engineer far more comfortable with numbers and machines than people. When he’s overwhelmed, he rushes to work rather than talk about what’s troubling him–even when his wife or friends are pushing him to talk.
And yet, unlike Ryan Gosling’s more recent role as Ken in Barbie, these parts of his character are not deconstructed. His role as the provider or his wife’s as a homemaker is never questioned. His engineering skills save his and his friends’ lives when their ship malfunctions in space. When Janet Armstrong admits to her friend she wishes her husband took fewer risks, her friend tells her that her friends with safe husbands are unhappy. Neil works through the death of his daughter by achieving his goal of going to the moon––not by opening up about his feelings. His success silences the voices–from the media, journalists, politicians, protestors, and his friends–who say the journey to the moon isn’t worth the cost.
Read More
Related Posts:

Christ is the head of all (Jew, Gentile, bond, free, male, female, living, or dead), Scripture is profitable for all (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and Satan is the common enemy of all. But once a man is saved, he is not to live his life independent from all other believers under the so-called impulse of the Spirit (Judg. 17:6, 21:25), nor is he to live under the watch care of one huge, global assembly or multiple smaller assemblies. Rather, he is to join a local church and to be faithful to her.

[Editor’s note: this article appears in the form of an allegory or parable. It makes a serious point, one which Christians should listen to carefully.]
Nathan the preacher spoke to David the layman, saying: “There were four men in a city, each married to a different woman. The first man’s wife excelled in hospitality. The second man’s wife excelled in encouragement. The third man’s wife excelled in discernment. And the fourth man’s wife excelled in child-rearing.
“The first man praised his wife for her gift but was disappointed to see that she was not equal to the others in encouragement, discernment, and child-rearing. He decided it would be good for his well-being if he lived three days a week with the other ladies to benefit from their strengths.”
David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan: “As the LORD lives, this man ought to be confronted. He has committed adultery.”
Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘I gave you your wife in your youth. You vowed to be faithful unto her from that day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part. Yet, you have “dealt treacherously” with her and sought out mistresses (Mal. 2:14-15).
“‘You say, “How have I done this?” Five years ago, you covenanted with a local church here in this town, promising to be faithful to her with your presence, your tithes, and your prayers. But you have despised the commandment of the Lord by absenting yourself and your family from the assembly of believers (Heb. 10:25). You have attended the corporate worship services of your church each Lord’s Day, as you affirm its doctrinal statement and reverent worship. However, you have refused to attend the adult Sunday School class because the teacher’s personality is not to your liking, and he only has a Bachelor of Arts in Bible. You therefore have dropped off your children for their classes at your church, and then walked across the street to listen to a different Bible teacher who has a Master of Divinity degree, a friendlier personality, but a different eschatological position than yours.
Read More
Related Posts:

“I’ve been delegated to synod four times now, and each time increasingly feels like war,” pastor and Abide clerk Aaron Vriesman wrote after Synod 2023. “The CRC’s existential crisis has been building for some time. Each synod is a battle of opposing visions for the CRC, with diametrically opposing values. While synodical sermons trumpet Christian unity and the worship times lead us to rejoice together in one circle, the reality among the delegates and throughout the CRC is a battle for the soul of the denomination.”

Two years ago, in a move that surprised almost everyone, the synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRC) voted 123–53 to affirm that “unchastity” in the Heidelberg Catechism includes adultery, premarital sex, extramarital sex, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex.
“What now?” asked an article in the denominational publication, The Banner, two weeks later. “How will this decision play out?”
It was a good question. Some wondered if the vote wasn’t an accurate reflection of the denomination but instead a “coup” by a few well-organized conservatives. The FAQs released by the denomination included ways to change synod’s decision and ways for pastors, elders, or deacons to stay in office while disagreeing with the denomination’s position on sexuality. They could submit a “confessional-difficulty gravamen”—which is “a personal request for information and/or clarification of the confession”—to their church council.
In other words, you could tell your church you weren’t sure about the CRC’s position on sexuality, then continue to serve indefinitely.
In 2023, a fresh batch of synod delegates took another run at the issue. The vote splits looked much the same as the year before, and the confessional status of the definition of “unchastity” was upheld.
Then, as time was running out on the last afternoon, a vote was finally called on gravamina—to clarify they were temporary, not a permanent way to operate in the CRC while disagreeing with her confessions.
It felt rushed; the discussion had only been 10 minutes long. And to progressives, it also felt predetermined; the conservatives had won every vote so far. Emotions were running high when a handful of delegates said they no longer trusted the body, took off their name tags, and walked out in protest.
Out of time, synod voted to delay the issue another year. The CRC had never done that before. To conservatives, it felt like the liberal members had just won more time to maneuver their way out of church discipline.
“I was weeping,” said Jason Ruis, chair of the committee that proposed limitations on gravamina. “I thought we just saw the death of the denomination. I thought the vast majority was in agreement with what we were putting forward, but it got hijacked again by a small group of people. I thought [fellow] conservatives were going to say, ‘I’m done with this. Let’s go someplace else.’”
But they didn’t. This summer, the gravamen issue was the first that synod took up. By a vote of 137–47, they gave office-bearers three years to work through their difficulties. Synod also voted 134–50 that publicly affirming churches needed to stop and to publicly repent within a year or, at the most, two.
Next year, only delegates without gravamina will be allowed to serve in regional gatherings or at synod, effectively ending the debate. For a denomination that has slid leftward since the mid-1990s, this has been a remarkably quick and decisive shift back to orthodoxy.
“To feel like I’m part of this denomination, and part of that reshaping that is happening right now, is super exciting,” California pastor Patrick Anthony said. “To be the one denomination that was going liberal to have it not happen—why would God be so gracious to us?”
Dutch Reformed to Mainline-ish
Founded in 1857 by Dutch immigrants, the CRC draws from an old, rich history of Reformed theology and love of education. Less than 20 years after it began, the CRC founded a college and seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and named them both after John Calvin. Later, another CRC-affiliated college would name itself after the synod in Dordrecht, Holland, that outlined the five points of Calvinism. (I sit on the board there.)
Membership in the CRC grew fairly steadily until 1992, when it peaked at more than 315,000 members in nearly 1,000 churches. The average church size was 300.
And then things seemed to fall apart.
In 1995, after 25 years of arguing over women in office, synod finally said each congregation could decide for itself. Thirty-six complementarian churches left, and their 7,500 attendees formed a new denomination—the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA).
The CRC’s numbers never recovered. Over the years, more conservative churches left to join the URCNA, and the CRC’s numbers began to follow the mainline path of decline. Fewer babies were born, fewer teens enrolled at Calvin University, and fewer young people stayed in the denomination.
The CRC also followed the mainline in a decline in personal piety. For about 25 years after the split, CRC members reported reading the Bible less, praying less, and having fewer personal and family devotion times.
Perhaps most concerning were the implications for belief. Studies show mainline church members are less likely than evangelicals to believe the Bible is the word of God. Was the CRC losing that too?
Progressive Leadership
Certainly, with the rise of Donald Trump, prominent CRC leaders were distancing themselves from American evangelicalism. “I Never Was an Evangelical, and I Never Want to Be,” CRC member and Calvin professor of English Debra Rienstra wrote in 2017. Her colleague Kristin Kobes Du Mez published Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation in 2020.
“I devoted more of my career than I can believe to help recover and nurture the better part of the CRC tradition in the hope that it might occupy some space between both the mainline and Evangelical sides of American Protestantism,” Calvin professor emeritus of history James Bratt wrote in 2022. He, Rienstra, Du Mez, and Calvin philosophy professor James K. A. Smith have all signaled LGBT+ support. In 2021, about 150 Calvin professors and staff told the administration they opposed a CRC report supporting biblical sexuality.
Until 2020, those faculty were required to be members of a CRC church. Because of geography—the CRC headquarters was four miles down the road—they often ended up in the same churches as the CRC leadership. In that corner of Grand Rapids, there are 21 CRC churches within about 10 miles of each other. Their classis, or regional body, is called Grand Rapids East.
“Many denominational employees are part of those churches,” said Orland Park CRC pastor Derek Buikema, president of synod this year. “And a significant number of professors and members of administration at Calvin University and Calvin Seminary also go to those churches. Classis Grand Rapids East churches dominate the ethos of the entire denominational apparatus.”
In 2011, Grand Rapids East asked synod to revisit its historical perspective on human sexuality. When it declined, members in two of its churches founded All One Body, an organization that advocates for “unrestricted membership and full participation” in the church of those living LGBT+ lifestyles.
Five years later, Grand Rapids East released its own report, which it also submitted to synod. It explained the advancements in scientific and theological thinking and recommended the CRC allow for diverse views on sexuality.
That same year, another classis—this one from Alberta, Canada—suggested synod appoint a panel of LGBT+ advisers. And another report, this one official, advised synod to allow CRC pastors to use their discretion when asked to attend a same-sex wedding or make their facilities available for a same-sex wedding. CRC pastors should also be allowed to officiate civil same-sex ceremonies, they said.
But the 2016 synod wasn’t amenable. The delegates turned down the LGBT+ advisers and voted by a 60 percent majority to tell pastors they couldn’t officiate, participate in, or allow their buildings to be used for same-sex weddings.
In response to Grand Rapids East’s report, they appointed an official study committee on human sexuality. Every person on it, they said, must “adhere to the CRC’s biblical view on marriage and same-sex relationships.”
Conservative Synod
The committee had five years to do its work—and then six, when Synod 2021 was canceled for COVID-19. During that time, Neland Avenue CRC—a member of Grand Rapids East—installed a female deacon who was in a same-sex marriage (perhaps hoping to force the issue at synod). Calvin University students elected an openly gay undergrad as student body president and a Calvin professor officiated a same-sex wedding for a Calvin staffer at a campus-based research center.
Read More
Related Posts:

Therapeutic treatment for mental conditions involves interaction with one’s sadness, whatever may have caused it. In group therapy, patients listen and theorize with others about their sadness. In individual therapy, patients rehearse their own sadness, often for months and even years at a time. In both cases, the focus is on looking within. This, Shrier argues, “can hijack our normal processes of resilience, interrupting our psyche’s ability to heal itself, in its own way, at its own time.”  Also, therapists can be incentivized to continue treatment after a patient feels better. As Shrier wrote, “It’s in therapists’ interest to treat the least sick for the longest period of time.”  

This year’s World Happiness Report contained surprising news. Despite the near universal presence of social media, which studies show strongly correlates to depression and anxiety, there’s been an uptick in happiness for people under 30 in several non-English-speaking countries. English-speaking countries, on the other hand, have experienced a palpable drop in happiness.  
In the Atlantic, Derek Thompson suggested that one cause of this drop could be the western world’s increased focus on mental health. In the past few decades, English-speaking countries, especially America, have been inundated with terminology and conversations around personal “wellbeing” and “self care.” In fact, between 1952 and 2016, the leading handbook for psychological disorders grew by 200 new terms, an increase of not only new words but new mental difficulties.  
Mental health has also become a focus of broader culture. Many TikTok celebrities regularly “open up” about their personal mental health struggles. Teachers often spend as much time instructing students in therapeutic techniques as in mathematics, and parents are quicker to turn to counselors than to pastors. 
And so, the generation that has been most fed on therapy, wellness techniques, and “gentle parenting” is also the generation most burdened with depression, anxiety, and mental health disorders. All the discussion around mental health, Thompson argues, may be prompting excessive introspection. Also, an under-30 crowd that has been engulfed in these new cultural norms is more likely to interpret typical swings of emotions as signs of the “psychological disorders” that they hear so much about. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by J.V. Fesko |
Monday, August 19, 2024
Search engine companies such as Google have claimed that such SEME is not possible, and they seek to operate with transparency for the processes that inform their search engine algorithms. The chances are high that search engine companies do their best to operate in a fair and transparent manner. Nevertheless, this doesn’t preclude or eliminate the possibility that a company might engage in SEME. As Forrest Gump might theologize, “Sinners are as sinners do.” In other words, in a fallen world we should never put our absolute and unswerving trust in any organization.

Every day millions of people use internet search engines for business, research, entertainment, and other various tasks. Many likely use search engines the way they would use a dictionary or, in days gone by, a phone book. The assumption might be that the search engine is value neutral: you plug in search terms and your desired query pops up with your results. But we should recognize that few things in life are truly value neutral. Software programmers have made decisions on how search engines work, and they have made value judgments about how the search engine should function. There are several different ways their value judgments appear in the seemingly innocuous use of a search engine.
Advertisements
I used to work for a Christian nonprofit organization that strategized how our institution could come up on the first page of a search (i.e., search engine optimization). One of the ways to do this was to ensure certain key words were embedded in our web pages so that, if those words were searched for, our web site would have a greater chance of appearing on the first page of a search. This was the low-cost option. The higher-cost option was to pay for our organization to appear first. We decided to budget a certain amount of money to use ad words to boost our odds of coming up on the first search results page. When you search for “books,” for example, why do Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Books-A-Million appear on the first page of the seventeen billion-plus results that come up? This is largely because they have paid the search engine company. Like placing a large phone book advertisement that catches your eye when flipping through its pages, companies spend money to ensure that their business comes up early in your search. Such a value judgment may make for good business, but does it mean that he who spends the most money is necessarily the best fountain of knowledge? In other words, just because someone pays to get to the top doesn’t mean that it is a click-worthy link.
A Cultural Mirror
When you type in a search query, one of the most common factors that accounts for initial results is the auto-complete function. One of the more popular forms of the auto-complete phenomenon is Wired.com’s series of auto-complete interviews. These videos feature one or more celebrities answering popular search queries that appear such as, “What is [insert celebrity name]’s real name, favorite movie, or favorite food.” Each of the suggested auto-completes represents the most popularly searched queries on the internet. But this raises the question: Is a search engine a genuine database of knowledge, or have software engineers designed search engines to reflect the people using them? Do you access a knowledge database or a cultural mirror? The answer to this question likely hinges on what type of query you enter.
Read More
Related Posts:

We must tell them our stories—the real ones: both victories and failures, joys and sorrows, and how God taught us through these things. As appropriate, we need to tell them how God taught us when we struggled with sin, faced depression, failed the Lord. They need to hear about the ways God helped us through difficult trials. We must tell them about how we came to know Jesus. Through example, love, prayer, and testimony, older believers can have a powerful influence on younger generations.

A quick Google search of “the Psalm of the Aged Man” immediately pulls up Psalm 71. This Psalm is also called the “Prayer of the Elderly Man” or “Prayer of an Old Man.” In it the psalmist expresses his heart for the younger generations.
This Psalm may have been written by King David late in his life. It is definitely the prayer of an older believer. In it the older man expresses his confidence in God. He speaks of how God has led and helped him throughout his life. The author asks God for help to deliver him from his present troubles, from his enemies that seek to harm him even still. This older man remembers God’s past faithfulness as he asks for further blessings.
When we read this psalm of the aged man, we also see his strong desire to be used of God to encourage the younger generations to serve Him. I would like to draw your attention to the second part of this prayer. It shows us some ways that older Christians today can be a godly influence on the younger generations.
Psalm 71:15-24
15 My mouth will tell of your righteous acts, of your deeds of salvation all the day, for their number is past my knowledge. 16 With the mighty deeds of the Lord GOD I will come; I will remind them of your righteousness, yours alone. 17 O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds. 18 So even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all those to come. 19 Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like you? 20 You who have made me see many troubles and calamities will revive me again; from the depths of the earth you will bring me up again. 21 You will increase my greatness and comfort me again. 22 I will also praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praises to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel. 23 My lips will shout for joy, when I sing praises to you; my soul also, which you have redeemed. 24 And my tongue will talk of your righteous help all the day long, for they have been put to shame and disappointed who sought to do me hurt.
What can older believers in Jesus Christ today learn from this Psalm that would help influence younger generations for the Lord?
Read More
Related Posts:

When we stand before the Lord, there is only one to whom we will point for our acceptance before God: Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the law that we could not, paid our debt on the cross, and credits his righteousness to our account. Even when we experience significant sanctification in this life through the work of the Holy Spirit, we will never point to our righteousness as the basis for our salvation. Remember, even the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not like other ungodly men gave God credit for his righteousness and all his works, yet he walked away unjustified (Luke 18:9-14).

Those who teach that works must be added to faith as a condition for salvation can never tell you when you have done enough. This fact alone exposes why you will never find assurance of salvation in their systems. The problems with believing our right standing before God is a result of Christ’s work, plus our merit are innumerable, but the inability of its proponents to answer the question, “How much work is enough?” exposes its destructive effect on the hearts of those who adhere to it.
I refer to the effects of this doctrine as destructive because there are only two possible responses to imbibing this theology, and neither is edifying. The first is bondage to pride. Someone who is blind to their sinfulness will begin to rejoice in their goodness. After all, they are contributing some merit to their salvation. Jesus has not done it all, so there is room for boasting. The second response is bondage to constant anxiety. Anyone awake to their corruption will tend in this direction. They will strive and struggle but will never find themselves able to rest in Christ because, as long as they live, Christ’s work will never be sufficient, and their work will never be complete.
Read More
Related Posts:

Over the past two years, these allegations have mushroomed into a much broader battle between warring factions within the ARP – with some accusing the denomination’s leadership of opportunistically exploiting the situation to seize control of Second Presbytery, purportedly in contravention of the ARP’s governing constitution.

The Second Presbytery of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) church was founded in 1800, “formed by the division of the Associate Reformed Presbytery of the Carolinas and Georgia,” according to the denomination.
“The beginnings of Second Presbytery remain so interwoven into the history of the ARP Church,” the group’s website declares.
As of this writing, Second Presbytery – the oldest Presbytery in the entire denomination – includes congregations in “the state of Georgia and the Western South Carolina counties of Abbeville, Aiken, Allendale, Anderson, Barnwell, Edgefield, Greenville, Greenwood, Laurens, McCormick, Newberry, Oconee, Pickens, Saluda, Spartanburg and Union.”
Assuming nothing changes over the next two weeks, though, the Presbytery’s 224-year run will come to an abrupt end on September 1, 2024 – with its roughly three dozen churches being folded into two of the ARP church’s other Presbyteries (and its assets absorbed by those entities).
At stake? The future of dozens of congregations, thousands of worshippers… and millions of dollars.
What prompted this schism? The ongoing intra-church drama traces its origins to June of 2022, when pastor Matt Miller of Greenville, S.C. leveled seismic charges against former ARP minister Charles Wilson related to the alleged physical and sexual abuse of his two daughters – both of whom are now adults.
Over the past two years, these allegations have mushroomed into a much broader battle between warring factions within the ARP – with some accusing the denomination’s leadership of opportunistically exploiting the situation to seize control of Second Presbytery, purportedly in contravention of the ARP’s governing constitution.
Meanwhile, ARP leaders have accused Second Presbytery of “a continued culture of intimidation and guile” and a “culture of intrigue” as its leaders allegedly attempted to cover up the allegations against Wilson.
Yeah… and you thought church soap operas in South Carolina were limited to those cults of personality on the coast?
According to official ARP documents (.pdf) posted online, Wilson was accused of engaging in a “pattern of verbally, physically, and sexually abusive behavior toward (his daughters) from the time of their early childhood and continuing into their teenage and young adult years.”
Addressing Wilson directly, the church accused him of “routinely exposing yourself or touching (his daughters) or requiring them to touch you in an inappropriate and sexual manner; and estrangement from them from their early adult years and continuing to the present,” per the documents.
Read More
Related Posts:

Councils may and do err because human leaders “stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). Even the apostles made poor decisions (e.g. Mark 10:13–16; Luke 9:49, 50). The conclusions of assemblies “are to be received with reverence and submission” only “if consonant to the Word of God.” There is some tension here. Not every side will agree with how a council “determine[s] controversies of faith.” But if a broad gathering of church leaders acts on the basis of sound biblical logic the nature of the gathering should fortify the decision. Among faithful churches Lutheresque stands should be rare if not unheard of. When the church speaks her real authority from Christ may not be ignored (Matt. 18:17–20).

Should leaders from multiple churches gather to consider matters of common concern? You might have an opinion on that question. Or it might seem irrelevant. How does church government affect my walk with the Lord?
But what if inter-congregational meetings could be for “the good of the church”? What if the most famous scriptural example of such a meeting is not exceptional but normative? Most Christians will never attend a meeting like that. But we should know how broader assemblies, or leadership meetings involving more churches than our own, can be used by God for building-up Christ’s church.
 The Nature of Broader Assemblies
Every congregation of Christ must have “a government, in the hand of church officers” (WCF 30.1). These officers must shepherd the flock, using “the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints” (WCF 25.3). Like fathers and mothers church leaders “love, pray for, and bless” church members.[i] Through them God may “instruct, counsel, and admonish us.”[ii] We thank God for local church leaders!
But God also intends to bless his people by the efforts of leaders outside the local church. Spiritual overseers should participate in assemblies that are broader than “particular churches.” The most obvious biblical example of a synod or a council is the meeting of the apostles and elders often called the Jerusalem Council. Clearly that meeting was “for the better government, and further edification of the church.” Here’s what happened. Antioch had a congregation with legitimate leaders (Acts 14:23). But the local church struggled to answer a divisive theological question: Is Jesus enough? Or must his work be augmented by ours? After local church teachers “had no small dissension and debate,” leaders from Antioch “were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question” (Acts 15:2). The council’s conclusion was definitive. Among many leaders God made clear what a local church struggled to discover alone (15:25). The answer is truly good news: To be saved nothing more is needed than the gift of Christ’s righteousness received by faith alone. Later Paul and Silas delivered to the churches “for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem (Acts 16. 4). For local churches, at Antioch and beyond, the Jerusalem council affirmed this truth: “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (Prov. 11:14).
This doesn’t mean that synods or councils are infallible. The Holy Spirit approved the Jerusalem Council’s decision (Acts 15:28). 
Read More
Related Posts:

How should we wage battle in the war on lies? As in everything, we must follow Jesus’s lead. First John 3:8 tells us, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Jesus came to destroy the work of the Devil, and the work of the Devil is spreading lies. Our part in this war is similar: we must labor to destroy the Devil’s work by resisting lies. That’s why our motto should be “Live not by lies.”

For the past decade, we’ve been living in what many scholars and cultural observers call the “post-truth” age.
The Oxford Dictionary—which named “post-truth” its word of the year in 2016—defines this term as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
While skepticism toward truth claims is nothing new, the past two decades have been distinguished by several factors that amplify the post-truth phenomenon. Social media’s rise has created echo chambers where misinformation can spread rapidly and unchecked. The decline in the influence of traditional information gatekeepers—such as established media outlets, universities, and religious institutions—has led to a fragmentation of shared narratives. And the increasing polarization of society has made many people more likely to accept information that confirms their existing beliefs, regardless of its factual basis.
This post-truth age poses profound challenges for Jesus followers. How does the church proclaim the gospel in a world where all truth claims are viewed with suspicion? How do we engage in meaningful dialogue when emotional resonance often trumps logical argument? And perhaps most critically, how do we maintain the integrity of our witness when the very concept of objective truth is under assault?
Truth, Lies, and the Devil
Before we can answer such questions about the post-truth world, we should first answer the question Pontius Pilate asked Jesus: “What is truth?” (John 18:38).
The best definition of truth, and one presupposed by Scripture, is that which corresponds to God’s reality. As philosopher J. P. Moreland explains, according to the correspondence theory of truth, “truth is a matter of a proposition (belief, thought, statement, representation) corresponding to reality.” Christians have a special relationship to truth since, as Scripture tells us, the ultimate reality—the most really real thing of all—is Jesus (John 14:6).
The opposite of truth is untruth or lies. When we say something is a lie, we mean it doesn’t correspond to reality. And if it doesn’t align with reality, it doesn’t align with the ultimate reality—Jesus. If it doesn’t correspond to reality, it’s in opposition to Jesus.
A lie is making an untrue statement or acting in such a way as to leave a false or misleading impression, especially with the intent to deceive someone who is deserving of the truth (and there are few situations where hearers are not deserving of truth [e.g., Josh. 2:4]). A lie is in opposition to the truth, and thus in opposition to Jesus. Post-truth is the phenomenon where public opinion is shaped more by unreality than reality, by lies rather than objective truth.
John Mark Comer notes that “the problem [today] is less that we tell lies and more that we live them; we let false narratives about reality into our bodies, and they wreak havoc in our souls.” In this post-truth world, we’re in the latest stage of what Comer calls the “war on lies.”
We’re both in a war on lies and with the one who started the war—the Devil. In John 8:44, Jesus says about the Devil, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
The Devil has many things he can do, many ways he can harm humans, such as demonic possession and affliction. But his most powerful and effective tools are often more subtle. In 1836, John Wilkinson wrote, “One of the artifices of Satan is to induce men to believe that he does not exist.” A corollary for our age is that a primary artifice of the Devil is to induce men to act as if objective truth doesn’t exist.
The most effective means the Devil has of introducing evil into this world is to tell lies and encourage humans to spread them. That’s why there’s a war between truth and lies—and why everyone must choose a side. We either choose to side with reality and Jesus or we choose to side with Satan and lies.
If you side with Satan, you’ll be enslaved by lies. If you side with Jesus, then as John 8:32 tells us, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Those are our only two options.
To be effective in this war on lies, we must know what we’re fighting against, have a strategy for engagement, and develop tactics to implement our strategy.
Four Fronts in the War
There are numerous battle lines within this war, but four are primary.
1. Emotional Untruth
As a manifestation of the post-truth phenomenon, this occurs when people prioritize their feelings, intuitions, or emotional responses over objective facts or empirical evidence. At its core, emotional untruth reflects the human tendency to trust our gut feelings and personal experiences more than abstract data or expert opinions. This can be particularly powerful when the emotional response is tied to deeply held beliefs, personal identities, or traumatic experiences.
Emotional responses aren’t inherently negative or irrational, as they can often serve as valuable intuitive guides, especially in individual social situations. However, problems arise when we allow our emotions to consistently override factual information, leading to decisions or beliefs disconnected from objective reality.
2. Narrative Untruth
This refers to the phenomenon where people accept or believe something because it fits into a compelling storyline or explanation, regardless of its factual accuracy. This type of post-truth thinking capitalizes on the human tendency to make sense of the world through stories. We are, by nature, storytelling creatures, and we often find it easier to understand and remember information when it’s presented in a narrative format.
Narrative untruth’s power lies in its ability to provide a sense of coherence and meaning to complex or chaotic events, to offer simple explanations for difficult problems, and to reinforce existing beliefs or worldviews.
This can be a particularly seductive type of lie because it often contains elements of factual truth interwoven with speculation, exaggeration, or outright falsehoods. This mixture can make it challenging to distinguish between fact and fiction, especially when the narrative aligns with one’s preexisting beliefs or desires.
Unsupported conspiracy theories are the most obvious type of narrative untruths. But an even more common form, especially on social media, is the oversimplified or distorted narrative of current events. These narratives take complex social, political, or religious issues and reduce them to simple, emotionally charged stories that often vilify one group while glorifying another.
For example, a complex debate about how to respond to a political issue might be reduced to a meme portraying one political faction as purely evil and the other as entirely virtuous. Or a nuanced social issue might be boiled down to a viral video that presents only one perspective, ignoring important context and alternative, biblically valid viewpoints.
These narratives spread rapidly through likes, shares, and comments, often reaching millions of people before fact-checkers or more balanced perspectives can catch up. The danger lies in their ability to shape public opinion and even influence real-world actions based on incomplete or distorted information.
3. Tribalistic Untruth
The philosopher Richard Rorty once claimed that “truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with saying.” He was suggesting truth is a social construct influenced by the norms, beliefs, and power structures of a given time and place. A corollary to this claim is “tribal truth”—that truth becomes what your tribe lets you get away with saying.
An individual’s “tribe” is the “in-group,” the group a person belongs to and feels a strong sense of identification with.
Read More
Related Posts: