Written by Derek J. Brown |
Sunday, November 14, 2021
A heart bent on self-promotion will keep a person from believing in Jesus for salvation. And although the self-promoter may gain a measure of short-lived recognition on this earth, the King of the universe will someday instruct him to take the place of eternal dishonor (Prov. 25:6-7). But if you are willing to humble yourself and give up your longing for people’s approval, then you will someday “hear another praise you and not your own mouth” (Prov. 27:2). But this time it won’t be a stranger; it will be Jesus when he says, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:23).

The desire for self-promotion is native to the human heart. We are all tempted to exalt ourselves in some measure, whether on a large or small scale. It seems, however, that social media has a special way of encouraging and showcasing one’s indulgence in this temptation. Granted, social media is not the cause of self-promotion; it is only the venue through which the human heart expresses its desires. But the prevalence of such self-promotion should compel us to think rigorously over this phenomenon, especially because so many Christians seem to be walking in lockstep with a trend the Bible so clearly discourages.
Self-Promotion and the Proverbs
The Proverbs, for example, speak directly to the temptation to promote oneself in two primary ways. First, the Proverbs extol diligence as a pathway to leadership and recognition. It is important to keep in mind that the attainment of leadership and recognition per se is not condemned by Scripture. It might be easy, in reaction against a culture propelled by self-promotion, to view the very desire for leadership and the idea of recognition with suspicion. But the Bible is not so restrictive. We are told, for example, that “The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor” (Prov. 12:24). God has designed the world in such a way that diligence in one’s tasks will lead, most of the time, to some measure of leadership.
Whether the promotion is from cashier to manager at a fast-food restaurant, or from engineer to program manager at a software company, careful attention to one’s responsibilities and consistent development of one’s skills is usually rewarded with recognition and greater responsibility. “Do you see a man skillful in his work?” Solomon asks. “He will stand before kings; he will not stand before obscure men” (Prov. 22:29).
But the second way the Proverbs deal with our tendency to promote ourselves is by discouraging the practice altogether. “Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence or stand in the place of the great, for it is better to be told, ‘Come up here,’ than to be put lower in the presence of a noble” (Prov. 25:6-7). Note here the direct contrast with what we just saw in the previous verses. In Proverbs 12:14 and 22:29, there was a natural, unforced path to leadership and recognition. But in Proverbs 25:6-7, the person who thrusts himself into the place of honor is rebuffed because he might find himself vulnerable to public disgrace.
The danger with self-promotion is that we might have an unrealistic view of our skills, and our pursuit of a particular honor may appear as nothing more than vain presumption. But the recognition of which Solomon speaks is not gained by self-promotion, but by diligence. The person who now enjoys the privilege of leadership and standing before kings has worked consistently and carefully and has honed his craft to a point where his work is worthy of significant distinction.
That is why the Proverbs tell us, “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips” (Prov. 27:2). If we were honest, most of us would admit that there is something about self-promotion that just doesn’t sound right. Even though self-promotion is viewed in many work environments as a non-negotiable key to success, no one really likes it when their colleague is the one indulging in the habit—indeed, many of us find it downright annoying.
How Self-Promotion Usually Backfires
But not only is self-promotion unfitting, it usually tends to keep one from growing in the skills required to advance in his or her career. Employees who exert their time and energy, not to developing greater competency in their field, but to figuring out how to leverage this or that relationship, pad that resume, impress that superior, maintain that image, or spruce up that LinkedIn account may learn—painfully—that their efforts neither impress their colleagues nor facilitate their advancement. In fact, self-promotion is probably a symptom of laziness and a replacement for diligence more than a mark of competence.
Read More

Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity. Unfortunately, there isn’t much we can do to change this trajectory in the short term. Both Biden and his Education Department deserve condemnation for federalizing the issue. Yet as Trump’s Education Department made clear in 2017, they believe the issue of whether schools should accept the claim that a person can choose his or her own sex is to be decided by states and local school districts. The political solutions thus range from “adopt transgender orthodoxy at a moderate pace” (proposed by the Democrats) to “adopt transgender orthodoxy at a slower pace” (Republicans). Both eventually end up in the same place—the entrenched establishment of transgender orthodoxy.

The Story: The Department of Education’s new rule’s expanding protections for LGBT+ students could lead to punishment for those who disagree with transgender orthodoxy.
The Background: On April 19, 2024, the Department of Education released a 1,577-page document issuing its final regulation under Title IX, intended to clarify sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Title IX is a federal civil rights law passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding.
Key points of the final regulations include:

Clarification on Title IX’s definition of sex-based harassment and expanded scope of sex discrimination protection, covering stereotypes, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity
Mandatory responses from schools to sex discrimination incidents
Required supportive measures for affected individuals, ensuring access to education and fairness during grievance procedures
Enhanced protections against discrimination based on pregnancy and related conditions, including specific accommodations like lactation spaces
Reinforcement against retaliation towards individuals exercising their Title IX rights
Support for the rights of parents and guardians in the grievance processes of minors
Prohibition of discrimination against LGBT+ individuals, aligning with the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County

This last element is likely to be most significant. In the landmark case of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, also protects individuals from discrimination based on his or her sexual orientation and gender identity. In this Title IX final rule, the Department of Education incorporates the Bostock decision’s reasoning, expressly prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics in federally funded education programs.
One issue not addressed by this regulation is transgender athletes. At a briefing on the regulation’s release, education secretary Miguel Cardona said separate guidance on transgender athletes is forthcoming.
“The Department recognizes that standards for students participating on male and female athletic teams are evolving in real time,” Cardona said. “That’s why we’ve decided to do a separate rulemaking on how schools may determine eligibility, while upholding Title IX’s nondiscrimination guarantee.”
The new regulations will not apply to religious educational institutions. Such institutions controlled by a religious organization may claim an exemption from Title IX provisions that conflict with their religious tenets. The religious exemption in Title IX applies to educational institutions or entities controlled by religious organizations and not to individual students or employees exercising their religious beliefs.
The final compliance deadline for schools and colleges to implement the new regulations is August 2024.
Why It Matters: In 1997, Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and founder of First Things magazine, proposed Neuhaus’s Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”
He meant that when orthodox beliefs are treated as optional within a church or group, they’re tolerated only conditionally. The orthodox are allowed to hold their beliefs (e.g., that a person’s gender is determined by biology) but cannot assert that their views are normative for everyone. Over time, a new liberal orthodoxy arises (i.e., that a person’s gender is determined by chosen identity) that’s intolerant of the old orthodoxy. This new orthodoxy is based on experiential truths (“I feel, therefore I am”) and identity politics rather than on doctrine, tradition, revelation, or even biological reality.
Read More
Related Posts:

Loy’s letter of April 2, 1935 to his cousin expressed his support for him in his testing times and his own personal outrage at the way the modernists had made their case against him. He described the action of the General Assembly as “an unqualified outrage—unconstitutional, ultra vires, un-Presbyterian, and altogether prompted by a spirit of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.” Loy believed the outcome of the case was assured from the beginning and “the cards were stacked against you.” But he also related the comments of Moderator of New York Presbytery Russell that the actions against Machen had backfired to a degree because the way he had been treated did not look good to the general public. Loy added that lots “of men who are not on your side will see that the boot has been shifted to the other foot, and that the very ones who have been raising the cry of intolerance have been guilty of that unpardonable sin themselves” to which he added that he could not “help feeling that this adverse decision is really in your favor and that it will lead to vindication in the end.”

Mary and John Jones Gresham had two children that survived to marry and have families, Mary Jones and Thomas Baxter. Mary Jones, who was also called Minnie, would live in Baltimore with her husband Arthur Webster Machen and they would enjoy the births of three sons, one of which was born in 1881 and named John Gresham Machen. At the time of his birth, Thomas and his wife Tallulah had been raising their son LeRoy in Madison, Georgia, since his birth September 21, 1871. When Thomas and Lula Gresham moved their family to Baltimore their residence was close to that of the Machens. Gresham and Loy, which was the name Machen most often used for his cousin, became more and more like brothers than just first cousins because of their many opportunities to socialize, share common interests, and experiences. The ten-year age difference between the boys put Loy in the position of being like an older brother to J. Gresham Machen.
The purpose of this article is to consider the relationship of J. Gresham Machen and LeRoy Gresham following their years growing up together in Baltimore. This will be accomplished using a selection of letters written between April 1921 and April 1935. The letters will show that the two cousins continued to be both friends and confidants regarding issues of common interest including the situation with the Presbyterians as it developed in the 1920s in both the PCUSA and the PCUS.
LeRoy Gresham
LeRoy Gresham’s education included study in Lawrenceville Academy in New Jersey before he travelled the few miles down the road to Princeton University to earn both a B.A. and a M.A. Returning to Baltimore, Loy studied for one year at Johns Hopkins University and then went to the University of Maryland for his legal studies earning the LL.D. Initially, he followed in his father’s footsteps by practicing law in Baltimore beginning in 1896 but then after six years of work he realized that God was calling him to the pastoral ministry. Loy was just over thirty years of age when he began seminary studies. Unlike Machen’s choice for seminary, Loy selected Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, where he earned the B.D. {4} in 1906. He was licensed that May by Potomac Presbytery of the PCUS, and then he was ordained by Orange Presbytery in November of the same year. Rev. Gresham’s first call was a brief one of three years to a church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. His next call would be his last because he would serve the church in Salem, Virginia, beginning in 1909 and remain there until his retirement in 1946. LeRoy was honored with the DD by both King College in Bristol and Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia. Loy had married Jessie Rhett in 1903, and they had two sons, Francis, who was the youngest, and Thomas Baxter.
Machen Recommends LeRoy for a New Call and Preaches at Hollins College[2]
At one point in LeRoy Gresham’s ministry in Salem, Machen mentioned Loy in a letter to Rev. Stuart “Bill” Hutchison as a possible candidate for his soon to be vacant pulpit with the hopes that he would recommend Loy to the pulpit committee. The opportunity that Machen believed could be a suitable change for Loy was just across the state in the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk. Bill Hutchison had been the minister of the PCUS church for about ten years, and his new call was to the East Liberty Church, PCUSA in Pittsburgh. If Loy was to move to Norfolk, the change would take him from a congregation of over three-hundred members to one of nearly a thousand. Dr. Machen believed that the Norfolk pulpit would be a good fit for Cousin Loy, so he presented his case to Bill regarding his qualifications.
I have come frequently into contact with his work at Salem, and every contact with it has been an inspiration and a benediction. Though on a smaller scale, it is more like your work at Norfolk than almost anything else I have seen. That is to say, it is the work of a genuine minister of the gospel, who is in full possession of the necessary intellectual and other gifts. I do not believe that a more absolutely unselfish, consecrated man ever entered the ministry than my cousin. To win one soul he will pour forth unstintedly all the treasures of mind and heart that God has given him. And that kind of painstaking work has produced a congregation which it is a joy to see.
Machen went on to comment to Bill that the Salem congregation believed Loy was content with his call and would not leave the church for any reason. He added that Loy believed “his great duty is to his own congregation, and that, especially since his work there is so highly blessed of God, he has absolutely no time to spend upon any attempt to seek a larger field.” Despite the confidence of the congregation regarding Loy’s happiness as their pastor, Machen thought there was a possibility his cousin would leave Salem for another call when he believed God was calling him to do so. He commented, “I am sure that Loy will not decline the real call when it comes.” The letter shows Machen’s exuberance as he spoke up for his cousin because he wanted the best for him, and it looked like First Presbyterian Church in Norfolk was a call suited for his gifts.
As the letter draws to its close, Machen mentioned that it was his hope to have a week of hiking in the Natural Bridge area of Virginia with Loy before he preached the baccalaureate sermon at Hollins College for Women in Roanoke the evening of Sunday, June 5. Though the {5} sermon is untitled, Machen’s text was 2 Corinthians 4:18, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” According to the summary by the writer for Hollins Magazine, Machen’s emphasis was on the need for a deep faith that provides a solid and long-lasting foundation for Christian living. Machen also referred to the familiar text from Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” He encouraged the new graduates to pursue the Kingdom first and establish a sure foundation for practical Christianity. Hollins Magazine commented further.
Mr. Machen’s words served as a reminder to us that although we may aspire to be of much practical service to the world, our deeds will be futile unless they have beneath them a deep spiritual raison d’ếtre. We need first of all to be sincere believers in Christianity, and “it will follow as the night follows day” that our words and actions will have an unfailing power for good in the world.[3]
The baccalaureate sermon presented the simple message that Machen so often emphasized—the practical aspects of Christianity must be built upon a solid foundation of doctrine, which in this case he corresponded with seeking first the Kingdom of God. If the practical is sought without first having a solid foundation, then only a superficial and self-serving obedience will follow.
Christianity and Liberalism, New Testament Greek for Beginners, and the PCUS[4]
The year 1923 was a particularly important one for Machen’s academic career because two of what would become best-selling books, Christianity and Liberalism, and shortly thereafter, New Testament Greek for Beginners were published.[5] In a letter of May 2, 1923, Loy thanked Gresham for the recently received copy of his just released Greek grammar about which he observed, “it looks like an excellent little book” and “the preface is most interesting,” but he did not think he could assess it thoroughly until he had the opportunity to use it, hopefully, with his youngest son, Francis. Little did Loy or Machen know that the Greek textbook would be long appreciated and esteemed after their time. It remained in print with Macmillan for years, after which it was published by other companies with an updated edition in 2003.
Loy mentioned that he had “one or two interesting side-lights” on Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. The local newspaper, Roanoke World-News, had published in its literary column a review of the book written by a member of Loy’s congregation whom he identified as Dr. Painter. Loy said the man was a former Lutheran minister, who was a widely read man, had a keen sense of humor, and was “altogether a most agreeable man personally.” But Loy speculated that the reason Dr. Painter was no longer a minister was because he fell out with the Lutherans, which Loy believed was due to his being “the only man in the ministry that I ever heard of that was president of a cigarette-machine company; and I am inclined to think that his business had something to do with his not getting along with the Lutherans.”
Dr. Painter was retired Professor of Modern Languages and Literature F. V. N. Painter of Roanoke College.[6] He was an accomplished scholar having written a number of books including A History of English Literature, Introduction to English {6} Literature, Introduction to American Literature, and several others. He was ordained into the Lutheran ministry and began teaching in 1878. In order to have more time for writing, and apparently as Loy mentioned, to try his hand at manufacturing by becoming president of the Bonsack Company, he retired from the college in 1906. The Bonsack Company had been founded by James Bonsack to manufacture the cigarette-rolling machine he had patented.[7]
Painter’s two-book review is titled, “Orthodoxy and Modernism,” with Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism representing orthodoxy and Percy Stickney Grant’s The Religion of Main Street representing the modernist perspective.[8] The review provides a brief account of Machen’s chief points as contrasted with those of Grant’s book. Machen is described as one of the “stand-patters,” while Grant is presented as a member of the “radicals.” Machen’s teaching regarding the plenary inspiration of Scripture, doctrines such as original sin, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement were not in accord with the modern, progressive, and liberal needs of the era. Grant’s progressive and liberal views are said to fit the needs of the scientific age and he believed traditional, creedal doctrine to be “archaic if not false.” Grant commented further that “‘in Adam’s fall we sinned all’ was the old theology” and its associated emphasis on sin “crushed humanity.” Painter ended his nine-hundred-word review saying, “After carefully reading these two theological polemics, this reviewer turned with relief and refreshment to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul touched the stars, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
As a promoter of Machen’s work, Loy was crafty in his method. While a woman Bible teacher from Union Seminary Training School in Richmond was participating in the Presbyterial Auxiliary meeting, she visited the Greshams and found a copy of Christianity and Liberalism strategically placed in the house for her sure sighting. She picked up what Loy described as “bait” and commented that she was delighted with the book. Loy responded by giving her one of his extra copies, thanked her for her interest, and encouraged her to continue reading his cousin’s work.
Machen responded to Loy’s letter within a few days and after informing him that he would be too busy to visit Salem until the next year, he encouraged Loy regarding his selection to attend the PCUS General Assembly for his presbytery, but he also expressed concern about what he saw as troubling signs in the PCUS. Machen told his cousin that the “Southern Church puzzles and disturbs me.” In particular, he had noticed recently that Dr. Leighton Stewart, whom he described as “a liberal propagandist in China,” had recently been examined extensively and admitted into the Presbytery of East Hanover in Richmond. He also found unsettling the collective review of books in the spring issue of The Union Seminary Review that included Harry Emerson Fosdick’s, Christianity and Progress, 1922, and Charles A. Ellwood’s, The Reconstruction of Religion: A Sociological View, 1922.[9] The reviewer, John Calvin Siler, a Union alumnus and a pastor in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia, concluded the review saying, “We must read these books not as theological treatises, but as books on practical religion. These books have no special message on doctrine, but they have a burning message on practice.” The separation of doctrine from practice was one of Machen’s chief concerns with the PCUSA, and seeing the same thinking in the denomination of his youth bothered him greatly. He added, “It looks to me sometimes as though the Southern Church were going to give Christianity up without even being conscious that anything particularly worth while is being lost.” However, he believed there were some “splendid men” who were concerned about the issues taking place in the PCUS such as R.C. Reed of Columbia Seminary.
Read More
Related Posts: