It’s very rarely the conservatives who achieve anything. It’s the outspoken radicals who get stuff done. It’s they whom we remember. The conservatives value, above all else, the boat not being rocked. The radicals are willing to fight for the truth, even if it gets them exiled. Radically orthodox is where it’s at. 

Those who know their Church history reasonably well know that Athanasius was the leading orthodox voice in the fight for officially recognising the Divinity of Jesus at the Council of Nicea (325 AD).
Athanasius was outspoken, bold, and instrumental in leading the rejection of Arianism, which denied Jesus’s eternal divinity (like JW’s do today). The Arians were like progressives, wanting to fit the doctrine of God to the philosophy of their day. Athanasius was orthodox, but radical, not conservative. He wanted to vigorously defend the truth.
Read More
Related Posts:

No matter how carefully we try to promote and protect our interests, we will not always succeed. Even when misfortune does not befall us, its possibility makes us anxious, and this keeps us from being perfectly happy. This is why the Scriptures tell us that it is only when our hearts are fixed upon that which cannot be shaken that we can face the prospect of bad news without fear (cf. Ps. 112:7; Heb. 12:26–29). 

In our relativistic age, happiness is seen as a matter of personal taste. If you come across someone whose happiness aesthetic differs from yours, you are expected to shrug and politely say, “Whatever makes you happy.” This makes sense to those who see human beings as more authentic when they act in accordance with their feelings. On the other hand, those who see all people as sharing the same human nature will conclude that some things are universally conducive, and others universally detrimental, to personal fulfillment. These differing perspectives correspond to two different paths to happiness, only one of which can lead to a happy end.
The Path of Deified Desire
It is widely assumed in our time that happiness consists in having positive feelings (or at least not having negative ones). Closely related to this is the notion that subjective preferences should be the determining factor for how objective reality is ordered. As C.S. Lewis once put it, modern man has rejected the approach to life that focuses on how to conform the soul to the natural moral order, replacing it with an approach that seeks to subdue everything to his desires.[1] This outlook is now in full bloom, and it is being implemented politically on the basis of various supposed “existential threats.” In the words of professor Russell Berman, the formidable “nexus of government, media, major corporations, and the education establishment . . . aspires to a permanent state of emergency to impose a new mode of governance by intimidation, censorship, and unilateral action.”[2] The powerful in our society claim to have the knowledge and expertise needed to fashion a new world that corresponds to their imaginations, all the while ignoring the constraints of the actual world. Psychologist Mattias Desmet explains this rise in coercive control as “the logical consequence of mechanistic thinking and the delusional belief in the omnipotence of human rationality.”[3] Theologically, it is a manifestation of what Martin Luther was talking about when he said that “man cannot of his nature desire that God should be God; on the contrary, he desires that he himself might be God and that God might not be God.”[4]
The same dynamic is evident at a personal level in the embrace of expressive individualism, which Carl Trueman defines as “a prioritization of the individual’s inner psychology—we might even say ‘feelings’ or ‘intuitions’—for our sense of who we are and what the purpose of our lives is.”[5] Note how expressive individualism undergirds the response of William “Lia” Thomas (winner of the 500 meter freestyle at the 2022 NCAA Women’s Swimming Championships) when he was asked about his biological advantage when competing against women:
There’s a lot of factors that go into a race and how well you do, and the biggest change for me is that I’m happy, and sophomore year, when I had my best times competing with the men, I was miserable. . . . Trans people don’t transition for athletics. We transition to be happy and authentic and our true selves.[6]
As anyone who followed Thomas’s story knows, the thing that made him happy brought unhappiness to female swimmers who were forced to share a locker room with and compete against a biological male. When one person’s pursuit of happiness gets in the way of someone else’s pursuit of happiness, the conflict has to be adjudicated by something beyond individual feelings. But in a relativistic and therapeutic society that makes feelings ultimate, it simply boils down to which side has more power. This is exactly what happened in Thomas’s case, as the cultural ascendancy of transgender ideology resulted in his teammates and competitors being bullied into silence.
Such things are to be expected when a society unmoors itself from any sense of objective moral order. Trueman shows how the modern West has done this by employing Philip Rieff’s taxonomy of “worlds” to describe the various types of culture that societies embody. In this taxonomy, first worlds are pagan, second worlds are epitomized by the Christian West, and third worlds describe modernity. Trueman explains,
First and second worlds thus have a moral, and therefore cultural, stability because their foundations lie in something beyond themselves. To put it another way, they do not have to justify themselves on the basis of themselves. Third worlds, by way of stark contrast to the first and second worlds, do not root their cultures, their social orders, their moral imperatives in anything sacred. They do have to justify themselves, but they cannot do so on the basis of something sacred or transcendent. Instead, they have to do so on the basis of themselves. The inherent instability of this approach should be obvious. . . . Morality will thus tend toward a matter of simple consequentialist pragmatism, with the notion of what are and are not desirable outcomes being shaped by the distinct cultural pathologies of the day.[7]
Lewis foresaw this when he wrote, “When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains.”[8] And as Desmet notes, this produces a level of destabilization and anxiety that causes people to long “for an authoritarian institution that provides direction to take the burden of freedom and the associated insecurity off their shoulders.”[9] This is why today’s West is simultaneously marked by libertinism and legalism. The rise of authoritarianism (or what Rod Dreher describes as “soft totalitarianism”)[10] is yet another manifestation of how fallen man slavishly looks to law for his deliverance. This is what the apostle Paul is talking about in Galatians 4 when he speaks of being enslaved to the “elementary principles of the world,” a phrase that describes the legalistic religious principle that was active for Jews under the law of Moses and for Gentiles under the law of nature. In the words of John Fesko, the phrase “elementary principles of the world” in Galatians 4 refers to “the creation law that appears in both the Adamic and Mosaic covenants.”[11] Because of fallen man’s enslavement under the law, when a society makes feelings and desires preeminent, the inevitable result is not happiness, but tyranny. This further demonstrates that the good order for which human nature was designed cannot be restored by human effort but only by receiving salvation as a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ, in whom we are accepted as righteous in God’s sight and renewed in the whole man after the image of God.[12]
The Path of Rightly Ordered Desire
Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) expounds on the other path to happiness in his dialogue On the Happy Life, written soon after his conversion to Christianity.[13] In this dialogue, Augustine discusses the connection between desire and happiness by saying, “If [a man] wants good things and has them, he is happy; but if he wants bad things, he is unhappy, even if he has them.”[14] In other words, happiness cannot be separated from goodness, which is defined not by individual desires but by the objective moral order that God has inscribed in his world. What matters is not desire itself, but whether what we desire is good or bad.
Read More
Related Posts:

God is a God of relational intimacy through proximity. He walked in the cool of the garden with Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:8). Jesus ministered through proximity with his disciples. The first-century church was marked by communal living day by day (Acts 2:42–46; 4:32–35). Not all regions lend themselves to living within walking distance from where a church gathers, but in all situations, we must pastor our churches to fight the cultural bent toward isolation. 

Peter commands pastors to shepherd the flock that is among them (1 Pet. 5:2). Therefore, actually living among them—and your flock living among one another—is invaluable.
When we planted a church in the outskirts of New Orleans, one of the most significant decisions my family made was to move into the neighborhood. Many of our core team members moved as well.
I, along with more than ten other families, now live on the same avenue as our church. Out of 160 covenant members, more than half live within a couple miles of the church building. Here are three reasons why I would encourage every pastor to teach his congregation the value of proximity.
For Your Church’s Affection
Salvation is a community-creating event. The abundant life Christ offers is lived out in a family of brothers and sisters, living in harmony with one another (Rom. 15:5). Church is not an event you attend but a household you join (1 Tim. 3:15).
Many Americans leave worship on Sunday, return home, close the garage door, and are content not to re-engage their church until next Sunday.
Proximity combats this instinct. By reducing our distance, it increases our opportunities for the one-another commanded throughout the Bible. Organic relationships develop more easily and create a culture that affects the whole.
Pastors can lead the charge by prioritizing proximity themselves, modeling hospitality, and encouraging members to do the same. The community cultivated through this effort will then draw in the lost and lonely to hear the gospel preached and see the gospel lived out in the life of the church.
For Your Neighbors’ Salvation
Paige, Kelsi, and Carly all worked at the po-boy shop at the end of the street our church sits on. They were young adults with little religious background who also lived near our church.
Read More
Related Posts: