On Christmas Eve, I wrote about the temptation of forever-virtual church. Thousands of churches started streaming their services during Covid stay-at-home orders, and even though those orders are gone now, many churches are still streaming. Though streaming is useful technology, and there may be a place for it in churches post-pandemic, churches also need to consider the potential downsides.
Trevin Wax has an excellent blog post for The Gospel Coalition that’s worth reading in full called “‘Gotcha’ Sermon Clips Are Bad for the Church.” He’s referring to the online phenomenon of people sharing edited clips from sermons that portray the speaker in a negative light. Wax discusses social-media accounts that weaponize sermon clips:
Some of these [social media accounts] point the spotlight on “crazy fundamentalists” while others root out the “most woke”—in either case we’re introduced to preachers who seem determined to live up to the worst caricatures. At times, we see clips from charismatic megachurch pastors delivering inspirational drivel rather than sound biblical teaching. The intended reaction, it appears, is to name and shame the “bad preacher” and to shake one’s head in pity or disgust.
So far, these have mostly been videos of prominent pastors or Christian teachers with online ministries. But it’s worth considering that your pastor from your church could be next if you’re streaming your services for the whole world to see. Sadly, there are lots of people in this country with grievances, an Internet connection, and too much time on their hands, and they might not stop at megachurches for much longer.
“But my pastor would never say anything like those crazy people online,” you might think. Of course, but that’s not the issue. He doesn’t have to say anything crazy.

The economic rise of women represents a seismic shift in gender relations. It has broken the chains of dependency that held women down—but also held the nuclear family together. The traditional institution of fatherhood, based on a provider and protector role, has been almost completely deconstructed. Millions of men are being benched as a result. A new model of mature masculinity and fatherhood is desperately needed. 

In the span of just a few decades, an astonishing, epochal revolution in human relations has occurred. Since the widespread adoption of agriculture, patriarchy has been the norm in human societies. No longer. Patriarchy has been effectively demolished in advanced economies.
Women are no longer dependent on men for material resources. By tearing down barriers to education and the labor market, feminism has achieved a central goal of securing for women economic independence and power.
In 1970, when these changes began gaining steam, women were locked out of many educational and professional opportunities. On American campuses males dominated. In undergraduate enrollment they were 58 percent of students to females’ 42 percent. Men got more than 85 percent of PhDs. In law schools, about 90 percent of students were men.
Today, undergraduate enrollment has flipped—female enrollment is at 58 percent. Women are awarded 53 percent of PhDs, and they make up the majority of law students. Whole professions, like psychology and veterinary medicine, are becoming overwhelmingly female. Forty percent of American women now earn more than the average man, up from just 13 percent in 1979.
This rise of women has been accompanied by male decline. The statistics here are equally startling. There is the bad economic news: most American men earn less today (adjusted for inflation) than most men did in 1979. This is not because of the mass entry of women in the workplace, but because of the hollowing out of traditional male jobs—factory worker, steelworker, coal miner—as a result of free trade and automation.
But male troubles are not just economic. Almost one in four school boys are diagnosed as having a “developmental disability.” One in five fathers is not living with his children. Men are at three times greater risk than women from the epidemic of “deaths of despair,” from suicide, alcohol, and drugs.
There are now more young women than men with university degrees in every advanced economy. Male wage growth has been sluggish in these countries; and men’s employment rates have been dropping around the world.
Some hear all of this and come to the conclusion that the women’s movement has been a mistake and the solution is to wind back the clock. I disagree. The movement to liberate women has unleashed the power and talent of half of the global population—to the benefit of us all. But like all revolutions, it has generated real challenges, too. You don’t upend a 12,000-year-old social order without experiencing cultural side effects. In this case, it is the dislocation of many of our boys and men.
It is past time we recognized and started to address these problems. Doing so does not signal a retreat from feminism—or a belief that all misogyny and sexism have been eradicated. It is a recognition of our collective responsibility to deal with the downsides of radical change, as well as celebrate the upsides. For the longest time—pretty much all of history—the cause of gender equality has been synonymous with the cause of girls and women. No longer. It is now necessary to consider gender inequalities in both directions.
Doing this is in women’s economic self-interest. A world of floundering men is unlikely to be a world of flourishing women. If men struggle to find work or decent wages, that puts more pressure on women as breadwinners. Except in the richest U.S. families (i.e., the top fifth), all of the growth in household income since 1979 has resulted from the increased working hours and earnings of women.
Read More
Related Posts:

Throughout the highest joys of laboring alongside fellow believers in gospel work and the deepest pains of relational strain and conflict, the Lord preserves his people and accomplishes his sovereign purposes. He may bring resolution to disagreements and restored relationships in this life—as with Paul and Mark—or he may wait until the life to come to right every wrong, dry every tear, heal every pain, and mend every heart, when we’ll be forever with the Lord who makes all things new (Rev. 21:3–5).

Every seasoned pastor and organizational leader experiences significant conflicts and disagreements with fellow staff members, elders, or ministry colleagues. There are various reasons for such disputes: theological convictions, ministry strategies and priorities, leadership styles, communication gaps, perspectives about partnerships, and more.
While many conflicts can be resolved to preserve and strengthen ministry partnerships, disagreements often prompt coworkers to part ways.
Acts 15:36–41 recounts the end of the early church’s important and fruitful missionary partnership between Barnabas and Paul: “There arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord” (vv. 39–40).
Reflecting on this text can provide lessons for leaders today who face challenging conflicts in ministry.
1. Ministry partnerships are vital for the advance of the gospel and the growth of the church.
The book of Acts presents ministry partnerships as normative in local church and mission contexts to promote the church’s health and the gospel’s spread.
When “a great many people were added to the Lord” in Antioch, Barnabas recognized he needed a trusted coworker to teach these new disciples, so he went searching for Saul to join him in teaching (Acts 11:24–26). The biblical account presents Barnabas’s decision to partner with Saul in a favorable light, highlighting Barnabas’s godly character and the longevity and fruitfulness of their ministry in Antioch.
The Antiochian church sent multiple leaders to bring relief to the saints in Judea (vv. 29–30), and the apostles and elders in Jerusalem carefully selected a delegation to deliver an important letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (15:22–29). The plan to send Judas and Silas from the Jerusalem church alongside Paul and Barnabas signaled the church’s consensus in the decision at the Jerusalem council (“having come to one accord,” v. 25) and promoted the church’s encouragement, strengthening, and peace (vv. 30–34).
Later, Paul was willing to set sail for Athens while leaving behind Timothy and Silas on urgent ministry business in Macedonia, with the expectation his trusted colleagues would join him as soon as possible (17:14–15; 18:5; 1 Thess. 3:1–10).
Many pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and other ministers would testify to the crucial importance of partnership with others involved in gospel work. Robust friendships are often forged as believers labor side by side in the fires of ministry, and such relationships provide needed encouragement and promote greater effectiveness than solo ministry efforts.
2. Disagreements and disappointments are inevitable in ministry partnerships.
Paul and Barnabas parted ways after a sharp disagreement, and many other notable ministry partnerships throughout history have ended in similar fashion.
Disagreements about doctrinal convictions, theological vision, or ministry strategy may lead coworkers to part ways.
Read More
Related Posts: