Walking by the Spirit refers to our daily conduct, rooted in our union with Christ in his death and resurrection and empowered by the Spirit who redirects our desires to godly fruitfulness. The Spirit is the animating power in our lives, shaping our daily decisions as we wake up in the midst of the spiritual war. Paul’s call is for us to daily take up arms in the battle, to encourage and gratify our spiritual desires, and to keep in step with the Spirit because we belong to Jesus.

Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. –Galatians 5:16–17
In seminary, this passage reshaped my vision of the Christian life. At one level, the passage is simple. It contains an exhortation (“walk by the Spirit”), a promise (“and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh”), and an explanation or rationale (the conflict described in verse 17). But as we meditate on this passage, we discover that it also offers a threefold vision for the Christian life as a whole.
Acknowledge the War Within
First, Paul insists that the starting point for the Christian life is recognizing the war between the flesh and the Spirit.
I say “starting point” because of the logic of verses 16 and 17. In seminary, I was taught that one way to clarify the logic of a passage like this is to read the verses in reverse order while keeping the logical relationship intact. In other words, turn an “A, because B” argument into a “B, therefore A” argument. “I eat, because I am hungry” becomes “I am hungry, therefore I eat.”
When we do that, the passage looks like this:
(Verse 17) The desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. (Verse 16) Therefore (that’s the logical connection) walk by the Spirit, and you will certainly not gratify the desires of the flesh.
As Christians, we wake up every day in the midst of a war. Fleshly desires pull us in one direction; the desires of the Spirit pull us in the other. The status quo is a frustrated stalemate in which we are kept from doing what we want to do. Spiritual desires frustrate fleshly desires, and fleshly desires frustrate spiritual desires.
Starting with this recognition means we can be realistic about the difficulty of the war. The frustration we feel in the face of the passions of the flesh is real, and Paul encourages us to be honest about it. That’s where we begin as Christians.
Staggering Promise of Not
But according to Paul, we don’t have to stay there, because, second, we have a new destination. We don’t have to surrender. We can live a life in which we absolutely don’t gratify the desires of the flesh. This is a staggering promise. The “not” in verse 16 is intensified in the original Greek; it’s what’s called an emphatic negation. Paul essentially says, “If you walk by the Spirit, you will absolutely and certainly not gratify the desires of the flesh.”
Now, it’s important to be clear about what Paul is and isn’t promising. He’s not saying that our fleshly desires disappear altogether. Instead, he promises that we will not gratify or complete those desires. In other words, the desires may still be present and still at war with our spiritual desires, but now, as we walk by the Spirit, we won’t indulge them.
The basic idea is that all desires have a direction, a destination, a trajectory. They incline us towards some perceived good, some object that we believe will satisfy. In short, desires want to take us somewhere.
Read More

The ideology of Wokeness, built upon the foundation of Black Liberation Theology and Critical Theory, should be rejected in the church today. Though we should rejoice in ethnic diversity in the church as a beautiful overflow of the gospel which will be present throughout eternity, the means by which that diversity comes about in our local congregations must be thoroughly Biblical, gospel-centered, and Holy Spirit-appointed to stand the test of time.

It was the year 2014 and my wife and I were heavily involved in a church in Indiana that was striving to be multi-ethnic. We eventually decided to move to a different church primarily due to an unhealthy and unbiblical emphasis on racial diversity in the hiring and volunteer selection process of the church.
I noticed this firsthand during my time as a member of the musical worship team. I remember feeling comfortable and encouraged early on to see such a broad spectrum of diversity among the musicians. Our leader was a Latin-American keyboard player, I’m a mix of African- and Irish-American, we had Latin-American bass players and drummers, and African-American as well as European-American vocalists. Surely this was a picture of Revelation’s great multitude from every tribe, tongue, people and nation beginning to develop on earth! I was so glad to be a part of the Lord’s work, until I began to realize that this diversity also came at a significant cost and was strategically manufactured by the leaders of the church. The more I was involved in the ministry, the clearer it became to me that I was merely a tall, multiethnic prop to present a diverse appearance to a crowd. This became painfully clear as I heard the worship leader decide to not allow another white guy into the band because we had enough of them on stage. No, according to him, we needed to keep an eye out for a talented Asian to join us. Wasn’t this favoritism?
Not only were individuals not being invited to join the worship team based on skin color, but the people who were on the team were held to very low standards of accountability and discipleship, yet were still allowed to continue their involvement. To press for greater accountability would risk losing what seemed to be most important: the diverse makeup of the team. I did not understand the terminology or concepts back then, but as I reflect on my experiences now, I was involved in a church hyper focused on being perceived as multiethnic and diverse by the culture.
The main point of this article is that the church should reject the ideology of wokeness. Although ethnic diversity in the local church is a wonderful thing, pastors and Christians must consider biblically the means by which that diversity comes about. In this article, I will look at some of the underlying concepts behind “wokeness” in order to see its foundations. I will then look at God’s Word in order to see clearly how He views ethnic diversity. Finally, I will offer some closing thoughts and practical applications for how true churches should graciously, yet firmly resist this ever-increasing trend of wokeism in broader evangelicalism today.
The Foundations of Wokeness
As it is commonly understood and used today, to be “woke” is to be “aware of” or “awakened to” social injustices against a particular group of people.[1] In his book “Woke Church,” Pastor Eric Mason describes his understanding of wokeness as it pertains to racial issues in the church. Mason writes,
My desire in this book is to encourage the church to utilize the mind of Christ and to be fully awake to the issues of race and injustice in this country. Pan-Africanists and Black Nationalists use the term “woke” to refer to no longer being naïve nor in mental slavery. We have borrowed the term and redeemed it to be used in the context of being awakened from deadened, sinful thinking. In fact, every believer has been awakened from sins effects and Satan’s deception (Eph. 5:14). Thus, the believer is able to be aware of sin and challenge it wherever it is.[2]
According to Mason, wokeness urgently presses all people to awake from their slumber and to resolve the lingering effects of slavery and oppression still plaguing America. Thabiti Anyabwile passionately supports the concept of the “woke church” when he argues that within the local church context, “we have to teach people how to be their ethnic selves in a way that’s consistent with the Bible and how to live fruitfully in contexts that don’t affirm their ethnic selves. Hence, we need a ‘woke church.’”
Samuel Sey makes a convincing observation that the concept of wokeness in our day significantly overlaps with the tradition of Black Liberation Theology “developed by James Cone in the 1960’s during the Black Power movement as a reaction to evangelical apathy on racial injustice.” He continues,
Black Liberation Theology is Martin Luther King Jr.’s social gospel and Malcolm X’s Black Nationalism in one. Black Liberation Theology exchanges the power of God for Black power. It exchanges the supremacy of Christ for Black supremacy. Black Liberation Theology is built on a foundation of bitterness and victimhood, with social justice as its chief cornerstone.
While Mason claims to have “redeemed” the concept of wokeness for the purposes of the church, we must recognize that it is neither legitimate nor helpful for Christianity to build upon such a shaky foundation. Although distinctions exist between Black Liberation Theology and woke Christianity, vast similarities unify the two theologies into one dangerous threat to the church.
Wokeism is also strongly informed by other philosophical ideas such as Critical Theory which undergirds most contemporary “social justice” movements.[3] This ideology essentially categorizes people into either oppressive or oppressed groups that are unified around various identity traits such as class, economic status, ethnicity, or sex. Critical Theory and Wokeism work hand in hand, for the first promulgates a narrative of oppression and the second demands a reckoning.
As it relates to local congregations, a woke church is a multi-ethnic congregation that strives to fight against racism and injustice by becoming heavily involved in social justice activism in its community. In the particular realm of worship ministry I was in, this meant giving skin color a much greater weight than either musical ability or character. The Woke Church Christianizes an otherwise secular way of thinking which has Black Liberation Theology and Critical Theory loaded into it. But what does the Word of God have to say?
Scripture and Wokeness
As we turn our attention toward scripture, we find that in the beginning, God created one man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 1:26–28). From the rib of this man Adam, God fashioned for him a helpmeet, Eve (Gen. 2:18–24), and every human being since has come from these two people. Genesis 10–11 is where we see the first references to various ethnicities, clans, nations and languages being established and developed in the world after Babel. God disperses and separates various peoples by language and geographic location. It is in these foundational passages where we are introduced to the concept of ethnicity, or what many in our day (erroneously) refer to as “race.” Immediately following Genesis 11, we are introduced to Abram in chapter 12 whom God, by his sovereign decree, separates for himself to become a new people who would be a great nation and a blessing to the other nations (Gen. 12:2–3).
Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, there is a God-ordained distinction and separation made between Israel, God’s covenant people, and the Gentiles, those outside of covenant with God. Though the sinful blood of Adam still ran through Israel, God, by way of covenant, set apart for himself a people who were to be a holy nation and royal priesthood who follow His commands and adhere to His law in the midst of the watching world (Lev. 20:26; Deut. 7:6; 1 Chr. 17:21). It is important for us to note that throughout the Old Testament, Gentiles could indeed become a part of Israel, and thus be woven into the fabric of God’s covenant people, regardless of their ethnic background. We see examples of this throughout the Old Testament as early as the Passover (Exod. 12:38) and in the case of Rahab’s family (Josh. 6:25). To be an Israelite was to be a part of the Old Covenant community of God’s people.
Read More
Related Posts:

My intent here is…simply to remind the PCA generally and the GA commissioners specifically, that the Bible plainly teaches that an officer in the church must be above reproach and have a good reputation with those outside of the church.  Men who publicly proclaim their status as homosexuals (even though they practice celibacy) should not hold office in the PCA. That is the issue before the GA, and not the views of Missouri Presbytery with regard to her own failures.

Just a few days before the 49th General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), all Presbyteries and their members (which would include all commissioners to the 49th GA) received in their personal email inbox a communication from Missouri Presbytery (MOP).  This was sent from the Stated Clerk of MOP to the PCA Stated Clerk who then forwarded it to each individual Presbytery Clerk. Each Presbytery Clerk then decided whether to send it on to the members of the Presbytery.  The email was a response of MOP to the judicial decision of the PCA Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in SJC 2020-05 (TE Ryan Speck v. Missouri Presbytery), to make amends to their errors in dealing with Revoice 18 in order to protect the peace and purity of the PCA.  This was to be done in part by interacting with the Ad-Interim Report on Human Sexuality.
After reading the report I came to one conclusion.  It is good Public Relations (PR), but nothing changed with regard to the ordination of men in the PCA who publicly identify as being a homosexual. It does not alter the need for a change in the Book of Church Order.  It should not negate the numerous overtures sent to the GA by various presbyteries to deal with this issue.
It does not deal with the main issue of whether Greg Johnson (and now others) in the PCA should continue as ordained officers, even though they have publicly proclaimed that they are homosexuals, and that this orientation is fixed.
My intent here is not to get into the substance of the report of MOP sent to the clerks via the GA Stated Clerk, but simply to remind the PCA generally and the GA commissioners specifically, that the Bible plainly teaches that an officer in the church must be above reproach and have a good reputation with those outside of the church.  Men who publicly proclaim their status as homosexuals (even though they practice celibacy) should not hold office in the PCA. That is the issue before the GA, and not the views of Missouri Presbytery with regard to her own failures.
I’m not sure that I have ever received a communication from another Presbytery via the Stated Clerk of my own Presbytery. I can understand this being placed into the minutes of the General Assembly, but I am concerned that a document that could so easily sway the Assembly should be sent out in such a fashion, so close to the meeting of the Assembly itself.  It is my opinion that only a Presbytery itself (voting as a court in session) has the right to choose what documents should be received and distributed among its members.
My fear is that as a result of the timing, the means of distribution, and the content of this communication, it may only further divide the PCA.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: