The wide attention recently given to Epstein’s role is an important reminder to American Christians that whatever we may want to argue about the supposedly “good old days,” biblical Christian faith is a lot more marginal in American culture today than we sometimes want to admit.

National and even international news has been all in a tizzy over outspoken atheist Greg Epstein becoming the new president of Harvard University’s chaplains.
Does this mean that Epstein has just been hired for a new job as Harvard’s atheist chaplain? Has he become Harvard’s “chief chaplain”? Does this mean that he now “leads” and is “in charge of” Harvard’s other chaplains? Did these other chaplains decide that they “couldn’t think of anyone better” for spiritual chaplaincy at the university? Is this a big, new change for campus ministry at Harvard?
Contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, the answer to all of these questions is “No.”
Christians who seek to follow the One who said He IS the truth should be a lot more careful to be accurate than several rushing to comment have been.
As someone who was very involved in Harvard campus ministry while earning my three-year master’s degree there not that long ago, I’d like to clarify some realities that some headlines and hot takes, from Christians as well as others, miss.
First of all, Harvard is not a Christian school.
We at IRD have raised concerns about one United Methodist university hiring a Muslim chaplain, and another United Methodist university hiring a Unitarian Universalist to be its dean of spiritual and religious life.
This is categorically different. Harvard makes no claim to be a Christian institution.
Yes, many commenting on this announcement correctly note the university’s founding by devout Puritans in the 1600s. But such commentaries too often jump right from there to the present day, skipping over such major developments as Harvard’s deep ties with the Unitarian movement, beginning even before the university started its graduate-level Divinity School in 1816. Denying the divinity of Jesus Christ is obviously a huge break from biblical Christianity.
Epstein’s election, by the consensus of his fellow chaplains, does not represent a dramatic new shift and is unlikely to be terribly consequential for Harvard.
Secondly, the overall campus ministry environment at Harvard is multi-faith. This certainly does not mean that Christian and other chaplains there affirm the truth claims of each other’s religions. But as a secular university, if the administration is going to let evangelical Christian ministries operate on campus, it will offer the same level of access to various non-Christian religious ministries.
I would much rather see my alma mater continue its “open” stance of letting us minister on campus alongside everyone else, in a free marketplace of ideas, rather than take a “closed” stance of kicking out all campus ministries.
Harvard’s 43 currently listed chaplains include many evangelical Protestants, but these are less than one third of the total. Other traditions represented include everything from Baha’i to Zoroastrianism.
Thirdly, Harvard having an atheist chaplain is not a remotely new thing. I realize “atheist chaplain” may sound as oxymoronic as “vegetarian butcher” or “pacifist soldier.”
But the reality is that there are a number of essentially humanist congregations in America where atheists have sought to approximate functions religious congregations provide in terms of social community, support through life crises, regular gatherings for interesting lectures and lively discussions, and community-service volunteering—all while trying to keep God out of it. A number of humanist campus ministries seek to similarly offer godless alternatives to traditional student ministries.
I personally do not think that this can ultimately work as well without God. But that does not change the fact that such communities exist.
Epstein has already been a chaplain of the Harvard Community of Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics (HCHAA) Harvard for years. In 2005 he was ordained “as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.” And Harvard’s humanist chaplaincy began decades before that, way back in 1974.
Epstein is not the first non-Christian to hold the largely honorary title of president of the chaplains. He is unlikely to be the last. After a humanist student ministry has been established for nearly half a century, is it really that big a deal for the humanist chaplain, rather than the chaplain of another non-Christian campus ministry, to take a brief turn with the title “president”?
Read More

He can’t have actual, biblically defined shepherds in his life. Biblical shepherding would mean his idols would be exposed and eradicated; it would mean crucifying his lust for recognition. And that’s not something he’s prepared to do. So, he can tolerate superficial shepherding, just as long as so-called shepherds keep a safe distance from him. Diotrephes is fine with distance-shepherding, which is no shepherding. That way, leadership pose less of a threat to his self-exalting endeavors. This is how Diotrephes operates. He is unteachable to godly people in his life who challenge his pride.

If you have been in church long enough, you’ve probably seen him. Or maybe you have been him. He’s not always easily recognizable at first. But eventually, he will irresistibly make himself known. The apostle John dealt with him at one point:
I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church (3 John 9-10).
Diotrephes. He was one of the guys who made it into the Bible because of sinful pride.
Diotrephes is a dangerous guy. He’s a hazard to himself. He’s a danger to new disciples. He’s a threat to the unity and purity of the church. So, how can we recognize him? Here are a few things that help us diagnose a spiritual Diotrephes. As we consider these things, it behooves not-yet-perfected believers to beware of a little bit of Diotrephes in ourselves.
1. He lusts for recognition.
The inerrant Scripture tells a dark picture of him: “I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first…” (3 John 9). There is one word in Greek, which is translated “loves to be first.” It’s a compound word, that means “loves first.” And it’s not a good desire to want to excel at something.
Instead, it’s a devastating diagnose of pride’s plaguing of the soul. Here is the idea of the word: to have great affection for prominence. A craving for notoriety. Ambition for approval. Lust for recognition. Infatuation for importance. An adoration for appreciation. A passion for pre-eminence. To worship others’ applause. A devotion to superiority.
This is a catastrophic trait in a man. He lusts for recognition and has a sick infatuation with personal praise. It would be better to have anything said about you than, “he loves to be first.” The sin of Diotrephes was the same as Satan. “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God’” (Isa. 14:13).
The spiritual Diotrephes lusts for recognition.
2. He thinks he is superior to other believers.
Next, Scripture says he “loves to be first among them” (3 John 9). Diotrephes might plug into a church. But he’s after an “among them.” He wants people near him; around him so that he can be first among them; so that he can be above others. He sees himself as above other believers.
If he wants to be with other believers, typically it is so that he can gratify his craving for significance. He wants to be around people, but not because he cares for them. Instead, he craves a following. He lusts for a following around whom he can pose as lord and king.
Paul said that this is also one characteristic of a wolf: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30). One of the chief marks of a wolf is that he wants to draw away people after himself. Here is the sinister intersection between Diotrephes and wolves. A spiritual Diotrephes sees himself as superior to other believers
3. He uses the church and ministry to gain recognition for himself.
Diotrephes gets involved in churches. He professes to have a high, correct, and biblical view of the church.
But there is a dark reality behind it all. Here’s what can happen. At first, he seems like someone who sincerely wants to plug in and become a healthy functioning member of the body of Christ. He will enter a church and hang there for a bit. People might not notice that he’s a Diotrephes. Some might be impressed and mesmerized by how much he serves. But underneath it all, he has a burning passion for recognition. Because he is not crucifying his heart’s infatuation for importance, it will continue to grow.
Now, in a healthy, biblical church, it takes much time and testing before someone can become a leader. Sound New Testament churches understand that true, tested, and affirmed biblical character is shown, not in months, but years.
Read More

The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that God has purchased peace only “through the blood of the cross” (Col. 1:20). The rest and peace for which we should long—both for ourselves and for those around us—is grounded on the nature of the person and atoning death of Jesus. If men have spent their lives rejecting the gospel and have not professed faith in Jesus, we should not be offering them posthumous well-wishes. It puts the nature of the exclusivity of Jesus and the gospel in jeopardy, even if that is not our intention.

I have great admiration for non-Christians who have contributed to the improvement of society through their inventions, production, leadership, literature, and art. My wife and I were recently reflecting on the remarkable ways in which Steve Jobs’s labors helped change the world in which we live. I love so many of the beautiful works of art and music that have been the product of secular artists; and I do not, for one second, believe that we should sequester ourselves from the use and enjoyment of the contributions of self-avowed unbelievers in the world around us. Otherwise, as the apostle Paul wrote, “you would need to go out of the world” (1 Cor. 5:10). There is a common grace principle at work in the world by which God allows men to benefit their neighbors, making life in this fallen world a little less painful than it would otherwise be.
That being said, I’ve noticed something of a concerning trend over the past several years. It is the way in which believers speak about culture-impacting individuals at their deaths. Instead of simply expressing appreciation for their life and achievements, it has become commonplace for Christians to use the shorthand “R.I.P.” (rest in peace) on social media when speaking of individuals in whose lives there was no evidence of saving grace at their death. At the risk of sounding ill-tempered, I wish to set out several reasons why I am troubled by this occurrence.
1. R.I.P. refers to the afterlife.
First, when we employ the abbreviation R.I.P., we are inevitably admitting a state or condition inseparably linked to the idea of the afterlife. We are not speaking of something indifferent to the truth of the hereafter. Someone might push back at this point, suggesting that R.I.P. is nothing other than a way of expressing appreciation for an individual’s life and achievements.
However, while certain words and phrases can be fluid in their meaning (e.g., “goodbye” has taken on a different meaning than its Old English sense, “God be with you”), “rest in peace” gives the sense that the deceased are “in a better place”—a place of rest and peace. If we care about the eternal salvation of people, and whether or not they are trusting in Christ alone for eternal life, then we should painstakingly avoid giving the sense that we believe in any form of universalism whatsoever.
2. Christians should not pray for the dead.
Second, as Christians we should revolt at the idea of “praying for the dead,” since there is not a single ounce of biblical support for such an idea.
Read More
Related Posts: