Until or unless God makes people able to live for him by causing them to be born again by the Spirit, faithful leaders work in vain to modify external behavior to mimic it. Yet Nehemiah does not teach us that all leadership is pointless; instead, Nehemiah helps us to set our sights more on faithfulness to God than on control over what happens with those whom we are tasked to lead.

Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign, and I established the duties of the priests and Levites, each in his work; and I provided for the wood offering at appointed times, and for the firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good. – Nehemiah 13:30–31 (ESV)
The Book of Nehemiah is set in the time of the return of Judah from exile in Babylon. It recounts the trials, travails, and triumphs of Nehemiah, the Persian king’s cupbearer-turned-governor of Judah who does his best to put things in order in Jerusalem. The special emphasis is on the repair and rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem.
The Big Idea of Nehemiah
The Big Idea of Nehemiah can be expressed this way: God is faithful even when his people are not (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13). Over and over again in Nehemiah, the people’s faithfulness wanes and corruption and/or complacency takes root. Nehemiah’s faithfulness is a clear demonstration of God’s preservation of his people, not only in returning them to the land from their exile but also in providing Moses-like leadership to establish them in it.
An Outline of Nehemiah
1-6: Restoration of the Wall
The Book of Nehemiah begins in Persia. It is a story told in the first person, making it one of the very few autobiographical books of the Bible. It begins with bad news. Nehemiah learns that the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are destroyed. In response, Nehemiah weeps, mourns, and confesses sins to God in prayer.
We learn that Nehemiah was a cupbearer to the king of Persia. Seeing his downcast countenance, the king asks Nehemiah what the matter is. Nehemiah tells him, and in response, the king grants all of Nehemiah’s requests and more.
So far, so good. But very quickly we meet Sanballat and Tobiah, two men highly opposed to the Jews’ welfare and well-positioned to hinder progress.
After inspecting the wall by night, Nehemiah rallies the people to rebuild the wall. Chapter three describes the work. In chapter four Sanballat and Tobiah do what they can to discourage the work. When words fail, they plan an attack. But the people arm themselves and make good progress.
In chapter five, Nehemiah becomes aware of complaints from some Jews that they are being forced into servitude for debts to their fellow Jews. Nehemiah becomes angry and formally rebukes the nobles and officials for charging interest and taking the people’s inheritance from them, which is prohibited by the Law of Moses (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:36-37; Deut. 23:19-20).
We learn that Nehemiah serves as governor during this time. During a twelve-year span, Nehemiah claims that he leads with integrity and fairness. More than that, he relinquishes some of his claims on the people to lighten their burden. Nehemiah concludes this note, and chapter five with it, with a plea to God to remember the good that he has done for the people.
In chapter six, Tobiah and Sanballat make another concerted effort to stop the rebuilding project. They gradually escalate their misinformation campaign from lures to open threats and lies. Nehemiah does not give in, but even his own countrymen seek to lead him astray with false prophecies. Nehemiah is beset by enemies from without and within who want to discredit him and make him afraid. Nevertheless, Nehemiah perseveres and the wall is finished. As a result, it is the enemies who fear. Yet still, all the time Tobiah continues to send letters and send his cronies to wheedle at Nehemiah and cajole him into approving of Tobiah. This is in many ways a study in how a godly person may engage in the political process and what he or she might expect in it.
7-13: Restoration of Worship
In chapter seven, Nehemiah transfers the power of governorship to other men and records a genealogy at God’s prompting. Following this, in chapter eight Ezra the scribe reads and teaches the Law to all the people. The people recognize their disobedience and are grieved. Many leaders come on the second day for Ezra to teach them more from the Law.
Read More
Related Posts:

The allure of shortcuts is an ever-present temptation, in matters of faith just as in other spheres of life. Friendship is hard. Church life is difficult. To cultivate a rich and meaningful life with God takes time and effort. We won’t grow in holiness and righteousness by racing to supplements designed to help us bypass the difficult labors of church life. It’s precisely in and through those labors that spiritual growth takes place.

When the COVID-19 lockdowns went into effect across the world in March 2020, pastors and church leaders pivoted quickly to live streaming and video as a way of keeping the lines of communication and connection open. Twenty-two percent of churches did a live stream before the pandemic; within weeks, the number had jumped to 66 percent, with 92 percent of Protestant pastors providing some kind of video sermon or worship service during the stay-at-home season.
On the other side of the pandemic, the number of churches live streaming their worship services has grown, and even though there have been some thoughtful calls to stop doing so, I suspect the practice is here to stay. (A new Pew Research survey offers an interesting look at churchgoer perspectives on live streaming.)
Larger churches have gotten especially good at presenting a cohesive and engaging broadcast of their services, rivaling the shiny Sunday morning television broadcasts from a generation ago. As any church with a television or radio ministry will tell you, a professionally packaged experience can extend the reach of a local congregation and the influence of Bible preachers and teachers.
The Supplement Is Not a Substitute
But there’s a downside to this boom in online worship services. We’re vulnerable to a cultural malady ailing Americans today: “substitutism.” That’s a term from Joshua Mitchell’s American Awakening. It’s a label that describes our perpetual quest for easy alternatives and shortcuts. It refers to our tendency to make a supplement a substitute.
In his book, Mitchell never discusses online church or live streaming worship services. He sees “substitutism” at work in other areas, such as social media and friendship. Take a look at his diagnosis of substitutism in these areas, and then I’ll apply these insights to worship.
At its best, social media enhances real-life relationships. Mitchell writes,

Social media can supplement our existing friendships; it can be a stimulant, which helps us keep in touch with old friends when we are not able to confirm through a handshake, a pat on the back, or an embrace, that we are indeed friends. We feel the presence of our friends through this supplement; but the supplement by itself, without the preexisting competence of friendship, cannot produce the feeling of presence. (xxiii)

Read More
Related Posts:

That’s a pretty horrible picture, innit? It’s a 40-year-old German monkeypox patient whose nose began to rot off after he caught the disease. Turns out that he was HIV-positive and didn’t know, plus was infected with advanced syphilis — also a surprise to him. He told doctors he had never been tested for a sexually transmitted infection. There he was, celebrating diversity like a champ, and now his nose is partially rotted off. Heaven knows who he passed along HIV, syphilis, and monkeypox to along the way.
Meanwhile, New Orleans is so far going ahead with its big Labor Day weekend Southern Decadence festival, an LGBT event that draws 275,000 to the French Quarter for six days of sex, dancing, and debauchery. Decadence was cancelled the past two years because of Covid, but not over monkeypox, though it is certain to be a superspreader event.

I will never be able to understand the death wish of a culture in which a man like the anonymous German exists. Take a look at this collection of articles from medical journals, compiled by Joseph Sciambra (once a promiscuous gay man, now a chaste Christian), testifying to the shocking health realities of gay male culture. For example, according to the CDC in 2017, 60 percent of syphilis cases were found in only two percent of the population: gay men.

I remember being told by the media that gay men were vastly more promiscuous than straight men because society compelled them to be. Normalize homosexuality and grant same-sex marriage, and that would change. I never believed it because I knew perfectly well that gay men were insanely promiscuous not because they were gay, but because they were men. An ordinary male unrestrained by religious or moral scruple, and faced with a wide variety of willing partners who demand no emotional commitment, or even to know one’s name, before having sex — that man will likely behave exactly as most gay men do. Until now, at least, heterosexual men have had to cope with a culture of restraint imposed by women. Randy Shilts, the gay journalist who wrote And The Band Played On (and who later died of AIDS), made this very same point in his book. He said that straight men he’d spoken to expressed envy that gay men could have such a bounty of sexual experiences, because they didn’t live with the restraining factor of women. There was always, always somebody — and usually many somebodys — willing to say “yes” to anything you wanted, any time you wanted.

In the United States, we have had legal same-sex marriage from coast to coast for seven years now. Of course the culture of debauchery has not changed. It never was going to change. And look, if the horrors of AIDS didn’t change it, why should monkeypox?
If all this is normative behavior in the gay male community (note well: I’m not talking about lesbians), then what chance does a young gay male have of not being caught up in it? We live in a culture where, for better or for worse, homosexuality has been largely destigmatized. It seems plausible that if a young gay man wanted to have a normal, “vanilla” lifestyle of dating, courting, and gay marriage, it would be possible. I wonder, though, how likely it is when the cultural norms within the gay male community are so debauched. Seriously, gay male readers, what advice would you give an adolescent gay male if he wanted to avoid falling into that gutter? If you don’t have the ability to use the comments section, email me at rod — at — amconmag — dot — com, and put COMMENT in the subject line.
In the late 1980s, during the height of the AIDS crisis, a New Orleans friend who is very liberal and pro-gay, though a heterosexual woman, told me a story about being out on the streets on Mardi Gras day. She said that she and her boyfriend were crossing lower Bourbon Street, the heart of the city’s gay community, when they saw a teenage boy, couldn’t have been a day over 17, staggering drunk (or drugged) and naked through the crowd of men. He had blood and feces running down his leg from his rectum. He had likely been raped. Nobody in the crowd was trying to help him. He was lost and wandering. He disappeared into the crowd of nearly-naked gay men partying in the street. My friend said the sight of that poor kid, who may well have been infected with HIV that day, upset her so much that she asked her boyfriend to take her home, that her day was done.

We never talk about stuff like that. It violates the Narrative. But it happens. It’s not the whole story about gay male culture here, but it’s a part of the story.

UPDATE: Along these lines, here’s a strong essay by Bridget Phetasy about her regret over being a “slut”. Excerpt:
But if I’m honest with myself, of the dozens of men I’ve been with (at least the ones I remember), I can only think of a handful I don’t regret. The rest I would put in the category of “casual,” which I would define as sex that is either meaningless or mediocre (or both). If I get really honest with myself, I’d say most of these usually drunken encounters left me feeling empty and demoralized. And worthless.
I wouldn’t have said that at the time, though. At the time, I would have told you I was “liberated” even while I tried to drink away the sick feeling of rejection when my most recent hook-up didn’t call me back. At the time, I would have said one-night stands made me feel “emboldened.” But in reality, I was using sex like a drug; trying unsuccessfully to fill a hole inside me with men. (Pun intended.)
I know regretting most of my sexual encounters is not something a sex-positive feminist who used to write a column for Playboy is supposed to admit. And for years, I didn’t. Let me be clear, being a “slut” and sleeping with a lot of men is not the only behavior I regret. Even more damaging was what I told myself in order to justify the fact that I was disposable to these men: I told myself I didn’t care.
I didn’t care when a man ghosted me. I didn’t care when he left in the middle of the night or hinted that he wanted me to leave. The walks of shame. The blackouts. The anxiety.
The lie I told myself for decades was: I’m not in pain—I’m empowered.
Looking back, it isn’t a surprise that I lied to myself. Because from a young age, sex was something I was lied to about.
Yeah, me too. I was never any kind of “slut,” if that word can be applied to men. But it took me a while to work out that what the world (meaning popular culture) told me about sex was a lie. I was not especially sexually active in my pre-Christian years, but that wasn’t for lack of trying. What slowed me down was the misery I felt after doing the deed. Everything was clear after that: the lies I told the women, and myself, about what we were doing. I loved sex, but more than that, I really did want it to be about love, real love. I kept trying to tell myself that it was fine for it to be meaningless, because that’s what I was supposed to think. It was a lie. It was only after my conversion, and learning the value of chastity, that I was able to see the true meaning of sex. It kept me away from surrendering my life to Christ for years, because I thought — I had been told — that it was my birthright to enjoy commitment-free sexual pleasure. Hadn’t we put away the hypocrisy of our parents’ generation? Weren’t we, you know, liberated? I believed that with my mind, but my heart, and my body, said otherwise.
Read More