Do you find it accidental or coincidental that immediately after Jesus, Paul, and Peter all instruct us to be the kinds of people who refuse to “fight fire with fire” or “punch back twice as hard” their very next words are about persecution and suffering? This is not an accident. Far from being “unsuited” for our times, the cultural world into which God gave all of these commands was far worse, far more hostile, and far more polarized than our own. There was no asterisk on these commands, no “do this unless you live in a hostile world.” The hostile world was already baked in. And you know what? This was not a recipe for being dominated by the world. It was a recipe for overcoming the world. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire with this ethic.

Almost a decade ago I spoke at a conference in Portland, Oregon. I recently came across my prepared remarks, which honestly I’d completely forgotten. I’m going to borrow from it liberally for this newsletter, since the conference is long-forgotten and my remarks were never published. Consider that I said the following in 2013:
We live in a very challenging cultural environment. Have things ever seemed as polarized as they are right now? Right vs. Left, Gay vs. Straight, Tolerance vs. Bigotry, and we could go on all night rehearsing the divisions! During the 90s I remember pundits and social observers confidently declaring that the so-called “culture wars” were over. It would be an age of peace and economic prosperity, with no more conflict over thorny moral questions like abortion, euthanasia, or homosexuality. If only! I trust I do not need to tell people living in Portland, Oregon, that these sorts of cultural conflicts are alive and well.
Heh. What did I know? Have things ever seemed as polarized? We hadn’t seen anything at all yet, had we? That was all pre-Woke Mobs, pre-Trump, and pre-Portland-being-a-graffiti-painted-post-apocalyptic wasteland. I went on to describe our shifting culture and predicted that the LGBTQ agenda—actually I don’t think there was a Q on it back then—would be a major catalyst for increasing hostility toward Christians.
I continued on with this illustration, which I think holds up very well:
Being on the West Coast, I understand that Oregon occasionally gets earthquakes. I’ve personally never experienced one. But what is the first instinct when the ground literally starts to move under your feet? I imagine you reach out and grab for something stable, usually frantically and in a panic. We need to be steadied and balanced. And cultural earthquakes are no different. When things shift and change, when definitions change, cultural mores radically shift, when the old things cannot be taken for granted anymore, we can feel extremely vulnerable. We can feel afraid, alone, helpless, and without resources. Usually the shift feels completely new, something we’ve never experienced before. And we then automatically think that nobody else has ever experienced it before.
And when we think nobody else has experienced it before, nobody else has had to face the hostility we now face, then next step seems clear enough: our forefathers and foremothers are of no help to us. Our “old’ way of engaging culture must be the culprit, not the solution, for the hostility we face. Hence, the current claims that old ways of doing things are “unsuited for the times.”
There is a humorous Sci-Fi cult classic book called The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by British writer Douglas Adams. In the story, the Hitchhiker’s Guide itself is, in fact, a galactic encyclopedia designed to give vital information to the lonely galactic traveler. And on the cover of that vast resource is a warm, smiley face accompanied by the words: “Don’t Panic!”
It seems to me that as we Christians make our way through an unpredictable, sometimes crazy, sometimes hostile world, we have the ultimate guide: God himself. God speaks. And you know what the number one message of the Bible is for people living in the midst of cultural hostility? Don’t panic. You live in precedented times and you are not alone.
It is the most frequent command in the Bible: “Do not be afraid.”
“Fear not.” Over and over again. God knows that we are prone to fear. And God exhorts us again and again to not fear. This isn’t because God is naïve. He knows that sometimes there is legitimate reason to fear.
Read More
Related Posts:

French philosopher Michel Foucault drew upon Nietzsche and Marx to build an atheistic and anti-realist view of the world. From Nietzsche, he adopted the view that power is at the center of all political discourse, and further argued that knowledge is merely a means to manipulate and exercise power. Thus, words such as “insane,” “prisoner,” and “homosexual” are manipulative labels that Western society uses to ostracize certain persons. Foucault further believed that human beings do not have an essence but instead we are constructed by systems and networks of power. Foucault’s work is precursor to critical race theory, queer theory, and intersectionality.

It has been said, famously, that all Western philosophy is “footnotes to Plato.” And, while this statement rings true, the deeper and more salient observation is that much of Western philosophy is footnotes to Lucifer.
Indeed. At the Fall, the Evil One spoke a word against God’s word, calling into question the truth of God’s word, the goodness of his created order, and the righteousness of his character. Lucifer’s destructive word can be viewed as his “antithesis” for the world. In the modern world, the Evil One’s antithesis has been active—and nowhere more than Western philosophy departments.
Thus, in recognition of Lucifer’s antithetical word, this article “calls out” the seven most destructive philosophers in Western history.
Plato (4th century B.C.)
Plato is perhaps the greatest philosopher in Western history, yet a number of his conclusions are severely problematic. Especially troublesome is his denigration of the material world in general and the human body in particular. Plato believed that the visible world is inferior to the invisible, and that knowledge gained from the visible world is therefore deceptive. In other words, he was a philosopher of hyperrationality, of the otherworldly, who denigrated God’s good creation. Sadly, this Platonic impulse has a rich history of appropriation in subsequent philosophy, and even in Western cultural developments such as transgender ideology and humanism.
Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Niccolo Machiavelli was an early modern Italian politico-turned-philosopher. As his political career collapsed, he penned The Prince, arguing that Christian morality is detrimental to good government and that political leaders should therefore operate as secular pragmatists. He believed that a political leader should sometimes be cruel, although the cruelty should be administered quickly, so as to get it over with, where has the leader’s acts of kindness should be meted slowly over time so that he will always be seen as generous. He further advises leaders to lie and break their promises. Many later political leaders—including Cardinal Richelieu (France), Frederick the Great (Prussia), Bismarck (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Lenin and Stalin (Russia), and Hitler (Germany)—embraced his ideas and put them into action.
Hobbes (1588-1679)
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that physical matter is all there is, and that therefore human beings are merely particles in motion. He further believed that “society” is merely an aggregate of violent political animals who need to be kept in check via a powerful sovereign body. Thus emphasizing the importance of sovereign political bodies, Hobbes argued in effect that the nation-state should replace the church as society’s central instituion. In fact, the first edition of Leviathan had a cover image that portrayed Leviathan’s torso as being composed of hundreds of people facing him; the image is intended to mimic the view from a cathedral in which one would see people facing toward Christ.
Read More
Related Posts:

Contrary to the uncharitable assumptions of some of our detractors, we do not rejoice in being a “micro” denomination, either in terms of size or strictness. We believe that there are many who share our convictions and look for the Lord to add to our number in His time. We believe that there should be latitude in matters beyond our common commitments. However, we respectfully disagree with the prevailing wisdom of our sister denominations in the matter of defining what is a sufficient common commitment as to provide for the lasting peace and unity of the Church.
Dear Readers of the Aquila Report,
Though we greatly respect those who edify so many with this publication, we did not request our Testimony and Covenant to be posted on the Aquila Report, as we take no delight in the weakness of the Bride of Christ and did not wish to magnify her failings. As to the accusations which have been posted in response to this announcement, we do not regard the court of public opinion to be the proper venue before which to lay the evidence which would clear our names and put to shame those who have slandered us. The evidence would surely sadden and shock you as it has us, would edify no one, and would only bring more grievous dishonor to the name of Christ before a watching world. At our separation from Vanguard Presbytery, we provided evidence to our brothers there sufficient to provide our rationale for leaving, to clear our names of the baseless slanders and threats of legal suit which this same member of that presbytery was already making, and to provide them with the evidence they should require to hold this rogue presbyter to account. As to the slanders which have been repeated since we left, we refer these to Vanguard Presbytery’s attention, as they are the party which Christ has made responsible to address the chief source of the slander. If Vanguard Presbytery publicly denounces these slanders, then we will consider ourselves vindicated of these baseless attacks and will gladly keep the shameful evidence which exonerates us as contained as possible. (1 Cor. 12:23) If Vanguard Presbytery continues a pattern of refusal to hold this individual to account and does not denounce these accusations, we will consider ourselves further vindicated in our decision to leave and will continue to make available the documentation proving our innocence of these charges to any who contact us and have need to know. In the interim, we are content that the unprejudiced child of God is already able to discern in the slanders against us, the anger of a man not accomplishing the righteousness of God. (James 1:20)
For those who have been quick to criticize us, we are not overly concerned about the opinions of those who lack the information or jurisdiction to render any just judgment. “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” (Prov. 18:13) With Paul, we are content to answer before the throne of Christ. “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Cor. 4:3-5)
To address the matter of why we felt compelled to form a new denomination upon separation from Vanguard Presbytery, we wish to clarify that we count those of many other denominations as brothers in Christ and legitimate expressions of the visible Church. We firmly believe in the catholicity of the Church. We are not schismatics without love for Christ’s Church or a desire for her unity. However, we have not been able to find any of our sister reformed presbyterian denominations which require faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards without either allowing exceptions or adding their own distinctive requirements.
Contrary to the uncharitable assumptions of some of our detractors, we do not rejoice in being a “micro” denomination, either in terms of size or strictness. We believe that there are many who share our convictions and look for the Lord to add to our number in His time. We believe that there should be latitude in matters beyond our common commitments. However, we respectfully disagree with the prevailing wisdom of our sister denominations in the matter of defining what is a sufficient common commitment as to provide for the lasting peace and unity of the Church. We do not claim any such wisdom as to provide our own answer to this question, recognizing the wisdom set forth in the creeds of the Church, most especially the Westminster Standards of Faith. As stated in our Book of Church Order:
“Our Constitution requires faithful subscription to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly as adopted with minor revisions by the initial synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in 1788. By faithful subscription, is meant what has sometimes been described as “strict” or “full” subscription, specifically, that the main point of each paragraph of the Confession and each answer of the Catechisms is subscribed to without reservation. Thus, it is the solemn obligation of the Presbytery to determine that the candidate so faithfully subscribes, or else the Presbytery must determine that the candidate has not sustained his examination.”
All of our sister reformed presbyterian denominations join in admiration of the wisdom of the Westminster Assembly in producing a magnificent summary of biblical truth. However, the Westminster Standards were not written abstractly as a summary of the biblical system of doctrine, but specifically to provide the core of Christian theology necessary to provide a sufficient foundation for the union of the Christian church. While we grant that this Assembly and its documents are fallible, we believe that church history bears out the wisdom of the Assembly in identifying the doctrines they did as being necessary to secure peaceful and lasting unity. By allowing exceptions to the Standards, whether more generally as “system” subscription provides, or more specifically, as a departure from the plain language of the statement regarding Creation exemplifies, other reformed presbyterian denominations have rejected the wisdom of the Westminster Divines in this respect. Rather than eliminating division, consolidating differing convictions on these essential matters within a denomination only serves to bring the lines of division within the denomination. As a current example, the division between PCA Missouri Presbytery and certain other presbyteries in the PCA is no less a real division than the divisions which exist between denominations. We certainly do not rejoice in this strife, but recognize that differences over such fundamental issues within any association of churches is not sustainable. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” (Mark 3:25) While we are under no delusions that ours will be a fellowship free of the spots and blemishes which are common to this age of the Church, we do hope that by requiring faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards, we will be able to avoid much of the disunity and strife which men of differing convictions must engage in elsewhere, such that we can pursue our ministry of fulfilling the Great Commission without such distractions and pain of conscience as are burdening our brothers in other fellowships.
Free from the covenant obligation of contending with others who simply do not share our convictions, we desire to share to the greatest extent possible ecumenical partnership and fraternal relations with other expressions of the visible Church which are pursuing the same ministry on behalf of the same Lord and Savior. However, the realization which motivates us above all else is that by holding the essential tenets of the Reformed Faith without apology, as expressed in the Westminster Standards, we can best serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As God knows our hearts, it is not from any sense of superiority or pride, but because we would rather contend with the evil of this world in the power of God than with brothers of different convictions, that we have joined together to form the Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church with faithful subscription to the Westminster Standards as our defining distinctive.
We love Christ, we love Christ’s Church, and we do not believe that Christ is best served when the Church is employing her gifts and expending her time and energy in an inward facing war. As sad as the multiplication of denominations may be, we believe that separating from brothers holding fundamentally different convictions is a more honest and more peaceful approach to the division which must exist among us over issues of truth, than is the attempt to remain in a common fellowship marked by constant strife. Christ will bless the ministry of those who are standing for what He approves, and we look for the Holy Spirit to continue disciplining each of our fellowships such that as we all draw closer to Christ and become more faithful to his Word, we might see a day when our fellowships might reunite. Until then, we do not have the heart to fight against brothers when there is so much work at hand to carry out the Great Commission where Christ has placed us. We have seen the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and have many new converts and covenant families to disciple as well as older saints to edify as we continue the ministry which Christ has given us. To any who would call us away from this work to defend our names of baseless accusations or to engage in an endless war against brothers in an existing fellowship, we say with Nehemiah “I am doing a great work and cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?” (Neh. 6:3) God will bring all things to light in time and until then, we cannot think of anything better than to entrust our souls to a faithful Creator while doing good. (1 Pet. 4:19)
Stated ClerkChrist Reformed Presbyterian Church
Related Posts: