Introduction

There is a question that tends to float around sometimes taking different forms or possessing subtle nuances or variations. But, the question is not a new one, in fact, it is as old as time. The question is, where does sin come from? Whether we’re talking about Satan’s first sinful impulse, Adam’s initial sinful urge, or Christ’s sinlessness, this question is a pressing one. In times past this question was framed in different ways. “How do we inherit sin?” or sometimes even, “why or how was Jesus sinless?” But in recent times the question has been framed around genetics. Is sin genetic? Said another way, are we genetically predisposed to certain sins? This is the question this article seeks to address.

As of late in the reformed world, this subject has jumped to the foreground and is (for better or worse) a big deal right now, and since it’s a big deal, pastors ought to have answers. With all the discussion around ethno-centrism, ethno-nationalism, nationalism, Kinism, Christian Nationalism, the role of natural theology, et al, the question of genetic involvement is fundamental and has become a foundational component of these debates, even if some (regardless of side) aren’t quite aware of it yet.

Now, this article is not intended to discuss the various issues listed above, at least not in any comprehensive manner, but let the reader understand, that they are in the background of this question and are points that need to be dealt with. However, it would be far too simplistic and even irresponsible to make a passing remark. So, those will wait for another article. But suffice it to say, to get at the heart of those issues, I believe we must start at the base; at the fundamental building blocks of the matter – so, let’s start with the smallest block, our genetics.

Our Genetics

Let’s start with some background on genetics. Technically speaking, genetics is a field of scientific study[1] and inquiry into “heredity [which is] the process of a parent passing certain genes to their children.”[2] To put it another way, genetics is a “term that refers to the study of genes and their roles in inheritance . . . [it is] the way that certain traits or conditions are passed down from one generation to another.”[3] Genes, which are units of heredity, carry instructions for protein creation, which in turn tells cells what to do, ultimately giving function to the body.[4] Your genes, in other words, make you what you are as it relates to your traits and/or conditions – all of which come from your parents.

One important aspect of genetics, as it pertains to this conversation, is the realm in which genetics affect the human being – to what extent do they determine what (or who) we are. Our genes affect our physical being, our bodies, our outer man (to put a biblical label to it), like our height, hair color, skin color, eye color, natural talents and abilities, even abnormal traits like color blindness, skin patches, the diseases we’re susceptible to, or even our cognitive abilities via our brain. When we consider genetics the only realm in which they exist is the physical – they do not, and cannot, exist in the immaterial, for the simple fact that they are tangible.

Human beings have 46 Chromosomes, and we all get 23 from each of our parents – 23 from mom and 23 from dad. “These consist of 2 chromosomes that determine what sex [we] are (X and Y chromosomes), and 22 pairs of nonsex (autosomal) chromosomes. Males are “46, XY” and females are “46, XX.”[5] In each pair of chromosomes, a person has one from mom and the other from dad, and these chromosomes carry effectively the same information - the same genes. At times there may be slight variations, but this occurs in less than 1% of the DNA sequence.[6] These variations may lead to genes not working properly which can amount to nothing, or it can produce an adverse dominant hereditary condition – a disease.

How Genetics Change

So, do genetics change? This is a pivotal question to answer, because if they change, then certainly they do (or may) play into our sinful tendencies. Well, the answer is yes, they do/can change, but it is a very qualified yes. Can someone born with “46, XY” chromosomes and wake up one day with “46, XX.” Chromosomes? Can a five-toed kid go to sleep and wake up with a 6th toe mutation overnight? Certainly not. Clearly, there are some things, genetically speaking, that absolutely do not change – never can and never will. But is that true for everything? No. No, it’s not.

According to the CDC, “A genetic change (sometimes called a mutation, gene variant, or genetic variant) is a change in a DNA base sequence.”[7] These are generally the types that are passed from parent to child – they occur in the germ cells which come from mom’s egg and dad’s sperm. However, what about genetic changes that occur after mom and dad have conceived a baby? Can changes occur then? Well, the answer to that question is also yes.

Our genes express themselves in various sorts of ways and this is called Gene Expression. This is “the process of making proteins using the instructions from genes”[8] and yet these genes are not always active, or “turned on” so to speak. This gene expression is what allows different parts of the body to function as they ought. The way these genes become active or inactive is through a process called DNA methylation. “DNA methylation works by adding a chemical (known as a methyl group) to DNA. This chemical can also be removed from the DNA through a process called demethylation. Typically, methylation turns genes “off” and demethylation turns genes “on.”[9]

DNA methylation is responsible for our gene expression from the moment of our conception to the moment of our death. Sometimes this gene expression is simply because we have different body parts that function differently. “For example, gene expression in the muscles is different from gene expression in the nerves.”[10] This kind cannot change. This gene expression, however, can also change throughout our lives – our DNA can change in other ways. However, the way this change occurs – the reason for it – is quite crucial. Sometimes this change can also come through “behaviors, such as smoking or exercise, or exposures in your environment”[11] and this all causes different gene expression.

Epigenetics

This particular way genetics changes has been called epigenetics. “Epigenetics refers to the ways a person’s behaviors and the environment can cause changes that affect the way the genes work. Epigenetics turns genes “on” and “off” and thus is related to gene expression.”[12] In other words, the things around us, and the choices we make, the places we go, the food we eat, the way we handle our body, can actually change our genetics – they can actually change what the bible calls our “outer man.” Isn’t that wild? At a fundamental level this is intuitive. If we get blasted with a beam of radiation, we know it will mess with our genetics. We won’t turn into the incredible hulk, but we could lose our hair, our teeth could fall out, and we can ultimately die. Regular exercise strengthens our heart, going out in the sun makes your skin darker, eating loads of sugar makes you fat. The list could go on, but you get the idea.

In a person’s life there are gene expressions that are built-in, so to speak, like what was mentioned above, muscles are different from nerves or having a penis rather than a vagina. These cannot be changed in any natural way. However, what the study of epigenetics shows us that there are some genes that have the ability to change depending upon the environment (e.g. Air pollution), in which they exist as well as human decision (e.g. Smoking).

A Summary So Far

Can our genetics change? Yes. But, again, it is a very qualified yes. Although our genetics can change, that genetic change is generally benign or disease causing. Skin darkening from sun (UV light) exposure is generally benign, however, too much exposure causes melanoma, which is not benign, but a genetic mutation classified as a disease. This individual may be more susceptible to melanoma due to their heredity, or their gene expression may change due to external factors.

Nevertheless, what is important to understand about genetics from a biblical perspective and as it pertains to sin, is that everything spoken of above is entirely consistent with the bible’s teaching on what a human being is, albeit consistent with only one side of the human being: the outer man; the body. Genetics, in other words, can change our outer man but never our inner man. When we look at genetics, we only have the ability to see the material, not the immaterial. Genetics does not evaluate the soul; therefore, it cannot evaluate sin. Your hair color and texture, eye color, muscular makeup, height, your ability to grow facial hair, even your intelligence to a degree, are all genetic. They deal with your organs, your bones, your muscles, you physical self. But none of these evaluate the immaterial portion of your being. This isn’t because science doesn’t want to gauge that aspect but is because science is utterly incapable of completing that task. Science has no ability or mechanism to measure that which is immaterial. By definition the immaterial lacks physical substance capable of being directly detected by scientific instrumentation. Happiness, consciousness, spirituality, motivation, faith, thoughts, depression, love, sadness, attraction, compassion etc. cannot be measured – and will never be measured scientifically – but, despite their immateriality these are clearly real, tangible, and powerful aspects of humanity. If they weren’t you wouldn’t cry when you laugh or get sad.

The Needed Ingredient

The point in saying all this, is to show that the question “is sin genetic?” or “can we be genetically predisposed to certain sin?” is a question unsuitable to ask in the realm of genetics – it is simply not a question genetics has the tools to answer. It’s like asking Hugh Laurie for medical advice. Good luck. There is simply no sinful genetic expression; genetic expressions affected by sin, certainly, but none that are sin itself. There are no adultery genes, or murder genes or the ever sought after gay gene. Scientists may attempt to say things that make it appear that there is some genetic connection, like hormonal or chemical imbalances (of which there are no ways to determine) but there is absolutely zero – ZERO – proof to back these statements, only theories, which are nothing but the ideas of ignorant men who don’t care about God’s thoughts. Additionally, whether genes are on or off is entirely dependent upon conditions outside of themselves. They must be acted upon for change; they do not do the acting. Genetic mutations are either hereditary, and gene expression is produced by personal choice, or environmental factors. And all of this is external to the gene, so to speak. And there is no hereditary marker labeled “sin.”

This means that science doesn’t have the answer to this question. It means that science will never have the answer to this question. When scientific journals and articles are discussing the immaterial and you see things like “genetics may explain…” or “researchers theorize that genetics…” understand that they are trying to pull you into their godless ideology and make you materialists just like them by discrediting all the immateriality of God’s creation. It means we must look elsewhere for the answer.

Statistics

With the current iteration of the question this article seeks to answer, statistics play an outsized role. For example, someone might argue that since there is far more violent crime among black populations compared to white populations (which is undoubtedly true[13][14]) these individuals are genetically predisposed to those particular sins. Because violent crime, in other words, is rampant in the very small black population compared to the very large white population there must be some logical (genetic) explanation.

This argument, however, is one from psychological minds the likes of Freud, Rogers, Pavlov, Skinner, etc. This means that it is not from the mind of God, but is reprobate. In the psychological world everything (and I mean everything) is labeled as a disease. Go pick up a DSM5 and have a looksie. One example is “alcoholism.” Alcoholism is considered a disease, called “Alcohol Use Disorder” and is “a medical condition characterized by an impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use despite adverse social, occupational, or health consequences.”[15] Further, the “scientists” and “psychologists” of our day will say that “there is a 50% chance of being predisposed to alcohol use disorder (AUD) if your family has a history of alcohol misuse.”[16] But this description smacks God’s description in the face. God commands us, saying “do not get drunk with wine” (Ephesians 5:18), and he tells us that all drunkards will burn in hell forever (1 Corinthians 6:10). So if God says that getting drunk is a sin, and yet the world calls it a disease, who is right? Are they the same thing? The world calls it a medical condition characterized by the inability to stop or control alcohol use. God calls it a sin, and all sin can be repented of (1 John 1:9; Proverbs 28:13) and forsaken forever. So, who is right? The psychological world that says a person may be genetically predisposed – from mom and dad – to alcoholism thereby having the inability to stop or control their drinking, or God who says that being a drunkard is a sin, which can and must be repented of and forsaken forever? If you’re a Christian, it must be the latter.

The reason the world has concluded that alcoholism is a disease is because of the “impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use.” Now, they are correct that people classified as Alcoholics have a compromised ability to cease their consumption of alcohol. But why is this? Were they born with an addiction to alcohol? No. No one is born with an addiction to alcohol.[17] Children may be born suffering the effects of their mother’s irresponsible consumption of alcohol, but this is not the same thing as addiction. But the reason there is this impaired ability to stop or control the drinking is because of the epigenetic change that has taken place due to the individual’s incessant consumption of alcohol. The body becomes a slave to the substance and is physiologically dependent upon it so that the wretched feelings of detoxification are not experienced. But this is not a “genetic” problem per se. It is a choice made by an individual that has altered the gene expression in their body resulting in addiction. Biblically, this is the principle of reaping and sowing. The person has reaped sin by a disordered love for drink and is suffering from natural recompense. Far form this being a disease caused by genetic abnormalities, this is a self-imposed problem that the scientific and psychological communities have tried to morph into a disease, so people don’t have to feel the shame and guilt of their sin.

When this argument is then transferred to an entire population – such as the black population – we are essentially succumbing to secular thought. If we look at the statistics and conclude that since murder is far more abundant in black communities than white ones, and subsequently conclude that these people must be genetically predisposed to breaking the 6th commandment, (just like the drunkard), we are guilty of having adopted a psychological mind, we have abused the study of genetics, we have neglected biblical doctrine, and we have removed all moral agency from the individuals we are labeling. Like it or not, if someone is told that they have a genetic predisposition to a certain sin, they have just been handed a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that they will wield anytime they are under pressure and succumb to their sinful pleasure. Because after all, it’s genetic, they were born that way.

If a married man with “Hypersexuality”[18] commits adultery against his wife and then the pastor says, “that’s a sin, you can’t do that, you must repent” and the man says, “but pastor you don’t understand, ‘the biological causes of sexual addiction include [my] physiology and genetics. Concerning biochemical imbalances, addictive behaviors are generally associated with differences of certain chemicals in [my] brain’ and after all ‘Neuroscientists [have concluded] that the possibility of [sexual] addiction for the general population is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental.’[19] so, really what am I supposed to do? This I just how I’m wired! I’ll repent, but this is out of my control!” The pastor will call him to repent, but if the root of the problem is genetic at any level whatsoever, then the nature of this sin has left the spiritual and has entered into the physical, in which case, you might as well repent of having blue eyes or a cleft lip. This kind of behavior has led our culture to pity the man with a “sex addiction” rather than demand he cease, control his body, change his desires, forsake his sin, and hold fast to his covenantal promises.

From Whence Doth Sin Come?

As we have already seen, genetics is a study of the material. All science is, actually, only the study of the material. It is altogether inappropriate to seek answers regarding the metaphysical/immaterial world from science, psychology, or the like. It is entirely inept in answering those questions.[20]

As Christians, therefore, where do we go to gain knowledge and wisdom regarding the metaphysical/spiritual aspect to our existence? That knowledge must come from God who not only is spirit, but also bestows spirit. This comes from the scriptures of course. And here too, is where we find the answer for where sin comes from.

There are several theories to this question, but I will address two. One theory is that sin is inherited through the father’s line – his seed. Because Jesus inherited his humanity from Mary, but did not have an earthly biological father, and he did not possess original sin, then original sin must pass through the father to the offspring - genetically. Since Jesus had no earthly father, he was sinless. Another theory is that sin nature passes spiritually. Original sin is immaterial and doesn’t need to pass along to offspring via genetics. It is passed along, universally and spiritually, by the virtue of all humanity being descendants of Adam. But, because God is ruler of all, he withheld original sin from entering Christ in the womb.

Let’s tackle these views one at a time:

1) Sin is inherited through the father’s line.

This possibility exists, frankly, because of the evolutionary theory and it’s strangle-hold on the minds of many. Fundamental to this worldview is materialism and naturalism. Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Materialism is the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Thinking, therefore, that sin could be passed down from a father, materially, through his seed, into a mother’s womb, is the wholesale endorsement of evolutionary foundations. This should frighten the Christan, because this means your mind is being renewed by the devil and sin rather than the scriptures and its logic.

But how can I say such things? This is because Jesus had to deal with this exact same argument during his ministry. The pharisees were convinced that their hands, cutlery, and dishes needed to be clean otherwise they would be sinning. The material condition of these material things was the cause of their sin. Their sin or righteousness, in other words, came through the physical nature of these materials. However, Jesus corrects this thinking with an incredibly clear teaching on where sin comes from. In Matthew 15:17-20, Jesus says,

“Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” (emphasis mine)

If we could change Christ’s words a little bit to fit the thesis, “to be born of human seed does not defile anyone. For out of the heart comes all sin.” What is the heart, you may ask. Biblically, the terms heart, mind, soul, and spirit, are used interchangeably to designate your inner man in contrast to your outer man (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:16 Romans 7:22-23). The inner man is the true you, your spiritual nature. This is why Proverbs 23:7 can say “for as he calculates in his soul (for as a man thinks in his heart), so is he,” and this is why Psalm 14:1 can say “the fool says in his heart…” rather than in his mind “that there is no God. This is why we’re called to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, because this summarizes the entire inner you, this is the you that images God. This is simply how God speaks. So, when Jesus says that your heart produces all evil, he is, in no uncertain way, saying that sin comes from your inner, metaphysical/immaterial, invisible soul. It comes from the you that isn’t touched by genetics.

But let’s consider a couple examples. Adam, the first man was given life by way of pure spirit (Genesis 2:7) not seed. If ever there were perfect genetics to be had, Adam had them (Genesis 1:31). He had no original sin, and he had no evil seed from a father. This means that genetics can exist without sin nature, and that sin is not intrinsically bound to genetics.

Consider also, Satan and his cohorts. Whatever else can be said of them, they do not possess human genetics and are entirely immaterial with the ability to translate from one realm to the other. And yet, they are sinful without human seed all while being the product of God’s immediate and good creation.

One more nail in this coffin for good measure.

Ezekial 18:4-20 “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. If a man is righteous and does what is just and right— if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Isreal, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity…if he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things (though he himself did none of these things)…his blood shall be upon himself. Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees and does not do likewise…he shall not die for his father’s iniquities, he shall surely live…Yet you say why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? When the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die.”

Notice a few things. First, God could not say “the soul that sins shall die” if our sinning is a result of the genetics that we are handed down through heredity. That would either make God a liar or entirely unjust. Next, we have three generations of men here. We have a righteous father, followed by an unrighteous son, followed by a righteous son. These are two sons which are the product of the same seed from the same righteous man. God is very specific to point out that the first man is indeed very righteous, and yet his son is unrighteous, and the text is diligent to tell us that his father “did none of these [unrighteous] things” that the unrighteous son did. There was, in other words, obviously no genetic transference from one generation to the next, otherwise the son would be righteous. This is further solidified, when we see the unrighteous man produce from his seed a righteous son. Although this son saw all the evil of his father, he did not delight in it. Instead, he chose/desired a different path, a righteous path, and chose to be the opposite of his father. His desires – which are metaphysical – were different from his fathers’. What this text communicates without any ambiguity, is that sin is in no way passed through male seed or genetics. It is instead a choice of the heart. God shows that he holds us accountable for our own sins, not someone else’s. Sin is something we do, not something that is passed through our genetics.

2) Sin nature passes spiritually

Again, it is important and necessary to reiterate that our Lord tells us that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, [and] slander.” (Matthew 15:17-20). These sins come from the heart of a person, meaning the inner (immaterial) man, and because sin is independent of genetics or the material world, sin does not need a father’s genetic material to be produced or pass on. We recall, that both Adam and Eve were pure and sinless creatures, not defiled by any sin or a sinful nature, corrupted genetics, gang violence, racial disparity, population segregation, or any other ill we deal with today. And yet, they were each lured and enticed by their own desires, ultimately giving into those desires and giving birth to sin (James 1:14-15). Now, if someone is adamant in claiming that we do inherit sin, then we could only inherit it from one man: Adam. This is because one trespass led to condemnation for all men, and one man’s disobedience made all men sinners, and just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12-21). However, even here, we inherit sin spiritually, not genetically. Adam was our covenant head and represented all of humanity in his created status as prophet, priest, and king. Adam failed, and so all those he represented also failed. So, even still, we may inherit Adam’s sin guilt but even here it is not hereditary, but spiritual.

To prove this point, it must be noted, that “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

1. Original sin translated to death for all.

2. Salvation from death translated to being made alive in Christ.

Christ, the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), produced the exact opposite of what Adam produced. Adam produced death; Christ produced life. Adam caused degeneration; Christ caused regeneration. Adam destroyed, Christ builds. Adam failed, Christ succeeded, etc. So how is righteousness and salvation from Christ passed to his people? It is passed spiritually, not carnally. If salvation is passed spiritually, then sin and damnation must, likewise, be passed spiritually, not genetically. However Christ operates in imputing to us righteousness and regenerate hearts is exactly how we must understand the degeneration of our hearts being imputed to us from Adam.

Christ, is therefore, not sinful because sin and the guilt of Adam’s sin was not imputed to him by virtue of his conception by the Holy Spirit, rather than the corrupted spirit of man (Genesis 5:3).

Relationship Of Body and Soul

Although we possess and inner and outer man, one should not assume that these exist independent of each other. Our bodies and our souls interact and can either positively or negatively affect one another. These two aspects of our being, however, must never be confused. They are connected, yet distinct. Like the Father and Son, they are both God, equal in power, might, and all the rest, but they are not the same. They are unified, yet distinct. Just like a husband and wife are one flesh, really and truly, yet they must not be confused. Being one flesh does not result in the loss or confusion of femininity or masculinity. Each stay entirely what they are, albeit, united. So it is with our body and soul.

We are what is called a psychosomatic union. The term psychosomatic originates from the Greek word’s “psyche” meaning “soul” or “mind” and soma, meaning “body.” We are a unification of soul and body, by the design of God. This is why when you feel sad you cry. Your metaphysical self affects the physical tear ducts in your eye lids. This is why when you imagine having a heated debate with someone your heart may start to race. Your metaphysical self is affecting your physical heart causing it to pump faster and harder.

The question is though, if sin is spiritual, what role or affect does our physical body have on our soul in that sin? In other words, can the weakness of our bodies cause us to sin? If I have a poor diet, lack regular exercise, lack regular sex in my marriage, or spend time around people who cause me a lot of stress, will this make sin easier or more difficult? In each of these situations the correct questions need to be asked. It is not a matter of diet, exercise, sex, or sanity. The question is what do you want, what do you feel as though you deserve, and what are you willing to do to get it? If a lack of sex in your marriage causes you to watch porn and masturbate, and when caught you say something like “well, you wouldn’t have sex with me, so I had no choice! Its not my fault, you wouldn’t have sex with me!” Congratulations, you are of your father Adam. He too blamed his sin on his physical circumstances. If you are surrounded by people in your family or work who stress you out and you become sinfully angry because you “just want some peace” then you must recognize that you are an angry person. The people didn’t make you angry, you lack the ability to control yourself, and you are simply showing the real you.

James is clear. We sin when we are tempted by what we desire (James 1:14). It isn’t wrong to want to have sex with your spouse, but when you don’t get what you want what are you willing to do about it? No matter your circumstances, you can choose to live righteously according to God’s word, or unrighteously and blame your physical circumstances. Certainly, having a good diet, exercising regularly, and getting adequate sleep can be helpful, because they all aid in the proper functioning of your outer man, but if those things are not present for whatever reason, you and I still do not have one single, solitary excuse for any sin we commit. We can never blame our biting words, or short fuse on a lack of sleep. We sinned, because we did not get what we sinfully desired. That is all.

In Matthew 5:29 and 18:7-9 Jesus talks about cutting off our hands and gouging out our eyes if they cause us to sin. Why does he say this? It sure does seem as though Jesus is saying that our hands, feet, or eyes can cause us to sin, but is he really? To understand this passage properly, we need to compare it to other places that are more clear.[21] [22] In Matthew 5:29 Jesus says something very similar, but he adds a glimpse into the heart. He says, “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” It is essential to remember that lust is metaphysical and begins in the heart (Matthew 15:19) not the eyes. Only after this does Jesus use the same language as before, saying, “if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out.” Jesus is clear, that there is a movement of the heart that takes place before the movement of the eyes. There is a sinfully disordered desire in the heart that causes the eyes to move. There is a proper order of operations here. The heart has longed for something, and the eyes have obeyed.

In James 1:14-15 James gives a wonderful explanation of how sin starts and where it comes from. James indicates that desire begets temptation, then temptation is conceived (it is entertained), then sin takes place and death occurs. This is on the heels of James telling us that God does not tempt anyone, because temptation is evil. Therefore, when someone experiences temptation, it is entirely because this person has desired something that is wholly evil. For instance, a man who desires no other woman than his wife, will not be tempted by other women around him. If, however, that same man desires other women in his heart, he will be tempted to undress other women with his eyes when they are around him. This is because sin always begins in the heart with our affections.

Our bodies are the medium through which our souls interact with the physical. And this is a glorious thing, because this is how the Lord has designed our being to function. The physical and the spiritual are both glorious, but our immaterial souls cannot interact with the material except through a medium. However, because our outer man is wasting away and subsequently, our inner man is being renewed day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16) it is evident that our bodies are but a lifeless shell without the soul that animates them. Our body cannot sin, in other words, unless the soul that causes sin is within it.

So, What About the Statistics and All Those Violent Crimes?

How should we account for these numbers? How do we account for major disparities of sin from one population to another? Well, as we have sufficiently proved, it is not due to genetic differences. After all, all human beings are 99.9 percent identical in our genetic makeup.[23] Literally, all the differences between people from height to skin color is from the remaining .01 percent. To attribute the escalation of violent crime in black communities to genetics is, therefore, far too simplistic (not to mention unbiblical) and will never result in the actual improvements needed in those sectors. It will also likely produce ethnic vainglory for the other non-violent-crime-ridden populations, and it will also cause covenant heads to relinquish blame and accountability for the condition of their people.

God, however, has not left us without answers to this most pivotal question. God has said that he “visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7). It is clear from other places that this does not mean that God will cause the son the suffer for the iniquity of the father (Ezekial 18:20) in the sense that the son will be guilty of their father’s sin. But what God is communicating is that there is a natural and expected trend of behavior from father to son. There are myriad expected negative behaviors that result from a fathers capitulation in the lives of their children. Generally speaking, how a son sees his father acting, speaking, loving, and leading will be what he emulates when he gets older. One only needs to look at the fatherlessness statistics in America to see the truth of God’s decree.[24] [25]

When we look at the example of Eli for instance (1 Samuel 2:12-36), we see that he was a capitulating failure of a father. He knew all the evil that his sons were doing, and yet he did nothing to restrain them (1 Samuel 3:13). In this, we see God visiting the iniquity of Eli on his children. They were deep in sin because they did not learn from their father how to honor Christ or live righteously, therefore God killed them and Eli.

Looking at the black population and seeing a drastic increase in violent crime, we must recognize that this is entirely due to the failure of the fathers who have led their sons astray. Of course, this is a complex problem in which the federal government has played an unfortunate role, and of course those in the black population are guilty of their own sin, but we must recognize that roughly 85 percent of incarcerated youth came from fatherless homes[26] and this is not an insignificant data point. This is the outflow of God’s promise to visit the iniquity of the fathers on their children. They do what they have been taught to do. They do what they know. They live out what they have seen exemplified for them.

The glory of viewing the problem of sin this way is immediately evident. This perspective recognizes that the cause of sin is not genetic, which means all who are affected by it can actually change, for the better, and forever. All that is needed is to seek the Lord and repent of sin which will lead to a forsaking of old ways to follow Christ all their days. Any genetic connection to sin is not only unbiblical but I also removes every scintilla of ability to give hope to the people in these circumstances and encouraging them to honor Christ, turn from sin, and walk in obedience.

Conclusion

Sin comes from the heart and everything people think, say, and do comes from the heart also. There is simply no way to adhere to the biblical witness and conclude anything else. Genetics is an important field of study that allows proper care for our outer man to get better as time passes, but it is no indicator of sin, whatever. If we are to be Christian, we must be adamant to view literally everything in this life through the lens of the bible. Everything, including science, statistics, politics, psychology, etc. must come under the sever scrutiny of God’s divine revelation and we must be willing to reject science, call foul on statistics, disagree with political movements, and dismiss psychological prescriptions if the scriptures require it, without blushing. Without hesitation, we must be a people of the book first and foremost, clinging to all that Christ has said, with exhaustive sufficiency, willing to die without boots on.

[1] You study genetics you have genes

[2] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002048.htm

[3] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

[4] ibid

[5] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002048.htm

[6] ibid

[7] https://www.cdc.gov/genomics-and-health/about/

[8] ibid

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

[14] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2782848/

[15] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/understanding-alcohol-use-disorder

[16] https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcohol/hereditary-genetic

[17] https://newday-recovery.com/blog/addiction-born-way/

[18] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22690-sex-addiction-hypersexuality-and-compulsive-sexual-behavior

[19] https://www.bps.org.uk/blog/sexual-addiction-symptoms-causes-consequences

[20] Psychology is (unfortunately) considered a science. The degree to which the psychological world works with the “soul,” therefore, is not in a metaphysical sense, but they would understand the soul (if there is such a thing) to be nothing more than the mind/brain. Even here they make no distinction between mind and brain, ultimately conglomerating the two causing a materialism fit for only for rank paganism. Thus, Christian integrationists are but derisory pawns in the secularists’ scheme, trying to combine fresh water with salt, and then claiming that the food is still too bland while their faces shrivel all in an effort to maintain their credibility and have a seat at the table.

[21] WCF 1.9 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

[22] WCF 1.10 The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence, we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

[23] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

[24] https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic

[25] https://www.nolongerfatherless.org/statistics

[26] ibid

Introduction

As I write, the Round of 32 is wrapping up at the 2026 World Cup. The most recent victors are about to enter the Round of 16 where each participant must win their remaining games or suffer elimination on the international stage. For over three weeks, teams representing 48 countries have competed for national pride and the chance to win the FIFA World Cup Trophy. The grandeur of the event is undeniable as teams and fans have traveled across 16 stadiums in three North American countries: the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Although each team hits the pitch in opposition of one another, there is an astoundingly rare quality of unity present at this quadrennial event. It is unusual to witness representatives from the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia harmoniously converging on one place with one focus for weeks at a time. When I see the scores of fans and players from diverse nations packing three to four stadiums each day in the name of soccer (futbol), I am reminded of the eschatological reality that by His blood, Christ has won for Himself a people “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9).

Undoubtedly, there is an incredible amount of pagan idolatry occurring during the World Cup. For example, I heard one announcer state that the people of Argentina should worship Lionel Messi! For being good at soccer?! Psht. Blasphemy. A hat trick cannot compare to creating the cosmos and forgiving the sins of humanity (Col. 3:16-17; 1 John 2:2). Additionally, I am pretty sure that Morocco was not relying on the mediatorial work of Christ when their head coach led them in prayer just before they took PK’s against the Dutch (great game, by the way). Nonetheless, the redeemed mind can look on the event and readily imagine a time when people with differing languages, customs, and ethnicities will experience a stronger unification than what is taking place during the ongoing international soccer tournament.

A Holy Nation

One day, if you are Christ’s, you will witness with your eyes the present spiritual reality that God has made for Himself one “holy nation” comprising of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation (2 Pet. 2:9). The basis for the holy nation’s unity far exceeds a child’s game and a chance to win an 18-karat gold trophy. The Name at the center of their unity is supremely holy and far above mortal men like Messi, Mbappé, Ronaldo, Haaland, and Pulisic. Their song is not a unique national anthem but rather they lift one banner singing one anthem in exaltation of the One King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 4-5).

A Blessed Nation

Coinciding with the festivities of the World Cup is the 250-year anniversary of one of the host nations: the United States of America. Media reporters have gushed with the retelling of how much Europeans who came to watch their nation participate in the World Cup possess a newfound love for America and Americans. While I wish their reasons for admiring the States revolved around the godliness of its people, their reverence for the Lord, and the beautiful architecture of our faithful churches, I am thankful to a degree for objective praise. America, despite all its idolatry, political unrest, and its wavering economy, is a great place to live. Why? Because God has blessed and is blessing her.

Share

When I was a teenager, I said rather innocuously, “God bless America.” A liberally minded friend angrily asked, “Why should God bless America? Why should he bless America more than any other nation?” I don’t remember what I said but I do remember being shocked. And I remember that her fists were clinched. If I could relive this moment and respond again, I would say, “He shouldn’t. But he has. And being blessed by God is good.” Sure, we could talk about the Christian morality of the Deistic Founders and the many unshakable Christian churches, people, and pastors in America’s history as reasons to garner God’s blessing; but we do not have to reach deeply into our bag of Calvinism to know that every American has been or is totally depraved and undeserving of anything good from God. So today, I thank you God for Your blessing of 250 years upon a nation that is not always united, not often obedient, and ever forgetful of how marvelous it is to be blessed by You. With the psalmist, I praise You, saying, “You are good and do good” (Ps. 119:68).

The Blessing of All Nations

Now, with the World Cup and my friend’s emotionally charged question in mind, I turn to say that God has blessed every nation no matter their political structure, military capability, financial well-being, or religious ideology (and yes, all nations should bend the knee to Christ, see Psalm 2). How can I make such a claim that God has blessed every nation? Thankfully, the World Cup’s eschatological prodding has reminded me that before the foundation of this world, it was God’s good intent to raise up His Son Jesus to conquer sin, death, and hell through His sinless life, gruesome death, and miraculous resurrection. Then, with an eye on people from every nation, the Son of God commissioned eleven men who, by the power of God the Spirit, took the message of Christ into Europe, Asia, and Africa (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). The message could not be stopped and 2,000 years later, it is still saving souls from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Every nation is blessed because God blesses people from every nation. He does this chiefly through salvation in Christ by making members from every nation into members of a holy nation that will still thrive millenia after the final World Cup champion has been crowned. Therefore, as Christians, we do not support the blurring of boundaries, erasing of national and cultural distinctions, or institutionalized or functional racism. Why? Because the existence of various nations comprising of people who look different, sound different, and cheer for a different soccer team uniting to form one holy nation through Christ alone brings God glory. If there are no nations, how shall God gloriously possess a people from every nation?

So, fill in your nation’s name here: God bless ________! And if you mean it, go share the gospel with your countrymen. I hope to see America in the Quarterfinals and hope to see Americans in the New Heaven.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Introduction

In a Roman prison, buffeted on every side; hated by critics, uncertain of his future, and a body marked by years of hardship and suffering, the Apostle Paul writes his heartfelt letter to the Christians in Philippi. Despite these many afflictions, his tone in this letter is surprisingly not one of complaint or despair. He writes this:

“Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”

In this passage the Apostle confronts us directly in seasons when suffering seemingly presses far too hard; when life seems to shift without warning; when the future feels veiled in fog and out of our control; when our daily bread feels far too elusive. In this passage you will not find Paul offering a technique for emotional self-control: deep breathing, anxiety medication, or mindfulness. What we find is a testimony to a grace-wrought discipline that Paul had to learn. It isn’t biological, it isn’t inherited, it isn’t achieved by temperament; no, this sort of discipline is something that can only be acquired by and in the furnace of God’s providence.

Share Reformed & Confessional

Contentment

Contentment, according to the Apostle, is not at all the absence of the desire for relief or the stoic suppression of feelings and the neglect of emotions. Rather, it is the settled conviction that, in everything and in every way and at every time, Christ is enough. The conviction that Christ is enough whether one is brought low or abounds. Paul had known both extremes: the abundance of former religious prestige and the want of chains and hunger. He had tasted the approval of men and the rejection of the world. He had been blessed by the church and fellow workmen at times, and at others had been abandoned and betrayed by the same trusted men. Through it all, however, he discovered that his sufficiency did not rise and fall with his circumstances; despite the reality that he “worked harder than any [other Apostle]” (1 Cor 15:10), his adequacy did not depend upon his effort. Rather, his sufficiency and adequacy rested in the living Christ who strengthened him.

This “secret” that Paul learned is no blank check for personal ambition or material prosperity. When a rich and famous football player claims, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” in the context of his 10 Million Dollar NFL contract, he is misusing and abusing this text to make a pretext for his religiosity. In context, the “secret” Paul is remarking on is the power to remain faithful, joyful, and content in every condition – whether the cup is full or empty, whether the path is clear or shrouded, whether the hits keep on coming, whether the waves continue to crash down. Because if joy in Christ and contentment in Christ and fidelity in Christ require our outward circumstances to be just right, pleasant, and agreeable, then that isn’t Christianity – it is idolatry.

Nevertheless, the same Lord who upheld Paul in the dungeon still upholds His people today. The strength promised is not the power to escape a trial, but the power to endure every trial with a heart at rest in the providential, perfect, and sovereign will of God.

Therefore, when suffering comes – whether through bodily affliction, loss, betrayal, financial strain, or any other thing – fight the temptation to measure God’s love for you by the absence of pain in your life. Look instead to the One who was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3). Look to the One who was, himself, “despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:3). Look to the One who, although crushed by his own Father, was and is a dearly beloved son. Look to the one who now lives to intercede for you. The same Savior who, in the midst of agony and suffering, sweat drops of blood in Gethsemane, and cried to the Father, “Not my will, but yours, be done,” now supplies the grace you need to say the same in your own garden of sorrow: not my will, oh Lord, but yours be done.

Share

Beloved, the secret Paul learned is still available to every believer, because every believer is united to Christ by faith. Christ knew how to be content and settled in the bosom of his Father, and we see this contentment throughout his entire life and especially in his death. And as Paul learned Christ, he, too, learned contentment. He didn’t learn this secret overnight, nor did he learn it after one round of agony. No. He learned this over years of hardship, pain, loss, and difficulty. But he knew that every affliction he faced was given him from the kind hand of the Lord, and it was meant to draw him nearer to Christ and prepare him for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. In other words, this secret cannot be learned quickly, nor is it learned apart from the very trials that make the secret necessary. God often teaches us contentment by withholding what we think we must have and by giving us what we think we cannot bear – and it may be that through many tears we discover that Christ Himself is the only portion that satisfies when every other portion is removed.

Conclusion

So what are we to do? Well, fix your eyes on Christ, of course. Do not fix your eyes on the things that are seen, for they are transient. Rather fix your eyes on things that are unseen for they are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:18). Look to Christ, the author and finisher of your faith, who, for the joy set before Him endured the suffering, mockery, horror, pain, and humiliation of the cross (Hebrews 12:2). In Him you have strength sufficient for every circumstance, because in Him you have a Savior who will never leave you nor forsake you (Hebrews 13:5) even in the midst of your deepest suffering.

May the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may comfort others (2 Corinthians 1:3–4), grant you the grace to learn this sacred secret afresh. And may the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus, both now and until the day when every tear is wiped away, and all uncertainty gives way to everlasting joy.

Amen.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share Reformed & Confessional

Beloved, one aspect of the nature of our existence is suffering. Suffering is bound up with our existence in a world that has fallen under the curse of sin. Since our first parents’ rebellion in Eden, creation itself has been subjected to futility and groaning. Suffering is the common and often perplexing experience of those who live east of Eden. It is not an illusion or a mere appearance; it is the bitter reality that marks life in a world that is broken by sin.

A persistent temptation, when we suffer, is to conclude that every instance of suffering must be the direct and immediate consequence of personal sin. We think: this wouldn’t be happening unless I deserved it. This was the assumption of the disciples when they saw the man born blind: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). It was the error of Job’s friends, who insisted that such great affliction on Job could only mean great hidden guilt. We are quick to imagine that if we are suffering, we must have sinned; we must have practiced some unrighteousness in some particular way to bring it upon ourselves. We imagine that God is simply giving us our comeuppance.

Our Lord Jesus Christ corrects this misconception with the compassion of a shepherd and the clarity of a teacher. He says: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). The affliction was not punishment for a specific sin of the man or his parents. It existed for a higher, God-glorifying purpose. The same Lord who spoke these words would, Himself, endure the deepest and most gruesome suffering, though He was without sin. He was “a man of sorrows” and a man “acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3), and He “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8). If the sinless Son of God was acquainted with suffering, we cannot assume that every trial in our lives is God’s judicial response to our personal transgressions.

What then are the reasons for suffering in the life of the Christian? Scripture reveals several purposes, all of which are under the wise and loving hand of God. Suffering is often the Father’s loving discipline, intended to mortify remaining sin and train us in holiness. “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Hebrews 12:6). It is also a means of refining and proving our faith, “so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:7). Trials equip us to comfort others with the comfort we ourselves have received from God (2 Corinthians 1:4). And frequently, suffering becomes the very stage upon which the power and grace of Christ are most clearly displayed, as when the apostle Paul learned that Christ’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

C.S. Lewis observed that “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” Suffering has a way of arresting our attention and exposing our deep need for God in a manner that ease rarely, if ever, achieves.

Yet beneath all these proximate reasons lies the ultimate cause of every event in heaven and on earth: the sovereign providence of our triune God. Nothing in all existence occurs by random chance or outside the eternal decree of Him “who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Secondary causes—human actions, natural processes, even the malice of the evil one—remain real, but they operate only within the boundaries of God’s wise and holy decree. Joseph could say to his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20). The cross itself was accomplished “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). When the causes of our particular afflictions remain hidden from us, what are we then called to do? We are called to restrain curiosity and rest in the character and promises of the One who ordains all of them. As Moses declared, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Share

Therefore, beloved, I exhort you: in the midst of suffering, difficulty, pain, exhaustion, and trials, do not lose heart. Do not imagine that God has abandoned you or that your pain has no meaning. For nothing can “separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:39). Look to Jesus, the Man of Sorrows, who bore the curse in your place so that there is now no condemnation and no ultimate curse upon the afflictions of His people. Cast your cares upon Him, for He cares for you (1 Peter 5:7). Endure with patience, knowing that these “light momentary afflictions are preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17). On this Lord’s Day, bring your sorrows into the presence of the risen Christ. Worship Him who has promised, “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). Adore the one who “will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence” and “cover you with his pinions” so that you will not “fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday” (Psalm 91:3-6).

May the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To Him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Introduction

The act of forgiveness is five-fold, and consists of confession, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. These are distinct but interconnected steps in a spiritual process of mending broken relationships with God and with other people. The sequence begins with a sinner’s honest admission of wrongdoing and concludes with the restoration of the relationship to a state of peace and fellowship.

Subscribe now

Confession

Biblical confession is the act of admitting and taking responsibility for your sin to God and, when necessary, to others you have wronged. It is not an excuse or a minimization of sin but an honest acknowledgment of rebellion against God’s holy law. Sin is any lack of conformity to, or transgression of the law of God. So again, any lack of love in thought, word, or deed is sinful, both toward God and your spouse.

• Confessing to God: All sin is ultimately against God. When King David sinned against Bathsheba and Uriah, he confessed, “Against you, you only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4). This is because God is preeminently important—over and above any human. We must confess to him first before any creature.

• Confessing to others: If you have wronged another person, confession and a request for forgiveness are necessary for the sake of reconciliation and healing (James 5:16).

Repentance

While confession is admitting the sin, repentance (Greek: metanoia, “change of mind”) is the subsequent action of genuinely turning away from sin and toward righteousness (right living) according to the word of God. It is more than just feeling regret or remorse; it is a conscious decision to change your behavior and align your life with God’s will.

Share

• A changed direction: True repentance results in a changed life, with observable fruit and a persistent pursuit of holy living (Luke 3:8, 2 Timothy 2:19).

• God’s gift: Repentance is not something we accomplish on our own, but is a gift granted by God, who works in us to produce this spiritual change (Acts 5:31).

Forgiveness

Biblical forgiveness is the cancellation of a debt. The promise of God’s forgiveness is received through repentance and faith, and Christians are called to extend this same grace to those who sin against them (Ephesians 4:32).

• Conditional on repentance: Forgiveness from an offended party is granted when the offender genuinely repents and asks for it.

• Freedom from vengeance: As a conscious choice, forgiveness frees you from bitterness and the desire for revenge. It is an intentional action, not a feeling (Luke 17:3).

• It isn’t forgetting, it’s not remembering: Forgiveness does not mean pretending the offense never happened. Instead, it involves a promise not to hold the wrong against the person or bring it up to harm them ever again.

  • Jeremiah 31:34 “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”

  • Isaiah 43:25 “I, I am her who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.”

  • Hebrews 8:12 “For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more”

Reconciliation

Reconciliation is the restoration of peace and fellowship in a broken relationship. Here the barrier of the sin committed is removed and there is no longer anything between the two parties

Share

• With God: Through Christ’s death on the cross, God took the initiative to reconcile humanity to himself, changing our relationship from one of enmity to friendship (2 Corinthians 5:18–19).

• With others: A relationship between believers can only be fully reconciled when both the offender and offended participate in the process of confession, repentance, and forgiveness.

• May not be identical: Reconciliation doesn’t always mean a return to the exact same closeness as before the offense. Trust may need to be rebuilt over time, and consequences of the sin may remain.

Restoration

Restoration is the final stage of the process, where God and the affected parties work to return things to their proper or original state. It signifies a renewal that aligns with God’s original purpose.

• Renewed Relationship: Here the offending and offended parties draw near each other as they rebuild what was broken due to the sin. There is a need to “draw” near to each other. In James we are told to draw near to God, and he will likewise draw near to us (James 4:8). Because the sin is no longer between the parties due to reconciliation, restoration is now possible.

• Holistic renewal: This concept encompasses physical, spiritual, and relational renewal. It is God’s promise to heal wounds, renew spirits, and rebuild what was broken.

• Begins internally: Restoration is often a lengthy process that begins with deep, inward change, not merely external actions. It is God’s work, but it requires human cooperation.

The Seven A’s of a Good Confession: (Matthew 7:3-5; 1 John 1:8-9; Proverbs 28:13)

1. Address everyone involved (everyone your sin has touched)

2. Avoid if, but, and maybe (no blame shifting. No one made you sin)

3. Admit specifically (don’t be vague; be specific about what you did and why)

4. Acknowledge the hurt (our sin hurts those we sin against; acknowledge the pain that your sin has caused)

5. Accept the consequences (sometimes our sins require consequences: loss of trust, loss of freedom, etc. you must accept them without complaint)

6. Alter your behavior (this is repentance; agree with God that your actions were against his will)

7. Ask for forgiveness

The Four Promises of Forgiveness: (Matthew 6:12; 1 Corinthians 13:5; Ephesians 4:32)

1. I will not dwell on this incident

2. I will not bring the incident up and use it against you

3. I will not talk to other about this incident

4. I will not allow this incident to stand between us or hinder our personal relationship

Subscribe now

Share Reformed & Confessional

Leave a comment

The following article is a revision from a previous version that includes clarifying anecdotes and removes some citations. Its new release coincides with the need for today. May the Lord bless you and solidify His work within your heart!

After God had created all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written on their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change. (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 1:26; Romans 2:14, 15; Genesis 3:6).

-Second London Baptist Confession 4.2, Of Creation

Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures. (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:26, 28).

- Second London Baptist Confession 4.3, Of Creation

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

- Second London Baptist Confession 7.1, Of God’s Covenant

Arguments Against the Covenant of Works

Before I begin to examine a position against the Covenant of Works, I’d like to recognize the person behind the argument: Paul R. Williamson. I do not know this man personally, nor do I seek to defame his character presently. Paul (P.R.) Williamson is an Old Testament, Hebrew, and Aramaic lecturer in Sydney. His academic credentials are of no question. I have read multiple helpful, edifying scholarly articles and essays by this man, and I am thankful for these works. However, I hope to utilize his argument rejecting a Covenant of Works to present a viable position in the area to avoid contending against a “straw man.”

Share Reformed & Confessional

In Williamson’s most pointed contention against the Covenant of Works, he states, “prior to [Genesis 6:18] there is not even a hint of any covenant being established—at least between God and humans.”[1] He reiterates his claim, stating that “the corroborate evidence for an antediluvian [or pre-Flood] covenant between God and creation is rather tenuous.”[2] Countering the Reformed perspective, Williamson writes, “Other scholars, however, are unpersuaded and identify only those explicitly described as such in Scripture as divine covenants. While not denying that the Triune God planned human salvation before the Creation of the world, or that God established a relationship with Adam involving mutual obligations, or that God’s relationships with humanity express a single creative and redemptive goal, they carefully distinguish such ideas from the concept of a covenant—one that involves additional elements such as a sworn and/or enacted oath.”[3]

Williamson’s argument against the Covenant of Works is not solely reliant on a supposed lack of evidence in Genesis 1-3. He also takes issue with Hosea 6:7, a text often quoted by Reformed theologians supporting God’s covenant at Creation.[4] Williamson writes, “even with no adjustments to the Masoretic Text (MT) the text may be translated several ways that clearly militate against using it as proof text for a hypothetical Adamic covenant.”[5] The thrust of Williamson’s argument is that Hosea 6:7 is a verse Hosea presents in a geographical sense. Williamson arrives at this conclusion by translating the phrase “like Adam” in Hosea 6:7 as “in/at Adam.” He also uses the context of Hosea 6:8-10 as contextual support for his geographical claim.

Presenting the Evidence

Williamson defines a covenant as “a solemn commitment guaranteeing promises or obligations undertaken by one or both covenanting parties.”[6] Using this definition as a launching pad, we will now set out to counter his argument against the alleged “tenuous” evidence supporting a covenant in Genesis 1-3 by displaying that the covenant criteria within his definition are present between God and Adam at Creation. The key elements of a covenant are as follows: 1) the existence of one or more parties, 2) commitment/promise, and 3) sanctions, which guarantee blessings or curses depending on the nature of the commitment and the actions of those bound to the covenant. In Genesis 1-3, each of these elements is present between God and Adam. The commitment is that man will keep the garden and not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in exchange for eternal life and perfect communion with God. The sanctions made by God toward Adam are death upon disobedience and the removal of perfect communion with himself. When Adam breaks the covenant, God reiterates the sanction of death (Gen. 3:17) and expels him from the garden (Gen. 3:23-24). In short, God requires perfect obedience from Adam and Eve, and upon their subsequent covenant-breaking disobedience, they are subject to death. In summary, here is the evidence for a covenant at Creation from Genesis that Williamson fails to recognize:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17).

In summary, the existing parties in the Covenant of Works are God and Adam (Genesis 2:15), the commitments consist of Adam working and keeping the garden and not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15-17), and the sanctions are death upon disobedience and expulsion from the garden, putting an end to perfect communion with Yahweh (Genesis 2:17; 3:23-24).

Leave a comment

Addressing the Absence of the Word Covenant in Genesis 1-3

Luke 3:38 concludes a genealogy of Jesus, saying, “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” I was once told by an impassioned Christian that we may not assert that Adam is a son of God because in the original Greek Luke 3:23-38 does not use the term “son.”If this person’s conclusion is correct, then nobody in the entire genealogy of Luke 3:23-38 may be considered a son of their father. We may not consider David a son of Jesse or Isaac a son of Abraham because the term “son” does not appear in verses 32 and 34 respectively. The point of a genealogy is to display familial lineage. In the case of Luke 3:23-38, its point is to show God’s sovereignty in the birth of Christ who was the son of God that Adam failed to be, which is a significant covenantal implication in itself. Demanding that the term “son” be present to display fatherhood in Luke 3 not only ignores the use of the genitive case in Greek to show possession but neglects the context of the passage and the purpose for the Holy Spirit’s inclusion of the genealogy in Luke 3.

Demanding the presence of the word “covenant” in Genesis 1-3 commits similar errors. In the words of Paul Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, “The absence of the word for ‘covenant’ . . . is no argument at all against the notion that divine-human covenant is established at Creation, if exegesis can demonstrate the idea is there.” We stand on the same footing everytime we speak or write the term “Trinity” to describe our Triune God. Although the word is absent from the Canon of Scripture, exegesis shows that the concept is present (Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Titus 3:4-6; Acts 3:3-4). When you cross the threshold of an area with four walls, a ceiling, and a floor, nobody has to say the term “room” for you to know that you’re in one. Nonetheless, one element of Williamson’s argumentation against a Covenant of Works is the lack of the term “covenant” in Genesis 1-3.

Simultaneously, however, he argues effectively in support of the covenantal elements within Genesis 22, the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, despite his admittance that this text contains no mention of the term covenant. He states,

The covenantal significance of this incident would also account for the necessity of a sacrifice (even after Isaac’s life had been spared), the timing of the second divine speech (Gen 22:15-18) and the emphasis on Abraham’s obedience (Gen 22:16b, 18b; cf. 26:5). Most important, it would explain why the international aspect of the divine promise—the aspect of the programmatic agenda that had not yet been ratified by the divine covenant—was reiterated at this point (Gen 22:18). Admittedly, the term covenant is not expressly used in the immediate context. Nevertheless, the sacrificing of the ram and God’s swearing of an oath (cf. Gen 21:22-31) indicate that this is indeed a covenant-making occasion.[7]

Clearly, Williamson understands the elements of covenant and observes their appearance in Genesis 22; therefore, he asserts the presence of covenant in this chapter. For Williamson, the occurrence of a sacrifice and an oath are enough to constitute the legitimacy of a covenantal occasion, and to his point, the covenants between God, Noah, and Abraham contain a sacrifice (Genesis 8:20-22; 22:13-18); however, we must recognize that upon the initiation of the Covenant of Works, there was no sin, no death, and no need for the slaying of animals. It was only after the first sin when God gave the first sacrifice and established the Covenant of Grace (Gen. 3:21). Williamson’s implied sacrificial requirement is anachronistic for the pre-Fall era. Hebrews 10:17-18 states, “‘I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.’ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” If there is no sacrificial requirement where there is forgiveness for sin, then certainly there is no need for sacrifice prior to Adam and Eve’s sin. Therefore, one cannot deny the Covenant of Works due to the absence of a sacrifice.

Share

Lastly, the condition of an oath has been demonstrated by God’s promise to Adam, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Addressing Hosea 6:7

Hosea 6:4-10

4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?

What shall I do with you, O Judah?

Your love is like a morning cloud,

like the dew that goes early away.

5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets;

I have slain them by the words of my mouth,

and my judgment goes forth as the light.

6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,

the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant;

there they dealt faithlessly with me.

8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,

tracked with blood.

9 As robbers lie in wait for a man,

so the priests band together;

they murder on the way to Shechem;

they commit villainy.

10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing;

Ephraim’s whoredom is there; Israel is defiled.

As you see, Hosea 6:7 states, “But like Adam, they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Williamson offers support for his geographical argument from vv. 7-10. However, theologian Douglas Stuart supports the use of Hosea 6:7 to confirm a covenant at Creation, saying, “v 7 is as closely connected to the thought expressed in vv 4-6 as it is to what follows, and especially relates to v 4b as a general statement of Israel’s infidelity.”[8] For Stuart, context determines meaning, and the context of verses 4-6 (more than Williamson’s claim on verses 7-10) determines the meaning of verse 7 within Hosea chapter 6.

Why Does it Matter?

Why does recognizing a covenant between God and Adam at Creation matter? According to the Apostle Paul, the relationship between God, Adam, and Adam’s posterity is the framework for understanding our relationship to Jesus (specifically the doctrine of imputation). Where Adam’s disobedience imputes a sin nature to his posterity, Christ’s perfect obedience imputes righteousness to those whom the Father has given him (Romans 5:15-17). Christ’s work in the New Covenant is necessary because of the transgression of Adam in the Covenant of Works. The denial of Adam’s representation of humanity in the form of a covenant misunderstands Paul’s correlation between Adam and those whom he represents and Christ and those whom he represents. Thus, it is said, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to the justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18).

Conclusion

Williamson, to his credit, understands the soteriological implications of the interactions between God and Adam in Eden.[9] Still, his denial of the Covenant of Works is not consistent with his definition of the term covenant and his application of that definition (see the discussion on Genesis 22 above). Therefore, we must reject Williamson’s position in favor of the Apostle Paul’s understanding of the relationship between Adam and Christ, the context of Hosea 6:4-6, and the exegetical proof of a covenant between God and Adam in Genesis 2:15-17.

Notes:

[1] P.R. Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 2003), 141.

[2] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 141.

[3] Paul R. Williamson, “The Biblical Covenants,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 12, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-covenants/.

[4] Jonty Rhodes, Covenant Made Simple: Understanding God’s Unfolding Promises to His People (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 27.

[5] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 141.

[6] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 139.

[7] Williamson, “Covenant,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 148.

[8] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah Volume 31, World Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 110.

[9] Paul R. Williamson, “The Biblical Covenants,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed December 12, 2021, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-covenants/.

The following is a manuscript from a sermon preached on February 15, 2026 at Burning Bush Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, MI.

Isaiah 26:1 In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.

2 Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.

3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength:

5 For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust.

6 The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor, and the steps of the needy.

Introduction

Good evening, church. It is, once again, an honor to preach the word of God to the people of God for the glory of God. This past Thursday evening, a precious young man in our congregation called me and I could hear worry, sorrow, and a sense of duty in his voice. He informed me that his one-year-old daughter had a seizure and that she was in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Just the night before, at our mid-week service, my two-year-old daughter was hugging on his daughter. My wife was holding his daughter as she peacefully laid her head upon my wife’s shoulder for respite. In that moment, on the phone, I asked a few questions to assess the need and then, I said, “Brother, I remind you of God’s promise in Isaiah 26:3, ‘Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.’” I reminded him that the Creator of the heavens and the earth is keeping him, his wife, and his daughter, even in times of great difficulty, in perfect peace. Today, we are reminded that although we will face times of discouragement, doubt, and despair we are kept in perfect peace by our perfect Savior.

Putting the Text in Context

We approach our text tonight by looking at the historical setting that Isaiah writes within. Isaiah served Judah beginning in 739 BC. He served under Kings Uzziah, Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Recall with me that it was not until the year 586 BC that Judah was exiled into Babylon. Isaiah would have been dead for about 80-100 years at that point in history. This detail is important for us because our text tonight is in Isaiah 26 and it looks forward to the day that Judah returns from an exile that she has not yet experienced. For Isaiah, he provides this song to help Judah keep their mind on God although they will live in a foreign land, enduring times of discouragement, doubt, and despair. This explanation provides great application for our modern audience. Similarly, we are waiting on our arrival into Beulah Land, that is the Heavenly City that we shall inhabit one day. As we eagerly await that day, we too, will face times of discouragement, doubt, and despair but we, God’s covenant people, can continually sing the truths of Isaiah 26 and maintain peace of heart and mind, despite the external chaos that may exist around us. Now that we have looked at the setting, we want to look at the text.

Explanation

Tonight, we will briefly observe the truths of verses 1 and 2 before examining verse 3 more fully. The phrase “In that day” is a phrase used six times in Isaiah 24-27 to discuss the Lord’s victory, the fate of his people, the fate of his foes, and the strong city with open gates. “A song will be sung” to call to memory the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh even though Judah will exist in exile. They look forward to “a strong city” with salvation acting as her walls to keep the good in and the evil out. According to verse 2, the gates of this city are open to the righteous and those who keep the truth (faith). And we must point out that if this strong city is characterized by salvation, righteousness, and faith, it sounds a lot like the heaven we are to inherit. For this reason, many authors think this text has an eschatological feel to it.

Now, as we embark on verse 3, we note the citizens of the strong city possess peace. We want to break verse 3 down and see why we, people subject to discouragement, doubt, and despair, may have peace within. When we examine verse 3, we see a Who, What, and Why.

1) Who – Yahweh is the one doing the keeping.

Here, we ought to think of the words of Jesus in John’s Gospel:

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

The idea of “keeping” means to guard as one would a fortified city. Jesus prays that Yahweh would “keep [them] through thine own name.” Especially in the Old Testament, a person’s name represented the totality of their person and character. When Christ calls upon His Father to keep us through His name, He is saying keep them through the totality of You who are. Every attribute of God keeps us. His love, mercy, kindness, sovereignty, justice, incomprehensibility, eternality, etc. Every bit of who God is keeps us in perfect peace. Such a truth produces peace in itself.

Subscribe now

2) What – Perfect Peace

Not only are the citizens of the strong city described as those who possess salvation, righteousness, and faith but also peace. The phrase “perfect peace” in the Hebrew is rendered “Peace, Peace.” This displays that perfect peace does not waiver or oscillate. It is not double-minded. How can this be? It is because perfect peace is only possible because it is founded on promises from a perfect Savior who does not waiver or oscillate. Christ, His person and work, is as steady as it gets. These promises, bestowed upon us by Him, include a strong city whose citizens possess salvation, righteousness, and faith.

3) Why – Whose mind is stayed on thee

Why are we kept in perfect peace? The text says “whose mind is stayed on thee.” When we contemplate the term “stayed,” we can think of it as unflinching, settled, and sustained. In his commentary on Isaiah 26:3, John Calvin makes a case that we should understand this phrase “whose mind is stayed on thee” as not referring to your mind staying on God but rather His mind staying on you, His church. He reasons that if “perfect peace” is dependent upon our mind continually “staying” on God, then we will never achieve it and this is not a promise but a hope dashing away like ash in the wind along with our fleeting thoughts. Instead, Calvin says that we are kept in perfect peace because God’s mind stays on thee. His mind is always, unceasingly, and without diminishing, stayed upon thee. Though it helps to keep your mind upon the Lord to promote peace, your peace is perfect because His mind perfectly stays on thee.

How do we keep our mind stayed on God? Trust. Trust means to be confident and sure that there awaits a strong city, walled in with salvation whose gates are open for the righteous. Trust places itself in the One who preserves the strong city in eternity, reasoning that , “Oh, God! If you can preserve the strong city until the day of your second coming, surely you can preserve me now in this hard circumstance.”

Application

How do we take these truths and apply them to our lives? Verse 1 says, “In that day shall this song be sung.” Literally, we should sing the promises of God. When your daughter has a seizure and you have to rush her to the hospital, sing the psalter the whole drive. When your boss is domineering and overbearing, sing the psalter all work day long. When your children disobey, sing the psalter over them, around them, and with them. When you feel like you do not have peace, sing the song of Isaiah 26 to remind yourself that you have a God who keeps you in perfect peace both now in Babylon and forever in the strong city.

Share Reformed & Confessional

Conclusion

Today, we have seen that there waits for us a strong city. Salvation hems her citizens within the city. Her gates are open to the righteous and those who keep the faith. And lastly, peace characterizes the citizens of this city. I ask you church, who provided your salvation? Who imputed his righteousness unto you? Who gave you the gift of faith? Well, the answer is none other than the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. We should walk away from this portion of Isaiah, not only singing the promises, but worshiping Jesus in our hearts who is the basis for our perfect peace. To hold the promises of Isaiah 26 in our heart is to hold onto the perfect work of Jesus Christ. Tonight, I ask, do you know Christ as Savior and Lord? When you die, will you be a member of that strong city? Or will you be on the outside of the walls of salvation like those who stood outside of the Ark in the days of Noah? Will the gates be shut to you? Are you void of peace? If so, I implore you to seek Christ in salvation for forgiveness of your sins. Come to him for faith, asking for repentance, a new heart, new motives, new love . . . that you would be a recipient of perfect peace from a perfect Savior.

Introduction

The account of Paul and Barnabas parting ways over John Mark in Acts 15:36–41 provides a sobering glimpse into the humanity of the Apostles. These men were chosen by Christ, filled with the Spirit, and used mightily in the expansion of the early church. Yet they were still ordinary men. Redeemed, yes, but not yet perfected. The narrative reminds us that even the most faithful servants of Christ were capable of sharp disagreement and serious relational breakdown.

Many modern readers, however, attempt to soften what happened. The disagreement is often portrayed as little more than two equally godly men holding different but legitimate convictions. According to this interpretation, Paul and Barnabas simply recognized that their ministry visions no longer aligned. With mutual respect and no lingering offense, they amicably parted ways, two brothers choosing different paths for the sake of the kingdom. The story is then invoked as a precedent for modern church divisions: sometimes faithful Christians simply disagree, and the best solution is to go separate directions.

Subscribe now

But such a reading risks domesticating the text and ignoring its gravity. When we examine the passage carefully, the conflict appears far more severe than a polite disagreement over strategy. Scripture tells us that “a sharp contention” arose between them (Acts 15:39). The word itself suggests an intense and heated dispute, not a calm exchange of differing opinions. Two men who had once labored side by side in the gospel, who had endured persecution together and seen the Spirit’s work among the Gentiles, now separated from one another in a painful rupture.

It is unfortunate that many interpreters fail to reckon with how serious this moment truly was. In fact, the tendency to sanitize the conflict often functions as a convenient justification for modern ecclesiastical disunity. If even apostles could part ways without fault, then surely our own divisions must also be harmless. Yet such reasoning assumes precisely what must first be proven, that no sin was involved.

To evaluate the situation properly, we must remember an important feature of biblical interpretation: The book of Acts is narrative. It recounts what happened in the early church, but it does not always pause to deliver an explicit moral verdict on every event it records. Scripture frequently reports actions without immediately telling the reader whether those actions were righteous or sinful. In such cases, the reader must exercise biblical discernment.

This means we interpret narrative through the lens of Scripture’s clear ethical teaching. The Bible provides abundant instruction about unity, forgiveness, patience, and reconciliation among believers. Those explicit commands become the standard by which we evaluate the behavior described in historical narratives. In other words, we do not merely ask what happened in the story. We ask whether the actions align with what God has commanded elsewhere in His Word.

When the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas is examined in this light, the event takes on a much more serious character. Rather than serving as a comfortable justification for modern divisions, the episode instead exposes the tragic reality that even godly leaders can fall into sharp conflict, and that such conflict is never good.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is not to diminish the faithfulness of Paul or Barnabas, nor to deny the remarkable ways God used them in the advancement of the gospel. Rather, it is to read the passage honestly and soberly, allowing Scripture to speak with its full weight. The goal is to examine the nature of their disagreement in light of the Bible’s broader teaching on unity, patience, and brotherly love. When we do so, the story should not embolden us to justify division among Christians, but instead humble us. It reminds us that even the most faithful leaders are capable of serious conflict, and that the church must constantly strive, through repentance, charity, and obedience to the Word of God, to pursue the unity that Christ Himself commands.

Share Reformed & Confessional

The Nature of The Disagreement

To determine the nature of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas, we must carefully examine the text itself, and compare it with earlier passages that describe John Mark’s prior actions. When we do this, a fairly clear picture emerges. The disagreement was not about doctrinal fidelity, but about the qualifications and reliability of John Mark for ministry. More specifically, it was a dispute over whether a man who had previously deserted the mission should be trusted with the work again.

Mark’s failure as a companion shows up two chapters earlier in Acts,

“Now Paul and his companions set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem.” - Acts 13:13

At first glance this statement seems brief, but Paul interprets it very strongly. In Acts 15:38 Luke describes Mark as one who “had withdrawn” from them and “had not gone with them to the work.” The Greek verb translated withdrawn carries the idea of desertion or abandonment. From Paul’s perspective, Mark did not just go home early for a little break, he failed in the task entrusted to him.

This explains Paul’s resistance. The missionary journeys involved hardship, persecution, and danger (Acts 14:19–22). Paul did not want to risk the mission by bringing someone he considered unreliable. Thus Paul’s concern appears to have been prudential and ministerial. The work of the gospel required dependable laborers.

Barnabas, however, wanted to give Mark another opportunity:

“Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.” - Acts 15:37

There a few factors at play for Barnabas’s willingness to have charity towards Mark. Barnabas may have believed that Mark had repented or matured since the earlier failure. There is also a familial connection involved. According to Colossians 4:10, Mark was Barnabas’s cousin, “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas…” But most likely there is a more Christian reason for Barnabas’s grace. Barnabas’s name itself means “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36), and he had already demonstrated a pattern of encouraging and restoring believers. Earlier in Acts, it was Barnabas who defended Paul when the Jerusalem church, out of fear, was hesitant about Paul, “Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles…” (Acts 9:27).

You can imagine Barnabas arguing with Paul, “don’t you remember when the other Apostles hesitated to accept you? Why will you withhold grace from Mark?” Barnabas was the one who always encouraged reconciliation and fellowship. So now in the case of Mark, his instinct may have been to extend grace and restore a fallen worker.

From all this data, we can conclude several things. The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was fundamentally a dispute about the fitness of John Mark for ministry after a prior failure. Paul viewed Mark as someone who had abandoned the work and therefore should not be trusted with the mission again. Barnabas, on the other hand, believed Mark deserved another opportunity and advocated for his restoration. The positions of both men seem legitimate. So one might ask, “where’s the sin?

The Sin

Luke tells us that “there arose a sharp disagreement” between them (Acts 15:39). The word translated “sharp disagreement” carries the sense of a severe provocation or heated contention. It is not the language of calm deliberation or gentle debate. Rather, it suggests a conflict that escalated emotionally and relationally until the partnership itself collapsed. The result was that “they separated from each other.” This description should immediately give us pause. Scripture repeatedly commands believers, especially leaders, to pursue unity, patience, and gentleness in their disagreements. For example:

Walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” - Ephesians 4:1-3

“Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” - James 1:19-20

“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” - Proverbs 15:1

When these clear ethical instructions are applied to the situation in Acts 15, the episode appears far less benign than it is often portrayed. Two seasoned missionaries, men who had endured persecution together and witnessed the power of God among the Gentiles, allowed their disagreement to escalate into a “sharp contention” that fractured their ministry partnership.

Subscribe now

John Calvin recognized the gravity of this conflict in his commentary on Acts:,

But now, for a light matter, and which might easily have been ended, they break that holy bond of God’s calling. This could not fall out without great perturbance to all the godly.”

Matthew Henry likewise suggested that both men may have shared some fault,

The contention was so sharp between them that they parted asunder one from the other… We are not told which of them was in the right; but it is certain there was a fault on one side or other, perhaps on both…. It is a pity that they should part, and not be reconciled.”

To be clear, this does not require us to conclude that their original positions were bad things to discuss and work through. However, the presence of legitimate concerns does not guarantee a righteous manner of disagreement. Scripture consistently distinguishes between the issue being debated and the spirit in which the debate occurs. Even when someone is correct in principle, he may still sin through pride, impatience, or harshness. The language Luke uses suggests that something like this may have happened. Instead of working patiently toward resolution, the dispute escalated until separation became the only apparent solution. The tragedy is not that they disagreed, but that the disagreement became so sharp that their partnership could not continue. This kind of division and separation among Christians is consistently treated in Scripture as a tragedy brought about by sins.

Reconciliation

While the dispute between Paul and Barnabas ended in a painful separation, the later testimony of Scripture gives us reason to believe that reconciliation eventually took place between the men. The New Testament does not record the moment when the breach was healed, but Paul’s later letters clearly reveal a dramatic change in his attitude toward the man he once refused to take on the missionary journey. Paul’s writings shows that his judgment did not remain permanent. Over time, something changed, either in Mark’s proven faithfulness, in Paul’s perspective, or most likely in both.

In Colossians 4:10, written years after the disagreement, Paul includes Mark among the trusted circle surrounding him during his imprisonment:

“Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him).”

Notice the striking shift. The man once judged unfit for the journey is now someone whom the churches are instructed to receive warmly. Far from warning the church about Mark’s unreliability, Paul actively commends him.

A similar picture appears in Philemon 24, where Paul refers to Mark as one of his “fellow workers”:

“Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.”

The phrase “fellow workers” is significant. Paul regularly used this term to describe trusted laborers in the gospel, men who shared the burdens of ministry alongside him. Mark is now counted among that number.

The clearest evidence of reconciliation appears near the end of Paul’s life. Writing from prison shortly before his martyrdom, Paul gives a personal request to Timothy,

“Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.” - 2 Timothy 4:11

These words carry tremendous weight. The same Mark who had once been excluded from the mission because of his earlier failure is now described by Paul as “very useful” for ministry. What was once a point of sharp contention has become a testimony to restored usefulness in the service of Christ.

This development strongly suggests that repentance, growth, and reconciliation had taken place. It is certainly true that Mark matured and demonstrated renewed faithfulness over time. Yet Paul’s change of mind also implies humility on his part. If Paul had once been overly harsh in his assessment, these later statements reflect a willingness to acknowledge Mark’s value and welcome him again as a coworker in the gospel.

In this way, the story does not end with division. The same Scriptures that record the painful rupture also quietly reveal the grace of God at work in restoring broken relationships. The conflict between Paul, Barnabas, and Mark reminds us that even godly men may stumble in moments of disagreement. But the later restoration reminds us that the gospel that reconciles sinners to God also has the power to reconcile believers to one another.

Share Reformed & Confessional

Application

We must consider how Christians should handle conflict in a way that preserves fellowship and unity. We should not come to this text to justify division. When disagreements arise, whether about ministry strategy, leadership decisions, or personal conflicts, Christians cannot appeal to this passage as proof that faithful believers may simply part ways. Instead, it should remind us of our own weakness and drive us toward greater humility. Disagreements will inevitably arise among Christians, even among faithful leaders, and the calling of the church is to labor patiently toward reconciliation.

This passage leaves us with a sobering and hopeful lesson at the same time. It is sobering because it reminds us how easily conflict can escalate, even among godly men. Yet it is hopeful because it shows that God’s grace is greater than our failures. Through repentance, maturity, and the patient work of the Spirit, broken relationships can be restored, and former points of contention can become testimonies of God’s redeeming power.

To conclude then, here is a biblical guide for church members to help preserve unity and honor God when conflict comes into the Church.

1. No threats, intimidation, or relational violence. This includes verbal aggression, public shaming, social media pile-ons, whisper campaigns, or using influence, friendships, or numbers to pressure others.

2. The “exit threat” is forbidden. Never threaten to leave the church as a weapon. Never say, “If this doesn’t go my way, I’m out,” or “Everyone I’ve talked to agrees with me.” Those words poison trust and short-circuit real shepherding.

3. No slander, insults, or character assassination. Especially no dragging in spouses, or children who are not a part of the conflict, or past failures. Avoid “always” and “never” language. Address actions, words, or decisions, not imagined patterns of evil intent. The Ninth Commandment is applicable here.

4. Stay on the actual issue. Do not turn one concern into a comprehensive indictment of the church, the elders, or “how things have been for years.” One issue at a time. Truth is clarified, not piled up.

5. No spiritual disappearing. Do not withdraw, ghost leadership, skip worship, or emotionally disengage while claiming to be “keeping the peace.” Silence is not maturity. Avoidance is not peacemaking.

6. Pauses are allowed; abandonment is not. If emotions are running hot, a break may be wise. But that pause must include a clear intention to resume the conversation. “Let’s talk later” must actually mean later.

7. No motive-assigning or mind-reading. Do not assume you know why leaders acted as they did or why a brother said what he said. Ask questions. Seek clarity. Assume charity unless facts prove otherwise. Love “believes all things” before it suspects the worst.

8. Confess sin plainly and quickly. No defensiveness when sin is clearly exposed. No spiritualized excuses. No “I’m sorry you feel that way.” Confession is not weakness; it is Christian maturity.

9. Fight for truth, holiness, and the good of Christ’s body. The goal of church conflict is not to win, to vent, or to be validated. It is to clarify truth, expose sin where necessary, protect unity, and promote obedience to Christ. You are fighting for your brother or sister, not against them.

10. Honor biblical order and authority. Members must engage elders with respect and honesty, neither flattery nor rebellion. Elders must lead with humility, patience, and courage, neither authoritarian nor evasive. Biblical authority is exercised through sacrificial leadership, not control.

11. Rejoice in reconciliation. When repentance happens, let forgiveness be real. When clarity comes, let suspicion die. When peace is restored, enjoy it. God delights to dwell where brothers and sisters dwell together in unity.

A Final Word

Church conflict handled biblically does not weaken a congregation. It strengthens it. Avoided conflict breeds bitterness. Sinful conflict breeds division. But righteous conflict, pursued in love and truth, produces maturity, trust, and deeper unity in Christ. The church is not a social club. It is a redeemed family. And families who love one another enough to fight well often love one another best in the end.

Subscribe now

Share Reformed & Confessional

Share

Become A Patron

Every year, the church walks the same road together; the same road our Lord walked nearly 2000 years ago. Each year, the church retraces the final week of our Lord’s earthly ministry—we call it holy week, or Passion Week. This week begins in triumph, moves through betrayal and death, and finally erupts in the glory of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Holy week begins on Palm Sunday, which was last Sunday. Christ enters Jerusalem in his triumphal entry as the promised King. The crowds cry out, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” The crowd lays down palm branches before Him as He rides in on a donkey to fulfill the prophecy about the Daughter of Zion receiving her King, and Israel, in fact, does receive her Messiah and King.

In this scene, Christ comes not as a conquering general waving a sword, leading a battalion, but as a humble Lord ready to sacrifice for his people. The people expected a political leader who would deliver them from Rome’s oppression. But God had something far greater in mind; an enemy far more heinous to defeat. The Father had sent the Lamb to conquer death, abuse the grave of its power, and take away the sin of the world, and yes, to slowly conquer the earth.

In the days that followed Palm Sunday, Christ would confront the disgusting corruption of Israel. He would cleanse the temple of idolatry by overturning the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons for sacrifice. He would expose the hypocrisy of the religious leaders by denying their legitimacy, revealing their disobedience, casting his infamous woes upon them, displaying their lack of fidelity to God and Abraham, and prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem. The tension rose; hatred grew; and the leadership of Israel rejected their King.

Then comes Maundy Thursday. The word Maundy comes from the Latin mandatum, meaning “commandment.” This is significant because it was after Jesus and the disciples finished the Last Supper that Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. And after he finished, he said to them: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34-35). On this day, Christ gathers with His disciples and institutes the Lord’s Supper. Bread and wine—His body given and His blood shed. In that meal, Christ explains the meaning of what is about to happen. His death will not be an accident of history. It will be a covenant sacrifice so that salvation may come to those who would put their faith and trust in Christ and partake of his body and his blood.

That same night, the betrayal begins. Judas is filled with Satan, and quickly exits the supper and betrays the Lord of glory for 30 pieces of silver. After this, Christ and the disciples went out to the garden. And in that garden Christ prays while His disciples sleep, and so begins his time of loneliness. In that garden, we see the weight of what lies ahead for Christ. The cup before Him is the cup of God’s foaming wrath—the judgment deserved by sinners—the cup only the God-man could drink. Christ willingly submits to the will of the Father despite his deep and abiding agony. The second Adam obeys, right here, where the first Adam failed.

Then comes Good Friday. We call it good, not because we are thrilled that Christ died, but because through his death came redemption and forgiveness of sins. His death was the turning point that led to the resurrection on Easter. On Good Friday, the Son of God is arrested, mocked, beaten, whipped, spat upon, lied about, forsaken, and condemned. False witnesses accuse Him. His own people reject him. Political leaders refuse justice. A murderer is loved more than the beloved. Pilate hands Him over to his accusers. And the crowd cries out for His death.

Beaten and weak, Christ carries his cross up to Golgotha–the place of the skull–and there, on the Roman cross, the greatest exchange in history takes place. On that tree Christ bears the curse of the law. He receives in his body and soul the condemnation deserved by unrighteous Israel and ever-sinning Gentile that ever lived and would ever live. The wrath of God against sin falls upon Him. Isaiah tells us that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Paul tells us that He became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This is substitution. This is atonement. This is an imputation. The righteous dying for the unrighteous. And when Christ’s sufferings had been complete, our Lord cried out, “It is finished.” The debt of sin is paid. The sacrifice is complete. Nothing remains to be added.

Then comes Holy Saturday. The body of Christ lies in the tomb. The disciples are scattered. Everything appears lost. The Messiah is dead. Hope is buried. But what looks like defeat is only the silence before the greatest victory in history. Because on the third day, (Easter/Resurrection Sunday) the stone is rolled away. Christ rises from the dead. And this is what we remember and celebrate today–Christ’s victory over all his enemies and bringing man’s sons and daughters to himself!

The resurrection is not simply the happy ending of the story. It is the divine confirmation of everything Christ accomplished. Scripture tells us that Christ was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. That means the resurrection is God the Father declaring to the world that Christ’s sacrifice has been accepted. God accepted his payment for the sins of the world; it was sufficient. The work of redemption is complete.

If Christ had remained in the grave, we would have no assurance. But when Christ rose, God publicly declared to the world that sin has been conquered, death has been defeated, and the righteousness of Christ now belongs to all who believe.

The empty tomb is heaven’s declaration that sinners can be justified. Not because we are righteous. Not because we deserve it. But because Christ lived the life we could not live, Christ fulfilled all righteousness, Christ died the death we rightly deserved, and rose again to secure our justification.

This is why the resurrection changes everything. Death is no longer the final word. Sin is no longer master. Satan is no longer victorious–but rather he is bound. Christ reigns. Christ is King. Christ is Lord!

The King who entered Jerusalem on a donkey now reigns at the right hand of the Father. The Lamb who was slain now lives forever. And because He lives, those who belong to Him will live also.

So what does this mean for us? It means the Christian life is lived in the hope of resurrection.

When you struggle with sin—Remember, Christ is risen and has conquered your sin.
When the world seems dark—Remember, Christ is risen and has overcome the world.
When death itself approaches—Remember, Christ is risen and will give you new life and bring you to himself.

The victory has already been won. And now the church is on a mission to tell the world about their rightful King, so that they may also worship him. So today, we do not merely remember the resurrection. We proclaim it with boldness and a stiff upper lip. Christ is risen, and He is Lord of all.

Amen.

Nicolas Muyres

x.com

Ephesians 5:25-28

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless (emphasis added).

The Context

The content of our passage today is a challenging charge to husbands but thankfully, it comes in the context of rich Christology. Often, when it comes to the book of Ephesians, we can quickly, and often errantly, jump to the commands of chapters 4-6 without first being informed, equipped, challenged, and comforted with the works of Christ on our behalf that enables us to rise in obedience to the commands of chapters 4-6. For this reason, we begin our time reflecting on the work of Christ on behalf of you men who are fathers, husbands, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, and children of God.

Become A Patron

According to chapter 1, Christ has won our holiness (1:4), adoption (1:5), acceptance before God (1:6), redemption and forgiveness (1:7), sealing with the Holy Spirit (1:13), wisdom (1:17), and understanding leading to hope (1:18). According to chapter 2, we have been brought to life in Christ (2:1, 4), received grace and kindness (2:7), saved by grace (2:8-9), been created for good works (2:10), made close to God through the blood of Christ (2:14), peace with God (2:15), reconciliation with God (2:16), been given access to God (2:18), been made citizens of the household of God (2:19), and are being built into the holy temple of God (2:21-22). According to chapter 3, we have been made partakers of the promise (3:6), granted boldness (3:12), given access to God with confidence (3:12), possess strength and might by the Spirit in your inner man (3:16), have Christ dwelling in our hearts (3:17), been rooted and grounded in love (3:17), and can comprehend the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of Christ’s love (3:18). According to chapter 4, we have been given grace (4:7), pastors and teachers for our perfecting (4:12-13), ability to know sound doctrine and discernment to shun falsehood (4:14), sanctifying growth (4:15), and unity in Christ’s body, the church (4:16).

How did Paul respond to these precious treasures bestowed upon us? He writes in 3:20-21, “Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.” He gives glory to God by recognizing that his power in us can accomplish far greater than we ask or think; a promise that we all need to grasp, pull tight to our heart today, and hold onto as we set out to lead our families.

If you simply tell yourself to perform the duties of husband in chapter 5 without meditating upon and clinging to the works of Christ on your behalf in chapters 1-4, you have simply laid a heavy burden upon your back to carry in your own insufficient strength. However, when we read, meditate, pray, and cling to the work of Christ for us, we see that not only are we commanded to love our wives like Christ loved the church but that we are also cared for and well-equipped to do the task, which brings confidence, assurance, courage, resilience, and tender love for Christ into our hearts.

The Command

Now, we have the precious work of Christ in our minds, so we set out to discuss the practicality of the command in Ephesians 5:25 to “love your wives, just as Christ also love the church.” Here, we see that Christ 1) loved the church, and 2) gave himself up for her with the purpose of sanctifying her. Christ “cleansed her by the washing of the water with the word” for the purpose of her holiness. Here, we see the motive of our “washing” our wife in the word is her 1) sanctification, and 2) holiness which will bring deeper joy in her relationship with Christ and subsequently deeper joy in her respect, submission to, and oneness with you. The question then becomes, “How do I wash my wife in the word?” To help you with this, I am going to share six very practical tips, or ways to wash your wife in the word, following Christ’s example.

Become A Patron

1) Spend Time Alone with the Father – Matthew 14:23 After He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone. What you give your family to drink comes from the well of private time spent with God. If your single, your usefulness to minister the word to others is directly related to your time spent with God in private.

2) Read Scripture Together – Luke 4:16-21, 16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed, 19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” 20 And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Map out the rest of 2026, set a time, sit down, and read together every day.

3) Ask Questions About Scripture – Luke 6:2-4, 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, 4 how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?” Ask good questions that begin with who, what, when where, why, and how regarding God’s word to bring clarity to Christ’s identity in your and your wife’s lives. If single, this looks like meditation to you. Journal your questions and answers or pose them to a friend or brother.

4) Sing Psalms and Hymns Together – Matthew 26:30, “After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” Sing together, discuss your favorite songs together, and share why each person likes the song. If single, sing aloud before the heavenly host in private worship.

5) Pray Out Loud Before Your Wife the Promises of Scripture Over Her – John 17:9-10 9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. Encourage your wife to cling to the promises of God made unto his people!

6) Decorate Your House with Holy Scripture – Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Encourage your wife to decorate the house with Scripture on paintings, pictures, vinyl, whiteboards, or handwritten notes. If single, post Scripture on your walls!

Become A Patron

BONUS TIPS:

7) Read Books and Devotionals Together.

8) Talk About the Lord’s Day Sermon Together.

9) Leave Notes Around the House with Scripture Passages Just for Her!

10) Compliment Her! (especially when you notice the character of Christ in her).

The Conclusion

Reflect on the promises and blessings of Ephesians 1-4. How does the knowledge of Christ’s work in Ephesians chapters 1-4 help you fulfill the commands for a husband in Ephesians 5? Which one of the ten practical tips above are you currently doing well in your family and marriage? Good job, man of God! Bend the knee to thank God for his grace in your life! Which one of the ten practical tips above are you currently weakest in? Find a promise in Ephesians 1-4 that empowers you to turn the tide in this neglected practice; then, on the basis of God’s promises, implement the practice in your home. Again, bend the knee to thank God for his providential grace that supplies you with all you need to wash your wife in the word.

Share

Subscribe now

Become A Patron

Become A Patron

Introduction

Since Covid I have been paying considerable attention to the American church, and since then, I have seen and noticed something striking. While many mainline and progressive congregations in the United States (and abroad) stagnate, certain conservative movements are quietly growing. Two examples stand out, the first regrettable, the latter laudable: the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) within the Catholic Church, and confessionally Reformed churches like those in NAPARC, independant reformed churches, and Reformed Baptist churches.

On the surface, these growing movements appear to be quite different. One is steeped in centuries-old ritual and is marked by centuries of heresy, leveraging God’s common grace through structural wisdom to function even in error; the other, in rigorous catechesis, covenantal order, and Gospel purity. Yet both share a common thread drawing people by the thousands, and mostly men, the elusive groups once unreachable.

Share

Granite in the Fog

Regrettably, we inhabit an age of institutional suspicion and moral volatility where everything feels provisional. Authority is negotiated, identities are curated, and convictions are softened to survive the next news cycle. Yet in this fog, the congregations that are growing are not the ones that echo cultural uncertainty. They portray confidence, courage, and clarity. They are the ones that feel like granite in a world of wimpified spines.

Over the past three decades, the steepest numerical losses in American Christianity have occurred within the mainline Protestant denominations. Bodies such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, prior to its recent fracture, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have seen membership declines ranging from roughly thirty to over fifty percent since the 1990s. Meanwhile, more confessionally defined traditions—conservative Presbyterian denominations like the PCA, CREC, and OPC, confessional Reformed Baptist congregations, and traditionalist Catholic communions have experienced relative stability or modest growth in comparison. Even within Roman Catholicism, parishes offering the Traditional Latin Mass frequently report younger families and stronger weekly attendance patterns than surrounding parishes. Certainty, far from repelling modern seekers, appears to be stabilizing commitment to these institutions. When doctrine is presented as enduring and meaningful rather than negotiable and frail, drift clearly slows.

Become A Patron

An Age of Irony

My bold and confident assertion is that certainty provides structure and form while transcendence provides oxygen and life. In our modern context, life is saturated with casualness. People wear sweat suits to important events and flip flops to church, when only 100 years ago, day laborers commonly wore full suits, including jackets, vests, and ties, to work. Entertainment has gone from wholesome family laughter to bombastic and perverted. Irony has displaced reverence within our culture. All this and more has created an atmosphere in the church where nothing feels serious, the ground feels shaky, and everyone seems like a performer. When we consider the churches that are growing, they have something that silly churches do not: gravitas. And where there is gravity there is a sense of relief from a world of clowns.

Highly liturgical congregations—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, confessional Anglican, and some Reformed traditions—tend to retain members at higher rates than communities built primarily on informality. This is no surprise. Over time, depth, gravity, seriousness, meaning, tradition, and longevity win out over light shows and fog machines, gay pride, or inclusive worship. Large survey data from sources like Pew Research and the General Social Survey show that traditions emphasizing sacrament, catechesis, and ordered worship correlate with stronger long-term adherence and more consistent weekly attendance. Churches that compete with entertainment culture may grow quickly, but they, like a stock market fixed on fiat, often experience high turnover. Churches that cultivate reverence grow more slowly yet with greater durability. Mystery, ritual, and doctrinal weight remind worshipers that they are not the center of the story and that life in general and their life in particular have immense meaning. That re-centering is compelling in a self-saturated age.

The Return of Responsible Manhood

A most shocking development and realization is that the American church has historically skewed female. Across traditions, roughly fifty-five to sixty percent of regular churchgoers are women. In many mainline Protestant congregations, the percentage rises to sixty-five percent or more females. Yet in more conservative contexts, that imbalance narrows, and this is a good thing. Evangelical churches without form or biblical structure approach closer to parity between the sexes. Traditional Catholic and Orthodox congregations, however, often report noticeably stronger male participation relative to broader church norms.

Where theology emphasizes covenant responsibility, ordered authority, and serious engagement with doctrine, men tend to remain present. And this makes sense—men do not want to be sissified or made to think, move, act, sound, or live like women. When the tone of congregational life becomes primarily therapeutic or sentimental, and the “church” has a woman pretending to be a pastor and congregants are permitted to have blue hair, male disengagement increases. Men are not drawn by posturing but by purpose. Churches that expect fathers to lead, men to submit to Scripture, and households to embody disciplined faith create a framework in which responsibility feels meaningful and mandatory rather than like an optional boogeyman. Structure, not spectacle, holds them.

The Cost That Binds

One of the most consistent findings in the sociology of religion is that high-cost communities retain members more effectively than low-cost ones. When belonging requires dedication, commitment, catechesis, formal membership, moral accountability, and submission to ecclesiastical authority, commitment deepens. This makes sense. The ones that stay are the ones that want what God has decreed, and so where it is offered, people thrive. Pew’s research consistently indicates that because of this deepened commitment, conservative Protestants and more traditional Catholics give a higher percentage of their income than more theologically liberal Christians. Moral ambiguity seems to deaden one’s desire to consider others (especially the church body) as more important than oneself.

Sacrifice forges identity, and identity fosters loyalty. When Christianity demands little, it competes poorly with a culture that offers endless alternatives. When it demands something costly, it becomes weighty enough to anchor a life.

Become A Patron

Walls That Shelter

But there is more. Moral clarity, particularly around marriage, sexuality, the culture/nation, and the sanctity of life, has proven to be a dividing line in the church in our day. Denominations that formally revised historic Christian sexual ethics, for instance, in an attempt to garner attendance have actually increased the problem they sought to fix. As the church loosens God’s standards (in any area), the people begin to wonder why they need to adhere to any of it. When one command or principle is deminished the natural coherence of God’s word becomes suspect, and disobedicnce becomse justified on the back of relativism. In several cases, membership losses in mainline churches accelerated following official doctrinal changes. Conversely, conservative breakaway bodies formed in response to theological revision have shown considerable signs of consolidation and stability.

Clarity does not eliminate struggle. It does, however, provide coherence. In a morally chaotic age, defined covenant boundaries often feel safer than open-ended ambiguity. This makes sense: God has already told you, O man, what he expects of you. You need not reinvent the wheel. Even those wrestling with obedience frequently express appreciation for churches that articulate a clear moral vision rather than one that shifts with cultural currents. Ambiguity may appear compassionate, but it rarely inspires confidence, because deep down, all people know that moral ambiguity is actually hatred.

Cradles and Cathedrals

Durable growth is not sustained by adult conversions alone. It is built through households. Highly religious Americans consistently report higher fertility rates than the religiously unaffiliated. This is because doubting or rejecting the bible, as liberals do, often entails neglecting God’s decree for mankind. God has commanded his people to be busy about the business of making more people. Those in mainline churches often have deeper allegiances to “Mother Earth” or “PETA” than YAHWEH. They also often believe the crazed lie that the world is overpopulated. If this particular idea hasn’t captured their mind, however, then certainly feminism has, and they believe that having children would make them slaves. So rather than marry young, submit to one man, and birth many children, she will instead succeed in her career, marry too late to be fertile, engage in IVF, and spoil an unfortunate man’s life and give him one trophy child. Two or more would ruin her body and her social life, so she concedes that one is fine, and she will be happy.

Conservative Protestant and traditional Catholic families, however, tend to have larger average family sizes and higher rates of raising children within the faith. No wonder—Christian marriages receive marriage and children as a gift rather than a burden, and they generally conduct their intimacy with joy and gladness, knowing that children are entirely possible each time. Congregations that catechize children deliberately and encourage robust family life grow differently than those built primarily on consumer-style attendance because they grow from the inside as well as from the outside.

Share

An intergenerational vision compounds over time. A church filled with families committed to covenant continuity builds momentum that cannot be replicated through marketing. Biological growth, when paired with deep formation, becomes one of the strongest predictors of long-term congregational stability.

Be Distinct or Disappear

There is a striking irony in recent church history. Many progressive churches attempted to survive by blending into the surrounding culture, softening doctrinal edges to remain relevant. Yet the more a religious body resembles the culture, the less necessary it appears to be to that culture. The culture laughs at the sad attempt of those “churches” because their embarrassment is perfectly evident for all to see. It’s like a dad in his 50’s trying to still be hip with his teenage kids. Stop trying to “fit in.” Just get the same haircut and wear the same shoes. The world knows that churches ought to be the place where the transcendent is experienced (even if they don’t admit it), and yet the more these churches attempt to accommodate the culture, the more superfluous they become. Why would the pagans waste their Sunday with the “knitting for blue-haired women’s” club at the local PCUSA when they could go smoke pot and get drunk with their friends in the city? Distinctiveness without apology builds identity. Identity builds loyalty. Loyalty sustains growth.

Conclusion

None of this means that conservatism or toughness alone guarantees health. A church can become brittle, substituting political tribalism for gospel depth or harshness for conviction. The congregations that endure are not merely doctrinally serious; they are also pastorally warm. Authority is exercised as fatherly care rather than domination. Congregations exude love, patience, and humility toward one another. Doctrine produces joy rather than suspicion. Conviction is paired with hospitality. These all centered on the God-man, Jesus Christ, are what make a church sustain through the ages.

What the data ultimately reveals is not a marketing technique but a pattern. Churches that combine theological clarity, transcendent worship, moral seriousness, costly commitment, and intergenerational vision tend to endure. In a liquid world, solidity attracts. In a distracted culture, reverence attracts. In an age suspicious of authority, well-ordered authority attracts

Share Reformed & Confessional

Become A Patron

.

As the year AD 2025 comes to a close, it is typical for the idea of change to be on the mind of all men around the world. This is not a bad thing, but I believe is, in fact, a good endeavor put in the hearts of men by God—to evaluate life and consider a better path. For the Christian, however, we are given divine direction in just how to engage in this activity for the glory of God and the good of our people. Here are 4 places that I humbly submit to you as areas to consider for this new year.

1) Consider how you have fallen away from Christ.

Revelation 2:4-5 “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.”

As the days drag, tasks build, anxiety grows, and suffering mounts, it becomes easy to forget Christ. As good times approach, and money flows, and love abounds, it becomes easy to forget Christ. This must not be for the Christian. In all things, we must be a people that are first and foremost concerned with and considerate of Jesus Christ, our Lord, friend, and elder brother. Jesus must be first in our hearts, and preeminent in our minds; he must be the motivation for all things and the supply of strength for all things. Consider where you have abandoned Christ in your heart, which has then flowed into your life; repent of those things; remember what you did when your love for Christ was boiling and new, and do those things again.

2) Pay more attention to yourself than to others

Matthew 7: 3-5 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

It is exceptionally easy to see, evaluate, and condemn the faults of others. So easy. It is, however, unnatural to do the same for ourselves. We are full of self-justification, pride, and vain-glory that we take Christ’s words and, in a vivid 4K display, invert them without apology. We imagine that the faults and sins of others are the massive, grotesque, protruding logs that demand our attention. We see what others do and immediately point a bony finger, not realizing that there are three fingers pointing directly back at ourselves. Rather than see our brothers’ sins as the small, almost imperceptible specs of dust, we dismiss our own faults and failures and criticize others when we have no business doing so. We are called to look to ourselves; to ensure that we are following Christ according to his word; that we are being faithful; that we are repenting of sin; that we are living above reproach; that we are living humble and honest lives. Then and only then, after we have repented of all the sins we can perceive in our hearts, are we to go to our brothers and lovingly help them with their spec.

3) Aim to be a bearer of burdens

Galatians 6:1-2 “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”

It is an unfortunate reality, but in the American context, the church is woefully autonomous to a fault and neglectful of this injunction in both directions. In the first part, many are unwilling or unable to assist their brothers with the problems with which they suffer. This is a multifaceted problem without one cause, but it is a problem nontheless. This text calls the church to be “spiritual,” meaning mature, able, apt, with gifts and knowledge to use God’s word for the building up of others, “caught in any transgression.” Sadly, however, much of the church is still only able to handle milk and not meat, and thereby is unable to assist when real issues plague the church. On the other hand, however, because the American church is so atomistic, there is seldom confession of such transgressions to brothers so that they may be aided. So, while there may be some with the proper maturity to assist, they are scarcely able to use their gifts because of the secretive nature of most American lives.

4) Be a peacemaker

Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Romans 12:18 “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”

The Protestant church, if characterised by nothing else, is a church of schism. While schism can be necessary, right, and godly, it is evidently clear that the Protestant church has abandoned principled schism almost entirely. This ought not be. Those in the church must strive for peace amongst themselves. Where there are differences, the scripture exhorts us to pursue likemindedness. Where there is hurt and hardship, the scripture encourages repentance and forgiveness. Where there is real crime or wrong, the scripture reproves us to just take the wrong and pursue with love. The motivation for all this is the fact that although Christ is God, he did not count equality with God something to be grasped. Although he is King, he did not come to earth to be served but rather to serve. Because God has forgiven us an unthinkable and unpayable debt, any debt another owes us will, by necessity, pale in comparison to our debt to God. How then could we deal so harshly with venom in our mouths toward another when Christ has shown his former enemies such mercy?

I am confident that there are other new paths to take and new ways of reformation that could be listed. This is not an exhaustive list. However, to assist with this, I have included below Jonathan Edwards’ list of 70 resolutions. Let these be a tool for spiritual cultivation in this upcoming new year, the year of our Lord, AD 2026.

Aware that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do pray that, by his grace, he will enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are in line with his will, and that they will honor Christ.

1. Resolved: I will DO whatever I think will be most to God’s glory; and my own good, profit and pleasure, for as long as I live. I will do all these things without any consideration of the time they take. Resolved: to do whatever I understand to be my duty and will provide the most good and benefit to mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I encounter, and no matter how many I experience or how severe they may be.

2. Resolved: I will continually endeavor to find new ways to practice and promote the things from Resolution 1.

3. Resolved: If ever – really, whenever – I fail & fall and/or grow weary & dull; whenever I begin to neglect the keeping of any part of these Resolutions; I will repent of everything I can remember that I have violated or neglected, …as soon as I come to my senses again.

4. Resolved: Never to do anything, whether physically or spiritually, except what glorifies God. In fact, I resolve not only to this commitment, but I resolve not to even grieve and gripe about these things, …if I can avoid it.

5. Resolved: Never lose one moment of time; but seize the time to use it in the most profitable way I possibly can.

6. Resolved: To live with all my might, …while I do live.

7. Resolved: Never to do anything which I would be afraid to do if it were the last hour of my life.

8. Resolved: To act, in all respects, both in speaking and doing, as if nobody had ever been as sinful as I am; and when I encounter sin in others, I will feel (at least in my own mind& heart) as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same weaknesses or failings as others. I will use the knowledge of their failings to promote nothing but humility – even shame – in myself. I will use awareness of their sinfulness and weakness only as an occasion to confess my own sins and misery to God.

9. Resolved: To think much, on all occasions, about my own dying, and of the common things which are involved with and surround death.

10. Resolved: When I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom – both of Jesus and of Believers around the world; and remind myself of the reality of hell.

11. Resolved: When I think of any theological question to be resolved, I will immediately do whatever I can to solve it, … if circumstances don’t hinder.

12. Resolved: If I find myself taking delight in any gratification of pride or vanity, or on any other such empty virtue, I will immediately discard this gratification.

13. Resolved: To be endeavoring to discover worthy objects of charity and liberality.

14. Resolved: Never to do anything out of revenge.

15. Resolved: Never to suffer the least emotions of anger about irrational beings.

16. Resolved: Never to speak evil of anyone, except if it is necessary for some real good.

17. Resolved: I will live in such a way, as I will wish I had done when I come to die.

18. Resolved: To live, at all times, in those ways I think are best in me during my most spiritual moments and seasons – those times when I have clearest understanding of the gospel and awareness of the World that is to come.

19. Resolved: Never to do anything, which I would be afraid to do if I expected it would not be more than an hour before I would hear the last trump sound. (i.e. when Jesus returns.)

20. Resolved: To maintain the wisest and healthiest practices in my eating and drinking.

Share Anchored Hope

21. Resolved: Never to do anything, which if I saw another do, I would consider a just reason to despise him for, or to think in any way lesser of him.

22. Resolved: To endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness in the world to come as I possibly can. To accomplish this I will use all the strength, power, vigor, and vehemence – even violence – I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

23. Resolved: Frequently take some deliberate action – something out of the ordinary – and do it for the glory of God. Then I will trace my intention back and try to discern my real and deepest motive: What did I really desire out of it? If I find that my truest motive was not for God’s glory, then I consider it as a breach of the 4th Resolution. (See Above)

24. Resolved: Whenever I do any conspicuously evil action, I will trace it back till I come to the original cause; and then I will carefully endeavor BOTH 1) to do so no more AND 2) to fight and pray with all my might against the source of the original impulse.

25. Resolved: To examine carefully, and constantly, what that one thing in me is that causes me to doubt of the love of God, even the least little bit; and then to direct all my forces against it.

26. Resolved: To oust away anything I find that diminishes my assurance of God’s love and grace.

27. Resolved: Never intentionally omit or neglect anything, except if such an omission would be for the glory of God. NOTE to Self: frequently examine anything I have omitted.

28. Resolved: To study the Scriptures so steadily, and so constantly, and so frequently, that it becomes evident – even obvious – to myself that my knowledge of them has grown.

29. Resolved: Never consider something a prayer, nor to let pass for a prayer, any petition that when making I cannot actually hope that God will answer; nor offer as a confession anything which I cannot hope God will accept.

30. Resolved: To strive to my utmost every week to be brought to a higher spiritual place, and to a greater experience of grace, than I was the week before.

31. Resolved: Never to say anything at all against anybody; except when to do so is perfectly consistent with the highest standards of Christian honor and love to mankind; and except when it is consistent with the sense of greatest humility and awareness of my own faults and failings. Then, whenever I have said anything against anyone, I will examine my words against the strictest test of the Golden Rule.

32. Resolved: To be strictly and firmly faithful to whatever God entrusts to me. My hope is that the saying in Proverbs 20.6, “A faithful man who can find?” may not be found to be even partly true of me.

33. Resolved: Always do whatever I can towards making, maintaining, establishing and preserving peace, whenever it can be, but without over-balancing the value peace to such a degree that it becomes a detriment in other respects.

34. Resolved: When telling stories, never to speak anything but the pure and simple truth.

35. Resolved: Whenever I so much as question whether I have done my duty, to a point that my peace and tranquility is disturbed, I will stop and question myself until my concern is resolved.

36. Resolved: Never to speak evil of anyone, except I have some particular good purpose for doing so.

37. Resolved: To inquire every night, as I am going to bed, where I may have been negligent, what sin I have committed, and how I have denied myself. I will also do this at the end of every week, month, and year.

38. Resolved: Never to speak anything that is ridiculous, trivial, or otherwise inappropriate on the Lord’s Day or Sabbath evening.

39. Resolved: Never to do anything when the lawfulness is questionable. And then afterward, resolve to consider and examine whether or not whatever I have just done is truly lawful and/or whether whatever I have refrained from doing would have actually been permissible.

40. Resolved: To inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking.

41. Resolved: To ask myself at the end of every day, week, month and year, where I could have possibly done better in any respect.

42. Resolved: To frequently renew my dedication to God, which was first made at my baptism and which I solemnly renewed when I was received into the communion of the church; and which I have now solemnly re-made this [DATE] day of [MONTH], [YEAR].

43. Resolved: Never, from this day until the day I die, act as if I were in any way my own, but entirely and altogether belong to God, and then live in a way agreeable to this reality.

44. Resolved: That nothing other than the gospel shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, even in the very least circumstance, anything other than gospel declares, demands, and implies.

45. Resolved: Never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance, but what advances the gospel.

46. Resolved: Never allow the least measure of any fretting or uneasiness about my father or mother. Resolved to never allow the effects of disappointment in them, or frustrations with them, to even in the very least alter what I say to them or about them, or any activity in reaction to them. Let me be careful about this, not only about my parents, but also with respect to any of our family.

47. Resolved: To endeavor to my utmost to deny whatever is not most agreeable to a good, and universally sweet and benevolent, quiet, peace able, contented, easy, compassionate, generous, humble, meek, modest, submissive, obliging, diligent and industrious, charitable, even, patient, moderate, forgiving, sincere temper; and to do at all times what such a temper would lead me to. Examine strictly every week, whether I have done so. Sabbath morning. May 5,1723.

48. Resolved: With the utmost niceness and diligence, and with the strictest scrutiny, constantly be looking into the state condition of my soul, so that I may know whether or not I have truly an interest in Christ at any given time. I will do this so that, when I come to my end in death, I will not have neglected to repent of anything I have found.

49. Resolved: That Neglect never shall be, if I can help it.

50. Resolved: I will act in such a way as I think I will judge to have been best and most prudent, when I have come into the future world – Heaven.

51. Resolved: That I will act in every respect, as I think I would wish I had done, if in the end for some reason I would have be damned.

52. I frequently hear persons in old age say how they would live, if they were to live their lives over again, so… Resolved: That I will live just as I can imagine I shall wish I had done, supposing I live to old age.

53. Resolved: To improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my eternal safety, knowing that my confidence is in my Redeemer.

54. Resolved: Whenever I hear anything spoken in a conversation of any person, if I think what is said of that person would be praiseworthy in me, I will endeavor to imitate it.

55. Resolved: To endeavor to my utmost to act as I can imagine I would if I had already seen all the happiness of heaven, as well as the torments of hell.

56. Resolved: Never to give up, nor even slacken up, in my fight with my own corruptions, no matter how successful or unsuccessful I may be.

57. Resolved: When I fear misfortunes and adversities, to examine whether I have done all I am expected to do, and resolve to do everything I am able to do. Once I have done all that God requires of me, I will accept whatever comes my way, and accept that it is just as God’s Providence has ordered it. I will, as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my own duty and my own sin.

58. Resolved: Not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversations, but also to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness and graciousness.

59. Resolved: Whenever I am most conscious of feelings of ill nature, bad attitude, and/or anger, I will strive then the most to feel and act good naturedly. At such times I know I may feel that to exhibit good nature might seem in some respects to be to my own immediate disadvantage, but I will nevertheless act in a way that is gracious, realizing that to do otherwise would be imprudent at other times (i.e. times when I am not feeling so irked).

60. Resolved: Whenever my feelings begin to appear in the least out of sorts, when I am conscious of the least uneasiness within my own heart and/or soul, or the least irregularity in my behavior, I will immediately subject myself to the strictest examination.

61. Resolved: I will not give way to that apathy and listlessness which I find artificially eases and relaxes my mind from being fully and fixedly set on God’s Grace. Whatever excuses I may have for it, whatever my listlessness inclines me to do, or rather whatever it inclines me to neglect doing, I will realize that it would actually be best for me to do these things.

62. Resolved: Never to do anything but what God, by the Law of Love, requires me to do. And then, according to I must do it willingly and cheerfully as to the Lord, and not for man. I must remember that whatever good thing any man has or does he has first received from God; and that whenever a man is compelled by faith to act with love and charity toward others, especially those in need, that we do it as if to/for the Lord.

63. On the hypothetical supposition that at any one time there was never to be but ONE individual in the world who was a genuine and complete Christian, who in all respects always demonstrated the Faith shining in its truest luster, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever angle and under whatever circumstance this Faith is viewed… Resolved: To act just as I would do, if I strove with all my strength, to be that ONE; and to live as if that ONE should live in my time and place.

64. Resolved: Whenever I experience those “groanings which cannot be uttered” of which the Apostle speaks, and those “longings” that consume our souls, of which the Psalmist speaks, I will embrace them with everything I have within me. And I will not be weary of earnestly endeavoring to express my desires, nor of the repetitions so often necessary to express them and benefit from them.

65. Resolved: To exercise myself in all my life long, with the greatest openness I am capable of, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him: all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires; and every thing in every circumstance.

66. Resolved: I will endeavor always to keep a gracious demeanor, and air of acting and speaking in all places and in all companies, except if it should so happen that faithfulness requires otherwise.

67. Resolved: After afflictions, to inquire in what ways I am now the better for having experienced them. What good have I received by them? What benefits and insights do I now have because of them?

68. Resolved: To confess honestly to myself all that I find in myself – whether weakness or sin. And if it something that concerns my spiritual health, I will also confess the whole case to God, and implore him for all needed help.

69. Resolved: Always to do that which I will wish I had done whenever I see others do it.

70. Let there be something of benevolence, in all that I speak.

Introduction

When Christians consider their calling in life, they will certainly be varied. Not everyone is called to do the same thing. People have varying proclivities, interests, desires, skills, etc., and so the Christian life will look somewhat different from person to person. No Christian, however, may go against God’s commands, so, in a greater sense, all Christian lives will (or should) look very similar. One area of this similarity is in the command given us by Christ through Paul, that we are to “speak the truth in love” with our neighbors. This is not an optional command; one cannot say, “Well, I’m an introvert, so I just don’t do that.” Not only is there no such thing as an introvert, but to nullify God’s command because of a particular proclivity is sinful. Jesus says elsewhere, “Everyone who professes me before men I will also acknowledge before my father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32-33). Additionally, Peter says that Christians ought to “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you...” (1 Peter 3:15).

A Christian, then, simply does not have the liberty to not “speak,” for to be silent is to be ashamed of Christ; it is to be afraid of what men can do; it is to be puffed up with pride, being afraid of a tarnished reputation. Being silent is just the same as denying Christ; if we do not profess Christ before men when given the opportunity, then Christ promises he will deny us before the Father when he has the opportunity.

Our Calling

What are we called to do then? We are called to speak. But we are not called to speak just any old thing—we are called to speak the truth. We are commanded to speak the truth to anyone and everyone without regard for their feelings, perception, understanding, appreciation, or desire for it. The truth is nonnegotiable, and we, as Christians, have been commissioned by the commander of the armies of heaven to profess it. These are the marching orders.

What is the truth? This is the same question that Pilate asked before he executed the Lord of glory (John 18:38). Jesus made clear that everyone who is of the truth listens to the voice of Christ. Jesus bears witness to the truth. The only truth. The most fundamental truth. The only true truth. The truth upon which all other truths are founded. That Jesus is the Christ, the one and only true and living God, that all who love him will never taste death, but that all who scorn him are dead even while they live. Now, this is not the only truth, just the most fundamental truth. But upon this truth are myriad other truths from Christ which make a man or woman into the kind of person that Jesus desires. Christ wants his people—the people of the truth—to continue to walk in truth and not live by lies. We are commanded to grow into maturity, into the fullness of Jesus Christ, and no longer be children (Ephesians 4:11-14). For while it is necessary to proclaim the fundamental truth, it is a truth for children; it is a truth that must be moved beyond; it is elementary (Hebrews 6:1-2). To proclaim and profess this truth consistently and singularly is to stay immature and neglect the structure and building of truth that this foundational truth is meant to support.

The truth we are obligated to speak, then, is the truth about all of life. We are to speak about everything the bible speaks about without blushing. God said it, and that is all that is needful. The opinions of modern man are of no consequence to the truth, for Christ commands its proclamation.

Share

How We Do It

Just as much as what we do matters, it also matters to God how we do it. In Ephesians 4:15, Paul says we’re to speak the truth. The truth about Christ, manhood, womanhood, sin, parenting, food, politics, sexual orientation, war, slavery, race, globalism, nationalism, etc. We can’t shirk back from any of it. Nevertheless, we are commanded to speak it “in love.”

To “speak the truth in love“ is both simple and yet not easy. It is simple because it doesn’t take much to speak lovingly. Using a compassionate tone, a listening ear, sympathetic gestures, letting your wisdom be known through reasonableness, etc. are not difficult things to do for those with the mind of Christ, who are walking in the Spirit, and are intentional. Yet, the difficulty arises in at least two ways.

First, there is the perception. Normally, people do not enjoy hearing truths that go against what they want or what they believe. They dislike it even more when commands are added to those hard truths, indicating that this new truth is not an optional belief but is, in fact, mandatory. When a Christian attempts to speak truth in love he/she will often be scorned because the offended person will say something like, “So you’re just saying the same hateful thing in a nice tone?!” And this is difficult because truth is not a bush that can be beat around. Certainly, there are better or worse ways of saying things—we don’t need to use intentionally inflammatory language with a serrated edge all the time—but when push comes to shove, the truth has to be said plainly and clearly. If a man is cheating on his wife, you can’t hem and haw; he must be told (lovingly) that he will go to hell lest he repent of his adultery and return to the Lord and his wife. If we attempt to be loving without being truthful, we will fall into a godless sentimentalism. If we attempt to be truthful without love, however, we will fall into a godless legalism.

The second difficulty plays off the first. It is crucial that we ensure that we are not just acting loving outwardly, but that we actually have love in our hearts when we are speaking truth. It is evidently true that when truth is being proclaimed, there will be those (even within the church) who declare that you are being unloving. Now, if you are speaking with kindness on your tongue, you are using words that are intended to build, and you are listening well, then the claim of being hateful is likely slanderous. Yet, it is imperative that it is, in fact, slanderous. When Christians speak the truth, they must have love in their hearts, for if they do, then although the world (and even perhaps the church) scorn them, the Lord will look upon them with favor and delight. So, you must love in your heart; you must have true compassion in your heart; you must look upon those who need this truth with pity, because they are currently incomplete without it.

Share Anchored Hope

Christ, Our Example

A good case study for this is Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler found in Mark 10:17-23. In this account of this encounter, we observe much of the same elements in the other synoptics, however, with one critical and unique detail. The rich man calls Jesus good, asks what to do to get into heaven, and declares that he has kept the law perfectly from his youth. After this diagnostic conversation, the text says, “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, ‘You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven...”

Dear reader, I want you to understand something. If you read the other two accounts of this event in Matthew 19:20-22 and Luke 18:18-23, you would read Christ’s words commanding the Ruler to go do the same thing he does in Mark, but the phrase “loved him” is absent. Because it is absent, we do something funny as readers: we have a greater tendency to view Christ’s words as being harsh and lacking compassion. But when we read in Mark that Jesus loved this man, it gives his instruction a new flavor; it makes it hit different. Jesus didn’t do anything different in the accounts recorded in Matthew and Luke, but we now know that when Jesus spoke to this make he loved him, and that is why he told him the hard truths he needed to hear.

Christ, in other words, pitied this man because he was looking for salvation in himself. Jesus loved him and therefore spoke very hard words to him because he wanted to save him from the damnation that was certain to come, and the only reason we know that Jesus loved this man is because, in this Gospel, the Holy Spirit saw fit to reveal this to us. No one at this event knew what was happening in Christ’s heart. In fact, just about everyone took his words to be very harsh and unloving. The Rich Young Ruler was “disheartened” and became very “sorrowful.” The disciples, upon hearing this, were astonished and “amazed” and assumed now that salvation is impossible. Because of Christ’s words, they were compelled to ask, “Then who can be saved?”

Christ, by his rebuke and “harsh” words, caused all sorts of sorrow, consternation, disappointment, and uncertainty. Yet, it would have been wrong for someone to point the finger at him and claim that what he did was unloving. If this were to happen, it would, in fact, be slanderous, for Christ did all this out of the depths of his love for the man and mankind. Christ said these unpleasant and crushing words so that these people would no longer walk in idolatry but would worship God in spirit and truth.

Key Principles of Speaking The Truth in Love

To speak the truth in love means to courageously and honestly share difficult truths, warnings, or guidance with someone, but to do so with genuine care, kindness, and a focus on their ultimate good and spiritual growth, rather than with harshness, judgment, or self-righteousness. The ultimate aim is to build unity and maturity in Christ. It is a careful balancing of honesty (truth) with compassion (love) to help others grow, reflecting Christ’s character in the process, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Core Principles:

• Kindness & Gentleness: Infuse correction with grace, aiming to impart life and encourage, not to wound or shame.

• Humility: Acknowledge your own fallibility and that you don’t determine truth, but rather, God does. Let your reasonableness be known to all in the meekness of wisdom.

• Focus on Growth: The goal is spiritual maturity and building up the church to be faithful to Christ. The goal is not just being right.

• Sympathy & Listening: Understand the other person’s perspective before speaking; listen actively and respectfully.

• Clarity & Sincerity: Communicate truth clearly, simply, and without deceit, avoiding cunning or manipulation. Don’t beat around the bush; don’t hem and haw.

• Patience & Longsuffering: Be patient with those who struggle, offering support rather than demanding or expecting immediate change. That is, unfortunately, rare.

• Proper Setting & Timing: Choose the right time and place for difficult conversations. The right time and place are not when people who desire your silence say it is, either.

• Dependence on God: Ask God for discernment and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide your words and actions.

• Leaving Results to God: Speak the truth and trust God with the outcome, rather than trying to force a specific result. The Holy Spirit is faithful.

Conclusion

Christians are commanded to speak the truth in love. Christians are commanded to mimic our Lord, Jesus Christ. Christians are commanded to be a positive force for the mutual upbuilding of the church toward maturity in Christ. These are nonnegotiable. Unfortunately, in both our secular culture as well as the church culture, bold and loving truth tellers are being silenced. They are permitted to speak truthfully about matters that have a decade or more of agreement, but when it comes to pressing and timely truths, they are often shushed, questioned, and shamed into silence. This must not be. Neither Christ, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, nor any other propagator of truth in scripture was willing to be silent when it came to biblical truth and its immediate application. They were never unloving or hateful, bigoted or partial, but they always spoke truth without apology and with lots and lots of love. The most loving thing anyone can ever do is try to get someone from ceasing to offend the Lord God through sin. The church must, once again, be a community that speaks the truth to our own hearts, our congregations, our denominations, and our nation. And we must also be a people who, like Christ, speak hard and uncomfortable things because we have so much love.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9)

Coming to the Lord’s Table during the season of Advent, we are invited to contemplate not a sentimental scene, but a staggering grace. Advent does not merely prepare us to remember a birth; it trains our hearts to behold a descent. The eternal Son, rich beyond measure, clothed in unapproachable light, did not cling to His riches. For our sake, He became poor. And in that poverty, He has made His people rich.

Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 8:9 are not a poetic flourish, nor a vague metaphor. They are a theological summary of the gospel itself. Christ’s riches are not measured in material abundance, nor is His poverty defined by economic deprivation alone. Rather, the apostle is drawing our attention to the great exchange at the heart of redemption: the Son of God, possessing all glory, honor, and fullness of divine life, and perfect fellowship with the Father and Spirit, willingly entered into our low estate—assuming our nature, bearing our curse, and embracing our need—so that we, who were spiritually bankrupt, might receive the wealth of salvation, riches, and fellowship.

This is the mystery Advent sets before us. The One through whom all things were made took on flesh. The Lord of glory learned obedience in suffering. The Bread of Heaven entered into hunger. The Fountain of living water entered into thirst. He who lacked nothing chose a life marked by dependence, weakness, rejection, and finally death. And, He did not do this in an abstract or impersonal manner. Paul is careful to say, “for your sake.” This poverty was deliberate, covenantal, and particular. It was undertaken for His people, for you, His brothers and sisters, His bride, His friend.

At the Lord’s Table, we are brought to the intersection of Bethlehem and Golgotha. Here, the cradle and the cross touch. Here, the humility of the incarnation and the obedience of the crucifixion are held together as one saving work. At this Table, heaven’s throne and death’s tomb meet. The same Christ who was laid in a manger is the Christ whose body was broken and whose blood was poured out. Advent reminds us how far He came; the Supper reminds us why He came.

Share

The riches He gives us through His poverty are not fragile or fleeting, nor are they for the special and strong. They are not measured in gold or silver, but in gifts that cannot corrode or be taken away. In Christ, we are forgiven—fully, finally, and freely. Every stain of guilt is covered by His blood. Every accusation against us has been silenced by His righteousness. We are not merely pardoned criminals; we are adopted children. We have been brought into a family that death itself cannot dissolve, given a name that cannot be revoked, and promised an inheritance that is kept for us in heaven.

At the Table, these riches are not only proclaimed; they are applied. The bread tells us that Christ entered our hunger. The cup of the new covenant tells us that Christ entered our thirst. He did not redeem us from a distance. He came all the way down into the depths of human need and bore it in His own body. And now, having passed through humiliation, cruelty, lowliness, and debasement, he has entered into exaltation. There He nourishes His people with strength that is not their own. By the power of His Spirit, He supplies what we lack and sustains us along the pilgrim road.

This is why the Lord’s Supper is not a reward for the strong, but is rather, food for the weak. We do not come because we are full, but because we are hungry. We do not come because we are rich in ourselves, but because we are poor and know it in our bones. Christ does not despise such poverty. He has sanctified it by entering into it Himself. He welcomes those who come with nothing to offer but open hands and empty hearts.

Share

Advent teaches us to wait; the Supper teaches us that we are not abandoned while we wait. The King who once came in lowliness meets His people even now to sustain them until He comes again. He invites us to His feast and promises that His grace will be sufficient for every step between the first coming and the last.

So lift up your hearts. The One who became poor has made His people rich, and He will not cease to give Himself to them. Grace upon grace flows from the Christ who humbled Himself for our sake. He will sustain His church until the day when faith gives way to sight, poverty gives way to glory, and the feast begun at this Table is completed in the kingdom that has no end.

Introduction

In 1 Kings 18, we read this: “When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, ‘Is that you, you troubler of Israel?’ And he answered, ‘I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the Lord and followed the Baals’” (V 17-18).

This is a great passage that shows the church that when a Christian is faithful to the Lord and His law; he promotes it faithfully; he does not shrink back from its implementation; he does not say sorry; and he does not blush; he will inevitably be called a troublemaker. Why? Because his actions and words necessarily disrupt the flow of evil coming from evil, and the church is often an unwitting pawn in the devil’s schemes (Ephesians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 2:11).

Making Trouble

The nature of those with a prophetic office (pastors, elders, shepherds, etc) is that they must speak, well, prophetically. This should not be confused with foretelling, which is the ability to see into the future and predict what will occur. It should be understood more so as forthtelling: the faithful declaration of God’s word to a particular people, at a particular time, for a particular purpose. To be prophetic, then, in this sense, requires one to speak as a representative of the divine message of God Almighty, calling people to faithfulness to their God. Most often, this looks like addressing societal issues with a voice for justice and proclaiming a message from God to call people to a righteous life by revealing God’s will to them. More broadly, it refers to speaking boldly on important issues in the culture and politics, revealing a divine message to ensure that the culture obeys the Lord, and having insight into where the evil and disobedience of a people will eventually lead.

When we consider Elijah, we must understand that this was his role. He spoke out against the rampant idolatry of Baal worship (1 Kings 18:21, 26), the political and religious corruption led by King Ahab and Queen Jezebel (1 Kings 18, 19, 21), and the moral and spiritual compromise of the people of Israel (1 Kings 18:21). He did not use kind or gentle words when condemning the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27) but instead he was vicious, insulting, and satirical. Then, after he mocked them, he prepared the altar, doused it with gallons of water, and prayed that the Lord would engulf it in flame, which the Lord gladly did (1 Kings 18:33-38). Following this display of power, Elijah slaughtered all the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:40).

The question to ask is this: Was Elijah causing trouble in the culture and covenant, or was he fixing the trouble caused by the wayward people of God? Was he the troublemaker or was he responding to the trouble caused by unfaithfulness? If most Christians today are consistent in their view of Christian character, they would agree with Ahab in calling Elijah a troublemaker. We can know this by how often these sensitive Christians call people endowed with the spirit of Elijah unkind, harsh, mean, racist, hateful, bigots, instigators, and so on. However, they would be wrong in their assessment, because this is exactly the kind of man the Lord wants leading his people. The Lord does not want those with double standards, inconsistency, hypocrisy, or unequal weights and measures leading anyone, let alone those in his covenant. Those who might be courageous over an issue that costs them nothing, but become Ahab when other ministers act as Elijah over very culturally sensitive issues, are hypocrites. These men do not deserve to be followed.

Share

The way the faithful are viewed

Oddly enough, those who obey the Lord are committed to his ways and imitate Christ not only in his love, gentleness, and compassion, but also in his anger, hate, zeal, passion, biting tongue, etc., and are very often viewed as being the actual problem. For instance, after Elijah does what is righteous and pleasing in the sight of God, slaughtering the false prophets of Baal, his own life is threatened. Jezebel responds to his righteousness by saying, “So may the gods do to me, and more also, if I do not let your life be as the life of one of them by this time tomorrow” (1 Kings 19:2). Meaning, she was going to kill him the same way he killed the Prophets of Baal. No doubt some misinformed, or culturally trained covenant members would be standing by saying, “Well, this wouldn’t be happening if you had just not made a big deal about this. And things would probably go better for you if you just spoke a little softer, kinder, and didn’t use short, pithy statements, but explained yourself fully.” In this odd turnabout, the one doing the Lord’s will is blamed for the unrighteous retaliation against him rather than defended for doing what pleased the Lord.

We know this is the case because this is precisely what happened with our Lord. Jesus was teaching the way of the Kingdom of God, showing people how to live faithfully, exercising incredible wisdom and performing mighty works (Matthew 13:53-54). But what happened? The crowds took offense at him because he was a man of low estate. But notice what Jesus says: “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household” (Matthew 13:57). It is those who are closest to you, those in your own family, your own church, your own denomination, who will take the biggest issue with a minister’s faithfulness. Those who you would expect to be the most supportive seem to always find the most superficial and insignificant reasons to belittle and spurn the faithfulness of their prophets. These things should not be.

The Christian Way Forward

Pastors ought not get upset and attack other pastors or Christians when they see them speaking against Christian and cultural idols in a way that they do not—to do so is sinful. Instead, pastors should receive and submit to the lesson given us from our Lord:

“John said to [Jesus], ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us if for us. For truly I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”

—Mark 9:38-41

This is the principle currently called “No Enemies To The Right” or NETTR. Jesus clearly says here that those who are not against you are for you. Currently, Western culture is in a fight for its life, and destroying Christians or those who are Christian adjacent, trying to defeat the idols of communism, Marxism, wokeism, Judaism, and Islam, because of some misguided sense of purity will only result in ruin. Jesus pinpoints the problem exactly: those who condemn others on the right are really only upset because those people aren’t doing things their way, or following them. Jesus said to John, “Do not stop [them],” but this is exactly what so many Gospel ministers are attempting to do—in direct rebellion against their Lord. Therefore, if they are for you, and you condemn, belittle, berate, minimize, or scandalize them, then you are in grave sin, and you must repent.

The Christian way forward is to acknowledge the attitude of all the prophets in the bible—they were all hard men, who cared not for peoples feelings when fidelity was on the line, who did whatever was necessary to see that God was honored, who never blushed for what scripture said, who never apologized for anything scripture teaches, and who condemned all those who opposed God and his law, even Jesus himself—imitate that attitude and join the ranks of the faithful who have gone before you.

Share

Conclusion

When a pastor does what a pastor is called to do—namely, take ownership of his prophetic office—he is not making trouble; he is making righteousness. As his people hear his words and heed his guidance, he is able to lead with joy, and they are safe; as they hear his words and chafe rather than rejoice, he will lead with much groaning, and it will be of no advantage to them (Hebrews 13:17). This is a sad state.

In our current culture, there are idols that pastors must be aware of that are infiltrating the church, and they must speak against them—they don’t have the liberty not to. Pastors must get these issues right so that they may lead their congregations toward righteousness in Christ; they must wash their people with the word so that they may be clean and spotless. Pastors cannot be controlled by their emotions, age, tradition, personal preferences, proclivities, or cultural pressure when speaking on these issues, but must, at all times, bring the scriptures to bear upon them all. Pastors must be pastoral, warm, kind, loving, and gracious, but faithful nonetheless. Pastors don’t have the liberty to be quiet; they must speak just as all the prophets before them have spoken. Pastors must take upon themselves the spirit of Elijah and mock the evil ruthlessly and have full confidence in God that he will crush satan under the feet of the church.

Introduction

In this week’s edition of my psychology round-up up you’ll notice that the first three are places where psychology has concluded good and helpful things, and the last two are helpful observations, albeit in need of biblical clarity. This is an important thing to understand about biblical/nouthetic counseling: we don’t reject out of hand the descriptions and observations made in psychology; we do, however, reject the prescriptions. Descriptions are objective observations based upon data, which means when secular psychologists notice or discover things hidden in the world, they are merely observing some truth that God has placed within creation. It is when they interpret this data and offer prescriptions that we run into problems. If the prescriptions psychologists make are biblical (and sometimes they are even unawares), then Christian’s ought to rejoice. More often than not, however, they are not biblical and are in fact antithetical to God’s word. When this happens, Christians are obligated to be faithful.

1. Writing and Emotional Healing: “Naming to Heal.”

Update: Recent neuroscience research shows that expressive writing helps reorganize emotional memory networks, promoting clarity and reducing distress. Writing gives the brain enough distance to reevaluate emotions and form new associations.

Biblical / Nouthetic Response: Scripture affirms the value of naming burdens: lament (Psalms), confession (1 John 1:9), and casting anxieties on God (1 Peter 5:7). Writing becomes a means of godly self-examination, helping people bring truth into the light before God. Counselors can use this tool as a complement to prayer, repentance, and meditation on Scripture.

2. Music for Emotional Regulation

Update: A 2024–2025 meta-review of music-based emotion regulation shows that listening to certain types of music can significantly reduce stress, enhance emotional processing, and stabilize mood.

Biblical / Nouthetic Response: God has always used music to shepherd the heart (1 Samuel 16:23; Psalms). Hymns, psalms, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19) are not mere aesthetic choices but Christ-given means of emotional and spiritual renewal. Counselors can direct suffering people toward truth-laden, Christ-exalting music as part of their soul-care rhythms.

3. The Psychological Risks of Social-AI Chatbots

Update: A multinational study found strong correlations between frequent AI-chatbot use and elevated levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety.

Biblical / Nouthetic Response: Technology cannot substitute for real community. The church is God’s design for embodied fellowship (Hebrews 10:24–25). Christians should avoid replacing real relationships with artificial companionship. Discipleship and counseling must pull people out of digital isolation and into the communion of saints.

4. AI and Digital Mental-Health Tools

Update: AI-driven assessments, digital mental-health tools, and predictive algorithms are increasingly used to identify symptoms earlier and broaden access to care.

Biblical / Nouthetic Response: These tools may be helpful, but they cannot replace means of grace, pastoral care, or Spirit-wrought transformation. Christians should use technology with discernment: receiving medical help as common grace, while remembering that only Christ renews the inner person (2 Corinthians 4:16).

5. New Neurobiological Models of Mental Illness

Update: New models combining neuroimaging, energy metabolism research, and mood tracking show that depression may be tied to energy deficits and neural-state dynamics—not merely cognitive patterns. Mental suffering often reflects biological as well as psychological realities.

Biblical / Nouthetic Response: Scripture affirms an integrated view of humanity. We are a psychosomatic unit consisting of body and soul—what in theology is called a dichotomous unit. Pastoral care, therefore, must avoid simplistic moralism as the supposed cause or root of all problems people face. Biological factors certainly matter. The Gospel, however, addresses the deepest need of the heart, offering hope that transcends bodily weakness. We care for bodies, but we shepherd souls through Christ.

Citations

Frontiers in Psychology:
Sakka, Leandros S., et al. Music-Based Emotion Regulation: A Bibliometric Systematic Review (2000–2024). Frontiers in Psychology, 2025. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1565614/full

PsyPost (Neuroscience & Psychology News):
Anderson, Eric. “Neuroscience Explains Why Writing Creates Mental Clarity.” PsyPost, 2025. https://www.psypost.org/neuroscience-explains-why-writing-creates-mental-clarity/
Peters, Justin. “Scientists Observe ‘Striking’ Link Between Social AI Chatbots and Psychological Distress.” PsyPost, 2025. https://www.psypost.org/scientists-observe-striking-link-between-social-ai-chatbots-and-psychological-distress/

ArXiv (Neuroscience Preprint):
Betzel, Richard F., et al. Dynamic Brain Manifolds and Mental Health Trajectories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13981, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13981

ScienceDaily:
“Brain Energy Signaling Imbalances May Contribute to Depression.” ScienceDaily, 2025. https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_medicine/psychology/

PsyResearch.org:
Trends in Psychological Research (2025): What’s Shaping the Future? PsyResearch, 2025. https://psyresearch.org/trends-in-psychological-research-whats-shaping-the-future/

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits” –Proverbs 18:21

Introduction

One does not need to be on the earth long before it becomes abundantly obvious that the things people say and the way they say them can have the most uplifting effect, or, conversely, utterly destroy the hearer. Even babies, before they understand words, can discern tone and volume. Language to them may be scary or calming. The soft voice of a mother can soothe a baby to sleep, while the ruckus of a father’s yells can send a baby into a frenzy.

Words are immensely powerful. “Rash words are like sword thrusts” (Proverbs 12:18), able to cut someone through and to pieces. Words spoken in unkind ways without purpose can and will separate close friends (Proverbs 16:28). And yet, we often pay little attention to not only what we say but also the way in which we say it. However, what is even more pernicious than this; more damaging; more subtle and obtuse is the devious habit of assuming to know the meaning of the communicator without asking clarifying questions.

The Problem

It’s happened to you before. You’re having a conversation with a friend or acquaintance, you believe you’re expressing yourself logically and understandably, and if asked, you would assume there is no possible way one could walk away from the conversation having misunderstood what you said. But, much to your dismay, when reconvening at a later date, your friend says, “Hey, do you remember when you said thus and such?” and you reply, “What? I never said thus and such,” but, your friend insists that you did, in fact, say “thus and such.” Now, this may be a benign misunderstanding leading to an amicable correction, and everyone walks away happy. On the other hand, it could be a misunderstanding that leads one to conclude that you’ve sinned, and your denial of their recollection (which they know to be true) is a compounding of sinful pride.

Let me give you an example. You’re having a fellowship lunch after the worship service on the Lord’s day. You go through the line, and you get all the food that caught your eye, and you take your seat with the bois. Your pal looks at your plate and notices that you got the spaghetti but not the meatballs, and he asks, “What, no meatballs?” You reply, “Yeah, I’m not feelin’ the meatballs today.” Your friend gives a little “mmkk” with a shrug, and the table continues with their regularly scheduled conversation about the Jews and Christian Nationalism.

The next week, that same friend and his wife invite you and your family over for dinner. You happily accept, and you and your wife prepare your salad and dessert to share with their family. When you get to his home, you say, “Oh boy! What’s for dinner?” and he says, “Well, we planned on having spaghetti and meatballs, but I know you hate meatballs, so we decided to have a fall chili instead. We love it, we hope you do too!” Your head tilts a little, and you do that little involuntary half-grin when you hear something that doesn’t make sense, because you never said you hated meatballs; you would never say you hate meatballs, because you don’t hate meatballs.

This is a cheeky and fairly inconsequential example, but this illustrates what frequently happens. We have conversations with others, we hear what they say to us, we interpret what they say, and we make inferences and implications from what they’ve said. Then, more often than not, we walk away from that conversation believing that the inferences and/or implications we’ve drawn are what was actually said by the other person. We replace the words that were said with our own interpretation of what we believe was said. And, we need to learn to not do this.

Framing the Issue

The rules of communication are not easily discerned. In our day, the vast majority of people are absolutely wretched communicators. And to quote the “great” communicator, Joseph Biden, that is not hyperbole, folks. These principles are somewhat derived from general principles that have been effective throughout all antiquity; time-tested principles of effective interpersonal communication. But, and most importantly, they are supported by biblical teachings and emphasize mutual responsibility to foster understanding and avoid conflict.

Below, I’ll outline these responsibilities clearly. What will be explained is that the communicator holds the primary ownership over the intended meaning of their words along with the responsibility to communicate clearly, while the receiver is obligated to actively engage to interpret and understand honestly and correctly. Misunderstandings are common, and when they do occur, they should prompt clarifying questions rather than jumping to assumptions.

God has communicated with his church through his word. It means what It means, and the church has the responsibility to interpret it correctly. All people have the right to interpret the bible, but no person has the right to interpret it wrongly.

Share

Communicator’s Responsibility

The communicator always bears the duty to express themselves clearly, honestly, and thoughtfully to minimize ambiguity and ensure their message is received as intended. When there are misunderstandings the one communicating must be humble enough to consider whether his or her way of communicating has caused the problem and be willing to express him or herself again but in a different way. He or she must speak clearly with the understanding of the listener in mind. This includes:

• Speaking truthfully and avoiding deceit, as falsehoods distort meaning.

• Choosing words that are edifying, gracious, and appropriate for the context, rather than vague or harmful.

• Recognizing that they alone hold the original intent and meaning behind their words, so they should aim for precision to prevent misinterpretation.

• If a misunderstanding arises, the communicator should be open to rephrasing or elaborating when asked.

This responsibility promotes trust and growth in relationships. Should there be confusion, and the communicator is unable to explain what they are communicating in a different way, this may be an indication that he/she does not have a thorough understanding of the topic at hand. This is not a moral blight. He/she ought to simply admit, “I actually don’t know if I can explain it differently. Let me go do some more research and get back to you.” This will ward off further complications and will foster trust due to the humility.

Receiver’s Responsibility

The receiver’s role is to listen attentively and strive for an accurate understanding, without imposing their own biases or assumptions on the communicator’s words. This includes:

• Being quick to hear and slow to react and speak, giving full attention to what is being communicated.

• Actively seeking to comprehend the intended meaning, rather than redefining it based on personal interpretation. Listen to the words as objectively as possible, in other words.

• Acknowledging that the true meaning resides with the communicator, if something is unclear or seems off, the receiver must ask for clarification instead of proceeding with a potentially faulty understanding.

• If the communicator is using a word in a way different than its typical usage or definition making the meaning unclear, ask the question.

• Often, people don’t want to ask the questions because that tacitly means you don’t understand. For many, this is embarrassing because it makes some feel stupid. But this is pride. Kill that pride and save the relationship by humbling yourself and asking the question.

• Avoiding hasty judgments or anger that could cloud reception.

This approach turns potential conflicts into opportunities for deeper connection. This approach also kills the pride of the receiver. What often happens is the receiver will walk away certain of what was communicated, and will hold on to that understanding as a trophy. Instead, be willing to be wrong—pursue unity and love.

All people are at one time or another both the communicator and the listener. This means, then, that all these principles must be deeply embedded in our hearts.

Share Anchored Hope

Handling Misunderstandings

Misunderstandings are inevitable in human communication due to differences in perspective, context, subject knowledge, or wording. The key rule is humility and proactive resolution: rather than letting confusion fester, parties should seek clarity through questions and dialogue. The communicator isn’t solely at fault for a receiver’s misinterpretation, but both share the burden of bridging the gap. The communicator has the obligation of presenting the information as clearly as possible, and be willing to answer any follow on questions without anger or annoyance. Nevertheless, the communicator always holds the meaning of what is being said, and the receiver must always be willing to bend to the intended meaning of the communicator, even if the receiver wouldn’t have said the same thing in the same way. If the receiver doesn’t understand, they must inquire so as to align with the communicator’s intent, as assuming meaning can lead to folly or division. This prevents escalation and honors the relational aspect of communication. If the confusion is high, but avoidable, the receiver may, with humility, suggest a better way for the same material to be communicated so that the communicator does not have the same issues in the future. This helpful correction ought to receive with thanksgiving.

Biblical Scripture References

Scripture provides foundational guidance on these principles, emphasizing truth, listening, and mutual edification. Here are key verses, grouped by theme, with brief explanations of their relevance:

On Clear and Truthful Communication (Communicator’s Role)

• Ephesians 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”

  • This calls for honest, loving expression to build others up, ensuring meaning is conveyed with care.

• Ephesians 4:25: “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”

  • Highlights the communicator’s duty to avoid deception and be clear.

• Ephesians 4:29: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”

  • This encourages words that are purposeful and clear for positive impact.

• Proverbs 14:25: “A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful.”

  • This stresses the importance of truthful speaking to preserve understanding and relationships.

• Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer each person.”

  • Here Paul advises communicators to speak thoughtfully and clearly, adapting their words to ensure comprehension.

On Active Listening and Understanding (Receiver’s Role)

• James 1:19: “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”

  • This is a core verse for receivers, urging attentive hearing before responding.

• Proverbs 18:13: “To answer before listening—that is folly and shame.”

  • This warns against assuming meaning without fully hearing, placing responsibility on the receiver to listen first.

• Proverbs 18:2: “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.”

  • This encourages receivers to prioritize grasping the communicator’s intent over imposing their own views.

On Seeking Clarification in Misunderstandings

• Proverbs 13:15: “Good judgment wins favor, but the way of the unfaithful leads to their destruction.”

  • In context, this supports asking for clarification to gain understanding and avoid pitfalls.

• Matthew 5:37: “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

  • This promotes straightforward communication, implying that if ambiguity arises, clarification should be sought to maintain simplicity and truth.

• Proverbs 4:7: “The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it costs all you have, get understanding.”

  • This underscores the value of pursuing clarity and understanding, even if it requires asking questions.

These principles and verses collectively form a biblical framework for communication that values humility, truth, and relational harmony. If applied, they reduce misunderstandings by assigning clear roles while encouraging dialogue.

There are moments in Scripture when the Apostle Paul seems unable to contain himself—moments when theology erupts into doxology and doctrine gives birth to praise. Ephesians 1:15–23 is one such moment. Having just extolled the Father’s electing love, the Son’s redeeming blood, and the Spirit’s sealing work (Eph. 1:3–14), Paul turns from proclamation to intercession. And what does he pray? That the church would see—that the eyes of their hearts would be opened, illumined, and flooded with divine light.

But his prayer is not vague, sentimental, or mystical. It is concrete and Christ-centered. It is covenantal and saturated with the majesty of the risen and reigning Lord. And it drives at one great aim: that the church, although surrounded by spiritual enemies and tempted by false confidences, would know the hope, the inheritance, and the power that are theirs in Christ.

This passage calls us away from earthly strength and into the invincible might of the exalted Christ. It calls us to ordered love, to unshakeable faith, and to warfare against the powers of darkness by the power of the King.

The Praise: Faith and Love as Marks of the True Church

“For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks…” (Eph. 1:15–16)

Paul begins with praise—not of the Ephesians, but of God for them. “For this reason,” he says. What reason? Because they have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Because the Spirit has engraved the name of Christ upon their souls. Because sovereign grace has produced sovereign fruit in their lives.

Share

And what is that fruit?
Faith in Christ and love toward all the saints.

These two are not optional. They are not “next-level Christianity.” They are the marks of genuine salvation, and no man enters heaven without them.

Faith in Christ Alone

The Ephesians had not trusted in political deliverance. They were not like Israel in the days of Isaiah, turning to Egypt for protection (Isa. 30:1–5). They did not trust in weapons, alliances, or earthly strength (Isa. 31:1). Nor did they lean on their own understanding (Prov. 3:5–8). They were a people who knew the times and understood where their trust lies.

The list of false confidences is endless and may vary person by person: Work. Money. Children. Health. Plans for the future. Etc. But all of them are idols when leaned upon and hoped in.

But David sets the Christian’s cry:

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we (Christians) trust in the name of the LORD our God.” (Ps. 20:7 Emphasis Mine)

Christ recognizes the temptations that exist—“chariots and horses”—but while we use them, we do not put our faith in them—they are not the object of our confidence. But how do we get to that place where we refuse to trust our instruments and instead trust in the one who gave us those instruments?

Faith in Christ requires sanctification. We must be changed by God in order that we might place our full faith and trust in the Lord of glory—but how? Christ answers:

“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

This text tells us in no uncertain terms that nothing else in this life sanctifies. Not experiences. Not stories. Not traditions. Not fairy tales. Not legend. Not history. Nothing.
Only Scripture—breathed out by the Spirit—is the divine instrument that renews the mind and conforms the soul to Christ. This, however, is difficult for many, for many will imagine that in the world and through the inventions of men, they have gleaned and grown quite a bit. They will look to other sources of knowledge or experience and imagine that through them they have indeed learned how to live—but this is not true. There are those, in other words, who imagine that stories are soul food. They will say that we must learn to be men and women from stories. Or that we must learn how to interact with others through tales. Or that we learn how to be faithful through stories. But none of this is true, and in fact goes directly against Christ’s prayer.

Subscribe now

There is but one source in which we gain the knowledge of God; there is but one source by which we are sanctified in truth: the scriptures that are breathed out by God. To trust in anything else will only result in weakness. However, for those trained by something other than scripture, they will imagine themselves strong, for indeed, they are living up to the standard—the standard of their learning. It will not, however, be the standard of scripture.

But the Ephesians trusted Christ as He is offered in the Word. Christ was their aim, their object, their Lord. Belief in Christ without submission in all things is not faith; the Ephesians knew this.

Love Toward All the Saints

Regarding their love toward the saints, Paul does not say, “Your love toward the world,” or “your love toward the foreigner/immigrant,” or even “your love toward your fellow countrymen.” Instead, he says:

“your love toward all the saints.”

Why? Because love, if it is to be rightly ordered, begins with those nearest to God.

As Calvin notes, “If our love must have a view toward God, the nearer a man is to God, the stronger his claim to our love.” This is the doctrine of the ordo amoris—the order of love. God commands hierarchy in our affections, not egalitarian sentimentality.

Thus, I must love my wife more than all other women. I must love my children above other children. I must love my church more than any earthly community. And above all, I must love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength. I simply do not have the ability to love all people. If then, I show charity to the immigrant at the expense of loving my wife, then I am sinning, and I am worse than an unbeliever. He does not get my money, attention, care, concern, or time because those things belong to those closest to me. A righteous people, then, will deny the immigrant access to the community and will demand that he go to his own people for aid, for God has granted us order and finitude.

The Ephesians lived this. Faith in Christ. Love for the saints. Therefore, Paul praises God for them.

The Gift: The Spirit to Enlighten the Eyes

“…that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ… may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him…” (Eph. 1:17)

Christians often imagine they are missing some secret ingredient in the Christian life. If only I prayed harder… If only I read more… If only I understood types and shadows better... If only I unlocked some hidden spiritual mechanism… then I would obtain the “real” power of God; then I would have “real” nearness to Christ.

But Peter shatters this illusion:

“His divine power has granted us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him...” (2 Pet. 1:3)

But this sentiment is a devilish lie, for you have Christ. He gave you His whole self. There is no “higher” Christianity. There is only a deeper understanding.

And it is for this increase in depth that Paul prays not for new gifts but for greater sight of what already belongs to the saints. They possessed the Spirit—but they needed more illumination. This is because, over time, the veil of sin dims the eyes, slowly, relentlessly. Without prayer, from yourself and your church, that veil thickens.

And what does Paul want them to see?

Subscribe now

1) The hope of God’s calling: The hope is not subjective optimism. It is objective destiny: the church herself is God’s inheritance. A day is coming when God will inherit a spotless, beautiful, glorified church. To see this is to grow in courage. And 2) the immeasurable greatness of God’s power. What power is at work in believers? It isn’t a feeling, and it is not an impersonal force. It is the very power that resurrected Christ from the dead, ascended him to the clouds, and seated him at the Father’s right hand, where he now rules and reigns over all creation, both church and state.

The Power: Resurrection and Ascension Power in the Saints

The same power brought Christ back to life, that shattered the stone of Christ’s tomb, that allowed him to flow through walls and yet eat solid food, appear to over 500 people for 40 days, ascend into the clouds, be seated at the Father’s right hand, and now rule and reign over all people’s with an iron rod, now lives in you.

The same power that seated Christ at the Father’s right hand is the same power that seats you with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:5–6).

Make no mistake: without Christ, we are an immensely weak and frail people. We are cowardly, prideful, effeminate, harsh, bitter, lazy, etc., and this is all weakness. However, although we are weak, and our bodies decay, and sin still clings close, and sorrows continually bear down upon us, and our labor is strenuous, we can be immovable in Christ!

Christ makes us strong.
When Paul was faced with a suffering that tormented him, he begged Christ to take it away three separate times. Each time, however, Christ said “no.” Rather than grumble, grow despondent, or fall into a persistent funk, Paul rejoiced. Christ said to him, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). This was Paul’s answer: you already have all you need. Paul understood and said, “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weakness, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” He understood that if we trust ourselves, then we will get our own power, but if we trust Christ, we will be given the power of the resurrection. Therefore Paul acknowledged that “when [we are] weak, then [we are] strong.”

Therefore, do not rely upon yourself, but trust in the Lord, obey his word, and rest in his strength, not your own.

The Lord: Christ the Mediatorial King Over All

Paul ends with an exaltation of Christ:

“…far above all rule and authority and power and dominion…” (Eph. 1:21)
“…and God put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church…” (v. 22)

What Paul is articulating here is what has come to be called the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ:

Subscribe now

This is Not a New Doctrine

The kingship of Christ has been held since the 1st century. Augustine held it. Athanasius held it. But in the 1600s the Covenanters of Scotland developed its implications more fully and more faithfully, applying it to civil life.

Definition

Christ, as the God-Man and Mediator, has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), and exercises that authority over every sphere NOW—church, family, state, nations, angels, and devils—until all enemies are subdued (Ps. 110).

Not of This World—Yet Over This World

When Jesus says His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), He means it is not fragile, fleshly, or fleeting. He does not, at all, mean that his kingdom is purely spiritual. It is spiritual, but like all spiritual things, it is also physical. Baptism is of the Spirit symbolized by water. The spiritual grace of the Lord giving us his body to eat and blood to drink is symbolized in the Eucharist. The spiritual unity of husband and wife is symbolized in the act of sexual intimacy. Christian faith is animated by the works it creates. To be spiritual is also to be physical. So the fact that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world only means that it does not have the characteristics, marred by sin, of the kingdoms of this world. His kingdom invades the world and conquers it.

Additionally, Matthew 11:12 is another place many go to disprove the conquering of Christ’s kingdom on this earth:

It reads: “...the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”

Many Christians read this and conclude that the kingdom is weak, and in fact, there are some people who are determined to squeeze and force their way into the Kingdom of Heaven, because they want to take hold of it for themselves. But this makes very little sense. Rather, there is a textual variant here that exists within the Alexandrian text. It reads:

“The kingdom of heaven is forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.”

This reading is agreed upon by most scholars, historians, theologians, and pastors. It fits the context of the bible far better, and does not imply the impotency of the Kingdom of God. Instead, it shows that the Kingdom is breaking into the world with force, and it cannot be stopped. And the men are laying hold of the Kingdom out of exuberance to be in fellowship with God. Any other reading is impish and contrary to the rest of scripture.

Nations Are Obligated To Submit

Nations and rulers are commanded to “kiss the Son” (Ps. 2:12). This is not a suggestion from the Father, but a command. Civil rulers must comply or they will perish. Civil magistrates must order their laws, culture, and governance by the Word of Christ; neutrality, in other words, is treason.

Share Anchored Hope

The Church Reigns with Christ

Because we are His body, we share His power. We wage war against spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12) with the strength of Christ, our Captain. We shun even the appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:22). We conquer through holiness.

Overall, what is our duty? Only to trust and obey.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich.” — 2 Corinthians 8:9

Introduction To Advent

Just as Sunday is both the first and eighth day—a day of creation and new creation—so Advent marks both the first and last day on the Christian calendar; it stands at the threshold of the Church year as its beginning and its end. During this season, we acknowledge both the start and the consummation of all things. And in doing so, we celebrate Christ Himself, who is the Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the end; the first and the last. Advent is the time when the Church remembers and rejoices in the incarnation of our Lord, even as we look forward to His second advent—that day known only to the Father, when all things will be brought to completion and the cosmos redeemed.

The very term Advent is drawn from the Latin Adventus, meaning “coming.” And when we speak of the coming of Christ, we confess that there is yet an advent still before us. We celebrate His first coming—His birth, His breaking into history as true man, wrapped in flesh and subject to all the constraints of humanity. And we await His second advent, when the King shall return in glorified flesh, without frailty, without suffering, without the curse.

For the Christian, the bride of Christ, Advent is the season of preparation. Together we aim to make room in our hearts for the long-promised Savior. We commemorate the Bridegroom leaving His chamber and, like a strong man, running His course with joy to save a people unto Himself for His eternal glory.

But Advent is also the season in which we remember the humiliation of Christ; His voluntary self-emptying; His descent from divine glory to take on human nature. In the incarnation, Christ did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but rather, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Found in human form, He humbled Himself to the point of death—even death on a cross. In this humiliation, we include His incarnation, His human weakness, His submission to the law of God, His obedience in suffering, His death, and His burial. In all this, Christ abased Himself for the sake of his bride.

Historically, the four Sabbaths of Advent have focused on the four comings of Christ: His coming in the flesh; His coming at the hour of death to receive His people; His coming in judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70; and His coming on the last day, according to the time fixed by the Father. In the 20th century, however, the themes of Advent have shifted to something more general: hope, peace, joy, and love, each corresponding with a different week in Advent.

And so, in keeping with the ancient tradition of the Church, we turn our attention to the first coming of Christ in the flesh and the beginning of His humiliation. And we do so through the lens of Paul’s magnificent declaration in 2 Corinthians 8:9.

His Grace

Paul begins, “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here, the apostle says “you know” because this knowledge of our Lord’s grace ought to be common among the redeemed. As our Lord often said, “Have you not read?” or as He said to Nicodemus, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” The truths Paul proclaims are not secrets reserved for a spiritual elite; they are not hidden truths that may only be ascertained by those who have scaled the heights of theological understanding. No. They are the very heart of the Gospel; the very power of God which saves man.

Share

Notice too that Paul speaks first of grace before speaking of Christ’s self-giving in the passage. Before he speaks about working, he speaks about grace. Before ethics, he gives us Christ. And this is always the biblical order of things: gospel before obedience. Adoration before action. Love before law. You’ll remember that God delivered Israel from Egypt, baptized them through the sea, fed them manna from heaven and water from the rock in the wilderness, gave them worship, and only after that did he then gave them His law. It has, therefore, always been and will always be Christ before commandments.

So what is grace? Well, grace—charis—literally means favor, gift, or kindness, but in the biblical context, it always indicates that something is given to someone who is undeserving. It is giving blessings, love, treasure, goodness, etc., to those who hate you and would otherwise seek your destruction. And when we consider the first advent of Christ, we recognize the overwhelming grace in the form of the condescension of the Almighty:

The God whose angel armies fill the heavens, whose single word creates life, whose thunder shakes mountains, and whose breath raises the dead—He is the God who fashioned the dust that became Adam, the rib that became Eve, the womb that bore Him, the hands that held Him, the breasts that nursed Him. This God, glorious and eternal, one in three and three in one, felt such compassion for a creature doomed to die and full of hatred for God, that He gave Himself—for you. That is grace. That is something truly undeserved.

In the Advent season, we remember that our salvation begins not with human striving but with divine initiative. Not with us reaching upward, but with God descending in the person of Christ to redeem an altogether unlovely people.

His Riches & Poverty

Paul continues by saying that “[Christ] was rich.” But what were His riches?

The psalmist reminds us(Psalm 50) that every beast of the forest, every bird of the hill, every creature that moves on the earth belongs to Him. Abraham Kuyper captured this when he said: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’”

But Paul is not speaking here of material wealth; he isn’t speaking of something you can count. Rather, he speaks here of Christ’s eternal riches—His divine glory, his communion with the Father, his power in the heavenlies.

John Calvin wrote:
“The riches of Christ were nothing less than the infinite and eternal glory of the Godhead. He was rich in that all things belonged to Him, and rich in that He had no need of anything. From these riches He descended, not losing them, but veiling them, that we might partake of His fullness.”

Stephan Charnock adds:
“He was rich in the splendor of deity, rich in the delights of the Father’s bosom, rich in the praises of angels, rich in the command of heaven and earth. And yet He stooped to the poverty of our flesh. Glory stooped to disgrace, that disgrace might be lifted to glory.”

J. C. Ryle concludes:
“Let us not forget what he gave up for us. He was rich—rich in honor, glory, power, and love—and He became poor. The higher we estimate His former riches, the more we shall love Him for His grace.”

As these men point out, Christ was rich with eternal glory, fellowship in the Father’s bosom, and rich with honor, glory, power, love, and the need for nothing.

Paul then says, “yet for your sake he became poor...” Now, consider these riches and then consider the contrast: heaven’s throne becomes Bethlehem’s manger. The Lord of glory becomes a peasant child laid among animals, born to parents in poverty. He who lacked nothing becomes a man with no place to lay His head, no beauty that we should desire Him, despised and rejected, a man of sorrows acquainted with grief.

And what was the greatest richness He surrendered? Not material glory, but the intimate communion of the Father’s bosom, that He might suffer the imputation of sin and give His righteousness to His people.

True wealth, then, is not summed up in material possession. True wealth is rightly defined as communion with God, fellowship with the Trinity, and rest in the Father’s bosom. Pity the man who owns vast lands he is unable to survey, more houses than he can live in, and more cars than he can drive, and yet knows nothing of sweet fellowship with the Lord.

Advent therefore, calls us not to sentimentality but to worship. Christ embraced lowliness for the sake of His bride, and His brothers and sisters resemble Him when they embrace a humility like his.

Share

Our Provision

Paul concludes, saying, “…so that you by His poverty might become rich.”

The riches Paul tells us we are given by Christ are not material in nature, but are rather spiritual. Now, though the blessing of the Lord may indeed bring earthly wealth—a wealth which no man should despise or feel guilty over—this is, nevertheless, not what Paul is speaking of. We can be assured of this because while not all Christians will be materially wealthy, all Christians are given these riches.

John Owen writes:
“The abasement of Christ is the spring of all our exaltation. He became what we are that we might partake of what he is. His poverty brought us the riches of grace: pardon, adoption, access to God, and the inheritance of glory.”

Thomas Watson declares:
“Christ emptied Himself that we might be filled. He became poor that we might be enriched with the treasures of heaven—grace, peace, hope, and an eternal crown. The angels marvel that beggars should be made princes by such a price.”

And Charles Spurgeon says:
“Christ’s poverty is our treasury. Because he stooped, we are lifted, because he was classed with the lowly, we are numbered with the saints. Because he bore the curse, we inherit the blessing. Every spiritual riches in the covenant is coined out of His wounds.”

Do you realize what wealth this is that we have been given? Do you, dear saint, comprehend what great riches your savior has blessed you with?

Every time you enjoy peace with God because you are justified; every time you bring Him your weary soul and receive comfort; every time you remember that He will never cast you out of His kingdom, but has made a room just for you; every time you rest in the truth that you have an Advocate with the Father, do you think of how rich you are? Do you understand that you are tasting the riches purchased by Christ’s poverty?

In this great exchange—our poverty for His riches—Christ has made His Church the envy of the universe.

Conclusion

In light of all this glory, what shall we do? As we remember our Lord’s first advent, what shall this drive us to? What is the only fitting response? Well, it is threefold: worship, obedience, and feasting. There is simply no other way to express the love we have because of the love we have been shown. There is simply no other way to appropriately express our thanks for what God has done for us through his beloved Son, Jesus Christ!

So this Advent and Christmas season, do the only thing that makes sense in light of such grace: Worship the Lord truly with a full and open heart. Obey all his commands sincerely and fully without grumbling. And feast on the fatness that the Lord has provided for you, savor the fudge, delight in your wife, revel in your children, laugh with your friends, and be filled with thanks!

Recently, I was told by my peer that Communism and Socialism are not the same. Further, how foolish is the man who fails to distinguish them. When I posed the question, “What’s the difference?” there was a pause, with the follow-up, “One second. Let me look it up.” Later in the day I was sent a meme that read: “For f***’s sake, Socialism is NOT Communism. Capitalism: anyone can be rich, Communism: no one can be rich, Socialism: anyone can be rich, but no one should be poor.” I responded by saying, “it’s what the government does to ensure that no one is poor that makes socialism communism.”

Modern political discourse, from professional pundits to the average-joe-workin’-type often distinguish socialism from communism, treating the former as a moderate economic philosophy and the latter as a radical revolutionary ideology. Yet this distinction, though politically fashionable, collapses, like Biden down the Air Force One stairs, under theological, historical, and philosophical scrutiny. From a Christian perspective—grounded in Scripture’s doctrine of man, the limits of the civil magistrate, and God’s ordained spheres of authority—socialism and communism emerge not as distinct systems, but as two developmental stages coming from the same pagan worldview. Both share an identical root, an identical anthropology, and an identical eschatological aspiration. They differ only in tempo, not in telos.

Subscribe now

Shared Anthropology

Every political system presupposes a doctrine of man. Scripture teaches that human nature after the Fall is radically corrupted (Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10–18). John Calvin famously observes that the human heart is a “perpetual factory of idols” (Institutes I.11.8). Because of this, power concentrated in human hands tends invariably toward corruption (cf. 2 Sam. 11; Prov. 29:2). As Lord Acton has famously said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Socialism and communism both reject this doctrine of depravity by assuming that government can be benevolent and that its role is benevolence. However, regarding the civic realm, there is almost nothing further from the truth. God has given government one singular function: to reward the good and to carry out God’s wrath upon the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-4). Its job is not to administer care, blankets, kisses and hugs; its job is the promotion of righteousness and the destruction of evil.

Socialism and communism, however, assume that its central planners—whether the people, the Party, or the proletariat—have not only the desire but the wherewithal to administer economic life with fantastical justice. But, from his own words, Karl Marx (a Jew), taught that “the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property” (Communist Manifesto, ch. 2). Yes. The best way to human flourishing is to abolish private property. However, this sentiment is not only starkly against all the knowledge of all antiquity, but is, most importantly against the word of God. The 8^th commandment makes it immoral to steal anything from anyone, which necessarily requires that someone owns something that someone else takes without the permission of the owner—which makes it illegal, criminal, and immoral. This can be anything, including land. Yet his socialism-influenced predecessors (Babeuf, Fourier, Owen referred to by Friedrich Engels as “utopian socialists” and who distinguished their own work as “scientific socialism”) likewise envisioned centrally planned economic control for the common good. Yes...the common good.

Subscribe now

Abraham Kuyper, the great statesman, theologian, and politician, however, identifies the foundational worldview issue: when a society denies the sovereignty of God over every sphere, the state naturally becomes the “all-embracing, all-controlling power” (Lectures on Calvinism, 79). Or as Doug Wilson puts it, “if there is no God above the State, then the State becomes god.” There will always be a supreme. It isn’t a matter of whether but which. And, when the government has become Godless, it will naturally assume divine power to itself, and because this is idolatry at the root, it is necessarily demonic, and demon controlled people love rebellion against God. Both socialism and communism, therefore, share precisely this anthropological confidence in fallen humanity and hatred of God. A misplaced trust, to say the least.

Shared Economics

Reformed ethics affirms the inviolability of private property under God’s law (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19; Prov. 13:22). Johannes Althusius, an early Reformed political theorist, identifies stewardship, not collectivism, as the biblical principle of ownership (Politica, XXVII). The Westminster Larger Catechism even explicitly grounds private property in the Eighth Commandment, teaching that theft includes not only manual stealing but also unjust economic coercion (WLC Q.141–142). The point is, the notion of Christianity being even warm toward socialism and/or communism is not only rebuffed by the bible (which would be enough) but is also hotly rejected as devilish by the witness of church history.

Communism openly abolishes property whereas socialism merely transfers ownership of said property to the “collective,” which in practice means the state. This is how academics make distinctions to sound all smart n’ what not, but in reality what they are distinguishing has no difference but the paper it’s wrapped in. Friedrich Engels, explaining socialism’s trajectory, states: “The final result… is the abolition of private property” (Anti-Dühring, Part 3). Lenin agreed: “Socialism is merely the first stage of communism” (The State and Revolution, ch. 5).

It is, thus, either an intellectual deficiency, ardent ignorance, or blind disregard in the nature of socialism to see them as anything different; the very architects of these systems acknowledge their shared foundation and end.

Share

Shared Politics

As noted above, the Christian tradition limits the civil magistrate’s authority to the administration of justice/destruction of evil and the preservation of civil order (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). God has designed the government, in other words, to be a hammer wrapped in velvet. It is not a ministry for food stamps, disaster relief, or orphan care, those jobs belong to the church. God has intended it to be a blunt instrument to strike fear into the hearts of those who would disobey God. Calvin articulates this narrowly defined role in Institutes IV.20, calling the magistrate a “minister of God” whose jurisdiction is real but restricted to its delineated sphere.

In contrast, socialism and communism both require:

· centralized control of production

· redistribution of wealth

· state-administered equality

· bureaucratic oversight of economic and social life

This necessarily results in the expansion of political power beyond biblical (and rational) bounds. Kuyper’s doctrine of “sphere sovereignty,” as articulate in scripture (Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Genesis 1:28) explicitly prohibits the absorption of economic or familial functions into the political and governmental sphere (Sphere Sovereignty, 1880). The government simply has no right to overstep. It is the job of fathers and mothers to care for and educate children, provide for their welfare, and hand down generational wealth to their children. No father or mother should have any concern, whatever, for anyone else’s children but heir own beyond a generalized love. A man is responsible to care for, discipline, feed, and educate his children, not his neighbors children. Socialism and Communism, however, require that the money fathers make and the land fathers buy go to the collective—which necessarily means that their children get less. And, if you say to yourself something like, “wow, that sounds super selfish” then you are a commie and part of the problem.

It is undeniable that this absorption of other realms into the political real is precisely the operational mechanism of socialism and the perfected mechanism of communism. R. J. Rushdoony summarizes the trajectory succinctly: “Socialism is communism by the installment plan” (Revolt Against Maturity, 242).

Shared View of People

Biblical anthropology teaches that man bears the imago Dei, the image of God (Gen. 1:27). This means man bears dignity and moral agency individually—not as a mere component of a collective. Herman Bavinck warns that destroys and dissolves the individual into the mass necessarily denies the divine dignity of that person: “Personality is the core of human existence” (Reformed Dogmatics, II:566).

Communism, on the other hand, is explicit: the individual exists for the state. Socialism, however, is more cautious, (or shall I say shrewd with its language) insisting that the individual exists for the “common good”—but this is duplicitous nonsense. Who defines the common good? Who gets to determine if they’re right? It’s the state; in practice the collective is always represented, defined, and enforced by the state. Marx states: “The individual is the social being” (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, 1844). By using the word “is” he is discussing the very being of man—his ontology. That is to say, according the Marx, man has no value aside from this collective contribution. This is to make a man a shell of what a man ought to be. It is anthropology by subordination.

Subscribe now

The Christian tradition, however, rejects collectivism, affirming subsidiarity as the faithful and biblical practice. Althusius insisted that societies are built “from the household outward,” not from the state downward, and that political authority is always derivative and limited (Politica, I). This idea, however, is repugnant to the liberal and socially minded because this necessarily means that everyone looks at his own wife and children as more important than anyone else’s. It offends his globalist and collectivist sensibilities because it means that life will not be “fair” for all. And this is of course true—some men are dead beats and some work diligently to provide. Some men are stupid, and some take great strides to be intelligent. Socialism and Communism, despising the reality of life and the truth of sin, reject this by placating to the lowest common denominator—they cater to weakness. This makes strong men angry, and weak men smug, and inevitably destroys all motivation, innovation, incentivization, and, eventually, civilization.

Shared Eschatology

Every political ideology carries an eschatology—a view of the future. Socialism and communism are no different. They share a secularized version of the Christian hope—bringing heaven to earth. Marx envisioned a future “classless society” where coercive institutions would disappear. Socialist writers such as Saint-Simon, Owen, and Fourier differed only in method, not in destination. Yet, the only problem is, because they have the same destination in mind, the socialists will be required to employ much (if not all) of the same tactics to achieve those ends. One cannot have a classless society without abolishing class; one cannot abolish class without equalizing a culture; one cannot equalize a culture without seizing the assets of the wealthy or granting the poor wealth—and both are vile practices of theft from two different directions.

This places both systems in direct conflict with Scripture, which locates the fulfillment of history not in human engineering, the removal of ownership, or the equalizing of outcome, but in Christ’s kingdom (Dan. 2:44; Rev. 11:15). The Reformed confessions insist that human sin—not economic structure—is the fundamental problem of society (Heidelberg Catechism Q.5; Westminster Confession of Faith, VI.2), the antidote to such a problem is repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Thus both socialism and communism rest upon a false gospel: redemption by policy, sanctification by redistribution, and glorification by political transformation. Not only is this blasphemy, but it has been an embarrassing failure everywhere attempted.

Historical Evidence: The Fruit Reveals the Tree

Our Lord teaches that “every tree is known by its fruit” (Luke 6:44). The fruit of both socialism and communism across nations is overwhelmingly consistent:

· centralized control of economic life (USSR, Maoist China, Cuba)

· coercive redistribution (all 20th-century socialist governments)

· suppression of dissent (East Germany, Venezuela)

· economic stagnation and scarcity (Soviet famine; Mao’s Great Leap Forward)

· bureaucratic expansion and corruption

· state surveillance and ideological indoctrination

Communist thinkers (Lenin, Marx, Engels) themselves declared socialism the necessary first stage of communism. Lenin made the distinction more concrete, arguing in The State and Revolution that socialism was the “first, or lower, phase of communist society”. In this phase, he argues, major industries would be state-owned, leading to the ultimate goal of communism, a society with no class distinctions or state. Historical practice has confirmed it. The systems differ not in substance but in the speed and degree to which the state concentrates control.

Conclusion: Different Degrees, Same Doctrine

Christians rooted in Scripture, holding to the historic confessions and the teachings of the historic church, and soberly aware of communist history can only honestly conclude that socialism and communism cannot be separated in essence. They share the same:

· anthropology (confidence in fallen human power)

· economic principle (state ownership)

· political theology (expanded magistrate)

· view of the individual (collectivist subordination)

· eschatology (human-engineered utopia)

To reject this reality is to reject the very teachings and direction of the founders and fathers of those movements, in which case, abandon communism altogether and embrace Christ and him crucified! Communism is socialism in its final form; socialism is communism in its preparatory form. They are ideologically and theologically unified systems whose shared root is the denial of God’s sovereignty, the concentration of power for the few, and the exaltation of human authority. For this reason, Christians must reject both as incompatible with biblical political order, Reformed doctrine, and just common sense.

Share Anchored Hope