An ancient heresy has crept into the American Evangelical imagination. It’s subtle, easy to slowly adopt without even recognizing the syncretism you’re engaged in.

In fact, when Paul and other members of the Early Church warned against this heresy, it wasn’t because people were “leaving the faith for it,” but because they were mistakenly incorporating elements of it into their Christian faith.

This heresy is called “Gnosticism.”

Gnosis literally translates into “knowledge.” Ancient gnostics believed that the physical world was inherently evil, that salvation came from arriving at the right “knowledge,” and that the goal of life was to be liberated from this world and released to a spiritual plane, enabled by knowing the right things.

Early Christians had to address Gnosticism seeping into the Church and disembodying our faith. It reduced Christianity simply to revelation, to knowing the right things, and, since the world was evil and to be done away with anyways, resulted in a sort of “escapism” and abdication of moral responsibility and proactive presence.

So how has Gnosticism seeped back into much of the American Church today? I’ll touch on three ways, though you may note there are other hints of its presence in our culture beyond these.

First, Gnostic Escapism

Let’s start with the escapism. Rapture ideology and dispensationalism has primed an entire generation with the belief that this world is destined for destruction and we fortunate elect will escape those horrors into a disembodied heavenly reality.

That is not the Gospel. As N.T. Wright argues in Surprised by Hope, the Gospel is about the restoration of all things, the eventual resurrection to eternal life in everlasting bodies, and the overall emphasis on the here and now, not there and then.

“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile everything to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” - Col. 1:19-20

The Gospel invites us into continual participation in this ongoing work as we prepare the way for our eventual returning King.

“Everything is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” 2 Cor. 5:18

Think less Left Behind, more Return of the King; Gondor restored, not abandoned.

Second, the Disembodiment of Sacraments

Point number two: our wispy reduction of the physical sacraments God has granted us.

A huge proportion of the American Church has reduced communion to a mere moment to consider what Jesus did for us. This approach is called “Memorialism” and it is not in Scripture.

It also was never taught by anyone in the Church for about the first 1500 years of our faith, originating with Zwingli. This is an innovation, one I grew up under myself. But communion is not just a chance to think about Jesus and what he did for us.

It is an opportunity to uniquely experience the presence and grace of Christ, participating in his sacrifice just as the Hebrews who ate the Passover Lamb in Exodus participated in the sacrifice of that lamb for them. Something unexplainable happens in this holy sacrament.

Or how about baptism? Much of modern evangelicalism has somehow gotten the idea that baptism is a mere profession of faith, something we’re just commanded to do, but just like we’re commanded to do good.

This is not how the Church has ever seen baptism until relative modernity. There is not a single time in the Bible in which someone comes to faith and remains unbaptized. Yet in much of the Evangelical Church we see people baptized 10 years after coming to faith, or even never at all. That’s a failure in discipleship.

To be baptized is to physically exercise your joining to the Body of Christ. Baptism is a part of becoming a Christian, again, in a holy mystical way in which a spiritual reality of our faith is physically embodied.

And this kind of leads to my third point.

Third, the Mere “Spiritualization” of Christianity

Becoming a Christian is not reciting a passcode. It is not a magic spell. It is not downloading the “right information,” simply knowing or even intellectually assenting that Jesus is God and he died for you.

The Greek word translated as faith in Scripture, pistis (or pisteuo in verb form), translates perhaps best as “allegiance,” (as argued by Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone), or “entrusting oneself to,” and with that comes certain things, including the Fruit of the Spirit.

John Calvin and Martin Luther both clarified this in their own words.

“We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.” - Luther

“It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.” - Calvin

A mistake common to Evangelicalism is that we often divorce Christian faith from Christian life, allowing one to be claimed without the other.

One cannot be a soccer player and not play soccer. A true Christian identity, trusting oneself to Christ, will be reflected by Christian pursuit of Christ and His ways.

In Hebrews 11, the faith of the heroes who preceded us is described in their physical exercises of faith, not mere intellectual assent.

Perfection is not expected, but physical expression of faith, real pursuit of Christ’s ways, is.

We need to be very careful to reject the efforts of the same demons active today who snuck this false philosophy into some of the very churches Paul confronted in the New Testament.

Do not reduce Christianity to spiritual fufu.

Embrace Our Real, Tangible, Embodied Faith

The Christian life is embodied. It is physically expressed. It bears tangible fruit. It partakes in the sacraments. It lives as a member of Christ’s Church, global in reality, local in expression.

This is why I hate the phrases, “It’s a relationship, not a religion,” or “I’m spiritual, not religious.” They are two sides of the same coin, as the Christian “religion” is good, and it is merely the corporate embodied exercise of our Christian faith.

“Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” James 1:27

Christianity includes real religious observance. It is represented in both the spiritual and the physical. And that is good.

Exercise pistis. Be the goodness of God to this world, as the embodiment of Christ we are collectively described as.

“Now you are the body of Christ, and individual members of it.” 1 Cor. 12:27

One of the most frustrating parts of being informed about diplomacy is watching people who shouldn’t be leading war and negotiations horribly flub both. Here’s what I wish our present leaders actually understood.

1) Desperate ground.

Over 2000 years ago, Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote, “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” He elaborated elsewhere on the strategic utility (and danger to attackers) of desperate ground for a defending force. I wrote thoroughly on this strategic principle of war here last week.

You never want your opponent to be in a situation where their only options are fighting you in desperation or giving themselves up to death (or fates they view as worse than death). They will fight you, and while you may win, they will make it cost you as much as they can.

This is not what you want in war.

2) You have to leave something to lose.

For peace negotiations to work, your opponent needs something to preserve — or something to gain. Iran’s economy is in ruins. Their domestic standing was already shaky. We killed much of their leadership immediately, including Supreme Leader Khamenei, and even the wife of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

The problem is (although I think this is actually a good thing), we lack the appetite to commit the ground presence necessary to “finish the job” and install a new regime, meaning we need to negotiate some sort of peace with what remains of the regime.

But then you have to ask yourself: what exactly are they supposed to be negotiating for? The regime has much less to lose by continuing fighting now than they have to gain from continued pressure, both tangibly and “emotionally.”

While there are some strategic objectives the Iranians would desire, such as guarantees of no future strikes, right now, fighting back is the only move that lets them save face, even if continued war were to logically be a negative for them.

Which brings me to the next point.

3) You have to understand who you’re fighting.

Retired U.S. Army lieutenant general H.R. McMaster calls this “Strategic Empathy.” Understanding the dynamics and motivations of your opponent is critical. Iran operates in an honor/shame culture. When we and/or Israel struck them in the past, they responded with dramatic, flashy retaliation with minimal real damage — loud enough to look strong at home, careful enough to avoid real escalation.

It was calculated performance. It met their domestic objectives of preserving their pride while avoiding further escalation that would put them at serious risk.

But what if there was no meaningfully “further escalation” to fear or desire to avoid? And what if the “dishonor” they felt they’d received was far more acute than a handful of bombed military facilities?

By coming in at 100 and destroying everything/everyone they’d want to preserve in any future peace negotiations, we removed motivations for restraint. We killed their leadership on day one. We’ve destroyed thousands of military targets. The incentive to stay measured? Gone. What do they gain (or not lose) now from suing for peace? In their mind, not much.

No, now they feel a need to save face. Not good.

4) Ideologies cannot be defeated with guns and bombs alone.

The Islamic regime within Iran is motivated by extremist Shi’a theology. To die is to be martyred. Death can be a victory itself.

If you don’t understand the Karbala paradigm, you’re going to risk ironically strengthening the regime’s hand with the damage you succeed in. Not only that, but every civilian death is an opportunity for the IRGC to say, “I told you so,” to their domestic population.

And brings up the last thing I wish our leaders demonstrated more cognizance about.

5) Populations rally against outside attackers.

To date, over 1,400 Iranian civilians are believed to have died in this war. As resources dwindle and further bombs fall, the population may begin to no longer see the regime as the primary cause of their frustrations, but the US and Israel.

The IRGC narrative regarding the popular revolts of several weeks ago has been that the Israelis and Americans manipulated the people; that we were the ones behind the uprising, and were merely using the people as pawns to achieve our strategic objectives. “The Americans are your oppressors, not your liberators,” they argue.

When we bombed the girls school in Minab, and/or if we at any point resort to bombing civilian infrastructure such as power facilities, we lose some of the very goodwill we were hoping would result in a domestic revolution. This war of supposed liberation could very quickly turn into a war that cements a foe who was previously fracturing, especially if we put boots on the ground.

In Summary

The reality is, none of Donald Trump’s predecessors initiated such a war because they recognized the massive costs and risks such a war would incur, not only militarily in the region, but also across both the regional and international economy. I remain doubtful that we can secure what we claim our objectives for this war are, absent boots on the ground (which I very much do not want to see).

At the same time, working towards peace will require far more tact and care than this administration seems to be interested in exercising. Donald Trump knows one language: the exertion of power. Not only power, but a very Western framing of power, in which everything is decided by calculus and self-preservation.

His understanding of motivations and self-preservation worked with Venezuela. Delcy Rodriguez (formerly Maduro’s VP), along with the rest of the Venezuelan regime, is primarily interested in her own self-preservation. Allowing her to cut deals to preserve her standing while selling out her boss worked in our favor.

Iran however, is not Venezuela.

Ideas of the priority of self-preservation and Western reasoning simply will not work here, and we desperately need diplomats in the picture who understand our enemies and how we can avoid any further development of worst-case scenarios and, hopefully, move towards some sort of peace before the cost of this war becomes scarring for us all.

Death ground.

While it may sound like a heavy metal band name, this is a concept any student of war or diplomacy should be aware of, along with its corresponding cousin: the golden bridge.

Right this moment, the Iranian regime is standing on death ground, and if we don’t build a golden bridge with them in negotiations, many more will die than necessary.

Let me explain the basic scholarship on negotiation I wish our present leaders understood.

An Ancient Principle of War

Over 2000 years before Donald Trump wrote The Art of the Deal, a Chinese general and strategist, Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War. Today, The Art of War is commonly cited in war and diplomacy curricula. In fact, it is listed as one of THE West Point History Department’s Top 10 Military Classics.

Many an officer in the US military has read this book.

In Chapter 7, paragraph 36, Sun Tzu writes, “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.”

A surrounded foe with no way out stands on death ground. And if you press them rather than providing an outlet they view as preferable to death, they will fight you with every ounce of might in their body.

(Side note: This is why it is really dumb for our “Secretary of War” to say that we will offer “no quarter” and “no mercy” in this war. You want people defeated in battle to surrender, not fight to the death.)

In Chapter 11, Sun Tzu further writes on this concept of death ground, or desperate ground, even communicating that it can be ideal to place your army upon it intentionally, as “it is the soldier’s disposition to offer an obstinate resistance when surrounded.”

An Ancient Example

This is actually precisely what Chinese General Han Xin did in 205 BC (several hundred years after Sun Tzu’s life), when he placed his army of 30,000 men with their backs to a river bank as they fought off 200,000 in the Battle of Jingxing. The 30,000 fought valiantly, drawing the full force of the opposing Zhao army into combat. Simultaneously, a mere 2000 cavalry under Han Xin’s forces descended from flanking mountains and raised their flag in the enemy camp, causing a panicked retreat among their enemies.

The battle’s outcome gave rise to a Chinese idiom, “fighting a battle with one’s back facing a river” (背水一战), which is used similarly to the American idiom of “do or die.”

No one fights so viciously as a foe whose only other alternative is destruction. The last thing you want in war is to place your foe upon clear death ground and then press him. That will go bloodily for them, sure, but likely also for you. And it just might actually work against you altogether.

We’re Pressing An Enemy on Death Ground

This isn’t just relevant for battles, but also at the level of strategic negotiation.

Before this war with Iran had even begun, we had maneuvered the Iranian regime onto death ground. Our sanctions had their economy in a freefall. Our military pressure had been steady and growing. A valuable goal would have been to use that pressure to push them to the outlet of your choosing, building what William Ury, cofounder of the Harvard Program on Negotiation, calls “a golden bridge.” Instead, we chose to engage in a full on military conflict just as negotiations appeared to be making progress.

With the launch of this war, we began to close in on the enemy we’d placed on death ground. Our previous pokes and prods (even our bombing campaign last summer) were not intended to push the enemy off the precipice, were not intended to directly destroy them, but merely to pressure them and achieve limited objectives.

They likewise responded by more or less by simply swinging their swords in our direction, launching strikes they knew would be neutralized easily enough. Their response was more in-line with saving face in their honor/shame culture and building a narrative of response they could feed to their people than an actual military threat.

But now that we truly are attempting to force them off the cliff, we risk them attempting to cut their way through us, desperate to go out with a fight, take as many down with them as possible, and perhaps find some sense of victory in the obstinance of their resistance.

So What Now, Then?

So what’s the solution?

Your suggestions of peace have to be better than continued war. You have to provide a serious outlet. Peace needs to bring benefits for both sides, especially now that blood has been spilt.

In war, you must either crush your foe altogether or, absent that capability or will to engage in such a costly fight, find a peace that meets some form of mutual criteria. The problem is, everyone engages in peace talks with the goal of either a) avoiding worse outcomes or b) gaining better outcomes.

We already played our cards, though. We began the war with killing the “Supreme Leader” and much of his inner circle. We’ve bombed much of their infrastructure they’d otherwise want to preserve. We’d strangled their economy before we even began the war.

The question now is: What does the Iranian leadership have left to lose? What remains on the Iranian side of the ledger? If the answer is “nothing,” then we aren't just fighting a regime; we are fighting an entity that sees resistance to the point of death as its only remaining path to either honor in death or continued future life of any quality. If they perceive they have nothing left to lose, their strategic calculus shifts from survival to “obstinate resistance.”

The paradox of our current position is that the 'sunk costs' of the conflict have made the price of diplomacy exorbitant. We have no appetite for the concessions peace would now require. The blood and destruction already inflicted don't disappear at the negotiating table—they become demands for compensation, security guarantees, and pledges of non-aggression that we simply aren't willing to make.

This piece isn’t about whether it would be tactically useful or morally valuable for us to have avenues to continue future military pressure against the despotic regime. It’s simply about what terms realistically would or wouldn’t satisfy negotiations in which both sides hold agency and have their own interests to meet, and their own forms of “death ground” to avoid.

In our arrogance, I worry we’re determined to avoid the concessions that would be required to accomplish such a negotiation, and we didn’t begin this war with thought as to how it might end absent the physical removal of this regime from power. With that in mind, I worry our leaders are determined to fight our opponents at this precipice, no matter the cost.

And that just might mean boots on the ground against a desperate foe.

By demonstrating too much force, too quickly, against an ideologically driven foe now eager to save face and avoid destruction, we’ve placed ourselves in quite a predicament, with an opponent on “death ground” with whom we are unwilling to build a path to deescalation.

You know the story of David and Bathsheba, but do you know the revenge narrative that follows it?

If you grew up in Sunday School, you probably think you know the story of David and Bathsheba. It’s often framed as a cautionary tale about the spiraling danger of sin, and sometimes even twisted into a narrative of seduction. In a version of the story common to Evangelicalism, Bathsheba is cast as a temptress, or at the very least, a willing participant in a scandalous affair.

But if you don’t know the revenge narrative that follows in subsequent chapters of 2 Samuel, you’re missing some key clues as to the nature of what really happened to Bathsheba.

To understand what actually happened between David and Bathsheba, adultery or r*pe, we have to talk about a man you’ve likely never heard of: Ahithophel. He is the linchpin that turns this story from a possible love affair into what seems to be a fairly plain case of sexual abuse.

Add in some core takeaways from Nathan’s parable and, between that and Ahithophel’s counsel, the case is closed. Let’s dive into the text.

First, Let’s Get Past Arguable Details

Before we get to the “smoking gun,” let’s briefly address common arguments around the narrative and why I’m not referring to them here.

Arguments fly back and forth regarding the Hebrew phrasing and grammar in 2 Samuel 11. Some point out that David “sent messengers and took her” (2 Samuel 11:4), emphasizing a forceful seizure of a subject by a king by (likely) armed guards. Others counter by looking at the book of Ruth, noting that Boaz “took Ruth and she became his wife” (Ruth 4:13), or pointing out that Bathsheba “came to him” (2 Samuel 11:4).

People go back and forth over whether details in the text point to either Bathsheba’s innocence or culpability: Why and where was she bathing? Were the “messengers” sent to her armed guards? Could Bathsheba have said no to David as King?

But, in my opinion, these arguments can easily devolve into unnecessary distraction when two very clear clues are given to us in the chapters of 2 Samuel following David’s sin.

Clue #1: The Parable of the Lamb

Immediately after David’s sin, the Prophet Nathan confronts him with a brilliant, devastating parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-4.

Nathan tells David about two men: one rich, with many flocks, and one poor, who had nothing but one little ewe lamb that he had bought and brought up. The text says the lamb “ate of his food and drank from his cup and lay in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him.”

When a traveler comes to the rich man, the rich man refuses to take from his own flock. Instead, he takes the poor man’s lamb and “prepares” it for the guest. In other words, he slaughters it.

Ask yourself: In this narrative, who is the lamb? The lamb is Bathsheba. Does the thief in the story love the lamb and cherish it as a beloved addition to his flock? No. He slaughters it for reasons of appetite and convenience.

So, is the lamb (aka Bathsheba) a sinful participant in its own slaughter, or is it a victim?

By using this specific metaphor, the Holy Spirit—through Nathan—defines Bathsheba not as an adulteress, but as a “precious thing” that was stolen and consumed by a man who, blessed as he was, needed to seize even more to meet an unquenchable appetite.

Yet, some, like the author of this Got Questions article, still want to defend David from the accusation of the specific sin of “r*pe.”

In their effort to justify David, they’ll twist themselves into knots, even creating entirely manufactured third categories of “took advantage” rather than simply calling David’s sin what it was.

Well, when you look at the narrative of Ahithophel’s vengeance, even that weird distinction falls apart.

Clue #2: The Revenge Narrative

This is where the story gets incredibly dark and incredibly precise. Enter Ahithophel.

Ahithophel was one of King David’s most esteemed advisors. 2 Samuel 16:23 says his counsel was as if one had “consulted the word of God.” But in 2 Samuel 15-16, we see Ahithophel serve as a bitter enemy to David, allying with his rebellious son, Absalom. Why?

Well, let’s do some “detective work” in the genealogies:

1. In 2 Samuel 11:3, we learn that Bathsheba is the daughter of Eliam.

2. In 2 Samuel 23:34, when listing David’s “Mighty Men,” we find: “Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.”

Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather.

When David “took” Bathsheba and murdered Uriah, he didn’t just commit a sin in a vacuum; he decimated a family in his most loyal inner circle. He took the “ewe lamb” of his own advisor’s household, disgracing her father and killing her husband in the process (both of whom had likely served with him for years, potentially even before his kingship, given their labels as members of his Mighty Men).

The Vengeance of the Grandfather

Fast forward years later. David’s son, Absalom, leads a rebellion against his father (2 Samuel 15). If you’re unaware of his relation to Bathsheba, Ahithophel defects from David seemingly randomly to join the rebellion.

But we’re not unaware of that connection, and that connection is important to note in exactly what Ahithophel advises Absalom to do.

Ahithophel’s advice to Absalom is chillingly specific. He tells him to ““Go and sleep with your father’s concubines, for he has left them here to look after the palace. Then all Israel will know that you have insulted your father beyond hope of reconciliation, and they will throw their support to you.” So they set up a tent on the palace roof where everyone could see it, and Absalom went in and had sex with his father’s concubines.” (2 Samuel 16:21-22).

At first glance, this looks like a political power move. But in the context of the family history, it is a calculated “mirror” punishment. Ahithophel is directing David’s own son to do to David’s wives in public what David did to Ahithophel’s granddaughter in private.

This exact evil was predicted by Nathan in 2 Samuel 12:11-12: “I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor... For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel.”

Conclusion: Seeing Through the Narrative

If Ahithophel’s revenge was a mirror of David’s crime, then we have to accept the reflection.

What Absalom did to those concubines was, by any modern or biblical definition, sexual assault. If the “repayment” for David’s sin was sexual assault, then the “original debt”—what David did to Bathsheba—should logically be categorized the same way.

It’s important to note that the Ancient Near East didn’t use our modern vocabulary for “consent” or “autonomy.” They used categories of property, honor, and theft.

In the ANE, the only actions really categorized as r*pe were forcible physical assault. Other situations of non-consensual sexual relations, due to factors such as intoxication (e.g. Lot’s situation at the hand of his daughters 🤮 or Jacob’s situation with Leah), coercion, threats, or power imbalances (e.g. a king and a subject) were rightly labeled as trickery or wrongs, but wouldn’t be slapped with the same label by Biblical authors as a violent assault, despite the fact that we categorize this all as one crime based on consent/non-consent today.

Individual autonomy simply wasn’t perceived the same way we handle it today. Injustices like those discussed here were considered to be committed not against the woman, but her family as a whole. Additionally, women were viewed essentially as property to their fathers or husbands, so restitution for such a crime against a virgin, for example, included paying a woman’s father and marrying her.

We have to recognize that the Bible doesn’t use our language because it was written by people who simply inhabited a very different world. But it is plain to see that what happened to Bathsheba is what we would categorize as r*pe today While the Bible doesn’t use that word, it does present her as a victim, not a participant in David’s sin.

The narrative structure is clear. Bathsheba wasn’t a “femme fatale,” as often portrayed in Hollywood and many a Bible study. She was a woman caught in the crossfire of a powerful man’s appetite.

This matters for the Church today, because how we see Bathsheba will be reflected in how we perceive and treat victims of sexual abuse (and their abusers) in our own churches today. Will we excuse victims and try to paint their situations as mutual sins between two people? Will we even go so far as painting victims as intentional seductresses? Or will we protect victims and confront their abusers, just as Nathan did in 2 Samuel?

Our perspective on this story, just like others in the Bible, will logically bleed into our real lives.

What do you think? Were you aware of these connections in the story? Let me know your takeaways or thoughts in the comments!

First, a Summary

First popularized by Tim Keller, the term "Third Way" for Christians means to move beyond the rigid 'either/or' of modern politics and culture. It is neither Left, nor Right.

Instead, it is an invitation to elevate the Gospel as a distinct way of life with Christ as the standard, holding the failings of both left-wing secular progressivism and right-wing MAGA politics to scrutiny against Scripture, with allegiance to neither.

Christ alone holds our allegiance, not corrupt human institutions of politics, which will often manipulate our faith for their own nefarious purposes.

Third Way Christianity rejects Secular Progressivism, it rejects MAGA politics, and it even rejects Christian Nationalism. Here’s what it speaks to each of those.

Rejecting Secular Progressivism

The evils, false promises, and flawed worldview of secular progressivism are largely known and acknowledged in the American Church. Progressive ideology on gender, sexuality, abortion, and more often tells you one thing:

“You are your desires, your desires are good, and you should generally get whatever you want.”

Christ tells us differently:

“The heart is deceitful above all things.”

“You are more than your desires.”

“You are made in my Image.”

“As your Creator, I have desires for you that are better than your own. Walk with me.”

What Causes This Misperception of Self?

Many of the flaws of Secular Progressivism can be tied to an error of Marxist worldview, separating humans into two categories: oppressed (innocent) and oppressor (depraved). There are no moral boundaries besides just refraining from “oppressing” others.

However, the world does not consist of a binary of the innocent "oppressed" and the depraved "oppressor."

In the mid-20th century, political philosopher and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in The Irony of American History:

“Invariably those who suffer from the arrogance or the power of others wrongfully assume that the evils from which they suffer are solely the consequence of the peculiar malice of their oppressors; and fail to recognize the root of the same evils in themselves.”

Niebuhr points to this externalization of evil and false perception of one’s own innocence as a dangerous risk to Marxism and other ideologies. I think he’d point out the same risk in much of Progressivism today.

According to Christianity, we are all alike born predisposed to the same flaws of excessive elevation of self, sinful impulse, and exercise of control over others.

Whether you call this Original Sin (Protestants & Catholics) or Ancestral Sin (Orthodox), we all know the human condition is in need of repair. That comes through Christ, not redistribution or self-realization.

Secular Progressivism makes the mistake of diagnosing the human condition only in a select handful of humans: those who have had the most opportunity to exercise the worst of their evil desires.

What it fails to acknowledge is that, given the same opportunity and no outside moral restraints, we would commit the same exact wrongs, finding our own ways to justify them (as was found time and time again in the nations in which Marxism flourished in the 20th century).

And even if your sins are never aimed at others, they can be aimed at yourself. God’s ways are for our good, intended to rescue us from not only destruction of others, but also destruction of self.

Progressivism calls for some good things, but it can easily risk a constant flipping of oppressed to oppressor when not metered by objective moral bounds and a critical self-awareness and humility. Christians must hold it accountable to objective truth.

Rejecting MAGA Politics

Many Christians today argue that the ends justify the means, that the evils of the Progressive Left are so significant that any degree of moral compromise in support of the Right must be acceptable.

If 1 million babies are murdered per year, how could you ever vote for the party that has enshrined abortion? While reasonable at face-value, this approach to politics fails in that it gives unceasing loyalty to one political party with zero accountability or moral boundaries.

This undying loyalty is extremely easy to manipulate, and has turned the Church into a political pawn to be played by empty rhetoric.

Our Faith is Not a Fiddle to be Played

For example, many voted for Trump in 2024 because he was supposedly more pro-life than Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris' elevation and promotion of abortion as "healthcare," framing elective abortion almost as a moral good to be desired in a moral society, was extremely concerning. However, we can see a year into Trump's presidency that his own rhetoric was no more than vain manipulation.

Preliminary data shows abortions either slightly increased or were flat in 2025, an outcome that likely would have occurred with either candidate. No actual proactive efforts are being made to reduce abortion by the Right at the federal level today. The topic has been reduced to a rhetorical box to check, not lives to advocate for.

“The most recent data from the Society for Family Planning’s #WeCount project show that the average monthly abortion volume during the first half of 2025 was higher than the monthly average in 2024. From January to June 2025, there have been more than 590,000 abortions compared to 1.14 million abortions in all of 2024 and 1.06 million abortions in 2023.” - Abortion Trends Before and After Dobbs, Diep at al., 2026

Contrast this with the previously steady decline in abortion rates successfully realized under both Presidents Bush and Obama (and Clinton), as they each made their own proactive and intentional efforts to reduce abortions during their presidencies. That trend reversed under Trump’s first presidency. We’ve been played, y’all. Democrats have abandoned “safe, legal, and rare,” and Republicans have abandoned anything besides checking a box on political legislation. There is no longer a pro-life party willing to do the real work to advocate for the life of the unborn.

Mere legal battles won’t win our nation over to goodness. We have to persuade. We have to inform. We have to reach people with truth personally, and we have to demand our politicians take proactive action to reverse this new decade-long trend, helping address root problems behind it.

Enough about that one topic, though. In the meantime, the American Evangelical Church, as one of Donald Trump's most reliable, stalwart, and unwavering blocks of political support, has deeply compromised our own witness on other matters.

As we turn a blind eye to violations of the rights of our neighbors, unrestrained and manipulative greed, and even (ironically) the breaking down of the rule of law (e.g. immigrant violations of law being used to justify ICE’s own violations), we are being revealed as hypocrites whose goal was not a moral society, but one in which we rule at the cost of any moral compromise.

That cannot be what the Church is known for. Christian Conservatism has been too easily manipulated and compromised.

We Need to Follow Christ's Narrow Way

The Church has always been supposed to stand as a prophetic voice to the powers of the world (even before the New Testament, when the Elect was still restricted to the Jewish people).

The Major and Minor prophets are filled with powers being held to account to the standards of God, both in matters of "social morals" and "personal morals." God is concerned with our sexual practice AND with how we treat the poor. God is concerned with our respect for rules and order AND with evil men consolidating power to themselves.

To follow the Narrow Way of Christ is to hold all powers of our day to account, utilizing the same prophetic voice that led to John the Baptist's execution.

P.S. Third Way Christianity rejects Christian Nationalism

Many seem to want to make the United States into a “Christian Nation” purely through civic action today. Friend, this massively misunderstands what it is to be “Christian.”

Things are not Christian. People are.

A nation is not made a Christian one by laws, but by hearts. The "Christian" Puritan colony of Boston was lead by religious magistrates, who mandated church attendance and religious observance. Yet they also burned Mary Dyer at the stake for minor doctrinal disagreements.

We risk repeating the same mistakes when we view ourselves as benevolent philanthropists to society, deserving of full accumulation of state power due to the virtue of our religious nature.

As Niebuhr quotes from John Adams, “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all of His laws.”

It is true that many of the original US colonies had state churches. These were abolished for a reason, though, as the fledgling Americans observed how European Christians had killed each other in the millions over doctrinal disputes taken advantage of by those seeking power and influence.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison

Fusing Church and State doesn't redeem the state. It hollows the Church. We know this from many examples of history. A nation with entirely "Christian" laws with few Christian hearts will itself come undone. A nation full of Christian hearts will naturally trend towards Christ's ways.

The order matters. Win souls to win the nation. Don't win the nation to win souls.

We Christians must stand for the Gospel and participate civically in our nation with hope, but never compromise our faith for political influence.

Share

Leave a comment

When we think of Jesus’ most famous teaching moments, the Sermon on the Mount often tops the list. There are few words of Jesus’ that are as well-known in our society today. The Beatitudes (”Blessed are the poor in spirit,” “Blessed are the meek, etc.”) are some of the most quoted lines in history.

But here is a question that might surprise you: Did Jesus simply come up with these sayings? Was this akin to an original speech from Christ himself? Or was he actually doing more to reinforce and drive home existing teachings?

While Jesus is God Incarnate and certainly speaks with His own authority, He didn’t just pull these concepts out of thin air. He was doing something that every good teacher of the Word does: He was using Scripture.

Even the God incarnate Himself referred to His own written Word to teach the people.

The Beatitudes and Their Ancient Roots

If you look closely at the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, you will find that it is deeply woven with the threads of the Old Testament. Jesus wasn’t replacing the Hebrew Scriptures; He was amplifying them.

Let’s look at the side-by-side comparison of some of Jesus’ words and the Old Testament prophets and psalmists.

Matthew 5:3

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.”

Compare this to Isaiah 57:15.

For the High and Exalted One,
who lives forever, whose name is holy, says this:
“I live in a high and holy place,
and with the oppressed and lowly of spirit,
to revive the spirit of the lowly
and revive the heart of the oppressed.

Other Bible versions such as the NRSV use the terminology of “the contrite and humble in spirit” in place of “the oppressed and lowly of spirit.” Either way, Jesus’ words echo Isaiah’s here. God dwells in his Kingdom, and those who are “lowly of spirit” will dwell there with Him.

Matthew 5:4

“Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.”

And what does Isaiah 61:1-2 tell us?

1 The Spirit of the Lord God is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives
and freedom to the prisoners;
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
and the day of our God’s vengeance;
to comfort all who mourn,

Jesus is clearly citing the one of the promises about him in Isaiah 61. All who mourn will be comforted by the Messiah.

Matthew 5:5

“Blessed are the humble,
for they will inherit the earth.”

This one is virtually a direct quote of Psalm 37:11.

“But the humble will inherit the land
and will enjoy abundant prosperity.”

There’s not a whole lot to add there. Once you’re aware of Psalm 37:11, it’s easy to see it’s clearly being referenced by Jesus here. Now let’s jump ahead a little bit.

Matthew 5:8

“Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.”

Take a look at Psalm 24:3-4.

3 Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
4 The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who has not appealed to what is false,
and who has not sworn deceitfully.

The one who has clean hands and a pure heart may stand in the presence of God, where, as Jesus says, “they will see God.”

These are just a few examples. The broader Sermon on the Mount is saturated with references to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

Why This Matters for the Modern Church

Recognizing that Jesus quoted the Old Testament isn’t just a fun trivia fact; it has two major implications for how we practice our faith today.

1. The Standard for Preaching

If Jesus—the very Word of God made flesh—found it necessary and useful to study, memorize, and pull from Scripture to inform His sermons, how much more does that apply to human preachers?

Jesus didn’t rely solely on original, “off-the-cuff” wisdom. He anchored His teaching in the text. This sets a clear bar for our leaders today: If you attend a church where the pastor never references Scripture, it might be time to find a new church.

2. The Danger of “Un-hitching” the Old Testament

There is a popular trend among some modern Christians to identify strictly as “New Testament” believers. Some go as far as neglecting the Old Testament entirely, or viewing the God of the Old Testament as incompatible with the Jesus of the New Testament.

This isn’t a new idea. It is actually an ancient heresy known as Marcionism.

In the 2nd century, a man named Marcion taught that the “vengeful” Creator God of the Old Testament was separate from and opposed to the “loving” Father of Jesus.

The early church rejected this teaching vehemently. The church father Polycarp famously called Marcion the “firstborn of Satan.” Strong words for the leader of a dangerous heresy.

This heresy also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when we look at Jesus’ own regard for the Old Testament scriptures. If the Old Testament God was truly opposed to Jesus, why would Jesus hold the Old Testament Scriptures in such high regard? Why would He build His most famous sermon upon Old Testament books such as Isaiah and the Psalms?

Conclusion

Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament; He came to fulfill it. Shortly after preaching the Beatitudes and referring to this array of Old Testament scriptures, Jesus says this plainly, in Matthew 5:17.

“Don’t think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

Jesus is the one who can carry these Old Testament words to their intended conclusions. When we read the Sermon on the Mount, we aren’t just reading something new. Rather, we’re hearing the source of these words Himself provide illumination to them.

So the next time you read the Beatitudes, remember: You are reading a Master Teacher handling His very own inspired words with precision.

Leave a comment

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the humble, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.”

Matthew 5:3–10, CSB

See that word repeated over and over? “Blessed.”

As modern Westerners, we have a very specific cultural definition of this word. To us, being “blessed” usually means being favored by God in tangible ways. When we scroll through social media and see someone claim they are #blessed, it’s typically accompanied by a picture of a new car, a promotion, a happy family, or a vacation sunset. We think of abundance, wealth, and security.

But there is much more happening here than our modern vocabulary suggests. To understand the shock of what Jesus was actually saying, we have to look at the Greek word underneath the translation.

Defining Makarios

The word Jesus uses in Matthew 5 is “makarios.”

While it is correctly translated as “blessed,” it carries a wider nuance. It can also be translated as “fortunate,” “happy,” or even, “to be envied.”

In Ancient Greek culture, makarios wasn’t a word used for just anyone. It originally described the blissful state of the gods—beings who were above the cares of the world. Over time, society began using it to describe the human elite: the wealthy, the powerful, and the untouchable.

These were the people who were makarios. You looked at the rich man living in luxury and thought, “I envy him. He has the good life.”

This word was certainly not fit to describe the poor, the mourning, the submissive, or the persecuted.

The Great Reversal

This is where Jesus turns the world upside down. He takes a word reserved for the elite and the gods—a word meaning “to be envied”—and applies it to the people society pitied the most.

The humble (meek) are to be envied? That wimpy guy who needs to stop letting people trample all over him?

The pure in heart are fortunate? The guy who got passed up for a promotion because he refused to bend the numbers a bit?

The persecuted are living the good life? C’mon. Who in their right mind sees someone suffering for their faith and thinks, “Wow, if only I could be so lucky as to have a life like that?”

And yet, that is exactly what Jesus is saying.

He is teaching us that the measures, weights, and priorities we use in this world are not the measures and weights of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Kingdom, the hierarchy is inverted. God’s Kingdom is upside down.

A New Definition of Success

Jesus wants his audience—and us—to look at the merciful, the peacemakers, and those hungry for righteousness and say, “Man, that is the life. I want more of that.”

He wants us to recognize that living that life is the path to fulfillment, blessing, and the true meaningful goals of life.

Take a look at verses 11-12:

“You are blessed when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say every kind of evil against you because of me. Be glad and rejoice, because your reward is great in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Fortunate are the persecuted? They’re to be envied? Well, when you have Kingdom priorities, maybe so, and not only for the anticipated reward, but also for the confidence Christ brings in this present life; the confidence we can have in his promises of good in the end.

The natural human instinct is to envy the powerful and the wealthy. The Kingdom instinct is to envy those who have such deep security in God that they can endure persecution with joy. Do you envy those who have that kind of security of faith?

Some things to consider, eh?

So, Christian, beware of the voice in our culture that denigrates these traits as “weakness.” In Christ’s Kingdom, the people practicing these things are the truly successful ones. They are makarios; fortunate, blessed, and the ones truly to be envied.

Leave a comment

There can be no doubt that the population of Muslims in the US is growing. While Muslims historically have made up less than 1% of the US population, their share of the population is expected to rise to as high as 2.1% by 2050.

Many on the political Right have quite a problem with this, with many even suggesting that, if the US isn’t careful, we could end up under Sharia law within our lifetimes. (We could get into how American Christians misunderstand what šarīʿah is in the first place, but that’s maybe a topic for another time.) After Zohran Mamdani won the NYC primary, late political commentator Charlie Kirk tweeted the following:

This false equation of Muslims like Mamdani with terrorists who have committed grave evils is not only offensive, but it’s also deeply misinformed, and reeks of a lack of real exposure to followers of Islam and genuine conversation with them about the things we respectively believe.

I think the fears that a lot of Christians have demonstrated regarding the growing presence of Muslims in our society betrays a lot of misunderstandings of Islam, of Muslim people, and of the opportunity we Christians have before us in ministering to people of the Islamic religion.

So, I reached out to a missionary who follows my page, who I know has spent years in ministry to Muslims in Palestine. She, along with 7 other missionaries in MENA (Middle East and North Africa) nations, was kind enough to put together a document responding to common questions sincere American Christians may have about Muslims, their faith, and how we should respond to their growing presence in our nation.

Below is their compiled response, which I hope you find helpful. Ultimately, may we Christians see the growing presence of Muslims in our country not as a threat, but as an opportunity for the Gospel and the evangelization of the nations, right here in our own backyards.

First, a caveat:

We are all people who’ve lived in various countries in the Levant and Northern Africa. We don’t have much experience with Muslims in other areas of the world, and we want to emphasize that Islam is a religion, not a culture or nationality, and Muslims are not a monolith. Just like a North American Christian would have cultural differences with a Christian in South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, or Oceania, Muslims in the Middle East will have cultural differences with other Muslims worldwide. Because of this, most of our answers about Middle Eastern culture also apply to Arab Christians.

1) What do you think American Christians misunderstand about Muslims?

The first thing we want American Christians to know is that Muslims are human beings made in God’s image. Full stop.

The second thing we want you to know is that Muslims are not out to get you. They are a people that love us, love Americans and several aspects American culture, and welcome us with an inordinate level of hospitality. What they don’t love is the blatant immorality they see in many American movies and shows, so when they get to know us as true believers in Jesus and see that we love God and pursue holiness, they go beyond just welcoming us to also respecting us.

The third thing we want you to know is Muslims are people who are trying really hard to honor God. For Arab Muslims this means things like praying five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, and regularly giving to charity, and their pursuit of holiness is so intertwined with their identity that it affects their entire day and everything they talk about. Arab Muslims love to talk about God. It’s so much easier to share the gospel with a Muslim in the Middle East than with the average American because it’s not a taboo subject and there’s constant, rich dialogue surrounding theology in normal places like the dinner table and coffee shops.

The fourth thing we want you to know is Arab Muslims understand some of Jesus’s teaching, such as the Good Samaritan story, better than Westerners. They understand going out of their way to help people, even at extreme detriment to themselves, and truly loving their neighbor. In fact, if the American Church understood the Good Samaritan parable like they should, these questions about Muslims wouldn’t even need to be asked because American Christians would have figured them out through interactions with their Muslim neighbors, and love would have already replaced the fear.

The fifth thing we want you to know is though Muslims’ committment to holiness is admirable, they need the gospel. We desperately want them to know that God already loves them and has made a way to reconcile them to Himself through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Theologically, they don’t understand the difference between atoning for your sins vs. making a God who has already atoned for your sins happy.

So that leads to the sixth thing we want you to know that is actually something we want you to do. We want Christians in America to love their Muslim neighbors, get to know them, and share the gospel with them.

2) Why are some Muslims extremists and some not?

There are Muslim extremists for the same reasons there are extremists in every religion, group, philosophical track, political party, and even hobby.

The main reason is because people are in pain, pain becomes part of their identity, and they want something to hold on to. The most effective America ever is in foreign policy is when we reach out with food and aid in order to ease pain. The same is true in the Church when we bring a cup of cold water in the name of Jesus. We create MORE extremism when we reach out with bombs and harm. The reason there’s more extremism in some areas of the world, like the Middle East, is because WE (Westerners, mostly post-World War II) have reached out with bombs and gerrymandering and greed and king-making.

The second reason is because people are deceived. There are people who want to please God, and that’s exploited by leaders who use religious texts as an excuse for power and personal gain. Think of the Crusades when Christians slaughtered people because they were told by their leaders that it would please God. If you combine this desire to please God with the pain from the first reason, the exploitation is even easier.

3) When a Muslim comes to Jesus, is it true that their life will be threatened as an apostate?

We’ve seen this run the whole gamut. In most countries there’s freedom of religion and the state won’t go after them and will even punish any individuals who do. Where we live, a Muslim has complete freedom to walk into a church and ask to be baptized as long as it’s their own choice and not done under compulsion. It will be a bit of a process to change their paperwork, but there’s freedom to do so. The same is true of many countries over here.

On a domestic level, it is totally dependent on the family and clan. Sometimes it just means their families express sadness at their choice. Sometimes it means something a bit harsher like their families won’t talk to them or invite them to holidays. Sometimes it means their community lashes out and they lose their job. We have definitely seen examples of people who’ve had to leave their families for fear of their safety, though out of all of us we only know of one person who’s actually been killed, and that was in another country and is a story from friends of friends. We also know a lot of families who, while the first generation faced some pushback from the community for converting, after that they were considered a Christian family in subsequent generations. We imagine somewhere along the lines of our own families, someone had to be that first generation to make the jump, and we now reap the benefits. What a privilege to be there to help an entire family line make that jump!

For refugees specifically, who are away from their community and extended family, the domestic threat is removed. So again, we’d call on American

Christians to share the gospel with their Muslim neighbors who are oftentimes separated from extended family.

4) How can someone effectively share the gospel with a Muslim friend?

Talk to them. Befriend them like they’re a normal person because they are. Invite them over. Respect them and don’t serve things like pork or alcohol just like you wouldn’t serve meat to a vegetarian. How do you share the gospel with any of your neighbors? Apply most of the same ideas to Muslims because, again, they’re people.

For Arab Muslims specifically, remember that they like to talk about God, so that helps open the conversation. You are going to have to overcome specific theological barriers. One of those, which we assume most American Christians probably don’t know, is that a lot of Arab Muslims are universalists. They believe you’re fine to be a Christian and they’re fine to be a Muslim and that we both actually serve the same God and will likely end up in heaven together as long as we’re not bad people. You have to make it clear that Jesus is the only way because we cannot atone for our own sins. That leads to another barrier which is the idea that we can atone for our own sin through good works. You have to make them realize they’re lost and in need of a Savior before you can share the way to salvation.

For more specific information, look up the book Any-3.

5) Are “Western” values and Islam compatible?

This is a difficult question to answer because we don’t totally understand what Western values are. Islam is already a part of Western society and has been for hundreds of years, so it’s already a component. Muslims have always had a consistent place in American society just like Jewish people, Chinese people, Irish people, Catholics, Protestants, etc. E pluribus unum.

If we’re talking about family values, those are compatible with what Muslims believe. Caring for your community, yes. Education, yes. Literacy, yes. Hard work, yes. Things like freedom of the press and information? Sometimes yes in both the US and the Middle East, and sometimes no in both the US and the Middle East. Equality? Sometimes yes in both the US and the Middle East, and sometimes no in both the US and the Middle East. Abortion? No. Transgenderism? No. Nudity in the media or out in public? No. I think conservative Christians in America need to realize that Muslims are actually their ally on a lot of cultural issues.

We do feel like we all need to be careful with this question. Why do you care about western values? Are you trying to build the Kingdom of the West, or are you trying to build the Kingdom of God?

6) Do you think Christians and Muslims can peacefully coexist?

Yes. We have been for over a thousand years. The thirty-two Mohammads in my phone tends to point to our ability to co-exist. Please listen to and learn from Middle Eastern Christians, the descendants of the first Church, on this topic and learn from them.

7) Are non-extremist Muslims considered “bad Muslims”?

No. Muslims in the Middle East are VERY clear that extremists are not following Islam. They disavow it entirely and will give surah and ayah (chapter and verse) to explain why terrorism is wrong. We’ve heard Americans talk about “dancing Muslims” on 9/11, but in reality, the Americans who were overseas at the time remember everyone apologizing to us for our pain, bringing us food, sitting with us in our grief, and uncategorically condeming acts of terrorism.

People from any religion will use their holy book to justify their actions. The FLDS uses the Bible. Westboro Baptist uses the Bible. The Pharisees used the Torah. All of these groups are or were people trying to follow their

religion and please God and miss or missed it horrendously. This should be a humbling warning to every one of us, not an arrogant boast.

8) What do you respect about the Muslims you’ve befriended?

We respect them for all sorts of reasons just like we would any other human being because they’re human beings.

As far as Arab culture goes (both Christians and Muslims) some things that stick out to us are: generosity, hospitality, kindness, patience, a desire to please God, and a desire to talk about God regularly.

We’ve all been blown away by the way Arabs love us. We’ve never been able to outgive a poor Syrian. We might be able to give “more” from a numbers standpoint, but like the widow giving her last mite, they will give their last whereas we won’t. Even if we, as much, much richer people than refugees, can buy something for us to eat when we’re visiting, they will still insist on buying something, making something, and feeding us.

When an Arab loves you, they will fight for you. You are now a part of their family. They will act as if their life depends on your well-being.

Just to give a story to this, one of the couples answering this question once moved into a Palestinian refugee camp. They weren’t given a budget by their company for the move, so leaving behind a furnished apartment in town meant they didn’t end up with much to take with them to the new house. When the neighbors from the camp visited them to welcome them, they saw that all they had to sit on was a couple of cushions on the floor. The next day, a couch appeared on their porch.

You can’t outgive Arabs.

9) Are you alarmed by the Muslim presence growing in the US?

Not even a little.

Historically, no immigrant culture that’s come to the US after its inception has ever “dragged down” the culture in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary. Not the Irish or the Italians or the Chinese or the Swedish or the Japanese or the Indians.

Biblically, one of the things God calls us to do is welcome. This idea that they’re “taking over” or that we should be afraid of them is indicative of fear and othering, not welcoming. Why are we making this us vs. them? We don’t battle against flesh and blood. Any time you’re responding to people in fear, you’re disobeying Jesus and holding onto sacred cows.

We’re more fearful of people in the American Church living idolatrous, disobedient lives under the name of Christ than we are of lost people acting lost. We’re excited to see those idols torn down.

Jesus gave us the Great Commission, and now He’s making it REALLY easy for you to fulfill it. He’s bringing the nations to you so you don’t even have to “go” anymore. Obey Him. Share the gospel.

Leave a comment

Nonetheless, I think you’ll hear some perspectives you haven’t considered as I break down detailed elements of trade involving various real-world examples involved the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, the Netherlands, and more.

I hold a B.A. in Global Development and a Master of International Business, so a lot of this is kind of my bread and butter. I hope you find it informative. Let me know in the comments if you learned something new!

Did Jesus teach wealth reallocation and/or redistribution?

Well, yes. Kind of.

Why is that? Are they really tariffing US goods so dramatically themselves? Not quite. Let’s dive in and discuss.

So let's try Jesus' method of making a point in light pushback he received: Parable

A Parable on Action

One day, a man was walking by a lake near his home. Suddenly, he spotted little hands coming out of the water, about 10 yards in.

Quickly, he rushed over and pulled those hands up.

Out from the water, clinging to his hands, emerges a small child, coughing and sputtering. "Th-th-thank you, sir," the child says, shivering from the cold water he nearly drowned in.

When he saw a child in need, a life he was more than capable of saving, this man sprung into action. After all, what monster would just watch a kid die without making any effort to save them?

A Critical Moment

A few weeks later, our character is at a park watching his children's soccer game. There are multiple soccer fields, with dozens of families and hundreds of children scattered around the park.

Suddenly, he hears a scream, followed by a yell, "The levee broke!," and the unmistakable sound of rushing water, which he sees rapidly approaching.

Water suddenly reaches his ankles, then his knees, his waist, and finally stops just short of his chest. The thing is, the man is 6'2". The children who had been scattered around the park are not.

Suddenly, it's like that day at the lake, but as far as the eye can see. Little child hands, faces, and legs all thrashing helplessly in the water.

Of course, the man gets to work right away. He sees that his children are safely clinging to their mother and directs them to make their way to the roof of their car.

In the meantime, he spots a playground towering above the water and begins wading towards it, grabbing as many small children as he can along the way and pulling them up onto his arms and shoulders.

"The playground! Get the kids onto the playground!," he shouts to any who will help. He can't save them all, but he'll save as many as he can, hoping others are doing likewise.

He reaches the playground and directs the children to clamber onto it off of his shoulders. Then, he wades back into the water, anxiously scanning for more tiny hands.

There's one. He reaches a small girl who clings to him for dear life while sputtering and coughing.

There's another. This one a young boy, bobbing momentarily above the dirty waters, then back under. He realizes he must be jumping from the ground beneath the waters to come back up for air. The man reaches him and pulls him onto his shoulders.

He grabs several more, ending with one on each shoulder, one slightly choking him as she clings to his neck, and one on each arm.

He turns, heading back to the playground to get these kids to safety. He sees others also trying to help, but he also sees more hands still in the distance.

Some thrashing desperately. Then, stillness.

As he unloads the kids from his shoulders at the playground, he sees hands disappear in one direction. Then another. Then another. He won't be able to save more than maybe one or two more.

He runs out to the where the nearest two children just stopped thrashing and begins to feel around under the dirty water. He catches a jersey in his fist. He pulls. A child comes up, gasping. He feels an arm in his other hand. He pulls this child up.

Unresponsive.

He rushes them both back to the playground, laying the unresponsive child down and beginning CPR.

Fortunately, he responds. Coughing up water and crying, the kid is alive. But many are not.

It's impossible to know how many drowned, but some surely did. The man will always have the weight of this experience with him, but he will also always know he did everything he could.

Years later, sometimes some of the kids he saved wave past him when they see him around town. They're alive today, and it's because of him. Not because he did anything great or mighty, but because when he saw them dying, he acted, whether he could save everyone or not.

Subscribe now

Applying the Parable

Foreign aid isn't so different. Ministry to the vulnerable isn't so different. Serving the poor isn't so different.

Yes, the poor will always be with us. No, we will never be able to save every child. But we will not, we must not, be cowardly men and women of inaction simply because the scale of the disasters and needs of our world are intimidating.

We Americans, and especially us Christians, are to be people of action. When we see disaster, we wade in. We spur others to action with our own example and lead the way in might and service.

And we do so not only individually, but also as a society. We don’t watch one wade into the waters alone to do the work. We as a society mobilize the resources and manpower to save lives when disaster strikes.

We don't sit idly by while hands disappear under the water forever simply because there are "too many hands."

Not. Us.

I refuse to allow my generation to be those who choose to no longer be great. America doesn't need to be made "great again." We've led the democracies of the world for decades. We were counted as the heroes of the weak and vulnerable. We've saved millions of lives each and every year with a simple 1% of our budget.

We have heard the call of greatness, courage, and conviction, and have stood up to answer it. Sure, we've had flaws along the way, but our moral fortitude has proven itself consistently, especially in our last 50 years as a nation.

We must continue to answer that call. If we, the richest nation in the world, cannot answer that call, not only does the world lose monumental resources for good, but it also loses inspiration from a giant.

If the richest nation on earth "can't afford" to help others, who can? A spiraling domino effect of cowardice and selfishness will doubtlessly emerge.

I leave you with wise words from Uncle Ben, followed by words from Jesus Christ Himself that likely inspired Uncle Ben's.

Uncle Ben: "With great power comes great responsibility."

Jesus: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be expected."

I don’t know about you, but as USAID gets gutted, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid appear to be passed, and elements of US political leadership seem intent on gleefully dismantling layers of provision for the most vulnerable among us, I’ve heard this response from many Christians over the last few days.

But what if instead of holding to this simple refrain, we model what the Early Church practiced, which really got on the nerves of Rome's last pagan Emperor: Julian the Apostate.

An Irritated Emperor

In the early 300s, the last pagan emperor of Rome, Julian the Apostate, wrote to a pagan priest that:

“[W]hen it came about that the poor were neglected and overlooked by the [pagan] priests, then I think the impious Galilaeans [i.e., Christians] observed this fact and devoted themselves to philanthropy.”

He elsewhere wrote to another priest:

“[They] support not only their poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.”

As a former Christian who had converted to paganism and who desired to see a resurgence of the old Hellenistic faiths and philosophies, Emperor Julian was frustrated by the appeal of the Church to the common people.

He rightly identified that the Christian Church was flatly outdoing the pagans in love and provision for the needs of others, and he was so distressed by the gap that he confronted pagan priests about it.

However, at least as far as I'm aware, the Church never said, "No, the Roman government can't support the poor! That's our job!," or "No, the Pagans can't support the poor! That's our job!"

'Instead, they simply continued to put their heads down and do the work, leaving minimal needs available for the pagans to fill. It almost reads like a competition of goodness, and the Christians were winning.

Now to the Present Day

Sadly, today I do not have confidence that this would be the case. While Christians do give more on average than non-Christians, it is not nearly at the scale necessary to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, care for the orphan, or heal the sick.

If it was, we wouldn't have any need for the government programs that do these things. The government bureaucracy wouldn't be able to keep up.

So when I hear Christians say, "That's not the government's job, it's the job of the Church," all I really hear is, "I don't want my tax dollars going towards that, AND I'm not going to voluntarily meet that need EITHER. They'll just have to suffer."

And that's just kind of messed up.

Christians should be the first to cheer the universal conviction of God's morality in the heart of man, derived from the Imago Dei we're shaped in.

It was Christians who began the first social programs, as we knew a Christ-like society is one who exemplifies the actions praised by Christ Himself in Matthew 25:34-36.

Social welfare and foreign aid exist because the plethora of Christians in our society shaped it to behave more Christ-like! I don’t know about you, but if we can have a society following the example praised by Christ in Matthew 25 as a collective whole, that’s a plus to me!

As a quick reminder, here’s what He says there:

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

“‘For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me; I was in prison and you visited me.’”

It is pretty strange to me that most Christians in the US seem to want their government and society at large to do less of all of this.

Wait, Do We Want “Christian Laws” or Not??

What's funny to me is how we hear a lot of Christian Nationalists advocate for things like putting the Ten Commandments on the walls of schools, or forcing specifically Christian moral restrictions on others.

But they never advocate for the Two Greatest Commandments to go on walls. This despite Jesus Himself saying that the entirety of the Law hinged on these two things. They similarly never argue for a government to operate based on Matthew 25:34-36.

The moment you shift the conversation from government limitation of sins of COMMISSION to sins of OMMISSION, from prohibition OF actions to exhortation TO action...suddenly they get real quiet. 🦗🦗🦗

Suddenly it's "well that's not the government's job."

Bullcrap. We live in a democracy (and yes, a representative democracy IS a FORM of democracy). As such, the shape of the government will naturally derive from the morality and priorities of its people.

It's for this reason that I always say that the only viable way to a "Christian nation" is to create a nation of actually Christians. If 100 million voters shared the vision of Christ for the world, their government (and society) would probably line up pretty nicely with the actual ways of Christ.

Don’t Leave Me Yet, Libertarians & Conservatives

But hey, even if you are just authentically libertarian in your belief that the government just could never be a good provider of aid, you don't need the government to stop offering services in order to outcompete it.

Do good. Meet needs. Feed the hungry. Support the healing of the sick. House those who lack shelter. Welcome the refugee. Help the former criminal reenter successfully.

Church, feel free to outdo the government and meet all humans' needs. Then it should be easy enough to get the government to stop offering services that no one's using, because no one needs them any longer. That's your only option if it's "not the government's job."

And you know what? As a Christian, I'd love to see us outdo the governments of the world in Good in such a way that Presidents write letters (or perhaps memos or emails) to their agencies saying: "Hey, those Christians are making our social services entirely irrelevant. You need to do a better job at actually meeting needs or I'll have to cut your funding."

That'd be pretty dang cool.

—

If you liked this, please subscribe for more! This is actually derived largely from a book I have in the works, and newsletter subscribers will help me get that published.

Subscribe now

Share

Also, the video I posted today to Instagram is a nice additional bit of information pertinent to all of this. I bet 99% of you will learn something new in this video.

“I followed you for memes and theology. Stop with the stupid politics.”

I receive DMs and comments somewhere along these lines a few times a week these days. Always ignored is the fact that I’m almost never putting out partisan points, but merely nonpartisan corrections of lies coming from politicians and being parroted wholesale by Christ’s Bride in the US.

So yea, I’ve been talking a little less about “nerdy theology” in this season. Let me explain why.

Ordering Our Theology

All of the theology in the world, all of the intellectual knowledge of God and Scripture and hermeneutics and big fancy Greek words that the "theologically-minded" throw around and debate (often with minimal real-world implications)...None of that matters if we don't have literally the most basic elements of Christianity active in our lives.

Who gives a crap about the Greek word "kephalē" and how a different understanding of that can change how you understand Scripture's words on women if Christian men aren't loving women properly either way?

Who cares if I tell you the grammatical structure of John 3:16 indicates it should be read more as "God loved the world in this way" rather than "God loved the world sooo much" (although elements of both are in the text) if Christ's Church doesn't share His love for the people of the world in the first place?

Why should we spend any time discussing what we think proper eschatology or soteriology or *insert-other-ology-here* is if we aren't following the greatest and second greatest commandments: to love God and love others.

“Are you infralapsarian or supralapsarian?"

Dude, I don't care either way if you're not loving-your-neighbor-ian.

It doesn't matter if I tell you interesting details about the Priest and the Levite and the historical contention between the Samaritans and the Jews in Jesus' time if you read the story of The Good Samaritan and miss what VP Vance missed recently.

Disordered Loves

The entire point Jesus makes that "your neighbor is not defined by national identity or other markers, but simply by proximity" is skipped when Vance and millions others argue:

“As an American leader, but also just as an American citizen, your compassion belongs first to your fellow citizens. That doesn’t mean you hate people from outside of your own borders, but there’s this old-school [concept]—and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way—that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”

What the VP is referring to there is Augustine's theology of ordo amoris (order of love), but he's absolutely butchering it (and missing Jesus' own definition of neighbor).

Augustine places love for God first, love for family (both physically and the household of God) second, and then love for neighbor third. But "neighbor" is just a matter of proximity. Our neighbors are those who we happen to encounter. To them, we display love.

After all, Jesus told the parable of The Good Samaritan in Luke 10 after being challenged with the question, “Well who is my neighbor?” His response gave an example of someone who was neighbor neither by shared community, nation, or really any kind of earthly bond whatsoever.

Instead, the neighbors in the story are a random Samaritan and a random Jew, brought into “neighborhood” through a chance encounter.

Theology Professor Stephen Pope put it well when he wrote in America Magazine:

“Mr. Vance and his supporters hold that we should first love our families and then love our neighbors. They seem to be thinking of “neighbors” in a literal sense, as particular people who live in our vicinity. Their narrow usage does not comport with Jesus’ own expansion of the term to include not just the “near ones” living in our “neighborhood” but all human beings. Jesus considered all the following as neighbors: widows and orphans, the poor, sick and disabled, social outcasts and, yes, alien workers.”

The Pope himself responded to Vance’s statement with, “[T]he true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’ (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

Neither Augustine, nor Scripture, argue a need to love one's own community or citizenry before others. In fact, much of the New Testament is spent countering this exact idea, as favoritism for one's own ethnic/national groups was a common problem.

We’re told in Acts 6:1 that, “In those days, as the disciples were increasing in number, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews against the Hebraic Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution.”

Literally the entire reason we get deacons in the Church after this is in correction to the human tendency to follow VP Vance’s “order of love” over God’s own order of love.

VP Vance’s order of love is not ordered. It is disordered.

What is Ordo Amoris Scripturally?

The idea argued by both Scripture, Augustine, and Aquinas after him is a matter of proximity.

Love those around you. Love those you encounter in the everyday.

Show preference for the household of God, yes, because they are your family. Your nation is not. Then also, as able, extend acts of charity beyond your immediate vicinity as well. Your true Kingdom is Heaven, not the USA (or any other earthly boundary).

By the way, this means in terms of ordo amoris, Christians in, say, Gaza come before non-Christian fellow citizens of the USA. Try making that statement from a MAGA stage.

When the churches of Macedonia and Achaia sent aid to the church of Jerusalem as the latter struggled through a famine, that was ordo amoris in action.

Many local churches could take a lesson from Augustine's order of loves in that sense and begin to better ensure the needs of their local body (and the global Body in general) are consistently met.

A Critical Caveat

Even still, Aquinas clarifies in his Summa Theologica with his idea of “ordo caritatis” (order of charity) that this prioritization still cannot be universally applied and comes with caveats based on urgency.

“And yet this may vary according to the various requirements of time, place, or matter in hand: Because in certain cases one ought, for instance, to succor a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one’s own father, if he is not in such urgent need.”

If “the poor will always be with us,” we certainly can’t used “ordo amoris” as some excuse to indefinitely and infinitely be tasked strictly with getting our own house in order, never providing charity to those beyond our immediate vicinity or body of Faith. That’s just silly.

And you know what, most of us using the excuse of "order of love" aren't even loving those around us meaningfully. 🤷🏼‍♂️

We Need to Get Back to the Basics

Excuse my rant, but this is my point: No level of secondary or tertiary theological knowledge matters if the vast majority of Christ's Church doesn't even know how to love their neighbor

Who cares what your head knowledge is if you’re supporting excuses as to why you don't need to practice love for your neighbor if they don’t share your nationality?

Who cares about your theological insights if you argue that Scripture says to prioritize shared national identity over care for others, and actually entirely neglects to mention the Scriptural elevation of Christian identity itself?

If we as the Church are becoming known for spreading lies, engaging in paranoia, fighting others, and mindlessly supporting people twisting Scripture, there's much more basic work to be done.

So yea, I will definitely touch on fun nerdy theology from time-to-time still (I actually released a video on a nerdy overlooked detail of Joseph's story today), but I also want to help the Church to get back to basics.

It's clear to me that most of the church in the US is in need of milk, not meat.

Once we start loving our neighbors (and understanding that the Nicaraguan migrant down the street IS our neighbor), we can spend more time in the meaty stuff.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

P.S.

This rant was inspired by Chapter 2 of @swordandpencil's new book, Room for Good Things to Run Wild, in which he describes how growing up in the Church and having all of the intellectual Christian answers was found wanting in his life.

Christianity had to be something more than head knowledge. It had to be lived. Deeply. Transformationally.

"Sure, we learned more, lots of knowledge packed into our heads, but how many changed hearts?"

That certainly is the question.

Btw, here’s that Joseph video if you want to see it.

1) Christian Revival in the Second Great Awakening

2) The US Civil War

First, a bit about the Second Great Awakening. Let’s get into it.

The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant religious revival that took place in the United States from roughly 1790-1840. It was characterized by widespread evangelism, engaging and relevant preaching, and mass gatherings known as camp meetings. This movement significantly reshaped American religion, culture, and society.

Methodists and Baptists in this time went from membership totaling around 120,000 between them to over 1 million members each over this period in the US. This event shaped American faith and society in ways even felt today.

The Context Prior to This

It's important to know the context of Christianity as many understood it up until this point in the US. You might be surprised to learn this: while most Americans identified as "Christian" in the 1700s, it's estimated that only 10%-20% were active members of local churches in the late 18th century, with some estimating it as low as 5%-10%!

In his book, A History of Christianity in the US and Canada, Notre Dame historian of American Christianity Mark A. Nolls writes, "Still, the churches were definitely disorganized in the wake of the revolution, and the role of Christianity in the new national culture was anything but secure.

“While church adherence remained high at least into the 1770s (with perhaps as much as 40 to 50 percent of the population attending church with some regularity), formal church membership was sinking, and in the 1790s reached an all-time low (somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the adult population)."

While most Americans did attend church every so often (not too different from most today), at the time of the Second Great Awakening "cultural Christianity" was increasingly becoming the standard across most of the country (also much-like today).

It’s important to keep in mind that this was the era of the Enlightenment, with such philosophers as Voltaire, David Hume, and Diderot critiquing organized religion and existence of the supernatural quite harshly. While many still identified with Christianity in the fledgling US, the Enlightenment seems to have trickled down in such a way that Christian faith had a decreasing bearing on everyday life for many.

Among the intellectual elite, Deism, a product of the Enlightenment, was growing in popularity by the latter 1700s, a belief that posited God existed, but in the same sense in which a clock maker creates and winds a clock and then never necessarily interacts with it again. God was simply Creator, not a being to be known and followed personally.

The extent to which Deism ever caught on with the more general population of the US is often exaggerated, but the belief was certainly prevalent among many leaders in the country. Ultimately, the Enlightenment era appears to have largely negatively impacted American culture and personal engagement with God. However, things changed rapidly with the Second Great Awakening.

A Fresh Revival

The Second Great Awakening (2nd GA)was a major Protestant religious revival that swept through the United States for about half a century, beginning in the 1790s. As Enlightenment ideals of reason and individualism had begun to influence society, God’s people took proactive action in response to a perceived decline in religious commitment and church attendance in the years following the American Revolution.

The core message of this Awakening was that salvation was available to all through personal faith and repentance, and this democratized approach to religion greatly appealed to the common people. A relevant and living faith was preached, specifically; not just one of belief, but of redemption and subsequent moral action. This personally-relevant faith brought tangibility and demanded actual participation from believers, contrasting sharply against the direction of practice Christianity had been heading in for some time in the US.

Moral and Societal Relevance

The 2nd GA thus coincided with (and drove) significant social changes in the US, such as the continued democratization of society and the rise of new social issues.

Remember, at the founding of the United States, only white male landowners could vote. As of 1800, only three states had no land ownership requirements for voting. By 1830, this had increased to 18 of the 24 US states of the time (although 8 of those still had tax-paying requirements) and the trend was decidedly headed in the direction of universal suffrage, although it would still be many years before non-white Americans and women received the right to vote.

Social issues advanced during and due to the 2nd GA included the abolition of slavery, temperance, women's rights, and prison & education reform. With one's personal salvation, reconciliation, and duty to God heavily emphasized, the Awakening led not only to a spiritual revival in the country and DOUBLING of church membership rates), but also to a moral revival.

Many abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, were motivated by the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening. The movement framed slavery as a moral evil that needed to be eradicated, significantly contributing to the antebellum push against slavery.

This is why Southern Christians who wished to maintain slavery felt they had to split from their denominational core (e.g. the SBC leaving Baptists). Evangelical denominations, particularly in the North, were outright in their abolitionism.

Georgetown historian Chandra Manning writes of religious sentiment in the North, "‘Thy Kingdom come’ was more than just words; ‘Thy Kingdom come’ meant wholesale social reform aimed at rooting out all evils that separated humanity from God. Temperance societies targeted the demon liquor. Other idealists sought prison reform, asylum reform, equitable relations between the sexes and in the family, and more. Religiously motivated abolitionist societies took aim at the sin of slavery."

How This Led to the Civil War

As slavery became increasingly villainized and to be seen as morally contemptible (and rightly so), the views of Abolitionism became prevalent throughout the North and, increasingly, into the American West.

This put those in favor of slavery on the backfoot, as they saw that the inevitable direction of the country was one in which the institution of slavery would decay and decline until it was no longer tolerated at all, first in new states, and then perhaps even in their own.

To Southern leadership who greatly benefitted from the institution of slavery, this was intolerable. They couldn't just let their "way of life" (as they put it) and economic system (more accurately put) crumble to moral pressures.

And so they decided they must permanently sever from this nation which they saw as headed in an irreconcilable moral direction from their own.

While the South was wrong to rebel, they were not wrong about the moral direction of the country after the revival of the Second Great Awakening. The writing was on the wall.

It is often underappreciated just how large of a role the Second Great Awakening had on slavery's decline and the ultimate head things came to in the US Civil War. Without that revival, there's a great possibility the conflict would have been delayed or played out differently.

Why This Matters Today

All of this to say, this isn't just interesting history. It's relevant for us today. It was the religious shift among Americans that drove the societal change that ultimately would see slavery abolished in the country.

Rather than a dutiful minority of Christians attempting to wrest control of the state and remake society into God's image by force, you had dutiful Christians bring 2 million people to Christ in a nation with barely more than 10 million people.

As people came to Christ, society became increasingly Christ-like in morals and direction, until it became clear that slavery's abolition in the US was an inevitability unless the South were to secede (and so they did).

The lesson for us is in how these forefathers in the faith didn't put the cart before the horse. They brought people to Christ first, and then society became more Christian naturally. This is a strong blow to Christian Nationalism, and can even inform how we talk about abortion.

Relevance to Abortion

The abolition of Roe v. Wade is something that I see as a step in the right direction. However, no spiritual foundation is being laid among the populace for the moral Christian progress so many are aiming for.

While we focus on passing laws or repealing others, the real rate of abortions is actually going UP! We reached 1 million abortions for the first time in years in 2023, with rates increasing dramatically so far in 2024 as well (the below chart only includes the first three months of 2024, but the trend has only continued increasing for monthly counts).

Do improved and more moral abortion laws and restrictions even matter if ultimately more babies are dying despite the legal changes?

Maybe we’ve focused so significantly on aligning our nation’s morals to Christ by political force that we’ve neglected the mission to actually disciple and align individuals hearts to Christ in the process?

The lesson of the Second Great Awakening for us is that social change can be driven by religion, but it must be rooted in a revival of actual personal faith, not top-down enforcement. It is changed souls of persons that lead to the changed soul of a country.

It's worth noting an intertwining of nationalism and faith was much more the approach of Southern Christianity during the Civil War.

Dr. Manning writes, "Once the Union divided, civil religion took up the job of forging Confederate national identity, in which the Confederacy was a Christian nation, the cause of the Confederacy was God’s cause, and patriotism and religious duty were one and the same. Analyses of Confederate civil religion explained that to Confederate believers, the Confederacy shone as God’s chosen Kingdom on earth..."

That's concerningly reminiscent of some voices I hear even today.

Remember:

The Gospel in hearts --> the Gospel in our lands

No Gospel in hearts --> distorted "gospels" in our lands

If Christianity is just a tool or means to an end, the ends it serves will not ultimately be trustworthy, nor ideal. It must be the foundation, independent of politics. We must focus on the nitty gritty transformation of lives, one at a time, ushering in Christ’s Kingdom on Earth by introducing people to the regeneration, renewal, and redemption available through Christ alone.

With that accomplished in thousands of local churches, in millions of relationships of discipleship, reaching a societal level, we will subsequently see societal moral change.

“Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” Romans 12:2

Remember the source of the renewal of our minds. The World’s gonna world. Church, just keep churchin’. And as you bring more people into relationship with Christ, you’ll gradually see the World look more like a place inhabited by the people of Heaven.

Leave a comment

Share

“You seem very judgmental…” This from one of many comments on one of two posts I made about five weeks ago speaking to Jordan Peterson’s failure to affirm actual Christianity. Apparently I’m judgmental for holding to the ancient creedal definitions of Christian Faith.

I’d posted a long form video to YouTube (you can view it here) listening and reacting to skeptic atheist Alex O’Connor’s interview of Jordan Peterson. From that video, I pulled a couple of clips for Instagram of precise moments in which Alex O’Connor pushed Jordan Peterson to define what actually made someone a Christian. Peterson did not pass by any measure of Christian orthodoxy.

When I spoke to this, many were not happy.

“These men are dealing with advanced concepts, that are far past what you’re talking about here. What you’re saying has nothing to do with what they’re saying. At all.”

Apparently requiring that someone affirm Jesus as Lord and Savior to be within the bounds of Christianity is now not “advanced” enough. Here are the two videos in case you’re curious

First:

Second:

More recently, I spoke to Donald Trump’s seeming identification as a Christian. This video began with a clip of Donald Trump identifying publicly as a “Christian,” but then juxtaposed this claim against some things he’d said himself about Jesus and Christian belief (with the latter clip coming from last month).

Here’s that video:

Again, comments such as, “No one knows the true relationship someone has with God except for themselves and God,” or “Honestly it's literally ridiculous how this guy literally preached the gospel from the white house yet people still question if he's a Christian. Bunch of Pharisees around here I swear.”

Apparently, in the modern United States, it is taboo for Christians to define Christianity in the same way that the orthodox Christian Church has for literally 2,000 years and to insist that those holding to alternative belief are not actually Christian…Yikes.

This is a tragedy.

The lack of Christian ability to define Christianity, and the revulsion with which many Christians respond to actual definition of Christian faith, betray a horrific failing in discipleship of the American Church. There is literally nothing more important for people to know than the actual Gospel and what one must believe and confess to actually be a Christian.

So, with that in mind, I wanted to write some things down for those who might feel shaky in their ability to precisely define Christianity, what makes one a Christian, and thus, how to become a Christian. Here you go:

What Makes Someone a Christian?

This is a question that every Christian should be able to respond to accurately. After all, if we can't properly define what core beliefs actually make one a Christian, how could any of us have become a Christian in the first place?

Yet, increasingly today, I'm seeing Christians identify their favored political leaders, influencers, and celebrity personalities as Christians despite those individuals failing to make any sort of public declaration of faith that would be considered a core necessity by the historic, orthodox Church.

So, biblically, what does make someone a Christian?

In Acts 2, we see the Gospel preached after Christ's Ascenscion for the first time. Verse 37 tells us the response of those who heard it:

When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?"

What do you think Peter tells them? Acts 2:38-41:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 With many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added to them.

To clarify in regards to Peter’s opening, it is the repentance referenced which provides the forgiveness of sins, not the baptism, as Jesus in Luke 24:46 tells the Disciples, "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and repentance for forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

However, quick side note:

There is not a single place in Acts in which someone came to Christ without being baptized. Baptism is the required physical marker of spiritual faith for the Christian.

One can "become a Christian" without baptism in the same way that one can "become married" without a wedding, marriage certificate, or ring. Are you committed? Maybe, but there's no physical marker for you or anyone else to really have any certainty of the reality of your commitment.

Alright, back to the main message at hand.

Peter again preaches repentance in Acts 3:19, and Paul preaches it in Acts 17:30 and 26:20.

The Greek word in use here is: "metanoeō"

Strong’s Greek Lexicon defines this word as: to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (morally, feel compunction)

Similarly, Thayer's Greek Lexicon: 1) to change one's mind, i.e. to repent, 2) to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins

So what exactly is one supposed to be changing their mind to in "repentance?" Romans 10:9-13 helps us out here:

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on him will not be put to shame, 12 since there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, because the same Lord of all richly blesses all who call on him. 13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Key words there:

"Lord" - You are making Jesus Lord over your life. You are swearing allegiance to Him.

"Believe" - You believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and all that this entails.

But Don’t Take My Word for It

And you know what? If that all just sounds like I made up my own definition of Christian faith based what you perceive to be some cherry- picked verses, I've got good news for you:

You don't have to trust my definition. You see, the Early Church did a ton of work in specifically identifying what the unique core beliefs of Christianity are. They gave us beautiful things like the Apostle's Creed within a couple hundred years of Christ's life.

If someone holds to the following without amendment, they're probably a Christian!

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

To the Catholics' credit, they still use a derivative of this in the baptismal creed recited in the Rite of Baptism:

Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?

Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?

Upon affirmation, the celebrant says, "This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our Lord."

In Conclusion

All of that to say, if someone cannot or will not affirm these core Christian beliefs and has never repented from their wrongs, committed to Christ as Lord, and believed in Christ resurrected for salvation, it is harmful to allow them to identify as a Christian mistakenly.

The loving course of action for anyone identifying with a false gospel of Christ is to correct them with the true Gospel and encourage them to join themselves to Christ correctly.

"Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Leave a comment

I knew what was coming in the following comments: a narrow range of cherry-picked verses which ignored the ancient context of the original authors, along with an either intentional or honest ignorance of the reasonable apologetic responses to them. I was right in my prediction. It was just a few comments later that laws about slavery in Exodus 21 and Levitical laws about eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics were brought up.

The Boogeyman Books

For reasons such as this, many Christians shy away from these books of Scripture, or even attempt to ignore them altogether. The “We don’t talk about Bruno” of American Christians is: “We don’t talk about Levitical Law.”

However, this is an extremely sad reality to me, brought about by us allowing skeptics and critics of Scripture and Christianity to draw and limit focus to an extremely small range of difficult passages, at the expense of some absolutely beautiful passages within the whole of the Books of the Law.

There are plenty of difficult passages within these books, particularly if we read them plainly with a Western eye without any knowledge of what certain things would have meant to the Ancient Near East context. I mean, any modern reader who reaches Exodus 25 is in for some admittedly tedious reading for the next 6 chapters, as God lays out incredibly precise instruction for the Tabernacle and how exactly He is to be worshipped and served within and around it.

However, even tedious chapters such as these take on new life when you realize that God is giving Moses instruction to create an environment that shadows a heavenly reality with earthly materials and environments. Hebrews 8 is clear about this, with verse 5 specifically stating, “The place where they serve is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “‘See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’”

So yea, next time you read Exodus 25-31, take some time to imagine what this all might look like in Heaven itself, as you’re being provided with a lesser earthly image of what is a greater and more beautiful reality in Heaven itself.

The Reality of Their Morality

Forgive me, I got a bit off track. (There’s cool stuff to consider all over in there!) My point is to address the “morality” of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These books are far from “immoral” or “irrelevant” portions of Scripture to be ignored and shamefully hidden today. While we are no longer under the Law due to Christ’s fulfillment of it, there are still beautiful lessons for us to pull from it.

The story of the Exodus of the Hebrews is incredible (and supported by some pretty fascinating archeology). Like, hello, there is a reason that non-Christian and Christian alike both absolutely loved The Prince of Egypt. This is one of the greatest stories ever told (and certainly one of the greatest to have ever actually happened, as well). The Exodus tells us a morally good story with important and timeless reminders and lessons.

Perhaps some of the most important lessons for our day are:

• God hears the voices of those who are oppressed by the powers that be.

• He is stronger than both spiritual powers of this world (as each plague visited upon the Egyptians was directly counter to the “power” of an Egyptian God) and the corrupt powers of empire and earthly might.

• He will serve as a loyal guide to His people regardless of our stubborn obstinance.

Leviticus, likewise, is filled with good law. Take a look at Leviticus 19 sometime. Check out what verses 9 and 10 have to say:

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you are not to reap to the very edge of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not strip your vineyard bare or gather its fallen grapes. Leave them for the poor and the resident alien; I am the Lord your God.”

Um, hello! What a law! Ironic that many individuals on the political Left today derisively discount Levitical law as nonsense simply because they don’t like what it has to say about same-sex relations, when a verse like this seems like something they’d actually embrace and that many on the political Right would deride as Marxist.

You could reword this for the political Left in the following way and they’d eat. this. up. “Hey, those of you who own the means of production. Do not extract as much as you can from your laborer or your assets. Instead, leave some of your resources unharvested for the poorest among the proletariat to take from, including the immigrant.”

Whew. That’ll shake things up at the Thanksgiving dinner table. The chapter goes on to say many things that should simply be recognizable by all people as good.

“Do not steal. Do not act deceptively or lie to one another…Do not oppress your neighbor or rob him…Do not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly.”

These are plainly good laws. In Psalm 119:14-16, David writes:

“I rejoice in the way revealed by your decrees

as much as in all riches.

I will meditate on your precepts

and think about your ways.

I will delight in your statutes;

I will not forget your word.

As a teenager, I remember reading these verses and thinking, “Eh. I desire to follow God’s ways because I love him, but I don’t think I really ‘delight’ in following His rules.” Today, absent of raging teenage hormones and with a more mature mind, I’m able to now recognize that David delighted in God’s Law and instruction within the Pentateuch because it is good. The world is a better place, it is far more like the Edenic ideal, when God’s ways are our ways.

Heck, just check this out from Deuteronomy 23:12-14:

You are to have a place outside the camp and go there to relieve yourself. You are to have a digging tool in your equipment; when you relieve yourself, dig a hole with it and cover up your excrement. For the Lord your God walks throughout your camp to protect you and deliver your enemies to you; so your encampments must be holy. He must not see anything indecent among you or he will turn away from you.

God, basically: “Hey, don’t poop where you eat, and clean up your poop as well.”

This isn’t even a “moral” law per se. God is just giving the people of Israel supernatural instruction that any modern reader can see would simply lead to good sanitation and health. The same can be said about laws regarding the consumption of certain foods that were far more likely to carry bacteria and lead to illness. Hello! God’s providing protection here! That’s awesome and good! And in a pre-modern society lacking the understanding of modern medicine and science we have today, these instructions are (to me) a pretty compelling apologetic for the reality of a supernatural source behind these instructions.

Some portions of these books provide instruction that’s valuable for us as the modern reader today simply because they reveal the amazing reality of what Christ fulfilled for us. Numbers 28-29 have a lot to say about a whole lot of offerings. Whew, there is really a lot there. But glory to God that Christ served as one final offering before God (Eph. 5:2), the lamb that was slain, so that we would be freed to now offer our lives themselves as sacrifice to Him (Romans 12:1).

The Law for Us Today

If you got this far, congratulations. You’re beating the statistics. No one can levy accusations of having the attention span of a goldfish at you, right? Heh. In all seriousness, though, I hope this piece has reminded you of the goodness of God’s Law and ways.

While the Old Testament Law does not apply for the Christian today in the sense of direct instruction, it certainly does apply in regards to the insights and value we can draw from understanding the spirit of the Law and what pieces are relevant (and how) for our lives today.

Beyond that, as believers in Christ now living in the New Covenant, remember Paul’s words in Galatians 5:

16 I say, then, walk by the Spirit and you will certainly not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you don’t do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I am warning you about these things—as I warned you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. The law is not against such things. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

This is one passage of many in which God has provided everlasting instruction for us. Sometimes it can be difficult to follow. But always remember, God’s instruction leads to God’s ideal. And as the Author of all that is good, God’s ideal will always lead to the most optimal good, both for us and for others.

Thus, while yes, it is valuable for you to follow His ways simply out of a desire to obey Him, walking in His ways just becomes that much easier when we understand that we can trust their goodness just as we can trust His.

God is good → His ways are good → We are better off when His ways are walked in. Amen.

If you found this valuable, please do subscribe!

Subscribe now

And share if there’s anyone else who you think could benefit from this read.

Share

Leave a comment