Category Archives: church

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Race

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Water Hazard of Race Realism

Leave a comment

When it comes to Christian Nationalism, there is much to admire. There are aspects of the movement that are controversial. Still others are ideas the Church should repudiate. This series on Christian Nationalism has been examining these “water hazards” articulated by some within the movement, beginning with Kinism. In this installment, the next error under consideration is race realism.

Race realism is a reaction to the idea of “color blindness” when it comes to the relationship between races. Color blindness is the notion that all people should be viewed without consideration of attributes such as race that are not part of their essence. Coleman Hughes argues for such a view of race in his book The End of Race Politics. He articulates the “colorblind principle as follows: ‘We should treat people without regard to race, both in our public policy and in our private lives.’”[1] As will be seen later, Hughes is not arguing for an artificial denial of the existence of race. Simply put, race should not be a determining factor in how one relates to any one individual. The proponents of race realism react to the idea of complete racial color blindness as naïve and not based in reality. Michael Spangler, a self-professed race-realist, opens his six-part series on Christian race realism with these words: “Race is real. In the recent past most everyone agreed with this. Even children knew that ‘red and yellow, black and white’ described real differences among mankind. And yet today, especially among white Christians, it seems quite common to deny it.”[2] However, Mr. Hughes, as a proponent of the colorblind principle, does not argue that way. He asserts that “we all see race. We can’t help it.”[3]

It is not difficult to recognize that racial differences exist. However, the question is whether a person should be evaluated primarily on the basis of unalterable racial characteristics rather than understanding them in the context of merit, culture and gifts. Race realism promotes identifying racial differences as a defining mark. Spangler’s definition is as follows: “Race realism is the recognition that mankind is divided into distinct races, that the differences between the races are large and relatively permanent, and that this racial diversity ought to be acknowledged, celebrated, and defended.”[4] It is this view that is troublesome.

Although Spangler includes a disclaimer that race realism should not cause division or schism, that qualification is largely left behind as he outlines his argument about racial differences found in nature. Spangler’s race realism embraces racial differences in body, language, culture, morality, religion, and intelligence.[5] Some of this list is not controversial. People are, by and large, not denying physical, linguistic, and cultural differences in various races. However, questions of morality, religion, and intelligence are of a more dubious sort.

When it comes to morality, Spangler argues that though sin is spiritual and race is physical, it is not so easy to separate these two essential parts of man. He says, “Like language, morality is distinct from race in the abstract, but in many respects still inseparable from it in the concrete. Blacks, whites, and Asians act in black, white, and Asian ways, for good or ill.”[6] The unique challenges of the black community in the United States are cited as a case in point. Spangler cites a statistic in which blacks, who make up 12% of the population, account for 64% of the murders. I have not verified that statistic and am willing to assume it as accurately reported for the sake of this discussion.

When it comes to religion, Spangler gives a uniquely American example: the difference between churches made up predominantly of black people vs. white. “If in one Sunday an impartial observer should attend two Protestant churches in one American city, one church white, the other black, the difference he would observe would likely be greater than if he compared two services held on distinct continents, yet in churches made up of the same race.”[7] While admitting that the ancestors of white protestants were initially pagan, the main point he makes remains that such racial change in religion is rare.

When it comes to intelligence, Spangler cites a study, “The Bell Curve” that shows black people in America have, on average, a 15 points lower IQ score than whites. This in turn is used to argue against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as a basis for hiring. Spangler uses physicians as an example. Their average IQ score is 120 and he argues that “very few blacks have the requisite intelligence for it.”[8] However, as always, statistics can often be used according to the objective of the one who wields them.

Spangler’s assertions regarding the presented differences between races should not be taken at face value. Despite what Spangler asserts about the data of the Bell Curve study, the conclusions of that study are still actively being disputed. A recent follow-up study published in 2025 by the American Psychological Association describes the complexity of the matter.

The question that still remains is whether the cause of group differences in average IQ is purely social, economic, and cultural or whether genetic factors are also involved. Following publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) established an 11-person Task Force (Neisser et al., 1996) to evaluate the book’s conclusions. Based on their review of twin and other kinship studies, the Task Force for the most part agreed with Jensen’s (1969) Harvard Educational Review article and The Bell Curve, that within the White population the heritability of IQ is “around .75” (p. 85). As to the cause of the mean Black–White group difference, however, the Task Force concluded: “There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation” (p. 97).[9]

I am not here to argue that I understand the complexity of IQ testing or to present myself as an expert in this matter. However, the aim is to dispute Spangler’s conclusions as the necessary ones to draw from that study. To do so is to ignore the vast complexity of human interaction. The many variables that go into social, economic, and cultural formation go far beyond race. For example, when it comes to morality, it is trite and simplistic to cite a discrepancy in the black community in the United States. That is hardly a charitable sample size. It is to single out one race in one specific time and use them as the example for all people who share their racial makeup. This resembles the reasoning employed by proponents of racial reconciliation, anti-racism, and reparations movements who likewise draw sweeping conclusions from group identity. To look at the question of violence and sin against the sixth commandment, a much broader net must be cast which would look more broadly at the sins of humanity.

Simply broadening the scope would easily bring to mind things like the human sacrifice of the pagan white Vikings in Scandinavia, the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda in Africa, the warlike spread of Islam in the Middle East, and the oppression of the Koreans at the hands of the Japanese during the Second World War in Asia. Before white men begin assigning other races as innately more sinful, some probing questions have to be asked of the Caucasian race as well. What should be done with the atrocious paganism of the druids of today’s British Isles, the executions of reformed pastors under Mary Tudor, the reign of terror in the French Revolution, and the horrifying genocides of white cultures in the 20th century under Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union? Nations of all ethnicities have acted in great wickedness and it is foolish and dishonest to minimize that fact.

Religiously, God has worked differently at different times and in different cultures. Revival has come, apostasy has arisen, and again, no race can claim victory or defeat in those areas. Think of the places of origin for the Protestant Reformation. Certainly, today’s Germany, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland were places where the highest expressions of Reformed theology were articulated in the creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms they produced. If religion were inherently connected to race you would expect that high view of religion to continue. And yet western European nations have largely abandoned their Reformed heritage. Perhaps the most telling example of the abandonment of religious fervor in such places is the memorial of the ministry of the great Scottish Reformer, John Knox, at St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh being reduced to a mere plaque in the ground in its parking lot.

Leaving aside whether the position is argued cogently, the darker implication of Spangler’s race realism are further revealed in some of the conclusions he draws. After agreeing that all men are part of the human race, he says, “Moreover, as with physical bodies, disease can affect some parts more than others: some ethnic members of the human race are marked more than the rest by the disease of sin and its attendant misery, some to the point that they are nearly rotting away.”[10] And herein is the great danger of this view.

To argue for sin as more present in some than in others is a denial of the doctrine of total depravity. In Romans 3:10-18, no qualification is made to the “all” who have gone astray and perpetrated the variety of actual sins listed there which proceed from the sinful nature. To say anything else is a statement of pride that concludes some need Christ more than others. It asserts that some races are more resistant to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit than others. By implication, some races may be more easily sanctified than others. And yet the bold statements the Bible makes about sin do not contain this kind of qualification. “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”[11]

The problem of man before God is not found in his physical race. Sin is spiritual, not biological. The guilt and dominion of sin was inherited by all men through Adam’s sin. He bore in his body all the races of man which exist today. All racial combinations proceed from him, and therefore all have the same sin nature, the same propensity to sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, the same need for Christ, and it goes against the record of Scripture to argue otherwise.

There is still another view that has come from Christian Nationalist proponents that deserves the attention of the Church. That is the latent or blatant anti-semitism that is connected with some of its proponents. This water hazard will be the subject of the next article.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Coleman Hughes, The End of Race Politics, (Penguin Random House, LLC: 2024), 19.

[2] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 1: Introduction,” Pactum Institute (blog), July 1, 2024, https://www.pactuminstitute.com/the-pactum-blog/christian-race-realism-part-1-introduction.

[3] Hughes, The End of Race Politics, 18.

[4] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 1”.

[5] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3: Nature,” Pactum Institute (blog), July 9, 2024, https://www.pactuminstitute.com/the-pactum-blog/christian-race-realism-part-3-nature.

[6] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[7] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[8] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[9] J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11, no. 2 (June 2005), 236.

[10] Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 3”.

[11] Romans 3:23.

10 Commandments, Bible, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Water Hazard of Kinism

Leave a comment

In the previous installment, the idea of the water hazards of Christian Nationalism was introduced. Just to be clear, the assertion being made is not that all Christian Nationalists hold these more extreme views. However, it is to acknowledge that those associated with Christian Nationalism have articulated these views, and therefore Christians should proceed with the appropriate level of caution. The first ball that splashes into the water hazard is the idea of Kinism.

Like in most ideologies, not everything that is included in the umbrella of Kinism is by necessity wrong. Because that is true, the ideas in Kinism require careful definition. The Christian Reformed Church dealt with the issue of Kinism in their 2019 Synod. Overture 7 requested the Synod to declare Kinism a heresy, which it did.[1] That is a significant step since heresy should be understood as an error striking at some fundamental aspect of the Christian faith. As part of the overture, several Kinist claims are reported from a website called The Tribal Theocrat, which posted an article defining Kinism. Included in its definitions are the following:

“That the God of the Old Testament, who forbade interracial, interreligious marriages to His covenant nation, is the same as the God of the New Testament. That marriage between parties who are not naturally congenial is unequal yoking. That unequal yoking in marriage or in society at large is destructive of Christian harmony, association, and growth.”[2]

From this quote it is plain that some Kinists at least hold to racial segregation in marriage. That is taken to more strident extremes by some proponents. Cory Mahler, co-host of the Stone Choir podcast and who was excommunicated from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in 2023, reportedly for causing division in the church, nevertheless continues to present himself as a Christian Nationalist. His views regarding interracial marriage look beyond personal preference to obligation. “Under Christian Nationalism, interracial marriage will be made a capital offense.”[3] A post on X is hardly a complete philosophical system, and yet he has not left a lot of room for nuance. Marriage between races should be punishable by death, in his view. This post shows a dramatic difference between the idea of personal preference and societal requirement.

Returning to the more tempered article from The Tribal Theocrat, the author asserts that “Christians should work to limit human error by seeking those conditions which are inherently productive of a harmony of interests, both in marriage and in society at large. That a harmony of interests naturally exists between people who are similar.”[4] This second quotation extends the idea of racial segregation from marriage to society as a whole. In this instance Kinism would be the radical separation of races in marriage and society as an extension of the Christian laws of separation of Israel from the other nations.

The problem with any appeal to the Old Testament regarding racial distinction is that segregation was a unique command for Israel and was not applied worldwide to the other nations. The reason for this call to radical separation in Israel was not based on ethnicity but rather so that Israel would not be led astray to worship false gods. This explanation is given in Deuteronomy 7:3-4a, where it says, “You shall not intermarry with them (the seven nations of Canaan), giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods.” Notice the “for.” It relates to spiritual, not genetic purity. Later, King Solomon’s downfall is described in exactly these categories. His intermarriage with many foreign wives was the catalyst that led to his religious demise, not to a weakening of the Jewish blood-line. “For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.”[5] The prohibition of intermarriage was not because it would dilute the ethnic makeup of the sons of Abraham. Rather, it was to protect God’s chosen people from religious corruption.

Further, even within this general prohibition given in Scripture, allowance was made to include Gentiles in the family line of Israel, provided they adopted the true religion. This idea is explicitly seen in the Lord’s commandments regarding how a Gentile can be permitted to participate in the Passover: “If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”[6] The criteria for inclusion in God’s people is not specific ethnicity, but rather an adoption of the sign designating a person as belonging to the Lord. Once that sign is adopted the person was counted as a native. Circumcision was the criterion for citizenship in Israel. The harsh separation described in the Tribal Theocrat is not found in Scripture.

The sojourner is not to be scorned or pushed aside. Rather Old Testament Israel was to love the sojourner as if he were an Israelite. “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”[7] There is a principle of welcome and not exclusion even in Old Testament Israel. This principle is further worked out in relationships and family trees. Rahab the prostitute from Jericho or Ruth the Moabitess both are included in the line of Christ (see Matthew 1:5). Ittai the Gittite is included among David’s trusted military circle and supports the king. (see 2 Sam 15:21).

As a pastoral observation, it seems impossible to hold to such an essential hard division between races and preserve the unity of the church which is grounded in faith in Christ rather than any ethnic consideration. In the New Testament there are ample opportunities to promote an ethnic separation, but it always refrains from doing so. For example, 1 Corinthians 7 gives instructions for the widow, including guidance for remarriage. It says there, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”[8] The restrictions offered do not include any consideration of ethnicity, family lineage, or even cultural experience. Scripture is not framed in terms of ethnic restriction or cultural limitation in this context. Before considering Kinist views on interracial marriage, the biblical standard of 1 Corinthians 7 can be summarized as follows: the widow is free to remarry according to her wishes so long as the candidate is a believer. What follows is a comparison between that biblical standard and the ideas promoted by Kinism.

However, the Tribal Theocrat and Corey Mahler are hardly the sum total of all who would call themselves Kinists. In an unidentified pro-Kinist website, the following answer was given regarding the separation of the races: “Kinism should simply be understood as the view that, from the Christian perspective, race is real and important as a creation of God. Some Kinists believe that interracial marriage is not a wise idea, while others go further, believing it is a sin.”[9] This quote identifies a range of beliefs regarding interracial marriage within Kinism. Some would believe it is not wise, and others would identify it as a sin.

When interracial marriage is reduced to a matter of wisdom, then the question is about whether it is a good idea. It would identify difficulties that need to be navigated. Certainly stresses and difficulties are possible, and maybe even likely. But these same questions of wisdom apply to all people who  navigate  marriage. Furthermore, it is not necessarily obvious that race itself causes these stresses rather than  sinful responses to cultural differences. All marriages carry difficulties to overcome as two distinct family cultures collide. The problem is not in the differences, but rather in the sinful reactions to them. The variables that can and will introduce difficulty in marriage are manifold and to boil it down to race is overly simplistic. Simply consider the high divorce rates in our nation, whether same race or interracial couples.

If questions of interracial marriage are kept in the category of wisdom, it remains a personal preference. There must be freedom for personal preference in the area of interracial marriage because Scripture gives no command about it. Because God is Lord of the conscience, people are free to marry who they will. However, the problem with Kinism is that it often attaches an “ought,” even if only by implication. Because of that, the Kinist views have a significant impact on the unity of the body of Christ.

A person who “merely” views racial segregation as wise still is left to consider how that view will influence the broader unity of the church. I have not seen a Kinist declaration that limits salvation to certain races. Since that is so, it means that there should be broad agreement that all races are equally created in the image of God and equally valued in His sight. The gospel is true for all races, and that means He has sent His Son to die for the sins of all ethnicities of people. And if God so loved these races to include them as His adopted children, His church should not act as if it were wiser than He by dividing His family into multiple groups. That is the essential objection of Paul when he publicly confronts Peter in Antioch, as described in Galatians. Paul records,

Before certain men came from James he was eating with the Gentiles but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”[10]

On first reading it may seem that there is no relationship with ethnicity because the issue creating the dispute is circumcision. Peter, Barnabas and the other hypocrites fear the circumcision party. And that point can be granted, while the overall lesson remains: there is a unity within the Church that is greater than Jew and Gentile or circumcision and uncircumcision. And a person who believes some degree of Kinism is simply a matter of wisdom still must labor hard to prevent his view from affecting the unity of the body of Christ. I believe the categories of his opinion will make that pursuit difficult to manage consistently.

It is obvious that there is a kernel of truth in the Kinist philosophy. There is a sense in which human love is properly and naturally preferred and reserved for family. Scripture even obligates care for family above any other kind of relationship. In 1 Timothy 5:8 it says, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Christian resources are to be ordered in relation to family first. And what is true of resources is true of love as well. A man is to love his wife uniquely and more intensely than any other woman. A father is to love and nurture his own children before any others. A Christian is to care for the needs of those in his own church before any other. A citizen is to serve his own country before any other. These are not controversial statements. However, the priority of love in one category does not exclude expressions of love in a broader circle.

The aim in pointing out that not every assertion made in Kinism is wrong by no means minimizes the significant problems within it. In its worst form, it is a racialist view of the world which neglects the essential oneness of humanity as seen in all races being derived from one human couple, Adam and Eve. Even in its least offensive forms Kinism creates challenges the unity in the church. The kernel of truth can be seen even while the Kinism as a whole should be rejected as contrary to Scripture at worst, or harmful to church unity in its less egregious forms. However, Kinism is not the only water hazard that is played from the tees of Christian Nationalism. There are others who have articulated an even more troublesome idea. Next installment will look at race realism.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Reginald Smith. “Five Things to Know About Kinism.” Christian Reformed Church: The Network. September 11, 2019; updated December 12, 2023. Accessed December 29, 2025. https://network.crcna.org/topic/justice-inclusion/racial-reconciliation/five-things-know-about-kinism

[2] Mickey Henry, “What Is Kinism?” Tribal Theocrat, August 4, 2013. Accessed December 29, 2025. https://tribaltheocrat.com/2013/08/what-is-kinism/

[3] Corey J. Mahler (@CoreyJMahler), “Under Christian Nationalism, interracial marriage will be made a capital offense,” X (formerly Twitter), January 5, 2026, https://x.com/CoreyJMahler/status/2008190202246824400

[4] Mickey Henry, “What Is Kinism?” Tribal Theocrat.

[5] 1 Kings 11:4.

[6] Exodus 12:48.

[7] Leviticus 19:33-34.

[8] 1 Corinthians 7:39.

[9] Quoted in John Reasoner, “Kinism: Defining and Condemning,” Lamb’s Reign, May 21, 2022, accessed December 29, 2025, https://www.lambsreign.com/blog/kinism-defining-condemning

[10] Galatians 2:12-15.

10 Commandments, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | Building the Pond

Leave a comment

So far this series has covered the places where Christian Nationalism reflects something positive. I have described these as “the fairway” of political theory. It has also given examples of different areas where it is controversial, seen as the rough. However, those associated with Christian Nationalism have also created their fair share of water hazards. These are the places where ideas and the way they are used run contrary to  God’s Word and lead to serious error. These ideas are often not included as the core beliefs of Christian Nationalism, and yet certain self-proclaimed Christian Nationalists promote and promulgate very troubling views which rise to the level of grave concern and require forceful rebuke when taught by Christians.

There is a growing controversy in the conservative church, and it has to do with race. It is a strange phenomenon, though perhaps it ought not to be surprising. Only a few years ago I was writing articles against the racial reconciliation movement in the PCA.[1] That movement, intentionally or not, saddled all white people with the sins of the present and past of all people of the same skin color. That is the progressive excess in the area of racial difference. Currently, both political and Christian conservatives  are demonstrating excesses of their own in the area of race, especially in treating ethnicity and race as the primary categories for judging people. There are rising instances of Kinism, “race realism,” anti-Jewish language, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and attempts to rehabilitate Hitler. This problem is not yet as mainstream as the racial reconciliation assertions were when at their peak, however these views are moving in that direction among many conservative-minded people.

I would be considered a Gen Xer, though I think broad generational categories actually contribute to the problem under discussion. However, I bring it up to say I grew up in the 1970s and 80s. I grew up in a world where ethnic stereotypes were much more common. Today’s forbidden ethnic slurs were used quite freely at that time. No words were universally forbidden. However, there was a recognition that using these words was not right in certain contexts, whereas today’s version of racial excess among conservatives shows little shame regarding its verbal ethnic epithets. That is not to suggest the approach in the 70s and 80s was ideal. I am simply pointing out there is a greater insensitivity in today’s climate.

Progression of Problems

So how did it happen that five years ago the church was under the unhealthy progressive racial excesses, but now the same problem is rising in the conservative camp? I am not a sociologist. I am a pastor. At best, my opinions in this area should be seen as hunches and guesses and not scientifically established and researched thoughts.

First, I think there is a reaction among ethnic white young men to being told on a regular basis that the ills of the past are their fault. They have been marginalized in terms of their voice because of the color of their skin and the fact that they are male. It seems to me they have simply adopted the label that has been given to them. If they are blamed for everything, they may as well embrace it, or so the reasoning goes.

Second, there is also a reaction to perceptions (real or imagined) that institutions which should have spoken truth, in fact did not. Reports about how the Centers for Disease Control handled COVID-19, including concerns about transparency regarding the illness and vaccines, greatly undermined trust in institutions in general. Understanding that there is disagreement about the veracity of these subjects, I simply raise them as a point of reference. Agreement with the skepticism is not required to be able to recognize that the events themselves have created doubt in large sections of people regarding whether institutions in general can be trusted.

Third, the influence of mass migration in Europe and illegal immigration in the United States has awakened a sense of protection of the natural citizens of these nations. Visiting the Netherlands this past May, it was not uncommon to hear complaints that housing was unavailable to young Dutch families due to large-scale migration. For the United States, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, claims that 6.7 million illegal immigrants have come to the US since 2021.[2] The number is open to debate, but it is not hard to see how many American citizens would see such an influx as a threat to their culture. These are the hunches of a man who speaks regularly to people who voice those kinds of complaints. However, perhaps it is better to let the motivation for the shift be explained by others. My aim here is more to examine the vehicle through which they have often come: Christian Nationalism. Again, not all proponents are lobbing balls into the water hazards. For example, Stephen Wolfe does not seem to be a racialist, a man who sees the world in racial categories, and yet there is lack of clarity on this point in his signature work on the subject.

In Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, he introduces the concept of national ethnicity without clearly defining it. For example, he says, “The instinct to live within one’s ‘tribe’ or one’s own people is neither a product of the fall nor extinguished by grace; rather it is natural and good.”[3] And he presents an order of loves that, on its face, seems appropriate: “A Christian should love his children over other children, his parents over other parents, his kin over other kin, his nation over other nations.”[4] And yet, Wolfe’s lack of definition regarding some key terms leaves him open to misunderstanding.

For example, when describing ethnicity, he says, “Ethnicity, as something experienced, is familiarity with others based in common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion.”[5] In this case, any mention of a racial component is left out, and yet he spends the next few pages in his book arguing for a common “volksgeist” (which, I have to admit, is a curious choice of term in light of Germany’s use of a similar term in the 1930s and 40s) that is derived from “blood relations.” Because of his lack of clarity, the door is opened to misunderstanding. And yet, lack of clarity hardly allows for a guilty verdict. However, there are others within Christian Nationalism who have clearly stated positions on Kinism, race-realism, and anti-semitism. These are most definitely water hazards and should be addressed.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Geoff Gleason, “An Appeal on Race in the Presbyterian Church in America,” six-part series, Theology in Shorts, 2021, first installment published August 3, 2021, https://theologyinshorts.com/part-1-an-appeal-on-race-in-the-presbyterian-church-in-america/.

[2] “The Biden Administration Has Brought in an Additional 6.7 Million Illegal Aliens,” Heritage Foundation, accessed November 21, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/the-biden-administration-has-brought-additional-67-million-illegal-aliens.

[3] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2022), 23.

[4] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 101.

[5] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism, 136.

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Culture, Government

Christian Nationalism and the Local Church | The Roughest of the Rough

Leave a comment

The previous installment dealt with the specific controversial practical applications included in Christian Nationalism. It continued to follow the basic illustration of how to interact with this political theory. Some of what it asserts is like balls that land squarely in the fairway. There is much to be learned and agreed on in what it says, mostly summarized by a robust understanding of the civil use of the moral law. But when it comes to working out those generally good ideas, the ball rolls into the rough. Blood pressure is up, swings are taken, and there may even be a club that is thrown from time to time. Never is that more obvious than when the question of a national church is raised.

Should there be a state, or established church or not? Can the civil magistrate call synods or not? Again, Presbycast had a lively and lengthy discussion on this point in their debate on Christian Nationalism.[1] This may be the thorniest of them all because it involves arguments about the original text of the Confession of 1647 compared to the American revisions adopted in 1788. Personally, I am uncomfortable with a civil magistrate who has any kind of power or jurisdiction over the Church. It comes from my presbyterian convictions that the church should be governed by a plurality of elders, not civil servants, elected or otherwise. The same principle is applied in the other direction. I would love to have a government that asks the Church for advice on its legislative plans, but I would not want the church to make policy decisions. Likewise, I am profoundly uncomfortable with a magistrate who can direct any part of the theology, ministry and government of Christ’s Church.

These five points above do not have universal agreement by any stretch of the imagination. In my own views, I am sympathetic to the Christian Nationalist call to exercise the civil use of the law in the first, third, fourth, and seventh commandments, and I am opposed to a state or national church. People may think I am “in the rough,” but I doubt there will be accusations of sin against me. They might say I lack wisdom, but there is a recognition that working out the details of a “good society” is complicated and discussion and debate must be had. When the ideal of the civil use of the moral law bumps up against the reality of fallen and sinful society, the ways to apply this use may cause head scratching and disagreement. And because there is significant disagreement on this matter in the relatively small group of Reformed Christianity, making any kind of dent in society requires even more delicacy and careful statesmanship. The United States in the 21st century is thousands of moral miles away from Calvin’s Geneva or some other utopia from the past, and it makes a quick return to the civil use of God’s law humanly speaking highly unlikely in the short term.

At this point, the question will be more about how to get the magistrate to acknowledge God’s law at all rather than enact specific legislation. One of the things that struck so many Christians in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, was that at his memorial service, many magistrates from President Trump’s cabinet made explicit reference to the gospel and mentioned sin, forgiveness in Jesus, and other such Christian ideals in their addresses. And as grateful as Christians should be when their leaders openly acknowledge the message of the gospel, there has not been a swell of legislation that returns the United States to a civil use of the moral law as far as I can tell. That leaves Christians to consider the question of Christian Nationalism more as theory. It can be helpful. The civil use of the moral law is what should be the target as far as I’m concerned. And yet it the application is not so simple.

Do Christians hope that all people would worship the one True God? I should hope so. Otherwise, what are we doing when it comes to the Great Commission. And what would happen if God would bless the evangelistic efforts of the Church? Societies would become Christian. For myself, if I would like my country to be a little Christian, so why would I not want it to be a lot Christian? But since the applications represent the rough rather than the fairway, it is not surprising when there is some disagreement about the magistrate’s role in getting there. Christians should be able to have strong biblical convictions here, while at the same time not demonizing brothers whose views differ from their own. And yet there is also a proper place for warning, where proponents of Christian Nationalism loose the plot. Several instances will be highlighted and examined in the next few articles.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

—————

[1] Presbycast, “Continuing the Debate: Church & State,” YouTube video, accessed December 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOV-QdRoCM, starting at 13:00.

Christian Living, church

Concern for the Contemporary Church

2 Comments

bell tower

I am a “retired” pastor. I placed the word “retired” in quotation marks (twice now) because I am still trying to discern what that word means. Mr. Webster supplies some helpful hints, but they tend not to correspond to my current life. Did I mention that I recently turned eighty? I did. One of my former catechism students from Canada wrote me happy birthday wishes and asked what it felt like to be eighty. I responded that it felt a lot like seventy only older. I’m not certain that helped her.

One thing I have noticed is that with all the emphasis placed on youth in America in our time, once you turn seventy or so, people think of you as too old for anything, including preaching and teaching. It’s the age number that is hard for people to overcome.

Stating the Problem

I must admit that I do get a lot more reading done these days, which brings me to the reason I am writing this blog post. A youngish Christian recently wrote about some of the serious problems in the contemporary church setting, among which was a deplorable lack of ethical discernment and reflection. I agree wholeheartedly. The young man formulated his concern in the form of a question: “How do most Americans get training in ethical reflection?” By extension, we might ask, “Where do serious-minded Christians go to learn how to make God-pleasing ethical decisions?” Certainly, home is an option for ethical instruction, but the local congregation ought to be as well.

Granted, there are—thankfully—still Christian congregations where the congregants are challenged by excellent expository preaching and Sunday School classes that are challenging and informative. In the twenty-first century, however, many of those local churches are assigned to the “endangered species” list. With the advent of the homeschooling phenomenon, some parents have taken the time to ensure that their children receive a thorough grounding in mature Christian decision-making, along with catechetical instruction that provides a solid outline of the essential, fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. In addition, there are still Christian high schools that offer courses—as in “more than one”—in ethics, but they, too, are becoming increasingly rare. Not to teach our youth Christian ethics and worldview is spiritually to shortchange them. Exposure to the twenty-first-century world is a dangerous and hostile undertaking.

It would be a sheer novelty to locate a state college or university that provided any formal ethical instruction, but assuredly all of the secular institutions of “higher learning” teach/indoctrinate their students in the secular version of ethics. On second thought, it would be a near miracle to find such courses in our locales. Approximately fifty or so years ago, H.L. Mencken famously quipped that “there is no idea so stupid that you cannot find a professor who will believe it.” While that is meant to be mildly humorous, there is more than a modicum of truth enveloped in it.

When I speak or write about the contemporary Church of Christ, I am generally referring to what we witness results of the mega-church, emergent/emerging church, Social Justice Warrior, and woke congregations from the early 1970s until the present and their various combinations and permutations. In my forty-five years of pastoral ministry in three different countries (The Netherlands, Canada, and the United States) I have surmised that we are facing at least three generations of professing Christians that have not been fed the spiritual food they and we all so desperately need.

What I have observed is that a growing number of professing Christians, young, older, and very much older, have not received much or any substantive training in how to think about ethics and ethical issues. Every two years, Ligonier Ministries conducts a theological survey focused on the beliefs of those who are avowed “evangelicals” and who attend worship on a regular basis. Yearly, the results of that survey increase in their disheartening results. Understanding of rudimentary Christian truth/doctrine deteriorates yearly, followed closely by deviations from what ought to be easily discernible ethical reflection. It is noteworthy that views on abortion on demand, homosexuality, transgenderism, economics, politics, and worldview—just to mention a few—trend in a disturbing direction. The obvious danger for the Church is that if contemporary, popular churches continue to ignore serious ethical reflection, congregants will continue to be molded and shaped by a culture that is openly hostile to Christianity.

Returning to the notion of schools for a moment, especially Christian high schools, there needs to be a greater emphasis on Bible, the formation of a biblical life and worldview, languages, the fine arts, and ethical decision-making using the Ten Commandments as Christian Ethics 101, whether it is a strictly homeschool situation, a homeschool co-op, or a regional Christian high school. In addition, there should be a far greater emphasis on the confessions, creeds, and catechisms of the Christian faith in all of those situations.

No, the confessions, creeds, and catechisms are not infallible. Infallibility and inerrancy are reserved only for Scripture. Nevertheless, I contend that the historic confessions, creeds, and catechisms are far superior to anything you and I could cobble together. How can the modern Church, then, at least take some serious steps at what I am describing?

The Way Back

There are many roads that lead us back in the right direction. Allow me to outline just a few. First, we must conclude that bigger isn’t always better. That is, a mega-church with many varied “programs” is not always the best church for modern Christians. In fact, it can be argued that a smaller, more family-oriented congregation could surpass our needs and expectations. A faithful pastor, who week-in and week-out enters the pulpit and unashamedly, boldly, yet simply and understandably, proclaims God’s truth from the scriptures is to be preferred.

Second, you might want to find a congregation that takes Sunday School seriously. One ethicist suggested that Sunday School ought to be similar to military boot camp. Of course, it might not be a drawing card to tell everyone that your Sunday School is like boot camp, but the idea is appealing for a number of reasons. For those of us who have experienced boot camp, we know that it was there that we received the fundamentals of what would keep us alive on the battlefield—we did not receive everything mind you, but certainly the basics that would serve us well and help us survive. Moreover, after boot camp there was a period called A.I.T. or Advanced Individual Training where we were the recipients of training that would refine the basics that we learned in boot camp. For the children, their parents ought to be looking for a congregation that teaches the youth from one of the Church’s catechisms. From my tradition, I am thinking of the Westminster Shorter Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism. Both are excellent.

Third, and this follows closely on the two previous points, you should be looking for a congregation that through the preaching, teaching, fellowship, and prayers, aims at your spiritual development. What I am describing I usually call a congregation that acts and lives like a “covenant family.” What is that? Generally, it is a body of believers who genuinely love and care for one another. They mourn with those who mourn and rejoice with those who rejoice. They enjoy being around one another and if there is a physical need in the congregation they pitch in to help with meals, transportation, or whatever is needed. They eagerly look forward to worship and learning what God would have them do and how he would have them live—albeit imperfectly. They comprehend the simul in Martin Luther’s famous dictum Simul iustis et peccator. Speaking on justification by faith, Luther described the sinner saved by grace as, at one and the same time (simul), justified and a sinner. We have not arrived in our walk of faith, but we are on the journey of the Christian life. God has placed us on the road that will eventually take us “home.” That is where we want to be, but in the meantime, we seek a meaningful and purposeful life here on earth, fearing God and keeping his commandments.

Dr. Ron Gleason
Bluffton, SC

10 Commandments, Christian Living, church, Man, Parenting, sabbath

Practical Helps for Honoring the Lord’s Day in Family

Leave a comment

We live in a time when the idea of Sabbath rest is almost entirely disregarded. That is certainly true “out there” in the big bad world. Shopping malls, restaurants, and sporting venues have some of their busiest days on the day that should be reserved for the Lord. At this point, the very notion of commerce ceasing for one day of the week is completely foreign. But it will be of the great benefit of the church to stand against this cultural trend and reclaim this great blessing instituted by God.

From creation, the Lord of glory has set apart one day in seven that His creatures might rejoice worship. I have written in other places about the biblical establishment of the Lord’s Day. This article aims at something different: to encourage and help those Christians who are seeking to honor the Lord and His Day.

North American society no longer provides any aids to this end, which is a fairly recent change in the overall scope of history. I spent twenty-four years of my life living in Canada (1985-2009). In my experience it is, in many ways, a more secular and progressive nation than the United States. But I remember driving by the shopping malls when my family moved there in 1985. The parking lots were empty and the stores were closed on Sunday. Social pressure was exerted on businesses in the form of fines to give one day of rest. The desire to worship the Lord on this one day was long gone, but there was still societal support for those who desired to rest and enjoy God’s blessing. That societal protection is now long gone, both in Canada and the United States. It has been replaced with stores who will not hire people who do not have availability on Sunday, all major sports holding their major championship matches on the Lord’s Day, and a general sense of befuddlement as to why anyone would want to forfeit time for recreation and business for something as quaint as going to church.

Even in churches there is even less and less support for preserving the Lord’s Day. This article is aimed at those within the Church who desire to arrest this slide, beginning in their own homes. The first aim is to outline what must be avoided, and the second is to give ideas for what can be done to promote a joyful Lord’s Day celebration in the church for the good of God’s people.

Things to Be Avoided

The basic call of the Sabbath is to set aside person secular employment and free others for their labor (Exodus 20:8-11). There is an additional expectation that the Sabbath be kept with a spirit of delight in the Lord (Isaiah 58:13-14). But there are certain things that should be avoided because they “grease the wheels” for the temptation to forsake the Lord’s Day.

Making Keeping the Lord’s Day Optional

Habits are often associated with a cold, disinterested hypocrisy. However, the consistency that comes with a habit is really just the internal structure that allows people to pursue the things that are important to them. An example from every day life is weight loss. How many diets provide promises of transformation change only to fail because the habits of the dieter have not been changed? Too many “cheat days” undermine any kind of meaningful progress, or when goals have been achieved the draw of unhealthy foods erase what has been gained. To be at a healthy weight remains the goal, but the inconsistencies make it difficult to achieve it in any meaningful way. So it is with the Lord’s Day.

One of the central distinguishing marks of the Lord’s Day is the call to gather with other Christians in worship. Lack of consistency often undermines that central tenet. A particular circumstance convinces the Christian that just this once it is good to work, stay home from church, or in some other way ignore the fourth commandment. Perhaps there is a pressing deadline or a promising new client who needs something done right away. Perhaps family has come into town for a weekend visit. There are many reasons that can be given for a spiritual “cheat day.” And yet to indulge them is to cut our own feet out from under us. There are works of necessity and mercy that can and should be performed on the Lord’s Day. However, most excuses do not rise to that level. And by making the Lord’s Day optional by neglecting worship for one excuse is to make it easier for excuses to multiply.

Speaking Ill of the Lord’s Day

In families, speech plays an important part in how family members view this day. The way a father speaks about Sunday will shape the way his children think of it. If he complains about the things he does not get to do because of the Lord’s Day, children will be predisposed to think of the Sabbath as an obstruction rather than a blessing. It is right instead to speak of the Lord’s Day as time given to pursue what is out of reach on the other six days due to other responsibilities. It is a day of works of piety where the soul is built up and prepared for what is demanded of the Christian from Monday to Saturday.

If there are complaints of the heart, do nto give them voice. Ask that God would change you so you would delight in the Lord’s Day. Bring your heart in submission to the command of Scripture that you might rejoice in the blessings of worship, physical rest, and heavenly anticipation. Your words will follow suit.

Making the Lord’s Day a Drudgery

The activities of the Lord’s Day should match the words used to describe it. It can be repeated a thousand times that the Lord’s Day is a blessing, but if experience doesn’t match those words those statements will be rejected as false. Do not give occasion for the devil to whisper to your family that the Lord’s Day is not a blessing, but a bore. That is not the same thing as saying that the whims of the human heart must be satisfied for the sake of a positive outlook on the Sabbath. It is saying that for the Christian the Sabbath is to be a delight, and that should be matched in the joyful activities of this day. Rather than a day focused on prohibitions, it should be a day where there are special joys. Do not make it hard for young ones to see that this day is wonderful.

Things to Be Done

There are plenty of other cautions over what not to do, however there should also be consideration of positive activities that can protect this day and the blessing it brings.

Live for the Lord the other Six Days

Hypocrisy is the great turn-off for those who have to live under it. Parental influence regarding the Lord’s Day can be obliterated by hypocrisy. The question answered by a person’s conduct is this: does he really mean it. When it comes to children, words are necessary, but easily undermined. Claims about biblical holiness are denied in deed. Parental example given the other six days of the week will either affirm or deny instruction given about the Lord’s Day. Christianity is not a one-day-per-week proposition and that must be modelled. Christianity is the life of the born-again believer who knows the extent and cost of Christ’s work of salvation for him. It is the life of a thankful, rescued soul. And that kind of life cannot be faked.

Making the Day Special

The Sabbath is the most special of all days because it uniquely permits man to do the things he will do in heaven. Worship is to be the delight of this day, but there are other ways to cultivate a joyful attitude toward the Lord’s Day. If it is the most special day of the week, there are additional ways of marking it as such.

    • Busy parents can give their undivided attention to family. Special family memories can be built through family walks, playing games, and other good things. It does not take away from the Lord’s Day to build Christian fellowship within the family.
    • Hospitality encourages the communion of the saints. In heaven worship is a corporate event, not a private one. The saints are to be the delight of the Christian, and that is fostered through hospitality. It allows children to build relationships with others that makes them delight in the going to the church. They are meeting their friends there.
    • Children are stimulated by discussions about the big questions of life. Especially as children get older, they are interested in the thorny ethical problems, theological controversies, or issues where the world and the Christian are at odds.
    • Songs should be sung in the home that prepare the family for participation in worship. For little ones, memorized songs are one of the few ways they can actively participate in worship. It is good to provide them with those opportunities to break up an otherwise long service.
Praising the Lord for His Day

Verbalizing the privilege of the Lord’s Day is good for the soul. To delight in the Lord is to delight in His worship. There is one day in seven that reminds the Christian of that central delight. Contentment is expressed by praise to the Lord for the gift of rest. Words of praise could be spoken dishonestly which is obviously wrong. But words of praise spoken truthfully are a great help to remembering that the Lord’s Day is not to be cast aside.

The Lord’s Day is to be a delight. A day set apart to remind the Christian that God exists and that He is to be worshiped. However much the world may desire to eliminate that memorial day, the Christian must fight to maintain it. It is a safeguard for him against the movements away from religion and personal holiness.

Pastor Geoff Gleason
Cliffwood Presbyterian Church

 

Belief about God, Children, Christian Living, church

Death and Dying – Part 2

Leave a comment

Last installment looked at death in light of the things that could be learned from it. There we saw that not all experience in dealing with death is negative. The positive working of the Lord can be easily observed, if we watch and wait. For example, awareness of man’s need for God is often deepened in our trials. The sufferer is blessed as the Church cares for its members, often in ways that are deeply meaningful to those affected. The need for a future hope is impressed on those saying good-bye to a loved one. And yet we also remembered that experiencing the death of a loved-one certainly also has its grief and pain.

The trial of death in the family carries with it a finality and shock for which I was not prepared. The death of a loved-one is a uniquely difficult moment. It is easy to question whether enough was done for the one who is now passed. The familiar places the deceased loved-one used to enjoy remain painfully empty. However, by God’s grace and looking toward His promises, these difficult experiences can also be integrated and made beneficial in the process of adjusting to life without that loved-one present. However, in this article, I want to warn Christians against some pitfalls to be avoided in their sorrows and grief.

Pitfalls to Be Avoided

Amidst the positive and negative lessons, especially in the case of death, there can be many causes for stumbling. Emotions can cloud the mind and overwhelm the mourner to the point of obscuring God’s promises. Below are some examples of things Christians must work hard to avoid. It may perhaps even be necessary to pray that God would deliver you from such things if they have already taken hold of your heart.

Being Overwhelmed by Grief.

First, when grief paralyzes a person it is a sign that they have lost sight of hope. That is not to say such an experience is not understandable. Elijah was overwhelmed to the point of wanting to die (1 Kings 19:4). However, simply because we can be sympathetic to something that happens, does not mean we should be content to remain in such a condition. There is nothing the devil likes better than for God’s people to be blinded by grief. The weight of grief can be combatted by constant reminders of God’s promise that those who are in Christ the Son are united to God the Father in life and death. Certainly, Paul could have become blinded to the Lord because of the extent of his tribulations. His ministry included imprisonment, beatings, and near-death experiences (2 Corinthians 11:23-27). And yet he can write of the Christian:

“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.” (2 Corinthians 4:8-11)

To avoid being overcome by grief requires preparation. Christians must study and know the ways of the Lord, have a firm understanding of His promises, and lay an expectation of hope to avoid being overwhelmed in the moment.

Reproaches against the Lord

Second, we may react to our circumstances by blaming God. The grief caused by death is intense, and it is understandable for a person to feel weighed down and discouraged under its weight. However, to charge God with wrong-doing is a sinful and unhealthy response to pain and grief. It is an error to lay blame at God’s feet. The Christian’s response cannot continue in this way.

Christian, I would urge you to remind yourself that God is good. Consider the following:

    • Remind yourself that He knows all things, also today’s circumstances. He created the heavens and the earth and governs them today. Certainly He is better able to discern all that is taking place in your trial, and all the good things that He will work in you through it.
    • Think about all the good things He has given in this life.
    • Remember the many joyful days He did give with your loved one.
    • If you are struggling with contentment before the Lord, lay down your pride. You do not know better than the Lord. The sliver of time that you can observe and interpreted with limited knowledge cannot always fathom what the Lord is doing in any particular moment.

Taking Job as an example, after he lost all 10 of his children he was able to say, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21). We must train our hearts and affections by a diligent study of the ways God demonstrates His goodness in His word so that we can say the same as our brother Job.

Withdrawal and Isolation

The last pitfall to be avoided is the desire to remove yourself from contact with the saints. Perhaps you are afraid to answer the questions. Perhaps you just simply want to be by yourself to process through your thoughts. And yet, the body of Christ is there specifically so that we do not deal with these things alone. We need more comfort than we are willing to admit. The people who ask questions about your well-being, even if someone else has asked you the same thing five minutes ago, is loving you well. Answering these questions, even repeatedly, actually helped me tremendously to move past the intensity of the grief. Even if it is hard, do not forsake gathering together with the Church. They will help carry you through.

These last two articles are not meant to be a definitive or exhaustive treatment of the subject of death and dying. Much more could be said. Instead it is an attempt to briefly summarize lessons I’ve learned in my own recent experience. May the Lord bless His people as they seek to deal well with an enemy who, though defeated, yet causes much sorrow of soul in the Christian.

Belief about God, Bible, Christian Living, church, Love for God

Responding to Hurricane Helene – Part 2

Leave a comment

Last installment the stage was set for a broader consideration of how the Christian should respond to God’s providence using Job 2:9-10. In the midst of tremendous loss, Job maintains his spiritual integrity, event worshiping God who he saw as taking things away from him. This topic is important especially for those who have just suffered the effects of hurricane Helene. And yet it is applicable to all because we are all subject to God’s providence.

The Providence of God

Westminster Shorter Catechism defines God’s providence in this way: “What are God’s works of providence? God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.”[1] In the book of Job the reader is challenged to understand how God governs His creatures and their actions, and how to properly respond to that reality. Since God governs all His creatures and all their actions, that means good times and disaster come from Him. God does not remove Himself from this world after He makes it as the Deists would teach, but continually governs it. He cares for the creation, superintending all His creatures and all their actions.

What Job teaches the Christian is that he should respond with the same level of contentment in both kinds of circumstances. And that is challenging. In some sense easy times make us complacent and hard times make us grumble, but from Job’s lips the Christian is reminded that we should receive both by remembering that it is God’s providence, His governance of his days that has brought these circumstances into being.

God’s Good Providences

In the book of Job the tension is not that he has received too many blessings from the Lord. It is rather the opposite. Job has experienced a shattering of his life and his tragedy is real. Even for those who have experienced this most recent hurricane, it is still predominantly true that those in the United States can sing with the psalmist: “The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance.”[2]The vast majority of westerners live under God’s good providences, which are experienced in different ways.

His provision. The Lord provides for His people in a variety of ways. He does so materially by giving food, clothing, housing, and other possessions. He does so emotionally by blessing Christians with friends, family, and most often a spouse with whom to share life. He does so through the technological advancements of our time with vastly improved medical technology, and other inventions that provide ease and comfort in life. There are many others that could be listed here. Most of the time people hardly give these any thought, and even assume that these are their right. And yet because all men participated in the sin of Adam and add to that guilt daily by sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, it is in the provisions that God gives that He demonstrated His kindness.

His protection. In God’s governance of His creation there is security because in it God protects His people. In Job, the only reason the devil has access to him is that God gives him permission. Often in prayer meetings, Christians will pray for a “hedge of protection” around someone. That phrase is derived from the devil’s conversation with God. When the devil responds to God’s praise of Job’s faithfulness he says, “Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side?”[3] The Christian lives with the knowledge that nothing happens to him apart from the permission of his loving Heavenly Father.

Most often, the Lord directs these protections through secondary means. Parents are used to protect their children both physically and spiritually. The elders of the church exercise their office for the protection of faith and practice among God’s people. Governing authorities protect their citizens from evil and promote what is good. These institutions do not exist apart from God’s appointment, but are instances of His tremendous kindness in his good providences.

His pardon. The greatest aspect of God’s work of providence is the way He redeems people from the guilt of sin. All people are by nature guilty before God because of their sin. And yet some are declared righteous and pardoned from the guilt of their sin. It is God’s providence that any turn. None would be reconciled to God on their own. The condition of man is dire. He is “dead in sin and trespass”[4] and even Christians are naturally “children of wrath like the rest of mankind.”[5] There is no possible way to escape the significance of this natural condition. God’s merciful pardoning of sin is His ultimate demonstration of kindness.

It is good to remember and express these acts of kindness which God in His good providence has given to His people. That is especially true while living in the shadow of hurricane Helene. In hard times, people are tempted to think only of the tragedy. But Christians must remember the goodness and kindness of God which is experienced (and perhaps taken for granted) from day to day. Certainly it is easier to praise God when His providence provides for and protects you. It is easy to praise Him for His work of salvation. But there is much to be learned in the book of Job in giving thanks in all circumstances.

God’s Hard Providences

The tension in Job 2:9-10 is found in the conversation between Job and his wife. This family has just experienced a heart-wrenching tragedy. Their 10 children have been killed in a natural disaster, all their wealth is lost. But after his wife urges him to cut ties with God Job says: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”[6] What does Job mean when he says he receives “evil” from God?

From the rest of Scripture it is abundantly clear that God is not capable of doing evil. For example, James 1:13 says that “God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” That limits what Job might be saying. It cannot mean that he thinks God is behaving in an evil way toward him. The Bible says that interpretation is impossible. There is not any place for laying blame at God’s feet. The solution is not far away.

The Hebrew word translated “evil” in the ESV can also simply mean bad, or disaster. So it is not that God acts wickedly against Job in allowing this tragedy. Rather, the Bible is describing Job’s assessment of his circumstance. It does not seem far fetched at all that Job would describe his calamity as bad or a disaster. But the emphasis in Job is to teach the Christian how to respond properly when faced with a departure from the good times with which people are so familiar. It exhorts the reader to trust the Lord with all that happens in this life without judging the acceptability or fitness of His works. But that is not the only way that people respond to calamity. It is in Job’s exchange with his wife in Job 2:9-10 that the two basic responses to God’s hard providences are acted out.

Job’s wife acts in bitterness toward the Lord leading to what seems to be a rejection of Him. Many people are tempted to respond in this way. Job 2:9 records: “Then his wife said to him, ‘Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.’” Job’s wife concludes that her calamity, which is truly and in all ways to be considered a tragedy, is too hard. It pushes her to think, at least for a season, that God is not worth her time. At this time, Job’s spiritual integrity is a joke to her and his life is even worthless to her. She urges her husband to curse God and die. Perhaps these words are simply the cry of a broken heart. We are not told if she changes her tune. However, even in her devastating circumstances she charges God with evil and elevates herself to being wiser than He. She presumes to know the final result better than God does. This same sentiment is expressed when people express anger against God over a certain difficulty they have witnessed or experienced. Such a response is basically the same as the emotional state of Job’s wife, and Job calls it “foolish.”

By way of contrast, Job acts in contentment, bearing up under what God has assigned to him. Job’s acceptance of God’s hard providences is, in some sense, mind-boggling. Some of Job’s statements as he suffers his ruin are truly breathtaking. When he looses all his possessions, status, and children in a matter of minutes, he says: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”[7] I wonder how many Christians today would make such a statement. When the devil strikes covers him with festering blisters from head to toes, he says: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”[8] In both of these sayings, Job demonstrates a stunning and complete contentment with God’s providential ordering of his circumstances. And it is his acceptance of God’s working in his life that marks the lesson of Job. It is a lesson I have found myself needing to learn better as I have walked through the fairly minor inconvenience of the temporary loss of power, water, and mobility.

Application

In response to the Bible’s teaching on trusting God also in hard providences, I want to challenge Christians in two ways.

First, trust in the omniscience, and goodness of God. Especially in times of crisis, it is crucial for us to have the contentment of Job. If this man who suffered far more than most Christians ever have can praise God, the rest of the Church should be able to do so as well. That begins with a right assessment of the One who orders His creation. Man’s understanding of any event is limited. His knowledge takes only a small slice of what he is taught and experiences over a span of eighty years. But God is omniscient, meaning that He knows all things. There is no mystery to Him, nothing where He does not know the outcome. That makes Him trustworthy. He is good, meaning that He does not deal with His people for their destruction, but only for their building up. Who is man to make a final assessment of what good things the Lord will bring to him even in his hardship. From personal hardship, the deprivations caused by the hurricane have helped me. They have shown me my great reliance on Him, helped me see my own weakness, caused me to recalibrate my priorities. And He may have other plans besides the ones I recognize. But whatever His reason for hurricane Helene, He is wiser than any man and good in all His dealings. Therefore the Christian’s default should be to trust Him, and be content.

Second, rehearse the many great gifts God has given. Christians should keep themselves from being overwhelmed with the troubles of today by looking to the many instances of God’s kindness. Rehearse together how He has given life and health. Consider how many things could have gone wrong but did not. Reflect on the fragility of life and how the Lord has yet preserved His people these many days.

The reason people who are minimally affected by the effects of this hurricane are prone to grumble is because they have had a very comfortable life up to this point. That is not to make light of the devastation faced by communities and families in the Southeast. Their grief is justified. However, for the vast majority of people, their temporary loss of power, gasoline, and drinking water does not compare to the many good gifts the Lord has given them.

Finally, consider the greatness God’s work of salvation. He sent His Son to be the propitiation of sin. That means His Son was sent to satisfy the wrath of God over sin committed against Him. On the cross the Lord Jesus Christ bore God’s wrath. Whatever is endured in this life cannot be compared to that agony. Christ bore the infinite wrath of God. His Father forsook Him, turning His face away so that His people would not taste the agony of hell. He has done that for the good of His people. It is the greatest gift anyone might ever receive. That gospel truth is to be believed and rejoiced in. It is that perspective that helps people endure the hard providences God brings their way.

Conclusion

I do not think I will ever forget hurricane Helene. I think it will change how I respond to reports of storms for the rest of my life. But Christian, be reminded that the Lord is good, and the Lord is sovereign. Because He rules and reigns, the Christian says with Job: “The Lord gives and takes away…” Because the world is subject to God’s providence, the Christian’s grumbling should be changed to Job’s good confession: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” That does not mean that hardships are not hard anymore. It does not mean that loss does not bring about tears. But it does mean that whether facing easy or hard circumstances, Christians are to give thanks to God, praise His name, tell of His salvation, and rejoice for His steadfast love endures forever.

[1] Westminster Shorter Catechism #11.

[2] Psalm 16:6 (ESV).

[3] Job 1:10.

[4] Ephesians 2:1.

[5] Ephesians 2:3.

[6] Job 2:10.

[7] Job 1:21.

[8] Job 2:10.

Belief about God, Bible, Christian Living, church

Christians in a Fallen World – Part 2

Leave a comment

Conflict

At 6.15 p.m. on Saturday, July 13, 2024, there was an attempt on former president Donald Trump’s life. He was shot in the ear, one bystander dead, two others wounded, the shooter himself killed, and the former President whisked away by secret service. How does the Christian respond to that kind of event? Last article looked at how they could respond and what they should not do. This second installment examines this question positively, in terms of what they should do.

What Should the Christian Do?

“My son,  fear the LORD and the king, and do not join with those who do otherwise, for disaster will arise suddenly from them, and who knows the ruin that will come from them both?” (Proverbs 24:21-22)

Verse 21 calls the Christian to fear the Lord. That is the default Christian response to any circumstance, including unsettling circumstance, like experience on July 13, 2024. The Christian is not to fret or envy the evildoer. In some sense that would be to fear man. But rather than fearing man, he is to fear the Lord. But what does it mean to fear the Lord?

In this context it does not mean to cower before the Lord God in terror because of dread of His presence? It is not to be like Adam in the Garden immediately after the fall when he hides himself from God because he fears Him. What is the fear of the Lord then?

“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.” (Proverbs 8:13)
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Proverbs 9:10)
“The fear of the Lord prolongs life.” (Proverbs 10:27)
“The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life.” (Proverbs 14:27)
“The fear of the Lord leads to life and whoever has it rests satisfied.” (Proverbs 19:23)

To summarize, the fear of the Lord can be used to simply describe the Christian life. It is living in relationship with a God who is pure and who has accomplished redemption. That is the fear of the Lord. It is the reverence and awe that the redeemed feel towards the God who is not there to condemn them, but the God who has promised and secured salvation. It is a phrase that shows the changed life of a man who is under God’s protection.

The man who fears the Lord turns away from evil. The fear of the Lord makes him wise and prolongs his life. It gives him rest. That is the life of the man who is in Christ because of the grace of God. He loves the Lord. He loves his law. He hates what is opposed to him. Rather than fearing man and his disapproval, he fears the Lord, also in the face of political unrest. Yet it is important to clarify, that though the Christian does not fear the evildoer, it does not mean he indifferent about him.

The Christian should not shrug at evil, but condemn it. He should seek biblical justice so far as he is able, because he hates evil and exactly because he fears the Lord. He should care about about who his ruler is. He should seek to gain a ruler who governs in that same fear of the Lord that he has because he wants the good of his nation. He understands Psalm 33:12 which says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” A righteous ruler behaves in the same way as the Lord does. In Proverbs 19:21 the wise man calls his son to fear God and the king. In verse 22, it shows how both respond to evil the same way. The Lord and the king together will bring disaster and ruin on the one who doesn’t fear the Lord. Now, God always renders pure biblical justice. At the same time any king/ruler should render that.

Days like July 13, 2024 should not make the Christian disheartened. The Christian, by God’s grace, will not endure the ruin to which that warning points. Not because he is by nature right, but because God, by his grace, has made him right. He has transferred his citizenship from the countries of this world to the heavenly kingdom. And so the Christian is called to fear the Lord and the king. Live in this nation in light of your heavenly citizenship. There are events in this life that make man fret. But the Christian should remember he has a heavenly King. He should remember his adoption (Romans 8:14), the promise from Almighty God that He will never leave or forsake His people (Hebrews 13:5), that there is nothing in all of creation that can separate him from His love in Christ (Romans 8:38-39).

Days before the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, He encouraged his disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them (John 14:2). In other words, this world is not their home. There is a heavenly inheritance that awaits them. And that same promise applies to His disciples today as well. The Christian is not living in his permanent home, but is simply passing through. He is to fear the Lord and to fear the Lord only.

The Lord is to be feared because He is sovereign over all moments, including the one that happened on July 13, 2024. Nothing has happened that has not been ordained by him. The evildoer may believe he is advancing his own agenda, but the Lord mocks him and laughs at him. The evildoer’s own sin is being used to accomplish God’s perfect will. Think about Pontius Pilate. He thought he was advancing his political career by hanging this innocent Jewish carpenter on a cross. That is a sinful act. And yet the Lord used exactly that sinful action to accomplish the redemption that He had promised.

Without a doubt, Christians do not understand all that God is orchestrating through the assassination attempt on July 13. They do not know why God allowed this evildoer to do evil. But should the Christian even ask that question? The point is not that Christians cannot ask questions of God. However, they should never do so in such a way as puts His competency to ordain all things in doubt. God is good, merciful and compassionate. He did ordain it and He has every right to do so. It is in trusting in Him when things seem uncertain that peace is found. No man can give another ultimate peace. But no man or event should be able to take away the Christian’s peace either.

Proverbs 19:23 (quoted above) says that in the fear of the Lord that man rests satisfied. The Christian looks to the Lord for his future. The evildoer has no future (Prov. 24:20) because the evildoer assuredly and certainly will be condemned. His sins will find him out. Books will be opened. If he is not found out in this life, he will stand before the judgment seat of God, and his heart and thoughts will be laid bare. His transgressions against God’s law will be declared, and he will be sentenced. That is dismal, and it is the default state of everyone in the world. The godless evildoer, the wicked who seems so powerful, has an appearance of invincibility that lasts only for a moment.

But if a man is in Christ, the squabbles of this earth are not to be compared to the glory that he will have in heaven. Jesus Christ is King on the throne, and He is judging the nations. He is ruling over the nations. And Christians will participate in these things because they are united to the Anointed One. Because he is purchased by Christ, he is protected by Him and never abandoned.

He has purchased a future for the Christian at the cost of his own blood. That is the only hope presented in the gospel. God’s people should seek a nation where the righteous prosper and the evildoer is punished. But what is to be done when God, in his providence, denies these things. That is the question this article is addressing. It is not dealing with what may be wanted ideally. Rather, how do God’s people live in the corruption of this world?

The Christian ought no fear the plotting and scheming of man, nor envy such an evildoer. He is not to be anxious about him. Rather he is to fear the Lord and live under the authorities He has set in place. That is to be done with integrity, serving God in this world.

An assassination attempt is unsettling because it is an evidence of the rotten natural state of man which pervades our own country too. And no part of the Church can control it. However that does not give permission for the Church to fret and worry over those who do evil. It does not mean the wicked should be envied. The gaze of man is to be away from those things, directed rather to the Lord which a proper, biblical fear.

Seek his glory. Hate evil. Love wisdom. Rest satisfied in him. Why? Not because life will be easy, or even because it will necessarily be safe. It is because the Lord gives eternal peace to all who look to him in Christ. It would be good to heed the wisdom of Psalm 146:

1 Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD, O my soul!
2 I will praise the LORD  as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being.

3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is  no salvation.
4 When  his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

5 Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose  hope is in the LORD his God, 6 who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever; 7 who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry.

The LORD sets the prisoners free; 8 the LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous.

9 The LORD watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but  the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

10 The LORD will reign forever, your God, O Zion, to all generations. Praise the LORD!

Belief about God, Children, church, ordinary means of grace, Parenting

Experiencing Worship with Children

2 Comments

Lately I’ve been preaching through the “kingdom psalms” (Psalms 93-100). These psalms include as their common theme a call to worship God. That theme got me thinking about Christian parents leading their families to worship. No one is exempt from challenges in leading their family in worship at church. So how can parents live faithfully before God in this area? How can parents responsibly lead their families to meet with God and His people in worship? Those questions could be addressed by sharing information, or it could examine the experience of worship in families.

In this article there will not simply be a consideration of knowledge. Knowledge is crucial to the Christian life. Normally in adults life is a progressive movement from knowledge in the head to belief in the heart to expression with the hands. However, in children parental example is integral to form assumptions in the minds of children. These can have a lasting impact on the way they will understand life as adults. So rather than considering what facts children should know about worship, this article looks at parental leadership and example and how it informs an understanding of worship in children before they may even understand all that is happening. I will begin with a parent’s negative example.

  1. The Impact of Neglecting Worship

There are many reasons why people for a season excuse themselves from worship. Some of them are legitimate, some are understandable but not helpful, and some are simply bad reasons. The latter two will have unwanted negative results in children.

First, there are legitimate reasons. These include suffering an illness, or caring for someone else who is, employment in areas of mercy and necessity. Nurses, doctors, nursing home staff performing necessary medical service to the sick and elderly does nothing to neglect the call to worship, but actually compliments it. There other such reasons, but these legitimate reasons will in no way be a negative example to children.

Second, there are understandable reasons that are not helpful. There are times when, as a pastor, I sympathetically understand why folks stay away from worship. But when I talk to them, I counsel them to be present at worship because it is actually more helpful to them. For example, a person who has suffered a trauma in his life such as the passing of a loved one, or an embarrassing confession of sin may be tempted to stay away. Perhaps the difficulty of repeatedly answering the same painful questions seems too much to handle. These struggling brothers and sisters should be encouraged by the spirit of gentleness displayed by the saints (Gal. 6:1) and welcomed in the church.

However, when worship is neglected in these circumstances, it teaches a lesson for watching children. They see parents worshiping God when things are going well, but when hardship comes worship is withdrawn. They see people looking for comfort and encouragement away from the people of God in their most pressing needs. And yet, the Bible teaches that all circumstances come from the Lord, and so His worship should not be neglected on account of hardship.

Third, there are bad reasons to neglect worship. These reasons include preferring time to visit with friends or family who are in-town for the week-end, catching up on needed work around the house, and so on. The unnecessary neglect of corporate worship is a significant disconnect with a Christian profession of faith. Psalm 122:1 presents the heart of the Christian when it comes to worship: “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord!’” (English Standard Version). But for the watching eyes of children, parents who stay away from worship teach children a detrimental lesson with unpredictable consequences.

Using the example of neglecting worship for time with family and friends, parents in that moment teach the child, perhaps unintentionally, that family is more important than God. I do not know Christian parents who would say that, but their actions at time establish that. The choice has been presented and God has not been preferred. And once that choice has been presented as a legitimate option, the parent will have no grounds to object to the preference of personal choice in any other area. Children may apply the same choice to recreation, work, or other things. In that scenario, actions have spoken and the lesson is clearly taught.

  1. A Valuable Lesson to Be Taught by Being Present in Worship

But parents do come to worship. They do set a positive example by being present at church, which has positive practical consequences. Broadly speaking, participating in worship gives children a healthy understanding of their importance compared to God.  An important aspect of being a well-adjusted person is the correct understanding of personal importance. In today’s self-help secular parenting world, children are often raised to think they are uniquely special. Their needs are to be met, and their opinions are to be respected and maybe even followed. Of course, it is good to make sure children know they are precious to their parents. But that affirmation should have limits. No child is more precious that God. And so, it is good for children to learn there are moments where their personal preferences and desires must “take a back seat.” Worship is one of those moments. What parents allow and forbid as part of worship prepares a child to recognize that he and God are not peers, which has further implications for all of life. Parents can set prohibitions and requirements to aid in learning that lesson.

First, children should not be an unnecessary distraction in worship. The church has gathered to focus on the Lord, not to focus on children. Therefore, no child should be allowed to make himself the focus either by excessive noise, disobedience, or turning around in the seat and entertaining the people sitting behind. When a child is not able to be in church without becoming a distraction, he should not remain. Perhaps there is a quick fix that can happen in the foyer of the church. Perhaps more training is necessary in the home to prepare a child to sit still. If the church has a nursery, parents should take advantage. Parents themselves should then assess together what is missing that would enable their child to be part of corporate worship. It is not always easy to discern, however a constant parade in and out of a service to correct a wayward child, indicates that child may not be ready to sit in church. Not only will both parent and child not participate in worship, most likely the people around them will not either. And that is to miss the purpose for coming together. Do not misunderstand. As a pastor, I am glad to hear the noises of a child learning to adjust himself to worship. The loud, off-key singing is great. The out-loud answer to rhetorical questions in the sermon often puts the adults to shame. Even the restless wiggles being brought under control should not distract a person who has come to worship. But there is a point when a child becomes an unhealthy distraction.

Second, children should not be permitted to act on every impulse they have during worship. The two main culprits in this regard are probably requests from children for drinks of water and going to the bathroom. Dealing with requests for drinks of water is by far the easier of the two. From a practical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that your child will not survive the remaining 30 minutes of a service without a drink of water. Requests for a visit to the bathroom carry with them a greater sense of risk. However, just a little bit of thinking ahead can even alleviate the urgency of this question. Parents can require a visit to the facilities before the service starts. That requires attentiveness from the parents and perhaps a couple of calculated but risky refusals.

In reality, children asking about bathrooms and water fountains are probably looking for a reprieve from sitting still more than presenting an actual need. But whatever the case, here parents have an opportunity to practically demonstrate that the child is not as important as the worship of God. A parent may say, “No son. We are here to worship the Lord. You can wait for a drink until we are done.” That refusal demonstrates to the child that their impulse for a drink or simply to move around does not outweigh or supersede the call to glorify God in the context of the gathered worship of His people.

Third, children should be prepared to participate in worship. Some preparation will happen through the accumulation of experience in worship. The week-in, week-out participation in Sunday worship will make children relax and enable them to join in. However, there are also some proactive things that can be done at home. For churches which recite creeds or the Lord’s Prayer corporately, children can be helped in committing them to memory. Once memorized they will be able to participate. Parents can insist that older children participate in the songs of the church and give them a little pro-active “coaching.” Perhaps it is as simple as, “Remember, we are going to worship the Lord today, and I want to see you singing along with the rest of the people.” Parents can also provide ways to help children listen to preaching. Children can be encouraged to write down a few notes of things they heard the pastor say. However, be careful that this tool is not allowed to cause the child to tune out what is said as he develops his favorite cartoon characters. In all these ways, children can be shown the privilege of worshiping God. And the aim is not just quiet children, but those who respect worship and, more significantly, participate in it.

All parents have failed in leading their family in worship. Some have been too lacks, others too strict. But past failures should not excuse a renewed commitment around healthy expectations in our families regarding the worship God. Parental instruction or example should not undermine the supremacy of God, and where parents have allowed that to happen, adjustments should be made. That is no cause for shame or embarrassment. It is a necessary and on-going correction that all people must at times make. It is part of their own sanctification and their responsibility to present their children to the Lord for worship.