More Than Words

"Why Evangelical Gender Discourse Is Unserious", and ongoing issues in Christian discourse

2026-03-31T14:59:00.000+03:00

Here is a thought-provoking article on the Mere Orthodoxy website today: https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-evangelical-gender-discourse-is-unserious

In my view, the problem which the author discusses is not limited to discourse around gender. The problems of double-standards and gate-keeping seem to be pervasive in online Christian discourse today.

This, of course, would "only" mean that Christian discourse online is infected with and following the ways of the world: we are reflecting trends in wider society. Issues are polarised, gate-keepers are appointed, required orthodoxy is quickly defined down to the smallest degree, and in a way that soon becomes divorced from historic orthodoxy, without people appearing to notice or be unduly troubled, and "heretics" are identified, tarred, brushed and feathered (or often, "cancelled").... but, as I say, with blatant double-standards in how that's being done.

What does this mean? To me, the best explanation I can find is that it is the subjugation of theology, brotherly discourse and practice to politics and the culture wars, and perhaps the desire to gain personal followers by positioning oneself as more faithful, more bold, less wobbly, than other potential rivals for people's attention. The driving dynamic often seems to be the feeling that allowing "our side"'s position to be anything other than crystal clear, down to the minutest details, without anything of significance up for debate, is dangerous.... dangerous to our chances of winning the culture war, building big-enough political alliances, and/or dangerous to our personal empire-building projects. And thus, areas of complexity must not be either acknowledged or discussed, because this risks handing "the other side" weapons with which to gain advantage over "our side". The energy expended in preventing this from happening, either by policing boundaries or dedication to not seeing any elephants in the room, betrays the role which politics has been given.

On the Internet in the 2020s, writing things like the above is likely to get responses along the lines of "so, what you're really saying is....", followed by some complete non-sequitor and flaming straw-man, which assumes the existence of only the two positions down those minute details; or the bold declaration that "anyone talking this way is on a slippery slope, and in a few years' time they'll be aggressively recruiting toddlers for sex changes and openly worshipping Baal", accompanied by examples of people who went on that journey.

This, though, ultimately represents a failure to love God with all our minds, a failure to love the people he made, and a failure to deal with the complexity of created-and-fallen reality. Some things, of course, are quite clear; the Bible has plenty of clear teaching about legitimate and illegitimate human sexual practices. It also has plenty of clear teaching about protecting the vulnerable and standing for them. In the above linked article, the author laments that it seems that increasingly the gate-keepers of discourse insist that we choose between these two options, and be treated as an enemy if we don't. But why? To what end? Subjugating the glory and honour of God to temporary political battles, or attempts to gain personal followers, is no part of genuine discipleship, but quite opposed to it.

There are some larger, "meta-issues" going on here, some of which are touched upon in this other article - https://mereorthodoxy.com/the-state-of-the-internet-2026 - which is framed around AI, but I don't want to focus on that aspect. The particularly relevant larger issue is the place given to the Internet in modern life, which as a whole can't be avoided even if someone avoids many parts of it personally. The search and desire for instant feedback, the willingness to build primarily online communities and seek for virtual followers, the ease of switching between such communities compared to physical ones, the using of the state of things online as the basic framing for how we approach issues off-line, etc., are all part of this. It seems to me that we have to start asking ourselves at what point we don't simply try to "sit loose" to some of what's going on online, but be more active, deliberate and explicit in our resistance to it. Of course, in some things, that's been the case already for many years - to give an obvious example, men and women in churches need to have such things as online pornography directly and repeatedly addressed in teaching. But do we not also need to be warning more openly and directly about the unhelpful polarisation that online community has brought to us? Again, this is hardly a new observation, and it's been out there for many years. But, as per the above two articles, it does feel to me like there's some sort of tipping point around, and also a point at which many people are more open to considering a different way, and not just being passive about it. There is perhaps currently more openness, for example, to pointing out and agreeing what many online builders of personal platforms are doing, and that it's not good for us.

"Christian sexual ethics between the ages"

2026-03-26T01:58:00.005+03:00

Good article here - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sexual-ethics-overlap-ages/ . It reminds us that the fact of living "in the overlap of the ages" has a bearing on all sorts of matters. Christianity is not an a-historical religion in which things are the same in every age. Christ's resurrection from the dead, yet his not yet having returned, has important effects upon the Christian doctrine of marriage.

Defining missions

2026-03-19T19:14:00.000+03:00

https://confessional.org/mercy-ministry-is-not-missions

The above link is to an article in a genre I find a bit odd, because I find myself agreeing with all of it and none of it at the same time.

The summary given is a fair summary of the article, so I'll just discuss that, to keep things brief.

Mission work, as defined by Scripture, is the church sending ordained ministers to preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches through the ordinary means of grace—Word, sacraments, and prayer. While mercy ministries support gospel outreach, they must not be confused with missions itself, which addresses humanity’s deepest need through the proclamation of Christ.

"Mission work, as defined by Scripture". The point of the article is to distinguish between "missions" and "mercy ministry". The difficulty is that the work of the article is generally done by the article's own definitions. There isn't a definition of "mission work" in Scripture, unless we mean that the Scriptures define the ministry of preaching the gospel, making disciples and planting churches, and then we define *that* to be what we are choosing to call "missions work". The author of the article has followed a confusing line, of arguing both that the ministries of mercy and evangelism/church planting are in certain ways distinct, and also arguing, implicitly and without explaining what he's doing, that the English terminology of "mission/missions/missionary work" should be reserved only for evangelism/church planting. Church-planting is (he argues) disciple-making; mercy ministry is not, and the lexical cognates of "mission" belong only to the former.

Looked at this way, it is a strange article. What is it actually about? The English word-group of "missions" comes to us not directly from the New Testament, but from the Latin "mittere" (to send); and whilst sending (and equivalent Greek words) are in the New Testament, missiologists (at least, the ones I've read) don't build out a whole theory of missions based on the etymology. Christians have no particular theological commitment to requiring that the English words "mission, missions, missionary, etc." are used in one, and only one, particular way, much less that this one particular way must exclude "mercy ministries", and must only be tied to the set of concepts to do with evangelising and church-planting. Non-biblical vocabulary can be used in the ways that people see as best; and in practice, if we decide to use a particular word in a different way to other people generally, it'll make life confusing. The article says "The clearest passage that defines mission work is Matthew 28:19-20". If this is the definition of how we must use the English words "mission work", then fine - but as I say, it is unreasonable to insist that everybody else do the same, because Matthew 28 does tell us what the mandate which the church received is, but does not then require us to use a particular lexicography fetched from outside the passage for that in English.

In the article, the lines of clarification are very hard and fast. An example of a "missionary" is a church-planter; whereas examples of people in "mercy ministries" are teaching English in an Asian country (why simply that would be an act of "mercy" is not clarified), and digging wells and building houses in an African country. The impression given is that the twain shall not meet. Is the English teacher presenting the gospel - perhaps it is an English learning group openly advertised as Christian and including a Bible study? Why is the house-builder building houses when there are plenty of African house-builders? Presumably the well-digger is demonstrating Christ's love in action, as part of explaining who Christ is and how he came. Does this make him a "missionary" or a "mercy minister", or does he switch suddenly back-and-forth between the two roles, perhaps multiple times a day, depending upon the precise activity he is performing at any one point?

I agree with the author that if the church simply sends people to do "mercy ministry", meaning doing good to people in a way divorced from a witness to Jesus Christ, then it has indeed lost sight of the marching orders, the commission, which it received from the Saviour, and that would be spiritually disastrous. If the church is just doing the same as large secular charities (perhaps doing it slightly or significantly better), then this is not what Jesus told us to do. But, the article hasn't begun to engage with the challenges and opportunities of mission in much of the world. A simple binary of "is it mercy or evangelism?" does not cover plenty of real-world, flesh-and-blood Christian activity. Christians, rightly, speak today about "holistic" mission. This word can be abused, and can, like "mission", be given unhelpful definitions. But the word itself is an attempt to recognise that man is body and soul. Jesus' miracles were not simply proofs of spiritual power and his Messianic claims in general, but also enactments of personal divine compassion towards their recipients. And many Christians today are carrying out works because they understand that since "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", so they too, in order to preach the gospel, must incarnate practical love as part of their Christian/gospel witness, and not deliver the message in verbal form only. It was part of the apostolic witness, Acts 10:38, that Jesus "went about doing good", and this same Jesus told us "let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

From that point of view, a distinction between gospel-proclamation by word, and gospel-enactment by deed, can exist only as a technical, conceptual distinction, on paper. It helps us to understand what we are doing; but it is not a distinction between two different sets of activities, such that one set of Christians talks about Jesus Christ, and the other distinct set of Christians demonstrates the reality of Jesus Christ. Many missionaries should, and are, doing both, because the two can no more be separated in practice than Christ's manhood and deity can. Christ's manhood and deity are not the same thing, and the distinction is important theologically; but the actual Christ who saves us unifies them in a single person. In the same way, word-based missionary proclamation, and mercy ministry, may be separate conceptually, but are not actually separate in practice. And as such, though I agree with what the author seems to be aiming for, and the concerns he wants to guard against, as I understand them, I don't think the way he's gone about them, and the walls he's erected in doing so, ultimately help us.

Restoring the kingdom

2026-03-19T13:37:00.002+03:00

Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

On this verse, Calvin comments:

“Their blindness is remarkable, that when they had been so fully and carefully instructed over a period of three years, they betrayed no less ignorance than if they had never heard a word. There are as many errors in this question as words.”

And yet, in Christian history since, is there any doctrine or idea that is more reluctant to be put to death than the one that God's real plan for this age must be for his people to dominate on the earth?

No matter what form the idea is pursued in, collapsing sooner or later under its own weight of contradictions, it emerges again with new branding and marketing.

If Jesus intended us to understand that the Christian life would be one lived under the cross, if he had wanted to communicate that to gain resurrection life we must lay this life down, if his meaning was that the focus of believers looking for justice and their reward is his second coming, then what words would one use to communicate that? Would they be any different to the ones he did use?

If the meaning of the apostles was that the sufferings they spoke of before glory would in fact largely pass away, and that there would be a different way of experiencing and pursuing Christian discipleship once the time of the dominion of God's people on earth begins, before Christ's second coming, then where, precisely did they teach anyone about this new mode of discipleship? Where is the slightest scrap of evidence that such a new epoch is anything other than imaginary?

Rehoboam, too "manly" by half

2026-03-14T18:22:00.000+03:00

⁶Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, saying, “How do you advise me to answer these people?”

⁷And they spoke to him, saying, “If you are kind to these people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be your servants forever.”

⁸But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him.

The advice of the young men, of course, was as follows:

¹⁰... “Thus you should speak to the people who have spoken to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us’—thus you shall say to them: ‘My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! ¹¹And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!’ ”

And as we know, this turned out poorly for Rehoboam, because whilst making big boasts about what he would do, he lacked any actual capacity to enforce it. Oops!

What, though, in the advice of the young men appealed to them, and appealed to Rehoboam? Why did it seem like a good idea? After all, Rehoboam had just inherited the kingdom from his father at its peak of prosperity. The good times had arrived: peace, and abundance. This was hardly the time for the sort of tough, no-nonsense measures which might sometimes be needed to get through a crisis. Nothing that was going on called for an authoritarian crack-down, and the results demonstrated how stupid it was to say that he would bring one. The advice was pure folly, as the outcome showed. But again we ask: why did it appeal to him?

What appealed was not related to the outcome of the policy, which Rehoboam took for granted in the wrong way - he assumed he'd be able to carry it out. What appealed was simply the policy itself, and the act of declaring such a policy. Rehoboam was a tough guy, and took tough measures. He was a real man. No softies here! He talked tough, and would act tough, and all would admire his masculinity. All hail the big man, Rehoboam!

And so, to our day..... this is all rather familiar to Internet users in 2026, is it not? There are plenty of kings (unlike Rehoboam, self-crowned), who speak as if masculinity is on a simple sliding scale, and that sliding scale is marked "talk a big game". The bigger game you talk, the more you ignore any attempts at correction, the more you double-down and go further to the extremes in whatever way, the more masculine you are.

If you are drawn to those sorts of people - and it seems plenty are - then please, instead, consider Jesus Christ. He was nothing like this! He was the servant of all his people, and gave up all his rights when he took on the form of a servant and gave himself for us. That was the most manly thing ever done. Unlike Adam, he did not abdicate and disappear, hovering somewhere on the periphery. And unlike Rehoboam, he did not brag about what he was going to inflict on those under him. He took the whole load upon himself, voluntarily, and was crucified for us. This he did, with conviction, firmness of purpose, and refusal to compromise on God's will for him.

There was nothing manly about Rehoboam threatening to tyrannise the people who had been put under his care. That idea was the foolishness of the ungodly, who think that the great men of the world manifest their greatness by lording it over others. Of course, if you merely have a podcast or whatever, then you're not even doing any actual lording, you're just talking - which makes it all a bit pathetic. Yes, a father-figure (such as a king) must sometimes be firm, using his God-given authority to suppress evil and folly. But this has nothing to do with using it arbitrarily to commit evil and folly. There is nothing manly about force for the sake of force, or dominion for the sake of dominion.

Ultimately, Rehoboam aped Pharaoh and other tyrants, aping Satan, who wanted authority so that he could exercise authority. Jesus, the true man, laid aside his rights and shed his blood, so that he could redeem the lost. That sort of man is worthy to rule, and that sort of man - only - shall have authority in the world which is to come. To be much more like a real man, have no compromise with Satan's idol of pseudo-manliness, and instead use your position to serve, by word and self-giving deed. Lead others into the way of giving your life away so that others can live.

There are no short-cuts in being human

2026-03-09T18:28:00.003+03:00

This is an interesting thread (especially if you include the comments of others) on what happened in one lecturer's class when (she strongly suspects) her students began using AIs to summarise the study material that they were meant to read.

https://xcancel.com/Sally_Sharif1/status/2030403451663114603#m

There are no shortcuts from the back-and-forth of reading something with the desire to learn through interacting with it.

Unfortunately, in Western education for some time now, much of the process is often skewed by the idea that the important thing is to gain the qualification. The qualification was meant to measure whether the education had been gained; but as with other measures, is subject to Goodhart's Law, "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law . When people are focussing upon the piece of paper that says they're educated (or that the school they're running educates lots of people well, etc.), then actually becoming educated starts to slide, and slide, and slide. I wonder if it's even possible to hit a lower nadir than in the Covid years, when the UK government handed out grades and certificates which ultimately expressed "here's what we believe you could have got in an exam if we'd educated you".... and the merry system happily trundled on, undisturbed by the important realities that it was orginally set up to accomplish.

Current AI (based on Large Language Models), like many other things, is, as we experiment with it and discover its strengths and weaknesses, pointing us to the wonders of humanity, made in the image of God. Yes, perhaps you can get a machine (after much human study and ingenuity to make the machine) which can approximate and outwardly resemble the product of actual human thought. But that, in the things that matter, is generally unlikely to be of real use, and may cause real harm if I pretend otherwise. If an AI summarises a text for me, that could be useful if I wanted to check if I might have missed something from a mental summary that I had from having done the proper engagement and reflection through reading and thinking. But if I use it to replace the engagement, then I only get the mirage of learning, the self-delusion that I took part in learning..... and not the actual learning itself.

No doubt in some scenarios, a quick-and-cheerful summary of something straightforward has value, and the AI can do something useful there. (Note too, though, that such cases are likely to be the ones that humans were already doing well - you can probably easily Google for a human-generated summary, and the AI is likely good at the task because it ingested so many human summaries in its construction). But if it's being deployed to do something that is trying to imitate human thought, reflection, moral wisdom, creativity, and such things that are tied up with what it means to be a divine image bearer.... then it's probably being mis-deployed, and the results will be worse than if we had simply ignored it. Christian wisdom requires understanding the wider purpose and point of something within the Creator's overall plan and design.... not simply how to economise on the use of time to achieve higher efficiency, as modern Westerners understand efficiency. Modern Western culture is obsessed with superficial efficiency in order to increase economic output; the cost of this is paid elsewhere, and is significant.

"The Birds and the Bees, Babies and Me"

2026-03-06T20:52:00.000+03:00

Here is an edifying reflection upon the experience of childlessness, solidly grounded in the perspective of the transitory, preparatory nature of this life, for those who are in Christ: https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/03/karen-swallow-prior-infertility-childlessness-womanhood/. Natural human families, with all their potential for blessing, will come to an end; the Christian family will not. And, as pointed out, the church has a large opportunity to manifest its true nature in how the married, single, child-less and those with children can live together as the body of Christ, mutually helping and serving eachother.

On the theme of this mutual help and service, today I was with someone who had just visited a family with a severely handicapped child for the first time. She told us how seeing the child's situation had made her weep. It was a blessing to see her eyes being opened to the needs and opportunities, again, to show and be the difference that Jesus Christ has shown us and been for us, in the lives of others. The opportunity that Jesus Christ gives us to show who he is to the world is enormous - are we looking for it?

A new age has (not) begun

2026-03-03T20:00:00.004+03:00

In both the Old and New Testaments, God's servants were generally obscure, unimportant (to the world at large), and laboured without seeking to be prominent. The world did not think much of them; they cared little about that, precisely because they cared much about God.

Do we secretly believe that a new age has begun, in which that state of things has been ended? Today, God's choice servants have long strings of letters after their names, large ministries centred around themselves with conferences, publications, colleges, long lists of accomplishments and followers by the thousand and ten-or-hundred-thousand?

We probably wouldn't say that we do believe that. Hence, I say, "secretly"? What is our actual mental model of what faithful, God-honouring service looks like? Is there a ladder, a hierarchy, to be climbed, one which is essentially a (lightly) Christian-coated version of worldly success and achievement? What sort of thing do we think, in our heads, ministry under the New Covenant looks like, and how it relates to what the unconverted world thinks of as impressive?

A new age has not now begun. The last day (when one will begin!) will certainly reveal that. Surely we would do well to let our thinking be transformed by the Scriptures in how we view God-pleasing service today - not conformed by the world.

The first bigamist

2026-02-12T12:52:00.000+03:00

It's amazing what details emerge from careful study of the Biblical text:

https://xcancel.com/DrPJWilliams/status/1056688801232371712#m - Dr. Peter Williams, noting details in the biblical record of the first bigamist, Lamech.

Wine and grape juice

2026-02-09T18:01:00.012+03:00

Personally, I am happy when celebrating communion to drink either fermented wine, or grape juice. This is because all the Biblical accounts either use the words "fruit of the vine", or just "cup" to refer metonymically to the contents of the cup. Both fermented wine (henceforth this is what I mean if I just say "wine") and grape juice are "fruit of the vine". The New Testament has other terms that specifically identify wine, but the accounts of the Lord's Supper don't use them. And so, for me, there it is.

There are some, however, who insist that it is important - even some of them say, a matter for breaking communion (which boggles my mind) - that the fruit of the vine must be fermented. If it is not fermented, then the church has been unfaithful to Jesus - in effect, it is disobedient, over the only repeated ordinance of the Christian life.

When I come across such a person, I try to understand why they believe this. Now I confess, I've not gone hunting for an academic treatment, nor have I ever come across one (or had one offered by the people saying that it's important). But I take it that if someone is so convinced that they are teaching it to others, then they must have done the research, and have a decent argument.

In Christianity Today this month an article has been published, "Jesus did not serve grape juice". The author explains (and here's my way of understanding what he says!) that when he teaches college students, he burdens their consciences with an idea that they'd never encountered before: that they are not celebrating the meal that Jesus instituted, because unfermented grape juice, and wine, are two different liquids, and only the latter is found in the Bible. Using the former removes all Biblical symbolism from the meal, and effectively makes it a different ordinance from the one which Christ ordained. The sign has been changed, nay, removed. It signifies "worse than nothing", and is akin to "someone getting baptized in oil, tar, or urine". It is a matter of "obedience"; the miscreants using grape juice are "not following Jesus’ stated instructions". That's quite a burden to put on someone's conscience, especially in a formal role as a teacher of others. Is the case well-grounded?

The article is not short, at around 2,500 words. But the actual argument is very brief (or I might say, thin). Much of the article simply asserts the conclusions of the argument (that those using grape juice are doing something bad, that they don't understand what they're doing), or the conclusions of things that aren't actually argued at all. Let me explain what I mean by that.

Since the gospel accounts only mention either "the fruit of the vine", or "the cup", and 1 Corinthians (the only other place with a direct mention) mentions "the cup", the key thing I look for in someone making this argument is how they argue that by using the phrase "the fruit of the vine", God has implicitly (or explicitly) instructed us to use only fermented products. This isn't quite the same as arguing that Jesus and his disciples did drink a fermented product at the inauguration of the Last Supper. Someone would be likely, of course, to begin by arguing that. Then they might want to explain what degree of fermentation it had, and how we know that the same degree is required for us, or is it just any degree at all, or must it be within 50%, or what? Must we drink from grapes known to be in the same genetic families as those found in that part of the world, or not? I don't mean this as a pedant's question: I mean it has someone wanting to understand how their reasoning works out, how it applies in practice. For example, since at the wedding feast at Cana in John 1, since it would appear that the manner of weddings then was to drink wine for several days, then those who say that wine in those days had a low alcohol content are likely to be correct (unless we are to conceive of Jesus producing another round of highly-intoxicating beverages long after the average guest was already far gone). i.e. nearer to 3% than the 12% usually served in communion wine (remember, my own position is that God hasn't told us that there's a particular degree of fermentation that we must imitate). So, just how close must the drink we use at communion be to that which Jesus drank? I take it that it is to be produced from red grapes, in order to represent shed blood. I find nothing that says to what degree it must be fermented, whether 0%, 3%, 12% or something else. Given that the author of the above article says nothing about degree other than just fermentation, I infer that he just requires more than zero fermentation.

What, then, does the author have to say? He runs through his entire presentation of his argument that "the fruit of the vine" must be fermented, and cannot simply be any beverage from grapes, in a single sentence:

Moreover, Jesus refers to having drunk “the fruit of the vine” from the shared cup (Mark 14:25), and this is a biblical shorthand for wine (Num. 18:12; Deut. 18:4; 28:30; Josh. 24:13; Zech. 8:12, ESV).

2,500 words to make the case; and that was it. Really only 7 words: "This is a biblical shorthand for wine", together with 5 verse references, which for unexplained reasons we're guided to look up in one specific Bible translation. So I did.

Here they are (ESV). Do these verses show that "fruit of the vine" is a biblical shorthand for "fermented wine"?

Numbers 18:12 All the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the firstfruits of what they give to the Lord, I give to you.
Deuteronomy 18:4 The firstfruits of your grain, of your wine and of your oil, and the first fleece of your sheep, you shall give him.
Deuteronomy 28:30 You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall ravish her. You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not enjoy its fruit.
Joshua 24:13 I gave you a land on which you had not labored and cities that you had not built, and you dwell in them. You eat the fruit of vineyards and olive orchards that you did not plant.
Zechariah 8:12 For there shall be a sowing of peace. The vine shall give its fruit, and the ground shall give its produce, and the heavens shall give their dew. And I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.

Reading these verses, I am scratching my head. What is the argument? The author is trying to persuade us that "the fruit of the vine" specifically and necessarily refers to fermented wine, and cannot be used with reference to grape juice prior to fermentation beginning. The two expressions, "fruit of the vine", and "fermented wine", he is claiming, are synonyms. The "fermentation" element is part of the essential meaning, and cannot be removed. How that is in the above 5 verses, I could not work out. Obviously, nobody doubts that people made wine from vineyards. But in the reference in Joshua, it says "eat the fruit of vineyards". This, presumably, means grapes. We drink wine, but we eat grapes. Grapes, at the stage that people eat them, are not fermented. In the verse in Zechariah, "the vine shall give its fruit". I don't think that we can legitimately say that here Zechariah meant to specify specifically either eating grapes, or drinking any drinkable product that comes from grapes. In Deuteronomy 28:30, likewise, there is the "enjoy(ing)" of the "fruit" of the vineyard - presumably, again, in any form. Given, as I say, that I don't deny that Israelites drank fermented wine, I don't see how the other two verses help either.

The other part of the article which seems to be key is where the author asserts that (unfermented) grape juice only became possible through a 19th century innovation:

"grape juice in Communion was introduced by the American temperance movement. It was made possible by Mr. Welch himself, a teetotaling Methodist minister in the late 19th century who pioneered a way of preventing the process of fermentation in the sweet juice squeezed from grapes. This enabled believers who wished to abstain from drinking alcohol to do so every day of the week, Sunday mornings included."

The links (which are part of the article), explain this further. Thomas Welch applied pasteurisation to the wine, to overcome the "problem" that grape juice ordinarily stored at room temperature will begin to ferment.

I have a few points of reaction here:

It is implied that pasteurisation was an entirely novel invention, something too technologically advanced for people before the 19th century. However, since pasteurisation is essentially just heating a liquid to a sufficient temperature, and since humans heating liquids has been around as far as we know since the dawn of time, this is implausible. And so, at another source: "Before Louis Pasteur's formal development of pasteurization, ancient civilizations used rudimentary forms of heat treatment. The Chinese, Egyptians, and Romans would heat wine to improve its shelf life, unknowingly laying the groundwork for modern pasteurization techniques." - https://www.sterlitech.com/blog/post/the-evolution-and-impact-of-pasteurization
Indeed, the one of the articles linked by the author notes that, before Thomas Welch "One solution was to squeeze grapes during the week and serve the juice before it fermented". Squeeze the fruit, and you get fruit juice: it's not nuclear physics. The article goes on to note, speaking of the USA, that "grapes were not readily available to every church". That wasn't a problem in first-century Israel at the time of the Passover, which brings us back to the question of how precisely and in which specific aspects the liquid in our communion must replicate theirs. Grapes were not available at all in many parts of the world until the global supply chains of recent decades, and indeed the article's author makes an exception for missionary situations.
Complete fermentation takes weeks, rather than days, at room temperature (i.e. to get to the point where the process completes, when 12% alchohol, as found generally in modern wines, kills off the yeasts, and so no further fermentation can take place). But even then, in Israel, they would have been familiar with colder caves, and the cooler temperatures accessed by digging into the ground. I suspect that the author of the article would reply "ah, but if some fermentation has taken place, then it's no longer grape juice". An unexplained point throughout his argument seems to be that the key line is between zero fermentation, and some (more than zero). But why all the Biblical symbolism changes, and why you are considered in the eyes of God to have a completely different thing, when you go from 0.00% to 0.01% alcohol content, is not explained, simply assumed/asserted.

Towards the end, the writer asserts:

Biblically, grape juice signifies nothing—except perhaps its eventual transition into wine, as in the Nazirite vows of abstention found in Numbers 6:1-4.

This sort of thing is why I say that he has chosen to lay heavy burdens upon people's consciences. We are told by this phrase that the Bible positively tells us that "grape juice signifies nothing". By implication, the Lord's Supper is not just slightly spoiled, but has its meaning removed. This time, we're not specifically told to consult the verses specifically in the ESV translation, but in case that was important, it's that translation I've quoted here:

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.

In what way do these verses tell us something about "the [eventual] transition of grape juice into wine", something that changes between zero and meaningful symbolism? We are not told. I do notice, though, that the author here has shown that he knows that his previous statements, about grape juice not being possible until the time of Thomas Welch, are too strong. Here in Numbers 6:3, there is a distinction between grape juice and wine, over a millennium before the Last Supper. As I've said, after all, you get grape juice by crushing grapes - fermentation gets going after 1-3 days, and generally runs its course in 1-3 weeks. The assertion that grape juice was an unknown or impossible substance in the ancient world, is both prima facie absurd, and shown to be false by one of the writer's own proof texts. Nothing in Numbers 6 supports the assertion that it has been quoted in favour of, that there is an unbridgeable gulf between fermented and unfermented grape juice, which completely changes (adds, or removes) all the Biblical symbolism that links either or both to shed blood.

In conclusion, I found this article very disappointing. The actual argument is barely made; most of the content circles around the actual questions in various ways. That "grape juice" and "wine" are two entirely different substances, with different symbolisms, and that the Bible makes clear that it's the latter and not the former which must always (or at least, normally) be used in communion, is asserted, but never shown. Bible verses are referenced, but when looked up, they do not appear to say what the author asserts about them, or even imply things that contradict him. His arguments appear to defy the Bible, common sense and what we do know historically. If we are meant to lay this burden upon all disciples in all churches everywhere, insisting that when the Holy Spirit said "fruit of the vine", that this means "with at least some minimal degree of fermentation having occurred" (we're not sure how much), then it needs a better argument than this. In some places and times, I don't doubt, believers have been burdened with the false teaching that they must never allow a drop of alcohol to pass their lips. Deciding to instead today burden them with the teaching that they've not participated in the Lord's Supper unless they do, is not an improvement.

Greek, and the New Testament in particular, had words for wine and alcoholic drinks; we find them in Matthew 9:17, 27:34, 27:48, Luke 1:15, 1 Timothy 3:3, 3:8 and 5:23, amongst others, for example. In the accounts of the Lord's Supper, a more generic term, "fruit of the vine", is used. In Numbers (which of course is in Hebrew), the existence of non-alcoholic grape juice is recognised. So why must the same words in the New Testament be taken as requiring us to understand that we must use fermented wine? After reading this article, I am none the wiser.

I don't recall that

2026-02-03T18:16:00.007+03:00

I just came across this book blurb, for a new title from Founders Ministry in the USA:

For decades now, Christian men have been told that their strength is a problem, their ambition a sin, and power is dangerous to wield. Instead, they are offered a feminized faith which prizes inaction and passivity.

I've been around a few decades now; I can't recall being told any of those things, even once. Is my memory faulty?

It would, of course, be a fallacy to universalise my own experience. The USA is, to me, another country. Am I just in the "wrong" (or right!) circles? I could buy the book to find out what he's talking about....

... but given that those providing the blurbs for this book on Founders' Ministry's own website includes people who use the Internet to promote Nazi memes, argue for racial segregation, promote use of the N-word, proclaim the superiority of the "Caucasian race", and defend others who praise Hitler and his policies, I'd rather not.

Footnote: for those who don't follow the British manner of understatement, and erroneously consider such phrases as "I'd rather not" a mark of being a passive girly-man, let me clarify its proper interpretation for you. It means "people doing this are enemies of Jesus Christ, to be marked and avoided" - is that better?

Gathering followers for oneself.....

2026-01-19T14:38:00.004+03:00

"You're right to be angry. Here are some things to be righteously angry about. Become my follower, and I will keep on affirming your anger!"

There are not a few people on Twitter/X whose approach to so-called "ministry" could be summarised by the above 3 sentences. I'm not thinking of any one person in particular; it's a pervasive pattern. Possibly it has always been so - perhaps there was a would-be guru/rabbi/politician/etc. in every town's market-place whose soap-box speeches amounted to no more than this.

It might not be quite as unsubtle as the above 3 sentences. But remember: the reason why this approach works is not ultimately because of the huckster trying it. It's the suckers ready to buy the deal offered who ultimately make it a profitable business to be in. If nobody was buying, then there wouldn't be any sellers.

In the Scriptures, seeing sin, decline, decay, burning down of one's own house over one's head, is common. The prophets decry it often. The key difference is that their register when doing so is not that of the person gathering followers for himself. It's not "look at those evil clowns; follow me and let us condemn them together!" Rather, it's lament. The Biblical prophet is cut to the heart to see people wilfully ruining themselves, and longs for them to turn back to God. It's Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, or Paul being overcome by continual sorrow because his fellow-countrymen who persecuted him were not saved. It's combined with a re-consecration of one's self to the task of trying to persuade and win over those who are hurtling to destruction. It's not joyfully lampooning those clowns on the other side of the cultural divide: it's becoming all things to them so that by any means we might save some. May God help us.

Petty annoyances and minor slights

2026-01-12T15:00:08.690+03:00

https://www.challies.com/articles/petty-annoyances-and-minor-insults/

The pilgrim lens

2025-12-09T17:10:00.004+03:00

This follows on from the previous post, here.

What should Christians do when they see things in their society, country or culture taking a turn for the worse?

We should, of course, always pray. And since we are rational creatures, made in God's image, intended to live in a creation without death in it, we will naturally mourn, and desire that it were otherwise. We should seek to be salt and light, to show a better way, and to preserve the blessing of what remains.

What we should not, though, do is turn to fear and anger, as if God had promised that in the last days, no terrible times will come (2 Timothy 3:1ff), and that things will just get progressively better. Rather, we should understand that were that to happen, it would be very bad for the health of the Christian church. What our real situation is, both corporately and individually, is usually masked by prosperity, but revealed through trials. Moreover, earthly trials remind us of what the actual calling of God's people is. Even though the patriarchs were promised that their descendants would have an earthly inheritance, yet the patriarchs themselves understood that this was not their true hope or motivation in their actions. As Hebrews 11:13-16 says:

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.

Earthly trials are routinely sent by God as a spiritual blessing. He uses them as his means to sanctify his people, to mature them, and to prepare them for their true inheritance, in the presence of Christ and then at his return and the renewal of all things. Seeing things in this world rot, crumble or be torn down by plain stupidity or malice, performs a valuable spiritual function for us. We remember that we were not meant to seek our inheritance here, in this life anyway. Here, we are strangers and pilgrims. As God purifies and sanctifies us, so that we might be the pure bride of Christ, to be presented spotless in him on the last day, everything that is part of that process is ultimately a blessing, with a glorious end. It is towards that end that we should orient our hopes and desires. How foolish, then, how lacking in understanding, if the deep thought of our hearts when we enter into troubles is one of resentment and disappointment, as if God was doing something wrong? How worldly, if we can only judge things at the level of immediate outward appearance, and not understand (James 1) that we are to count it all joy, because God is working in us to lead us to a perfection beyond our imaginings?

Joy and hope

2025-12-05T19:30:00.000+03:00

As I look at some Christians on X or elsewhere, it is evident that they have become defined by fear and anger. The world is changing, their countries are changing, and their expectations of how their life would run (reasonably comfortably and predictably) have been up-ended. They are angry and afraid, and they demand urgent national and/or political action to give them back the previous version of reality that they preferred. And, as I say, this has become a major part of their outlook on life and the world. Moreover, they present this response not as being fear and anger, not as a moral/spiritual failing on their behalf, but as an important Christian principle that other people should follow too.

Well, no thank you. What Christ and his apostles taught us is much better - even their their own political or national situation was much worse.

"You mean we should do nothing, as things fall apart!" No, I don't. I mean that whatever we do, we shouldn't be people whose joy and hope is defined by what's going on in the wider scene of this world, in which we are pilgrims and exiles. If your joy and hope aren't based upon your circumstances in this world, then why behave as if they are? To be sure, the policies of the rulers of this world can cause us plenty of real trouble - Christ and his apostles all knew a fair amount about that too (far more than any of us). But what has that got to do with becoming people defined by fear and anger?

Christmas apologetics

2025-11-29T14:31:00.003+03:00

If you have questions about any part of the Bible's records about the birth of Jesus, or other incarnation-related issues, then Triablogue has an excellent set of resources.

The New Testament clearly taught slave-owners to work towards the release of their slaves

2025-11-20T02:17:00.005+03:00

I was asked by someone to justify the claim that the New Testament teaches slave owners to release their slaves. This was in arguing against the viewpoint that because there is no explicit command to immediately release all slaves, therefore the New Testament is neutral on the question of whether slavery is by its very nature an evil or not. In response, I wrote the below. Accept my apologies for not adding the Bible references, and other things that could be tidied up; I hope and believe it's still of use as it is.

* * *

I don’t agree that slavery is condoned in the Bible. To regulate is not to condone. Jesus explained to the Pharisees that when God gave regulations concerning divorce, this did not mean that it was compatible with his original intention, but was because of the hardness of men’s hearts (without any regulations, men would carry out de facto divorces that would leave their abandoned wives without any protection or ability to be legitimately received into another home - they would be destitute). Thus, Jesus teaches us to examine God’s original intention.

But to answer your question about teaching believers to dismantle slavery, I believe that this is implicit in Paul’s teaching both about slaves in general, and in the one specific named case that he handles. He does not explicitly command the immediate release of all slaves, in line with the general wisdom of God, that the gospel is intended to bless people, not curse them: if all Christians were simply to put their slaves out into the street immediately, this would be a greater evil than remaining as slaves in many cases. Rather, Paul teaches both masters and slaves that they are equal in the sight of God; if Christians, they are brothers in Christ, who descended to the lowest place for us all and gave up his rights for us, whose example we should follow. A Pharisaical mind will say “but there’s no direct command, so, I don’t have anything I’m required to do!”, but Scriptural law is case law, and we are expected to apply it to specific cases that haven’t been explicitly touched upon using the case law that we do have as a guideline, as per Exodus 21-24, and the Sermon on the Mount. The inevitable, unavoidable tendency of Paul’s teaching is to force slave-owners to face up to the fact that owning a slave, instead of paying a servant, is a violation of God’s law to love one’s neighbour (who is a divine image-bearer, not a possession) as oneself, and to lead one to voluntarily make that change.

Notice in Philemon that Paul states his apostolic authority to command Philemon, and that Philemon has an eternal debt to Paul for receiving the gospel… and yet Paul does not wish to use this authority; he wishes Philemon to release his slave voluntarily. The Pharisaical mind, as I say, refuses to admit the validity of any law that is not spelled out for him in words of one syllable in the imperative mood. The Bible’s approach is different; love is to work through wisdom, with discernment of the circumstances, and actions should generally be free.

It is, of course, implicit in this that retaining a particular slave was not necessarily (the circumstances of the enslavement might differ) in the same category as adultery, which must always be stopped immediately, no mitigating factors. I don’t claim that Paul demanded immediate total manumission (which as I say, would have caused significant harm). If you’re taking another man’s wife then you must always stop, immediately. Having a slave who perhaps lacked skills, opportunity or other resources to exist outside his present condition (usually as a consequence of having been enslaved) instead placed upon the slave-owner a moral responsibility to invest his own resources in order to move, at a wise pace, the slave into the position where he did have the resources to survive as a free person. So, it’s more akin to having fathered an illegitimate child: repentance doesn’t look like saying “this child should not be, so I shall cast it out”, but rather “this child is, because of my actions, so I am now responsible for it, and for mitigating the evil consequences of my actions in this child's life as much as possible”.

Another, perhaps clearer, analogy would be with polygamy. Polygamists were forbidden to be church leaders, because church leaders are required to not only teach the truth that all Christians should live up to, but to be actually be implementing it in their lives visibly as an example for both believers and outsiders. Nevertheless, polygamists in the church were not (as some missionaries have unfortunately taught, causing significant suffering) required to send all wives after the first away, disclaiming all further responsibility. Polygamy is an evil, and Paul’s teaching on marriage inevitably means the end of polygamy for disciples of Christ, but Paul’s method was not to demand immediate revolutionary actions that would cause innocent people to suffer. We find it hard to get our heads around that because of the abundance of our times, and because many of us have multiple potential safety nets if our circumstances change. But in the days of the Bible, things were otherwise.

So, I hold that Paul’s teaching placed a definite responsibility on the church to work definitely and energetically towards the end of slavery. The fact that the church has in fact being doing this since that time, with many notable successes, is not a case of “mission overreach”, but of obedience to God’s revealed will. The fact that in 19th century America professing Christians used their energy to oppose it and claimed that slavery in principle was legitimate and did not need to be dismantled, is a cause of shame. The analogy with polygamy is really a very good one here in my view. Apologists for polygamists really make the same arguments as slavery apologists (they observe its existence, and observe no command for its immediate abolition, and wrongly reason from that to divine approval), but neither can ever deal with the point that Jesus told us to look at God’s original intention for our race and to take that as the standard for all Christians living under the gospel.

Even to the end

2025-11-19T20:17:00.001+03:00

“For Christ has not enlisted us on this condition, that we should after a few years ask for a discharge like soldiers who have served their time, but that we should pursue our warfare even to the end. ”

John Calvin on Hebrews 10:32.

God of the impossible

2025-11-17T18:02:00.007+03:00

Christian ministry is essentially impossible.

We could develop that thought in several directions. But let's go with just one. Once we become meaningfully involved in peoples' lives; once, like Paul (and more importantly, his Master) we learn to serve not just "up front", "in public", but also from "house-to-house", we meet with certain realities. We meet with the impossible situations of peoples' lives, and the mess that sin (whether theirs or someone else's) makes of them. We come up against the labyrinthine maze of false teachings, false ideas and false understandings that have been blended together with fragments of truth in people's minds, and the difficulty of untying those knots. We see how many things are working against them, at so many levels.

How much easier just to re-configure Christian ministry as primarily an attempt to fill sanctuaries with listeners, run an efficient system of small groups, sell books, increase the numbers of podcast listeners, appear at conferences, etcetera and etcetera. All the messiness of the lives of actual human beings recedes comfortably back into the distance. It remains at arm's length, and does not bother us with its messiness beyond the theoretical level of dispensing with wise ideas for others to look into implementing. Christian ministry then, instead of being impossible, becomes possible. We can do it, we can measure it, we can compare ourselves with others, and we can come out of it feeling pretty good (about ourselves).

It's a lot more comfortable to remain in the zone where we're doing things that we're capable of. But in actual Christian ministry, John 15:5, without the presence of Jesus, we can do nothing. And what is the point of Christian ministry which is not actual Christian ministry? Let us embrace the fact that our work is impossible, and throw ourselves out in faith into where we can only see blessing if the God of the impossible meets us there.

Threats to the church

2025-11-15T18:52:00.008+03:00

Seen on the Internet....

The four greatest current threats to the church:

(1) Wokeness and the continued secularization of culture.
(2) A far-right, anti-Semitic counter movement that resorts to the flesh not the Scriptures.
(3) The advance of Islam in the West.
(4) Pragmatism within the church.

It's not necessary to critique everything mistaken you find on the Internet. :-)

However, the above reflects a mindset. It's not a list that I think actually tells us anything about the greatest threats that the Western (or perhaps just American) church (which is equated with "the church") really faces. It does tell us something about how the author sees the Christian faith, politics, culture - and, I'd guess in a high number of cases where people say things like this, his own inner fear as he sees what he thought was a reasonably comfortable life in "The (so-called) Christian West" slipping away from him.

According to such lists, the church mainly is threatened by the winds of culture and politics. To that, I can only say "I suggest you read the New Testament carefully. Try to understand the mindset of the apostles, and note carefully all the things that they saw as threats to the church, and then rank all those things in terms of stated or implied importance. And then at the end, note where things that resemble your own list of fears ranked, and ask why there's a difference."

Just a moment's thought along these lines will show us that the sort of mind-set that can write a list like the above is far, far, from the mind of God revealed in Scripture. Is the main requirement for shepherding a church in the West today skill in reading and navigating the external political/cultural winds in society? No, whatever importance that does or doesn't have, there are many things that are much higher priorities.

And if the church's health *did* depend upon successfully ranking what could be gleaned from cultural and political analysis in such a fashion, then we'd be doomed, because we're not omniscient. This list is an implied claim to know far, far more than we do.

Or in short: "four contemporary cultural/political challenges for the Western church" and "the four greatest threats the church faces" are two very different claims. Someone who thinks that they're the same claim is mainly communicating something about his thinking, not about external reality. Ironically, the sort of worldly mindset that can confuse these two claims is itself one of the significant challenges the church, in every age, faces.

Pastors are not pundits

2025-11-12T17:14:00.003+03:00

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/pastor-or-pundit/

Good article. This is a drum I've banged a few times, but the times call for it to keep being banged.

A point I'd not noticed before, but which is obvious as soon as it's pointed out, made in the above example, is that in the last century liberal pastors, who didn't have much of a gospel, used their pulpits to preach mostly their slant on politics. However today it's political conservatives, people on the political right, who talk just as much about politics and appear to (like historic liberals) essentially see the gospel as the means towards social ends. The main thing is accumulating and playing the game of political power: the gospel is a tool towards that end.

We need godly politicians, and we need people whose calling is to apply Christianity within the political realm. But pastor and pundit are two distinct callings. Today we have an excessive number who believe they're called to both. As the article says (by way of quote), there's little evidence that they did receive such a call:

"Most pastors have nothing particularly unique or insightful to say about politics. So much of “speaking prophetically” or applying the Lordship of Christ to all of life amounts to little more than slapdash criticism and recycled talking points."

If we could replace 95% of the pastors who believe that they're called to inform God's people about their latest hot take on political situations, with ones who were passionate about personally discipling the individual members of their flocks, or the cause of foreign missions, or serving those who are suffering, then nothing of value would be lost, and much would be gained. Let us all remember that one day we shall answer to Christ for how we use the pulpit.

Examining the claim that "women shouldn't be voting": the alleged sin of being female

2025-11-11T19:10:00.035+03:00

Some claims are so wrong-headed that it is hard to know how to begin addressing them; the very act of addressing them makes you feel like you dignified them and this feels regrettable. Nonetheless, as those claims spread further and wider, it is necessary for God's people to be shown their wrong-ness, so that they might be guarded against them and the other false ideas being laundered into the church alongside them.

Recently one notorious (for his unrepentant anti-semitism and ethno-nationalism, amongst other things) Christian Nationalist posted the following on X (Twitter). I don't read his Tweet feed (except very occasionally to understand what might be "coming down the river"), but was sad to see the following repeated elsewhere by someone who should have known better. Here's what was said:

There are many reasons women shouldn’t be voting. The reasons are rooted in their nature:

1) They are more easily deceived.
2) They are not made to operate outside of male headship.
3) They are more likely to fall prey to weaponized empathy and victim-driven ideologies (CRT, Marxism, etc)
4) They are far more malleable than men
5) George Orwell was right: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” — 1984
6) They are made to be nurturers in the home, not public pugilists

There are a lot of things I could say about this, and the dynamics of people trying to use X to gain followers for themselves, and the sub-Christian and anti-Christian ways they go about this. But to avoid making this post excessively long, I'm just going to comment on the above claims.

What's being discussed?

There are many reasons women shouldn’t be voting.

Firstly, in context, it appears that "voting" means "take part in democratic elections".

What kind of "should not" is being asserted? Is it an ethical obligation upon all women to not vote? i.e. Is female voting akin to adultery or child abuse, an act that is in its essential nature an offence before a holy God? The reasons given suggest that he's thinking more of "should not" in a more utilitarian sense of "it leads to worse outcomes". The arguments, however, are mixed; some are more pragmatic but others less so; and possibly he does mean "it's inherently morally wrong for a woman to cast a vote (and there are other negative consequences too)". When someone purporting to be a Christian teacher says that you "should not" do something, it ought to be made clear if we're talking about offering advice, or avoiding sin. Lack of clarity is pastorally unhelpful and ultimately irresponsible.

The reasons are rooted in their nature:

Note that this is given as applying to all the reasons which are then given. Every one of them is claimed to be a claim not simply about typical or common behaviours found either predominantly amongst women, or amongst women more commonly than men, or the like. The claim is made that the given reasons are actually essential to the nature of womankind. Wherever you find a female, you will (we're told) find the following things.

The writer hasn't troubled himself to clarify if he means female nature as originally made, or fallen female nature after the fall. Insofar as he means created female nature as it came from the hand of God on the sixth day, if he is talking about already-existing moral defects, then this is Gnostic heresy: femininity was mis-created by a malevolent demiurge. Salvation would include having the faults of our creation rectified.

So, if he means essential female nature but is not committing this error, he must mean something like "it is not fitting or seemly, in general keeping with femininity, to vote". If that is what he means, then this clarifies the words "should not" as meaning being in a very weak sense: not sin, but not fully fitting. Again, this lack of clarity is pastorally irresponsible. We'd again want to ask questions about what the "should not" here really means. "Should" women put out the rubbish bins (garbage cans, for our American friends!)? Should they change tyres on cars? Learn judo? "Should" men wear make-up, or have hair that goes below their shoulders, always (or not) follow the "Billy Graham" rule, or know how to knit clothes? What is the reasoning involved in affirming or denying any of these claims, exactly? If it does go beyond "it seems unseemly to me" (and I'm not saying that all such judgments must be invalid or fatally subjective), then it needs explaining, not just asserting.

If, on the other hand, we are talking about "female nature" after and affected by the fall, then how do the two very important theological considerations of common grace and of redemption affect the judgment being made? Are all women subject to all the worst ravages of 1) to 6) in their final extremity? Apparently not, because the reasons given are nuanced in terms of relative terms like "more easily", "more likely" and "the most", which is the language of tendency and distribution along a curve, rather than of inherent necessity. So, it seems that God's general restraint and blessing after the fall (common grace) and/or his special grace in regenerating through the Holy Spirit, can change the calculus, so that one woman may differ from another (!). But if that is so, then how is the conclusion that no woman, ever should vote derived from the reasons given?

We will come back to this question of what the writer believes about female nature towards the end. It will become clear that he sees female nature, in and of itself, as a problem. But first we need to do some "spade work" before we can show that this is the unavoidable conclusion.

One last thing before we look at the reasons themselves - why is voting so important that it gets special consideration here? Given reason 6, it appears to be something to do with the public square, public society. Voting, broadly speaking, is giving your view upon who should represent you in a parliament, or should represent you in leadership as the head of state. These two things aren't entirely the same thing; the former has more the flavour of representation through "giving a voice to your concerns", and the second representation through "being the embodiment of the nation, and setting its direction". Then there's also specific referenda, which could range from the weightiest national down to the most trivial local issues. I would guess that the writer thinks that women shouldn't have a say on any of these things; but why that is, isn't made clear any more than it is clear why voting is the particular part of participation in wider society that should be forbidden to women because of the given reasons.

So, the reasons themselves....

The claims

"1) They are more easily deceived."

The logic is apparently something like:

a) There are two sexes.
b) One sex is more easily deceived than the other.
c) If you are a member of the more easily deceived sex, you should not be allowed to vote.

That is the logic, but in what way it is logical, I cannot begin to guess. Why should only one of the two sexes be allowed to vote - why is sex the dividing line here, and not something else? What is the relationship between our gendered existence, and whether we should be allowed to contribute to choosing who represents us? Given reason 2), it is likely to be something to do with leadership / headship and gender roles. Somehow, female voting is prohibited because it is an act of illegitimate leadership of men - but is it really, and how so?

Whatever is meant, in any case, this reason in itself is no reason. "The average woman is more easily deceived, therefore no women at all should vote" makes no sense. The actual reasoning is not given. If woman A is not at all easily deceived, but woman B is easily deceived, then how does this establish that both woman A and woman B should be treated identically and both should be denied a vote? Is the claim that "every single woman is always more easily deceived (and specifically more easily deceived when deciding who to vote for) than any given man?" That claim is obviously completely false.

How did the writer learn this, anyway? How do we know that women (all women, everywhere, ever) are more easily deceived into voting the "wrong" way than men (which men?) are? Is it the writer's personal belief, or has he got sociological research that establishes it? Or does he think the Bible somewhere says so?

I would guess that the writer wants to appeal to 1 Timothy 2:14, which says "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." This is given in 1 Timothy as a reason why teaching of men and authority over men is not permitted to women in the church. I understand its meaning thus: redeemed sisters in Christ, by their submission to legitimate, godly male authority of church elders (that described in the next chapter) testify that they are not "daughters of Eve" in the sense of endorsing and copying her sin, but that they wish to live in their various roles (daughters, single women, wives, widows, etc.) as saved people, to please and honour God. (And yes, therefore it is a binding command for all churches in all times and places). The text, though, does not say "all women are easily deceived", it says "the woman (i.e. Eve) being deceived". Paul, throughout 1 Timothy, teaches that the church is the new creation, and is to be a light and example to the world of creation restored. But there is no suggestion that this testimony includes either the idea that "all women are more gullible than all men", much less that "therefore no woman should be able to vote for a representative in civil society". Such questions are nowhere on Paul's radar: he was not a Christian nationalist, and the politics of the present age were not interesting to him enough to rise to the level of ever being mentioned in any letter. And in 1 Timothy, he is addressing the subject of the organisation of the church, not interaction with civil society. It can, and I'd argue should, be argued that what Paul says has implications outside of the church; but to establish what those implications might be needs careful and nuanced exegesis that take in the whole of Scripture, not grand sweeping statements that move straight from one action of Eve to all women, anywhere and everywhere.

If those who are too easily deceived shouldn't vote, then this will include vast numbers of both men and women in all parts of society, not simply "all women". The history of parliaments and elections renders the idea that when only men voted, deceptions were avoided, ridiculous. To be sure, we all live in times of different deceptions today than the deceptions of our ancestors. But anyone who thinks that they weren't bathed in vast numbers of deceptions with ruinous consequences either for themselves or those that they acted upon, hasn't read history books.

The writer that I'm responding to has himself been deceived into endorsing both ethno-nationalism and absurd fallacies about generic female nature, and presenting them to others as "Christian". By his own logic, should he be allowed to vote?

2) They are not made to operate outside of male headship.

If purely for the sake of argument we granted this, then how does it support the conclusion "no woman should vote"? Both men and women are not made to operate outside of Christ's headship; therefore neither men nor women should vote. We were originally made under Adam's headship; therefore as long as he was alive, supposing a democracy developed, only Adam should have been allowed to vote in it. How does any of this follow? We should submit to church leadership; therefore only church leaders should express opinions; there should never be any votes for any reason. Again, how does that follow?

The logic presumably resembles "a woman should not operate anywhere outside of male headship; being asked for her preferred parliamentary candidate is operating outside of male headship; therefore she should not do it". This begs so many questions it's hard to know where to begin. What exactly is meant by "operate" here? What, particularly, about voting is an "operation" that is essentially a rejection of male headship, in a way that any other act that a woman performs is not? Any ideas? If it is being argued that voting is essentially some sort of exercise of authority over others, and over other men, then how is it so?

How are widows meant to "operate"? Do church leaders take on the roles of surrogate fathers? Where is that taught? Are unmarried daughters whose fathers have died morally obliged to not "operate" in society, since they have no male headship - and in what ways?

This all sounds very like the deviant doctrine that was more prominent 2-ish decades ago in some circles, that a woman must seek a "covering" for every decision she makes from a suitable man, down to the smallest details (though, blanket "coverings" could be given for trivial decisions). This adds to the word of God and creates burdens upon souls that God has nowhere placed.

Notice how radical the claim is - women are not "made" to operate outside of male headship. It is, again, against their nature - and this time apparently clearly against their creation itself, irrespective of the fall. A woman cannot express an opinion (at least at the ballot box) on who she wishes to represent her in a democracy, because this is somehow an overthrow of the order of creation. There are huge leaps being made here. In general, daughters are born into their parents home, and God tells them to honour their parents, and God gives the father a specific responsibility as head of the home. They should also honour the authority of church elders and civil rulers, in their spheres. But to get from there to forbidding everything that has no male "covering" requires careful and detailed exegesis and demonstration from Scripture, not just hand-waving.

"3) They are more likely to fall prey to weaponized empathy and victim-driven ideologies (CRT, Marxism, etc)"

This is merely objection 1), only in a more specific form. 1) claims that (all) women are more easily deceived; 3) claims that (all) women are more easily deceived by particularly by the name ideologies. (No documentation/research for this claim is offered).

This claim really is laughable. Karl Marx was Karl Marx, not Karolina Marx. And all the men who developed and put his ideology into practice were men, though of course there were other women working in the same field. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot, Mao Zedung, etc. - these were men, and the vast majority of their collaborators were men. They originated, adapted, proclaimed, spread and enforced these doctrines across gigantic territories, as the driving forces. So, even if it were to be conceded (which it is not) that women are more likely to fall prey to these ideologies, you're still left with the inconvenient fact that men are still sufficiently prey to these ideologies that they can rule most of the map without needing women's help. In which case - what would the prohibition of the vote to women be expected to achieve? Women can't vote for these poisonous ideologies, which already succeeded without their votes anyway (inasmuch as anyone was being asked to vote for them in the first place)?

Why only left-wing ideologies? I remind you that the man promoting these ideas is a Christian Nationalist, an anti-semite and ethno-nationalist, who is widely and rightly "marked and avoided" because he consistently without apology re-tweets people are unashamed to say the quiet part out loud by endorsing Nazism and praising Hitler. Were women as well as men not complicit in the sins of 20th century fascism in the same way as 21st century gender ideology? Is there some quantitative difference between their level of involvement? What is the evidence for this claim? All the leading Nazis, including all those tried at Nuremberg, were men. If the involvement of more women in public life automatically means more empathy, then would that not have been welcome in 1930s Germany to prevent the catastrophe that ensued? Or are women now only capable of false empathy, and not of true? What sort of theology is underlying all this? Whatever it is, plainly, it is not necessary to give females votes in order for God-hating ideologies to cause world-wide ruin.

Weaponized empathy?

"Weaponized empathy", in Christian Nationalist circles, is increasingly presented as a claim that the sins of our present societies are essentially "too much public femininity". The idea is that females are more empathetic, and that because they're also (allegedly) more gullible, they're more prone to false, sinful perversions of empathy, and thus the more females you have in the "public space", the more you are inevitably going to have ruinous female-specific sins dominating in your society. The solution, therefore, is to push them back out of the public space. As I say, this claim is laughable and historically nonsensical; there is not the slightest argument that can be attempted that Marxism and Nazism are somehow respectively "female" and "male" sins, nor that the latter would somehow be preferable, or is nearer to the teachings of Christ, to the former. Similarly, Critical Race Theory has been promoted and developed widely by both men and women with equal enthusiasm. To be sure, left-wing group-identity racism and right-wing ethno-identity racism aren't the same doctrines, but they're both evil, both insults to the divine image. And for a Christian, there's no scope then to classify one as acceptable because it's supposedly masculine, whereas the other is unacceptable because it's allegedly feminine.

According to the Bible, virtues of gentleness, sympathy, caring for the helpless and needy, nurturing and helping the weak, are not specifically male or female-coded virtues. They are fruits of the Holy Spirit in and for all those who are converted, to be aimed for in ever greater extent in all, and all were found in their fullness and perfection in Christ, the perfect man (and perfect human). There are no uniquely "female" or "male" sins in this area. If it is argued that females might be more vulnerable to missing a particular virtue on one side, and males on the other side, this cannot be an argument for excluding one group from the public square more than for the other. Again, ethno-nationalism and critical race theory are both evil. The choice "shall we prefer our public sins to be of one sort, or the other sort?" is a false choice. The suggestion that "we must exclude females from public life because our public sins need to be 'male-coded' instead of 'female-coded': we must 'sin in the right direction'", is too ridiculous to take seriously. It suggests that something else is going on at a deeper level which is the real reason.

4) They are far more malleable than men

This claim is made lazily, being essentially identical to 1), that women are "more easily deceived".

Being "malleable" in itself could be a good or bad thing. It's a pity that Stalin wasn't more malleable, and that someone could have persuaded him to starve so many of his own people with his inflexible centralised plans. If (all?) women are more malleable than (all?) men, then this would seem to be an argument for female involvement in public life, since it would seem that men are (on the author's warped simplicities) missing something important unless women are present.

5) George Orwell was right: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” — 1984

Again, how this differs from 1) or 4) is not clear. Women are more gullible... more easily deceived... most likely to swallow slogans and conform. But if women are, by their very nature, followers, then just whom have they been following? If we have got into the mess of Marxism and CRT, then who led women there? It can't both be the case that women led us there, and also that women are by nature followers who just do what men tell them. These claims are self-contradictory. Which is it?

In society today, we have men who argue for Marxism, and men who argue against it. We have men who argue for CRT, and men who argue against CRT. If women are by nature followers, as is being argued, then why does that mean they necessarily follow lies instead of truth? (Whereas men do what, exactly? They follow truth instead of lies? Or they create lies instead of creating truth?). Or is it because women are uniquely susceptible to left-wing ruinous ideologies, because of alleged their innate (universal?) tendency to weaponized empathy, that there is a problem? Since men's empathy can't be so easily warped, therefore only men should vote because they can and do resist the lies that spoil nations? Again, all human history proclaims that this idea is a fable.

It is generally observed, and I agree, that young women are especially sensitive to non-conformity within their circles, more than men in general and on average tend to be. And because young women are desirable to men, there is a tendency for men to seek to please them, which some might think it's best to do by agreeing with them. But that is in no way a necessary male response; indeed, it would be a weak one, contrary to stereotypical masculine virtues. Is the writer confessing that actually, he and the men with him are so weak that once (young) women are allowed to express opinions, then they won't be able to resist going along with them? Where, exactly, is Christian virtue in any of this? Are we all just automatons, pushed around by uncontrollable sexual dynamics which can only be brought back into line by shutting up women in their homes where they can't by their irresistible charms influence such pathetically weak men in the wrong ideological directions?

Going along those lines (and when you read his other outputs), to try to understand the essence of his logic, it becomes clear that the writer does have a woman problem. There's a battle raging within him. Whether he wants to be or likes to be one, he has landed as a misogynist. He's struggling to co-exist with women, and the solution to his internal struggle is to suppress their existence, so that he's not exposed to them and their wiles. So he insults and belittles them as an entire class, to banish the entire class. They are biased towards evil, and if they're allowed into wider society too much, then they will corrupt men who want to please them and are unable to resist doing so. They must be kept away from him, because he has a problem with them as a class. The mask is difficult to keep on, and the only way to get a logical, coherent picture out of these points is to point this unpleasant reality of his thinking out. Women, for this writer, have a natural and stronger tendency towards evil which can't be mitigated, and which inevitably corrupts men (who are incapable of resisting), and therefore they must be suppressed. This is the only reading which logically harmonises all of his beliefs, unpleasant as it is.

6) They are made to be nurturers in the home, not public pugilists

I don't know if you're tired, but I'm tired. Once more, a lazy appeal to women's alleged nature is made, which is supposed somehow to read straight across without any explanation to the act of voting. It is mostly not even an argument, but just a statement of his conclusion.

What is the connection between voting for your representative, and being a public pugilist? We're not told. Supposing that you are a nurturer in the home, why does this mean that the state must not ask you for your say on who represents you? Why do we have to choose between one or the other - why the dichotomy? So many assertions, so few reasons.

Is a woman who is not a "nurturer in the home" failing to achieve her created purpose? Are all women who don't marry, despite what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 about the superiority of serving Christ whilst unmarried, failures as women? Once a woman becomes a widow, or if she has no children, is she a failed (or simply redundant) woman? Does she need to be redeemed from her failure to nurture in the home, her having come short of her very purpose for existing? What horrible doctrine is this?

Conclusions: the root of this is heresy

Men and women as classes are created with complementary, but non-identical purposes. This is a clear teaching of Scripture, and is evident to any careful observer of the human race. However, to try to build a doctrine with parts such as "no woman ever should vote" or "without being a domestic nurturer, you are necessarily less of a woman" upon that foundation is to add new, soul-crushing chapters to God's word. Moreover, the fact that the only way to do this is to make gross, sweeping generalisations, turning unexplained tendencies into universal rules, and by saying things that betray a general uncomfortableness with the existence of women as a class (they are more prone to evil, and their evil influence cannot be resisted except by shutting them away, because this all-pervasive defect cannot be remedied in this life): this has nothing to do with the Christian faith. It sounds like some other religions I've read about in many times and places, ahem, but not Christianity. It is not what Jesus Christ or his apostles anywhere taught. The doctrine that women are, in their very nature as women, inferior creations to man whose nature corrupts men (who unfortunately cannot resist their spells), is not God's word; it is heresy. The Bible does not teach, but denies, that women are by their very nature as women more bigoted, more gullible, and more prone to perverting kindness into oppression, and that they must be generally suppressed in order to protect men from their irreparably malevolent influence. It is not taught in Genesis, in the gospels, the epistles, or anywhere else in Scripture.

We should be clear about this. "Christian Nationalists" who teach such doctrines about women steal the name of Christ to spread poisonous errors. Unpleasant as it is, we must refute them. We must not allow those who don't know Christ to believe that this is what Christianity and the gospel say about femininity. They do not.

The eclipse of the eternal

2025-11-07T02:25:00.003+03:00

In so much of contemporary Christianity, there is a painfully diminished sense that something's missing. That something is the personal presence of the eternal God, and the accompanying awe, repentance, and delight in being adopted by him.

He's there in theory, but he's not the thrice-holy, glorious, beloved one who is Lord over and satisfies our souls. He's been reduced to a theory. He's a doctrine, an idea, and a means to an end. That end may be some version of "living our best life now", of glorifying God by lots of shiny achievements, of our neat political plans and dreams (or even something more tragic, like a stick to beat others with in trivial debates) but whatever it is, it's an end which isn't God himself, the glorious and beautiful Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The eternal has been eclipsed. God is there... but as part of a system of thought, not as a personal, living being who both makes us tremble, and makes us desire after him. The spiritual realities of the gospel are spoken; but they're tools to help us get through this life with quiet consciences and enjoy the things, the objects and experiences, that we choose to enjoy.

In the New Testament letters, an awesome thought dominates. Christ, the eternal Son of God, who is before and over all things, was amongst us. He shed his blood for us. He has betrothed his church, all who repent and believe, to himself. He is coming again soon to claim them. Soon we will all stand before the Master, to give an account for what we did in the flesh. The night is nearly over, and the day will soon dawn. He is present now by his Spirit to enable us to know and enjoy him, and to testify to his majesty by our words and deeds, but soon will be present in person, to receive our account of how we lived, and to receive us to himself. The eternal has invaded time, and is now, for Christians, the controlling reality of our daily lives. It is here now, and soon will be here in totality: this changes everything.

The eternal should not be eclipsed. The things we allow to eclipse it are just children's toys. We are called to grow up, and become men. May God help us to do so.

Calvin on the attitude of Christians to the coming of Christ

2025-11-06T15:29:00.001+03:00

Commenting on Hebrews 10:25 ("not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching"):

Were any one to ask, how could the Apostle say that those who were as yet afar off from the manifestation of Christ, saw the day near and just at hand? I would answer, that from the beginning of the kingdom of Christ the Church was so constituted that the faithful ought to have considered the Judge as coming soon; nor were they indeed deceived by a false notion, when they were prepared to receive Christ almost every moment; for such was the condition of the Church from the time the Gospel was promulgated, that the whole of that period might truly and properly be called the last. They then who have been dead many ages ago lived in the last days no less than we.

Laughed at is our simplicity in this respect by the worldly wise and scoffers, who deem as fabulous all that we believe respecting the resurrection of the flesh and the last judgment; but that our faith may not fail through their mockery, the Holy Spirit reminds us that a thousand years are before God as one day, (2 Peter 3:8) so that whenever we think of the eternity of the celestial kingdom no time ought to appear long to us. And further, since Christ, after having completed all things necessary for our salvation, has ascended into heaven, it is but reasonable that we who are continually looking for his second manifestation should regard every day as though it were the last.

Remembering the poor

2025-11-04T18:25:00.001+03:00

I was very gladdened to see this article, by Trevin Wax: "Do we remember the poor?"

Six months ago I commented, in a post on "The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel", as follows:

When outsiders say that evangelicals are far too concerned about laying down the strict confines of orthodoxy and it'd be great if they demonstrated more energy in condescending to help suffering people in their very messy, practical situations, it might well be because, ever since evangelicals made it a priority to clarify that they do not believe "the social gospel", we don't seem to have made it the same priority to so clearly, and conspicuously, make it clear that our lives are handed over to showing love to people in need.

It seems to me that concern for the poor is much more prominent in the Bible (both Testaments) than it is in contemporary Western evangelicalism; and that conversely, love of endless debate that leads to no action is beloved in Western evangelicalism but is soundly condemned in the Scriptures. So, to see someone with a fairly wide reach talking about this, and making similar points, greatly encouraged me. Trevin Wax doesn't just show us what the New Testament says; he's also not afraid to point out that, in general, we're not doing it as those who went before us either in the Bible or afterwards did, and therefore we must change.

Church leader, are you the sort of person whose Christianity means what the apostle Paul's did? When he met the Jerusalem apostles, he said: "They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do" (Galatians 2:10). There were, at their meeting, only two things that we were told were discussed by the apostles. They established firstly that they were all preaching the same gospel; and they established secondly that they all understood and were zealous for the inevitable implication of the gospel, of serving the poor. This doesn't just mean writing periodic cheques out of our excess, out of the money that we'd just otherwise leave behind to be dealt with in a will when we've departed from this world and couldn't do anything with it anyway. Rather, it is this. “So you say you love the poor?", Gustavo Gutierrez famously asked, and continued: "Then tell me, what are their names?” May God help us to meet this faithful challenge.