In a Green Coat

16 September 2025

Once upon a time certain groups of Christians decided that in order to live a holy life, they would put all worldly amusements and accoutrements behind them. Of course this included things like card games and the theater, but also included things like wearing colors. The result was a drab form of dress that, in its own way, called as much attention to itself as flashy dress.

Various wags had things to say, as they always do. One of my favorite barbs comes from Dr. Samuel Johnson: “Sir, a man who cannot get into heaven in a green coat will not sooner find his way thither in a grey one.”

Of course the observation seems both funny and a trifle obvious to us, but that’s because it’s lampooning a folk piety we do not have. The same spirit, turned around on our own shibboleths, will be just as funny, and will hurt a good deal more. So give it some thought: what are the folk pieties of our own day, and how could you harpoon them in a similar way?


The Glories of a Good Corn Dog

13 September 2025

My latest Theopolis post, “The Glories of a Good Corn Dog,” went up this week. Enjoy!


Strong Enough to Dance

9 September 2025

I recently read a rant that started off “Horses built for war don’t dance at weddings.” It then goes on for many paragraphs about how men who are seeking the truth aren’t cut out for bread and circuses, how the system wants you frivolous and weak. When the day everyone thought would never come finally arrives, the author promises, the war horses will be ready. I’d link to the rant so you could read it for yourself, but I’ve already forgotten the guy’s name. (Just as well, I think.)

This is a man who has seen the problem, but doesn’t understand the solution. King David danced. Israel danced on the banks of the Red Sea. Psalms 149 and 150 (which we are all commanded to sing) teach us to praise the Lord with dance. But it’s not just Scripture: at the right times, warriors in every human culture feast and dance and sing. I’ve trained alongside people from the Army, Marines, various SWAT teams, British SAS, road patrol deputies in the Kentucky backwoods where backup is 45 minutes away — they feast. They dance and sing — not always well, but they seem to enjoy it.

But this fellow is too busy being The War Horse to dance at a wedding. He’s too serious to take a lesson from Scripture or history or culture. Don’t be like him. God has called us to be sober-minded, but this is the opposite of sober-mindedness. This is Being Very Stern, and looking at yourself in the mirror while you do it. It will make you grim, ungodly, brittle, and weak. God doesn’t want you to just be strong enough to fight; He wants you strong enough to dance.


Saved Like Paul

2 September 2025

How is it possible to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling?” And is that even compatible with assurance? That question came up this past week; let’s dig into it.

As to assurance, the answer is yes. You were never meant to even consider how to work out your salvation without already having full assurance. How do I know? Because that’s how Paul presented it. Read the whole context starting in 1:1. 1:1-7 present the assurance with which you are meant to read the rest of the book.

Paul himself is assured of his own salvation, as you will see in 1:19 — some translations render it “deliverance,” but it’s the same word as in 1:28 and the passage we’re discussing (2:12). The problem with the translation “deliverance” is it obscures Paul’s meaning later in the book. Note that as he elaborates in v. 20, he adds “by life or by death,” which means that he’s not actually talking about being delivered from tribulation. No, for him, “salvation” is a much bigger picture than getting out of jail. He ultimately concludes that for the present, he’d rather live and minister to them, which moves him into challenging them to also live worthy of the gospel, which–if one has eyes to see–is a demonstration of their salvation (1:28). He then challenges them to one-mindedness, following the sacrificial example of Christ, who laid aside divine prerogatives in order to give Himself for us, with the result that the Father enthroned Him over everything.

Having laid the foundation of assurance, set himself forth as an example of things working out for his salvation, and then transitioned to Jesus as the ultimate model of how these things should go, Paul now challenges the Philippians. “Work out your own salvation,” he says, because God is at work in them (as he’s been saying since the beginning of the book).

Many interpreters play games with “work out.” I remember as a kid being taught that God “works your salvation in,” and then it’s your job to “work it out,” as though salvation were a bit of food coloring dropped into a lump of dough or something. The Greek word there is κατεργάζομαι, and it means “accomplish.” Accomplish your salvation, because God is at work in you.

What does that even mean? If God is at work in them, then why are they supposed to accomplish it? And how it is possible for any Christian to accomplish their own salvation?

Good questions. In order to answer them, we need to pose one more question: What does “salvation” mean here? The Greek word is σωτηρία (soteria), and it’s usually translated “salvation” or “deliverance,” but that’s not actually all it means. Koine Greek often used the word to mean something closer to “prosperity,” “wellbeing,” or “peace.” Consider this example from the Greek Old Testament: “Then they arose early in the morning and swore an oath with one another; and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace.” (Gen. 26:31) The word translated “peace” there is the Hebrew shalom, and when they were rendering it into Greek, they used soteria. Can you imagine translating that “…they departed from him in salvation”?

Of course not. You’ll see similar uses of soteria in Genesis 28:21 and 44:17. The Greek is translating the Hebrew shalom, which means “peace,” but in a really rich way — whole books have been written on the meaning of shalom. It’s not just the absence of conflict, but the active presence of wellbeing.

Hear it that way: “But I know that things will work out for my peace and wellbeing.” (1:19) “Which is to them proof of perdition, but to you of peace and wellbeing, and that from God.” (1:28) “Work out your own peace and wellbeing with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (2:12-13)

Makes more sense, doesn’t it?


Preach the Word!

26 August 2025

Do we preach in church? No.

But isn’t that what Paul tells Timothy to do? “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season….” No. The word translated “preach” there is kerusso. It means public announcement, not private commentary to an in-group. (Check the lexicon; do the word study in Scripture; expand the word study to the secular literature – all the evidence points the same way, as I’ve argued elsewhere.) It’s not something you do with an in-group in a home; it’s something you do in the marketplace at the top of your lungs for anybody in earshot. That’s just what the word means throughout the literature (notwithstanding our English misappropriation of it).

2 Timothy 4:2 is not an exception to the general usage of kerusso. Absent a compelling contextual reason to read the Sunday meeting into the passage — and it isn’t there — Timothy would have heard the word in its ordinary sense. The only reason we don’t hear it that way is because we’re imposing our usage of “preach” on the passage. Public proclamation was a mainstay of Paul’s ministry, and it’s not exactly a surprise that he charges Timothy to carry on this aspect of his work. The inclusio with “do the work of an evangelist” in v. 5 clinches it, if we needed additional evidence of its public-facing meaning.

Should we thunder the Word from the pulpit? Absolutely. Arguably, that falls under the biblical headings of teaching and prophecy, but in any case there’s not much exegetical case for calling it “preaching.”

But let’s look more closely at the context here. In chapter 1, Paul addresses Timothy’s qualifications and his inner life/personal prerequisites for ministry. He continues that theme in 2:1-13, challenging Timothy to endure hardship for the sake of God’s chosen people. 2:14 forward specifically addresses the way Timothy should minister to those people within the church community, and then (3:1ff) begins to address the hazardous people Timothy will face in that endeavor. Beginning in 3:10, Paul returns his focus to Timothy, contrasting him to the people in 3:1-9 and challenging him to continue in what he’s been taught, knowing that the God-breathed Scriptures themselves will fully equip him.

4:1 begins Paul’s final charge to Timothy, and here he begins with a command that specifically means public announcement and concludes in v.5 with “do the work of an evangelist.” As with his instructions for Timothy’s conduct within the church in 2:14-3:17, Paul leads off with the command (2:14//4:1-2), follows with a warning that it’s likely to be ill-received (3:1-9//4:3-4), and returns to Timothy with “But you…” (3:10ff//4:5). He follows the same pattern of instruction as when he was talking about Timothy’s ministry within the church, but this time, he’s talking about how Timothy faces the world.


Why Complementarian?

19 August 2025

From the time I became aware that Christian egalitarianism was a thing (age 18 or 19), I have been self-consciously complementarian. The sexes are made with different and complementary natures, with corresponding complementary duties and biblical commands. Those commands are not arbitrary, but rooted in the realities of the world God created. It was not a new concept to me even then; it’s just that I was 18 or so before I knew there was a term for it. 

Learning the term was quite a discovery, because that meant there were other views. I looked into alternative views and concluded that they weren’t convincing. I remained complementarian. At the same time, over the years, I noticed various self-professed complementarians who I found appalling, either because they had no understanding of the natural world, or because they read the church epistles as though they had been written to Ward and June Cleaver (about which more later). Nonetheless, centering the complementarity of the sexes seemed to me the best way to describe the Bible’s teaching, so I stuck to the term complementarian.

Of course, people to the left of me have been trying to drive me away from both the term and the convictions it represents for decades, arguing that my adherence to complementarianism implied endorsement of various abusive and denigrating views of women that I don’t hold and never have. But I knew what the term meant, so I ignored them. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to have the conversation, but I’m not moving on the term.)

More recently, I’ve found myself on the receiving end of pressure from the right, which has been something of a surprise. These attempts argue that “complementarian” implies various defections from biblical authority that I do not hold and never have held. As with my favorite lefties, they can point to actual humans who profess to be complementarian and commit the defection in question. Certainly they exist — as one commentator famously noted, “The left wing of complementarianism is the right wing of egalitarianism.” This testimony is true, but I’m not going to be driven off a thick view of complementarity because somebody else is complementarian in name only. As with the lefties, I am happy to have the conversation, but I’m not much impressed with the attempt to drive me off the term. (And I would point out that their preferred terms also have some impressive vulnerabilities.)

Very recently, Aaron Renn has weighed in. (And you should read it!) He’s not involving himself in the gender debates so much as making some observations about the generational development of different ideas. He correctly argues that the Grudem/Piper version of complementarianism was not traditional, but an attempt to respond biblically to feminism while also self-consciously breaking with the past. On that basis, he considers his article title justified: “Complementarianism is New.” That’s quite a leap, considering that in the article itself, he also says “The traditional view that Piper, Grudem, and company rejected was also complementarian.” (emphasis his)

Just so. The traditional view was complementarian, the teaching of the Bible is complementarian, and no one need be embarrassed to use the word “complementarian” to describe their complementarian view.

Speaking for myself, I’m complementarian (and patriarchal); have been my whole life. I know what the word means, despite the various weirdbeards and feminists-in-all-but-name who wrongly claim it, and despite the various haters who wrongly try to tar me with one or the other of those groups. If I may put it bluntly, nobody needs the permission of some self-appointed gaggle of word police to use an appropriately descriptive term for their view. So let the word-scratchers say their bit, but don’t be disturbed by them. If you’re getting harrassed from the left and the right at the same time, perhaps you’re onto something.

Now it is true that all man-made symbols, including terms, have a lifespan. The day may come when for whatever reason, “complementarian” ceases to be useful, and it’s time to put it to bed. But it’s not today, and by my lights, it ain’t likely to be tomorrow either.


Order of Operations

12 August 2025

As an experienced minister, I sometimes find myself in conversations with younger ministers seeking a good way to handle a tricky pastoral situation. In one such conversation, the presenting problem was a man mired in serious sexual sin. I gave the (to me) standard answer: remind him that he was cleansed from his old sins, challenge him to live in his new identity, and support him intensively as he does it. My young interlocutor objected that surely you can’t tell an adulterer that he used to be an adulterer while he’s still cheating on his wife.

Well…yes you can. Paul did exactly that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Consider the context of the whole book: Paul has to address their lawsuits with one another (extortion, theft, covetousness), their drunkenness (and at the Lord’s Table, even), their eating from the tables of pagan temples (idolatry), dallying with prostitutes (fornication, idolatry), and so on. The addressees of this letter manifestly still have the sorts of problems he’s talking about in 6:11, and what does he say? “…and such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (And by the way, it’s not just Paul. Peter tells us that a believer who lacks virtue “has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.”)

What my young friend was missing is no trivial oversight; it’s one of the major points of New Testament teaching. Paul does not say “You stopped all that nonsense, and therefore you’re now clean,” as though your cleanliness rests on your works. Paul says “Jesus cleansed you from all that nonsense, so stop it already.” If you belong to Jesus, your cleanliness is an accomplished fact, a gift you were given. Your practical holiness is based on that gift, not the other way around.

That’s not just a major theological difference (although it is that); it’s a major practical difference too. When I have a man on my hands who belongs to Christ and is committing adultery, do I tell him, “You used to be an adulterer”? Would I really say that? YES, YES, YES!!!! I would, Paul did, and if you would not, repent! He has been washed from his adultery, and made as clean as it gets, and therefore we help him enact his new identity as a son of God rather than his old identity as an adulterous son of Adam.

How is this defeated man, his life rotted out by adultery, supposed to confidently embark on a new course? Where would he get the chutzpah to believe that he could have a different life than the nightmare that he’s made for himself? From God’s assurance that he is no longer an adulterer, that’s where! The adultery was nailed to the cross with Jesus, died on the cross with Jesus, was buried in the grave with Jesus, and when God raised Him from the dead three days later, Jesus did not come out of the grave dragging the adultery with Him. It’s gone! Finished. Dead forever, and good riddance. So we tell him that, and we walk with him and make it stick.


Being a Blockhead

5 August 2025

“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” So said Samuel Johnson, and he was a better positioned observer than most people. I’m certainly guilty of writing for reasons other than money, so I guess that makes me a blockhead. If you’re interested in being a blockhead too, and you want my advice, I wrote it up a while back.

I also want to draw your attention to a treasure trove of writing advice at The Marginalian. She’s taken the trouble to consult a pile of working writers, and the results are worth your time.


Introducing Humans

31 July 2025

I don’t usually announce our church podcast episodes here, but this past week’s episode focused on Genesis 2:4-7, and is right on point for our focus on physicality.

You can find it here, or wherever you procure fine podcasts.


Biblicist and Classical Theist?

29 July 2025

Ever since seminary, I’ve been suspicious of classical theism. Too many assertions that flatly contradict the Bible…or so I thought. To be fair, there was no shortage of classical theists who were happy to confirm my suspicions.

Of late, I’ve found myself in conversation with a biblically faithful classical theist that I respect: Chris Morrison. You can listen in on our first discussion here: “Is Classical Theism Biblical? Starting the Discussion.” Hope it’s helpful to you.