The subtitle of my book, Loser Theology, is “Why the Weak will not Inherit the Earth.” A number of people have commented online that this subtitle is a direct contradiction of scripture.

Not so fast.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the MEEK, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5).

Notice he didn’t say the WEAK shall inherit the earth.

Since the words rhyme, people often treat them as synonyms. They aren’t. Both came into English from Old Norse, but from different roots with different meanings.

So what’s the difference?

The Greek word for “meek” in Matthew 5:5 is praus, which was considered a virtue by ancient Greeks. Aristotle placed it as the mean between spinelessness and rage. In other words, meekness refers to strength under control. It’s the strength to act with force when needed, but restrained.

Scripture takes it further: meekness is strength restrained by humility and submission to God’s will. Think of it like a loaded weapon with the safety on.

The best example of this kind of man in the OT is Moses.

Earlier in his life, Moses failed in both directions. In Egypt, he murdered a man in a fit of rage. At the burning bush, he begged God to send someone else to Pharaoh. He was impulsive and timid, poor qualities for a leader. He needed to learn to trust God’s power, channel his strength properly, and humbly submit himself to God’s will.

Later in his life, he is called the MEEKEST man on the face of the earth (Num 12:3).

Moses began WEAK but God made him MEEK. God took a weak man, made him strong, then chastened that strength with holiness. That same trajectory of sanctification is available to anyone who seeks it by faith.

Jesus said that kind of meek man is blessed: he shall inherit the earth. When we confuse meekness with weakness, we end up treating a vice as a virtue. Scripture does not command us to be weak. Scripture commands us to be strong.

Old Testament examples:

• “Be strong and courageous” (Deut 31:6)

• “Be strong and very courageous” (Joshua 1:7)

• “Be strong and courageous” (1 Chron 22:13)

• “Be strong, and show yourself a man” (1 Kings 2:2)

New Testament examples:

• “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” (1 Cor 16:13).

• “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might.” (Eph 6:10)

• “You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 2:1)

• “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees.” (Heb 12:12)

I could go on, but you get the point.

Weak men can't be meek men.

Weak men lack the strength meekness requires. As Jordan Peterson once said, “If you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of.”

When King Hezekiah was warned by the prophet Isaiah that one day the Babylonians would plunder his house and castrate his sons to be eunuchs in the king's palace, he said “good,” because at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (Isa. 39:8).

Giving power to weak men is the last thing we need. They’ll use their power to comfort and enrich themselves while throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

Strength is the goal. Weakness is the means.

Others push back on my book by appealing to Paul’s teaching about weakness. Yes, there are times we are weak, either by nature or affliction. God may weaken us to remind us that we can do nothing apart from him and to teach us to rely more fully on his strength (John 15:5, 2 Cor 12:9).

Sometimes strength comes in ordinary ways: learning, growing, testing, and overcoming adversity. And sometimes that strength comes in extraordinary ways: God may weaken us in the flesh so we might depend more fully on the Spirit. In either case, strength is the goal, though weakness in the flesh might be God’s means of bringing it about.

That’s exactly what Paul said in 2 Cor 12:10: “For when I am weak, then I am strong.” Paul accepted weakness in his flesh as God’s providence, though he initially sought to escape it. Once it became clear that God was strengthening him through a particular affliction of weakness, he accepted it as a gift. But what Paul did not do was make weakness a prize to be won. He boasted in his weakness because it made room for Christ’s power to rest on him (2 Cor 12:9). The strength was Christ’s, but it was real strength, and that was the point.

The meek will indeed inherit the earth, as Jesus said. The strength of a meek man is a terror to the wicked. And his gentleness is a comfort to the righteous.

Loser Theology Book Updates

My book got significant attention last week, thanks to a critical review at The Gospel Coalition. Dr. Brian Tabb summarized my critique of evangelicalism’s loser theology as “weak, woke, winsome, and wimpy.” He also said that with “witty turns of phrase and bold pastoral appeals, Clary presents readers with a stark choice: Surrender or advance; be a spiritual doormat or exercise dominion.”

The TGC piece got a lot of traction online, most of it critical of TGC’s critique. My prayer in publishing this book was to generate conversation in the evangelical world about what it means to be a High-Agency Christian. In recent decades, much of the evangelical world has focused on faithful suffering and loss. That has its place. But we’ve neglected the subject of faithful stewardship of power and authority. If my book can help provoke that conversation, I’m here for it.

Unfortunately, TGC locked the comments on this post, so no one could engage with the post directly. Some people just made posts of their own about it. Here’s what a few of them said:

• Joseph Spurgeon said the criticism of my book comes from “a fundamental misunderstanding of his argument.”

• Josh Daws said, “Not surprising that TGC wouldn’t like the best book of the year. Read dmichaelclary’s book for yourself. Be high-agency Christians. God didn’t save us to sit by and watch the world decay while we wait to catch the train to glory.”

• Matt Green said, “I'm about 85% of the way through and the book is grounded in biblical truth. He diagnoses the problem, calls out the sin in ourselves and the hypocrisy of those who push the passive ideology (the Christian ‘elites’ can win, can push forward in the culture but us rubes are not allowed to do so).”

• Jacob Dixon said, “The world is getting crazier and crazier and in a culture that says that boys can become girls and that there is no meaningful distinction between the two, it is good that there are men who are calling men to more. This is the kind of discipleship that has been missing lately.”

• Nate Downey said “I’m gonna buy dmichaelclary’s book just to spite TGC.”

I published my response to the TGC review the next day at American Reformer, which also generated a lot of positive traction.

It’s exciting to see the vision of this book come to fruition. Book sales are always nice, but the broader conversation is even better.

In fact, I know of at least three churches that told me they’re buying bulk orders of the book to give to their congregations. I’m told Canon offers discounts for bulk orders (20+ books) if you contact them directly. (If that interests you, hit reply on this email to let me know and I’ll get you in touch with them).

One last thing: ratings and reviews help build social credibility. Please consider leaving a rating/review on Goodreads and/or Amazon!

I had the chance to pray and proclaim that Christ is King before President Trump. I took it.

On Saturday, I had the chance to do something that I never imagined I would do in the course of my life and pastoral ministry: I offered the opening prayer at a political rally for our president, Donald J. Trump.

As I’ve written about before, for most of my life and pastoral ministry I was what you could call a “normie” conservative evangelical Southern Baptist. I was a NAMB-supported church planter in the inner city of Cincinnati. I’ve spent the last 17 years pastoring the same church. It’s only been in the last few years that I’ve started more intentionally engaging political issues as a pastor, and you can read more about why that is in my latest book, Loser Theology: Why the Weak will not Inherit the Earth.

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, my burden to help followers of Christ faithfully navigate the pressing political and moral issues confronting American Christians in our moment has only increased. But even though I’ve done some more cultural and political commentary here and there, first and foremost, I’m local church pastor.

So you can imagine my surprise when, on Tuesday of last week, a member of my church who serves as the Chairman of Kentucky’s Kenton County Republican Party Executive Committee sent me a text, asking me if I would “have any interest in saying the prayer at the President’s rally at NKU on Saturday?”

Even though I had a packed schedule for the weekend already, I decided I couldn’t pass up the opportunity. In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, the Apostle Paul urges us, as Christians, “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

We regularly obey this command at my church on Sunday mornings. I saw no reason not to obey it at a Trump rally on a Saturday afternoon.

So I said yes and he put me in touch with the White House team.

Since I’d never done this before, I expected lots of restrictions. I figured the White House would ask to preview my prayer in advance, possibly even edit what I could say.

But none of that happened.

The White House staffer called me to go over a few logistics, but left the prayer entirely to me. That trust and freedom meant a lot.

Over the next few days, I worked through a few passages of Scripture that teach us how to pray for rulers, most notably Psalm 2 and, as previously referenced, 1 Timothy 2:1-4. Most of what I wrote down were things I already pray. This time, I just got to pray them on a public stage.

As the day approached, I prepared my own heart by asking God to grant me the grace to fulfill this honor with the appropriate humility. Taking a massive room and sharing the podium with someone as famous as the President of the United States can easily tempt a man to pray to the crowd and make the moment about himself. I didn’t want to do that.

I wanted Christ at the center. The President deserved honor, and so did the Lord he will give account to.

When I arrived at the arena on Saturday, the place was electric. Music was playing, the crowd was excited, and the whole atmosphere was upbeat and friendly. I enjoyed it.

When the moment came for me to offer my prayer, the announcer introduced me, I walked onto the stage, and delivered it. The prayer confessed our sins as a people, including abortion and sexual immorality, and called our leaders to honor Christ as King. I heard multiple amens across the arena while I prayed, and afterward people came up with kind and encouraging words.

Here is what I prayed:

“Let us pray. Heavenly Father, blessed are you, O LORD, forever and ever, for yours is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty. Yours is the kingdom, and you are exalted as head above all. Riches and honor come from you, you rule over all, and all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to you (1 Chr 29:10-13, Mt 28:18).

Father, you tell us in your word that all have sinned and fallen short of your glory. We humbly confess our many sins and failures, with which we have grieved and offended you.

We have tolerated evil when we should have stood against it. We have been silent when we should have spoken up. We have allowed abortion to end countless innocent lives in our communities. We have permitted violence to grow in our streets and sexual immorality to spread in our schools. In our churches, we have failed to courageously speak against these sins. In these and many other ways, we have failed to give you the honor due your holy name.

Father, we thank you that you do not leave us in our sins, but you have graciously made a way for us to find forgiveness and hope in the blood of your Son, Jesus Christ. You are most merciful. We thank you that, by faith, we can repent of our sins, knowing you are faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Lord, forgive us.

Your word instructs us to pray for our civil leaders (1 Tim 2:1-2). Give them wisdom as they lead, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives, godly and dignified in every way. Father, give wisdom and favor to President Trump and Vice President Vance. Grant this also to our local representatives and those seeking office. We ask you for the eternal salvation of them all.

Your word says that all authority is delegated from above (Rom 13:1, John 19:11), that all authorities are subject to you, and will one day give account to you.

So may our leaders serve the LORD with fear and trembling (Ps 2:11). May they honor Jesus Christ as King and Lord over all, lest his wrath be quickly kindled (Ps 2:12).

Lord, we beg you, heal our land (2 Chr 7:14). Turn the hearts of our nation to you (1 Chr 29:18). May all peoples of our great nation find refuge in the blood of Christ and be eternally blessed (Ps 16:1, Ps 21:6).

We humbly ask these things in the mighty name of Jesus Christ, Amen.”

The President wasn’t in the room at the beginning of the rally when I offered the prayer. I was scheduled to open the rally with prayer at 12:15PM. The President was scheduled to speak at 2:00pm. So by the time the President began his speech, I had settled into my seat to enjoy the rest of the rally.

Then came the part that I did not expect.

In the middle of the speech, as he was about to make a promise as President, he said, “I’m not going to swear to God,” and then interrupted himself to make a side comment. Evidently, he had heard my prayer on the video feed en route to the rally. He said, “I heard the pastor give a very beautiful prayer…And this place was dead silent. You could hear a pin drop.”

I was stunned. The President listened to my prayer closely enough to comment on it.

Public prayers are still prayers, after all, and God is the primary audience for them. But the corporate nature of public prayer does have an effect on the people who hear them. That’s what I’d been praying for in the days leading up to the rally. I prayed that God would use this prayer to stir the hearts of whoever heard it toward Christ. I don’t know what God will do with it, but I pray those words stay with the President and point him to Christ.

As I walked back to my truck after the rally alongside the sea of other people, a young man who happened to be walking beside me said, “That was an excellent prayer. And I’m not even a Christian!” Knowing that there would be many unbelievers in the audience, I wanted to make the gospel clear. Perhaps the Lord used that prayer to bring someone to saving faith in Christ.

I’m thankful that we still live in a nation where theologically sound Christian prayers can be freely offered in the public square, even prayers that call our nation to repentance for politically popular sins like abortion and sexual immorality.

And while the Republican Party isn’t perfect, I can’t help but notice that, out of our two major political parties, Republicans are the only party that still invites unapologetic and uncompromising Christians to be a part of their movement and platform.

Praying for our President and our nation was one of the greatest and most humbling honors of my life. Now, I’d simply ask that you join me in praying that my prayer would bear fruit in the lives of those who heard it—including President Trump.

My latest essay for Christ Over All, “Bringing Religion into Politics: Five Things Pastors Owe to the Public Square,” reproduced here in its entirety.

It was simultaneously the most helpful and most controversial sermon I’d ever preached.

In the fall of 2021, Critical Race Theory (CRT) was a trending cultural topic. To ordinary Christians, this sounded like a debate topic in the community college faculty lounge. But in reality, it was a dangerous idea spreading throughout the evangelical world and leading many astray.¹ So I preached a sermon about it, explaining what it is, where it came from, and why Christians should reject it. I worked hard to be objective, fair-minded, and even-handed. No mustard or angry rhetoric, just the facts.

1. In 2024, Christ Over All spent an entire month on this subject.

I received more positive feedback about that sermon than any other I had ever preached. Not only the “good sermon, pastor” comments on the way out the door, but emails of gratitude, handwritten thank you cards, and lengthy letters from people I’d never met who watched it online.

At the same time, I also received a critical email from a few church leaders that accused me of “preaching politics,” though I said nothing about politicians, elections, or parties. They said this since CRT was a cultural issue being debated in the political arena. Some of these leaders were committed to a no-politics-in-the-pulpit policy, which rendered most hot-button cultural issues off-limits.

But I had a sneaking suspicion that they really meant no conservative politics in the pulpit.

A year later, that suspicion was confirmed when I preached another sermon opposing various Biden-era COVID vaccine mandates. Those mandates violated the consciences of several of my members, and our own doctrinal confession affirms liberty of conscience. Further, journalist Megan Basham had published a bombshell report called “How The Federal Government Used Evangelical Leaders To Spread Covid Propaganda” earlier that year, which documented how federal officials enlisted evangelical leaders to promote the vaccine. Yet after that sermon, one of my leaders accused me of misusing scripture to advance a political agenda. Ironically, he wanted our church to take a politically charged position in support of vaccine mandates.

This made the issue clear to me. These leaders did not object to left-leaning political positions, only conservative ones. All these leaders have since moved on to other churches and this is no longer an issue at my church.

You might assume that these leaders were committed leftists, but that’s not true. Their progressive sympathies came from misguided pietism, the belief that Christians should stay above-the-fray, keep their hands clean, avoid controversy, and focus their public messaging on soul-winning. By their reasoning, signaling sympathy with the left could help us reach more unbelievers with the gospel.

A recent post on X captured a similar sentiment.

Our chief aim should be to glorify God and share the Gospel with the lost! It’s that simple. Jesus never once attempted to change culture. He came to save his elect. That’s it . . . So . . . Love God. Love your wife. Love your kids. Love others. Paul never tried to change politics. Peter never tried to change politics. Nope, not even Jesus. The Christian walk is NOT about changing America. Jesus doesn’t want us getting caught up in fruitless endeavors.

That sounds quite humble and godly, doesn’t it? But if every Christian in America adopted that posture, Christians would abandon the political arena entirely. No Christians would seek public office. We would focus exclusively on our homes, families, and churches, while leaving all the school boards, sheriff’s departments, courtrooms, and city councils to be run by unbelievers. There would be no Christians fighting for just laws and righteous leaders, because those things are “fruitless endeavors.” When Christians abandon the public square, we surrender it to whoever is willing to occupy those roles. And at present, we’re seeing growing numbers of atheists, secularists, LGBTQ activists, socialists, Hindus, and Muslims running for office—and winning.

Is Christ honored by simply letting them win?

The Myth of the Neutral Pulpit

Here’s the challenge we face in our day. As an increasing number of moral issues have been deemed “political,” the pastors who address them with clarity and conviction will be accused of preaching politics. But the pastor who avoids these issues for the sake of unity will leave his people ill-equipped regarding some of the most urgent issues of our day. And if a pastor won’t speak up because he’s afraid of being political, Satan will politicize everything until he won’t speak at all.

Political issues aren’t going away. If anything, they’re increasing, because cultural customs and mediating institutions have failed, leading to everything being politicized. As families and churches have failed to shape our common understanding of the good, the state steps in to fill the void. Political issues are moral issues, and moral issues are spiritual issues. Therefore, pastors must address them if they are to be faithful to God and helpful to their flocks.

Further, political issues are natural to what it means to be human. In modern times, political issues are collisions of fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews. In the not-too-distant past, ordinary political disagreements were about tax rates or trade policy. In our day, Democrats and Republicans cannot agree over the definition of a woman. Some believe abortion is murder; others believe it is a woman’s right.

Should pastors not provide biblical instruction on these matters? Can two church members merely “agree to disagree” about such morally urgent matters? These aren’t differences about the church’s carpet color. These are questions about nature and reality itself. A pastor who faithfully preaches Genesis 1 will end up sounding political, whether he intends to or not. Churches end up doing “at the movies” sermon series instead.

The Poison is in the -ism

To get things moving in the right direction again, we need to recover true piety—an ancient idea that has been forgotten in our day. I distinguish true piety from pietism, which overemphasizes immaterial/spiritual realities at the expense of material/physical realities. A pietistic man might say, “Let’s focus on soul-winning and not get entangled in worldly affairs.” A truly pious man, however, can share the gospel while also being involved in the civil realm.

The problem with pietistic thinking is the presumption that “spiritual” means “non-physical.” But biblically speaking, to be “spiritual” means to be guided and motivated by the Holy Spirit, obeying God’s commands as revealed in the Bible. The truly spiritual man doesn’t limit his Christian duty to explicitly religious things, like quiet times, prayer lists, and Bible readings (all good things, by the way!), but he seeks to apply his Christian convictions to every area of his life.

The Latin word pietas described the virtue of honoring one’s obligations to God, family, and people. As the ancients understood it, true piety was considered a public virtue, where one looks upward to God, backward to one’s fathers, and forward to one’s children. We see a good example in Nehemiah 4, where he inspires the workers in Jerusalem to take their shovels in one hand and swords in the other, calling them to “Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes” (Neh. 4:14). Similarly, G. K. Chesterton said we do not fight because we hate what’s in front of us, but because we love what’s behind us.²

2. G. K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, January 14, 1911.

But in modern times, piety has lost its public dimension, shrinking our Christian duties to the interior realm while dismissing public concerns as mere worldliness. This is pietism. Thus, a “pietistic” Christian thinks he is more godly by not getting involved in politics, which he dismisses as “worldly.” But in so doing, he surrenders the public square to unbelievers who have no scruples against writing their own morality into law.

Put simply, piety is good, pietism is bad, the poison is in the -ism.³

3. In my book by the same name, I call these errors “Loser Theology,” because they train Christians to be passive, accepting retreat and defeat as the posture of Christian faithfulness and humility. It produces men who are devout in private but useless in public. D. Michael Clary, Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth (Canon Press, 2026).

The Cost of Abandoning the Public Square

As many evangelical Christians have abandoned the public square in recent years, we are grossly underrepresented compared to our significant numbers. Although we make up roughly a quarter of the US population, our bench of political leaders, judges, and public intellectuals is pretty thin. Perhaps this is because we have done what the evangelical elites told us to do: treat power as an idol and view politics as a distraction from “real” kingdom work. That was a grave mistake. Faithfulness to God requires true piety, which means we must be more political, not less.

Some readers may raise an objection here: Christ gave the church the keys, not the sword, and any pastor who speaks out on political matters has overstepped his office. But when someone charges tells the pastor to “stay in his lane,” that man or woman is using the Bible to muzzle the Bible. However, if we let Scripture guide all our speech, there are at least two responses to this mistaken objection.

First, Scripture is unavoidably political, so there is no way to faithfully preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and not end up addressing issues that will be considered political. I’ve heard it said that scripture speaks directly to some things and indirectly to everything else. A faithful pastor should feel free to apply the word of God to many issues that may not be directly addressed in scripture, shining the light of Scripture wherever it is helpful to do so.

Second, the so-called “political issues” of our day are actually worldview questions that will determine the future of our country. Since everything is politicized these days, the pastor who avoids addressing them is outsourcing his duty to the pundits, podcasters, and social media influencers. That isn’t faithful shepherding.

Charles Spurgeon once remarked, “I often hear it said, ‘Do not bring religion into politics.’ This is precisely where it ought to be brought, and set there in the face of all men as on a candlestick.”⁴ That was true in 1881, and it is still true today. Therefore, the distinction between the keys and the sword should guide how pastors speak, not whether they speak.

4. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Candle” (sermon no. 1594, preached April 24, 1881, Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington), in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 27 (Passmore & Alabaster, 1881).

Five Things Pastors Should Do

To help pastors recover their prophetic voice in the political arena, I propose the following five things every pastor should do to get started.

First, Pastors Should Preach True Piety

Men of true piety are statesmen, saints who hold strong faith in God and are willing to fight for their families, churches, and communities. Their private piety is marked by a commitment to the scriptures, prayer, their families, and church life. Their public piety is marked by taking personal responsibility to assert God’s righteousness and justice in their communities and country.

In 1 Timothy 2:1–2, Paul gives helpful instruction about praying for civil leaders. He commands us to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” When political leaders are doing their job well, it promotes conditions of peace where the Christian faith can thrive and grow. Thus, pious Christians have a stake in politics because good governance preserves our ability to fully live out our Christian convictions.

This is no different from what the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) affirms in Article XV on the social order. It says, “All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society . . . Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.”⁵

5. Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Faith and Message 2000, art. XV, “The Christian and the Social Order.”

Second, Pastors Should Preach as the Conscience of Society

Pastors do this primarily by proclaiming God’s law regarding urgent issues in the culture, giving instruction to civil leaders about their duty to uphold justice and righteousness.

Regarding cultural issues, the Ten Commandments form the bedrock layer of the Bible’s teaching about right and wrong.⁶ Helpful expositions of God’s law can be found in several Reformed catechisms, such as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Baptist Catechism, and Calvin’s Geneva Catechism. These tools are useful to equip a pastor to speak out on moral and cultural issues as each commandment is stated, its obligations and prohibitions explained, and a brief rationale provided.

6. It is beyond the scope of this essay to delve into various debates regarding the uses of the first and second tables. For my purposes here, I am simply making the general point that the 10 Commandments are relevant and useful as a basis for understanding and teaching public morality.

For example, a pastor should not hesitate to speak against abortion as murder, because it is forbidden by the sixth commandment. A pastor should not hesitate to condemn every form of sexual sin, including pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the wickedness of LGBTQ pride which celebrates sins the Bible condemns, because these are all forbidden by the seventh commandment. A pastor may speak against unjust taxation and government corruption, explaining how these are a form of theft forbidden by the eighth commandment. Preaching about these issues promotes the public good.

Let me offer a word of caution here. As a general rule, pastors should preach about cultural or political issues when they are is relevant to the text they are preaching. Exceptions to this rule may be cultural moments of such great significance that many people expect to hear biblical instruction about it. For example, many preachers did this after the attacks on September 11, 2001. I did this myself after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. At such times of national crisis, God’s people need their shepherds to connect the world to the Word. But most of the time, the Word should set the agenda. The pulpit should not be turned into a weekly cultural commentary on whatever is in the news. Doing so undermines the primacy of the word of God and makes the preacher more of a pundit and less of a prophet.

Someone might say that preaching God’s law can’t change the heart, therefore we should only preach the gospel. But again, such an objection misuses a biblical truth. Preaching God’s law is necessary to establish the reality of sin for which men must repent to be saved. God’s holy law pricks men’s consciences and orients them to what is good and right. Preaching the law alone cannot change the heart, but preaching the law is necessary to demonstrate our need for the gospel, which does change the heart. This is what Paul means by preaching the law “lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8–11).

Not only that, but changing hearts is not the only thing Christians should care about. The moral law is the unique revelation of God’s standard of righteousness, and it is universally binding on all men. Biblical commandments govern how we treat our neighbors and should be preached, upheld, and enforced, regardless of whether or not an individual is regenerated. We have laws against murder and we punish murderers, irrespective of the state of their souls. In this way, good laws are necessary for a virtuous citizenry, which is necessary for society to function properly. A just society will uphold the good and punish the wicked (1 Pet. 2:13–14). Deuteronomy 19:19–20 says, “You shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.” Put simply, the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. And pastors should not fear preaching the whole counsel of God, laws included.

Even more, because there are Christians who hold the sword and others who need to hold the sword, they need to know what God demands. Therefore, regarding the civil magistrate, Paul calls him “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4). A “servant” needs to know what the master requires. Whose job is it to inform him? As ministers of the word, pastors are certainly responsible to instruct him (and by extension, everyone else) about the duties of the civil magistrate.

Third, Pastors Should Preach Accurately about Political Parties and their Party Platforms

Both political parties have their problems, but they are not morally equivalent. The 2024 Democratic Party Platform explicitly endorsed abortion through all nine months, transgender interventions for children, and the redefinition of civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.⁷ These positions are not merely different from Christianity but are actively hostile to it.

7. Democratic National Committee, “2024 Democratic Party Platform,” adopted August 19, 2024.

That’s not to say the Republicans are our saviors. When Republicans support evil, pastors should call them out. But the Democratic Party advocates for these evils as stated goals, while the Republican Party opposes them (at least on paper).⁸ The Democrats’ agenda represents civilizational suicide, and the Republicans are the only viable party standing in their way. A pastor who treats the two parties as morally equivalent for the sake of pulpit decorum is misinforming his people.

8. Republican National Committee, The 2024 Republican Party Platform (2024), PDF.

Some might object that pastors should not condemn the Democratic party because it binds the consciences of God’s people in a matter of Christian liberty. Nonsense. Party platforms exist for a reason. They are meant to inform voters about the larger agenda they are supporting when they vote for a particular candidate of that party. Party platforms are used to recruit candidates, enforce voting patterns once in office, and form the consciences of the voters who support them. In other words, party platforms represent a moral agenda that must be scrutinized in light of Scripture. This is not to say a pastor should tell his people who to vote for. But in 2026, it is pastoral malpractice to simply tell people “vote however you like.” To vote for the Democratic party means giving the sword of the state to those who favor slaughtering pre-born babies and mutilating children.

Fourth, Pastors Should be Willing to Call out Public Officials for their Sins, by Name, when Necessary

Public sins require public correction. The prophet Nathan confronted King David to his face for adultery and murder (2 Sam. 12). Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar to “break off your sins by practicing righteousness” (Dan. 4:27). John the Baptist told Herod that his marriage was unlawful and he literally lost his head for it (Mark 6:18). The Apostle Paul reasoned with Governor Felix “about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25).

Further, the public official doesn’t need to be present to hear the rebuke, because the rebuke is meant for everyone’s instruction, not just his (or hers). When Jesus made a baldly political statement insulting Herod, calling him “that fox” (Luke 13:32), Herod was not present to hear it. Jesus said it to the Pharisees in the hearing of the disciples which was recorded in Scripture for our benefit. The same principle applies in publicly denouncing the wickedness of civil leaders.

Fifth, Pastors Should Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Calling Everyone to Repent of All their Sins, both Public and Private

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 says, “Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ.”⁹

9. Southern Baptist Convention, “XV. The Christian and the Social Order,” Baptist Faith and Message 2000, accessed September 28, 2026. Baptist Faith and Message 2000 — Article XV

This sentence indicates the pursuit of two simultaneous goals: (1) the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness, and (2) the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God. The pursuit of the first goal is not dependent upon completion of the second. We can and must do both at the same time. Pastors should work to improve society and establish righteousness even though men may be unconverted, and our continued preaching of the gospel is necessary to make those gains “truly and permanently helpful.” Thus, the church can assert her influence in both the public square and the prayer closet.

One Thing Pastors Should NOT Do

Even though pastors should perform the duties described above, there is one thing a pastor should NOT do. Pastors should not preach like pundits. Let me explain.

Pastors must remember that the ultimate aim of preaching is the glory of God and the edification of the saints. Pastors often speak with a “prophetic” voice, because they are delivering an authoritative word from God to his people. The difference between a prophet and a pundit is the purpose of the message. The pundit’s primary aim is to provide political commentary on the issues of the day. The prophet’s primary aim is to speak a divine word that glorifies God and edifies his saints. This distinction must be maintained.

Most pastors are not equipped to speak authoritatively about complex policy matters, much of which isn’t relevant to the daily lives of their people anyway. If a pastor reads this essay and starts preaching about trade policy, NATO, or federal antitrust regulation, he’s missed the point. He is an ambassador for Christ, fwho represents the interests of God’s kingdom in the public square. The pulpit may address cultural issues but must ultimately point people’s hearts toward God, who is sovereign over politics, cultures, nations, rulers, and future events, and to whom all men will one day give account. If his sermons sound like stump speeches, something has gone wrong. The pulpit is no place for political rants.

Here’s what concerns me. I’ve seen so-called conservative pastors use their pulpits to preach about the injustices of our society in ways that seem intended to provoke anger and resentment in their congregations. It seems their sermons are preached for their YouTube audience rather than the people in their congregation. Right-wing pastors may angrily vent their frustrations about the progressive left in ways that encourage their people to sinfully indulge their grievances, hatred, and resentment.

To be sure, young people (and older ones, too) have legitimate reasons to be angry about what the left is doing to our country. They are frustrated they can’t find a woman to marry who isn’t a closet feminist. They can’t afford to buy a home. Gas is too expensive. Scarce job prospects are going to illegal immigrants. Young white men have been told their whole lives that they are racist, sexist, and evil, and that they deserve all these hardships and more. And yet, should pastors fan these smoldering embers of frustration into an inferno of rage? No!

Jesus has a name for men who do these things: hirelings. Hirelings are those who “care nothing for the sheep” (John 10:13). They are more interested in growing their audience than shepherding the souls of the saints entrusted to their care. Every pastor must give account for the flock under his charge (Heb. 13:17). No pastor is called to shepherd the whole internet.

Pastors should preach about cultural issues because God’s people need biblical guidance to navigate the crazy times in which we live. Pastors should understand their plight and lead them to respond righteously, even if it be righteous anger. Scripture tells us to “be angry and do not sin” (Eph. 4:26) and that the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God (Jas. 1:20). It is easy to indulge the flesh by nursing resentment and anger, but it is hard to teach people to channel their legitimate anger in productive, God-honoring ways, such as lobbying their representatives or even running for office themselves. Pastors must preach about political issues as they are relevant to their people, but they must never subordinate God’s kingdom to politics and culture. After all, Jesus himself taught us to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33).

Ultimately, every pastor is a man under a divine charge (2 Tim. 4:1). He must preach the law of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal life that awaits us. Our conservative politics must ultimately flow from our allegiance to Christ. We must answer to him for how we lived as Christians, not merely as conservatives. We fight for our families, our church, our communities, and our homeland because Christ calls us to, not merely because it aligns with our conservative politics.

Conclusion

Looking back, that CRT sermon was an important inflection point in my ministry. It exposed a fault line in my church over what people expected from the pulpit. The encouraging letters and cards that came afterward all shared a similar theme: “This was helpful.” Ordinary Christians hear about political issues all week. They are bombarded with leftist propaganda in the workplace, on social media, on the news, and in the classroom. Some of them didn’t even have categories for how to think about it. They just had a vague feeling that something was “off.” But when I preached about it, it clicked. And more than that, it showed them that they could find answers in God’s all-sufficient word. I gave them biblical categories and explicit texts to help them navigate a confusing issue, and by God’s grace it built their most holy faith. But I am not alone.

Sooner or later, every pastor will face an inflection point like that, and when he speaks up, he will probably face the same problems I did. Some people will feel like someone finally turned on the light, and they’ll see the world more clearly. Others, however, will not like it at all. They will accuse him of being political or divisive. The faithful pastor will do it anyway, because even though their responses are very different, he is helping them both. He gives a light to the first group to see the world better. And he brings the disagreement of the second group into the light where it can be dealt with openly.

In the end, God sees. And as Peter said to pastors, “When the chief Shepherd appears, [he] will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:4).

Willy Rice vs. Jeff Iorg: Who is right on Mohler’s Truth & Unity Amendment?

Two of the top leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) have warned that we are facing a significant crisis, but they differ about the nature of the threat. Ultimately, the messengers who show up to the convention in Indianapolis next June will decide who we think is right and which threat we’d rather face.

The Threat of Moral Compromise

SBC President Willy Rice recently warned of the first existential threat. He argued that the SBC could fall into a “chasm” of moral compromise if we fail to pass the Truth and Unity Amendment, which clarifies our position that Scripture prohibits women pastors.

This is an argument from conviction.

Rice’s warning reflects the trend of other major denominations that have suffered moral and numerical decline after allowing women to be appointed to the pastoral office. There is a direct correlation between appointing women to the office of pastor and a steady exodus of men, not to mention the eventual affirmation of LGBTQ lifestyles.

Rice warned of falling into a “chasm” filled with “the bones of a thousand gospel movements and institutions that were once vibrant and strong, but they are now empty institutional shells, tragic monuments to a once-great past.”

Examples are not hard to find. The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) ordained women in 1956 and approved same-sex marriage in 2015. The predecessor to today’s United Methodist Church (UMC) also decided to ordain women in 1956, fought over various sexuality issues in the decades that followed, and the UMC finally split apart over the issue in 2022. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) ordained women in the 1970s and ended up ordaining openly gay clergy in 2009. (The UMC technically didn’t exist until 1968 when the Methodist Church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren. The new UMC retained full clergy rights for women.)

Willy Rice doesn’t want the SBC to go down this same road, which is why he’s leading the charge to pass the Truth and Unity Amendment. Next June will mark the fifth consecutive year in which the SBC has voted on some version of an amendment to clarify our position that the Scriptures do not allow women to be pastors (ratification requires two consecutive supermajority affirmative votes).

To be clear, the SBC is, on the whole, a very conservative denomination. The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M 2000) affirms the following: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

So what’s the issue? The issue is the inconsistent use of the word “pastor” across the roughly 46,000 churches in the SBC. Some churches use the word “pastor” more strictly, referring only to the pastoral office (i.e., the office of elder). Other churches use the word “pastor” more loosely, referring to someone on staff at the church, such as a “children’s pastor” or “women’s pastor.” Thus, a woman in an SBC church may be called a “pastor” but not function as a pastor in the sense prohibited by the BF&M 2000. On the one hand, a church may say, “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture,” while on the other hand say, “yes, we call her ’pastor Sally’ but she’s not a pastor pastor.”

It’s confusing. What does it mean to be a “pastor,” if First Baptist Church only uses the word to refer to men who oversee the church while Second Baptist Church four miles away has a staff of twenty men and women who are all called “pastor” but only some of them provide authoritative oversight?

These inconsistencies across the convention may lead people to erroneously conclude that the SBC affirms women pastors when our own confession says we don’t. Over time, this confusion conditions people to accept the feminist premise that men and women are interchangeable in the church. Additionally, there are some bad actors who gladly exploit this confusion to advance a feminist agenda.

Thus, the inconsistent usage of the word “pastor” has caused friction in the convention that could be resolved by simply clarifying what we mean. The Truth and Unity Amendment was written to provide that clarity. Ratifying the amendment next June should settle the issue.

If we fail to pass it, we face the potential “chasm” of moral decline of encroaching feminism Willy Rice warned us about. The confusion will spread, frustration will grow, and feminists will continue to exploit the confusion and push the convention into further decline and compromise.

To be clear, the SBC is not voting to affirm women pastors. The SBC is voting to clarify and strengthen our existing opposition to women pastors.

Some have argued that “there’s not a significant problem of women pastors in the SBC!” This isn’t true, a fact which has been documented. But even if it were true that the SBC doesn’t have a women pastors problem, it is enough of a problem for it to have been brought to the floor of the convention four years straight. It’s not going to go away. Besides, the best time to address a problem is before it gets too big to fix. And every year that passes without fixing it, the problem grows and becomes more entrenched, leading those who have been fighting to fix it to become discouraged. Many of them are reducing their Cooperative Program dollars in protest. Others are leaving the convention entirely.

This is how the SBC slowly becomes the UMC. And this is why President Rice sees failing to pass the Truth and Unity Amendment as an existential crisis.

But there’s another prominent leader warning of a different threat to the SBC.

The Threat of Litigation

The President of the Executive Committee Jeff Iorg made the opposite argument regarding the Law Amendment, a precursor to what is now the Truth and Unity Amendment. He believed the greater threat would have come from passing it, warning that it would increase the convention’s legal risk that greatly harm the convention.

Iorg has stated he personally holds to the complementarian position that Scripture prohibits women from becoming pastors. Yet he opposed the Law Amendment in 2024. In his view, the BF&M and our current processes are sufficient. No amendment or further clarification is needed.

What’s his argument?

To answer this question, it helps to know how the system is set up. The Credentials Committee evaluates concerns about whether a church remains in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC and then makes recommendations to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee then determines whether these churches violate our constitutional standard and are ultimately responsible for the decision to remove them.

Iorg raised several concerns in a Baptist Press article, including church autonomy and how much doctrinal uniformity the convention should require. But his legal concerns are what turn this into a question of survival, and he makes two of them.

First, churches removed from the convention could lose real benefits, such as access to disability coverage and retirement plans through Guidestone (the SBC’s employee benefits entity, not to be confused with Guidepost Solutions, the firm hired to investigate the handling of sexual abuse allegations). He says those losses “increase the likelihood of litigation,” and that “if dozens of churches are excluded or removed from the SBC in an adversarial fashion, the legal risk may increase accordingly.”

Second, he worries about the “legal wall of autonomy” which protects the SBC from being held responsible for the actions of churches.” If the convention starts examining titles and job descriptions in local churches in order to enforce the amendment, then “some enterprising attorney with a cooperative judge may make the case that a convention with this much vested interest in the internal workings of its churches is responsible for their other actions as well.”

As Iorg said at the time, “If the amendment passes, it may be helpful to Southern Baptists in the long run… But I know it will be expensive.” That’s a revealing statement.

This is an argument from pragmatism.

The Executive Committee is understandably skittish about this, given the “sexual abuse crisis” a few years ago. The Executive Committee was responsible for responding to the SBC’s 2021 mandate to investigate its historical handling of sexual-abuse allegations. It waived attorney-client privilege, contracted with Guidepost (not Guidestone, see the above note), and ultimately assumed significant legal liability, including indemnifying Guidepost – that is to say, the Executive Committee agreed to pay for Guideposts’ lawyers and for any of its mistakes.By the end of 2024, the Executive Committee had spent roughly $13 million of its reserves on investigations and legal expenses. This forced it to seek additional financing because these costs had seriously depleted its reserves.

In short, the SBC got burned—badly.

Jeff Iorg was not president of the Executive Committee when these decisions were made (he was President of Gateway Seminary at the time). He inherited the consequences of these decisions and was the man hired to clean up the mess. This may explain his reluctance to do anything his legal counsel advises would expose the SBC to more litigation and financial harm.

Analysis of the Two Threats

Thus, we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. Willy Rice believes failing to pass the amendment could greatly harm the SBC. Jeff Iorg believes passing the amendment could greatly harm the SBC.

Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. So, who’s right? In my view, Willy Rice is right and Jeff Iorg is wrong.

Let me give you three reasons why.

First, the SBC needs more clarity on the issue of women pastors than we currently have. It’s come up for a vote four years running, and it won’t go away until the matter is settled, once and for all. If the Truth and Unity amendment fails next June, the status quo will be preserved and the confusion will keep growing. Failure to pass it would create the impression that the SBC doesn’t have the stomach to enforce our own stated convictions. This would further signal to the feminists that they can advance their agenda unopposed. That’s why the issue needs to be settled now while we have the momentum.

Second, Iorg’s legal argument doesn’t hold up. I’m not a lawyer, but Jon Whitehead is, and he addressed it on the Center for Baptist Leadership podcast. He began by noting that the legal case against the amendment has never been spelled out publicly. When you press those making it, he said, “nobody can quite say other than there will be litigation.”

So Whitehead took his best guess at the theory, and it matches what Iorg wrote in 2024. If the SBC enforces this belief, plaintiffs will argue it should have policed everything else its churches do, the way an employer can be sued for negligent supervision. Whitehead called that argument “bogus under current law.” Courts will not rule on whether a religious body was negligent in setting its own religious standards. Since Hosanna-Tabor and the cases that followed, religious organizations have “enormous protection in deciding who they associate with and who their leaders are.”

His conclusion: “if somebody sues, they’re going to lose.”

That doesn’t mean no one will ever sue. Whitehead granted that “sometimes you do get sued,” and defending even a winning case costs money. But that is true of everything the SBC does. The IMB takes on enormous legal risk every time it sends out a missionary. We buy insurance, take the normal precautions, and get on with the mission.

Whitehead also raised a point about process. If our lawyers believe Southern Baptists can state what we believe but cannot act on it, that “can’t be some kind of secret that’s hidden in a legal memo.” The messengers deserve to see the argument and weigh it for themselves.

The SBC already makes constitutional decisions about who qualifies for cooperation. If a Southern Baptist Church suddenly decided to baptize infants and was removed from the convention, it would have the same legal standing as a church removed for appointing women pastors. Clarifying our doctrinal requirements would not create fundamentally new legal vulnerabilities. In fact, the added clarity the Truth and Unity Amendment provides may actually strengthen the SBC’s basis for enforcing its own doctrinal identity.

Third, and most significant for me, Christians must ultimately stand on conviction, not pragmatism. Even if Iorg were right about opening the door to lawsuits (and I don’t believe he is), this is precisely the moment when our convictions must trump pragmatism.

Iorg has addressed the question of pragmatism in 2024, writing that proponents of the Law Amendment see the risks as “a price worth paying to preserve doctrinal fidelity.” That is precisely my position. I’m glad to own it. We should not shy away from clearly stating our convictions because it will be “expensive.” Our Lord himself told us to “count the cost” of being a disciple.

Would we be ashamed of Christ and his instructions for the church because we’re afraid of lawsuits? Does Scripture not command us to do what is right when it’s costly? Especially when it is costly? We should learn from our heroes of Scripture and church history who stood with their convictions in the face of much greater threats than lawsuits (cf. Heb 11:35b-40).

Conclusion

When I first planted an SBC church through the North American Mission Board, I did so having graduated from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which had earned a reputation under Dr. Mohler’s leadership for standing on the truth of Scripture even when it was costly. That inspired me. I wanted to be part of the SBC precisely because I was convinced we had the courage to do what is right no matter what perils we might face in the process.

The SBC exists to contend for and propagate our Christian convictions. If Southern Baptists do not have the courage to stand for the clear teaching of scripture, then what’s the point of the SBC? Are we really going to be bullied by threats of litigation?

That’s not the SBC I know and love. Ordinary Southern Baptists are courageous Christians, not cowards. Our entities should reflect that.

When faithful churches give their hard-earned dollars to the Cooperative Program, they do so ultimately to advance our convictions. I value our entities and want them all to succeed, but success is measured in faithfulness to God’s word, not mere self-preservation. If we have to compromise God’s word to save the SBC, then the SBC isn’t worth saving.

That’s Willy Rice’s concern, and that’s why he’s correct. The keys to the future of our convention are in the hands of the messengers who will vote next June. The surface-level issue is the Truth and Unity amendment. But the deeper issue is whether we have the courage to stand for the truth of God’s word even when it’s not popular.

Thus, the biggest threat facing the SBC is not lawsuits, but a failure of nerve. We can’t control lawsuits, but we can control our own faithfulness. Only the Lord knows the future, but I’m confident Southern Baptists will make the right call next year.

When I was first assessed as a church planter around 2007, they said I had one weakness in particular that would hinder me as a pastor and church planter.

I didn’t take criticism well.

I was offended when I heard that feedback, which only proved their point. It was a problem that I would have to figure out, one way or another, if I was going to make it in ministry.

That was nearly twenty years ago. I can now say without hesitation that any man who can’t handle criticism is not ready to be a pastor. He’s too soft, and that’s a vulnerability the Enemy will surely exploit.

It’s not just a pastor thing, it’s a basic discipleship thing. You need mental toughness to be faithful to God. Mentally weak people will be “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). Mentally tough people will “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

A few men are born with it. The rest of us develop it by discipline or by going through trials. God uses both to strengthen us mentally.

Mental toughness doesn’t mean being cold, stoic, or emotionless. We’re humans, not robots, and God made us capable of feeling a broad range of emotions. Being mentally tough is about not letting your emotions rule your life, especially when you feel like giving up. A mentally tough man doesn’t fall apart when life hits him hard. He can absorb bad news without spiraling into despair. He can receive criticism without pouting like a baby. He can keep going when everything within him wants to quit.

Proverbs 24:10 says, “If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small.” That verse assumes days of adversity are coming, and those days show who you actually are. When the day of adversity comes (and you know it will), the strong man holds frame and keeps his nerve. But the weak man “faints.” He despairs and falls to pieces because his “strength is small.”

Is that you? Is your strength small? If it is, take heart. That text is not in your Bible to mock you for being weak. It’s there to diagnose your condition so you can get better. That’s what this essay is about—getting better.

There are at least four warning signs we can glean from the Proverbs, and there’s a way out of all of them.

#1: The Mentally Weak Man is Easily Offended

Proverbs 19:11 says, “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.”

Some people really do like being offended. It starts out as a habit, but over time it can turn into a hobby. I know one woman who has held on to petty childhood grievances for several decades. She is miserable, and strangely seems to enjoy the misery.

Some people tend to their grievances like the curator of a museum. Ancient insults are kept behind glass, brightly lit for all to see.

Our culture incentivizes this. We train people to be irresponsible and emotionally immature by rewarding those who are easily offended. Grievance has become a form of currency. The more wounded you are, the more you’re owed.

Most of the time, we’re not offended because someone has committed a sin against us. We just feel slighted in some way, often due to a simple miscommunication or misunderstanding. We get offended because our ego took a hit, and most of us could stand to have our egos bruised from time to time.

Notice again what Proverbs 19:11 says: overlooking an offense is glorious. Offensive things will certainly happen, but you have the choice whether to overlook it or let it ruin your day. There is no law requiring you to take it personally.

Think about how much mental energy it takes to get offended. Most of the time, it’s over something dumb, yet you let it consume your thoughts. That’s just your pride getting you worked up. You’re offended because you want to be.

So the next time you feel the urge, you can choose to overlook it. Make a deliberate decision, telling yourself, “I’m not going to respond. I’m not going to say anything. I’m going to act like everything is fine.” You can’t always control the feeling, but you can control your response.

If someone really has sinned against you, that’s a different matter. Scripture tells you what to do about that in Matthew 18. Go to him directly and deal with it. But let’s be honest—most of the time, it’s not that serious, and we can do everyone a favor by just learning to let it go.

#2: The Mentally Weak Man Can’t Control His Anger

Proverbs 16:32 says, “Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.” Solomon ranks the man who is “slow to anger” above the “mighty” man. There are lots of quick-tempered fools who appear strong because people react to their rage. But the inability to control your temper is a sign of weakness, not strength.

It takes more strength to rule yourself than to take a city. We call that self-control, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). The wise man keeps his mouth shut when he’s angry because that’s when he’s less filtered.

I once heard a man say, “I only have two emotions. Angry and asleep.” Anger is the one emotion a man feels free to express, though his actual emotions can be quite varied. Outrage, indignation, resentment, annoyance, frustration, and bitterness are all forms of anger. We may not always understand our emotions, but we must always keep them under control.

Proverbs 25:28 says, “A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.” A man who can’t control his anger is unpredictable and unstable because his emotions are running his life. This man cannot be trusted.

Proverbs 29:11 says, “A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.” Any idiot can blow his stack and say things he’ll later regret. He might say, “I’m just venting.” The Bible says that man is a fool. There’s nothing strong about that, even though it can be intimidating for those who witness it.

What’s the solution? You can’t stop yourself from feeling anger, and you shouldn’t even try. That’s neither good nor wise. The solution is to first learn how to restrain your anger, then learn to channel it towards something productive.

Martin Luther learned to do this. He once said, “I never work better than when I am inspired by anger; for when I am angry, I can write, pray, and preach well, for then my whole temperament is quickened, my understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart.”

In other words, anger can be a gift if you can use it for motivation and focus. It gets our adrenaline going and motivates us to take action. The mentally weak man gets angry and becomes more impulsive. The mentally strong man gets angry and becomes more focused.

#3: The Mentally Weak Man Can’t Take Criticism

Proverbs 15:32 says, “Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.”

Being thin-skinned hindered my early ministry. Criticism wounded my pride. When we are criticized, our first instinct is to defend ourselves. That’s natural. But if we stay in that place, we’ll be stuck and won’t grow.

The smart thing to do is give criticism its due consideration. Listen to what they have to say and ask yourself, “is there any truth in this?” If so, you can profit from it, even if the person who said it was trying to hurt you.

Antisthenes once said, “There are only two people who can tell you the truth about yourself: an enemy who has lost his temper and a friend who loves you dearly.” Proverbs 27:6 says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”

The mentally weak man is too proud to hear it. Proverbs 9:8 says, “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.” Nobody likes it. Everybody needs it. Wise men receive it. The scoffer protects his ego, but the wise man protects his character. To become strong and wise, you have to be the kind of man people feel safe correcting.

That will take humility. Scripture says, “humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you” (Jas 4:10, cf 1 Pet 5:6). Humility is an action, not just a temperament. If you want to become stronger, you will not only receive criticism when it comes, but you will deliberately invite it.

Here’s a challenge. Think of a friend you really trust and ask him for a favor. Tell him, “I want to grow as a man and I need your help. I want you to think of two or three things you observe in my life where I need to grow but no one wants to tell me. Don’t hold anything back. Make it sting. I trust you to be brutally honest, and I give you my word that I won’t hold it against you.”

Tell him to think about it for a few days, then have the conversation. After this, two things will happen. First, you’ll find out whether he’s a real friend. Second, he will wound you, and that wound will make you better. Embrace it. Perhaps you’ll discover a blind spot that’s been holding you back.

#4: The Mentally Weak Man Doesn’t Push Through Adversity

Proverbs 24:16 says, “The righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble in times of calamity.” Everyone stumbles and falls sometimes. The difference between the righteous and the wicked is how they respond to it.

A few years ago, I went through the hardest season of my ministry. I experienced extremely high levels of stress, fear, and anxiety. I’d wake up in the middle of the night and be unable to go back to sleep. So I’d go outside and walk around my neighborhood praying. I’d go to some meetings in such a state of panic that I could barely speak.

Even though I love being a pastor, I considered quitting just to escape the stress. But deep down I knew that wasn’t an option. I needed to find a way to keep going. During that season, I prayed more frequently and fervently than perhaps any other time in my life. Even though I don’t miss that season, I do miss the depth of fellowship with God I enjoyed during those days of darkness. In the end, God gave me the strength to keep going.

You’re gonna get knocked down, everyone does. But do you get back up and keep going after that? The mentally strong man refuses to feel sorry for himself or blame others for things within his control.

James 1:2–4 says, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” God uses trials to test our faith, and the testing builds our character over time. We need trials to grow—we won’t become mature any other way.

“Steadfastness” means you don’t buckle under the weight of trial. Mentally weak men shrivel up and tap out. Mentally strong men dig deep, find their courage, and keep going.

Start This Week

The Bible calls out our weakness so we can work, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to become strong. Weakness doesn't disappear on its own; we have to discipline it out of ourselves. Paul said, “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Cor 9:27).

When something offends you, choose to overlook it. And remember, it is your glory to do so.

When something makes you angry, don’t vent it, choose to rule your spirit and restrain it. Then, choose to channel that anger into something productive.

When someone criticizes you, listen to what they say and choose to not get defensive. Even your sharpest critics can be of benefit to you because they’re not worried about sparing your feelings.

And when you get knocked down, choose to get back up and keep going.

Proverbs 4:23 says, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” Everything else in a man's life flows from there, so that is where the guarding has to start.

Loser Theology Book

Loser Theology came out a little over a month ago.

(Quick note about Amazon preorders: a warehouse mix-up delayed a batch of early orders placed in August and September. If yours hasn't arrived, send me a DM and I'll send you a free Kindle copy while you wait. New orders from Amazon and Canon are shipping normally.)

The book has been positively reviewed in major publications, such as World and American Reformer. I've been told to expect at least one more review in a major publication later this year.

Reader reviews on Goodreads and Amazon are looking pretty strong so far. If you’ve read the book and liked it, please give it a review!

Also, here’s a fun conversation about the book I recently had with Doug Wilson and Joe Rigney.

As I’ve done a bunch of media interviews, I’m getting a kick out of all the AI generated YouTube thumbnails. I mean, who’s this guy?

Nine Questions About Women’s Ministry in the Church Book

I teased this in my last update, but now I’m ready to announce it officially. My friend Zachary M. Garris and I have written a book called Nine Questions About Women’s Ministry in the Church, published by Founders Press.

So far, we have received endorsements from David Schrock, Joseph Spurgeon, and Scott Brown. It is scheduled for a January release. The see the endorsements and more, the product info page is now live.

Family

First up, the family is doing great. Laura and I celebrated our 27th wedding anniversary this past June! And as our kids are getting older, we know the days of doing a family vacation with all six of us may be drawing to a close. But we did get away to the beach this year and had a great time.

Apart from knowing the Lord, my family is the greatest blessing of my life. In the Lord’s kindness, all my children profess faith in Christ and we enjoy each others’ company. We’ve come a long way since the early days when the kids seemed to fight non-stop.

Reese (21) expects to graduate from college this December, a semester early. Isaiah (20) is loving his career in the trades, following in his grandfather’s footsteps as an electrician. Owen (17, the one with the beard) is in his senior year of HS and deciding now about his future. He’s a star athlete as a linebacker for his football team and went to state last year for shot put and discus. Judah (15) is a sophomore and getting lots of driving reps this summer.

Church

Outside of knowing Christ and the blessing of my family, the other great blessing is my church, Christ the King Church. As you may know, our church was originally planted in the inner city of Cincinnati in 2010. In January, 2025, we purchased a new building just across the river in Fort Thomas, KY and relocated our congregation there. It’s been a lot of working making this transition, but well worth the effort.

We have grown steadily in the past year and a half and making good progress getting acclimated to the new neighborhood. Fort Thomas does a big July 4th parade each year. For our church’s float, we strapped an actual piano to a trailer and had a mobile choir sing patriotic songs. It was a huge hit. The Fort Thomas city council awarded us third place for “most patriotic” float.

I’ve been preaching through Romans the past year and we’ll be wrapping it up at the end of September. It’s been awesome and I’ve learned a lot along the way. My plan is to switch it up after that and preach through Ruth before doing a topical series on the Holy Spirit for advent.

School of Ministry

One thing I’m particularly excited about is the launch of our church’s School of Ministry.

Our church’s vision is to plant four churches in the greater Cincinnati/Northern KY area by the year 2040. To that end, we established the school of ministry to equip men to be future church planters, elders, deacons, group leaders, teachers, fathers, and husbands. In other words, healthy churches need strong men leading in all areas of ministry, from the home to the pulpit. It’s a three year program that is meant to provide men with seminary level education.

I was praying for 8 men to join our School of Ministry. We ended up with 23! I was floored. I’m teaching the inaugural class on Baptist Identity. Our desire is for the School of Ministry to attract men to our church who want ministry training in the context of a healthy, local church and would be interested in helping plant more churches in our area.

Increased Public Profile

With the launch of my second book, Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth, I’ve stepped into a larger public platform.

This was intentional. I suppose you could say I feel a sense of duty. I’m 51 years old and have been in full time ministry for 25 years, the last 18 as a church planter and pastor. I’m old enough to have worked out a lot of the “bugs” of inexperience and immaturity, but young enough to have the energy and motivation to handle a little more public ministry, and the scrutiny that comes with it. And besides, there’s a need for trusted, pastor theologians in public right now.

Personally, I’m not a fan of men in their 30s having large ministry platforms. And there’s been no shortage of famous pastors and Christian leaders crashing out or disqualifying themselves through scandal. No man is immune to these things, and I pray regularly for the Lord’s protection from sin, temptation, pride, and all the rest.

And yet, by God’s grace, I do believe the Lord has led me to take a more public leadership role in the evangelical world. I hear good feedback about my writing, especially from Christian leaders who tell me I have given them a voice. That’s gratifying. I want help and encourage Christians who feel embattled and alone—these are the men I hear from most often.

That said, I’d appreciate prayer in this regard. Particularly, please pray (1) that God would give me wisdom to steward a growing public ministry well, (2) that God will give me the right opportunities and discernment about opportunities to reject, and (3) that God would protect me from sin and temptation, particularly against the sin of pride.

Loser Theology Book

Loser Theology is now available from the publisher in hardback, on Amazon Kindle, and audio on their streaming platform, Canon+. The hardback is currently backordered on Amazon, but expected to ship September 8th.

The promotional media blitz has been great. I’ve been eager to get the message of the book out there and begin engaging people with the content.

So far, the book’s reception has been overwhelmingly positive. I’m sure criticism will come, and when it does, I’ll be ready.

In the meantime, I’m encouraged by the personal messages I’ve received from readers telling me how it has emboldened them to be more courageous for Christ.

I’m hearing good things from big platform names, too. I did an appearance on the Steve Deace show and the pre-orders went through the roof after that. I looked in my calendar yesterday to count up all the media appearances I’ve done in the last two months and realized I’ve done 27 different interviews! All of them are different and bring some new angle into the conversation.

Some people don’t like the book’s title. I address this in the first chapter of the book:

Some readers may object to my use of the term Loser Theology. Since few would apply this label to themselves, why use it? I use the term because it’s a theology that advocates for losing as the way to be faithful to God. Loser Theology can refer to theological perspectives and movements that emphasize passivity, retreat, and defeat, often conflating suffering and loss with humility. In other words, the Loser Theology label is not about petty name-calling, but about calling Christians to break free from the prison of Loser Theology that’s holding them captive.

My first book, God’s Good Design, is only available in paperback. It was published through an independent publisher. When I got my copy of Loser Theology in the mail, I was blown away by how well designed and constructed the book was. The dust cover has a nice feel and the pages are made with quality paper. A few people have asked me to send them signed copies, and I’ve been happy to oblige.

Currently, it has a 4.8 average with 7 ratings and 4.73 average with 11 ratings. Good reviews help get the algorithm magic working so it can reach more people. Loser Theology also received a positive review from World Magazine.

New Founders Book

Speaking of books, and this hasn’t been announced publicly yet, Zachary Garris and I have submitted a manuscript to Founders Press for a book on women in the church. This is a needed and timely book, since the PCA (Garris’ denomination) and the SBC (my denomination) are both facing battles over the ordination of women. This short book is organized in question and answer format, addressing what we believe are the top nine questions people ask about women in ministry. Of course, we take a conservative position on each question and argue our points biblically.

I’ll leave further details about this book for a future post.

Grimke Seminary

Finally, I’ve decided that if I’m ever to pursue my doctorate, it’s now or never. I’m a pastor and public theologian at heart; I don’t really regard myself as an academic. And yet, I try to bring an intellectual rigor to what I do. Now that my children are grown or mostly grown, I have a little more flexibility to tackle something like this.

Beginning early next year, Lord willing, I’ll begin work on a Doctor of Ministry degree (DMin, which is different from a PhD). A DMin is a doctorate for ministry practitioners, not academics, whose primary work is in the local church. Grimke seminary is a church based seminary that I trust to provide the kind of training I need at this stage of my ministry. It is designed to complement and enhance my local church ministry, not compete with it.

In other words, my doctoral work should help me be a better pastor for my local church. Given our church planting goals and launch of the School of Ministry, I’ll need all the equipping I can get!

If you’ve made it this far, all the way to the end of this newsletter, I’d like to simply say a word of “thanks” to you. I can’t control who reads my essays, but I have a little dashboard on this website that gives me metrics that indicate a consistent and loyal readership. I’ve got nearly 2500 subscribers, and my essays are read by many thousands of people. I’m honored by the fact that anyone would read my ramblings. I pray that means I’ve earned your trust, at least enough to be regarded as a faithful man of God who’s trying to provide help in these crazy times.

May the Lord bless you, wherever you are, and lead you into greater Christlikeness in all your endeavors!

When I say “conservative Christianity” I’m broadly referring to Christians who share two characteristics: (1) a commitment to sound doctrine and (2) a commitment to Christian obedience. In a normal world, we would describe all Christians this way, but alas, we do not live in a normal world. Many who consider themselves Christian do not care much about such things. I’m speaking to my own tribe here, and in my view, this is a significant blind spot.

So what am I talking about? The besetting sin of conservative Christianity is a weak conscience. A weak conscience leads to purity spiraling—an endless ratcheting of standards where everyone is trying to be holier than everyone else—which causes enormous harm in our churches.

How a Weak Conscience is Formed

Conservative churches take doctrine and obedience seriously, that much we’ve already established, and those are good things. But if we’re not careful, these very commitments can make us rigid, which brings us one step closer to being straight up legalistic. That’s an easy trap to fall into, because everyone is convinced their beliefs are biblical, and thus the ethical conclusions we draw from our biblical convictions take on greater moral force.

From an outsider’s perspective, the man with a weak conscience appears to have great zeal for the Lord. But ironically, his apparent zeal for Christ might actually indicate a weakness in his faith, because beneath his strongly held opinions is the fear that he isn’t spiritual enough, and thus he compensates by becoming dogmatic about issues of lesser importance.

Spiritually insecure believers can often develop quirky convictions as a way to justify themselves before God. It’s a timeless temptation. Some Christians will measure their spiritual maturity by the number of strong opinions they hold, and then to use those opinions as a way to distinguish themselves from others. They regard their scrupulosity about a wide range of issues as a sign of greater commitment to Christ, when it is actually a fig leaf to cover their deep seated fear that they aren’t doing enough to please God.

This is obvious on the internet, where an endless stream of fads and micro-controversies cycle through every week. The internet rewards such controversies. But it can happen in the church too, when people develop a subtle spiritual pecking order based on their views about secondary matters.

This is the same species of pride that afflicted the Pharisees, who developed rigid, man-made rules and imposed them on others to feel more righteous about themselves. This is what Paul was talking about in Romans 14 when he addressed what he called “weaker brother” who held many strong opinions about how believers should behave in the grey areas of the Christian life.

The stronger brother in Paul’s framework, is the one who is fully confident in the grace and love of Christ. He doesn’t doubt his status as a child of God and rests secure in the gospel. Because of that security, he enjoys his freedom in Christ without anxiety. He can hold his convictions with an open hand, not feeling any need to recruit everyone to his point of view, even though he’s personally convinced they’re wrong.

Three Characteristics of the Weaker Brother

The stronger brother has opinions—even strong ones. But he doesn’t need other people to agree with him in order to feel okay about his standing before God. The man who is “weak in faith” (Rom 14:1) is also a true believer, but he is less spiritually mature. There are three things to notice about him.

(1) First, his spiritual immaturity is due to a weakness of faith. This isn’t primarily about intellectual doubts, it’s more of a spiritual insecurity that makes him less confident in the love of God. He believes in Jesus, but he doubts God’s grace in his own life. That insecurity has to go somewhere, and it usually goes into rule-keeping.

(2) Second, his weakness of faith shows up as an overly scrupulous conscience. He’s developed a long list of rules that God never actually prescribed. He thinks God requires things of him that God doesn’t require, which makes him uptight. He feels guilty about things that aren’t sins, but they feel like sins to him because his conscience is weak. His instinct to obey Christ in all things is good, but that keeps him from enjoying the freedom Christ purchased for him. He’s so focused on avoiding bad things that he can’t enjoy good things, fearing they might be bad. He approaches his spirituality with an “err-on-the-side-of-caution” attitude.

(3) Third, he can become divisive, because he makes his personal scruples the standard for everyone else. Since his conscience makes him more rigid in more areas, he claims the moral high ground with an air of spiritual authority. We’ve all known people like this, and we may even be this way ourselves. When we have a strong conviction about something, it’s natural to feel a little superior to others who don’t have that same belief. And sometimes, the people with the most convictions seem most wise. Someone else might think, “he’s obviously thought this through and even has Bible verses to back it up. He must be right about this, and now I feel guilty.”

The specific issue Paul was addressing in Romans 14 was meat that had been offered to pagan idols and then sold in the market. The weaker brother believed eating this meat was a form of idolatry. His conscience was sensitive about it, probably because it reminded him of his life prior to becoming a Christian when he participated in such idolatry himself. So he wants nothing to do with anything that reminds him of his former sins.

The stronger brother, however, isn’t troubled by it. For him, it’s just meat, and there’s nothing wrong with eating it. Give thanks to God and have steak for dinner.

Interestingly, Paul doesn’t correct the weaker brother for this error, because the weaker brother is abstaining as an act of worship (though God did not require him to do so). Paul wants to honor his conscience, even when it is more scrupulous than it needs to be. But Paul draws the line at allowing the weaker brother to establish policy for everyone. The moment he says, “eating this meat is a sin and no one should eat it,” he’s gone too far.

Challenges for Application

It’s important to realize that “weaker brother” and “stronger brother” aren’t fixed categories of personhood. You might be the stronger brother on one issue and the weaker brother on a different one. It’s not as though people in the Roman church were walking around with name tags that said “Hi, I’m Bob, I’m the weaker brother.”

So the challenge of applying this teaching is twofold. First, (1) we must recognize which ethical issues we encounter as Christians are truly matters of conscience and which issues are clear moral commands. For example, sexual immorality isn’t a grey area, it’s a clear, moral command. The man who rebukes someone else for sexual sin isn’t being a weaker brother, he’s being a faithful brother.

We live in an age of moral decay, where hard hearted people are eager to cast off all restraints. They want no king to rule over them so everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Conservative Christians rightly want to resist this trend, which means we want to raise standards of living wherever we can. But since we also live in an age of increasing fragmentation, there is little consensus about how to do it. So from our desire to see order restored to our society, conservative Christians will be tempted to make their particular set of standards the rule for everyone, and thus unnecessarily bind the consciences of others.

Second, (2) we must recognize where we are personally tempted to be the weaker brother. There are areas of my own life where I have seen the tendency to be the weaker brother, and so I have made a point to be careful to not bind the consciences of others. This is especially important since I’m a pastor, which means I need to steward my influence more carefully.

Churches that take doctrine and obedience seriously will always attract people with a weak conscience, because that culture of seriousness feels like home to them. Their scrupulousness feels like it belongs in a place that cares about getting things right. And it does belong—but it also needs to be identified and addressed, because it will tear a church apart if it’s left unchecked.

Six Principles for Preserving Unity

Paul’s driving interest in addressing the weaker brother is to preserve unity in the church regarding matters of conscience. I’ve identified the following five principles for dealing with these issues.

(1) First, the stronger brother must not despise the weaker brother. Romans 14:3 says, “let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains.” Suppose you’re at a men’s night at your church and some guys decide to smoke cigars and drink bourbon. Now, suppose someone approaches those men and says, “you shouldn’t smoke that, your body is a temple! You shouldn’t drink that, you might get drunk!”

How do you think those men will feel? Most likely, they’ll find it quite annoying. So Paul says, don’t despise that guy, even though he’s being judgmental about an area that’s a matter of conscience. Yes, he’s got scruples that trouble his conscience, but don’t despise him. Rather, you should “welcome him” (Rom 14:1). He’s a brother in Christ, after all.

(2) Second, the weaker brother must not judge the stronger brother. Romans 14:3 says, “let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” This exhortation is for the more scrupulous man. Your personal judgment doesn’t get to override God’s judgment. God has welcomed him, and that’s all that matters. You might be offended at his choices, but it’s not your place to litigate his convictions on gray areas.

(3) Third, weaker brothers don’t realize they’re the weaker brother. This is the irony that makes the problem difficult to address. Weaker brothers always think they are just being biblical. They think their scruples are a sign of their spiritual maturity. This is why Paul says, “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (Rom 14:1). In other words, the weaker brother should be welcomed in the church, but he should not be allowed to let his opinions about everything dictate policy for everyone else. He doesn’t think of them as opinions—in his mind, these are convictions. If you don’t do it his way, you are in sin. That’s why these people can be dangerous if they aren’t corrected.

A man once visited our church a few times with a strong conviction that churches should only sing Psalms. His reasoning was that we should sing the Bible’s own words, and modern worship music is too sentimental and weak. I don’t disagree with his point about much of modern worship music, but there are lots of great modern worship songs that are powerful and edifying if you know where to look. Besides, the scriptures tell us to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col 3:16). Nevertheless, he held his view with the air of a man delivering a moral correction. His way is the right way, and our church was in the wrong because we don’t do it his way. For the weaker brother, his opinions aren’t matters of conscience, they are matters of obedience or disobedience. To him, they are sins, and as such, they are morally urgent.

Personally, I don’t have a problem if that’s what he prefers, but I do have a problem when a visitor wants to set policy for our church. It was evident he was a divisive man, and divisive people always think they’re right. He didn’t stay long.

(4) Fourth, the Holy Spirit is in charge of each person’s sanctification, so we can trust his work in other people. Paul writes: “It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom 14:4). There’s enormous freedom in this. You don’t have to convince everyone else to agree with you, because they don’t answer to you, they answer to God. Even if they’re wrong about something, you can relax, knowing we’re not the Holy Spirit.

Further, Paul says “he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” In other words, God cares more about their sanctification than you do, and God has the power to ensure their perseverance.

(5) Fifth, every Christian should obey his or her own conscience. You should follow your own conscience, and you must also leave room for other people to follow theirs. Your have freedom in Christ, but your freedom stops at requiring other people to do it the same way you do.

Paul says, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). Personally, I find that statement astonishing. Even though the weaker brother is wrong about his view of eating the meat, Paul doesn’t tell the church to correct him! Rather, Paul is fine with him continuing to hold his view, provided he doesn’t bind other peoples’ consciences with his view.

(6) Sixth, Romans 14:6 gives us a rule of thumb that can govern how we view the various decisions we make about matters of conscience. It reads, “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Thus, if Christians can act with heartfelt devotion to God and give thanks for what they do, there is room for people to have differences of opinion. Here’s a few examples of what I mean.

• One person thinks Halloween is a demonic celebration of witchcraft and evil, but another person thinks it’s just kids in costumes eating candy. As long as they are both obeying their consciences as an act of devotion to God, there’s room for unity in their disagreement.

• One family thinks a wife and mother should never be employed outside the home. Another family thinks her first priority is her home, but it’s lawful to have a job if needed. As long as they are both obeying their consciences as an act of devotion to God, there’s room for unity in their disagreement.

• One man thinks Christians should never carry financial debt because it’s a form of slavery. Another man thinks reasonable debts are lawful as long as he can afford the payments. As long as both are obeying their consciences before God, there’s room for both.

• One man thinks churches must serve wine for communion since that’s what Jesus used. Another man thinks using grape juice is a reasonable substitute that honors the spirit of the sacrament while accommodating those who may be recovering from addiction. As long as both are obeying their consciences before God, there’s room for both.

• One family believes homeschooling is a requirement of all Christian families. Another family believes there are other valid options they can utilize as long as their children are given proper Christian instruction in their home and church. As long as they are both obeying their consciences as an act of devotion to God, there’s room for unity in their disagreement.

I had an experience with this last example recently. At a pastors’ and wives’ conference my wife and I attended recently, a woman shared a prayer request during the ladies’ prayer time. The request was about a family in her church that had decided not to homeschool their children. In her mind, this was a clear sin issue of such gravity that church discipline was on the table.

From what I’ve seen, many Christian families make their conviction about homeschooling a conscience-binding law on every Christian family, even though scripture does not require it. Scripture does require every family to educate their children in the Lord, but it does not prescribe a particular method for doing so. That’s a matter of conscience. “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Further, both sets of parents will stand or fall before their own master, and God is committed to making sure they stand.

Unity, Not Uniformity

As stated previously, Paul’s interest in addressing these matters of conscience is to preserve the unity of the church, and in our day, the church is being torn apart by people who insist on rigid uniformity on secondary matters. The lesson of Romans 14 is that we must pursue unity, not uniformity.

You may hold strong opinions without imposing them on others. When it comes to the grey areas of Christian living, Scripture gives us permission to let other people be wrong. And chances are, you’re probably wrong about some things too. God is able to make you stand as well.

As I said at the beginning, the besetting sin of conservative Christianity is a weak conscience. Churches that take doctrine and obedience seriously will always be vulnerable to this temptation. The antidote is simple and wonderfully freeing: trust God, believe the gospel, and relax. God is doing a work in each of our lives. Some of us are more mature, some less. All of us need grace. God is committed to making sure every true Christian is faithfully preserved until the last day. The more we rest secure in those truths, the more we can enjoy our freedom in Christ — and the more unity we’ll have in our churches.

My new book “Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth” ships in ONE WEEK!

I’m very excited to get this book out and to hopefully engage in productive conversation about how Christians can once again become a powerful force for good in our society.

If you’ve been following my writing here, this book is where it all comes together. Order today at losertheology.com.

“My daughter was murdered by gender ideology.”

Those are the words of Abigail Martinez, a devout Christian widow in California, who watched the state take her daughter away when she refused to affirm her daughter’s transgender identity. Her daughter, Yaeli, was struggling with depression and her sexuality, so a school psychologist recommended she join the school’s LGBT club (without Abigail’s knowledge or consent). When Abigail discovered what was happening, she refused to affirm her daughter’s transition, so the state removed her from her home.

Activists told Martinez to hold a funeral for her daughter and celebrate the adoption of a “son.” They told her she’d never see Yaeli again if she kept talking about God.

Not long after this, Yaeli killed herself.

When Martinez later testified before Congress, she said her daughter’s death was a murder. Gender ideology killed her.

Now, ask yourself a question. How many Christian leaders and churches have been outspoken about the dangers of gender ideology? How many pastors will boldly and unflinchingly denounce homosexuality, gay “marriage,” transgenderism, and the whole array of LGBT sins? Even though there is a growing movement of courageous pastors speaking out, the reality is, over the last 20 years or so, many of them have been silent.

I’m a pastor. Over more than 20 years in ministry, I’ve watched a theology take root in American evangelicalism that trains Christians to be silent in the face of all kinds of cultural tyranny. It’s a theology that says the church is at her best when she’s losing. It says we should not seek cultural influence because that would only corrupt us. Further, it says we should not seek political power because that’s beneath us. Our only public duty is to do evangelism, because eternal destinies are all that really matters. The culture war is just a distraction.

I call this loser theology, and it has done great damage to the modern church. Further, it harms society by causing Christians to disengage as the greatest conscience-shaping force in our culture.

Loser theology is promoted by prominent advocates, though that’s not what they call it. Russell Moore, one of the most influential evangelical voices of the last decade and former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm, wrote in his 2015 book that “the Bible Belt is teetering toward collapse, and I say let it fall.” He argued the church is most faithful when she exists as a “persecuted minority,” never a “moral majority.” He says Christians are better witnesses as cultural losers rather than winners.

That may sound humble, but it isn’t. It’s simply waving the white flag of surrender to cultural powers who will eagerly destroy us if given the chance. This theology is custom-built to explain away defeat after defeat, training a generation of Christians to lose and feel good about it. Loser theology regards retreat as a virtue.

When loser theology is a dominant motif of modern evangelicalism, what do you think will happen? We don’t have to guess. The same year Moore’s book came out (2015), the Supreme Court invented a right to “gay marriage” in its Obergefell v. Hodges decision. In the six years that followed, public support for gay marriage skyrocketed to 70 percent. During that same period, LGBTQ identification among Gen Z nearly doubled.

Let that sink in. Roughly one-fifth of an entire generation of children who were seduced into sexual perversion in the immediate aftermath of Obergefell. The culture didn’t just suddenly change its mind. Rather, people changed their minds because powerful people signaled this was the new morality.

And where was the church? She was largely silent because many Christians believed we should just focus on soul-winning rather than culture-warring. Thus, LGBT activism marched on, unopposed.

None of this happened because the culture simply changed its mind. Rather, it happened because the church had abandoned its post as the most powerful conscience-shaping institution in the world.

Obergefell has already done its damage, and it will be very difficult to get that toothpaste back in the tube. In the wake of Obergefell, Christian parents are now losing custody battles over their kids’ gender identities because their churches never gave them a theological framework for resistance, only permission to suffer and lose. And when the church loses her spine, the sheep are left without protection.

Other battles are ongoing and have yet to be settled where Christians need to assert a strong, prophetic voice. As Islam is already taking Europe hostage, its footprint in America continues to expand. Is it too late? Will we lose this battle also? We certainly will if the church is convinced that our only job is to ignore the culture and just do evangelism. And if we lose the culture, we will be ruled by a jihadist religious system that has no scruples against wielding power to crush its enemies. That’s what Islam is. It’s a system of domination with a religious veneer. They will not simply coexist with us if we let them win.

So, should we let them win so we can be losers for Jesus? If so, how else might we choose to lose? How about family courts, school boards, and city councils? The pattern repeats across every civic institution because the best people to hold the line have been taught for two generations that line-holding is somebody else’s job.

Here’s the part that should bother you most, whether you’re a churchgoer or not. This isn’t happening because Christians are cowards. They’re not. It’s happening because many of them have been discipled to regard passivity as a form of holiness. They’ve been trained to think losing is “the way of the cross” because “Jesus calls us to be weak.”

These statements sound pious, but they profoundly misunderstand scripture. Yes, when we are weak, he is strong, but scripture never commands us to pursue weakness as an end in itself.

I’ve sat across from men and women in my office who suppress every instinct toward leadership and strength because they’ve absorbed the idea that ambition is sin and confidence is pride. I’ve watched churches refuse to speak plainly about cultural evil because plain speech might be regarded as unkind. This is no accident. It was discipled into people, one sermon at a time.

In short, some Christians are afraid of winning because we’ve been conditioned to believe power can only be used for evil purposes, never as a force for good. That’s not true. To be sure, scripture is full of warnings about the corrupting potential of power, but Jesus also promises to give his people power, and he expects us to wield it righteously (Acts 1:8).

Further, there’s a difference between refusing to worship power and refusing to use it at all. The same Christ who died on a cross now reigns at the right hand of the Father, and scripture says every knee will bow to Him — kings and nations included. That’s not a losing vision. The men and women who built the church that shaped Western civilization understood this. They didn’t do it by convincing themselves that losing was the point.

If you’ve ever sat in a pew wondering why your church seems allergic to contesting anything, or why every act of Christian courage gets treated with more suspicion than every act of Christian retreat, that’s not your imagination, nor is it biblical faithfulness. It’s loser theology. It’s a theology of defeat that’s presented as humility. And it’s long past time we reject it and step into the arena where we belong.

My latest book, “Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth” is currently available for pre-order.

It ships August 4th from Canon Press and August 18th from Amazon.

Get "Loser Theology" from Canon Press

Get "Loser Theology" from Amazon

Years ago, when I first became a pastor, I went to a church planting bootcamp sponsored by Acts 29 (a church planting network I was part of at the time). One of my favorite sessions was about eldership. The man who led the session discussed what the elder’s calling is, how to identify and raise up new elders, and how to examine their character. It was an excellent and helpful presentation.

Shortly after the conference, however, I found out something about the man who taught that session.

He was an adulterer.

He abandoned his wife and children and ran off with another woman, leaving his church devastated and scrambling to find a new pastor. As far as I know, he’s now abandoned the faith entirely.

I wish I could say that his story was unusual, but it’s not. It feels like every few months somebody I respected and looked up to—someone who’s books I read and ministry I followed—has some kind of moral failure. Of course, nobody who goes into pastoral ministry expects that to happen to them. And most of us tell ourselves it won’t, because we’re not the kind of man that that happens to.

But brothers, you are exactly the kind of man that could happen to.

Why? Because you’re human. And because you’ve got a target on your back. That doesn’t mean the devil sneaks into your heart and forces you to act against your will. No, it happens through small compromises and micro-concessions that push you down a dark path. And it typically happens very slowly.

The Scriptures identify a key factor that both sustains a fruitful ministry and prevents pastoral shipwreck. It’s the same factor in both cases. Paul calls it a “good conscience.”

The Aim of Our Charge

In 1 Timothy 1:5, Paul gives Timothy what amounts to a thesis statement for the entire letter: “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”

Notice that there are three qualifiers that define the kind of love Paul is talking about:

1. A “sincere faith” means you are a legitimate believer. You are converted, regenerate, filled with the Holy Spirit.

2. A “pure heart” means you are in ministry for the right reasons. You love God, you love his people, and you want to shepherd souls and build them up

3. A “good conscience” means your inner life is clear. You are not burdened by unconfessed sin or driven by nagging guilt you’re trying to manage.

All three of these things are important, but from my experience, the conscience is the most neglected of the three. At a recent Founder’s Ministry conference where I gave the talk this essay is based on, several men approached me afterward to tell me, “I’d never heard a discussion about the conscience like this before.” And yet, it’s so important that Paul included in the “aim of [his] charge.”

Actually, Paul has a lot to say about the conscience. It shows up repeatedly throughout the book of 1 Timothy. Every time it appears, it is connected to either the health or the destruction of a man’s ministry. In Acts 24:16, Paul said, “I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.” When Paul listed qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:9, he required that they “must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.”

In other words, a good conscience isn’t a luxury, it is a precondition for effective ministry. So what is the conscience?

What is the Conscience?

The conscience is the faculty of the mind and soul that tells you whether what you are doing is right or wrong. It an inner sense that tells you the moral quality of a given action. Put another way, it’s your moral compass.

This is important because we don’t go through life pulling up Bible verses for every decision we make. You know the Word of God, and as you simmer in it, it informs your moral compass so that in a given situation you can make a moral decision quickly. For example, when your conscience is working properly, you won’t tell a lie even when you’re tempted to do so because you intuitively know it’s wrong. You don’t need to look it up, you just know it.

A conscience can be called “good” when it meets two basic criteria:

1. First, your inner moral compass is properly calibrated by the Word of God. In other words, your sense of right and wrong is not calibrated by your feelings, or culture, or your wife, or by Instagram. The things you believe to be good actually correspond with what Scripture says is good.

2. Second, your outer behavior aligns with what your conscience tells you. In other words, you know what is right, and then you do it (cf James 4:17).

When both conditions are met, you’re better equipped for ministry. You can love people well, preach with authority, correct sin with integrity, and shepherd souls without the constant drag of hypocrisy nagging you from the inside.

How a Conscience Goes Bad

The conscience can also become bad, and when it does, it can kill your ministry and shipwreck your faith.

Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:6, “Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.” People who ruin their ministries begin by swerving from the things Paul just mentioned the verse before: a pure heart, a good conscience, a sincere faith. Kind of like a moral car accident—first you swerve, then you crash.

A bad conscience refers to a damaged moral compass. When this happens, your perception of right and wrong is broken. Isaiah 5:20 warns about this, saying, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” A man with a bad conscience may end up doing bad things and not feel guilty about it because his inner sense of right and wrong has been damaged.

When your conscience is healthy, the guilt triggered by the conscience functions as a gift of God. It’s like a warning light on your spiritual dashboard. When you feel guilty, you are prompted to examine yourself. Perhaps you realize you’d done something wrong and can correct it. Perhaps you were harsh with someone or dishonest about something and you bring it to the Lord in repentance. When that happens, that’s the system working as God designed it.

But if you ignore those warning lights, they eventually grow dim. The feelings of guilt start to fade, and eventually, you can’t hear the voice of the Spirit at all. Nevertheless, you’re still preaching, still running staff meetings, still counseling and doing weddings and funerals, all the while your internal monitoring system has gone dark.

That’s the scary part. Your soul is malfunctioning in some way but you can’t tell because the warning light on your spiritual dashboard isn’t working. If a man has damaged his conscience through pornography, he may fail to recognize that he’s also gotten too friendly and flirty with a woman on his staff. If a man has damaged his conscience by telling little “white lies” here and there (there’s no such thing as a “white” lie, by the way), he may not feel any guilt when he starts telling bigger lies to cover his tracks.

He builds a little castle around his soul and keeps a handful of secret sins locked up in the lower dungeon, free from visibility and accountability.

Calibrating the Conscience

Throughout our lives, every Christian is constantly calibrating our consciences in one of two directions, either for better or worse.

We can improve our consciences in two simple ways.

First, we inform the conscience through the study of Scripture, which is further sharpened in fellowship with other believers. That’s like a spiritual firmware upgrade. Your moral reasoning improves with biblical wisdom and experience.

Second, we strengthen the conscience by obeying it. This means we live according to what we believe is right, which reinforces the truth.

I grew up in Appalachia where my grandfather and great grandfather were both independent baptist preachers. They were also teetotalers. At the time, my conscience was calibrated to believe drinking alcohol was a sin.

While I was in college, a family from church asked me to house-sit for them while they went on vacation. He said, “make yourself at home, let the dogs out, help yourself to whatever’s in the fridge.” So that’s what I did. But when I opened the fridge, what I found there scandalized me. He had a case of beer in there, left out in the open, like some kind of evil, drunken sociopath.

I thought he was a Christian! How could he dare drink this poison devil juice? (A young woman I knew made a practice of going to Kroger and praying over the beer cases that it would make people sick.)

But over time, I began to realize my conscience on this issue was mis-calibrated. How can alcohol be a sin when Jesus turned water into wine? Through further study of scripture I learned to distinguish the sin of drunkenness from the moderate use and enjoyment of alcohol. It took a while for my emotions to catch up, because it still felt like a sin even though I realized it wasn’t. But at least I understood that my feelings aren’t in charge. My conscience was being recalibrated by the word of God.

Your conscience can be damaged when you sin against it, even if the issue in question isn’t actually a sin. If I had popped open a beer in that man’s house, it would have been sin for me to do so, not because drinking a beer is a sin, but because I would be sinning against what I believed to be right. It is bad for your soul to do what you think is evil even if you’re wrong about the fact that it’s evil (cf Rom 14-15:7, esp 14:14).

So, when we sin against conscience, we create a moral contradiction within our souls that must be resolved. If you do not repent, you will soothe your conscience by telling yourself it wasn’t wrong after all. You’ll make excuses to justify it. This is what Paul calls a “seared conscience.”

A seared conscience signals to your soul that the behavior in question is really not a big deal. Every time you indulge this pattern, your conscience adjusts to it and feels a little less guilty about it. The next time you face the same situation, it gets even easier to do it. You feel less and less guilty until the guilt no longer registers at all.

These micro-adjustments add up to a trajectory, which is a slow drift towards greater and greater moral compromises.

When Your Conscience Finds a New Law

There’s one more wrinkle I want to point out about when a conscience goes bad. A bad conscience doesn’t shut off entirely. We are moral creatures, after all, and our conscience will still send moral signals to our souls even if it’s wrong. When your conscience is damaged in one area, it often adjusts by finding a new law to obey. Very often, these are manmade laws that make us feel righteous because we can actually keep them.

In other words, a bad conscience may substitute God’s law with a homemade standard conditioned by your own preferences and personality.

I’ve noticed that some pastors who disqualify themselves for ministry have a reputation for being quite scrupulous about trivial matters. Their glaring character flaws are paired with strange convictions about relatively minor issues that have become hobby horses.

There’s a reason for this. He soothes his wounded conscience by hyper-focusing on an area of his life where he feels he’s doing well. For example, a man who is hiding sexual sin may become very conscientious about eating healthy foods. His fixation on a secondary matter distracts his conscience from the sexual sin he’s keeping unconfessed and buried.

This is what Paul says in 1 Tim 4:1-3 when he describes those who “depart from the faith.” He describes them as false teachers whose “consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving.” In other words, in Paul’s example, the man with a seared conscience suddenly develops bizarre scruples about singleness (“forbidding marriage”) and food (“abstinence from foods”).

That’s worth paying attention to, because some Christians have a bad habit of majoring on the minors. This is especially common online. Men who do this have “wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim 1:6-7).

It is not uncommon for a young man to suddenly get interested in postmillennialism and start pontificating about Christianity and politics while his own life is riddled with sin and falling apart. It’s easier to have convictions about politicians should do in Washington, DC than to fight and kill sin in your own heart. A bad conscience will do that to a man.

Thus, a bad conscience doesn’t mean you abandon all sense of morality. It often means you substitute God’s law for your own and impose that one on others ruthlessly. It’s why modern social justice warriors are as self-righteous as any Pharisee in Jesus’ day. Their conscience isn’t dead, it’s been recalibrated to a different standard, and they enforce that standard on everybody.

This is why John Calvin once said, “a bad conscience is the mother of all heresies.” He was not being sensational.

He meant that theological errors don’t usually begin as intellectual mistakes, they often begin as moral compromises that are later justified by doctrinal adjustments.

Quite often, heresy is simply a belief system one develops to justify his own sins. It’s no accident that this teaching features prominently in the pastoral epistles, because pastors, teachers, and ministry leaders are the ones in the best position to commit this error.

What I’ve described so far is how a conscience goes bad. What I haven’t described yet is what it looks like along the way. There are four identifiable and catching them early is the difference between repentance and shipwreck. I’ll address those in a follow up essay.

“Loser Theology” Updates

Pre-orders for my latest book, “Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth,” are off to the races. I’ve heard from a number of people who seem genuinely excited to read it and engage with the argument of the book.

Some people take offense at the title, which was to be expected. I address this directly in chapter one of the book. It reads:

I use the term because it’s a theology that advocates for losing as the way to be faithful to God. Loser Theology can refer to theological perspectives and movements that emphasize passivity, retreat, and defeat, often conflating suffering and loss with humility. In other words, the Loser Theology label is not about petty name calling, but about calling Christians to break free from the prison of Loser Theology that’s holding them captive.

The first chapter of the book is available to read now for free at losertheology.com.

I was recently interviewed by Jon Harris about Loser Theology on his Conversations that Matter podcast. Jon is a man for whom I have much respect.

I was also interviewed by John and Stacy Whited on the Flyover Conservatives podcast. I had a great time getting to know them. Great conversation! (I look really angry in the thumbnail photo haha)

https://rumble.com/v7cderc-the-flyover-conservatives-show.html

Finally, I’ll share a few more endorsements from Canon Press’s marketing email.

On the one side, a generation of evangelical Christians have been taught that the Bible requires them to give unqualified support for the nation of Israel, politically, financially, and militarily. They do this because they believe Israel is God’s chosen people. In order to stand with God, you must also stand with Israel. Period. Any criticism of Israel is the same as antisemitism. This view has been so thoroughly absorbed into American evangelical culture that many Christians can’t even tell you where it came from. It’s a theological reflex that they can’t explain or defend biblically, apart from perhaps a couple of proof texts.

On the other side, a growing number of Christians, many of them reacting directly to the first group, have swung hard in the opposite direction. They’ve discovered that the theological case for Christian Zionism is biblically weaker than they were told, and they’ve watched evangelical leaders embarrass themselves by fawning over and pandering to Israeli foreign policy interests. They’ve read things about how much the Jews control media, finance, and pop culture in harmful ways, and they are eager to oppose them for it.

In some cases, this frustration with “the Jews” has driven them to what can only be described as hatred for them en masse. The popular label for this is “antisemitism.” Personally, I don’t like that label because it’s a liberal coded word used to smear anyone who dares criticize Israel at all. Nevertheless, I’ll use it in this article for the sake of simplicity. There really are people out there who hate the Jews and “antisemitism” is a simple way to describe them.

What I find striking is that an overreaction to the first ditch tends to drive people into the second. In other words, when you build a pro-Israel theology on a weak foundation, and then people discover that, they often feel like the wool has been pulled over their eyes. When people feel theologically betrayed, they often run hard in the opposite direction. I think we’re seeing that happening in our day.

How Scripture Addresses the Issue

People on both sides cite scripture to support their views. Ironically, however, scripture rules out both views.

In Romans 9-11, for example, Paul is not writing a foreign policy manual. He is not telling Gentile Christians to write checks to the Israeli government or vote for politicians who promise to defend Israel. He is also not dismissing the Jewish people as just another ethnic group with no particular significance in God’s redemptive purposes. He is doing something more careful and more interesting than either of those things.

Scripture consistently forbids the sin of partiality, whether it be against or in favor of someone. James 2:9 says, “but if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (cf 2:1, Rom 2:11).

Christian Zionism is the sin of partiality in favor of the Jews, extending it outward to encompass the entire national entity. In Romans 9, Paul’s anguish over the Jews was not regarding the nation of Israel as we know it today, but of the Jews as his “kinsmen according to the flesh.” He was talking about people who share a common ancestry and religion.

Antisemitism is partiality against the Jews, whether it be towards individual Jews or the nation of Israel. Same principle, opposite posture, also wicked. We must not show contempt for people based on a group they belong to without respect to their individual actions.

In either case, partiality is forbidden. It is a sin.

Ironically, as people begin to realize “Christian Zionism” is an unbiblical position foisted upon them, largely under the influence of dispensational theology, and as they begin to notice instances where Jews truly have done very evil things, they suddenly feel justified ascribing wickedness to Jews as a whole, showing unnecessary contempt for people who don’t deserve such unfair characterization. Thus, as people abandon the Christian Zionism of the dispensationalists, the pendulum swings hard in the other direction and people end up in the ditch of antisemitism, showing partiality against them instead.

A Surprising Biblical Reversal

Another key text is Romans 9-11. To understand that text, you have to feel the weight of the Jew/Gentile reversal that is key to Paul’s argument. It is one of the most stunning plot twists in all of Scripture.

In the Old Testament, God’s people were the Jews who descended from Abraham. The Gentiles were outside the covenant. By definition, they were pagans and unbelievers. Thus, Israel occupied a position of extraordinary blessing and privilege. God gave them the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, and the promises (Rom 9:4). Everything God was doing in redemptive history, he was doing through them.

By the time Paul wrote Romans, the picture had completely flipped. The Jews had largely rejected their Messiah while the Gentiles were more receptive to the gospel. The Jews who rejected their Messiah now found themselves in the position the Gentiles once occupied: outside the covenant, cut off from the promises, and under God’s judgment. It’s difficult to overstate the significance of this. Further, Gentile Christians, who previously would have been considered “dogs” and pagans, had now inherited everything that once belonged to Israel (see Paul’s olive tree illustration in Rom 11:17-24, cf Jer 11:16, Ps 52:8, John 15:2).

You’re Living in a House You Didn’t Build

Now, think about what we Gentile Christians have inherited: the Old Testament scriptures, the covenants, the promises, the law, the worship, and even the very concept of the one true God. Further, we Gentiles can now claim Abraham as our spiritual father, though we are not physically descended from him. Abraham is the father of everyone who believes. He’s now our spiritual great-great-great-grandfather, while his own physical descendants are now considered outsiders to the covenant. Every promise that sustains us as Christians came first to the Jewish people. We are reading their mail, worshiping their God, and claiming their patriarch as our own.

Think of it this way. Imagine you’re away on a long trip, and someone moves into your home, settles in, and invokes squatter’s rights. They’re not just living in your house, they’re claiming your home as their own.

Now, imagine further that they claim the family photos on your wall as their family. They say, “that’s my mom and dad, that’s my wedding, those are my kids” in those pictures. They claim all your vacation memories, the food in the refrigerator, the car in the garage. All of it. That’s what it’s like for Gentile Christians to have inherited the promises of Abraham. We didn’t build this spiritual house, yet we’re living in it.

If that happened to you, you would feel something. Probably a mix of indignation, outrage, and grief. That feeling is what Paul is deliberately trying to provoke in the Jewish people. He wants them to feel the weight of what they lost by rejecting their Messiah. By his reasoning, that sense of jealousy might be what brings some of them back. “Inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles,” he writes in Rom 11:13, “I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.” In other words, they can come back home if they simply repent of their sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

That’s the dynamic Paul is describing. Now, what is his point to the Gentiles in all this? Paul’s message to Gentile Christians is to not take for granted how incredibly blessed we are to granted in to the cultivated olive tree of God. It’s as thought Paul is telling us, “this isn’t the spiritual house your Gentile ancestors built. They were pagans. You have been invited to live here and claim the promises originally given to the Jewish people because they rejected their Messiah. It’s yours now only because God has graciously given it to you, not because you earned it. Don’t be arrogant about that fact.”

In Romans 11:18, Paul says, “it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.” The wild olive shoot doesn’t get to look down with arrogance on the cultivated tree.

The Part Where Things Get More Complicated

Now, the biggest challenge is not so much the doctrine presented here, but the application of it in our day. Here’s what I mean.

We should not automatically assume the Jews of our day are exactly the same as the Jews in Paul’s day without serious theological reflection. It matters that we get this right because it’s so easy to see the word “Israel” in our Bibles and assume it means the same thing as the modern nation state led by Bibi Netanyahu. Not so.

Paul’s affection for his kinsmen rested on two foundations. First, Paul had genuine genealogical connection to them. This was his own blood and family. He was from the tribe of Benjamin, and every Jew of his day could trace their tribal ancestry back to Abraham. The careful maintenance of genealogical records was central to Jewish identity because Abraham’s bloodline was theologically significant.

Modern Jewish identity, by contrast, is primarily ethnic and cultural. There are no genealogical records linking contemporary Jewish people to Abraham’s specific line. This doesn’t mean there’s no connection, it just means the connection cannot be verified the way it could in Paul’s day.

Second, and more importantly, Paul could say the Jews of his day had a genuine zeal for God. Romans 10:2 plainly says, “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” In other words, they believed in the God of Israel and were seeking righteousness. And for the most part, they rejected Jesus out of ignorance, not contempt. Their zeal was “not according to knowledge.” Jesus said something similar when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Paul’s grief was the grief of a man watching his devout family members miss the very thing their whole religion pointed toward.

I point this out to highlight the fact that what we know as modern Judaism is quite different from ancient Judaism of the New Testament. By most estimates, 60 to 80% of contemporary Jewish people do not significantly observe Jewish religious practice. For the majority of modern Jews, Jewish identity is not primarily religious, it is more ethnic and cultural. For the most part, modern Jews don’t worship the God of Abraham or follow the Torah at all. Many (if not most) of them are secular atheists who happen to share an ethnic heritage.

Further, modern Jewish identity, as it has developed through Rabbinic Judaism, shaped substantially by the Talmud, is not characterized by an ignorant zeal for God. Rather, they are quite informed about who Jesus is. Modern Talmudic Judaism is primarily characterized by an explicit and informed rejection and contempt for Jesus Christ. The Jews of Paul’s day didn’t know what or who they were rejecting. That doesn’t excuse them, but it is a notable difference between them and the Jews of today. Modern Judaism, as it is codified in the Talmud, knows exactly who Jesus was and regards him with disdain.

Simply put, the religious profile of ancient Jews is very different from modern Jews. Paul wept over the lostness of ancient Jews because they sought after God but didn’t recognize his Son. I doubt Paul would weep over modern, Talmudic Judaism the way he wept over the ignorant zeal of his kinsmen.

That said, none of this means Gentile Christians should be hostile towards the Jews without respect for their individual beliefs or behaviors. I point this out so we can be more careful about which Romans 11 promises we attach to which people.

Avoiding the Two Ditches

So, back to the two ditches, and what it means in our day.

The Christian Zionism ditch assumes Romans 11 requires political support for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. This view has dominated American evangelicalism for decades, largely through the influence of dispensational theology, and it has made evangelical Christians easy to manipulate.

The modern nation of Israel understands this aspect of evangelical theology very well, and finds it quite useful. It is not a secret that Israel invests significant resources in cultivating evangelical Christian support.

In January 2026, the Washington Spectator reported on an organization called “Show Faith By Works,” backed by the Israeli government (!), that offered evangelical pastors all-expenses-paid trips to Israel to equip them to become “ambassadors for Israel” in their churches and communities. This is not an isolated example. It reflects a broader and well-documented strategy.

The Southern Baptist Convention has also passed resolutions condemning antisemitism repeatedly — in 1873, 1972, 1981, 2003, 2024, and again in 2026. The fact that they keep having to pass them should tell us something. The 2026 resolution denounced conspiracy theories about Jewish control of media and finance, reaffirmed love for the Jewish people, and called for bold gospel witness. All of that is fine as far as it goes. But what no SBC resolution has ever done is ask whether the dispensational theology that dominates the convention, the theology that taught a generation of Southern Baptists that the Jews are God's chosen people and that supporting Israel is a biblical mandate, is itself the unstable foundation that keeps producing the backlash they keep condemning. They keep treating the second ditch without questioning whether the first ditch is what's pushing people into it.

Remember, Romans 11 is not about foreign policy, it simply exhorts Gentile Christians to not be arrogant towards the Jews. It says maintain humility about your position as a wild olive shoot grafted into a tree you did not plant. None of that translates into a requirement to support any particular nation’s foreign policy. The only concrete obligation the book of Romans places on Gentile Christians toward Jewish people is to share the gospel with them, which is the same obligation we have toward every other lost people group (cf Rom 10:14-21).

The antisemitism ditch assumes the Jews are a uniquely wicked people since they rejected and crucified Jesus Christ. As people realize that Christians have been poorly taught a Christian Zionist position, and that this doctrinal position has been exploited to manipulate people into supporting a foreign government even at the expense of our own people, they get radicalized and end up in the antisemitism ditch.

The path from “I was told I had a theological obligation to support Israel” to “the Jews are uniquely destructive and I’m angry about it” is pretty short, and a lot of people are walking it right now. Again, we should not overlook or excuse the sins committed by Jewish people, but it is also unjust to falsely accuse them of sins they didn’t actually commit.

In short, Christians do not owe Israel uncritical political support. We are not obligated to show deference to any particular Israeli government or policy. Whether or not America supports Israel politically should be determined by what is in America’s national interests, not determined by an unbiblical, misguided, and easily-exploited theological doctrine.

As Christians, we should maintain a posture of genuine humility and gratitude, acknowledging that we are the wild olive branch that inherited Jewish blessings, promises, scriptures, and worship. We now claim a Jewish patriarch as our own and are living in a spiritual house we did not build.

Conclusion

God has been doing something in history that few would have anticipated. He used the Jewish people to bring the Messiah into the world. He allowed their rejection of their Messiah to open the door for the Gentile nations to come in, from which he is gathering a people from every tribe and tongue. And he has promised that before it is all over, large numbers of Jewish people will receive their Messiah by faith and be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Our job is not to manage that process through foreign policy. Our job is to simply to proclaim the gospel to everyone, Jews included, and leave the results with the God whose ways are unsearchable and whose gifts and calling are irrevocable.

So, don’t be arrogant toward the branches. Also, don’t let anyone tell you that humility requires you to write them a check.

Loser Theology Pre-Orders are Live!

My new book, Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth, is now available for preorder from Canon Press, shipping August 4th.

My friend Josh Daws said “This is the book I wish I’d been handed as a younger man.” Here’s his full endorsement:

You can read the first chapter for FREE at www.losertheology.com.

Also, pre-orders from Canon press will ship two weeks earlier than pre-orders from Amazon. Canon ships Aug 4th, Amazon ships Aug 18th.

Preorder Loser Theology

In answer, I proposed four lessons that the SBC Reformers need to learn: 1) Gain more institutional support; 2) Build better coalitions; 3) Master SBC politics; and 4) Make more emotional appeals.

In Part One, which you can read here, I covered the first two lessons on the need for more institutional support (which, Lord willing, we will be receiving from both Willy Rice and Albert Mohler) and building better coalitions (which will involve humility and courage across the different camps in the SBC Conservative Reformers family).

This two-part entry is, in many ways, a continuation of my post-Dallas 2025 and pre-Orlando 2026 analyses and uses terminology that I explain and define in those articles. You can find the first one here, “The Status Quo Convention: Six Takeaways from Dallas,” in which I first used the taxonomy of “Platform, Loyalists, Reformers, and Normies” to break down the four major groups in the SBC. And you can read my pre-Orlando commentary here, “SBC Orlando Isn’t Dallas. It’s Nashville 2.0,” in which I predicted that changes championed by the Reformers were finally coming this year.

By God’s grace, they did. But the work is far from over. The Truth & Unity Amendment still has to be ratified in Indianapolis. We need to elect Willy Rice for a second year, and then someone in his same vein for the next two years after that, and beyond. We need to get Reformers placed on critical committees in the SBC, including Convention operations and trustee boards, among other roles. We still have other major issues that need to be debated and won, particularly on increased financial transparency and entity accountability.

SBC Reformers need to learn to assume the center and strive to govern. So, in Part Two, I now turn my attention to why Reformers need to get better at SBC politics on the ground at the Convention and learn to make more appeals to the hearts of those “in the room.”

#3: Reformers Need to Master SBC Politics

Conservatives have better arguments. Our positions are more doctrinally sound, more logically coherent, and more biblically grounded. And for a long time, we have assumed that would be enough.

Some of us assume this is all we need to win the day. But it doesn’t work that way.

My next two points concern how the SBC actually works.

Reformers assume people will be persuaded by biblical arguments and rational logic. I’ve learned the hard way that this isn’t always the case. In SBC life, we assume we simply need to persuade people that a given amendment is biblical and correct, and people will vote accordingly. Again, not true.

Oftentimes, people aren’t persuaded of a position and then vote for it. Rather, they are persuaded by a position because it’s the one everyone voted for. That’s a subtle but important difference. People are complicated. We’re not always rational. That’s why it’s important that we master the art of politics, because that’s how decisions are made at this kind of scale. And the decisions made at the convention end up having a persuasive power of their own.

Put simply, denominational politics isn’t a distraction from the real work of ministry. It is a load-bearing aspect of real ministry.

We don’t need to tell the “left wing” of the Convention this because they already know it. It’s why they’re so good at it. It’s the Reformers who need to learn it.

Many of us are too averse to politics because it feels dirty. Strategizing about votes, campaigning for issues, and planning a convention ground game don’t feel very spiritual, and we’re in this because of our spiritual convictions. So we do what’s comfortable: making arguments, articulating positions, and exegeting scripture, while our opponents have mastered Robert’s Rules, chair committees, and run rings around us politically. We avoid getting in the weeds of convention floor procedure, lining up support months in advance, and thinking about who nominates whom and what they will say, because none of that feels like trusting God.

But those who oppose us figured out years ago that those things are essential for victory. The left wing of the convention has a nose for power. Even though their arguments are paper-thin, they win anyway because they know how to play the game. That is why they have had disproportionate influence.

But things felt different this year, and I can give you two examples.

First–and I have no insider knowledge of what I’m about to say–Willy Rice appeared to have a brilliant campaign strategy. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but if it was, this was a model of what good politics looks like on our side. The convention was in Florida, so it’s plausible that he picked this year to make his run, being on his home turf. He also happened to have a preaching slot at the pastor’s conference, where he delivered a fantastic message on the need for reform in light of the scriptures.

In the run-up to the Convention, I’ve heard he met with many associational leaders, state leaders, and ordinary pastors. He listened to them and heard their concerns. He made a personal connection with people who were within a reasonable driving distance of Orlando. He showed up to forums and answered questions, even from hostile audiences. In other words, he spent months campaigning across Florida and beyond, articulating his vision for reform, explaining what he wanted to do and why, and running it like a real political campaign. By the time messengers arrived in Orlando, there was already a base of supporters who knew their vote and were telling others.

In the weeks prior to the Convention, I heard him say he hadn’t yet decided who he would ask to nominate him. That was a smart move to keep everyone guessing. When the time for nominations arrived, pastor Adrian Taylor of Springhill Church in Gainesville, FL, gave a powerful speech, striking precisely the right tone. That was no accident. Willy picked the right man for that moment. I wouldn’t be surprised if many fence-sitters made up their mind right then and there. To me, Rice seemed like a man who knew what he was doing and was on a righteous mission to see it through. He ended up being, as Baptist News Global’s headline indicated, the first reform candidate to win the SBC presidency in 35 years.

A second example is the “good politics” that took place on the Convention floor. I arrived at the Convention early Wednesday morning, hoping to secure one of the eleven microphone spots so I could speak in favor of the Truth & Unity amendment. When I arrived, however, just after the doors opened and the cavernous room was still mostly empty, I realized that every microphone was already taken, two messengers deep at each. My heart sank, thinking opponents of the amendment showed up to control the mics, condemn the amendment, and doom the effort. I went to the mics anyway and struck up a conversation with the messengers. I found out they were there to speak in favor of the T&U amendment, and they had friendlies at all the mics. I was thrilled.

The messenger in front of me was holding what appeared to be a dossier with a cover sheet that said “SBC 2026.” I watched him open it up and read over his speech. I assume all the messengers at all the microphones, which would be at least 22 of them, had similar notes. That’s a solid ground game. I was third in line. A man came up behind me to speak against it, making him fourth in line. He was hostile to the amendment. Neither of us had a chance to speak.

When the time came for people to speak from the floor, Mohler spoke in favor; another messenger spoke against; then Colin Smothers gave a wonderful speech in favor and called the question. I’ve since seen people complain about shutting down debate, but Smothers merely utilized the system we’re in. It was smart politics, and we won the vote. More of this, please. This is what we need to replicate and build on.

#4: Reformers Need to Make More Emotional Appeals

Finally, Reformers need to realize that emotions win votes. Arguments inform people, but emotions move them. We can lament the fact, but it remains a fact.

I can give you two examples of this from Orlando.

First, during the debate over holding a future convention in Anaheim, one messenger made a case against meeting in Anaheim, CA, arguing that it would give liberals an advantage and that we shouldn’t hand it to them. He is factually correct, but he lost the room at that moment. That kind of argument plays well amongst the Reformers, but it didn’t translate well on the Convention floor. Why? Because at the Convention, people respond to emotions, and positivity is the preferred vibe in the SBC. I think people probably thought it sounded combative because it was framed in a somewhat divisive way. The messenger wasn’t wrong in his argument, but an emotional appeal would have been more persuasive.

At that moment, I think a more persuasive argument would have been to point out the significant drop in attendance the last time we met in Anaheim. We had 15,726 messengers in Nashville in 2021, but that dropped to 8,133 the following year in Anaheim–we dropped by almost half! A negative message is “don’t let them have the advantage!” A positive message is “let’s make sure our people can show up.” I don’t know if that would have persuaded the room, but a positive framing could have made a difference.

A second example came from Benjamin Cole. I don’t know him personally, but he clearly knows how to use emotional appeals at just the right time. Toward the end of the morning session, as the room grew tired and ready for lunch, he walked to the microphone and argued that the Executive Committee was overburdened with too many task forces. He said they had too many assignments and too little capacity to do them well. He invoked Exodus, in which Pharaoh forced the Israelites to make more bricks with less straw. He delivered it powerfully. It was a compelling, biblical image, and he won over the room in three minutes.

He moved to dismiss the task forces, then immediately called the question. His motion passed easily, erasing all the work we’d just completed that morning.

I sat there, stunned. It happened so fast that half the room didn’t fully understand what had just happened. That is the power of a well-timed, emotional argument delivered to an exhausted room. Benjamin Cole knew what he was doing.

What This Means for Indianapolis

So, what now? Between now and Indianapolis, opponents of the Truth & Unity Amendment will make their case. Some of it will be deliberately misleading. Some will dust off Rick Warren’s old fear-mongering playbook that reformers are trying to prevent women from sharing the gospel at all. It’s nonsense, but fear is an emotion that moves people. Many uncertain messengers will feel its pull.

What can we do? Of course, between now and then, we need to make our biblical case relentlessly. We need to use scripture, logic, and sound reasoning. However, as discussed above, when the Convention rolls around, we also need to be politically savvy and speak in an emotional register that moves people. We need stories, not just syllogisms. This is not abstract denominational polity, but an issue that affects real churches and real congregations. And real damage is done when our confessional clarity erodes.

And we also need to identify our allies and build coalitions. The wins in Orlando were real. The Truth & Unity Amendment passed, and Willy Rice is president. We can praise the Lord for these answered prayers. Now, we’ve got one year until Indianapolis, where we can make some of these gains permanent.

The question now is this: Will we use this next year to consolidate, organize, build the coalitions, develop the ground game, and show up in Indianapolis ready to govern?

Or will we go home, declare victory, and repeat the same mistakes that have cost us for a generation?

Loser Theology Preorders are now LIVE!

My new book, Loser Theology: Why the Weak Will Not Inherit the Earth, is now available for preorder from Canon Press. It will ship August 4th. In the image above, you can see a screenshot of the first three endorsements from C. R. Wiley, Katie Faust, and Jon Harris.

Willy Rice, the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said:

“This book is fantastic. Michael Clary’s book is like a trumpet blast to rouse a sleeping giant. Written from the trenches of real pastoral ministry, it offers a spellbinding diagnosis of what went wrong and a prophetic yet pastoral call for correction. The way of the cross is not capitulating to culture as a victim, but confronting principalities and powers with confidence in the power of God and a willingness to pay the cost of victory.”

Canon Press has made the book’s opening chapter available for FREE at www.losertheology.com.

For what it’s worth, pre-orders will ship faster from Canon Press. Canon’s preorders will ship on August 4th. Amazon’s preorders ship August 18th.

Preorder Loser Theology

It’s time for the Reformers to assume the middle and strive to govern. To do so, we need to learn four lessons.

Two weeks ago, many conservative Southern Baptists went home from Orlando happy. Willy Rice won the presidency with a clear majority. The Truth & Unity Amendment cleared its first hurdle as it heads towards (Lord willing) final passage next year in Indianapolis.

The “Reformers” in the SBC (one of the four groups I outlined in my recap from the 2025 Dallas annual meeting) had something to celebrate, and we should readily acknowledge it.

To briefly reiterate, “Reformer” here is not about “reformed” theology. As I explain, the Reformers in the SBC are “the ones who see the SBC slowly but surely heading over a cliff and are advocating for needed fixes and reforms to our theology, public witness, and internal Convention operations that we believe would revitalize the Convention, defend our Baptist distinctives, and most importantly, honor the Lord.”

But there is an undeniable reality looming on the horizon: the electoral victories in Orlando must translate into institutional victories if we are to see sustained reform and renewal in the SBC. And that requires a different kind of work than most of us Reformers are used to doing.

So over the next year, between now and Indianapolis 2027, I think there are four lessons that the Reformers need to learn and apply to translate our initial victories in Orlando into long-term changes. I’ll discuss the first two (gaining more institutional support and building better coalitions) here in Part One and the second two (mastering SBC politics and making more emotional appeals) in Part Two, which will be published tomorrow.

Let’s get started.

#1: Reformers Need More Institutional Support

Reformers regularly speak out about institutional corruption, and for good reason. Sometimes the institutions really are the problem. But that doesn’t mean the institutions are always the problem. Institutions were originally built to be our most powerful allies, not our enemies.

Take the Law Amendment, for example. Mike Law drove that effort with remarkable tenacity, and he moved the ball down the field on grassroots energy alone. But ultimately, it failed on its second required vote. Why? A significant reason is that he lacked institutional support.

But beyond a lack of support, the Law Amendment also faced massive institutional opposition in its second year. Not only were there not enough vocal, public, institutional supporters among prominent SBC figureheads between the first vote on the Law Amendment in New Orleans in 2023 and the second vote in Indianapolis in 2024, but many SBC leaders (like former SBC president Bart Barber, NAMB president Kevin Ezell, former SBC president JD Greear, etc.) actively worked to undermine and kill the Law Amendment.

Grassroots efforts can make a lot of noise and build a lot of momentum, but when the institutions are actively working against us, grassroots energy alone is rarely enough to carry it across the finish line.

By contrast, the Truth & Unity Amendment seeks to accomplish essentially the same goal as the Law Amendment, but now it has Al Mohler as an institutional champion. He picked up the baton and brought real institutional weight to the table this time. His presidency of SBTS also has coattails. Mohler’s credentialed voice carries more authority at the Convention than that of an ordinary pastor like Mike Law. We may not like it (and, in fact, it’s a real issue, as Sam Webb explains well here), but it’s a fact.

Mohler didn’t just say, “I support this”; he put his name and legacy on the line to see it through. That seems to have made a difference in Orlando, and time will tell if it’s enough to ratify it next year in Indy.

Furthermore, Reformers now have another major institutional champion for the Truth & Unity Amendment in our new SBC president, Willy Rice. In his first post-Annual Meeting press conference, Rice said, “I’ll do everything I can” to help get Mohler’s Truth & Unity Amendment ratified in Indianapolis.

There’s a broader lesson for the Reformers. There’s a certain energy and thrill that come with being in the minority, fighting an uphill battle against a perceived Goliath. We can even become psychologically addicted to being in perpetual opposition mode to the extent that we don’t know what to do with ourselves when we win. Like the dog chasing the car, we get confused when we catch it.

It’s not enough to complain about institutions; we have to work with and within them to make a lasting difference.

Simply put, electoral wins are not self-sustaining. Reformers need to get onto committees, pursue appointments, and begin occupying positions of power inside the system, even knowing we will be minorities on those committees, at least for now. Reformers will need to sit in committee meetings alongside trustees and committee members appointed by J. D. Greear, Bart Barber, and Ed Litton. Reformers need to work alongside men who do not share our convictions until they cycle off, and more reformers can replace them.

Genuine reform takes years of boring, tedious, institutional work, being outnumbered by people who do not share our convictions and goals. We’ve got to be fine with that, and we’ve got to allow time for the influence of Willy Rice’s appointments to take effect. The point is to be in the room, pick smart battles, play the long game, and build toward a day when reform-minded men hold those seats in numbers that really matter.

Regarding the problem of women pastors in the SBC, the credentials committee is where the real action happens. We need more reformers on that committee. They may be outnumbered at first, but they should be there anyway. And that leads me to my next point.

#2: Reformers Need to Build Better Coalitions

“Reform” energy is pure and convictional, and it’s not natural for us to shift into a leadership mode that requires us to establish consensus and build coalitions. We need to fix that.

We must be shrewd, humble, and patient as we hunker down for reform efforts that will likely take a decade to accomplish. Simply put, reformers will need to use different muscles to make our reform efforts permanent within institutions, and that will require more consensus and coalition-building than we’re accustomed to.

From my observation, there are a few formal and informal power centers in the SBC. All of them operate under the same SBC tent, and there’s a great deal of overlap between them. But if you pay attention, you can see where existing coalitions are, understand what motivates each, and determine where new alliances and coalitions can be formed to further our reform efforts.

I like to think of these as mob families. That’s a playful label, not a jab. It’s just a fun way to categorize groups and understand where they are alike or different from one another.

Here are the five families I’ve observed, which break down into three coalitions.

The Status Quo Coalition

The largest and most institutionally entrenched family is the NAMB/SEND Network family, led by Kevin Ezell. In many respects, NAMB/SEND functions more as an independent power center than a true tribe. NAMB is the second-largest SBC entity behind the IMB, but unlike the IMB, it focuses exclusively on the American home front. NAMB is very pragmatic, moderate, and numbers-and growth-oriented. They are not interested in helping “fight for the doctrinal fidelity” of the SBC or supporting any kind of reform and renewal initiatives. It’s no secret that NAMB’s leadership was/is opposed to the Law Amendment and now to Mohler’s Truth & Unity Amendment.

Still, this family is a massive player in Convention life and SBC politics. NAMB, through SEND Network, throws a lot of money around the SBC. Yes, much of it goes toward church planting, but it goes beyond that. They are increasingly partnering with (perhaps taking over?) state conventions; they purchase lots of “swag” for their planters and strategists (quarter zips, anyone?), take them to baseball games, and more. One of NAMB’s significant advantages is the ability to pay for church planters to attend the convention, which matters when you’re trying to count votes.

The second is the “North Carolina Family.” They are also pragmatic and missional centrists. Their geographical anchor is North Carolina, with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary as the theological hub. Key figures include J. D. Greear, Danny Akin, and Ed Litton. There is significant overlap between the North Carolina family and NAMB/SEND, especially in their approach to the SBC. Pillar Network and Baptist 21 are also close allies — in fact, they’re nearly the same organism, both run through Nate Akin, Danny’s son, who founded B21 and serves as Pillar’s executive director. These guys are broader and more pragmatic, focused on Great Commission language, and they have deep institutional roots.

I labeled these two families as the “status quo coalition” because they work very closely together and largely share the same goals. While I may disagree with those goals from time to time, I think they are a great example of coalitional coordination. Additionally, while the leadership of these coalitions clearly stakes out certain positions in the SBC, they are not a monolith once you dip below the leadership level. I’m sure some NAMB church planters and Pillar pastors voted for Willy Rice and the Truth & Unity Amendment, etc.

The Conservative Reformer Coalition

The third family is the “Louisville Family.” I think of them as theological traditionalists. They are geographically anchored in Louisville, KY, and their theological hub is the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (my alma mater). Key figures include Albert Mohler, Andrew Walker, and Denny Burk. Other institutions in their orbit are Kenwood Baptist Church, Third Avenue Baptist Church, and the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This family has historically been less interested in direct engagement in SBC reform – until this year, when Mohler’s involvement in the Truth & Unity Amendment changed the calculus considerably. When Louisville decides to move on an issue, they bring considerable firepower.

Fourth, there’s what I’d call the Reform and Renewal Family. Even though I’m a graduate of SBTS and consider myself theologically aligned with them, my closest relationships are in the Reform and Renewal Family. As a grassroots effort, we have no geographical center or theological hub. Some of us consider ourselves Calvinists; some do not. People from all of the above families have joined us because we see the same problems and want to work for healthy solutions.

Our oldest and most theologically defined node is Founders Ministries, led by Tom Ascol out of Cape Coral, Florida. Founders has been the tip of the spear for decades in advocating for a more conservative, biblically faithful, and more Baptist SBC.

For a time, the Conservative Baptist Network worked to organize the initial wave of concerned conservative Southern Baptists who realized that the Convention was being steered to the Left. They helped rally the base for Mike Stone in Nashville five years ago and came very close to winning.

The Center for Baptist Leadership, led by William Wolfe, picked up where CBN left off over the last few years (though taking a different approach), focusing intensely on issues and grassroots education and organization in the SBC, first and foremost, rather than endorsing candidates (though they did endorse Willy Rice this year). I think it’s fair to say that the topics that the CBL has staked out as the most pressing issues facing the SBC—lack of courageous leadership, entity mission drift (like at the ERLC), the threat of women pastors, the need for increased transparency and accountability—are the issues that dominate the discussion and drive the debates in the SBC. What happened in Orlando (and in Dallas with the ERLC) is a vindication of our work at CBL in many ways and proof that we are no small or “fringe” group in the SBC.

Other ministries like Christ Over All, led by David Schrock and Stephen Wellum, and independent journalists like Megan Basham and Jon Harris, have also contributed to spotlighting needed reforms in the SBC, informing and activating the grassroots, and serving as a mouthpiece for the average “Billy Baptist” in the pews.

I would also place the rising Florida influence of Willy Rice and Heath Lambert within the broader Reform and Renewal Family. They were able to capitalize on home-state advantage to win the SBC presidency this year, without public support from NAMB or Louisville and in the face of public opposition from B21 and much of the Pillar Network.

Some reformers are SBC insiders who have seen the corruption up close and have joined the reform effort. Most of us, however, are institutional outsiders who simply want to work towards a healthier, more transparent, and fruitful convention. Even though they wear their status as institutional outsiders as a badge of honor, that posture needs to mature.

The Normie Majority Family & Coalition

The fifth family, which is broader and hard to define, is what I’d consider the Normie Majority Family. They stand outside and around both the Status Quo Coalition and the Conservative Reformer Coalition because they are bigger than both. They are a coalition unto themselves.

These are ordinary Southern Baptist churches that don’t pay attention to these power blocks and operate mostly within the structure Southern Baptists have used since our founding. In many ways, each of the other families is jockeying for support from the Normie Majority at each Convention because they need their votes to get anything done. For a spell there, the NAMB and North Carolina Families held strong sway over the Normie Majority.

But with the rising tide of unavoidable issues over the last five years, it appears that the Normie Majority is now siding more with the families within the Conservative Reformer Coalition of Louisville, Florida, and organizations like CBL. It’s important that the Conservative Reformers, and particularly the Reform and Renewal Family, work patiently and carefully to speak to the Normie Majority with appeals that they will both hear and understand.

Next, as we consider coalition-building, it’s worth understanding how power actually operates across all these families.

There are two distinct kinds: (1) institutional power and (2) personal influence.

Institutional power works through endowments, staff, infrastructure, the ability to cut checks, and the ability to make payroll. For example, SBTS, NAMB, IMB, and Guidestone are all wealthy, independent entities. Their presidents are what you might call “made men.” They didn’t earn their influence from a podcast or a following. They hold seats of power that come with real machinery, and they operate above the normal family structure. When Mohler takes action, he moves as both a theological voice and a made man. That combination is rare.

Personal influence is a different kind of soft power, and its weight flows from a man’s own church, reputation, and reach. Men like J. D. Greear, Willy Rice, and Heath Lambert are independent and self-sustaining. No institution made them. But personal influence without institutional backing has limits, which is exactly the lesson of the Law Amendment. Mike Law had plenty of personal influence, but he didn’t have men behind him. That’s a big reason why he lost.

Although all five families share common convictions articulated in the BF&M2000, we don’t always work together. Sometimes, we have genuine differences over theology, polity, and strategy. But sometimes, I suspect, we don’t work together because of old seminary grudges, competing ambitions, and the ordinary friction of personality clashes and accumulated grievances that outlast the issues that caused them. You can have two men who agree on nearly everything the SBC needs to do and still be unable to work together because of a fifteen-year-old beef that never got resolved.

I also don’t want to write off working with actors in the “Status Quo Coalition.” In many respects, Willy Rice was once part of that group, and now he has “changed teams,” so to speak. But I do see more avenues for cooperation between the Louisville Family, the Willy Rice/Heath Lambert Florida Family, and the broader Reform and Renewal Family, led by CBL. This will take some humility, charity, and courage for all parties involved.

For some in the Conservative Reformers Coalition, that means setting aside old grudges. For others, it means being willing to publicly talk to and work with the less institutionally “approved” coalition partners. But all of us need to get better at identifying where we can work together, demonstrating the kind of unity and cooperation Southern Baptists are known for.

We also always have to keep in mind that the goal of greater cooperation is to secure the support of the “Normie Majority” Baptists who attend the Convention, so that the needed reforms can be both achieved and institutionalized.

And not everyone fits neatly into these buckets.

For example, I caught a glimpse of the kind of coalition-building I have in mind on the second day of the convention. Several of us from “Reform and Renewal Family” went to lunch together. There were eleven of us at a pizza place, so we ordered several pies and were going to just split the check. Across the room, another SBC group was finishing up lunch. I recognized pastor Dean Inserra from Twitter. I’d never met him or even interacted with him before, but he knew some of the guys at our table. Frankly, it was a bit of an awkward moment because there had been some online scuffles between him and some of our guys in the past. But since I had no history with him, I introduced myself, and we had a brief, friendly interaction. And that was that.

As we finished our lunch, I asked for the check. The waiter said someone had already paid for our table. I was floored. So I sent Dean a message on Twitter, and sure enough, it was him. That gesture told me something. At the end of the day, we’re still brothers in Christ; we’re still Southern Baptists, and this is a man who does not want to be an enemy. That meant a lot. Buying lunch for eleven people you barely know is not the act of a man looking for a fight. It is the act of a man signaling that he is willing to work together. That kind of bridge-building is exactly what the reform movement needs more of.

Conclusion of Part One

In summary, it’s time for the Reformers to assume the middle and strive to govern. To do so, we both need more institutional support and we need to act like we belong in the institutions—on the boards, as trustees, running critical committees in Convention life, and more. Because we do.

And we need to do better at working together and building coalitions.

Because here’s one thing I’m fully convinced of: If we’re going to win in Indianapolis and institutionalize and sustain those wins over the long haul, we need those in the Conservative Reformer Coalition to put aside personal grievances, ignore moderates who try to control us through tone policing and “acceptable conversation partner” boundary setting that often boxes out some of the best and brightest in SBC life, treat each other with respect, and recognize we all need each other. Specifically, I’m thinking of men from Southern Seminary and Louisville, Founders, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Willy Rice and Heath Lambert, Christ Over All, and the Center for Baptist Leadership.

If we can do these two things, we will be well on our way to securing and furthering what we started in Orlando. But to take it all the way, we will also need to get better at SBC politics and learn to make more emotional appeals, which I will consider in Part Two.

My new book, Loser Theology: Why the Weak Won’t Inherit the Earth, is now available for pre-order! SBC President Willy Rice endorsed the book, saying, “The book is fantastic. This is such an important work. I pray God uses this as a prophetic call… Michael Clary’s book is like a trumpet blast to rouse a sleeping giant. Written from the trenches of real pastoral ministry, it offers a spellbinding diagnosis of what went wrong and a prophetic yet pastoral call for correction. The way of the cross is not capitulating to culture as a victim, but confronting principalities and powers with confidence in the power of God and a willingness to pay the cost of victory.”

You can pre-order it here: www.losertheology.com

I received an overwhelmingly positive response to my preorder announcement on X.

Steve Deace reposted it and said, “Holy Moses that’s the best title/subtitle of a book I’ve seen this year, including my own.”

My friend Michael Foster also reposted it and wrote a warm endorsement, saying,

Michael and I go way back, almost 20 years now… There is not a shock-jock bone in Michael’s body. He comes to his conclusions as a careful man with a shepherd’s heart. Loser Theology is quite the title. It definitely gets your attention, and that’s what good titles are supposed to do. I know how lazy critics can be, and I think some will latch onto the title in our age of bombast and over-the-top rhetoric. But that is not this book, because that is not this man.

This is a careful dissection of the theology that so many of us have been frustrated by, theology that arose from decades of compromise and biblically fallacious thinking. I think this is a book you should order because Michael has carefully considered the world around him, put names to things you’ve experienced but perhaps haven’t been able to identify, and shown what Scripture actually calls the disciples of Jesus to. Pre-order it today.

One Commenter on X Just Proved My Whole Thesis

Predictably, a few commenters jumped in with pietistic responses. A guy named Luke took exception with the title, saying, “Loser theology is the ultimate and correct theology and the direct and truest Gospel of our Lord. We are called to be weak.”

I suspect many people will agree with Luke’s take, which will be the most common objection to my argument. The problem with Loser Theology isn’t that it affirms things that are blatantly false, the problem is that it over-focuses on the Bible’s teaching about suffering and weakness, regarding it as the “correct theology” and the “truest Gospel of our Lord” and “we are called to be weak.”

If Luke is correct, then I wonder how he applies it? Are Christians called to be always weak, all the time, and in every way? Is he in sin if he works out at the gym? If someone is threatening his wife, will he step in to defend her? Or will he simply tell her, “sweetheart, there’s nothing I can do. Jesus calls me to be weak”? When he goes to the voting booth, does he hope his preferred candidate will win?

Luke’s comment is “exhibit A” of loser theology, which has conditioned Christians to feel guilty for standing up for ourselves and asserting the Lordship of Christ over all of life. If Luke chooses to live this way, that’s a discipleship issue. But when loser theology is adopted at a large scale, evangelical Christians face a massive existential crisis.

Bible believing Christians end up somehow thinking it is our spiritual duty to be subject to tyrants. We end up believing the more faithful path is being doormats for Jesus. We end up allowing pagans to step on us—and then we go to heaven. We’re watching this play out before our eyes as our society continues its moral decline while Christians sit on the sidelines, praying our prayers of lament, but doing nothing to oppose it.

In my book, I make the case for why Luke’s way of thinking can sound good and holy but be ultimately wrong. In fact, I wrote recently about 2 Corinthians 12, where Jesus says, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” But “weakness” isn’t the only word in Paul’s vocabulary. Also, “weakness” doesn’t mean what Luke thinks it means, since scripture also commands us to “stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Cor 16:13). In fact, the scriptures have a lot to say about Christian strength.

So, if you are interested in understanding why Christians aren’t called to be losers, and if you’d like to understand how Christians can wield power righteously for the glory of God, then “Loser Theology” is the book for you. Canon Press has actually put the first chapter of the book on the pre-order site to read for free, so you can get a feel for the argument and what the book is about.

Pre-Order Loser Theology

Why Pre-Order the Book Now?

You might be thinking, “I’ll order the book once it comes out.” That makes sense, but there’s a reason why publishers do pre-orders, and you can help me out if you’d be willing to pre-order it. Let me explain.

We’ve got about a six week pre-order window. All those pre-orders will count towards the first week’s book sales, and a strong first week is critical for reaching the broadest audience. Basically, when all pre-order sales get counted during the first week of a book’s release, it gives it a bigger splash in the market, generating buzz, and helps the book land on “popular new release” lists, which generate further sales.

I want this book to perform well in the market because I’m convinced this is an urgently needed message that merits serious consideration. I’m praying that this book will provoke a broad conversation in the evangelical world about what it means for Christians to faithfully represent Christ from a position of courage, clarity, strength, and even (righteous) power. This isn’t a book primarily about politics, but if the book’s warnings and exhortations are heeded, it will have a political effect.

All that to say, pre-orders lead to a strong opening week, and a strong opening week will push the book’s argument deeper into the evangelical conversation. That’s what I’m praying for.

So, if you’re willing, pre-order Loser Theology today!

Pre-Order Loser Theology today!

That’s all background for what I’m about to say.

Last week, he called me out of the blue because he was faced with a difficult decision. One of his friends had just become a Christian and posted on LinkedIn about her baptism (see screenshots).

She wasn’t accustomed to making Linked In posts about Jesus, feeling as though it might be unprofessional. She wondered openly if she should keep her posts secular. But she was excited about her new life in Christ and wanted to share it.

That’s when Da chimed in with a comment on her post that there is no such thing as a purely neutral, “secular” culture. He pointed out that many companies are promoting cultural sins such as homosexuality, transgenderism, and fornication during pride month. If companies can promote those morally regressive “values,” then certainly this woman should not be embarrassed to talk about her Christian faith in public. He was simply encouraging her to be bold for Christ.

WIthin minutes, he got a message from HR. He was called to a meeting with the HR rep and the CEO where he was told he needed to take his comment on her post down immediately. Feeling put on the spot, he said he’d needed to think it over first. He asked, “what if I do not take it down?”

They said, “you have one hour to take it down or lose your job.” So he took a walk outside to gather his thoughts and pray. He spoke to his wife about it, and she told him the man she married was a man of courage, and she would stand by him. He also sought counsel from some men in our church.

Finally, he made his decision. He would not take his comment down. So they fired him. Right there, on the spot. No sooner had the call ended that his laptop was locked and he was unable to access it at all.

This whole episode is tragically ironic, given the fact that he’d moved here from China to get away from these sorts of draconian practices. But that’s the way it is with the LGBTQ regime. If you do not comply and bow the knee to their gods you will be severely punished.

In short, a good man was fired from his job for refusing to cave. He took a stand and paid a price for it. His former employers didn’t care that he’s a responsible, hard working man with a family to provide for. They didn’t care that his wife is eight months pregnant.

None of that matters. Their ideology is everything. They will crush anyone who opposes it.

I asked Da’s permission to tell his story, promising to keep him anonymous. But he responded, “Actually I think using my real name maybe better. A story becomes a lot more real with a name. I want to take a stand for it and encourage others.”

Da took a stand. You can too.

If God has already determined that the elect are going to be saved and the reprobate are going to be lost, then the whole enterprise of missions and evangelism seems pointless at best and theatrical at worst.

The question is understandable, but the scripture does not allow this conclusion. In fact, not only is this a false conclusion, but the opposite is true. Calvinism does not undermine evangelism, it is 94 octane, premium fuel for evangelism.

The best place to see this dynamic at work is Romans 9-10. Romans 9 lays out the doctrine of election in straightforward, plain terms. Romans 10 explains the necessity of evangelism to bring about the conversion of the elect. In other words, Calvinism and evangelism fit together like a hand in a glove.

From man’s perspective, salvation is simple: “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (v13). Simply put, salvation isn’t “out there” somewhere, high up some mountain where you have to seek it out like a hidden treasure. No, salvation is a simple as believing the message of the gospel, wherever it goes. “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (v8).

The substance of every conversion story is the same. Someone believed in their heart that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, and they confessed him as Lord. Believe the gospel. That’s it. Faith plus nothing equals everything.

Even though Paul taught in Romans 9 that God alone determines everyone’s ultimate destiny, Romans 10 teaches that God works through human means to bring this about. The logic of the missionary mandate goes like this: if salvation happens simply by someone believing and calling on the name of Christ, then they will need to hear about Christ in order to call on him, and someone will have to preach Christ in order for someone to hear about him.

Thus, preaching is not optional. Preaching is structurally necessary for anyone to be saved. Paul works through this chain in Romans 10:14-15: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?”

In Paul’s day, news traveled by heralds. A man was literally “sent” into the public square to announce important events. A town waiting to hear news from a distant battle or something would crowd around the herald to hear the news. If he said “I have good news,” everyone would feel immediate relief. He was bringing a “gospel” to them: good news. And people would delight to hear it and bless the man who’s feet carried him to that city to announce it.

That’s what gospel proclamation is. The gospel is the good news that God sent his Son into the world, that he died in our place, that he rose from the grave having conquered sin and death, that victory has been accomplished and the celebration has begun. And further, all anyone needs to do to share in that victory is receive it by faith. It is the best news that has ever been announced. And it will only reach people if someone announces it.

This means, every Christian is a herald. One way or another, we have all been sent. The non-Christians in your life will only become Christians if someone shares the gospel with them. God works through means, and evangelism is the means he has sovereignly appointed for saving the lost.

What Calvinism Does for the Evangelist

This is where the sovereignty of God becomes practically relevant to the task of evangelism rather than an obstacle to it.

If you believe that your friend’s eternal destiny ultimately rests in his or her own decision, and that he or she just needs to be convinced by the right arguments or techniques to make that decision, then you’ll feel as though the outcome depends on whether you can make the gospel compelling enough. You will feel enormous pressure every time you share your faith to say it just right. And if they don’t believe in Christ, you might feel as though it’s your fault for not presenting it compellingly enough.

That pressure does something to people. It makes them overly pragmatic. I’ve seen this many times and I’ve watched how much harm it can do. The evangelist feels unnecessary pressure to save the other person, which is something only God can do. And quite often, they end up watering down the gospel and eliminating Jesus’ call of discipleship that requires us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him. They’re tempted to downplay the cost of discipleship to make it easier for people to make the right decision, but in so doing, they’ve robbed the gospel of its clarity and power. Basically, pragmatism produces easy-believism kind of evangelism, which leads to false converts.

They think they’re saved because they “made a decision” one time, but their life isn’t changed. If the goal is to get people to make a decision, then anything that produces a decision looks like success. I’ve been in ministry long enough to see how frequently emotional manipulation is used as an evangelistic strategy. I’ve seen social pressure, bait-and-switch programming, entertainment-driven worship services designed to lower resistance, and similar strategies justified under the banner of “reaching the lost.” And since it works on a human level by producing “decisions,” we’re reluctant to question it.

People say things like, “look at what God is doing! We’re reaching the lost! Look at how many souls are saved!” But are they actually being converted? In many cases, no, they’re not. They have been emotionally manipulated and spiritually coddled because their ears have been tickled.

These tactics are some of the most destructive trends in modern American Christianity. Churches abandoned genuine worship on the Lord’s Day and turned Sunday morning into an evangelistic crusade, where the entire service calibrated to the sensibilities of unbelievers. Fancy production values, carefully engineered emotional environments, altar calls staged with volunteers standing simultaneously to create a bandwagon effect, all designed to manufacture a decision.

These strategies have been around for a while. Charles Finney pioneered these methods about two hundred years ago, and he is the grandfather of everything wrong with modern revivalism. The result is a massive population of false converts. These are people who think they’re Christians because they responded to an emotional stimulus but whose lives show no evidence of genuine regeneration. Meanwhile, the true sheep in the pews are being deprived of spiritual food from God’s word because their pastors, drunk on church growth gimmicks, are focused on goat farming.

The doctrines of grace are the antidote to this. Not because Calvinists are smarter or more virtuous, but because the doctrine itself clarifies the division of labor between the evangelist and the Holy Spirit.

Our job as evangelists is to faithfully preach the gospel. That’s it. We may use tools of persuasion and apologetics, but that’s not the same as decisioneering and manipulation.

The Holy Spirit’s job is to use human preaching to accomplish the supernatural work of awakening dead hearts. I cannot change anyone’s heart. I don’t have that power. Neither do you. The only one who can take a spiritually dead person and make him alive is God. And that means the pressure is off me to manufacture a result. My responsibility is simply to to be faithful with the message.

This simplification is liberating. It means the power is in the message itself, not in my methods. The gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). Dressing it up or watering it down is the same as being ashamed of it. We can simply preach the unvarnished gospel without softening it to make it more palatable because God’s word will accomplish what God intends it to accomplish. It means I can be patient with hard-hearted people because sometimes it takes a long time for a seed to germinate. And it means I can be confident — genuinely confident — that God can save anyone I share the gospel with, because salvation is entirely his work, not mine.

You don’t have to be a Calvinist to care about missions. But it is simply false to say that Calvinism undermines evangelism. Calvinism places our confidence where it belongs. God alone has the power to save, and he uses our simple and faithful preaching as the means to do so.

Personal Updates and Media Appearances

Loser Theology: Why the Weak Won’t Inherit the Earth

My next book published by Canon Press is on the final stretch of publication. Pictured below is the cover for the Advanced Reader Copies being sent out for endorsements and book reviews. So far, I’ve received endorsements from Willy Rice, Katie Faust, Auron Macintyre, Andy Naselli, Jon Harris, Joe Holland, and Brad Andrews.

To give you an idea, see below for the most recent endorsement I got back from my friend, Josh Daws. I’m told the pre-order site should be made available in the coming weeks. I’ll let you know as soon as that’s up.

Conferences

I spoke at two different conferences this month. One was the Church and Family Life Conference in Black Mountain, NC. The other one was a men’s conference in Iowa called “Rugged Christianity.” Both events were a huge blessing and I was honored to be invited.

Media Appearance

I went on Auron Macintyre’s show a couple of weeks ago to discuss the piece I wrote about Vivek Ramaswamy regarding his effort to sycretize his Hindu beliefs with Christianity to court voters.

What Justice Actually Requires

This objection rests on a false assumption that goes like this: if God grants mercy to some people, then he must therefore grant it to all people equally. This is a false assumption. Scripture presents sin as an act of cosmic treason against our Creator, and the only proper response is judgment. It isn’t cruelty, it is the righteous response of a holy God against sin. In other words, God doesn’t owe grace to anyone. No one has any claim on it whatsoever.

If God owed anyone grace, then grace ceases to be grace. If I owe someone $100, I would be wrong to wrap it up and give it to them as a gift. It’s not a gift, it’s a debt. Grace is the same way. Grace, by definition, is something that can only be given and received as a gift. To do otherwise would nullify the gift itself (Rom 11:6).

Since everyone in the entire world has sinned against God (Rom 3:23), God isn’t obligated to show grace to anyone. Judgment is what we deserve. God has never punished an innocent person. He has never withheld grace from someone who deserved it. If anyone is saved at all, it will be by grace — because justice, for any of us, would mean eternal condemnation.

So, the issue here is that some people receive mercy, and other people receive justice. Thus, someone might argue, since God ultimately determines which is which, God has committed an injustice by not showing mercy to everyone.

RC Sproul once made a helpful distinction here between in-justice and non-justice. Injustice is a sin because justice is being denied to someone who deserves it. Non-justice is the gracious act of God to show mercy to people who deserve justice, and the justice for their sins is satisfied in the cross of Christ. The penalty for their sins wasn’t waived, it was paid at Calvary. Thus, God’s justice is fully satisfied, though for some, Christ absorbs the justice of God for them.

This doesn’t explain why God chooses some and not others, but it does answer the objection that God is being unjust (Rom 9:14).

Think of it this way. Suppose ten people are guilty of the same crime and deserve the same sentence. And yet God sovereignly pardons one of them and sentences the other nine. Has anyone been treated unjustly? No. The nine received exactly what they deserved. The one received mercy he didn’t deserve, and the fact that he didn’t deserve it is precisely the reason we can call it grace. The justice for his sin was paid at the cross. No one in this scenario has been treated unjustly. The nine received justice. The one received grace. Those are not the same thing, and the existence of grace does not make justice unfair.

Dead People Can’t Choose Life

At this point someone usually tries to rescue God’s reputation by arguing that the whole arrangement is only just if God leaves the final choice to us. If God gives everyone an equal opportunity and people simply choose or reject him on their own, then the outcome is fair because it reflects human decision rather than divine selection.

The problem is that Scripture doesn’t leave room for this. Every human being is born spiritually dead in sin (Eph 2:1), and dead people cannot choose life, even when it is offered to them.

Consider when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. When Jesus stood outside the tomb and called Lazarus out, Lazarus had no say in the matter. He was dead. Jesus chose to raise him, Jesus called to him from outside his tomb, and Lazarus came out. Jesus made the choice, not Lazarus.

Further, Lazarus wasn’t the only dead body buried in that cemetery. Yet Jesus walked in and only called out the name of the one he chose, and left the others in their graves. Could anyone say Jesus was being unjust for only choosing to raise Lazarus, and not the others? Of course not. Jesus raised Lazarus because it was his good pleasure to do so as an act of grace towards him. No one in that graveyard deserved to be raised, and the fact that Jesus raised Lazarus highlights both his grace and his sovereign choice, not to mention his power and authority over death. The others remained in their graves, which is exactly what their sins deserved.

It’s the same with salvation. The only reason anyone becomes a Christian is because the Holy Spirit regenerated them, gave them a new heart, and produced faith in them which wasn’t there before. Every Christian is like Lazarus in the sense that we were spiritually dead in our sins. Yet when we heard the gospel message, the Holy Spirit cried into our hearts, “come forth!,” and we believed. Not because we were smarter than those who do not believe, but because God chose us to produce faith in us.

God doesn’t do this for everyone. He does it for those he has chosen. That is what election means. And Paul’s argument is that this is not injustice. Every condemned sinner receives what his sins deserve. The ones who receive mercy receive something they did not deserve, made possible by the blood of Christ.

This is also not merely Paul’s doctrine. Jesus taught it himself. In John 13:18, he said plainly, “I know whom I have chosen.” Election is not a Reformation invention or a Calvinist hobby horse. It runs through the teaching of Jesus. In fact, it is taught in the Old Testament times in the book of Exodus.

Two Examples: Moses and Pharaoh

Paul demonstrates this doctrine from the lives of Pharaoh and Moses. Paul says, “so then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Rom 9:18).

Moses was not an innocent man. He was a murderer. And yet God chose to show him mercy. The decision, as Paul makes clear by quoting Exodus 33:19, was entirely God’s: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Nobody on earth deserved that mercy. It was God’s sovereign good pleasure to show it. The mercy Moses received came entirely from God’s initiative, not from anything commendable in Moses himself.

Pharaoh is the counterpoint. God raised Pharaoh up to become the most powerful man in the ancient world. That power was itself a gift. And Pharaoh used it to defy God repeatedly, hardening his heart against every sign and every warning Moses brought him.

The phrase, “he hardens whomever he wills” is often misunderstood, because it sounds like God created fresh sin in Pharaoh’s heart, as though he were an innocent man and God put sin there that wasn’t already there. That’s false.

The book of Exodus describes the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in three ways: (1) Pharaoh hardened his own heart, (2) Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and (3) God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. From these descriptions, you can see that Pharaoh was already in active rebellion against God, and God raised him up and used his sin to accomplish God’s purposes. In other words, these are not three separate events describing the same divine action. They describe an escalating sequence in which Pharaoh’s active, deliberate rebellion precedes God’s judicial response.

The doctrine of election does teach that God chooses who will be saved and who will not be saved. But God’s choice in either case is not symmetrical. We should not think of God’s sovereign choice as though he were dealing with an innocent human race, whereby God creates evil in the hearts of the non-elect in order to punish them. God forbid!

Rather, we must assume a fallen, wicked, sinful human race whereby God regenerates the elect and creates faith in them unto salvation, but leaves the wicked to suffer the consequences of their own wickedness. For the elect, God takes action to produce something good in them they didn’t already possess. For the non-elect, God passes over them and does not do the same for them.

We must understand that man is not as sinful as he could be. The only reason why man is not even more wicked than we are is that God, by his common grace, restrains us from what we might otherwise have done. In this way, when God “hardened” the heart of Pharaoh, he was simply removing his hand of restraint that was holding back the wicked darkness that was already at work in his heart. God did not force Pharaoh to sin. God stopped restraining him.

This is the same pattern Paul describes in Romans 1, where God’s judgment on persistent sin is to give people up to even greater sin:

• ^“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…” (Rom 1:24)

• “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature…” (Rom 1:26)

• “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Rom 1:28).

In each of the cases described in Romans 1, God was not causing people to sin, God was judiciously giving people over to the consequences of their sin, which is more and greater sin.

Therefore, Pharaoh’s hardening was his own doing. But God’s hardening of Pharaoh was not the same as Pharaoh’s self-hardening. God’s hardening was merely the removal of what had been holding Pharaoh back from the full expression of what he already was.

The same principle applies to Judas Iscariot. Jesus did not create fresh betrayal in Judas’s heart. No, Judas was already a thief and a corrupt man. He wanted power and money, and he betrayed Jesus to get them. And yet God used that treacherous act to bring about the redemption of the world. Just as God raised up Pharaoh to bring about a glorious purpose in Exodus, God raised up Judas to bring about the cross of Christ, which has brought salvation to God’s people. What Judas meant for evil, God meant for good.

The Wonder Is That Anyone Is Saved

So, back to the question of God’s justice in election, we can see that justice is exactly what Pharaoh received. Were it not for God’s common grace restraining us, we might have been just as hardened as he. Yet, for his own reasons, it was God’s good pleasure to show mercy to us, electing us, regenerating us, and creating saving faith in our hearts.

God has mercy on whom he has mercy. God has compassion on whom he has compassion. For those who receive this gift, it should humble us like no other doctrine in scripture.

Personally, when I think about it, I can’t get over it. I could have been lost and under God’s judgment. I could have been like Pharaoh, or even worse! The only thing preventing me from being the most vile and despicable man is the sovereign grace of God that sought me, bought me, and made me new.

Since the doctrine of election isn’t easy to understand or embrace, those who believe it can sometimes feel intellectually superior, as though they are smarter than other people who reject it. That is the opposite of what it should produce in us.

The doctrine of election should humble us, because it teaches that there is absolutely nothing in us that makes us more lovely or appealing candidates for election. We’re not smarter, better, more noble or virtuous, or superior to the non-elect in any way. The only difference between us and the non-elect is simply God’s sovereign choice.

I suppose we’ll spend the rest of eternity humbly and gratefully basking in the fact that God chose us, and there won’t be a millisecond in all of eternity where we will boast in ourselves for making the right choice. The wonder is not that some people are damned. The wonder is that any of us are saved. To God be the glory!

If you’d like to hear more on this doctrine, see here for a sermon I preached on it recently.

The Reformers are on the cusp of victory in the SBC. We just need the Absentees to show up and the Normies to join us.

Last year, I wrote a recap of the SBC’s 2025 Annual Meeting in Dallas, arguing that it was largely a “status quo” Convention.

Despite spirited debates on the Law Amendment and women pastors (and a third vote on a constitutional amendment), calls for increased financial transparency from SBC entities, and a major vote on the future of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), when we left Dallas, it looked like not much had changed. Hence, I settled on the description “status quo.”

In retrospect, I would now say that the multi-year, coordinated efforts to force change at the ERLC, one of the most liberal entities in the SBC, over the last decade turned out to be a big win for the Reformers. Just six weeks after a 43% vote in Dallas in favor of abolishing the entity outright, Brent Leatherwood resigned as President of the ERLC, marking the end of the Russell Moore-Brent Leatherwood era of escalating accommodation to liberal (and frankly unbiblical) political priorities being championed at the SBC’s policy outfit.

In that piece—which, based on the feedback I received, seemed to strike a chord with many in the SBC—I cataloged what I believe are the four main groups in the SBC and their respective interests: The Platform, the Loyalists, the Normies, and the Reformers.

At the end of the day, however, we’re all Southern Baptists, and we share core doctrinal commitments and ministry priorities. For this reason, these groups are dynamic. Moving from one group to another isn’t as dramatic as switching political parties. It can be as simple as being exposed to new information, seeing things a little differently, and acting accordingly.

The Four Groups of the SBC: A Refresher

So, who are these four constituencies, and how might things have changed in the last year?

The first group is the Platform. These are the guys on the stage who set the agenda and run the SBC’s bureaucracy. They are the most static of the four constituencies, because they hold official positions in the apparatus. And since there’s a limited number of these positions, they wield enormous influence.

The second group is the Loyalists. They support the platform from their entity-sponsored blogs and messengers from the floor. They are the “platform in waiting”—company men who hope to receive committee appointments or jobs in the bureaucracy. They are (largely) driven less by principle and more by the allure of institutional power. So they make strategic calculations to ingratiate themselves with those higher up the ladder. For example, they will not support necessary reforms, such as the Law Amendment or financial transparency, if it would cost them career advancement opportunities. If you speak with them privately, they’ll say things like, “Brother, I’m totally with you 100% on this issue. But you must understand, I cannot go on record with this right now because Dr. So-and-so opposes it, and I need to stay on his good side. Trust me, once I’m chair of “fill-in-the-blank” committee, we can make some real progress on it.”

But once the platform signals it’s time to address the issue, they’ll suddenly voice their support. In other words, their courage is opportunistic. You can’t count on them to hold the line when the chips are down.

There’s a bit of a stolen valor dynamic at work here. For example, Mike Law took all the arrows fighting an uphill battle for the Law amendment a few years ago. He received little institutional support or vocal endorsement from high-profile leaders. And yet, the issue is too urgent, too clearly biblical, and the opposition’s arguments too clearly compromised for the issue to go away. Everyone knows we have to settle the matter, one way or another. So now we’re seeing more chatter from the institutional leadership class about taking action. Don’t get me wrong, I welcome this, and I’m glad to see it.

I’m simply pointing out a political dynamic that needs to be noticed: Grassroots reform efforts can not be given credit for their victories, lest they become an even more powerful nuisance to the institutional class in the future. That’s how the apparatus works.

The third group is the Normies. “Normie” isn’t intended to be a negative term. It simply refers to ordinary pastors and church people who don’t closely follow SBC politics. As I wrote a year ago, “In an ideal world, the SBC is run so well that all of us are ‘Normies.’ The Normies don’t follow SBC politics or issues closely (and in many ways, who can blame them), so they attend the Convention and vote based on their perception of the room at any given moment. I suspect most of them are laymen and women in their churches who love the Lord and expect to discover whatever they need to know while at the Convention.”

The fourth and final group is the Reformers. I put myself in this group. They are concerned about the direction of the SBC and are trying to bring about needed change. In recent years, the primary issues animating the reformers are the need for clarity about women pastors, the need for greater financial transparency, and corruption in the ERLC.

There’s a fifth constituency we could add, the absentees. I didn’t include them last year because they weren’t there. They are the sleeping giant within the SBC that, if awakened, could accomplish all the reformers’ goals very quickly. But for whatever reason, they are the ones who don’t show up at the Convention, and their absence leaves the door open for the highly motivated and mobilized progressive minority in the Convention to have their way. The Platform’s coalition is relatively small but highly motivated and reliably present. Many of them get paid to be there.

Two Further Observations About the Four Groups

There are two further observations that can be made about these constituencies.

First, the lines of demarcation are more about posture than doctrine. In the old days of American evangelicalism, the dividing lines were clear and specific–Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and so on all knew who we were and why we weren’t in one of the other groups. In the SBC, there were clear doctrinal dividing lines, such as between inerrantists and non-inerrantists in the Conservative Resurgence, or between Arminians and Calvinists.

These days, however, the old dividing lines have been blurring within and even across denominations. Some of this is driven by the ascendency of non-denominational churches, which downplay doctrinal distinctives to attract larger audiences.

I’ll save that analysis for another day, except to make this one observation: the single biggest dividing line in evangelicalism today is the courage to fight for our convictions.

Two Southern Baptist churches a mile apart may both eagerly subscribe to the Baptist Faith & Message, including a stated complementarian position on women pastors. So on the surface, they appear nearly identical. But there is actually a massive difference between them: One church will appease and accommodate feminism and similar DEI initiatives in order to appear winsome to the world and avoid conflict. The other church will boldly oppose such things, even risking a negative reputation in town for doing so.

Both churches hold the exact same doctrinal commitments, but only one will fight for them. This willingness to fight for their historic convictions is driving the “big sort” of evangelicalism, where pugilistic Presbyterians find themselves joining Baptist churches not because they’ve changed their views on baptism but because they’re looking for a church with a spine.

The churches that are unwilling to fight for the convictions they claim to hold often make pious excuses for doing so, such as a concern for mission (“the world is watching!”), or a concern about litigation (as Jeff Iorg warned last year, if the Law amendment passed), or a concern to protect the identity of missionaries serving in hostile countries if form 990-level financial transparency measures were adopted.

Second, constituencies can shift. Since the lines of SBC demarcation are not primarily soteriological as in the old days, people can shift constituencies without changing their doctrinal commitments. In other words, concerns about encroaching feminism and wokeness can lead people to beat their theological swords into denominational plowshares, working together for reform.

These changes can be observed in real time. For example, Willy Rice, who is not a “Five Point Calvinist,” has emerged as the champion for the Reformers, yet some of his most passionate and vocal supporters are Calvinists. Why is this? Because soteriology is no longer the Convention’s most pressing concern. In my view, soteriological debates are peace-time luxuries when the Convention is otherwise healthy and solidly conservative. But those debates must take a backseat when existential problems are plaguing our Convention, threatening to pull the levers of bureaucracy to steer the largest Protestant denomination in the world towards liberalism, even though the majority of the Convention would oppose it if they saw what was happening.

Willy Rice is also interesting because he wasn’t always in the Reformers camp. I’d still consider Rice more of a normie: he’s a faithful pastor who loves Jesus, the word of God, and the church. All the books he’s published throughout his career are the sorts of things Normie pastors care about: walking faithfully with God, church leadership, and parenting. He’s not been an activist by any stretch. And yet, Rice has courageously voiced his growing concerns about the direction of the SBC, and, in so doing, has found himself a leader among the Reformers. Both Arminians and Calvinists in the SBC who see the need for reform look to Rice and think, “He’s our guy.”

Not because he represents everyone’s soteriological position, but because he’s got a spine. He’s a leader who isn’t afraid to fight for the soul of the SBC.

In this way, Rice represents what I hope to become a larger trend. As Normies learn about the games being played behind the scenes in the SBC, the more they realize they can no longer blindly trust the platform. They get “radicalized,” as the kids say, and they move from being a normie to being a reformer.

I previously mentioned the “absentees,” who are the SBC’s sleeping giant. Most of them are probably normies who are focused on their local ministries. Good for them. May the Lord prosper their faithful work. Most likely, many of them aren’t paying attention to the political drama of the SBC, and that’s why they don’t show up to the annual meeting. They’ve got sermons to write, Bible studies to lead, lost people to evangelize, weddings to perform, and pastoral counseling needs.

However, I know firsthand that there are other absentees who aren’t there for a different reason. Frankly, they do follow the political drama, and they’re both disgusted and discouraged. They’re disgusted by the compromise and corruption they’ve seen in the SBC, and it makes them angry. But they feel like there’s nothing they can do about it, since it costs a lot of time and money to attend the annual meeting, and they don’t have the power to make a dent at an annual meeting with over 10,000 messengers in attendance.

If this is you–if you’re discouraged and feel powerless to make a change–you are not powerless. You’re just not in the room. People who stay home don’t get a vote. It’s as simple as that.

Four Ways You Can Fight for Reform

So, to accomplish the needed reforms in the SBC, what can you do? I suggest the following four action steps.

First, mobilize the absentees. Every empty seat in Orlando is a vote for the status quo. Their absence always benefits the platform. The SBC was originally set up to reward the effort it takes to show up. Orlando is a home-field advantage for the reformers. It’s a drivable distance for a significant portion of the SBC, and June is a reasonable time to travel. It’s a lower barrier to entry than even Nashville or Dallas. Every cooperating church receives two messengers. Send them. Only a fraction of the SBC’s potential messengers actually show up. If they were sufficiently informed and showed up, reform efforts could make real progress. Showing up is the #1 way to make a difference.

Second, retain the Reformers. Reform efforts are hard and take time. William Wilberforce worked for reform for 46 years, suffering years of legislative defeats over a twenty-year period before achieving his first victory. The SBC’s work has an eternal impact, and it is worthy of similar dedication and resolve. Further, reformers know too much to go back to business as usual. When they get tired or discouraged, they check out and disengage. Some become absentees and stop showing up. Some leave the Convention altogether.

Third, inform the Normies. The normies are the largest group in the SBC and thus form the single biggest power block. In many ways, they represent what we all want to be: churchmen who’d rather focus on the work of the ministry, not SBC politics. And in my opinion, most normies are pre-reformers who will join the fight once they see enough evidence of corruption. When this happens, one of two outcomes is most likely. They will either (1) join the reformers and fight for change, or (2) they disengage and depart the Convention. I’ve seen this firsthand. People come to the Convention, witness the problems directly, and end up deciding the fight isn’t worth it. Churches that leave the Convention aren’t doing so because we’re too conservative. They’re leaving because they perceive us as becoming too liberal. Or, at least, they perceive we are unwilling to defend our conservative convictions.

The refusal to fight for our convictions is simply functional liberalism. This is different from the theological liberalism of the early twentieth century, which denied the virgin birth and the resurrection, but it has the same effect. Functional liberalism maintains orthodox confessions on paper while refusing to defend them in practice. The functional liberal believes the right things but won’t fight for them. Refusal to fight for our convictions is functionally the same as surrendering them. And the next generation inherits an SBC that says one thing and does another. Theological liberalism kills churches slowly through bad doctrine. Functional liberalism kills them just as surely through failed courage.

Convictionally conservative Baptists want to be in the SBC because we want to cooperate for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission. But if they perceive that our Convention doesn’t have the guts to stand by our convictions, they see little reason to stay in.

Fourth, get ready to do business. There are many motions and resolutions at the annual meeting, but only a handful have real consequences. Resolutions, for example, have no binding authority. They merely express the will of the Convention on a particular matter. This year, three issues stand out that have real teeth: (1) clarity on women pastors, (2) financial transparency, and (3) the election of a new president. In my view, the Center for Baptist Leadership has its finger on the pulse of reform efforts in the SBC, and one can get up to speed by following their essays and podcasts. Regarding the election of a new president, this is the single most important vote we take as a Convention. This year, Willy Rice is the man who has the courage, clarity, and conviction to lead the SBC to a more hopeful and fruitful future.

Conclusion: All It Takes to Win Is to Show Up

Orlando is not Dallas. Dallas was a referendum on whether reform was possible. And look at the ERLC—it is.

Orlando is a referendum on whether Reformers will show up and Normies will be persuaded that it is time for a leader who is willing to admit we have some problems and then do what it takes to solve them.

In fact, I think our meeting in Orlando is shaping up to be very similar to the Nashville Convention in 2021. According to Baptist Press, Nashville’s “2021 SBC Annual Meeting was the largest since 1995.” Baptist Press suggests that “much of that had to do with the location and the involvement of first-time messengers to the convention.” While that’s undoubtedly true (I guess location does matter), we all know that the larger turnout was also issue-driven.

This was the first SBC annual meeting since the disastrous and infamous “Resolution 9” that hoodwinked Baptists into affirming godless Critical Race Theory as a helpful “analytical tool.” It was also the first Convention post-COVID. Other massive political issues were roiling the SBC, driven by the narrative of an “abuse crisis” and Russell Moore’s underhanded political dealings.

Even more, there was an outspoken Reformer running for SBC president that year: Mike Stone.

The Platform pulled out all the stops to stop Stone from winning. Sadly, they prevailed, and Ed Litton defeated Stone by a total of 6,834 votes (52.04 percent) to Stone’s 6,278 (47.81 percent), a difference of just 556 votes.

It doesn’t have to go that way this time. Now, the Reformers know to expect the dirty tricks. Now, more Normies are aware that everything the Reformers have been warning about for five-plus years has proven true. The Reformers aren’t cranks; they’re prophets.

Whether it was Stone vs. Litton, or the recent votes on ratifying the Law Amendment, the difference is razor-thin. The direction of the SBC is being decided by a few hundred votes each year.

This means that the single most important thing you can do before June 9-10 is to plan to send messengers. Not because one messenger changes everything, but because ten thousand reasons to stay home have kept the sleeping giant asleep long enough. Your church has at least two slots. Fill them.

And this means that the single most important vote you will cast in Orlando is for our next SBC president. We are not electing a doctrinal statement — we already have the Baptist Faith & Message for that. We are electing a man with a spine. Willy Rice is that man.

He wasn’t always a Reformer. That’s precisely why he’s the man we need. He doesn’t have a reputation of a man who moves from one battle to the next because he’s addicted to fighting. No, he’s a churchman who understands the times and paid a price for changing his mind in public.

That credibility is worth more than a lifetime of safe positions.

Opponents of the Reformers (the Platform and the Loyalists) often trot out tired old lines, such as, “This is a distraction! Let’s move on from the conflicts and get back to soul winning!” My response is that our cooperation will be less effective at soul-winning if we lack clarity about who we are, how we are led, and how our money is spent. The real crisis in the SBC is the growing number of people who no longer feel confident that the SBC represents their convictions, and giving more money could actually be funding our own demise.

There’s one thing I’m absolutely convinced of: The most powerful and evangelistically effective version of the SBC is one that rediscovers its fighting spirit for the glory of God.

We don’t need to adjust our doctrines–the BF&M is an excellent summary of our shared convictions. We just need to be willing to fight for them, even if it means enduring temporary losses and the departures of those unwilling to do so. God is honored by courage and clarity. These are the very traits we see in the book of Acts, and this is how the SBC can get back on track.

See you in Orlando.

The core argument of my essay is this: Side B Christianity is a deceptive tactic to welcome homosexuality into the church by holding to a traditional position on marriage but otherwise claiming homosexual desires aren’t sinful and adopting a gay identity is lawful for Christians. This view has done great harm to the church by robbing people of the tools needed to fight sexual sin.

However, Allberry has rightly gone on record rejecting the “Side B” view, as a whole, signing the Nashville Statement, and rejecting “gay Christian” as a legitimate, Christian identity. This being the case, he still speaks as though “same sex attraction” is not sinful in itself.

Therefore, I have added this editorial note at the beginning and edited the body of my article to represent his views more accurately. I have also clarified below that Crossway, who has published Allberry, has pushed against Side B Christianity.

It happened again. I take no delight in writing this, but another pastor has been removed from ministry. This time it's different, though, because the sin is the direct result of his theology. Let me explain.

Sam Allberry has been removed from pastoral ministry following what’s been described as an “inappropriate relationship” with a man. Whatever the full details turn out to be, this moment deserves more than just sadness. This was no random, moral failure, but the fruit of a system that refused to acknowledge “same sex attraction” as a dangerous and sinful error, one that particularly aligns with the world’s agenda of normalizing every kind of sexual perversion.

If Allberry were merely an ordinary Christian man who fell into sin, it could be handled with discretion as fits the situation. But Allberry is not an ordinary Christian man. He advocates for the idea that “same sex attraction” is not necessarily sinful in itself.

Allberry was formerly an Anglican pastor, apologist (with Ravi Zacharias ministries, which is a whole other matter), conference speaker, and, until recently, an associate pastor at Immanuel Church in Nashville. Immanuel Church features a who’s who of prominent, left-leaning evangelical leaders, such as Ray Ortlund (founding pastor, pastor Emeritus, and pastor to pastors), Dr. Russell Moore (minister in residence), Dr. Gavin Ortlund (theologian in residence and son of Ray Ortlund), and Barnabas Piper (Assistant Pastor, author, and son of John Piper).

Given his view that “same sex attraction” is not necessarily sinful, Allberry’s actions deserve particular scrutiny, especially since he has authored multiple books seemingly aimed to normalize and promote his unusual way of practicing Christianity. Among his published books include these titles: Is God Anti-Gay?, 7 Myths About Singleness, What God Has to Say About Our Bodies, and Why Does God Care Who I Sleep With?.

This view that homosexual desires aren’t sinful in themselves would always have a friendly audience amongst liberals who want to normalize homosexual desires and practices. But it also gained traction in conservative Christian circles because it was promoted beneath a fig leaf of maintaining the orthodox view of marriage as one man and one woman. In other words, their message was, “trust us on all things related to homosexuality because we reject gay marriage!”

This is the same word game that prominent leaders like Preston Sprinkle use to normalize unbiblical ideas about sexuality. Sprinkle was the general editor of the NIV Upside-Down Kingdom Bible, which promotes “side B” perspective on gay desires and identity. Personally, I find it unfathomable that someone would publish study notes and articles that deny biblical teaching bound together with the pages of scripture itself. They seem to think holding to the traditional view of marriage gives them license to distort biblical anthropology in other areas.

The view that homosexuality isn’t sinful in itself has been gaining prominence over the last 15-30 years or so, particularly in the late 90s. It crystallized under episcopal priest Wesley Hill’s book, Washed and Waiting. This book outlines the contemporary view that “same sex attraction” (SSA) is a persistent, unchosen experience or temptation that does not require repentance in itself. In other words, if a man is sexually attracted to another man, that attraction isn’t a sin to mortify in itself, it only becomes sin when he physically engages in a sexual act with another man. Some advocates of this view use the label “Side B,” which accepts “gay Christian” as a legitimate identity marker. Some big names who hold this view are Greg Johnson, Rachel Gilson, Nate Collins, and Mark Yarhouse. (As stated previously, Allberry does not hold to the full “side B” position regarding gay identity).

Prominent organizations that promote these views include the “Revoice” conference, “Spiritual Friendship” website, “Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender” (founded by Preston Sprinkle), “Living Out” (Sam Allberry’s ministry), and “EQUIP”. This view has also been platformed in popular media outlets such as The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and Christianity Today (CT). CRU (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ) has used Preston Sprinkle’s training materials for their staff. In short, this is a large, influential movement promoted by prominent leaders and enjoys solid funding and institutional support.

This is one of the most destructive forces in modern evangelicalism. And the whole godless enterprise needs to be dismantled, brick by brick, and burned to the ground.

To understand the depths of this error, you need to understand three important categories the Bible uses to describe human sexuality: behavior, desire, and identity.

Behavior

The Biblical view of sexual behavior is this: God designed physical intimacy to be enjoyed by a husband and wife within the covenant of marriage. Any sexual act outside that covenant is sin. Paul uses the Greek word “porneia” to describe a very broad category of sexual sin. Basically, porneia can refer to anything that falls outside of God’s prescribed boundary of sexual activity.

Allberry claimed to agree with this, which gave him credibility to speak on these matters to conservative Christian audiences. He affirmed traditional marriage, opposed homosexual sex, and advocated celibacy for Christians who experience “same-sex attraction.”

Behavior was never where he diverged from orthodoxy. The divergence came one level deeper.

Desire

The Bible isn’t merely interested in sexual acts people perform with their body parts. The Bible also addresses the desires that lead to those acts, and humans are morally culpable for those desires. This is where Allberry’s error lives, and where side B does its nastiest damage.

Allberry’s position is that homosexual desire is not itself sinful. They say it’s an orientation, an unchosen and fixed feature of their personhood, making it merely a cross to bear rather than a sin to mortify. The only sin they’ll acknowledge is the behavior, the desires themselves are morally neutral.

According to Wesley Hill, the desires can even be befriended and worn as an identity. He has written that being gay “colors everything” about him, including his friendships, his aesthetic sensibilities, and his emotional life. He doesn’t merely experience same-sex temptation. He is gay, and that gayness is a gift to be stewarded rather than a disorder to be fought.

This is a direct contradiction of Scripture.

The first nine commandments forbid external acts, but the tenth commandment is different. It forbids sinful desires. In Romans 7, Paul explained how the command against coveting was what made him realize just how deep sin truly goes, leading him to exclaim, “wretched man that I am!” (v24).

Specifically, Exodus 20:17 prohibits desiring your neighbor’s wife. While the seventh commandment forbids adultery, the tenth commandment addresses the desires that lead to adultery. They are distinct commands addressing distinct sins. Jesus sharpens this distinction in the Sermon on the Mount when he said, “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).

Simply put, the desire to sin is sin. Jesus wasn’t being innovative. He was connecting the seventh commandment to the tenth, which had always been there.

In Romans 1, Paul describes men who were “consumed with passion for one another.” They weren’t merely committing homosexual acts, the desire itself is indicted as sinful. The Greek word here is orexis, which refers to appetite, or raw craving. Paul isn’t describing men who reluctantly fell into behavior they didn’t want. He’s describing men whose desires were disordered and who followed them.

In Galatians 5, porneia, akatharsia, and aselgeia appear together as “works of the flesh,” such as sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality. These aren’t just behaviors. They’re the desires from which behaviors flow. In Colossians 3:5, Paul says to put to death “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire.” Passion and evil desire are listed alongside the behaviors, not excused from the list.

Thus, all of our desires, whether we chose them consciously or not, are morally implicated. Our desires are aimed at something, and when we desire something sinful, the morality of the desire is determined by the object of that desire. One cannot say that his or her desire isn’t sinful because it was involuntary. That doesn’t matter. The involuntary nature of a sinful desire doesn’t sanctify it. It means you need grace to fight it, not permission to keep it.

There’s a further distinction worth making here. Some sinful, sexual desires can be worse than others if they are unnatural. In other words, not all sinful sexual desire is the same kind of sin. An engaged couple who sinfully lusts for each other is desiring something that is natural and good but premature. The desire is sinful because they are unmarried, not because the desire itself is unnatural. Paul’s word for this situation: “if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:9). Once they get married, their formerly sinful desires are now sanctified by their marriage covenant.

But homosexual desires are different because they’re unnatural. A man who lusts after another man has no place where his desires could find legitimate expression. God would not sanction a sexual union between two men in any context because it is unnatural. Paul addresses this in Romans 1 when he says, “men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” (v27). Thus, heterosexual lust is sinful, but can become holy through lawful marriage. Homosexual lust is also sinful, but carries the additional weight of sinning against nature itself.

The pastoral implication here is serious. A man who believes his homosexual desire is not sinful has no reason to fight it. He has every reason to befriend it, explore it, protect it from outside interference. He is in a far more dangerous position than a man who knows his desires are disordered and needs to mortify them. You cannot fight an enemy you’ve been told is a friend. The Side B framework, whatever its intentions, removes the theological ground for the fight. It tells men to carry their desires as a cross rather than kill them as a sin. Those are not the same thing.

Identity

The last stop on this train is side B Christianity, which treats one’s sinful sexual desires as a personal identity.

Side B advocates write about being gay as a core dimension of their personhood. They avoid describing it as a mere temptation, but prefer to describe it as an identity. They argue that a gay identity is appropriate for celibate Christians, that it shapes how they move through the world, how they form friendships, what they notice and feel and love. Once homosexual desire is no longer sinful, there is no theological reason not to embrace it as identity. Once sexual sin becomes an identity, one begins to organize his or her entire life around it.

Scripture has no category for this. The concept of sexual orientation as a fundamental category of personhood is a modern innovation. The word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until modern times. In the 1950s, John Money argued that one’s sexual desires constitute a core part of their identity, drawing on Freudian assumptions about the self. Before that, men who committed homosexual acts were simply men who committed homosexual acts. The idea that committing homosexual acts could become a personal identity is an idea that is about 70 years old. The fact that churches have accepted the idea of “gay Christian” shows just how powerfully worldly ideologies can creep in through this teaching.

Biblically speaking, there are two and only two legitimate sexual identities: male and female. Scripture identifies sinful desires and sinful behaviors, calls them sin, and calls sinners to repentance, forgiveness, and adoption into God’s family as sons and daughters of God. That is the identity on offer. The gospel doesn’t baptize your disordered desires and hand them back as a stable foundation for personhood. It kills them and gives you something far better.

When a person builds their identity on sin, it becomes a prison of their own making. Equating sexual desire with personal identity is a Satanic masterstroke. It convinces people that their sin is essential to their humanity. Repentance stops being a door into the Kingdom of God and becomes a wall that prevents people from entering. If a man believes being gay is essential to his identity, telling him to repent is the same as telling him to stop existing. It’s powerful rhetoric. When pastors adopt the language of “gay identity,” even in if they call for celibacy, they are handing that man the bricks to build his own prison.

There’s a linguistic piece of this worth addressing. The phrase “same-sex attraction” has become standard in many orthodox Christian circles, often out of genuine pastoral concern for people fighting this sin. The intention is good, but the language is not. “Attraction” is a word with positive associations. We typically use the word “attract” to refer to things like beauty, or a future spouse. Importing the word “attraction” into a discussion of sinful desire softens what Scripture teaches and trains us to be afraid of the Bible’s hard, direct words.

People aren’t “same sex attracted.” People have sinful lusts and passions. We need hard words to describe harmful realities we need to be warned against. We don’t say a greedy man is “attracted to money.” We say he’s greedy. We don’t say a liar is “attracted to deceit,” we call him a liar. Plain language is more honest and, in the long run, more merciful.

What this should tell us

Nobody should be happy about what Sam Allberry did, but public figures deserve public scrutiny, especially when the stakes are so high. Allberry is not beyond the reach of grace, but I pray he not only repents of his recently discovered sin, but the worldview and teaching that put him (and countless others with similar temptations) in a dangerous position to begin with.

Simply put, Allberry is reaping what he’s sown, as painful as it is to acknowledge. He spent years telling himself and others that homosexual desire is not sinful. Are we surprised that his ministry was ended by an “inappropriate relationship” with a man? He was navigating with a broken compass. This moral failure was the direct result of his worldview and teaching, and I’m afraid many, many others have already followed him into the same error.

Soft peddling the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality is not compassionate. Christians must never make space to legitimize or normalize gay lust or a gay identity. To do so robs men and women from the biblical teaching they need to identify sin, convincing them they don’t need the Spirit’s power to fight it because there’s nothing wrong with it. God help us. That kind of teaching will only open the door to more people who will struggle with it.

The church needs to say, with clarity and without cruelty, that same-sex desire is sin to be mortified, not an identity to be managed. The grace of God is sufficient for that fight. Peter says we have been given “all things that pertain to life and godliness” and have “become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Pet. 1:3-4). We are not controlled by our sinful desires. We have power over them. But we have to name them first. We have to call them what they are.

These arguments are developed further in my book, “God’s Good Design: A Biblical, Theological, and Practical Guide to Human Sexuality.”

According to the Christian ministry leader who hosted our group, this is not a problem for the Hindu faith. Hindus don’t necessarily see themselves as anti-Christian. They don’t reject Christianity by denying Christ directly. Rather, they simply absorb Jesus Christ into their religious pantheon, assigning him to a subordinate status alongside other, higher gods. Hindus may hold Jesus in high regard, even seeing him as a holy man, a prophet, an enlightened guru who taught non-violence and universal love. Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu leader in India who weaponized Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount to recruit Christians to his cause.

I bring this up because a video clip has been circulating of Vivek Ramaswamy on the campaign trail in the Ohio gubernatorial race where he was discussing his faith with a Christian man. This race matters to me because I live in Cincinnati, Ohio, as do many members of my church, and I’m a Christian and a pastor.

He said this:

“In our faith tradition, Jesus Christ is A son of god. I know that is different than saying he’s THE son of God, but that is my view of Jesus Christ… Do we worship [him] in churches? Yes, we do. Is that compatible with our faith? Yes, it is. One true god, in many forms.”

Ramaswamy is an intelligent and successful man. He knows he’ll need the support of conservative Christians to win the governor’s race in Ohio. Ramaswamy uses sophistry to describe his view in terms that Christians are more likely to accept. He doesn’t say, “here’s what we Hindus believe,” he says, “in our faith tradition.” He claims his views of Jesus Christ are “compatible with the Christian faith.”

The ambiguity is doing a lot of work there. He also makes a reference to Hindus worshiping Jesus “in churches.” “Church” is a Christian word. Hindus don’t gather in churches for worship, they go to Hindu temples.

Ramaswamy is deliberately obscuring his true beliefs to appeal to conservative voters who wouldn’t like them if they knew what he truly believed. And he’s campaigning as a conservative Republican whose own worldview would make it difficult if not impossible for him to conserve what conservatives want conserved. His words reveal the Hindu absorption mechanism at work in his campaign. He isn’t articulating the cavernous distinctions between Hinduism and Christianity, he’s blurring the lines in ways that make them seem like negligible, semantic differences.

Christianity simply will not blend with any other faith. It’s a direct violation of the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3). Hinduism is a polytheistic faith that acknowledges at least 33 major gods (some argue Hinduism’s gods range in the millions). Ramaswamy cleverly obscures this fact by claiming to believe in “one true god in many forms,” which sounds closer to monotheism, thus closing the gap between them. But even if one were to grant the point, Hinduism’s cosmology is pantheistic–ultimately, everything is god. The sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, trees, birds, and the device you’re reading this article on is ultimately god. The creation account of Genesis 1 clearly establishes the Creator/creature distinction, where God is supreme and eternal who created a realm that is distinct from him. Pantheism is an ancient error of paganism that God corrected in Moses’ creation account.

Despite Ramaswamy’s attempts to blur and obscure Hinduism’s true beliefs, it is nevertheless a polytheistic religion, and pluralism is the natural worldview it produces. But America was not built as a pluralistic society. It was built as a Christian society, which is what made it arguably the freest and most prosperous nation in history. Even the blessed religious freedom we cherish in America was originally intended as a measure to prevent denominational differences between Christians from becoming violent. The men who wrote these protections into our constitution weren’t envisioning a pluralistic public square so Vishnu worshipers could hold public office. They were thinking about how to navigate a specifically Christian public square that could account for different kinds of legitimate Christians, such as presbyterians, congregationalists, and baptists. It was not an open door for Hindus to cheapen our faith, demote our Lord and savior, and lecture Christians about who Jesus really is.

That’s not to say every one of the founding fathers were born again Christians, because that’s not the case. What I’m saying is that the architects of our government were all operating within a Christian worldview and applying the principles of Christianity to government, even though they may not have personally been regenerate believers. You don’t have to be a regenerate Christian to work within a Christian framework, because many of the founders did just that.

That’s why many are questioning Ramaswamy’s conservative credentials since his worldview rejects the very Christian foundation we need to conserve. Put differently, he may be a conservative regarding the fruits of our Christian society, but he’s trying to replace the foundation that’s holding it together. And a faulty foundation won’t last. Ramaswamy’s vision of America is similar to his vision of Christianity. By his own admission, Christianity can be absorbed into and be ultimately replaced by a foreign religion that can speak the language and ape the outer forms but is running on a completely different operating system. Similarly, his vision of America is one that will absorb the people and place that America is built upon and absorb it into the political version of Hinduism–a pantheon of various ideas held together by a precommitment to pluralism. That’s not the America our founding fathers envisioned. If you replace the root, the fruit cannot survive either.

Thus, Ramaswamy might be a conservative in some sense, but “conservatism” as a political philosophy is only as good as what its conserving. And in his case, he’s only capable of conserving a few policies Republican voters might find favorable, but divorced from the robust, Christian worldview from which they arose in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Ramaswamy doesn’t have any good policy positions. I’d probably agree with him in many areas. My main concern is this: Vivek may sound like a conservative, but we should be more discerning about who is worthy of that label and what it means.

In short, a man whose worldview functionally demotes Jesus Christ while elevating pagan Hindu gods is not equipped to conserve what matters most. We don’t need conservatives who will simply conserve Reagan era policies that didn’t have the teeth to prevent the chaos we’re living in today. We need to go back further. Much further. Ramaswamy may use our words, and even pretend to respect our religion, but he’s not the man who will conserve the root and foundation of everything that made America great, namely, Jesus Christ himself and the application of the Christian faith to civic life.

America needs leaders who hold good policy positions but also know why they’re good policies, not merely that they’re the right policies that make one electable in a red state. What needs conserving in American life is not a matter of lower taxes, smaller government, school choice, or any other policy Republicans would support, it’s more foundational than that. What needs conserving is a way of life built upon a shared commitment to the Lordship of Christ over all things. The policy commitments that arise from that foundational commitment are important, but we are fools if we believe we can conserve good policies without understanding where they came from. Hinduism that’s presented as a friendly alternative to Christianity won’t cut it.

For my purposes here, I’m observing two primary groups. On one side, some hold conspiratorial claims that the Jews hold disproportionate power in our society, which they wield in ways that benefit the nation of Israel more than their own country. Some argue the Jews are deliberately destroying the moral fabric of our society for their own gain. In this space are names like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Ian Carroll.

On the other side is a more Zionist posture, that regards Israel as America’s #1 ally, to whom we should give total allegiance, and to criticize Israel is anti-semitic. In this space are Jewish names like Ben Shapiro, Yoram Hazony, and Mark Levin, and some Catholic names like Christopher Rufo and Rick Lowry. There are also evangelical names in this space, likely influenced by dispensational theology, such as Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Paula White, Robert Jeffress, and Tony Perkins. While dispensational theology is not as prominent as it once was, it still informs evangelicalism’s reflexes, leading people to believe that Christians should support Israel because they’re God’s chosen people.

Who are the Jews?

The Jews persist as a unique people in human history. They are the only people group whose religious identity has a genetic component, yet they are not confined to a single geography. No other ethnic group has maintained a distinct identity over four thousand years without being absorbed by surrounding cultures.

Globally, Jews represent about 0.2% of the world’s population, with a little less than half of them living in Israel and the rest living in a diaspora around the world.

The Jews also tend to thrive wherever they are. In the USA, about 2% of our population is Jewish, yet they represent roughly 1/3 of the four hundred wealthiest Americans. They hold the keys to cultural power, being a strong force in Hollywood, the music industry, banking, technology, the news media, and pornography.

The nation of Israel was founded in 1948 after World War II, and that nation has been at the center of geopolitical conflict ever since. The October 7th Hamas attack, the Gaza war, and American foreign policy debates — none of this is going away.

I’m not in an informed enough position to adjudicate these things, I’m simply reporting on the kinds of discussions unfolding online on a daily basis. Every time these subjects come up, Christians don’t know what to think, because we’ve been given two options: (1) uncritical support for Israel because “they’re God’s chosen people,” or (2) a vague discomfort that we’re not allowed to talk about any of this at all for fear of being labeled anti-semitic.

Paul’s Anguish

Since the Bible doesn’t mention America or China or Russia or Ukraine, Christians of good faith need to apply biblical principles to our understanding of geopolitics. But the Bible does mention Israel by name, and we do have a country on the map by the same name. My aim here is to identify who the Bible is referring to, especially in Romans 9-11, and what it means for us today.

In Romans 9:3, Paul describes feeling a personal anguish over the Jews because they, his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” have largely rejected their Messiah. Paul is speaking specifically of the biological descendants of Abraham, who are “are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (v4). Ultimately, “from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (v5).

God adopted Israel as his own possession. He made a covenant with them, gave them the law, taught them how to worship, and promised to bless them as a people. He established the true faith through them. The genealogies of the Old Testament exist to preserve the Abrahamic bloodline because God’s purpose in choosing the Jewish people was to bring forth the Messiah. It was always about Jesus, even when it didn’t look like it, and the plan took over two millennia to unfold.

And when Christ finally came, they rejected him. Since God made these promises to the Jewish people regarding their Messiah—since God used the Jews to bring salvation to the world yet they did not receive it—Paul anticipates someone’s objection that perhaps “the word of God has failed” (v6). Did God’s word fail regarding the Jews?

Two Israels

Paul’s answer is a resounding “no,” and here’s the reason: there have always been two Israels.

Abraham has two kinds of descendants: (1) children of the flesh and (2) children of the promise. God promised to make Abraham a great nation, but he never promised that every single physical descendant of Abraham would be saved. God also promised that salvation would come through Abraham’s line, but he never promised that every individual in his line would be saved.

So God’s promise includes both a physical seed and a spiritual seed. Christians have been confusing them for a long time. Also, this is not something new, as though Paul is retroactively reading his experience back into the story of Abraham. Rather, Paul is exegeting the passages in Genesis to demonstrate that even within the first few generations of Abraham’s own family this distinction had always been made.

Abraham had two sons. Ishmael was the child of the flesh born to Hagar, and Isaac was the child of the promise born to Sarah. Even though Ishmael was physically Abraham’s son, he did not inherit the promise, because God’s promise was that Sarah would be the mother (not Hagar, Ishmael’s mother).

The same is true in the following generation. Isaac had twin sons. Esau was the child of the flesh, and Jacob was the child of the promise. In this case, both boys had the same mother, and yet, only Isaac was chosen to inherit the promise. God chose Jacob over Esau before either of them had done anything good or bad. The choice was entirely God’s, and it had nothing to do with ethnicity or birthright in the ordinary sense.

Therefore, even within Abraham’s own family, there have always been two Israels: children of the flesh and children of the promise. Throughout the generations of Israel’s history, there was always a larger nation comprised of Abraham’s physical descendants, and a “remnant” within that nation who were true believers.

The New Testament picks up this theme with John the Baptist. When the religious establishment comes to him with their credentials, he tells them: “Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Luke 3:8). In other words, faith matters more than blood. God is establishing a faithful people, not merely collecting Abraham’s biological descendants (cf Rom 2:28).

Now that Jesus has come and fulfilled the promise, the nation of Israel as a political and ethnic entity has served its purpose: the preservation of the Messianic line. God’s judgment fell on Israel as a nation in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, exactly as Jesus predicted. The vehicle had delivered its cargo. Its special status was finished.

The Stunning Reversal

So, here is what Paul’s anguish is actually about: the tragic irony of Jewish unbelief.

The unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day saw themselves as Jacob, the line of promise, but actually they are Esau, mere children of Abraham’s flesh. The unbelieving Jews saw themselves as Isaac, the child of the promise, but actually they are Ishmael, the son of the slave woman (cf Gal 4:21-31).

This is one of the great scandals of the New Testament. The Jews, Abraham’s physical descendants, Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh,” saw themselves as God’s chosen people. They regarded the Gentiles as cut off from God. In reality, unbelieving Jews are the ones who were cut off from God, and believing Gentiles have become the true sons of Abraham, children of the promise, and the true Israel of God.

Galatians 6:15-16 explicitly says, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

Therefore, God’s word has not failed, it was just fulfilled in ways they didn’t expect. True Israel is reckoned according to those share Abraham’s faith (i.e., faith in Christ), not those who merely share Abraham’s DNA.

Thus, God’s purpose of election played out exactly as God intended. He chose Jacob over Esau before either was born. He builds his covenant people not on the basis of ethnicity but on the basis of sovereign grace operating through faith. The promise to Abraham was always bigger than Abraham’s family. It was always aimed at the whole world.

What This Means Practically

This being the case, what does it mean for Christians and Jews in our day? Here are three simple conclusions we can draw.

First, unbelieving Jews have no special covenant standing before God. This cuts against the dispensationalist view which has exerted significant influence in evangelical circles. Dispensationalism holds that ethnic Israel retains a separate covenant status and prophetic future distinct from the Church. That view is wrong. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, and there is no salvation apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 4:5-6). If you have an unbelieving Jewish neighbor or coworker, treat him like any other unbeliever. Be kind, share the gospel, treat him with respect, but do not defer to him or grant him a special status he does not possess. He has rejected his Messiah. That is the most important thing to know about him.

Second, the Bible does not require the United States to support the nation of Israel. This is the same principle as the above point at scale. Many sincere Christians believe America has a divine obligation to stand with Israel because the Jews are God’s chosen people. But that’s simply not true. The only people who can rightly be called God’s chosen people are Christians—we are the true circumcision, the true Jew, the Israel of God. Modern unbelieving Jews have no covenant standing with God. Just because the nation of Israel happens to be called “Israel” and occupied by Jewish people, it has no special status before God. We may choose to support them if doing so serves our national interests, but that is a political calculation, not a theological obligation. No verse of Scripture requires it.

Think of it this way: if the apostle Paul were walking through Tel Aviv today, he would not be talking about Iran or bombs or Bibi Netanyahu or the Gaza strip or foreign policy. He would feel grief in his soul because they are his kinsmen according to the flesh and they have rejected their Messiah. His concern would be for their souls, not their geopolitical interests. He would say, “These people need Jesus.” That is the right Christian posture toward the Jewish people: not political alliance, but evangelistic urgency.

So when you read about “Israel” or “the Jews” in your Bible, do not picture a country on a map. Picture a lost people group, some of whom live in the nation of Israel, and some who are scattered around the world, who need to receive their Messiah.

Third, God does have a future plan for the salvation of the Jewish people through faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 11 does teach that before Christ returns, God will bring about a mass conversion of ethnic Jews. This is a genuine promise and worth taking seriously. But it does not mean that unbelieving Jews currently enjoy a favored status before God apart from faith.

Think of it this way. You might have unbelievers in your life that you care deeply about right now. Further, you don’t realize it, but suppose they are elect and God will one day bring about their faith and conversion to Christ. Even though that unbelieving friend will one day become a Christian, he or she has no covenant standing before God. He is simply an unbeliever who is elect and will become a Christian someday. That’s what Romans 11 is saying. God will bring a large number of Jews to faith in Jesus Christ at some point in the future because he cares for their souls. But that’s not the same thing as assuming those unbelievers have covenant standing before God. And when that day comes, they will not be saved because they are Jews, they will be saved because they have repented of their sins and placed their faith in Jesus Christ.