There’s a good spirit here, and good people as well. In the midst of what can be heavy discussions, it’s important to remember that. What a gift it has been to see old friends, people with whom I’ve fought battles and helped to build the GMC over the years. I am grateful for these relationships. But jet lag, man…. It’s a bear. This is not the best version of myself. When I’m sleep deprived I'm not the normal bubbly, happy-go-lucky guy you’ve come to know and love. Help me, Jesus.

Matt O’Reilly did a great job of chairing our legislative committee on doctrine and sacraments. We’ve dealt with some difficult questions. One topic of discussion I didn’t have on my bingo card is—get ready—filioque. This word means “and the Son,” and it was officially added to the Nicene Creed in the Latin West in 589 at the Council of Toledo. Its addition communicates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, rather than only from the Father. Eastern Christians have never affirmed the addition of filioque. Most Western Christians never question it. In the GMC, we stipulate in our Book of Doctrines and Discipline that the recitation of filioque is optional. Christians in Eastern Europe and Western Asia still get itchy about it, however, since it can be used to paint them as a Western church, even an American one. It’s a touchy subject. This stuff ain’t easy.

We worked carefully through the proposed Articles of Faith in legislative committee. Prior to this gathering the Articles have been vetted by the Commission on Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry; the Assembly of Bishops; a fifty-person review team; Wesleyan theologians not affiliated with the GMC; and the church at large. This process, first proposed by Ryan Barnett, has resulted in a stronger, more faithful document. We made additional adjustments in the legislative committee. At the close of our last legislative session, we affirmed and blessed the Articles unanimously. There was a great spirit of unity in the room. More than one person has called it a holy moment. A few people shed tears. By the time the Articles come to the floor of the general conference, we will be able to say with integrity that they are a product of our corporate discernment. This will be neither the writing team’s document nor the Commission’s document, but the church’s document. I pray we, the General Conference, will receive it in this spirit.

We also elected eight bishops in the span of a few hours. The election of all the bishops by the General Conference delegates does speed things along. The bishops we elected are:

• Luther Oconer (area 1)

• Jonathan Lee (area 2)

• Mark Webb (area 3)

• Lyndol Loyd (area 4)

• Jerry Kulah (area 5)

• Eduard Khegay (area 6)

• Paul Lawler (area 7)

• Carolyn Moore (area 8).

If you want to learn more about these bishops and the areas over which they will bish, check out this page on the GMC website.

We also honored the service of six bishops whose terms have ended:

• Scott Jones

• John Pena Auta

• Leah Hidde Gregory

• Kimba Evariste

• Kenneth Levingston

• Jeff Greenway.

Bishop Jones gave his final episcopal address early in the conference. It was meaningful for me to be there for that. Back before the flood when Scott Jones was a professor and I was a graduate student, I was his research assistant. His vocation and mine have gone in unexpected directions, but our paths have often intersected. I truly appreciate all he has done for the church, and particularly the GMC.

The other bishop with whom I’ve worked closely over the years is my friend Jeff Greenway. Jeff is the person who first drew me into evangelical advocacy in the United Methodist Church. He invited me to serve on the board of the Evangelical Fellowship of West Ohio. I’d never been on the board of anything before. I accepted the invitation, and it’s been one wild ride since then. Jeff is a good friend, and I’m grateful for the many ways he has served the church across the decades.

I’ve been following other conversations throughout the conference, conversations around theological education, the church’s constitution, the episcopal election process, and other matters. We had a huge amount of legislation before us at the beginning of the week, and we’re making good headway as we move through it. If you’re a delegate at the general conference, you’re not sitting around eating moonpies and watching reruns of Hogan’s Heroes. This is work. Our days are long and intense. When I get back to Kentucky, I’m going to need to spend a week or so in a sensory deprivation chamber.

A general conference, even in a denomination in which there is basic agreement on doctrine and ethics, can be a high-tension affair. People really care about this stuff. I’m one of those people. And the decisions we make can have knock-on effects for generations to come. For better or worse, I’m the kind of person who is always looking down the road trying to see what problems may emerge, what pitfalls lie before us in the years ahead. Some people seem to believe that progressivism is the greatest threat to the GMC. I disagree, at least for the short term. Those of us who fought the battles within the UMC will not be enticed by progressive ideology and theology. We have tasted too much of that bitter fruit. Progressivism may become an issue in future generations, and we need to guard against that, but there are more acute threats in our current context.

In the short term, I’m far more worried about hyper-pragmatism than progressivism. The question I keep asking is: On what principles are we basing our decisions? Are we insisting on adequate preparation for clergy? Are we making decisions about sacramental authority consistent with a historic Wesleyan understanding? Do we still care about the orders of deacon and elder? Does ordination mean anything? Is it important to us that our denomination remain Wesleyan/Methodist in generations to come? Far more easily than we could drift into progressivism, we could gradually adopt a kind of beige evangelical character. I don’t want this. In fact, I’m dead set against it. We are Wesleyans. We are Methodists. That should mean something. If it doesn’t, we’ve done all this for nothing.

When a gathering like a general conference goes well, it is a gift of God. I give credit to a great many people—the team that handled the logistics around location, transportation, hotels, and other tedious but essential matters; the worship team that planned multiple services with people from around the world; the bishops who presided; the delegates who did the legislative work of the conference; and many others. Perhaps most important, however, are those who have held the conference in prayer, who, day after day, asked God to be present in our worship, conversations, and deliberations. God heard those prayers. To this point, this conference has been a blessing.

Please keep praying.

Share

Share

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. Jessica LaGrone welcomes Rev. Dr. Brian Taylor, pastor of Every Nation Cincinnati Church, a church planter, an Asbury Seminary alumnus, and a leader within the global Every Nation movement.

Drawing from his journey as a student-athlete at Vanderbilt University, campus missionary, church planter, and pastor, Dr. Taylor shares how God transformed his life during college and ultimately called him and his wife to plant a church in Cincinnati. He offers an honest look at the realities of church planting, the challenges of building a congregation from scratch, and the lessons he learned to trust God rather than carry the weight of ministry alone.

The conversation also explores Every Nation’s vision for campus ministry and global missions, why reaching university students remains a strategic opportunity for the church, and how local congregations can embrace multicultural leadership and multiethnic community as a reflection of the kingdom of God.

Dr. Taylor shares powerful stories from his ministry experience, discussing cultural blind spots, the importance of listening well across differences, and the practical challenges and joys of leading a diverse congregation. He also reflects on family life in ministry, raising children who love the church, and the lasting impact of theological education on faithful pastoral leadership.

This encouraging conversation offers wisdom for pastors, church planters, ministry leaders, and anyone seeking to build Christ-centered communities that reflect the beauty of God's diverse kingdom.

KEY TOPICS COVERED
0:00 Introduction and Brian Taylor's story
2:00 Growing up in a Christian home and coming alive in faith during college
3:00 Playing football at Vanderbilt and life-changing campus ministry
4:20 From campus missionary to church planter
6:10 A surprising call to Cincinnati
8:10 Why God wanted to grow the pastor before growing the church
10:00 The hidden realities of church planting
12:00 Leadership lessons learned through ministry
13:20 Supporting church planters and serving the wider kingdom
15:20 Trusting God with the results of ministry
17:20 The vision and mission of Every Nation
19:20 Why the campus is one of today's greatest mission fields
21:30 The impact of Asbury Seminary on ministry and preaching
24:50 Teaching inductive Bible study to the next generation
26:10 Building multicultural and multiethnic churches
29:20 Why diversity must be a conviction, not a strategy
31:20 Navigating cultural tensions within the church
36:00 Leadership, representation, and organizational blind spots
39:40 Lessons learned from cultural misunderstandings
42:40 A powerful worship moment across cultures
44:30 Raising children who love the church
47:00 Family life and ministry together
49:30 The importance of integrity at home and in ministry

MENTIONS
• Every Nation Ministries - https://www.everynation.org/
• Every Nation Cincinnati Church - https://www.everynationcincinnati.org/
• Ready to Lead by Brian Taylor and Chris Johnson - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1664286128

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS
Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. David Watson and Dr. Tesia Mallory explore the importance of passing on the faith through Scripture, doctrine, worship, discipleship, and theological education.

Reflecting on recent experiences teaching Methodist doctrine, they discuss why traditions matter, why the Church must intentionally form believers, and why doctrine is not merely about drawing boundaries but about helping people know God and experience salvation.

The conversation highlights the uniquely Wesleyan emphasis on doctrine, spirit, and discipline, and explores how practices such as worship, catechesis, liturgy, mentorship, and seminary education help preserve and transmit the faith across generations.

KEY TOPICS COVERED
0:00 Introduction
1:00 Teaching Methodist doctrine in an international context
4:00 Why doctrine still matters today
7:00 Doctrine, spirit, and discipline in Wesleyanism
10:00 Why institutions matter for preserving faith
14:00 Scripture as a means of grace
17:00 Teaching doctrine and Christian formation
21:00 Liturgy and the formation of belief
26:00 Apprenticeship and discipleship
31:00 The role of seminary education
37:00 Why theological education matters
42:00 Passing the faith to future generations

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS
Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

Read the full article at Firebrand Magazine.

Share

To be honest, I haven’t entirely shed those expectations. And yes, I know that’s a “me” thing. I probably need more optimism. Two decades of conditioning is hard to shed, though. Plus, I’m a Gen-Xer. Skepticism, caution, and sarcasm—I won’t go as far as to say cynicism—are our birthright. Nevertheless I’ve been praying for the General Conference and allowing myself to be hopeful that God will move just as powerfully as he did in Costa Rica. I love the church. I’m a child of the church, and I want the best for her. And I know God wants that far more than I do. In the spirit of transcending my malformed expectations, then, here are a few items I think would benefit the GMC over the long haul.

Take Doctrine Seriously

One reason I left the UMC was that I felt doctrine just didn’t matter very much. Perhaps there was a time when we could assume a certain level of Christian formation among the general public. Regular church attendance was once far more common than it is today. In our current moment, however, it’s hard to find strong Christian formation even among churchgoers. I wrote about this here:

It’s time for a different approach to doctrine. Whatever we’re doing, it isn’t working. The GMC should dedicate itself to establishing doctrinal clarity in the church and teaching the faith to people both inside and outside our churches.

First, we must emphasize the historic faith of the church. We must teach that our God is triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We must teach that he became incarnate in Jesus Christ and was both divine and human. We must teach that Jesus lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and after three days rose from the dead. We must teach that only by faith in Jesus can we be saved, and that he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Without this doctrinal core, we’re just wasting our time. We may as well get together on Sunday mornings and play canasta.

Second, we must teach beyond the basics. Our doctrinal core is necessary, but not sufficient. People in our congregations will have questions about important ethical issues such as abortion, ending the lives of people with terminal illnesses, surrogacy, transgenderism, and even transhumanism. This means we need clear teaching on the nature of humanity—theological anthropology. If we can’t provide a clear answer to the question, “What is a human being?” we can’t begin to provide properly Christian responses to these kinds of questions.

Likewise we need fuller teaching regarding sin. We must teach about its nature and effects. What is sin? How does it affect our lives? In what ways does it shape the ways we think, speak, and behave? How can we overcome it?

Third, it should go without saying—but I’m going to say it anyway—that we must teach our Wesleyan distinctives. If we aren’t going to do this, there was literally no reason to form this new Wesleyan denomination. We must teach about the New Birth, regeneration, sanctification, Christian perfection, and assurance. We must also teach about predestination. Otherwise the sheer volume of Reformed theology online will guide our parishioners toward Reformed thinking. I recently taught a group of students, all of whom lived in parts of the former Soviet Union. They were deeply interested in why we Wesleyans don’t affirm individual double predestination—the doctrine that every person is eternally predestined either to heaven or hell. This required deeper teaching about prevenient grace. It made sense to them—but only after I took time to explain it in detail. We can’t assume people hold Wesleyan views, and that includes our clergy. We have to teach them.

This means we have to get clearer in our doctrinal principles, and we must continue to empower the Commission on Discipleship, Doctrine, and Just Ministry to work with the Assembly of Bishops on complex theological issues. I have no vested interest in saying this. I have not been nominated to serve for another six years on this commission, and my day job keeps me busy enough that I could not serve even if I had been nominated. I just want us to continue to develop clear, accessible, orthodox, and Wesleyan teaching that relates to the important ethical issues we face today.

Along these lines, I do pray we adopt the new Articles of Faith. They will help to provide clarity on matters not addressed in the two documents on which it is based. Particularly on matters related to creation, humanity, Scripture, and sanctification, the proposed Articles will help us, and we do need help. Nevertheless, this decision is up to the General Conference, and I will accept its discernment.

I’d also suggest we strengthen requirements for theological education. The question we have to ask when we think about theological education is this: To what extent do we care about the preservation and proclamation of our orthodox, Wesleyan faith? If we are willing to put people with little-to-no theological education in our pulpits, can we really say we care about the teachings of our church? Do we care about our identity as Wesleyan Christians? Do we really care about orthodoxy? What about our sacramental practice? We need to strengthen the requirements for those who will stand in the pulpit and preach the gospel week after week. We need to make sure those who preside at the Lord’s table have a firm grasp of this work.

Finally, it’s imperative that we resource our congregations with affordable, accessible tools for teaching the orthodox, Wesleyan faith. This should be the work of our commissions in cooperation with the Assembly of Bishops. If we adopt the new Articles of Faith, we will likely need a new catechism, since the last catechism was keyed to the EUB Confession of Faith. We will need other resources as well. Sound doctrine can’t stay at the level of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline, nor can we rely simply on the weekly sermon to instill sound doctrine in our parishioners. We have to teach it, and we must be intentional about the production and availability of resources to do so.

Maintain a renewed vision of the episcopacy

We need bishops who will be theological leaders. We don’t need managers. Bishops should protect the integrity of our faith, guard against easy pragmatism, and push us to take our own teachings seriously. We need truth-tellers who have the courage and capacity to speak to the complex issues of our age, including AI, euthanasia, human dignity, surrogacy, polygamy, and the relationship between the church and state. Only those for whom the protection of our doctrine and the proclamation of the gospel are the highest priorities should stand for bishop. Every other task we assign them should be subservient to these tasks. I will cast my votes accordingly.

I’ve heard at times that we “disempowered” bishops by virtue of the way we have conceived of the office. I don’t know if this is true or not. Are they empowered to teach the doctrines of our church? Are they empowered to shepherd the people of the church and proclaim the gospel to the lost? Are they empowered to enforce church law when Global Methodists teach heresy? If so, we have not disempowered them. We have empowered them to fulfill the mandates of their office.

A bishop should also have full authority to reject a candidate for ordination if the bishop believes the candidate unfit for ministry. This is part of protecting the church's doctrinal and spiritual integrity. I know this gives the bishop a great deal of power, but it is power specific to the responsibilities of the episcopacy. In those areas in which we are asking our bishops to do some heavy lifting, let’s empower them to act decisively.

I do have some concerns about the way we are electing bishops. I was part of the team that developed the model of the episcopacy we have adopted, and I was on the legislative committee on the episcopacy at the 2024 General Conference. One of our goals was to de-politicize the process to the greatest extent possible. I don’t think we succeeded. And, by the way, I’m not pointing fingers or assuming ill intentions on anyone’s part. Chris Ritter, the chief architect of this system, is one of the smartest guys I know and has worked tirelessly to help us build this new denomination. I’m grateful for him and have only respect for his contributions. Yet we knew that forming this denomination was a work in progress, and we still need to make some progress. I don’t suggest scrapping the system we have, but only making some helpful adjustments.

One concern I have is that a small number of people (twelve) in each episcopal area generate a ranked list of candidates. These lists have now been published online, which seems unnecessary. While delegates can technically vote for whomever they want, many will go with the published lists from their episcopal areas. This has raised the legitimate question of whether the elections are de facto decided before we ever get to South Africa. I’ve heard different opinions on whether or not this is the case. I’d suggest we look at this matter in legislative committee once we get there.

The other concern I have about this process is that it regionalizes voting. I get the reasons for this. Africans have different concerns from Filipinos, who have different concerns from Americans, who have different concerns from Eastern Europeans, and so on. We want to allow the different regions of our connection to have their say based on the issues they feel are most important. This is a noble intention. It may be well to specify, however, that bishops cannot serve their home conferences, or perhaps even the regions from which they were elected. Such a provision might take some of the politicking out of the mix.

One more issue we need to address: in our current process, episcopal areas may cooperate with one another in order to elect preferred candidates. In other words, this process can lead to the formation of voting blocs. I suspect this has already happened. As Aristotle put it, man is a political animal. To be clear, no one has technically violated our rules. Cooperation of this sort doesn’t go beyond the letter of the law, but it undermines the spirit with which we set out as we established the GMC episcopacy. Perhaps the attempt to depoliticize the voting process was idealistic and naïve. If so, we need simply to account for this and make provisions for it as we move forward.

Own Our Identity as a Denomination

Only about half the churches that left the UMC became Global Methodist. Most of the churches in the other half became non-denominational. Some formed or joined associations, such as the Foundry Network and the Sanctification Network. I get it. Our previous denomination let us down big time. It’s still not entirely clear what the GMC will become. Some churches felt they could use their resources more wisely than by paying denominational apportionments. Some who disaffiliated will never trust bishops again. There are many reasons churches did not affiliate with the GMC. Non-denominationalism is the fastest-growing segment of American Christianity.

Those of us who formed the GMC made a decision to swim against the non-denominational current. Let’s own that. Many Global Methodists have an allergy to anything that hints of bureaucracy, which is understandable given what we came from. The bureaucracy of our previous denomination ate up huge amounts of money, but it’s not at all clear that the boards and agencies strengthened the church in ways that were worth the cost. Nevertheless, let’s not fight the last battle. Nothing in the GMC approaches the administrative sprawl from which we came, and we are discerning enough to prevent the formation of a cumbersome denominational bureaucracy.

Denominations require a certain level of infrastructure. I’m aware of legislation coming forward that will gut our current infrastructure, including dissolving some of our general commissions. Most decision making and resourcing would fall to the annual conferences. We would, under this proposed model, become more of a loose confederacy than a unified denomination working toward common goals. If that’s the way we want to go, we should never have formed the GMC. We wasted our time, and, if you’re like me, you don’t have a lot of time to waste.

The Global Methodist Church is a denomination, not an association. Some centralized authority and resourcing is simply necessary for us to continue to function in this regard. No church has to remain Global Methodist, by the way. We have no trust clause. Any church that wishes to become non-denominational may do so and could no doubt find an appropriate association with which to affiliate. For those that remain, let’s own our denominational identity.

Please pray for the GMC. Pray for our General Conference. Pray that, whatever agendas we may bring with us, God’s agenda will prevail. Nothing we can devise is as good as what God can devise. We are not clever, wise, or holy enough to do this work apart from the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. If I’m wrong about what I want to happen, I pray God will show me that. And I may well be wrong. What’s important as we move forward, above all else, is faithfulness. It’s not whether we have power, whether we adopt a particular structure, or whether we elect our preferred episcopal candidates. Faithfulness is the preeminent concern we should pursue when we gather later this month. If we are faithful, God will use us to bring light into the dark places of this world. So pray—and then pray some more—that we will be faithful to our gracious and loving God.

Share

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. David Watson and Dr. Jessica LaGrone welcome Dr. Janet Dean, Professor of Pastoral Counseling at Asbury Theological Seminary and ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene, for a powerful conversation about grace, trauma, sanctification, identity, and healing.

Dr. Dean shares her journey from growing up outside the church to encountering Christ as a teenager and eventually finding her calling at the intersection of psychology and theology. Along the way, she reflects on the profound influence of Asbury Seminary, a life-changing experience of sanctification, and the ways God's love reshapes perfectionism, shame, and our deepest questions about identity.

Drawing from years of work in forensic psychology, psychiatric hospitals, prisons, and pastoral counseling, Dr. Dean offers a compassionate vision of human brokenness. She challenges simplistic answers to suffering and reminds us that transformation begins not by trying harder, but by experiencing the love of Christ and being truly known by others.

KEY TOPICS COVERED

0:00 Introduction
1:00 Growing up outside the church
3:00 Meeting Christ as a teenager
5:00 Entering psychology and theological education
7:00 A transformative experience of sanctification
10:00 Following a call to counseling and ministry
13:00 Working in forensic psychology and prisons
18:00 Human brokenness and compassion
21:00 Faith, mental health, and healing
25:00 Sanctification and identity transformation
28:00 Christianity, gender, sexuality, and grace
32:00 The importance of relationship and discipleship
35:00 Why people need to be known
39:00 Lazarus and the role of community in healing

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS

Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

Share

“One of our greatest ethical concerns is that GG had explicitly declined MAID, stating it violated her Christian faith. Once a vulnerable patient explicitly declines this path, the facility should never have targeted her for re-evaluation behind closed doors while her primary advocate was away - especially when the facility had no trouble contacting Brigitte daily for minor, routine care decisions.”

If these allegations are true, there’s a word for the actions of this medical team: murder.

As troubling as this news is, it’s also unsurprising. Canada has been sliding down this slippery slope for some time, and picking up speed as it goes. According to a Dordt University report from Levi Minderhoud and Daniel Zekveld,

Veterans have called the Ministry of Veterans Affairs looking for help and been offered euthanasia instead. Those with suicidal ideation have gone to the hospital for help, only to be encouraged to consider euthanasia. A woman was even asked if she was aware of the option of euthanasia before going into cancer-removing surgery.

PSA: Don’t get sick in Canada.

Around 5% of all deaths in Canada are the result of Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD), or, as we used to call it, assisted suicide. And while the problem is particularly egregious in the Great White North, in the U.S. thirteen states plus Washington D.C. have legalized assisted suicide. Don’t be surprised as the prevalence of MAiD grows throughout the U.S. The financial incentives will be powerful, not only for individuals and their families, but healthcare institutions, particularly those receiving significant government funding. Can you put a price on human life? You’d better believe it. We’re watching this play out in real time.

While we’re on the topic of really dark and disturbing things, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey just signed a bill making it easier to abort a child into the ninth month of pregnancy. You can find the video online in plenty of places. A group of women stands behind her applauding and smiling as she signs the bill. I’d like to say this is shocking, but I’m not shocked anymore. We in the West like to think of ourselves as the civilized defenders of human rights and freedom, but in truth life is very cheap here, and getting cheaper. Jesse and Ashley Ridgway made quite a stink when they announced publicly that they had aborted their child with Down syndrome. I wrote about it here:

And yes, people were outraged, but the choice the Ridgways made is the choice most parents make when their child received a prenatal diagnosis of DS. Life, in and of itself, is increasingly meaningless in our world. No one, no matter how committed to the ideology of abortion, could seriously describe a fetus at eight months of development as a “clump of cells.” But in Massachusetts, you can kill that child if you want to do so.

We can’t call the U.S. a Christian nation with a straight face. I don’t know if we ever could, but today the U.S. is a secular—or more accurately neo-pagan—nation in which about 63% of the population self-identifies as Christian. We’re not as far down this road as Canada or Western Europe, but barring a significant Christian revival in the U.S., that is our trajectory. God help us.

And yes, all of this is insanity, but don’t be surprised when those who reject God behave insanely. Sin leads us to a kind of insanity. It keeps us from seeing the world as it should be. The noetic effect of sin—the ways in which it distorts our thinking—is as real as flesh and bone. If the world seems to have gone insane, the reason is that it is insane. This is no new development. War, slavery, racism, eugenics, atheism… these are all manifestations of the same intellectual disease. The only way we can be healed is by the Holy Spirit. Mindfulness, meditation, Stoicism, psychology, and self-help all fail to reach the problem at the depth of the human heart. Our faith diagnoses the disease (sin) and prescribes the cure (Jesus). And until that day when every knee will bend in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father, insanity is what we can expect, and what we must confront.

Confronting this insanity will require hard theological work. Here is the predictable pattern: Evangelicals protest the practice of abortion. Progressive Christians come back and say something like, “But what about immigration? What about healthcare? You’re not pro-life! You’re just pro-birth!” Evangelicals respond that the progressives are conflating distinct issues. On and on it goes, with lots of social-media napalm dropped by ragey keyboard warriors. But there are important questions that lie beneath these arguments, and we’re not answering them. What is a human being? Why does human life matter? How do we describe the inherent value of life, rather than simply focusing on its instrumental value? If we can’t get at these questions, we’re going to remain ill-equipped to deal with many of the most important issues of our day. We will not have a ready answer to those who challenge our perspectives.

The bottom has fallen out of Western Christendom. Now we have to do the hard-slogging work of rebuilding the foundations of Western morality. Those are the brutal facts, and we must confront them. Will we rise to the occasion? I don’t know. I hope so. I hope we will at least try.

Share

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. David Watson and Dr. Jessica LaGrone continue their exploration of spiritual gifts from a distinctly Wesleyan perspective. Drawing from Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12–14, and John Wesley’s own writings, they discuss prophecy, healing, discernment, tongues, teaching, generosity, leadership, and more.

The conversation explores how Wesley understood divine action, why he believed the gifts of the Spirit continued after the apostolic age, and how the famous Fetter Lane experience shaped early Methodism. Along the way, Dr. Watson and Dr. LaGrone discuss the role of humility in exercising spiritual gifts, the importance of discernment, and why the church must never separate power from character.

Most importantly, they highlight Paul’s central point in 1 Corinthians: spiritual gifts matter, but love matters more. The gifts of the Spirit are given for the building up of the Church, while the fruit of the Spirit reflects Christ’s character formed in believers.

KEY TOPICS COVERED

0:00 Introduction to spiritual gifts
1:00 John Wesley and divine action
2:00 The Fetter Lane Pentecost
6:00 Wesley on spiritual gifts and the Holy Spirit
8:00 Romans 12 and the analogy of faith
12:00 Service as a spiritual gift
14:00 Encouragement and exhortation
15:00 Teaching as a spiritual gift
19:00 Generosity and mercy
23:00 Leadership and diligence
25:00 Why Paul gives multiple gift lists
27:00 1 Corinthians 12 and the common good
32:00 Words of wisdom and knowledge
34:00 The gift of faith
35:00 Healing and miracles
41:00 Obedience, humility, and spiritual gifts
46:00 Discernment of spirits
51:00 Tongues and interpretation
52:00 Why love is the greatest gift
57:00 Gifts versus fruit in Christian leadership

MENTIONS
Books
• The Next Christendom — Philip Jenkins
• A World Full of Gods — Keith Hopkins
• A Secular Age — Charles Taylor
• Failure of Nerve — Edwin Friedman

Biblical Passages
• Romans 12:3–8
• 1 Corinthians 12–14
• Galatians 5:22–23
• Philippians 2
• Romans 15:30

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS

Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

Two things before I get started: First, to be a Christian father is different than simply being a father. To be a Christian father means you are guided in all things by Christ, and your intention is to raise up your children to know, love, and honor Christ. That changes the key of everything you do.

Second, I haven’t done all this stuff very well at times. I’ve made plenty of mistakes as a father and a husband. Much of what’s here is rooted in the experiences of a dad who has stepped on the proverbial rake on more than one occasion. That’s part of being a father. We make mistakes. We learn. We repent. We do better.

This advice is surely incomplete and otherwise imperfect, but I hope in some small way it may be helpful, particularly to new fathers. Maybe this is what my friend and colleague John Ragsdale calls “old guy wisdom.”

1. Tell your children you love them.

We should model our love as fathers upon the love of God the Father for his own children. “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” God has made known his love for us in abundance. We should do the same for our own children.

If fathers don’t do this, two things will happen later: (1) they’ll regret it; (2) their kids will regret it. Tell your kids every day that you love them. Tell them you love them when you’re happy with them and when you’re mad at them. They have to know that your fatherly love is unbreakable. When they mess up big time—and they will do this at some point—whatever else they may feel, they should know you still love them. They may be in a whole heap of trouble, but you still love them. If they know this, it defines your relationship and comes to bear on all your interactions. The knowledge that you love them is always churning in the background. We may not perceive it in all cases, but it makes a difference.

2. Spend time with your children.

There’s an episode of 30 Rock in which Don Geiss, the CEO of GE, is on his deathbed. Just before he takes his last breath, Geiss utters one final lament: “I wish I’d worked more.” It’s funny because… well… no one actually says that. Many people wish they had worked less, that they had spent more time with their loved ones. These key relationships in our lives matter. The time we spend with our kids not only helps them become healthy, well-adjusted adults, but edifies us as parents as well.

Find out what your kids like and do that with them. One of my sons loves to play basketball. I logged a lot of hours helping him work on his game, and I loved it. Was I beat up, bruised, and sore from playing a teenager in basketball? You bet I was. I got better.

There’s no substitute for personal attention. It conveys that you value another person. It expresses that person’s importance to you. Your kids need to know they matter. Words are important, but time is essential.

And yes, we have to work, clean the house, mow the lawn, etc. We have a network of relationships to which we need to attend, including those with friends, siblings, and our own parents. We can’t spend all our time with our kids, but fortunately that’s not necessary. They don’t need all our attention. What they need is consistent, focused attention.

3. Listen to your children.

We’re the adults. We know things, right? Of course we do, but we have blind spots. Listening carefully to what our kids have to say helps us to parent them well. It helps us to see where they are struggling, what they’re wrestling with, and where they’re growing. It helps us to learn what their gifts are. Listening is also a form of respect. If we want respect from our kids, we can model respectful behavior by the way in which we interact with them.

4. Set clear boundaries and stick with them.

Kids need boundaries. Let me say it again for the people in the back: KIDS NEED BOUNDARIES. They need to know where the boundaries are and what will happen when they cross them. It’s easy to believe that kids are happier when they can do whatever they want. The idolatry of self expression so rampant in our world may lead us to believe that the child with the most freedom will be the happiest child. That is a lie. An unstructured world is frightening. A world in which we don’t know right and wrong, helpful and harmful, polite and impolite is too chaotic to sustain happiness.

Boundaries are crucial, but any kid worth his or her salt will push the boundaries. At that point, it’s necessary to bring them back into line, not with anger, but with clarity. “Here’s where the line is. You crossed it. This is the consequence.” It’s important that they know the consequences up front. Arbitrary consequences are also chaotic. Children need a certain level of predictability to feel safe. Is it possible to take this too far? Of course it is, but that’s no reason to slack on the job of setting boundaries and establishing appropriate consequences.

5. Protect your children.

You’re their father. Need I say more? If you don’t look out for them, who will? No, you don’t need to be a helicopter parent. You don’t need to be the dad who’s coincidentally cleaning his shotgun when his daughter’s date comes over. But you’ve been on this earth for a while. Presumably you have gained some wisdom. In general, you know what is good and bad for your child. You can see who has your child’s best interest at heart. Act accordingly.

6. Raise them up in the faith.

Talk to your children about your faith. Show by your example how to follow Jesus. Ephesians 6:4 teaches fathers to bring children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. As a father, your example will have a huge effect on the way in which your children think, speak, and live. It is far more likely your children will follow Jesus when they are older if they have seen you following him when they are younger. Pray with them. Read the Bible with them. Let them see you engage in acts of compassion. Take your children to church every week—not once a month, but every week. Let them see that this is a priority for you. Make sure the church you take them to is one that teaches the historic faith and does it well. Do not make them sit through milquetoast gatherings of little substance. Don’t allow them to sit under false teaching. The reason to take them to church is so that they will encounter the gospel among a community of people who are themselves committed to the gospel.

7. Monitor their schooling.

“Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray” (Proverbs 22:6). You’re not the only one involved in the raising of your child. Others are as well. Choose carefully whom you wish to involve. Forgive me if I’m a bit bold here. I have strong feelings. The setting of your child’s education matters.

Think about it: your children are in school 7-8 hours a day (and sometimes more), five days a week, for twelve years. Their school years represent a huge period of intellectual and moral formation. At school they will be influenced by their teachers, but perhaps even more so by the peer groups they form. I know this is a touchy subject, but I recommend that those who are able put their kids in a classical Christian school. If you can’t do that, and if you’re able to homeschool your kids, that is another good option. In both cases they will benefit intellectually, morally, and spiritually from this environment.

I know the rebuttal is, “We want our kids to be salt and light!” Remember, though, we’re talking about kids, not adults. Their ideas about the world are much more malleable than they will be when they get older. They are more impressionable. They are more subject to peer pressure. On the level of their formal education, they will be subject to the expression of values, whether the teacher acknowledges this or not. Education always expresses certain values. What values are our kids taking in from 8:00-4:00 every day? They will also learn values from their peer groups. Of course you will teach them values as a parent, and they will presumably learn the faith both at home and in church. Once they hit a certain age, though, their teachers and friends will see them more often than you will. In this post-Christendom age, the cultural sea in which your kids are swimming may be quite hostile to the faith. As our kids develop intellectually, we want to assure that they also develop faith and values consistent with the Christian witness.

8. Allow your children to develop resilience.

Life is not one unbroken boulevard of green lights. We will invariably encounter obstacles, setbacks, heartache, and disappointment. The ability to press on through these situations is a major determinant of what we will accomplish in life. On this point, I recommend Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, by Angela Duckworth, as well as The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.

When I was a kid, I was a Boy Scout. I remember going on a long hike, but the waist strap on my pack wasn’t working right. It began to hurt, even to cut into my waist. As the hike went on, I struggled to the point where I wasn’t sure I could continue. I did continue, though, and I finished the hike. I’ve never forgotten that day, first because I remember how much it hurt carrying that backpack, but also because I didn’t quit. I realized I could do more than I thought. That was one experience among others that helped me learn to persevere through challenges.

Kids develop resilience when they face difficulties. Back to #5 above, it’s important that we protect our children. Excessive protection, however, has a negative effect on their development. If we fight all their battles for them, if we deprive them of the opportunity to overcome hardships, they will never develop the mental and emotional toughness necessary to navigate the difficulties they will invariably face as adults.

9. Honor your wife.

Marriage isn’t easy. It requires work, commitment, self-discipline, and self-sacrifice. If you wish to have a meaningful relationship with your wife across decades, you must commit yourself to her and to the health of your marriage. You can’t just put the plane on autopilot; eventually it will run out of fuel. How you conduct yourself within your marriage will communicate certain values to your kids. Put differently, your children will see how you treat your wife, and what they see in you will affect the patterns they adopt in their own relationships.

Paul instructs Christian husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). In other words, the love of a husband for a wife should be self-giving, even self-sacrificing. Never embarrass your wife. Don’t demean her in front of others—or in private. “The tongue is a fire,” says James (3:6). Don’t set your marriage on fire with careless words. Treat your wife with respect. It’s possible to do this even when you are arguing, even when you’re really mad. For the health of your marriage, you may have to go to marriage counseling at some point. Do it. Don’t hesitate. Put your pride away. Prioritize your marriage and the wellbeing of your family.

It’s not enough, moreover, just to treat your wife well in front of your kids. You must treat her with respect and love when you think they aren’t looking—even when you’re mad, even when it’s difficult. Your kids will perceive the way in which you regard her. Children pick up more than we often realize. You can help them understand what a healthy marriage looks like by modeling that yourself.

10. Parent with humility.

“Have that same mind in you that was in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). This goes for fatherhood as well as every other part of your life. Christ did not seek his own glory and honor, but humbled himself for others. At times, you’ll have to do this, too.

Your children are not a way for you to fulfill your unfulfilled dreams. If you’re the guy who almost made it to AAA ball playing catcher, that’s no reason to push your kid to the point of exhaustion training for baseball. I’ve seen this kind of scenario more than once. Guess what happens? The kid ends up hating baseball (or whatever it is).

Little league sports almost did me in. It wasn’t the kids. I loved the kids. It was the parents. You’d think the future of all mankind rested on whether or not some poor ten-year-old second-baseman tagged the runner out. And the crazy part is, when the parents get this excited, no one’s having fun. The parents aren’t having fun. The kids aren’t having fun. The umpire who might be getting paid $30 to put up with the out-of-control parents sitting behind home plate sure as heck isn’t having fun.

Don’t make your kid’s success about you. Build your kids up, offer correction when necessary, and guide them into becoming virtuous, Christian adults. Your kid may not like the things you like. I had an uncle who loved football. One of his sons became a highly accomplished ballet dancer. That’s how it goes sometimes. It’s okay to be proud of your kids’ successes. I sure am. But they’re not you, nor vice versa. Delight in the victories of your children for your children’s sake, not your own.

One more point on parenting with humility: recognize when you have made mistakes and make changes. When you’re wrong, admit it. It’s important for your kids to see you do this from time to time. It’s how they will learn to do it themselves.

Okay, that’s it. I hope this is helpful. At some point, I’d like to write more about a couple of topics, such as parenting a kid with disabilities and spiritual parenting. But let’s see how this goes. Any suggestions to supplement these points? Please post them in the comments. Blessings!

Share

Share

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. Jessica LaGrone and Dr. David Watson explore one of the most fascinating and frequently debated topics in the New Testament: the spiritual gifts. Drawing from Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12–14, they discuss how God equips believers for ministry and the building up of the Church. 

The conversation examines gifts such as prophecy, teaching, healing, faith, wisdom, knowledge, leadership, discernment, generosity, service, encouragement, and tongues. Along the way, Dr. Watson explains why Paul repeatedly emphasizes humility, warning Christians not to use spiritual gifts as a source of status or self-importance. 

They also explore questions many Christians wrestle with today: How do we test prophecy? Does God still heal people? What is the gift of tongues? What does discernment of spirits look like in today's world? And why does Paul place the famous "love chapter" of 1 Corinthians 13 right in the middle of his teaching on spiritual gifts? 

From words of wisdom and knowledge to healing, miracles, and leadership, this conversation highlights the diversity of the Spirit's work while reminding listeners that every gift is given for the common good and the strengthening of Christ's body. 

Ultimately, this episode reminds us that spiritual gifts are never given for personal glory. They are gifts of God's grace, designed to build up the Church, serve others, and point people toward Jesus Christ. 

KEY TOPICS COVERED
0:00 Introduction to spiritual gifts
1:00 Romans 12 and the purpose of spiritual gifts
5:00 Prophecy and the analogy of faith
12:00 The spiritual gift of service
14:00 Encouragement and exhortation
15:00 Teaching as a spiritual gift
19:00 Generosity and the gift of giving
22:00 Mercy and compassion
23:00 Leadership and diligence
25:00 Why there are multiple lists of spiritual gifts
27:00 1 Corinthians 12 and the common good
32:00 Words of wisdom and words of knowledge
34:00 The gift of faith
35:00 Healing and miracles
41:00 Humility, obedience, and spiritual gifts
46:00 Discernment of spirits
51:00 Tongues and interpretation
52:00 Why love is the greatest gift
55:00 Spiritual gifts and the building up of the Church

MENTIONS
• The Next Christendom — Philip Jenkins
• A World Full of Gods — Keith Hopkins
• A Secular Age — Charles Taylor
• Failure of Nerve — Edwin Friedman

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS
Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

Vice President JD Vance says the devil has a favorite trick: convincing Christians that faith and politics belong in separate rooms.

In a wide-ranging new interview with Bishop Robert Barron of the Minnesota-based Roman Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester for an episode of his eponymously named podcast, held at the vice president’s residence, Vance called for “a more fully Christian politics,” one that refuses to treat “economic growth” as an idol, or to dismiss Catholic social teaching as merely “spiritual stuff” with no input on how a nation should be run.

A more fully Christian politics…. A great deal of possibility is bouncing around in that phrase, not least of which is the meaning of the word “Christian.” Whose understanding of Christianity will be normative? A variety of contenders are making their cases. Consider James Talarico’s tortured rendering of the faith, one that would have been unrecognizable to any Christian prior to the late twentieth century, and then only to an extreme fringe of liberal Protestants. There is also Doug Wilson’s repugnant nationalism, an authoritarian vision of government that would involve, among other things, repealing the Nineteenth Amendment. No, thank you. Vance’s position is clearly more reasoned than either of these. He envisions a state more consistent with Roman Catholic social teaching. In light of the fact that robust social teaching is so scarce among most Protestant traditions, perhaps it’s not the worst idea.

Nevertheless, I don’t want to live in a Roman Catholic state. Neither Catholic integralism nor its Reformed equivalents hold any appeal for me. In fact, I don’t want to live in any kind of theocracy. Neither do I wish to live in a state in which Christian principles exert no influence over governance. Christians can and should exert influence over the decisions of their governments.

When I was younger, Stanley Hauerwas towered over the world of Methodism, and Protestantism more generally. In 2001 he was featured on the cover of Time as “America’s Best Theologian.” I’ve always been impressed by Hauerwas’s intellect. He has been so generative—and never boring—over the course of his career. He visited SMU just as I was beginning my PhD work. The faculty and PhD students were invited to a colloquy with him. I wasn’t familiar with Hauerwas back then, but I was taken aback by a few features of this unique theological persona. First, he was wearing a brightly colored Western-wear shirt, which was atypical of my experience of theologians. Second, he was brash, rude, and foul-mouthed. I wasn’t offended by this; I am from Texas, after all. I’d just never seen anything like it in a context of theological discourse. Third, his vision of the Christian life was new to me, and in some ways compelling. Fourth, he had an eight-cylinder, souped-up, high-octane intellectual engine.

For Hauerwas, the church is its own political community, and its goal is to form people who live in keeping with the church’s core commitments. When the church begins to involve itself in the affairs of the state, it is invariably compromised and loses that which makes it a set-apart people. He has been critical of President Trump’s designation of his presidential inauguration day as a “National Day of Patriotic Devotion.” For Hauerwas, this phrasing represents a confusion of categories. Christians are devoted to God, not the nation state, and certainly not to any politician.

By this rationale, “Constantinianism,” or the marriage of church and state, has had catastrophic consequences. In fact, he holds, it represents a form of idolatry. The USA is a nation, not a church. The church’s proper role is not to help shape the government. It is to be its own government, an alternative to the corrupt machinations of the state. A key part of the church’s witness is nonviolence. For Hauerwas, pacifism is the unavoidable corollary of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

A cursory reading of Hauerwas’s work might make him sound sectarian, but to label him as such would be a mistake. According to his vision, we live in this world as aliens and exiles, but always as public witnesses to the life-changing, world-defining story of Jesus. Hence the title of his important work with Will Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony. That book did a number on me when I read it. For Hauerwas, we are not trying to shape the polis of the state, but trying to invite the denizens of the state into the polis of the church by witnessing faithfully to Jesus. It’s a beautiful vision of the church, though not without its deficiencies.

During the 1990s and early 2000s, it was all the rage to bash “cultural Christianity.” Hauerwas gave us powerful ammunition to do so. The idea was that cultural Christianity—the remnants of a world in which people went to church and claimed Christian identity because it was an element of life in Western civilization—was irredeemably bad. It inoculated us against “real” Christianity. It made us think we were following Jesus when we were really just going through the motions. It inhibited our ability to stand as a prophetic voice amid the corruption of a sinful culture.

These days I’d love to have a bit more cultural Christianity here in the U.S. Many people claim the moniker of “evangelical” as a political identity, but the “social imaginary” of the world in which they are formed is ever more paganized. Compassion, honor, restraint, even common decency, have been replaced by the will to power. The madness of the transgender movement, which included the mutilation of children’s bodies, could not have happened in the era of “cultural Christianity.” The acceleration in the rate of abortions, the growing acceptance of the practice of euthanizing human beings, the open vulgarity of our political discourse, the acceptance of all manner of open immorality on the part of our politicians—all of these could be mitigated by a bit more cultural Christianity. Remember Gary Hart? His 1988 presidential campaign ended when it was discovered he had engaged in extramarital affairs. Let’s just say, that’s not where we are today. In my beloved Texas, the theological disaster that is James Talarico is running for the Senate against the infamous Ken Paxton, who has faced indictments and accusations of corruption throughout his career. What a mess we’ve made.

There are aspects of Hauerwas’s theology that I think are dynamite to this day. As I’ve gotten older, however, I’ve begun to lean toward the vision of Oliver O’Donovan rather than that of Stanley Hauerwas. If VP Vance wants a “more fully Christian politics,” I’d recommend he work his way through The Desire of the Nations. It’s not an easy read, but Vance is a smart guy. He can do it. (Unfortunately, he’s not taking book recommendations from me at this time.) According to O’Donovan, a Christian vision of politics begins in the biblical narrative. God is king over Israel. That kingship is fulfilled in Christ. The church lives under that kingship. Every earthly authority is provisional, whereas the kingship of Christ is eternal. That is demonstrated nowhere more clearly than in Jesus’ Ascension. The Ascension shows that Christ did not just accomplish something in the past, but reigns over all in the present. Moreover, all legitimate authority, political or otherwise, is derivative of God’s authority. To the extent that authority departs from its subservience to God’s authority, it loses legitimacy.

On this view, political authority is never ultimate. All political authority stands under the judgement of God. Our politicians would do well to remember this, though some would surely reject such a bold Christian claim. It is permissible, even desirable, for Christians to involve themselves in the politics of the state. Jesus’ kingship is an objective good. When those who live under the kingship of Christ, who know that ultimate authority is derivative of divine authority, exert influence over the dealings of the state, it benefits those who live in it. For Christians, alignment with God’s purposes is a key element of human flourishing. Of course there is obvious danger in the Christian involvement in politics. People can easily exploit religious conviction for nefarious purposes. Yet there is also danger when Christians withdraw from politics. The nation will take on the character of those who shape its politics.

I’ve heard all my adult life that we Christians should keep our views to ourselves, that our faith should have no bearing on public policy. That perspective is simply special pleading. In the U.S., our political activity reflects our values. The values of Christians should be shaped by the Christian faith. Why should values shaped by secularism or neo-paganism be given place of privilege? We Christians can and should engage in our political processes, all the while keeping before us the necessity of self-examination, repentance, and accountability as we do so. Perhaps a “more fully Christian politics” is possible, but it’s no simple matter to get there.

Share

His newest work, The Desecration of Man: How the Rejection of God Degrades Humanity (Sentinel, 2026), is equally germane to our current moment, though less technical and more accessible than Rise and Triumph. While many people today talk about “secularization” and “disenchantment,” Trueman provides stronger language for what has happened across the Western world. He describes it as a process of “desecration”: “the denial of sacred boundaries, the profanation of all that is holy” (xii). Desecration has not happened by accident. When Trueman speaks of desecration, he refers to “the active destruction of the sacred” (xv).

Read the full review at Firebrand.

Share

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. David Watson and Dr. Jessica LaGrone welcome David Thomas, leader with Seedbed Publishing and New Room Conference, board member of Alpha International, and a leader in The Awakening Project, for a powerful conversation on revival, awakening, prayer, and the future of the Church.

Drawing from years of studying awakening movements and the prayer patterns that preceded the Great Awakenings, Thomas explores the role of desperation, repentance, and travailing prayer in preparing the Church for renewal. He argues that awakening is not simply increased church attendance or renewed enthusiasm, but deep personal wholeness, the renewal of the Church, the evangelization of a generation, and the transformation of society.

The conversation also offers a firsthand reflection on the 2023 Asbury Outpouring, its lasting impact, and the spiritual hunger emerging among Gen Z. Thomas shares why he believes young adults may be at the forefront of a new movement of God and why the Church must learn to listen, encourage, and journey alongside them.

Whether you're longing for renewal in your own life, your church, or your community, this episode offers hope, encouragement, and a compelling vision for awakening in our time.

KEY TOPICS COVERED

0:00 Introduction to David Thomas
1:30 From finance to pastoral ministry
2:00 Studying awakening history and revival
3:00 The meaning of travailing prayer
5:00 Marks of genuine awakening
8:00 Why we need more than human effort
9:00 What is travailing prayer?
15:00 The Asbury Outpouring of 2023
18:00 Spiritual hunger and the next generation
19:00 How the outpouring reshaped leadership
21:00 Signs of lasting fruit from the outpouring
24:00 Prayer, presence, and consecration
27:00 What makes Gen Z different?
36:00 The Awakening Project
41:00 Advice for leaders longing for renewal
43:00 Prayer, repentance, and the path to awakening

MENTIONS

• The Awakening Project — https://www.awakeningproj.com/

• Seedbed Publishing — https://seedbed.com/

• New Room Conference — https://newroomconference.com/

• Alpha International — https://alphainternational.org/

• Asbury University — https://asbury.edu/

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS

Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

A Failure of Nerve

One might rightly ask why a church would create a liturgy for so pagan a practice as suicide. The answer is that this church equivocates on the ethics of MAiD.

Some Anglicans have had profound experiences in which a death by MAiD has been accompanied by faithful prayer and strong pastoral care. Other Anglicans hold that MAiD does not offer any moral good, and may indeed be against God’s wishes for humanity. Many of us share concerns about the potentials for abuse of the practice through coercion or in the fragilities of a health care system that is in crisis. All of us in Canada, especially clergy and other pastoral care ministers, are likely at some point in our ministries, to be met with a request for pastoral care and prayer by someone who has opted for a medically assisted death.

Summary: Some Anglicans think MAiD is good. Others think it is bad. Plus, all Canadian Anglican Clergy will have to deal with MAiD. It accounts for about 5% of all deaths in Canada. Somehow these assertions lead the liturgy writers to assert that the church should take a morally neutral stand. One might well call this a textbook failure of nerve.

The introduction to the liturgy continues, “Our intention is to help the church’s ministers to respond pastorally to the needs before them. It is not our intent to enter into the ethical arguments regarding MAiD, nor to provide a moral argument for or against MAiD” (emphasis mine). It’s hard to fathom how neutrality on this matter can be a valid option. Is it not part of the church’s prophetic witness to protect life? Should we not lift up the sanctity of life? The notion of the inherent value of life itself is conspicuously absent from the document.

Further even if we were to agree that terminally ill adults should be able to seek medical assistance to end their lives (a contestable claim), this is not the only category of euthanized people. People with an “unmet social need” (e.g., a place to live) have been euthanized in Canada. The Dutch government has created provisions for doctors to take the lives of terminally ill children ages 1-12. The “social imaginary” of the West is changing. Assisted suicide is increasingly acceptable. Remember when abortion was supposed to be “safe, legal, and rare”? Today that sentiment has been supplanted by cries of, “Shout your abortion!” What was once considered by its proponents to be an unfortunate necessity has now become a point of pride. We are not becoming kinder or more sensitive in the West. We are becoming more callous. Nothing makes this clearer than the rapid embrace of MAiD.

Despite the aspiration to neutrality, however, the enactment of this liturgy cannot be morally neutral. There is an old saying in the church: lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. In other words, our practices of liturgy and worship shape our beliefs. A liturgy for suicide gives theological legitimacy to the act of suicide. I sent this liturgy to our Dean of the Chapel at Asbury (Tesia Mallory) to get her read on it. Her response:

Liturgy standardizes and provides a prayer language for a tradition's theological convictions. The word liturgy at its most basic level means the work of the people. It is an act of Christian service to and dialogue with God. Liturgy teaches people how to pray and what the church values. Dressing up suicide in liturgical language formalizes the practice as act of service to God. That's pagan and frankly demonic.

For some reason, I get the sense she didn’t like it.

Whether by design or by carelessness, the Council of General Synod has endorsed MAiD by authorizing trial use of a liturgy produced by its own task force, and thus stands self-condemned of theological malpractice.

Gibberish, in Four Parts

I went to the introduction looking for some form of theological justification for the development of this liturgy. I found none, but I did come across this:

Human dignity and freedom of conscience is not about the autonomy of decision-making alone; human dignity comes from being a creature of God in the image of God. Part of respecting dignity includes valuing the freedom and responsibility of personal conscience. Faithful decision making, similarly, is not about a simple autonomous act, but about faith being exercised in free will. Faith is relational: we make decisions in communion with God and with others. In the end, it is the dying person with whom we are exercising this ministry at the time of their death, in a context of shared faith, in which together we pray for and listen to God’s presence.

If you can discern the meaning of this tortured paragraph, you deserve a steak dinner. It’s expressed in a kind of rhetoric I call “denominational gobbledygook.” It gives the appearance of profound theological discourse while it drowns the reader in a warm bath of ambiguity and vapid affirmations. Let’s break this down into component parts and try to make sense of it.

Part 1

“Human dignity and freedom of conscience is not about the autonomy of decision-making alone; human dignity comes from being a creature of God in the image of God. Part of respecting dignity includes valuing the freedom and responsibility of personal conscience.”

We begin, then, with some grammatical confusion: the verb “is” in the first sentence lacks agreement with the plural subject, “Human dignity and freedom of conscience.” I assume this is a typo. With the help of a good editor, then, the same idea might be expressed as, “Human dignity is rooted in the divine image in which we were created. The divine image involves, in part, the freedom to make important decisions as individuals.” Fair enough.

Part 2

Now for the next sentence: “Faithful decision making, similarly, is not about a simple autonomous act, but about faith being exercised in free will.” It’s not clear what the adverb “similarly” refers to in this sentence. Additionally, the phrase “faith being exercised in free will” is prodigiously murky. Does this mean we freely choose to act in the belief that the promises of Christian faith are true? Alternatively, does it mean that our faith claims affect the decisions we make freely? Does it mean that we may choose to act freely in keeping with the ethical claims that our faith makes on us? Much turns on what the authors mean by “faith,” their notion of what it means to “exercise” faith, and their understanding of “free will.” Without more specificity, it’s impossible to grasp what this accursed sentence might mean.

Part 3

Moving on: “Faith is relational: we make decisions in communion with God and with others.” I take this to mean something like, “We can’t live out the Christian life simply on our own, and we make important decisions with God and other people who share our beliefs.” Despite the insistence on the importance of autonomy above, I believe the authors of this introduction have stumbled on to something true here: our decisions as Christians are bounded by the ethical vision of our community of faith. Our autonomy means we can choose to abide by that ethical vision or to live in some other way. One might thus reason that a decision about something as important as whether or not to commit suicide requires more than the judgment of an individual Christian. It should take its reference point from the community’s vision of human life and its sacred nature.

Part 4

Finally we reach the other side of this muddy swamp: “In the end, it is the dying person with whom we are exercising this ministry at the time of their death, in a context of shared faith, in which together we pray for and listen to God’s presence.” I think the force of this sentence is to indicate that it is the individual’s choice whether or not to commit suicide, but also to communicate that the individual does so in a context of shared faith with the minister and others in the Christian community. Those present in this act should also listen for God’s presence, which is good, since God will surely tell them to repent of their intention to commit/bless the act of suicide.

Whew! Glad that’s over. The purpose of trekking through this linguistic atrocity is to highlight language that has the form of theological reasoning without the power. If I were to say to you, “I convene my ballast on the Bolshevik lampshade,” I have uttered something with the form of a sentence. It has a noun and a verb. It even includes a prepositional phrase. The words, however, do not relate to one another in such a way as to create meaning. Likewise, simply platooning together words and phrases like “the image of God,” “faith, and “free will” does not constitute a theological rationale.

A Crucial Missing Piece

It’s worth noting that, with all this talk about dignity, free will, autonomy, and faith, no reference to the sacredness or sanctity of life appears anywhere in the document. To affirm the sanctity of life means that life has intrinsic sacred value. The liturgy in three instances mentions sacred space, but never sacred people. It’s telling that the liturgy and its introduction reference the image of God in which we are all created, one of the key underpinnings for arguments for the sanctity of life. The authors clearly want the imago Dei to be one of their operative principles, but while they draw out its connection to human dignity, they stop short of its obvious connection to life’s sanctity.

The conspicuous absence of any affirmation of the sanctity of life explains how a liturgy for suicide came into being in the first place. The operative principles in the liturgy’s introduction are dignity and autonomy. “Faith” also pops up from time to time, but its meaning in this document is so nebulous that it can’t do any real work. In this scenario in which we so emphasize dignity and autonomy with only a thin veneer of something called faith smeared on top, suicide might begin to sound like a compelling option for those who no longer wish to live. I can die when I want, where I want, in the way I want. When we begin to understand, however, that our lives are of sacred value, and that this value is derivative of God’s image and creative intention, we begin to see the true gravity of the act of suicide. The value of my life is not based on my desires, my autonomy, or my sense of dignity. It is assigned by God, and there is nothing I can do to diminish it.

The Slippery Slope

This is not to say that the entire document lacks any coherent theological reasoning. Take, for example, the next paragraph:

Human relationships are vulnerable to misuses of power. Use of coercive and manipulative power by others to sway decisions (in any direction) and actions stands against the dignity of the human creature created in the image of God and given with free will. This is in part why we decry systems that make MAiD an option where it ought not to be – where there is poor access to proper health care, for example, rather than being a potentially faithful, conscience-led turn towards death.

This is exactly why, rather than constructing a liturgy for people who wish to kill themselves with medical help, the Anglican Church of Canada should use what voice it has to oppose MAiD. Medically assisted suicide is already being used in situations such as when there is poor access to healthcare. As I argued in a 2022 Firebrand article, the slope here is very slippery, and not just in theory. Numerous real-life examples support this claim.

Blessing Self-Will

The liturgy itself seems like a standard liturgy for a person who is dying. There is no sense that this person is taking his/her own life. There is no acknowledgement that the church, whether it admits it or not, is tacitly blessing this act. I was struck in particular by one section of the rite:

In the name of God most high we lay our hands upon you. Receive Christ’s healing touch to make you whole in body, mind and spirit. The power of God strengthen you, the love of God dwell in you and give you peace. Amen.

The incoherence of a prayer for healing in the midst of the act of suicide is stupefying. Suicide is not an act of healing. It is an act of self-will. It is at times an act born out of mental illness. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). If the world that does not know Christ wishes to facilitate the deaths of the sick, the disabled, the poor, the depressed, the hopeless, that is one thing. In fact it is entirely unsurprising. Such a world is not unlike the pagan context of the pre-Christian Roman world. For the church to take a stance of neutrality on such an important issue, however, is a different story. God help us if this is all the moral courage we can muster.

Share

On the American frontier, pioneers were rugged, but they weren’t individualists. Survival was not a solo pursuit; it was next to impossible and therefore community became a lifeline. Cooperation and collaboration, shared knowledge and shared muscles, built bonds and built barns, forged resilience through reliance, all of these were necessary to build a life in this new and rugged territory.

In many ways, the current realities surrounding building a new denomination feel very similar to the lives of those pioneers. Many of us have heard our colleagues say, “We’ve never had to do this before.” Most of us have thought it, if not outright said it ourselves. The need for others has been imperative in this new territory.

In the earliest days of the Global Methodist Church, as we began implementing the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline, gathering together with others who were going through similar circumstances became lifelines in the midst of this new life. Facebook groups popped up everywhere. Old friendships and new relationships formed connections that brought together people dealing with different facets of this new reality to assist each other in speeding up the process of building our homestead in the boundaries of the Global Methodist Church.

One such group brought leaders from across the connection together who were seeking to fulfill the work of the Board of Ministry in the developing annual conferences. The Board of Ministry Cohort was born out of the demands for this practical theology. Most of us had prior experience, but we were in new territory and we needed each other. We needed to put our hearts and heads together to determine how to fulfill our responsibilities with integrity and we knew that we couldn’t afford to wait until some yet-to-be-formed commission or the Transitional Leadership Council carved out time to help us develop blueprints for the work that needed done promptly if we were going to survive. Clergy were desperately looking for a new home and we were the ones who had been tasked with vetting these immigrants.

Monthly, we shrunk our egos to fit together on our Zooming screens to share how we were handling this ever-changing environment around issues like:

• our interpretations of each paragraph,

• what kind of structure we conceived,

• what processes we considered necessary,

• what forms we were forming,

• what questions we were asking,

• what challenges we were facing...

We had so much to discover from each other. While we did not agree on everything, nevertheless, we valued the many insights. This was connectionalism at its best.

At the Convening General Conference in 2024, relationships had already been established that facilitated dialogue within the legislative committee. Good work was done in Costa Rica. Yet, we left with the knowledge that there was much left to do. The work of the BOM Cohort continued as some of us shifted from the startup phase to incorporating the new refinements, while other colleagues were breaking ground on their own homesteads across the globe.

The BOM Cohort continued to meet monthly, but in anticipation of the 2026 General Conference, last fall many members of the BOM Cohort gathered face-to-face and via Zoom at Kingwood Methodist Church, north of Houston, Texas, to discuss areas where we might begin building consensus to address legislative needs that our practice had exposed.

We thought we had gathered for a conversation about polity; we found ourselves inspired by a discussion of doctrine.

One of the breakout groups was assigned the task of clarifying the various clergy statuses. It seemed straightforward when we were going in. However, as we tried to find a way of talking through the particulars, a simple salient question was asked, “Why do we care?” Why do we invest so much time and effort into maintaining these records?

After a number of responses, a simple salient answer was offered: Covenant. We are in covenant with each other.

An immediate challenge was raised, “Are we?”

As we wrestled with the idea, we found its clinch inescapable. The notion of covenant took on biblical proportions and Wesleyan fire.

A covenant is a promise, a binding agreement to perform certain actions. More than that, a covenant is a binding relationship. The major biblical covenants are God-initiated and God-guaranteed commitments with his Creation, particularly those who are made in his image. On a more earthy level, covenants are our commitments sealed by love.

Covenants are unavoidable:

• baptism: covenant;

• church membership: covenant;

• conference: covenant

• classes: covenant;

• bands: covenant;

• ordination: covenant;

• marriage: covenant;

• the Wesleyan prayer we say on New Year’s: covenant.

You get the idea. The New Testament is filled with sixty-ish one another exhortations.

In his hymn, “Jesus, United by Thy Grace,” Charles Wesley includes the verse:

Touched by the lodestone of Thy love,

let all our hearts agree,

and ever toward each other move,

and ever move toward Thee.

Where two or three (or more) are gathered by a vow, a covenant is claimed.

The BOM Cohort subgroup was invigorated by the conviction that we are meticulous in tracking clergy status because the covenant we enter into at ordination demands care and accountability. In the conversation, the subgroup found itself united around a greater clarity of our theology of the church, including both discipleship and ordained ministry. A number of the issues that confronted us were suddenly mitigated. What emerged were principles we articulated:

• We will be a people (lay and clergy) who look over one another in love, submitting ourselves to regular peer review.

• We will be a people (lay and clergy) who live in covenantal accountability with one another, encouraging all to be in Wesleyan classes and bands as we move toward perfection.

• We will seek to be faithful members of our covenant fellowship, a local congregation, and an annual conference, investing our gifts, talents, and resources in ministry.

• We will be a people who seek to protect the vulnerable among us, taking the need for appropriate policies, procedures, protections, and training seriously.

• We will be a people who submit to one another, acknowledging the spiritual leadership that God has raised up, following our true spiritual head, Jesus Christ, who deploys Bishops, Conference Superintendents, Presiding Elders, Supervising Elders, and Elders, with appointed deacons, parish ministers, and assigned laity extending this leadership under the authority of an appointed elder.

• Every local charge will fall under the servant spiritual leadership of an appointed elder, either as the appointed pastor or through oversight.

• All those called to servant leadership, whether local church leaders or clergy, will seek to attain the highest level of training and learning appropriate to their office.

With these principles in mind, our task took on greater import and magnitude, reaching far beyond the bounds of “Part Five—The Ministry of the Called.” We were convinced that the idea of covenant must be reinforced throughout the entire Book of Doctrines and Discipline to include laity and clergy at every level. With that charge, the writing team set about the grind of appraising each paragraph in the BDD in the light of covenantal language, beginning foundationally in ¶101, “Our Heritage of Faith” and ¶103, “Principles of Our Life Together.” We drafted legislation that addresses Parts Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine. Covenant is comprehensive.

To give you an insight into the comprehensive nature of our proposals, we want to offer some insights into several propositions.

The first is clergy statuses—where the discussion began. The differentiation between “active” and “inactive” was fraught with practical difficulties, including definitions and distinctions between statuses, procedures for changing status, time limits on certain statuses, voting rights, and accountability. The knottiness was straightened out with the understanding that the real issue is not activeness or inactiveness, appointed or unappointed, but being in covenant or not in covenant with an annual conference through the Board of Ministry. Covenant defines good standing.

Part of that covenant is a commitment to serve the Global Methodist Church. Consequently, those who serve in a non-GMC-approved setting (such as independent churches, Methodist or otherwise) must maintain accountability to a Board of Ministry and seek a GMC appointment within a reasonable timeframe. We do not want to be in the credentialing business; we want to join in the work of discerning and deploying those who are called to be servants within our denomination and to encourage and entreat each other to lead Global Methodists in the pursuit of holiness. That is possible only through a covenant connection.

When it comes to changes in status, this too is guided by the covenant, whether it is voluntary or involuntary. Accountability and care are maintained through the Board of Ministry. In all circumstances, grace is extended within a disciplined, supportive structure. Even those in Senior Status will remain in good standing with a conference and maintain voice and vote as long as the covenant is observed.

Another legislative proposal that may spark lively debate is the idea of every congregation being under the oversight of an elder. The elder may be the pastor onsite and in immediate charge of a congregation or may oversee a deacon, Parish Pastor, or Certified Lay Minister who is the primary minister leading locally. Some may see this as onerous for elders to have these extra duties and challenging for Bishops and Conference Superintendents to appoint this level of supervision. The question this raises is whether our theology should follow our practice or our practice follow our theology. Because the title is the Book of Doctrines and Discipline, we affirm the latter. Elders are called to lead in the ordering of the church (sacramentally and temporally). The actual duty of the elder of watching over the work of others is to guide and direct, not necessarily do. Regular communication will be necessary, but the administration will be to ensure the work of ministry is being done. We find that to be reasonable “other duties, as assigned,” as elders make the historic commitment to “be diligent” (¶508).

To those who may object to the emphasis we propose, we offer an insight from John Wesley as he described the effects of the covenant life found in class meetings (in “A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists”):

It can scarce be conceived what advantages have been reaped from this little prudential regulation. Many now happily experienced that Christian fellowship of which they had not so much as an idea before. They began to ‘bear one another’s burdens,’ and ‘naturally’ to ‘care for each other.’ As they had daily a more intimate acquaintance with, so they had a more endeared affection for each other. And ‘speaking the truth in love, they grew up into him in all things which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplied, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, increased unto the edifying itself in love.’

In the same way, let us move forward together in this new frontier by building a homestead that recenters ourselves on a Wesleyan understanding of theological covenant rather than on structures alone. By solidifying the GMC’s commitment to a covenant life marked by mutual love, accountability, and holy living, we hope to establish shared expectations for laity and clergy to participate in Wesleyan discipleship. And, it realigns our polity into something that binds us all together, knowing exactly why we are journeying together and what kind of kingdom-centered community we are seeking to be.

Share

In this episode of It’s Elementary, Dr. David Watson sits down with Dr. Wes Watkins, missiologist with One Collective, faculty member at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Beirut, and longtime practitioner of ministry in the Middle East, for a thoughtful conversation on mission, discipleship, Islam, and the future of the Church.

After spending sixteen years in the Middle East, Dr. Watkins reflects on his experiences among Arab communities, his research on conversion among Muslims, and why relationships and Scripture remain at the heart of Christian witness. He challenges common Western assumptions about Islam and offers a framework for understanding mission that is rooted in friendship, humility, and a Christ-centered focus.

The conversation explores frontier missiology, the growth of Muslim background believers, refugee ministry, theological education in majority Muslim contexts, and what it means to point people toward Jesus without imposing Western cultural expectations. Along the way, Dr. Watkins offers a hopeful vision for the future of Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa.

KEY TOPICS COVERED
0:00 Introduction to Wes Watkins
1:00 Moving to the Middle East and learning Arabic
3:00 Mission, discipleship, and personal transformation
4:00 Research on conversion among Muslims
7:00 Common misconceptions about Muslims
10:00 Understanding Islam's diversity
13:00 What is frontier missiology?
16:00 Church, discipleship, and movement-building
20:00 Following Jesus in a Muslim context
22:00 Individualism vs collectivism
24:00 Developing a Christian theology of Islam
30:00 Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
33:00 Working with refugees and displaced people
36:00 Theological education in the Middle East
40:00 Muslim background believers and the future of the Church
43:00 Advice for cross-cultural ministry

MENTIONS
• One Collective - https://onecollective.org
• Arab Baptist Theological Seminary - https://abtslebanon.org/
• Dr. Watkins' Academia Page (Under Pseudonym) https://independent.academia.edu/WarrickFarah

MORE RESOURCES BY DR. WATKINS
• Margins of Islam: Ministry in Diverse Muslim Contexts -https://amzn.to/4wAZECI
• Movemental Ecclesiology, Podcast with Asbury's Center for Church Multiplication - vimeo.com/1183507774 
• Dr. Watkins' Substack - https://substack.com/@warrickfarah

ASBURY SEMINARY LINKS
Podcasts: https://asbury.to/podcasts
Website: https://asburyseminary.edu/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AsburySeminary/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asburyseminary
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@asburyseminary

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and do not necessarily represent the official position of Asbury Theological Seminary. The material presented is for general information purposes only.

No, I’m not ready.

Shortly after the first assassination attempt on President Trump, I attended a friend’s birthday party. One partygoer, a large and powerful man, sat on the couch watching some cable news channel, clearly agitated.

“We need a civil war,” he said out loud to no one in particular.

I raised my eyebrows.

He looked directly at me. “Are you ready?”

“Ready for … civil war?” I asked incredulously. “No. I’m not.” I’m really, really not. In fact, I’m not sure what being ready for such a thing would even entail. Hoarding ammo and MREs in my basement? Teaching my family how to cauterize wounds and purify water? Fostering a level of hatred for my enemies that would motivate me to kill them? No, I’m not ready. But some people sure seem to be. Some people are itching for it, even some Christians. To suggest we need a new civil war in the United States is one of the most profound combinations of evil and stupidity I have come across in my adult life.

I’ve never been in war. I don’t want to be in war. I believe those who say that war is hell. I don’t want to kill or be killed. To take human life is a matter we treat with insufficient gravity. We heroize killers and valorize killing. The thought of civil war may sound appealing based on the fictional representations of war we take in with our mothers’ milk, but, were we ever to go that way, it would be hell on earth. Ask the survivors of the civil wars that have plagued the continent of Africa.

Social media and cable news are the matches and gasoline of conflict entrepreneurs, people who generate clicks and money by stirring up controversy, and particularly by provoking anger. We human beings are wired to notice threats. When we do, our dopamine spikes, which leads to an increase in engagement with similar content. It’s an addictive feedback loop. We pick up speed as we go, which is why so many people spend so much time doomscrolling or watching the highly biased news channel of their choice. We are becoming an angrier people, less tolerant of one another, more entrenched in our ideological bunkers. Over the past ten years, I’ve watched people I know and love become ever more extreme in their politics, and ever more infatuated with the political jostling that has become grist for the social media mill. Many of them have also become angrier. A recent report by Pew indicates anger and polarization are increasingly prevalent among the American public. Another research group reports, “When asked how angry or proud whatever they had identified made them feel, 46% of respondents said they felt ‘extremely angry,’ over double the percentage who indicated feeling ‘extremely proud.’”

We see consistent reporting from legacy media regarding the militant right, but far less so on the militant left. If you’re not following Andy Ngo’s work, I recommend you do so. He’s one of the few folks tracking what’s happening in the bizarre world of Antifa, Trantifa, and other such groups. Two things are concerning: (1) the growing presence of militant activism, and (2) the fact that it takes an independent journalist like Ngo to expose one side of this.

The optimism that once characterized American life is being displaced by cynicism and anger, and many Christians participate in this.

Angry Christians

Not all anger is evil. Jesus himself became angry at times. There is righteous anger. When I hear stories of child abuse, steam starts to pour out of my ears. The Bible teaches us that God has wrath as well. That wrath, however, is the inevitable consequence of God’s love. If God has no wrath, God has no love. Imagine a God who could look out over child sex trafficking, genocides, and the exploitation of the world’s most vulnerable people and simply say, “Hey… It’s all good. Why get worked up about this stuff?” Could we possibly call such a God good with a straight face? Could we possibly believe that such a God loves us?

What we call God’s wrath is the outworking of God’s love, and, likewise, any truly righteous anger within us must be born of the love of God instilled in our hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit. Then we must channel that anger redemptively. Moreover, we can’t stay angry forever. Ecclesiastes teaches us, “Do not be quick to anger, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools” (7:9). Of course we will at times become angry, but to allow anger to set up camp in our hearts is a different matter. The Epistle of James counsels, “[L]et everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (1:19-20).

When I say things like this, I often get the response, “Yeah, but Jesus flipped over tables in the temple!” A couple of things on this: First, you’re not Jesus. Second, Jesus’ action in the temple wasn’t a temper tantrum. It was a prophetic condemnation of the temple system. Prophets often acted out God’s judgment in dramatic ways. Think of God’s instruction to Ezekiel:

And you, O mortal, take a brick and set it before you. On it portray a city, Jerusalem; and put siegeworks against it, and build a siege wall against it, and cast up a ramp against it; set camps also against it, and plant battering rams against it all around. Then take an iron plate and place it as an iron wall between you and the city; set your face toward it, and let it be in a state of siege, and press the siege against it. This is a sign for the house of Israel (4:1-3).

Perhaps Jesus was angry. Again, sometimes anger is righteous. That doesn’t excuse all manner of behavior among those claiming to be his followers.

Is the light in you really darkness?

A few weeks ago I was reading Luke’s gospel and came across this passage: “Your eye is the lamp of your body. If your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light; but if it is not healthy, your body is full of darkness. Therefore consider whether the light in you is not darkness.” (11:34-35). Ancient people associated the eyes with moral character. If a person was of good character, it would show in the eyes. There was also the “evil eye,” which could curse another person, an idea that is still prevalent throughout much of the world today.

But what if a person mistakes darkness for light? What if we mistake good for evil and evil for good? In that case, we may act with intense conviction toward the working of evil without perceiving the true moral freight of our actions. This is similar to Jesus’ teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Mark 3:29, “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” Why is that? Remember that Jesus’ opponents have accused him of working wonders not by God’s power, but by the power of demons. Jesus’ point here is that if you cannot distinguish between the power of God and demonic power, you cannot repent and be saved. The light in you is really darkness.

As we think about the future of this great nation, all American Christians should take a moment to ask if, at times, we have mistaken darkness for light. Have we internalized attitudes that lead us away from God, rather than toward him? Have we come to regard our ideological opponents as irredeemably evil, even subhuman? Is the light within us actually light? Are we overcome with anger? Have we fooled ourselves into believing that our anger produces God’s righteousness? It’s crucial that we continue to immerse ourselves in Scripture, prayer, and worship so that we are reminded again and again what God’s righteousness actually looks like. At the same time, it is equally important that we refrain from practices that warp our thinking and lead to evil attitudes and actions. Put more simply, if Facebook leaves you feeling like you want to punch someone, put your phone down, go for a walk, and pray.

If We Can Keep It

Franklin’s answer, “A republic, if you can keep it,” should remind us that the preservation of this form of government is an act of will on the part of its people. That means not just willing a specific structure of governance, but the cultivation of the kinds of virtues required of a republic. Respect for the other, a willingness to listen, basic human compassion, patience, and a desire for the common good must be held broadly in order for a republic to function. These kinds of attitudes flow naturally out of the Christian life, which leads to the question of how the diminishment of Christian formation in the U.S. will come to bear on the stability of our system of government.

Is the light within you darkness? It’s a hard question for us to ask ourselves, but true repentance requires no less.

And God bless America.

Share