Recently, it seems that some Christian influencers who have little to gain from legacy institutions or local approval have found a frontier of opportunity on online platforms, where questioning the conventional or accepted is rewarded. Adopting ideas suited to justify things like anti-Jewish, anti-Trump, and anti-institutional sentiment is rewarded as well. Incentive structures have shifted, and biblical interpretations with them, whether sincere or not.

The recent interest in an alleged Curse of Ham as a prophecy cursing modern Africans, and the expansion of Japheth as commending the domination of modern Europeans, seems to function in this way. It does not come from a serious approach to biblical interpretation so much as an attempt to fulfill a modern social desire to explain European cultural superiority over African cultural degradation. Surely crime statistics exist, but there is no need to reinterpret the Bible based on them.

There are different people groups in the Table of Nations. Some surely possess cultures that are more morally advantageous than others. Yet, we are in a time now, because of present political circumstances, when some think that ethnic Jews have no covenantal birthright despite multiple passages about ethnic Israel’s future (Jeremiah 32:42; Romans 9:4), while Europeans are blessed because of a verse about Japheth’s tents being expanded. Dale Partridge is one example of an advocate of these ideas.

In order to understand what the Bible actually says, we should put the politics on hold for a moment, avoid presentism, and approach the text with a longer historical view.

Ham’s Sin and the Maternal-Incest Theory

To do this we must start with the passage. Genesis 9:18–29 states:

18 Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord,
The God of Shem;
And let Canaan be his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth,
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem;
And let Canaan be his servant.”

28 Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood. 29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died.

Over the years, speculations have emerged that Ham’s sin was sexual in nature and involved homosexuality, incest, or emasculation. Yet, the obvious sin that sets Ham apart from his brothers is the fact that he failed to honor his father in whatever form this took. The earliest recorded suggestion of what this entailed, and the one most accepted by church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, is that Ham mocked his father after seeing him naked.

It is noteworthy that the entire discussion of Ham’s sin takes place against the backdrop of Noah’s drunkenness. Scripture treats drunkenness as unwise and sinful (Proverbs 20:1, Ephesians 5:18). It also warns against dishonoring parents (Deuteronomy 27:16, Ephesians 6:2-3). Warnings against the sins of drunkenness and dishonoring parents are important today.1 Yet in the current internet-driven discussion, these two obvious applications seem to take a back seat to speculation on the sexual nature of Ham’s sin, especially the theory that he committed incest with his mother.

Michael Heiser, Peter Leithart, and Dale Partridge have all entertained or commended this view, though it is rather recent as Old Testament interpretation goes. The German historian Hermann von der Hardt introduced the maternal-incest interpretation in 1696, and people like Josiah Priest, a New York pamphleteer and advocate of scientific views on race, including phrenology, helped apply it to modern race-relations in his 1843 book Slavery, as It Relates to the Negro, or African Race. There, Priest connected Ham’s sin with his theory of the origin and condition of Africans, whom he argued followed Ham’s evil example.

The argument in favor of the maternal-incest view mainly hinges on considering the phrase “saw the nakedness” in verse 22 as signaling sexual intercourse and assuming that the curse on Canaan makes more sense if Canaan were the result of a sexual relationship, as opposed to Ham’s other sons, Cush, Mizraim, and Put. It is true that the term “saw the nakedness” can be used to refer to sexual relationships. Leviticus 20:17 says:

If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.

However, Noah is the object of the sin described in Genesis 9, not his wife. Other references to sexual sin in Leviticus 18–20, including the scenario described in Leviticus 20:17 also use the phrase “uncover nakedness” to denote sexual sin. This phrase is absent in the Genesis 9 account. The idea that Canaan was the result of this alleged union is also not supported by the text. On the contrary, Canaan is introduced in verse 18, before the narrative describing Ham’s sin.

Furthermore, the text explicitly identifies what Ham did wrong by telling his brothers what was happening in the privacy of Noah’s tent and reinforces this view by recording Shem and Japheth’s reaction. Their response was to cover their father rather than participate with Ham by looking at him. Thus, the maternal-incest view is not only a more recent interpretation, but it is also speculative and fails to take the text on its own terms.

For biblical interpreters concerned with exegesis and historical understanding, the traditional view that Ham looked at Noah’s pitiable condition with an eye to disrespect his father to his brothers is much preferable to the novel maternal-incest view.

Why was Canaan Punished?

A more important issue to navigate is whether Noah’s curse applied to Ham, Canaan, or both. A straightforward reading of the text indicates that the curse is limited to Canaan. Verse 25 says:

“Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brothers.”

The “brothers” referenced here, according to verses 26 and 27, are Shem and Japheth. The Hebrew term אָח can refer to a male relative, such as an uncle, as it does in Genesis 13:8 when Abraham calls Lot his “brother,” or in Genesis 29:12 when Jacob is called Laban’s “brother,” even though both Lot and Jacob were the nephews of Abraham and Laban, respectively.

Noah’s curse is not simply that Canaan would be a servant, but that he would be “a servant of servants” which emphasizes the low form of servitude Canaan would endure.

It should be noted that while Old Testament slavery was sometimes portrayed as providing entry into the covenant community (Deuteronomy 29:10–13), or as a means of sparing captives from death during wartime (Deuteronomy 20:10–14), the first biblical reference to it in Genesis 9 is presented as a negative. The curse of Canaan predicted a low form of servitude as a consequence of Noah’s judgment rather than as an inherently desirable condition. Subsequent provisions concerning slavery under God’s law should therefore be understood as operating within a fallen circumstance that Scripture regulates, rather than as an elevation of the condition in a universal sense. From the beginning, a low form of servitude is presented against the backdrop of a curse and as a degrading condition, not as a blessing in itself.

The obvious question raised by Genesis 9:25 is: Why was Canaan cursed with being a servant of servants for Ham’s sin? This is not an easy question, as evidenced by the range of opinions on the subject during the early church and patristic periods. Even though Scripture is clear, resolving the apparent discrepancy between Ham’s culpability and Canaan’s perceived innocence, followed by his subsequent curse for dishonoring Noah, is not so apparent. Even Augustine found himself on both sides of this question. He originally believed the curse fell upon Ham but later retracted that position and maintained that the curse was on Ham’s son Canaan, “as the holy Scripture shows.” The first significant figure recorded to extend the curse to Ham, where it might seem morally appropriate, was Philo of Alexandria in the first century.

In resolving the quandary, Philo interpreted the story allegorically, with Ham and Canaan representing different figurative proclivities. Ham represented passive sin, while Canaan represented active sin. Philo said, “when Ham has been moved to sin, he himself becomes Canaan.” Thus, the curse on Canaan was “virtually . . . [a] curse [on] his son Ham,” as “rest” became “motion.” Philo’s interpretation said nothing about the inferiority of the Hamites, but he did apply the curse to Ham rather than to Canaan alone.

Although, Philo did have the advantage of solving biblical questions by employing Hellenistic-driven allegory. From his perspective, the days of creation were not literal days, the serpent in the garden was a manifestation of pleasure, and Eden’s four rivers represented the four cardinal virtues. This allowed him to differ with an earlier Jewish solution which maintained that Noah “did not curse Ham, but only his son, because God had blessed the sons of Noah.”

The idea behind this view is that since verse 1 of chapter 9 states, “And God blessed Noah and his sons,” Noah could not interfere with a blessing from God by cursing Ham. So, instead, he cursed Canaan, Ham’s youngest son. Justin Martyr echoed this earlier view in the second century, claiming that “the spirit of prophecy would not curse the son that had been by God blessed.” Yet, this theory still does not explain why Canaan, rather than another one of Ham’s sons, was cursed.

In an attempt to avoid what seemed arbitrary if it were limited to Canaan, some church fathers extended the curse to all of Ham’s descendants. David M. Goldenberg, in his book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2003), says that both Justin Martyr and Josephus believed the curse extended to all of Ham’s sons. However, the primary sources appear more limited. Neither mention Ham’s other sons. Justin Martyr focused specifically on Canaan, while Josephus stated that “divine vengeance pursued the children of [Canaan]” and explicitly said that Ham’s other descendants escaped the curse. Irenaeus, however, did claim that all of Ham’s posterity were “involved in the curse,” including the Egyptians, who descended from Ham’s son Mizraim, and the Arabians, who descended from Ham’s son Cush. Later on in the Patristic era, Origen, also applied the curse to Egypt.

While this approach seems to place the punishment more directly on Ham by including all of his posterity, it still leaves much to be desired, since Ham himself is not directly punished, and the text specifically places the curse on Canaan alone.

Searching for the reason why Canaan was cursed and not Ham led later interpreters such as Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306–373 AD) and the rabbis who compiled Genesis Rabbah (c. 400–450 AD) to claim that Canaan, rather than Ham, was actually the one guilty of sinning against Noah, so that the curse justly fell on him. This minority view does not match the biblical account nor the traditional interpretation, but does highlight a difficulty in understanding this passage. Even Matthew Poole, the Puritan Commentator, claimed that “Canaan first saw [Noah’s nakedness] and told his father Ham of it.”2

Some commentators, such as Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–466) and Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898), in order to explain Canaan’s culpability, speculate that “Canaan probably concurred in the indecent and unnatural sin of Ham.” This seems reasonable, but is not mentioned in the text.

Perhaps the closest one can get to a satisfactory explanation that fits the passage is to keep reading the biblical account and consider the historical context of its original audience. Genesis was written by Moses (Joshua 1:7-8) shortly before the Israelites, descended from Shem, were to enter the Promised Land and conquer it (Deuteronomy 31:9). This included subjugating and, in some cases, enslaving the Canaanite peoples who had settled in the region (Joshua 9:23, 17:13, 1 Kings 9:20–21).

God used graphic language to describe the Canaanites’ sins (Leviticus 18:20–28) and thus morally justified using the Israelites as part of the arm of His judgment. The early English monk, the Venerable Bede, taught that Noah “foresaw equally in spirit that the progeny of Canaan would sin much more than the rest of the offspring of Ham, and therefore be worthy either to perish by curse or to groan under subjugation.” In other words, the curse for Ham’s sin fell upon the son whose line followed in the example of his father and would be in need of punishment. Despite Philo of Alexandria’s figurative reading of the text, he also saw a relationship between the sin of Ham and the future sins of Canaan.

Josephus connects the conquest of Canaan, beginning in Joshua, with the curse on Canaan found in Genesis. After describing the curse, he continued the discussion in his Antiquities of the Jews (93/94 AD), where he declared that “the Hebrews destroyed their cities,” referring to the conquest of Canaan by the very people who constituted Genesis’s original audience. Shem’s descendants did, in fact, subjugate the Canaanites, and the Israelites were reminded of this prophecy on the eve of its fulfillment.

Ultimately, the difficulties surrounding Noah’s curse on Canaan in response to Ham’s sin should not be given to allegory and speculation but recognized for the prophetic significance it was for its original Israelite audience. In the words of Augustine, who tried to answer this question squarely:

The question is why Ham, sinning in the offense of his father, is not cursed in himself, but in his son Canaan. Was it for any other reason than that it was prophesied in a certain way that the land of Canaan, after the Canaanites had been driven out and defeated, would receive the children of Israel, who would come from the seed of Shem?

The earliest interpretation from a Dead Sea Scrolls commentary on Genesis is correct in narrowing the curse to Canaan, as the text states. Views that emerged later in an attempt to resolve the issue of culpability ended up subverting the normal hermeneutical process. The best explanation for why Canaan was cursed is that his descendants were evil in the pattern of Ham and would therefore be subjected to the impending conquest of Canaan. This interpretation fits the original audience and the overall prophetic context of Scripture without introducing new interpretive rules.

Developing the Curse of Ham

None of what has already been discussed points to a modern civilizational subordination of Africans by Europeans because of a curse on Ham or Canaan. That view is much newer, but it seems to be gaining some popularity in niche online circles. It is helpful to understand where this view came from.

The Cave of Treasures, a Syriac work dating to the sixth or seventh century, confused Canaan’s descendants with other peoples descended from Ham, including Mizraim (the Egyptians) and Cush, as well as peoples descended from Japheth, such as the Musdaye of ancient Anatolia, and even Indians. It says:

Canaan was cursed . . . and his descendants were reduced to slavery, and they are the Egyptians, the Kushites, the Indians, and the Musdaye.

The Cave of Treasures speculates that Canaan was cursed, rather than Ham, because Canaan supposedly “constructed and made reed instruments and harps” through which Satan promoted fornication among the righteous. The work contains considerable speculative material. Its name comes from the cave where Adam was supposedly buried, which, according to the work, eventually became associated with Golgotha, where Christ was crucified.

The significance of this source is not that it extended the curse to Ham’s other sons, but that through historical development, later versions from the 8th–11th centuries started applying the curse to “all those whose skin color is black,” identifying Ham as the one who was cursed, instead of Canaan, and introducing the idea that Ham “became black” as a result of it.

However, David Goldenberg observes that the idea that black skin was part of the curse first came from the Islamic world. Even though the Qurʾan says nothing about the curse on Canaan, Christian and Jewish traditions, including apocryphal ones, circulated in the Middle East at a time when the trans-Saharan slave trade was growing. Christian paraphrases like the Cave of Treasures influenced the Islamic world and Islamic sources such as al-Ṭabarī (c. 839–923), a prominent Muslim scholar, recorded that “Ham begat all those who are black and curly-haired” and that Noah “prayed that Ham's color would be changed and that his descendants would be slaves to the children of Shem and Japheth.” The features associated mainly with the descendants of Cush, Canaan’s brother, became associated with Ham’s entire line.

Other Islamic traditions state similar things. Wahb ibn Munabbih said “Ḥām the son of Noah was a white man, with a handsome face and a fine figure, and Almighty God changed his color and the color of his descendants in response to his father’s curse.” In ʿAbd Allāh al-Kisāʾī’s Tales of the Prophets, Moses is quoted as telling Ham: “May God change your complexion and may your face turn black!’”

Just as the focus on Sub-Saharan African features, in relation to the curse, accompanied the trans-Saharan slave trade in the 7th century, so the focus emerged again during the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 1500s. One of the first Christian sources to associate the two was Gomes Eanes de Zurara, a Portuguese writer. He wrote in his 1453 Chronicle where he recounts an expedition into West Africa:

These blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the Deluge, Noah laid upon his son Cain [read: Cham], cursing him in this way: that his race should be subject to all the other races of the world.

As the Age of Exploration gave way to the Age of Colonization, this interpretation became increasingly common, finding influential expression in figures such as Thomas Newton (1704–1782), the Anglican Bishop of Bristol, William Smith (c. 1762–1840), a U.S. senator from South Carolina, and John Henry Hopkins (1792–1868), the Episcopal Bishop of Vermont.

Theologians and political leaders in both the North and South appealed to this interpretation during the era of American slavery. The interpretation also entered the thinking of the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith (1805–1844), who associated the descendants of Ham and Canaan with blackness and servitude, while his religion developed this into a theology of racial and ecclesiastical subordination.

In 1862, Alexander Crummell, an Episcopal missionary to Liberia, was temporarily back in the United States on a fundraising tour for the American Colonization Society when he remarked that the interpretation of Genesis 9 that African slavery was a consequence of the curse of Ham had a “strong and tenacious . . . hold . . . upon the mind of Christendom.”

To be sure, many antebellum thinkers adopted this view, but it was not generally the central argument used against abolitionism or in defense of master/slave relationships. Eugene Genovese, the preeminent historian of Southern slavery, argued:

The racial argument from Noah’s curse was so feeble that James Henley Thornwell, Robert L. Dabney, and George Howe, the South’s most formidable and influential theologians, rejected it as a rationale for slavery, and even the divines who espoused it gradually moved toward the social argument of the secular theorists.

Dabney believed that even if it were easy to trace Africans to Ham, this would not justify African slavery, though he believed it proved that slavery was authorized by God under certain circumstances. George Howe, a prominent Southern Presbyterian theologian and professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, even argued against the Curse of Ham as a justification for African slavery stating:

We are as little disposed to rest the Scripture defense of slavery on this prophecy of Noah. First, because, as we have already said the argument is, historically speaking, an entire failure. The slaves amongst us are not Canaanites, or if there should be now and then a descendant of Canaan among them, there is probably scarcely one in a thousand. And secondly, because prophecy forms no rule of duty to man, but is a revelation of that secret will of God according to which things are ordered, and not of that revealed will which is our law and guide.

As African slavery receded in the West, so did appeals to the alleged Curse of Ham as a justification or explanation for African slavery or subordination. However, according to Georgetown University professor Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf, the Curse of Ham apparently “still influences modern racism” in parts of the Muslim world like Sudan, Somalia, and Chad where African slavery still exists. This seems consistent with the view that associating a curse of Ham with African subordination is driven more by circumstance than exegetical work.

Some contemporary Muslims try to blame Jews and Christians for the existence of these ideas within their own tradition. After all, the story of Ham’s sin and Canaan’s curse comes from the Torah, not the Qur’an. But an important distinction should be made here. While the original source material and some of the individual ingredients of this idea—including the substitution of Ham for Canaan, the association of blackness or African descent with the curse, and the application of that curse to the enslavement or subordination of Africans—did not originate with Muslims, the particular combination of these ingredients appears to have developed within the Islamic tradition first.

Scholars like Yehonatan Elazar-DeMota, have argued that Sephardic rabbinical interpretations developed during the age of colonialism and influenced Dutch Protestant thinkers in their attempts to justify the slave trade. Elazar-DeMota points to evidence like Abraham Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1167), a Spanish Jewish commentator, who argued against “those who think that the Negroes are slaves because of Noah’s curse” as evidence that the idea of African servitude on the basis of Noah’s curse had become a reality in Sephardic Jewish circles.

However, David Goldenberg disagrees with this interpretation. He argues effectively that Ibn Ezra was more likely reporting a commonly held belief in the surrounding Islamic culture of Spain rather than arguing against an established Jewish belief.

Elazar-DeMota also points to Isaac Abarbanel (1437–1508), a Portuguese Jewish commentator, who, in his commentary on Genesis, identified Ham’s descendants as including Cush, Egypt, Libya, and Canaan, who were “black as a raven,” and connected Canaan’s servitude with Aristotle’s theory of natural slavery. This would have provided a more universal basis for understanding the curse Noah placed on Canaan.

However, the historical record does not seem to show that the theology of the Curse of Ham, or the justification of African slavery or civilizational subordination based upon it, originated with rabbinic Jews or was significantly supported by them. The evidence indicates that this view originated among Muslims in the Middle East and was later adopted by Jews and Christians in Europe.

Blessing Japheth

Having already discussed the blessing on Shem as a historical reality applied to the Canaanites, instead of a present arrangement applied to the descendants of Cush, there is only one matter left to cover and that is the blessing Japheth received in Genesis 9:27. Noah declares:

May God enlarge Japheth,
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem;
And let Canaan be his servant.”

Historically, the prominent Church Fathers have taken this in two ways, or in some combination of the two. The near fulfillment points to the Greco-Roman occupation of the Levant, while the farther interpretation points to the inclusion of Gentiles, particularly those from Europe, into the Church. Since many of the descendants traditionally associated with Japheth settled in Europe, although others settled in parts of Anatolia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia and contributed to various peoples there, the later conquest of territories once occupied by the descendants of Canaan, in which any remaining Canaanites had already been subordinated by the descendants of Shem, can be seen as fitting the fulfillment of this passage.

In Dialogue with Trypho, an early work of Christian apologetics against Rabbinical Judaism, Justin Martyr states:

[Noah] foretold that the descendants of Shem would keep in retention the property and dwellings of Canaan: and again that the descendants of Japheth would take possession of the property of which Shem’s descendants had dispossessed Canaan’s descendants; and spoil the descendants of Shem, even as they plundered the sons of Canaan. And listen to the way in which it has so come to pass. For you, who have derived your lineage from Shem, invaded the territory of the sons of Canaan by the will of God; and you possessed it. And it is manifest that the sons of Japheth, having invaded you in turn by the judgment of God, have taken your land from you, and have possessed it.

The Hebrew word translated “enlarge” (יַפְתְּ) carries the sense of making spacious, and when connected with the following reference to “the tents of Shem,” it has traditionally been understood as pointing toward Japheth’s expansion into the territory or sphere of Shem. This may also dovetail with Christ’s statement concerning the “times of the Gentiles” and Jerusalem being “trampled under foot by the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24).

Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Augustine saw this prophecy as a spiritual prediction fulfilled in the church.

The Venerable Bede acknowledged both approaches. First, he says:

In the tents of the Israelite people we, who have come to Christ from the Gentiles, dwell, because certainly as long as we sigh for the heavenly homeland.

Then he states:

God also expanded Japheth, so that he dwelt in the tents of Shem, and that Canaan was his servant, when the Greeks or Romans, certainly descended from the line of Japheth, possessed the kingdoms of Asia, in which the descendants of Shem lived, and among other things made the Canaanites tributary to themselves.

While it is impressive that European nations later became instrumental in exploration, conquest, and colonialism, the more relevant development connected to Genesis 9:27 is the earlier expansion of Japhethite peoples into the territories associated with Shem. Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and later European Christians all exercised control over significant portions of the Levant at various points in history. But people who use this prophecy to promote European supremacy are missing the specific point Noah is making. The blessing concerns Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem, while the corresponding curse concerns Canaan’s servitude. It is therefore a mistake to turn the passage into a general prophecy of European domination over other peoples.

Conclusion

We have in the text of Scripture, the witness of the Church, and the ability to reason in order to understand the sin of Ham, the curse on Canaan, and the subsequent blessings on Shem and Japheth. It is easy to recognize why there would be motivation to speculate on the nature of Ham’s sin and Canaan’s potential participation, given a Christian commitment to connecting punishment with the one responsible for the sin. It is also easy to see how the punishment of one’s son can, in a sense, be a punishment of its own for Ham.

What we cannot do, however, is suspend our interpretive guardrails to accommodate social considerations. Unfortunately, elements once combined in Muslim circles to explain African subordination from the story of Noah and Ham are finding some traction online, despite being out of step with plain readings of the text and the Christian tradition. Sometimes elements of the Christian tradition are picked up and used to justify more than they can or should.

For example, John Calvin believed that part of Ham’s punishment was the curse being directed at all Noah’s sons, but especially Canaan. This was his attempt to make sense of the connection between culpability and punishment. God was punishing Ham’s descendants for what Ham had done. He does not suppose that this justifies the subordination of Africans by Europeans. In fact, he viewed the blessing given to Japheth as ultimately pointing to the coming together of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. But it would be easy to take one aspect of his interpretation and use it as an ingredient in a dish with other ingredients he did not accept.

Another example would be using Luther to promote the idea of African subordination based on the curse when he limited the curse “to those who abide in the wickedness of Ham.”

The bottom line is that we should be careful who we listen to, especially when it comes to something as precious as the Word of God. Christians believe that all He predicted will come to pass and the significance of Genesis 9 is that we can look back in history to see that this is true.

The Community of Men

Boys have learned to wait their turn in participating in masculine conversations and activities for as long as human history has existed.

They had to prove themselves worthy under the direction of older men who tested them in sports, outdoor activities, or business endeavors.

One experience we talked about was how the men at our church played volleyball at church picnics, and the young men would watch until they were old enough to play.

One year, a 15-year-old cried because he was not allowed to participate yet.

His mom came onto the field and chewed out one of the guys perceived to be the leader. He took it. The other men left the field and allowed the kids to play, and it never went back to the way it had been for years before.

What happened was an egalitarian, more feminine-driven way of looking at participation conquered the organically driven merit system that preceded it.

All Are Welcome

Female pecking orders are different than men’s. They tend to want to ensure no one feels left out, except people who would make others feel left out.

Everyone has a say. All are included.

Structures that limit, that prevent, that filter, and the people who represent them can become targets for elimination.

There is something good about this in the right context. We go to our mom for comfort when we are young. She reinforces our acceptance. But this does not gain us respect in the eyes of other men, where acceptance is proven through character, competence, and ability.

Social media is an egalitarian format that orients away from those things toward image and rhetoric alone.

Worth is derived from popularity, not accomplishment or capability. Everyone can participate. Hardly any opinion is outside of bounds. All are welcome.

Except, humans cannot function like this in every social situation. It is impossible. There must be the father who balances hospitality with practical limitations.

The Artificial Community

Social media is conversation without borders, where social cache’ derives first from feeling accepted or vindicated before valuing actual achievement or experience.

Men have their way of handling issues. Generally more direct, based upon an honor code, and articulated according to the issue.

Women tend to be more indirect, based upon perception, and articulated by acceptance and rejection.

Social media flattens these by rewarding a sort of masculine brashness mediated through a feminine acceptance and rejection process. Of course, with the wide use of anonymous accounts on some social media platforms, the brashness is not even necessarily that masculine since there are no real-world consequences tying words to actions.

All are welcome.

More could be said, but my friend and I remarked about how men today, he has two sons, are growing up in an artificial environment devoid of the standards we were expected to live by.

To get ahead, they are tempted toward superficiality, generating an image in the place of actual accomplishment. And when the clicks and likes trail off, despair.

The Manosphere Is Not the Answer

Even parts of the manosphere are female-coded because of this.

The guru is the guy who teaches you the cheat code so you can hack life, and even females, to gratify desire. It is an underhanded, self-oriented, victim-framed way of navigating a feminist world through feminine strategies.

Overcome the obstacle of non-acceptance through window dressing, not character or competence building.

Because, after all, everyone deserves, and how dare they not accept you.

This has implications for politics and church leadership, where rhetoric trumps competence. Academic excellence, proving oneself capable in the community of men, etc., are very secondary under this thinking because all are welcome.

What Older Men Must Do

The consequences of this are an increasing softness, sensitivity, and superficiality in our young men. To develop young men properly, what can we, as middle-aged and older men, do?

We must first set a good example. Men solve, overcome, and face issues squarely. We do not whine. We must pursue excellence in our real lives, not just the ones that exist on social media. Curating a projection is not the same as forging a character. We must also prove to be sacrificial and therefore trustworthy.

Second, we must reach back to remember those things that formed our characters, those of us who are blessed with constructive childhoods. For those who do not have this experience, look for it in older books, especially the Bible. What kinds of achievements should our young men accomplish to gain admission into the community of men? How are we helping them get there? Social media will not convey a rite of passage.

Third, we must place limitations upon our young men until they can handle certain things. I am increasingly convinced the concerns that exist in the conservative Christian community over pornography should extend to video games, social media, and anything that keeps men’s minds engaged for extended periods of time in artificial environments.

Fourth, we must spend actual time with the young men in our lives. Our children come first, but after them, the other men in our circles. Many of them do not have constructive environments with involved father figures. There is only one way to help them become the men they ought to be, and there are no manosphere shortcuts. It will take time, attention, and teaching, mostly by example.

The Things Boys Need to See

Take, for example, the myriad of things needed in order for a man to understand how to approach and treat women. Most boys learn how to do this first by watching their dad treat their mom in exemplary ways. Many young men do not have this opportunity now. Where will they learn it? From Clavicular, whose mindset is as fleeting as his looks? Heaven forbid.

We have what we need. Men are still around. God designed us a certain way. We can either give in to softness and fake substitutes for masculinity online that favor edgy rhetoric over proven character, or we can get busy in our everyday lives.

My friend and I talked about bringing back men’s sports at our church and investing more in the younger men through Trail Life. The choice is ours. The future is our children’s.

I posted yesterday that I did not want to watch the debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson. Why? Because the outcome was predetermined. Candace would go ad hominem, lose on the merits, and her supporters would proclaim victory anyway. And that is about what happened.

Candace told Andrew Wilson he was “representing the state,” acting like “[her] dad” for allegedly “deposing” her, even though he was allowed to ask her whatever he wanted regarding her theories on the Charlie Kirk assassination. She acted like Andrew was breaking their agreement when it was really she who violated their joint decision not to go ad hominem.

She said Andrew was like a “professor” for applying logical standards as he hammered her for failing to make a positive case. Andrew was part of the “manosphere” and said things about women and Ericka Kirk, in particular, that should signal hypocrisy. Andrew failed to allegedly care about the issue because he did not know the charge was “aggravated murder” and not just murder.

Predictably, some of her followers made their way onto my social media to point out my supposed hypocrisy for allegedly supporting Andrew, who says distasteful things.

For the record, I know enough about Andrew Wilson to know that he has engaged in rhetoric I want no association with. But the fact that Candace successfully crafted a frame where her supporters felt morally justified in battering people for supporting Andrew Wilson the man instead of simply supporting his position is illustrative of the pitiful times in which we live for public discourse.

When Everything Becomes a Team Sport

How can we ever make progress or find common cause if everything is a team sport? At some point, the truth has to matter if our civilization is to survive. Otherwise, we are held captive by fashion, optics, and rhetoric lacking substance at a level never before seen.

And yes, this has grave political implications.

If Gavin Newsom is a white chad compared to J.D. Vance, as figures like Nick Fuentes have argued, if James Fishback, a con artist if there ever was one, is qualified for the simple reason that he promises things he has no ability to deliver on, if the mayor of New York City can run a campaign mainly driven by foreign policy concerns over which he has no jurisdiction, then we are entering a new stage in American politics that signals a prioritization of personality and celebrity affiliation over substance and issues.

I say celebrity affiliation because the podcast class has become its own elite class in an almost feudal dynamic. Instead of serving the informational needs of their dependents in return for support, they are morphing into a cast of Marvel Universe characters who fill a need for entertainment and offer a sense of superiority to their audiences, who receive access to allegedly privileged information the legacy ruling class does not want us to know about.

On the one hand, they are warring hierarchical barons and baronesses of the new tech, where smaller platforms rely on bigger ones for their own bread and butter and must toe the line if they expect to receive rewards in the form of likes, clicks, and ad revenue. The incentive structures prevent other podcasters who live in the kingdom from questioning their own de facto leadership without facing repercussions.

How many who know better have actually challenged Candace Owens or Tucker Carlson directly, even though they have been proven pathological liars again and again?

On the other hand, the current podcast ecosystem relies on the understanding that the conditions that existed in 2020 have continued in some form, whereby legacy elites are controlling everyone’s mind except the brave podcasters who are smart enough to see through the Matrix.

“Usury is enslaving you, anon. Also, I recommend American Financing for home loans.”

Are we really this dim as a people? Is this allowed for Machiavellian reasons by smarter people who say nothing because they believe that they can gain influence with the podcast class, or because the podcast class is at least pushing in the right direction?

The Charlie Kirk Assassination and the Right

If you are someone who subscribes to this line of thinking, please consider the spectacle we just witnessed.

Charlie Kirk, probably the greatest organizer for the conservative movement politically in the past decade, forged an organization that actually helped Republicans win elections, incentivized Republicans to be more conservative, and, by the time of Charlie’s death, was pushing Christian values into the mainstream of Republican discourse.

He was assassinated by a Leftist who disagreed with his message.

If there were anything, and I mean anything, that should have united the Right wing more on a political level, it was this event. An attack on Charlie was truly an attack on all of us and the future of our country. For a brief moment, it felt like a unification project was being created, the crescendo of which was Charlie Kirk’s funeral.

Then it all unraveled.

Frankly, it was coming unraveled before then. Guys like Ian Carroll, Stew Peters, and Jackson Hinkle were already suggesting Israel was somehow involved in the assassination, and Candace Owens was fanning the flames by focusing Charlie’s legacy on being anti-Israel, an alleged fact legacy elites were supposedly covering up.

Fast forward to yesterday’s debate.

Scratch that. It was not a debate. Certainly not a formal one.

I did not see an engaged moderator, time limits, rebuttals, or cross-examinations. It was a poorly facilitated discussion in a room merely twice the size of my kitchen closet. The livestream was filled with ad breaks and ad reads. Andrew Wilson had to pay Candace Owens $300,000 just to make it happen.

And yet, somehow, in the minds of many, Candace has managed to pull off the intellectually insulting notion that she is Charlie Kirk’s true friend and advocate while profiting handsomely off her theory of how he died, suggesting his own wife somehow bears responsibility, and trashing the organization he helped build.

If the influencer truly cared about their followers and not just their own necks, more of them would be signaling how much of a liability this is for even simple electoral victories.

This is not coming from a political leader making real political decisions whom we are forced to back on some level because of the alternative. These are the ravings of a drama-prone con artist whom even men who speak out against figures like Allie Beth Stuckey or Ericka Kirk for being women in leadership positions are reluctant to criticize.

Expectations for Honest People

When a debate like the one between Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens takes place, it is an opportunity, once again, to say something if we who have platforms care about our audiences and care about truth.

Here are a few observations I would expect us to detect and emphasize:

First, it was a tedious discussion because Owens kept complaining that Andrew Wilson was interrupting her and steering the conversation toward minor points and what Andrew was and was not allowed to ask. It would have been nice if the moderator stepped in, but he did not. As a result, Candace spoke for 1 hour and 44 minutes, or 59 percent, while Wilson spoke for 59 minutes, or 33 percent, according to Grok.

I noticed this almost immediately. Andrew was at a disadvantage. He was on Candace’s turf and, let us face it, he was arguing with a pregnant woman. Even basic chivalry seems to demand, under normal circumstances, that she should be allowed to speak when she wants.

These were not normal circumstances, though. All this did was give Owens more time to promote her wacky views while Andrew, who tried to stay on point, was perceived as letting her slip by.

Second, Andrew won on the merits for those who cared about merits. But this was not about merits.

Let me give you one example. One of the first things they discussed was whether or not the DNA taken from parts of the gun bolstered the prosecution’s case or Candace’s suggestion that Robinson could have been a patsy.

Wilson focused on the fact that Candace lacked any supporting evidence to jump from Robinson’s DNA deterioration to the idea that he was a patsy. One does not follow from the other. As Andrew got Candace to admit, there could have been 100 possibilities for why Robinson’s DNA had deteriorated.

However, Candace successfully planted the idea in people’s minds that because Robinson’s DNA was more deteriorated than other DNA present on the weapon, he was probably not the last person to handle the gun.

Wilson did not take the opportunity to point out that Robinson also had more DNA than any of the other samples and that if Tyler was the last person to handle the weapon, his DNA could have been subject to more weathering, as opposed to smaller samples taken from areas more sheltered.

Wilson won on the logic. Candace had no positive case. Yet her audience, which seems to be persuaded more by anti-government narratives than by evidence and logic, went along with her.

Third, it is difficult to win a debate against someone who argues from a neutral perspective. Candace dialed down her podcast rhetoric to appear as though she was approaching the issue without making claims so much as she was just asking questions.

Andrew was correct in his closing statement that Candace made no positive case that Robinson was a patsy, or that Ericka or Israel were involved.

She relied on intuition and failed to produce evidence for her timeline, which includes Tyler Robinson going to a steakhouse after the shooting and some connection with the French Foreign Legion. She framed her secret evidence as tips that came to her as a private citizen and friend of Charlie.

She was flustered as Andrew tried to pry her for details, as if he was violating her relationships and doubting her integrity. Again, the optics of man versus pregnant woman did not serve Andrew here.

Fourth, this spectacle could only happen before the eyes of public opinion where logic and evidence are not the primary drivers. It could not hold up in a courtroom, which is where this issue will ultimately be settled.

Perhaps Michael Knowles was right that this was too degrading of a process to go through over a man whose murder trial has not started. Meanwhile, it seems his legacy is being hijacked, and those who care want to do something.

What We Should Do Instead

This brings me to my observation that we who believe in truth have our own limitations in countering messages like Candace Owens’s.

First, if there is spiritual blindness among people who wish to believe lies, we are not going to argue them into believing truth. I have learned that many times over many years.

Men love darkness because their deeds are evil. From a Christian perspective, someone laden with sin often does feel justified in pointing out the faults of others.

I think we are past the reasoning stage with figures like Candace. That is what this discussion proved is not the approach. They need to be condemned for the damage they are doing.

Second, we need to uphold the truth along with a positive message.

What Candace is doing is short-term, at least for her. She cannot milk this situation forever. Holding to timeless principles beyond sensational passing fancies must be the core of our message and platforms.

The actionable message in this case is that the Left contains a violent element bent on destroying us, and we must expose and defeat them politically for our children. We must uphold standards of justice and due process. I will be speaking about this soon at the Restoring Virtue Conference.

Third, we must give our allegiance to practical, tangible efforts not built upon pipe dreams and poor character.

How will your life be better if the Trump coalition and TPUSA can no longer mobilize voters to beat the kind of people who believe what Tyler Robinson believes politically?

Instead of watching the soap opera, or giving too much time to those who do, we need to be focused on those who are winnable and able to get as close as possible to pulling off real-world wins for our way of life.

An article like this may help a few people, but I myself want to be careful with how much attention I give these people. They must be refuted, but they cannot be allowed to steal our resources at the same time.

There are many things going on in the world right now that deserve our attention.

It may be the case that a series like “Bride of Charlie” by Candace Owens demonstrates the level of unseriousness affluence has afforded us, that enough people even have the time to pay attention to these superficial shows.

Bread and circuses cannot win when the barbarians are at the gate.

As desperation increases, which will inevitably happen if Democrats win, there will be a realignment, and it must be driven by men of competence and virtue, not simply rhetoric.

I pray these qualities go back in style without the need for hard times.

An older hunter told me it was a good property and that going to the meeting would help me get in the door. It would be a great opportunity for me given how close the property is and how difficult it is to hunt the public lands near me because of limited access points.

What I heard at the meeting I was not prepared for, though I should have been.

A Forest Overrun

A representative of the land trust spoke about the negative environmental impact an overpopulation of deer can have on the forest. He then, with heat maps, hunter reports, and other metrics, showed how there were around 40 deer per square mile in the area we wanted to hunt at Shaupeneak Ridge. High deer populations can prevent forest regeneration, encourage invasive species, and reduce the abundance and diversity of songbirds since deer eat the underlayer of plants that are part of the forest ecocystems.

I knew we had problems with too many deer, but I did not know it was to this extent.

What came next surprised me more.

A speaker from Kinfolk Hunting Collective made a presentation on the disappearance of hunting in America and what it means. Kinfolk is a New York-based organization that works through mentorship and hands-on education to recruit people into hunting and conservation.

He talked about how only a small percentage of Americans hunt and how the traditional hunting demographic is aging. The latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey found that 14.4 million Americans age 16 and older hunted in 2022, approximately 6 percent of that population. It is also a population that is primarily white (86%) and male (81%).

He interrupted his presentation to acknowledge that the pavilion with forty or so hunters was overwhelmingly white and that most of them were over fifty.

When a Tradition Disappears

The demographic changes associated with this decline mean a few things.

First, wildlife management becomes more difficult.

As the deer population grows, new growth in the forest declines as deer forage for plants and shrubs. With hardly any natural predators in New York, this has implications for farming and for the habitats of other wildlife that depend on forest understory. It also means safety hazards for traffic and can contribute to problems associated with ticks.

Perhaps worse still, it means the end of an important way of life that has existed in the United States since the beginning.

The middle-aged male speaker looked at us and with a note of seriousness said, “I don’t want to see hunting disappear.”

It was a surprising warning to hear.

I thought back to the monuments coming down around the country, the diminishment of voluntary organizations, the fact that churches are struggling to fill up their sanctuaries for times other than morning services with a congregation that likely does not know the traditional hymns that have also been left behind.

I thought of recent conversations I have had with people who were just happy to talk to someone because they were so lonely. Even an argument was refreshing with a flesh and blood person.

Something is wrong.

I wrote about the loneliness epidemic in Against the Waves: Christian Order in a Liberal Age, but things have changed for the worse even since I wrote it. Too many people are apt to believe the wildest speculations from the most irresponsible voices online at rates I have never seen, even as they become more detached from real human interaction.

Russell Kirk warned about the dangers of the lonely mass and the way loneliness makes people susceptible to tyranical political movements promising liberation and restoration. A people detached from one another becomes vulnerable to someone promising to put everything back together for them but who has their own selfish ambitions.

If hunting is added to this long list, what does this mean for our social views?

The Ultimate: God, Nature, or Man?

When conversation ends, where man functions in God’s creation as His ambassador to cultivate and keep creation, where animals are subordinate but important, environmentalism or exploitation fill the gap.

Either man is part of God’s order, subordinate to God and set apart as its steward to harvest from the ground, or man or nature takes the place of God.

In the first scenario, nature becomes God and man subordinates himself to it. This is where we get attempts to restrict or eliminate hunting altogether.

Oregon is currently an especially striking example. In 2026, an initiative sought to prohibit hunting and fishing along with a wide range of other practices involving animals. The proposal did not make it through the initial signature-verification process, but the fact that such an initiative was seriously organized and gathered enough signatures to become a political issue should get our attention.

Colorado, of all places, provides another example. In 2024, Proposition 127 would have banned the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx, with limited exceptions. Colorado voters rejected it, 55 percent to 45 percent.

Firearms are viewed with suspicion because they are tools designed to kill, which is not man’s job in this arrangement. It becomes an almost spiritual duty to stand up to any encroachment of man upon nature.

I will leave for you to decide what a country of people whose views are one and the same with the Sierra Club would mean for our national defense.

In the second scenario, man becomes an exploiter.

Nature does not serve a purpose beyond man’s personal desires. There is no Creator to infuse purpose and provide guardrails. Hunting takes work. Why not manufacture all of our meat in the cheapest way possible to suit man’s taste, and who cares about waste or environmental implications?

As man becomes more distant from the world he belongs to, he fails to appreciate the death and sacrifice that provided him with his lavish life. Richard Weaver calls this the “spoiled child psychology.”

In the end, he will fail to understand how the world actually works, and it will make him weak and be his demise.

What Hunting Teaches Us

Hunting offers an opportunity, even for the city dweller who gets out for opening day, to remember what his ancestors sacrificed, what animals sacrifice for him to live now, how difficult it is to survive, what independence feels like, how to take killing seriously. It is not a video game. It is also an opportunity to rely on the Creator for sustenance.

A good hunter does not take creation for granted.

Hunters are participants in one of America’s most important conservation traditions. Hunters and anglers were instrumental in creating the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and hunting-related taxes, licenses, and equipment purchases provide substantial funding for wildlife management. Through the Pittman-Robertson Act alone, hunters and recreational shooters have generated more than $14 billion for conservation since 1937.

The federal government distributed more than $1.2 billion in Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration funding to states in 2026, generated in large part through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing equipment.

The people who go into the woods to harvest animals are also helping pay to preserve the habitat in which those animals live. Much of this is also done on a local level.

It was hunters, trained on farms, who won our great wars. They provided for their families on land they knew because they kept returning to it in order to live. A society composed of people who know how to work with their hands, provide for themselves, handle firearms responsibly, understand the land, and accept the realities of death and hardship is a different kind of society from one composed entirely of consumers.

Without those people, how will our country survive?

What we Lose

The representative from Kinfolk Hunting Collective said they are working to produce a new generation of hunters who are interested in the sport but do not have someone to show them. Most of the time, hunters learn how to hunt because it is passed down.

I am no exception to this.

I remember sitting with my dad when I was twelve.

But not everyone has an involved dad, or a dad who hunts. To what extent the reduction in hunters in the United States is a result of family breakdown I do not know, but that must play a part.

Somewhere along the line the chain of tradition was broken and the knowledge was lost, and with it the mindset that it produced.

Our speaker told us that many first-time hunters today are minorities and that one in three are women. I was not sure if he said this to satisfy some DEI checklist, but then he showed some pictures that seemed to verify his point.

In 2021, first-time hunters were substantially more urban than the overall hunting population: 60 percent of entrants lived in urban areas compared with 48 percent of all hunters. Women made up 33 percent of first-time hunters compared with 17 percent of all hunters, and black people made up 16 percent of entrants compared with 6 percent of all hunters.

The people who traditionally have hunted are decreasing and the few who are starting the practice are outside the typical demographic.

What does this mean?

The speaker told us he thinks it is because they want to connect with nature. Living in an urban area, which tends to be more diverse, and where Kinfolk draws many of its participants, contains a demographic who see clearly the limits of urban life and long for something more tangibly connected to nature.

Perhaps this is something rural and suburban dwellers take for granted.

Even now I think of the people I know who hunt, and in many cases their children are familiar enough with it to know they would rather let Dad do it than do it themselves.

It is, after all, work.

It takes patience.

But what they may not realize is that they are reaping the positive rewards of living in a place where their family is familiar with the land they are on, where their dad is willing to put the time in to get a harvest, where responsibility is elevated.

What will happen in a generation as the grandkids of sportsmen have no connection to the lands that were so formative for their grandfathers?

Conclusion: Pass it Down

Here are my conclusions.

Hunting connects us to the past, to members of our family who hunted out of necessity, not just as a hobby.

It is a coming-of-age experience.

It teaches us to be patient, observant, and to take death seriously.

It confers to us skills that are also valuable for home and national defense.

It can save money when you harvest your own meat.

With all the talk about Zoomers not being able to afford burritos, hunting, fishing, or gardening should be obvious activities for young people to get involved with.

Why is there not a boost in these activities among the young?

Perhaps part of it is that they do not have someone to show them.

If you are a hunter, this is an opportunity to pass a skill on to someone younger than you. There are organizations like Kinfolk Hunting Collective that are specifically trying to do this through mentorship.

If we are going to continue our independent way of life, this is an area we should focus our attention on.

More hunters means more people who know how to provide for themselves.

More hunters means more people who understand that animals are not video-game characters and that killing is serious.

More hunters means more people who have a reason to care about forests, wildlife, habitat, and conservation.

More hunters means another generation that knows something about where food actually comes from.

And perhaps most importantly, more hunters means more young people being connected to fathers, grandfathers, land, work, responsibility, and a tradition that existed before them and, if they are faithful, will continue after them.

We should not let that tradition die.

Thank you so much for your continued support. I have a month’s worth of updates and some announcements for the next few months that I would like to share with you, both personal and podcast-related. There is much that we have accomplished, and there is much more to be done.

Read more

The Triumph of the Luther to Hitler Narrative

Peter F. Wiener published Martin Luther. Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor in 1945. He argued that “Luther,” was “obsessed by” “antisemitism” and “anything but godly.” Luther’s positive image was actually “an evil and dangerous legend.” The same year Gordon Rupp published Martin Luther: Hitler’s Cause or Cure? as a refutation, yet, unlike Wiener, his work has fallen out of print. A similar modern work, Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Myths (2007) by Uwe Siemon-Netto, makes similar arguments, yet, this book is not popular. Today, Wiener’s conclusions are largely accepted.

Rita Steinhardt Botwinick states, in her History of the Holocaust (2001), that Luther’s “verbal attacks on the Jews were not equaled until Goebbels’ rhetoric.” Similarly, Robert Michael’s Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust (2006), portrays Martin Luther as a racist who “perceived the Jews as” ‘worthy of slaughter,” lumped in with “the Church Fathers, medieval theologians,” “and the Nazis” who “presented the Jews as the paradigmatic evildoers in Christendom.” In Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism (2012), Eric Gritsch ascribes “antisemitism,” a “hint of racism,” and a murderous tendency similar to Hitler’s to Luther. Christopher Probst states, in Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany (2012), “that at the very least the motivations for the sociopolitical recommendations of the last section of On the Jews and Their Lies may be described as irrational, and thus antisemitic.”^[1]

On the popular level, Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin state in Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism (2003), that Luther “was one of history’s most vehement Jew-haters,” “the founder of Protestantism,” “and a father of German nationalism.” A. J. Deus recently wrote in Holy Enemies of Freedom: How Martin Luther Unleashed the Beast of Anti-Semitism (2018), that “Martin Luther [was] cited in the foundation of Adolf Hitler’s anti-Jewish thought framework.” Interestingly, one of the video displays at the beginning of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is a mini-documentary on Christian antisemitism, mostly focusing on Luther.^[2]

As a result of Luther’s new image, Lutherans themselves are reevaluating their connection with the founder of their church. From 1982 to 2004, a string of Lutheran denominations and associations distanced themselves from Luther’s anti-Judaic teachings. In the “Driebergen Declaration (1991), the European Lutheran Commission on the Church and the Jewish People . . . which represents twenty-five Lutheran church bodies in Europe, rejected . . . the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther.” In the United States, The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church declared, “With deep sorrow and regret repentance is offered to the Jewish People for the harm that Martin Luther caused and any contribution to their harm. Forgiveness is requested of the Jewish People for these actions.” The more conservative Missouri Synod stated, “we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther’s negative statements about the Jewish people.”^[3]

Given the manner in which certain Nazis appealed to Luther, most strikingly Julius Streicher’s testimony at Nuremberg, it should come as no surprise that his tainted image, along with the horrors of the Holocaust, have helped recast his legendary status. Works like The Aryan Jesus (2008) by Susannah Heschel, and A Church Undone: Documents from the German Christian Faith Movement, 1932-1940 (2015) by Mary Solberg, have solidified a connection between Nazi antisemitism and Martin Luther’s brand of Protestantism.

Curiously, neither Heschel nor Solberg include any discussion of the theological developments which took place in Germany previous to Hitler’s ascension. Neither the effect of German Higher Criticism or Neo-orthodoxy are mentioned. Contributions from the former were assumed and heavily relied on by theologians in the German Christian movement and contributions from the latter heavily affected the way the Confessing Church opposed Naziism. More importantly, both movements contradicted the foundation of Luther’s theological legacy. Drawing a straight line from the medieval Reformer to Hitler, while ignoring the modern theologies of Schleiermacher and Karl Barth, can best be described as historical tunnel vision.

In addition, Luther’s theological arguments against Judaism are of a different nature than the scientific racism promoted by men like Georges Vacher de Lapouge. At best, both had a general distaste for Jews. Luther’s status as Volk hero, along with his anti-Judaic writings, certainly helped neutralize potential opposition to the Holocaust. However, theological arguments did not serve as Nazi justification for the Holocaust. It should be recognized that Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin have argued for an overarching anti-monotheistic understanding of antisemitism, which they believe encompasses both sentiments.

A final consideration when tying Luther’s invective words about Jews to the Holocaust is the tendency to ignore Luther’s historical context. Careful historians like Thomas Kaufmann, in Luther’s Jews: A Journey Into Anti-Semitism (2017), have taken into account Luther’s standard hyperbolic rhetoric, personal circumstances under which he penned On the Jews and Their Lies, as well as the entire cannon of Luther’s writings on Judaism. In addition, contemporary with and previous to Luther were many common negative writings and assumptions Christians harbored toward Jews, making Luther’s diatribe less than distinctive. Luther also did not possess the presently assumed ideal of a privatized religion disconnected from civil and social affairs.

In summary, the German church’s theological liberalism, Nazi justification for Jewish persecution on scientific grounds, and the historical differences between the late medieval and modern periods, should prompt students of Luther and the holocaust to exercise caution when forming a strong association between the two. Some modern scholars have fallen into the trap of reading Luther through a Nazi lens. Luther’s last sermon, days before his death on February 18, 1546, included a call to treat Jews “with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.” He would likely have been horrified by the Holocaust.^[4]

Völkisch and Nazi Utilization of Luther

Thomas Kaufmann claims “the idea that On the Jews and their Lies could be used as a binding manifesto of anti-Semitism would never have occurred to [Luther],” who thought his non-theological works of little consequence, and whose anti-Jewish “diatribes did not arouse great public or political interest.” Yet, Adolph Hitler famously listed Luther, along with Frederick the Great and Richard Wagner as “protagonists” who fought for “ideals despite” receiving “no” contemporary “recognition.” There is no indication Hitler’s purpose in referencing Luther in Mein Kampf had anything to do with Jews directly. Yet, in a country in which “600,000 pastors, bishops, professors of theology, religion teachers, and laity” lived, and in which “approximately two-thirds of Germans were Protestant,” it was a political necessity to speak the language of the culture.^[5]

Neither Hitler nor the Nazi Party was remotely interested in preserving Christianity. Hitler was “happy” to “have no inner connection with [Catholicism]” and regularly mocked Christianity as a Jewish belief during the war. His relationship with the church can best be summarized by a statement he made in 1941: “I will not tolerate it, if a parson meddles in earthly affairs. The organized lie must be broken, so that the state is absolute lord. In my youth I espoused this point of view: Dynamite! Today I recognize, that one cannot hurry it along. It must slowly decay like a gangrenous limb.” Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda, felt similar. He said in 1935, “For the Churches there is only one solution, which will ensure peace: Back into the sacristy! Let the churches serve God, we serve the people.” Roland Freisler, the President of the People’s Court, condemned Helmuth James von Moltke, a former jurist, to death in 1945 on the basis of his consulting with clergy on “the practical-ethical demands of Christianity.” His statement during the trial further reveals the totalitarian nature of Nazism: “Christianity and we National Socialists have one thing in common, and one thing only. We claim the whole man.”^[6]

Nazi leadership viewed orthodox Christianity as a competing religion, and treated it as such. Heinrich Himmler, who was in charge of the SS and famously dabbled in the occult, was recorded saying, “We shall not rest until we have rooted out Christianity.” J.S. Conway traces Christian persecution under Nazi rule, mainly originating in the SS, in The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945 (1968). The state seized most church property, ministers were routinely accused of financial misconduct or sexual perversion, para-Church ministries and information outlets were eliminated, and thousands of clergy arrested. In short, churches were stripped of any visible public influence.^[7]

Still, for Hitler, Luther served as a völk symbol. His use of the Reformer was more than convenient. It was expected. After an economic downturn in the 1870s, völkisch writers introduced lobotomized versions of Luther’s anti-Judaic works to German culture. Before the seventeenth century, Luther’s Jewish writings were infrequently disseminated, mostly by pietists who appealed to his early works on Christian toleration and evangelism to Jews. Starting in 1881, a stream of tracts appeared which exclusively carried portions of Luther’s later writings on the Jews and claimed German and Jewish cultures were irreconcilable. In 1887, Luther became known as an antisemitic figure for the first time when Theodor Fritsch published Antisemiten-Katechismus, which included portions of Luther’s later anti-Judaic writings. “Hitler considered Fritsch . . . to have been a forerunner of his own ideas” and it was likely his work that exposed Hitler to Luther, since Hitler was raised Catholic.

Though it was the Völkisch Movement, not Lutherans, who first used non-theological portions of Luther’s later writings to foment anti-Jewish sentiment, German Church leaders participated in the Zeitgeist. Because the Völkisch Movement accused the Protestant Church of “‘suppressing’ Luther’s anti-Semitism,” a string of Christian versions of Luther’s anti-Judaic works emerged, including Walter Holston’s third volume of the Munich Luther edition in 1936, which was the “only edition of the complete text of On the Jews and their Lies.” Two years later, “the leading bishop in the state of Thuringia, Martin Sasse, published a booklet” containing portions of Luther’s anti-Judaic invectives which had a “print run of 100,000 copies.” Given these circumstances, it would have been unusual for Hitler to not have referenced Luther. After all, he was the beneficiary of Luther’s new image.^[8]

As early as 1918, Hitler called Luther “a great man” who “saw the Jew as we are only beginning to see him today.” Hitler referred to Luther as a “great German” in a 1927 speech and, in 1934, claimed that if Luther were alive to see Nazi church unification, he would rejoice. Kristallnacht itself was carried out in honor of Martin Luther’s birthday. Early on in Hitler’s career he called himself a Christian and utilized Christian symbols, a practice which progressively diminished as his career unfolded. However, Hitler’s use of Luther is extremely limited and, compared with his frequent references to scientific racism, insignificant. Other Nazi officials made more endearing statements.

Bernhard Rust, the Minister of Science, Education, and National Culture, promoted Hitler as a second Luther. Walter Buch, a jurist and SS official, had a “pious Protestant upbringing” and seemed to genuinely admire Luther’s anti-Judaic works, claiming that Hitler preached ideas Germans had “always held” from the time of Martin Luther. Heinrich von Treitschke, the editor of Preussische Jahrbucher, was motivated by “Social Darwinism,” but used the words of Luther when he stated, “the Jews are our misfortune!” Adam Alfred Rudolf Glauer, an influential Nazi occultist, appreciated “Luther’s anti-Semitism,” yet represented the opinion of many National Socialists who also thought Luther’s works were “deficient, because [they were] based on religious, not racial, considerations.” Thus, even Nazi officials who disagreed with Luther’s religion, borrowed from him out of political expediency, and they weren’t the only ones. The Nazi inspired “German Christian Movement” followed their example.^[9]

Lutheran Nazis

From 1933-1934, Hitler attempted to consolidate Christian Protestantism into the national German Evangelical Church. Under the new National Bishop Ludwig Müller, who served as Hitler’s advisor for church affairs, the Aryan Paragraph was enacted as a way to defrock ethnic Jews who served in the clergy. Soon thereafter, German Christian leaders floated ideas intended to “dejudaize” Christianity, such as removing Jews from churches, deleting the Old Testament, and changing the image of Jesus to fit Aryan ideals. Led by Karl Barth, a group of Confessing Lutherans drafted the Barmen Declaration, which resisted State overreach. Thus, two wings of the Protestant Church formed in Germany, both claiming Luther.

In 1933, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote “The Church and the Jewish Question,” in which he heavily quoted Luther on the church’s responsibility to evangelize Jews and receive them upon conversion. Using Luther’s position, Bonhoeffer argued that the State was overstepping its bounds by preventing the church from accomplishing its primary goal. In 1936, the Confessing Church sent a memorandum to Hitler in which, among other complaints, they directly challenged the philosophical underpinnings of Nazi racism.

When blood, ethnicity, race, and honor here receive the rank of eternal values, then the Evangelical Christian is forced by the First Commandment to reject this valuation. When the Aryan human being is glorified, God’s Word is witness to the sinfulness of all humans; when anti-Semitism, which binds him to hatred of Jews, is imposed upon the Christian framework of the National Socialist world view, then for him the Christian commandment to love one’s fellow human stands opposed to it.^[10]

Unfortunately, this general statement did not challenge any specific Nazi policies, and lacked applicability outside the church. This gave room for Confessing Church clergy, such as Wilhelm Halfmann, to even support the Nuremberg Laws. In 1937, Gerhard Schmidt “fought to retain the Old Testament” against the German Christian Movement by pointing out that Luther did not “reject the Old Testament because of the Jews, but rather the other way around: Because of the Old Testament, he rejects the Jews.” The same year, the National church summarized the difference between Der Stürmer, a Nazi propaganda newspaper, and the Confessing Church’s position on the Jews.: “They are united in their radical rejection [of the Jews]. the one for anti-Jewish reasons, and other for anti-Christian reasons.” Though there were heroic exceptions like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemöller, and Theophil Wurm, they were in the minority.^[11]

Early on, Bonhoeffer pointed out the self-preserving tendency of the Confessing Church as it had “yet shown no sympathy for the millions suffering injustice. If and when she does speak it is always on her own behalf.” Both the German and Confessing churches were concerned völk religion would replace Christianity. If the Confessing Church rejected core Nazi policies outright, this fear was elevated. These weaknesses, coupled with the völkisch movement’s use of Luther “helped create an attitude of mind that paralyzed any kind of civil courage on the part of the Lutheran population.”^[12]

For the Confessing Church, Luther’s theology did not weaken resistance against hatred for Jews as much as Karl Barth’s theology did. According to J. S. Klan, Neo-orthodoxy “contributed to the church’s impotence in the 1930s” by encouraging her “to be concerned primarily with her own affairs, insisting that the church’s role was to defend an ‘intolerantly one-sided and transcendental faith laden with paradox.’” Barth wrote in 1933, “The Church has in no way whatever to serve mankind nor the German people. She has alone to serve the Word of God.”^[13]

Neo-orthodoxy was a reaction to the Higher criticism embraced by the German Christian Movement. Barth agreed with German Christians, in stark contrast to Luther, that the Bible was “a human instrument and document, bound and conditioned by the temporal views of nature, of history, of ideas, of values,” and therefore, “not sinless,” and “not infallible.” In order to legitimize Christianity, Barth relegated it to the realm of transcendent experience, thus rejecting natural revelation and neutralizing modern attacks on inerrancy or the supernatural. In the process the church lost its prophetic capability. Faith was privatized and common ground between the church and other institutions eliminated. The very feature that kept the academy from discrediting the church destroyed the authority of the church. Not only did Luther never conceive of such thinking, but he contradicted it by engaging in polemics upon the basis of “the Scriptures” and “clear reason,” as his most famous speech at the Diet of Worms in 1521 testifies. Neo-orthodox theologians departed from the foundation of Luther’s theology which was the Word of God as divinely communicated in the temporal realm and, therefore, subject to reasonable inquiry.^[14]

In contrast to the Confessing Church, the German Christian Movement worked toward creating, in the words of Adolf Bartels, a “more Germanic” and “less Jewish Christianity.” They proceeded “always in the name of Luther” and used their respect and “backing from theological faculties” to secure resources. Between 1943 and 1945 they maintained the “Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life,” overseen by the office by the Reich Minister for Church Affairs. The Institute was comprised of “theologians who had been well trained in the most sophisticated methods and insights of their field.” They appealed to racial theory, Higher criticism, and historical-critical interpretations to supplant orthodox Christian teaching. ^[15]

In 1940, the Institute released Die Botschaft Gottes, an edited version of the New Testament which deleted positive statements concerning Jews. 200,000 copies were sold. The next year. After denouncing 1,971 hymns as Jewish, including Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress,” the institute published a new hymnal, Grosser Gott wir loben dich!. Luther’s catechism was also replaced the same year. Theologian Walter Grudmann, “called for the removal of the Old Testament” and claimed, in contrast with Luther’s That Christ Was Born a Jew (1523), that “Jesus was not a Jew but rather had sought the destruction of Judaism.” He also denied the historical accuracy of the passion narrative and the Sermon on the Mount. Siegfried Leffler, an official in the Thuringia Ministry of Education, believed Catholics and Protestants should form a new church committed to “common readiness to sacrifice for Germany.” One can only imagine what the founder of Protestantism would have thought of such a notion. The Movement’s activities diametrically opposed Luther’s Reformation teaching. Yet, this did not keep them from claiming him as their own.^[16]

In 1938, A few days after a pogrom in Weimar, “the bishop of Thuringia, Martin Sasse,” published Martin Luther on the Jews: Away with Them!, which included selections from On the Jews and their Lies. The following year, the Godesberg Declaration maintained that “National Socialism is an extension of Luther’s efforts.” Pastor Eric Fromm appealed to Luther’s German translation to push for an updated dejudaized translation of the Bible. In 1941, regions dominated by German Christians justified support for imposing the Jewish Star as a mark of identification in part, because Luther had allegedly taught that “racial distinctiveness” and “national identity” could not be changed through baptism. Thus, even “`German Christians’ had removed the theology from Luther’s opposition to the Jews in order to ingratiate themselves with the Nazi state and projected an image of the reformer as a political and racial thinker.”^[17]

Overcoming Luther’s theology, while recruiting his image, was only possible because of theological developments which had taken place in Germany for one hundred years preceding the German Christian Movement. Friedrich Schleiermacher, known as the “Father of Liberal Theology,” taught at University of Berlin in the early 19th century and revolutionized the study of hermeneutics by subjecting biblical texts to the naturalistic assumptions embedded in psychology and literary analysis. In contradiction to Luther, who believed “the Scriptures have never erred,” Schleiermacher destroyed inerrancy. He also disagreed with Luther by claiming the Jewish background of “the historical Jesus” was insignificant and that “no continuity whatsoever between Judaism” and modern Christianity existed.^[18]

From Schleiermacher spawned a movement which altered the German theological landscape. Max Müller was influenced by Franz Bopp at the University of Berlin and became “a thoroughly Schleiermacherian interpreter of texts.” During the late 19th century, he championed the idea that language determined culture, including religious ideas. Another “leading biblical critic, Bruno Bauer, published Herr Hengstenberg in 1839, “in which he attacked the well-known conservative scholar and church leader Ernst Hengstenberg for ‘seeing Christianity as a continuation of Judaism.’” Two years later he “developed the concept of a coherent ‘political antisemitism’” in his Critique of the Synoptic Gospels. In 1878, Julius Wellhausen introduced the Documentary hypothesis which challenged Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. In 1901, William Wrede, who taught at the University of Breslau, rejected Jesus’ messianic beliefs since he thought the Gospels were not historical accounts, instead trying to find a “historical Jesus.” Peter Jensen, professor at the University of Marburg,” asserted in 1909 “that Moses, Jesus, and Paul were three variants of Babylonian divinities.” The next year he suggested the gospels were myths following a pattern from the Gilgamesh Epic. By 1923, Friedrich Anderson, a well known pastor, was calling for the rejection of the Old Testament. William Bauer, a professor at the University of Gottingen, argued that “Jesus was not bound to the law, but encouraged free thinking” in 1927. The idea that Jesus was Aryan, called “The Galilean Jesus,” “entered the work of university theologians in the 1920s and 30s who were rejecting supernatural miracles . . .”^[19]

Before the German Christian Movement began, categories and tools for altering Luther’s religion were already embedded in academic and theological institutions. Generally speaking, the Confessing Church embraced Luther’s orthodoxy while denying, albeit feebly, the way Nazis interpreted him. The German Christian Movement denied his orthodoxy while embracing Nazi interpretations. In both cases, Luther’s theology was overcome in order to neutralize the Confessing Church and justify the German Christian Movement. At this juncture, it is important to understand what Luther said about the Jews, and why he said it.

Martin Luther on the Jews

At the Nuremberg trials in 1946, “Julius Streicher, the founder of the anti-Semitic propaganda paper Der Stürmer” said “Luther and not he should be in the dock.” Streicher was a “radical” anti-Semite who viewed Luther as a “warrior against the international power of the Jews,” and who previously “complained about the lack of references to Luther’s anti-Semitism” in national education. Luther’s work, which Streicher appealed to at Nuremberg, was On the Jews and Their Lies.^[20]

On the surface, the commonalities between Nazi policies and Luther’s civil recommendations concerning Jews are similar. The Reformer urged that rulers should burn Jewish synagogues, schools, and homes, as well as confiscate “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which . . . idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.” Luther pointed to Deuteronomy 13:12, in which Moses wrote “that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire.” Rabbis should be “forbidden to teach . . . on pain of loss of life and limb,” for their spiritual oppression of “poor Jews.” Luther advised that Jews should be deprived of safe protection on highways since, if they did travel the “countryside,” they were necessarily guilty of “usury” as they were not “lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like.” Their money, since it was also necessarily the product of usury, should be taken and given to converted Jews who wanted to pursue an honest occupation. “Young strong Jews and Jewesses” should be hired for toilsome work or ejected from the country. Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin observe that “Martin Luther’s words anticipate most Nazi actions against the Jews.”^[21]

The connection between On the Jews and Their Lies and Nazi policy says more about Nazi manipulation than it does Luther’s belief. Luther’s full cannon of writings concerning Jews and Judaism is varied. In his First Lecture on the Psalms (1516), Luther claimed that Jews were heretics based upon their rejection of Christ, misreading of prophecy, pharisaism, and acceptance of the Talmud as authoritative. In his Second Lecture on the Psalms (1518) Luther opposed suspicions “of cabbalistic speculations about the ten names of God and the tetragram as being blasphemous and superstitious,” and encouraged Christians to treat Jews kindly for the sake of evangelism. In a Sermon on the Contemplation of the Holy Suffering of Christ (1519) he opposed Christians who reviled Jews during the Passion celebrations. In sermons on usury, ranging from 1519 to 1540, Luther occasionally referenced Jews in stereotypical ways for their participation in the practice. While Luther was at Wartburg castle (1521-1522), His Commentary on the Magnificat ascribed the covenant of Abraham to ethnic Jews and claimed there would always be Jewish Christians. “In 1523, Luther penned a treatise entitled That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, where he admonished Christians to treat Jews in a ‘brotherly fashion’ with the intention Jews would be converted to Christianity.” Roman Catholics even accused Luther of being a “Jew’s friend.” Luther engaged Jews on the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus, and continued this work throughout the 1530s. Unfortunately, for Luther, Jewish reception was not proportional to his confidence and optimism.^[22]

Luther’s perception of Jews changed as his evangelistic efforts proved unsuccessful. In Against the Sabbatarians (1538), Luther expressed his frustration and stated that Jews hated Christ and were under judgement, as their suffering proved. Contemporary events also contributed. With the success of the Reformation, Protestants were forced to think through questions on civil government they had not previously dealt with. Suleiman the Magnificent also threatened Western Europe with Islamic domination. It was in this environment that, Antonius Margaritha, a Jewish convert to Christianity, published The Entire Jewish Faith (1530), which became “one of the most important sources of information about Jewish religious ceremonies and practices into the eighteenth century.” Jews, according to Margaritha, were “doing secret deals with the Turks and hoping to break the Christians’ power.” Interaction with Jews was dangerous for Christians. Magistrates should protect Christians by outlawing usury and depriving them of rights. “Treating the Jews kindly only resulted in their ‘cursing, reviling and despising [Christians] and Christ himself.’” Luther referred to the book on occasion and many of Margaritha’s issues, such as the blasphemous uses of God’s name, are echoed in On the Jews and Their Lies.^[23]

The vast majority of Luther’s objections in On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) were theological and focused primarily on Old Testament interpretation and Replacement Theology. In contrast to That Jesus Was Born a Jew, Luther suggested the Abrahamic Covenant only applied to the church. He also contradicted a previous belief by insinuating in one section that Jews ate children. Luther’s extra biblical observations seem to be formed by “anti-Jewish literature of the Middle Ages and that of his own day.” His often bombastic rhetoric was no more elevated than his diatribes against Catholic Priests whom he called “desperate, thorough arch-rascals, murderers, traitors, liars, [and] the very scum of all the most evil people on earth. . . full of all the worst devils in hell.” Luther even thought of himself as a “babbler” and a “windbag.” Yet, he did not encourage the same kind of treatment of Catholics that he did of the Jews. One reason for this may be his view on the relationship of church and state.^[24]

In 1539, the ruler of Hesse, under the influence of the Reformer Martin Bucer, limited Jewish activity. Following Roman law found in Justinian’s Codex Iuris Civilis, Bucer maintained that “all idolatry was to be forbidden throughout the Empire and anyone who transgressed had to be put to the sword.” Jews were limited from certain trades and from proselytizing. Intermarriage was punishable by death. Like Bucer, “Luther inherited from the medieval world a society which was largely Church-controlled.” In On the Jews and Their Lies, Luther maintained, “[Jews] are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity.” Luther believed that the uniquely Jewish aspects of “Moses’ law . . . came to an end” under the New Covenant and that “imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews.” Luther had no concept of a modern secular state. If a religion posed a serious spiritual thread, the local magistrate should act. Luther was concerned Christians would become “guilty sharers before God in the lies, the blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves.” He was also concerned Jews would tempt Protestants into guilt over usury at a time when they needed to purify themselves spiritually in light of the Turkish threat.^[25]

One of the flawed interpretations both the Nazis, and many modern scholars take when examining On The Jews and Their Lies is in thinking that Luther was making universal statements about all Jews. Luther actually was critiquing a system of religion and life which he believed ethnic Jews could reject. Before his controversial seven recommendations, Luther warns Christians that if they did not “fear God” they could receive a fate more terrible than the Jews. Luther states, both “Muhammad and the pope have already neglected [God’s grace], becoming not much better than the Jews.” ^[26] Thus, those in the Christian community were equally capable of committing the errors of the Jews in Luther’s mind. Conversely, Jews were still capable of conversion and Christians were still capable of being used to convert them. Luther’s seven point plan did not apply to converted Jews. Luther also drew a distinction between “poor Jews” and power hungry Rabbis in the same way he distinguished between Catholic priests and laymen.

Those who lack this understanding easily pull some of Luther’s statements out of context. For example, after reading a section in which Luther claims Christians “are at fault in not slaying [Jews],” Eric Gritsch remarks, “Such a declaration cannot be limited to a specific historical context. It is timeless and means ‘death to the Jews,’ whether it is uttered by Luther or Adolf Hitler.” However, Luther’s point is that Christians have failed through the centuries to punish Jews for what he believes are capital offenses. This section is immediately followed by Luther’s seven points, which did not include “slaying,” and related statements about exception for Jewish conversion.^[27]

At the end of 1542, Luther’s 13 year old daughter Magdalena died causing him much distress. His health was also failing. These two factors may have contributed to Luther’s tempestuous book. It is true that Luther took many negative medieval views on Jews for granted but it is also true that his views have been mishandled and misunderstood for modern political purposes.^[28]

Some of Luther’s writings had a negative impact, but the stream from him to Hitler is less direct than many claim and his theology also posed barriers for what eventually justified the Jewish holocaust. The Nazis, the German Christian Movement, and the Confessing Church all had to overcome foundational elements of Luther’s Reformation theology before the holocaust was able to proceed without resistance. The complete cannon of Luther’s anti-Judaic writings, as well as most of his teaching in On the Jews and Their Lies, also had to be purposely misunderstood or ignored in order for both the Völkisch Movement to make use of him. Modern interpretations of the Holocaust which offer a primary role to Luther are not taking into account the full historical picture. Luther’s legacy does not belong to Hitler. It belongs to Protestants worldwide who revere his theological teachings, whether they be found in hymnals, catechisms, or writings, and do not seek to supplant or distort them in the cause of modern secular anti-Jewish ideology.

^[1] Peter F. Wiener, Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1945). https://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html; Robert Michael, Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust, New York, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). 8, 10, 160. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=307860; Botwinick, R.S. A History of the Holocaust: From Ideology to Annihilation. (Taylor & Francis, 2001), 92; E.W. Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment. (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), Kindle Locations 37-38; C.J. Probst, Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany, (Indiana University Press, 2012). 55.

^[2] D. Prager, and J. Telushkin. Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism, (Touchstone, 2003), Kindle Locations 1486-1490; A.J. Deus, Holy Enemies of Freedom: How Martin Luther Unleashed the Beast of Anti-Semitism. (Missing Element Corporation, 2018), 2.

^[3] “A Response to Dabru Emet.” European Lutheran Commission on the Church and the Jewish People, 2003. https://ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/documents-and-statements/protestant-churches/eur/lekkj03may12; “We Believe.” The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church, https://web.archive.org/web/20071112040935/http://www.orgsites.com/pa/lutheranepc/_pgg1.php3; “QUESTION: What Is the Missouri Synod’s Response to the Anti-Semitic Statements Made by Luther?” The Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod, https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/lcms-views.

^[4] Martin Luther, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther’s Works. 51: Sermons: 1. American ed. (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publ. House, 1959), 195; Adolph Hitler, Rudolf Hess, and Deitrich Eckhart, Mein Kampf. First. (White Wolf, 2014). 97.

^[5] T. Kaufmann, L. Sharpe, and J. Noakes, Luther’s Jews: A Journey Into Anti-Semitism, (Oxford University Press, 2017). 124, 160; Martin Luther, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther’s Works. 54: Table Talk. American ed. Saint Louis, Mo.: (Concordia Publ. House, 1967); S. Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, (Princeton University Press, 2010), 3; Thomas Mueller, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther: Anti-Semitism, Nazi Propaganda and the German Lutheran Church. (ProfWriter, LLC, 2013).

^[6]Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Heim, and Werner Jochmann. Monologe Im Führer-Hauptquartier 1941-1944. (Hamburg: A. Knaus, 1980). 303, 150; On the reliability of the the Table Talks in German: How Hitler’s “Table Talks” broke history, YouTube,

; J.S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945. (Regent College Publishing, 1997); H. Gollwitzer, K. Kuhn, R. Schneider, and M. Miles. Dying We Live: The Final Messages and Records of the German Resistance. (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009), 129.

^[7] E.F. von Weizsäcker, Memoirs of Ernst Von Weizsacker: Chief of the German Foreign Office, 1938-1943. (Gollancz, 1951), 281.

^[8] Kaufmann, 149-148.

^[9] P. Hayes, Why?: Explaining the Holocaust. (Norton, 2017), 90; Adolf Hitler - Collection of Speeches - 1922-1945. Neues Europa, 57. http://nseuropa.org/English/Adolf%20Hitler%20-%20Collection%20of%20Speeches%20-%201922-1945.pdf; A. Hitler, and N.H. Baynes. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. (Fertig, 1942), 387, 20; R. Gall,

The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945. (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 136, 55; Michael, 157; Weikart, 183.

^[10] P. Hoffmann, Behind Valkyrie: German Resistance to Hitler, Documents, (MQUP, 2011), 108.

^[11] W. Gerlach, and V.J. Barnett, And the Witnesses Were Silent: The Confessing Church and the Persecution of the Jews, (University of Nebraska Press, 2000,) 112-113.

^[12] E. Bethge, and V.J. Barnett. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. (Fortress Press, 1970), 433; Kaufmann, 143, 49.

^[13] J.S. Klan, “Luther’s Resistance Teaching and the German Church Struggle under Hitler,” Christian Research Institute, 14, no. 4 (December 1987): 442; Karl Barth, Theologische Existenz Heute! Munich: C. Kaiser, 1933, 3.

^[14] Karl Barth, and Eberhard Busch, Barth in Conversation. First edition. Louisville, Kentucky: (Westminster John Knox Press, 2017), 179.

^[15] Heschel, 44, 106, 25; Klan, 442.

^[16] Heschel, 111, 117-118, 6, 175, 224, 202; J.A. Zabel, and American Academy of Religion. Nazism and the Pastors: A Study of the Ideas of Three Deutsche Christen Groups. American Academy of Religion: AAR Dissertation Series. (Scholars Press, 1976), 202.

^[17] Heschel, 76, 81, 86, 206; Kauffman 149-150.

^[18] Martin, Luther, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther’s Works. Career of the Reformer: 4. 3. Saint Louis, Mo.: (Concordia Publ. House, 1988). 356; Gerdmar, A. Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann. Studies in Jewish History and Culture. (Brill, 2009). 68, 75.

^[19] Heschel, 30 45, 58, 60; Irving Hexham, and Karla Poewe. “The Nazi War against Christianity,” Christian Research Journal 37, no. 05 (2014). https://www.equip.org/article/nazi-war-christianity/; Theodore M. Vial, Modern Religion, Modern Race. New York, NY: (Oxford University Press, 2016). 93.

^[20] Kaufmann, 7; Gritsch. Kindle Locations 1289-1291.

^[21] M. Luther, and Domenico d’Abruzzo, On the Jews & Their Lies. (Eulenspiegel Press, 2014), 115-169; Prager, Kindle Location 1500.

^[22] Kaufmann, 41-51, 4, 64, 78; Mueller, Kindle Location 81.

^[23] Kaufmann, 87, 79, 81.

^[24] Kaufmann 163, 123, 160. Martin Luther, Eric W. Gritsch, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther’s Works. 41 3: Church and Ministry, Philadelphia, (Fortress Pr, 1966). 277.

^[25] Kaufmann, 84; Klan, 434; Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, 166, 169, 172-173.

^[26] Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, 164, 168, 165.

^[27] Ibid., 163; Gritsch, (Kindle Locations 35-36).

^[28] Kaufmann, 4.

I would like to address these concerns for two reasons.

First, there are many humble men who should be elders but are not because they hold themselves to a standard that is stricter than Scripture’s. This allows men who do not value Scripture’s standard an opportunity to fill a role they never should have occupied in the first place. Churches are destroyed, ministries are compromised, and lives are ruined. We need good men, and I do not want any of them held back for the wrong reasons.

Second, I want to be clear on where I stand regarding permanent disqualification. I do believe the category exists, but I believe it is more an inescapable prudential category than a strict biblical one.

Disqualification

Let us first start on what should be some common ground. Eldership is serious business and elders can obviously become disqualified. In 1 Timothy 5:22 elders are warned to “not lay hands upon anyone too hastily.” James warns “Let not many of you become teachers” because of a stricter judgement that applies to them (3:1).

Fielding a man who does not meet the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9, which are virtue patterns observed over time, has potentially disastrous consequences. I have written about the modern leadership crisis, including within the church, as a conflation of virtue metrics with performance arts and business principles. One would think 2020 would have caused self-reflection but sadly things seem to have accelerated along these lines do to mistrust in institutional standards and the rise of the internet influencer class and its low barrier for entry.

Today, the internet allows self-proclaimed pastors the ability to reinvent themselves overnight. But, this is a problem for the church. If the qualifications for eldership are punctiliar and not expected to be maintained as present realities (as the grammar in the relevant passages indicates), then one could hypothetically employ the worst abusers of God’s law on the basis of once allegedly meeting qualifications at an earlier point. I suppose Judas would deserve an apology as would many false teachers if this were the case. This is a ridiculous interpretation no one should adopt.

In addition to the obvious implications of failing to meet pastoral virtues is a general principle in scripture that certain sins can do permanent damage to one’s spiritual disposition. Paul uses the term “disqualified” hypothetically of himself in 1 Corinthians 9:27 to describe the verdict rendered for failing to exercise self-control. The Greek term adokimos refers to someone who has been proven inauthentic or found unfit after testing.

Justin Peters argued that sexual sin permanently disqualifies a pastor by appealing to Proverbs 6:32–33, which says, “The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; He who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, And his reproach will not be blotted out.” Yet, this passage is not talking about eldership, though it is written to future rulers. There is a principle here.

But, is it Permanent?

Though there is not an explicit verse teaching that pastors who violate their virtue requirements are disqualified in an irreversible sense, the view has been expressed throughout church history. The Apostolic Canons, which were not directly authored by the apostles but preserve the disciplinary practices of some churches in the east during the fourth or fifth centuries, state in Canon 25:

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed.

Canon 28 goes on to say:

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, having been justly deposed upon open accusations, shall dare to meddle with any of the divine offices which had been entrusted to him, let him be altogether cut off from the Church.

St. Basil, likely commenting on this stated:

Laymen, when expelled from the place of the faithful, are from time to time restored to the rank whence they have fallen; but the deacon undergoes once for all the lasting penalty of deposition.

The Council of Nicaea (325) also advised that clergy who had willfully castrated themselves, lived with a woman who was neither a relative nor their wife, failed to confess disqualifying crimes before ordination that were later discovered, or denied the faith during persecution should be deposed.

This idea that some things simply cross a boundary where there is no coming back also made its way into the Protestant world. One of the clearest historical statements on permanent disqualification comes from the First Book of Discipline (1560) of the Church of Scotland, which teaches:

Should any minister be taken in any notable crime, such as whoredom, adultery, murder, manslaughter, perjury, teaching of heresy, or any that deserveth death or that may be a note of perpetual infamy, he ought to be deposed for ever. By heresy we mean pernicious doctrine, plainly taught and obstinately defended, against the foundation and principles of our faith. And such a crime we judge to deserve perpetual deposition from the ministry; for we know it to be most dangerous to commit the flock to a man infected with the pestilence of heresy.

What one finds when surveying church history on this matter is that some sins have been considered particularly egregious. Hospitality is a qualification for eldership, but a temporary lapse in manners has never been regarded as grounds for permanent disqualification. Murder, by contrast, has.

Throughout the Bible, different sins carry different civil penalties and reflect different depths of depravity, even though every sin is damning apart from the grace of God. Romans 1, for example, traces humanity’s descent into increasing depravity as the result of idolatry.

At some point, however, for the practical purpose of ecclesiastical administration, judgment calls must be made based upon general biblical principles and prudence. This is not something I feel the need to justify by establishing an explicit biblical rule for every conceivable circumstance because the need to bar men from ministry for certain grievous sins is implied in the nature of the office itself.

In the Institutes, John Calvin wrote that ministers should be “notorious for no fault that might impair their authority or bring disgrace upon the ministry.”

This reflects the damage done by placing a man in public ministry who has earned a reputation inconsistent with the qualifications for eldership. Many point to the requirement that an elder be “above reproach” as expressing this very principle. An elder should not be justifiably subject to accusations that undermine his office because, once that trust has been broken through serious misconduct, it is exceedingly difficult to restore.

Elders are charged with keeping watch over the souls of their congregation (Hebrews 13:17). That responsibility requires the highest degree of confidence from those under their care. An elder who entered the ministry for financial gain is in the wrong profession, and once that motive is exposed, his ability to shepherd faithfully is severely compromised. How would you feel if you discovered your spouse had married you only for your money? The relationship would be fundamentally damaged because trust had been violated.

The same principle applies in other situations. If an elder is caught committing adultery against his own wife, why should his congregation believe he will faithfully care for them? If a pastor, who is expected to be sober-minded and ready to minister at a moment’s notice, develops a pattern of drunkenness, it inevitably erodes confidence in his judgment and reliability.

By contrast, some sins involve less deliberation, do not reflect the same degree of moral corruption, and are quickly repented of. While they may still require rebuke and even temporary removal from ministry, they do not necessarily destroy the confidence that is essential for an elder to fulfill his office. One quarrel does not make someone quarrelsome just as one harsh word does not establish a pattern of harshness.

Do Not Let Fear Become Disobedience

One of the things that concerns me is men who enter the ministry with no fear of God. James says that teachers “will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). That warning has always sobered me before I ascend to a pulpit. A podcast is nothing compared to preaching, and pastors who think it is, or who think it is more important, need to resign because they do not take the weight of the office seriously. They are dancing on the edge of a cliff without realizing it.

No one should approach the office of pastor casually, but some men should approach it. The very fact that a man takes the office seriously is one indication that he may be the right person for it. Those who do not should be fearful. They will be held accountable for every word they teach and for what people do with that teaching.

The other thing that concerns me is men who refuse to enter the ministry because that fear leaves them paralyzed, even though they are otherwise qualified. Perhaps they think they do not know Hebrew or Greek well enough, or they have past sins they fear will resurface and ruin their ministry. These are healthy fears, but they should not become immobilizing ones. When they do, it is often because a man has given way to laziness, cowardice, or unbelief.

If you are that person, I want to speak to you directly.

The reason Scripture gives qualifications for eldership in the first place is so that the people around you can evaluate your character to see whether it matches the office. Not every Christian is an elder, nor is every Christian expected to be. Elders are ordinarily prepared over time before they are entrusted with the role. That means there will likely be defects that are identified and ironed out before they assume the office.

Consider John Mark. Paul initially refused to take him along because he had abandoned the mission (Acts 15:37–39). Yet later Paul wrote, “Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service” (2 Timothy 4:11).

Or consider Peter. Jesus spent years correcting the defects of all the disciples, but Peter especially stands out because of his denial of Christ (Luke 22:54–62). Yet after the resurrection, Jesus commissioned that same man, saying, “Shepherd My sheep” (John 21:15–17). Even after Peter had assumed his authoritative role as an apostle, Paul publicly rebuked him because his conduct gave the impression that Gentile Christians were second-class believers unless they adopted Jewish customs (Galatians 2:11–14).

Peter was as quick to repent as he was to put his foot in his mouth. His blind spots were correctable. His pattern of life demonstrated genuine virtue, even if he sometimes stumbled.

There are men whom God is calling to ministry who resist that calling because they convince themselves they still struggle with sin. Paul struggled with sin, so welcome to the club. The question is not whether you ever sin. The question is whether your life now exhibits the pattern described in the qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9).

Sometimes we are thrust into responsibilities before we think we are ready because God has other plans. Moses protested that he could not speak. He spent forty years avoiding the very people God eventually sent him to confront. Yet, in God’s timing, He empowered Moses with the courage and ability necessary for the task.

The story of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry II, is also illustrative. Henry assumed that his close friend, with whom he had shared many worldly pleasures, would overlook the king’s indiscretions if appointed archbishop. Instead, Becket took the office seriously. He confronted the king, defended the church’s authority, and ultimately lost his life for doing so. Like a man who unexpectedly discovers he is a father and embraces the responsibility, Becket became the man the office required, even though he had not previously lived as such.

The biblical pattern is not to thrust men into pastoral ministry overnight. The ordinary pattern is mentorship, testing, and preparation. Yet there are circumstances in which God’s providence demands a dramatic transformation.

My point is not to tell you that you possess the power to change yourself instantly. My point is that if you are haunted by a besetting sin or the memory of a particular sin, it is time to bring that burden to the Lord. Take responsibility. Seek help. Make war against your sin. Keep going. Take up your cross daily, however long the battle lasts. You are not trapped unless you believe the lie that you are and surrender to your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once you step into pastoral ministry, you bear responsibility for the souls entrusted to your care. That is a weight no man can carry apart from reliance upon the Chief Shepherd. The man you were before Christ is dead. The sin you battle after Christ belongs to the flesh, which wages war against the new man and compels you toward the very things you hate.

None of the men I have in mind who avoid pastoral ministry are doing so because they committed some particularly egregious post-conversion sin that permanently destroyed their reputation and rendered future ministry impossible. Rather, many of them simply lack confidence that they can persevere in holiness. If you remain convinced that you cannot walk in obedience, then no, you should not enter the ministry. But there is no good reason to remain in that condition. By the grace of God, Christian men grow. They mature. They overcome. And if you are running from a genuine calling, perhaps, like Jonah, God will remind you that you cannot outrun Him.

Conclusion

While there are disqualifying sins and sins so egregious that they permanently alter a man’s ability to ever be trusted in a pastoral capacity, there is also the power to overcome sin that God gives to every Christian as he submits himself to His will.

Ultimately, the calling of an elder is the duty God places upon a man whom He is preparing for the office. Some men are not being prepared, yet they take the role anyway in order to promote themselves, enrich themselves, or advance their own purposes. This is wicked.

But so is resisting the Lord’s preparation by denying His power to change lives, including your own. If God is calling you to shepherd His people, do not use your past as an excuse to distrust His grace or your present struggles as an excuse to reject His sanctifying work.

Christ will build His church regardless. The question is whether you will humbly submit to the work He is doing in you and faithfully answer His call.

The Old House

Yet there it was, a small plank my grandfather wedged between the branches of an overcup oak next to the house, probably in the 1940s. He told me about it 16 years ago when touring the property. I have missed him dearly, more than I thought I would, since he passed away at 101 years old in 2024. I grabbed it with my right hand and whispered, “I love you, Grandpa,” as a lump rose in my throat.

I was reminded that some things do not last forever, but some things do. I will see Edward Hulon Harris again. The world he grew up in is gone with the wind, but he also passed down a few things. His example of honesty and hard work, simple contentment, charm, humor, and hospitality to strangers lives on. His blood lives in six grandchildren and five great grandchildren. His parents, Joseph Jay and Hettie Harris, left behind thirty six grandchildren and the Lord knows how many great-grandchildren. Like their old homestead, we all grow old and pass away eventually, but our deeds echo throughout time.

Mississippi Serenade is a song I wrote last year about their world, their home, their life, and how it has impacted the lives of three generations following them. From the perspective of my grandpa, Mississippi was the place of his birth, where he went to school, provided for the family during the Depression, worked at a sawmill, repaired motorcycles, and finally left the farm to join the Army Air Corps during World War II. He told me how he killed rabbits at night so the family would have something to eat, lost faith in backcountry superstitions, and encountered the most interesting characters who lived in his neck of rural America. He knew former slaves and Confederate soldiers, school aged bullies and corrupt politicians, and everyone was related somehow.

He eventually settled in California, where my father and two uncles were raised, but he always maintained his connection to the old stomping grounds, returning every year for the family reunion. There was no mistaking where he was from. His attire, his easy going attitude, his contempt for “educated fools,” his respect for religion and moral standards, and his accent gave him away. The “old house,” as it was called, was his house, and for much of his life his parents still lived there and received his family when he traveled back to visit.

My Father’s Mississippi

Most families 2,000 miles away would not sacrifice to go back home every year, but my grandpa’s decision to do that ensured my father, Scott Lee Harris, would see himself as part Mississippian, though it was not his birthplace. He spent two weeks out of most years traveling and visiting with his cousins, gigging frogs, shooting Roman Candles, fishing, eating watermelon, and all the other things young folks like to do for fun in the country.

He probably did not know it, but the time spent with his grandparents and aunts and uncles contributed to his own identity formation by giving him a place to belong that was rooted in the soil. Both he and my grandpa loved growing Southern staples like field peas and lima beans, and largely against my will, I worked at cultivating the soil and harvesting these staples as a kid. I never thought I would want to continue this until recently. It is strange how what is instilled at young ages comes back, and you end up looking in the mirror and seeing your dad or hearing his words come out of your mouth. Do you really want to change the world? Do not start a podcast, start a garden, I am thinking.

I think in my dad’s mind he was eventually going to make it down South. Instead, he married a girl from California and moved to Upstate New York, of all places. He kept the Ole’ Miss shirt, the old country music, and non native slang terms that seemed to always come out most when he was fixing a broken vehicle. I knew we were different, but I always thought it was because we were from California. I realize now it was also because, in a real sense, we were also from Mississippi.

We went back every few years and spent a week or two with family, sometimes not knowing which part of the family we would be with the entire time until we showed up. Two of my favorite places to stay were my Aunt Mary Ann’s farm and my Aunt Bonnie’s lake house. The farm was like a time machine. You walked in, and the same antiques that were sitting on the shelf the last time were still there. It might be 100 degrees, but all we had in the bedroom was a fan, which my dad told me I should be thankful for because when he was young they did not even have electricity.

During the day, we did a lot of the same things he and my grandpa did as kids. We fished, we went shooting, we swam, we explored, we hunted for fossils, we played with the dogs, and we shot off fireworks. It was hard to believe anyone wanted to be in New York when they could be in Mississippi having a blast. Of course, being on vacation may have had something to do with that.

The Front Porch

One of the things that I value more now than I did when it was happening, not knowing it would be gone forever by my thirties, was hearing my grandpa and great uncles talk on the porch. They shared stories, folklore, and a lot of jokes. I learned more about my family sitting there listening than I ever did reviewing my ancestry test. I would sometimes ask questions about family history and just history in general.

I started to realize, as I got older, that not everyone felt the same way I did about Mississippi or the South in general. For Mississippians a little younger than me, especially if they have not spent much time up North, they have likely ingested a lot of slanted thinking against their ancestors with little to compare it to. Sitting on the front porch helped inoculate me against revolutionary thinking, with its sterile abstractions and utopian schemes. I knew there was a real, tangible existence that flowed through providence and human nature from relatives whose memories spanned centuries.

Like my dad, I considered a life in the South. I almost applied to Ole Miss. Instead, I went to school in North Carolina and Virginia but married a lovely girl from New York, which is where I am now. I have kept the country music, a penchant for fried foods and smoked meats, a Christian code of decency, and a family loyalty. Sometimes I feel like I am discovering preferences I did not know I had that came from my dad and grandpa, and for them it came from Mississippi.

Rooted in Place

Mississippi is that place in my mind where time stops. It is an anchor that can always be returned to, at least in Jasper County where my kin are from. Logging trucks may come in and out from time to time, but when they leave all one hears are the crickets, owls, and the occasional whippoorwill. Then there is also that other voice. That voice from the past that always comforts us with the memory of those who have gone before us.

I can pass by the Baptist church where my grandpa was a Sunday School Superintendent and see him there with his suit on, even though I was not alive to experience it myself. I can hear the rain on a tin roof or the wind whistle in the pines, and there is something telling me that I am home. Some call this ancestral memory. I do not think of it like that. It simply means I have a heritage—a place, a people, and a past—which also means I have a responsibility to pass it down to my own kids as cleanly as I received it.

The Mississippi of their lives will be very different than even the one I grew up visiting. But some things will never change. This is why I wrote Mississippi Serenade. Some things are better sung than said.

The Young Progressive

While attending Bucknell University, in his home state of Pennsylvania, Keller learned the “reigning ideologies of the time” from radical professors, including the “neo-Marxist critical theory of the Frankfurt School.”^[2] He was attracted to this “critique of American bourgeoisie society,” as well as social activism. Keller described himself and fellow students as wanting to “change the world” by rejecting things like “the military-industrial complex” and “a society of inequities and materialism.” Instead, they promoted “peace and understanding,” attended peace and civil rights marches, and shut down the college to debate the morality of the Cambodian invasion in 1970.^[3] Though things like segregation and “systemic violence . . . against blacks” bothered Keller before college, they became an occasion for him to doubt Christianity itself after his arrival.^[4]

It was hard enough for the young student to maintain his faith while regularly hearing philosophical objections to it, living a “double life,” and struggling with deep depression.^[5] There were times he wondered if he was “just a cog in a machine” determined by his environment.^[6] However, the “spiritual crisis” he experienced as a student was also the result of a tension between his more activist “secular friends” and Christians who considered Martin Luther King Jr. to be a social threat.^[7] Keller had a dilemma.

While he was emotionally drawn to “social justice,” its practitioners were “moral relativists” who could not ground their convictions in an objective standard. When Christian evangelist John Guest came to campus and boldly challenged protestors for their inability to morally reason, Keller was there.^[8] At the same time, he was disenchanted with “orthodox Christianity” which he believed supported things like segregation and apartheid.^[9] Fortunately, for Keller, the evangelical left offered a version of the faith which married the ethics of the New Left with the metaphysical foundation Christianity provided. He began to realize he could have both.

Keller wrote that things began to change for him after finding a “band of brothers” who grounded their concern for justice in the character of God.^[10] He became part of a “campus fellowship” sponsored by InterVarsity which reflected the counterculture mindset of Bucknell by keeping their ministry non-traditional, “spontaneous,” and anti-institutional. It was there Keller first truly “came to Christ.”^[11] He also learned to navigate the cultural battle between people against “commie pinkos” “rabble-rousing in the street” and the radicals who protested on those streets.

In 1970, Keller heard a message which revolutionized his approach to political issues. Some of his friends attended InterVarsity’s Missions Conference called “Urbana 70” where the Harlem evangelist, Tom Skinner, spoke about a “revolutionary” Jesus who was incompatible with “Americanism.”^[12] Skinner taught that the evangelical church had upheld slavery in the nation’s political, economic, and religious systems. While greedy landlords paid off corrupt building inspectors, police forces maintained the “interests of white society,” and the top one percent controlled the entire economy, evangelicals were silent and even supported the “industrial complex.”^[13] The 20-year-old Keller already resonated with the New Left critique, but Skinner’s way of incorporating it into Christianity was new for him.

His friends gave him a tape recording of Skinner’s talk and Keller “could not listen to this sermon enough.”^[14] Skinner claimed that a “gospel” that did not “speak to the issue of enslavement,” “injustice,” or “inequality” was “not the gospel.” Instead, he fused the incomplete gospels of both “fundamentalists” and “liberals” into a salvation which delivered from both personal and systemic evil. Jesus had come “to change the system” and Christians were to preach “liberation to oppressed people.”^[15] The sermon astounded Keller. It was just the kind of reconciliation he was waiting for and it left him unable to “think about politics the same way again” after hearing it.^[16] Tom Skinner, however, was not the only voice which helped Keller cultivate New Left ideas in Christian soil.

Mentors of the Evangelical Left

After graduating from Bucknell, Keller worked for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in Boston, Massachusetts and attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary where he met fellow seminarian Elward Ellis. Ellis was a student leader for InterVarsity and had previously been a “key leader in recruiting black students to attend Urbana 70 through a film that he wrote and produced” entitled, “What Went Down at Urbana 67.”^[17] The film challenged the notion that missions was “Christian racism” and promoted the idea that those of non-European descent could “preach the gospel the way it should be,” instead of the “honkified way of preaching the gospel.”^[18] Carl Ellis, an InterVarsity leader who had “enlisted Tom Skinner as a speaker” for the event, narrated the video.^[19] Like Skinner, Elward Ellis also imported New Left thinking into Christianity.

Ellis introduced Keller to concepts now referred to as “systemic racism” and “white privilege” by showing him that “white folks did not have to be personally bigoted . . . in order to support social, educational, judicial, and economic systems and customs that automatically privileged whites over others.”^[20] On one occasion Ellis called Keller a “racist” even though he admitted that Keller didn’t “mean to be” or “want to be.” Ellis told Keller that he simply could not “really help it” since Keller was blind to his own “cultural biases” which he used to judge “people of other races.”^[21] White Christians, Ellis maintained, practiced discrimination by making their “cultural preferences,” such as singing and preaching styles, “normative for everyone.” White people, in general, were also ignorant of the hardships racial minorities underwent in navigating “Euro-white culture.”^[22] Keller gladly accepted Ellis’s “bare-knuckled mentoring about the realities of injustice in American culture.”^[23] He now understood, in greater detail, certain aspects of the New Left critique, but still needed to further develop a Christian response to the unjust status quo. But first, he needed a job.

In 1975, Tim Keller married his wife Kathy at the beginning of his final semester at Gordon-Conwell. After graduation, he was ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) and moved to Virginia where he pastored a church in a “blue collar, Southern town.” He also served as a regional director of church planting for the PCA. Somehow, in the midst of his busy schedule, Keller also managed to take courses from Westminster Theological Seminary where he earned a Doctor of Ministry degree in 1981. Three years later, he moved to Philadelphia to take a job teaching at Westminster.^[24] It was there he met Harvie Conn, a professor of missions who helped Keller take the next step in marrying his social justice concerns with his Christian faith.

Some considered Conn a “bit of a radical” for challenging the interpretations of “white Presbyterian males” based on their allegedly biased cultural presuppositions.^[25] Instead, he believed in a “contextual approach” he referred to as a “hermeneutical spiral” for interpreting the Bible. This approach combined interpretation and application by emphasizing “the cultural contexts of the biblical text and the contemporary readers” which called for a “dialogue between the two” in a “dynamic interplay between text and interpreters.”^[26] Of course, this method of interpretation denied “objectivism” and the “classic pattern of historic-grammatical exegesis.” Because “sociological and economic preconceptions” influenced ones interpretation of the Bible and the world, Conn affirmed, along with “liberation theologians,” a “need for new input from sociology, economics, and politics in the doing of theology and missions.”^[27] In short, Conn believed that the experience of social groups helped determine the meaning and application of a text. Not surprisingly, this approach opened the door for new ways of understanding the Bible.

Liberation theology, which used Marxism as an “instrument of social analysis,” awakened Conn’s own conscience to the realities of oppression. He believed that “a bias toward the poor, the doing of justice, [and] the battle against racism,” were necessary starting points for properly interpreting Scripture.^[28] After all, Jesus, who Conn described as a “refugee” and “immigrant,” “identified with the poor.” Therefore, members of His kingdom must also show “solidarity with the poor” in their personal life and social perspective.^[29] Instead, White American evangelicals identified with “saints” and required the “world” to come on the church’s terms. Not surprisingly, Conn thought “the church must recapture its identity as the only organization in the world that exists for the sake of its nonmembers” and “repent” for things like neglect of the “urban poor,” “dull, repetitious, [and] unexciting” services, and hypocrisy.^[30]

In order to follow Conn’s advice, churches needed to engage in “holistic evangelism,” which included working to eliminate “war and poverty and injustice” with a “full gospel” which addressed social questions.^[31] Charity alone was not enough.^[32] In fact, the gospel possessed its own “political program based on its own analysis of the global reality of man.” Conn even believed that “certain socioeconomic commitments [came] closer to certain features of the gospel than others.”^[33] This broadening of the gospel message and evangelistic task included a fusion of liberation theology, and perhaps Kuyperian thinking, with evangelicalism.^[34]

Conn, who disparaged “wealth and whiteness” and compared Wall Street workers with prostitutes, certainly had little affinity for “capitalism,” which he believed provided “myths” for understanding “social needs.” At the same time, the “Marxist tool” was only useful insofar as it remained subservient to the “Lordship of Christ.”^[35] Liberation theologians “distorted” the role of the church by “making it into revolution.” But, they also challenged the “hidden ideologies” of “conservative evangelicals,” such as pietism and privatization, and could help “refine [their] commitment to the gospel.” Conn believed the problem with most evangelicals was they gave “the salvation of souls top priority and the concern for social justice only secondary and derived importance.”^[36] Instead, he pointed to members of the evangelical left such as Orlando Costas, Jim Wallis, John Perkins, Richard Mouw, and Ron Sider as positive examples of evangelicals who understood what the title of his 1982 book, Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace, promoted.^[37]

Tim Keller personally admired Harvie Conn and found his writings to be both “mind-blowing” and deeply impacting.^[38] Conn’s most famous contributions to missions were his writings on urban ministry. By using insights from “urban sociology, urban anthropology, and biblical theology,” Conn showed that cities were not the impersonal secular places evangelicals thought them to be.^[39] Actually, “the city” carried with it a special eschatological significance. Since the final chapter in human history culminated with the New Jerusalem, it represented a return to Eden. Temporal cities reflected aspects of both Eden and the restoration of Christ as places to “cultivate the earth,” “live in safety and security,” and “meet God.”^[40] Scripture taught that Jesus came to “redeem the city,” and it was the church’s job to join this special “kingdom story.”^[41] Conn’s strategy for evangelizing urban centers involved focusing on social groups, as opposed to individuals, and promoting cross-cultural interactions which served to help eliminate “racism, injustice, and discrimination.”^[42] Keller resonated with Conn’s ideas.

While teaching at Westminster, Keller developed his distinctively Dutch Reformed approach to missions and apologetics under the influence of Conn.^[43] The “life-changing impact” Conn had on him manifested itself in 1989 when Keller moved from Philadelphia with his wife and three sons to start Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. Keller wrote he would “never, ever, have been open to the idea of church planting in New York City if it were not for the books and example of Harvie Conn.”^[44] In facing the challenges of urban ministry, Keller appealed to many of Conn’s teachings including the priority of cultural contextualization, the hermeneutical spiral, and the eschatological significance of “the city.”^[45] Like Conn, Keller viewed influencing the city as a way of influencing the broader culture. He accepted Conn’s reconfiguration of the “cultural mandate” to fill, subdue, and rule the earth, as an “urban mandate.”^[46] Perhaps, most important for political purposes, Keller also deeply imbibed Conn’s awareness of “systemic injustice” and the themes surrounding his proposed Christian solution.^[47]

The Gospel and Social Justice

Like most leaders of the early evangelical left, Keller’s main critique of Marxism was its materialism, not its moral claims. Karl Marx’s solutions were incorrect because he grounded them in atheism and ignored the reality of human sin.^[48] However, despite these major flaws, Keller believed Marxist hearts were in the right place. He stated in a sermon at Redeemer:

The people I read who were the disciples of Marx were not villains. They were not fools. They cared about people. . . there are vast populations, millions of people, who have been in absolute serfdom and peasantry and poverty for years and years, and there’s no way they’re going to get out. There’s no upward mobility. See, the people who read Marx said, ‘We have to do something about this.’ They weren’t fools.^[49]

Keller also singled Karl Marx out as the only “major thinker,” other than God himself, who “held up the common worker” with a high view of labor.^[50] Unfortunately, for Marx and New Left thinkers downstream, like Ronald Dworkin, R. D. Laing, and Jean-Paul Sartre, their moral claims could not be justified apart from the moral foundation Christianity provided which had a “basis” for racial, social, and international justice.^[51] Like progressive evangelicals before him, Keller addressed this problem by combining aspects of New Left thinking with Christianity.

From Keller’s perspective, economics was a zero sum game. Impoverished children suffered because of an “inequitable distribution” of “goods and opportunities,” not just a lack of them. Therefore, Christians who failed to share with the needy, were not only displaying “stinginess,” but “injustice” itself. For believers, this kind of work, unlike “charity,” was not optional. In fact, failing to share with the poor was tantamount to robbery because justice involved giving people their “rights” which included things like “access to opportunities,” “financial resources,” “access to education, legal assistance, [and] investment in job opportunities.” The principle of “private property,” however, was not an “absolute” right.^[52]

In 2010, Keller told Christianity Today, “It’s biblical that we owe the poor as much of our money as we can possibly give away.” Using the language of moral obligation, he implied that the “havenots,” on the basis of their need, possessed a legitimate claim to resources not distributed to them which belonged to the “haves.” The church’s job was to address these inequities by not only meeting needs, but also addressing “the conditions and social structures” that led to such needs in the first place. Keller pointed to liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez’s teaching on God’s preference for the poor, and progressive evangelical John Perkin’s teaching on “redistribution” as positive examples. He encouraged churches to get involved in “direct relief, individual development, community development, racial reconciliation, and social reform” which challenged and changed “social systems.”^[53]

In Keller’s model, the gospel itself became the basis for Christians to do this “restorative and redistributive justice.”^[54] It was both a response to the gospel, and a means by which believers attracted unbelievers to Christianity. According to Keller, this was not a new development either. He translated some Old Testament passages using the term “social justice” in the place of words that, in other translations, simply conveyed “righteousness” or “justice.” God, in Keller’s mind, charged Old Testament Israel to “create a culture of social justice.” The application of this command, in the Mosaic law, was designed to reduce “unjust” economic disparities between social groups. According to “the prophets,” “great disparities” resulted, at least in part, from a “selfish individualism” overcoming “concern for the common good.”^[55] In contrast, Jesus almost sounded like a “social justice radical activist” when he instructed selling possessions and giving to the poor in the Sermon on the Mount.^[56] Christians who understood God’s grace the best, were the “most sensitive to the social inequities,” and churches who were true to the gospel were “just as involved in social justice issues as in bringing people to radical conversion.” ^[57]

Power, Politics, and the Third Way

Keller’s analysis for helping Christians battle disparities went deeper than just economic factors. Power relationships were also unequal. In his suffering, Jesus identified not only with the “poor,” but also the “marginalized” and “oppressed.”^[58] The “substitutionary atonement” involved Jesus losing His “power” which, in turn, inspired Christians to be “radical agent[s] for social change” by giving up theirs.^[59] The people of God were commanded to “administer true justice” to “groups [which] had no social power,” which in modern times Keller expanded to include refugees, migrant workers, homeless, many single parents, and the elderly.^[60] Much of his sermons on power relationships incorporated the teachings of Michel Foucault, who, according to Keller, was a “postmodern theorist,” “socialist,” and “French deconstructionist.”^[61]

Keller stated that “the problem with the world” was “the way we use the truth” for the purpose of getting “power over other people.” He thought Foucault was not only “right,” but put it better than anyone else when he said, “Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts … the means by which each is sanctioned … the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.” Keller summarized Foucault’s theory by stating, “truth is a thing of this world, and every person who claims to have the truth is really basically doing a power play.”^[62] He even quoted Jesus as stating, “Truth claims, in general, . . . are power plays”^[63] in reaction to the Pharisees who were guilty of using “the Bible to get the right places in society, the high status, and to keep people down.”^[64] Keller, along with “postmodern thinkers,” saw the “connection between truth and power” everywhere from discriminatory hiring practices to media narratives.^[65]

In fact, from the Beatitudes, Keller believed Jesus taught that the quest for “power, success, comfort, and recognition” dominated the “kingdom of this world.”^[66] It even inescapably defined individuals themselves. New Left thinkers, like Foucault, saw in Hegel’s concept of the “Other,” a substitute for the alienation which took place at the Fall. Identity was not organically inherited or part of the fabric of duty and design, but rather, created through struggle against the “Other,” which represented a negative, usually social standard. ^[67] Keller stated, in reliance on Foucault, that when “we form an identity . . . we get a sense of self-worth by despising the people who don’t have it” which is the same as bolstering “a self through exclusion of the ‘Other.’” Simply put, people use their chosen identities, based on things like their work, religion, and political affiliation, to exert power by vilifying others who are “not like them.” Only in Christianity did Keller see “a basis” for “accepting” different people.

No revolution could escape the reality of power except “the Kingdom of God,” ruled by a “king without a quarter,” “power,” or “recognition,” and requiring his followers to give up their power as well.^[68] Keller saw Christianity as “a kind of truth” which empowered and liberated its believers to “serve and love others, not control them.”^[69] He agreed with liberation theologian James Cone that slaves, because of their “experience of oppression,” were able “to see things in the Bible” like a “God who comes down from heaven and becomes a poor human being,” which “many of their masters were blind to.” This difference in experience was so great it nurtured a “real Christianity” as opposed to the oppressive “Master’s religion.”^[70] Real Christianity was the escape hatch from the view that truth “inevitably leads to power,” as it not only addressed economic disparities, but also unequal power relationships.^[71] Therefore, the “church” could not ally or align itself with the “secular left or right” for the sake of “political power,” without giving up its “spiritual power and credibility with nonbelievers.”^[72] Christians needed a different political approach.

Because Christianity, in Keller’s view, grounded both personal ethics and social justice in a transcendent standard, it represented an unconventional political perspective outside of earthly political parties. Keller conceived of “liberal politics” as a philosophy dedicated to doing “whatever you want with your body but not whatever you want with your money.” Their concern was “economic justice” in “taking care of the poor.”^[73] Throughout his ministry Keller identified “social justice” concern with more politically progressive groups.^[74] On the other hand, “conservatives,” he told his congregation, wanted “legislation that supports the family” and “traditional values, but when it comes to giving money to the poor, that should be voluntary.” Liberals wanted to legislate “social morality” but not “personal morality” and conservatives wanted to legislate “personal morality” but not “social morality.”^[75] Neither represented an acceptable Christian position.

The problem with closely aligning with either political philosophy, according to Keller, was that they could easily culturally “colonize” Christians into versions of “extreme individualism.” The sexual rights of “blue state” individualism and the property rights of “red state” individualism were comparable to false religions coopting Christians into their mold.^[76] Blue evangelicals were “quiet about the biblical teaching” on “abortion, sexuality, and gender.” Red evangelicals were “silent” when “political allies fan[ned] the flames of racial resentment toward immigrants.” Keller wrote that “ Theologically, both political pols are suspect, because one makes an idol out of individual freedom, and the other makes an idol out of race and nation, blood and soil. In both something created and earthly is deified.”^[77]Alternatively, Keller proposed a third option in the “biblical worldview.”^[78]

While Christians could “vote across a spectrum” for practical reasons, they should also “feel somewhat uncomfortable in either political party.”^[79] The Bible deconstructed “all secular understandings of economics” including “capitalism [which] uses the engine of individuals envying individuals, and communism or socialism [which] just uses the engine of classes envying classes.”^[80] In order to be biblical, Keller thought consistent Christians would, in applying an understanding of justice and equality, “sometimes . . . side with one school of thought, [and] other times they will side with another” because secular theories of justice addressed certain “facets of biblical justice” without addressing them all.^[81] The biblical idea, that “the community has some claim on” private “profits and assets,” but that those items should not be “confiscated,” did “not fit well with either a capitalist or a socialist economy.”^[82] Instead, Christians needed to, on some level, politically operate outside the available political parties. This, of course, meant spending more effort distancing themselves from Republicans, whom evangelicals had traditionally supported, than it did Democrats.

In 2017, Keller signed a statement, along with other more progressive leaning evangelicals like Richard Mouw and Ed Stetzer, urging “President Trump to Reconsider Reduction in Refugee Resettlement.”^[83] The next year Keller, along with “50 evangelical Christian leaders,” including Jim Wallis, gathered at Wheaton College to discuss their concern that evangelicalism had “become too closely associated with President Trump’s polarizing politics.”^[84] In 2020, Keller briefly joined the elder board of the AND Campaign, led by “Michael Wear, one of President Obama’s former faith advisors, and Justin Giboney, a Democrat political strategist. The campaign produced a “2020 Presidential Election Statement” to “promote social justice and moral order” which included concern for “racial disparities,” support for the “Fairness for All Act,” “comprehensive immigration reform,” and “affordable health care,” while discouraging abortion.^[85]

Keller’s political vision was perhaps most clearly articulated in his 2008 book, Reason for God, in which he signaled his hope that “younger Christians . . . could make the older form of culture wars obsolete” through their version of Christianity which is “much more concerned about the poor and social justice than Republicans have been, and at the same time much more concerned about upholding classic Christian moral and sexual ethics than Democrats have been.”^[86] Christianity offered an “identity” which prioritized service “instead of power.”^[87] A “new human society, a new human order, [and] a new set of social arrangements not based on power and pride” was on the horizon in what the Bible called “the lofty city.”^[88] The vision of Redeemer Presbyterian was “to help build a great city for all people through a movement of the gospel that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice, and cultural renewal to New York City and, through it, the world.”^[89] Keller said, “The whole purpose of salvation is to cleanse and purify this material world.”^[90]

Remaking Evangelicalism

Some have tried to analyze Tim Keller’s social justice position as a subset of concerns stemming from his crafting “new lines of thought” for communicating with “postmoderns.”^[91] Michael Foucault was not the only postmodern New Left thinker Keller gleaned from in his ministry. For example, in crafting his New City Catechism, created to meet the challenges of a postmodern world, Keller partially relied on understandings gleaned from Charles Taylor’s “buffered self narrative.”^[92] Keller also taught his congregation that Martin Heidegger’s theory of “alienation” paralleled Jesus’ teaching in the story of the Prodigal Son.^[93] In 2018, he helped launch the “Living Out Church Audit,” designed to help churches be inclusive toward “LGBTQ+/ same-sex attracted” individuals.^[94] Because of Keller’s non-traditional conceptions of sin, hell, the Trinity, the church’s mission, biblical interpretation, creation, and ecclesiology, a group of traditional Presbyterians wrote Engaging Keller, in 2013. However, there is another way to understand Keller’s left-leaning tendency.

From his earliest and most formative years as a Christian and theologian, Keller, who already stood politically with progressives, was influenced by the evangelical left. Tom Skinner, Elward Ellis, Harvie Conn, Richard Mouw, and John Perkins all contributed to helping Keller integrate his faith with his politics. Keller often interpreted scriptures concerning politics and economics in ways consistent with neo-Kuyperian and liberation theologies. Keller then successfully marketed his ideas to the evangelical world. Today, having stepped down from pastoring at Redeemer Presbyterian in 2017, Tim Keller teaches for Reformed Theological Seminary and works with Redeemer’s City to City church planting network, where he continues to spread his ideas on “contextualization” which he first learned from Harvie Conn. Keller’s contribution to moving evangelicals in a leftward direction cannot be underestimated. The impact of his teachings will be felt for years to come.

This essay, and more, can be found in Social Jutice Goes to Church (2020).

^[1] Tim Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, (New York: Dutton, 2008), xi.

^[2] Tim Keller, February 14, 1993, “Let Your Yes Be Yes,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive (New York City: Redeemer Presbyterian Church, 2013); Keller, May 2, 1993, “House of God—Part 3,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, The Reason for God, xi.

^[3] Keller, August, 26, 1990, “The Secret Siege of Nineveh,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, March 15, 1992, “Missions,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, May 1, 1994, “Who is This Jesus?,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[4] Tim Keller, Generous Justice How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, (East Rutherford: Penguin Publishing Group, 2010), loc 151-160, Kindle.

^[5] Keller, May 27, 1990, “Christian Experience & Counterfeit,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, February 5, 1995, “Loving and Growing—Part 2,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive. Keller, September 3, 1989, “Politics of the King,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[6] Keller, October 7, 1990, “Spiritual Gifts—Part3,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[7] Tim Keller, Encounters with Jesus Unexpected Answers to Life’s Biggest Questions (East Rutherford: Penguin Publishing Group, 2013), xv; Keller, Generous Justice, loc 160-167.

^[8] Keller, March 25, 1990, “Goodness and Faithfulness,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[9] Keller, The Reason for God, xii.

^[10] Ibid., xii.

^[11] Keller, August 5, 1990, “Blueprint for Revival: Introduction—Part 2,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[12] Keller, February 23, 1997, “With a Politician,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[13] Tom Skinner, “The U.S. Racial Crisis and World Evangelism,” (Speech delivered at Urbana Student Missions Conference, Urbana, Illinois, 1970). https://urbana.org/message/us-racial-crisis-and-world-evangelism.

^[14] Keller, “With a Politician.”

^[15] Skinner,“The U.S. Racial Crisis and World Evangelism.”

^[16] Keller, March 11, 2007, “Jesus and Politics,” The Timothy Keller Sermon Archive.

^[17] Gordon Govier, “In Remembrance – Elward Ellis,” InterVarsity, May 14, 2012, https://intervarsity.org/news/remembrance-%E2%80%93-elward-ellis.

^[18] “What Went Down at Urbana 67 - Urbana 70 Black Student Promotional,” (Ken Anderson Films), accessed August 15, 2020, 2:30, 13:05,

^[19] David Swartz, Moral Minority: The Evangelical Left in an Age of Conservatism (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), loc 573-581, Kindle.

^[20] Irwyn Ince Jr, The Beautiful Community: Unity, Diversity, and the Church at Its Best (InterVarsity Press, 2020), 2.

^[21] Keller, Generous Justice, loc 168-180.

^[22] Tim Keller, forward to The Beautiful Community: Unity, Diversity, and the Church at Its Best, 3.

^[23] Keller, Generous Justice, loc 168-180.

^[24] Keller, October 31, 1993, “The Battle for the Heart,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; “Tim Keller,” Cruciformity Shaped By The Cross: Christian Life Conference 2007, February 18, 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20070218113355/http://clc.2pc.org/index.php/tim-keller/.

^[25] Peter Enns, “The (Or at Least ‘A’) Problem with Evangelical White Churches,” Patheos (blog), July 2, 2015, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/07/the-or-at-least-a-problem-with-evangelical-white-churches/; Mark Gornik, “The Legacy of Harvie M. Conn,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 35, no. 4 (October 2011), 214.

^[26] Harvie Conn, “Theologies of Liberation: Toward a Common View,” Tensions in Contemporary Theology, Third (Moody Press, 1979), 420, 428.

^[27] Ibid., 413, 421-422.

^[28] Ibid., 334, 404-405.

^[29] Ibid., 419-420, 423.

^[30] Harvie Conn, Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 1982), 23-24.

^[31] Ibid., 56, 73-74.

^[32] Harvie Conn, A Clarified Vision for Urban Mission: Dispelling the Urban Stereotypes (Ministry Resources Library, 1987), 147.

^[33] Conn, “Theologies of Liberation,” 416.

^[34] Conn, A Clarified Vision for Urban Mission, 142, 147.

^[35] Conn, “Theologies of Liberation,” 413-414, 425.

^[36] Ibid., 413, 409-410, 418

^[37] Ibid., 34, 50, 52, 73, 79.

^[38] Tim Keller, “Westminster - In Memory of Dr. Harvie Conn,” Westminster Faculty, August 15, 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20000815221157/http://www.wts.edu/news/conn.html.

^[39] Conn, A Clarified Vision for Urban Mission, 9-10.

^[40] Tim Keller, Loving the City: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Zondervan, 2016), 310.

^[41] Gornik, “The Legacy of Harvie M. Conn,” 214.

^[42] Conn, A Clarified Vision for Urban Mission, 217-218.

^[43] Keller, Loving the City, 104-105.

^[44] Keller, “Westminster - In Memory of Dr. Harvie Conn.”

^[45] Keller, Loving the City, 106, 46; Tim Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Zondervan, 2012), 10; Tim Keller, Gospel in Life Study Guide: Grace Changes Everything (Zondervan, 2013), 127; Tim Keller, Jan 7, 2001, “Lord of the City,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[46] Keller, Loving the City, 148, 134.

^[47] Keller, Generous Justice, 189.

^[48] Keller, February 16, 1997, “With a Religious Crowd,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, October 22, 2000, “Made For Stewardship,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, July, 15, 2001, “Arguing About Politics,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[49] Keller, “With a Religious Crowd.”

^[50] Keller, “Made for Stewardship.”

^[51] Keller, The Reason for God, 151-152; Keller, May 31, 1992, “Problem of Meaning; Is There Any Reason for Existence?,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, “Center Church,” 129; Keller, December 10, 2000, “Genesis—The Gospel According to God,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[52] Tim Keller [@timkellernyc], 2018, “The Bible’s vision for interdependent community, in which private property is important but not an absolute, does not give a full support to any conventional political-economic agenda. It sits in critical judgment on them all.,” Twitter, November 8, 2018, 11:26 a.m.

^[53] Keller, Generous Justice, 15, 92, 3, 115, 16-17, 125-126, 7, 117, 130-133; Tim Keller, “Tim Keller’s Generous Justice,” interview by Kristen Scharold, December 6, 2010, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/december/10.69.html.

^[54] Keller, The Reason for God, 225.

^[55] Keller, Generous Justice, 356-366, 139, 9, 33-34.

^[56] Keller, May 9, 1999, “The Mount, Life in the Kingdom,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[57] Keller, Generous Justice, xxiv; Keller, November 9, 2003, “A Woman, A Slave, and a Gentile,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[58] Keller, Reason for God, 195-196.

^[59] Keller, March 11 2007, “Jesus and Politics,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[60] Keller, Generous Justice, 4.

^[61] Keller, October 5, 2003, “The Meaning of the City,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, “Arguing About Politics;” October 10, 1993, “The Search for Identity,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[62] Keller, “The Meaning of the City.”

^[63] Keller, October 8, 2006; “Absolutism: Don’t We All Have to Find Truth for Ourselves?,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[64] Keller, May 16, 2010, “Integrity,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[65] Keller, March 3, 2002, “Passionate Grace,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[66] Keller, “Arguing About Politics.”

^[67] Roger Scruton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015), 74-76.

^[68] Keller, “Arguing About Politics.”

^[69] Keller, “Passionate Grace.”

^[70] Keller, May 31, 2000, “What is Freedom” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, May, 3, 1998, “My God is a Rock; Listening to the African-American Spirituals,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[71] Keller, “Passionate Grace.”

^[72] Tim Keller, Forward to In Search of the Common Good: Christian Fidelity in a Fractured World (InterVarsity Press, 2019), 3.

^[73] Keller, March 25, 1990, “Goodness, Faithfulness,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[74] Keller, April 24, 2005, “The Community of Grace,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, March 19, 2006, “The Openness of the Kingdom.” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[75] Keller, “Goodness, Faithfulness.”

^[76] “Tim Keller on Changing the Culture Without Being Colonized by It,” (The Gospel Coalition, 2019),

^[77] Tim Keller, Forward to In Search of the Common Good: Christian Fidelity in a Fractured World.

^[78] “Tim Keller on Changing the Culture Without Being Colonized by It.”

^[79] Keller, “Arguing About Politics;” “You Need to Hear Tim Keller’s Takedown of Radical Nationalism,” Relevant Magazine (blog), December 10, 2018, https://relevantmagazine.com/current/you-need-to-hear-tim-kellers-takedown-of-radical-nationalism/.

^[80] Keller, “Arguing About Politics;” Keller, September 27, 1998, “When All You’ve Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[81] Keller, Generous Justice, 159; Tim Keller, “A Biblical Critique of Secular Justice and Critical Theory,” Life in the Gospel, July 31, 2020, https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/a-biblical-critique-of-secular-justice-and-critical-theory/.

^[82] Keller, A Biblical Critique of Secular Justice and Critical Theory.”

^[83] “Evangelical Leaders from All 50 States Urge President Trump to Reconsider Reduction in Refugee Resettlement,” The Washington Post, February 3, 2017, sec. A18.

^[84] Emily McFarlan Miller, “Evangelical Leaders Gather at Wheaton to Discuss Future of the Movement in Trump Era,” Sojourners, April 17, 2018, https://sojo.net/articles/evangelical-leaders-gather-wheaton-discuss-future-movement-trump-era.

^[85] “AND Campaign,” AND Campaign, accessed May 1, 2020, https://andcampaign.org

^[86] Keller, Reason for God, xix-xx.

^[87] Keller, February 25, 2001, “Born into Community,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[88] Keller, May 1, 2005, “The City of God,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[89] Keller, September 18, 2005, “Christ, Our Life,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[90] Tim Keller, “Cultural Renewal: The Role of the Intrapreneur and the Entrepreneur” (Entrepreneurship Forum, Lamb’s Ballroom, Times Square, March 25, 2006), 4:30, 9. https://web.archive.org/web/20060622051746/http://www.faithandwork.org/uploads/photos/461-1%20Cultural%20Renewal_%20The%20Role%20of%20th.mp3.

^[91] Ian Campbell and William Schweitzer, Engaging with Keller: Thinking Through the Theology of an Influential Evangelical (EP Books, 2013), 9, 21.

^[92] Tim Keller, “Catechesis for a Secular Age,” interview by James K.A. Smith, September 1, 2017, https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/catechesis-for-a-secular-age/.

^[93] Keller, November 2, 2008, “We Had to Celebrate,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.

^[94] “The Living Out Church Audit,” Living Out, accessed August 21, 2020, https://www.livingout.org/resources/the-living-out-church-audit.

The Faithful Men

There are many worthwhile causes for a young man to get behind. Paul Washer used to say that young Christian men, because of their physical ability and natural wisdom deficit, should spend their younger years on the mission field. This may be the right path for some. Spreading the gospel to difficult areas is important, and so is learning to trust God. I would expect this kind of emphasis from the leader of a missions organization. But this is not the most important task for everyone.

As I wrote in The Men Who Stayed, someone has to keep society functioning, which means things like staffing emergency services, providing spiritual leadership, volunteering, having children trained in the nurture and admonition of the Lord who love their land, taking on social leadership roles, and being a general bulwark against innovative and anti Christian threats. Without a strong home base, where are missionaries supposed to gain support?

Sometimes the most spiritual thing to do is get married, have babies, keep the family farm or business, pass it down to your children, get involved locally, and be a faithful churchman. That is a good life, and it is one business moguls dream about.

C. R. Wiley, a Renaissance man in his own right who occupies a place in at least three different worlds, recently shared how business executives often envy his carpentry skills and express to him how they wish they knew how to build houses.

Right now, there is a high demand for elevator, escalator, and wind turbine technicians, aircraft mechanics, plumbers, electricians, and many other trades that pay competitive wages.

One of my grandfathers became a carpenter. The other was a shoe salesman. Both led fulfilling lives filled with the things associated with children and community involvement. They outlived most of their friends, but their impact is still felt in their great grandchildren, if only they were here to see it. One of the reasons I recorded Heritage was to convey the good life from their perspective. America would not be America without the George Baileys who stayed home even when bigger opportunities called their names.

This does not mean men should stifle their God given ambition. I remember Rodney Chrisman, a professor at Liberty Law School, telling the story of his own regret at not being more attentive to his Greek studies in the New Testament so he could be on the cutting edge of biblical scholarship. This struck me as unrealistic when I first heard it. How can someone so accomplished be eyeing a very different professional field with such a high wall for entry?

It reminds me of the story Tom Brokaw told about Ronald Reagan. During Reagan’s presidency, he remarked that he wished he had spent more time on his education because there was still so much more he wanted to accomplish. Even the President of the United States felt he could have prepared himself better and wished he could do more.

If the most impressive men, from a popular perspective, still sense there is more they can be or do, what makes you think you will ever reach that pot at the end of the rainbow?

The lesson here is to expect your ambition to meet certain goals to continue throughout your life. “The glory of young men is their strength” (Proverbs 20:29). The limitation on all men is their time. “For what is your life? You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (James 4:14). You will never accomplish everything you would like to, and this is a good thing. It means you will always be working toward goals, improving, and becoming the best version of yourself if you do not squander your God given ambition. All of this must be wrapped in contentment, giving up your unmet goals to God, adjusting your desires based on providence, and acknowledging your unique skill sets. In the words of Clint Eastwood, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

A man born into a carpenter’s family will likely know something about carpentry, and it may be the means God uses for him to feed his family. A man born into money and connections may have a leg up on making decisions for many others beyond his family because of his attachment to power and influence. Then there is someone’s skill level. All of this is afforded to us by providence, and none of it is to be lamented.

The Burden of Being Needed

Sometimes I feel like my major role in life is to plug holes in dikes. I was given a traditional mindset that values the institutions that make for stability and flourishing. My soul resonated with Moses, Plato, and Edmund Burke. Why cannot people just function the way they should be expected to? When law, social expectation, or bigotry, in the Burkean sense, are subverted, Pandora’s box opens. We need healthy societies capable of producing a stable, educated, and virtuous population if we are to hold on to our cherished liberty.

Most men of any worth step up to the plate when something important they love is in jeopardy of dying, so long as they have the bandwidth to do it. Those with a more far reaching bird’s eye view may do it sooner than others. The Building and Loan must continue if our children are to avoid growing up in Pottersville.

At the same time, needs cannot drive every decision. Many of the men of renown throughout history are revered for the simple reason that they occupied their post when it mattered or filled a gap when it really mattered. If someone else had been there to lift the burden, we may never have heard their names. Timothy needed the training ground of Ephesus during Paul’s absence.

In a world with so few Pauls, it becomes important to raise up Timothys at a reasonable scale. Imagine a factory where the products are so hastily made, their paint so thin, their bolts so loose, and their builds so shoddy that they fall apart as soon as someone tries to depend on them. I was in furniture refinishing for many years and got used to working on this junk, but it is not what I want for my own home.

The temptation for a controller, especially if he has management skills, is to spread himself too thin, which puts everyone in a position of dependence on him. But if everyone on the plane is breathing oxygen except the person helping everyone else put on their masks, then no one will have oxygen soon. There is a hard truth in this. No matter how invaluable you think your abilities are, they have limitations, and one day you will not be around to use them at all.

Sometimes needs dictate duty. Moses had no choice. Sometimes they open up possibilities. David went from being a shepherd to a warrior gradually as the occasion called for it. Sometimes competing needs force prioritization. Paul traveled as far and wide as he could, but he could not be everywhere. God directed him to Macedonia through the vision of the Macedonian man calling for help (Acts 16:9), and prevented him from preaching in Asia and Bithynia at that time (Acts 16:6 to 7).

Consider this. Jesus, whom no one would dare say they could outperform, spoke of the needs of discipleship outpacing the ability of men to meet them. “Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest” (John 4:35). Jesus’ answer was simple when the need went beyond the scale of the resources able to meet it: pray.

Just because something is a need does not mean you are the person to meet it, but it might mean that. The difference between the two should be discerned through discussion (Proverbs 15:22), desire (Psalm 37:4), and duty (2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:8). At the end of the day, unmet needs can become worries. It is best to pray about them and entrust them to God (Philippians 4:6 to 7).

Strengthen What Remains

Speaking of needs, if you have some time and talent on your hands, it would be great if you could populate one of the more socially influential realms of American life. In Against the Waves I wrote:

Evangelicals—who make up about 28% of the U.S. population—are significantly underrepresented in other influential sectors. They account for only about 4% of the scientific community, 7% of the legal elite (by one estimate), likely less than 8% of journalists, and fewer than 19% of college professors.

There is no doubt that influential sectors have contributed to the moral slide downward in our culture, but there are few people with both the authority and conviction to push back from the places where it matters most. Institutional capture is a terrible problem, and it will not ultimately be solved through social media posts and podcasts alone, as important as those things might be. At some point, someone has to take the helm of authority and wield actual power at the key choke points.

I went back and forth for years over whether I ought to go to seminary, law school, or both. Ultimately, I settled on seminary. I did not really want to be a lawyer or do what lawyers do, but I knew we needed good Christian lawyers. This need of the hour tugged at my heart. I had a good business that could have scaled quite a ways by the time I graduated from seminary, but I was offered an opportunity to attend graduate school with a Graduate Assistant position. This was not the most financially lucrative decision for me, but I knew it would credential me in a field where I might be able to wield some important influence in the future. So I accepted the position.

I am practical about life. It does not give you do overs, and it does no good to consider what could have been given God’s providence. Using myself as an example, here is what is true for me right now. I learned a trade I can fall back on. This allows me to be bold where I need to be and not be tempted to become enslaved to special interests or audience capture online. My experience at seminary allowed me to start a podcast. It is a long story if you have not heard it, so I will spare you. This same seminary experience contributes to my current role as a church elder. My graduate school experience taught me how to approach information, as did my studying for the LSAT. I do not know where this will all take me, but it has definitely helped me write books and produce documentaries. Everything from learning guitar to working on my house has given me skills that I have been able to use, and some of those skills have allowed me to have a measure of influence in arenas threatened by revolutionary forces.

Your life does not need to look like mine, but it would be wise to gain a marketable skill before spending money on degrees. Consider what you want to explore and where it converges with God’s will, which will inevitably include duty and need.

One of the great crises we are facing as a civilization involves the disappearance of voluntary associations. The Walmart greeter is not going to give your child life advice, and you probably do not want him doing that, like the old shopkeeper might have. The Boy Scouts are in disarray. Veterans organizations and voluntary charitable organizations are losing members, and sporting clubs are closing down. It is difficult to grasp the extent of this decline when comparing civic participation today with the past two or three generations, which reflected much higher rates of volunteerism.

I was at the gym the other day and happened to overhear one of the local VFW leaders lamenting that their chapter closed its doors because of a lack of participation. A number of areas near me are struggling to find volunteer firefighters as people from New York City move in but do not participate at high rates in the communities in which they live.

In 1830, Alexis de Tocqueville observed:

“Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute.” (Democracy in America, Vol. II, Part II, Chapter 5)

If we are to rescue our own country from decline, we will need to know each other and organize to solve problems the government should not or cannot solve. There is much opportunity right now, both with small businesses that are staples of their communities and with voluntary associations composed of older leadership. A young man can join these organizations or take out a business loan to acquire a business that a retiring Baby Boomer without an heir needs to sell. If you are a young man willing to strike out on your own in the small business world, you might look at BizBuySell.com. Not only would you be taking advantage of lucrative opportunities, but you would also be reinforcing your community in the process.

Or, if you live somewhere where modernity has erased some of these staples, you can simply plant a new seed. This is the idea behind things like Rockwell’s Gas, a small business concept to bring back the American style gas station. Where I live, I can walk into a Stewart’s Shop and expect local fare staffed by locals who speak English, but as I have traveled, I have seen firsthand that this is not the case in many places. Bringing back the American gas station, supplied not as a dingy vape shop but as a family friendly place with bait and tackle, ice cream, and other community staples, may seem like a small thing, but it is not. This is how you strengthen your land.

Do Not Confuse Attention with Influence

You could probably summarize what I am about to say by simply saying: “Stop trying to save the world before you can buy a home.” There are obviously exceptions, but its a good general rule for our current context.

If you are talented in multiple arenas, and especially if you look and sound good behind a camera, you will need to wisely navigate the emerging incentive structures that exist on the internet.

One of the mistakes often made by younger Millennials and Zoomers, in my estimation, is that far too many members of these generations think passive income on social media is easily achievable and the key to happiness. There are a few problems with this.

We need good Christian voices on podcasts, social media, and in video content. People, even in your local church and community, are consumers on these platforms. But there are a few things to realize.

First, it does take work. Just because you saw someone make it big with a viral video produced on their phone does not mean that is your future. For most content creators, myself included, there is a mountain of preparation and networking that happens when you are regularly producing quality content that people need.

This brings me to my second point. Most of what exists on social media and in the podcast world at this point is basically garbage. Quality control mechanisms hardly exist, and mass audiences do not seem to be that concerned. This tempts content creators to take shortcuts and become sloppy.

If you are looking to do more than simply enrich yourself personally, and you should be as a believer, you will need to resist the temptation to take shortcuts, such as letting AI write your articles, pontificating about subjects you know little about, and letting whatever is popular in the moment dictate all of your content. Often, the things most needed are not the things that are most popular. Are you prepared to say “no” to audience capture, slop, and massive third world audiences?

Remember, social media, as it currently stands, exists in an egalitarian world where tabloidesque stories and outrageous behavior are the lingua franca. You, as someone who cares about the health of your community and country, are walking into an environment that simply does not.

There are also limits to what can be done on social media. You can certainly effect change when you have a clear goal and actionable ways to achieve it. I would like to think my podcast, Conversations That Matter, has done much to expose and refute errors in Christian organizations and that work has been used to purify them to some extent. There are many cases of neutralized threats and positive action in places like the Southern Baptist Convention, Cru, and Liberty University, in part because my platform was part of the team attempting to reform, purify, or strengthen these institutions. But what about the person playing the long game who has a shot at becoming a leader in one of these major culture shaping institutions? He can do far more than a podcaster on the outside ever could.

This is part of the reason I suggest younger people run for local political office, get involved in the community, and obtain credentials and relationships that will help propel them to places where they can eventually call the shots, not just criticize or advise those who do, as important as those things can be.

Sometimes a podcast can help with that, but most of the time, from my perspective, it cannot. The internet is filled with guys spending their formative years pontificating about things they know little about, sometimes hindering themselves from accessing actual influence at lower stages because of what they say to attract a certain audience, and becoming absorbed in niche arenas that offer the illusion of national appeal. Do not get me wrong. These pitfalls can all be avoided and navigated, but they are not easy.

The internet will want you to say stupid and sensational things that resonate with a particular mass audience but become a stumbling block in the real world. If you go down the podcast path, just keep in mind the reason you are doing it in the first place, and do not be afraid to say things an online audience may hate but that move the needle forward with a strategic group of listeners in the real world.

Build the Man and the Mission Materializes

If you take one thing away from this article, may it be this: Your virtue must be stronger than your ambition. As long as your ambition overcomes your virtue, you will fall into trap after trap. Your record will be filled with regrets regardless of how capable you are. “Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity, Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool.” Proverbs 19:1

Your character matters more than your capability. Scripture is filled with stories of men who felt incapable, but God used them. Moses did not think he could speak. Gideon lacked bravery. David was just a shepherd boy. Peter was impulsive. Each of them had to learn their lesson, but each of them was faithful. If you really want to save your civilization and protect your family, the best thing you can do is first learn to be faithful. Make sure you have mentors if you can get them, are grounded in a local church, and are spending personal time with God. Recalibrate yourself every day. You will inevitably learn this as you are pursuing your skill sets.

Now, let us talk about skill sets for a moment. The Left knows that transforming culture requires both a top-down and bottom-up approach of deconstruction and reconstruction along revolutionary principles. One of the tendencies of the political Right is that they tend to focus on one thing too heavily. Elections are one mechanism, but not the only one necessary for recovering our society. We do need people staffing positions in all the sectors, including the arts, trades, and business worlds.

It is in style right now, at least online, to support aspects of Italian political theory, especially a Machiavellianism that seeks to acquire power at all costs in order to transform society. There are many great things to learn from this tradition, and I highlight some of them in Against the Waves, but there are also risks and limits to this approach.

Suffice it to say, for our purposes, you are not wasting your life being a shopkeeper or a welder unless you know that is not what God wants you doing. I know a farmer who does construction and just started to get into local politics. He is an honest man who locals likely trust because of his stake in their community. He provides a stable environment for children who will grow up to exert their own influence.

I also know a family where both husband and wife got too deep into political ladder climbing and neglected their children. Whatever they did teach them, it was how to manipulate and ladder climb themselves. You do not have to guess which family is happier and more successful in the long term.

The point is, top-down change and bottom-up organic change are not mutually exclusive. For example, if marriages are in decline, it is good to have just laws that disincentivize divorce while also having pastors to help navigate such situations and reinforce good social mores.

As a general rule, it is probably best to spend a few years in the “bottom-up” ranks before wielding significant magisterial power, simply because a magistrate connected to the environment he governs will know better what his constituents will respond to and how to govern well. Even the righteous kings of Israel faced limitations in purging idolatry partially because of the stubborn hearts of the people (name which kings this applies to). Unenforceable or disrespected laws can foment a general disrespect for lawful authority.

“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.” Ecclesiastes 8:11

A wise ruler knows how to righteously apply God’s universal law in a particular setting.

So what should I do, Jon? Pursue power or the quieter life?

I will tell you how I have navigated this question. At different points in my life, different opportunities arise as I am pursuing the next step that makes the most sense for my reachable goals. I wanted to get married, so I got a job that paid. I was not picky about what kind of job. That helped pay for the schooling I needed to be a leader in my church. That, in turn, prepared me for grad school and helped launch my podcast, which I never expected to be a career. This gave me a platform to market my music and books. Did I mention I just released Heritage? I am in my mid-30s, and I do not know what is ahead. It may be that the need of the moment calls for more political action, or it may be that family needs require me to be more available on the home front. One thing I did not mention is how important podcasting has been for my flexibility. Speaking, writing, and podcasting take time, but I can do it from my desk, which means I can work on my fixer-upper and be there for unexpected family needs, which we have had our share of.

It all seems to make sense on the other side of the decisions after years of living with them. The important thing at the outset is openness, faithfulness, and excellence.

I basically try to craft my decisions around the order of loves (ordo amoris) as best I can. Where do my responsibilities lie? How does helping the people I care about direct my goals? How do my skills determine which goals are prioritized? Some things will be sacrificed in the process, but that is okay.

The last thing I will say is that having a long-term focus helps. We are warned in Scripture about get-rich-quick schemes (Proverbs 13:11). It is better to plan for gradual leveling up. Imagine your family, or a future family you would like to have, ten years from now. Where would you like to be at that point? Start walking in that direction. Some dreams may die. Some dreams may live.

Our society reinforces never giving up on your personal dreams. I say dream bigger. Dream about your little neck of the woods and extend outward to the entire universe. There are no small people or places, as Francis Schaeffer liked to say. Your dream is about what God can do in the grand scheme and how you fit into His unique plan.

Conclusion

The answer to the question, “What should I do?” depends on context, capability, and character. For some of you, this may not seem clear in the moment. I promise you, as you live and pursue the things you know are right, even if you do not know the whole picture or where it will take you, the picture will become clearer with age and experience.

You will be glad you did that first aid course when you could not find a summer job, or volunteered to help your neighbor after a storm when there was an open Saturday, or spent time becoming more familiar with the Bible so one day you might help others match their lives to it in a church leadership context. One day, you will look back and be thankful you took the steps you did take, however small, when you knew you should take them.

I do not wish to speculate on this case beyond what is known. It is unusual to me that senior pastor Dr. Ray Heiple who worked with Appleton for approximately seven years at Providence Presbyterian Church spearheaded the effort against Appleton by supporting the session’s referral for investigation. It is also unusual that the votes convicting Appleton were almost unanimous at 41-0 with one abstention. From what I could gather from PCA friends, the Pittsburgh Presbytery is not known for being liberal like the Metropolitan New York Presbytery where Tim Keller served or the Rio Grande Presbytery where Zach Garris was recently convicted of unwholesome speech.

The reason this issue is important for conservative Presbyterians and evangelicals more broadly is because of the indictment’s charges against Appleton. The indictment outlined two potential charges. first, a violation of BCO 21-5 regarding the requirement that a minister adorn the profession of the Gospel in his manner of life and walk with exemplary piety, citing social media posts; and second, a violation involving the misinterpretation and misapplication of God’s Word on the nature and calling of women.

The first count is more open to interpretation than the second. Suffice it to say, Appleton did publicly post some crass and confusing things which may speak to some imprudence or lack of self-awareness. Though much of the evidence in the indictment highlights nonchalant partisan hot takes about politics. One would think, under normal circumstances, this would be addressed by conversations about wise social media usage. But, this was not the lion’s share of what the indictment focused on.

Most of the indictment focused on the second charge which made advocates for biblical patriarchy especially concerned. I listened to one of Appleton’s sermons, which some of the charges came from on Titus 2:3-5. In it, Appleton seemed to elevate the role of a wife and mother. He said things like “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” and consoled women who wanted children but could not have them. Nothing about his content or attitude came across as domineering or unbalanced. Its obvious that Appleton is a dynamic speaker and skilled in teaching scripture.

When I looked through the specific charges they seemed like cheap shots. Appleton said that “Women because of their sex, have a specific temptation to exercise control over things that are not always their prerogative.” In context, I knew from listening to his sermon that this was not an ontological statement, but a conditional one resulting from the Fall. The indictment claimed Appleton taught “ontological inferiority of women” though. Appleton said in a Q and A that Wives should “submit to [an unbelieving husband], even if he doesn’t let you go to church.” This is a situation where the command to meet together (Heb 10:25) and the command to submit to one’s own husband, even if a non-believer (1 Peter 3:1), are in tension, a fact Appleton admitted and sought to navigate. Another accusation was that Appleton accused even of “being first in transgression” when it was Adam through which sin came into the world. This seems to confuse Federal Headship, as explained in passages like Romans 5:12 with who sinned first chronologically (1 Tim 2:14). The list goes on.

One X user reported that Lisa Boelcke, the Women’s Ministry Coordinator at Providence where Appleton taught, “submitted multiple letters which made it into evidence & served as a witness.” To Appleton’s credit, though he strongly disagreed with Boelcke, he did not lose his composure like many reacting to the story. If he has been unjustly accused and punished, this will be one of the battles he faces. The incentive structure on X in particular rewards transgression against authority, especially when that authority is perceived to be compromised, and it is not particularly concerned with preserving pastoral decorum or encouraging constructive language.

Rick Appleton was convicted and deposed last weekend and according to BCO 42-4 he has 30 days to appeal this decision to the Standing Judicial Commission. There is more light that needs to be publicly shed on why the conviction went the direction it did and whether these were, in fact, the specific charges. But, if this is about punishing people who believe in biblical patriarchy then the question inevitably becomes, “Which Presbyteries are safe for conservative PCA Teaching Elders?”

One thing I do know from my experience tracking these issues is that I do not put it past more progressive leaning members of the PCA to act any differently than their counterparts in the SBC, whom I have seen repeatedly try to tie patriarchy to figures they can portray as more odious because of other perceived baggage. Figures like Paige Patterson, David Sills, and Johnny Hunt were framed as compromised, or even as colorful characters, before their alleged indiscretions were linked to conservative teaching on gender roles.

Well, some things should not be, to be blunt. Pastors and other leaders need their own places where they can debrief, admit weaknesses, seek help, build camaraderie, and come back to their congregations stronger and ready to roll up their sleeves in ways they were not before.

Not every private gathering of leaders is a conspiracy against the masses. Sometimes, it is just what the masses need. Consider Jesus’ own model for training disciples. Much of His public ministry was not public at all. Profound teachings flowed from His lips as the disciples ate and traveled. His teaching contained more live interaction than prepared manuscripts. He had His inner circle (Peter, James, and John), His outer circle (the Twelve), His followers (the five hundred), and His audience.

From my perspective, many pastors’ conferences are good networking opportunities and may contain good preaching, but they tend to lack the practical side of ministry while elevating a hierarchy beyond the church of conference circuit pastors. In a digital age, where teaching as the transfer of technical information has become the norm, conferences like this are not as helpful. Many people would just assume it is better to skip the conference and listen to the lectures later.

The Evergreen Summit did something different, and it is something that is needed. At this conference, pastors interacted with one another on the same level, while simultaneously the event was open only to pastors and their wives. This meant the office of pastor was elevated as the only office permitted to participate, while the speakers jumped into the trenches alongside their fellow pastors. The lectures were short, and the coordinated discussions and question and answer sessions were long. There were no recordings, so real issues could be brought up and addressed in real time. Authentic stories from the battlefield of ministry were presented for other pastors to learn from. The dynamic was totally different from other conferences. It is interesting how human behavior changes when the cameras are off, for good or for bad. In this case, it was for good.

My participation was cut short because I had to leave early for a family emergency, but I did attend Thursday evening and all day Friday. Here are a few things I took away:

First, Michael Foster encouraged everyone by reminding them of what their responsibilities before God were. In an age of dysfunction and deracination, pastors are stretched beyond their limits. However, pastors are not called to replace every other relationship someone is missing. They are not personal life coaches or best friends. They are shepherds. This got things off on the right foot. The rest of the conference flowed from this understanding of the pastoral role, with the intention of navigating the modern landscape wisely and powerfully.

Second, Justin Dean gave practical advice on finding friendships as a pastor, an issue I am all too familiar with from growing up in a pastor’s home. At one point he said, “If every room you’re in is one you’re running, you don’t have a community; you have an audience.” This hit me because it is easy for any kind of leader to slide into the constant leader role and forget that he is human and needs his own social circles where he is not the leader.

Third, Brian Brown encouraged pastors to seek clarity quickly when problems arise, Jake Mentzel gave an interesting talk about the kinds of men who should not be elders, even if at first it is tempting for a pastor to elevate them, and Michael Clary shared his own church split story, which resonated with many in the room. In each case, personal stories, sometimes stories of failure, backed up the practical teaching.

Then came the most profitable portion, where more seasoned pastors worked with less seasoned ones or encouraged those going through trouble in their churches. It was helpful for me to hear what other pastors thought of my own situation. This is something I would never receive at another conference unless I sought it out and happened to find the right person to seek advice from. Realistically, how many pastors do that? Many are unlikely to share their own concerns because they are used to being the ones in charge with the answers. The truth is, pastors do not have all the answers.

Michael Foster presented this conference format as an option moving forward, not to knock other conferences that do things differently, but to invite pastors to a conference where they can breathe easy, obtain encouragement, and focus on the nuts and bolts of their ministries in an honest environment. Green rooms don’t do this.

I am hoping to attend again next year and bring some men with me.

Known most for his unwavering commitment to the authority of Scripture, MacArthur preached through the entire New Testament, authored over 30 books, and sold more than one million copies of his study Bible. He served as president of both a college and a seminary, and his radio preaching is heard daily on more than 2,500 stations around the world.

Yet MacArthur was not the rhinestone cowboy many celebrity preachers aspire to be. He was the real deal. He never set out to be popular. At one point, he said, “You cannot be faithful and popular, so take your pick.” Even so, he became widely respected among Christians across the globe. It is clear that God was at work in MacArthur’s life from a young age.

Life and Calling

John Fullerton MacArthur Jr. was born on June 19, 1939, to Jack and Irene MacArthur. He grew up in a home deeply rooted in ministry, with both his father and grandfather serving as pastors. MacArthur later described his upbringing as stable. His parents had a strong relationship, his mother stayed at home, and he and his three sisters were raised in a close-knit household. After his grandfather passed away in 1950, the family lived with his grandmother, with whom John shared a room. He was often sick as a child and tended to get into mostly harmless mischief, but by high school he had become an athlete, participating in several sports, with a particular focus on football. That was about to change, however.

A life-altering car accident during his time at Bob Jones University gave John MacArthur a new perspective. God had spared his life after he was thrown from a car and his body slid down the road. He knew he wanted to live for the Lord, but he was uncertain whether that would mean pursuing professional ministry or continuing with football. In 1959, he transferred to Pacific College in Los Angeles, where he continued his education and was even named to an All-America squad as a halfback. However, his direction shifted toward ministry after a pivotal encounter with a paralyzed girl named Polly. She had lost the will to live, and at the request of a friend, MacArthur visited her in the hospital. When he walked into her room, he told her that her spiritual condition mattered more than her physical condition. This conversation played a significant role in her conversion and became a defining moment in MacArthur’s own decision to enter the ministry.

Ministry and Achievement

He began attending Talbot Theological Seminary in 1961 and graduated magna cum laude in 1964. During his time there, he married Patricia Sue Smith, whose family attended Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, where his father was the pastor. In 1968, he received a call to become the pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley. This came at a pivotal moment in the history of Los Angeles, as the Jesus Movement was gaining momentum and the San Fernando Valley was experiencing significant economic growth. Grace Community Church grew during this time, in part due to these cultural and economic factors, but its growth was not the result of formulas or trends. Instead, it was rooted in MacArthur’s unwavering focus on deep, expository preaching and the pursuit of personal holiness. He consistently gave credit to God’s providence for the church’s growth—and successful it was.

In 1969, the tape ministry began with a single volunteer, Vern Lummus. By 1970, 5,000 sermon tapes had been produced, and by 1973 that number had grown to 37,000, supported by a team of six volunteers. By 1976, annual production had reached 110,000 tapes. As the ministry expanded, so did the church facilities. In 1972, the original chapel was replaced with one that seated 1,000 people, and in 1977, a new auditorium was built to accommodate 3,000. Moody Monthly once referred to Grace Community Church as “The Church of Nine Hundred Ministers,” a reflection of the large number of volunteers actively serving in various ministries. This strong volunteer base enabled MacArthur to devote approximately 30 hours each week to study, allowing him to preach with depth and clarity. By the 1980s, the influence of Grace Community Church had grown further, with the establishment of the Shepherd’s Conference, The Master’s College, and The Master’s Seminary, all connected to John MacArthur’s leadership.

Opposition and Virtue

During his 56 years as pastor at Grace Community church, John MacArthur also received opposition both internal and external as he waded into controversies over things like biblical counseling, Lordship Salvation, the Charismatic Movement, and the Social Justice Movement. In a 2019 chapel at The Master’s Seminary MacArthur reflected:

“You wind up at the end of your life having been stripped of people who, at some point, gave in to the other side, and the ranks get thinner and thinner. I am sort of living in that era. I am living in an era, on one hand, as a shepherd and a pastor, where I have 50 years of loving people who have filled my life with so much love, and so much kindness, and so much affection that it is just beyond comprehension. And that is Grace Church, and that is the people who hear the Word of God and believe it and follow it. But, on the other hand, I watch my life, as it comes to an end, being stripped of relationships with many, many evangelical leaders, because, at some point, they are unwilling to stand where I stand.”

For me, this has become an incredible encouragement, because it validates virtue over fashion, optics, and managerialism. MacArthur was able to reintroduce church discipline, popularize expository preaching, and bring doctrinal clarity to many important issues, even though it cost him. There were days, he admitted, when he would have rather been digging ditches, but his commitment to God and his responsibility to his church kept him going and allowed him to experience the deep joy of serving others, and this was only possible because of his foundation. MacArthur once said, “The greatest privilege of my ministry is not the time I spend with people. It’s the time I spend with Him,” and also, “I have often said that my concern is the depth of my ministry: God will take care of the breadth of it.”

It is important to realize that John MacArthur was not a formula for ministry success, nor was he an exegetical robot. He was not in love with abstractions or content to live like a hermit tucked away in some ivory tower. He loved God, and he loved people—real people—the kind you encounter in everyday life. He gave up national stages to be with the people he knew, and he watched as volunteers took what he preached and projected it farther than he ever could, though that was never the plan. It was precisely because he never took himself too seriously that he was able to endure threats, even when they came at great personal cost.

It should also be noted that the threats MacArthur focused on were the ones he believed posed a danger to his congregation. He did not preach the newspaper, nor did he seek the international spotlight, even though, at times, that spotlight found him. Though he was famously uninvolved in Religious Right activism, near the end of his life he publicly challenged California Governor Gavin Newsom on COVID policies and abortion. In 2015, he preached a widely discussed sermon opposing same-sex wedding ceremonies, and he even suggested that Christians should vote for President Trump in order to preserve public morality. MacArthur’s instincts on public issues were, more often than not, grounded in biblical conviction and shaped by a heritage of Christian virtue.

If someone wants to be like John MacArthur, the way to do it is not by turning him into a ministry formula or by attending his institutions. It is by being like Jesus.

In Remembrance

MacArthur’s influence is deeply personal for me, because I likely would not exist without his ministry. My parents met at Grace Community Church, where my father served as a College/Career leader and a deacon. Scott Harris was part of the second graduating class of The Master’s Seminary in 1987. Growing up, whenever we visited California—where my grandparents lived just a fifteen-minute walk from Grace Community Church—I thought of MacArthur simply as my parents’ former pastor, not as a celebrity of any kind. During the social justice controversy, it was encouraging to receive a note from him that said, “To Jon, a faithful warrior.” I will always cherish that, since he was one of the few willing to confront the issue and work to drive it from the church. For me, a part of both evangelical and Los Angeles history has passed, and there is no one who can replace him. His stable presence remains with us through his sermons, where I know I will always find the truth of Scripture communicated verse by verse.

We will never hear his voice, save in recorded form, this side of heaven. But Pastor John MacArthur is with the Savior he loved and using that very voice in praise and adoration. Well done, and welcome home.

“For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants on account of Jesus. For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen containers, so that the extraordinary greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves.” 2 Cor 4:5-7

_{Sources are from my reading of John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock by Ian Murray and also my years of experience listening to John MacArthur sermons, attending The Master’s Seminary, and hearing stories about him.}

A Heroic Story Hollywood Forgot

Angel Studios deserves a great deal of credit for making the movie larger production companies should have made but did not, despite the evident audience for heroic, historical, and patriotic content. For theatergoers wanting to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Young Washington was their only option. This is yet another piece of evidence that Hollywood remains out of touch with ordinary, decent Americans who want to remember their history and celebrate the nobler facets of their past.

Running just over two hours, Young Washington tells the story of George Washington from the death of his father, Augustine, when he was eleven years old, through his commissioning as commander of the Virginia Regiment at the age of twenty-three. The film uses the adventure surrounding Washington’s journeys into the Ohio Valley, from his first surveying expeditions for the Fairfax family in 1748 through the Battle of the Monongahela in 1755, along with his social interactions with the Fairfax family, to paint a picture of an ambitious young man striving for greatness while remaining on the outside of the elite circles he longed to enter.

The Making of a Young George Washington

Washington had much to overcome. There were his responsibilities on the family farm, the death of his brother Lawrence, who had become a father figure to him, his defeat at Fort Necessity, and his near-death experience at the Battle of the Monongahela. While most Americans are familiar with Washington’s later command of the Continental Army and his presidential terms, his actions at Jumonville Glen and the Monongahela were also historically consequential.

When 22-year-old Washington, alongside his Seneca allies led by Tanacharison, attacked a French force sent to monitor his movements and killed the French commander Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville, he set in motion a chain of events that eventually erupted into the French and Indian War.

Washington suffered defeat and embarrassment soon afterward when the French attacked his poorly chosen Fort Necessity in what is now southwestern Pennsylvania and forced the surrender of his men. As part of the surrender agreement, Washington signed a document that included the French accusation that he had assassinated the French commander, Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville. Washington later explained that he did not understand the meaning of the language he was signing because the document had been translated from French.

The film emphasizes that while Washington could have allowed this defeat to define him, he persevered through dysentery and disrespect to become the hero of Monongahela. He resigned his colonelcy but volunteered to assist General Edward Braddock in his expedition against the French. When Braddock fell in battle, Washington took charge, bravely withstood enemy fire that left holes in his clothing, and rallied the remaining troops to an organized retreat.

Fifteen years later, according to a famous account, a Seneca chief who had fought alongside the French at Monongahela told Washington that he had instructed his warriors to shoot at him, but that a spiritual force must have protected him from their bullets. Young Washington condenses this story by showing the chief’s admission immediately after the battle.

Unfulfilled Desire?

There are a few other inaccuracies in Young Washington that also bear mentioning because, despite the fact that the film honors Washington and exemplifies his bravery and perseverance, it also portrays the future president as somewhat more jaded and desperate than the historical account merits.

Washington is shown pursuing and kissing Sally Cary before she married George William Fairfax. His romantic aspirations are foiled in a scene where Fairfax purposely attempts to embarrass him at a social gathering because he does not hold a commission in the British regular army. While it is true that Washington desired a British commission and eventually resigned his Virginia militia commission in 1754 after failing to receive one, there is no evidence that a scene like this ever took place.

George William Fairfax and Washington were friends, and Washington corresponded with both Fairfax and his wife during his time in the Ohio Valley. There is also no evidence of a romantic relationship between Washington and Sally Cary, no record of a kiss between them, or any indication that George William Fairfax prevented Washington from marrying her.

Part of the mystique surrounding Washington and Sally Fairfax involves a number of warm and seemingly flirtatious quips that were more common among Virginia’s upper classes, within a society that maintained far more stringent social barriers between men and women than exist today. Washington’s warmest letter, in which he wrote that he was a “votary to love,” was written in 1758 while he was courting Martha Custis. Despite the flowery language, there is no indication that George William Fairfax or anyone else suspected an affair. There is also a scene where George Washington sneaks into a party hosted at the Fairfax home because obtaining an invitation would have been impossible given his social station. This is another story that is not supported by the historical record.

The Virginia Aristocracy

One of the sub-themes running through Young Washington is how the social hierarchy imposed by the British upon the colonies was unfair. The African slaves in the film seem to accept their condition, but George does not accept his. At one point, Washington suggests that the world should be remade in light of these unfair social castes. These are not words that ever would have come out of Washington’s mouth, a man who was part of the Virginia aristocracy and took his duties seriously.

He understood responsibility from an early age, having become the head of his household after the death of his father and as the eldest child of Augustine Washington’s second marriage to Mary Ball Washington. The stoic paternalism he learned under the care of a demanding mother carried through the rest of his life. Like other members of the Virginia aristocracy, he viewed it as his duty to bear the responsibility of defense and governance, even at great personal expense. This is the Washington who later sacrificed his own resources for the Continental Army and rejected the possibility of becoming king.

The film instead portrays Washington as caught between the upper-class British and the lower-class Scots-Irish militiamen, as suggested by the use of contrasting modern accents. In reality, Washington would have spoken with a variation of a Southern dialect. He was a Virginian who lacked a royal commission not because he rejected the established order, but because he lacked the connections his older half-brother Lawrence had gained through his education in England and his ties to influential families. Washington missed that opportunity after his father’s death. Although he had the possibility of receiving a commission in the Royal Navy, his mother opposed the idea, directing him instead toward a military career in the Virginia militia. Even today, military officer commissions often involve recommendations and endorsements from influential individuals though they are more based on merit than patronage.

The reason Washington rejected Governor Robert Dinwiddie’s offer of compensation during the 1753 Ohio expedition was not because he was attempting to prove himself to an elite class he felt inferior to, as the film seems to suggest. Rather, Washington viewed the offered compensation as inadequate and believed the service he was providing required greater recognition. During his first expedition, he received reimbursement for his expenses but no regular salary. It was precisely because of his aristocratic sense of duty and honor that Washington refused what he considered an insultingly small level of compensation and instead took upon himself the responsibility of serving Virginia. He was not gaining access to elite circles, but operating on the basis of an elite status he already possessed.

A Worthy Tribute

None of these critiques are meant to dissuade viewers. On the contrary. Young Washington does a great job promoting George Washington’s duty, self-control, sacrifice, bravery, and honor. He was a larger than life figure, perhaps even larger than Young Washington portrays him. We do not have evidence he was rejected by his love interest or felt a longing to access higher elite circles to the point of sneaking into a party he was not invited to.

As a young teenager, I was first inspired by Washington’s exploits in the Ohio Valley when I read his journal. For years, I have wondered, as I do with so many other incredible stories from American history, why Hollywood has not seen fit to make a movie about George Washington’s younger years. Finally, someone has done it, and they did a great job of it too. The filmmakers do not randomly insert characters that distract from the historical story for the sake of diversity and they genuinely attempted to cultivate the virtues our country needs to sustain itself. Who better to look to for those virtues than the Father of our Country, George Washington?

The MP3 files for my album Heritage are attached to this post. It’s a very small way I can say thank you for your support. Of course if you want to download or stream the album on Itunes or Spotify etc. you can. Go to jonharristunes.com for links.

I also appreciate shout outs! If you tag me I will try to repost you. Let me know what your favorite songs are and why.

Read more

By overplaying the Founders allegiance to Masonry, while emphasizing Masonry’s incompatibility with orthodox teaching, the conspiracy narrative undercuts any sense of a Christian influence upon American government. On the popular conspiracy website “No More Hoaxes,” Alexander Holub ties Masonry to occultism, and claims “98% of the Founding Fathers of the United States were masons.”³

Origins

Looking past conspiratorial theories, insinuations, and inferences stands the true story of American masonry with all its twists, turns, ebbs, and flows. From its “operative” rise as a medieval trade guild, to its “speculative” transition during the Enlightenment, Masonry was shaped by the economic and philosophical currents swelling around it. On both the Continent and United States, the fundamental character of Masonry shifted to meet contemporary needs.

In America, Masonry was first a gentlemen’s social club, then as a dispenser of republicanism, and Christian morality, and finally a Romantic organization for the concealment and perpetuation of “ancient wisdom.” Through all these stages, Masonry offered economic and often social advantages to its members.

Though American Freemasonry was an important facet of life during the Colonial and Federal periods, its influence, nefarious nature, and commitment level among the Founders, have been greatly overstated by conspiracy theorists. Tracing the development of Masonry from the 17th through 19th centuries clarifies much of the confusion surrounding it, while liberating the reputations of the Founders and the government they established, from alleged nefarious intentions.

The story of Freemasonry begins in the early Middle Ages. Stone mason guilds, similar to today’s trade unions, formed across England and Scotland. Modern features: such as three degrees based on skill level, a “Lodge” for conviviality, and secret signs by which to identify fellow masons, all developed within the early years of Masonry. The designation “Freemason” identified members as portable citizens of the guild, instead of the “city.”⁴

Records of Lodge covenants and procedures, referred to as “Old Charges,” date back to the 10th century. In these documents, geometry is often portrayed as the chief science, a belief that helped transition lodges to gentleman’s clubs as the stone mason industry waned during the Renaissance and intellectuals became interested in trade secrets containing “ancient wisdom.” Another key feature of “Operative Masonry,” a term denoting the Medieval time in which membership was exclusive to stone masons, is that the Charges do not include the ecumenical religious language that became common in the “Speculative Masonry” of the Enlightenment.⁵

During the reign of Edward IV, members, also called “brothers,” were initiated with this Trinitarian prayer: “The mighty God and Father of Heaven, with the Wisdom of his glorious Son, through the Goodness of the Holy Ghost, that hath been three Persons in one Godhead, be us at our Beginning, give us Grace to govern in our living here, that we may come to his Bliss that shall never have an End.” Lodges required brothers to be Christians and authenticate their commitment with a Christian oath. “The oldest masonic motto known is ‘God is our Guide’ [1594]; . . . ‘In the Lord is all our trust’ [1688]; . . . the Grand Lodge of England . . . motto was ‘in the beginning was the Word’ . . . [and] ‘Holiness to the Lord.’”⁶

As the Enlightenment dawned the fundamental character of Masonry changed. The rise of free markets caused the mason guilds to dwindle, which in turn prodded them to seek membership, and financial assistance, outside the craft. Speculative Masonry emerged most notably in the Grand Lodge of London in 1717 when four smaller lodges consolidated into what would later become Masonry’s central authority.

The 1723 Constitutions stated that it was “expedient only to oblige [brothers] to that religion in which all men agree.” Since Adam was the first geometrician, the year of his origination became the basis for the Masonic calendar, instead of Christ’s birth. However, the Freemason’s Oath adopted the following year, which both Franklin and Washington would have known stated, “You must serve God . . . [honor] the King . . . [and] assist any Brother . . . By the Contents of the Sacred Writ . . . So help you God.” There were Protestants who still maintained a Christian conception of masonry even as the organization was becoming more centralized, secular, and ecumenical.⁷

Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s official condemnation of Masonry in 1738 for being too Republican in its election process, while also establishing a new form of religion, the “Fraternity,” as it was sometimes called, spread throughout Europe. Some Catholics, along with Deists, Pantheists, Jews, and Protestants were all included. Speculative Masonic lodges also carried with them English parliamentary assumptions and thus became “schools for government” with distinctly merit-based egalitarian structures. In France, Jacobins, and even women, joined lodges. In Austria, Joseph II tried to suppress masonic lodges that were thought to have been infiltrated by the Illuminati. In the Colonies however, Masonry started primarily as a fraternal organization.⁸

Early American Origins

The first Masonic entity established in the colonies was Philadelphia’s St. John Lodge, which met without the formal approval of the Grand Lodge in 1730. Four years later, Benjamin Franklin, a founding member and grand master, in a plea for oversight from London, called attention to an unsanctioned rival Lodge which was “pretending to make Masons for a bowl of punch.” It would not be until 1750 that a deputation from London’s Grand Lodge would be granted. In the mean time, lodges in Savannah (1733/4) and Norfolk (1753) experienced similar informal beginnings.⁹

In London, Speculative Masonry mixed the mysterious symbolism of Operative Masonry with Newtonian Physics in a quest for universal principles. The kind of Masonry which took place 3,000 miles away in the Colonies was of a more individualistic human-focused character. One early American Masonic diary from 1764 “laid emphasis upon the working men in the earliest lodges” instead of “royal patronage and architects.” “[Stone Masons],” it asserted, “agreed upon Tokens etc. to know one another by, and to assist one another against being impressed and not to work unless free, and on their own terms.” Both the French and Indian War, and the American War for Independence, further propelled American Freemasonry into a social, moral, and distinctively Christian organization.¹⁰

When George Washington attended his first Masonic meeting on November 4, 1752 in Fredericksburg, Virginia, he was twenty years old and “had just completed a failed campaign to succeed his brother as the colony’s adjutant general.” It is possible that Washington’s entry into Masonry was connected to his entry into the British military the same year. Washington was a nominal Mason, though he did earn the third and highest degree available in the Colonies at that time simply by attending two additional meetings within ten months of his joining. It was twenty three years later, during the Revolutionary War, before he attended another meeting.¹¹

By the time of the Revolution there were approximately 150 lodges in the United States, a third of which had been set up as military lodges by General Braddock during the French and Indian War. Ten military lodges were set up under George Washington in the Continental Army during the war and “at least 42 percent of the generals commissioned by the Continental Congress were or would become Freemasons.”¹²

In an army made up of men from various regions, cultures, and denominations, “Freemasonry forged bonds not just between soldiers, but also between soldiers and their officers.” The Lodge became a place where men of differing ranks could interact, and even worship together, since lodges were often used for that purpose. The war years marks the high point of Washington’s involvement in the organization.¹³

Military fraternization left a mark on American Masonry lasting decades after the Revolution. Attorney General William Writ, who joined Masonry around the turn of the 19th century, considered it to be “nothing more than a social and charitable club.” Though Enlightenment principles did make their way into the organization, Christianity served as the primary philosophical basis of the American lodges.¹⁴

In 1749, Rev. Charles Brockwell preached from the pulpit of Christ Church in Boston that “an upright Mason . . . is under the strictest obligation to be . . . a true Christian.” A closing poem from an 1801 Masonic diary stated, “Let us also inwardly digest the holy bible; let its doctrines & precepts even accompany our conditions in life that we may, like true Masons, dwell even here in the house of the Lord our God, and admire the beauties of his holy temple.” In 1807 an Episcopalian priest in Connecticut maintained that a “deistical mason . . . can no more join in the service of the Lodge than he can in the service of the church.” Even as late as 1817, the Grand Chaplain, Salem Town, delivered a series of lectures before the Grand Chapter of New York in which core Christian teachings such as the Trinity and authority of Scripture were exalted while “the foundation” for Masonry was portrayed to rest upon “evangelical truth.”¹⁵

Episcopalians tended to favor Freemasonry over any other denomination. From the beginning, John Wesley had been one of the first prominent clergyman to visit an American Masonic meeting. In 1759, Congregational pastor Ezra Stiles had complained that the “Spirit of Episcopal Intrigue” was cunningly using the “Fraternity of free Masons” to increase the size of their own church. Rev. William Smith, who founded Maryland’s Washington College, and Rev. William White, who served as chaplain to the U.S. House of Representatives, both preached evangelical sermons to the Freemasons of Pennsylvania in 1778.¹⁶

The bishop of the Eastern Diocese, Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, was a Freemason as was Rev. Jonathan M. Wainwright, who became bishop of New York after also serving “as a grand chaplain of that state’s grand lodge in 1826.” It is not surprising that many of the Episcopalian Founding Fathers were also members of Freemasonry including George Washington, John Blair, Rufus King, Edmund Randolph, William Pierce, and William Hooper.¹⁷

Though Episcopalians were the most active, they were not the only denominations to use the organization. Baptists, who were the most hostile Protestant denomination toward Freemasonry, still produced pastors who involved themselves in the organization. Interestingly, Unitarians and Universalists were proportionally over-represented .

After Francis Asbury preached in Lynchburg, Virginia, the Masonic Lodge “hosted groups of Baptists, Episcopalians, Reformed Methodists, and New School Presbyterians.” Clergy were often waived their Lodge fee, lodges hosted Sunday Schools, and “sermons on Masonic subjects” were “delivered in churches before Masonic bodies.”¹⁸

Founding Influence

It was precisely at the height of Christian influence upon Freemasonry that America’s founding documents and symbols were established. As many as nine signers (16%) of the Declaration of Independence and eighteen signers (25%) of the Constitution were Freemasons. No evidence exists in the records of the Constitutional Convention demonstrating Freemasonry’s influence upon the document. The only evidence of any connection between Freemasonry, and the formation of American government, lies in the Framers mostly nominal associations with Lodge life.¹⁹

The Great Seal of the United States is one of the most common examples of Masonic imagery referenced by conspiracy theorists. On July 4, 1776 Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were appointed by the Continental Congress to design a seal for the new country. Franklin, the only confirmed Mason in the group, proposed the biblical image of “Moses lifting up his wand and dividing the red sea.” The “Eye of Providence,” according to the Journals of the Continental Congress, was meant to be a “radiant triangle” and central to the scene. After three committees looked at the proposal over the course of six years, Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress and author of the Thomson Bible, but not a Masonic brother, submitted the design modern Americans are familiar with. The pyramid, which signified “strength and duration,” had been added by Francis Hopkinson who was likewise not a Mason. It was not until 1797 that the “all-seeing eye” was first used as a Masonic symbol.²⁰

George Washington progressively became a living symbol of Freemasonry. As early as 1798, a concerned Rev. G. W. Snyder wrote Washington requesting that he use his influence at the Lodge he presided over to ensure that it was not corrupted by members of the Illuminati. (Rev. John Robinson had published a sermon that same year in which he alleged Illuminati infiltration was taking place, though without any verifiable proof). Washington’s response to Snyder’s concern demonstrates the inactive nature of the First President’s Masonic commitment: “The fact is, I preside over [no lodges], nor have I been in one more than once or twice within the last thirty years.”²¹

When asked by William Williams to pose for a painting in Masonic regalia, Washington refused partially on the grounds that it would be used as a “tax on individuals . . . and hawked about or advertised for Sale.” None of the paintings of Washington in Masonic regalia were made with his blessing. While it is true that during George Washington’s presidency, he did attend the Masonic laying of the cornerstone of the capital, he was by no means a dedicated Mason.²²

Unlike Washington, Benjamin Franklin’s Masonic image was ignored at the time of his death in 1790. Starting in the 1750s, “Ancient” Lodges, which were open to members outside the cosmopolitan elite, began to outpace “Modern” Lodges. During Franklin’s time abroad from 1757 to 1785, the Philadelphia Lodge he was Grand Master of ceased to exist, and all the other lodges in Pennsylvania became Ancient. Though twenty thousand people watched the funeral procession which even included “the Ministers of a Jewish Congregation,” there was no mention of or participation in the funeral among Philadelphia’s Lodges. Masonry had left Benjamin Franklin behind.²³

The inclusiveness of Ancient Masonry created an outward focused culture in the organization. In addition to the promotion of Christian virtues, Masonry provided charitable opportunities. Rev. Thomas Gray “included the fraternity in his 1805 discussion of Boston’s charities.” Masons played major roles in relief efforts during the Philadelphia yellow fever epidemic in 1793, and even formed offshoot societies like “Gloucester’s 1780s Masonic Fire Society.” Masonry, with its geographic network and broad-based membership across denominational boundaries, was able to pour resources into causes often more effectively than churches themselves were able to.²⁴

Learning also became an “important theme within American lodges.” On July 4, 1795, Paul Revere, speaking as a Grand Master upon the laying of the cornerstone for the Massachusetts State House, connected Masonic values with American values. He described the United States as a place where “the Arts and Sciences are establishing themselves” and “where liberty has found a safe and secure abode.” Lodges helped contribute to “public libraries, schools, [and] churches.” In the 1820 speech consecrating Maine’s Grand Lodge, it was stated that “no order in society is the encouragement of schools and the advancement of knowledge more valuable than to the Fraternity.”²⁵

Shifts in American Masonry

Despite Freemasonry’s positive social efforts, changes within the organization during the first half of the 19th century threatened to destroy it. Masons increasingly sought to benefit each other politically and financially more than the general population. Instead of transcending social distinctions, Freemasonry became a distinction. Henry Clay, who won an 1811 election to the House of Representatives, benefitted from the connections he made as a member of the Lodge in Lexington, Kentucky, where “almost half of the . . . members held some public office.” Some Lodges even encouraged this behavior through the “obligation of the Royal Arch degree” which “required members, according to some versions . . . to seek other Royal Arch Masons’ ‘political preferment in preference to another of equal qualifications.’” This may be how “more than half of all Andrew Jackson’s cabinet members were brothers.”²⁶

Other major developments changed the fundamental character of Masonry. During the early 1800s both the “Scottish Rite” and “York Rite” added “Cryptic Degrees” and “by 1830 more than two-thirds of all the state grand lodges [were] instituted [into] . . . districts, headed by . . . grand inspectors . . .” Thomas Thompson, a Grand Master in New Hampshire, told his lodge that the new degrees were “made up of pomp, pageantry, and show with loftily high sounding titles of kings; high priests, princes, scribes … all unmasonic and imposing.”

A Baptist pastor from Rhode Island who refused to take a “profane oath” during the “Knights Templar” ceremony was shocked to be surrounded by knights with drawn swords. De Witt Clinton unfavorably compared the higher degrees to “frivolous pageantry,” “fantastic mummery,” and “Gothic erections, which disfigure . . . beauty and derange its symmetry.” Reason was making way for feeling. This was Freemasonry during the Romantic era. ²⁷

While some degrees, such as the “Knight’s Templars” ceremony, still carried explicitly Christian tone, Christianity was fading as a primary influence. Just as Christian language had mostly disappeared in British Masonry by the 1760s, American Masonry started progressively down the same path. Mystical wisdom, such as “spiritual knowledge sought to retrieve treasure buried in the earth” like Joseph Smith used, was becoming popular. A Pennsylvania Masonic almanac preserved from 1814 is curiously, “devoid of religious overtones.”²⁸

During the “Morgan Affair” of 1826, the changes in Freemasonry clashed with public sentiment and lost significant support as a result. Freemason William Morgan from Batvaria, New York planned to publish a book exposing Freemasonry’s new blood oaths, and secret rituals, to the general public. Morgan disappeared with rumors that he had been murdered by Freemasons trying to protect their secrets. The public outrage surrounding this event not only threatened to destroy Freemasonry, but also launched the country’s first third political party: the Anti-Masonic Party.

The Anti-Masonic Party’s influence was exclusively concentrated in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. By 1840 the party ceased to exist, but what it left in its wake was devastating. In New York, the Grand Lodge Meeting went from 228 lodges to 45. “Even in New York City, almost three-quarters of the lodges folded.” It would take years under new leadership to even start to recover the organization even though it would never be a full recovery.²⁹

Conclusion

The Freemasonry that emerged during the middle of the 19th century was very different than the Freemasonry of Benjamin Franklin or George Washington. Men like Albert Makey and Albert Pike, continued the direction away from Christianity and toward more ecumenical and mystical beliefs. Like many organizations, Masonry tended to be shaped by outside circumstances rather than shaping them. As the United States secularized, so did the Fraternity. In the words of Richard Carlile in 1825, “the [Masons] grand secret is, that they have no secret.”³⁰

1 N. Hagger, The Secret Founding of America: The Real Story of Freemasons, Puritans, and the Battle for the New World, America’s Destiny Series, (Watkins Media Limited, 2016), 153.

2 “Masonic Symbols of Power In Their Seat of Power, Washington, D.C.” The Cutting Edge, http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1081.html.

3 Alexander Holub, “The Masonic Founding of The United States of America,” No More Hoaxes . . . With Global Insights, http://www.nohoax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&catid=1.

4 Bullock, S.C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730-1840, (Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 13.

5 M.C. Jacob, The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions, (University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2016), 12-13; Bullock, 12-13.

6 J. Scot, The Pocket Companion and History of Free-Masons, (London: Black Swan, 1754), 309; H. Chisholm, The Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information, v. 11-12. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910. 82.

7 The Constitutions Of The Free-Masons, London: (William Hunter, 1723), 50; R.F. Gould, The History of Freemasonry, v. 6. (London: Thomas C. Jack, 1882), 478.

8 Jacob, 15, 18, 51.

9 C.W. Moore, The Freemason’s Monthly Magazine, v. 8, (Tuttle & Bennett., 1848), 107; Bullock, 47.

10 Bullock, 32; Jacob, 31.

11 Bullock, 104.

12 Bullock, 122; S. Morse, Freemasonry in the American Revolution, (Literary Licensing, LLC), 2013. 16-17.

13 Morse, 131; M. Baigent, and R. Leigh, The Temple And The Lodge, (Random House, 2013), 338.

14 Boston Masonic Mirror, v. 3, (Moore & Sevey, 1831), 127.

15 Scot, 294; Bullock, 150; Jacob, 32; S. Town, A System of Speculative Masonry: In Its Origin, Patronage, Dissemination, Principles, Duties, and Ultimate Designs, (Salem, NY: H. Dodd and Company, 1822), 14.

16 Boston Masonic Mirror. v. 3, Moore & Sevey, 1831. 56.

17 Bullock, 176.

18 Bullock, 165-166, 171, 176; A.G Mackey, E.L. Hawkins, and W.J. Hughan, An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, v. 2, Masonic History Company, 1912, 680.

19 R.E. Heaton, Masonic Membership of the Founding Fathers, (Masonic Service Association, 1965). xvi; Henry W. Coil, Conversations on Freemasonry. (Chicago: Macok Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., 1976). 265 266

20 P. Knight, Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, v. 1, (ABC-CLIO, 2003). 226; John Adams, “John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 August 1776,” Founders Online, August 14, 1776. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-02-02-0059; L.C. Olson, Benjamin Franklin’s Vision of American Community: A Study in Rhetorical Iconology. Studies in Rhetoric/Communication. University of South Carolina Press, 2004; The Americana: A Universal Reference Library, v. 13, (The Encyclopedia Americana Corporation, 1923), 365; S. Brent Morris,. “The Eye in the Pyramid,” Short Talk Bulletin, Masonic Service Association. http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Masonry/Essays/eyepyr.html.

21 G. Washington,, and J. Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, v. 11, (American Stationers Co., 1836), 315

22 George Washington, “From George Washington to Henry Lee, 3 July 1792.” Founders Online, July 3, 1792. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-10-02-0348.

23 Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood, 85-86.

24 Ibid., 192-198.

25 Ibid., 96, 148, 192; E.H. Goss, The Life of Colonel Paul Revere. v. 2, J.G. Cupples, 1891.483.

26 Bullock, 185, 222, 226, 232.

27 Ibid., 240, 246, 253 260-261.

28 Jacob, 32, 89; Bullock, 268.

29 Bullock, 312.

30 W.T Sherwin and R. Carlile, “An Exposure of Freemasonry!” The Republican. v. 12. T. Davison, 1825. 2.

This past month has been a busy one, but a very productive one toward our goals and the future of our churches, families, and people.

First, it was my pleasure to attend the Southern Baptist Convention the second week of June where our efforts in supporting Willy Rice and documenting the compromise on female pastors proved to be a good investment. Willy Rice is now the President of the Largest Protestant Denomination in the country. He has already handled the media very well, including on the issue of female pastors, and his social media content is a breath of fresh air:

Read more

A Decade of Downgrade

When I started tracking Southern Baptist related issues, I did so in reaction to a downgrade that by that time had been going on for a decade.

Since the Great Commission Resurgence, a set of missional strategies adopted in 2010, the SBC has faced increased Left-leaning politicization, mission drift, and signs of corruption. Al Mohler wrote in the Great Commission Resurgence book:

The Southern Baptist Convention will either be more diverse or more diminished. We will either look more and more like America ethnically, or we are going to stand out for our standing out from the culture . . . It requires incredible strategy to become more diverse. It will require a lot of denominational energy and a lot of discomfort.

Within the next five years, diversity initiatives, lectures, and institutions started sprouting across the denomination, the most famous of which was the Kingdom Diversity Initiative at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Many theological conservatives in the denomination were not even aware a problem existed until 2019 when the convention voted to adopt Resolution 9 which categorized critical race theory (CRT) and intersectionality as “analytical tools” which could “aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.” Unnoticed by many pew sitters, Southern Seminary professors such as Jarvis Williams, Curtis Woods, and Matthew Hall had already introduced ideas into Southern Baptist education that were consistent with the theory years prior.

By 2020, it seemed every entity in Southern Baptist life was impacted including the International Mission Board which planned to implement “unconscious bias and sensitivity” training, held a diversity-focused summit, and used teachings consistent with CRT for mission’s training.

I took it for granted that at least one left leaning resolution on a race related topic, whether related to immigration, racism, or allegedly offensive symbols and movements, would pass on the convention floor, since that happened every year from 2015 to 2023. I knew that efforts to curtail female pastors in any serious way would fail, Me Too related measures would pass, and any call for forensic audits would likely not receive a fair hearing. That was just the way it was. Until now.

An Opportunity

There is no reason to believe corrupt ministry leaders have given up corruption, but they may be sensible enough to see how the winds have shifted. The 2024 Report of the Great Commission Resurgence Evaluation Task Force showed that the Great Commission Resurgence, which prioritized giving to evangelism and reaching North America, was largely a failed project. So was the Southern Baptist’s foray into the #metoo movement, which currently has them tied up in multiple legal cases. Last year, the Executive Committee President Jeff Iorg reported that from 2021 to 2024, “$13 million had been spent on investigations related to sexual abuse and related legal costs.” Cooperative Program giving is down and churches are leaving the convention. But at least the denomination is slightly more diverse.

Under typical circumstances in the business world, these problems would be talked about more honestly, with blame and subsequent obligatory resignations aimed at the parties responsible. But that is not the way things generally work during the annual meeting. The guilty leaders control the narrative from the convention stage and do not take responsibility for the decline they presided over.

To right the ship will take years of theologically conservative victories, a new group of uncompromising leaders, and consistently good committee appointments. This task is not for the faint of heart. Since 2021, I have not recommended alignment with the Southern Baptist Convention for local ministry-related purposes. If, on the other hand, a church already within the denomination sees the opportunity to return the denomination to a more worthwhile organization and is willing to expend the prayer, time, and money necessary to achieve it, then this is the year to show up.

Willy Rice is running for president and he has done something we hardly ever see a member of the leadership class in the SBC do—He took responsibility for backing the wrong side. He wants greater transparency and an end to churches overriding the denomination’s doctrine on female pastors. Pastor Rice is on his home turf in Florida, has an affable personality, and has been a high-profile leader in the convention long enough to overcome the barriers to entry that dark horse candidates face.

There is also significant momentum behind the “Truth and Unity Amendment” on the issue of female pastors. This proposal would further clarify that the office and function of pastor are reserved for men by enshrining that principle in the denomination’s constitution. Like the previous “Law Amendment,” which failed to pass, the “Truth and Unity Amendment” will likely garner the support of many who were vocally in favor of ethnic diversity and Me Too initiatives. It is a relatively low bar for Southern Baptists to achieve this victory, but if it passes, it will raise morale among conservatives who have grown accustomed to being on the losing side of issues for years, even if they are working in coalition with others with whom they disagree on other issues.

Resolutions

Many of this year’s resolutions are very good including: “On Assisted Suicide and the Sanctity of Life,” “On Finishing Well in Life and Ministry,” “On Appreciation for Bivocational and Volunteer Pastors,” and “On the Nature and Importance of the Physically Gathered Church in a Digital Age.”

Knowing how egregious the SBC Resolutions Committee has been in the past, I do not want to get too nit picky on the resolutions, but I will provide some constructive criticism.

The first resolution titled “On the 250th Anniversary of the United States and the Baptist Contribution to Religious Liberty” does contain some inaccuracies and leaves much to be desired. The resolution maintains that the United States was founded in 1776, the “promise [freedom] of its founding” led to ending slavery, and Baptists are partially responsible for “religious liberty for all people.” I critique the proposition nation myth in Against the Waves and the 1607 Project. The truth is that the states preexisted the union, the freedom of the Declaration was not concerned with internal social arrangements, and many states did limit non Christian religions. The First Amendment applied only to Congress and did not bar even that body from enacting legislation favorable to Christianity.

The remarkable thing about 250 years since the Declaration is the fact that the union of states still exists and has maintained its independence. The Baptists formed a large part of the Christian character that produced and continues to animate the character of the United States, including on religious liberty, conceived as freedom of conscience to worship God.

The resolution “On Political Violence and Speech” could probably have been worded better at points but is overall decent. For example, it states Baptists should refuse “to treat image bearers as enemies to be destroyed rather than neighbors to be loved . . . and refus[e] to derive primary identity from political affiliation rather than from union with Christ.” For Christians, the key distinction in whether violence is permissible involves whether the situation entails a state of war. Even David’s mighty men (2 Samuel 23), whom God commended, killed enemies made in the image of God. Their primary identity, presumably, was as followers of God, which helped motivate their military activity. The reason political violence is wrong is because of what is found in the beginning of the resolution, that the “taking of innocent life is an offense against the Creator.” Simply being made in the image of God, or implying that spiritual identity prevents someone from having too strong of a political affiliation that would lead to violence, are not strong reasons for reaching the valid conclusion the resolution aims for.

The resolution “On Antisemitism” represents one of the more stark examples of how Southern Baptists differ from liberal mainline denominations, which generally view Israel very negatively. It is mostly well worded, but could have been clearer if what they meant by antisemitism had been better defined according to biblical standards by applying unequal weights and measures, lying, reviling, and cursing rhetoric toward Jewish people. It would also have been appropriate to distinguish between true and false charges of antisemitism since organizations like the ADL have gone after basic Christian beliefs that are not anti Jewish.

The resolution “On Immigration, Human Dignity, and the Rule of Law” is confusing. It rightly identifies the government as having the “responsibility . . . to maintain lawful order, secure borders, and implement humane immigration systems.” Yet, it also rejects “nativism” and adopts a moral posturing that it is somehow not Christian to “reduce” a person to a “political problem.” The term “illegal” is not used, and in light of the resolution’s call to use “dignifying language” in describing immigrants, perhaps that is why.

Clearly, Christians should assume that policies impact real people, but without an example of what reducing someone to a political problem means, it comes across as a false dilemma. The presence of some immigrants, especially in concentrated and large numbers, can pose problems for the government to solve. Even more so if they are here illegally.

The resolution correctly identifies the government’s role, but it is very separate from Christians’ roles. Southern Baptists are told they have responsibilities to share the Gospel and care for immigrant and refugee communities, but they are not told they have a responsibility to encourage compliance with the law or report legal violations to lawful authorities.

Webster’s definition of nativism is simply “a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants,” which, after years of unrestrained immigration, would not seem like an irrational posture for a Christian who loves his family, church, and community to take. Yet “nativism,” according to the resolution, “den[ies] the equal worth and dignity” of people.

One wonders what principles should guide a magistrate in setting the policies the resolution rightly attributes to the government if not a preference for one’s own people.

All this said, I think the resolution “On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer” is a breath of fresh air in that it tackles a controversial issue and does so from a theologically conservative angle in faithfulness to previous Southern Baptist language limiting the office and function of pastor to qualified men. Even if the reconciliation amendment fails to pass, this resolution is a helpful precedent in defining the theological boundaries on the subject of alleged female pastors.

Conclusion

Overall, conservatives should have higher hopes for this year’s convention. If Willy Rice is elected, it means there will start to be committee appointments that reflect the majority of Southern Baptists outside the leadership class, who want to see souls saved but are not interested in racial quotas or Me Too priorities. There is also a sense in which some of the biggest progressive-minded advocates, like Russell Moore, Beth Moore, and Charlie Dates, are no longer influencing the convention from the inside. Those who show up will essentially have to defeat the Kevin Ezell and J.D. Greear wing of the convention, which may be doable this year.

There is reason to hope. There are more opportunities for convictional conservatives now than we have seen in a long time. May God grant mercy to the Southern Baptist Convention and use them for years to come.

Garris is a younger conservative stalwart in the PCA, which has increasingly put him at odds with the Tim Keller variety of church ministry that prioritizes contextualizing the Christian message for blue city dwellers. Recently, Garris ran afoul of the social justice crowd in the PCA and was censured by his presbytery, the Rio Grande Presbytery.

The Presbyterian Church in America is the second largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States, boasting 1,959 congregations and 405,634 members as of the end of 2025. The denomination is composed of 83 presbyteries.

The Rio Grande Presbytery received complaints regarding Pastor Garris’s online activity in June 2024 after he disagreed with Lamont English, a director and national diversity mobilizer with the PCA’s mission arm, Mission to the World. Their discussion revolved around whether the Bible condemned chattel slavery, with Garris taking the position that Scripture did not condemn it in the same manner as nineteenth century abolitionists did. Garris later apologized for his lack of clarity and sensitivity in a follow up post, where he highlighted abuses and unbiblical practices associated with American slavery while maintaining that his position was “anti slavery,” even as he rejected abolitionism.

Despite this clarification, letters were sent to Dustin Hunt, the Rio Grande Presbytery’s stated clerk, calling for an investigation into Pastor Garris’s views to determine whether they were in keeping with Presbyterian doctrine. One letter condemned Garris for opening the church up to slander and failing to live up to his ordination vows, especially in relation to personal piety and Christian unity. The letter was signed by sixty PCA ministers, including Pastor David Cassidy of Spanish River Church in Boca Raton, Florida, and Pastor Irwyn Ince, coordinator of Mission to North America, former pastor at Grace DC Presbyterian Church, and former PCA General Assembly moderator.

A second letter alleged that Pastor Garris’s views were out of step with the Westminster Larger Catechism on the sins forbidden in the commandments against stealing and murder. This letter appeared to be more regional in nature, signed by nineteen ministers from the Metro New York Presbytery, the home presbytery of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, where the late Tim Keller served as pastor.

The Rio Grande Presbytery convened an investigative committee in August 2024 composed of John Standridge, associate pastor at Christ Church Santa Fe; Daniel Davalos, RUF campus minister at New Mexico State University; Gavyn Chavez, pastor of Grace Covenant Church; Josh Spare, elder at City Pres ABQ; David Moon, elder at University Presbyterian Church; and Matt McMillan, elder at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Alamogordo.

The committee voted to adopt a report composed by Standridge, Davalos, Spare, and Moon that found Garris under a “strong presumption of guilt.” They rejected a minority report that denied the accusations. Their investigation also expanded beyond the original complaints to encompass Garris’s broader public writings and teaching ministry.

In January 2025, the Rio Grande Presbytery adopted the report, which subsequently appeared online. Eli McGowan later tweeted about various elders giving him access to the report. This sharing violated PCA Book of Church Order provisions governing confidentiality in judicial proceedings, including BCO 40 3 and related sections dealing with review and confidentiality of trial materials. It was not until January 2026 that the Rio Grande Presbytery officially indicted Pastor Zach Garris.

The most controversial aspect of the entire ordeal concerns the trial verdict handed down last week. The Rio Grande Presbytery found Garris not guilty of the original charges related to his views on the Bible’s teaching concerning slavery. However, the presbytery still convicted him on a seemingly frivolous charge of corrupt speech. This charge stemmed from the way Garris spoke to Anthony Bradley, a PCA teaching elder and professor at Kuyper College, during an unrelated X exchange from October 2023. In that conversation, Garris insinuated that Bradley was arrogant and ignorant despite possessing a PhD. One example included the statement, “Sometimes things are more complex than a PhD can handle.”

Many observers pointed out that Bradley’s own online behavior has often been harsher than Garris’s while remaining unpunished within the PCA. This has led many to conclude that the Rio Grande Presbytery weaponized judicial proceedings against Pastor Garris because they disliked him personally and ideologically, not because they were faithfully applying their governing documents. To church laymen who already suspect that institutional favoritism only runs in one ideological direction, this case has become further confirmation. Even one critic of Garris admitted that the Rio Grande Presbytery badly mishandled the case and effectively made Garris a “folk hero” overnight.

While the punishment imposed on Garris is censure, meaning he cannot currently perform pastoral duties, his appeal to the Standing Judicial Commission automatically suspends the censure until a final verdict is reached. The Standing Judicial Commission has overturned censures before, such as in Mapes v. Metro New York Presbytery.

If that happens, it will be a major embarrassment for the Rio Grande Presbytery. Yet the presbytery may face additional problems beyond simply losing on appeal.

Members of the Rio Grande Presbytery leaked information regarding the trial while proceedings were still ongoing, violating PCA Book of Church Order provisions on confidentiality in judicial cases. They also convicted Garris on an offense many believe they failed to establish from the denomination’s own constitutional standards, which is not an appropriate charge according to L. Roy Taylor’s “Avoiding Procedural Errors in Judicial Cases.”

In addition, the presbytery is expected to appear before the Review of Presbytery Records Committee for irregularities or possible violations in actions or records. Presbyteries receiving such exceptions are often required to explain, defend, or correct their actions in accordance with the Rules of Assembly Operation and the PCA constitution.

To many rank and file Christians, this controversy is yet another example of denominational processes failing to accomplish their intended purpose. While approving a teaching elder who advocates for padeocommunion, against the PCA’s own doctrine, the Rio Grande Presbytery chose to enforce social justice priorities and punish a more conservative pastor whose doctrine matches the PCA.

In the process, this move appears to have backfired badly. In order to punish the accused, the presbytery resorted to weak charges that seem more concerned with protecting elite ideological sensibilities than advancing the Kingdom of God.

Read more