Facts for Regular Christians on the Bombing of Iran

Heath Lambert

Just the Facts

For the last several months, the relationship between the United States and Iran has been strained. That is saying something for two countries that have been locked in conflict for half a century. The strain exists because Iran refuses to embrace the American demand that their country must never possess a nuclear weapon. For months, the two powers have been engaging in basically fruitless negotiations while the United States has placed a massive military force in the region.

On Saturday, February 28, the American military, in cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force, began an aerial bombardment that killed many Iranian leaders, including the Ayatollah Khamenei. Authorities say the campaign could last for weeks.

Those are the facts on the American bombing of Iran. There is a great deal of debate about nearly everything else. In a difficult and confusing situation, I want to speak to regular Christians who do not have jobs in the halls of political power and who do not get intelligence briefings, but who are watching reports on the news and social media, trying to make sense of all that is happening. Here are five facts that can help those regular Christians make sense of the bombing of Iran.

The President Can Do This

The first fact is that the president of the United States is within his constitutional authority to engage in this military operation. This fact has become confusing over the last few days, with some who differ with the presidential decision calling it illegal and insisting that only Congress can declare war. Regardless of what you have heard, the real debate is not over the legality of the action, but over who supports the current president. With very few exceptions, the people who support the action are the people who typically support the president, and those opposed are usually at odds with the president.

The authoritative document that clarifies whether the president can undertake an action like the one in Iran is the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution makes clear that the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the United States military and is well within his authority to direct military operations like the current one.

That same Constitution does make clear that only Congress can declare war. But the last time the United States Congress used that authority was in 1942 during World War II. Every military conflict in the last 84 years has been prosecuted by Republican and Democratic presidents without a formal declaration of war from Congress. This incumbent president is doing what every president has done since Harry Truman.  

It is not usually appropriate for Christians to support or reject an entire initiative based on our opinion of one man. Of course, everyone has preferences and prejudices. But Christians cannot base their decisions on bias alone, but must have positions informed by fact.

The Iranian Regime Is Wicked

A second fact regular Christians must embrace is that the Iranian regime is wicked. The regime currently being destroyed has been a hostile and terroristic state for my entire lifetime. They have sponsored terror, kidnapped and killed American hostages, jailed pastors, pledged to kill Jews, and have executed their own people into the countless thousands. The people of Iran have been oppressed for decades by a ruthless theocracy that violently suppresses any alternative point of view. Most notably, the Iranian leadership has been desperate for a nuclear weapon that even their allies like Russia do not want them to have.

Iran is a rogue, corrupt, dangerous, and isolated state whose neighbors in the region are thankful for the current action, which is crippling their military capability.

In a situation like this one, many factors rise to the surface about which good people could disagree. For Christians, the most important issues are the ones of basic morality. The rampant wickedness and corruption of Iran provide the most important moral justification for this military action. The current Iranian leadership has opposed righteousness for their entire existence. That makes it a good thing to oppose them.

Getting the Truth Takes Work

A third fact that should help regular Christians is that getting the truth takes work. Misinformation is easy to get. Facts take some effort.

Over the weekend, I was in a conversation at First Baptist Church about the death of the Ayatollah when a member of our student ministry said, “It’s not true! He’s alive! The president is lying.” The student held up a cell phone revealing a social media post stating the reports of the death of the Ayatollah were false and showing video of him speaking. I squinted, removed my phone from my pocket, and opened my browser to the websites of Fox News and The New York Times. Both websites were running headlines declaring that the Ayatollah was, indeed, dead.

All of us regular Christians are required to rely on others for information about this conflict. That means we must be very careful who we trust to give us this information. We need a high standard for what we declare to be a fact. This high standard will not be reached by swapping conspiracy theories in our living rooms or reading social media posts from people with nothing to lose from telling a lie.

Christians are entitled to a broad range of opinions. We are not entitled to a broad range of facts. Before you say something is true, you should check multiple credible sources that have something to lose when they report error.

Having an Opinion Requires Humility

A fourth helpful fact for regular Christians is that having an opinion takes humility.

The world is full of talking heads and hot takes that freely share their different and competing opinions about the best thing to do in this current situation. Many of us normal Christians love to share our conflicting points of view about how best to handle this whole thing. It is not wrong to have a fact-informed opinion, but most regular folks could afford to embrace their opinions with greater humility.

Romans 12:3 teaches regular Christians to be very humble about how we think about things, “I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment.” You may have a very strong opinion about the Iranian action, and your opinion may be the correct one. But at least two pieces of information will help you have a lot of humility about your own opinion.

The first piece of information is that if you are one of the regular Christians I am talking to, then no one has given you any authority to make any decisions about this matter. Neither your strong opinion nor the interest of your friends in it qualifies you to be a decision maker on this issue. Donald Trump—love him or hate him— is the only human being alive elected by a majority of Americans to be the commander-in-chief. When he was campaigning for his office, he openly expressed his willingness to bomb Iran. That means that the system is working, ballots have been cast, and the decisions have been made. In future elections, we will have other opportunities to make different decisions, but not right now. Right now, power has been distributed, and that power has not come to any of us. Neither the strength nor the accuracy of our opinions can change that. It will help us be humble when we remember none of us are the ones anyone trusts to make these decisions.

A second piece of information that should humble us is just how little we know. When you take the most care possible in digesting the most accurate information, you are still guaranteed to possess only a tiny fraction of information that those in authority have. Every regular Christian has no option but to entrust ourselves to the people in authority who have more information than we do. That is very humbling.

Whether You Agree or Disagree, You Must Pray

A final fact regular Christians must embrace is the command to pray.

This can be a difficult fact to remember with all the questions people are asking right now: Was a military campaign like this one wise? Was this the right time to do it? Are we going about it in the right way? Will the power that fills the vacuum created by these strikes be better or worse than the power getting eradicated? Lots of folks will disagree about lots of things on a matter as important as this one. If all you do is listen to the regular Christians out there, you might think that the most important thing the followers of Christ could be doing right now is publicly sharing their opinions on these matters.

That is not true. God neither commands us to have an opinion on these matters nor weigh in on them publicly. He does command us to pray. In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, the Bible says, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions of authority.”

Christians are free to think this bombing is wise or unwise. Christians are free to express concerns about what happens going forward. We are not free to avoid praying. It is a condemnation of too many regular Christians that they spend mountains of time doing all sorts of things the Bible is silent about and no time doing the main thing the Bible is clear about.

Every Christian must pray for the president and everyone else making decisions about this action. We must pray for the members of the military executing the decisions made by their superiors. We must pray for the innocent people of Iran that they would be protected from death and destruction. We must pray for Christians in Iran that God would use this tragedy to expand his church. We must pray for the future of Iran that God would raise righteous leaders and a wise government. We must pray because the God of heaven and earth, who ultimately controls the future of this action, hears our prayers and will answer them. It is the best and most profitable action we could take.

Have an opinion. Express that opinion if it is in keeping with wisdom. But at all costs, pray.

That is the most important lesson for regular Christians during the bombing of Iran.

Seven Years of the SBC Sex Abuse Disaster

Heath Lambert

In February of 2019, the Houston Chronicle ran a story entitled “Abuse of Faith,” which detailed various reports of abuse connected to churches in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The reports were a mixed bag: some involved cases with guilty verdicts in courts of law, others involved only accusations; some reports involved church leaders, others volunteers; some concerned abusive mistreatment, others the mishandling of information; some involved abuse alleged to have happened on church property, others reports of mistreatment at other locations. All the reports involved numerous independent local churches spread out all across the country. When you added up each different, isolated situation, it amounted to hundreds of cases. That revelation led to the greatest SBC crisis in our lifetime and—perhaps—in the entire history of the SBC.

That was seven years ago this month. The intervening period has been filled with independent and federal investigations, formal resolutions, the removal from convention leadership of once-bright lights, the catapulting of other leaders to prominence, task forces, lawsuits, accusations of unethical conflicts of interest, and the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars. The disaster has threatened—and still threatens—the very existence of our convention. No one who loves the SBC can be happy with where we are or how we got here.

The story of the SBC sex abuse disaster is still unfolding, and it is too early to tell how it will end. It is not too early to begin learning from our many mistakes. Not every person or group in the convention made the crucial mistakes I will mention here. Many voices over the years spoke much wisdom into the convention-wide confusion. But sufficient numbers of people and sufficient numbers of mistakes combined to create a situation that is regrettable to say the least. As we head to Orlando for the annual meeting of the SBC, it is right for messengers to consider four lessons worth learning on the seventh anniversary of the SBC sex abuse disaster.

Scripture, Not Politics, Controls Spiritual Authority

God has been abundantly clear in his Word that the task of ultimate spiritual leadership in his church is assigned to men defined by moral purity, marked wisdom, devotion to Scripture, and commitment to their families (1 Timothy 3:1-8; Titus 1:6-9). No one else has a claim on spiritual leadership, and God’s appointed leaders may not abandon this task to others.

This clear teaching in Scripture has been unpopular at various times in the last seven years. Many different and competing voices have contended for convention leadership throughout this crisis, including victims heartbroken by their own abuse, victim advocates making demands for those they represented, charlatans, campaigning for power, lawyers, liberals, and, often, a screaming anti-gospel mob that only wanted to harm the cause of Christ. Not all these voices are the same, but none of them are uniquely and necessarily

equipped by God for spiritual leadership in the church. Some of these voices made the claim that men—the very people God has raised up to lead—are the exact ones who should be excluded from leadership.

A lot of leaders listened to these voices. They allowed those unqualified for spiritual leadership to shame them away from the role God called them to fill. This was wrong and was never going to work. God’s truth may be old and controversial, but it is never out of date and never ineffective. The qualified men God has raised up for leadership can and should get mountains of advice from legions of wise people. But they can never transfer the authority God has uniquely granted them. The belief that they could has made things worse, not better.

We Can’t Follow Anyone Who Won’t Follow Scripture

Throughout the sex abuse disaster, Southern Baptists were repeatedly encouraged to follow those who rejected the teachings of Scripture. The most famous example was in 2022 when the entity handling the independent investigation signaled their public support for gay, lesbian, and transgender issues. There was an outcry in response to this, but too many leaders failed to recognize the insanity of investigating violations of biblical sexual ethics with a group publicly celebrating violations of biblical sexual ethics.

Another example was the repeated demand that Southern Baptists must always believe the victim and that it is ungodly to do anything else. The demand was not to take all accusations seriously or to work diligently to expose truth. The demand was—if you know what is good for you—you will always believe the accuser. This is an obvious violation of Scripture which repeatedly insists that guilt is established by witnesses and evidence, not by accusations alone (Deuteronomy 19:15; 17:6; Numbers 35:30; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19).

Not everyone believed lies like these. Perhaps you didn’t. But too many did, and the result has been disastrous.

Proverbs 1:10 says, “My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent.” Solomon said this a few thousand years ago. At least since then, God’s people have known that only trouble comes when you listen to those who won’t follow God’s Word. We preach this truth in our churches, and teach it to our kids. Too many Southern Baptists forgot about it in the sex abuse disaster.

Leadership Based on the Fear of Man Never Works

Why did so many Southern Baptists so willingly follow those so clearly unqualified for leadership and so openly rejecting biblical truth? It is not as though there were no warnings or alternative voices. Why were the warnings rejected or ignored?

One of the most credible options is fear. At a moment when a great deal was on the line, when many had been hurt, when the world was watching, when the very existence of the convention was threatened, and when absolutely no one wanted to be seen as an abuser or as an abuse defender, some in positions of responsibility sought to shield their reputations by seeking favor with people who promised protection from their fears.

The gamble worked—for a while. Some who are not-so-friendly to Southern Baptists did extend their wings of protection over some leaders for a time. But the protection they offered has not aged well and did not benefit the whole convention. Many are now very sorry they were ever connected with those who seemed so appealing at the time.

In Proverbs 29:25, the Bible says, “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts the Lord is safe.” God shared these words because he wanted us to know that fear creates a temptation to run for safety to people who promise protection. God identifies the temptation as a trap and says the only safety is found in the Lord.

The worst thing to say about this fearful trap in the sex abuse disaster is that it enticed many away from their calling to be pastors. Our calling as pastors is to help the weak and fight the wolves. It is a betrayal of this calling to use people in need of the gospel to protect our public image from the consequences of gospel fidelity. I make no personal accusations here, but plenty of people did this. I pray they would see their blame and ask the Lord for forgiveness.

The lesson for every Southern Baptist is that regardless of the issue, we must be people who trust God, who stand on the Word, who are committed to doing what is right, and who seek shelter, not from the people we are called to serve, but in God alone.

Never Pursue Sexual Intimacy Outside Marriage

Every element of the SBC sex abuse disaster is a vindication of the biblical teaching on human sexuality. Sex is a wonderful gift created by God to be enjoyed by one man and one woman in one marriage for one whole lifetime. Every other expression of sexuality is a perversion. The SBC disaster has revealed many very clear cases of predatory perversion where strong men used their positions and reputations to harm those they were called to protect. The disaster has also revealed confusing cases where both sides agree to the presence of sexual sin but disagree on how consensual it was.

The point is that no guilty person in this disaster would be in trouble if they had limited their sexual desires and behavior to loving involvement with their spouse.

Every Southern Baptist and every Christian should view this disaster as an opportunity to remember the command of Scripture in Proverbs 5:18 to, “Rejoice in the wife of your youth,” to beg Jesus for the gift of purity, and to never carry our sexual desires outside of marriage.

Where to From Here?

As a little boy I was the victim of childhood abuse. As a husband, father and grandfather, I would move heaven and earth to protect my family from any kind of abusive mistreatment. As a pastor, one of my most sacred duties is to lead the effort to protect the hundreds of children at my church. The SBC disaster is important to me because in a darkly perverse world I want our churches to be the safest places on earth. Unfortunately, our mishandling of this disaster has not made vulnerable people any safer.

May God have mercy on us.

The story of this disaster is still being written and I honestly don’t know where we go from here. But I know there is hope for a convention led by godly men who stand on Scripture, who are faithful to their wives and callings, who insist on defending the weak, and who will call out error—especially when that error is popular.

The Shocking Scale of a Sex Scandal

More than six years after his death, the scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s horrifying sex crimes continues to shock many with the incredible scale of the scandal.

Epstein is responsible for the victimization of thousands of women. Some of those women died as a result of their abuse. Many others have horrifying stories that threaten to haunt them for the rest of their lives. And Epstein did not act alone but was joined in his crimes by many of the world’s elite.

Just the most recent headlines look like the results of a Google search about the world’s most rich and powerful. Bill Gates has been humiliated by his public connection with Epstein. Former president and first lady, Bill and Hillary Clinton, agreed to testify to Congress about the scandal, and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was under fire in Congress for the way the Department of Justice has handled documents related to the case. The controversy also has international implications. The involvement in the scandal of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, is creating instability with the British Crown, and the involvement of Lord Peter Mandelson is causing massive problems for the British government.

Sickening sex crimes, shattered lives, vast wealth, and rich and powerful men are more than capable of generating the level of interest and intrigue we are seeing from this moral disaster. In that sense, the shock of the scandal makes sense. But in another sense, our shock is a bit insincere. The fallout from the scandal has been absolutely catastrophic, but the core principles that led to it are not foreign to humanity at all. The scandal actually represents something very basic to humanity that, when we ignore it, only lays the foundation for the next massive sex scandal that may involve us.

Men in particular must fight to avoid this by mastering three basic lessons from the Epstein scandal.

Men Love Sex

The first lesson is so basic that many are tempted to miss it or to fail to grasp how profound it is. The lesson is that men love sex. In fact, most men really love it a lot. Of course, it is true that many women also love sex. But we all know the average man loves it a lot more than the average woman. This love of sex is actually a good thing when the sex men love happens exclusively with their wife (Proverbs 5:19-20). But too many men do not limit sex to marriage. Too many men cannot imagine limiting sex in this way. Too many men do nearly the opposite and pursue sex in any context at almost any cost.

This truth may feel uncomfortable to say out loud, but it is absolutely basic to human life. You should make no mistake that Epstein knew this lesson by heart and lived it out to the devastation of everyone who knew him. He learned the lesson on his rocket ship to riches that carried him on the journey from a public school teacher to a fabulously wealthy financier. Epstein observed how rich and powerful leaders in the New York world of elite finance made women sexually available to men for the purpose of building their client base. His heart mastered the truth that many men will trade money and power for the sex they love so much.

Epstein took the lesson and implemented it in ways that broke the law, destroyed countless lives, and purchased his apparently permanent address in the headlines. Others have mastered the lesson but operate quietly in secret scandals all over the world. As just one example, different criminals live out the lesson by capturing untold numbers of women in a global sex trade that services deviant men and generates billions for contemporary slave holders.

It is also possible to learn the lesson without being a criminal. For example, Andrew Tate has become famous for calling men to a perverse life of sexual domination, adultery, and fornication. The lesson that men love sex has also been mastered by the proprietors of every pornographic website on the Internet.

This most basic of lessons is one we ignore at our own great risk, at the risk of those around us, and at the risk of the larger society. This basic lesson guarantees that at this precise moment, men are engaging in shocking sexual behavior not visible right now, but just waiting to be revealed to the world when their perversion becomes public. One of those revelations may just involve you.

Men, right now, other men who perhaps do not even know your name have figured out that you love sex and are working on a plan to lure you into a trap that will rob you of life, money, reputation, and joy. You must not let them use this lesson to outwit you. You must learn the lesson as well as they have and refuse to be trapped by it.

Sinful Sex Destroys

The second lesson is just as basic, but fewer people know it than the first. The lesson is that sinful sex destroys. Most of the men who understand that men love sex are not helped by the information because they misunderstand it. The misunderstanding is the result of a lie that grows from within their own hearts. That lie is that it is good for men to have the kind of faithless and uncommitted sex they so often want. This lie has spread from the hearts of individual men and has saturated our sinful society. That saturation is a great delight to the perverse men who prey on the lives of people destroyed by the lie.

Perhaps the best non-criminal illustration of the lie is Hugh Hefner. Hefner spent his entire life propagating a lifestyle of free and open sex by pursuing as many sexual partners as possible and publishing his lies in a once-famous magazine. Hefner was celebrated by

cultural luminaries as a man who unshackled society from its prison of repressed sexuality. He was heralded by countless immoral men who celebrated him as a role model living a life beyond their most perverse fantasies.

The problem is that Hefner was a liar, aided and abetted in his dishonesty by a corrupt culture that spent decades helping him peddle his deadly deceit. The fact is that Hefner, though celebrated in life, died a lonely, pathetic, disgusting, perverse, dirty old man. The fact is that the pornographic world he helped create is filled with women who mostly despise the work they do and are completely disgusted by the perverse men for whom they do it.

The countless millions who swallowed in one gulp the lie that faithless sex is good are responsible for all the guaranteed consequences we currently experience: masses of young people have emptied their souls with rising body counts and decreasing joy, men have become so pornified that many find it physically impossible to enjoy intimacy with a real woman, women have been trained to deny their virtue and act like porn stars in order to have a chance at a guy, young men have learned they no longer need to work hard and be responsible to win the physical affection of a woman, families have been split wide open by sexual sin, millions of our daughters have been kidnapped and forced to fulfill the sexual fantasies of men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers, our society is so numb to sexual sin that it takes an Epstein-level disaster to make us pay attention. The list of these appalling problems is growing, not shrinking.

The fact that men like sex is a basic piece of information, but it is not neutral. Unlike the sex that happens in a loving marriage between a man and a woman, the sinful kind of sex will destroy you. The authors of Scripture make this clear in places like Proverbs 5:32-33, “He who commits adultery lacks sense; he who does it destroys himself. He will get wounds and dishonor, and his disgrace will not be wiped away.” These words have warned against the sexual sin of the human race for millennia. The lesson is clear and available to anyone who wants to see it.

Unfortunately, it is possible to live your life mastering the first lesson and ignoring this second one. That is exactly what Jeffrey Epstein did. That is exactly what some of you are doing. If you want to avoid the destruction that found him, you must master more information than he did. You must be completely convinced that sinful sex will not help you. It really will destroy you.

Men Need Help

If you are a man who becomes truly persuaded of the first two lessons, you will begin to feel overwhelmed by a devastating problem. That problem is stated by Jesus in John 8:34 when he says, “Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.” That means that every man, including you, is trapped in sin. Sexual sin is not the kind of thing you can think your way out of. Knowing the truth won’t help you break free from the lie. You need the information and cannot solve the problem without it. But information about the problem is not the

solution to the problem. Knowledge of how locks work on prison doors only makes you feel more trapped in your confinement. You need more than knowledge to break free. You need a key.

That key is the third lesson that Jesus alone gives men the power they need to break out of their enslavement to sexual sin. Hebrews 13:20-21 says, “Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.”

That passage says that Jesus Christ makes it possible for you to do the will of God and to be pleasing in his sight. When you confess your sin and trust in Jesus, his death on the cross pays for your sexual sin, and his perfectly righteous life equips you to live in a godly way that is impossible without him. You can possess overwhelming spiritual power to break free from any sin when you trust in Jesus to give the power to you.

New Headlines and Ancient Truth

Everyone involved with Epstein’s sexual sin thought they were having a blast. No one thought it would end the way it did. They were culpable fools. God is using the ongoing saga of the Epstein scandal to display before the world the everlasting truth of the destructive nature of sexual sin. You should pay attention and learn the lessons it has to teach. These new headlines are revealing old truths about the destructive nature of sin and the God who loves sinners so much that he sent Jesus to rescue us from the danger.

If you are truly honest, you will have to admit that, like most men, there is a little bit of Jeffrey Epstein in you. You might not have his money, his power, or be guilty of his egregious violations of the law. But deep in your heart, you know you’re guilty of sin against God. Right now, you should go to God in prayer, confess your sin, ask forgiveness, and call out to Jesus for help. You should believe he will do it. Then you should find someone else to help you walk with him. Reach out to a pastor, godly parent, or wise friend. Contact us here at First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida. But at all costs, don’t follow sexual sin to your own destruction. Find Christ and live.

Words, Tone, and Mood:

Four Biblical Categories for Contemporary Christian Communication

Heath Lambert

The Christian Communication Continuum

For quite some time now, Christians have been arguing over the issue of ministry language, tone, and mood. Those words do not all stand for the same thing, and much has been said about each by many different people. I cannot engage every person or issue in one article. But in general terms, the debate has been between those who wish to communicate truth in more severe terms and those who wish to communicate it in softer terms.

Those on the softer side want to speak the truth in ways defined by care and winsomeness. They accuse those on the severe side of setting back the cause of Christ by using words, tones, and moods that are injudicious, intemperate, and, at times, ungodly. Those on the severer side want to speak the truth in boldly provocative ways that blast through our cultural hardness. They accuse those on the soft side of setting back the cause of Christ by failing to speak to the culture in terms that are strong enough to counteract the cultural rot.

God communicates to his people in the words of Scripture and calls his servants to share the truth of Scripture with words (2 Timothy 4:1-2). That fact makes very few realities more important than the words ministers of the gospel use when communicating God’s truth. Christian ministers are called to speak in ways that are both faithful and effective. To reach that lofty goal, Christians need to consider four biblical categories: Rigney and Ortlund, Golf Clubs and Tennis Racquets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, and, finally, Good Dads and Bad Dads.

I’ll start with Rigney and Ortlund

Rigney and Ortlund

Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund had a public debate about these matters that focused on comments made by Doug Wilson. Wilson is the president, CEO, and board chairman of the provocateurs on the more severe end of the Christian communication continuum. Explosive rhetoric is a signature of his communication strategy. Ortlund, a representative of the softer side of communication, invited Rigney, a ministry associate of Wilson, onto his podcast to defend some of the derogatory language Wilson used.

The debate revealed that Rigney and Ortlund are each quite comfortable on their respective ends of the Christian communication continuum. Neither moved the other, and I doubt either was effective in moving anyone else. The most illuminating part of their interaction happened towards the middle of the debate when they both agreed that vulgar language was included in Scripture.

Video: 33:44—34:37.

Rigney: Do you think the Bible uses vulgarities? As in profanity?

Ortlund: Oh, yes. That’s what I was saying. It does so to unmask evil.

Rigney: So, then it is legitimate to use vulgarity. You’re objecting to this particular one—the description of body parts—that particular application, not to the principle of obscenities and vulgarities are usable by wise, careful people. Not haphazard, not casual, but intentional uses of those is legitimate.

Ortlund: Yes. Now I also said . . . I think there are some terms that really, we should never use. And the reason for that would be that I can’t imagine any scenario where it would have an edifying effect.

When Rigney and Ortlund admit the presence of vulgarity and obscenity in Scripture, they are referring to the severe rhetoric and harsh actions that are regularly part of the communication in Scripture. Moses’s preaching was attended with plagues that led to the deaths of countless Egyptians (Exodus 7-12). Elijah mocked the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). Isaiah was commanded by God to preach naked for three years (Isaiah 20:2-3). Ezekiel condemned the sinfulness of God’s people in some of the harshest and most sexually provocative language imaginable (Ezekiel 16, 23). John the Baptist called his opponents a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7). Jesus referred to his opponents as children of hell (Matthew 23:15).

These are just a few of the repeated examples of Scripture that force Rigney and Ortlund to agree that the Bible includes not only the soft kind of communication but the severe kind as well. In principle, it is not out of biblical bounds for Christians to use stern and provocative language in an effort to rebuke sin and error. The debate is over the wisdom of particular uses of that severe language. Christians will always have communication preferences. They should also be aware of the various strengths and weaknesses that attend any method of communication. But they also should avoid ultimate condemnation of any style of communication that God allows in his Word.

Golf Clubs and Tennis Racquets

I am no expert at either golf or tennis. But I know enough about them to understand that they require very different equipment. Playing tennis requires one implement—a racquet—used for every play. Golf requires a bag full of different clubs, all of which are required for a successful game.

God’s work of raising up preachers is more like golf than tennis. He uses many instruments, not just one.

God has given every preacher very specific gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences. The gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences that God has given to one faithful minister are guaranteed to be different than those he has given to any other. No one minister or ministry accomplishes all the good work God is doing in his Kingdom.

When we recognize that ministry communication, like golf, requires many instruments, instead of tennis, which requires only one, it will teach us the wisdom of seeing limits and being grateful.

Regarding limits, every one of the ministers that God uses is designed to have strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, too many ministers find it easy to be experts in their strengths and novices in their weaknesses. This is sinful. Romans 12:3-4 says, “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body, we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function.” One practical way the Apostle Paul gives Christians to undercut pride is to realize we are all serving alongside people who have strengths that we don’t have. Those strengths do not undermine our own advantages but complement our weaknesses.

That leads to the importance of being grateful. Instead of being frustrated that others communicate differently than us, most of us should cultivate gratitude for the gifts of others that God uses to accomplish more than he ever would if he only used us. Some of God’s instruments are better suited for the more severe kind of communication. Others are better at the softer variety. The Kingdom needs both.

Isaiah and Jeremiah

Earlier, I mentioned a public debate between Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund over shocking comments from Doug Wilson. What if I told you that the research department at First Baptist Church had recovered a conversation between the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah on Jeremiah’s podcast, Prophets Who Weep, where they debated the wisdom of Isaiah’s three years of nude preaching recorded in Isaiah 20:2-3?

Jeremiah: Uh, so . . . Isaiah . . . you know what I have to ask. The prophetic community here in Judea is buzzing that you’ve been preaching naked.

Isaiah: Oh, I know. Believe me. It is all my wife talks about. And Maher-shalal-hash-baz’s friends at school are making his life miserable.

Jeremiah: So . . . is it true? Have you really been taking your clothes off to preach?

Isaiah: Well, if it helps, I am able to predict that in a few thousand years, scholars will debate whether I was fully naked or just in a loin cloth.

Jeremiah: So, brother, with respect, I saw you in the pool last night at The Broken Cisterns Resort and Spa, and it won’t make any difference whether you were fully naked or wearing underwear. Listen, as a fellow preacher of God’s Word, I speak for a lot of us with real concerns about doing public ministry in a state of undress.

Isaiah: You have concerns? Man, I’m the one with his rear end in the air!

Jeremiah: Ok. Fair point. But honestly, my brother, isn’t what you’re doing a distraction from the message of repentance we’re called to preach? Aren’t you making your nudity the story instead of the crucial message of repentance?

Isaiah: Uh, Jeremiah, the nudity is the message. The nudity is a graphic and visual message of the shame that is coming unless sinners repent. I wonder if the distraction is an argument between two prophets called by God.

Of course, no such conversation exists. In fact, in all of Scripture, there is no record of any faithful prophet, teacher, or apostle who publicly corrects the style of another minister of the Word. The Apostle Paul publicly rebuked the Apostle Peter. But the rebuke is not over style but over substance. Peter was in error with conduct out of step with the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).

This means the biblical authors agree in principle with Rigney and Ortlund. There is a wide continuum of communication styles acceptable in Scripture. Some faithful communicators will occupy real estate on that continuum that makes others uncomfortable. It can be helpful to openly discuss these differences. But when we have those conversations, we should be careful to remember that correcting the methods of a faithful biblical preacher is even more foreign to the Bible than the use of shocking language.

The point is that if your brother is making an argument that agrees with Scripture in substance, you should be very slow to critique him on the grounds of style.

Good Dads and Bad Dads

Given that many styles of communication are biblically in bounds and that God has raised up many different ministers with countless gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences, one of the most important things a minister of the gospel can do is to have a very clear sense of his own calling and of the strengths and limitations of that calling. In order to practice what I am preaching, I will avoid a lecture to others about how they should communicate. Instead, I’ll share how I think about my communication in the ministry God has given to me.

My goal is to try and communicate like a good dad. I got this idea from the Bible, where God is a Father to every person who trusts in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:15). More than that, the great Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:15 and 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12 that he relates to those in his ministry as a father to his children. Also, since I’ve been trying to be a good dad for over 20 years now, I have a little practice under my belt.

The effort to talk like a good dad is one good biblical standard to strive for in ministry communication.

Good dads always tell their kids the truth (Ephesians 4:25). They cultivate the wisdom of telling the truth at just the right time (Proverbs 25:11). Good dads speak instruction when their kids are ignorant or confused (Colossians 3:16). They provide encouraging words when their kids are fainthearted (1 Thessalonians 5:14). They correct and rebuke when there is sin (Luke 17:3). They are motivated by what is truly good and God-honoring, not by an effort to win applause (2 Timothy 4:3). Whether the words are more encouraging or more corrective, good dads always speak those words with hearts full of love (Ephesians 4:15). That means that good dads use all the modes of Scriptural communication and speak those words in tones and moods that match the moment. Good dads say what Scripture says the way Scripture says it.

I am trying to communicate like a good dad, and not like a bad one. I do not want to set a bad example in my speech (1 Timothy 4:12). That means I want to make bold and compelling arguments that cut through the cultural noise, but I never, ever use foul language—not in public, not in private, and not edited with asterisks and dashes (Ephesians 5:4). My standard for foul language is a linguistic equivalent of the regulative principle. If Scripture authorizes the use of the language, then it is allowable; without Scripture’s authorization, it is out of bounds.

Trusting God with Words, Tone, and Mood

I am convinced that behind much of the debate over the style of Christian communication is fear. People are afraid that the weakness and limitation of another’s style is going to damage their own ministry. Much public interaction is about one minister proving to his constituency that he’s not like that other one whose communication he finds troubling.

This is completely unwarranted. God has been transforming the world with words since Genesis 3. With the exception of his own perfect Son, he has only ever used weak communicators who use defective words. We can trust God that he knows what he is doing. We should all ask him for help to make our communication more biblical. We all must ask him to make us more grateful for the faithful servants he is using, who communicate differently. We can have great confidence that, just as he does in Scripture, he is going to use the severe words and the soft ones to do a great work in our day.

Words, Tone, and Mood:

Four Biblical Categories for Contemporary Christian Communication

Heath Lambert

The Christian Communication Continuum

For quite some time now, Christians have been arguing over the issue of ministry language, tone, and mood. Those words do not all stand for the same thing, and much has been said about each by many different people. I cannot engage every person or issue in one article. But in general terms, the debate has been between those who wish to communicate truth in more severe terms and those who wish to communicate it in softer terms.

Those on the softer side want to speak the truth in ways defined by care and winsomeness. They accuse those on the severe side of setting back the cause of Christ by using words, tones, and moods that are injudicious, intemperate, and, at times, ungodly. Those on the severer side want to speak the truth in boldly provocative ways that blast through our cultural hardness. They accuse those on the soft side of setting back the cause of Christ by failing to speak to the culture in terms that are strong enough to counteract the cultural rot.

God communicates to his people in the words of Scripture and calls his servants to share the truth of Scripture with words (2 Timothy 4:1-2). That fact makes very few realities more important than the words ministers of the gospel use when communicating God’s truth. Christian ministers are called to speak in ways that are both faithful and effective. To reach that lofty goal, Christians need to consider four biblical categories: Rigney and Ortlund, Golf Clubs and Tennis Racquets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, and, finally, Good Dads and Bad Dads.

I’ll start with Rigney and Ortlund

Rigney and Ortlund

Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund had a public debate about these matters that focused on comments made by Doug Wilson. Wilson is the president, CEO, and board chairman of the provocateurs on the more severe end of the Christian communication continuum. Explosive rhetoric is a signature of his communication strategy. Ortlund, a representative of the softer side of communication, invited Rigney, a ministry associate of Wilson, onto his podcast to defend some of the derogatory language Wilson used.

The debate revealed that Rigney and Ortlund are each quite comfortable on their respective ends of the Christian communication continuum. Neither moved the other, and I doubt either was effective in moving anyone else. The most illuminating part of their interaction happened towards the middle of the debate when they both agreed that vulgar language was included in Scripture.

Video: 33:44—34:37.

Rigney: Do you think the Bible uses vulgarities? As in profanity?

Ortlund: Oh, yes. That’s what I was saying. It does so to unmask evil.

Rigney: So, then it is legitimate to use vulgarity. You’re objecting to this particular one—the description of body parts—that particular application, not to the principle of obscenities and vulgarities are usable by wise, careful people. Not haphazard, not casual, but intentional uses of those is legitimate.

Ortlund: Yes. Now I also said . . . I think there are some terms that really, we should never use. And the reason for that would be that I can’t imagine any scenario where it would have an edifying effect.

When Rigney and Ortlund admit the presence of vulgarity and obscenity in Scripture, they are referring to the severe rhetoric and harsh actions that are regularly part of the communication in Scripture. Moses’s preaching was attended with plagues that led to the deaths of countless Egyptians (Exodus 7-12). Elijah mocked the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). Isaiah was commanded by God to preach naked for three years (Isaiah 20:2-3). Ezekiel condemned the sinfulness of God’s people in some of the harshest and most sexually provocative language imaginable (Ezekiel 16, 23). John the Baptist called his opponents a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7). Jesus referred to his opponents as children of hell (Matthew 23:15).

These are just a few of the repeated examples of Scripture that force Rigney and Ortlund to agree that the Bible includes not only the soft kind of communication but the severe kind as well. In principle, it is not out of biblical bounds for Christians to use stern and provocative language in an effort to rebuke sin and error. The debate is over the wisdom of particular uses of that severe language. Christians will always have communication preferences. They should also be aware of the various strengths and weaknesses that attend any method of communication. But they also should avoid ultimate condemnation of any style of communication that God allows in his Word.

Golf Clubs and Tennis Racquets

I am no expert at either golf or tennis. But I know enough about them to understand that they require very different equipment. Playing tennis requires one implement—a racquet—used for every play. Golf requires a bag full of different clubs, all of which are required for a successful game.

God’s work of raising up preachers is more like golf than tennis. He uses many instruments, not just one.

God has given every preacher very specific gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences. The gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences that God has given to one faithful minister are guaranteed to be different than those he has given to any other. No one minister or ministry accomplishes all the good work God is doing in his Kingdom.

When we recognize that ministry communication, like golf, requires many instruments, instead of tennis, which requires only one, it will teach us the wisdom of seeing limits and being grateful.

Regarding limits, every one of the ministers that God uses is designed to have strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, too many ministers find it easy to be experts in their strengths and novices in their weaknesses. This is sinful. Romans 12:3-4 says, “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body, we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function.” One practical way the Apostle Paul gives Christians to undercut pride is to realize we are all serving alongside people who have strengths that we don’t have. Those strengths do not undermine our own advantages but complement our weaknesses.

That leads to the importance of being grateful. Instead of being frustrated that others communicate differently than us, most of us should cultivate gratitude for the gifts of others that God uses to accomplish more than he ever would if he only used us. Some of God’s instruments are better suited for the more severe kind of communication. Others are better at the softer variety. The Kingdom needs both.

Isaiah and Jeremiah

Earlier, I mentioned a public debate between Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund over shocking comments from Doug Wilson. What if I told you that the research department at First Baptist Church had recovered a conversation between the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah on Jeremiah’s podcast, Prophets Who Weep, where they debated the wisdom of Isaiah’s three years of nude preaching recorded in Isaiah 20:2-3?

Jeremiah: Uh, so . . . Isaiah . . . you know what I have to ask. The prophetic community here in Judea is buzzing that you’ve been preaching naked.

Isaiah: Oh, I know. Believe me. It is all my wife talks about. And Maher-shalal-hash-baz’s friends at school are making his life miserable.

Jeremiah: So . . . is it true? Have you really been taking your clothes off to preach?

Isaiah: Well, if it helps, I am able to predict that in a few thousand years, scholars will debate whether I was fully naked or just in a loin cloth.

Jeremiah: So, brother, with respect, I saw you in the pool last night at The Broken Cisterns Resort and Spa, and it won’t make any difference whether you were fully naked or wearing underwear. Listen, as a fellow preacher of God’s Word, I speak for a lot of us with real concerns about doing public ministry in a state of undress.

Isaiah: You have concerns? Man, I’m the one with his rear end in the air!

Jeremiah: Ok. Fair point. But honestly, my brother, isn’t what you’re doing a distraction from the message of repentance we’re called to preach? Aren’t you making your nudity the story instead of the crucial message of repentance?

Isaiah: Uh, Jeremiah, the nudity is the message. The nudity is a graphic and visual message of the shame that is coming unless sinners repent. I wonder if the distraction is an argument between two prophets called by God.

Of course, no such conversation exists. In fact, in all of Scripture, there is no record of any faithful prophet, teacher, or apostle who publicly corrects the style of another minister of the Word. The Apostle Paul publicly rebuked the Apostle Peter. But the rebuke is not over style but over substance. Peter was in error with conduct out of step with the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14).

This means the biblical authors agree in principle with Rigney and Ortlund. There is a wide continuum of communication styles acceptable in Scripture. Some faithful communicators will occupy real estate on that continuum that makes others uncomfortable. It can be helpful to openly discuss these differences. But when we have those conversations, we should be careful to remember that correcting the methods of a faithful biblical preacher is even more foreign to the Bible than the use of shocking language.

The point is that if your brother is making an argument that agrees with Scripture in substance, you should be very slow to critique him on the grounds of style.

Good Dads and Bad Dads

Given that many styles of communication are biblically in bounds and that God has raised up many different ministers with countless gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences, one of the most important things a minister of the gospel can do is to have a very clear sense of his own calling and of the strengths and limitations of that calling. In order to practice what I am preaching, I will avoid a lecture to others about how they should communicate. Instead, I’ll share how I think about my communication in the ministry God has given to me.

My goal is to try and communicate like a good dad. I got this idea from the Bible, where God is a Father to every person who trusts in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:15). More than that, the great Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:15 and 1 Thessalonians 2:11-12 that he relates to those in his ministry as a father to his children. Also, since I’ve been trying to be a good dad for over 20 years now, I have a little practice under my belt.

The effort to talk like a good dad is one good biblical standard to strive for in ministry communication.

Good dads always tell their kids the truth (Ephesians 4:25). They cultivate the wisdom of telling the truth at just the right time (Proverbs 25:11). Good dads speak instruction when their kids are ignorant or confused (Colossians 3:16). They provide encouraging words when their kids are fainthearted (1 Thessalonians 5:14). They correct and rebuke when there is sin (Luke 17:3). They are motivated by what is truly good and God-honoring, not by an effort to win applause (2 Timothy 4:3). Whether the words are more encouraging or more corrective, good dads always speak those words with hearts full of love (Ephesians 4:15). That means that good dads use all the modes of Scriptural communication and speak those words in tones and moods that match the moment. Good dads say what Scripture says the way Scripture says it.

I am trying to communicate like a good dad, and not like a bad one. I do not want to set a bad example in my speech (1 Timothy 4:12). That means I want to make bold and compelling arguments that cut through the cultural noise, but I never, ever use foul language—not in public, not in private, and not edited with asterisks and dashes (Ephesians 5:4). My standard for foul language is a linguistic equivalent of the regulative principle. If Scripture authorizes the use of the language, then it is allowable; without Scripture’s authorization, it is out of bounds.

Trusting God with Words, Tone, and Mood

I am convinced that behind much of the debate over the style of Christian communication is fear. People are afraid that the weakness and limitation of another’s style is going to damage their own ministry. Much public interaction is about one minister proving to his constituency that he’s not like that other one whose communication he finds troubling.

This is completely unwarranted. God has been transforming the world with words since Genesis 3. With the exception of his own perfect Son, he has only ever used weak communicators who use defective words. We can trust God that he knows what he is doing. We should all ask him for help to make our communication more biblical. We all must ask him to make us more grateful for the faithful servants he is using, who communicate differently. We can have great confidence that, just as he does in Scripture, he is going to use the severe words and the soft ones to do a great work in our day.

Changing the Name of the Southern Baptist Convention by Heath Lambert

Time for A Name Change?

In June, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) will gather in Orlando, Florida, for their annual meeting. They will approve budgets, make resolutions, send missionaries, and choose their next president. I wonder if the convention should also consider changing its name. Perhaps I will make the motion myself on the convention floor.

I’m not talking about another effort at an unofficial name change like in 2012, when 53% of Southern Baptists kept their legal name but said people could, if they wanted, refer to the convention informally as Great Commission Baptists. No, I am talking about a bona fide new name for the SBC.

Such an action makes sense because names mean something. We all know the importance of a name to communicate meaning. This importance goes all the way back to the Bible, where the names of key leaders are often selected for the role they will serve. Abraham’s name is important because it means “father of many.” Jesus’s name is important because it means “the Lord saves.”

Because names communicate meaning, Southern Baptists might consider changing their name to Baptists Debating the Existence of Women Pastors. We could call it BDEWP for short. I admit it is not the most exciting name, but it does have the virtue of telling the truth. There is nothing particularly exciting about the name of my church, First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, but every word in it is important. It is the same for BDEWP. What it loses in style, it gains in honesty about what we do every year when we get together.

The SBC started its contemporary debate about the issue of women preachers in Anaheim, California, in 2022. The issue has drawn massive attention every year since. It is certain to come up again in 2026, creating a five-year stretch of distraction on a straightforward issue.

How did we get here?

A Brief History of the Contemporary Debate

The SBC believes local churches are independent and cannot be controlled by the convention. But the SBC reserves the same freedom for itself that it confesses for local churches. That means the SBC is free to say which independent local churches it will cooperate with and which ones it will not. For years, Southern Baptists have operated under the assumption that our confessional statement, the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM), controls which churches can be in friendly cooperation with our convention and which ones cannot.

In 2022, the committee Southern Baptists use to determine the churches considered to be in good standing raised a question about this established practice. In response to several churches in the convention who had female pastors, they wondered whether the prohibition against female pastors in the BFM was intended to create a standard for convention membership. They asked Southern Baptists to give them guidance.

Most Southern Baptists were immediately alarmed that a crucial convention committee did not believe our very clear confessional document provided enough guidance. In every meeting since, Southern Baptists have been trying to supply the requested guidance.

Huge numbers of Southern Baptists have voted every year to remove member churches with female pastors. In 2023, the convention amended the BFM to make clear that the Bible forbids women serving in any pastoral roles, regardless of the terminology that is used for that role. Southern Baptists have also sought repeatedly to change our constitution to make clear that the statements in the BFM on female pastors are meant to control which churches can participate in convention work.

None of the efforts to amend the constitution have succeeded, even though they have had the support of most Southern Baptists. Each year, large majorities vote for these amendments. But each year, the amendments have failed to reach the supermajority required to pass. The reason for this has been because just enough Southern Baptists listen to loud voices in the convention who say the amendment isn’t necessary.

It is ironic that every time these influencers succeed in persuading just enough people to believe the amendment is unnecessary for clarity, we are always back in another conflict over clarity in a few short months.

That gets us to 2026

Female Pastors in 2026

In the last year, a controversy has arisen between the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) and Fielder Church in Arlington, Texas, affiliated with SBTC, Texas Baptists, and the SBC. Jason Paredes, the lead pastor of Fielder Church, has been clear that their congregation believes the role of pastor is open to women, and several women on their website were described as serving in that role.

When this became an issue in Texas, Fielder Church refused to change their position, but they did change their language. Now, instead of using the title of pastor or elder to describe those in spiritual authority in their church, they use the language of shepherd for both men and women serving in the pastoral office.

This change means that Southern Baptists now face two problems, instead of only one. We have the convictional issue of what Baptists must believe regarding women in pastoral roles. Now we have the added problem of whether Southern Baptists can have this

conversation honestly, or whether we will play linguistic shell games with the clear teaching of Scripture.

This is a moment that requires honesty. The truth is that this is not the way a healthy convention of churches behaves. Healthy conventions don’t reject the clear and repeated teachings of Scripture because those teachings are politically incorrect or unpopular. Healthy conventions don’t seek to resolve obvious convictional disagreement with dishonest euphemisms. And healthy conventions don’t insist on having the same foolish and distracting debates every single year.

Something simply must change. Key leaders in the convention know this.

Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has addressed the issue of conviction, saying, “The Southern Baptist Convention will not survive ambiguity on the question of female pastors, whatever they are called.” Clint Pressley, president of the SBC, has said that the practice of Fielder Church is “in clear violation” of the BFM.

Southern Baptists need to get ready to address this in 2026.

What Next?

What will Southern Baptists do?

Votes to remove churches with female pastors from the convention never get less than 90% of the vote. That likely means that Fielder Church does not have a bright future in the SBC while they persist in their present course. The larger matter is what the SBC will do to avoid having this issue be a distraction at every convention meeting until the return of Jesus Christ.

Some will want to reintroduce another amendment to the SBC constitution. With the majority of Southern Baptists, I have favored the previous amendment attempts. Such an approach would guarantee that the SBC will be talking about this issue until at least 2027, since it takes two years of supermajorities to approve a constitutional amendment. An amendment would finally bring a conclusion to this persistent debate, but without a change of heart from influencers who continually deprive the measure of the required supermajority, it could turn into another waste of time.

Willy Rice is the pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, has supported the previous constitutional amendments, is running for SBC president in 2026, and has proposed a potential solution. He is calling for a special SBC task force to make specific recommendations stipulating that, to be in friendly cooperation, churches must embrace the biblical teaching that only qualified men can serve as pastors. Such a report should pass easily since it would only require a simple majority for approval.

This approach is a convictional and practical one that could bring an end to a half-decade of arguments on what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe is an uncomplicated matter.

Of course, if it doesn’t work, we could always change the name.

SBC or BDEWP? Perhaps we will all get to decide in June.

The Line between Keller and Kirk

The heartbreaking violence in Minnesota is expanding with little evidence that it will soon decrease. It is only one example of the explosive political divisions happening right now in the United States. Such intense division leads to tension among Christians about how to address political issues. 

Many believers look at the desperation in our culture and demand increased Christian engagement to try and stem the troubling tide. Other believers observe the same cultural desperation and believe that a focus on political matters weakens our most potent weapon for societal transformation, namely, the proclamation that Jesus has died and risen to save sinners. 

This disagreement is not new. It is one that existed between two Christian men who are both now in heaven: Tim Keller and Charlie Kirk. The two men had nearly opposite dispositions regarding political engagement. Tim Keller was a minister of the gospel known for his reluctance to address political issues in order to avoid distractions from his proclamation of Jesus Christ. Charlie Kirk was a political activist who insisted on proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the public square believing such proclamation was the only hope for America.

Like Keller, I have given my life to the ministry of the Lord Jesus and have no interest in a vocational pursuit of politics. But, like Kirk, I believe Christians must speak into the pressing political issues of our day, and that avoiding them is to fail in our calling as gospel preachers.

Here are three reasons why pastors must increase our political engagement in these days of cultural division.

Proclaiming Christ Requires Application

The calling of gospel ministers is to preach the good news of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 9:16, the Apostle Paul said, “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel.” Obviously, pastors who do not preach the gospel have no business in ministry at all. And yet, we need to say more.

The work of Jesus to save sinners is a historical reality that demands declaration and a theological reality that demands conviction. But the work of Jesus is also an ethical reality that demands application. Preachers of the gospel cannot unpack the historical and theological elements of the work of Jesus and ignore the practical applications of what he has done. 

Jesus calls his people to walk out their Christianity in practical issues of life. Ephesians 4:1 says Christians must “Walk in a manner worthy of the calling we have received.” Pastors committed to preaching Jesus must apply the work of Christ as clearly on political issues as on any other realm of life. In a politically charged atmosphere like ours, this mandate is misunderstood by many. 

A few years ago, a measure was on the ballot in my home state of Florida to outlaw abortion. On the Sunday before the election, I encouraged the members of First Baptist Church to vote for the very important initiative. After the announcement, I learned that a married couple who had been visiting our church for months left the service, promising never to return. They thought myappeal to vote for an anti-abortion amendment was inappropriate. They said they didn’t want to come to a church where the pastor “preached politics.”

This couple misunderstood my calling as a preacher and, therefore, misunderstood what I did that day. In fact, I was not preaching politics. I was just preaching. I took a stand for God, who creates life, who loves life, and who calls his people to defend life. The issue of life has obvious political implications, but it is primarily a spiritual issue that transcends politics. God addressed it authoritatively in the pages of Scripture long before it got confused by political debates in contemporary American society. Pastors have no option to avoid preaching biblical truth because those issues are matters of controversy in contemporary debates. The opposite is true. The call to be faithful preachers requires us to apply the Word of God and the Work of Christ to political issues. 

That leads to the second reason for increased pastoral engagement on politics.

Political Chaos Requires Divine Truth

Everyone knows that American society is in trouble. Christians know why. The diagnosis of the problem comes in the clear teaching of Proverbs 14:31, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” The reason our society is in a mess is because our culture embracessin and calls it righteousness. We embrace foolishness and call it wisdom. We embrace error andvice and call them truth and virtue.

Just one example of this is the widespread cultural confusion on gender, sexuality, and marriage. Loud voices pronounce that people of the same gender can be married, and, alternatively, that individuals have the power to choose the gender they want to be. Faithful preachers know a few important things about this effort. 

They know, first of all, that these positions are insane from the standpoint of Scripture. They also know that the same corrupt voices who advocate these positions are committed to using the political process to normalize and institutionalize their corruption.

Most importantly, faithful preachers know they must proclaim with bold conviction and broken hearts the truth that a culture at war with God’s Word will be visited by God’s wrath. Such proclamation is not the least bit controversial from the standpoint of Scripture.

Isaiah preached that God would soon execute his anger against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1-3). Ezekiel preached to Egypt that God was opposed to them because of their sin (Ezekiel 29:1-3). Jonah preached to the Assyrians that Ninevah would be destroyed for their unrighteousness (Jonah 3:5). Jesus Christ proclaimed “Woe” over Chorazin and Bethsaida because of their rejection of him as Messiah (Matthew 11:21-24). Literally hundreds of other examples exist. 

In Ezekiel 3:17-18, God said, “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.”

Gospel preachers are alive in a day when our culture is publicly celebrating sin in ways unheard of since the dawn of time. Preaching Christ in this environment requires honesty about our corporate sins that make the redemption of Jesus necessary. If preachers of the gospel do not say this to our society, no one will. God’s word to Ezekiel reminds every preacher that a refusal to be honest about God’s judgment on our culture will lead to God’s judgment on us.

Ignoring Politics Leads Nowhere Good

At the end of the day, there are only three logical options available to Christians regarding political engagement. We could ignore politics, we could address political issues incorrectly, or we could engage them faithfully. When you think about it like that, there is only one real path for Christians to take. 

Consider the current unrest in Minneapolis. Everyone in our society is talking about the issues of illegal immigration, the ethics of protest, the rules of engagement for the use of deadly force, the nature of the relationship between federal and local governments, and many other issues. If preachers try to avoid these crucial topics, the net result will be that God’s voice in Scripture will be the only voice not heard on these crucial matters. Such silence will make things worse and is not an option available to Christians.

Once preachers decide to engage these issues, they obviously must avoid addressing them incorrectly. That means preachers must do the hard work of seeking carefully to understand the issues in our culture and then working vigilantly to understand the way God addresses them in his Word. This will be tricky and delicate work. But our calling to preach Christ requires us to acknowledge that Jesus is not only the world’s exclusive Savior, but also the world’s supreme King. As King, he has a mind on our society’s political discourse, and he has revealed everything he wants us to know about that in his Word. Our calling as preachers requires us to do our part to ensure that God’s people know God’s mind on the pressing political issues of our day. 

Obligation Not Obsession

Our calling to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ is precisely what obligates us to engage politics with Christian truth. That same call to preach Christ will encourage us to pursue much wisdom as we address those issues. Faithful preachers will exert tremendous care to avoid sharing mere opinions that are not informed by the Word of God, to apply caution before becoming overly dogmatic on less-clear areas where faithful Christians disagree, and to avoid a preoccupation with politics that prioritizes it above all matters of Christian living. But just as ministers of the gospel seek to apply the good news of Jesus to every issue in a fallen world—to parenting, money, work, and everything else—so we also must apply the message of Jesus to politics. 

Christians who embrace the message that we must be silent on political issues in order topreserve our witness are in perfect error. This error requires repentance. In a society at the precipice of destruction, Christians are the only ones able to make the mind of Christ known.That is work that they must urgently accomplish.

Truth in Tumultuous Times

Christians are alive in tumultuous and confusing times. One of the enduring marks of every season of tumult is the presence of disagreements about truth.

When you pay attention to almost any debated matter these days, you will discover that most every problem is not only defined by disagreements over how to analyze and solve problems, but also by basic disagreements about the facts of those problems.

An excellent contemporary example of this is the story that has dominated the domestic headlines for most of January. It is the tragic story of a woman in Minneapolis shot and killed in her car by an agent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on January 7. Everyone can agree that the event happened, and that any loss of life is always tragic. But after that, the agreement stops and wild disparities rage about the most basic facts of the event.

Officials from the Trump Administration claim the deceased woman was shot by the agent in a just use of deadly force after she weaponized her car against him and was attempting to run him down. Democratic officials have claimed the Trump Administration is lying and that the driver was murdered by the ICE agent.

On the one hand, such diametrically opposed accounts are maddening. It is very frustrating when elected officials and news outlets provide false reports that cloud the facts. On the other hand, such behavior is typical of all times of tumult and strife. Anytime any society is going through significant season of change and unrest the nature of truth gets debated.

Faithful Christians in these days must be defined by a passion for the truth. We need to be people who tell the truth, who expose lies, and who know how to distinguish truths from lies when listening to the reports of others. In days of dishonesty Christians can start to distinguish truth from lies by knowing what the truth is not.

What The Truth Is Not

In these dishonest days influencers on social media, reporters on cable news, hosts of popular podcasts, protesters in the street, government officials, and even our own families try to pass off lies as truth. Sometimes they do this on purpose and other times they do it because they have been deceived themselves. Living in this world means learning to recognize at least three realities that clarify what the truth is not.

Truth Is Not Whatever You Want It to Be

Your desires don’t make something true. Too many people are tempted to believe truth is established by what they desire. You can see this very clearly with the shooting in Minneapolis. If you want ICE to arrest and deport illegal immigrants, you are likely to be the kind of person who agrees that the agent’s actions were justified. But if you do not want immigrants arrested and deported you are likely the kind of person who thinks the ICE officer is guilty of a crime.

Whether the issue is ICE agents and protestors or a disagreement in your family kitchen, Christians must admit that our desires are not the arbiter of truth. We must learn that the pursuit of truth has nothing to do with the discovery of our personal desires but with an embrace of objective facts.

Truth Is Not What You Most Fear

Sometimes we believe information, not because we want it to do be true, but because we don’t want it to be true. This is the opposite of what I just discussed. Our worst fears never make something true, and a spirit of pessimism cannot be admitted into evidence to establish the facts of a case.

You may be one of millions that are fearful that illegal immigrants will overrun our country unless they are apprehended and deported by federal agents. Or you may be one of other millions that are fearful that the tragic shooting in Minneapolis is the first of many deaths to come if law enforcement officials are not reigned in.

Regardless of the side you are on, the presence of your fears is not enough to establish a fact. Christians must never allow our fears to deter us from an embrace of the truth.

Truth Is Not Who You Love

Sometimes we believe information, not because we know it is true, not because of what we want to be true, or even because of what we fear, but because we love the source of information that shared it with us.

With the tragedy in Minneapolis, the vast majority of people who listen exclusively to officials from the Trump Administration or who heard about the shooting on Fox News will believe that the ICE agent engaged in a defensible use of force. It is similarly obvious that people who listen to the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, the Democratic Mayor of Minneapolis, and who get their news about it from MSNBC will believe the ICE agent to be guilty of murder.

Unfortunately increasing numbers of news sources are seeking to drive up views, hits, likes, shares, and votes by telling their audience what they think they want to hear instead of reporting straight facts. This is a dangerous trend that underscores how cautious we must be before assuming we have all the facts after receiving information from only one source.

We cannot construct an understanding of truth built on our desires, or fears, or our loyalties. Instead, we must establish truth on biblical grounds.

The Biblical Nature of Truth

The truth must be defined by what is. Something is true when it conforms to reality. We tell the truth when we make statements that reflect the reality of a situation, and we tell lies when we make statements intentionally at odds with reality.

In the Bible, reality is established by warrant. That is, we believe a statement reflects reality when there is evidence for it. One of the most consistent forms of biblical warrant is eyewitness testimony. Second Corinthians 13:1 says, “Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.” This biblical standard is repeated throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 19:15; Numbers 35:30; Matthew 18:16; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). 

The evidence of two or three people establishes the biblical standard of credible eyewitness testimony. The importance of the credibility of eyewitness testimony is crucial since corrupt people can conspire to lie as they did in the trial and execution of Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:60-61).

What Happened in Minneapolis

The Bible demands that we evaluate facts in order to understand what happened in Minneapolis. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, announced on January 18, that the actions of the ICE agent who shot the protester were under review. Because Christians care about the facts, we will want to leave room for any information from that investigation that may alter our conclusions. Having said that, enough facts are available right now to begin to establish reality.

A Just Authority and a Just Cause

First, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a legitimate law enforcement entity in the administration of President Donald Trump, who was duly elected to his office in 2024 by the American people. Those ICE agents are enforcing federal rules passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States. That is the very definition of legal. These facts mean ICE is a legitimate authority engaged in a just cause.

A Justifiable Use of Force

Second, multiple videos of the shooting in Minneapolis detail events in the lead up to and the aftermath of the shooting. It is abundantly clear from multiple angles that the victim of the shooting was engaged in taunting federal officers, in refusing their lawful instructions, and in accelerating her car and slamming it into the agent who ultimately shot her. I have checked with several Christians in federal law enforcement who have told me that everything the ICE agent did is well within the normal rules of engagement for the use of lethal force. He had every reason to fear his life was in danger and was fully justified in defending his life and the life of others.

A Biblical Use of Force

Finally, the Apostle Paul talks about the importance of submitting to the government in Romans 13:4 when he says, “He is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” The Bible makes clear that God establishes governmental power to be an object of wrath for those who do wrong. God allows agents of the government to bear the sword, that is, to use force as they serve the public good.

A Response Controlled by Reality

All the available information gives every indication that the use of force on the part of the ICE agent in Minneapolis, while tragic, was indeed justified. Regardless of what you want, what you fear, your political affiliation, or where you get your news, these facts must control our response.

When the facts control our response, it will lead to wisdom. You should never impede law enforcement in the lawful fulfillment of their work. You should never resist the lawful instructions of law enforcement. You should never engage in aggressive uses of force against law enforcement. To do otherwise is lethally foolish. Any American has the right to disagree with the authorities, to register that disagreement in peaceful ways, to try and persuade the government of your position, or to elect a new administration at the next election.

But for too many in Minneapolis, the facts are not controlling their response. Obvious facts are being displaced by fear, hatred, and politics. Instead of wisdom we are seeing escalating foolishness. Protests are expanding, on Sunday, a mob infiltrated a service of Christian worship, and the Trump Administration is considering deploying the National Guard to deter more violence. This is all going in a very bad and very dangerous direction that will only see the increase of violence and death. That will be to the great misfortune, not only of the people of Minnesota, but to our entire society.

The heated situation in Minneapolis is at the crossroads of any number of conflicts related to immigration policy, the leadership of President Trump, the best way to protest, justifiable uses of force, the role Christians should play in our society, and many other realities. But we will not make progress on any of those matters if we can’t agree on the nature of truth itself. In John 14:6, Jesus identifies himself as the very embodiment of truth. We need to ask him to give us his grace and his truth in these days.

The renewed attention on Jeffrey Epstein shows our God-given hunger for truth, the destructive lies of sexual immorality, and the tragic misuse of wealth and power. As Congress demands full disclosure of Epstein’s network, we’re reminded that innocent people long for the light while the guilty fear it. His story exposes a culture that celebrates sinful desire and the devastation that follows, standing in stark contrast to the God who uses His power in love by sending His Son for our salvation.

This week, the longest shutdown in American history finally broke when Democrats were the first to give way. After weeks of hardship on both sides and despite their recent election wins, eight Democratic Senators crossed the aisle to reopen the government. What this moment really reveals is the deep dysfunction of a system that hasn’t passed a true budget since 1997 and has racked up a staggering national debt.