Weston Blaha

Tag: Parents

  • In Defense of Mother’s Day

    In Defense of Mother’s Day

    Sadly, Mother’s Day has become another casualty of our culture’s obsession with victimhood. Every year I hear the same chorus warning:

    “What about women who can’t have children?”

    “What about women who lost babies?”

    “What about painful family situations?”

    And I would ask that a careful ear is leaned my way: those pains are real. Barrenness is painful. Miscarriage is painful. Loneliness is painful. Scripture itself recognizes that grief. But fifteen years of pastoral ministry have taught me that this complaint, however sincere, is also consistently wrong. Here’s the problem that we need to address: we have begun treating personal sorrow as a veto against public celebration.

    A woman being unable to bear children is deeply tragic. There is a reason barrenness plays such a central role in the biblical theme of redemption. But it is not a reason to stop honoring faithful mothers any more than a funeral is a reason to cancel weddings. As Christians, we do not respond to God’s blessings by silencing celebration because someone else did not receive the same gift. When Scripture speaks of children, it does not apologize for calling them a blessing:

    “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” — Psalm 127:3

    Modern culture trains people to interpret every celebration through the lens of personal deprivation: “If I do not have it, then you should not publicly rejoice in it.” That is not a sign of Christian maturity—that is an expression of cultivated resentment.

    The Christian response to another person’s blessing should always be thanksgiving to God for His goodness, even when His providence toward us is different. Romans 12 commands us:

    “Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.”

    Notice: Scripture commands both. We should absolutely weep with grieving women. We should counsel the hurting. We should love the lonely. But we should not flatten every joyful occasion into an exercise in emotional risk management. Mother’s Day is not cruel because motherhood reminds some women of loss. By that logic, Father’s Day harms orphans and weddings harm the unmarried. Baby showers harm the infertile. And every “believer’s baptism” wounds the prodigal parent.

    A society governed by grievance eventually loses the ability to celebrate anything at all. The Church should resist this impulse. We honor mothers because motherhood is good. We celebrate children because children are blessings. And we thank God publicly for His gifts without embarrassment.

    It’s important to recognize a hard truth: Not every person receives every gift. But Christians are called to worship God for His goodness anyway. So, we celebrate our mothers. We honor them. We remember them. But we do not use our grief or trials to demand that other men and women do not get to praise God for his goodness. 

    This Sunday, honor your wives/mothers. Remind them of how good God is to give them the unmatched responsibility of raising arrows in the quiver. Celebrate them and celebrate with them—this is the only appropriate Christian posture.

    But do hear this: I am not asking hurting women to perform happiness. I’m asking them not to demand that joy be silenced because they are hurting.

    The body of Christ is edified when joy is celebrated and grief is lamented. Mother’s Day is a day of joy—let us edify one another on it.

  • Clean Is Not Holy: Covenant Membership, Baptism, and the Formation of God’s People.

    Clean Is Not Holy: Covenant Membership, Baptism, and the Formation of God’s People.

    In my experience, one of the most overlooked distinctions in Scripture is the difference between being clean and being holy. We often assume these categories are interchangeable. The Bible does not.

    Recovering this distinction does more than clarify Israel’s cultic (religious) system—it sheds fresh light on covenant membership, the role of baptism, and the status of children within the people of God. When handled carefully, it fits squarely within the Westminster Confession of Faith and guards paedobaptism from both sacramentalism and reductionism (as we will see shortly).

    Clean Is Not Holy

    Throughout the Old Testament, people, animals, and spaces are arranged according to a graded pattern:

    Unclean → Clean → Holy

    We see this pattern elsewhere across scripture: 

    World → Eden → Garden of Eden

    Courtyard → Holy Place → Holy of Holies

    Gentile → Israel → Priests

    Unclean. Clean. Holy. These are not (primarily) moral categories but relational positions with respect to the presence of YHWH.

    • The unclean are excluded from sacred space (Lev. 13:45–46).
    • The clean may dwell among the people and approach the sanctuary with limits (Lev. 15:31).
    • The holy are authorized for proximity and service (Exod. 19:22; Lev. 21:6–8).

    Crucially, in the OT system, only what is first clean may then become holy (Lev. 22:4–7). Holiness is not the prerequisite for approach—it is the goal of life lived near God’s presence. The tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrificial system all exist to teach Israel that God graciously brings people near, and then calls them to deeper conformity to His holiness.

    Covenant Membership Makes One Clean

    By redemptive blood and covenant promise, Israel is separated from the nations and placed into a new relational status before God:

    “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6).

    This does not mean that every Israelite is regenerate or morally holy. Rather, Israel’s corporate status is one of covenant cleanness—they belong to the sphere where God dwells among His people (Lev. 11:44–45).

    This is why in the old covenant, Israel’s children are never treated as outsiders. They are addressed as covenant members (Deut. 6:6–7), included in covenant renewal ceremonies (Deut. 29:10–12), and disciplined as sons (Deut. 8:5). As a community, they belong. They are clean—yet they must still grow into holiness. They are to “be holy as I AM holy” (Lev 11:44, 19:2).

    This distinction can be illustrated well in the sacrificial system. As most people know, in the old covenantal, sheep are considerd clean animals (Lev. 11:2–3). Yet only those without blemish may be offered to YHWH (Lev. 22:19–25). As such, we can see that clean does not mean sacrificially fit—clean is the baseline; holiness–or in the case of the sacrificial sheep, lack of blemish–is the goal.

    The Sojourner: Near, but Not Yet Belonging

    The sojourner (gēr) lives among Israel and benefits from Israel’s holiness, yet remains distinct. Exodus 12:48 makes the boundary explicit: circumcision marks a transition from outsider to native. Critically, circumcision does not make the sojourner holy—it marks covenantal inclusion—it shifts them from the ceremonial category of unclean to clean. Covenant children, by contrast, are not sojourners awaiting entry. They are born inside the household (Gen. 17:7–13).

    Baptism as Covenant Cleanness

    In the New Testament, baptism functions as the covenant marker that places a person within the visible people of God (Acts 2:38–39; Col. 2:11–12). The Westminster Confession recognizes this, stating:

    “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament… a sign and seal of the covenant of grace” (WCF 28.1).

    And:

    “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered” (WCF 28.6).

    Baptism marks belonging, not justification nor completed sanctification.

    The Visible and Invisible Church

    A brief clarification is helpful here. Reformed theology has long distinguished between the visible church and the invisible church, and this distinction maps closely onto the biblical categories of clean and holy.

    The invisible church refers to the elect—those who are truly united to Christ by faith and known perfectly to God alone. Membership in the invisible church is determined by God’s saving work, not by outward markers or covenant signs. The visible church, however, is the historical, covenant community as it exists in the world. It consists of all those who profess the true religion, together with their children, and is marked by the public administration of the Word and the sacraments.

    Entrance into the visible church is not a claim about regeneration, but about covenantal status.
    Baptism, then, is a sign of visible inclusion, not a guarantee of inward holiness. It marks a person as belonging to God’s covenant people—set apart from the world, placed under God’s promises, and obligated to live in faithful obedience. In biblical terms, baptism renders someone clean with respect to covenant membership, even as holiness in its fullest sense remains something God must work in and through a life of faith.

    This distinction guards us from two errors. On the one hand, it prevents sacramentalism, which assumes that outward signs automatically produce inward grace. On the other hand, it resists reductionism, which collapses covenant membership into personal regeneration alone. Scripture allows—and requires—us to say that someone may truly belong to God’s people outwardly while still being called to become inwardly what that status demands.

    In other words, the visible church is the arena of formation. God places people—adults and children alike—within His covenant community, so that they may be called, shaped, disciplined, and nurtured toward holiness.

    “But Aren’t Believers Already Holy?”

    Scripture maintains both realities: believers are holy by placement and called to holiness in practice (1 Pet. 1:15; 2:9). Likewise, covenant children are called “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14), indicating covenantal consecration in Paul’s usage, not regenerated–just as the unbelieving spouse is made “holy” by their believing husband/wife. So, it must be recongnized that holiness often names placement before performance.

    A Note Clarifying “Holiness” and Covenant Placement
    When Scripture speaks of covenant members—especially children—as “holy,” it does not thereby assert regeneration, justification, or election. Rather, Paul uses “holy” covenantally, to denote placement within the consecrated sphere of God’s people, just as the Old Testament used categories of cleanness to distinguish those inside the covenant community from the unclean world outside (1 Cor. 7:14). This covenantal holiness establishes neither saving faith nor final righteousness, both of which come only by union with Christ. Instead, it names a real, objective status of belonging that carries both privilege and responsibility within the visible church.

    Some well-known theologians on 1 Cor. 7:14:

    • “The children of believers are holy, not by nature, but by virtue of the covenant; for they are distinguished from the children of unbelievers” (John Calvin, Commentry on 1 Corinthians 7:14).
    • Charles Hodge states that “holy” means “set apart from the world and consecrated to God… not inwardly sanctified, but externally holy” (Hodge, Commentary on 1 Corinthians).
    • In By Faith, Not by Sight and Resurrection and Redemption, Richard Gaffin shows that Paul regularly uses sanctification language to describe status within Christ, not merely inward change.
    • Anthony Thiselton argues that “holy” in 1 Corinthians 7:14 means “belonging to the sphere of God’s saving activity” (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians–NIGTC).
    • Gordon Fee argues that “holy” here refers to (1) Status within the Christian community and (2) being set apart by association with the believing parent (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians–NICNT)

    So, there is a strong consensus that Paul’s use of holy is to be seen as a corollary to the OT concept of “clean” and, as such, it can be understood that baptism marks covenant placement rather than spiritual completion.

    The Normative Pattern and the Extraordinary Exception

    The thief on the cross shows that God may save apart from the ordinary administration of covenant signs (Luke 23:42–43). However, the rule remains normative:

    “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance (baptism), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it…” (WCF 28.5).

    Now, it’s important to note that while all sin is unclean, not all uncleanness is sin (Lev. 12; 15; Num. 19). The thief on the cross was not in sin because he did not recieve baptism. His status in that moment between saving faith and his painful death does not override the work of Christ–that’s the mistake the Judaizers were making in the New Testament. As such, a believer may indeed be united to Christ prior to baptism, yet–if he is able–he is commanded to receive the mark as an act of obedience, public confession, and identification with the people of God (Acts 2:38; 10:47–48). And one who denies the mark must be questioned about their commitment to Christ.

    Christ Perfecting His Bride

    Christ alone is the spotless Lamb whose sacrifice secures our acceptance (Heb. 10:10–14). Yet He is also perfecting His bride:

    “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her… that he might present the church to himself in splendor” (Eph. 5:25–27).

    Christ loves His bride in order to perfect her. Warnings, exhortations, and discipline are not contrary to grace—they are instruments of it. He makes us holy even as we are holy, continuing the good work he began (we call this process “sanctification”).

    A Pastoral Word to the Baptized

    A brief word of pastoral wisdom–Sheep die one of two ways: offered as a pleasing sacrifice, or consumed by the mundane. Wholly burnt up for YHWH or wholly burnt up by the world. This is not about earning acceptance, but about living consistently with our belonging (Rom. 12:1; 2 Cor. 2:15). Baptism places us near the altar—it does not guarantee faithfulness upon it. Grace places us among the flock and holiness is the path by which that grace is displayed.

    The Path, Not the Finish Line

    Baptism does not mark the end of the journey. Rather, it marks the beginning of formation. This is how God ordinarily forms His people:

    from unclean → to clean → to holy.

    And it is Christ Himself who will finish the work He has begun (Phil. 1:6).

    In short: Baptism places us among God’s people as clean, not completed, and summons us to live lives that reflect the holiness Christ is faithfully working into His bride.

  • The Prodigal Son and Calvinism: Not A Foil, but A Friend (Part 2)

    The Prodigal Son and Calvinism: Not A Foil, but A Friend (Part 2)

    This post is a continuation of thought from a previous post “The Prodigal Son: It’s Not About You (Or Me)–Part 1.“

    In Part 1, we explored how the parable of the prodigal son is not just a generic salvation story but a covenant drama. The prodigal represents Israel’s “tax collectors and sinners” (Jews) returning to the fold. The older brother represents the Pharisees, refusing to rejoice at their repentance. And the father embodies God’s extravagant covenant faithfulness.

    But this covenantal frame also resolves a theological puzzle. The prodigal son has often been misread as a foil against Calvinism, as if Jesus were teaching free will over against doctrines of grace. When we restore the parable to its covenantal context, the apparent foil disappears.

    The Common Misuse: A Free-Will Parable?

    Critics of Calvinism sometimes point to the prodigal son as a “proof text” for human free will. Their argument runs something like this:

    • The prodigal “came to his senses” (Luke 15:17). Doesn’t that mean he made the decisive move himself?
    • The father only runs to him after the son decides to return. Doesn’t that suggest prevenient grace or even pure human initiative?
    • The story is about a son “choosing” to come home. Doesn’t that contradict the Calvinist idea of effectual calling or irresistible grace?

    On this reading, the parable functions as Exhibit A for the Arminian: grace may be offered, but the real hinge is human choice.

    The Covenant Frame Clears The Fog

    This way of reading only makes sense if we assume the parable is about how unbelievers get saved. But Part 1 showed that’s not the case. The prodigal son is already a son. The parable is about restoration within the covenant family and the exposure of Pharisaic self-righteousness.

    • Already a son. The prodigal does not become a child by his repentance; he was always a son of the father. His return is about reconciliation, not adoption. This undermines the “free will” argument at the root. The parable never portrays how one becomes a child of God—it presupposes sonship.
    • The Father’s initiative dominates. Even when the son “comes to himself,” his restoration depends entirely on the father’s action: running, embracing, clothing, feasting. As Kenneth Bailey points out, the father’s humiliating sprint down the road would have been a shocking reversal of social norms, emphasizing that reconciliation is his work from beginning to end (Poet and Peasant, pp. 162–165). It was the father’s right to embrace or reject.
    • The older brother unmasks works-righteousness. The real punchline is the elder brother’s refusal to celebrate. As Craig Blomberg notes, “the climactic point of the parable lies not with the prodigal’s repentance but with the elder brother’s refusal to rejoice” (Interpreting the Parables, p. 170). The parable critiques legalism, not Calvinism.

    A Reformed Reading

    When read covenantally, the prodigal son actually illustrates Reformed doctrines of grace rather than contradicting them:

    • Total depravity. The son is destitute, degraded, and feeding pigs—an unclean, helpless image. He has nothing to offer.
    • Unconditional election. His sonship is not revoked by his rebellion. He is restored not because he meets conditions, but because the father has mercy.
    • Effectual grace. The father’s embrace interrupts the son’s rehearsed speech. The decisive act of reconciliation is the father’s, not the son’s.
    • Perseverance of the saints. The son never ceases to be a son, even when estranged. His identity is secured by the father’s covenant faithfulness.

    As N. T. Wright reminds us, the parable is “about Israel coming home from exile,” and the tragedy is that Israel’s leaders refuse to join the party (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 128). In Calvinist terms, this is the visible covenant community rejecting the grace set before them, while the repentant return is sealed by the Father’s action.

    Why This Matters

    By placing the prodigal son back into its covenantal frame, we not only read the parable more faithfully but also avoid a false theological dilemma. The story does not pit Jesus against Calvinism. Instead, it dramatizes covenant mercy, exposing the folly of self-righteousness and celebrating the Father’s joy in welcoming the wayward home.

    The prodigal son, far from being a foil to Calvinism, becomes one of its richest parables. It shows that God’s grace always precedes, always secures, and always rejoices in the return of His children.

    In Part 3: Coming Home to the Father’s Joy

  • Keeping the Fire Alive: Parenting Beyond Camp

    Keeping the Fire Alive: Parenting Beyond Camp

    For fifteen years, I walked alongside teenagers in youth ministry. This week, I have the privilege of leading a youth camp that gathers students in our presbytery for a week of worship, the Word, and wild games. I’ve witnessed the mountaintop moments over the years of summer camp—the tearful confessions, the arms lifted in praise, and hearts awakened to the beauty of Christ and his work on our behalf.

    But I’ve also seen what happens two weeks later. What was burning becomes dim. What was fresh fades into habit. Parents (and often the students) ask, “What happened? Camp was so powerful—why didn’t it last?”

    Here’s the hard truth: summer camp was never meant to last on its own.

    “Mountaintops are for views and inspiration, but fruit is grown in the valley.”
    —Billy Graham

    The Campfire Needs a Fireplace

    In Deuteronomy, Moses stands on the edge of the Promised Land and speaks to a generation who had not been at Sinai. They hadn’t seen the plagues. They hadn’t walked through the sea. And yet, Moses doesn’t lower the bar or appeal to sentiment. He calls them to covenantal faithfulness rooted in doctrinal clarity and community accountability.

    “These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children…” (Deut. 6:6–7)

    The command is not first to the elders or “pastors.” It is to the parents. Israel was not told to rely on charismatic prophets or emotional gatherings. The Word was to be engraved in the home.

    And the surrounding chapters make this clear: doctrine is not a list of abstract ideas—it’s the story of God’s faithfulness, taught and embodied daily. Deuteronomy is thick with covenantal rhythm: teaching at meals, binding Scripture on hands and foreheads, writing it on doorposts (6:8–9), reenacting it in liturgical ceremony (ch. 27), and calling the whole community to live in view of blessings and curses.

    In short: Christian formation was never meant to be outsourced.

    Truth Witout Roots Will Wilt

    Let’s borrow one of Jesus’ favorite illustrations, and use it in a slightly different context: At camps and conferences, we plant and water seeds. Sometimes they sprout fast. Sometimes they sprout slow. But unless they take root in the soil of the local church and the water of Word-saturated homes, they will wither.

    Research confirms this: according to studies from Lifeway and Barna, nearly two-thirds of teens who are active in church during high school will walk away from the church in their twenties—most of them beginning that drift during late high school and early college. The drop-off doesn’t happen after graduation—it begins long before.

    Why? Often it’s not because they reject Christianity outright. It’s because they were never deeply rooted in the first place. They had inspiration but lacked integration. They were moved but not formed.

    A Fireplace for the Fire

    Your students need more than campfire worship–they need a fireplace to keep the flame hot. When fire is kept in a fireplace, it is easy to stoke, revive, or increase in temperature. It is when you pull it out of the fireplace that the fire begins to struggle. It loses heat quicker. It’s exposed to outside elements. Once the flame loses its heat, we end up doing weird and foreign things to keep it going. We stop putting in wood. We hit it with a 5-second squirt of lighter fluid. We toss in paper trash. In short, we use abnormal means to revive the flame so it can burn at an acceptable level. But the only true and lasting remedy is simple: Put the fire back in the fireplace.

    So, the question becomes: is your home a fireplace? What about your church? Or do you find yoursleves constantly doing weird things to keep your child interested in their spiritual walk? Your student needs more than campfire worship a couple times each year. They need:

    • Doctrinal instruction at both home and the church that connects their identity to the story of redemption (Deut. 5–11)
    • Moral worldview shaped by God’s law as wisdom and life (Deut. 4:6; 30:19)
    • Ritual rhythms that habituate faith—church attendance, communion, prayer, confession (Deut. 12; 26)
    • Covenant community that calls them back when they stray (Deut. 29)

    You don’t have to be a Bible scholar to do this. But you do need to be present. The Word of God is not just a Sunday event—it’s a way of life. And the home is the primary stage.

    A Word to Parents

    If you’ve sent your kid to camp, thank you. Seriously. It matters.

    But please don’t see camp as the climax of their spiritual year. See it as a spark. A moment to build on. A reminder that your child is being invited into something deeper than a one-week experience—they are being summoned into a lifelong covenant with the living God.

    And in that covenant, you have a vital role. The same God who said, “I will be your God, and you shall be my people,” also said, “Teach them diligently to your children.” Camp can light the fire. But the fireplace—that’s your home. Your church. Your rhythms.

    Let’s not give our kids an emotional high and then abandon them to spiritual cold–that’s just “lighter-fluid Christianity.” Let’s give them doctrine. Let’s give them covenant. Let’s give them Christ, again and again.

  • A New Frontier for Local Missions?

    A New Frontier for Local Missions?

    One of the cornerstones of the Christian conviction is missions. Paul exhorts the church in Romans 10:14-15, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” Christian conviction and mission conviction should go hand-in-hand.
    Money Numbers
    Annually, Christians spend around 32 billion dollars on missions. According to a 2019 survey, 61% of a church’s missions budget is spent on local missions, 20% on US missions, and 19% on international missions. This means that roughly 20 billion dollars are spent on local missions in the United States.
    People Numbers
    According to a 2020 Pew Research survey, in 1972, a staggering 90% of the US population claimed to be “Christian.” By 2020, that number had dropped to 64%, with a tremendous downward trend beginning in 1990. In 2021, a Gallup poll revealed that church membership in the US has fallen below 50%. Studies and trends project that less than 35% of the US population will claim the name of Christ by 2070. These numbers tell me two things:
    1. What we are currently doing is not working.
    2. Parents are losing their children to the world.

    A Factor
    I believe that one of the significant factors in the decline of Christianity in the US is influence. With the growth of technology and increased access to thoughts, people, and philosophies that influence our children at younger and younger ages, the church is losing the battle of catechizing their children. While that sounds like a wild, churchy, word, to “catechize” simple means “to instruct orally, make hear.” In other words, parents are being beaten to the oral instruction of the Gospel; they are unable to make their children hear the truths of the Scriptures because the children are already being instructed by and hearing another gospel.

    Who is doing the Catechizing?
    As a sad reality, the primary influence catechizing our children is found in the local schools. You do not have to look far to see not only anti-Christian agendas, often from the top down, but, even at “Christian” schools, our children are often surrounded by peers who have rejected the Gospel of Christ. And as parents, we are left with a couple of hours each day(at best!) attempting to counter the influence of the world upon our children—the influence in which they have been immersed for the past eight hours, five days per week (let’s not forget social media, etc!)

    A Radical Suggestion
    So, here is where this all ties together—the missions numbers, church stats, and discussion of influence: should the focus of local missions change? In other words, it is becoming abundantly clear that we are losing the battle for souls within our very own homes, not outside them. What does it say about the church when we are watching the souls of our children walk into darkness and embrace it, but focus instead on the soul of our neighbor? This may sound harsh, but there is a deep-seated truth to the reality that the Gospel worked primarily through the family unit for the majority of history—what does it mean when that is no longer the case? What does that say about our Christian homes, the priority of the family unit, and the focus of our discipleship?

    The bottom line is this: What would it look like if we reconsidered local missions spending and began allocating funds to help church members homeschool? Or, what if local missions looked like scholarships aimed at helping parents afford to send their children to Bible-grounded, Gospel-driven, Christian schools? What would it look like to support our church members so their mothers could remain home and raise children under the influence of the Gospel of Jesus, instead of whatever that daycare worker or teacher choose impresses upon them? What if local missions began focusing on our most vulnerable age group of pre or not-yet-Christians in our very midst? Friends, we must first take care of our own house. Unfortunately, the Christian church in the US is overwhelmingly failing to do this and the evidence is right before our very eyes.

    *A personal note: I have many good and godly friends who work in both private and public schools–both as administrators and as teachers. And while I do believe they work in some of the best remaining public and private schools, those environments are few and far between. For most public schools, there is often no ability to shield children from Christian homes from the influence of other children or non-Christian teachers. The curriculum is not composed to reinforce biblical ethics or morals–often it is in direct conflict with them. For those friends of mine who work in these environments: continue to fight the good fight!

  • Winnowing Isn’t Winning

    Winnowing Isn’t Winning

    The protestant church is slowly shrinking from within. And while it can be suggested that this is simply the winnowing of the chaff, that shouldn’t relieve the Church of her duties. She should not shrug with indifference when the sown seed springs to life only to wither under the heat from the sun—there is no pride of perseverance to be had when this occurs. Nor should the church observe the withered shoots and think, “if only we shaded them from the heat, this wouldn’t have happened.” Instead, the Church should be asking, “why?” Why does so much sown seed blossom, only to wither in the sun?
    Admittedly, there are theological ramifications that must be considered when answering that question. From a Reformed perspective, it is the Lord who decides these things, and we are not privy to all of the mysteries of salvation. However, from an earthy, limited, human wisdom perspective, there are steps that we could and should take when we see the withering and wilting shoots of “exvangelicalism” littering the landscape of Christendom, and they aren’t what most churches assume.

    The Statistics
    To provide a statistical example of this: research shows that in the lives of young children from protestant, church-going families, the “top spiritual activity” they were involved in was regularly attending Sunday School or Small Groups—68% of responders. However, only 29% said that “reading the Bible regularly” was their top spiritual activity growing up. This means that–like it or not–the physical programs of the church are currently carrying the most influence in the lives of teens and young adults—and these physical programs only occur for a few hours each week. Now, consider the long-term effects of these statistics: middle-aged adults have grown up in a Christendom pervaded by dependance upon church programs for the majority of their personal biblical, intellectual, and spiritual development. In other words, for most adults, there is little to no spirit stimulation outside of the local church—unless you count motivational bible verses taken out of context and plastered all over Facebook!
    This statistical reality has significant ramifications for the Church. While it is ultimately the work of the Spirit that determines if the sown seed is effectual, the Lord uses the work of the saints to help prepare the hearts of those he calls. It suffices to say that you cannot prepare soil for healthy growth by only investing two or three (or less) hours each week. Just as real soil preparation takes time and effort—clearing weeds, conditioning dirt, eradicating pests, fending off seed-eating fowl—the “soil” of the heart requires much work.

    We Need Kaved
    I believe that this means there must be a significant shift in the way the average church understands its duties of discipleship. The local church must be kaved (כבד), “weighty, heavy, or honored.” In other words, we must bring gravitas back into the local church. Yes, ministry will always need to be culturally sensitive, but as David Wells so neatly states, culture determines your context, not content. We must press upon our flocks the weightiness, heaviness, and honor of the Gospel. We must regain the understanding that it is an honor to be considered worthy to suffer dishonor for Jesus’ name (Acts 5:41). We must do the difficult (and often dirty!) work of conditioning the heart so that it looks like the good soil in Matthew 13:8—soil that is not longer limited by the lack of depth or nutrition when confronted with tribulation.

    So What?
    While I do not have all the answers, and I will admit that every context is different, it is my belief that local church ministry as a whole often fails to properly bring the depth and richness of the Scriptures to flocks who desperately need it. We must never forget the second seed in the parable of the sower—we must not judge effectiveness by summer camp baptisms or church attendance. Instead, what is the testimony of your church in times of trial? What biblical demographics are you reaching? Does your church attract mature believers, immature believers, or both? The withered and wilted remains of exvangelical Christendom will not find its answers in shallowed, non-confrontational, soft-truth presentations of the Gospel. I believe those attempts at a culturally appealing, socially inoffensive Gospel are precisely the reason we are seeing the evangelical fallout. The Gospel is by nature counter-cultural.

    Instead, I have six initial thoughts on how the church can “till” the hearts of hearers of the word:

    1. We must deepen in a world that is shallowing. We must be “seeker-challenging,” not seeker-sensitive.
    2. We must broaden Scriptural knowledge, not narrow it. If you offer a Cliff-Notes version of the Gospel, you will get a Cliff-Notes spiritual walk. Teach the Old Testament. Teach the New Testament. Teach the hard truths. Teach the whole council of God.
    3. We must confront with truth, not conform. The church fails to faithfully present the truth of sin when we “grey out” what the Bible shows to be black and white.
    4. We must assist in spiritual disciplines, not replace. The programs of the church are supportive ministries, not replacement ones. We must work to help our members study the Scriptures faithfully on their own.
    5. We must engage in worship, not entertain. The local church is where the body of Christ “does life,” it is not a venue from which to entertain. There is a difference.
    6. We must model rich soil, not merely instruct. No one is perfect; we all sin. But how we respond to correction, hurt feelings, and the difficult aspects of living amongst the body of Christ must be demonstrated among the brethren. Head knowledge must produce heart change. A well-tilled heart will be evident when the sun scorches down.
  • Sweaty Toddlers are Cute—Sweaty Teens Need a Shower.

    Sweaty Toddlers are Cute—Sweaty Teens Need a Shower.

    Sometimes I read a news headline and ask myself, “How in the world did we ever get to this point?” I’m sure I’m not the only one. Unfortunately, that’s a question that sad and distraught parents often ask me regarding their rebelling teenagers—“how did we get to this point?” The answer to both questions is often, but not always, the same: we allowed “cute” sins to grow into ugly monsters. To illustrate this in a somewhat “icky” way: Sweaty toddlers are cute—sweaty teens need a shower.

    Sweaty Toddlers

    When our kids are young, sin is relatively easy to identify. If a toddler sneaks chocolate, it’s on his mouth. If a 1st grader lies, it’s usually a poor one. When sternly confronted with their disobedience, children often melt. You can put your child in the bath. You can put them in time out. So, if we aren’t careful, we can often underestimate the danger of disrespect and disobedience in our young children as their sin hides behind their cuteness and our ability to control their actions.

    Sweaty Teens

    However, that underestimation wears off pretty quick. Lies by teenagers are more difficult to decipher. Teens are sneakier. Teens push against correction and might even back you down. You might even begin asking if it’s too late to correct the issue at this point. It’s not hard to see that sin becomes uglier the longer it ages.

    Here’s the Rub:

    What sin “does” in our children it also “does” in our society. At first it’s readily identifiable; easier to back down. Often, societal sin is laughed at or seen as non-threatening—in other words, in its infancy, societal sin is consistently and dangerously underestimated.

    But then societal sin ages. It’s now sneakier than before. It’s defended in the public sphere. It might even back YOU down. “How in the world did we ever get to this point?” You might now wonder if it’s even worth fighting against anymore—is it too late to correct the societal sins?

    The answer is “maybe.” But the answer doesn’t actually have much bearing on us. Whether it’s too late or not doesn’t effect our actions. Consider Jeremiah the prophet. He would prophecy and warn Israel of their upcoming doom. He would call them to repentance—but repentance would not come. And so, Jeremiah would suffer exile along with the rest of Israel. In other words, it was too late, but that didn’t alter or out-date the duties of those who follow God’s commands.

    The little battles against little sins matter in our children. The little battles against little sins matter in our society. Sin ALWAYS gets uglier as it ages. Maybe it’s too late. Maybe it isn’t. We aren’t privy to that information. However, we do know that we are to abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good (Rom. 12:9).

    Church, we must not neglect to address and instruct against the “little sins” of our children and society–our metaphorical “sweaty toddlers.” But we must also not give up on the ugly sins. We must try to make the teen take a shower. We must pray for a change of attitude and values before he becomes known as “the stinky kid.” We must abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good.

  • A Brief Plea for Sunday School

    A Brief Plea for Sunday School

    What Changed: One of the more significant shifts in evangelical Christianity in the 21st century is the priority and implementation of small groups. Let me be the first to say that small groups are necessary and powerful. They should be an element of every church’s programming, primarily because they are heavy in discipleship and application. That being said, I think the focus on small groups has had an unintended negative consequence on the church. I believe this shift to be a significant player in the decline of biblical literacy and the overall deterioration of orthodox faith in America. A major reason is that small groups have been chosen to replace Sunday School. Warning: I am about to argue something that is not very popular today.

    That’s enough of a preamble, so here it is: We must keep and prioritize Sunday School. Here’s why: Sunday school has traditionally been the primary hour focused on biblical knowledge growth in the weekly church calendar. But, as Sunday School is slowly replaced with small groups, this vital element of the Christian “faith-diet” has been phased out. The hour of biblical knowledge growth isn’t being replaced with something equal. Instead, Sunday school is being substituted with small groups. And as noted above, small groups are wonderful, but ask the question: is a small group focused on increasing biblical knowledge or does it emphasize application, community, fellowship, and discipleship? Research shows that the primary goal of small groups for most churches is not growth in biblical knowledge.*

    Don’t get me wrong: what small groups offer is desperately needed. However, we shouldn’t offer application, community, and fellowship while sacrificing the pursuit of growth in biblical knowledge. We are to meditate on the Word of the Lord day and night (Ps 1:2). The Word of the Lord provides understanding to the simple (Ps 119:130). The Scriptures hold us back from sin (Ps 119:11). Peter implores, “But grow in the good will and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). You cannot be more like a Christ that you do not know.

    Thus, my simple argument for Sunday School is that the church needs it because that focused time of biblical knowledge growth is not being replicated elsewhere. Instead, we have “cut out” a structured season of biblical knowledge growth and replaced it with application, community, and fellowship. At worst, the result can be a people who sincerely love a God they do not truly know. I want to clarify that I’m not suggesting people without Sunday School are ignoring Scripture. Still, I am arguing that the focus of Sunday School—biblical knowledge growth–isn’t being replaced in most circumstances. Add the statistical reality that people read their Bibles less and less each year, and we can begin to see a problem.

    One last thought on the Scriptures: Reading large chunks of the Bible together and providing a time when biblical knowledge growth is the focus will teach the church about the God they worship. Application focuses on you: What are you going to do now. Biblical knowledge focuses on God: “In the beginning God.” The Bible is about God. By reading the Bible more–by growing in the knowledge of God’s Word–we learn who God truly is.

    So that being said, I want to ask this: Do you participate in Sunday School? If not, why? Can you identify somewhere else in your week that you enjoy an equal amount of dedicated biblical knowledge growth?

    Friends, you cannot hide the Word of the Lord in your heart if you do not know it, to begin with.

    *https://orangekidmin.com/changing-from-sunday-school-to-church-small-groups/

  • Reclaim Gravitas

    Reclaim Gravitas

    Gravitas isn’t a word often used in today’s vocabulary, which truly is a shame. The word carries, well, a sense of gravity—a weightiness and heaviness. It is defined today as, “dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.” Gravitas brings depth and weight. More importantly, gravitas is a biblical concept.

    The Hebrew word that holds the same linguistic character as gravitas is Kabed (כָּבֵד). This word means “to be heavy; honored.” It is where we get the word “glory.” Kabed can be used to describe the weight of sin, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave” (כָּבֵד). The word is also used to describe Pharaoh’s hardening of his heart, God glorified, Jacob honored, honoring our father and mother, and the glory of the LORD. Kabed is a very expressive and versatile word.

    Someone who lacks gravitas is whimsical to a fault, makes everything a joke, and fails to see the weight behind life and faith. Another word for this is frivolity. Or, as Solomon wrote, everything is vanity. If you swing the pendulum to the other side you find one who holds a false gravitas, that is, a harsh, joyless demeanor which condescends to anyone who doesn’t behave the same. The first cannot see the danger in sin, the other is unable to see the damage of legalism.

    Today’s men struggle with striking a balance between frivolity and harshness, and as a result, often fall into frivolity. This can be easily proven. Turn on any sit-com and describe the father. Most often he is, well, a “dud” to put it mildly. This is especially true in children’s cartoons and movies. There is a warning here: the things we laugh with will become the things we love. The world loves men who lack gravitas. But, the church needs men who have gravitas, because the Word has gravitas; because God’s image-bearers are to be like their heavenly Father, who demands gravitas:

    “Remove your sandals, for the ground on which you stand is holy ground” ( Ex. 3:5). “Let the LORD be glorified” (Is. 66:5).
    “Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may be glorified, says the LORD” (Hag. 1:8).

    Gravitas is expected.

    We need men leading their families with gravitas.
    We need Christians who understand the weight of sin (כָּבֵד) and thus treat sin with Kabed.
    The church fails to be faithful when it considers sin to be light and weightless. This is the mindset of frivolity.

    Friends, reclaim gravitas in Word, worship, and life.

  • Youth Ministry “Monsters Under the Bed”

    Youth Ministry “Monsters Under the Bed”

    What are those things that student ministry leaders fear? I am not talking about injuries, teaching a poor lesson, or forgetting to register for summer camp. I’m thinking about those deep-seated issues that tend to surface at night like monsters from under the bed. Here’s the thing about monsters under the bed: we don’t like to talk about them. We prefer to turn off the light, run to the bed, and pull the covers over our eyes. But, if you are ever going to rid yourself of the monsters, you need to clear what’s under the bed. In this post, I want to focus on five monsters that healthy Student Ministry Leaders must vanquish, or at the very least, shine the flashlight upon.

    1. Fakeness

    One of the saddest quirks that I commonly see in youth ministry is leaders who aren’t personally invested in the lives of their students. It’s not that they do not like the students they work with or even wish they were doing something else. However, they put on such a quality job of pretending to be invested that church leadership, parents, teens, and sometimes even themselves can often not identify what’s amiss. Deep down, these students and parents know something is “off” but lack the experience or face-time to recognize it quickly. Now, it’s worth noting that students will eventually notice. Teens are experts at identifying “fake” but often poor at articulating it. If you find yourself struggling to have meaningful relationships with your teens, ask if this monster is haunting you.

    2. High School Onlyist

    There is a section of people known as “King James Version Only Bible Readers,” otherwise known as KJV Onlyists. Thus, “High School Onlyists” would be those who put the overwhelming emphasis of their ministry focus upon the high school students (if you are hired as a High School Pastor/Director, you are excluded from this category). If you oversee both Middle School and High School yet allow the High School to dominate your attention and time, you won’t have a High School soon. When building and sustaining a youth ministry, you must focus on the groups coming up. This means you should value the Children’s ministry’s success. You should invest in the goofy Middle School students who will one day be the all-too-cool High School students. HS Onlyism leads to dying ministries, cliques, and often, a job search.

    3. Fear of Parents 

    This is usually a monster endured by young or immature youth leaders. The young leader often views the parents of their students much like the students do: as their parents. This can make it difficult to stand your ground in a disagreement or take the initiative to ask a parent out to coffee. Additionally, for immature youth leaders, parents are a threat. In my experience, one of the signs of an insecure and immature youth leader is that they do not want parents anywhere around the ministry. This may not be a universal rule, but it is common. If this is you, click on the flashlight and point out the monster.

    4. Isolation from Mentorship

    Everyone needs a mentor—someone you can text, call or meet on a whim. Having a mentor does not need to be a formal, contractual arrangement. Instead, it needs to be a relationship of trust, one in which you can hear the difficult truths about yourself or your actions. This also requires someone willing to be honest. There is nothing worse than making big decisions that will affect your students’ lives and making them alone. Find a mentor. Listen to their advice. This monster will debilitate you and undermine your confidence.

    5. Being the Smartest Person in the Room

    Now, this one is different than the others. I would hope that an adult youth leader would be the smartest person in a room full of teens—at least as far as biblical knowledge and wisdom are concerned. However, the danger of always being the smartest person in the room is that you minister without a challenge to grow. This is one of the benefits of having adults in the room. You are not only preparing for the teens, some of whom are very young, but you are preparing a lesson that the parents will judge. We can slump into low-effort teaching all too often because it only takes low effort to impress and challenge the students. Don’t fall into this trap!

    Well, there they are, five monsters that youth leaders face hiding under the bed. What would you add to this list?