League of Believers

Download a printable, e-reader compatible version of this article.

The Art of War. The full quote often reads something like: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Ibid.

As we will see, spiritual warfare lies logically upstream of earthly warfare, such that time spent engaging in the former serves both the former and the latter. In other words, given the nature of how the spiritual and physical realms interact both causally and ontologically, Christians need not view the relationship between fighting “the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12) and everyday skirmishes against tangible enemies as a zero sum game. According to scripture, dichotomies pitting “heavenly mindedness” against “earthly good” are profoundly false.

The Gulag Archipelago.

Although the root word for this term in Greek is sarx (σάρξ), and can refer to literal bodily flesh, the term as it is used here, as well as in numerous places in the New Testament, refers metaphorically to fallen human nature, rather than to physical skin, muscle, and fat tissue.

See previous footnote.

Not the original sin committed in the Garden of Eden per se, but rather the guilty, corrupt human condition we inherit from Adam and Eve after their fall from the original state of innocence and goodness at creation.

This argument is found in chapter 2 of his classic work Orthodoxy.

Of course, our fallen nature is our fallen nature, and not an angelic one outside of us. The “shoulder angel” metaphor is not a strictly scriptural one, but is mentioned here as a familiar cultural analog for the Biblical concept of “the flesh.”

Abraham Lincoln used this phrase in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861.

This saying is attributed to an ancient African proverb and sometimes also to Winston Churchill.

League of Believers Updates

Garrett P. League — Wed, 15 Oct 2025 22:04:34 GMT

Adapted from Victory O Lord! by John Everett Millais by Danmaxx (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Expansion League

We are excited to announce that starting this fall, the League of Believers (LoB) will be expanding its ministry content into new formats across multiple social media platforms, including written, audio, and video offerings on Substack, X (aka Twitter), and YouTube.

Here are some updates pertaining to these changes:

New domain name
You may have noticed that our previous LoB Substack subdomain (garrettpleague@substack.com) has been upgraded to its own independent domain name:
leagueofbelievers.org
Has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
Among other benefits, a unique “.org” domain better reflects our ministry’s identity and paves the way for long-term growth and development. Since our new domain is still hosted on Substack, you will experience no changes in how you receive and consume our content, so no need to worry about your current subscription status or access to other features. And, if you mistakenly use our previous web address, you will simply be rerouted to the new one. A seamless transition if ever there was one.
Web design facelift
Our logos, web page layouts, and descriptions throughout our site and its associated social media accounts have been updated for a cleaner, more professional presentation.
Expanded content creation and social media engagement
Along with new offerings on Substack Notes, LoB will be increasing its engagement on X as well as expanding its content to YouTube. This will enable the dissemination of new written, audio, and video content, which you can expect to start seeing in the days and weeks to come.
The major goals of this content/media push are to: 1) reach new audiences who may prefer audio and/or video formats over text; and 2) increase our content engagement to foster a more robust two-way conversation.
New articles and eBooks
The core of our content will remain our written offerings from the main LoB publication and sections like Pen & Spear, which will fuel all audio, video, and additional offerings. We are phasing out the term “newsletter” in favor of “articles” that will appear as standalone pieces and series, including serial book chapter drafts for our eBooks, which will be featured more prominently on the site moving forward. You will continue to receive short- and long-form writings in the familiar email and document formats, only now they will include pertinent supplements such as audio transcripts and embedded videos.

Quadrupling down

Through the above initiatives we are not merely doubling down, but quadrupling down on the message of repentance from sin and obedient faith toward God, the very message Christ and the Apostles preached and in turn commanded us to preach (Matthew 28:20; Romans 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17; Jude 1:3).

What is distinctive about our ministry is that we aim this message of repentance and faith not at unbelievers, but at believers, members of the visible Church, particularly in America. Although our lives as Christians should be marked by ongoing repentance and ever-deepening faith displayed in our works, it should be obvious to even the most casual of observers that we are desperately deficient in both.

Rather than teetering on the cusp of revival, it is our contention that the American Church is teetering on the edge of judgment, like the nation we shaped in our idolatrous image.

To put it bluntly, we believe much of American Christianity is on life support. Though we are suffering from multiple terminal illnesses, we refuse the Great Physician’s diagnoses (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31),1 opting for interventions no more invasive than a Band-Aid (Jeremiah 6:13, 14):

“From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”

Like Jesus, we offer the Church not a pretense of “peace,” but rather a sword—the sword of the Spirit (Matthew 10:34; Ephesians 6:17). With it, and through this humble ministry, may the Lord pierce our hard hearts and pour out His Spirit anew in these last days (Acts 2).

For the Church,

Garrett P. League

Author, editor, and moderator for the League of Believers

Thanks for reading the League of Believers. We are committed to offering our content completely free of cost. You can support this ministry by:

Subscribing to the League of Believers.
Subscribe now
Sharing the League of Believers with others.
Share League of Believers
Following, liking, and sharing our social media content on X and YouTube.
Sharing your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments below or through emails to: feedback@leagueofbelievers.org
Praying for us and the message we are bringing to the Church (2 Thessalonians 3:1).

League of Believers Updates

153KB ∙ PDF file

Download a printable, e-reader compatible version of this article.

See “A call to the Great Physician” section in the League of Believers article “How Did We Get Here?”

A Roadmap to Judgment (Part II)

Garrett P. League — Sat, 08 Mar 2025 21:40:47 GMT

AI image created by Garrett P. League using Grok 3 beta.

"You are here"

Where exactly does America stand on the road to national judgment? How do we as Christians faithfully navigate the many social see-saws and political pendulum swings we are now experiencing on a regular basis in this country?

In the first part of this two-part series on national judgment, we made the case that America’s newfound optimism, while carrying many short-term benefits, will simply not redound to her long-term good if it is not unaccompanied by a profound spiritual revival marked by true repentance and faith-filled obedience to Christ, for “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Frankly, given just how low America has sunken in recent generations, even this may only be enough to spare the penitent, and even then primarily of eternal, rather than temporal judgments. As for the nation as a whole, now virtually brimming with pagans who refuse to part way with their drunken revelries (1 Peter 4:3, 4), judgment may now be largely, if not entirely inescapable. Unless we sober up, and fast, this cup may not pass until we are all staggering at its dregs (Psalm 75:8; Jeremiah 25:15–16; Revelation 14:10; etc.).

To orient ourselves in these disorienting times, we present to you the following seven-stage “roadmap to judgment” for your consideration. It is organized based on time-tested historical patterns of national trajectories, with a particular emphasis on ancient Israel and her surrounding countries, since their dealings with God have been recorded for our benefit (1 Corinthians 10:11), with divinely inspired commentary, in sacred scripture (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

Throughout, we will map these tried-and-true trends onto our own trajectory as Americans. We believe the many points of congruence1 between them are undeniable.

The upshot of this approach is that it enables us, with a relatively high degree of certainty, to place a big “You are here” sign on the location on which our nation currently finds itself on the roadmap. Such insight can then be used by Christians to discern the best path forward—or backward, as it were—into the blessings that God promises to bestow on a people who humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways, and humbly seek His face (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Roadmap to judgment

Thomas Cole, The Savage State, 1834.

Stage 1: “The noble founders”

As the name indicates, this period of a nation’s history is marked by great men and high ideals. Optimism soars, yet not too closely to the sun, for the people of the founding period are grounded not by pride, but by the humility that comes from hard-won victories. The founding generation is all too familiar with the costly sacrifices and weighty responsibilities entailed in life as a free people. Weaned from the toxic teat of overweening tyranny, the noble founders have cut their teeth in bondage, come of age in the wilderness, and have no intention of ever going back to Egypt.

While imperfect, founding fathers like Moses and Joshua for Israel and Washington and Jefferson for America set the bar high for future generations—so high, in fact, that few who follow them ever match, much less surpass, their lofty precedents (Joshua 24:19):

“Then Joshua warned the people, ‘You are not able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy and jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins.’”

Stage 2: “The scrappy pioneers”

When the children of Jacob finally entered the Promised Land, they did so under the battle-tested leadership of Joshua. The initial generation of Israelites came up against some enormous challenges during their conquest of Canaan, including encounters with literal giants. Though the Canaanites were vulnerable and ripe for judgment, they were still physically and militarily imposing. It would take scrappy, determined fighters like Caleb, a man who took fortified cities and sent giants to flight well into his eighties, to conquer and tame Canaan land (Joshua 14:10–12).

Yet for all their strengths, the pioneers who first expanded Israel’s and America’s borders were often too preoccupied claiming their earthly inheritance to pass on their heavenly inheritance. Although these trailblazers put in the hard work necessary for their posterity to reap the material fruits of their labors, what they handed down spiritually was a godless blight that would impoverish and plague their descendants for generations to come (Judges 2:6, 7, 10–13, emphasis mine):

“After Joshua had dismissed the Israelites, they went to take possession of the land, each to their own inheritance. The people served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had seen all the great things the Lord had done for Israel. […]
After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what He had done for Israel. Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals. They forsook the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They aroused the Lord’s anger because they forsook Him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths.”

Thomas Cole, The Arcadian or Pastoral State, 1834.

Stage 3: “The early settlers”

Still connected to the stark realities of life on the frontier, the early settlers of the land have grown up under the adversity and conflicts of the pioneering generation, even if they were too young to engage in the fighting themselves. Still, such experiences temper their shortcomings and restrain them from the kind of whole hog rebellion that will come to characterize their children’s and grandchildren’s generations.

Though the conquest is largely over, the early settlers still have their work cut out for them in many ways, and this too holds their vices in check. Idle hands may be the Devil’s tools, but their hands are rarely idle.

True, Israel’s first settlers did inherit a preexisting Canaanite infrastructure, so they weren’t starting from scratch like the American settlers, but the temptation for both groups was essentially the same: either stick to the hard-working, austere mentality of the founders and pioneers, or settle in for a life of ease and excess once the perks of prosperity begin piling up (Luke 12:19). Either remember where you came from and the God who helped you against all odds, or forget your humble roots and pretend like your success was inevitable.

Sadly, fallen human nature being what it is, when presented with these options our choices are as tragic as they are predictable (Deuteronomy 6:10–12, emphasis mine):

“And when the Lord your God brings you into the land that He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you—with great and good cities that you did not build, and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant—and when you eat and are full, then take care lest you forget the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

For Americans, the only task that has proven more challenging than taming the West and subduing the totalitarians of World War II has been taming ourselves and subduing the excesses of the post-war economic boom. Enemies foreign are often no match for enemies domestic.

Thomas Cole, The Consummation of Empire, 1836.

Stage 4: “The sons of privilege”

No longer pressed to the throne of grace by daily need (Hebrews 4:16), the generation that follows the settling of the land, what we might call “the sons of privilege,” soon releases its grip on the horns of the altar, eschewing such quaint and pious traditions to instead “seize the day” and “go for the gusto.” After all, life is short and you only live once, so you might as well enjoy it to the full while it lasts.

It’s not long before the prayers dry up, the pews thin out, and an insidious self-sufficiency infiltrates all aspects of life. “Rugged individualism,” no paragon of virtue itself, gives way to a sort of “smug consumerism.”

King David, having subdued Israel’s enemies all around, left nothing but wealth and opportunity to his son Solomon, who promptly abused these privileges so egregiously that the kingdom after him would never recover its former luster2 (1 Kings 11:9–13):

“And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this has been your practice and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.”

Humbled and humiliated, Solomon would eventually come to his senses (Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14), but only after a lifetime of unrivaled hedonistic opulence (Deuteronomy 17:17; 1 Kings 11:3; Ecclesiastes 2:10). By that time, however, it was already a day late and a dollar short for his kingdom, for the wicked precedents Solomon introduced into Israel’s life and worship would become snares from which his decedents would never fully escape.

Thomas Cole, Destruction, 1836.

Stage 5: “The sons of Belial”

It is amazing to observe the depths to which a people can descend, and the rates at which they can sink, given the heights that they once ascended to. Perhaps such falls are all the swifter, and the momentum all the harder to stop, for having occurred from such pinnacles—“the bigger they are, the harder they fall” (Deuteronomy 11:16, 17, emphasis mine):

“Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the Lord is giving you.”

Though building a nation takes tremendous amounts of patience, cooperation, and know-how, tearing down a nation often takes little to no time, effort, or skill at all. Construction requires knowledge (Psalm 104:24), but any fool can deconstruct.

Furthermore, those who construct edifices, whether natural or supernatural, out of shoddy materials, or who lack a solid foundation on which to build, have not only wasted what little time and effort they have invested in their work, but ensured a more calamitous outcome in the end than if they had never lifted a finger in the first place (Matthew 7:27; Luke 6:49; 1 Corinthians 3:10–15).

Indeed, not only are their actions a waste, in time such individuals themselves become a waste, “worthless fellows” as the scriptures refers to them (Deuteronomy 13:13–18; 1 Samuel 10:27; Judges 19:22, 20:13; 2 Samuel 22:5; 2 Chronicles 13:7; 1 Kings 21:10, 13), good for nothing do-nothings whose only marketable “skill” is doing evil (Micah 7:3). As king David himself noted from his personal encounters with such degenerates (Psalm 11:2, 3):

“For look, the wicked bend their bows; they set their arrows against the strings to shoot from the shadows at the upright in heart. When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

That is the million dollar question before us now as Americans: When a land long spoiled finally sours, how can the sweetness of its milk and honey be restored? “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). A curse lies on a people who take the fruits of the Valley of Eshcol (Numbers 13:23) and turn them into sour grapes (Ezekiel 18:2).

It is here that the political and military judgments of God on a nation really kick into high gear, chief among them: 1) the demotion of inept ruling men in favor of women and children; 2) the giving over of a nation to unjust “lawfare”; and 3) national destruction under chronic disease epidemics and merciless hordes of invading foreigners:

Unqualified rulers:
1. Isaiah 3:12:
  “Youths oppress My people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.”
Legal abuses:
1. Isaiah 10:1, 2:
  “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of My people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.”
2. Habakkuk 1:2–4:
  “How long, Lord, must I call for help, but You do not listen? Or cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ but You do not save? Why do You make me look at injustice? Why do You tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.”
Wasting disease and foreign conquest:
1. Leviticus 26:14–17 (cf. Deuteronomy 28:21–25):
  “But if you will not listen to Me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject My decrees and abhor My laws and fail to carry out all My commands and so violate My covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. I will set My face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.”
2. Deuteronomy 28:43, 44:
  “The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. They will lend to you, but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail.”

We have barely even touched on the other signs of national judgment scattered throughout these passages, including soaring debt, food shortages, and natural disasters, but you get the point. If you cannot see the parallels between Israel’s national plight and our own, then it may be that you cannot see at all (Isaiah 6:9, 10).

Stage 6: “The valiant effort”

It is at this point that a people can either continue to wax worse and worse (2 Timothy 3:13), expediting their trip to the smoldering crater, or else rally themselves under the leadership of courageous reformers and purge the land of its rampant rot and corruption.

In the latter case, regardless of whether such efforts lead to lasting change or not, one has to admire such leaders for at least giving it the old college try. After all, what would be the alternative? Contenting oneself with “managed decline” and pillaging the ruins of a dying civilization along with the rest of the looters? The “valiant effort” may be futile, but it is valiant nonetheless.

For the eleventh hour reformer, the tasks are daunting, the supporters few, and the opposition numerous. It’s hard enough governing a nation with the wind in your sails, but try steering that ship in tempestuous headwinds with a barnacle encrusted rudder and mutiny afoot. It’s no wonder such vessels more often shipwreck than correct course (1 Timothy 1:19).

This is roughly where the nation of Israel stood during the time of king Josiah3 and it appears to be where our nation stands at this very moment. In other words, get out that handy “You are here” sign you’ve been holding onto and plant it squarely on “the valiant effort” phase on the roadmap judgment.

We as Americans are clearly at a spiritual pivot point in our nation’s history: Either we truly comes to our senses and make a 180-degree turn back to God in repentance, or we merely turn a half-hearted 90 degrees to the right, only to pivot back full-bore to the left a few short years later. Reformed policy without a reformed polity is destined for regime whiplash.

Let us not mince words regarding what’s at stake here for America and her people:

Even if the incoming administration pulls of every last item on its agenda with a speed that would make your head spin, if such changes in our nation’s governance are not accompanied by a profound spiritual reckoning among the governed—one that acknowledges and forsakes the very sins that got us into this mess in the first place and turns back to the God of our fathers in genuine repentance and lasting obedience—then not only will such policy changes fail to address the root causes of our national decline, but mark our words, our decline will resume faster than it appeared to reverse, and we will all be worse off in the end.

This is the clear testimony of both scripture and a thousand fallen nations before us. “American exceptionalism” will not exempt us from these inescapable realities.

A generation or so preceding king Josiah, the godly king Hezekiah implemented similarly comprehensive reforms in Judah, changes that likewise appeared to happen overnight (2 Chronicles 29:36, emphasis mine): “And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced because God had provided for the people, for the thing came about suddenly.” Think of this as Israel’s “Reagan revolution” before its later “MAGA movement.”

But as history shows us, the downside to sudden changes lies in their very suddenness, for with suddenness comes shallowness, and with shallowness, irresolution. Executive orders from one president can be quickly reversed by the next. Vacillating majorities can undo what they demanded only four years prior. In other words, “Easy come, easy go.”

After Hezekiah stepped down, his son Manasseh picked up right where is wicked forebears had left off, hardly skipping a beat. How could he do such a thing after so much evil had been reversed, and so much good had been accomplished, under his father? The answer would appear to lie in the same sin that caused Satan to be cast out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12–14; Luke 10:18): willful, arrogant pride. It is pride that keeps us from humbling ourselves before God and man and admitting that we are on the wrong track, that we are the primary cause of our own problems (2 Chronicles 32:24–26, emphasis mine):

“In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death, and he prayed to the Lord, and He answered him and gave him a sign. But Hezekiah did not make return according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath came upon him and Judah and Jerusalem. But Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah.”

Here, as is often the case, the sins of the fathers are visited on the children (Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18)—“like father, like son.”

Hezekiah’s hubris toward the end of his reign not only fed into his son Manasseh’s prideful folly, it also bore a striking resemblance to his great-grandson Josiah’s fall at the end of his reign, an untimely and seemingly uneccesary demise that was also precipitated by pride (2 Kings 23:29, 30; 2 Chronicles 35:20–27).

Worse still, when judgment was finally pronounced on Hezekiah’s descendants, he famously shrugged it off with a sigh of relief, since, after all, he himself would be long gone by the time trouble came around on his account (2 Kings 20:16–19, emphasis mine):

“Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, ‘Hear the word of the Lord: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’ Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, ‘The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.’ For he thought, ‘Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?’”

Although this is admittedly a rather stunning display of selfish, short-term thinking, Hezekiah ain’t got nothin’ on our nation’s current crop of “leaders,” men and women who display little to no qualms about sinking their children and grandchildren into a pit of financial ruin from which they are likely to never extricate themselves.

The point is this: Just as external reform does not necessarily indicate internal reform, so too rapid change does not necessarily lead to lasting change—indeed, it would seem that the very opposite is the case more often than not.

A nation can flip the script so quickly that it fails to actually pause, take full stock of itself and its circumstances, and ask the truly difficult questions regarding just how deep the problems go. Because of our moral flippancy, we dress our mortal wounds lightly (Jeremiah 6:14), as if they were a small thing, not realizing that the outward symptoms of our depravity are but the tip of the iceberg of our true spiritual sickness, demons so deep that only God can cast them out (Matthew 17:19–21; Mark 9:28, 29).

Will we as Americans turn from our many evils4 at their true spiritual source—our own wicked hearts (Matthew 15:19)—and avoid the full brunt of judgment, or will our reforms remain only skin-deep, merely delaying the inevitable?

The choice is ours (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15). We will decide.

Thomas Cole, Desolation, 1836.

Stages 7a/7b: “The foregone conclusion”/“the road less traveled”

Before us now as a nation lies a great fork in the road.

Not the “which way Western man?” fork with “Christian Nationalism” on the right and “drag queen story hour” on the left. That false dichotomy is unraveling before our very eyes, with both sides now showing their true colors.

No, the real fork before us is three-pronged, like a devil’s pitchfork.

On the far left side is a sign pointing to “Diversity, equality, and inclusion,” and on the far right is a sign pointing to “Blood, soil, and nation,” all good things, but not in a disordered, godless vacuum, as one quickly realizes after following the internal logic of these paths for only a short distance.

In fact, though these paths at first appear to be diametrically opposed, in reality they merge seamlessly together into a single, broad, easy road (Matthew 7:13) just beyond the horizon, a road that leads straight into the proverbial “dustbin” of history. We might call this road “the foregone conclusion,” for that is precisely what it is for the nation dead set on rebellion.

Straight ahead, veering neither to the left nor to the right (Deuteronomy 5:32; Joshua 1:7; Proverbs 4:27; Isaiah 30:21), lies the third path forward—God’s path. However, unlike the first two paths (which, again, are really only one path), the third path and the gate that opens into it are exceedingly narrow (Matthew 7:14), with few nations ever trodding it—at least for long. Had they done so, they would have surely endured to this day (Matthew 11:23), for the straight and narrow path, though difficult, ends in eternal life. We might call this path “the road less traveled.”5

The question is, will we take it, or instead succumb to the myriad temptations on the well-worn path to perdition?

Until the evidence proves otherwise, all signs in both the American Church and State currently point squarely to the latter, to the foregone conclusion that the people of the United States, taken as a whole, are indeed too far gone to escape further, and perhaps even final, judgment.

Our nation may very well be on the cusp of an historic civic and political resuscitation. The only problem is resuscitated people still die. What we need as Americans is no less than a national resurrection, a spiritual coming to life from the dead.

Short of this, we believe there is simply no turning this colossal governmental, cultural, and spiritual shipwreck around. The Titanic is sinking, and unless we truly repent, we will have merely rearranging the deck chairs on our way down to the shadowy abyss.

Heading off the objections

At this point, several objections may have come to mind as you’ve considered our take on the current spiritual pulse of America.

As Christians, we are called to be like the men of Issachar, “men who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chronicles 12:32). We do not want to be caught flat-footed and wrong-headed like the Pharisees, men who could read the daily weather patterns but were lost at sea when it came to reading the signs of the times (Matthew 16:3; Luke 12:56).

To further bolster the case we have been making here, below are our responses to three common objections to our assessment that we hope you find helpful as you wrestle through these topics for yourself and reach your own conclusions.

Objection 1: “America is not Israel. These principles do not apply to our nation.”

The first half of this claim is indeed correct, and is an important point to underscore: the United States of America, for all the good, bad, and ugly of her civil religion, is not in the same covenant relationship with God as the nation of Israel of old. Much more could be said to flesh this point out further, but that would take us beyond the scope of our purposes here.

Suffice it for now to say that America has neither supplanted Israel’s status as God’s chosen nation nor assumed an equivalent position. Israel as a nation and people group received special covenantal promises from God pertaining to specific demographic, geographic, and spiritual blessings that have been, are being, and will be fulfilled by Jesus Christ, the ultimate Seed of Abraham (Genesis 15; Galatians 3:16).

The United States of America on the other hand, though providentially blessed by God in many undeniable ways at her founding and thereafter, holds no such unique, ethno-national covenant with God. Of course, many U.S. citizens have been in covenant with God as New Testament saints, families, and churches. However as a nation, America may be our land, but it is not the Promised Land. We should therefore avoid carelessly misapplying Old Testament promises made exclusively to the nation of Israel to our own nation, tempting as it may be.6

Having said all that, it is important to also keep in mind that not all of God’s dealings with Israel were unique to Israel and the national covenant He established with her.

In fact, the Bible makes it crystal clear that God judges any and all peoples (Psalm 82:8) that collectively abandon their God-given consciences and reject the revelation of God available to them in nature and/or scripture (Romans 1, 2). The universal principle at work here is always the same, no matter what nation or people is under consideration: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

Indeed, the timing of Israel’s initial entry into the Promised Land was due in part to the fact that “the sin of the Amorites,” the land’s current occupants, had reached its full measure (Genesis 15:16). Judgment day had finally come to all the various “-ites” of Canaan—the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc. (Deuteronomy 20:16–18)— and the Israelites were God’s chosen instrument for bringing that judgment down upon their hairy scalps (Psalm 68:21).

Are the sins of the American-ites yet full? If not, then boy, we must be getting close.

Think about it for just a minute.

Americans have absolutely saturated our land with innocent blood to the point of overflowing. In terms of our share of global homicides, the U.S. (20%) is second only to Mexico (~30%).7 On top of that, Americans have murdered over 65 million innocent children since Roe v. Wade (1973),8 reaching record highs of over one million abortions per year even after this monstrous court decision was overturned!9 How can we possibly escape our own blood being shed on account of this unprecedented massacre of the innocents (Genesis 9:6; Matthew 2:16–18)? Numbers 35:33 (emphasis mine):

“Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

As if these crimes were not enough, the United States also has the ignoble distinction of being the world’s leading promoter of pornographic materials, hosting more porn sites on the internet than any other nation by far.10

Will God just inexplicably overlook all these sins, unlike the sins of the Amorites, the Israelites, and every other nation He has ever judged, in spite of the fact that our evils have outstripped them all by several orders of magnitude, and despite our refusal to acknowledge, or even so much as shed a tear over, these grievous offenses?

Don’t count on it!

In fact, while we should always hope for the best for our nation (1 Corinthians 13:7), it is both Biblical and prudent to plan for the worst. We know that’s not a popular message nowadays, but we mustn't delude ourselves with pollyannaish notions of a rosy national renaissance while we continue to engage in the sort of gross immorality described above, thinking we will somehow get off scot-free.

Nope. Sorry. Not going to happen.

Apart from a nationwide “Great Awakening” that would make the first two pale by comparison, we must continue to brace ourselves for more judgment, even in the midst of a partial reprieve.

As Ruth Graham once said to her famous husband, the evangelist Billy Graham, “Billy, if God doesn't come soon and bring judgment upon the United States, He's going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!”11

Objection 2: “God only gives pagan nations over to sin and judgment, not Christian nations, and certainly not individual Christians.”

Unlike the first objection, this one misses the mark on all counts.

Regarding the first part of the objection, as we have seen here, God repeatedly gave both Israel and her pagan neighbors over to the evil and destruction they so persistently and stubbornly demanded.

This same is true for ostensibly Christian nations, and even “secular” nations comprised of either a plurality or majority of Christians.

Christianity has been around for over two millennia, and in that time we have seen many Christian nations like America12 rise in faithfulness and fall in apostacy, most notably in Europe and now in much of the remainder of the old Christian West. Most countries in these regions are now not only thoroughly post-Christian, but implicitly and explicitly anti-Christian.

Even if it were true that God never judges Christian nations, could anyone fault Him for judging America, thoroughly paganized as she now is?

Furthermore, we can derive the rebuttal to the second part of the objection simply by establishing the entailments of the rebuttal to the first part, for in giving a nation over to sin and judgment, it is plain that God is giving the peoples that comprise said nation over to the same, for a nation is nothing less than the peoples that comprise it.13 In meting out national judgment, it is not as if God merely judges a nation’s infrastructure, institutions, and territories in some sort of abstract sense. Though such entities are surely impacted by judgment, it is precisely because they are thoroughly human entities that they are so effected.

Moreover, Paul’s classic description of this same process of judgment in Romans 1 is distinctly centered on fallen men and women, rather than on fallen nations as such: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). Note that Paul does not qualify this statement as one applying only to pagan, non-religious people. On the contrary, Paul’s statement, taken in context, clearly includes both Jews and gentiles alike, as Romans 2 and 3 make abundantly clear (e.g., Romans 3:9).

And, yes, to reiterate, even professing Christians who act like pagans (or worse) can be given over in judgment—perhaps even especially so—as Paul also teaches both in word and deed (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:1–5).

The principle at work here is both simple and profoundly Biblical: To the extent that we as believers actually believe and obey God, He will reward and bless us both in this life and in the life to come; and to the extent that we disbelieve and disobey God, He will withhold reward and blessing from us, even to the point of eternally condemning us along with others whose hypocritical profession of faith proved, in the end, to be empty and meaningless (Matthew 7:21–23, 24:51, 25:31–46; Luke 12:42–48; 1 Corinthians 3:12; James 2:14–26).

This is the consistent, clear testimony of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), including both the Old and New Testaments, and nothing regarding the nature of the New Covenant, or the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, indicates otherwise.

Objection 3: “So you’re saying all is lost and it’s too late for America. That’s a defeatist mentality that does more harm than good in the long run.”

On the one hand it is true that some, upon hearing our assessment, may feel rather “bearish,” as opposed to “bullish,” regarding America’s future, and the temptation to simply hunker down and hide out until the rapture comes may rear its ugly head.14 Not only would such a response make matters far worse by exacerbating our complicity and guilt, it also ignores a crucial silver lining that God holds out to His people in the gospel (more on this point in the following section). Let us call this response “the pessimist’s retreat.”15

On the other hand, many in our day have been opting for the “white pill,” rather than the “black pill,”16 so to speak, rallying the troops to “win one for the Gipper,” even if the score at halftime is fairly lopsided. Basically, this perspective, which has grown leaps and bounds in popularity in recent years, encourages more, not less, cultural and political engagement, as well as more, not less, optimism for the future. Believers who adopt this mentality are “in it to win it,” and not just down the road, or up in heaven, but right now, and “down here” on earth, where apparently things really count, at least in their view. We might call this approach “the optimist’s gambit.”17

While acknowledging at least some practical good in both both the “fight” and “flight” responses described above,18 we believe a more balanced and Biblical response to our nation’s current predicaments is to, again, as we alluded to above, “hope for the best while preparing for the worst.”

This approach is: 1) highly optimistic when it comes to the long-term, eternal prospects of the Church and its gospel (Matthew 16:18); 2) deeply pessimistic that fallen, totally depraved humanity (Romans 3:10) and the satanic systems of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19) will ever get their acts together and come to Jesus prior to His return in judgment; and 3) perfectly realistic regarding the Church’s short-term prospects for global domination in this present evil age (Galatians 1:3–5).19

This stance is not only theologically and historically robust, it of immense practical value, for instead of either hightailing it in retreat at the first sign of a fight, or hard-charging into fleshly battles without first inquiring of the Lord (Numbers 14:40–45; 2 Samuel 5:22–25; Matthew 26:52; John 18:36; Acts 19:15, 16), this approach simply refuses to budge in any direction at the enemy’s empty provocations, holding the line where God has placed it in His word, come what may. For this reason, we can refer to this approach as “the realist’s stand”20 (Ephesians 6:13):

“Therefore take up the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you will be able to stand your ground, and having done everything, to stand.”

This approach strikes us as not only deeply conservative,21 but also profoundly Biblical, for which of the true prophets did not shout to the wayward people of their day something to the effect of “Stop! Turn around! Amend your ways and the Lord will show you mercy, even in the midst of judgment” (e.g., Jeremiah 7:3, 26:13, etc.).22

As bad as things are, and as bad as they will become before getting better, we as Christian must never forget that our “Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment” (2 Peter 2:9).

It is for this reason that the Biblical realist is, in his own way, the most optimistic believer of them of all.

Hope for the faithful

And this brings us to perhaps the most crucial point of our analysis in terms of its personal application:

Just because America as a whole may be lost does not mean that each and every American need settle for a similar fate.

Far from it!

Dear friends, do not misread what we have been claiming here.

We are not claiming that judgment is a foregone conclusion for each and every individual in our nation, even if it may be for the nation in general. Though we are not privy to the eternal, inscrutable counsels of God, we do have access to His revealed word (Deuteronomy 29:29), and that word tells us of good news: today is still the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2). “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15).

Are such changes easy to make, even on the individual level? No. Are they even possible with man alone? Never (Jeremiah 13:23)—but with God, all things are possible for him who believes (Matthew 19:26; Mark 9:23, 10:27).

With God, even the most hardened, habituated sinner can not only be forgiven, but be radically changed if he genuinely turns from his sins and places his trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the sin-bearing Savior of the world (Isaiah 1:18–20):

“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

Truer words have never been spoken. If you were to search high and low over the entire face of the earth for the rest of your life, you would never find a better and more gracious invitation than that—O, do not refuse it!

Our nation and our people have indeed lost their collective mind. But in light of eternity, a return to “common sense” alone means very little unless it is also accompanied a return to God and a turning away from sin, which are truly the first precepts of wisdom (Job 28:28; Proverbs 1:7, 3:7, 9:10, etc.). Our sanity will never be fully restored without “coming to our senses” in the very same sense that the prodigal son came to his senses in that fateful pigsty (Luke 15:17; cf. Daniel 4:34).

Unfortunately, not all pigsties lead back home to the Father. Some sows soon return to their filth for more wallowing, and some dogs just can’t seem to get enough of their own vomit (2 Peter 2:22).

Parting warning: A house swept clean

Our nation’s previous president23 ran his campaign on the notion of “restoring the soul of America.” But that, frankly, is not the government’s job. It’s the Church’s job. It’s our job as Christians.

Can governments lift our spirits with righteous policies, and cause our hearts to sink with wicked ones? Yes (Proverbs 29:2).

Can they do both great good and great harm, in ways that have far-reaching temporal and eternal ramification? Yes (Proverbs 14:34).

Nevertheless, we maintain that it is the Church and her undershepherds that have been given charge and responsibility to keep watch over the souls of men.

For this reason, it is no overstatement to say that it is the Church of Jesus Christ that is the true heart and soul of America, and indeed any country in which she is present. As the body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26), so too America, for all her shining seas and amber waves of grain, is spiritually dead apart from the power of God’s word and Spirit working through the members of His body, the Church, within her spacious borders.

And by “the Church” we are not primarily referring to historic church buildings or Christian cultural heritage, lovely as those may be, we mean living bodies of Spirit-filled, born-again, sin-hating, Bible-believing, God-fearing Christians.

Give us one broken-down, beat-up, sold-out, true-blue believer who truly stands on God’s promises over ten thousand sell-out Christians and politicians who think they are doing God a favor.

The most important work of all in restoring our nation to its former glory can only be accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit working through ordinary Christians who, in the words of the late, great Leonard Ravenhill, not only know the word of God, but also the God of the word (Daniel 11:32, emphasis mine): “Those who do wickedly against the covenant he [Antichrist] shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.”

It is right to rejoice over the many blessings that have come to us by way of recent political developments, but we must not lose sight of the facts that the real war is not against flesh and blood enemies (Ephesians 6:12) and that the Christian’s greatest weapons are not the weapons of this world (2 Corinthians 10:4).

Even if God calls you as a Christian to political office, your true mission in that office must transcend the passing affairs of the day, pressing though they may be, as they, much like the ebbs and flows of the economy, are destined to wax and wane, to come and go. As dual citizens of heaven and earth (Philippians 3:20), we Christians cannot treat the things pertaining to this life—or even our very lives themselves (Matthew 16:24, 25; Mark 8:34, 35; Luke 9:23, 24; Acts 20:24, 21:13; etc.)—as if they were more important than things eternal, than things unseen (2 Corinthians 4:18): “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”

The worst possible outcome for our current cultural and political moment would be to completely “clean house,” only to leave that house an empty, spiritual vacuum, neglecting to fill it with the Holy Spirit of God. Nature and nature’s God may abhor vacuums, but the devil finds them most inviting (Matthew 12:43–45, emphasis mine; cf. Luke 11:24–26):

“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

The implication of Jesus’ words to Israel and her people for our time and for our people are unmistakable, and so we repeat:

If our current political renewal is not coupled with authentic, lasting spiritual revival, then we will be in a worse condition in the end than if the reforms had never been implemented in the first place.

We simply cannot afford to miss this most crucial of points!

Jesus, in commenting on the times that would immediately precede His second coming, said the following (Matthew 24:37–39, emphasis mine; cf. Luke 17:26, 27):

“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

A nation swept clean will be unwittingly swept away in the coming judgment if its people do not consciously rebuild their cultural ruins (Isaiah 61:4) on the foundation of Christ and His teachings (Matthew 7:24–27, Luke 6:47–49).

Lincoln’s famous “House Divided Speech” borrowed its central metaphor of national division from Christ’s refutation of those who claimed that He was only casting out demons by the prince of demons, and blasphemous non-sequitur if ever there was one (Matthew 12:22–28; Mark 3:22–26; Luke 11:14–20). As many others, both on the political left and right, have noted, our nation today in 2025 is in many ways even more divided than it was when Lincoln gave that speech on June 16, 1858.

The same temple Jesus cleansed during his ministry (Mark 11:15–18; Luke 19:45–47; John 2:14–16) would soon collapse, stone by stone, in a nationwide judgment He predicted only a few decades before it took place (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6).

If God did not spare that ancient, specially hedged vineyard of Israel from such a reckoning (Matthew 21:40, 41; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:15, 16), what makes us think He will spare America, young and wild olive shoot that we are (Isaiah 5:5; Romans 11:17–24)?

Truly, unless we repent, we will all likewise perish (Luke 13:3).

O Lord, the God of our fathers, You have called Your redeemed people “the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and buttress of the truth”(1 Timothy 3:15). Help us as American Christians to walk worthy of such a high calling in our nation and in our day (Ephesians 4:1).

Grant all Americans, starting with us your people (2 Chronicles 7:14; 1 Peter 4:17), a repentance that leads to salvation and never looks back (Luke 9:62, 17:32; 2 Corinthians 7:10), that we may finally and forever forsake our many sins (Revelation 18:5) and once again hold fast to You and You alone in loving, faithful obedience (Revelation 2:4, 5).

Apart from you, our nation is but ash and rubble (Daniel 4:35; John 15:5). Indeed, compared to you, all the nations of the earth combined, in all their pomp and glory, are nothing but a drop in the bucket and dust on the scales (Isaiah 40:15). If we as a nation and people gain the entire world, but lose our soul, we have gained nothing, and have lost everything (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25).

We have heard tell of your mighty acts of salvation and great awakening in our country in days long past; renew these works in our day, O Lord, and in Your wrath, remember mercy (Habakkuk 3:2).

In the name of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13), the first, last, and only hope of the earth, Amen.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

We are committed to offering this newsletter in its entirety completely free of cost. If you have not yet subscribed, you can support this free newsletter by becoming a subscriber using the button below.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this edition of the newsletter.

A Roadmap to Judgment (Part II)

2.06MB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

A point of congruence is a point at which two images align with one another. After a certain threshold of congruent points, forensic scientists, jurists, etc. can reasonably conclude in a court of law that two images (say, of fingerprints obtained from a crime scene and a suspected criminal) are derived from the same object.

At least not in the hands of a mere earthly king. King Jesus, David’s greater Son (Matthew 22:45; Mark 12:37; Luke 20:44), has, is, and will make the throne of David greater than even Solomon in all his glory could possibly have imagined (2 Samuel 7:12, 13; Matthew 6:29, 12:42; Luke 1:32, 33, 11:31, 12:27; etc.).

For more on Josiah’s reign and its parallels to our current cultural moment, see part I of this series.

For specifics, see our ongoing series on “The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity.”

An allusion to the famous poem “The Road Not Taken,” by Robert Frost.

At the same time, it should be noted that one of the promises made to Abraham and his seed (ultimately, Christ; Galatians 3:16) was that “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Genesis 22:18, emphasis mine). This blessing is currently being fulfilled through the gospel and the great commission (Matthew 28:19–20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; etc.), which many nations, including America, have certainly been beneficiaries of.

“Murder Rate by Country 2024,” World Population Review.

“Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” National Right to Life Council educational factsheets.

“Two years after Roe’s overturn, there are more abortions in America — but they’re harder to get,” Shefali Luthra, The 19th, June 24, 2024.

“60% of Porn Websites Are Hosted in the United States,” Felix Richter, Statista.

As quoted in “If God doesn't soon bring judgment upon America, He'll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” by Dr. Dale A. Robbins.

America is referred to here as a “Christian nation,” not in the sense that it was founded as a theocracy, but in the sense that its core logic and founding principles were set forth by Christian men whose thinking was profoundly shaped by Christian principles derived from sources like the Protestant Reformation, English common law, and the Bible itself. For a helpful summary of this position, see Mark David Hall’s report “Did America Have a Christian Founding?” published by The Heritage Foundation.

Nothing less, but of course also much more, since the peoples that comprise a nation also establish its boundaries, laws, culture, etc.

Although we should point out that we profess, as scripture and the Early Church Fathers clearly affirm, that the only “rapture” to speak of in the Bible occurs only after the Great Tribulation and Christ’s public, visible second coming, where the Church comes out to meet Him in the air like victorious subjects pouring out of the city gates to escort their conquering king back to the throne room, his proper dwelling place among the people (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17).

Some would associate this with a “pessimistic” understanding of eschatology (the study of the last things, or end times) called “dispensational premillennialism,” which holds that God will rapture believers off the earth before the Great Tribulation and Christ’s second coming (a position that we strongly disagree with; see footnote 14 above).

Borrowing from an analogy drawn from the film The Matrix, in which the protagonist was offered a red pill and a blue pill, the former of which would reveal to him the true nature of reality and the latter of which would allow him to remain in his ignorance, the “white pill” in modern internet slang represents the most optimistic outlook on a dire situation, whereas the “black pill” represents the most pessimistic one.

This position is most at home in an “optimistic” understanding of eschatology known as “postmillennialism,” which holds that the entire world will be Christianized through the triumph of the great commission and Christian culture (i.e., “Christendom”) prior to Christ’s second coming.

Depending, of course, on both the particular context and application.

The scriptures repeatedly warn us that things will get much, much worse as persecution and trying times intensify like crescendoing birth pangs prior to Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24:7–22; 2 Timothy 3:1, 12, 13, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, etc.).

This approach would be most compatible with those who hold to a “realistic” understanding of eschatology, exemplified by either “amillennialism”—the view that the millennial reign of Christ from heaven over the affairs of earth occurs in between His first and second comings—or, better yet, “historic premillennialism”—which holds that the earthly, millennial reign of Christ commences at His second coming—the position that in our opinion best harmonizes all the pertinent Biblical texts on the end times.

One thinks of, say, William F. Buckley’s famous adage: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling ‘Stop,’ at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

Not only this, but contrary to repeated claims from those who favor the optimist’s gambit, the realist’s stand is also highly motivational, inspiring, and (perhaps somewhat ironically) moving. Standing one’s ground in the face of overwhelming opposition is indeed a very brave and manly thing to do, yet not in a romantic or self-aggrandizing sense, for the one who stands in such a manner clearly does so by faith, and it is by faith the he is ultimately delivered—to God alone be the glory!

An illegitimately elected president is still a president, albeit an illegitimate one.

A Roadmap to Judgment (Part I)

Garrett P. League — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:32:58 GMT

Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, King Josiah Hears the Book of the Law, 1858.

America’s “golden age” revival?

A lot has changed in a short time in our country.

Just a handful of months ago, there was legitimate talk of political assassination, continued election malfeasance, unprecedented political chaos, and even civil war. Last November, a nation collectively held its breathe, cast its ballots, and hoped for the best.

And now? Well, to many, it seems that the best is yet to come.

Having finally exhaled, many Americans are now breathing easier as they survey what appears to be a very different national landscape, one reshaped seemingly overnight by a political landslide precipitated by a seismic cultural shift. Many are now seeing visions of a new American “golden age” dawning on the horizon.

When the president dodged a bullet, perhaps our nation did too. God, it would seem, has mercifully relented, at least for the time being, from further judgment, granting us a desperately needed reprieve. And that, in and of itself, is a very good thing, and something we should all be thankful to God for.

Hence the wet blanket reactions of some Christian leaders to the 2024 election results were clearly out of place, lacking in proper perspective and gratitude in light of what was obviously an act of sheer providential mercy.1

However, is the answer to such pietistic pooh-poohing really unbridled political optimism, one that reduces the Christian’s prophetic witness to a mere performative cheerleading, rallying the evangelical base to support whatever the current crop of conservatives is up to?

Are we not to function primarily as prophets, rather than puppets, men who are first and foremost on God’s side (Joshua 5:13–14), rather than in the pocket of any political party or politician? Are we not to serve as guard dogs, rather than lapdogs, watchmen who bark, and even bite, when danger approaches, while others make merry among the spoils of short-lived victories (Isaiah 56:9–12)?

When Paul testified before the rulers of his day, as Christ predicted His disciples would do (Matthew 10:18; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12), he did not skip over the supposedly trivial “in-house” matters of “righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25), things that in theory only Christians care about, and even that only on a good day. Instead, Paul prioritized these “matters of first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3, 4) over every top-line agenda of the rulers of this age (Matthew 20:25, 26; 1 Corinthians 2:8), making the centerpiece of his public witness the gospel itself: repentance from sin and faith in Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah (e.g., Acts 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2; etc.).

If sharing this unwavering emphasis makes us the proverbial “skunk at the inauguration party,” then so be it. Nevertheless, we insist that in adopting such an approach we are not acting against the interests of current administration, but rather for them. We are tying to help, not handicap, build up, not burst bubbles.

It is right to acknowledge, and even celebrate, with genuine, heartfelt gratitude, the many answered prayers and temporal mercies that have come to our nation through recent political developments. At the same time, we should avoid the naïve assumptions that “we are so back,” when in many ways we are not, that “the vibe shift is real,” regardless of whether it is lasting or meaningful, or that God’s wrath on our wayward nation has now fully abated, which we hope to prove here is most certainly not the case (at least not yet).

So the question is, which is it, American Christian? Are we under God’s blessing again as a nation, or does His wrath abide on us still? Has God’s anger passed over us, or, like the receding of the tide, is this merely the pleasant gap between the next wave of judgment? Has the darkness finally passed and a new “golden age” dawned—post tenebras lux—or have we merely delayed the inevitable sunset?

“To the teaching and to the testimony” we must go to answer these questions, for “if they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).

These are the days of Josiah

What we are presently witnessing unfolding before our eyes in America is truly historic. Movies will one day be made about the world’s richest man and his cadre of technological wunderkinds shining the light of algorithmic justice on the government’s filthy lucre. If the president keeps up even a fraction of the unprecedented pace of his administration’s historically ambitious agenda, then love him or hate him, he will undoubtedly go down as not only one of the most consequential presidents in U.S. history, but as a world-historic leader of lasting consequence in any nation’s history book.

In Israel’s history, such times of national renewal and progress periodically arose as well, and they too were often a thing to behold. One particularly memorable example came during the reign of King Josiah (641/640–610/609 BC; 2 Kings 22, 23; 2 Chronicles 34, 35). Although Josiah’s reforms were in many ways unprecedented, they were not entirely unanticipated, for his acts as king, and even his very name, were prophesied in dramatic fashion long before he ever arrived on the national scene (1 Kings 13:2). Indeed, by the time the boy-king ascended the thrown of Judah at the tender age of eight, much evil and backsliding had transpired in the humbled southern kingdom over which God had set him as “reformer-in-chief.”

In Josiah’s day, the “united kingdom” of Israel was but a distant memory. Since the national split, the Northern kingdom (called “Israel” because it contained most of her tribes) had been ruled by men who followed the precedent set by their idolatrous founding father, Jeroboam son of Nebat. In an ill-fated attempt to consolidate power, he established the very form of worship that God had so explicitly condemned in the wilderness: the worship of golden calves, and this time not just one, but two of them.2

For this, Jeroboam was condemned, to his face, by a Judean prophet who foretold in graphic detail the eventual demise of Israel’s apostate priesthood (1 Kings 13:1–6), which would occur several centuries later.

Perhaps the only thing that could top this extraordinary curse was the extraordinary blessing of Josiah’s reign itself, which in spite of all the hype did not disappoint (2 Kings 22:2; cf. 2 Kings 23:25):

“He [Josiah] did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.”

However, after dusting off a long forgotten scroll that one of his priests had stumbled upon in Solomon’s now dilapidated temple (2 Chronicles 34:11), Josiah realized both his, and the entire nation’s, true peril (2 Kings 22:8–13; 2 Chronicles 34:14–21).

How did they find themselves in such hot water, you might ask? Well, it turns out that dusty, old, nondescript scroll was none other than a neglected, all but forgotten copy of the Torah (“law”) of Moses itself, and according to it, Judah was in deep, deep trouble (2 Kings 22:13; cf. 2 Chronicles 34:21):

“Go and inquire of the Lord for me [king Josiah] and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”

Imagine a U.S. president centuries from now wandering into the abandoned ruins of the Washington National Cathedral and finding a crumbling copy of “The Holy Bible,” a book he has only a vague recollection of, but which he finds holds the very keys to unlocking the secrets of his people’s demise.

To Josiah’s horror, the people of Judah were on the verge of perishing under God’s boiling hot wrath (Leviticus 26:14–46; Deuteronomy 28:15–68) and they didn’t even know it (Hosea 4:6):

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to Me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”

Ignorance was never bliss.

Josiah, to his credit, wasted no time in implementing drastic, comprehensive reforms to both literally and figuratively “clean house” in Judah, uprooting the rampant corruption of the rotting religious and political establishments of his day (2 Kings 23:1–25; 2 Chronicles 34, 35:1–19).

What followed was a truly remarkable nationwide turnaround.

The land and its temple were cleansed of their idolatry and restored to working order (2 Kings 23:4–14; 2 Chronicles 34:3–13).

The Passover, which had not been observed in like manner since the time of the judge Samuel some four hundred years earlier (2 Chronicles 35:18), was once again celebrated (2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chronicles 35:1–19).

The sacrilegious high places, which no king since Solomon had either the conviction or courage to overturn, were finally torn down (2 Kings 23:13; 2 Chronicles 34:3).

Societal decay and bad actors of all sorts were being exposed and deposed on a daily basis with breathtaking force and zeal. One could almost see the beleaguered, faithful remnant rejoicing in the streets, grinning ear to ear in disbelief with tears streaming down their faces. They thought this day would never come.

Is any of this sounding just a little bit familiar?

A revival of pretense

And yet, for all of the earnest repentance that Josiah himself displayed, his righteousness, in the end, would deliver only himself (Ezekiel 14:14).

After hearing the words of the Book of the Law, rending his garments, and sending his high priest and officials to inquire of the Lord, the message Josiah received from the prophetess Huldah3 was decidedly mixed (2 Kings 22:15–20; cf. 2 Chronicles 34:23–28):

“She said to them, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Tell the man who sent you to Me, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken Me and burned incense to other gods and aroused My anger by all the idols their hands have made, My anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curseand be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord.Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’’’ So they took her answer back to the king.”

Though by all outward appearances it seemed that the entire nation had finally come to its senses, the return to sanity was but a momentary lapse from their true spiritual condition. As with the ministry of John the Baptist (John 5:35–40), though the people were willing to bask in the light of Josiah’s reforms for a time, they ultimately failed to return in their hearts to the One to whom the reforms pointed in the first place (2 Chronicles 34:33, emphasis mine):

“Josiah removed all the detestable idols from all the territory belonging to the Israelites, and he had all who were present in Israel serve the Lord their God. As long as he lived, they did not fail to follow the Lord, the God of their ancestors.”

As with Israel’s judges of old, as soon as Josiah was gone, the people picked up right where they left off, resuming their downward death spiral into judgment as if the reforms had never even happened (2 Kings 23:31–37, 24, 25; 2 Chronicles 36).

Our nation has likewise made many “New Year’s resolutions” at the start of our supposed comeback, but the question is, will we stick with them? Judah sure didn’t (Jeremiah 3:6–10, emphasis mine):

“The Lord said to me [the prophet Jeremiah] in the days of King Josiah: ‘Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to Me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.’”

Judah’s “repentance” was merely an outward, worldly sorrow, one that sheds self-pitying alligator tears over sin’s regrettable personal consequences (2 Corinthians 7:10; Hebrews 12:17), but fails to come to grips with the ultimate sting of sin as committed against God and God alone (Psalm 51:4). Absent this realization, we will never bear fruits in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8), fruits that truly stand the test of time (John 15:16).

Political, and even superficially religious, reforms that do not address the inner spiritual sickness of a people will have no lasting staying power, for they will lack the only power—namely, the power of God—which could possibly give it to them (Titus 2:11, 12; 2 Peter 1:3). Half-hearted reformations may have a temporary appearance of godliness, but they lack any real power to radically transform those who are impacted by them (2 Timothy 3:5).

At the end of the day, in spite of its fleeting benefits, repentance in pretense only is really no repentance at all. It merely delays, rather than averts, the inevitable.

In America’s case it is no different.

Even if an incoming president appears to be the second coming of Josiah, even if such a leader outstrips all previous administrations by orders of magnitude in terms of his concrete actions for the good, even for all of that, it may still prove to be a case of “too little, too late” (2 Kings 23:24–27, emphasis mine):

“Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the Lord. Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the Lord as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses.
Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn away from the heat of His fierce anger, which burned against Judah because of all that Manasseh had done to arouse His anger. So the Lord said, ‘I will remove Judah also from my presence as I removed Israel, and I will reject Jerusalem, the city I chose, and this temple, about which I said, ‘My Name shall be there.’’”

Though the king turned to God will all his heart, the people did not. Oh, they followed along to a point, but only to a point. As impressive and God-ordained as Josiah’s efforts were, and for all the real, tangible good he did for the people while he was in charge, he was simply incapable of single-handedly reversing the judgment that was already set into motion during the bloody reign of his wicked grandfather Manasseh (2 Kings 24:3, 4, emphasis mine):

“Surely these things [i.e., the Babylonian invasion, conquest, and captivity] happened to Judah according to the Lord’s command, in order to remove them from His presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to forgive.”4

The national point of no return had already been breached and there was no going back now (Ezekiel 14:12–14, emphasis mine):

“Son of man, when a land sins against Me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out My hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God.”

Could God have made His point more emphatically? Perhaps if He were addressing America today, He would say something like “Even if Jonathan Edwards, D. L. Moody, and Billy Graham personally interceded for you on bended knee, I would not listen. Your judgment cannot be thwarted. You have gone too far this time.”

For all the civil reforms in America today, there seems to be nothing even close to comparable to Josiah’s religious reforms, and even they were not enough to deliver that nation from judgment!

Look around you. Where is the widespread acknowledgment of our sins as a people, the nationwide brokenness over our countless rebellions and provocations against the God of our fathers? Where is the contrition, the weeping, the breast-beating, the head-hanging of the truly penitent (Luke 18:13, 14)? Our crimes against God and humanity just over the past six or seven decades alone far exceeded those of Israel and Judah, even under the worst of their leaders.5

Apart from an unprecedented, Spirit-wrought miracle of mass scale salvation, what hope does our nation have of escaping the judgment of God?

Indeed, unless our current government overhauls are accompanied by the true and lasting repentance of multitudes of backslidden Christians, our great American “golden age” may turn out in the end to have been little more than fool’s gold.

Road signs of the times

In the next installment of the League of Believers we will conclude this two-part series on judgment in America by providing a “roadmap to judgment,” signs of the times to help orient us Christians as we seek to understand our historical moment and, most importantly, to do something productive while we’re in it. Buckle up as we explore the pothole-riddled road of a nation in decline. Exits and detours abound, but only one route leads to eternal life.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

A Roadmap to Judgment (Part I)

507KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

For example, pastor John Piper, in an X post from November 6, 2024, stated:

“Presidential election results.
Having delivered us from one evil, God now tests us with another.
‘The Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.’ Deuteronomy 13:3”

Not surprisingly, this response received a great deal of pushback almost immediately after it was posted (e.g., Larry Alex Taunton’s X post response from November 7, 2024).

One calf idol was installed in Dan toward Israel’s northern boundary, and one was installed in Bethel, the very “House of God” (Genesis 28:17–19), toward Israel’s southern boundary (1 Kings 12:25–33).

Surely the fact that the leading men of Judah inquired of the Lord through a female prophetess reflects poorly on the state of the male prophets during Josiah’s reign, which is to be expected given the overall state of moral and religious decline during that period.

Contrary to popular Christian understandings, God is in fact under no obligation to forgive anyone, let along everyone, dispensing His mercy and grace to whom He sees fit, in the proportion He sees fit, when, how, and where He sees fit (Romans 9:14–18):

“What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.”

This may sound hyperbolic, but it is, if anything, and understatement, as we will document in part II of this two-part series.

Mature Manhood

Garrett P. League — Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:00:22 GMT

As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. This newsletter is chapter VI of an upcoming eBook titled, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood. Chapters I, II, III, IV, V, and VI can be found here, here, here, here, here, here.

Orthodox Church icon. The upper left Greek text reads “cἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν ἀράτω καὶ σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι,” “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

Where have all the Christian men gone?

Recently in the American Church there’s been a string of high-profile falls from grace involving prominent ministers and parachurch leaders being outed for egregious, previously hidden, and in some cases even illegal, sexual sins. We are talking profound levels of dysfunction here, and we probably don’t even know the half of it.

Our purpose in mentioning this is not to name names or rehash the gory details. Plenty of others have already done this, and we are not interested in grabbing any stray dog’s ear (Proverbs 26:17). Our point is simply to note that God’s judgment is very much being visited upon the American Church at the moment for her many unrepentant sins. And underneath the sordid mess lies and cover-ups is a number of underlying, root-cause conditions, chief among them the scourge of effeminacy.

That the Church is thoroughly afflicted with this creeping disease is evident upon even the most cursory of examinations.

Think about it. Have you noticed how culturally non-existent the American Church seems to be of late? How so many Christian leaders appear to lack the strength and moral authority to speak up and stand against the increasingly blatant evils of our time? How women are so often the braver and bolder of the two sexes, both in the Church and in the public square?

If you answered “Yes” to any of the above questions, then you have already tasted the soft, rotten fruits of effeminate Christianity, whether you realized it or not.

In our extended examination of effeminacy we have uncovered its ultimate origin in man’s complacent compromise in the garden, studied its personal and national characteristics from scripture and recent American history, explained the role women play in enabling it, and discovered how the person and work of Christ are the only solutions to it.

There are only two questions left to answer by way of applying all this to the American Church: “Where have all the Christian men gone?” and “How do we get them back?”

In other words, where has our fire gone (2 Timothy 1:6), and is there any hope of rekindling our flickering, effeminate flames (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20; Revelation 2:5)?

In this final chapter, we will take the principles we have drawn from scripture regarding effeminacy and apply them to the moral morass that is modern American Christianity. We will focus on the major inroads of effeminacy in the Church’s leadership, as well as the lives of everyday, ordinary Christian men, providing counsel from God’s word on how to address and progress beyond them.

Perhaps it’s too late for the American Church as a whole, or even America itself, to avoid the full brunt of God’s ongoing and coming judgments.

We don’t know—God knows.

Whatever the case may be, there may still be time to turn things around in our lives as individual Christians, families, and worshipping bodies. The best policy is always to correct course while it is still “today” (Hebrews 3:7–15), for there is no other day than “today” for getting right with God: “Because of the Lord’s great love we are not consumed, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:22, 23).

Compromised leaders

One of the main lessons to be learned from the recent spree of pastoral implosions in America is that the Church’s leadership class, like that of the state, has a slew of skeletons in its closet, personal and institutional rot that would have never seen the light of day had these leaders had their way (Matthew 23:27):

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.”

The Pharisees looked the part and played a good game, but it was only a game. The enemy clearly has mounds of dirt on our leaders (Revelation 12:10), and he is not opposed to blackmailing.

But before claiming “the devil made us do it,” or any other such cop-out, we mustn’t let ourselves off the hook too easily. Of course, the world, the flesh, and the devil are always in cahoots at one level or another in all our failures. But what these dark revelations concerning the private lives of some of our most trusted and revered leaders show us is that the Church is not so much “under attack” from an enemy without as it is surrendering to that old three-letter enemy within: sin.

Indeed, the real blackmailers in these conspiracies of silence are the leaders themselves, men who threatened both victims and would-be whistleblowers with fire and fury if they even thought about exposing them.

At the end of the day it is our own rotting, stinking flesh—not the demonic principalities and powers, or even the popular targets of conservative media—that is primarily to blame for neutralizing so many Church leaders today (James 1:13–15). It is those inside the household of God that we must judge, not those outside (1 Corinthians 5:12, 13):

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked person from among you.’”

Even so, one has to grant our leaders at least some credit, for when it comes to giving their people a free pass on their moral failures, they certainly preach what they practice. Like the hawkers of cheap indulgences in medieval Catholic Europe, modern American preachers are all too happy to sell an indulgent gospel of “sin, rinse, repeat” in exchange for steady income. Leaders who are themselves compromised cannot stand up to the compromises of their people.

When men “fall” into sexual sin, it isn’t as if gravity is to blame. We love the fleeting pleasures of sin, and so we willingly choose to give ourselves to them, time and time again. As we do so, we gradually lose the capacity to stand against them.

Because of this, we become softer on sin than a big city Soros DA on crime. Before you know it, anything goes. Like the unsuspecting men of Shechem limping helplessly in the midst of their own slaughter (Genesis 34), our lusts make us a party to our own destruction.

What form does this destruction typically assume? In the chaos that inevitably ensues in the absence of strong male leaders, weak, unqualified men worm their way into the pulpit to fill the void, promote an even softer stance on sin, and prey upon the vulnerable (2 Timothy 3:1–9). The full embrace of depravity now firmly under way, gullible, unstable women, of the sort that fall head over heels for hardened inmates, lead the charge forward into ever more untethered expressions of “tolerance” and “compassion.” “Kindness is everything!” they shriek, as they descend into the next ring of the inferno.

How are we to put an end to, and even reverse, the tragic trajectory of effeminate leadership, especially in its more advanced stages of degeneracy?

First off, leaders in the Church who have committed gross immorality must confess their sins publicly before the Church, without hedging, sanitizing, or redacting the more unsavory parts, and immediately step down from pastoral office, never to be restored to it again.1 No more clandestine elder meetings, slaps on the wrist, sweepings under the rug, months-long furloughs, and convenient reassignments to other churches. It was wrong when the Catholic Church did this for its pedophile priests, and it would be equally wrong for our predatory pastors (Matthew 7:15). Such men have disqualified themselves from church leadership roles (1 Corinthians 9:27), and in the worst cases may even have forfeited their souls (2 Peter 2:3). That is how deadly serious these crimes are, and we must treat them as such.2

Secondly, we must recommit ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:3, 4). Prayer that God would raise up faithful shepherds to replace the wolves and strengthen the few who are still holding the line (Jeremiah 3:15; cf. Jeremiah 23:4): “Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.” God’s people perish in our day, as in every day, for a lack of knowledge, both of God and of His word (Hosea 4:6). The words of our Lord on this point are as urgent today as ever before (Matthew 9:37, 38):

“Then He said to His disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.’”

There is a famine in America, “not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD” Amos 8:11.

Lord, send the rain of your word and Spirit (Deuteronomy 32:2; Hosea 6:3)!

Thirdly, in the words of the Apostle Paul, we must “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1). What the Church needs now more than ever are resolute, Spirit-filled prophets like Moses, men that will pulverize their people’s sins and, if necessary, make them drink their bitter consequences until their bellies are full to bursting (Exodus 32:19, 20; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:4, 5).3 Instead, what we mostly have are feckless leaders like the high priest Aaron, pushovers who quickly cave to the sinful demands of the people (Exodus 32:22–24).

Enough.

It is time for us to find our backbones and stand unwaveringly against the craven capitulations of this evil day (Ephesians 6:13). To do this, we need power from on high from the Holy Spirit, who alone can transform timid souls into bold, unflinching champions for Christ (Acts 1:8). “For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7).

Giving our strength to women

Effeminacy is a profound spiritual sickness that renders grown men powerless and ineffective. But it does not do so without our consent. Far from it.

As Christian men, it is fully within our power to either give away our power through sin or consolidate our power through faithful obedience to Christ (Romans 6:13, 14). If we choose the former, we have only ourselves to blame.

Perhaps the leading sexual sin behind effeminacy among American Christian men today is the viewing of pornographic materials on the internet.4 According to research conducted by the Barna Group, 68% of men who attend church, as well as a full 50% of pastors, regularly view pornographic materials on the internet.5 Think about that the next time you attend church. There is literally a coin flip’s chance that the man you see standing before you in the pulpit actively and knowingly engaged with online pornography during the week leading up to the sermon you are hearing.

This is a scandal of incomprehensible proportions and is absolutely unacceptable for men who profess the name of Christ.

And yet, as disastrous as these findings are, we should not be the least bit surprised if the true extent of this problem is actually far worse than the statistics would lead us to believe. Like the proverbial ox led to the slaughter (Proverbs 7:21, 22), millions of Christian men in America have been sapped dry of their vitality (1 Corinthians 6:18) by the deceitful wares of the digital prostitute (Proverbs 31:3): “Do not give your strength to women, your vigor to those who destroy kings.” Truly, her victims are a mighty throng (Proverbs 7:26).

The implications of the porn epidemic for spiritual well-being of the American Church are profound and far-reaching.

Effeminate men are malleable, pliable, and easily manipulated. This is why we call men who lack a strong moral resolve “squishes” who inhabit the “mushy middle.” It stands to reason, then, that someone who makes a habit of repeatedly succumbing to pornographic temptation denigrates his manhood, damages his moral agency, and devolves into a defenseless doormat for the devil. They cannot overcome their own besetting sins, so how could they possibly help their fellow Christians confront and overcome theirs (Matthew 7:3–5)?

It is a proven fact that a man who cannot rule the members of his own body cannot rule the members of his own family, church, or country. The beat down, sold-out effeminate cannot even stand tall before his mirror, much less his God.

It does not have to be this way. It is well past time for us to cut ties with the pornographic puppet masters that are pulling our strings at will.

We must repent of our adulterous leering (Matthew 5:28), seeing it for the soul-deadening poison that it is. If this requires changing our tech habits, even drastically so, then so be it. Jesus said it would be better to lose an eye or hand than to lose one’s soul for eternity over such offenses (Matthew 5:27–30). How much more, then, should we be willing to ditch even our most “indispensable” of gadgets if that’s what it takes to kick the habit?

Perhaps many of us would rather part with a limb than with a smartphone. But, then again, Christ never promised the road to eternal life would be easy (Matthew 7:14). Quite the opposite.

“Then Jesus told His disciples, ‘If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me’” (Matthew 16:24).

Hard is the way

Besides pragmatism, America’s only truly homegrown philosophy,6 the dominant philosophical approach to life in America today would have to be utilitarianism, with its mantra of “maximize pleasure and minimize pain.”7 Clearly, this maxim forms the working assumption behind many, if not most, of our everyday decisions, even among professing Christians. Aim for the greatest possible happiness here and now and, whatever you do, avoid suffering of any kind at all costs.

You know, just like Jesus did.

The Apostle Paul describes this exact mindset in his second letter to Timothy, and as you may have guessed, his assessment of it was not exactly a rosy one (2 Timothy 3:1–5, emphasis mine):

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.”

Here, again, we see the unmistakable connection between the effeminate addiction to pleasure and false, impotent religion.

The Church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15), founded on the immovable rock of Christ and His holy teachings (Matthew 7:24, 16:18), should stand in stark contrast to the peoples and institutions of this passing age. Instead, we as American Christians have, for the most part, been conformed to the pattern of the ungodly world around us (Romans 12:2). Our “go along to get along” attitude has arisen from our lax and loose approach to the manly, rigorous demands of the Christian life.

Apparently, hauling a rugged cross beam around each day (Luke 9:23) is no match for the comfortable trappings of the American Dream—a dream, we might add, that is rapidly turning into a nightmare (1 John 2:16, 17).

Brothers and sisters, this is not the way we learned Christ (Ephesians 4:20). This may be the way of the Benthamite and the Epicurean,8 but it is not the way of the Christian (Matthew 7:13, 14, emphasis mine):

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

The hard way of Christ knows nothing of the delicate fancies of effeminacy. People that build on the soft, sinking sands of sin and self, rather than on the solid rock of Christ (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10, 11; Luke 20:17), become soft and sinkable themselves—and the softer they are, the harder they fall (Matthew 7:26, 27).

As we have noted before, one of the calling cards of effeminacy is throwing in the towel all too readily under temptation, trial, and testing. This sort of conditioning not only softens us to future temptations, it also hardens us to the life of God (Ephesians 4:18, 19, emphasis mine):

“They [i.e., unbelieving gentiles] are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.”

Soft men have hard hearts.

To fight back against the tidal wave of effeminacy inundating the modern American Church, we must recover an understanding of the value of God-ordained hardship and suffering. There is, after all, such a thing as “desirable difficulty,” without which life’s most valuable lessons tend to lose their gravity and staying power. Ideal circumstances and easy accomplishments tend to lull us into a self-satisfied complacency, stagnating and even reversing our spiritual progress toward perfection (Matthew 5:48; Philippians 3:12).

Adversity, on the other hand, tends to draw us to God in search of a righteousness that is not our own (Philippians 3:7–10), making us more Christlike, confident, and compelling in the process.

When God providentially brings about difficult, trying circumstances in our lives, rather than reflexively bolting for the exit, we must learn to let patience have her perfect, character-building work (James 1:4). I know, character building, like eating one’s vegetables, may be good for us, but most of us would prefer to just skip it and go straight for the good stuff. However, absent spiritual catalysts like suffering and the growing pains they induce, we tend to become developmentally stunted, baby Christians who are of no help to anyone, much less ourselves.

Rather than carefully structuring our lives to avoid hardship altogether, which is neither helpful nor realistic, we should take life’s challenges as they come, facing them like the men God has called us to be (Job 2:10): “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” Jesus promised His followers that such troubles would come, offering us peace in the midst of them, rather than a parachute away from them (John 16:33): “I have said these things to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

In time, by overcoming life’s obstacles by faithful endurance in Christ, we will learn not to count such circumstances as strange and foreign things (1 Peter 4:12), but rather as causes for rejoicing (Matthew 5:10–12). Such trials not only strengthen our faith, they make us into the men and women God has called us to be (1 Peter 1:6, 7, 4:12, 13).

For the believer, wrestling always precedes worship (Genesis 32:22–32). Glory to God! He is treating us as sons (Hebrews 12:4–11).

Growing up

God’s desire for Christian men—and for all believers for that matter—is that they grow up to resemble the one true man, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), the only one in whom nothing flattering or false, flaky or fickle, faltering or fallible was ever found (John 7:18; 1 Peter 2:22). In fact, God constituted the Church and its various offices for this express purpose (Ephesians 4:11–14, emphasis mine):

“And He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

One of the hallmarks of mature Christian manhood is a kind of self-mastery that leads to victory over temptation and a greater appreciation for the deep things of God (1 John 2:12, 13a):

“I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for His name’s sake. I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.”

There is a progression to maturation in Christ. It starts with adoption and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, progresses to overcoming temptation and evil by the Holy Spirit, and results finally in a deep and intimate knowledge of God the Father. To achieve this final and greatest of all goals (John 17:3), one must first obtain, by faith, the first two. There are no shortcuts. We cannot remain infants forever (Hebrews 6:1–3):

“Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.”

Owing to their repeated bouts with various and sundry trials, mature Christian men are battle tested, proven, and resilient (Proverbs 24:16; 1 Timothy 3:10). Their walk with God exhibits a kind of settled, gritty resolve that cannot be faked, at least not for long. Though not yet perfected (Philippians 3:12), and still very much in the fight (1 Timothy 6:12), mature men of God have learned how to exercise dominion over their fleshly passions (Genesis 4:7). In the case of such men, “The head rules the belly through the chest.”9

Conversely, the scriptures teach that men who are ruled by their baser impulses are not really acting like men at all, but rather as “brute beasts” driven by their untamed animal instincts (2 Peter 2:12; cf. Psalm 73:22, Titus 1:12, 13, Jude 1:10). Over time, such individuals are reduced to what Lewis famously dubbed “men without chests,”10 empty, hollowed-out husks of men who do not, and indeed cannot, resist the devil and submit to God (James 4:7). “Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7), effeminate Christians remain stuck in a state of perpetual immaturity, insisting on infant’s milk over “meat for men”11 (Hebrews 5:12–14, emphasis mine):

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Spiritual adults are wise to Satan’s ploys and have learned not to fall for them (Matthew 10:16; 2 Corinthians 2:11). They can spot temptation coming a mile away and avoid it, rather than being naïvely taken off guard by it: “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Corinthians 14:20). Grown men reject the immature ways of their youth (1 Corinthians 13:11; cf. Psalm 25:7),12 chief among them the inability to do the right thing when doing so proves sufficiently disagreeable.13

Spiritual children, be they four or forty-four, find it nearly impossible to say “No” to their overpowering fleshly urges. Try as they may, their infantile tendencies just keep getting the better of them. As such, they are routinely outmaneuvered by the same old “rope-a-dope” tricks from the enemy’s playbook, spending a great deal of their time exhausted, face down on the mat. Not only that, but when their sinful tendencies are pointed out to them, they tend to immediately shift blame, as our father Adam did after the fall (Genesis 3:12). Mature men own their sin, but the immature never accept responsibility.14

To whatever extent you have lingered in the shallows of extended adolescence, we implore you to humble yourself, confess your sin to a trusted, mature brother, and make today the last day you indulge, however “innocently,” in the guilty pleasures of soft and juvenile men.

Mature Christians know their marching orders: repent (James 5:16), read the Bible at length daily (Romans 10:17; Colossians 3:16), ask for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13; Ephesians 5:18), pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17), repent again, do the hard, but necessary thing (1 John 3:7), and so forth.

Beloved children, if these things characterize our Christian walks over the long haul, then at whatever stage of spiritual maturity we presently find ourselves, we will be well on our way to adulthood before long.

The long view

A related tell tale sign of effeminacy is the inability to forgo instant gratification for long-term benefits, especially if said benefits fall primarily or solely to posterity. It is this short-term, “prisoner of the moment” thinking among our nation’s political leaders, for example, that is condemning future generations of Americans to lifelong sentences in debtors’ prison.

Just as Esau, the ostensibly manly outdoorsman (Genesis 25:27),15 sold his lasting birthright for a temporary fix (Genesis 25:29–34), many in the Church of the firstborn (Hebrews 12:23), in love with this present world (2 Timothy 4:10), are rejecting their eternal, heavenly birthright (Ephesians 1:18) for the fleeting pleasures of sin (Hebrews 11:25).

Seasoned men of God see through the lies and distractions of this passing age (1 Corinthians 7:31) and have set their sights on a higher prize: a life well lived for “things eternal” (Matthew 25:23; Romans 2:6, 7; 2 Corinthians 4:18; Philippians 3:14). They understand that this life is a vallis lacrimarum (“vale of tears”; Psalm 84:6), a brief, often painful pitstop on the road to eternal, glorious joy (Matthew 25:21, 23; Romans 8:18; 1 Peter 5:10; etc.). They do not seek their fortunes in the here and now only, but prioritize richness toward God (Luke 12:21) and treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19–21). Like Christ before them, they endure all things (Philippians 4:13) by taking the long view (Hebrews 12:2).

Without this mindset (Philippians 2:3–5; Colossians 3:1, 2), Christian men have little hope of resisting the effeminate siren song of comfortable, “have your cake and eat it too” religion. American life holds forth too many distracting temptations to resist without eternity “stamped on our eyeballs.”16

When Christian husbands, for example, refuse to lead their wives sacrificially, with patient strength and understanding (Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 3:19; 1 Peter 3:7), our marriages can quickly lose the plot (Ephesians 5:31-32), devolving into chaotic, self-justifying, “fight or flight” free-for-alls, with divorce and unlawful remarriage waiting eagerly in the wings.17

When Christian fathers fail to raise their children with the end goal in mind (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4), our children eventually, to one extent or another, link arms with the godless culture, bringing shame on the names of Christ and of their parents.18

When Christian leaders allow worldly concerns and financial incentives to choke out their long-term fruitfulness in ministry (Mark 4:19), the Church, both present and future, suffers the loss (1 Corinthians 12:26).

When qualified and called Christian men retreat from public life, evil weaklings rise to political prominence in their stead. Good men disappear, the vulnerable suffer, and society groans under the tyranny of women, children, and their effeminate accomplices (Proverbs 29:2; Isaiah 3:11, 12). As the oft-repeated saying goes: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”19

These are the precedent setting, generational curses of effeminacy, and we simply cannot abide them.

Men of God, we must embrace patient suffering in this life (James 5:7-12). As Jesus our captain and forerunner (Hebrews 2:10, 6:20) showed us, there is no other way (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). We must be willing at times to “go without” for now so that both we and others can reap the benefits later on.20 God will take care of us. Our faith will be vindicated. Our families, churches, and nation will be blessed for as long as the Lord may tarry. And best of all, God’s power will be manifest in us, both now and forevermore (Ephesians 3:20, 21, emphasis mine):

“Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”

We must never forget that it is when we are weak that we are truly strong, for God’s power is made perfect in our weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9, 10):

“Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”

Yes, you read that correctly. We can delight in such deprivations, knowing the good that will come of them.

Brothers, this is a masculinity that the world knows not of.

The time has come to toss aside this world’s paltry offerings once and for all, and together set our sights on loftier things, things that transcend our short earthly spans and win us immortality and heavenly commendations (Romans 2:7, 8):

“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He [God] will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

These are the stakes. This is the adventure God made us for.

“Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also; the body they may kill: God's truth abideth still; His kingdom is forever!”21

Hallelujah! Praise the LORD!

Let us march forward into eternity to make these things our own.

“Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.”

—Philippians 3:13–15

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Mature Manhood

229KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

This of course does not mean that such individuals should not be restored, upon their repentance, to general Christian fellowship as members of the Church, for this is commanded in scripture (Galatians 6:1), only that they must not be restored to offices of Church leadership.

Indeed, if actual criminal offenses have been committed, then law enforcement must be notified immediately, or we will be even more complicit in these crimes. Some sins are also violations of civil law and may merit prison time or even capital punishment (Acts 25:11; Romans 13:3, 4).

Borrowing from scriptural imagery (Proverbs 26:11), the Puritan Thomas Books said “Repentance is the vomit of the soul,” a vivid metaphor if ever there was one.

Although we plan to cover what the Bible calls porneia at length in a future series (see sin number six in our list of The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity), we would be remiss if we did not mention pornography here in conjunction with effeminacy, given that the former is such a major driving force behind the latter.

For more information, see “Hope in the Midst of Porn Addiction” by Landon Tucker of Lifeway Voices and “Porn in the Digital Age: New Research Reveals 10 Trends” from the Barna Group.

This school of thought was founded by Americans Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), and John Dewey (1859–1952).

The founder of the utilitarian school of thought was the Englishman Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). One could also make a strong case that utilitarianism’s ancient predecessors, Hedonism and Epicureanism, dominate American life as well.

See footnote 7 above.

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man. The full quote is as follows:

“The head rules the belly through the chest – the seat as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnaminity-Sentiment – these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.”

Ibid.

This phrase comes from the title of Leonard Ravenhill’s book Meat for Men.

These of course would not include the childlike trust and submission that Jesus commands believers to exhibit in receiving their Father’s kingdom (Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17). Such attitudes and behaviors, ironically, are the marks of both childhood innocence (not sinlessness) and mature Christian faith.

As it turns out, this test is one of the most accurate, tried-and-true methods of determining whether one’s profession of faith is actually worth anything: “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He [Christ] is righteous” (1 John 3:7, emphasis mine). When the rubber meets the road, do we simply do the easy, expedient thing, or do we man up and do what is right, no matter how difficult? This is what separates the spiritual men from the boys, the walkers from the mere talkers.

See “The definition of immaturity” from “How Did We Get Here? The backstory and heart behind the League of Believers newsletter.”

As demonstrated in chapter two from the story of Samson, Biblical masculinity cannot be automatically equated with the external trappings of the rough and tough blue collar type, nor can effeminacy be instantly equated with the gentler, more reserved white collar type. Jacob and Esau illustrate this point nicely.

Unlike his burly brother, Jacob preferred tent-dwelling to the outdoors (Genesis 25:27), but he was certainly no sissy—he worked his tail off in the unforgiving fields of Laban (Genesis 31:36–42) and even went toe-to-toe with God in a wrestling match, and prevailed (Genesis 32:22–32).

Esau, however, in spite of his masculine persona, was indeed rather effeminate when it came to firmness of resolve and character (Genesis 25:29–34, 26:34, 35; 27:30–41; etc.).

This phrase is often attributed to the great American pastor-theologian Jonathan Edwards (from Grace Gems):

“Where will all of our worldly enjoyments be, when we are laid in the silent grave?

Resolved, to live as I shall wish I had done, when I come to die.

Resolved, to live as I shall wish I had done, ten thousand ages hence.

Lord, stamp eternity on my eyeballs!”

For a detailed explanation of the Biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage, see the League of Believers eBook Adulterating Marriage: Exposing the Church’s Fatal Compromise on Divorce and Remarriage.

Gone, for instance, is the ubiquitous refrain of mothers from a generation ago: “Wait till your father gets home.” Forget the Bible and millennia of human tradition: when Dr. Spock the parenting “expert” came around, suddenly everyone knew better. Effeminate approaches to child rearing, including the so-called “gentle parenting” movement of more recent years, are resulting in generations of spoiled, disobedient children who cannot take “No” for an answer (Proverbs 13:24): “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.”

G. Michael Hopf, Those Who Remain.

We honor, for example, America’s Founding Fathers for their selfless courage and foresight in putting their own immediate interests aside for the sake of future generations, concluding the Declaration of Independence (1776) with these moving words: “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” If these men would do such a noble thing for the blessing of their country and their posterity (see, for example, the Preamble to the United States Constitution), how much more should Christians sacrifice for the citizens of God’s eternal kingdom?

From the hymn “A mighty fortress is our God” (1529), by Martin Luther, translation by Frederic Henry Hedge (1852).

Behold the Man

Garrett P. League — Sat, 24 Aug 2024 18:54:30 GMT

As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. This newsletter is chapter VI of an upcoming eBook titled, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood. Chapters I, II, III, IV, and V can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

Titian, Christ Carrying the Cross, 1508.

The man, Christ Jesus

There is an old saying that “the best of men are men at best,” and there is certainly a great deal of truth to that. East of Eden (Genesis 3:24), no mere mortal has even come close to perfectly reflecting the image of his Maker, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Like a warped funhouse mirror, sin has distorted our reflections into buffoonish mockeries of the men God created us to be (James 1:23, 24).

If you are just an everyday, earthbound citizen of this fallen “clown world,” then this is all you know. You’ve never encountered anything, or anyone, different. “To err is human,” and that’s the end of the story for you.

But for the citizen of heaven (Philippians 3:20), that is only the beginning of man’s story (Genesis 1–3), an epic drama that begins and ends with the “beginning and the end” Himself (Revelation 22:13), the man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5, 6, emphasis mine):

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”

In light of Christ, perennial human sins like effeminacy are but the pitch black backdrop against which the masculine glory of the Son of Man shines like the noonday sun (Psalm 37:6). Jesus is the radiant bridegroom who emerged from His eternal chamber to rescue His helpless bride (Romans 5:6; Ephesians 5:25), the strong man who ran His course with joyful endurance and empowers us to do the same (Psalm 19:4, 5; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 5:10; Jude 1:24).

Thus far in this series on effeminacy in the American Church we have stared long and hard into the perfect mirror of God’s law (James 1:23–25) and found, to our great shame, a very soft and compromised man staring back at us. The hard truth is that Christian men in recent decades have overwhelmingly failed to stay strong and “play the man” (2 Samuel 10:12; 1 Corinthians 16:13) in the face of ever-increasing temptations to sin (Matthew 18:7, 24:22, 24; Luke 17:1; 2 Timothy 3:1–9, 13). Our spirits have been unwilling, and our flesh, weak (Matthew 26:41).

Wretched excuses for men that we are, who can deliver us from this body of death (Romans 7:24)?

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 7:25), the One who is seated at the right hand of Power on high (Mark 14:62, Luke 24:49).

Our thesis here is straightforward: The only flawless model1 of masculinity is the Son of God come in the flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. To Him we must turn, and away from our effeminacy, if we seek any hope of salvation.

By considering Jesus’ humiliation2 we will discover two of His most masculine attributes: 1) His humility, as expressed in His total submission to the will of God the Father; and 2) His perseverance, as seen in His fulfilling of His God-given mission to the very end in the face of unparalleled adversity.

Then, by examining Jesus’ exaltation,3 we will uncover the fullness of His unvarnished, glorious manhood, seen especially in His eternal reigning as king of heaven and earth, a task to which He invites all believers to share in4—if we are man enough to accept it.

Son of God and Son of Man, show us what a man of God truly looks like and give us the strength to become one ourselves. Unveil our faces to behold as in a mirror, not ourselves, but Yourself, and transform us into that same image from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18). Hear us for the sake of Your own great name (1 Samuel 12:22)—the name that is above all other names (Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 1:4)—and for the sake of the Church for which You died and rose again (Isaiah 53:11; Romans 4:25). Amen.

The “weakness” of God

It’s no secret that many depictions of Christ in art tend to lean a tad on the effeminate side. Picture Warner Sallman’s famously kitsch Jesus5 caressing a fluffy white lamb and you’ve more or less got the picture. Some may even accuse a titan like Titian of portraying Jesus in a weak and feminized manner in Christ Carrying the Cross (pictured above), what with His forlorn expression, pallid complexion, single tear drop, and mystifying embrace of the cross, the very instrument of His torture and execution.

It all just seems so…weak.

What kind of self-respecting man would willingly subject himself to such humiliating treatment, including the ultimate shame of hanging bruised and bloodied, stark naked and alone on a cross? Was He simply a glutton for punishment? Did He suffer from a severe martyr complex or a debilitating lack of self-esteem?

To most of His ancient contemporaries, Jesus’ ignoble death proved that He was neither Caesar nor Messiah. Whether you were a wannabe philosopher-king like Pilate, an up-and-coming rabbinical wunderkind like Paul, or just your average first century Joseph six-pack like Peter, the prophet from Nazareth seemed to be just about the last kind of man that one would seek to emulate.

Ironically, Christ is often just as bewildering to the modern Christian mind, even those ensconced in the so-called Christian “manosphere,” whose main focus is understanding and promoting Biblical masculinity. Take for instance the chest-thumping, postmillennial,6 Christian Nationalist7 crowd, whose macho (and often misguided) take on the Christian faith insists that believers must “win down here” by rejecting a “loser theology” of heavenly-mindedness and little earthly good.8

What makes it so difficult for us to recognize the manliness of Christ, especially in His state of humiliation, are our narrow, wrongheaded misapprehensions of all that goes into being a man in the first place. If we look to the world for our notions of masculinity, we will find, at best, a mixed bag of half-truths and outright lies. We must not judge Jesus by our received cultural assumptions about manhood or by our fallen human intuitions. Rather, we must recognize that Jesus Himself is the standard by which all other men are to be judged, for Christ is the judge (John 5:22, 2 Timothy 4:1, etc.) and for judgment He came into the world (Matthew 10:34; John 9:39).

It’s true that God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31), even in its fallen condition, serves as a remarkably solid baseline for separating true from false forms of masculinity. It may be tempting, therefore, to point out that Jesus was, in fact, a blue-collar, working-class construction worker, and thus the consummate man’s man, and simply move on to the next subject. But the question still remains as to why such a man would choose to endure what He endured—and in the manner He endured it—to begin with. Clearly, there is much more going on in the life of this extraordinary carpenter than meets the eye.

In our attempt to better appreciate the subtle grandeur of Jesus’ masculinity, let’s start by acknowledging that none of our puzzled responses regarding it take God by surprise in the slightest. In fact, God purposefully designed His plan of salvation in Christ to elicit such head-scratching reactions.

Now why on earth would God do such a thing?

After all, human wisdom would suggest that if you are trying to set forth a compelling savior-king that men would not only live for, but also die for, then you had better make a strong first impression. You know, kiss babies, shake hands, really sweep the people off their feet.9

And herein lies the logic behind God’s game plan for the consummate man, for the last thing God wanted to do in sending His Son to save the world was to vindicate human wisdom in the process. Rather, God orchestrated man’s redemption in the counterintuitive manner in which He did in order to render His final judgment on man’s supposed “wisdom,” namely, that it is absolute rubbish (1 Corinthians 1:20, 21; Philippians 3:8).

For those who, by God’s Spirit, “get” what God was up to in scripting the gospel story the way He did, salvation in Christ says loudly and clearly: “Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that You [i.e., God] may be proved right when You speak and victorious when You judge’” (Romans 3:4, emphasis mine). The gospel message puts us squarely in our place so that the faithful can see that God is most certainly in His place.

Have you ever heard the song “Above All,” the well-known worship anthem that climaxes with the line “You [Jesus] took the fall…and thought of me…above all”?

Yeah, no. That’s just flat out wrong.

In redemption, God in Christ was primarily concerned with vindicating Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19) and His logic,10 not the sinful train wrecks that are fallen humanity and human reason (Romans 3:25b, 26, emphasis mine):

“This [i.e., Christ’s death for the forgiveness of sins] was to show God’s righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

That we are secondary side-beneficiaries of this arrangement11 proves that even God’s afterthoughts are more blessed than the loftiest thoughts of men (Ephesians 3:20, 21).

Remember, God does not think like we think, nor are His priorities our priorities—not even close (Psalm 50:21; Isaiah 55:8, 9). What man fawns over, God regards with the utmost contempt (Luke 16:15). Man shakes his head in dismay at the cross (1 Corinthians 2:2), but God nods His head in approval (Isaiah 53:10; Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:7; Luke 3:22; John 8:29).

Paul describes this mystery as “the foolishness of the cross,” a concept that lies at the heart of both the gospel and the Christian life (1 Corinthians 1:18–29, emphasis mine):

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence.”

Not that, ladies and gentlemen, is where it’s at. If you get that, then you’ve really gotten something worth getting.

Let’s pause for a moment to think about what Paul is saying here, because it is profound beyond reckoning.

Christ was born in weakness (Matthew 1, 2; Luke 2) and died in weakness (2 Corinthians 13:4). He neither quarreled nor lifted up His voice (Isaiah 42:2; Matthew 12:19). He broke not the bruised reed nor quenched the smoldering wick (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20). He did not turn His face away from the blows and spittle (Isaiah 50:5, 6). Like a silent lamb led to the slaughter, He opened not His mouth to object to His own murder (Isaiah 53:7).

The question is why, O why, would He conduct Himself this way? He’s the Messiah! How did He, of all people, end up drawing the short straw? Wouldn’t He be given a pass on such indignities? Isn’t He above that kind of treatment?

In a sense, of course, He is, but not if the Father requires it of Him, which the Father most certainly did (Isaiah 53:10):

“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush Him; He has put Him to grief; when His soul makes an offering for guilt, He shall see His offspring; He shall prolong His days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.”

This perspective changes absolutely everything with respect to Jesus’ masculinity, for if we truly understand what is going on behind His sufferings, we will have discovered the antidote to effeminacy.

Indeed, what may at first glance appear to be the classic behavior of a pushover, a passive doormat of a man, on closer inspection reveals an individual who is beyond all question the greatest (Colossians 1:15–18), most powerful (Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 1:8), unbreakable (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33, 36), uncowed (Mark 12:14; John 2:24; Acts 4:13), indefatigable (Luke 22:44, 23:34; 2 Thessalonians 3:5; Hebrews 5:7) man who ever lived. Because He was tempted at all points as we are, and yet never once caved to sin (Hebrews 4:15), Christ showed that He possessed a strength—God’s strength—that dwarfed that of Adam, Samson, David and all his mighty men combined.

Christ’s example reminds us that strength is not only showcased on the battlefield, for “Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32).12

Even at His weakest, Christ ascended God’s infinitely holy hill (Psalm 24:3, 4) step by staggering step, carrying multitudes of His fallen brethren (Hebrews 2:10)—and the sin of the world (1 Peter 2:24)—on His back. Forget the cross that Simon of Cyrene carried for Him (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26), or even the twelve labors of Hercules for that matter.13 No god or man ever shouldered a burden like this. And the most astonishing part of it all is that Jesus accomplished this impossible feat through nothing more than His simple, self-effacing dependency on His almighty Father.

The irony of it all is that it was precisely Jesus’ besetting human weaknesses (Hebrews 5:2) that made possible the greatest display of God’s power in human history.

Interlude on the incarnation

To drive this point home further, we must understand what God was doing in the incarnation of His Son.14 Admittedly, this is no small task, but the scriptures can help us get off the ground, if only a few inches for the time being (1 Corinthians 13:12).

By setting aside His kingly splendor, veiling it, as it were, in human flesh, and holding back the use of His divine prerogatives like the ultimate concealed weapon, Jesus restrained an infinite reserve of supernatural firepower the likes of which all the thermonuclear arsenals of man cannot even begin to compare (Matthew 28:3; Mark 9:2, 3; Luke 9:29, 54, 55; John 17:5).

Do we have any idea of the amount of strength that required? “Are you not aware that I [Jesus] can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53; cf. 2 Kings 19:35, 1 Chronicles 21:14–16, etc.).

Have you ever heard someone brag, “I could do such and such with both hands and half my brain tied behind my back”? Intentional handicaps are often used for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, but Jesus adopted a weak and limited posture at His incarnation not for His own sake, but for His Father’s sake and for the sake of those whom the Father had given Him (John 4:34, 5:19, 30, 6:38, 8:29).

Though an anointed king, Christ, like David before Him, would ascend the throne God’s way by first descending into the lower parts of the earth—indeed, into death and hades themselves (Ephesians 4:9, 10; 1 Peter 3:18–20; Revelation 20:14). As Christ taught His followers in both word and deed, the way to glory is only attained by way of the cross (Mark 8:34, 35; Luke 9:23, 24), for “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12).

In Jesus’ case, this meant that in order for Him to receive His royal crown, He first had to don the crown of thorns. Before being lifted upon His blessed throne (Acts 2:33; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 12:2; Revelation 3:21), He was first hoisted upon the cursed cross (John 3:14, 12:32, 33; Galatians 3:13).

And yet in spite of all this—no, because of all this—God was pleased to use this one man’s humble life of sacrificial obedience to bless the entire world (Genesis 22:18), save all of creation from its bondage to corruption, sin, and death (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Romans 8:18–25), redeem a people for His great name (Acts 15:14; Titus 2:14), and lead captivity captive in His train (Psalm 68:18; Ephesians 4:8).

“All hail the power of Jesus' name!
Let angels prostrate fall.
Bring forth the royal diadem,
and crown Him Lord of all!”15

The greatness of Christ the man was on full display in His sacrificial submission to God, the One whom all men were created to worship (Isaiah 43:21; John 4:23), especially at their own expense (Psalm 15:4; 2 Samuel 24:24; 1 Chronicles 21:24).

Christ’s yielded, overcoming life shows us that submission to God-ordained authority is not a recipe for effeminacy, but rather incalculable strength.16 As the faithful centurion noted, Christ too was “a man under authority” (Matthew 8:8, 9), the authority of God the Father, no less. Because Jesus was fully submitted to God, His words, deeds, and very name carried the full weight of God’s authority. Hence, even the elements (Matthew 8:27), diseases (Matthew 4:23), demons (Mark 1:27; Luke 10:17), and death itself (John 11:25, 26, 43, 44) fled at His command. Men under authority are authoritative (Matthew 28:18).

Out of every pore of Christ’s being came this triumphant cry: “Not My will, but Yours be done” (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 6:38; Romans 15:3). These are not the words of a frustrated fatalist, passively resigning to the powers that be, but rather those of a devoted son, whose lifeblood consisted in doing the will of His Father (Matthew 4:4; John 4:34, 6:38).

When Christ emptied Himself by becoming a man, God filled His finite human vessel17 with the infinte Spirit beyond measure (John 3:34). Because Christ denied Himself (Matthew 16:24), God, in the end, denied Him of nothing (Psalm 2:8; Ephesians 1:22). This is the pattern of living to which all men of God must conform (Philippians 2:5–11):

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Though Jesus is, in the words of the famed creed, “very God of very God,”18 He is also truly human. Even as the unique God-man, He came not in His own power but in the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:14; Acts 10:38), working more miracles19 than one could possibly catalog (John 21:25).20 In this way, Christ’s works pointed to God the Father and His provision, not to Himself and His own resources (John 17:4; Philippians 2:11).

Likewise, men of God are fundamentally men about God. Their entire lives are consumed with making much of Him and His infinite supply (Philippians 4:19). As such, true men of God will crawl over broken glass to glorify the Lord over themselves, no matter how bruised and bloodied they may get in the process. Though it is rarely pretty, this is “the Way” (John 14:6; Acts 9:2, 19:9, 23, 22:4, 24:14). If our reputations, fortunes, or even our very lives are laid on the line in pursuit of this goal, then so be it. God and His kingdom are simply worth it, all day long.

When we see all that Christ accomplished, and the manner in which He accomplished it, it is abundantly evident that it was only possible because God was with Him (John 3:2). Because Jesus was outwardly unimpressive (Isaiah 53:2), His observers had an impressive, unobstructed view of His Father (John 14:9). Christ’s longsuffering humility showed the very same attributes that God had earlier declared to Moses, only more personally and publicly than they had ever been revealed before (Exodus 34:6, 7), all thanks to the incarnation.

Man down

So what does Christ’s humility imply for us His people?

It implies that if we are willing to lay down our lives and humble ourselves under God’s mighty hand (1 Peter 5:6), then we too can experience “the immeasurable greatness of His power toward us who believe,” the same power that was at work in Christ’s exaltation (Ephesians 1:17–21).

God created men in His image (Genesis 1:27) to reveal what He is really like so that He would be worshiped and admired as He deserves. This is what Jesus did to absolute perfection, for “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being” (Hebrews 1:3a). Any form of masculinity that points ultimately to itself, or to absolutely anyone or anything else besides God, is therefore infinitely stunted, perverse, and powerless. A godless man is an oxymoron, for men were made by and for God (Colossians 1:16).

Any strength we show must be God’s strength, not a mere flexing of the flesh; any wisdom we impart must be wisdom from above, not the worldly wisdom of man (1 Peter 4:11; cf. Jeremiah 9:23, 24, James 3:16, 17):

“Anyone who speaks should speak words from God. The person who serves should serve with the strength that God gives. You should do these things so that in everything God will be praised through Jesus Christ. Power and glory belong to Him forever and ever. Amen.”

As John the Baptist famously said “He [i.e., Christ] must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). Or, to put it another way, to “man up” according to God, one must first “man down” (Matthew 10:39, 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24, 17:33; John 12:25).

Fundamentally, a Christian is someone who is like Christ, someone who lives as He lived (Matthew 10:25, 11:29; John 13:15; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6). Since Jesus is the standard for a masculinity that is pleasing and acceptable to God (Romans 12:1), Christian men must be willing to set aside many of the powers and privileges they might otherwise exercise to afford God the opportunity to show that He exists (Hebrews 11:6) and is mighty to save (Isaiah 59:1; Zephaniah 3:17; 1 Corinthians 9).

Forget the hogwash you’ve been fed by the false prophets of peace, power, and prosperity. They are lying to you. The fact is, it is not until God weakens us to the point of breaking, and brings us to a place of utter self-abnegation (Job 42:6; Luke 14:26), that we are poised to experience His power working in and through us in ways that not even the pagans can deny (Matthew 5:16; 2 Corinthians 12:7–10; 1 Peter 2:12). If that’s not your cup of tea, or would put too big of a cramp in your lifestyle, then you are welcome to avail yourself of the exit and find another savior to imitate—though be warned: there is no other (John 6:67, 68; Acts 4:12)!

Those who look to sinful, self-serving men as their guide to manhood will only be disappointed (Jeremiah 17:5): “Thus says the LORD: ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh His strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.” This is why we are told to “Put no more trust in man, who has only the breath in his nostrils” for “Of what account is he?” (Isaiah 2:22).

Only the One who came down from heaven (John 6:38) can lift us up from the effeminate impotency of willful self-sufficiency and into the masculine potency of Spirit-empowered humility.

Although no one naturally seeks them, weakness, emptiness, and self-abasement do share in common this great upside: they place us in an ideal position to show “that the surpassingly great power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Corinthians 4:7).

“Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your name be the glory, for the sake of Your steadfast love and faithfulness!”

—Psalm 115:1

Christ’s perseverance

Christ taught His disciples that “He who perseveres to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:22, 24:13), and so it is. But what few of us realize is that Christ Himself modeled this principle better than any of His disciples ever could.

No, Christ was not saved from His sins as we are since, of course, He was sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:5; etc.). However, when Christ laid down His life for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2), crying “It is finished!” (John 19:30), God’s reply was, in effect: “It is enough!” After all that Christ had suffered, God did not permit His body the further indignity of rotting in a sinner’s grave (Acts 13:35; cf. Psalm 16:10). Instead, Christ was laid in a righteous man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; John 19:38–42; Matthew 27:57–61; Mark 15:42–47; Luke 23:50–56), and on the third day God raised Him from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:4).

In doing so, God publicly vindicated Jesus’ apparently senseless and untimely death, powerfully demonstrating, once and for all, that Jesus was in fact the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, 17), the Lord and judge of all (Romans 1:4; Acts 2:24-28,17:31). As it turned out, Christ’s childlike trust in His Father was not misplaced (1 Peter 2:23). And the only reason we know all this for certain is because Jesus endured His sufferings to their God-ordained end.

But what makes the redemption Christ accomplished so incredible is not only the nature of what He suffered, but the amount of opposition He overcame to suffer it to the full (Hebrews 12:3, 4):

“Consider Him who endured from sinners such hostility against Himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”

O, but Christ did.

From the moment of His conception,21 all weapons, carnal and spiritual, were aimed squarely at this man—as the saying goes, the flak is always heaviest when you’re over the target. Jesus constantly faced stiff opposition that sought to end His life, or at least His life’s mission, prematurely, and may have done so were it not for the fact that His hour had not yet come (e.g., Matthew 2:13–18; cf. John 7:30). The same individuals who put Jesus on the cross also tempted Him to come down from it (Matthew 27:40; Mark 15:30). The same adversary who incited Jesus’ betrayal in the garden (Matthew 26:47–56; Mark 14:43–50; Luke 22:3, 47–53; John 18:3–11) tried to lure Him down the path of least resistance in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1-13).

In short, no man was ever tasked with bearing a greater burden, and no man ever bore it in the face of greater temptations to lay it down, than Christ.

Jesus’ temptations occurred at “opportune” times (Luke 4:13), moments of intense personal vulnerability. Unlike Adam, whom God placed in an ideal garden paradise, “the last Adam,” Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:45), was tempted under the most trying of all possible conditions: starvation, scorching heat, isolation, and physical and emotional exhaustion.22 And yet in spite of these most unfavorable circumstances, He never once threw in the towel.

Christ passed His wilderness exam with flying colors, relying on the words of God alone to see Him through (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4).

Jesus remained on the cross till death—the very purpose for which He came to earth (John 12:27)—and let the Father prove that He was the Messiah (Acts 17:31) rather than proving it Himself (Mark 15:27-32).

Given the ubiquitous nature of sin (Romans 3:10) and the impossibility of overcoming it in our own strength (Jeremiah 13:23), we might say that what Christ didn’t do during His earthly lifetime was just as impressive as what He did do (John 21:25). Though He was tempted in all the ways that are common to man, amazingly, He never once budged even a nanometer toward sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). On the contrary, Jesus got the better of sin each and every time the two faced off (Romans 5:6, 8:3):

“For at just the right time, while we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. […] For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh […].”

Sin’s desire is to rule over us, but Jesus conquered it completely (Genesis 4:7; Romans 6).

Not only that, but Jesus resisted temptations to sin even to the uttermost reaches of their persuasive powers. Whereas the effeminate man taps out midway through the first round of his fight against temptation, Christ went the full twelve rounds and won in a decisive knockout (Genesis 3:15). As C.S. Lewis observed in his classic Mere Christianity:23

“Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. […] A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. […] We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means […].”

Because Jesus never once capitulated to sin or sinful men (John 2:24, 25), He exemplifies all that a man can and should be. We sinners, on the other hand, frequently lose our nerve in the face of temptation, overpowered by an enemy that is too strong for us (Psalm 18:17). We have all, in moments of weakness, “yielded our members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness” (Romans 6:13), and in the process, degraded our very humanity (Romans 1:18–32). Since we are steeped in sin from birth (Psalm 51:5, 58:3; Romans 5:12–14; 1 Corinthians 15:22) we can hardly conceive of such a man as Christ, and yet this is the man whom God has destined all believers to be conformed to (Romans 8:29).

This is why Christians so desperately “have need of endurance” (Hebrews 10:36), for without it, we stand no chance of living up to our Savior’s example (Colossians 1:10) in the face of ever-increasing pressures to shut up, given in, and go with the flow (1 Peter 4:3, 4). As Leonard Ravenhill once said, “The greatest temptation of every Christian is ‘Come down from the cross and save yourself.’”24

If you are an aspiring man of God, and yet find yourself crying “uncle” when confronted with even the most benign, beginner-level trials of the Christian life, then no matter how imposing a stature you may reach before men, in the eyes of God you will remain an effeminate midget of a man (1 Samuel 16:7).

This is not because God is some sort condescending bully, but rather because the patient enduring of suffering (2 Timothy 4:5; James 1:2–4, 5:10, 11) is one of the primary means through which He produces Christlike character in us (Romans 5:3–5):

“Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

If we fail to rejoice in our sufferings, but instead run from them, then I’m afraid it is “no pain, no gain” for us.

If modern, American Christian men are to recover a truly Biblical vision of masculinity, then we must find our way back to the same kind of sacrificial, manful endurance that propelled Christ’s faithfulness to the bitter end (2 Thessalonians 3:5, emphasis mine): “May the Lord direct your hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance.”

Whereas Jesus’ humility reflected the gentle self-restraint of God (Psalm 18:35; Galatians 5:22, 23), Jesus’ endurance pointed to “the God of endurance” (Romans 15:5). As Christ set His face like flint toward Jerusalem (Isaiah 50:7; Luke 9:51, 13:33), so His followers must exhibit the same settled determination in accomplishing God’s will on their pilgrimages to the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 13:12–14):

“So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through His own blood. Therefore let us go to Him outside the camp and bear the reproach He endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.”

If we are to be Christians worthy of bearing the name—let alone the marks (Galatians 6:17)—of Christ, then we must be willing to suffer long in doing good (Galatians 6:9), just as God is longsuffering toward us for our good (Numbers 14:18; 2 Peter 3:9).

We must also recognize the inseparable relationship between perseverance and humility, or meekness, as described above. As Samuel Meier has pointed out:25

“The patient and hopeful endurance of undesirable circumstances identifies the person as externally vulnerable and weak but inwardly resilient and strong. Meekness does not identify the weak but more precisely the strong who have been placed in a position of weakness where they persevere without giving up.”

In the perilous times we live in (2 Timothy 3:1), the body of Christ needs seasoned saints who are firm in their convictions, unashamed Christians who won’t apologize for their uncompromising stands for righteousness or back down when the enemy blowback comes at them hard and fast. Our faithful forebears didn’t faint at the first sight of blood. Indeed, they even went so far as to refuse release from torture if it meant compromising their eternal standing before God (Hebrews 11:35). If we wimp out as soon as the heat is turned up a few degrees, then we will surely melt under the conditions that are rapidly coming upon the earth (Matthew 24:9–14).

Brothers, men of God, followers of the risen Christ, let us take to heart these stirring words from the Apostle Paul (Acts 20:24):

“But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.”

Now that is the kind of man whom the king will delight to honor (Esther 6; 2 Timothy 4:7-8).

Christ was faithful, even unto death (Philippians 2:8), and He calls us His followers to be the same (Revelation 2:10). He is with us, even to the very end (Matthew 28:20)—how can we possibly refuse to return such a favor?

A man in full

Christ’s humble perseverance characterized His life as an unassuming servant-leader during His first coming (Matthew 20:25–28). But this was just the opening chapter of the story of Christ’s reign as the newly crowned head of the human race. His death, resurrection, and ascension constituted not only the climax of the first creation, but the commencement of the new creation. Jesus came, but He would also come again, this time with power and great glory (Matthew 24:30) to rule the nations with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27).

Have you not read that “The meek shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)?

During His initial, roughly thirty-three-year sojourn on earth, Jesus was indeed “gentle and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29; cf. Matthew 21:5, 2 Corinthians 10:1), traits He will continue to exercise in one form or another for all eternity.26 But we must remember that when Christ returns, the lowly lamb will flash His lion-like fangs. His threats of fiery judgment were no mere rattling of the saber (Matthew 13:41, 42), for our king does not bear His sword in vain (Psalm 2:12; Romans 13:4; Revelation 1:16, 19:15).

Recall also that prior to His first coming, Christ was the eternal Word who preexisted with God in glory before the world was (John 1:1–3, 17:5). Jesus is the “Alpha and the Omega […] who is and was and is to come—the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8). He created all things and sustains them by His powerful word (Colossians 1:16, 17; Hebrews 1:3).

The reason these truths are so important to keep in mind is that Christians often mistakenly assume that Christ’s first coming reveals all there is to know about Him, that He is only a suffering servant. But this is far from the whole truth. Phase one of Jesus’ earthly ministry was but a brief snapshot of His person and work in time (e.g., John 5:17), a blink of an eye for “the everlasting man,”27 the One who is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).28

It is only by appreciating the past, present, future, and eternal dimensions of Christ’s existence, as well as both His human and divine natures,29 that we can begin to understand “the man” (1 Timothy 2:5) in full, and in so doing, become full-fledged men ourselves.

Jesus’ life and mission are ongoing realities that have distinct phases—in heaven and on earth, in time and in eternity—some of which have already occurred, some which are in progress, and some of which have yet to unfold. By virtue of our union with Christ (1 Corinthians 6:17), we share in each of His epoch-defining life events (Philippians 3:10, 11), including His crucifixion (Galatians 2:20; Colossians 3:3), resurrection (Romans 8:11), ascension (Ephesians 2:6), glorification (Romans 8:30), and return to earth in glory (1 Thessalonians 4:17; Jude 1:14, 15).

Yes, you just read that last sentence correctly. Praise the Lord Jesus! Even the poorest of men are kings in Him (James 1:9).

After His bodily, public return (Matthew 24:26, 27; Acts 1:11), Christ will reign as king from His throne in Jerusalem for a thousand years with His resurrected saints (Jeremiah 3:17; Zechariah 14; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 20:1–6). That’s right, as a holy nation of kingly priests (Isaiah 61:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6), we as God’s people will one day reign with Christ on earth and even, in Paul’s words, “judge angels” (1 Corinthians 6:3), as unbelievable as that may sound.30

If God’s only begotten (John 3:16), beloved Son (Matthew 3:17, 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) was prepared for His glorious future through sufferings and sorrows, trials and tribulations, then what makes us think we’ll get off the hook? No, “a disciple is not above his teacher” (Matthew 10:24), and “We must endure many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).

Indeed, it is our steady, patient endurance in service to God and neighbor in this life that will determine the nature and extent of our rewards and responsibilities in the next life (2 Timothy 2:11–13):

“The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful—for He cannot deny Himself.”

By keeping the infinite scope of Christ at the forefront of our minds, we as Christian men can express the fullness of our callings as both servants and leaders (Matthew 20:25–28; John 12:26), slaves and kings (Ephesians 6:6; Revelation 1:5, 6).

Though Christ is utterly unique as the eternal Son of God, Christians are rightly called sons of God by adoption (Galatians 4:4-5; 1 John 3:1). This should radically transform our view of Christ, ourselves, and others (2 Corinthians 5:16): “From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard Him thus no longer.”

For men who have, by faith, caught a glimpse of the Lord Jesus, high and lifted up (Isaiah 6:1; Daniel 7:9; 1 John 3:2; Revelation 4:2), there is simply no going back. They can no longer live as “mere men” (1 Corinthians 3:3). The old life has past away; behold, the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Christian men: “Behold the man!” (John 19:5). In Him, “the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). Fulfill your highest calling as men of God, the “good portion” that will not be taken from you (Luke 10:42): sitting, as it were, at the feet of Christ, seeing His glory, and receiving His transformational words (2 Corinthians 3:18):

“And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”

Because of Christ, there is good news, even for the effeminate. If we repent of our effeminacy, look to Christ alone for deliverance, and faithfully follow His perfect lead, then there’s hope He will make men of us yet.

“You are the most excellent of men and your lips have been anointed with grace, since God has blessed You forever. Gird Your sword on your side, You mighty One; clothe Yourself with splendor and majesty. In your majesty ride forth victoriously in the cause of truth, humility and justice; let Your right hand achieve awesome deeds. Let Your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies; let the nations fall beneath Your feet. Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set You above Your companions by anointing You with the oil of joy.”

—Psalm 45:2–7

Getting our house in order

One of the most important roles that men serve in their families is as “head of home.” Likewise, in the household of God, men are also given leadership responsibilities that they neglect to the detriment of the entire family of God (1 Corinthians 12:26; Ephesians 4). In the next installment of the League of Believers, we will discuss positive steps the Church, and in particular its male leaders, can take to remedy its rampant effeminacy. Gird your loins, men, because this next one may sting a bit. However, if we recognize our shortcomings and turn to God for help, we may at last be able to ditch our childish ways and grow up into mature manhood in Christ.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Behold the Man

317KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

This is not to say that Jesus is the only faithful model of masculinity that Christian men may look to, as many of Christ’s male followers, past and present, are also worthy of emulation. However, even in such cases, godly male role models must be judged based on their conformity, or lack thereof, to Christ’s example (1 Corinthians 11:1): “Follow my [i.e., Paul’s] example, as I follow the example of Christ.”

The humiliation, or “humbling,” of Christ (Philippians 2:8) refers not only to His scourging, mocking, crucifixion, etc., but to the entirety of His roughly 33 years of incarnate, earthly life as the historical personage Yeshua ha-Nozri (“Joshua/Jesus of Nazareth”). This can be thought of as Jesus’ willing demotion, at the behest of the Father, not from His essential deity, but from His position of honor and privilege in heaven.

Jesus’ state of humiliation ended with His resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God the Father in heaven (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9), which commenced His session, or “seating” (Mark 16:19), as judge and ruler of the universe (Matthew 28:18, Acts 10:42, etc.). Together, these events comprise Jesus’ exaltation, or “uplifting,” and can be thought of as Jesus’ promotion, from God the Father, from His position of humble, suffering servant to exalted, triumphant king (Psalm 75:6, 7).

Although God alone is king (1 Timothy 6:15) and shares His glory with no one (Isaiah 42:8), He nevertheless delegates to believers certain royal duties, under His lordship, that are entailed in governing the world (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30; 2 Timothy 2:12). Furthermore, those who suffer with Christ in the present are promised glory alongside Him in His coming kingdom (Romans 8:17), albeit a glory that is proper to the saints and glorifies God alone in return (Revelation 4:9–11).

Head of Christ, 1941.

Postmillennialism is the eschatological viewpoint that holds that the entire world and all its institutions will be Christianized prior to the second coming of Christ. Thus, in this understanding, Christ will return after the millennial golden age (hence the term “postmillennial”), which is ushered in gradually by the proclamation of the gospel and Christian hegemony in the realm of civil government. To paraphrase one theologian’s summary of the position, postmillennialists do not believe that Christ returns to save the earth but rather that Christ returns to a saved earth (Kim Riddlebarger, “Eschatology by Ethos,” Modern Reformation).

A Christian Nationalist is someone who holds that Christians should seek to implement Biblical precepts into the laws governing the nation to which they belong, especially through gospel preaching and political involvement. According to The Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel:

“Christian Nationalism is primarily concerned with the righteous rule of civil authorities, not spiritual matters pertaining to salvation. The desire for a Christian nation is not a distraction from the Gospel but rather an effort to faithfully apply all of Scripture to all of life, including the public square.”

Of course, the tired old cliché “he’s so heavenly minded he’s no earthly good” presents a false dichotomy. Scripture admonishes us to “Set [our] minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth” (Colossians 3:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:31, 1 John 2:17), and those who have taken this command seriously have, historically speaking, been some of the most productive Christians the Church has ever witnessed.

On the contrary, it is often our inordinate preoccupation with each passing fad and news cycle that keeps us from true effectiveness in advancing God’s unchanging kingdom agenda on earth (Matthew 6:10, 33).

A good example of this in scripture would be the charismatic and impeccably coiffed Absalom, pretender to the throne of David (2 Samuel 15:1–6).

Quite literally, since Jesus is “the Word,” or “Logos,” that is, “logic,” of God (John 1:1–18).

That is, co-heirs, with Christ Himself being the primary heir/beneficiary of salvation, since He is God the benefactor’s only begotten Son and salvation was wrought through Him (Romans 8:17).

It is important to acknowledge that self-control is the fruit of the same Spirit who anointed Christ at His baptism (Matthew 3:16, 12:18; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22, 4:18; Acts 10:38; Galatians 5:22, 23). Amazingly, the Holy Spirit is available to believers today so that they too can exhibit these supernatural capabilities (Galatians 5:16, 25).

“The Labors of Hercules,” Perseus Digital Library Project.

For the classic treatment of this topic, see On the Incarnation of the Word by Athanasius (c. 296–373 A.D.).

“All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name,” Edward Perronet, 1780.

This is not to say that submission to wicked, tyrannical authorities who punish the good and reward the evil is demanded in every instance either by Christ’s example or Paul’s admonitions in Romans 13:1–7. Such an interpretation of scripture conveniently omits instances where both Jesus (e.g., Matthew 23) and Paul (e.g., Acts 16:37–39) hold religious and/or civil authorities to account for their abuses of power.

As one person with two distinct natures, Jesus is both truly God and truly human. Thus, His human nature, like ours, was, is, and always will be finite. This in no way diminishes the infinite, eternal deity of His divine nature.

Nicene Creed, First Council of Nicaea, 325 (revised by the First Council of Constantinople, 381).

Incidentally, the Biblical term for miracle is “power” in Greek.

For a good summary of the necessity of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ ministry, see “Why Jesus Needed the Holy Spirit” by Mark Jones, writing for Desiring God.

And indeed, even centuries before Christ’s birth, His genealogical forebears were firmly locked in the battle between “the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman” that God describes at the fall (Genesis 3:15). This enmity expressed itself in various attempts to snuff out the line of the Messiah in hopes of preventing His appearing long before it ever happened (e.g., Exodus 1:22).

Those who work with recovering substance abusers describe the factors that are the most commonly associated with relapse using the HALT acronym: Hunger, Anger, Loneliness, and Tiredness (“HALT: The Dangers of Hunger, Anger, Loneliness, and Tiredness,” Bradford Health Services). If any of these factors is present in a substantial enough degree, then one is far more susceptible to succumbing to temptation.

Remarkably, Christ’s temptations in the wilderness and during His passion contain each and every one of these elements in spades.

For example, in Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, the text notes in understated fashion that “after fasting forty days and forty nights, He was hungry” (Matthew 4:2). Indeed, at that point, it was only the grace of God that kept Jesus from literally dying of starvation. For perspective, without food, a person can typically survive for a few weeks, whereas without food and water, most people live no longer than about four days, one-tenth the length of Jesus’ fast (“How Long Does It Take to Die If You Don’t Eat?” Sruthi M., MedicineNet).

In terms of anger, we know that lack of food, as well as hot, arid conditions, such as those found in a desert, are strongly correlated with irritability. Hot weather is even correlated with increased incidence of violent crimes, social unrest, and other forms of aggression (“Hot under the collar? Heat can make you angry and even aggressive, research finds,” Jen Christensen, CNN).

As for loneliness, although Christ was among the wild animals, and angels did eventually tend to Him (Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13), with respect to His fellow man, Jesus was quite alone in the wilderness. And later in Gethsemane, on the eve of His crucifixion, Jesus prayed in anguish alone while His disciples slept, “exhausted from sorrow” (Luke 22:45; cf. Matthew 26:36–46, Mark 14:32–42, Luke 22:39–46).

And speaking of exhaustion, who wouldn’t be utterly depleted after lacking all sustenance for well over a month or weathering the sleepless agony of the dark night of the soul?

Book III, “Christian Behavior,” chapter 11, “Faith.”

Paraphrased quote from the sermon “Die, Wait, And Get Alone.”

“Meekness,” Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.

For example, even in Christ’s exaltation, though He is God in essence (John 8:58) and one with the Father (John 10:30), He lives only to exalt the One to whom He freely submits (1 Corinthians 15:27, 28):

“For ‘God has put all things in subjection under His feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that He is excepted who put all things in subjection under Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all.”

G.K. Chesterton’s term for Christ in his book The Everlasting Man.

Technically speaking, what we have been describing heretofore regarding Christ in His humiliation is referred to by theologians as the active and passive obedience of Christ. In short, “Jesus’ active obedience is His perfect obedience to God’s law” and “Jesus’ passive obedience is His paying the penalty for our failure to obey God’s law” (“Active and Passive Obedience of Christ,” Barry Cooper, Simply Put, Ligonier Ministries). The moment the Son of God, the second person of the holy Trinity, took on flesh in Mary’s womb (Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:5; John 1:14), He embarked on a human journey that required perfect conformity to God’s commandments (Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 5:8).

Though Jesus Christ is one person, since the incarnation His two natures, divine and human, are inseparable, and therefore must be considered together to better understand the infinite, inexhaustible dimensions of who He is (Ephesians 3:14–19). For more on Christ’s two natures and the relationship between them, see “One Person, Two Natures,” Sinclair Ferguson, Things Unseen, Ligonier Ministries.

And that’s not even to mention the final battle, the great white throne judgment, the end of time, and the eternal kingdom headquartered in the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven in the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 20:7–15, 21:1, 2). Jesus will of course be there as well, at the center of it all, in the same body He invited Thomas to touch shortly after the resurrection (John 20:27).

The Emasculators

Garrett P. League — Sat, 08 Jun 2024 21:05:11 GMT

As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series on The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. Chapters I, II, III, and IV of the present eBook, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood, can be found here, here, here, and here.

Lucas van Leyden, Jezebel Promising Naboth's Vineyards to King Ahab, c.1517.

Madam and Steve

In the beginning, God made man and woman with perfectly complimentary strengths and called this arrangement “very good,” a match literally made in heaven (Genesis 1:31, 2:18). Say what you will about the somewhat clunky term “complementarianism,” which has fallen on hard times of late, but it does convey at least this much: Men and women, though different, make quite the fit when acting true to form.1

When sin entered the picture, however, one of its first casualties was the natural harmony that exists between the sexes.2 As Paul underscores in Romans 1, when humans reject God as their Creator, gender roles are invariably upended. What once was effortlessly compatible becomes hopelessly incongruous. What once was a beautiful testimony becomes a bad joke.

For example, when confronted with the absurdity of so-called same-sex “marriage,” we conservative Christians, ever the witty lot, are keen to point out that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” But the gender dysphoria that sin produces is actually far worse than that, creating a veritable “Madam and Steve” scenario, a complete, 180 degree gender role reversal that impacts both sexes to their core. How else would one describe a situation in which wayward women lead the way into sin while mediocre men follow along blithely to their destruction (Proverbs 7)?

Thus far in this series we have focused on effeminacy in prominent Biblical men. But this is by no means the whole story. After all, Adam had his Eve, Samson his Delilah, David his Bathsheba, and Solomon his foreign wives. Clearly, these women played integral roles in facilitating their partners’ downfalls. Effeminacy is never a solo crime. We are all its perpetrators, as well as its victims.

So what part do women play in fostering male effeminacy? And can women be effeminate too? Here, we will propose a new term for describing masculine women and illustrate this concept using insightful vignettes from the lives of four Biblical women: Miriam, Jezebel, and Deborah and Jael.

The emasculate woman

Before getting into the Biblical case studies, we have to establish what the role of women in effeminacy is not. In the course of doing this, we will repurpose an existing but underutilized term that encapsulates the idea we are attempting to convey.

Contrary to the claims of some,3 the Bible does not support the notion that women can be effeminate. This is because, properly understood, effeminacy is only applicable to men who act like women, not to women who act like men.4 Indeed, to claim that women can be effeminate is to lend credence to the very gender-bending category errors that got us all into this mess in the first place. Scripture never encourages women to “man up,” and even in instances where women may be called in a general sense to be courageous (1 Corinthians 16:13), they are expected to do so in distinctively feminine ways.5

The female counterpart to the soft, effeminate man, then, is not the soft, feminine woman, for that is precisely God’s design for the “fairer sex.” Rather, the female counterpart to effeminacy is the hardened, masculine woman who refuses to function in her natural, God-given capacities. Scripture consistently and unequivocally condemns such unnatural blending of the sexes as a grossly disordered evil (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10).

The Apostle Paul powerfully captures the two-way dynamic of male-female gender role swaps, placing humanity’s rejection of proper sexual categories downstream of its rejection of God Himself (Romans 1:24–27, emphasis mine):

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Womanly men and manly women; both alike are an abomination to the Lord (Leviticus 20:13; cf. Proverbs 17:15). As with men who “go soft,” women who “go hard,” adopting male traits in exchange for their God-ordained female traits, severely distort their innate, feminine constitution and blaspheme the God who made them in His image (Genesis 1:27).

And this brings us to a glaring gap in our terminology in these discussions, namely, the absence of an appropriate, agreed upon term for the masculine woman, the linguistic counterpart to the effeminate man.

Etymologically, the word “effeminate” is derived from the assimilated form of the Latin prefix ex (i.e., “ef”), meaning “out,” and femina, meaning “female.”6 Interestingly, there is related English word that shares an almost identical derivation, only it is based on a modification of the opposite gender: “emasculate,” from the assimilated form of ex (i.e., “em”) and masculus, “male,” which combined mean “to deprive of the male functions, deprive of virility or procreative power.”7 Although in its verb form “emasculate” denotes something adjacent to “effeminate,” namely, a literal or figurative neutering of male traits, if we use this word as an adjective, and tweak the pronunciation a tad, then, voilà, we have found our term: emasculate (i-ˈma-skyə-lət): having male qualities untypical of a woman: not womanly in appearance or manner.8

Using the term “emasculate,” rather than “effeminate,” to describe the masculine woman has at least four benefits:

As mentioned above, “emasculate” is the linguistic equivalent of “effeminate,” and so constitutes a formally appropriate designation.
It can function as a term of art for the concept of the “manly woman” while avoiding the informality and derogatory connotations of slang terms like “tomboy” and the various epithets associated with lesbianism.9
The adjective form of “emasculate” already exists, thus avoiding the need for coining a neologism.
Some might claim that since the adjective form of “emasculate” can be used of men as a synonym for “effeminate,”10 it is an inappropriate term for women. However, “emasculate” is nearly always used in its verb form (i.e., “to castrate”), and since male emasculation is a primary calling card of the masculine woman, the adjective form of “emasculate” is an especially fitting label for such individuals.

With this terminology in mind, let’s turn now to some prominent examples of the emasculate woman in the scriptures to find out how this phenomenon works in practical terms.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary

Have you ever found yourself griping about your boss, political leaders, or other authority figures in your life? Of course you have.11

The fact is, when things are going well, our leaders appear to us to be stable geniuses,12 but when things are going poorly, utter nincompoops. “Is this the best we can do? Even I could do a better job at running this place. Who does this guy think he is? He’s no better than the rest of us.”13

The forty years of desert wandering were not particularly pleasant ones for the Israelites. The people were out of sorts and unsettled (Numbers 9:15–23) and the surrounding environs were, shall we say, less than hospitable (Deuteronomy 8:15). These were trying circumstances, even for the saintliest of God’s people (Deuteronomy 8:2).

It’s no wonder, then, that the people frequently complained about their leaders during this period (Exodus 5:20, 21, 14:11, 12, 15:23, 24 16:2, 3, 17:1–3, 32:1; Numbers 11:1, 14:2–4, 10, 16:41, 42, 17:5, 10, 20:2–5, 21:4, 5). Indeed, at times even the leaders complained about their leaders (Numbers 12:1, 2; Numbers 16:1–14). And the leader at the top of the chain, receiving the brunt of these criticisms, was none other than Moses himself.14

You have to feel for Moses. His was often a most unenviable task. Can you imagine dealing with over two million “hangry”15 people all at once (Exodus 16:2, 3)? To get some idea of what that would be like, think of waiting on 200,000 parties of ten at Cracker Barrel during a Sunday after church lunch rush with an empty kitchen and legions of high-strung Karens requesting to speak with your manager (Exodus 16:2, 3).

One of the few ways one could possibly make a predicament like this worse would be to toss in a good old-fashioned family feud. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened to Moses when his elder siblings Miriam and Aaron decided it was finally time to take their little brother down a notch or two (Numbers 12):

“Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. And they said, ‘Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?’ And the LORD heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, ‘Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.’ And the three of them came out. And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. And He said, ‘Hear My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses. He is faithful in all My house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?’ And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and He departed.
When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, ‘Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb.’ And Moses cried to the LORD, ‘O God, please heal her—please.’ But the LORD said to Moses, ‘If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.’ So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again. After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran.”

Quite the unforgettable episode, and one that God would use as an object lesson in subsequent warnings to His rebellious people (Deuteronomy 24:8, 9).

But did you notice something interesting about how God chose to mete out His punishment? Although it was “Miriam and Aaron” who “spoke against Moses” (Numbers 12:1) and “the anger of the LORD was kindled against them” (verse 9, emphasis mine), God afflicted Miriam alone with leprosy, and not Aaron.

Why is that?

It may be that Miriam was the primary agitator, since she is mentioned first among the complainers (Numbers 12:1). But if that were the case then we would expect Aaron to receive a less severe punishment compared to Miriam’s, rather than no punishment at all.

There is likely something else going on here, something that would not have escaped the notice of the initial eyewitnesses of this story, living as they did in a thoroughly patriarchal society. Although Miriam was a recognized prophetess (Exodus 15:20), Moses and Aaron’s older sister (ibid.), a prominent member of the Exodus generation (Numbers 20:1), and one of the women whom God used to save Moses’ very life in infancy (Exodus 2:1–10), her challenge to Moses’ authority was out of line in a manner that Aaron’s insubordination could not touch since she, as a woman, presumed to speak out against God’s chosen man (Exodus 3, 4).

And yes, it does matter that Moses was God’s chosen man, the male leader whom God had chosen as His highest ranking spokesperson at that hour of Israel’s history. Although this may come across as terribly “sexist” to the modern American mind, God uniformly reserves positions of authority in the civil and ecclesiastical realms for men and men alone. Israel was ruled by kings, not queens16 (1 and 2 Samuel; 1 and 2 Kings; 1 and 2 Chronicles), its clergy run by priests, not priestesses (Exodus 28:1, 29:9; Numbers 18:7; etc.).

This is not merely an outdated, Bronze age cultural vestige, for Christ Himself appointed only male Apostles (Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:14–19; Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:12–26), who in turn expressly forbade women from teaching and exercising authority in the Church (1 Timothy 2:12).17 Although women do exercise authority as parents within the realm of the family, the wife’s authority must always be exercised under the headship of her husband (Ephesians 5:22–24; Titus 2:5).

Like it or not, there is simply no getting around this set up, since it is built into the very fabric of creation (Matthew 19:4, 5; Mark 10:6, 7; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7–9). When we reject this order, we reject the Creator who ordered it (Genesis 1, 2; 1 Corinthians 14:26–40) and invite the chaos that ensues.

Yes, Miriam prophesied (Exodus 15:20, 21; Numbers 12:2, 6), but not on a level approaching that of Moses, the greatest prophet Israel had known prior to the coming of Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19, 34:10–12). The fact that she dared to question Moses’ God-given authority in God’s very hearing (Numbers 12:2; cf. Numbers 11:1) was nothing less than an audacious slap in God’s face. For her grave insolence, God publicly disgraced Miriam as a father would shame his rebellious daughter (Numbers 12:14, 15).

As is typical of the emasculate woman, Miriam had grown too big for her own sandals, and when she got out of line, God put her in her place. No, not “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,”18 though these are all perfectly wonderful things in and of themselves. Rather, God placed Miriam firmly back into her proper created station, her noble, glorious female lane (Titus 2:3–5, etc.) which she, like all fallen women, was wont to transgress (Genesis 3:16; Jude 1:6).

In doing so, God was not picking on Miriam, much less women in general. The Bible consistently treats insubordination—whether of children against parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 21:18–21; Ephesians 6:1–3), women against men (Deuteronomy 25:11, 12; Ephesians 5:22), or men and women against God and His appointed authorities (Numbers 16; Romans 13:1, 2; 1 Timothy 6:1; Jude 8–10)—with the utmost seriousness. And it’s no wonder why, for if everyone suddenly abandoned all deference to authority and embraced a kind of anarcho-tyranny, what exactly would that leave us with? Utter lawlessness, that’s what (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Just ask Satan and his minions, the ultimate examples of unhinged, non serviam rebellion (Matthew 25:41).

Contrast Miriam’s flippant attitude toward authority on this occasion with that of her New Testament namesake, Mary,19 the mother of Jesus, whose humble submission to God’s authoritative announcement remains an exemplar of godly womanhood for all generations (Luke 1:35, 36, 38):

“And the angel [Gabriel] answered her [i.e., Mary], ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.’ […] And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.”

In response to these awesome developments, Mary, like Miriam before her, would later burst forth into Spirit-inspired prophetic verse, proclaiming the mighty acts of God (Luke 1:46–55; cf. Acts 1:14, 2:4, 11). Mary understood her place in the great chain of being. She knew the buck stopped with God. And so, when confronted with a bewildering revelation from God’s appointed messenger, she submitted to it “promptly and sincerely,” to borrow a phrase from Calvin.20

When women chafe under the godly male leaders that God has placed over them, refusing to submit to them for their own good, they flail futilely against the very means of their fruitfulness in God (1 Timothy 2:11–15):

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.”

These may not be politically correct words, but they are correct. Miriam’s story is a reminder to all of us, both men and women, that rebellion against God’s good design for authority and submission among the sexes is as degrading of human dignity as leprosy is of the human body.

Is there any hope for those of us who, for a time, go the way of lady folly (Proverbs 9)? The account of Miriam’s leprosy indicates, however subtly, that the answer is “Yes.” As the preacher once noted, “The end of a matter is better than its beginning” (Ecclesiastes 7:8).

Let’s not overlook the fact that this narrative concludes with Miriam quietly resuming fellowship with God and His people after her seven-day exile outside the camp (Numbers 12:15). Apparently, God healed Miriam of her uncleanness just as He had earlier healed Moses of his temporary case of leprosy (Exodus 4:6, 7). But make no mistake about it, God did not heal Miriam because she deserved it, but rather because He heard Moses’ intercessory cry for healing on her behalf (Numbers 12:15; cf. Exodus 32:30–35, Deuteronomy 9:25–29).21 In other words, for Moses’ sake, because of his great humility (Numbers 12:3) and faithfulness in all God’s house (Hebrews 3:5), God was pleased to have mercy on his sister.

Sound familiar, Christian?

If you have been kicking against the goads of the rightful authorities that God has placed in your life, especially the good men that God has set over you women, then resolve today to cease your grumbling and instead cry out to the only mediator that God will hear on your behalf: the man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5), in whom the Father was well pleased (Matthew 3:17, 12:18, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:7; Luke 3:22). “Therefore He [i.e., Jesus] is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25).

It is perhaps no coincidence that the names “Miriam” and “Mary” can mean two very different things: “sea of bitterness” and “rebellion” on the one hand, and “wished for child” and “beloved” on the other hand.22

I wonder, woman of God, which of these “Marys” describes you?

Come to Jesus Miriam, bitter, storm-tossed sister, and He will give you a new and better name: Mary, the handmaid of the Lord.

That woman Jezebel

At the beginning of the book of Revelation we find the ever timely letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. These epistles are unique in that they were dictated directly to the Apostle John by Christ Himself. In the letter to the church at Thyatira we find the Lord rebuking this church for its toleration of a certain seductress that He refers to simply as “that woman Jezebel” (Revelation 2:18–23, emphasis mine):

“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am He who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.’”

Let’s pause for a moment to let those words sink in. Jesus judges Christians who refuse to repent of sexual immorality by making them sick, causing them to suffer great trouble, and striking them dead. Is there room in your conception of Jesus for such severe disciplinary measures as these (Luke 12:47, 48; Acts 5:1-11; 1 Corinthians 5:5, 11:29, 30; Hebrews 12:5)? If not, is it really Jesus that you serve, or just a pale imitation?

This question is extremely pertinent to the subject at hand, for at the heart of this woman’s behavior was the sin of idolatry, the worship of a god of her own imagination (Psalm 115:4; Isaiah 37:19; Jeremiah 16:20; Romans 1:21; Galatians 4:8)—or belly, as it were (Philippians 3:19)—rather than the God who is actually there.

We know this in part because the God who really exists, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has spoken definitively on the subjects of idolatry (e.g., Exodus 20:3–6, 1 John 5:21, etc.) and sexual immorality (e.g., Exodus 20:14, Matthew 5:27–32, etc.), condemning them root and branch. Conveniently, however, the gods of our own making tend to punt on such matters, leaving them up to our personal preferences. Idolatry, therefore, is the necessary logical antecedent of sexual immorality, especially adultery. Unfaithfulness to our spouses is always preceded by unfaithfulness to God.23

Because this “Jezebel” character called herself a Christian prophetess, while at the same time luring those under her spell into unrepentant sexual sin and idolatry, she proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a false prophetess and a teacher of rebellion to God’s people (Deuteronomy 13:1–5). Sexual immorality, false worship, and false prophets are a package deal; they are, practically and historically speaking, inseparable.

Perhaps no other person in the Bible demonstrates this truth better than the woman Jezebel herself, the infamous heathen queen to King Ahab, Israel’s most evil ruler (1 Kings 16:30–33, emphasis mine):

“And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him. And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal and worshiped him. He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. And Ahab made an Asherah. Ahab did more to provoke the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him.”

As this passage indicates, Jezebel is best known for bringing Baal worship from her native Sidon into the northern kingdom of Israel.24 As one might expect given the pattern we’ve established above, the worship of Baal, a fertility god,25 involved, you guessed it, sexual immorality.26 Ironically, this brand of debased sexual worship served as a fitting symbol for those Israelites who chose to leave their covenant LORD for another lover, as they had done previously at the incident of Baal at Peor (Numbers 25).

So misguided was Jezebel’s zeal to advance the cult of her homeland that she even resorted to persecuting Israel’s true prophets and replacing them with false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:1–40; cf. Galatians 1:13, 14). As the prophet Elijah made crystal clear, God’s people were given a stark, either-or choice under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel: Either “go along to get along” by serving Baal or suffer persecution by serving the LORD (1 Kings 18:21). There was no middle ground.

Because of her high rebellion and opposition to all things good and holy, the name “Jezebel” has become synonymous with the emasculate, wantonly wicked woman, for which she serves as the Biblical archetype. This is precisely why Jesus dubbed the troubler of Thyatira (cf. 1 Kings 18:17, 18) “Jezebel,” and it is why we too must call out the “Jezebels” in our churches today.

Feminists are fond of telling us that “well-behaved women seldom make history.”27 In Jezebel’s case they may actually be on to something, for when it came to inappropriately inserting herself in the affairs of men and exacerbating male effeminacy, Jezebel’s track record was truly historic. A case in point is the scandal of Naboth’s vineyard, or “Vineyardgate” as we today might call it (1 Kings 21:1–16):

“Now Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel, beside the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. And after this Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house, and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.’ But Naboth said to Ahab, ‘The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him, for he had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ And he lay down on his bed and turned away his face and would eat no food.
But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, ‘Why is your spirit so vexed that you eat no food?’ And he said to her, ‘Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money, or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it.’ And he answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’’ And Jezebel his wife said to him, ‘Do you now govern Israel? Arise and eat bread and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.’
So she wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people. And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out and stone him to death.’ And the men of his city, the elders and the leaders who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them. As it was written in the letters that she had sent to them, they proclaimed a fast and set Naboth at the head of the people. And the two worthless men came in and sat opposite him. And the worthless men brought a charge against Naboth in the presence of the people, saying, ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’ So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones. Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, ‘Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.’
As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, Jezebel said to Ahab, ‘Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money, for Naboth is not alive, but dead.’ And as soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab arose to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.”

Yes, that Jezebel was a real go-getter—when it came to going to get other people’s property—displaying true initiative—to sin, that is.

Obviously, the feminists have gotten this woman all wrong. Jezebel was a villain par excellence, and no hero. She had precisely zero redeeming qualities and is in no way worthy of emulation, much less celebration. What we have in this women is a cruel, calculating crook with calluses on her heart and ice-cold blood in her veins.

It appears she thought very little of stealing her husband’s rightful authority in order to filch her neighbor’s rightful inheritance, putting Naboth’s descendants at risk of utter destitution (Numbers 27:1–11, Deuteronomy 19:14, etc.). Whereas your garden variety nag would have merely marched into Ahab’s bedroom and yelled something to the effect of “Snap out of it!” or “Quit your moping!” Jezebel, not to be outdone, both indulged her husband’s pity party and transgressed several of God’s commandments in so doing (Exodus 20:13, 15–17).

You go girl. Way to “woman up.”

Clearly, there are all manner of gender inversions occurring in this account: The passive husband pouting like a spoiled child who didn’t get his way; the brash wife brazenly violating conventional norms in her refusal to take “No” for an answer. The whole thing reads like a bad 90s sitcom, complete with the inept husband and his intrepid wife.

It’s obvious who wore the proverbial pants in this relationship. The apostate King Ahab, rendered weak and ineffectual by his unprecedent deep dive into depravity (1 Kings 16:33, 21:25, 26), embodies the hapless mockery of a man that effeminacy produces when given sufficient time and opportunity. It is no wonder, then, that his wife often walked right over him, for as we have noted previously, “behind every feminist is an effeminate enabler.”28

Likewise Jezebel, who played no small role in egging on her husband’s effeminacy, proves the converse of this statement, namely, that “behind every effeminate is an emasculate enabler,” plying her trade at the opposite end of the vicious circle.29

Folks, this is not the way. In fact, it’s all sorts of wrong and we all know it.

The Bible shows us a better way for husbands and wives to relate, and it stands in stark contrast to the disordered disaster that was the forbidden union of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Peter 3:1–7):

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear30—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”

The world and indeed even the Church have more than their fair share of sassy, assertive women grasping for power wherever the boys seem unwilling or unable to get their acts together and properly exercise it.

Enough of this.

No more “Mess and Moxie” and girls washing their faces.31 The men surely have their issues, as we have gone to great lengths to demonstrate, but women who adopt this tack are only making a bad situation worse.

In the end, Jezebel, whose name means “not exalted,”32 was humiliated for her many presumptions, brought low by a short fall from a high window (2 Kings 9:32, 33). So it will be with every woman who exalts herself beyond her assigned place (Luke 14:7–11).33

May God’s people take note of the sins of Jezebel and turn from them while there is still time (Revelation 2:21). Great testing and tribulation are at hand (Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21, 22, 29; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3; 2 Timothy 3:1, 12, 13; Revelation 7:14; etc.), and Christ’s judgment will not tarry forever (Hebrews 10:35–39):

“Therefore do not throw away your confidence [in the midst of persecution],34 which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For,
‘Yet a little while,
and the coming One will come and will not delay;
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.’
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.”

Amen and amen.

Leading ladies

Let’s not beat around the bush regarding one of the major takeaways from the stories we’ve been examining here. As mentioned previously, both the Bible and nature show us that leadership is unbecoming of women in the spheres of the government and the Church, and even in the home, a wife must only lead her children under the leadership of her husband, the pater familias.

Label that what you will and call us what you may, but at the end of the day, this is just the way it is in the world God created, and no amount of name calling or women’s studies “research” is going to change that. Even those who deny these truths with their mouths often affirm them with their actions.

Having said all this, don’t misunderstand what we are claiming here. It is not that women cannot lead in these arenas, nor even that under certain circumstances they may do a better job leading overall compared to their contemporary male counterparts. The point is that even in such rare instances as these, what we are witnessing are not trailblazers shattering the “glass ceiling,” but rather suboptimal exceptions that prove the rule.

So when we encounter the occasional female leader in the Bible, we must not conclude that such cases are normative in God’s design, nor even that women ought to lead more often but are prevented from doing so by patriarchal systems of oppression. As others have pointed out in recent years, this narrative is a shallow, ideologically-driven reading of history and human nature if ever there was one.35

We can demonstrate this principle paradigmatically with a final Biblical case study that is sometimes misconstrued as a shining example of Biblical “girl power,” when it is anything but: the story of Deborah, Barak, and Jael recorded in Judges 4.

As we have earlier noted,36 the period of the judges was a mostly chaotic, moral and religious free-for-all, a time in which there was no universally recognized king, divine or otherwise, to consolidate power and maintain order in Israel: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25).

It should come as no surprise, then, that we should discover in this leadership vacuum two leading ladies assuming national center stage, performing tasks typical of men because the man who ought to have performed them suffered from stage fright, and opted instead for a supporting role (Judges 4):

“And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord after Ehud died. And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help, for he had 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, ‘Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?’ Barak said to her, ‘If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.’ And she said, ‘I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.’ Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. And Barak called out Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh. And 10,000 men went up at his heels, and Deborah went up with him.
Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh.
When Sisera was told that Barak the son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, Sisera called out all his chariots, 900 chariots of iron, and all the men who were with him, from Harosheth-hagoyim to the river Kishon. And Deborah said to Barak, ‘Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has given Sisera into your hand. Does not the Lord go out before you?’ So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with 10,000 men following him. And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army before Barak by the edge of the sword. And Sisera got down from his chariot and fled away on foot. And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.
But Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael came out to meet Sisera and said to him, ‘Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me; do not be afraid.’ So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. And he said to her, ‘Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.’ So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. And he said to her, ‘Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’’ But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died. And behold, as Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael went out to meet him and said to him, ‘Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.’ So he went in to her tent, and there lay Sisera dead, with the tent peg in his temple.
So on that day God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan before the people of Israel. And the hand of the people of Israel pressed harder and harder against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.”

In context, we see that Sisera’s demise at the hands of Jael had less to do with her combat prowess and more to do with Barak’s cowardice. We mustn't think of Jael as a predecessor of Xena, warrior princess, for though she was responsible for slaying the enemy, she did so by means of feminine cunning rather than masculine strength.

While Deborah and Jael’s willingness to assume risks ordinarily reserved for men is commendable, they would never have been forced into taking such risks in the first place had Barak simply embraced his obligations as a man from the outset. For his dereliction of duty, Barak forfeited the glory that would otherwise have been his to a woman, a fitting judgment for a man who would only obey his marching orders if a woman held his hand to the frontlines.

Some, seeking to impose modern, extra-Biblical ideologies onto the ancient scriptures, seize on this story as proof that “anything boys can do, girls can do better.” Others may even be tempted to claim that the Bible presents Deborah and Jael as examples of what women’s roles can and should look like in an enlightened, egalitarian society. In a purely descriptive sense37 there is of course a grain of truth to this, for societies that seek to eliminate gender uniqueness always produce lackluster men who cede their responsibilities to women.

Far from representing idealized “girlbosses” for Christian women to aspire to, Deborah and Jael show us that God sometimes resorts to stand-up gals to pick up the slack and shame the guys into stepping up to answer the call of God on their lives.

Yes, national leaders have been known to turn to women and children for help from time to time when competent leadership is sorely lacking, but this is a sign of decline, not progress (Isaiah 3:12): “Youths oppress My people, and women rule over them. O My people, your guides mislead you; they turn you from your paths.” For ample evidence of this in our own day, look no further than the likes of “the Squad”38 or Greta “How dare you!” Thunberg.39

When will the gun-shy Baraks in our ranks repent of their indecisiveness and relieve our women of their unseemly combat roles? Has our masculine glory all but departed (1 Samuel 4:21)?

May the glory of both men and women return to its proper post (Proverbs 20:29; 1 Corinthians 11:7) as we all behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:6), the ultimate answer to the effeminate man and emasculate woman alike.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Jesus saves (from effeminacy)

We have examined in detail numerous Biblical examples of what it looks like to fail as man or woman created in the image of God. But what does it look like to be a fully-formed, true-blue, through and through man of God? It is time to shift our focus from the effeminate man and his emasculate accomplice to the ultimate example of masculine virtue: Christ Jesus Himself. We will see that Jesus absolutely shattered the mold of the old man in Adam, ushering in nothing short of a new creation for all men and women who look to Him in obedient faith. This is what we’ve been waiting for. This is what this entire series has been building up to. You will not want to miss out on the next installment of the League of Believers.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part V)

821KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

John Milton’s description of the differences between men and women, as typified in Adam and Eve, is unsurpassed (Paradise Lost, Book 4, lines 288–299:

“Two of far nobler shape erect and tall,
Godlike erect, with native Honour clad
In naked Majestie seemd Lords of all,
And worthie seemd, for in thir looks Divine
The image of thir glorious Maker shon,
Truth, wisdome, Sanctitude severe and pure,
Severe but in true filial freedom plac't;
Whence true autority in men; though both
Not equal, as thir sex not equal seemd;
For contemplation hee and valour formd,
For softness shee and sweet attractive Grace,
Hee for God only, shee for God in him”

For more on this topic, see “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I).”

Steven Wedgeworth, “What Is Effeminacy? A Survey of Scripture and History,” Desiring God.

This is not at all to suggest that women cannot succumb to sin in moments of weakness, especially when living in times of decadent ease and prosperity (Amos 4:1):

“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’”

Nor is it to suggest that women play no role in facilitating effeminacy in men, as we will demonstrate here. Though men bear the primary responsibility for effeminacy, women are certainly capable of aiding and abetting it, often in service of their own evil ends (see “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I)”).

For example, a brave Christian woman is not supposed to prove her bravery through acts of valor on the battlefield, but rather by submitting to her flawed, perhaps even unbelieving husband, trusting that God will lead him to salvation through her example (1 Peter 3:1). Likewise, a tender, compassionate Christian man (Ephesians 4:32) does not express his tenderness by gently nursing an infant child, but rather by correcting and restoring a sinning brother in a spirit of Christ-like humility (Galatians 6:1).

“Effeminate (adj.),” Online Etymology Dictionary.

“Emasculate (v.),” Online Etymology Dictionary.

This definition is the gender inverse of the first definition under the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for the adjective form of “effeminate.” For the proper pronunciation of this term, see the entry for the adjective form of “emasculate.”

This sinful behavior should be understood as a particular, though by no means necessary sexual manifestation of emasculacy, which can be defined as the state or quality of being emasculate, just as effeminacy is “the state or quality of being effeminate” (“Effeminacy,” Dictionary.com).

“Emasculate,” Dictionary.com.

Although the Bible warns against badmouthing our leaders (Ecclesiastes 10:20), so common is this human tendency that the scriptures also warn against taking such criticisms to heart when they are aimed at oneself (Ecclesiastes 7:21, 22).

Famously, president Donald Trump once referred to himself as a “stable genius.”

Typically, sentiments like these do not represent a humble, accurate assessment of our leaders, but rather a contemptuous cutting down to size of those whom God has placed over us (Romans 13:1-7). This is one of many reasons why God warned Israel (Deuteronomy 7:7, 9:5), Israel’s kings (Deuteronomy 17:18–20), and all believers against thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to (Romans 12:3).

Of course, as Moses noted, complaints directed at him were ultimately aimed at the God whom he represented (Exodus 16:8):

“And Moses added, ‘The LORD will give you meat to eat this evening and bread to fill you in the morning, for He has heard your grumbling against Him. Who are we? Your grumblings are not against us but against the LORD.’”

“Hangry” is slang term that combines the words “hungry” and “angry” and refers to the cranky mood that people fall into when they are overdue for a meal.

The only queen to rule either the northern kingdom of Israel or the southern kingdom of Judah was Athalia, a murderous usurper who was eventually deposed by Jehoiada the priest to install the rightful heir to the throne, King Joash (2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22, 23).

The Bible permits women to teach children (Deuteronomy 6:7, 11:19) and younger women (Titus 2:4, 5).

This is a common strawman that feminists attack when confronted with arguments in support of traditional women’s roles in the home. Though this framing of the traditional viewpoint is indeed a caricature, we would hasten to add that the Bible does advocate for childrearing and homemaking as profoundly meaningful, deeply fulfilling, and absolutely essential female callings (Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 7; 1 Timothy 2:15; Titus 2:5).

“Mary,” derived from “Maryum,” is the Aramaic equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew name “Miriam,” or “Myriam.”

John Calvin’s motto was “Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere,” “My heart I offer to you, O Lord, promptly and sincerely.”

It should be noted that Aaron also repented and implored Moses to pray for Miriam’s healing (Numbers 12:10–12).

“Hebrew word of the week: Miriam,” Jewish Journal; “Miriam,” The Bump; “Mary,” ibid.

Could it be that these two meanings correspond to the attributes of Miriam of the Old Testament and Mary of the New Testament (e.g., Galatians 4:21–27), the former a onetime slave born into bitter bondage and the latter the bearer of the “long-expected Jesus,” the Redeemer on whom the nations set their hope (Isaiah 11:10; Jeremiah 17:3; Luke 2:25, 26; Romans 15:12; Acts 28:20)?

For more on the theme of idolatry as spiritual adultery, see chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God” in Adulterating Marriage.

Israel had already been steeped in idolatry since the time of its founding under King Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12:25–33).

“Baal.” Encyclopedia Britannica.

Typically, this took the form of ritual prostitution (“The Worship of Baal,” Bible History).

This saying is attributed to the former Harvard professor and feminist scholar Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Incidentally, Jezebel is routinely and unironically lauded by modern-day feminists as a symbol of feminine power. Apparently these women have not read of Jezebel’s grisly demise, or, having read it, simply chalked it up to Jehu’s raging misogyny (2 Kings 9:30–37).

See “The testing of Adam” in “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I).”

Instead of encouraging Ahab to follow God and His commandments with all his heart, Jezebel’s paganism served to divide her husband’s heart, just as God had warned concerning intermarriage with foreign women (1 Kings 11:2).

It just so happens that Jezebel is the first woman mentioned in the scripture as wearing makeup, doing herself up just prior to her gruesome execution (2 Kings 9:30–33). Although her appearance is not described, one gets the distinct impression that her makeup was anything but subtle. If Helen of Troy possessed “the face that launched a thousand ships,” then Jezebel’s gaudy visage would likley have sunk each one.

Taken from the titles of Jen Hatmaker’s book Of Mess and Moxie: Wrangling Delight Out of This Wild and Glorious Life and Rachel Hollis’ bestseller Girl, Wash Your Face: Stop Believing the Lies About Who You Are So You Can Become Who You Were Meant to Be. To merely read the titles of these insipid self-help books is to elicit the gag reflex.

“Jezebel,” Nameberry.com.

Alternatively, Jezebel may mean “[the god] Baal exalts” (“Jezebel,” Behind the Name), in which case the interpretation would be the same: Just as Gideon, aka “Jerubbaal” (“contender with Baal” or “let Baal contend”), tore down an altar to Baal (Judges 6:25–32), God will see to it that any proud individual whom Baal supposedly exalts will be toppled over in humiliation like the very idol he or she worships (1 Samuel 5:1–5).

Again, if this claim sounds misogynistic to you, know that it applies equally to men as well as women, for God is no respecter of persons (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 3:28; etc.). Indeed, Christ taught that “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12, emphasis mine), a precept that applies to all people.

For example, contrast King David, who refused to promote himself to the office of king (1 Samuel 24:4–7, 15, 26:7–11, 23, 24), and was therefore promoted by God (Psalm 75:6, 7; 1 Samuel 31; 2 Samuel 2–5), with “King” Adonijah, who “exalted himself, saying, ‘I will be king’” (1 Kings 1:5), only to be humbled before David’s rightful successor, Solomon (1 Kings 1).

Hebrews 10:32–34 makes this context clear.

This argument has been set forth vigorously by Dr. Jordan Peterson, most famously in his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

“The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part II).”

That is, a sense that describes what “is” as opposed to a prescriptive sense that states what “ought” to be.

“How 4 congresswomen came to be called ‘the Squad,’” Anna North, Vox.

Ironically, even Greta recognizes the impropriety of world leaders looking to school-aged children for advice: “This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!” “Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit,” NPR.

Resurrecting the Renaissance Scientist

Garrett P. League — Thu, 02 May 2024 23:37:05 GMT

This article was originally posted on The Consortium academic blog and is reposted here in full with its express permission. For additional online resources “promoting classical education and fostering human flourishing for generations to come,” visit The Consortium of Classical Educators. For online courses offered by Garrett and other educators in the Christian, classical, conservative tradition, visit Kepler Education.

Gerrit Dou, Astronomer by Candlelight, c.1665.

“Stay in your lane”

In modern academia, the winning formula for a successful career seems to go as follows: “Find your niche, dig down deep, and go farther than anyone else.” Received wisdom says it is foolhardy to generalize across multiple fields of study. Perhaps one could get away with such an approach in the past, when humanity waded in the shallow end of the knowledge pool. But in the depths of the information age? Forget it.

Perhaps in no academic area is this more apparent than in the natural sciences. For example, biology alone appears well-nigh impossible to master, with its seemingly endless genomic (DNA code), transcriptomic (RNA transcript code), proteomic (protein code), and other “-omics” data sets growing vaster and more complex by the day.

Because there is far more to know on any given topic in the natural sciences than anyone could productively assimilate over the course of a lifetime, much less a career, the goal of the modern scientist should be to specialize in one subject and stick as closely to this expertise as possible. The idea is that if you play your cards right, and pile up a sufficiently high stack of Science and Nature publications, then perhaps one day you’ll get that coveted promotion and maybe even a phone call from the Nobel Committee— a man can dream, can’t he?

Conversely, those who spread themselves too thin fail to make substantial progress in any field, let alone one. Better to “stay in your lane” and the finish race than to bounce around, step on others’ toes, and gas out prematurely.

Now let’s admit that there is certainly some wisdom in this approach. All of us must restrict our physical and intellectual energies to a limited number of tasks. After all, we can’t all be Elon Musk, and even he has his limits.

However, it has been evident for some time that our modern, compartmentalized approach to academics is not broadening our horizons, but shrinking them. For abundant evidence of this, one need look no further than the conceptual framework surrounding both teaching and research in the modern academic-industrial complex.

Academic echo chambers

Our approach to studying the natural sciences, as well as just about every other field, has led to widespread academic siloing, the modern habit of placing each discipline in its own separate, hermetically-sealed thought container. Consequently, each discipline, and increasingly even subdiscipline, becomes at best a world unto itself, and at worst an isolated wandering star, whizzing past the other disciplines like space ships passing in the night.

Such a conception would have been totally foreign to the classically-trained scholar of the Western tradition, who often had a surgeon’s scalpel in one hand and a sculptor’s chisel in the other, carving both men and men from stone. Today, we smugly dismiss such well-rounded individuals as “jacks of all trades, masters of none,” forgetting that many of them were in fact literal “masters” of their primary trade. In place of the “Renaissance man” we have substituted the modern specialist, the “master of one,” if master of even that. If that sounds hyperbolic, just ask the scores of aspiring scholars, from graduate students to pre-tenure assistant professors, suffering from “imposter syndrome,” that nagging doubt that, in spite of one’s expertise, one is still, at bottom, a fraudulent know-nothing.

Is it just me, or is there something profoundly demoralizing, even dehumanizing, about our modern approach to academics, one which seems to have sacrificed balanced breadth for the depths of despair? Have towering figures like da Vinci, Kepler, and Pascal all gone the way of the dinosaur? Is there hope for humane science at the dawn of artificial intelligence?

I believe the answer is “Yes,” but only if we reject modern reductionist approaches to science and embrace the older vision of science as a liberal art.

Stunted science

The term “scientist” is a relatively recent label, and a rather restrictive one at that. Previously, politically-incorrect terms such as “gentlemen naturalist,” “natural philosopher,” or even the scandalous “natural theologian” were preferred in the Christian West, the birth place of modern science. More than merely reflecting the professional demographics of those times, such titles encompassed the breadth of knowledge those thinkers drew upon to understand the universe and how it ticked.

Modern approaches to scientific inquiry, however, stem overwhelmingly from a naturalistic worldview, which reduces all of existence to the supposed rube-Goldberg-like machinations of molecules in motion. Worse still, the philosophy of “scientism” that stems from this worldview goes even further by claiming that science, and science alone (“sola scientia!”), is the only means by which we can arrive at the truth about any topic.

But this is surely a stunted vision of the sciences, an unnatural view of nature. As important as physical mechanisms may be, scripture and universal human experience indicate that there is more, indeed much more, to the story of the cosmos than this.

Classical Christian educators should lead the way in rejecting the false choice between matter and meaning and instead wholeheartedly embrace both. Indeed, expanding one’s exploration of the creation (i.e., biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) to include, for example, the study of the Creator (i.e., theology), is about as natural and obvious a thing to do as studying da Vinci’s creations alongside the writings and biographies of the man himself. It is only our modern naturalistic bias that lead us to feel otherwise.

True, many “enlightened” thinkers of the past may have opted for “reason over revelation,” but the classically-trained scientist emphatically chooses both.

What could be more enlightening than that?

Liberating the natural sciences

Scientific giants like St. Albertus Magnus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and Gregor Mendel studied the Bible and theology (among many other subjects) as much as, if not far more than, the natural sciences, and their scientific work was all the better for it. As a good friend of mine has written, “A humanities-rich version of science is more beneficial and engaging than a humanities-poor version” because “There is a natural and synergistic traffic of great ideas among the liberal arts, including science.”1

Yes, you read that last quotation correctly: Science is indeed a liberal art! Say it with me a thousand times over. Shout it from the rooftops. Science is a liberal art! As such, scientific studies, when paired with the study of the other liberal arts, expand both the mind and the heart to encompass far more than the myopic methodologies of the nit-picking naturalists. Microscopes are fantastic tools for examining the world below, but their focus is all the more clear when paired with a telescope aimed at the heavens above.

The Renaissance man may be extinct, but he is not beyond the hope of resurrection. C. S. Lewis, a holdover “specimen” of “Old Western men” and self-described medieval “dinosaur,”2 provides us with a glimmer of hope. To paraphrase and repurpose an oft quoted passage from his address “The Weight of Glory,”3 if we refuse to content ourselves with tinkering over small problems in the dimly lit slums of scientism, then perhaps we can find our way back to the expansive shores of the liberal arts tradition, tackling the “big questions” under the starry firmament above, basking in the light of another world.4

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between modern, reductionist approaches to science and classical, holistic approaches. The former envisions science as imprisoned, the latter, as liberated.

Science pedagogy in the West largely neglects the rich heritage of the Western liberal arts tradition that nurtured it in its formative years. To reach intellectual maturity, science must move beyond its adolescent prodigality and humbly return to the vast inheritance it is currently squandering. There are tremendous, untapped possibilities for conducting science in a Classical Christian paradigm. The time is long overdue for us to reject the meager methods of modernity and dive headlong into creation in its fullness.

The wind is at our sails. The sea is beckoning.

As Newton famously said, “To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.” Clearly, Newton conducted his science on “holiday at the sea.”5

Let’s join him there, shall we?

Biology and the “big questions”

To learn more about this approach to the sciences, check out my online course offered through Kepler Education, “Biology: Studying Life in Light of the Logos,” now accepting registrations for the 2024–2025 academic year.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

We are committed to offering our newsletters in their entirety completely free of cost. If you have not yet subscribed, you can support our free newsletters by becoming a subscriber using the button below.

You can also support this ministry by sharing our newsletters with friends or family that may profit from them.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this newsletter.

Resurrecting the Renaissance Scientist

1.79MB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

p. XV, “Preface,” and p. 6, “Introduction,” Hugh G. Gauch, Jr., Scientific Method In Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

“De Descriptione Temporum,” Inaugural Lecture from The Chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature, Cambridge University, 1954.

C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, HarperOne, 2001.

For a thorough academic treatment of these options, see: Hugh Gauch, “Big Reason: Public Discussion of Big Questions,” Evangelical Quarterly. 2023; 94(4): 330–337.

Lewis, The Weight of Glory.

Introducing "Pen & Spear"

Garrett P. League — Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:19:57 GMT

Albrecht Dürer, Knight, Death, and the Devil, 1513.

“Warrior with a spear”

Literature is filled with prophecies that foreshadow the trajectories that characters will take on their lives journeys. As the father of three budding book worms, and an aspiring one myself, I have encountered a number of such prophecies in the fairy tales I have read to my children over recent years.

For example, in Arthurian legend, the wizard Merlin prophecies the rise of king Arthur, urging his father to entrust the child to the care of others to protect the boy from those who would seek his life.1

In C. S. Lewis’ The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, we read of a dryad who sang a prophetic lullaby over a young mouse named Reepicheep:

“Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There in the utter East.”

Though I am a grown man, I blush not to admit that I find these prophecies to be deeply moving and highly significant. True, Paul did put away childish things when he became a man (1 Corinthians 13:11), but surely he was not referring to wizards and talking mice. There are some aspects of childhood that we were not meant to grow out of, but rather into (Ephesians 4:12). Have you not read that “unless you are converted and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3; cf. Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17)?

Everything we encounter in far-off fairy tale worlds has an analog in the world God made, including prophetic utterances (1 Thessalonians 5:20). As “people of the Book,” we Christians should know this better than anyone, for prophecy—like giants (Genesis 6:4; 1 Samuel 17; etc.), angels (Genesis 3:24, 19:1; Exodus 25:17–22; Matthew 28:2, 3; etc.), and dragons (Genesis 1:21; Job 41; Isaiah 51:9; Revelation 12:9; etc.)—is a very real phenomenon, and not merely the stuff of legend.

We often refer to prophecies as “words from the Lord” (e.g., 1 Samuel 3:1) because, though they are spoken through human agents, their ultimate origin is divine. They are “good news from far country” (Proverbs 25:25), messages from a realm the Bible calls “heaven,” the dwelling place of God (Deuteronomy 26:15).

One such word was given to me in childhood by my parents, and it came in the form of my name, “Garrett.” Scripture is of course replete with examples of men and women, both small and great, whose names carried prophetic significance.2 Indeed, this was rather customary for given names in the ancient Near East, as it is to this day in cultures around the world. Names naturally befit the named, speaking to his or her purpose, character, and destiny, and parents of good will have often sought to embed their highest aspirations for their children into their very names.

In my case, the name “Garrett” is a medieval English Christian name (c.12th century A.D) that is derived from ancient Germanic names like Gerhardus and Gerard, which came to England through the Norman invasions.3 Etymologically, these names are comprised of two basic elements: “ger” or “gar,” meaning “spear,” and “hard” or “ard,” meaning “hard,” “brave,” or “strong.”

As a child, my mother made it a point of telling me, more times than I can remember, that my name meant, in her words, “warrior with a spear.”4 Consequently, this meaning, and the image that came to mind with it, was ingrained in me from my youth and formed an important part of my identity. I believe this is exactly what my mother was getting at with her frequent reminders: “You are a warrior with a spear, so take courage, be brave, and act valiantly” (Joshua 1:9; 2 Samuel 10:12).

What a message to instill in a young boy’s heart. Godly mothers, take note.

In retrospect, however, it was not until I was a teenager, and then again in my twenties and thirties, that I began to more fully grasp the deeper meaning behind my name and calling.

Dürer, St. Jerome in His Study, 1514.

Mein Meisterstiche

Of all my high school teachers, by far the one who impacted me the most was my art teacher Anita Hunt, or “Mrs. Hunt” as her students knew her.

Though I was often little more than an average student in most subjects growing up, the one thing I always really excelled at was art. Mrs. Hunt recognized, appreciated, and fostered my artistic abilities more than anyone else I ever studied under. She was an extremely gifted artist and guide and I was her favorite protégé at that time.

One of the greatest gifts Mrs. Hunt gave me during my time with her was an introduction to, and an apprenticeship under, the great Northern Renaissance master Albrecht Dürer of Nuremberg, my personal all-time favorite artist.5 Because I was so taken with his Biblical woodcuts, his still life watercolors, and his stunning oil portraits, Mrs. Hunt tasked me with reproducing them as best I could.

In the course of emulating the man’s works, I discovered that he was something of a kindred artistic spirit, a muse for the sort of art I aspired to create, even if I fell woefully short of attaining it. I feel no shame whatsoever in admitting this obvious fact, for I am convinced to this day that he alone renders the renowned Italian Renaissance masters somewhat overrated. He was that good.

Dürer achieved much of his fame through his widely circulated prints, which were derived from his almost inconceivably intricate engravings, etchings, and woodcuts. Without doubt, they are unparalleled in their craft, being universally recognized as the work of pure genius. Of his many prints, Dürer’s greatest are the Meisterstiche, or “master prints,” which include Knight, Death, and the Devil (1513), St. Jerome in His Study (1514), and the surreal Melencolia I (1514). Of these three, Melencolia is known as Dürer’s summa, or single greatest work.

Much could be said of these fascinating pieces and I would encourage you to look them up and read about them for yourself. For our purposes at present, it is important to note that the Meisterstiche are commonly thought to represent the theological, intellectual, and moral virtues of medieval scholasticism, which Dürer sought to promote through his art.6

The more I studied these works, the more I came to realize that the reason I gravitated to them is because they were an uncanny encapsulation of my life: a stoic “warrior with a spear” in Knight, a lover of scripture, contemplation, and writing in St. Jerome, and a frustrated artist-scientist in Melencolia. Like Dürer’s intimate sketch Mein Agnes (“My Agnes”),7 over time, these works had become Mein Meisterstiche.

While I was conducting research in upstate New York, I had framed copies of the Meisterstiche prints hanging above my home office desk, where I did a great deal of scientific manuscript writing during the COVID-19 pandemic. One day, while I was working at my computer, I looked up at these prints and my eyes landed on the knight in Knight, Death, and the Devil. At that moment, I had the distinct impression that the knight was me, that his lance was my “pen,” and that God would use my writing to fight for Him and defend His honor.

This apparently out-of-the-blue epiphany, with its resonance with my name, artistic bent, and penchant for writing, seemed to me too profound an insight to merely shrug off as coincidence. There was something there, something that I discovered, rather than invented.

Dürer, Melencolia I, 1514.

The Zeal of Phinehas

Several years later I found myself sitting with my parents in their living room during a time of prayer. My father told me that he sensed that God would fill me with zeal for His house (Psalm 69:9; John 2:17), like Phinehas of the Old Testament. Immediately, I understood something of the significance of this word, for I recalled that Phinehas the priest had impaled the audacious Israelite, along with his Midianite consort (Numbers 25:14, 15), with, of all things, a spear. Here is that dramatic episode, in context (Numbers 25:1–15):

“While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take all the chiefs of the people and hang them in the sun before the LORD, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.’ And Moses said to the judges of Israel, ‘Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.’
And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting. When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. Nevertheless, those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.
And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in My jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’”

When I told my father the meaning of my name, and how mom had drilled it into me throughout my childhood, he was stunned—he had never heard her tell me that before.

Then, I told him the story of the Knight, Death, and the Devil and how it reinforced something he had told me years earlier upon reading an article of mine on science and faith, namely, that it was but one of many topics that I would put pen to paper on in the years to come.

And, now, here we are.

It is in moments like the one I just described that a sense of awe floods the soul and one is reminded in the most poignant of ways that God is real and that He knows us by name (Psalm 139:1–6, 16–18; cf. Psalm 8, Isaiah 43:1):

“O LORD, you have searched me and known me!
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay Your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it. […]
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in Your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
How precious to me are Your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with You.”

In sharing these stories with you, the reader, my aim is not at all to convey how “special” I am or how “unique” my calling is, for that would be flat out false. God has written a unique story for each and every believer, and He has poured out His Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17).

The goal of my sharing this personal narrative is to convey not only the genesis of this publication and its name, but to show how their backstory displays, in their own small way, the holiness and glory of God, who in spite of His greatness, invests rich meaning and high purpose into even His most ordinary of saints: “Now we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be from God, and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7).

John the Baptist once said that “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27). Before him, David said that “Everything comes from You [i.e., God], and we have given You only what comes from Your hand” (1 Chronicles 29:14). Truly, He has bestowed His riches on all who believe (Romans 10:11–13; Ephesians 4:8). In turns, He commands us to share what we have received from Him with one another, to serve and build up the body of Christ until He returns (Ephesians 4:1–16; 1 Peter 4:10, 11).

With these letters, I intend to do just that, with the strength that God supplies (1 Peter 4:11).

Pen & Spear

Believer, I give you this humble newsletter, Pen & Spear.

Pen & Spear logo created using Canva Logo Maker.

In it, I offer you my writings on theology, science, education, art, literature, culture, and current events, all informed by the scriptures and my particular gifts and callings as a member of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12).

Like the tip of a spear or the nib of a pen, some of Biblical truths we will explore here will be as pointed and sharp as a double-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), others as smooth and weighty as a polished stone, penetrating and beautiful (1 Samuel 17:40). My prayer is that God would pierce our hearts with truths we uncover here (Acts 2:37) so that the love of the One whose heart was pierced for us by a Roman lance (Isaiah 53:5; John 19:34) would flow into our hearts by faith (Ephesians 3:14-19):

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every familyin heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of His glory He may grant you to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”

Here, I present to you my treasures (Matthew 6:20, 13:52), my pearls (Matthew 13:45, 46), my silver and gold mined thus far in my journey with God and His word (Job 28; Psalm 12:6, 7; Proverbs 3:13,14). They are of course not mine alone, but I have, to some extent, made them my own. Do not trample them underfoot or turn and tear me to pieces (Matthew 7:6). What I share with you is not without its dross (Isaiah 1:25), and even its occasional wood, hay, and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12, 13), but I trust, by God’s grace, that it is not wholly without value. What I lack in the natural, may God make up with His true riches from above (Matthew 6:19–21; Luke 16:11). As Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have I give to you” (Acts 3:6).

Whatever good comes to you through these letters I credit up front to the Spirit of God working through the scriptures (John 6:63; Romans 7:18; James 1:17), and not to my own supposed skill or cleverness (1 Corinthians 1:18–31, 2:1–5).

May the offerings presented here be an instrument for your blessing and a sweet smelling aroma to our God (Genesis 8:21; 2 Corinthians 2:15–17; Philippians 4:18).

Your servant for Christ’s sake,

—Garrett P. League

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing our newsletters with friends or family that may profit from them.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this newsletter.

Introducing "Pen & Spear"

21.6MB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

Clearly, this narrative mirrors the childhood accounts of Moses (Exodus 1–3), Joash (2 Kings 11), and Jesus (Matthew 2) in the Bible.

To mention just one famous example, God renamed “Abram,” which means “exalted father,” Abraham, or “father of a multitude,” signifying that he would one day be “the father of many nations,” just as God had promised him (Genesis 17:5).

“Garrett (name),” Wikipedia.

As it turns out, this is a fairly common understanding of this name’s meaning. For example, see the “Comments (Meaning / History Only)” section for “Garrett” at “Behind the Name.”

For the record, my second favorite artist is the British Romantic poet-painter William Blake, who was far more original, if not nearly as technically skilled.

“Knight, Death, and the Devil,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

In addition to advancing scholasticism, Dürer was a supporter of the Luther’s German Reformation as well as Erasmus’ Christian humanism. Indeed, Dürer’s Knight print was likely based on the ideal “Christian Knight” from Erasmus’ Instructions for the Christian Soldier (1504; ibid):

“In order that you may not be deterred from the path of virtue because it seems rough and dreary […] and because you must constantly fight three unfair enemies—the flesh, the devil, and the world—this third rule shall be proposed to you: all of those spooks and phantoms which come upon you as if you were in the very gorges of Hades must be deemed for naught after the example of Virgil's Aeneas […] Look not behind thee.”

Mein Agnes is a sketch of Dürer’s wife, Agnes Dürer, née Frey.

The Effemi-nation

Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:49:19 GMT

As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series on The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. Chapters I, II, and III of the present eBook, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood, can be found here, here, and here.

John Martin, Sodom and Gomorrah, 1852.

The road to Sodom

When it comes to archeological evidence in support of the Bible we Christians are truly spoiled. Stories once written off as myths are now demanding serious consideration, whether one is inclined to believe them or not.

One striking example of this is the Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–29), a story few modern Americans are eager to substantiate. Although these cities lay shrouded in obscurity for millennia, archeological sites uncovered over the last century show evidence of sudden, fiery destruction followed by utter desolation—and, yes, sulfuric balls of brimstone by the score that can still be ignited to this day.1

These are no idle tales that the Bible contains. These events really happened in real history to real people, and they are recorded for our warning (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17). In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the warning is clear: Do NOT go down this road (Jude 7):

“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

Thus far on our journey exploring effeminacy in the American Church, we have illustrated effeminacy’s core tendency of yielding to sin under pressure using the “fall” accounts of Adam, Samson, and Israel’s first three kings, Saul, David, and Solomon.2 Here, using the Biblical example of Sodom and Gomorrah, we will examine the advanced stages of national judgment that ensue when an entire people group embraces the effeminate ethos.

As we will document below, America is well on its way down the road to Sodom—by the smell of it, somewhere near the stinking tar pits of the valley of Siddim (Genesis 14:10). Our destruction lies but a stone’s throw past the Dead Sea.

And yet, like lingering Lot who waffled and wavered on the eve of judgment (Genesis 19:15–22), American Christians continue to vacillate between the doomed city around them and the salvation that lies beyond its gates (Matthew 24:15–22; Hebrews 11:9, 10, 13–16). We know it’s all going to burn, but like Lot’s wife we cannot bear to part ways with it. We hem and haw when warned of the wrath to come (Matthew 3:7) when we should be gathering our loved ones and getting out of dodge.

In the words of our Lord we must “Remember Lot’s wife!” for “Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it” (Luke 17:32, 33).

We don’t know about you, but we are officially heading for the hills (Genesis 19:17).

Will you come with us?

Whatever you do, don’t look back (Genesis 19:26).

The price of prosperity

In spite of massive inflation and a looming national debt crisis, the fact remains that 21st century Americans have thus far enjoyed the most prosperous economy in the history of mankind. We tend to take this for granted, though it really is a staggering fact if you pause to think about it (which we rarely do).

But for all its benefits, prosperity often comes at a steep price. Indeed, our modern affluence appears to have come in large part at the cost of our collective manhood.

Let’s be honest. In America today, even the hardiest men among us have become relatively soft due to the ease and plenty that mark our everyday existence. “Rugged individualism” has been superseded by a “comfy collectivism.” Gone are the days of the intrepid pioneers forging a lean existence on the wild frontier. The closest we come to “roughing it” nowadays is when we mistakenly pull into a Chick-fil-A on Sunday, forcing us to forage for food at the In-N-Out down the road.

From a Biblical perspective, America’s material prosperity has everything to do with its cultural effeminacy. In fact, the authors of scripture draw a direct line from the former phenomenon to the latter.

The archetypal example of this in the Bible occurs early on in the book of Genesis. There, we find the fateful account of Canaanite sister cities that were infamous for their sinful opulence: Sodom and Gomorrah.

So lush and productive was the land occupied by these towns that it seemed to contemporary observers to rival paradise itself (Genesis 13:10):

“And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD [i.e., the garden of Eden], like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.).”

Most of us are well aware of Sodom and Gomorrah’s exceedingly great wickedness (Genesis 13:13, 18:20), most notoriously for the eponymous sin of “sodomy” (Genesis 19:5; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 1 Timothy 1:9, 10, Jude 7).3 However many overlook the sociological preconditions that Israel’s prophets pointed out as being the major driving forces behind Sodom’s downfall (Ezekiel 16:49):

“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

If “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” as the saying goes, then the road to Sodom is paved with good times.

Ezekiel’s prophetic insight shows us that Sodom’s extreme effeminacy did not emerge overnight from a sterile cultural vacuum, but rather, like an insidious mass of microbes, was gradually incubated in the nutrient-rich petri dish of self-worship (“pride”), second helpings (“excess of food”), soft times (“prosperous ease”), and solipsism4 (“did not aid the poor and needy”). When Lot finally arrived on the scene, the stench of these sins had apparently already reached the high heavens (Genesis 18:20, 21):

“Then the LORD said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to Me. And if not, I will know.’”

Given that the Lord’s angelic reconnaissance team was promptly greeted by the men of Sodom with threats of mass homosexual gang rape, it’s safe to say that the outcry against them was no overstatement (Genesis 19:4, 5). They really were that far gone.

It’s worth noting, however, that some Biblical interpreters of a decidedly neo-Marxist bent claim that Sodom’s real sin had less to do with its sexual depravity than with its capitalist abuses. This is why Ezekiel mentions Sodom’s economic excesses and neglect of the poor (Ezekiel 16:49), but fails to bring up their “mostly peaceful” sexual protests.

Please.

Such feigned ignorance serves only to demonstrate just how far we sinners are willing to go in our suppression of nature and nature’s God (Romans 1:18–32).

Given that the entire passage from which this verse originates (i.e., Ezekiel 16) likens Jerusalem’s infidelities to God to the sexual sins of her “sisters” Samaria and Sodom,5 it is a desperate move indeed to seek cover in the fact that, technically speaking, Ezekiel did not explicitly single out Sodom’s homosexual sins by name, only by inference. Ezekiel may not have felt the need to spell out this point because, well, he didn’t have to: As noted above, the Sodomites were quite literally synonymous with sodomy.

In light of this context, it would seem that only a bad-faith interpreter with a major axe to grind would read anything even remotely “affirming” into Ezekiel’s pronouncements.6

No, Sodom’s disreputable sexual proclivities were well known. Ezekiel’s prophecies do not negate them, but instead reveal that they were subsidized by a booming economy.

But how exactly does “prosperous ease” lead to moral decadence, and what has this trajectory looked like in the United States?

Let’s tackle these questions one at a time.

At ease in Zion

First, let’s parse out the connection between prosperity and moral decline. This will require some patience as we lay out the steps, but we trust in the end that it will be worth the effort.

According to scripture, righteousness is most often forged in the fiery furnace of adversity: “It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes” (Psalm 119:71). Amazingly, this was even the case for the perfect man, Christ Jesus: “Although He was a son, He learned obedience through what He suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).7

Here’s how that works, in general: When things aren’t going our way and we encounter obstacles, setbacks, or hardships, the pressures that such circumstances exert on our character tend to expose its underlying weaknesses. Whereas most of the time, when conditions are generally agreeable, we can skate on by without having to address our shortcomings, when life’s difficulties come bearing down upon us, we are forced to either own and overcome our issues, or else check out and collapse under their weight.

So hard times, while challenging, present us with golden opportunities to face our flaws and, with God’s help, deal with them.

However, if we’re being perfectly honest, given the choice between either confronting our deficiencies through trying circumstances—a messy and uncomfortable business at best—or pretending that all is well while things are going well, we will almost always opt for the latter. Our flesh settles all too readily for the easy road of self-sufficiency and the status quo. “Surely I am godly enough as is Lord. No need for any additional sanctifying inconveniences. It’s all just too draining.”

We want the spiritual gain without the spiritual pain, but in God’s wisdom, that’s just not how it works: “For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:11).

Ironically, those who avoid the unpleasant discipline of enduring hardship for righteousness’ sake (Matthew 5:10) forfeit its eternally pleasant benefits: “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all” (2 Corinthians 4:17). When an entire culture adopts this mindset en masse, look out: What you will find, in short order, is an effeminate people altogether untrained in righteousness.

This is a big problem, for the Bible makes it abundantly clear that righteousness gives men, and the nations they comprise, the boldness to stand their ground, no matter the opposition (Proverbs 28:1; cf. Leviticus 26:17, 36): “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” When we are in right standing with God and are walking in obedience to His commands (Matthew 28:20), we feel, and in some sense truly are, invincible (Psalm 18; John 11:25, 26; Romans 8:31)—when we are are walking contrary to His precepts, not so much.

Spiritually and psychologically speaking, this is because a guilty conscience robs us of the confidence that God is unreservedly on our side (Psalm 118:6; 1 John 3:18–24), because, frankly, how can He be when we are giving ourselves over to sin (Romans 6:13)? After all, God’s “eyes are too pure to look upon evil” and He “cannot tolerate wrongdoing” (Habakkuk 1:13).

Furthermore, sin, by definition, involves siding with Satan, “the adversary,” himself, placing us squarely in opposition to God and His purposes (2 Chronicles 15:2, emphasis mine; cf. James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5): “The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you, but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.”

“But wait a minute,” you might say, “I thought that God was always 100% for me, like an all-affirming heavenly life coach?” Think again (2 Timothy 2:11–13, emphasis mine):

“The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful—for He cannot deny Himself.”8

I’ll bet you’ve never heard a sermon preached on this topic before. Christians simply don’t talk this way anymore—Jesus did (Matthew 10:33; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26, 12:9), our Biblically-literate forbears sure did, but not us.

Those who give themselves over to sin, to whatever extent they do so, are thereby given over by God to said sin to be weakened and effeminized by it (Romans 1:18–32). There are no exceptions to this rule. Becoming a Christian does not mean that one may now sin with impunity—far from it (Hebrews 10:26, 27):

“For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.”

Try marching bravely into battle with that expectation hanging over your head. Not gonna happen.

We all know this intuitively, as well as from experience. It explains why our first parents Adam and Eve instinctively hid from God after they sinned in the garden (Genesis 3:7, 8). They knew that they were vulnerable and were afraid of what they had coming.

Sin always leads to estrangement from God almighty (Isaiah 59:2), the source of our strength (Psalm 46:1). When we lack the assurance of God’s full backing—or, worse, when we are sure that He has backed away from us entirely (Judges 16:20; 1 Samuel 16:14; 2 Chronicles 15:2; Psalm 51:11; Hebrews 6:4–6)—our hearts fail us, our hands loose their firmness, and our spines lose their steel. If left unchecked, sin is capable of reducing once proud soldiers in God’s army to incapacitated women, groaning belly up on the battlefield, lost in the throes of labor (Isaiah 13:7, 8a; cf. Jeremiah 51:30):

“Because of this [i.e., God’s judgment], all hands will go limp, every heart will melt with fear. Terror will seize them, pain and anguish will grip them; they will writhe like a woman in labor.”

When we give ourselves over to sin, God not only gives us over to our enemies, but to thoroughly humiliate us into repentance, He often makes it a point of giving us over to particularly unimposing enemies. When just one man, Achan, disobeyed God’s instructions, the entire nation suffered defeat at the hands of the unassuming little town of Ai, and that on the heels of a decisive, supernaturally-empowered drubbing of the fortified city of Jericho, a victory that was enabled by Israel’s obedience to God’s battle plan (Joshua 6, 7).

No matter how harmless or few in number our adversaries may be, when God’s people drop the ball and begin backsliding, the tail inevitably wags the dog and our feeble foes eat us for lunch. As always, God warned Israel—and by extension us—of this very thing at the outset through Moses (Leviticus 26:3, 7, 8, 14, 16b, 17):

“If you walk in My statutes and observe My commandments and do them, […] You shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall chase ten thousand, and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
But if you will not listen to Me and will not do all these commandments […] you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursues you.”

And, as if that were not enough, He warned them again, and in similarly excruciating detail (Deuteronomy 28:1, 7, 15, 25; cf. Deuteronomy 32:30):

“[…] if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. […] The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.
But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all His commandments and His statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. […] The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You will march out against them in one direction but flee from them in seven. You will be an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.”

Now where else have we recently witnessed a series of tiny, fringe minority groups running roughshod over a complicit, compromised majority?9

There is no denying it: America has devolved into a full-blown effemi-nation. Affluent and apathetic, we in the so-called “moral majority” appear almost completely incapable of standing up to the godless, manipulative crybullies that seemingly push us around at will. God warned us of this. We have only ourselves to blame.

In contrast to the effeminate pushover, the Bible says that the righteous shall never be moved (Psalm 112:1, 2, 5–8, emphasis mine):

“Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in His commandments! His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed. […] It is well with the man who deals generously and lends; who conducts his affairs with justice. For the righteous will never be moved; he will be remembered forever. He is not afraid of bad news; his heart is firm, trusting in the Lord. His heart is steady; he will not be afraid, until he looks in triumph on his adversaries.”

The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable: Ruined by material prosperity and an apparent lack of need for God, the vast majority of American Christians have become untutored and unskilled in righteousness, absorbing with little qualm the detestable practices of the world around us and thereby inviting the judgment of God—the gradual giving over of both ourselves and our children to our small, but disproportionately effective enemies.

There is no denying this. You know it and I know it.

Is it any wonder then that the prophet Amos pronounced a curse on an effemi-nation such as ours on the eve of her destruction? Amos 6:1:

“Woe to those who are at ease in Zion [i.e., Jerusalem], and to those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria, the notable men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes!”10

Sadly, as bad as Sodom was, Israel eventually became even worse (Ezekiel 16:46–48, emphasis mine; cf. Lamentations 4:6):

“And your [i.e., Jerusalem’s] elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.”

And friends, we hate to inform you of this, but it’s simply the truth: America makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like Candy Land. We have far exceeded her perversity, bloodshed, self-absorption, and hubris. America is Sodom on steroids. As Ruth Graham once remarked to her husband, the famed evangelist Billy Graham, “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”11

We see then that Sodom was not unique, a one-off abomination that stands alone in history, but rather a pattern for each and every nation that allows its effeminacy to completely have its way with it, dragging both it and its surrounding peoples straight into hell (Genesis 13:11,12, 19:28,29; Revelation 20:10, 14, 15). Indeed, Jesus taught this very thing with respect to the towns that rejected His disciples to their face, a far graver offense than Sodom ever committed (Matthew 10:14, 15):

“And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.”

This much is clear: Whatever we once were as a nation, we are no longer. The once burning lamp in the “shining city on a hill” has been all but snuffed out (Revelation 2:5).

If God judged the chosen nation Israel for her unfaithfulness by destroying her at the hands of her supposed lovers (Ezekiel 16:35–43), will we new covenant believers, living in our so-called “Christian nation,” escape with a lighter sentence?

God does not play favorites (Acts 10:34). If He judged His people Israel of old, then He will surely judge us, His ingrafted people, today (Romans 11:21, 22; cf. John 15:2, 6, 1 Peter 4:17, 18):

“For if God did not spare the natural branches [i.e., unbelieving Jews], neither will he spare you [gentile believers]. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Wake up Christian!!! God means business!

Sodom’s story is already written and in the books, but ours has yet to play out. Believe it or not, there is still hope for us and our country. If we as God’s people repent today, while it is still called “today” (Hebrews 3:7–15), then Israel’s downfall does not have to repeat itself in America.

Our current national experiment has been run a thousand times before. We don’t need to run it again. We know how it ends: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). Indeed, every nation, great or small, from the foundation of the world until now, that has stubbornly persisted in its rebellion against God has forfeited His blessing and incurred His just punishment (Jeremiah 5:25–29, emphasis mine):

“Your iniquities have turned these [blessings] away, and your sins have kept good from you. For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich; they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?”

Friends, that is us! Shall He not punish us?

Instead of fulfilling our calling to be a “holy nation” within any nation in which we are find ourselves (1 Peter 2:9), we in the Church have adopted—sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly—each and every one of the ungodly practices of the “pagan nations” around us (Leviticus 18:1–5, 24–30). Yes, that’s right, each and every one. Name the sin and we’ll show you its “Christian” counterpart (see the list below for examples).12

We used to say that “America is great because she is good.” Now it seems that she is effeminate because she is evil.

The Church must own its leading role in this, or we have little hope of either personal or national revival.

Life, liberty, and effeminacy

The relevance of Sodom’s and Israel’s declines to America’s current descent into the sexual abyss must not be missed. Our historic excesses of leisure, goods, time, and money have enabled our first-world sexual sins to flourish, sins that our salt-of-the-earth forebears simply did not have the luxury to indulge.

Strangers to true adversity and often bored out of our minds, we sensory overloaded Americans are resorting to increasingly perverse and outlandish pleasures in a vain attempt to stimulate our saturated synapses.

How else do you explain the recent outing of a red state mayor, and Baptist pastor, who gave himself over to shameful transvestite fetishes while insisting on his “freedom” to do so? “What I do in private life has nothing to do with what I do in my holy life.”13 Indeed, and that was the problem.

Mirroring previous societies, our once vibrant, virile young nation, led by the likes of the “bull moose” Teddy Roosevelt, has in so short a span decayed into the decadent dotage of the deviant “Biden crime family,” an emblem of our national decline. But don’t think for a second that the opposition party gets off the hook, run as it is by courageous men like Marjorie Taylor Greene and powerful women like Lindsey Graham. The strenuous life of civic and religious virtue advocated by the men who built this country has been replaced with the easy life of the effeminate grifters who are tearing it all down.

With the land and its natives largely subdued, and with peace and prosperity abounding, the scrappy, God-fearing pilgrims and patriots who built this country have disappeared, leaving the hard-earned fruits of their labors to their undisciplined, unrestrained trust-fund babies. We are giving our inheritance away hand over fist, faster than the spinning digits of the national debt clock.

And, most egregiously of all, the Church has not only gone along for this ride, it has paved the way for the United States of Effeminacy from the get go.

Don’t believe us? You don’t have to. The facts speak for themselves:

At the turn of the 20th century, America was in the midst of a massive transition from a primarily rural, agrarian economy to a primarily urban, industrial economy, a period typically referred to as the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the hard life of the subsistence farmer, who depended directly on God for his every need, was gradually replaced by the comfortable, inter-dependent, suburban middle class mentality that most of us are familiar with today.14 Now, with much of our manual labor either obsolete or farmed out overseas,15 the jobs that used to engage one’s entire person—body, soul, and spirit—have gradually disappeared, with the few that remain experiencing shortages of willing and able workers.16 As a result, America is presently experiencing both a leisure surplus and a labor shortage.
The first issue of Playboy magazine was published on December 1, 1953. A decade later, the Motion Picture Production Code, or “Hays Code” (1934–1968),17 which prohibited lewd or otherwise inappropriate film content during Hollywood’s golden age (1927–1960), was gradually abandoned, paving the way for widespread social acceptance of cinematic voyeurism, vulgarity, and violence. Then, beginning in the 1990s when access to the world wide web became common in America, and especially upon release of the iPhone (2007) and Android-based smart phones (2008), pornographic materials became more or less instantly accessible to virtually all Americans. Thanks to these three landmark developments, pornography is not only a fixture of modern, mainstream American culture, but an endemic plague on the American Church, with nearly 70% of American men who attend church, as well as 50% of pastors, regularly viewing pornographic materials on the internet.18 And it’s no wonder: The United States stands head and shoulders above all other nations as the most prolific producer of porn worldwide (25%), with the United Kingdom coming in at a distant second (6%).19
The sexual revolution and women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s ushered in the age of the birth control pill (1960),20 Roe v. Wade (ruled 1973, overruled, 2022),21 Planned Parenthood (1916, flourished after Roe decision),22 and mass infanticide, including in excess of 60 million abortions in a roughly five decade span.23 In spite of this, as well as the advent of advanced ultrasound technology that unequivocally established the humanity of the unborn, most professing American Christians today are still in favor of legal abortion.24
The sexual revolution has also led to mass male sterilization, with over half a million men, many of whom are professing Christians,25 electing to undergo vasectomies each year in the U.S.26 In the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade, for example, many male feminists publicly vowed to immediately obtain vasectomies,27 with subsequent data confirming these anecdotes as a significant medical trend.28
The percentage of Americans who describe themselves as LGBT has risen over each of the preceding five generations, with numbers skyrocketing over recent decades: While on average less than 3% of the Silent Generation (1945 and earlier), Baby boomers (1946–1964), and Gen X (1965–1980) identified as such, over 10% of Millennials (1981–1996) and a whopping 20% of Gen Z (1997–2004) claim membership in one of these categories.29
In spite of, or perhaps in part because of, our record-setting economic growth,30 America is less religious than ever before. For example, around 1900, about two-thirds of Americans identified as Protestants, under a third as Catholics, and almost none as non-religious.31 Now, self-identifying Christians make up only 63% of Americans combined, while a full 29% identify as “nones,” that is, those who identify with no organized religion whatsoever.32
Lacking the resilience of, say, the “Greatest Generation” (1901–1924), which endured two world wars and the Great Depression, recent generations of Americans have embraced “snowflake,” “safe space,” and “cancel” cultures as a means of coping with increasing levels of psychological fragility, intellectual immaturity, and spiritual superficiality. As evidence of this, the use of antidepressants has increased exponentially in recent decades,33 with roughly a quarter of Americans today receiving professional mental health services annually, nearly double the rate from twenty years ago.34

We plan to expand on these historical developments in our ongoing series The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. For now, if one were to simply follow the bouncing ball, one can see in America the exact sort of pattern scripture would lead one to predict for a culture that is long on prosperity and short on character: First the men go soft, lost in their wanton sensuality (Romans 1:18–27), then women and children rise up to fill the leadership vacuum (Isaiah 3:12), traditional sexual mores go out the window (Romans 1:28–32), the vulnerable suffer violently (Leviticus 18:21 and immediate context), and the godless go from bad to worse with no one man enough, or godly enough, to stop them (Deuteronomy 28:30–35; Psalm 11:3; 2 Timothy 3:13).

And yet for all this, when the Church needs bold, God-fearing men more than ever, Christians for the most part have little to no tolerance for so-called “toxic masculinity” (read: “traditional masculinity”). “Strong men of God? Who needs them? Uncompromising prophets? Pass. Too difficult to manage. We’ve got plenty perfectly compliant prophets of Baal to do our bidding, thank you very much.”

Our tone-deaf lack of self-awareness is almost gold medal worthy.

Nevertheless, with the majority of us still living relatively high on the hog, American Christianity can afford to limp on, as it were. At least for the time being, we can go on dismissing the austere “fire and brimstone” values of yesteryear. You know, the values that formed our nation’s founders, stirred great awakenings, built our most enduring institutions, and provided our citizens with both moral and legal “checks and balances” to restrain our inherent evil—those values. Who needs ‘em, right?

In our arrogant sense of entitlement, we modern American Christians have forgotten who we are, where we came from, and the God we once depended upon for our daily bread (Matthew 6:11). Like Israel before us, we too have entered a “promised land,” only to forget the One who promised it to us in the first place (Deuteronomy 8:11–14):

“Take care lest you forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments and His rules and His statutes, which I command you today, lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, then your heart be lifted up [in pride], and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

There’s something about the prosperous times that makes us forget the lean days when we truly hungered for God (Matthew 5:6, 6:33). When we have things a little too good, we become spiritually fat and sassy, stifling our appetite for God: “Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny You and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ […]” (Proverbs 30:8b, 9a).

May God reveal to us our effeminacy and true spiritual poverty (Matthew 5:3) so that we can once again find our power and riches in Him.

“You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.”

—Revelation 3:17, 18

Ladies and gentlemen

Up to this point in this series we have focused primarily on the impact of effeminacy on men, both individually and collectively. But if “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18), then neither would any treatment of effeminacy be complete without addressing the role of women in this phenomenon. In the next installment, we will place the sexes side by side to compare and contrast their relative contributions to the softening of American Christianity. Although the responsibility may rest primarily on the shoulders of gentlemen, we will see that there is still plenty of blame to go around for the ladies. We all have a part in this predicament, and we can all do something to get ourselves out of it. Don’t miss what’s coming next on the League of Believers.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part IV)

154KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

“Sulfur Balls of Sodom and Gomorrah,” Joel Kramer, Expedition Bible.

Traditionally, Sodom and Gomorrah have been placed southeast of the Dead Sea (Genesis 10:19, 14:1–12) at Bab edh-Dhra and Numayra, respectively, sites that have remained uninhabited to the present (Jeremiah 50:40; Matthew 11:23).

More recently, American archeologist Dr. Steven Collins, citing Biblical descriptions of the “cities of the plain” (Genesis 13:12, 19:29), claims to have located Sodom northeast of the Dead Sea at Tall al-Hammam. However, this claim appears to suffer from numerous Biblical, archeological, and scientific shortcomings.

For evidence in support of the southeast location, see:

“The Search for Biblical Sodom” and “Sodom’s Big Bang: Caused by Meteor or Earthquake?” Deborah Hurn, Patterns of Evidence.
“Sodom burned—Zoar did NOT: The full story of the discovery of the Cities of the Plain!” Joel Kramer, Expedition Bible.

For evidence in support of the northeast location, see:

Bunch, T.E., LeCompte, M.A., Adedeji, A.V. et al. A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea. Sci Rep. 2021; 11, 18632.
“Discovering the Lost City of Sodom (w/Dr. Steve Collins).” Sean McDowell, Sean McDowell Show.

For evidence against the northeast location, see:

Jaret, S.J., Scott Harris, R. No mineralogic or geochemical evidence of impact at Tall el-Hammam, a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea. Sci Rep. 2022; 12, 5189.
Turpin, Simon. “Biblical Problems with Identifying Tall el-Hammam as Sodom.” Ans. Res. J. 2021; 14: 45–61.

“The (Ef)feminization of the Church” parts I, II, and III.

Today, the word “sodomy” has been largely replaced by rather clinical term “homosexuality.” While accurate in a purely technical sense, referring to such shameful, unnatural acts (Romans 1:26, 27) as “homosexual” is like referring to a murderous act as merely “life-depriving.” Obviously, but where’s the moral sting in that? Without a proper cultural and linguistic stigma, “sins” transform into mere “symptoms.”

Formally, solipsism refers to a philosophy that maintains that one can only be certain of one’s own existence while the existence of others is either suspect, unknowable, or merely a projection of one’s own mind. Informally, solipsism refers to extreme self-centeredness and disregard for the needs of others. Obviously, the latter definition is intended here.

For example, Jerusalem us accused of adultery (Ezekiel 16:38), prostitution (verses 15–17, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33–35, 41), promiscuity (verses 25, 26, 29, 36), lewdness (verses 27, 43, 58), and other “detestable” practices (verses 2, 22, 36, 43, 47, 50, 51, 58) that were commonplace in Samaria (verses 46, 51, 53, 55) and Sodom (verses 46, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56).

Not to mention the fact that such reasoning is clearly an “argument from silence,” since it rests on an inference from what the text does not say, rather than what it does say. While such arguments are not necessarily false, they often are. Regardless, arguments from silence are conjectural by their very nature and are typically considered fallacious.

Although in Christ’s case, His maturation (Luke 2:52) and testings (Hebrews 5:7) were not marred by sin (Hebrews 4:15): “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

Notice also from this quotation, as well as the others cited along this vein, that this sentiment is found in essentially identical form in both the Old and New Testaments, so it will do no good to try and hide behind a supposed “new covenant” dodge. Truly, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Yes, God’s redemptive plan unfolds in time (Hebrews 1:1, 2, etc.), but God’s character never changes.

Again, for those who might brush these warnings aside as applying only to Israel and to no other nation or people, keep in mind that God repeatedly tells His people that if they sin and defile the land as Canaanites did before them, then they too will be vomited out of the land just as the Canaanites were (e.g., Leviticus 18:28). Clearly, God judges not only Israel, His uniquely redeemed covenant people (Exodus 19:4–6), but also all the nations of the earth (Psalm 2:8, 9, 110:6; Isaiah 2:4, 66: 1–5,16–24; Joel 3:12; Micah 4:3; etc.), who likewise owe their allegiance to God as their Creator and Sustainer (Acts 17:24–31). God’s special covenant people do not receive special treatment in this respect—indeed, if anything, they, along with their spouses and children (1 Corinthians 7:14), are even more accountable to God than their pagan neighbors by virtue of their having entered into a unique covenant relationship with Him, whether through descent from Abraham, personal faith in Christ, or a combination of both (Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 11:13–17; Acts 2:39; Galatians 3:28; etc.).

Tellingly, the New Living Translation renders Amos 6:1 (emphasis mine): “What sorrow awaits you who lounge in luxury in Jerusalem, and you who feel secure in Samaria! You are famous and popular in Israel, and people go to you for help.”

“My Heart Aches for America,” by Billy Graham.

See also our list in The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity.

Tragically, shortly after saying this, this same man took his own life. See “Alabama Mayor And Pastor Died By Suicide After His Social Media Accounts Are Exposed” by Paige Skinner of HuffPost.

This is by no means to say that this transition was either easy or universally negative, only that it paved the way for widespread ease and its many profound downstream consequences.

“The Unintended Consequences of Outsourcing,” Adam Hayes, Investopedia.

“Understanding America’s Labor Shortage,” Stephanie Ferguson, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Hays Code can be found in its entirety here. It is worth reading in full, as these standards stand in stark contrast to content that we now take for granted in most films, even those geared toward families and children.

“Hope in the Midst of Porn Addiction,” Landon Tucker, Lifeway Voices; “Porn in the Digital Age: New Research Reveals 10 Trends,” Barna Group.

“15 countries that supply maximum pornography online: How much does India contribute?” Chaitra Anand, Yahoo Finance. WARNING: This link contains risqué, but apparently non-pornographic content (though this was not thoroughly verified).

Kao, A. History of Oral Contraception. Virtual Mentor, AMA J Ethics. 2000; 2(6): 55–56.

It should be noted that the birth control pill was the “brainchild” of Planned Parenthood’s found, Margaret Sanger (“The Birth Control Pill: A History,” Planned Parenthood).

“Roe v. Wade.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18 (Accessed 15 Mar. 2024); "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392. (Accessed 15 Mar. 2024).

“Our History,” Planned Parenthood.

“Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” National Right to Life.

For example, “only 45 percent of all Christians think abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances” and “The majority of white mainline Protestants (59 percent), Black Protestants (56 percent) and white Roman Catholics (52 percent) support legal access to abortion in all or most cases” (“Religious women have abortions, too,” Zahra Ayubi, Rebecca Todd Peters, and Michal Raucher, NBC News, Think: Opinion, Analysis, Essays).

For example, Sharma et al. found that “Approximately 9.8% of Protestants had a vasectomy compared with 4.5% of Catholics […].”

Sharma, V., Le, B.V., Sheth, K.R., et al. Vasectomy demographics and postvasectomy desire for future children: results from a contemporary national survey. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(7): 1880–1885.

Health Library, Treatments and Procedures entry for “Vasectomy,” the Cleveland Clinic.

“Men rush to get vasectomies after Roe ruling,” Meena Venkataramanan, The Washington Post.

Bole, R. et al. Rising vasectomy volume following reversal of federal protections for abortion rights in the United States. Int J Impot Res. 2023; 1–4.

“U.S. LGBT Identification Steady at 7.2%,” Jeffery Jones, Gallup.

“Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2019,” Congressional Budget Office.

“What Did American Religion Look Like Before Modern Surveys Began?” Ryan Burge, Graphs about Religion.

“How U.S. religious composition has changed in recent decades,” Pew Research Center.

“Antidepressant Use in Persons Aged 12 and Over: United States, 2005–2008” and “Antidepressant Use Among Adults: United States, 2015-2018,” CDC National Center for Health Statistics; “Astounding increase in antidepressant use by Americans,” Peter Wehrwein, Harvard Health.

“Americans' Reported Mental Health at New Low; More Seek Help,” Megan Brenan, Gallup.

Kings of Compromise

Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:00:59 GMT

As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series on The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. Chapters I and II of the present eBook, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood, can be found here and here.

Lucas Cranach the Elder, David and Bathsheba, 1526.

We three kings

In the first installment in this series we demonstrated effeminacy’s leading role in permitting sin into the world through male passivity, as typified by Adam’s sin in the garden. In the second installment, we examined effeminacy’s core calling card, namely, yielding to sin in moments of great testing, using Samson’s life as our template.

From these examples, we have concluded that 1) effeminacy, and not feminism, is a primary cause1 of sin’s entry into the modern American Church because 2) effeminate male leaders have been accommodating evil practices under external and internal pressures to do so, rather than standing uncompromisingly against them. We will expand on these conclusions as they pertain to the American Church both here and especially in the coming entries in this series.

For now, we will reinforce these themes by surveying the role of effeminacy in defining moments in the lives of Israel’s first three kings: Saul, David, and Solomon. Through their faltering examples, we will see how an effeminate lack of resolve to resist evil and pursue the good led to untold ruin, not only in their own lives, but in the lives of all God’s people. As the scriptures say, “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered” (Zechariah 13:7; Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27).

But before we begin, we wanted to include a brief note on our approach to understanding effeminacy and its impact on the Church.

Some of you might be wondering why we have chosen to analyze Old Testament figures in an attempt to understand a trend among Christians living millennia after these individuals. It is our conviction that one of the primary purposes of the Old Testament accounts is to guide believers in all ages into the true knowledge of God so that we can rightly relate to Him as His people (1 Corinthians 10:11):

“These things [i.e., the exodus and wilderness wanderings] happened to them [i.e., Israel] as examples and were written down as warnings for us [i.e., Christians], on whom the culmination of the ages has come.”

Based on this principle, studying the lives of Adam, Samson, and Israel’s kings can help Christians better understand both themselves and God. Armed with this knowledge, Christians can serve the Lord in a manner that is most pleasing to Him, receiving the fullness of the blessings He intends for the righteous (Psalm 1; 2 Corinthians 5:9; Colossians 1:9, 10).

We will focus more intently on the Church and the example of her Savior in the newsletters that follow. But since the New Testament is chock-full of admonitions drawn directly from the events and personages of the Old Testament, we trust that following the same pattern here will yield fresh insight into the life of the Church in our day.

The Lord knows how badly we need it.

How the mighty have fallen

The period of Israel’s kings came on the heels of the judges period and lasted the roughly five centuries starting from Saul’s reign (c.1050 B.C.) to the end of king Zedekiah’s reign at the time of the Babylonian captivity (586/7 B.C.). During this period, at least in the southern kingdom of Judah,2 the pattern we observe is one of alternating good kings and bad kings, with the latter outnumbering the former at a greater than two to one ratio. This state of affairs persisted until a point of no return was reached under king Manasseh’s reign of terror (2 Kings 23:26, 24:4), at which point national judgment by military conquest and exile became inevitable.

King Saul kicked off Israel’s monarchy on a decidedly tragic note, foreshadowing the trajectory of the entire period. Like Samson before him, Saul was as impressive a physical specimen as one could find in Israel at the time (1 Samuel 9:2):

“And he [i.e., Kish] had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people.”

He checked all the external, fleshly boxes that the people craved for in a potential king (1 Samuel 8:4, 5): young, tall, dark, and handsome, a truly imposing figure to trot out before the troops as they approached enemy lines.

It would take many volumes to psychoanalyze Saul’s morbidly fascinating fall from start to finish, but that is not our intention here. Instead, we will focus on the effeminate tendencies at play in two pivotal episodes from his life that together led to his forfeiture of the kingdom.

The first episode involves Saul’s failure to follow simple instructions from the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 10:8):

“Go down ahead of me to Gilgal. I will surely come down to you to sacrifice burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, but you must wait seven days until I come to you and tell you what you are to do.”

Sounds easy enough, right? How about following these orders in the face of an encroaching sea of enemy soldiers (1 Samuel 13:5), a growing stream of defectors (1 Samuel 13:6–8), and an almost intolerable delay of schedule (1 Samuel 13:8)? Not so easy anymore, is it? 1 Samuel 13:8–14:

“He [i.e., Saul] waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. So Saul said, ‘Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.’ And he offered the burnt offering. As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. Samuel said, ‘What have you done?’ And Saul said, ‘When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the LORD.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.’ And Samuel said to Saul, ‘You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the LORD your God, with which He commanded you. For then the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after His own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you.’”

The simple truth is Saul broke, losing his nerve to hold out in obedience to God’s commands. When push came to shove, he took matters into his own hands, even when doing so meant disobeying God’s clear directives. This is the prototypical effeminate move: go along with the Lord’s will until doing so proves too difficult or uncomfortable; then, chicken out and sin.

Later, Saul would again disobey God’s instructions to completely destroy every Amalekite man, woman, child, and animal as vengeance for their opposition to the Israelites during their journey to the promised land (1 Samuel 15:2; Exodus 17:8). 1 Samuel 15:9:

“But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.”

What could possibly have possessed Saul to jeopardize his royal dynasty for such meager compensation (1 Samuel 15:28)? Apparently, nothing more than a little peer pressure (1 Samuel 15:24, emphasis mine): “Saul said to Samuel, ‘I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.’” Saul was trapped by the snare that is the fear of man (Proverbs 29:25), for he cared more about what man thought of him than what God thought of him (John 12:42, 43). Thus, when God’s commandment squared off against man’s suggestion, Saul sided with the latter, lacking the courage to stand up to popular opinion.

Instead of leading his people into steadfast obedience to the Lord’s commands, Saul’s flagrant disregard for God’s will amounted to nothing short of open rebellion (1 Samuel 15:23). According to Samuel, in despising the word of the Lord (1 Samuel 15:26), Saul might as well have led the people in a national séance3 or flagrant idolatry, which equate to the very same thing in God’s eyes (1 Samuel 15:22, 23).

For these presumptuous capitulations, the Lord tore the kingdom away from Saul and gave it to a better man (1 Samuel 15:28, 24:17). The man who succumbs is no match for the man who overcomes.

And yet the loss of God’s kingdom paled in comparison to Saul’s greatest loss of all: God Himself (1 Samuel 16:14): “Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the LORD tormented him.” Whereas the Spirit formerly rushed upon this once promising new leader (1 Samuel 10:6, 10, 11:6), now, He rushed upon the great-hearted David, Saul’s soon-to-be successor to the throne (1 Samuel 16:13). Saul had rejected God repeatedly, and now God had rejected Saul completely.

Bereft of all hope, Saul died an ignoble death by suicide, powerless and overwhelmed by his enemies (1 Samuel 31:3, 4). As David lamented “O, how the mighty have fallen in the midst of the battle!” (2 Samuel 1:25).

Thus were the life and times of the once mighty Saul of Gibeah, a man called, empowered, and victorious (1 Samuel 9–11), irresolute, disobedient, and powerless (1 Samuel 13, 15, 17), and, in the end, godless (1 Samuel 16).

This is how the mighty have fallen.

Unless we take heed and repent of our own effeminate weaknesses, we will all likewise perish (Luke 13:3; 1 Corinthians 10:12).

When kings go out to battle

In contrast to Saul, king David was a man of tremendous spiritual depth and moral restraint. He was tested as few others have been and, for the most part, shined.

Imagine having not one, but two golden opportunities to save your very life from unjust persecution, and yet refusing to step out of God’s will to do so (1 Samuel 24, 26). And that, after years of almost unrelenting anxiety and sleepless nights have taken their toll on your resolve. Now that takes some manly fortitude, to put it mildly.

Without question, David’s chest swelled with a red-blooded devotion to God (1 Samuel 13:14, 16:7). Let no one say otherwise.

Even so, when the kingdom was finally in hand (2 Samuel 5), the covenant confirmed (2 Samuel 6, 7), and the victories piled up beyond reckoning (2 Samuel 8, 10), David faced perhaps his greatest test of all: staying vigilant and battle ready when he was no longer needed on the front lines (2 Samuel 11:1):

“In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem.”

Although it may seem rather innocuous, that is the setting for the single most consequential failure of David’s life. Not the wilderness of testing and persecution, not the raging battlefields of the enemy, but the comfortable furnishings of the king’s quarters (2 Samuel 11:2):

“It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful.”

Just a lazy late afternoon at home, bored and lonely on the couch, surveying the world around him for something stimulating to occupy his attention—what could possibly go wrong?

In retrospect, David was far safer in the cave of Adullam (1 Samuel 22:1–5) than he was in his own personal man cave. That this catches us off guard almost every time is precisely why these circumstances serve as such an vulnerable point of attack (2 Samuel 11:3–5):

“And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, ‘Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?’ So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness.) Then she returned to her house. And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, ‘I am pregnant.’”

Uh oh.

What began “innocently” enough as David the peeping Tom quickly devolved into David the adulterer and, before he knew it, David the murderer (2 Samuel 11:14, 15):

“In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah. In the letter he wrote, ‘Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, that he may be struck down, and die.’”

No! Why?

Rewind this movie as many times as you’d like, but the outcome remains the same for our now fallen hero David. He had lost his godly edge. His time away from fighting the good fight (1 Timothy 6:12) with his valiant brothers in arms (2 Samuel 23:8–39) had made him soft, to the peril of his own soul.

Yes, like his fateful predecessor, David too had despised the commandments of the Lord (2 Samuel 12:9; cf. Exodus 20:13, 14). The temptation to reach out and take what was not rightly his now got the better of him. Instead of holding the line against evil under the heat of temptation, David, like Saul before him (1 Samuel 31:3, 4), retreated from the good and was struck down by a self-inflected wound (Proverbs 7). The tables had now fully turned: Whereas David was once hunted by his moral inferior (1 Samuel 24:17), David now hunted a man who, at least in this instance, acted far nobler than he (2 Samuel 11:6–13).

It would be some time until, with the help of Nathan the prophet, David would finally man up and confess his wrongdoings (2 Samuel 12:13). David had witnessed firsthand what became of Saul after God’s Spirit departed from him—indeed, it was he who assuaged his master’s torment (1 Samuel 16:23). Is it any wonder then that David’s prayer of confession for his sins included the petition “Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me” (Psalm 51:11, emphasis mine)? That was not mere poetry.

Although God did not abandon David, but instead graciously pardoned his death-penalty offenses (2 Samuel 12:13; cf. Leviticus 20:10, 24:17), nevertheless, the judgments that proceeded as a direct consequence of these sins—the untimely death of his child, violent betrayal and political treason within his own family, untold public disgrace and humiliation, just to name a few (2 Samuel 12:10–15)—shook an entire nation to its core and reverberated for generations.

David’s fall from such rarefied heights of attainment in God show us that effeminate backslidings and their fallouts do not have to be slow and torturous, like Saul’s—they can also be sudden and precipitous.

Effeminacy, though passive in principle, can be forcefully efficient in practice.

The man of excess

When David’s successor Solomon, son of Bathsheba, took the helm of the kingdom, Israel transitioned from a man of conflict and bloodshed (1 Chronicles 28:3) to a man of unparalleled peace and prosperity (1 Kings 4:20–28). The man of war had been replaced by the man of excess.

And that is no understatement, for king Solomon’s excesses were, if nothing else, excessive. The man’s harem included no less than seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3), if for no other reason than to bring his total number lovers to a nice round one thousand. It was his superabundance of wealth and foreign brides that led to his downfall (1 Kings 10:14–29, 11:1–8).4 Because of Solomon’s lustful idolatries, spurred on by the pagan partners he could not refuse, God would not only embolden Solomon’s foreign adversaries against him, but would ultimately remove the bulk of his kingdom from him, giving it to one of his unassuming servants (1 Kings 11:9–43, 12:1–24).

Is all of this sounding familiar? As Mark Twain once quipped, “History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

Moreover, Solomon’s introduction of false worship at the so-called “high places” (1 Kings 3:1–3, 11:1–8) became a perennial snare (e.g., 1 Kings 22:43, 2 Kings 12:3, etc.) that few of his successors would overcome (e.g., 2 Kings 18:4). It was this very idolatry, and its myriad attendant evils, that eventually led to widespread death and judgment for the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:1–16, 24:3, 4).

It was not as if God hadn’t warned Solomon of this outcome. In fact, not only had God personally admonished Solomon against these sorts of compromises on two separate occasions (1 Kings 3:14, 9:6, 7, 11:9, 10), He had warned all of Israel of these pitfalls through Moses long before Israel had even established a monarchy (Deuteronomy 17:14–17):5

“When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. […] Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.”

You just can’t make this stuff up. Could God have forewarned them any more clearly? Rather than indulging in utter decadence, God instructed Israel’s future kings to devote themselves to understanding and obeying every jot and tittle of the law (Deuteronomy 17:18–20; cf. Matthew 5:18):

“And when he [i.e., the king] sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.”

Instead of wisely heeding these instructions, Solomon disregarded them entirely, running smack dab into the double brick wall of the hedonic paradox and the law of diminishing returns (Ecclesiastes 2:9–11):

“So I [i.e., Solomon] became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.”

Solomon’s wisdom and luxurious splendor were certainly things to behold, as the queen of Sheba attested (1 Kings 10:4–9). And yet, for all his brilliance and building, sagacity and splurging (2 Chronicles 8:1–11; Ecclesiastes 2:1–8), even the humblest of flowers is clothed with greater glory, though they neither toil nor spin (Matthew 6:28, 29). For all his abundance, Solomon was lacking. But what?

As Jesus reminds us, men who dress in soft, delicate, literally “effeminate” (“μαλακὰ,” “malaka”)6 clothing live in king’s palaces (Matthew 11:8). In spite of this, or, more accurately, because of this, they tend to lack the toughness and resilience required to advance God’s causes in a hostile world. Whereas the tough get going when the going gets tough, the soft merely go along to get along. That’s effeminate. That was Solomon.

God always knows best, far better than even the worldly-wise Solomon (1 Kings 4:29–34). He has given us commandments to follow, for our own good (Deuteronomy 10:12, 13), and offers us wisdom from above (1 Corinthians 1:30; James 1:5, 3:17). We don’t have to go down the same path Solomon went down to realize what he finally concluded: “When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Will we steel ourselves to listen to God and obey Him, even when our material plenty and social connections seem to render Him obsolete (Matthew 6:19–21; 1 Timothy 6:17–19)? Will we depend on God and His riches for our every need (Philippians 4:19), or will we simply buckle under and ally ourselves with the world and its ways and wealth when push comes to shove?

Obedience may be hard—especially for those who have it easy—but disobedience is always, in the end, harder.

Effemme fatale

We stated at the outset of this newsletter that lessons from the lives of men like Saul, David, and Solomon can provide a wealth of insight into ourselves, God, and how we are to offer acceptable worship to Him (Romans 12:1, 2; Hebrews 12:29). Let’s flesh this principle out more fully by way of application to the modern Church.

The stories of these three kings show us how effeminacy in God’s leaders can lead to utter catastrophe, not only in their own lives, but in the lives of those they lead. The damage induced by such suicidal softness is comprehensive, encompassing, among other things, spiritual shipwreck (1 Timothy 1:19), physical calamity (John 5:14, 1 Corinthians 11:29, etc.), 30), and institutional collapse (Revelation 2:5).

When effeminate Church leaders fail to stand firmly for righteousness and against sin, yielding to the internal and external pressures exerted by their own flesh (Galatians 5:17), unspiritual church members (1 Corinthians 3:3), worldly trends (1 John 2:15–17), and the devil (1 Peter 5:8), they create a culture of permissive rebellion that in time leads to a complete casting off of any and all Biblical restraints (Proverbs 29:18), with the end result being, as always, death (Proverbs 14:12; James 1:13–15).

Like the high priest Aaron who fecklessly caved to the peoples’ insistence that he fashion gods for them to worship, modern day Church leaders who give the people what their flesh craves, rather than what their spirits need, subject the Son of God to public disgrace (Hebrews 6:6) and expose the Church to every imaginable and unimaginable form of evil (Exodus 32:21–25):7

“He [i.e., Moses] said to Aaron, ‘What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?’ ‘Do not be angry, my lord,’ Aaron answered. ‘You know how prone these people are to evil. They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’ So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!’ Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies.”

Cowardly, craven, and contemptible, such shoddy shepherds would gladly save their own skin by throwing their sheep to the slaughter (John 10:11–13). Weak men do not ward off wolves, but instead invite death. They will aid and abet even the most pernicious of practices in order to remain in the peoples’ good graces, “for they loved praise from men more than praise from God” (John 12:43).

To paraphrase Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees, woe to them, blind guides, snakes, hypocrites (Matthew 23:13–39)! Both they and their followers will unwittingly stumble into the pit of hell (Matthew 15:14, 23:15, 33).

If you are currently being softened by godless “groomers” masquerading as empathetic Church leaders to embrace all manner of sin and worldly compromise in the name of God’s supposed grace and compassion (Jude 1:4), then know for certain that you have fallen into the velvet-gloved clutches of the effemme fatale, the deadly, effeminate spirit of the age. Such teachers are false teachers who preach a false gospel and worship a false god (Titus 2:11–14):

“For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people that are His very own, eager to do what is good.”

Christians are called to be a nation of kingly priests who will one day rule and reign with Christ Himself (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:10). However, not all professing Christians will receive this honor, but only those who endure to the end in obedient faith (2 Timothy 2:11–13):

“The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with Him [i.e., Christ Jesus], we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful—for He cannot deny Himself.”

God the eternal King is faithful, never wavering on His commitment to do us good, if we would have it. But if we shrink back in effeminacy and unbelief, treating His word with scornful contempt, then we will have our just reward. Shakespeare wrote that “A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.”8 This saying is true, for there is indeed a second death (Revelation 21:8):

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Repent of your effeminate failings (Acts 17:30). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 3:19). Then, persevere in obedience to Christ’s commands out of love for all the days of your life (Matthew 24:13; John 14:15), whether in good times or in bad, for “If you falter in a time of trouble, how small is your strength!” (Proverbs 24:10). But praise be to God almighty, for He is able to transform us poor, timid souls into mighty men of valor (Judges 6:12, 34).

“For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of self-control.” —2 Timothy 1:7

The United States of Effeminacy

We have begun to see the damage wrought by effeminacy among Israel’s leaders and those in the Church, but how has this tendency gotten such a foothold in American Christianity? In the next installment of the League of Believers we will explore how our country, like Israel and Sodom and Gomorrah before it, has turned a potentially good thing, prosperity, into too good of a thing, decadence. We will summarize the main causes of our societal descent into effeminate excess, as well as the Church’s leading role in it. Finally, we will provide solutions to our condition that we as Christians must avail ourselves of if our nation is to avoid a fire and brimstone finale of its own.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part III)

104KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

Please note that the phrase “primary cause” is used in a technical sense here to denote a first order, fundamental cause, rather than merely a major, or significant one. In other words, to say that effeminism is a primary cause of sin’s infiltration into the Church while feminism is only a secondary cause is not to deny the feminism is a major issue, which it clearly is. Rather it is to say that effeminism is the logical antecedent for feminism’s flourishing, and thus serves as a primary cause both for it, as well as a host of other sinful conditions. For more on this, see “The testing of Adam” in “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I).”

Israel’s monarchy is divided into two stages: 1) the united monarchy under Saul, David, and Solomon, and 2) the divided monarchy that began with the reigns of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and Jeroboam, son of Nebat.

Because Rehoboam continued, and even threatened to worsen, his father’s oppressive labor policies, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel split off from his kingdom under the leadership of Jeroboam to form what became known as the northern kingdom of Israel. This left only Judah and Benjamin to comprise what would be called the southern kingdom of Judah (1 Kings 12). This national divorce occurred in fulfillment of Ahijah’s prophecy to Jeroboam regarding God’s judgment on Solomon’s dynasty, which was brought about by his rampant idolatry (1 Kings 11:26–40, 12:15).

In Israel, each of the kings that succeeded Jeroboam followed his evil, idolatrous precedent (1 Kings 12:25-33), whereas less than half of Judah’s kings followed David’s predominantly righteous, faithful precedent (1 Kings 15:5, 2 Kings 22:2, etc.).

Sadly, this is not far from the truth, for in spite of earlier ridding Israel of occultists (1 Samuel 28:9), Saul would later hold a personal séance with the witch of En-dor on the eve of his demise (1 Samuel 28).

Aside from his natural affection for them (1 Kings 11:1, 2), Solomon’s penchant for foreign women was obviously motivated by regional politics, as marrying the princess of a rival king was a common means of brokering peace alliances between neighboring kingdoms at the time (1 Kings 3:1). Ironically in Solomon’s case, this plan backfired spectacularly (1 Kings 11).

Though God’s advanced warnings clearly anticipated Israel’s eventual request for a king, this does not mean that the Israelites’ desire for one arose from noble motives—quite the opposite. In demanding a king, the people had not so much rejected their final judge, Samuel, as they had rejected God Himself, who reigned as Israel’s king from the outset (1 Samuel 8:7, 12:12). That God gave the people over to the abuses of power that they were unwittingly asking for in requesting a king (1 Samuel 8:9–20), and ultimately intended this turn of events for His glory through king Jesus (2 Samuel 7, Psalm 110:1, Matthew 22:41–45, etc.), in no way equate to His approving of these sinful sentiments and actions. As always, this saying of Joseph is true: “As for you, what you intended against me for evil, God intended for good […]” (Genesis 50:20a).

This word shares the same root, “μαλακός,” “malakos” (Strong’s 3120), as the word “μαλακοὶ,” “malakoi,” which is translated as “effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9. See “Going soft” in “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part II).”

For more on the analogy of modern Christian leadership to the Aaronic priesthood, see parts I and II of the series “The Principle Task of the Christian Priesthood.”

Julius Caesar, Act II, Scene 2.

The Strongman's Soft Spot

Garrett P. League — Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:22:15 GMT

As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. This newsletter is chapter II of an upcoming eBook titled, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood. Chapter I can be found here.

Anthony van Dyck, Samson and Delilah, 1630.

Going soft

In the previous post in this series, we examined the ultimate cause of effeminacy in the world today: Adam’s dereliction of duty as husband and head of humanity in the garden (Genesis 3). We showed how the Biblical account of the fall of man reframes the Church’s supposed feminization crisis as an effeminization crisis. We concluded that while feminism in the Church is indeed a real problem, it would not be nearly the problem that it is had not effeminism first taken root among the Church’s male leadership.

As we will see, the Bible has much more to reveal to us on this topic. But before going any further, we have to pause and nail down our definition: According to scripture, what exactly is effeminacy?

Although much has been written on this topic in recent years,1 at the broadest level, effeminacy is the swapping of gender roles and attributes such that men play the woman, rather than playing the man as God intended (2 Samuel 10:12).

Whereas scripture exhorts men to “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13), the effeminate man simply refuses to “man up” and fulfill his God-given callings. Instead, he routinely “wusses out” in the face of adversity, throwing his manhood, his family, and even his God under the bus in exchange for the passing pleasures of sin (Hebrews 11:25).

In the Bible, effeminacy is closely associated with sexual deviancies like adultery and homosexuality, and as such is condemned in the strongest of terms (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, emphasis mine):

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor coveters, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The word “effeminate” used here is the Greek term “μαλακοὶ,” “malakoi,” meaning “soft” or “delicate.” For this reason, malakoi was sometimes used to refer to the passive partner in a homosexual act.2 In modern parlance, we might refer to such men as having “gone soft.”

Armed with this understanding, let’s flesh out this concept by examining a most unlikely exemplar of effeminacy in the Bible: the mighty judge Samson.

The softening of Samson

Now I know what you might be thinking: “I thought Samson was the ultimate alpha male, the very embodiment of masculinity? How could he possibly be considered effeminate, of all things?” Good. Perfect. Hold that thought. As we will see, this reaction stems from a basic misunderstanding of what effeminacy is at its core. There is much more to effeminacy than meets the eye. But before we get to that, a bit of Biblical background.

Samson lived during a phase of Israel’s history known as the time of the judges, a period that spanned the roughly three centuries between the death of Joshua (c.1350 B.C.) and the reign of Israel’s first king, Saul (c.1050 B.C.). A repeated refrain in the book of Judges sums up the period best: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). This was Israel’s wild wild west.

The most salient feature of the judges period was its repeated cycles of sin by the people, judgment by foreign oppressors, and salvation by a national leader called a “judge” (Judges 2:16–18). Like clockwork, as soon as a given judge faded from the scene, the people went right back to their old sinful ways and the cycle repeated all over again (Judges 2:19–23). We’ll return to the significance of these judgment cycles in the next newsletter, but for now, suffice it to say that they are extremely important for understanding the long-term, national effects of effeminacy on a people group.

Into an extended period of national judgment (Judges 13:1) enters Samson, the man who would “begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines” (Judges 13:5). But don’t let Samson’s role as savior fool you—he was certainly no choirboy. Indeed, many of Israel’s judges, like the kings who would eventually supersede them, had decidedly mixed track records. Were it not for the fact that several of these men landed in the book of Hebrews’ “hall of faith” (Hebrews 11:32), many Christians, upon reading these leaders’ biographies, might conclude that their standing in the faith was about as shaky as that of the pagans they crossed swords with.

Although Samson was a standout judge in many ways, both good and bad,3 what he is most remembered for are his Herculean feats of strength. Some speculate that since Samson’s strength was supernatural in origin that Samson himself may very well have been a thin, scrawny fellow for all we know. Nope. Not buying it. Samson was definitely a man’s man. He was hairy, built, and had off the charts T levels.4

Now that we’ve settled that debate, the real question becomes, how could someone who in so many ways epitomizes raw, unfiltered masculinity also serve as a prime example of effeminacy?

Despite his impressive externals, Samson was, internally, an extremely volatile, acutely vulnerable man. Like an undisciplined child, he was beset by weakness, immaturity, and unbridled passion. For instance, when his parents understandably pushed back against his request to marry a foreign woman, a Philistine no less, Samson insisted that they give him his way, which of course they did (more on this below). No matter that this was a direct violation of God’s law (Deuteronomy 7:3, 4) and a prima facie contradiction to his calling.5 What Samson wanted, Samson got. Refuse him, and you’ll regret it.

This precedent clearly set the stage for Samson’s later romantic rendezvous with the enemy, which would ultimately prove his downfall. Not long after casually sleeping with a Philistine prostitute (Judges 16:1), Samson would be seduced by Delilah,6 an obvious Philistine asset (Judges 16:4–6).

When you combine an impetuous personality with a lack of sexual restraint, it’s easy to see why Samson displayed such puny moral resolve. Despite his outward strength, if you pushed the right buttons and were patient, which the enemy almost always is, eventually, you could get him to cave (Judges 14:15–17, 16:5, 16,17).

And here lies the answer to the apparent contradiction we mentioned above: How could a rough and rowdy figure like Samson exemplify the soft, delicate features of effeminacy? The reason for this misapprehension lies in the fact that effeminacy, at its most basic level, is a spiritual condition, a deficiency of the heart that renders men incapable of holding up under testing.

Remember, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). No matter how physically imposing a man may appear on the outside, if he lacks heart, giving up all too readily under temptation and failing to persevere when life’s trials are bearing down upon him, then by definition he is a pushover, a pansy, a spiritual sissy. In this sense, such men are the very definition of soft and impressionable effeminacy. As Steven Wedgeworth points out, quoting Thomas Aquinas’ magnum opus Summa Theologica:7

“the core problem with effeminacy is ‘withdraw[ing] from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion” (ST II-II, q. 138). Thomas states that the opposite of effeminacy is perseverance.”

Bingo. Now we are getting somewhere.

Perseverance can be defined as “continued effort to do or achieve something, even when this is difficult or takes a long time.”8 The manly Christian persists in doing God’s will in spite of opposition or delayed gratification, enduring in service to God even in the lean and lonely times. No matter how bad things get, his mantra is ever “let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9).

By contrast, the effeminate Christian man folds under pressure, flaking out on the faith when times get hard (Matthew 13:20, 21). He is incapable of taking the heat, withstanding the blowback, making the sacrifice. He simply cannot do without that which his flesh craves most in the moment. He must have it. He will cut corners to get it. He will die without it (Genesis 25:32; Judges 16:16). And so, when the devil comes a-knocking during one of his all too frequent moments of weakness, he is prepared to sell his birthright to sate his carnal appetite (Genesis 25:34). In doing so, as Aquinas put it, he turns his back on the good and yields to a weak motion.

This is effeminacy, the condition that ensnares Christian men today by the thousands and that entangled the strong man Samson in his most difficult of binds.

And yet, as bad as the preceding indiscretions were, they merely served to soften Samson for his final and most egregious capitulation of all.

Breaking faith

At the end of the day, the thing that reduced this once mighty judge to a fragile shell of his former self was the violation of his sacred, life-long Nazirite vows.9 In Samson’s particular case, these vows included abstaining from wine (and other fermented drinks), abstaining from unclean foods, and never permitting a razor to touch his head (Judges 13:4, 5).10

Although we have no direct indication that Samson broke the first vow,11 we know for certain that the other two were violated when he ate unclean honey from a dead lion’s carcass (Judges 14:8, 9; cf. Leviticus 11:8, 27, 39, 40), and, famously, when the seven locks of his head were shaved by the Philistines. Through his deadly dalliance with Delilah, Samson quite literally gave his strength away to a woman (Proverbs 31:3).

One might assume that breaking these prohibitions represents a relatively trivial infraction relative to Samson’s flashier failures. After all, what is fudging on a mere dietary law compared to gross sexual immorality? Aren’t these merely symbolic, rather than purely moral, transgressions?

But these questions miss the point entirely, for the significance of violating sacred vows to God, no matter their outward signs, cannot be overstated.

The Nazirite vow, according to the law of Moses, was not just any old vow, but rather “a special vow” that a man took “to separate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). That said, it must be kept in mind that even ordinary vows were considered absolutely binding in ancient Israelite culture (Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21–23). Vows, oaths, and covenants were viewed as completely sacrosanct, and thus were to be honored even at tremendous personal cost (Psalm 15:4).12 This was especially true in cases involving a most holy, binding agreement, such as a national covenant with God or a marriage covenant.13

It is for no small reason, then, that Jesus taught “Do not take an oath at all [...]. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matthew 5:34, 37). Although largely absent from modern day sentiments, traditionally, a man’s word was his bond. Consequently, a man whose word was worthless was himself worthless. By breaking his vows he became flimsy, feckless, faithless, useless, unreliable, unstable, irresolute, infirm, and incapacitated. Since these attributes represent the polar opposites of what constitutes Biblical masculinity—sturdiness, strength, stability, faithfulness, firmness, fruitfulness, reliability, resoluteness, and resourcefulness—it’s safe to say that a man who does not keep his word is really no man at all.

Samson’s calling was two-fold and indivisible: serving as a judge unto his people and living as a Nazirite unto his God. If he dishonored the vows entailed in the latter, he would lack the divine power to accomplish the former. Put another way, what finally broke Samson was breaking faith with God.

Samson failed to treat his sacred obligations to God as matters worth safeguarding above all else. Instead, he took them entirely for granted, treating them with the most cavalier form of entitlement (Judges 16:20, emphasis mine):

“And she [i.e., Delilah] said, ‘The Philistines are upon you, Samson!’ And he awoke from his sleep and said, ‘I will go out as at other times and shake myself free.’ But he did not know that the Lord had left him.”

The tragic words you just read perfectly describe the present condition of the American Church: Through repeated compromises with sin and the enemies of God, we have become desensitized to the precious promises, holy responsibilities, and infinitely high stakes of the New Covenant (Hebrews 2:3, 8:6), paying so little regard to them that our strength—no, our God— has all but entirely left us, and still we are none the wiser!

God, help us! What a pitiable state we are in!

Like Samson shorn of his strength before the enemies he could no longer resist (Judges 16), we American Christians have unwittingly become blind, bound, and bereft of our native dignity as a holy people set apart for God’s special purposes (1 Peter 2:9).

O Lord, enter your powerless churches once again! You spoke long ago of this dreadful condition, as well as its remedy, but we have yet to take you up on your gracious invitation (Revelation 3:17–20, emphasis mine):

“For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me.”

Departed glory

Proverbs states that “The glory of young men is their strength” (Proverbs 20:29a). When the strength goes, so goes the glory.

We have seen that Samson’s glorious strength was uniquely tied to his Nazirite vows. While this is an accurate statement, it is somewhat imprecise. More precisely, Samson’s strength came from the Holy Spirit of God, with the vows and their observances serving as signs and seals of God’s empowering hand on Samson’s life (Judges 13:24, 25, emphasis mine):

“And the woman bore a son and called his name Samson. And the young man grew, and the Lord blessed him. And the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.”

The initial stirring Samson experienced here was none other than the living waters of the Holy Spirit welling up with his spirit (John 4:14, 7:38, 39). Soon, these waters would rush over him like a mighty torrent, sweeping away the enemies of God.

We see then that the rites of the Nazirite, like the sign of circumcision, were not merely external, performed by human hands (Romans 2:28, 29)—instead a true Nazirite was a Nazirite from the heart, one whose seal was the Spirit and whose sign was His almighty power (Judges 14:6a, emphasis mine):

“Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him [i.e., Samson], and although he had nothing in his hand, he tore the lion in pieces as one tears a young goat.”

Time and again, it was the Spirit who strengthened Samson to fulfill his God-given mission (Judges 14:19, emphasis mine):

“And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck down thirty men of the town and took their spoil and gave the garments to those who had told the riddle. In hot anger he went back to his father's house.”

Apart from God’s Spirit, a donkey’s jawbone is no match for an army of Philistine soldiers (Judges 15:14, 15, emphasis mine):

“When he came to Lehi, the Philistines came shouting to meet him. Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and the ropes that were on his arms became as flax that has caught fire, and his bonds melted off his hands. And he found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, and put out his hand and took it, and with it he struck 1,000 men.”

The secret of Samson’s power was that it was not his power at all. Rather, his strength was a spiritual enablement, without which he was no stronger than you or I (Judges 16:17):

“So he told her [i.e., Delilah] everything. ‘No razor has ever been used on my head,’ he said, ‘because I have been a Nazirite dedicated to God from my mother’s womb. If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me, and I would become as weak as any other man.’”

Ironically, it was not until Samson’s eyes were gouged out that he saw where his help came from (Judges 16:28, emphasis mine; cf. Psalm 121:1, 2):

“Then Samson called to the Lord and said, ‘O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.’”

It is no coincidence that in the early days of Israel’s final judge, the Nazirite prophet Samuel, the glory of God departed from Israel—“Ichabod”—on the same day that her armies were crushed by the Philistines in battle (1 Samuel 4).

A godless person is a powerless person, and a godless people is a powerless people.

Do not extinguish the Spirit

So where does this leave us today as Christians who find themselves in a largely effeminate, impotent Church?

Before ascending to the right hand of the Father, the resurrected Lord Jesus commanded His disciples (Matthew 28:19, 20a):

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Needless to say, in order to fulfill this “great commission,” the disciples needed divine help. So before embarking on this most awesome of tasks, Jesus instructed His followers (Acts 1:4, 5, 8, emphasis mine):

“not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, He said, ‘you heard from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. […] you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.’”

With the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, the Church’s mission can and will advance, even in the face of intense persecution (Acts 8:1–8). Without the Spirit’s power, the Church is totally incapable of carrying out its calling (John 6:63a): “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.”

“But,” one might hasten to add, “hasn’t the Spirit been poured out on all flesh (Acts 2:17)? What could possible hinder God’s kingdom agenda? After all, didn’t Jesus say that the very gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18)?”

These things are, of course, quite true. But the Church’s ultimate triumph does not guarantee that all its apparent members will triumph along with it (Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43). Indeed, Jesus pointedly asks all wannabe disciples “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). It is not merely those who profess Jesus as Lord who will enter the kingdom, but those whose profession is backed by genuine obedience (Matthew 7:21): “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.”

Because many professing Christians can, and in fact do, stymie the work of the Spirit in their lives, the Bible warns believers against insulting (Hebrews 10:29), grieving (Ephesians 4:25–32), and even extinguishing (1 Thessalonians 5:19) the Spirit by sinfully resisting His will.

Scripture tells us to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might” (Ephesians 6:10) by walking in the Spirit and not gratifying the desires of our fallen human flesh (Galatians 5:16). By repeatedly refusing to resist his baser instincts, the effeminate Christian, like a body devoid of its spirit, becomes limp and lifeless, perfunctory and powerless (James 2:26).

The Spirit, or “strengthener” (John 14:16, 17, 26, 15:26), is the Church’s only hope of breaking free from the insidious cords of effeminacy. This much is clear. But it is equally clear that the Holy Spirit will not move in power among an unholy people.

Like Samson buried beneath a heathen temple (Judges 16:30), or those on whom the tower of Siloam collapsed (Luke 13:4), these men were not worse offenders than we are—unless we bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8), we too will be crushed (Luke 13:1–5). Fruitless effeminates, be warned (Matthew 21:43, 44):

“Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

Manoah’s sour grapes

Although we have only touched on this point in passing until now, the blame for Samson’s downfall cannot be placed solely on his shoulders, broad as they were. At the announcement of his birth, Samson’s parents were charged with critical roles in upholding the Nazirite vows, a point which merits serious consideration (Judges 13:2–5, 13, 14, emphasis mine):

“There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, ‘Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.’ […]
And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, ‘Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. She may not eat of anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, or eat any unclean thing. All that I commanded her let her observe.’”

For their son’s sake, for Israel’s sake, Samson’s mother was to abstain from forbidden food and drink and Manoah was to ensure his wife’s compliance. They knew full well that this arrangement was utterly holy since it was mediated by none other than “the angel of the LORD,” whom the Bible identifies with God Himself (Judges 13:15–22; cf. Exodus 3:2, 6, Joshua 5:13–15, Judges 6:22, etc.).

The covenantal, household nature of God’s dealings with His people prove that there is no such thing as generational compromise, only intergenerational compromise. In fact, this is precisely the sort of compromise that precipitated the period of the judges in the first place (Judges 2:1, 2, 7, 10–15, emphasis mine):

“Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And He said, ‘I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. What is this you have done?’ […]
And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work that the LORD had done for Israel. […] And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that He had done for Israel.
And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals. And they abandoned the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the LORD to anger. They abandoned the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And He sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies. Whenever they marched out, the hand of the LORD was against them for harm, as the LORD had warned, and as the LORD had sworn to them. And they were in terrible distress.”

The plight of Samson’s family was a microcosm of the plight of the nation. At every step, the sins of the fathers were entangled with the sins of the children (Numbers 14:18).

Samson developed a fatal attraction to Philistine women, and it was his parents who were the first to facilitate it (Judges 14:1–4, 5, 10).

Samson ate defiling food, and his unguarded parents tasted of it too (Judges 14:8, 9).

Manoah should have stood his ground against his son, like a man. He should have kept his family from faltering. Instead, he wimped out, opting for the path of least resistance. In doing so, he established a pattern of giving way under duress that took firm root in Samson’s character.

In this family’s case, the saying is fulfilled (Jeremiah 31:29, Ezekiel 18:2): “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

Manoah’s sour grapes led to Samson’s bitter end.

The degenerate dangers of decadence

Now that we have covered effeminacy’s true origin and defined it essential attributes, it’s time to turn our attention to two of its main drivers: material affluence and sexual immorality. To understand these factors, we will look primarily to the period of Israel’s kings. As wealthy, sexually indulgent Americans, this discussion is going to hit close to home. However, if we are to avoid the fate of other prosperous nations, then we had better learn from their mistakes. All this and more in the next installment of the League of Believers.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part II)

106KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

For a good overview of the topic, see pastor Steven Wedgeworth’s helpful article “What Is Effeminacy? A Survey of Scripture and History” written for Desiring God.

Hence the New English Translation’s rendering of malakoi as “passive homosexual partners” and the Berean Standard Bible’s rendering “men who submit to […] homosexual acts […].”

Samson’s life was, in fact, incredibly unique. He is one of the few men in scripture whose birth and life mission were announced by a heavenly messenger to his parents before he was born. He is also one of only a few Old Testament saints to have been empowered directly by the Holy Spirit to accomplish his great calling. Others in scripture who can check these boxes include John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, and the Messiah Himself, Jesus of Nazareth. Now that is elite company.

And yet, unlike these men, Samson’s life was filled with varying degrees of compromise. It was not until the very end of his days that he selflessly laid down his life in a humble act of repentant faith that would bring salvation to his people through the destruction of their enemies. In this way, ironically, his death powerfully prefigured that of the ultimate Savior.

Shorthand for “testosterone levels.”

Nevertheless, Judges 14:4 adds that “His father and mother did not know that it was from the LORD, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel.” Apparently, despite God’s preceptive will (i.e., His will as revealed through His precepts and laws) being violated, His sovereign will was still at work in these developments for the greater good (Genesis 50:20).

Interestingly, although the etymology of her name is somewhat ambiguous, most think that “Delilah” means something like “delicate, weak, languishing” or even “(she who) weakens.” See, for example, the entry for “Delilah” from Name Doctor and Behind the Name.

Wedgeworth, “What Is Effeminacy?”

Cambridge Dictionary entry for “perseverance.”

The Nazirite vow is described in detail in Numbers 6:1–21. It is not to be confused with the similar sounding Biblical word “Nazarene,” which referred to someone who, like Jesus, hailed from the Galilean town of Nazareth. Samson is the first of only three men mentioned in scripture as having taken a life-long Nazirite vow, with the others being the prophets Samuel and John the Baptist. Most Nazirite vows only lasted about a month, with lengthier dedications not exceeding one hundred days. See entry for “Nazarite” in Easton's Bible Dictionary.

However, absent from Samson’s vows was the prohibition against going near a dead body, which is part of the typical Nazirite vow as enumerated in Numbers 6:6–12. This makes sense, since Samson’s vow was taken in service of his life mission (Judges 3:5), which would presumably entail close proximity to many dead Philistines. Perhaps God saw fit to accommodate the terms of Samson’s vow to his specific calling. Or, it could be that this missing prohibition was present in Samson’s vows implicitly, given what God had earlier prescribed in the Torah. If that is the case, then God could certainly have provided a means for Samson to defeat the Philistines without violating this portion of his vows.

Though some think it likely, given Samson’s reputation, that he would have partaken in wine at the wedding feast that he prepared in Timnah (Judges 14:10), a Philistine city that was associated with vineyards (Judges 14:5).

For a striking example of this from the same time period as Samson, see the story of Jephthah’s rash vow in Judges 11:29–40.

For more on the sacred nature of the covenant of holy matrimony, see “An exceptional covenant” in chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God” in Adulterating Marriage.

Man's Original Sin

Garrett P. League — Sat, 09 Dec 2023 02:44:37 GMT

As with our posts on misrepresenting God’s holiness (parts I and II) and failing to discern between clean and unclean practices (I and II), this eBook on effeminacy, titled The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood, is intended to provide a broader Biblical framework to our critiques of specific sins now prevalent in the Church. We pray these chapters serve to connect dots and open eyes so that we can see with greater clarity the big picture of the American Church’s decline and how, with God’s help, we can turn it around.

Frans Wouters (1612–1659), The Temptation of Eve.

False flag feminism?

For some time now, Christians have been puzzling over the increasing feminization of the American Church. By just about any measure, the Church seems to appeal far more to feminine, rather than masculine, sensibilities. For example, statistics show that in nearly every category of religious involvement, women outperform men in the United States.1 One need only scan the congregants at a local Sunday worship service for first-hand confirmation of this lopsided sex ratio.

The consequences of this imbalance have been manifestly disastrous. Lacking proper masculine influences, the Church has been rendered both impotent and irrelevant. Disorder and dysfunction abound in Christian homes and institutions as our public reputation sinks to perhaps its lowest point in living memory. Each time you think we’ve bottomed out, some new, previously unthinkable gender-bending scandal erupts in the Church, shocking even the most cynical of observers. Perhaps the worst part of it all is that our cowardly Church leaders appear to lack the strength to stand up and actually do something about it.

The million dollar question is, “Why?” What on earth is behind this perverse mass makeover of our Church and its so-called men?

The usual suspects are well known and oft repeated: sentimental worship music, seeker-sensitive church growth methods, emotionalism, and so forth. But perhaps the leading culprit cited for the feminization of the Church is, not surprisingly, feminism, a secular ideology that focuses on “liberating” women from the oppressive shackles of the patriarchy. One can easily envision how this movement, as well as its “Me Too” and “toxic masculinity” offshoots, could neuter our witness and neutralize our fighting men, if left unchecked.

And yet what if feminism and the other aforementioned diagnoses, despite their many inroads into the American Church, are merely symptoms of a larger disease? What if feminization and its trappings are merely a “false flag operation”2 of the enemy intended to distract us from a far more insidious, antecedent problem?

The creation of temptation

To truly wrap one’s head around something, one has to understand its origin story. And when it comes to any and all topics that the Bible addresses—and it addresses pretty much all of them, either directly or indirectly—their foundations are inevitably grounded in the book of Genesis, literally “the book of beginnings.”

Most of us are familiar with the account of the creation and fall found in the early chapters of Genesis. After making the heavens, the earth, and all their inhabitants, God made mankind male and female, in His image, as the crowning act of creation (Genesis 1). Although God placed man3 in the ideal setting of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2), man was soon exiled from paradise for believing the serpent’s lie and disobeying God’s sole prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3).

What is less familiar is the order in which the fall of man occurred, its relation to the order of man’s creation, and the significance of both for men and women today. If we are to understand the origin of the purported feminization of the American Church, we must first grasp the cause of all gender4 irregularities. Or, to put it another way, to understand the rationale behind God’s creation of man and woman, we must understand the logic behind the serpent’s temptation of man and woman. Lurking in the shadows of God’s creation of mankind was the serpent’s creation of temptation. Yes, God is truly the master craftsman (Genesis 1, 2), but the crafty serpent has honed a craft of his own (Genesis 3:1).

The enemy’s strategy to foil God’s plan for His creation was no accident. The serpent, whom the Bible identifies as “the devil, or Satan” (Revelation 20:2), knew that attacking God directly would fail spectacularly—He is God almighty, after all. So to get at his ultimate target, Satan went after the next best option, mankind, God’s glorious image-bearers (Genesis 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 11:7). And to bring down man, Satan aimed his sights at woman, the glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7). In doing so, he very shrewdly, and quite literally in one sense, staged his ambush on the lowest hanging fruit.

Clearly, the thought of being labelled a “sexist” for adopting this technique was the least of Satan’s concerns. He was out for the kill. He was not above launching his offensive against man’s “soft side,” Adam’s other half (Genesis 2:21, 22), if that would give him the strategic advantage. The predatory serpent had patiently studied his prey’s behavior, their habits, weaknesses, and tendencies, enabling him to home in on their most vulnerable point of attack. Adam and Eve were in deep trouble before they even knew what hit them.

Discerning Christians should not shy away from pointing out the pragmatism of the serpent’s attack on Adam vis-à-vis Eve. How else can we wise up and fend off similar assaults on ourselves? Remember Jesus’ admonition to His disciples (Matthew 10:16): “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Indeed, the Bible often exhorts believers to sharpen up spiritually (e.g., Matthew 26:41, Luke 16:8, 1 Corinthians 14:20), “in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes” (2 Corinthians 2:11). And if one wants to understand Satan’s age-old game plan to tempt and deceive, then one need look no further than his approach in the garden.

Rather than presenting woman as identical to, or less than, man, the Bible teaches that women are uniquely different from and complimentary to men (Genesis 2:18–25). Because of this, women are tailored to different duties and roles than men, affording them special care and honor in keeping with their natural distinctions (1 Peter 3:7; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:18–26, Ephesians 5:22–33):

“Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”

Women are constitutionally more delicate than men, a fact that should be honored and accounted for by the male leaders who have been given charge over them. This is not merely the Apostle Peter’s opinion, but rather an unavoidable, self-evident feature of God’s “very good” design for woman. As such, it should not only be acknowledged, but highly esteemed, and even celebrated.

The Apostle Paul takes this knowledge further and spells out the analogy between the order5 of God’s creation and the order of Satan’s temptation, drawing out their implications for the proper functioning of the Church (1 Timothy 2:12–14; cf. Genesis 2:18):

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Paul tells us that the order of man’s creation mirrors the order of his fall: Adam was made first, then Eve; Eve sinned first, then Adam. He then extrapolates from these facts normative principles for Christian conduct that apply to all men and women in the Church. Let’s unpack this briefly.

Though it is neither good nor possible for man to exist independently of woman (Genesis 2:18a; 1 Corinthians 11:11, 12), woman was nevertheless made from and for man as his suitable companion, and not vice versa (Genesis 2:18b, 21–23; 1 Corinthians 11:3–10). Furthermore, Eve’s agreeableness, a quintessentially female tendency,6 was leveraged by the serpent to great effect, playing right into the hands of his diabolical ruse. Since these observations speak to abiding aspects of maleness and femaleness in general, rather than mere individual quirks of Adam and Eve in particular, they serve to ground man’s right and proper authority over women in the orderly worship of God’s Church (1 Corinthians 14:26–40).

Some may at this point object to the Apostle’s line of reasoning, labeling it “behind the times,” and in a sense we would heartily agree. However, it is precisely because Paul’s timeless logic goes back to the very beginning of time that it is, and always will be, ahead of its time. Indeed, Paul provides us with profound insights for understanding the very gender dysphoria that is presently plaguing our people.

The testing of Adam

To realize the full benefit of these insights, we have to tease out a central irony in Paul’s teaching on the fall. Given what we have just noted, it may come as a surprise that this same Apostle consistently pins the blame for humanity’s descent into sin and corruption on Adam, rather than Eve. According to Paul, it is “in Adam” that “all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22a, emphasis mine), and “sin entered the world through one man, and […] death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed” (Romans 5:12a, 14, emphasis mine).

What accounts for this apparent inconsistency? After all, as noted above, Genesis clearly records that it was the woman, and not the man, who was the first victim of the serpent’s cunning. And yet, when studied closely, it is that very passage of scripture that yields the key to unlocking Paul’s conundrum (Genesis 3:1–7):

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, ‘Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?’ And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’’ But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.”

Do you notice how surprisingly passive our AWOL Adam is in this whole affair? He is only mentioned, as something of an afterthought, at the tail end of the temptation and appears to go along with it with little to no resistance. God’s question after the fall is fitting even at this juncture (Genesis 3:9): Adam, “Where are you?” On the sidelines, it would seem.

Indeed, some commentators believe that the phrase “her husband who was with her” (Genesis 3:6, emphasis mine) suggests that Adam, as in the painting above by Frans Wouters, was physically at Eve’s side for at least part of the serpent’s temptation. If this is true, then how much more culpable is our first father for failing to step in and thwart the serpent’s ploy! In fact, the degree of passivity that this interpretation requires on Adam’s part leads many commentators to reject it, concluding that the phrase means only that Adam was “with her” in the sense that he was her God-given companion in the garden. However, even if Adam was merely MIA during Eve’s hour of need, this too may reflect poorly on his care for her as a somewhat absentee husband and protector.

As inexcusable as it may be, Adam’s dereliction of duty helps solve the paradox of Paul’s description of humanity as fallen “in Adam.” Recall Paul’s twin observations covered above: 1) “For Adam was formed first, then Eve”; and 2) “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:13, 14). According to scripture, the order in which God created Adam and Eve reveals God’s order and design for all men and women, including their respective roles and responsibilities in the Church (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7–10):

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. […] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Obviously, there are a lot of interesting lessons to be drawn from this passage concerning head coverings in church.7 For the present discussion, we need only note the general principle undergirding this practice: the headship of the husband over the wife, which is grounded in the purpose for which they were created.

Here’s how this principle impacts who gets blamed for the fall: Because Adam was Eve’s husband, and thus her head, authority, and “covering,” even though Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, the responsibility for humanity’s fall is ultimately laid at Adam’s feet. Worse, whereas Eve was deceived, Adam knew full well what he was doing when he took that fateful first bite (1 Timothy 2:14). This sheds a whole new light on the account of the fall. What at first glance appeared to be merely the temptation of Eve becomes, upon further analysis, the testing of Adam.

The implications of these truths for understanding the feminization of the Church can now be seen in sharp focus.

Although Eve may have been the world’s first “feminist,” Adam was the first “effeminist.” Behind every feminist is an effeminate enabler. Moreover, although feminism and effeminacy are both sins, effeminacy is clearly the deeper of the two. Without effeminacy, feminism is evil, but restrained; coupled together, they spoil the entire cosmos.

Imagine, for instance, if Adam had prevented his wife’s sin, or at least refused to join in it, standing in the gap for her before God as a powerful mediator, rather than as a powerless accuser (Genesis 3:12). We don’t know exactly what would have happened in this scenario, but based on what would later occur when a sinless husband interceded for His sinful bride (Ephesians 5:25–27), we know the outcome could very well have been glorious.

Ironically, Paul’s teaching on the fall shows us that a big part of the solution to the problem of the feminization of the Church is realizing that feminization is not the Church’s primary problem.

One can immediately see the strategic value in this reframing of the Church’s present gender predicaments. Before waging war on feminism “out there,” as well as its inroads “in here,” male Church leaders should first and foremost repent of their own effeminate sins that paved the way for all the others.8 This is not to let the women off the hook, but rather to realize that it is compromise in the Church’s male leadership that makes a way for feminism, and a host of related sins, to take root in the first place.

Here’s what we’re getting at with all of this: Until Christian men admit the sinful abdication of their duties as heads of home and guardians of the household of God, we can fuss over feminism all we want, but it will not solve our problems in the long run. If, however, we rid ourselves of the upstream effeminate pollutants, then the downstream feminist pollution will inevitably be eliminated (cf. Matthew 23:26, Luke 11:39–41).

Nuclear fallout

It should come as no surprise that we are still struggling to avoid the same gender pitfalls into which our first parents fell. According to scripture, Adam’s headship extended not only to his wife, but to all his children, including us (Romans 5:12–21). We are all “sons of Adam and daughters of Eve.”9 As Chesterton famously noted, original sin10 is unique among Christian doctrines in that it is empirically provable: we can see it on display in the streets and in the daily headlines.11 The Adam bomb did indeed explode, and we are the nuclear family living in the contaminated rubble of its worldwide fallout.

The account of man’s fall demonstrates that the most fundamental problem behind all our disorders is that most dreaded of three-letter words: Sin. This fact will never change. Sin always involves a perverse inversion of the created order that is the sine qua non of violating God’s will (Genesis 3:8–13):

“And they [i.e., Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ And he said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.’ He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’ The man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.’ Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’”

What a sorry mess sin makes of us. How else can you account for a reptile giving orders to a naïve woman who prevails upon her pushover husband who ultimately throws God under the bus?

And yet, in spite of the various players involved in this incident, in God’s created order of human rulers and animal subjects (Genesis 1:28), the buck stops with man, and not woman. As the old ditty from the New England Primer put it, “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”12 Not in Eve’s fall, nor in Satan’s. It wasn’t the devil who made us do it and it certainly wasn’t God—may it never be!13 No, at the end of the day, the blame falls on the shoulders of men. We have to own this. It will do us no good to hide behind bushes or fig leaves (Genesis 3:16–19):

To the woman He [i.e., God] said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.’
And to Adam He said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’”

Aside from the agony of intense physical pain, toil, and death, note the relational antagonism that God says will result from our rejection, among other things, of His prescribed gender roles (Genesis 3:16): “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” The “battle of the sexes” is as old as sin itself.

We get a strong contextual clue as to the meaning of this curse from the very next chapter of Genesis, where God uses an almost identical phrase when addressing a crestfallen Cain (Genesis 4:7, emphasis mine):

“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

Now that is telling.

Because of Eve’s sin, wives will be ever chafing under their husbands’ headship, lying in wait to subvert their authority like the heel biting snakes they are at enmity with (Genesis 3:15). Husbands in turn will be caught in a perpetual tug of war between subduing and being subdued, playing the man (2 Samuel 10:12), or being played.14

When fallen men and women clasp hands in marriage, the temptation to usurp on the one hand locks fingers with the temptation to either domineer or tuck tail and run on the other hand. This is the cause of all marital and inter-sex strife, both inside and outside of the the Church, and it is far cry from God’s original intent for gender harmony in His peaceable kingdom.

To revitalize our wilting, womanly churches, we must identify sin as the main enemy and effeminate men as principally responsible for its damage. If we fail to do this, then we’ll be starting off on the wrong foot from the get-go—if we begin by doing this, then we’ll have already won half the battle.

We’ll be able to detect the radiation from the infamous A-bomb and treat its poisonous effects. We can convert our exposed churches into bomb shelters and prepare for future engagements. We can even advance God’s kingdom on earth and cultivate paradise once again in our scorched and barren land.

Effeminism and its discontents

We’ve identified the ultimate origins of effeminism, but what are its proximate causes? In the next post in this series we will dive into the topic of effeminacy from a Biblical perspective. We will define and describe it using examples from scripture, as well as examine its typical presentation in the men it afflicts. If you desire to better understand this condition and why the American Church is so rife with it, you won’t want to miss our next installment.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I)

95.8KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

See the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study “Gender composition” polling statistics.

See “False-Flag Operations” by Peter R. Mansoor, writing for the Hoover Institution.

Here the word “man” is used inclusively for both sexes, man and woman, as in the word “mankind.”

Here, the term “gender” is used synonymously for the two sexes, male and female, not as an arbitrary “identity” that one subjectively adopts, regardless of one’s biological sex.

Not merely the “chronological order,” but the “intent” or “purpose.”

This does not mean, of course, that agreeableness—that is, the proclivity to sympathize with another’s point of view, to think the best of their intentions, and to cooperate with their suggestions in good faith—is an exclusively female tendency. Indeed, men also exhibit this trait, with some even doing so to a greater extent than at least some women. Nevertheless, on average, women are the more agreeable of the two sexes. See Yanna J. Weisberg, Colin G. DeYoung, and Jacob B. Hirsh, “Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five.” Frontiers in Psychology. 2011; 2(178).

For more information, see the resources offered by The Head Covering Movement.

As for the female Church leaders that Paul forbids (1 Timothy 2:12), they must step down at once and submit to the god-ordained male leaders in their lives (Titus 2:4, 5).

This phrase is of course taken from The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis.

This refers not to Adam and Eve’s initial (i.e., “original”) sin of eating the forbidden fruit, but rather to the inherited sin nature which they passed on to all their descendants as a result of this sin.

Orthodoxy, “The Maniac.”

See “Alphabet Poem.”

As the Apostle James says (James 1:13–15):

“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

These inversions are also echoed in Satan’s rebellion. By rejecting his God-ordained role as a worshiper and servant of God (Hebrews 1:7, 14; see also “Was Satan in charge of music in heaven?” from Got Questions Ministries), Satan declared his desire to be worshipped in God’s stead (Matthew 4:8–10).

League of Believers Subscriber Chat Now Live

Garrett P. League — Wed, 06 Dec 2023 19:19:06 GMT

We are excited to announce a new feature on our Substack publication: the League of Believers subscriber chat!

This is a conversation space in the Substack app that we have set up exclusively for our subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. We’ll post short prompts, thoughts, and updates on the topics we are covering and you can jump into the discussion at any time to share your take.

To join our chat, you’ll need to download the Substack app, now available for both iOS and Android. Chats are sent via the app, not email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversations as they happen.

How to get started

Download the app by clicking this link or the “Get app” button below. Substack Chat is now available on both iOS and Android.

Get app

Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar and you’ll see a row for our chat inside.

That’s it! Jump into our thread to say hello, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Join chat

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Adulterating Marriage

Garrett P. League — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 21:50:17 GMT

Gustave Doré, The New Jerusalem, 1890 (colorized by Granger Collection).

We are pleased to introduce to you the League of Believers first eBook:

Adulterating Marriage: Exposing the Church’s Fatal Compromise on Divorce and Remarriage

This book is a compilation of chapters I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, as well as the preface, afterword, and appendices A and B, originally published individually through our newsletter.

We present them to you now as a single, collated eBook in two popular digital formats: Portable Document Format (PDF) and Electronic Publication (EPUB),1 which are designed for any device and Amazon Kindle devices, respectively.

PDF download:

Adulterating Marriage

1.15MB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this eBook.

EPUB download:

Adulterating Marriage

214KB ∙ EPUB file

Click the "Download" button to download a EPUB version of this eBook.

To upload either of these files to your Kindle, simply download the file and drag it into the “File Upload” box here. Or, you may upload the PDF file onto any device you normally read on, including your computer, phone, tablet, etc.

Thank you, dear subscribers, for your support and feedback as we put this work together over the preceding months. We encourage you to share this free eBook with your friends, family, and social media followers.

May God use this book to purify His bride before the coming of the Bridegroom, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

“And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as Christ is pure.”

—1 John 3:3

Garrett P. League, on behalf of the League of Believers team

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Please note that there are minor formatting glitches in the EPUB file that we are working to resolve; they do not impact readability.

Paul's use of "divorce" and "bound" in 1 Corinthians 7

Tue, 17 Oct 2023 20:21:54 GMT

This newsletter is a draft appendix (B) for an upcoming eBook on the scandal of Church-sanctioned divorce. If you haven’t already done so, please check out chapters I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, as well as the preface, afterword, and appendix A.

Rembrandt, Apostle Paul, c.1633.

Introduction

Many Christians argue from 1 Corinthians 7:15 that the Apostle Paul permits believers to divorce and remarry if their unbelieving spouse abandons them: “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” Key to their argument is their interpretation of the words “divorce” (and its variants; verses 10–13, 15, 27) and “bound” (and its variants; verses 15, 39) used throughout this passage.

Here, we present a concise word study of both of these word groups, showing that, understood in their proper context, they do not support divorce and remarriage during the lifetime of a former spouse, which both Paul and the Lord Jesus explicitly forbid (verses 10–13, 27).

Preliminary considerations

The Apostle Paul, speaking on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, commands Christian spouses not to divorce, adding that even if they do separate, they must either remain unmarried (i.e., to another person) or reconcile (verses 10, 11). He goes on to state that believing spouses should not divorce their unbelieving partners if the unbelievers consent to live with them (verses 12, 13). However, Paul concedes that if the unbelieving spouse does not consent to stay, then the believer is not “bound” to remain with him or her and may permit the departure.

But why would Paul go to the trouble of addressing such scenarios if divorce is not a licit option for believers in the first place? Might this imply that divorce, at least in some cases, is a possibility for the believing spouse? And if he or she is no longer “bound” in these cases, does that imply the right to remarry?

Before delving into these questions, we must point out two uncontested, but often overlooked facts regarding the text of 1 Corinthians 7.

First, Paul consistently and repeatedly says in this chapter that believers must not “divorce/separate” (verses 10–13, 27), granting them only the permission to allow an unbelieving spouse to “depart/leave/separate” if he or she refuses to stay (verse 15).

Second, Paul states that a husband and wife are bound to one another for life, and are thus free to remarry only after the death of a spouse (verse 39).

This is not to say that Paul was detached from the unfortunate realities of life in a fallen world—he was a realist, and knew full well that, despite his and the Lord’s commands, some couples in the Church would still manage to “split up.” However, in describing such situations as “divorce,” Paul is no more granting ontological validity to this fallen institution than Christ was legitimizing adulterous remarriage when He described the woman at the well as having had multiple husbands (John 4:18). To admit that something “is” is not to grant that it “ought” to be.

Moreover, contextual evidence demonstrates that the terms “divorce” and “bound” in this passage do not carry the implications that many modern interpreters have read into them.

“Divorce” or “separate”?

The six words used for “divorce/separate” in 1 Corinthians 7 are as follows:1

“χωρισθῆναι,” “chōristhēnai” (Strong’s 5563): “to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away” (verse 10).
“ἀφιέναι,” “aphienai” (Strong’s 863): “to send forth, in various applications” (verse 11).
“ἀφιέτω,” “aphietō” (Strong’s 863): “to send forth, in various applications” (verses 12 and 13).
“χωρίζεται,” “chōrizetai” (Strong’s 5563): “to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away” (verse 15).
“χωριζέσθω,” “chōrizesthō” (Strong’s 5563): “to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away” (verse 15).
“λύσιν,” “lysin” (Strong’s 3080): “Dissolution, release; a loosing, divorce.” (verse 27).

It should be immediately apparent that these Greek words can be translated quite broadly, depending on their context (see range of Biblical usage in Strong’s Concordance links above). There is no a priori reason why they must be interpreted as referring to legal divorce as the Jews and gentiles at the time understood it, namely, as a dissolution of the marriage bond that entailed the freedom to remarry. On the contrary, we have every contextual reason to conclude that this is not the case in this passage.

As noted above, Paul nowhere explicitly permits divorce and remarriage during a spouse’s lifetime—indeed, he expressly forbids it (verses 10–13, 27, 39). Further, the teachings of Jesus from the synoptic Gospels that Paul is basing his standards on are likewise totally opposed to divorce. Whether in the Gospel addressed to the Jews (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) or those geared toward the gentiles (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18), Christ’s teachings on divorce and remarriage show that divorce does not deliver on its core promise of dissolving the one-flesh marriage bond. Since man’s divorce decrees do not separate what God had joined together for life, remarriage after divorce, while both original spouses are living, constitutes adultery. This was a radical, counter-cultural departure from first century Jewish and Greco-Roman understandings of divorce.

With this background in mind, it is perhaps telling that Paul nowhere employs the proper legal term for “divorce” in 1 Corinthians 7 that is used in each of the Gospel divorce texts (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18):2 “ἀπολύω,” “apoluó” (Strong’s 630): “I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid.”3 Yet even versions of this term can be translated more generically as “send away,” “dismiss,” or “release.” This is of course true of the English word for divorce as well, which can mean merely “to separate from” as in “a word divorced from its context.”

Because of this, some have argued that these six words are used interchangeably as synonyms for “divorce,” and thus one should not make too much of their differences.4 There are, after all, plenty of ways linguistically to convey the idea of “splitting up” in Greek. While this is a perfectly reasonable thought, it misses the broader point of what exactly Paul means by the terms translated as “divorce” in the first place, for one could argue that they are better understood as synonyms for “separate” based on the context.5

And speaking of which, it is context, at the end of the day, that must settle how we are to understand the meaning of these, or any other terms.

When it comes to 1 Corinthians 7:12–15, 27, the immediate preceding context of verses 10 and 11 shows decisively that the words sometimes translated as “divorce” are understood by Paul to convey a separation of still-married spouses, not a dissolution of the marriage bond (1 Corinthians 10, 11, emphasis mine):

“To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.”

Similar to verses 12 and 13, Paul says in verse 11 that “the husband should not divorce his wife.” However, this cannot be read as implying that the husband has the power to end a marriage through legal divorce, as the Jews and Romans believed.

We know this because Paul had just stated in a parallel command to the wife in verse 10 that she must not “separate” from her husband, but even if she does, she is to refrain from marrying another man so as to leave open the possibility of reuniting with her “husband.” Clearly, both of these options assume that the hypothetical wife Paul is addressing is merely “separated” from her husband, rather than “divorced” from him, in the sense that he is no longer her lawful marriage partner.

“Bound” or “enslaved”?

Some claim that by stating that a believer is not “bound” to remain with a deserting, unbelieving spouse against his or her will, Paul is teaching that such a believer is no longer bound in marriage, and thus is free to marry another person (1 Corinthians 7:15).

The word “bound” in verse 15 is “δεδούλωται,” “dedoulōtai” (Strong’s 1402): “To enslave. From doulos; to enslave.” This word and its close relatives are used eight times in the New Testament and they always refer to bondage in a slave-master relationship, rather than to the marriage bond. Indeed, similar words are used for slaves in verses 22 (“δοῦλος,” “doulos,” Strong’s 1401: “as noun, a male slave”) and 23 (“δοῦλοι,” “douloi,” Strong’s 1401: plural of “doulos”) of this same chapter. Although some translations render “dedoulōtai” as “bound,” this word is more literally translated as “enslaved/under bondage,” which conveys enslavement rather than merely being tied together.

It is important to note that Paul uses a different word in verse 39 of this chapter when speaking of the marriage bond: “δέδεται,” “dedetai,” (Strong’s 1210): “To bind, tie, fasten; I impel, compel; I declare to be prohibited and unlawful” (1 Corinthians 7:39):

“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

Paul employs the same exact word in Romans 7:2 when making a similar statement on the marriage bond: “A wife is bound [dedetai] to her husband as long as he lives.” This may not be purely coincidental, as if Paul just happened to use a different synonym for the marriage bond in verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7 that he did not use in verse 39 or Romans 7:2.

Similar to the Hebrew word used for the marriage union in Genesis 2:24 (derived from “דָּבַק,” “dabaq,”(Strong’s 1692): “to cling, cleave, keep close”), dedetai conveys tying someone or something together, as when a person’s hands are bound to one another during an arrest (e.g., Mark 15:1). Other examples include “binding the strongman” (Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27) and “you will find a donkey tied” (Matthew 21:2; Mark 11:2, 4; Luke 19:30).

Yet in spite of these nuances, dedoulōtai and dedetai are obviously related words that share a fair amount of semantic and conceptual overlap. Thus, it would be a mistake to completely rule out their functional equivalence in this passage. For example, although some may object, many wives (and husbands, for that matter) would undoubtedly find it just as natural for Paul to say in verse 39a that “A wife is enslaved/under bondage to her husband as long as he lives.”

In further support of this point, some have pointed to the word “free” in verse 39b: “But if her husband dies, she is free [“ἐλευθέρα,” “eleuthera,” Strong’s 1658: “Free, delivered from obligation,” “unrestrained, i.e. not a slave, or exempt”] to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” The term eleuthera is also used in Romans 7:3b: “But if her husband dies, she is free [eleuthera] from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.” Since this word and its variants are used in this passage to convey freedom from both slavery (1 Corinthians 7:21, 22) and the marriage bond (1 Corinthians 7:39), perhaps Paul is using “dedoulōtai” in a similar sense in 1 Corinthians 7:15.6

While this is certainly a lexically plausible argument, we can safely rule it out in this passage given that Paul explicitly commands singleness after separation (verse 11) and permits remarriage only after one’s spouse has died (verse 39).

In Paul’s thinking, remarriage to another person, even after desertion, would be unthinkable, for to do so would not only constitute adultery (Romans 7:3), it would preclude reconciliation, which the believer simply does not have sufficient foreknowledge to rule out (verse 16, emphasis mine): “For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” Paul would not state in verse 15 that a believer is no longer bound in marriage to a departing unbeliever only to refer to these same individuals in the very next verse as “husband” and “wife.”

Conclusions

Whether one prefers translating the various terms used in 1 Corinthians 7 to describe the splitting up of married couples as “divorce” or “separate” (verses 10–13, 15, 27), one cannot import into them ancient Jewish, Roman, or modern American legal conventions. To do so fails to account for the transformational nature of “marriage for life” that Christ came to restore among God’s people.

Because believers are called to peace (Matthew 5:9), abandoned Christian spouses are not bound to force their unbelieving spouses to live with them against their wishes (1 Corinthians 7:15). In this sense, the believer is free, not to divorce and remarry, but to permit the unbeliever to depart, in the hope that he or she will one day be saved, and perhaps even return to the neglected marriage (1 Corinthians 7:11, 15).

Despite utilizing terms that can be twisted by those eager to find implicit justification for divorce and adulterous remarriage (2 Peter 3:16), linguistic analysis and Paul’s explicit instructions make it abundantly evident that this was neither his, nor the Lord’s, intent.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Appendix B

78.2KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

Note that the verbs used in verses 10 and 15 are variants of the same root word “χωρίζω,” “chórizó”: “to separate, divide,” and the verbs in verses 11, 12, and 13 are all variants of “ἀφίημι,” “aphiémi”: “to send away, leave alone, permit.”

For more on the significance of this point, see Part 7. “Paul on Divorce and Remarriage” in Leslie McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage. Comberton, Cambridgeshire, England, 2014.

That said, the word “lysin” in verse 27 does share the same root word with “apoluó,” namely, “λύω,” “luó” (Strong’s 3089): “to loose, to release, to dissolve.”

For example, see p. 30, 32, 33 of Andrew Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. 2019; 24: 3–44.

For more on the distinction between divorce and separation, see “The ministry of reconciliation” in chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God.”

See again p. 30, 32, 33 of Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage.”

The Death Penalty for Adultery

Garrett P. League — Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:52:50 GMT

This newsletter is a draft appendix (A) for an upcoming eBook on the scandal of Church-sanctioned divorce. If you haven’t already done so, please check out chapters I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, as well as the preface, afterword, and appendix B.

Gustave Doré, Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery, 1866.

Abstract

Background

When the Pharisees asked Jesus to share what He considered to be lawful grounds for divorce, they were asking Him to weigh in on a heated debate amongst the rabbis concerning Moses’ divorce legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 (Matthew 19:3, 7, 8; Mark 10:2–5). Many modern Christians assume that Jesus’ “exception clause” in Matthew 19:9 (and perhaps even Matthew 5:32) grants believers license to divorce their spouses for sexual immorality, that is, for adultery. However, such an interpretation fails to account for how adultery was treated under Mosaic law.

Methodology

In this brief Biblical and historical overview, we examine both Old and New Testament teaching on adultery and its legal consequences. We also sample first century Jewish writings and the Talmud to assess how the Jews handled adultery both during and after the time of Christ.

Principle findings

Together, these sources demonstrate that adultery was treated as a capital offense under the Mosaic regime. In spite of inconsistent enforcement, Jews well into the second century, and in some cases far beyond, considered adulterers to be liable to the death penalty, with historical records confirming such executions. Although this practice eventually faded into disuse, capital punishment for various moral and religious crimes was still very much in play in early first century Judaism, even under Roman hegemony.

Conclusions

Consequently, Christians must reject the mistaken notion that Jesus allowed for divorce on the grounds of adultery, or any other grounds, since this would have directly contradicted the very law He came to fulfill.

Biblical sources

Old Testament

Adultery was famously outlawed by God among His covenant people Israel in the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:14): “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”1 What is less widely appreciated is that this commandment also carried with it the death penalty for those who were found guilty of it.

For instance, the law of Moses states in Leviticus 20:10 that “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 22:22 says that “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

Although the precise mode of execution for adulterers was not always specified, it is most likely that they were stoned to death, per the instructions for pre-marital fornication detected after marriage (Deuteronomy 22:21; cf. Ezekiel 16:38, 40 and John 8:5). For comparison, especially egregious sexual sins, such as prostitution by the daughter of a high priest (Leviticus 21:9; cf. Genesis 38:24) and incest (Leviticus 20:14), were punished with burning.

Importantly, the law stipulated that the death penalty could not be imposed on the testimony of a single, lone witness (Deuteronomy 17: 6, 7):

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.”

However, given that adultery is by nature secretive, in the absence of eye witnesses (Numbers 5:13), the law also provided avenues for prosecuting those merely suspected of adultery.

The “bitter waters test” provided an empirical basis on which to either convict or acquit a woman suspected of marital unfaithfulness (Numbers 5:11–31). In this procedure, the wife would be brought under oath before a priest and made to drink “water of bitterness that brings the curse,” which included abdominal swelling and miscarriage if the woman was indeed guilty.2

An additional test was provided for cases of suspected pre-marital promiscuity (Deuteronomy 22). If a newly-wed husband did not find evidence of his wife’s virginity upon having sex with her, and her parents were unable to produce a cloth containing proof of her virginity,3 then she was to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:21):

“[…] they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

There are at least three reasons why God enacted such a severe punishment for the sin of adultery among His people.

First, capital punishment for adulterers served to “purge the evil” from among the Israelites, helping them maintain a respectful, loving social order (Matthew 22:36–40; Romans 13:8–10; Galatians 5:14). By implementing fearful deterrents against antisocial, “felony-level” moral and religious crimes, God discouraged the sins that posed the greatest threat to the integrity of civilization (Deuteronomy 17:13, 19:20; cf. Ecclesiastes 8:11). As David Amram has noted:4

“Although in ancient society and law adultery was regarded as a private wrong committed against the husband, public law later on exercised control of its investigation and punishment; for organized society was impossible unless it punished this crime, which saps the very root of the social life. ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is not merely a command not to tamper with the domestic affairs of another, but a warning to refrain from unsettling the foundations of society.”

Second, God commanded that adulterers be put to death to ensure genealogical purity among His people. Establishing paternity was essential for maintaining a number of essential Israelite social norms, such as those pertaining to property inheritance (Numbers 33:54; Deuteronomy 21:15–17).

Third, and most importantly, God instituted the death penalty for grievous sexual sins for theological reasons, since a people who were unfaithful to their covenant spouses through adultery were inevitably unfaithful to their covenant Lord through idolatry (e.g., Hosea 4:12–14), which was also punishable by death (Deuteronomy 17:2–7). If God allowed either physical or spiritual adultery to go unpunished among His people, He would communicate to the world that both He and His people were unholy, just like every other nation on earth (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:1–40). God knew that if He allowed adultery to take root among His people, then they would quickly be subsumed into the same sexual idolatry that had consumed every other civilization before and since (Leviticus 18; Numbers 25; Deuteronomy 7; Romans 1:18–32; etc.).

Even so, the death penalty for adultery was not unique to Israel among the peoples of the Ancient Near East.5 For example, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c.1754 B.C.) held that adulterous couples caught in the act (in flagrante delicto) were to be put to death by drowning, though the husband could pardon the guilty wife if he so desired.6

There are some who argue that since the death sentence for adultery was treated as the maximum, and not the minimum, punishment for adultery in Ancient Near Eastern culture, then the same was probably true in Israel.7 Certainly, God Himself at times exercised His sovereign right as the divine arbiter to commute the death penalty for adultery (2 Samuel 12:13; John 8:11), much as a U.S. President might issue an executive pardon for a criminal on death row. However, such pardons assume that the death penalty was merited in these instances and would otherwise have occurred.

Moreover, the typical legal pronouncements calling for capital punishment in the Torah took the form of straightforward “if/then” statements: “If X commits Y with Z, then X and Z are to be put to death” (e.g.,. Leviticus 20, Deuteronomy 22:13–30, etc.). Since God did not grant His kingly prerogative to pardon death penalty offenders to the subjects of His kingdom, we can assume that they were expected to follow His standard operating procedures in capital cases unless specifically instructed to do otherwise.

It is interesting to note that early on in Israel’s history, in cases where individuals were caught committing serious violations of God’s law, even ones for which God had already explicitly instituted the death penalty (e.g., violating the Sabbath; Exodus 31:15), the accused were put into custody until Moses received direction from God as to how to punish them. In the case of both blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10–23) and Sabbath breaking (Numbers 15:32–36), God insisted that the guilty parties be put to death by communal stoning.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that God called for the death penalty for other sexual sins besides adultery, including incest (Leviticus 20:11, 12, 14), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), and bestiality (Leviticus 20:15, 16).

Together, these facts strongly suggest that the death penalty was the standard punishment for convicted adulterers according to the law of Moses.

That said, we do not know for certain how often, or even at times whether this standard was enforced during each period of Israel's history.8 After all, this history included long stretches of national apostasy where the Jews neglected large swaths of Torah law. However, we can say with certainty that the death penalty for adultery was at least in force for the Jews under the Old Covenant. Moreover, as we will see, the death penalty for adultery was also enforced both before and after the coming of Christ, however frequently or infrequently circumstances and social mores allowed.

New Testament

The primary text concerning the death penalty for adultery in the New Testament is the beloved account of the woman caught in adultery found in John 8:3–11.9 Consistent with Torah law, the religious leaders of Christ’s day directly attested that the death penalty was still the anticipated punishment for adulterers at that time in Israel’s history (John 8:3–6a):

“The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to Him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?’ This they said to test Him, that they might have some charge to bring against Him.”

It is important to note at the outset that had this execution taken place, it would have run afoul of both Jewish10 and Roman law,11 given that only the adulteress, and not the adulterer, was present, despite purportedly having been caught in the act.

There also existed a tradition among the Jews that a husband who was guilty of adultery himself could not pursue the death penalty for a wife accused of adultery,12 a concept which Christ may have been alluding to with His famous retort (John 8:7b): “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” As Jesus stated elsewhere, the religious leaders themselves had become adulterous through, among other things, their penchant for divorce, remarriage, and fleshly self-indulgence (Matthew 12:39, 16:4, 19:3–9, 23:25–28; Mark 10:2–12; cf. Romans 2:17–24).

If these considerations are kept in mind, then Jesus is not disputing the fact that this woman’s sin is deserving of death, but rather the Pharisees’ legal right to pursue this indictment, even on their own terms (John 8:5).

That this question was asked of Jesus to “test Him, that they might have some charge to bring against Him” (John 8:6a) suggests that the Pharisees may have been seeking to expose Jesus’ adherence, or apparent lack thereof, to the law of Moses. Jesus had previously stated that He came to fulfill, not to do away with, the law (Matthew 5:17–19). But He also appeared to advocate a radically stricter standard for divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, 32), one that not even Moses demanded.

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ question was therefore utterly ingenious, in that He not only categorially denied the notion that God ever permitted divorce, but He did so citing God’s unchanging standard for marriage found in Genesis (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:5, 6), the first and foundational book of the five books of Moses! The Pharisees had been beaten at their own game.

One may, however, see this test as implying that execution for adultery was falling out of practice when this incident took place, and therefore had become controversial. Some have even posited a widespread substitution of divorce for the death penalty at this time, citing as support the mistaken belief that the school of Shammai allowed divorce for adultery,13 as well as Joseph’s intention to privately divorce Mary (Matthew 1:19).14 While we know that this substitution happened historically later on in Judaism, there is no evidence that this was yet occurring during Jesus’ ministry.15

Furthermore, even if this practice was occurring in incipient form in the early first century, Jesus’ “not over fornication” aside in Matthew 19:9 definitively rules out the possibility of divorce on the grounds of adultery, whether this was an actual, or merely potential, practice at that point in time. In stating this, Jesus was both upholding the law of Moses, which called for death, rather than divorce, for adultery, as well as affirming the obligation of the religious leaders to enforce it, albeit consistently (Matthew 23:2, 3, 23).

Importantly, Jesus’ aside also clarifies that His overall statement that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery does not apply in cases where a spouse is put away for adultery, since, if convicted, he or she would have (or at least should have) been put to death, and thus the surviving spouse would be free to remarry.

It must also be noted that the death penalty was at play during this time for other capital offenses besides adultery, including, most notably, blasphemy (Mark 14:64; Luke 4:29; John 8:58, 59, 10:33, 19:7). This further supports the notion that adulterers would have been liable to the deadly penalty at this time.

Despite this evidence, some argue that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not have the right to impose capital punishment under Roman rule. In support of this claim, the following exchange between the Jewish leaders and Pontius Pilate is cited (John 18:28–32, emphasis mine):16

“Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. So Pilate came out to them and asked, ‘What charges are you bringing against this man?’ ‘If He were not a criminal,’ they replied, ‘we would not have handed Him over to you.’ Pilate said, ‘Take Him yourselves and judge Him by your own law.’ ‘But we have no right to execute anyone,’ they objected. This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death He was going to die [i.e., death by crucifixion; see Matthew 16:21, Luke 24:6–8, and John 3:14, 8:28, 12:32, 33].”

However, as even Pilate appears to concede (John 18:31, 19:6), although the Sanhedrin did not have jurisdiction over civil offenses against Roman law, they clearly retained authority over religious offenses against God’s law.17 So their reply “we have no right to execute anyone” was at best a misleading half-truth, a calculated overstatement intended to hide their true intentions behind a cloak of flattery and feigned obeisance (e.g., Mark 15:10).18 In short, they were bluffing.19

In the case of Jesus, the Sanhedrin were determined not only to kill Him, but to do so in a manner that kept their hands both morally and ceremonially clean. To do this, they very shrewdly sought to pawn Jesus off on the Roman authorities to be executed by crucifixion (Matthew 27:5–7; Mark 14:1–2; John 19:6, 7, 10, 31, 42; cf. Leviticus 21:1–4, 22:4–6, 11 and Numbers 5:2, 19:11–16), rather than executing Him themselves by stoning. This is why their initial charge of blasphemy against God in the high priest’s court (Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:63, 64) was adapted to a charge of sedition against Caesar in Pilate’s court (John 18:30, 33–40, 19:12–22; cf. Luke 23:2, 14).

That the Sanhedrin could lawfully execute religious blasphemers under Roman occupation is abundantly attested in the New Testament. For example, Paul was given explicit written permission from the Sanhedrin to arrest and imprison Christians for blasphemy (Acts 22:4, 5; cf. 1 Timothy 1:13). The punishments they received in these cases included flogging (Matthew 10:17, 23:34; Mark 13:9; Acts 5:40; 22:19) as well as death (Matthew 23:34, 24:9; Acts 26:10, 11), as in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58, 8:1, 22:20) under the auspices of the Sanhedrin (Acts 6:12, 15, 7:54) on charges of blasphemy and heresy (Acts 6:11, 13, 14). This manner of execution is also recorded in extra-Biblical literature.20

In the Christian understanding, capital punishment for various sins was in effect for the nation of Israel from the ratification of the Old Covenant at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24:1–11) to the inauguration of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood on the cross (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8–10:18). This is because Christ’s sacrifice, as the culmination of law of Moses (Matthew 5:17–20; Romans 10:4), brought about the removal of the ceremonial laws that served as a temporary barrier between Israel and the gentile nations (Acts 10–11:18, 15:1–29; Galatians 3:23–4:7; Ephesians 2:11–22).

Now a full-blown international conglomerate, God’s people, comprised of both Jew and non-Jew alike (Romans 3:9–31, 10:12, 13; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; etc.), would henceforth handle violations of the moral law with Church discipline, including such measures as excommunication (1 Corinthians 5).21 Punishments such as imprisonment and/or execution would now be ceded to the civil, rather than ecclesiastical authorities (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Acts 25:11; Romans 13:1–7), and even then only for violations of civil law.

Critically, adultery and other sexual sins are still considered sinful under the New Covenant (Matthew 5:27, 28; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, 18; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19–21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4). This is because their prohibition is grounded in creation law, which both preceded and succeeded the law of Moses. However, while still leading to divine judgment in very real and tangible ways,22 such sins would no longer receive the death penalty as it was meted out in the theocratic nation-state of Israel. Hence, Paul commanded the Corinthian man committing incest to be put out of the congregation, rather than put to death (1 Corinthians 5:1–5), adding later that such a one ought to be received back into fellowship upon repenting (2 Corinthians 2:5–8).

First century Jewish sources

That the death penalty was considered the prescribed punishment for various sexual sins among first century Jews is corroborated by well known Jewish authors from the period.

For instance, the renowned Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37/38–100 A.D.) says the following regarding the punishment for sodomy in his late first century, early second century work Against Apion (2.199, emphasis mine):

"But then, what are our [i.e., the Jews'] laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male [i.e., homosexuality]; and if any one do that, death is his punishment.”

On the heels of this statement, Josephus says the following on adultery (emphasis mine):23

A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to have to do with another man’s wife is a wicked thing; which, if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices another man’s wife."

Furthermore, Josephus also notes in both his Antiquities of the Jews24 and The Wars of the Jews25 that the Roman authorities not only supported the Jews in the observance of their own laws, but indeed practically insisted on their doing so. As a general policy, Rome sought to interfere as little as possible in the internal religious affairs of the Jews as a means of keeping the peace. This implies that the Jews’ ability to execute religious offenders remained in place under Roman rule, particularly in times or relative political stability.

In agreement with Josephus, the prominent Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (15–10 B.C.–45–50 A.D.) said the following on adultery in his On the Special Laws (III: II. 11, emphasis mine):

“But those men who are frantic in their desires for the wives of others [adultery], and at times even for those of their nearest relations [incest] or dearest friends, and who live to the injury of their neighbors, attempting to vitiate whole families, however numerous, and violating all kinds of marriage vows [by committing adultery], and making vain the hopes which men conceive of having legitimate children, being afflicted with an incurable disease of the soul, must be punished with death as common enemies to the whole race of mankind, in order that they may no longer live in perfect fearlessness, so as to be at leisure to corrupt other houses, nor become teachers of others, who may learn by their example to practice evil habits.”

Indeed, Philo stated unequivocally that “The law has pronounced all acts of adultery, if detected in the fact, or if proved by undeniable evidence, liable to the punishment of death”26 adding shortly thereafter that “death is the punishment appointed for adulterers […].”27

In addition to various forms of adultery,28 including the remarriage of a husband to his divorced wife after her second marriage ended,29 Philo also considered other sexual sins, such as pederasty30 and prostitution,31 to be deserving of death by stoning under Jewish law.

We see then that both during the time of Christ and the decades that followed, the death penalty remained the “on the books” punishment for adultery and other serious sexual transgressions among first century Jews.

Talmudic sources

The Talmud is a compendium of Jewish texts consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara (also referred to as the Talmud), which together form the basis of rabbinic Judaism. The Mishnah, compiled c.200 A.D. by rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (“Judah the Prince”), represents the earliest compilation of the so-called “Oral Torah.”32 The Talmud, compiled between the 3rd and 8th centuries A.D., is a commentary on the Mishnah.

The Mishnah Sanhedrin (written c.190–c.230 A.D.) and the Talmud’s Tractate Sanhedrin (c.450–c.550 A.D.) record death by strangulation, decapitation, stoning, and burning33 for various sexual offences, including adultery.34 For example, the Mishna records a prominent case of adultery, dated prior to 66 A.D.,35 involving a high priest’s daughter, who was burned to death for her promiscuity.36

Over time, however, some rabbinic schools, based on a dubious inference from Leviticus 20:17 and related passages,37 began requiring that witnesses to capital offenses issue a verbal warning to the would-be transgressors prior to their committing the crime, without which they were not liable to death.38 In practice, this made it much more difficult to obtain convictions for adultery, encouraging the spread of this sin.39 So while the death penalty remained the de jure (“by law”) punishment for adultery, it was increasingly no longer the de facto (“in fact”) punishment.

The Mishnah records that the Sanhedrin, for unknown reasons,40 lost its ability to judge capital offenses forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D.,41 a time roughly coinciding with Jesus’ crucifixion in 30 or 33 A.D. If we grant that this claim is historically reliable, then this passage affirms that the death penalty was enforced for capital crimes by the the Jewish ruling council prior to 30 A.D.42 Thus, according to the Talmud, Jesus’ approximately three-year public ministry (c.28±2–c.33±3 A.D.) would have taken place at the tail end of a period in which the death penalty was enforceable, at least in an official capacity, by the Sanhedrin.

The Talmud also states that without a priest serving at a temple, there can be no trying of capital crimes.43 Such was the case in Judaism after 70 A.D., when the temple was demolished by the Roman army under Titus. Nevertheless, despite apparently losing the formal legal and religious sanctions to properly judge capital offenses, the Jews continued to support the death penalty for crimes such as adultery into the second century (Sanhedrin 74a, emphasis mine):

“The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod [i.e., Lydda]: With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.”44

If these pronouncements were made in circumvention of Roman restrictions or Jewish legal norms this would be unsurprising given that they were issued during the Bar Kokhba revolt (a.k.a., the Hadrianic Revolt or Second Jewish War, c.132–135 A.D.). This revolt was part of the larger Jewish-Roman wars (66–135 A.D.), a period of widespread Jewish civil unrest and rebellion against Rome.

Due to the devastation that resulted from these wars, Jewish law underwent an important shift regarding the use of capital punishment for adultery:45

“With the dispersal of the Jews after the Second Jewish War […], and lacking nation status to implement the requirements of the Torah, rabbinic law developed to make divorce mandatory for an adulterous wife […]. This was just one of a number of adjustments that the Jews had to make […] when God permanently took away their power to enforce His Law.”

Thus, the Talmud indicates that the death penalty for adultery ceased gradually over time46 and was for the most part replaced with divorce, though only in cases involving an unfaithful wife.47 In such cases, the adulterous wife was not permitted to marry her lover after she was divorced,48 and if she did, the two were forcibly separated.49

Besides a lack of national and ceremonial infrastructure, another major impetus for this shift in policy on adultery was the rampant moral degeneracy of this period, a trend that was already well underway during the ministry of Christ (Matthew 23). Jewish cultural decline of the first and second centuries was characterized by such a proliferation of sexual promiscuity and judicial corruption that capital punishment and its requisite legal proceedings became practically impossible to implement.50

This observation sheds a whole new light, for instance, on the Mishnah’s statements on the frequency of death penalty convictions under the increasingly “soft on crime” Sanhedrin (Mishnah Makkot 1, emphasis mine):

“The mishna continues: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed.”51

One can see the conflicting opinions at work here, even as they are today, between the more liberal, “live and let live” teachers and the more conservative, “law and order” teachers. Following the logic of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel52 (c.10 B.C.–70 A.D.) on murder, one can see why such a relaxed policy on adultery would only further encourage it.

One should keep in mind that the rabbi Akiva (50–135 A.D.) cited above was also extremely lax in his approach to divorce, advocating the most permissive form of it at the time (Mishnah Gittin 9.10, emphasis mine):

“Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, ‘Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.’ Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, ‘Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.’ Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, ‘it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes.’”

In spite of these developments away from the death penalty and toward divorce, capital offenses were still adjudicated in an ad hoc manner for many centuries in at least some Jewish diaspora communities.53

Summary and significance

From the giving of the law through Moses (c.1,300±100 B.C.) through the coming of Christ (c.6–4 B.C.–c.30/33 A.D.), the Jewish people considered adultery to be worthy of the death penalty under Torah law.

The right to execute religious offenders for capital crimes was retained by the Jews under Roman occupation. However, their ability to try such cases was impeded, though not entirely eliminated, by the Sanhedrin’s legal demotion around 30 A.D., the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D., and the diaspora following the Jewish-Roman wars after 135 A.D.54

Historical records suggest that the Jews did not begin formally replacing the death penalty for adultery with divorce until the late first, early second centuries, which one would expect given the socio-political exigencies of the time. Still, some Jewish communities tried capital offenses well into the middle ages and early modern period.55

Thus, when Jesus was questioned on divorce by the Pharisees, the death penalty for adultery was still a very real consideration to account for, as the Pharisees themselves indicated (John 8:5). Jesus’ explicit exclusion of sexual immorality as a grounds for divorce reaffirmed God’s prior elimination of this possibility under Jewish law and forever forbade His followers from appealing to adultery as a justification for the sin of divorce.56

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Appendix A

175KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

Adultery is also alluded to in the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17, emphasis mine):

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

The mechanism by which a mixture of holy water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and written curses washed from a scroll caused these physical effects was clearly supernatural, since each of these elements represents a most sacred aspect of Israelite worship of God: the temple implements (e.g., the bronze basin for ceremonial washing; Exodus 30:18), the temple into which only the priests could set foot (Hebrews 9:6, 7), and the taking of solemn oaths (Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21–23). The oath the priest enjoins clearly indicates that God Himself would enforce the threatened outcomes for wives who falsely swore their innocence (Numbers 5:21, emphasis mine):

“here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—’may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.’”

Presumably, given the gravity of this procedure and its potential repercussions, many women who were guilty of adultery would be induced into confessing their guilt before falsely sealing a solemn oath, as later rabbinical literature attests (see p. 217, “Guilt Tested by Ordeal” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia).

This proof took the form of bedding stained with blood produced by the breaking of the hymen (see, for example, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible on Deuteronomy 22:17), which often occurs as a result of the initial act(s) of sexual intercourse (see Health Library, Body Systems & Organs entry for “Hymen” from the Cleveland Clinic).

See p. 216, “Woman's Rights Enforced” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia.

See ch. 1 “The World of the Bible” in Gordon Wenham, Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019.

See The Code of Hammurabi, law 129.

See p. 21, 22, Wenham, Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting. As evidence of this from the Bible, Wenham cites Proverbs 6:31–35:

“but if he is caught [stealing], he will pay sevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house. 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. For jealousy makes a man furious, and he will not spare when he takes revenge. He will accept no compensation; he will refuse though you multiply gifts.”

Curiously, Wenham comments “Proverbs 6:31–35 warns the would-be adulterer not to count on the angry husband letting him off. This shows that the death penalty did not have to be enforced.” Actually, it suggests quite the opposite: No matter how desperate an adulterer may plea to be let off the hook, nothing he offers, short of his life, will be accepted! The law of Moses made no provision for such a plea bargain.

See “In Practice in the Talmud” in “Capital Punishment,” Encyclopaedia Judaica.

This story is found in a section of scripture (John 7:53–8:11) that not a part of the original Gospel of John, being absent from the earliest manuscripts. While this passage should not be considered inspired scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), it likely represents an oral tradition concerning an actual incident from the life of Christ. See Tommy Wasserman’s “Does the Woman Caught in Adultery Belong in the Bible?” Text & Canon Institute, 2022.

See footnote 4 in chapter V “The Christian Caught in Adultery.”

Thomas Phillips highlights a distinction between Jewish and Roman law that may have been at work in this episode: Although both Jewish and Roman law called for the execution of both the adulterer and adulteress, Roman law further stipulated that the two had to be executed together. See p.75, 76, “A Woman Caught in Adultery? Or A Wandering Teacher Trapped Between Roman and Jewish Law?: John 7:53–8:11 in Light of Quintilian and Seneca” in Greco-Roman and Jewish Tributaries to the New Testament: Festschrift in Honor of Gregory J. Riley. Christopher S. Crawford (ed.). Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018; 4: 71–82.

See “Guilt Tested by Ordeal” and “Ordeal Annulled” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia.

Gordon Wenham gives the most likely basis for divorce in the Shammaite school of thought (p. 33, Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting):

“The Shammaites argued that this law [Deuteronomy 24:1] allows divorce only for ‘some indecency’—probably some sexual misbehavior serious enough to warrant her husband divorcing her and confiscating her dowry but not grave enough to warrant the death penalty, as adultery would be.”

For additional details, see footnote 33 in the afterword and section 7.10.1. “What precisely did the two schools teach on the issue of divorce?” in Leslie McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage. Comberton, Cambridgeshire: 2014.

Actually, many commentators believe that the “public disgrace” that Joseph was unwilling to subject Mary to due to her apparent betrothal pregnancy likely involved death by stoning (Matthew 1:19; see sample commentaries here), the prescribed punishment for this scenario under Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 22:21). That he sought to divorce her privately may in fact suggest an extraordinary measure that he was forced to under extraordinary circumstances.

For example, see p. 193, section 6.3.3.2., “Did Jesus change the death penalty into a ground for divorce?” in McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage:

“It is conceded by Judaism that the death penalty for adultery was in operation throughout the Old Testament period and up until they lost their political independence to Rome. We have no evidence—not a single case—where divorce was substituted for the death penalty [during this time period] even under Roman occupation.”

See also section 7.10.3. “What was the situation under Roman domination?” (ibid.).

For an idea of the various opinions on the implications of this passage, see the commentaries on John 18:31 here.

See p. 194, section 6.3.3.2., “Did Jesus change the death penalty into a ground for divorce?” and p. 366, section 7.10.3. “What was the situation under Roman domination?” in McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage.

This passage and its parallels are filled with cynical, sarcastic doublespeak from both the religious leaders (John 18:30, 31, 19:15) and Pilate (John 18:35, 38, 39, 19:6, 14, 15). Indeed, as many others have observed, this entire episode is brimming with thick ironies at every turn (John 18:39, 40, 19:2, 3, 19–22). One must therefore exercise caution in taking any of the statements and/or circumstances associated with these events merely at face value.

The fact that John writes “This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die” (John 18:32) may indicate that such an obviously counterfactual claim by the religious leaders demanded a higher, providential explanation: They resorted to such shameless chicanery to avoid culpability, but ultimately, God used it to fulfill His prophetic agenda (Psalm 23; Isaiah 53; etc.). For other possible explanations, see footnotes 40 and 41.

For example, a number of writers, including the Christian historian Eusebius (c.260–c.340 A.D.), record the death of James the Just by stoning under the high priest Ananus (see The Church History of Eusebius, “Chapter XXIII.—The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord”), an incident which likely occurred c.62 A.D. (for a brief synopsis, see Sean McDowell, “Did James, the Brother of Jesus, Die as a Martyr?” 2016).

Excommunication and shunning (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 1:10, 11) are the New Testament equivalents of what was referred to as “cutting off” (i.e., death or banishment) in the Old Testament.

See “The stench of death” in chapter VI “Divorced From Reality.”

Against Apion 2.201.

Book XVI, ch. 2, section 3 and ch. 6, section 7.

Book VI, ch. 2, section 1.

On the Special Laws, III: X. 52.

III: X. 58, ibid.

III: XII. 72, 73, ibid.

III: V. 30, 31, ibid. (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1–4).

III: VII. 37–39, ibid.

III: IX. 51, ibid.

The Oral Torah consists of oral traditions on the meaning and application of the Tanakh (i.e., the Jewish Bible, or Old Testament).

Together, these methods encompass the four modes of death entrusted to the Sanhedrin court (Mishna Sanhedrin 7.1).

Mishnah Sanhedrin 1, 7, 9, 11; Sanhedrin 2a, 51a, 51b, 52b, 53a, 66b, 71b, 74a, 75a, 89a; etc. For an exhaustive list of the 117 references to “adultery” in the Mishnah Sanhedrin and the Tractate Sanhedrin, many of which mention the death penalty, see here.

See p. 23 in Roger Aus, Caught in the Act, Walking on the Sea, and the Release of Barabbas Revisited. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism (no. 157). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998.

Mishna Sanhedrin 7.2; Sanhedrin 52a, 52b; cf. Leviticus 21:9. There was debate among the rabbis, not as to whether the priest’s daughter should have been burned, but as to the manner in which she was burned: the Sadducees, rejecting later traditions, burned her with a bundle of sticks, while others insisted the burning be performed by inserting a leaden wick into the bowels orally (Sanhedrin 52b). When the Sadducean method was later employed by Rav Hama b. Tuviyah (Tobiah), he was rebuked by commentators for not only employing an unprescribed method, but also for doing so in the absence of a functioning priesthood and temple (Sanhedrin 52b.3). For additional details on these events, see “Burning” under “Talmudic Law” in “Capital Punishment,” Encyclopaedia Judaica.

Exodus 21:14, Numbers 15:33, and Deuteronomy 22:24.

Sanhedrin 9a, 41a; Mishnah Soṭah 1. See p. 217, 218, “Talmudic View” and “The Law in Patriarchal Days” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia.

According to David Amram “Practically, it [i.e., the prior warning criterion] worked an acquittal in nearly every case” (p. 218, “The Law in Patriarchal Days,” ibid.).

Some believe that this may have been due to strained relations with Rome (see p. 217, “Talmudic View,” ibid., p. 366, section 7.10.3. “What was the situation under Roman domination?” in McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, and Damien Mackey, “Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and ‘Last Judgement of Sanhedrin’”). It is tempting to see this event as a divine demotion for having misjudged the Messiah Himself (see, for example, the sources cited in ibid.), though this view would require a crucifixion date sometime before or during 30 A.D. and would not account for the religious leaders claim in John 18:31, which was obviously made before Jesus was put to death. However, if the claim in this verse was made before the Sanhedrin’s loss of judgment in capital cases, then this option is not only viable, but it may even hint at the fulfillment of yet another unwitting prophecy on the part of the religious leaders (e.g., John 11:51).

Sanhedrin 41a; Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1:1, 7:2. See p. 217, “Talmudic View” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia, and “In Practice in the Talmud” in “Capital Punishment,” Encyclopaedia Judaica. It should be noted that the text of Sanhedrin 41a contains historical anachronisms that indicate the the rabbis themselves were at odds with one another as to the implications of the Sanhedrin’s exile from the Chamber of Hewn Stone. See sources cited in p. 364, 365, section 7.10.3. “What was the situation under Roman domination?” in McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage.

For example, Sanhedrin 41a states: “in those years [i.e., c.10–c.30 A.D., when rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was still a student and before he rose to prominence after 70 A.D.] the Sanhedrin was in its place and judged cases of capital law.”

Sanhedrin 52b.

Concerning the rabbis’ decision at the meeting at Lydda, an important meeting place for Jewish sages at the time (Aharon Oppenheimer, “Jewish Lydda in the Roman Era,” Hebrew Union College Annual. 1988; 59: 115–136.). David Amram comments (p. 217, “Sacredness of Marriage Relation” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia):

“Thus law and morality went hand in hand to prevent the commission of the crime. For those, however, who were deaf to warnings of law and reason, the punishment of death was ordained. Both the guilty wife and her paramour were put to death (Deut. xxii. 22).”

See footnote 152, p. 101, in McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage.

Mishnah Soṭah 9.

Mishnah Sotah 1, 6, 7; Sotah 2a, 7a, 18b, 31a, 31b. See p. 372, 373, section 7.10.3.2., “The situation reflected in the Mishnah,” in McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage.

Mishnah Sotah 5; Ketubot 9a.

Mishnah Yevamot 2.8. See p. 217, 218, “Talmudic View” and “Status of Adulterer” in “Adultery,” Jewish Encyclopedia.

See p. 218, “Ordeal Annulled,” ibid.

Compare the approach to justice here by Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva with this episode from the Old Testament regarding a man who violated the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32–36):

“While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.’ So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.”

Even this mode of stoning was eventually moderated under the more lenient Talmudic approach (see “Stoning” under “Talmudic Law” in “Capital Punishment,” Encyclopaedia Judaica).

Incidentally, Shimon ben Gamliel was the son of Rabban Gamaliel I, rabbi to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 5:34–39, 22:3).

See “Strangling” in “Capital Punishment,” Encyclopaedia Judaica:

“Though in strict law the competence to inflict capital punishment ceased with the destruction of the Temple (Sanh. 52b, Ket. 30a; cf. Sanh. 41a, 40 years earlier), Jewish courts continued, wherever they had the power (e.g., in Muslim Spain), to pass and execute death sentences […].”

Furthermore (“In the State of Israel,” ibid.):

“These principles were succinctly set forth in the codificatory literature, ‘Even though there is no jurisdiction outside the Land of Israel for capital punishment, flogging, or fines, if the court deems that it is an exigency of the time, in as much as the crime is rampant among the people, it may impose the death penalty, monetary fines, or other punishments’ (Tur, ḤM, ch. 2, and Sh. Ar. ibid.).”

These judgments were precipitated by the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah, as Jesus Himself, as well as others, had predicted (Daniel 9:26; Matthew 24:1–35; Mark 13:1–31; Luke 19:41–44, 21:5–38, 23:26–31; etc.).

See “In the State of Israel,” Encyclopaedia Judaica.

For details, see “Excluding the exception clause” in chapter II “The Lord of Marriage” and “The Erasmian deception” in chapter III “The Apostle, the Fathers, and the ‘Prince of Humanists.’”

Preface

Garrett P. League — Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:38:30 GMT

This newsletter is a draft preface for an upcoming eBook on the scandal of Church-sanctioned divorce. If you haven’t already done so, please check out chapters I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, as well as the afterword, and appendices A and B.

James Tissot, Woe Unto You, Scribes and Pharisees, 1886-1894.

Divorce and remarriage, revisited

The motivation for writing this book is, unfortunately, quite ordinary.

Like most of you, many of our friends and relatives are divorced, remarried, or married to a divorcee. In our experience, intact first marriages are increasingly the exception. This is troubling given that most of these same marriages are comprised of professing Christians.

From anecdotal evidence, we know our family is not unique. As many others have observed, divorce and remarriage are now commonplace among American Christians. We are now witnessing the devastating personal and societal consequences of no-fault divorce play out in real time as this once off-limits practice thoroughly permeates the Church and culture.

This prompted us to start asking some obvious questions.

How did this all happen? And why are an inordinate number of “mixed families” (a euphemism for what used to be termed “broken families”) now found among the ranks of conservative, Protestant evangelicals, of all groups?

Does the Bible itself give Christians license, at least under some circumstances, to divorce and remarry, even while a former spouse is still living and perhaps only a short distance away in the rearview mirror?

And critically, in a time when acceptance of divorce and remarriage among Christians is on the rise, what must the Church do to finally eradicate these pestilential practices? What will it take for us to finally and forever call off our deadly dalliance with divorce?

Wanted for adultery

As we set about to address the decline of the modern American Church, we created a list of what we believed to be the seven deadly sins, if you will, afflicting God’s people today.1 What distinguishes these practices from those that typically draw the ire of conservative religious punditry is that these sins are widely tolerated, if not outright celebrated, among even the most stalwart, Bible-believing Christians. Ironically, and unbeknownst to most Christians, each of these practices has a secular counterpart that most believers spit out at first taste, even while guzzling down the Christian knock-off by the gallon. While the cleaned-up Christian versions of these practices look innocuous, they are anything but.

With very little debate, the top under-the-radar sin on our “most-wanted” list was hands down divorce and remarriage. We speak in detail on the rationale for this choice in the opening pages of the book,2 but in short, those who divorce defiantly and violently rend in pieces what God has united for life (Malachi 2:16; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). To compound this sin, those who unlawfully remarry after divorce, thinking they were free to do so, commit adultery according to Christ (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18).

To make matters worse, on top of all that, today’s leading Christian voices for the most part lend nothing but hearty approval to this behavior (Romans 1:32). Because of this, we do not think it an understatement to say that Church-sanctioned adultery is one of the great scandals of modern Christian doctrine and practice.

To adulterate something is to contaminate its pure, unsullied substance with something filthy and defiling, thereby rendering it impure and unclean. Christians who divorce and remarry during their previous spouse’s lifetime commit a three-fold sin that is not easily remedied.

First, they sin against their own bodies by engaging in sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). Second, they sin against each other by violating the marriage covenant (Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, 39). Third, and most grievous of all, they sin against their Maker by breaking divinely-ordained creation law (Genesis 2:24; Exodus 20:14). In doing so, they adulterate the God-given institution of marriage itself (Hebrews 13:4), desecrating the sacred image of Christ’s love for His Church that God intended our marriages to display (Ephesians 5:21–33).

Thus, before adultery is unfaithfulness to oneself or one’s covenant partner, it is first and foremost unfaithfulness to God (Psalm 51:4). We take this offense lightly at our eternal peril (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10).

Too far, or not far enough?

Some will undoubtedly claim that our stance on divorce and remarriage simply goes too far. We beg to differ, and will demonstrate in the coming pages that it is the compromised approach of the modern Church, and not our own, that is going too far in presumptuously disregarding God’s holy standards for marriage.

Let’s be frank: Christians nowadays treat marriage contracts like disposable moist towelettes at a barbecue joint, permitting divorce and remarriage for a veritable smorgasbord of tasty excuses. And all this while our country sinks deeper and deeper into sexual oblivion. No more. We refuse to content ourselves with such criminal complicity. We will not be silent.

That’s why we’re issuing a prophetic call for Christians to stop justifying their marital shortcomings. Don't pawn your marriage failures off on God and His word. Your sins will find no quarter there. Stop blaming Him, your spouse, or even your misguided pastor and church friends for your mistakes. Instead, own them. Take responsibility for them. Learn from them. Otherwise, you'll continue to blame others for your problems while remaining willfully ignorant of how you have contributed to the them. As a result, you will become morally calloused and spiritually stunted. Please, drop the act. Repent. Stop defending the indefensible.

This book represents our best effort to defend God’s unbending rule of marriage “till death do us part” and to punch the demonic doctrine of divorce square in the nose. As you will see, we will pull no punches. Our gloves are off. We are throwing down the gauntlet.

Bring it, divorce-defending Christians. Give us your best shot. We will certainly give you ours.

Content overview

After much prayer and research on this topic, we discovered some truths about marriage and the history of divorce in the Church that blew us away. We share our outdated, out-of-step, out-of-touch, and, consequently, desperately needed findings in the chapters that follow.

In chapter I “Yes, God Still Hates Divorce,” we set the tone for the book by stating the problem up front, as well as justifying the need to take an unapologetic, hard-and-fast stand against it, given our current cultural collapse.

In chapters II “The Lord of Marriage” and III “The Apostle, the Fathers, and the ‘Prince of Humanists,’” we reexamine the Lord Jesus’ and the Apostle Paul’s pronouncements on divorce and remarriage, making it clear that they, along with the Early Church Fathers, were staunch opponents of both, a precedent that largely held sway in the Church until the Protestant Reformers broke rank in the 16th century under the influence of Erasmus of Rotterdam.

In chapter IV “The Rule of the “Exceptions,” we take aim at the now sacrosanct, fallen human inventions that are the “divorce exceptions,” showing their Biblical, theological, spiritual, rational, and practical folly.

In chapter V “The Christian Caught in Adultery,” we confront the obvious, but oft denied implications of entering forbidden marriages and consider the cost of following Christ in a Church riddled with divorce and adulterous remarriage.

In chapter VI “Divorced From Reality” we stare unflinchingly into the abyss of easy divorce and expose the lies keeping Christians in the dark with respect to the judgments it brings on individuals, families, and societies.

Finally, in chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God,” we lay out the Christian ministry of reconciliation, discussing its implications for when divorced and/or separated members of God’s New Covenant people can, and cannot reunite in marriage.

The book ends with an extensive and wide-ranging afterword in which we present our general recommendations for Church policy on divorce and remarriage, as well as other take-home messages, exhortations, and parting advice.

The book also contains two appendices. Appendix A is a Biblical and historical overview of the Old Testament’s death penalty for adultery and its implications for Jesus’ purported permission of divorce for sexual immorality in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Appendix B is an in-depth discussion of Paul's use of the terms “divorce” and “bound” in 1 Corinthians 7 and its bearing on the so-called “Pauline privilege,” which allegedly permits divorce and remarriage for Christians who have been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.

eBook format

The draft sections of this eBook were originally published independently in serial form on the League of Believers’ Substack page (garrettpleague.substack.com). These sections were simultaneously sent in newsletter form to our Substack subscribers to elicit feedback on our book as it was written and compiled. Think of this as the book’s beta testing stage.

The current version of the book (version one: “V.1_date.at.publishing”) is simply a compilation of these posts, with additional formatting edits. Think of this as the gamma, or field testing stage. We expect subsequent versions will be released in the coming years, with appropriate explanatory notes accompanying each update.

We have chosen to self-publish this book online as an eBook to efficiently share it contents, free of charge, to the widest readership possible. Substack is currently the world’s leading online platform for showcasing high-quality, independent writing, affording authors complete creative control over their work and its distribution in a way traditional publishers simply cannot match.

We have decided to release version one now, and in its present form, for the sake of expediency in getting the word out on this very timely subject, as well as for the convenience of sharing this series with our readers as a single PDF file that is compatible with all electronic devices and e-readers.

Given the collaborative environment that gave rise to these contents, I, Garrett League, the author of this book, will often switch between the the first-person singular pronouns “I,” “my,” etc. and the first-person plural pronouns “we,” “our,” etc. throughout this book. Although I am certainly speaking for myself, I am also speaking for a league of like-minded Christians, which we hope will include you as well after reading this volume.

Research methodology

In conducting the research for this project, we have sought to use mainly “open access” resources, that is, those that are publicly available to all, for free, online. In some cases, we consulted books that can be affordably purchased from major book retailers. When citing work published in traditionally closed access resources, such as academic journals, we made use of articles that were nevertheless freely available online.

We adopted this approach for both practical and principled reasons, including avoiding subscription paywalls and encouraging transparency and accountability. By using readily accessible online materials and embedding URL links to them in the text of our book, our readers can easily fact-check our claims and analyze our arguments for themselves by examining our sources first-hand.

Wherever possible, we directly examined primary source documents rather than relying on secondary sources. Fortunately, many of these primary documents are also readily accessible in online repositories. However, when appropriate, we also interacted with proper secondary and tertiary documents, including academic articles and reputable scholarly encyclopedias.

That said, we did not discriminate against unpublished works and non-scholarly sources (such as media outlets), so long as their contents were of a high quality and were germane to the topic. Hopefully, the merits of this present work will be judged on the quality of its presentation and argumentation, and not solely on its self-published status, the stigma of which is rapidly fading in our digital age, even as the prestige of the legacy publishers craters.

Acknowledgments

I am greatly indebted to my fellow unnamed co-laborers in the League of Believers for making this book what it is. The insights you have shared and the countless prayers you have prayed both with me and for me have made this ministry’s maiden publication effort truly blessed.

I also want to thank our team of initial beta readers for subscribing to our newsletter and providing feedback on the original drafts of each book section. Your insights, critiques, and encouragements have improved this work substantially.

May the case presented here lead God’s people, by His Spirit, without fail, back to Christ our first love (Revelation 2:4, 5).

Garrett P. League

First comes love, then comes marriage…

…then comes our series on birth control in the Church. It’s time to move on to the next item on our list of “Top Seven ‘Christian’ Practices That Are Bringing God’s Judgment on the American Church.” Like divorce and remarriage, most Christians today wouldn’t bat an eye at using all manner of contraceptive. We hope our series on this topic changes that. Our thesis is a simple, two-part battle cry: contra contraception; pro procreation.

In the meantime, stay tuned for appendices A and B described above, which will be released separately in the coming days.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Preface

65.2KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

See “Top Seven ‘Christian’ Practices That Are Bringing God’s Judgment on the American Church.” League of Believers, 2023.

See “Our greatest spiritual blunder” in chapter I “Yes, God Still Hates Divorce.”

Afterword

Garrett P. League — Mon, 18 Sep 2023 23:27:10 GMT

This newsletter is a draft afterword for an upcoming eBook on the scandal of Church-sanctioned divorce. If you haven’t already done so, please check out chapters I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, as well as the preface and appendices A and B.

James Tissot, The Exhortation to the Apostles, 1886-1896.

A note to our readers

We realize that the contents of this book may carry major implications for many of our readers’ marriages, or those of their friends and family. At the close of this volume, we wanted to address these readers directly, given the challenging and sensitive nature of the topics at hand.

Perhaps some of you have become convinced in the course of reading this book that either you or your loved ones have entered into marriages that are unlawful in God’s sight. As we can personally attest, this realization can be deeply unsettling. If you find yourself in this position, we would like to offer you first, our advice and encouragement, and second, our prayers.

First, if you have felt convicted as you have read, thought, and prayed through the arguments presented here, and the teachings we have brought forth ring true to you as rightly representing the holy character of God as attested to in the scriptures, then you are almost certainly experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit who was sent into the world for these very purposes (John 16:8–11, 13, 14):

“And when He [the Holy Spirit] comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see Me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. […] When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on his own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you.”

This is what Jesus meant when He said “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). If you are personally encountering what these verses are describing, then we urge you, do not to quench the Spirit’s work in your life through continued unbelief and disobedience (John 20:27b; Acts 7:51; Ephesians 2:1, 2; 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22)—instead, repent and trust in Christ by turning from your sin and putting your faith into action through obedience to His commands (Matthew 28:20a; Mark 1:15; John 6:29, 14:15; Acts 2:38, 16:31). In other words, today, if you hear the voice of your Shepherd, follow Him (John 10:1–18; Hebrews 3:15). You will never regret it.

Know that you are neither the first nor the last person to find him or herself in such a situation: You are not alone (Matthew 28:20b; John 16:32; 1 Corinthians 10:13; see also footnote 44 below). If we turn to God in repentance and faith-filled obedience, He will not leave us to fend for ourselves (John 14:15–21):

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. Whoever has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

God gives the Holy Spirit to empower believers to accomplish His will (Acts 1:8). This is why the Spirit is referred to as the great Comforter, Strengthener, Counselor, Supporter, and Advocate of our souls (John 14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:7). Ask God for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13; cf. Matthew 7:11), and you will find the strength you need to do what He’s asking you to do.

Second, if you are facing difficult, weighty decisions in your life regarding your marriage, or the marriages of your loved ones, then we are committed to earnestly praying for you, asking for wisdom and guidance on your behalf (James 1:5).

We are committed to rejoicing, and weeping with you (Romans 12:15), to bearing your burdens, as the Lord did ours (Isaiah 53:4a), and so fulfilling the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). Jesus, “the man of sorrows” (Isaiah 53:3), wept over the troubles of His friends and countrymen (Matthew 23:37-39; Luke 19:41–44; John 11:35). Surely His followers must do the same (Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16, 15:20).

Below is a prayer that expresses our heartfelt desire for each of you as you work out your salvation in fear and trembling before the God who is at work in all believers both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12, 13).

Father, hear the cries of Your desperate, wandering sheep (Isaiah 53:6). We are in a peril of our own making (Colossians 3:5, 6). We have foolishly spurned Your truth and have gone after lies (Romans 1:25). We are ashamed at what we have become (Psalm 83:16). We are appalled at how we have misrepresented Your holy ways to a watching world (Ezra 9:3).

In Your sheer mercy, seek and save us (Luke 19:10; Matthew 18:12; Luke 15:4). Run to our aid (Luke 15:20). Send strong support (2 Chronicles 16:9). Guide us through the valley of the shadow of death into safe pastures once more (Psalm 23:1–4). Fill us with true understanding in the knowledge of You (Proverbs 9:10). Teach us to do Your will (Deuteronomy 29:29; Psalm 143:10). Incline our hearts to obey Your commands (Psalm 119:33–40). Restore in us the joy of Your salvation and sustain us with willing spirits (Psalm 51:12).

Do all of this because You love Christ and take pity on us for His sake (John 17:26; Ephesians 4:32), all for the sake of Your great name (Isaiah 48:9–11), amen.

Where do we go from here?

Now that we have made our case for the Biblical ban on divorce and adulterous remarriage, the question that naturally remains before is “Where do we go from here?”

We have begun addressing individual responses above, but how should we respond corporately, as a Church? What moves should our churches and leaders make given what we have uncovered in our investigations here?

Based on our reported findings, we at the League of Believers are setting forth five overall recommendations for how the Church should move forward on divorce and remarriage:

Churches must declare a moratorium on counseling couples to divorce and performing unlawful remarriages, effective immediately.
1. Although ideal and long overdue, it would be unrealistic to expect all churches to instantly adopt a permanent prohibition on divorce and unlawful remarriage. Most Church leaders are either unconvinced, unprepared, or unqualified to institute such a drastic change in ministerial policy all at once. A paradigm shift of this magnitude will take a fair amount of time, study, and prayer to complete, much less implement.
2. However, given the dire condition of the American Church, as well as the danger of its ongoing encouragement of highly consequential life decisions based on shaky scriptural suppositions (see recommendation 3. below), prudence demands, at minimum, an immediate cessation of advising divorce and marrying individuals whose former spouse is living.
  1. Although these will undoubtedly prove difficult steps to take, such a moratorium would provide Church leaders the time and space necessary to re-examine their policies and bring them into alignment with scripture and best practices in pastoral ministry (see recommendation 3. below). Although there is little debate over what Jesus meant with the words “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9), there is clearly no consensus among Christian pastors, teachers, and scholars on how best to understand the Matthean “exception clauses” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9).1 So long as this is the case, churches should freeze all activities that would facilitate divorce and/or unlawful remarriage based on these, and similar verses (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:15).
  2. This moratorium will also provide opportunities to inform couples considering divorce and/or morally-suspect remarriages of the Biblical passages on these subjects and the various interpretive strategies for making sense of them.2 Such encounters can serve as a much needed screening mechanism for preventing, or at least discouraging future divorces and/or unlawful remarriages from occurring.
Church leaders must emphasize that Jesus’ commands against divorce and remarriage are rules to obey rather than mere ideals to aspire to.
1. Marriage for life must once again be treated in our churches as the real-world, boots-on-the-ground, everyday norm that all ordinary Christians are expected to adhere to, rather than an extra credit assignment for super saints that is beyond the reach of the rest of us.
2. Jesus treated marriage as instituted by God in the Garden of Eden prior to the fall as the natural, creation law standard for all peoples, for all time. More than a standard to aim at, Jesus saw the marriage covenant as a binding, inescapable, divine reality that held sway over the rulings of all human courts and legislatures combined—indeed, even over the legal precedent of divorce concessions in the law of Moses itself!3
3. Unless we recover Jesus’ high and holy rules for marriage, and resolve to hold both ourselves and our people accountable to them as a matter of unyielding principle, we will only further capitulate to the perennial demands of fallen human flesh and the ever-present cult of no-fault divorce.
Churches must adopt clear, consistent standards on divorce and remarriage that apply equally across the board.
1. This recommendation stands in stark contrast to the received wisdom of modern Christian leaders, whose writings are littered with talk of “case by case” judgments. Assiduously avoiding universal statements, such leaders are loathe to state any principle relating to divorce and remarriage firmly and absolutely. “It depends” is a favorite fallback answer of theirs.
2. But as others have noted, this approach smacks of Joseph Fletcher’s “situational ethics,” where universally binding principles are eschewed for individually tailored, circumstantial accommodations.4 On this view, even God’s laws can be set aside if that’s what it takes to do the most “loving” thing in a given situation.
  1. Christians must reject this misguided, double-minded approach (Psalm 119:113; James 1:5–8) and return to the case law model of ethical jurisprudence provided to us in the Old Testament. In this approach, universally binding moral principles, such as those found in the Ten Commandments, are impartially applied to particular situations based on direct scriptural precedent or reasonable inferences from similar cases.5
  2. Of course, applying such principles appropriately requires taking into consideration all the pertinent details of each individual case. However, this is not done to determine whether to apply the universal principle in question, but rather how to apply it.
3. We can no longer sound an uncertain bugle on divorce and remarriage in the Church (1 Corinthians 14:8).6 If there is any uncertainty, any possibility that the divorce-permissive views are incorrect, then we should err to the side of caution and advise our people accordingly.7
Churches must cease condoning divorce on “biblical grounds,” and instead limit pastoral discussions to when separation is or is not merited.
1. Church leaders must make an intentional, concerted effort to rid their pastoral lexicons of terms like “divorce” and “exceptions” altogether, and instead speak only of “separation” where appropriate.
  1. In discussing Biblical separation, it must be repeatedly emphasized that this option does not entail the freedom to remarry,8 but only to remain “single,”9 or else reconcile (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, 15, 16).
2. Taking divorce off the table of acceptable Christian options will shift the focus of marriage counselling from building subjective, ad hoc cases for or against divorce and/or remarriage to formulating strategies for reconciliation or faithful singleness, as the case may be.
Churches must cease the confusing practice of forbidding adulterous remarriages on the one hand while forbidding the dissolution of these same unlawful marriages once formed on the other hand.
1. If the Church is to take a firm, flat-footed stand against adulterous remarriage, it can no longer send mixed signals by telling individuals “Do not enter unlawful unions, but if you do, you must remain in them.”10
  1. This is not what Paul meant when he advised new converts to remain in the life status they found themselves in when they were called.11
  2. This position has been, and always will be, a clear non sequitur, for if marrying a divorcee whose former spouse is living is the sin of adultery, what magically transforms the marriage that issues from such a union into something other than adultery?
  3. This stance also creates a slippery slope for further compromise on other forms of unlawful marriage, for if we adopt such a policy on adulterous unions, then what other unholy unions are we willing to condemn on the front end as sinful, only to condone on the back end as something holy, good, and worthy of blessing?12
2. God can forgive adultery, if it is renounced and forsaken, but He cannot bless adultery. If we want to have it both ways, then we are hypocrites, pure and simple. You can’t bless a married couple whose unlawful wedding you refused to perform in your church! To claim otherwise is to make God out to be the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Words to the wise

In the course of writing this book, we have made some observations on the topics of divorce and remarriage that have been helpful to us. The retrospective that follows is part proverbial sayings, part end-of-epistle exhortations, both geared toward Christians who are committed to seeking the truth on these matters.

On interpreting the New Testament divorce texts

Getting home

Bill Heth, who has contributed a great deal to the scholarly literature on the topic of divorce and remarriage, shared the following saying of his: “I have always taught my Greek exegesis students that when it comes to validating exegetical problems, grammar gets you into the ball park, and sometimes gets you on base, but it will never get you to home plate.”13

Having carefully studied the Greek of the “exception clauses,” as well as exposing myself to the different schools of thought on how best to translate them, I am convinced that the Greek translation and accompanying exegesis that we have presented in this book not only get us into the ballpark, but lands us safely on base.14 And we’re not just eking out a single here; we’re talking a triple, or at least a double, in my estimation. Combine this with our arguments from the rest of scripture, as well as Church history, and you’ve got yourself trotting comfortably to home plate.

That said, as important as understanding the original language and syntax is, arguments based on Greek translation alone are insufficient to turn hearts and minds around on this topic. Thomas Aquinas famously said “For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.” For those with deeply entrenched doctrinal, denominational, and/or personal commitments on divorce and remarriage, nothing short of an act of God will move the needle on this topic (1 Corinthians 2:14). Without the overriding persuasion of the Holy Spirit, what else is man left to but his innate, sinful confirmation bias, imposing onto scripture the very meaning he wanted to hear all along?

Yes, Greek is important, but it won’t put runs on the board.

Anterior motives

When reading scholarly literature on the topic of divorce and remarriage, one is struck by just how divergent the opinions can be at many points.

Why is that?

Many will cite linguistic ambiguities, historical incongruities, and personal animosities. But there’s an even deeper level of analysis, one that Leslie McFall put his finger on during the course of his studies: “Not all scholars have faith (2 Thess. 3:2 cf. Rom. 12:3) and a little leaven of unbelief will produce very different results.”15

The writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6a). Applying this principle to Biblical hermeneutics,16 we discover that unless we come to the text of scripture full of faith, we are liable to make complete hash of it. Unbelief can approach a text that is plainly written against a particular sin and walk away with free and clear permission for that sin. Belief, however, studies the same text and comes to the opposite conclusion. The twelve Israelites spies sent to scout out the promised land each took in the same intel, yet Caleb and Joshua came to a vastly different conclusion than the other ten (Numbers 13).

As Athanasius noted, unless the one who approaches the writings of the holy saints is himself holy, he is likely to misread them altogether:17

“But for the searching and right understanding of the Scriptures there is need of a good life and a pure soul, and for Christian virtue to guide the mind to grasp, so far as human nature can, the truth concerning God the Word. One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life. [..] anyone who wishes to understand the mind of the sacred writers must first cleanse his own life, and approach the saints by copying their deeds. Thus united to them in the fellowship of life, he will both understand the things revealed to them by God […].”

The Apostles said much the same thing. For example, Peter stated (2 Peter 3:16b):

“There are some things in them [i.e., Paul’s letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

And Paul noted (Titus 1:15):

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.”

It is amazing how excuses for divorce and remarriage can be found almost anywhere in scripture if one is determined enough to find them. Even in the hands of learned, albeit wrongheaded Christian exegetes, the “sacred eloquence” of the inspired authors can be twisted into nothing more than “sacred license” (1 Peter 2:16). Innocent statements are subjected to “fine-sounding arguments” (Colossians 2:4), infusing them with meanings the original authors never dreamed of.

When you see this sort of malfeasance happening, you have to pause and ask yourself: “Is this interpreter motivated by a desire to vindicate God’s holiness, or to validate man’s fallenness?”

The answer should be obvious. Such motives are more anterior than ulterior.

Wise as doves, harmless as serpents

Jesus told his followers to be “be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16b), not useful idiots for the devil.18 In what many consider to be one of His more perplexing parables, Jesus said the following regarding a shifty, underhanded manager (Luke 16:8, emphasis mine):

“The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.”

Reading the various Christian takes on the Bible’s divorce texts demonstrates this principle in spades. Christians should know better than to work so strenuously, so counterproductively against their own cause by defending a debilitating practice like divorce.

So why do we go to such great lengths in justifying divorce, rather than pouring our energies into protecting marriage? Why do we improvise backdoor escape hatches when we should be barricading the front door? Where are the clever for the kingdom, the shrewd for salvation? Are we so foolish as to think that we can build the household of faith by destroying the foundations of our households (Matthew 12:25; Mark 3:25)? As God said of His people through the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:22):

“For My people are foolish; they know Me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.”

While we Christians have become experts in cooking up half-baked legal dodges, we are largely clueless when it comes to rightly dividing God’s holy, righteous, and good standards (Romans 7:12; 2 Timothy 2:15). Rather than wasting our time and effort devising clever outs from the marriage covenant, and thereby shooting ourselves in the collective foot, Christians should busy themselves devising ingenious ways to encourage marital faithfulness and reconciliation (2 Samuel 14:14).

Otherwise, we will remain in the paradoxical condition in which we now find ourselves: being wise as doves, and harmless as serpents.

The power of parsimony

Ockham's razor, also known as parsimony, holds that the simplest explanation is the best explanation.19 In other words, a complex explanation requiring numerous steps (or leaps, as it were), special conditions, and questionable assumptions is unlikely to be true. Conversely, a straightforward explanation based on only a few well-founded premises is likely to be correct.

The basic interpretation of the New Testament divorce texts that we have put forward here is the most parsimonious explanation going today. We do not say this in a self-congratulatory manner, since we are by no means to the first or only ones to propose this interpretation. The fact is, even critics of our position admit that, if true, it does provide a neat and tidy solution to the apparent contradictions entailed by “divorce exceptions.”20

When studying this topic for yourself, just compare what we’ve presented in this book to the stances offered by the other camps and ask yourself “What is simplest, most elegant solution for making sense of all the relevant Biblical facts on divorce and remarriage?”

The “exemption/exclusion” clause interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew’s so-called “exception clauses” (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) bring these verses into complete alignment with all other scriptural and historical data points;21 the “exception clause” interpretation puts these texts on a collision course with literally everything else we know from these data sets. It’s the difference between a seamless merger into traffic and a fifty-car pile up on I-95.

That’s the power of parsimony: the simpler, the better.

Signal vs noise

One may disagree with our solution for harmonizing the New Testament divorce texts, but one can hardly deny that the preponderance of evidence lies on our side. Typically, pro-divorce Christians posit one, or at most two or three verses as supporting their position: Matthew 5:32, 19:9, and 1 Corinthians 7:15. That’s it.

By contrast, we have provided what we believe to be compelling reasons from these same verses as well as from all of scripture that these passages do not represent “exceptions” as many have mistakenly understood them.

That said, even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that these verses are true anomalies, genuine outliers from the dataset, a reasonable data analytics approach would still argue that the signal (“Don’t divorce!”) to noise (“Except maybe in this case?”) ratio is heavily skewed in favor of the signal. It’s simply bad statistical practice to toss out a massive pile of data points that support the rule in favor of a few potential, or even actual deviations from the rule. To put it another way, the texts for marriage and against divorce are simply too numerous and clear-cut to justify siding with a few debatable aberrations.

In the real world, no data set behaves perfectly. Not every data point perfectly fits the trend—far from it. Unless you are a novice, this will not keep you up at night. So the Christian can sleep well siding with the position with the fewest loose-ends, even if one or two are still dangling to the side when all is said and done.

There are some, however, who would quickly point out that a doctrine need only be taught in one place in scripture for it to be true everywhere else. “So what if only a verse or two support a true exception: If that’s what the verse says, then so be it.” While technically correct, those who mount this argument often neglect a more foundational principle of hermeneutics known as the analogia fidei, “the analogy of faith.” This rule states, in part, that isolated, controversial passages are to be interpreted in light of the numerous, non-controversial passages, and not the other way around:22

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”23

Do you really want to run with a theory built on a couple possible exceptions to a rule, rather than one built on the rule itself? Surely that would be missing Sequoia National Forest for a few scraggly weeds.

No, when it comes to major, consequential life decisions, one should never bank on what amount to nothing more than dubious, highly contested loopholes. Instead, as Jesus said, build your life on bedrock, not quicksand (Matthew 7:24-27). You’ll never go wrong with a tried-and-true strategy like that.

Historical perspective

Martin Luther stated memorably that “History is like a drunk man on a horse: No sooner does he fall off on the left side, does he mount again and fall off on the right.” This saying is an apt description of the history of divorce and remarriage.

In the beginning there was neither divorce nor adultery (Genesis 1:26-31, 2:18-25). After the fall, however, wicked men wasted no time in multiplying wives unto themselves,24 shamelessly boasting of their rebellion (Genesis 4:19, 23, 24). The history of ancient man that followed was replete with divorce and remarriage for any cause, even among God’s people.25

All that changed when Jesus arrived on the scene. Jesus’, and later Paul’s teachings on marriage and singleness, divorce and remarriage, gave rise to three simultaneous marriage revolutions: 1) The widespread practice of marriage for life; 2) the stigmatization of divorce and remarriage; 3) the elevation of the value and dignity of singleness; and 4) the promotion of an almost unheard of relationship category: the separated, celibate married couple (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11). Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians epitomize the the early New Testament Church’s lofty standards for sexual conduct (Ephesians 5:3, emphasis mine):

“But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.”

Unfortunately, the Early Church’s unprecedented commitment to chastity didn’t last forever. Christianity would eventually face plant onto the other side of the horse.

Whether through the lax and loose catalog of Protestant “divorce exceptions” or the farcical fraud of Catholic marriage annulments, for centuries now Christians have been treating the holy, lifelong marriage covenant with cavalier contempt. Today, our forbears’ attitudes on marriage and sex are dismissed as prudish, repressive, and even dangerous. Modern Christians attempting to recover something of their ancient heritage of sexual continence are sneered at as purveyors of a toxic “purity culture.”26

No wonder so many are now avoiding marriage altogether as a outdated cultural vestige of years gone by! Those that still choose to marry now find themselves in an institution that has been drug through the mud for so long that it is barely recognizable.

This explains why the apparently failed model of traditional marriage is being increasingly substituted for marriage involving two men or two women (“same-sex marriage”), transvestites (“trans marriage”), close relatives (incest), multiple partners (“polyamory”), minors (pedophilic marriage), and so forth. By denigrating marriage through divorce and adulterous remarriage, conservative Christians set the stage for just this sort of downward trajectory.

In two-thousand plus years of Church history, the pendulum has once again swung completely from one side to the other: The early Church, with its zeal for sexual separateness, has been supplanted by the modern Church and its “live and let live,” “anything goes” attitude (Judges 17:6). In the post-Christians west, sex is no longer viewed as a matter of public concern, enforced by shared, objective standards and serving the common interest, but rather as a purely atomistic, privatized “lifestyle choice” that is subject only to whim of the individual, even after that individual is married! This is not the first time this has happened historically, and it will likely not be the last (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Like the men of Issachar, “who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chronicles 12:32), Christians today must come to grips with where the American Church now finds itself in the sweeping arch of history and its many cyclical subplots. Let’s restate the obvious: We are currently in a period of massive, precipitous cultural decline, as measured by virtually any parameter. If we fail to grasp this, we will continue to make tone deaf decisions in our churches, such as finally coming around to a more “tolerant” stance on divorce…at a time of rapid familial disintegration.

Any more of these costly blunders, and we too will be history.

Societal judgment

If we insist on upholding the lie that our divorces and subsequent adulteries are acceptable in God’s eyes, then God will spoil the ruse by serving us heaping helpings of the natural consequences of our “sanctified” sins. By giving us a taste of the fruits of our forbidden delights, God’s intent is to elicit in us a visceral response: “What’s this nasty aftertaste in my mouth and why is my stomach churning?” In other words “What’s with all these sickening societal trends?”

The Church is the last line of defense against evil in the world: As the Church goes, so goes the culture. So Christians of all people cannot afford to play around with sketchy, sinful, pagan practices. We have all but entirely lost our voice in the cultural conversation by doing just this. We have no say because we have no spine—we too have made a mess of our marriages, so who are we to talk (Leviticus 26:36–39; Proverbs 28:1)? This is partly correct, but it is certainly no excuse to remain mired in our silent compromise.

We have spent a good deal of time in this book face to face with the brutal realities of divorce and its individual, marital, familial, and societal fallouts.27 And yet, in spite of the raging fires all around us, many Christians maddeningly insist on maintaining that everything is fine.

But everything is not fine. The kids are not alright. And no one has been saying this more loudly and clearly than God Himself (Psalm 81:11-13):

“But My people did not listen to My voice; Israel would not submit to Me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels. Oh, that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways!”

Unless the American Church has a radical “come-to-Jesus moment” on divorce and remarriage, and fast, then our society will continue on its merry way to hell, and we’ll have reserved for ourselves a front-row seat in the handbasket.

Exhortations to Christians

The following admonitions are applicable to Christians in general, but are intended for Christians leaders in particular, especially male leadership in the Church, but also parents and mature believers who serve as role models for others.

Wake up!

When it comes to divorce and remarriage, most Christian leaders are simply asleep at the wheel. We need a wake-up call from God’s Holy Spirit. The good news is, we don’t have to wait for one in the form of terrible, crushing judgment beyond anything we’ve seen up to this point. No, the wake-up call is already right there in scripture, where it’s been shouting to us from the rooftops all along (Ephesians 5:3–17, emphasis mine):

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,
‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.’”

As we have noted before, the sin of adultery, when disguised in the apparent legitimacy of a “monogamous” remarriage, can fly under the radar of even the most discerning Christian.28 When such unlawful remarriages began proliferating among God’s people, we started to forget why our spiritual ancestors were so worked up over them in the first place. As Augustine once warned his people:29

"Woe to the sins of men! We shrink from them only when we are not accustomed to them. As for those sins to which we are accustomed—although the blood of the Son of God was shed to wash them away—although they are so great that the Kingdom of God is wholly closed to them, yet, living with them often we come to tolerate them, and, tolerating them, we even practice some of them! But grant, O Lord, that we do not practice any of them which we could prohibit!"

We cannot allow ourselves to be lulled to sleep when it comes to sins as serious as divorce and adultery, both of which do unspeakable violence to the work of Christ displayed on the cross (Hebrews 6:1–8, 10:26–31) and in each of our marriages (Ephesians 5:21–33).

Wake up, believer!

Fess up!

Part of the normal Christian experience is realizing that you are in the wrong on something that you used to think was fine. For example, perhaps you used to give yourself a pass on saying certain words, viewing or listening to certain content, or engaging in certain behaviors that you now look back on with horror. At first, you started to sense that something was slightly amiss. Guilty misgivings kept cropping up and eventually there came a point of no return where you admitted “Ok, that’s enough of that. No more. This is unbefitting of a child of God.” That, in a nutshell, is the meaning of the word “repent” (μετανοέω, “metanoeó”): a life-changing change of mind.

Repentance, then, is a feature, not a bug of the Christian life. Indeed, not only repentance, but also faith, obedience, and confession are defining attributes of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5–7; 1 John 1:5-10; etc.), not mere shibboleths for gaining admission (Judges 12:5, 6).

When it comes to the sin of adultery, we dare not soft-pedal the seriousness of the offense and the necessity of repentance for all who find themselves entangled in it. The sixth commandment is “thou shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Out of the incalculably vast number of pronouncements God could have made, He issued only ten commandments, and this was one of them. God literally wrote this law in stone as a memorial for all time (Exodus 31:18, 32:15, 16). Translation: Adultery is a really big deal to God.

Indeed, God imposed the severest of all penalties on those who committed adultery: death. Yes, like other grievous sins such as murder (Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:30-31), adultery was a death penalty offense under Old Covenant law (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Although capital punishment is never enjoined on New Covenant believers as a means of church discipline, it is imperative that Church leaders emphasize the deadly fallouts of divorce and remarriage as deterrents against them. Because make no mistake about it: Adultery still leads to death, just as surely as it did under the law of Moses.30

And don’t think you’re clear of adultery just because your squeaky clean family is featured on the main page of your church’s website. Jesus warned His disciples to “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Luke 12:1b, emphasis mine; cf. Matthew 16:5-12, Mark 8:14-21). Both in their words (Matthew 16:12) and deeds (Matthew 23:3), the Pharisees lead their followers astray (Matthew 15:14, 23:13, 15). While maintaining a spiffy public persona, they were corrupt through and through (Matthew 23:25-28).

In fact, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day had so compromised true godliness that Jesus referred to them as “A wicked and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39a; Matthew 16:4)—and no wonder, for many were undoubtedly divorced and unlawfully remarried themselves! Ultimately, the Pharisees were no different than the false prophets and teachers that the Apostle Peter warned against (2 Peter 2:14a): “They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls.” Although the Pharisees viewed themselves as morally superior to your average, uncouth adulterer (Luke 18:11), they were not (Matthew 5:28, 31, 19:9, 23:1-36; Mark 10:2-10).

Indeed, the faux religious veneer that masked their fornication made it all the more detestable to God, who despises religious pretension (Isaiah 1:11–15; Jeremiah 6:20; Amos 5:21–23). In Jesus’ words, we must “watch out!” (Matthew 16:6; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1) for such hypocrisy, which is as defiling as it is deceptive.

Let’s not forget that none of us has it all together—all have sinned, all have come up short (Romans 3:23). “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10b; cf. Psalm 14:1–3, 53:1–3). The reality is, in this fallen world, faithful men are rare (Proverbs 20:6) and faithful women, if anything, are even rarer (Proverbs 31:10; Ecclesiastes 7:28). Adultery is the default, factory setting of the human heart. If we pretend otherwise, we fool no one, least of all God. But if we fess up and admit this self-evident truth, then, amazingly, there is mercy for us yet (Proverbs 28:13): “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.”

Man up!

Pastors can no longer pussyfoot around the issues of divorce and remarriage for fear of offending their (overly) sensitive people. It’s no mystery as to why they would opt for such a tact, as their pews are undoubtedly filled with countless divorcees and unlawfully remarried couples. Many of them, upon hearing the teachings espoused here in a Sunday sermon, will almost certainly hightail it to a more “understanding” church (John 6:66; 2 Timothy 4:3). The offering plates will soon dry up, the pastor will be called to account by the elder board, and both his livelihood and reputation will be put at stake in the process.

In light of these fears, we must remind ourselves of scripture’s warning that cowards will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but rather “will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (Revelation 21:8). God’s words, not ours.

So, Christians, no more putting up with weak-willed pastors in your pulpits. If your pastor or elders refuse to confront divorce and remarriage head on, then warn them once, or at most twice, and then have nothing to do with them (Titus 3:10). If you as a Church leader are either unwilling or unable to hold the line on these issues and instead cave to the peoples’ every demand (Exodus 32:21-24), then frankly, you need to find another line of work. Your fecklessness has done enough damage to the Church already. Either “quit you like men,” or quit (1 Corinthians 16:13).31

Effeminate empathy is destroying us. Weakness is ruining us. “Kindness” is killing us. It’s time to man up, or shut up.

Speak up!

There’s an old saying that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Church leaders must regularly and prophylactically teach their people what the Bible says concerning divorce and remarriage so that they can avoid contracting these diseases in the first place!

Christian leaders become entangled in the sins of their people if they refuse to intentionally speak out against them, or worse, grant explicit license for them. Like the driver of a getaway car at the scene of a crime, such leaders are accomplices in the criminal activity of their people (Luke 17:1, 2):

“And He said to His disciples, ‘Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.’”

We have to warn one another of the dangers of the deadly sins of divorce and unlawful remarriage! If not, God will hold us accountable for the consequences of facilitating them (Ezekiel 3:16–19):

“At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from Me. When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.”

Churches across the world have for some decades now been bending to the prevailing cultural winds of no-fault divorce. Biblical and theological debates on the topic have reached stalemates, with many commentators simply retreating to their denomination’s pat answers.32 Many despair of ever reaching a consensus. “Why even try? Better just to leave the topic be than to step on one another’s toes unnecessarily.”

Rubbish! What could be more necessary than having these discussions at a time when divorce and adultery are not only running rampant, but the Church is by and large only further accommodating them? How can we repent and start afresh from first principles if we remain quiet in the face of these grave challenges?

Now more than ever, Christians of conscience have to speak up and call this sort of approach out for what it is: a suicidal silence.

Look up!

Although we are creatures made from dirt, “earthlings” in the truest sense (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 103:14), we were also made for heaven. We are to set our minds on it (Colossians 3:2) and, one day, dwell in it (Revelation 21:1-4).

Marriage is the earthly analogy for the heavenly reality of the union of Christ the bridegroom with His bride-Church, which will be consummated at the end of time in a unified new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21). As staggering as these truths are, it’s easy to lose sight of them in the hoi polloi of fallen humanity and the boastful machinations of the fading powers of this age (1 Corinthians 2:6). Indeed, it is perhaps because these truths are so far beyond our comprehension that they simply glance off our foreheads without leaving so much as a mark—we’re too earthly-minded to be of any heavenly good.

As discussed in chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God,” God's ways are higher, nobler, and altogether better than man's (Isaiah 55:6–9). Our small, selfish little minds can barley conceive of what simply comes naturally to the mind of God.

When it comes to dealing to the grievous sins that married couples often commit against one another, it never even dawned on the fallen human heart that there was any other option besides divorce. How little we resemble our Maker, who never leaves or forsakes us (Hebrews 13:5), who never forgot His covenant with His faithless bride Israel (Isaiah 49:14, 15; Ezekiel 16), and who always remains faithful to His vows, even when we are unfaithful to ours (2 Timothy 2:13). In demanding divorce for individuals whom God has united for life, we are asking nothing less than for God to deny Himself, something He simply cannot and will not do.

Church leaders stand no chance of persuading their people to believe, much less obey the Bible’s teachings on divorce and remarriage unless they constantly redirect their gaze to heaven. Otherwise, they will miss the whole point of the Bible’s instructions on marriage. They will groan under an unbearable burden (Genesis 4:13; Matthew 23:4, 25:24; Hebrews 12:20), rather than finding rest under the easy yoke of Christ (Matthew 11:29-30; 1 John 5:3). The Lord is not in the business of making stoics, Gnostics, or masochists out of His followers. Far from it. He endured the shameful cross He bore for the joy set before Him (Hebrews 12:2), the joy of being together again with His father, and with all His people, in heaven (Matthew 25:21, 23; John 6:39, 17:24).

Compared with the joys to come, what loss can we incur here and now that will outweigh what we will gain in eternity (2 Corinthians 4:17–18)? Counting the cost of following Christ is only productive if your heart is set on treasures in heaven, rather than earth (Matthew 6:19–21; Luke 14:25–33). Hear the attitude of the Apostle Paul, who was in prison when he composed these words (Philippians 1:21-24):

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.”

If we can but begin to repeat these words with a fraction of the conviction with which Paul uttered them, then we will have gained great ground in our lives and times.

Christian, look up and behold your God! He is in heaven, and you are on earth; therefore, let your words be few (Ecclesiastes 5:2b).

God looks down from heaven on us divorcees and adulterers and says: Return to Me, your first love (Revelation 2:4, 5) and one true Husband (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 22:17) and I will cleanse you of your sins, forgive your rebellion, and restore to you the joy of the virgin bride with her bridegroom (Jeremiah 33:8, 11; John 3:29).

If God is the love of our life, then why wouldn’t we run headlong to Him at His every beck and call? If the Spirit and the Bride say “Come!” (Revelation 22:17), then how can we possibly refuse?

Remember, “The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against Him” (Daniel 9:9). He will restore His people Israel to their rightful place at His side, though for now they are mostly estranged (Romans 11:25-32). He will remember His covenant with Abraham, though He never truly forgot it (Isaiah 62:4):

“Never again will you be called ‘The Forsaken City’ or ‘The Desolate Land.’ Your new name will be ‘The City of God’s Delight’ and ‘The Bride of God,’ for the LORD delights in you and will claim you as His bride.”

What a God we serve!

Unless we lose ourselves in worship, beholding our Lord and becoming more like Him as we do (2 Corinthians 3:18), we will remain bogged down in the quagmires of our offenses, lame excuses, and self-serving narratives (Psalm 103:1–5):

“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless His holy name! Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.”

Now what was it you were saying a minute or two ago about your horrible ex who done done you wrong? In light of who our God is and what He has done for us, frankly, who cares?

As great as our grievances may be, our God is greater. His perfection puts our self-righteousness to shame. Our excuses pale in comparison to His promises. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Rise up!

When leaders set bad precedent for their people on divorce and remarriage, it creates a sinful snowball effect, bowling over generations of unsuspecting victims (Exodus 34:7b). As the saying goes, if we “given an inch” on divorce and remarriage “they’ll take a mile.”

On the topic of marriage, Church leaders must go out of their way to raise the bar both for themselves and for those under their care. This is exactly what Jesus did with the issue of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, saying in effect that the shoddy, subpar standards they’d been sold simple weren’t up to snuff. The kingdom of heaven was at hand. It was a new day.

This is why it is so disappointing to hear respected evangelical leaders argue that since remarriage after divorce was a given in ancient Jewish and Roman culture, then the same should apply to Christians under the New Covenant. Hellooo! That’s the entire premise that Jesus and Paul sought to upend with their teachings! Can you imagine Jesus saying: “You have heard it said on divorce…But I say unto you, you can pretty much stick with that, since it seems to be what everyone else is going with these days.”33

Come on Christians! How could anyone possibly fall for that?

We have to emphasize the newness of the New Covenant, ratified in Jesus’s blood (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). Jesus’ “Do not divorce; do not remarry”34 stance represents the high watermark of holy standards for marriage the world over. No one ever held a higher view of marriage, because no one ever grasped the weightiness of “holy matrimony,” and the holy God it represented, better than Jesus.

The new wine of Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage will burst the old-wineskin of “no-fault” divorce as practiced today by Christians and non-Christians alike. Like righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, these approaches can have no fellowship with one another (2 Corinthians 6:14). No sooner could Christ be united to a whore than could members of His body remarry during the lifetime of their previous spouse with God's blessing (1 Corinthians 6:15). God forbid! No, God has shown us a more excellent way in His son (1 Corinthians 12:31, 13:1–13).

Indeed, it is an indictment of the highest order that Christians ever countenanced the possibility of divorce post-Calvary: “But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Christ didn’t die for a perfect bride; He died to perfect a sinful one (Ephesians 1:4, 5:25-27; Colossians 1:22).

I’m sorry pro-divorce Christian, but that is a complete game-changer. We can never go back to living a petty, tit-for-tat, merely human existence, treating others in ways that seems “fair” to the carnal, unregenerate mind. Jesus forever shattered that mold, setting the bar as high as it could possibly be set: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

Divorce isn’t good enough for the follower of Christ: “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them” (Luke 6:32). As Christians, we must love even those who will never give us the time of day, because that's what God does every day (Matthew 5:43-47; Luke 6:35, 36). If that’s the case, then how much more should we love our covenant spouses, even those who neither acknowledge nor reciprocate our love for them?

Modern Christians fall embarrassingly short of incorporating these radical teachings into their marriages. Given that divorce is now an almost ubiquitous element of American Church culture, pastors, like Christ before them, must set the record straight for their people on this extremely misunderstood topic.35 Although divorce begins in the heart, it quickly takes refuge in strongholds of the mind. Prophets, pastors, and teachers alike must confront these spiritual and ideological barriers, and tear them down brick by brick (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5):

“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Now that’s what we’re talkin’ about.

Moreover, in appointing Church elders and overseers, we have to keep in mind Paul’s high standards for these positions (1 Timothy 3:2, emphasis mine): “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach […].”36 We would like to propose a bold, long overdue, and we believe Biblically justified criterion for Christians to gauge the trustworthiness of their church’s leadership: If your pastor is divorced and/or unlawfully married or remarried, either once or multiple times over, then kindly bid him farewell and wave politely to your fellow congregants from your vehicle as you and your family carefully, but deliberately exit the premises and find your way to another church.

If a pastor or elder doesn’t have the spiritual discernment to spot the adultery right under his own nose, what hope do his people have of avoiding a similar fate? To sit under the counsel of such unqualified men, week in and week out, is a recipe for spiritual trouble if ever there was one (Psalm 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:19). And we aren’t having any more of it. Nope, not us. Sorry. Love you. There’s a place in God’s Church for you if you repent, but if not, then buh-bye, thanks, but no thanks, movin’ on.

The Bible’s grand plan for marriage is not going to work for you or your church if your goal is to just barely squeeze through the pearly gates at the last second. If your aim in the Christian life is to merely pass the course with a D-minus, then you’re just not going to hack it in a Biblical marriage. Paul, for one, aimed to win the race and receive the prize (1 Corinthians 9:24-27; Philippians 3:12-21), and that’s just what he achieved (2 Timothy 4:7, 8), by God’s grace (1 Corinthians 15:10). The pastor’s aim should be nothing less than to absolutely ruin his people for anything less than God’s best for their marriages.

Rise up people of God! Our God is a jealous God, an all-consuming fire (Exodus 20:5, 34:14; Joshua 24:19; Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29). Let this one grand objective consume both you and all that you undertake in your various ministerial endeavors (2 Corinthians 11:2, emphasis mine): “For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.”

Parting shots at “divorce exceptions”

Because we just couldn’t help ourselves, here, in no particular order, are our final, parting shots at one of our favorite targets in this book: the infamous “divorce exceptions.” We’ve also sprinkled in a few related bits of proverbial advice here and there that we hope you’ll find helpful.

Christians who embrace the legal charade of “divorce exceptions” are practicing no-fault divorce alright: If it’s not your fault, you can divorce!
To co-opt a saying from Jesus, “You shall know a doctrine by its fruits” (Matthew 7:16, 20). When it comes to “divorce exceptions,” the fruits are all rotten—people need only smell their foul stench and see their teeming maggots to cringe at the thought of tasting them.
“Divorce exceptions” are riddled with inconsistencies, leading many to conclude (and rightly so, if their premises be granted) that the Bible flat out contradicts itself on marriage, divorce, and sex.37 Why add more fuel to their fire by embracing these supposed sidesteps?
Are there exceptions to any other sin? For example, are there circumstances under which murder is OK? How about rape? Theft? If not, then why is adultery the one exception? Or do you grant many “exceptions”?
Let’s start calling “divorce exceptions” “adultery exceptions” since, ordinarily, divorce and remarriage during the lifetime of one’s former, lawfully-wed spouse is adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). It may not be a smart PR move, but it would be more accurate.
“Divorce exceptions” are a deceptive mixture of flesh and Spirit (Romans 8:1-17). Remember the words of Jesus (John 6:63): “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”
How does adultery make remarriage during the lifetime of one’s former spouse, which is also adultery, somehow acceptable? They are fundamentally the same thing: enjoying married life with someone besides your living, one-flesh marriage partner. Adding a sin like adultery in between these unions makes no material difference whatsoever.
If divorce and adulterous remarriage are sometimes sanctioned by God, then why do they have so much residual guilt and regret associated with them? Godly repentance and the obedience that follows may be extremely difficult, but they bring cleansing and confidence before God (Hebrews 10:22; 1 John 3:21, 22) and leave behind no trace of regret (2 Corinthians 7:10).
You have to confess adultery. And not just to God, but to those you have sinned against: “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16a). If you keep it between yourself and God only, you will never prosper, you will never find cleansing, you will never be truly set free (Proverbs 28:13; John 8:36; 1 John 1:5–10).
Sin tears apart; love binds together. Sin destroys; love heals. Sin commits violence; love brings wholeness. Divorce is sin; reconciliation is love.
What about the salvation and/or restoration of the guilty party? If he or she repents, will you, as the innocent party, stand at the ready to forgive and take him or her back? If not, then perhaps you’re not as “innocent” as you appear: “But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matthew 6:15).
We cannot forget to stick up for the guilty party. Why does he or she just get thrown under the bus? Are they chopped liver? Doesn’t God care about them too? Aren’t we are all guilty parties in one respect or another? “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32).
Is there divorce in heaven? “Of course not,” you will say. So then, pro-divorce Christian, please stop praying the following portion of Lord's prayer until you really mean it (Matthew 6:10): “Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
Rather than asking “What would the immortal, infinitely holy God of the universe (who dwells in light unapproachable and whom no one has ever seen or possibly can see) think about this doctrine?” (1 Timothy 6:16) we tend to just reflexively side with what seems to be the most “reasonable” stance according to your average, Joe Blow American Christian: “Now that I can buy into. That I can get on board with.” We make the mistake of thinking God is just like us, when He is most certainly not (Psalm 50:21; Luke 16:15)!
We can buy into “divorce exceptions,” but we’re stuck on one minor point: How do you lessen the holiness of God? Explain that and we’re on board.
“Divorce exceptions” are really just provisions for the flesh masquerading as legitimate legal outs (Romans 13:14; cf. Ephesians 4:17-32, Colossians 3:1-17): “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”
“Divorce exceptions” are a hopeless morass of contradictions. If adultery, abandonment, and abuse dissolve the marriage bond, then aren’t these sins the actual causes of divorce, rather mere grounds for it?38 Do couples that have suffered such sins have to remarry should they decide to stay together?
“Divorce exceptions” lead, ultimately, to exceptions on everything else that Christ taught. For those who accept “exceptions,” every other teaching of scripture is made to cater to them, even though they are not explicitly, or even implicitly found in the text. Indeed, even if they are explicitly denied, there they are in the midst. Every other knee must bow to this one overarching, overruling principle. And thus, the rule of the “exceptions” usurps the rule of Christ.
Even though divorce and remarriage during a former spouse’s lifetime are clearly and repeatedly ruled out as sins in scripture, still we are told, with a wink and a nod, that “divorce exceptions” are exceptions, after all. Unbelievable. I guess all things are possible for those who must leave.
Far from saying that one could divorce for adultery, in the “exception clauses,” Jesus was restating, for the record, that one could not divorce for adultery, the precise opposite of how most in the modern Church have understood Him.
If adultery renders your spouse “as good as dead,” as the Westminster Confession of Faith infamously states,39 then why are you still required to support him or her by law subsequent to divorce in many cases? Why, indeed, do you have to have any continued dealings with him or her after divorcing? That doesn’t sound “as good as dead” to me. Divorce, then, is false advertising, the old “bait and switch.” It’s an illusion, a mirage, a myth, a rumor. It is never a clean break. It is a false god; it never delivers on its promises.
To those who hold to “divorce exceptions,” we offer the following modest proposal: To formally incorporate your beliefs into your Church’s liturgical traditions, please list all the “exceptions” that you and your soon-to-be partner accept right up front, for all your witnesses to hear and confirm. For instance, from henceforth, amend your marriage vows from “Till death do us part” to “Till death, or adultery, or abandonment, or abuse of any kind, or neglect, or pornography, etc. […] do us part.” Also, consider changing the phrase “so long as we both shall live” to “so long as we both do not violate the covenant,” and shortening “for better or worse” to simply “for better.” Yes, this would put somewhat of a damper on your big day, but it would help the rest of us understand just what exactly the two of you are signing up for.
How many contracts do we sign without first reading the fine print? Many, and usually without giving it so much as a second thought. This is what modern Christians are doing with marriage: They say the traditional marriage vows, but each of them has an enormous asterisk next to it with endless stipulations attached in the fine print that most of us do not even bother to read. Consequently, the vows ring hollow. God states His rules for marriage concisely and up front, without any fine print. No loopholes, no funny business, and no “exception clauses.”

A final call to arms

Most American Christians have made peace with divorce and unlawful remarriage. Many say that they’re here to stay, and so we might as well get used to them.

Not us.

We refuse to lay down arms until divorce and adultery are finally and forever cast into the lake of fire. In this fallen, war-torn world, we simply do not have the luxury as the Church militant to call for a ceasefire while the battle rages around us. Christians are no longer treating marriage as a sacred, holy institution, and the culture has followed our lead. If we all just waive the white flag, surrender, and move on, things will only get worse—much, much worse.

It wasn’t always this way. In the not so distant past, divorce was rare, especially among the religious. Not so for today’s Christian. Currently, evangelicals divorce more frequently than any other religious group in America, including more than twice as often as Hindus, who have the lowest divorce rates of any religion.40 I don’t care who you are or what your position is on these topics, that is pathetic. What a scandalous reproach divorce among Christians is to the name of Christ! If there is even an ounce of truth to these damning statistics then we are in BIG trouble as a people and as a nation.

If this sort of trend doesn’t wake us up, what will? What’s it going to take to get us to finally straighten up and fly right? When will we stop making flimsy excuses for our dirty little habits? What do we have to see come down the pike for us to finally change our ways?

How about a mainstream evangelical megachurch pastor accepting divorce, adulterous remarriage, and sodomy, but drawing the line if the sodomy occurs prior to the finalization of a divorce from a previous heterosexual marriage, since that would just be flat-out, good old-fashioned adultery?41

How about the rising trend of so-called “gray divorce” among baby boomers, whereby couples are calling it quits even after decades of marriage?42

How about the misleading decline in divorce rates over the past decade…due to declining marriage rates and the rise of co-habitation?43

We don’t know about you, but that’s plenty for us.

In our opinion, the body count racked up by divorce and adulterous remarriage in our day is already more than enough to convince the reasonable observer of the need to push back against these practices. The casualties these sin have caused are so many, and the damage to our families, nation, and God’s reputation so staggering, that it is impossible to digest. When you reach that point, it’s not long before the land vomits you out altogether (Leviticus 18:25, 28, 20:22).

Divorce and adultery are not harmless, individual sins: “Please respect our family’s privacy as we work through this difficult, deeply personal situation.” Sorry, but your divorce is our business too, especially if you claim to be a Christian. We are all impacted by your choices. Think about it. David’s adultery destabilized his entire kingdom (2 Samuel 12). Solomon’s unlawful marriages brought down the whole nation of Israel (1 Kings 11; Nehemiah 13:23-27). John the Baptist’s stand against unlawful remarriage cost him his life (Matthew 14:1-12). And it’s not a stretch to say that these issues lie at the heart of why Jesus gave His life (Matthew 12:39a, 16:4; John 7:7).

We cannot not sit idly by and allow our marriages, families, churches, communities, and country to be ripped apart at the seams by divorce. We cannot allow what we consider to be good to be spoken of as evil (Romans 14:16). We’ve got a fight on our hands, and it’s no time to back down.

We are by no means the only ones enlisting in this fight: A small but growing contingent of evangelical scholars, pastors, and lay leaders have been sounding the alarm on divorce and remarriage for some decades now in scholarly journals, books, articles, and sermons.44 We here at the League of Believers are taking our stand with these Christians, adding our small voice to the growing chorus.

We trust that many others like us will be driven to reexamine the scriptures by the excesses of modern divorce culture. We pray that by the leading of the Holy Spirit, and with the help of resources like this book, these believers will also rediscover the ancient view of divorce and remarriage propounded in the scriptures and practiced by the Fathers. Divorce-permissive Christians, consider yourselves officially on notice—it is you who should be on the defense, not us.

If there was ever a time to repent and do the hard, but necessary thing, it's now. We must defend our God, our wives, our children, and our communities, no matter the cost. We must fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12a).

Consider this our declaration of war.

Postscript: Happily ever after?

“My ex and I are best friends now.”

“The divorce was tough, but the kids have been so resilient.”

“I chose wrong the first time, but God finally lead me to the right one.”

The lies we tell ourselves.

Be honest, divorced and unlawfully remarried Christian: Are things really as neat and tidy as you present them? Are you and your former spouse really getting along swimmingly now? Are you not plagued with regret? Has your divorce and remarriage borne good fruit in your family as a whole? If you could see the generational domino effect of your divorce and adultery, the deprivation they will produce and the good they will prevent, would you do it all over again?

The standard baggage that comes with the sins of divorce and adulterous remarriage are not the inheritance of the child of God. Only Christ can cleanse us from a guilty conscience (Hebrews 9:14) and set us free indeed (John 8:31-36). But He cannot do these things for you so long as you cling to your sin (Romans 13:12; Ephesians 4:22; Hebrews 12:1). It is sheer folly to ask for forgiveness for a sin that you are choosing to remain in. No sin has to define you, but you must turn from it.

Obedience may be costly, but disobedience is far costlier.

“Quod Deus coniunxit, homo non separet.”

“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

—Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9

How it all started

We’ve shared the backstory to the League of Believers (see our “About” page and “How Did We Get Here?”). But how did we first get on the subject of divorce and remarriage? In the next post we will share a brief preface to set up the contents of this eBook, including our motivation behind taking on this controversial topic. Stay tuned for the complete eBook shortly thereafter.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:

garrettpleague@proton.me

Afterword

233KB ∙ PDF file

Click the "Download" button to download a PDF version of this newsletter.

To illustrate this point, see the various views outlined in Bruce Vawter, “The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5,32 and 19,9.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 1954; 16(2): 155–167.

See footnote 27 in chapter V “The Christian Caught in Adultery.”

See chapter II “The Lord of Marriage.”

For a helpful, brief critique of situational ethics from a Christian perspective, see “Situational Ethics,” Tabletalk, 2016.

For example, the Bible directly forbids transvestitism (Deuteronomy 22:5), and so we have direct precedent in the form of an explicit commandment forbidding this behavior. Thus, even though the Bible says nothing directly about, say, puberty-blocking medications or modern so-called “gender transition surgery,” since it does condemn changing one’s outward garb to resemble the opposite sex, we can reasonably infer that the far more drastic action of permanently changing one’s sexual organs and/or other physical attributes to resemble the opposite sex are most certainly also condemned, if anything to an even greater degree than transvestitism per se.

All too often, pastors say things like the following from Kevin DeYoung’s “A Sermon on Divorce and Remarriage” (University Reformed Church, 2010; emphasis mine): “[…] the phrase ‘is not enslaved’ in 1 Corinthians 7:15 probably implies that the spouse who has been deserted is free to marry.” “Probably implies”? So, it’s probably OK to leave your spouse and remarry another if he or she deserts you? That would probably not constitute adultery? When it comes to a deadly serious, premeditated sin like adultery, “probably” isn’t good enough.

After listing obvious “works of the flesh,” including “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality” (Galatians 5:19), Paul states that the fruit of the Spirit are (Galatians 5:22, 23, emphasis mine): “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Now that’s the sort of “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2) approach we need to take in the Church, abstaining from even the appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22), rather than toying with actions that are “probably” not sin.

Given this ambiguity, does this pastor advise his people against remarrying after desertion, to avoid the possibility of adultery? Not at all (DeYoung, “A Sermon on Divorce and Remarriage”): “Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of desertion by an unbelieving spouse” and “In situations where the divorce was permissible, remarriage is also permissible.” The time is long past for Christians to reject such reckless counsel.

To help illustrate this point, it is common among pro-life advocates to argue that if one is unsure whether a developing fetus is a human being or not, one should assume that it is to avoid the possibility of murder. Likewise, if a hunter thinks he has spotted a trophy buck, but is unsure whether it is his camouflaged hunting partner instead, or if a demolition crew is about to detonate a series of explosives that will implode a building, but is uncertain whether the building has been fully evacuated, then you don’t pull the trigger, you don’t hit the detonation button.

If that is the case with respect to murder, and there is even a hint of a possibility that we may inadvertently leading our people into adultery, a similarly deadly offense in scripture (Exodus 20:13, 14, 21:12; Leviticus 20:10, 24:17; Numbers 35:30-31; Deuteronomy 22:22), then why on earth would any Church leader ever permit remarriage during the lifetime of one’s former spouse? Worse still, given the substantial biblical and historical arguments in favor of the various “no divorce” and/or “no remarriage” positions, why would any Christian denomination take the further step of adopting a formal ecclesiastical policy permitting possible, if not probable adultery? Such leaders and institutions are without excuse.

While one’s separated spouse is living, of course.

That is, married, but living apart from one’s spouse.

See, for example, Justin Taylor (citing John Piper’s arguments) in “3 Reasons Those Who Are Unbiblically Remarried After a Divorce Should Not Leave Their New Spouse,” from The Gospel Coalition. We have responded to these arguments in detail in chapters V and VII.

See objection 6. in chapter V “The Christian Caught in Adultery.”

For example, since 2002, the Church of England has adopted a compromise whereby it gives local vicars the freedom to decide whether or not to officiate marriages between divorcees whose former spouses are living. If they decide not to, the church will still perform a ceremony of dedication, thanksgiving, and blessing after these civil unions have been legally formed outside the church. See “Marriage after divorce” from the Church of England’s official website, as well as the Church’s official explanatory statement Marriage in church after divorce.

For a brief historical synopsis of how the Church of England compromised its policy opposing divorce and unlawful remarriage over the centuries, see “How the Church of England has shifted on divorce, from Henry VIII to Meghan Markle” by William Booth and Karla Adam of The Washington Post.

Given its policy on adulterous remarriages, it should comes as no surprise that the Church of England recently adopted the same policy for gay marriages. See “Church of England backs plans to bless gay couples” by Harry Farley of BBC News. This same pattern of capitulation is well underway in America churches as well.

See p. 16, 17, William Heth, “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. 2002; 6(1): 4–29.

Our approach to making sense of the Greek of Matthew’s “exception clauses” is most indebted to Leslie McFall’s translational strategy, but he is by no means the only person to suggest such an approach. For example, Andrew Kulikovsky, taking a cue from Augustine’s preteritive view (as articulated in Vawter, “The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5,32 and 19,9.”), proposes that the “exception clauses” of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are best understood as parenthetical asides intended to explicitly prohibit divorce for sexual sin (p. 7, “Divorce and Remarriage: Another look at the Matthean ‘exception’ clauses,” Wynn Vale, South Australia: 2005). Thus, he would render, for example, Matthew 19:9 as follows (p. 7, 8, ibid., emphasis mine):

“I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, (he may not divorce for sexual sin/divorce on the basis of sexual sin is not allowed), and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This approach has much to commend it and is perfectly in line with the one we have adopted here (see especially chapters II and III).

See “General Information” section of Leslie’s personal website.

That is, the science of interpreting the Bible.

On the Incarnation of the Word, Chapter IX: Conclusion, 57.

See John Zmirak’s hilarious piece “Christ Didn’t Call Us to Be Too Dumb to Live,” from The Stream.

William of Ockham (1287–1347) was Catholic theologian and friar of the Franciscan order. For a fittingly concise explanation of his eponymous logical principle, see “What is Occam's Razor?” from Conceptually.

See, for example, Gordon Wenham’s critique of a position similar to our own on p. 56, 57 of Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019). While we would agree with Wenham that remarriage during the lifetime of one’s divorced spouse is never permissible, we would disagree with his critique on this point, as well as his defense of an exception for divorce over sexual immorality from Christ’s teachings.

See chapters II and III.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I “Of the Holy Scripture,” section IX.

As Robert Shaw states in his exposition of this portion of the confession: “Some things that are briefly and obscurely handled in one place, are more fully and clearly explained in other places; and, therefore, when we would find out the true sense of Scripture, we must compare one passage with another, that they may illustrate one another; and we must never affix a sense to any particular text but such as is agreeable to ‘the analogy of faith,’ or the general scheme of divine truth.”

Polygamy involves marriage to more than one partner simultaneously, which the Bible condemns as a sinful departure from creation norms (Genesis 1:26–28, 31, 2:18–25; Deuteronomy 17:17; cf. Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7–8, 1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31, and 1 Timothy 3:2) that constitutes the sin of adultery (Matthew 19:4–9; Mark 10:5–12; Romans 7:1–3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). The practice of having multiple successive, monogamous, adulterous remarriages has been termed by David Pawson “consecutive polygamy” in contrast to more traditional forms of “simultaneous polygamy.”

See chs. 1–3, Wenham, Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting.

The adolescence of this allegation is, perhaps unsurprisingly, largely lost on those who levy it. In truth, it is only a step or two above the classic “Eww, Billy’s got cooties!” response of grade-schoolers. Sadly, many Christians have fallen for this tactic and have rejected Biblical chastity altogether. One prominent example includes the now apostate former evangelical megachurch pastor Joshua Harris, who once championed sexual purity but now glories in the shame of sexual impurity, including divorce and the LGBTQ etc. agenda (see “Joshua Harris, a former pastor who wrote relationship book, says his marriage is over and he is no longer Christian” by Rob Picheta of CNN).

See chapter VI “Divorced From Reality.”

See “The divorce delusion” in chapter VI “Divorced From Reality.”

See p. 54, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, chapter XXI, “Problems of Casuistry.”

See “The stench of death” in chapter VI “Divorced From Reality.”

It’s hard to top the King James translation of 1 Corinthians 16:13 (emphasis mine), “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong,” but the Douay-Rheims Bible may come close (emphasis mine): “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, do manfully, and be strengthened.”

David Field, “Talking Points: The divorce debate—where are we now?” Themelios. 1983; 8(3): 26–31.

This might sound like hyperbole, but on the issue of divorce and remarriage, most evangelical scholars would place Jesus’ standard on par with, and in the final analysis far below (if you interpret Jesus’ sole “exception” as a mere principle establishing many others) the standard of the stricter school of thought (the so-called “school of Shammai”) in first-century Judaism (David Jones and Andreas Köstenberger, “What Did Jesus Teach about Divorce and Remarriage?” Crossway, 2020):

“Also, while contemporary Judaism required divorce in the case of sexual immorality, the text seems to indicate that Jesus merely permitted it (thus implying the need to forgive). That Jesus’s standard regarding divorce was higher even than that of the conservative school of Shammai may therefore adequately account for the disciples’ horrified reaction to Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19.”

Really? I can just hear the disciples: “Did He just say we can still divorce our wives for messing around, but that we don’t have to? OK, wow, stop the presses, that’s it for me guys, I’m out, that’s going a little too far for my comfort. If that’s the case, then it’s better not to marry!” And yet this is what leading evangelical scholars are telling us with a straight face (see also p. 11, “How do Jesus & Shammai differ?” in Heth, “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed”).

Aside from the absurdity of such a reaction, this response misrepresents the Shammaite position, for the Jews did not divorce for gross sexual immorality (which in the context of marriage equates to adultery), as this, of course, was a capital offense if proven (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Instead, the “עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר” (“erwat dabar,” “indecent thing” or literally “nakedness of a matter”) offense mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1 would include, at most, only sexual misdemeanors and similar indiscretions, not felony crimes like adultery. Even Don Carson, who argues in favor of “divorce exceptions,” makes this observation (p. 45, D. A. Carson, “Divorce: A Concise Biblical Analysis.” Northwest Journal of Theology. 1975; 4: 43–59.):

“The ‘unseemly thing’ was far more serious than merely messing up domestic chores such as cooking. ‘The phrase itself when viewed in the context of the Old Testament usage surely requires something shameful.’ Nor can the ‘unseemly thing’ be adultery, for the punishment for this is prescribed in Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:2. Nor can it be suspicion of adultery, for the procedure to be followed in such cases is given in Num. 5:11–31.”

See “Setting the record straight” in chapter III “The Apostle, the Fathers, and the ‘Prince of Humanists.’”

See chapter II “The Lord of Marriage.”

The NIV renders this verse “Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach […].” Thus, some commentators think this need only require that a man be faithful to his current wife, regardless of whether he is divorced and/or unlawfully married or remarried, even multiple times. Of course, such factors ought to be considered, but given sufficient time and good behavior, they need not be necessarily disqualifying.

But surely this is a lax and loose interpretation of this verse, since a divorced man who is unlawfully remarried to another woman while his first, lawfully-wed wife is living is certainly unfaithful to her, being the husband of more than one living woman, which Jesus and Paul called adultery (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18a; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). Further, a man who is himself not divorced, but who unlawfully marries a divorced woman, is also unfaithful, since he is with a woman who is still bound to her prior, lawfully-wed, living husband (Matthew 5:32b; Luke 16:18b). Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to see such scenarios as falling far short of Paul’s “one-woman man” qualification for an overseer.

For just two examples, see footnote 2 in chapter IV “The Rule of the ‘Exceptions.’”

Actually, the answer is “Yes” according to some of our leading evangelical luminaries. For example, in the words of the inimitable (and insufferable) Russell Moore, Editor-in-Chief of the now thoroughly discredited Christianity Today (from the article “Divorcing an Abusive Spouse Is Not a Sin,” emphasis mine):

“If one spouse abandons the home, the Bible reveals, it is not the fault of the innocent party. And if a spouse makes the home a dangerous place for the other spouse (or their children), that is not the fault of the innocent party either. In those cases, divorce is not a sin but is, first of all, a recognition of what is already the case—that the one-flesh union covenant is dissolved—and the abused spouse should feel no condemnation at all in divorcing.”

Chapter XXIV “Of Marriage and Divorce,” section V.

See “Revealing Divorce Statistics In 2023” by Christy Bieber of Forbes.

See “Andy Stanley’s stance on homosexuality questioned” by Michael Foust of Baptist Press.

See “More Baby Boomers are living alone. One reason why: ‘gray divorce’” by Catherine Shoichet and Parker Leipzig of CNN.

See “National Marriage and Divorce Rates Declined From 2011 to 2021” from the U.S. Census Bureau and “The Not-So-Great Reason Divorce Rates Are Declining” by Joe Pinsker of The Atlantic.

From well-known pastors like Voddie Baucham (“The Permanence View of Marriage” sermon), to scholars like J. Carl Laney (The Divorce Myth. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 1981), to laypeople like popular conservative commentator Matt Walsh (“If Marriage Isn't Permanent, It's Pointless,” The Matt Walsh Show, episode 35), Bob Mutch (“Except for Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9.” More Christ Like, 2008), and Timothy Sparks (“Marriage” resources), we are regularly finding others who are coming to conclusions similar to those presented here. We have also encountered a number of ministries that promote the marriage permanence position, including Wise Reaction, Christian Principles Restored, and Monergism, as well as the Christian Divorce and Remarriage and Marriage Permanence YouTube channels. For additional proponents and resources, see footnotes 26–28 in chapter V “The Christian Caught in Adultery.”

League of Believers Now on Twitter/X

Garrett P. League — Fri, 25 Aug 2023 19:26:48 GMT

If you are on social media, you can now follow the League of Believers’ Twitter/X handle @leaguebelievers.

To promote our content and help spread the word on the important topics covered in our newsletter, please “Follow” our account and interact with our posts by commenting, hitting the “Like” button, and sharing with others through reposts and/or posts of your own containing @leaguebelievers, #leagueofbelievers, or any other promotional hashtags that you see in our posts.

We pray this platform helps us reach the broadest audience possible with vital Biblical truths presented here (Matthew 5:14-16):

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

God bless you and thank you for your continued support of this ministry.

Garrett P. League, on behalf of the League of Believers team

P.S. You can also follow my new personal Twitter/X account @garrettpleague, as I will be interacting with and promoting League of Believers content there as well.

Thanks for reading the League of Believers.

You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.