Justin Braun

Pastor. Sports Fan. Fantasy Enthusiast.

[Brandon Smith @brandon_d_smith]

Classically speaking, passions are typically associated emotional responses that are shifting, unbridled, reactive, and/or involuntary in response to external forces and/or internal moral or rational imbalance. They’re also typically associated with physical experiences and processes.

Given that God is an eternal, uncreated spirit who’s perfect, immutable, omniscient, omnisapient, etc. etc., it would be entirely inappropriate to attribute passions to him.

Put simply, saying God is impassible means that God doesn’t experience mood swings, cannot be coerced, cannot suffer, and so on. These are basic affirmations of Christian orthodoxy.

It does not mean God doesn’t (e.g.) love or grieve as Scripture says. It means that God’s love or grief isn’t forced upon him, unstable, weak, fickle, at odds with his character or will, and/or irrational.

In reality, God’s impassibility is (1) the ground for our trust that he really and truly “so loved the world” and (2) why he had to assume humanity in order to suffer in our place.

[Matt Smethurst @MattSmethurst]

Every man should keep a fair-sized cemetery in which to bury the faults of his friends.

— C. S. Lewis

[Samuel James @Digitalliturgy]

My only take on church and children's ministry is that this article is good and every guy in a church, especially those aspiring to office, should do what it says. https://t.co/EuKNTNhY6k

[Andrew T. Walker @AndrewTWalker]

Man, imagine if the Bible was taught as literature in a public school. Students may get indoctrinated. What a bad precedent that would set.

[Papageorgio @gecffmn]

When I say I live in Almost Heaven West Virginia, I mean almost Heaven!❤️❤️

[Mike Winger @MikeWingerii]

One of the hard things about learning to understand the Bible well is to unlearn a number of bad habits you unknowingly obtained in life.

1. Reading verses out of context. People don’t typically do this on purpose. It’s just a common bad habit.

2. Looking for a quick moment of inspiration more than a proper understanding. This kills your ability to even tolerate Scripture when it isn’t giving you what you want.

3. Trying to apply the Bible before you’ve actually understood it. “What does it mean to you?” is a terrible question.

4. Assuming you know what you don’t. These casual assumptions kill investigation. Why investigate what you already know?

[Tom Ascol @tomascol @tomascol]

Me when a church says they aren’t meeting on the Lord’s Day so that their members “can actually practice the sabbath.”

[Matt Smethurst @MattSmethurst]

The man who attempts Christianity without the church shoots himself in the foot, shoots his children in the leg, and shoots his grandchildren in the heart.

—@RevKevDeYoung

[Doug Ponder @dougponder]

This is partly true, but it misconstrues the total witness of Scripture in ways that are particularly harmful in the present.

Here’s the true part: The Bible does not give strongly differentiated lists of virtues for men and women. The goal of every Christian, male or female, is Christlikeness (Rom. 8:29).

Yet though the goal is the same, the path to that goal differs according to our natures and our callings. The Scriptures speak to this as well.

Consider the following:

The Bible nowhere says, “Men are not permitted to lust, but women are,” but the Scriptures do speak of lust in ways that highlight a masculine orientation that needs to be checked and reformed by the Spirit.

For example, Jesus applies the general command “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14; cf. Matt. 5:27) to men in a special manner, saying, “Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).

Jesus very easily could have said, “Everyone who looks at anyone with lustful intent has already committed adultery in the heart.” There is no grammatical reason why he must specify the (male) gender of the one who lusts nor why he casts the object of lust as a woman. Yet Jesus does so, and it only takes two eyes and a brain to know why.

Every person not living in denial of reality knows that men struggle, to a significantly greater degree, with sexual sins, including lust, the use of pornography, sexual abuse, and rape. In some of these cases, men commit these sins 2–3 times more commonly than women; in others they commit them at tenfold rates.

God knows our frame. (He made us, after all.) He knows that women are imbued with the power to attract men, as this was his design from the beginning: “For this reason, a man leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife…” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Matt. 19:5).

Again, the Lord could have said, “For this reason a man and a woman leave their fathers and mothers and hold fast to each other,” but he did not do so. Not only is the principle of male headship in view here, but also I think (following the work of Alastair Roberts and Stephen B. Clark) that the God-given order of things is in view here, too. Specifically, God designed women to be attractive to men, and he designed men to act on this attraction by pursuing them unto a godly marriage.

This stuff is so obvious that older generations understood it, embraced it, and even made jokes about it. But we’ve forgotten—or, it would be better to say, intentionally rejected—what was once obvious to everyone. And we’re worse off for it.

Another example: In 1 Timothy 2:8–10, God (through Paul) gives instructions to men and women regarding how they should conduct themselves in the household of God (1 Tim. 3:15).

Notice the asymmetry: Men are called to pray by lifting holy hands “without wrath or quarreling” (1 Tim. 2:8). Now, Paul is no dummy. He knows what crime statistics now confirm, namely, that the vast majority of violent crime is carried out by unbridled men. So Paul redirects male strength (cf. 1 John 2:14) and natural aggression toward godly ends and away from sinful, destructive ones.

Then Paul says, “Likewise, the women…” (1 Tim. 2:9), but he does not mention wrath and quarreling. One would expect him to do so, given his use of the word “likewise” but Paul has other plans. He writes, “Likewise, the women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9–10).

This fits with what I’ve already said about the power of women to attract the attention of others. And though Paul is not speaking about sexual modesty here (he is talking about ostentatious displays), the point about the power of attraction remains.

Only a fool would say, “So, then, women are free to be wrathful and men are free to dress immodestly!” Of course not. But also, it would be foolish to overlook the asymmetry the apostle builds into his instructions.

There is a reason why he focuses on wrath for men and attention-seeking for women. Anyone can sin in these ways, but men and women are prone (through a combination of God’s design and the spoiling effects of the fall) to sin in these ways to an especial degree.

So, are there different virtues for men and women? No, not strictly speaking. But the acquisition of these virtues takes on special significance in the lives of men and women who are inclined to violate them in particular ways.

There is more to say, however. Church history is replete with examples of how the virtues are expressed differently in men and women.

Take courage, for example. If a man were to act cowardly in the face of a threat to his family, he would be guilty of failing to exhibit courage and failing to fulfill his duty as a man, who is charged to “guard/watch over” what is entrusted to him (Gen. 2:15), even laying down his life when necessary (Eph. 5:25).

However, women are not explicitly called by God to protect their husbands in the same way (because they have a different nature and role or calling). If, therefore, a woman were to act cowardly in the face of a threat to her family, we might say that he was guilty of failing to exhibit courage, but we would not (or, rather, we should not) say that she was acting unwomanly.

This is why the prophet Nahum rebuked the people of Nineveh, saying that the troops (which were all male) “are like women in your midst” (Nah. 3:13). You have two options here: either (1) God, via Nahum, is a sexist who mocks women, or (2) there is something different about men and women in God’s design that makes such a remark fitting and appropriate in certain contexts.

As for me and my house, we’ll choose the latter of those options. That is to say, there is something about the way God made men, and what he has called them to be and do, that requires a different expression of courage that is not demanded of women in all times and places. (The same goes for women and other expressions of particular virtues.)

An example: When Jael drives the tent peg through Sisera’s skull, she was going above and beyond the call of duty (Judg. 4:21). Yet even here, as many scholars have pointed out, there is a gendered element to the story. Jael did not conquer Sisera on the battlefield but in a homely tent (Judg. 4:18), after giving the man some milk (Judg. 4:19). Sisera even asks, “Is there a man here?” (Judg. 4:20), for he knew the usual source of danger to a soldier. And it’s only in that context, when “he was lying fast asleep from weariness” (Judg. 4:22) that Jael did her glorious deed.

Excursus: While we’re in Judges, it has always struck me funny that people think Deborah stands as some kind of symbol for egalitarian strengths or giftedness. For when she and Barak sing their song of victory, Deborah says of herself, “I, Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel” (Judg. 5:7). And later the author of Hebrews 11 mentions Barak (Heb. 11:32) but not Deborah in his famous “hall of faith.” That’s worth puzzling over, if you’re someone who is inclined to see her story as a kind of proof text that strikes against the principle of male headship.

Anyway, back to the main point: Men and women are both called to Christlikeness, yes and amen. But because we are men and women, the path to Christlikeness is paved with different duties (callings) and even different expressions of shared virtues. Borrowing an illustration from Alastair Roberts, it is best to say that when it comes to virtue, men and women are called to play the same notes, but they play them with different timbres, according to their differing natures in God’s design.

This is, by the way, exactly why Paul says, “But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children" (1 Thessalonians 2:7). He does not say, “But we were gentle among you, like a [nursing] father taking care of his own children.” Paul knows that while both men and women are called to be gentle in many places in Scripture, there is an expression of gentleness among mothers that made his metaphor so striking.

Those who understand all this will see no threat to women (or men) in any of this. Rather, they will see the beauty of God's design, which shapes the course we take on the road toward the same goal, which is conformity to the image of Christ.

[Sean DeMars @DemarsSean]

Excerpt from Get Married, Have Babies, Join a Church!

CHAPTER 9: Hard Cases

“God is too good to be unkind, and He is too wise to be mistaken. And when we cannot trace His hand, we must trust His heart.”
— Charles Spurgeon

If you have walked through infertility, miscarriage, failed adoption, or health related challenges, much of this book may have been hard to read. A book that says, "Go get married and have babies!" can strike a real blow to your heart if your body, in God's providence, hasn't cooperated with that plan, no matter how much you've wanted it to. So, before I say anything else: I'm sorry. Not in the sense of taking the blame, but in the sense that childlessness can be a real source of grief, and it deserves to be treated as such.

Mike and Christine had been trying to have a baby for about four and a half years.

I’d known this sweet couple for a long time, watching them go from newlyweds, to quietly hoping for their first baby, to a couple who had stopped telling people they were "trying" because they died a little inside every month the baby didn’t come.

"We wanted to talk to you," Christine said, "because we're kind of at a crossroads."

"Ok," I said. “Let’s talk.”

"As you know,” Mike began, “we've done all the testing. And we don’t have any real answers. The fertility doctor says we have ‘unexplained infertility’.”

“Is that the official diagnosis,” I asked, struggling to believe that these words were official medical nomenclature.

“Yep,” said Mike. “That’s the official terminology they’ve used with us. Anyways, the doctors have basically told us our best chance of having kids is IVF."

"And we're not totally sure what to think about that," Christine added. "Like, theologically. We've heard people say it's basically the same as adoption. But we've also heard other people say that it’s just playing God, or that it's not ok because of what happens to embryos that aren't used. And honestly, we don't know who to listen to, and we're exhausted, and we just want someone to tell us what to do."

"Well,” I began with a sigh. “Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what to do. So, let’s get that out of the way.”

Mike grabbed Christine’s hand and held it firmly in his own.

“But I can promise you that everything’s going to be ok. Ok?"

Mike and Christine looked at each other and nodded.
“Let’s think through this together. Are you ready?”

"Please," said Christine.

"Great. Let’s get some preliminaries out of the way first before diving into the complicated ethical questions surrounding IVF.”

“First, I want to tell you that the grief you're experiencing is natural, and that God isn’t asking you to pretend that it doesn’t hurt.”

Christine let out a muffled sob at these words. I rushed to pick up a box of Kleenex and hand it to her. “I bet we’re all going to need a few before we’re done.”

I squeezed Mike’s shoulder on the way back to my seat.
“Do you remember the story of Rachel?” I began. “From Genesis.”

Christine nodded. “Kind of,” said Mike.

“Well, when Rachel couldn't conceive, she was completely distraught. In Genesis 30, she told Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"

Christine sobbed again, still trying to restrain the full torrent of agony from spilling the banks of her heart.

“In other words,” I continued. “Her inability to produce life felt like death.”

Mike squeezed Christine’s hand even harder, trying to suppress his own tears.

“Hannah's story is even more heart-wrenching. Year after year, she went up to the temple, and year after year, her rival provoked her about her empty womb. The author of 1 Samuel tells us that Hannah wept and refused to eat. I don’t know if she was just too depressed or if she was on a hunger strike against God. The point is, Hannah was a broken woman.”

I reached for my bible.

“And then there's the line from Proverbs. Let me see if I can find it,” I said thumbing through the pages. “Here it is. Proverbs 30:16. It reads, ‘Sheol, the barren womb, the land never satisfied with water, and the fire that never says, 'Enough’"

“Brutal,” said Mike.

“Brutal,” I said.

“In this verse, infertility is grouped with things that cry out, that never feel they have enough, that always ache for more. So, when I say your grief is natural, I don't mean "understandable, but you should move past it." I mean something more like: this is exactly the kind of grief the Bible expects, names, and gives voice to. A perpetual grief that threatens all of our hopes and joys.

“In other words,” I continued, “your heart hurts because you want something you were created for, but can't have, because of the ruinous effects of the fall.”

I felt my own eyes begin to well up.

"Ok, now on to the question of IVF. Are you ready?”

Mike and Christine nodded.

“I want to be honest with you, because I think you deserve honesty more than reassurance."

I paused, noticing the wince on Christine’s face.

"Let’s make sure we’re all on the same page about what IVF actually is. IVF means fertilization that happens outside the body. In a lab. Eggs are harvested, sperm is collected, and they're combined in a petri dish. The resulting embryos are grown for a few days, and then one or more get transferred into a woman’s uterus."

"Ok," Mike said slowly. "That's basically what the doctors told us."

"Good,” I said. “Now, here's the part that doesn't usually get explained by doctors.”

I took a deep breath and tried to speak slowly and clearly. “In theory, there's a version of IVF that creates one embryo at a time, doesn't freeze anything, doesn't screen for genetic abnormalities, doesn’t do sex selective abortions, or anything morally dubious like that. This way of doing IVF is sometimes called 'natural IVF.' Have you heard of that before?”

Mike and Christine shook their heads no.

“Ok, well…as Christians we believe that embryos are human beings made in the image of God from the moment of fertilization. This version of IVF is said to avoid the sharpest ethical edges of IVF treatment. But here’s the thing: that version is rare, expensive, has lower success rates, and most clinics actively steer couples away from it because it doesn't make business sense for them."

"So, what does it actually look like, then?” Christine asked.

"Just be clear,” I said before continuing. “I’m not a doctor or a medical professional. But I’ve studied this a good bit because you’re not the first couple I’ve had this conversation with. But feel free to fact check me on any of the details. I’m not threatened by that.”

“Ok, thanks,” said Mike. “Continue.”

“In practice, a typical cycle involves fairly heavy hormone stimulation. Basically, daily injections that cause the ovaries to produce many eggs at once instead of the usual one egg per month. Then doctors extract and fertilize a number of those eggs.”

“How many eggs?” Christine asked.

“Good question,” I replied. “It varies, but volume is key for IVF. Let’s just use ten as a nice round number.”

“Goodness,” said Christine. “That must require a lot of hormones.”

“It does.”

“So,” I continued, “the embryos, once created, are often graded on a viability scale. There’s a name for it, but it escapes me right now.”

Christine was taking notes now.

“And sometimes,” I continued, “Those embryos are genetically screened for things like chromosomal issues. The ones judged most viable are chosen for transfer. The rest are frozen, discarded, or used for research. Does that make sense?”

“Yes,” said Mike. “But it’s super weird to think about. It just feels…I don’t know.”

“Dystopian” said Christine.

“Yeah,” said Mike quietly. “So weird.”

“Well, there’s more,” I said. “And this last parts even worse.”

I could feel Mike and Christine holding their breath.

“Well, here’s the thing: it’s often the case that if more than one embryo implants successfully, doctors recommend 'selective reduction', which is exactly what it sounds like."

“Abortion?” asked Christine.

“Abortion.”

“Why?” asked Mike.

“For all kinds of reasons, Mike. None of them any good.”

Christine was still taking notes.

"In the U.S. alone, somewhere between one and four million embryos are lost this way every year.”

"That's really scary," said Mike.

"There's something else worth mentioning, if you want to hear it. I don’t want to overwhelm you.”

Mike looked at Christine. “No, we can handle it. Keep going.”

“Well, the loss of life isn’t the only ethical question involved in IVF.”

“What do you mean?” asked Christine.

“You see, when a child is 'selected' from among several siblings who weren't, that's something those children have to carry with them for the rest of their lives."

"Oh my goodness,” said Christine. “I hadn’t thought about that. If all the babies aren’t born, you’re tearing siblings away from one another.”

“Unfortunately, Christine, that’s usually the case.”
I paused.

A lot more that could be said about IVF, but I don’t want to pile on everything at once. If you want to know more, I’ll send you some helpful resources.”

“Thank you,” said Christine.

"So, that’s it?" Mike asked sincerely. "Just…no IVF? Full stop?"

“Pretty much.”

Christine reached for the Kleenex again.

"Have you ever heard of embryo adoption?” I asked.
“No,” they said in unison.

“Well, here’s the deal: right now, there are an estimated million to a million and a half frozen embryos sitting in storage facilities across the country. These aren't theoretical souls we’re talking about. They're real human beings who will either stay frozen indefinitely or eventually be destroyed. Unless…” I began.

“Unless someone adopts them,” Christine concluded for me.

“That’s right, Christine. And many Christian couples have chosen to adopt these embryos and give them a chance at life they would otherwise never have. For some couples, embryo adoption has felt like a way to hold together the desire for children and a clear conscience about IVF."

"We hadn't really heard much about this before today," Christine said. “Why didn’t the doctors tell us about it if it’s such a good option?”

“Well, for a few reasons, I think. First, it's a small field, so some may not even know that it’s an option. But, if I’m being honest,” I continued, “I suspect the main reason is because IVF is big business. If you adopt a snowflake baby—they’re called snowflake babies—then you won’t pursue IVF through their practice. Which means no revenue.”

"I see,” said Mike. “Well, what about just... adoption? Like, traditional adoption?"

"That's certainly a path many couples have taken, and it’s a beautiful one. Adoption is a glorious picture of the gospel.”

I flipped my bible open to Ephesians 1.

“We were not God's children by nature,” I began. “We were, as it says here in verse five, ‘children of wrath’. But through Christ, God has adopted us into His family, given us His name, and made us heirs of everything that belongs to Jesus. That’s what you picture to the world if you choose to go the adoption route. But bear in mind, embryo adoption is just as much a picture of the gospel as traditional post-birth adoption. May a thousand flowers bloom when it comes to saving children.”

"It's just... a lot to process," Christine said. "IVF, embryo adoption, regular adoption, or just... continuing to wait, and maybe never having kids at all."

"Yeah, it’s a lot. And grief sounds like it will be part and parcel of whatever path you take. What I can tell you is this: God has not been absent from the last four years of your life. Whatever you decide—and I'd encourage you to keep talking it through, with each other, with wise people, and with God—you're not deciding it alone, and you're not being judged based on which option you choose."

Christine nodded slowly as Mike rubbed her shoulder.

"Can I ask one more thing?" Christine said. "And I know this is a weird question."

"Go ahead."

"If we never have kids…”. She choked back another sob. “If none of this works, and we just…don't. does that mean all of this was for nothing?"

"No," I said, without hesitation. "It's not for nothing. Listen to me very carefully Christine. Your life—both of your lives, Mike—are not measured by whether you have biological children. God has used childless men and women throughout history and throughout Scripture in a massive way."

“I know it’s kind of corny,” said Mike. “But I’ve really been clinging to Romans 8 throughout this whole process."

“Ah,” I replied. “Romans 8. It’s a cliché counseling verse for a reason. Let’s read it together before you go."

“Ok,” said Christine.

“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good.”

“Amen,” said Mike.

“Amen.”

[Samuel James @Digitalliturgy]

Part of what's going on inside the SBC re: women in ministry is the ongoing restlessness of evangelical egalitarians, who seemingly value the transformation of non-egalitarian spaces more than the fellowship and fruitfulness of being in a tradition they agree with:

[sammy rhodes @sammyrhodes]

“Love is not maximum emotion. Love is maximum commitment.” - Sinclair Ferguson

[Albert Mohler @albertmohler]

"If you care about the shaping of society, if you care about righteous laws, if you care about whether unborn human life is going to be defended or expended, if you care about the definition of marriage, guess what? You're political."

[Denny Burk @DennyBurk]

This isn’t merely a call for dialogue. It’s a call for Southern Baptists to forsake what the Bible teaches about the office of pastor.

The letter argues that women are already “pastoring” and “shepherding” SBC churches and that this amendment would prevent them from doing that.

I don’t know how else to read this letter except as an open call for Southern Baptists to forsake biblical complementarianism for egalitarian error.

Faithful Southern Baptists will recognize that this letter is no argument for rejecting the Truth and Unity amendment.

On the contrary, it’s “Exhibit A” as to why we need it.

[Erik Reed @ErikReed]

This was a fantastic conversation. I can't wait for the book to come out!

Also, the handwringing about Dr. Mohler talking with and working with the Moscow guys on this project is very lame. These are serious conversations amongst serious thinkers. Get a life.

[Jeff Wiesner @JeffreyPWiesner]

We love our church only as far as we love its weakest, neediest, and most difficult-to-love members.

[Mike Winger @MikeWingerii]

India needs Jesus

“These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
Colossians 2:23

[Luke Stamps @lukestamps]

Many people "have found ways of being 'Christian' without being Christlike." -Dallas Willard

[Matt Smethurst @MattSmethurst]

Mark Dever recently suffered a serious cardiac event. The Lord graciously spared his life, and Mark is recovering well.

In God’s providence, listen to what he said on his most recent appearance on @9Marks’ 𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘛𝘢𝘭𝘬.

Praying for this dear brother.

[Dean Inserra @deaninserra]

Unthinkable. Please pray for this church.