"Why Evangelical Gender Discourse Is Unserious", and ongoing issues in Christian discourse

Here is a thought-provoking article on the Mere Orthodoxy website today: https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-evangelical-gender-discourse-is-unserious

In my view, the problem which the author discusses is not limited to discourse around gender. The problems of double-standards and gate-keeping seem to be pervasive in online Christian discourse today.

This, of course, would "only" mean that Christian discourse online is infected with and following the ways of the world: we are reflecting trends in wider society. Issues are polarised, gate-keepers are appointed, required orthodoxy is quickly defined down to the smallest degree, and in a way that soon becomes divorced from historic orthodoxy, without people appearing to notice or be unduly troubled, and "heretics" are identified, tarred, brushed and feathered (or often, "cancelled").... but, as I say, with blatant double-standards in how that's being done.

What does this mean? To me, the best explanation I can find is that it is the subjugation of theology, brotherly discourse and practice to politics and the culture wars, and perhaps the desire to gain personal followers by positioning oneself as more faithful, more bold, less wobbly, than other potential rivals for people's attention. The driving dynamic often seems to be the feeling that allowing "our side"'s position to be anything other than crystal clear, down to the minutest details, without anything of significance up for debate, is dangerous.... dangerous to our chances of winning the culture war, building big-enough political alliances, and/or dangerous to our personal empire-building projects. And thus, areas of complexity must not be either acknowledged or discussed, because this risks handing "the other side" weapons with which to gain advantage over "our side". The energy expended in preventing this from happening, either by policing boundaries or dedication to not seeing any elephants in the room, betrays the role which politics has been given.

On the Internet in the 2020s, writing things like the above is likely to get responses along the lines of "so, what you're really saying is....", followed by some complete non-sequitor and flaming straw-man, which assumes the existence of only the two positions down those minute details; or the bold declaration that "anyone talking this way is on a slippery slope, and in a few years' time they'll be aggressively recruiting toddlers for sex changes and openly worshipping Baal", accompanied by examples of people who went on that journey.

This, though, ultimately represents a failure to love God with all our minds, a failure to love the people he made, and a failure to deal with the complexity of created-and-fallen reality. Some things, of course, are quite clear; the Bible has plenty of clear teaching about legitimate and illegitimate human sexual practices. It also has plenty of clear teaching about protecting the vulnerable and standing for them. In the above linked article, the author laments that it seems that increasingly the gate-keepers of discourse insist that we choose between these two options, and be treated as an enemy if we don't. But why? To what end? Subjugating the glory and honour of God to temporary political battles, or attempts to gain personal followers, is no part of genuine discipleship, but quite opposed to it.

There are some larger, "meta-issues" going on here, some of which are touched upon in this other article - https://mereorthodoxy.com/the-state-of-the-internet-2026 - which is framed around AI, but I don't want to focus on that aspect.  The particularly relevant larger issue is the place given to the Internet in modern life, which as a whole can't be avoided even if someone avoids many parts of it personally. The search and desire for instant feedback, the willingness to build primarily online communities and seek for virtual followers, the ease of switching between such communities compared to physical ones, the using of the state of things online as the basic framing for how we approach issues off-line, etc., are all part of this. It seems to me that we have to start asking ourselves at what point we don't simply try to "sit loose" to some of what's going on online, but be more active, deliberate and explicit in our resistance to it. Of course, in some things, that's been the case already for many years - to give an obvious example, men and women in churches need to have such things as online pornography directly and repeatedly addressed in teaching. But do we not also need to be warning more openly and directly about the unhelpful polarisation that online community has brought to us? Again, this is hardly a new observation, and it's been out there for many years. But, as per the above two articles, it does feel to me like there's some sort of tipping point around, and also a point at which many people are more open to considering a different way, and not just being passive about it. There is perhaps currently more openness, for example, to pointing out and agreeing what many online builders of personal platforms are doing, and that it's not good for us.

"Christian sexual ethics between the ages"

Good article here - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sexual-ethics-overlap-ages/ . It reminds us that the fact of living "in the overlap of the ages" has a bearing on all sorts of matters. Christianity is not an a-historical religion in which things are the same in every age. Christ's resurrection from the dead, yet his not yet having returned, has important effects upon the Christian doctrine of marriage.

 

Defining missions

https://confessional.org/mercy-ministry-is-not-missions

The above link is to an article in a genre I find a bit odd, because I find myself agreeing with all of it and none of it at the same time.

The summary given is a fair summary of the article, so I'll just discuss that, to keep things brief.

Mission work, as defined by Scripture, is the church sending ordained ministers to preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches through the ordinary means of grace—Word, sacraments, and prayer. While mercy ministries support gospel outreach, they must not be confused with missions itself, which addresses humanity’s deepest need through the proclamation of Christ.

"Mission work, as defined by Scripture". The point of the article is to distinguish between "missions" and "mercy ministry". The difficulty is that the work of the article is generally done by the article's own definitions. There isn't a definition of "mission work" in Scripture, unless we mean that the Scriptures define the ministry of preaching the gospel, making disciples and planting churches, and then we define *that* to be what we are choosing to call "missions work". The author of the article has followed a confusing line, of arguing both that the ministries of mercy and evangelism/church planting are in certain ways distinct, and also arguing, implicitly and without explaining what he's doing, that the English terminology of "mission/missions/missionary work" should be reserved only for evangelism/church planting. Church-planting is (he argues) disciple-making; mercy ministry is not, and the lexical cognates of "mission" belong only to the former.

Looked at this way, it is a strange article. What is it actually about? The English word-group of "missions" comes to us not directly from the New Testament, but from the Latin "mittere" (to send); and whilst sending (and equivalent Greek words) are in the New Testament, missiologists (at least, the ones I've read) don't build out a whole theory of missions based on the etymology. Christians have no particular theological commitment to requiring that the English words "mission, missions, missionary, etc." are used in one, and only one, particular way, much less that this one particular way must exclude "mercy ministries", and must only be tied to the set of concepts to do with evangelising and church-planting. Non-biblical vocabulary can be used in the ways that people see as best; and in practice, if we decide to use a particular word in a different way to other people generally, it'll make life confusing. The article says "The clearest passage that defines mission work is Matthew 28:19-20". If this is the definition of how we must use the English words "mission work", then fine - but as I say, it is unreasonable to insist that everybody else do the same, because Matthew 28 does tell us what the mandate which the church received is, but does not then require us to use a particular lexicography fetched from outside the passage for that in English.

In the article, the lines of clarification are very hard and fast. An example of a "missionary" is a church-planter; whereas examples of people in "mercy ministries" are teaching English in an Asian country (why simply that would be an act of "mercy" is not clarified), and digging wells and building houses in an African country. The impression given is that the twain shall not meet. Is the English teacher presenting the gospel - perhaps it is an English learning group openly advertised as Christian and including a Bible study? Why is the house-builder building houses when there are plenty of African house-builders? Presumably the well-digger is demonstrating Christ's love in action, as part of explaining who Christ is and how he came. Does this make him a "missionary" or a "mercy minister", or does he switch suddenly back-and-forth between the two roles, perhaps multiple times a day, depending upon the precise activity he is performing at any one point?

I agree with the author that if the church simply sends people to do "mercy ministry", meaning doing good to people in a way divorced from a witness to Jesus Christ, then it has indeed lost sight of the marching orders, the commission, which it received from the Saviour, and that would be spiritually disastrous. If the church is just doing the same as large secular charities (perhaps doing it slightly or significantly better), then this is not what Jesus told us to do. But, the article hasn't begun to engage with the challenges and opportunities of mission in much of the world. A simple binary of "is it mercy or evangelism?" does not cover plenty of real-world, flesh-and-blood Christian activity. Christians, rightly, speak today about "holistic" mission. This word can be abused, and can, like "mission", be given unhelpful definitions. But the word itself is an attempt to recognise that man is body and soul. Jesus' miracles were not simply proofs of spiritual power and his Messianic claims in general, but also enactments of personal divine compassion towards their recipients. And many Christians today are carrying out works because they understand that since "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", so they too, in order to preach the gospel, must incarnate practical love as part of their Christian/gospel witness, and not deliver the message in verbal form only. It was part of the apostolic witness, Acts 10:38, that Jesus "went about doing good", and this same Jesus told us "let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

From that point of view, a distinction between gospel-proclamation by word, and gospel-enactment by deed, can exist only as a technical, conceptual distinction, on paper. It helps us to understand what we are doing; but it is not a distinction between two different sets of activities, such that one set of Christians talks about Jesus Christ, and the other distinct set of Christians demonstrates the reality of Jesus Christ. Many missionaries should, and are, doing both, because the two can no more be separated in practice than Christ's manhood and deity can. Christ's manhood and deity are not the same thing, and the distinction is important theologically; but the actual Christ who saves us unifies them in a single person. In the same way, word-based missionary proclamation, and mercy ministry, may be separate conceptually, but are not actually separate in practice. And as such, though I agree with what the author seems to be aiming for, and the concerns he wants to guard against, as I understand them, I don't think the way he's gone about them, and the walls he's erected in doing so, ultimately help us.

Restoring the kingdom

Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

On this verse, Calvin comments:

“Their blindness is remarkable, that when they had been so fully and carefully instructed over a period of three years, they betrayed no less ignorance than if they had never heard a word. There are as many errors in this question as words.” 

And yet, in Christian history since, is there any doctrine or idea that is more reluctant to be put to death than the one that God's real plan for this age must be for his people to dominate on the earth?

No matter what form the idea is pursued in, collapsing sooner or later under its own weight of contradictions, it emerges again with new branding and marketing.

If Jesus intended us to understand that the Christian life would be one lived under the cross, if he had wanted to communicate that to gain resurrection life we must lay this life down, if his meaning was that the focus of believers looking for justice and their reward is his second coming, then what words would one use to communicate that? Would they be any different to the ones he did use? 

If the meaning of the apostles was that the sufferings they spoke of before glory would in fact largely pass away, and that there would be a different way of experiencing and pursuing Christian discipleship once the time of the dominion of God's people on earth begins, before Christ's second coming, then where, precisely did they teach anyone about this new mode of discipleship? Where is the slightest scrap of evidence that such a new epoch is anything other than imaginary?

Rehoboam, too "manly" by half

 ⁶ Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, saying, “How do you advise me to answer these people?”

⁷ And they spoke to him, saying, “If you are kind to these people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be your servants forever.”

⁸ But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him.

The advice of the young men, of course, was as follows:

¹⁰ ... “Thus you should speak to the people who have spoken to you, saying, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us’—thus you shall say to them: ‘My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist! ¹¹ And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!’ ” 

And as we know, this turned out poorly for Rehoboam, because whilst making big boasts about what he would do, he lacked any actual capacity to enforce it.  Oops!

What, though, in the advice of the young men appealed to them, and appealed to Rehoboam? Why did it seem like a good idea? After all, Rehoboam had just inherited the kingdom from his father at its peak of prosperity. The good times had arrived: peace, and abundance. This was hardly the time for the sort of tough, no-nonsense measures which might sometimes be needed to get through a crisis. Nothing that was going on called for an authoritarian crack-down, and the results demonstrated how stupid it was to say that he would bring one. The advice was pure folly, as the outcome showed. But again we ask: why did it appeal to him?

What appealed was not related to the outcome of the policy, which Rehoboam took for granted in the wrong way - he assumed he'd be able to carry it out. What appealed was simply the policy itself, and the act of declaring such a policy. Rehoboam was a tough guy, and took tough measures. He was a real man. No softies here! He talked tough, and would act tough, and all would admire his masculinity. All hail the big man, Rehoboam!

And so, to our day..... this is all rather familiar to Internet users in 2026, is it not? There are plenty of kings (unlike Rehoboam, self-crowned), who speak as if masculinity is on a simple sliding scale, and that sliding scale is marked "talk a big game". The bigger game you talk, the more you ignore any attempts at correction, the more you double-down and go further to the extremes in whatever way, the more masculine you are.

If you are drawn to those sorts of people - and it seems plenty are - then please, instead, consider Jesus Christ. He was nothing like this! He was the servant of all his people, and gave up all his rights when he took on the form of a servant and gave himself for us. That was the most manly thing ever done. Unlike Adam, he did not abdicate and disappear, hovering somewhere on the periphery. And unlike Rehoboam, he did not brag about what he was going to inflict on those under him. He took the whole load upon himself, voluntarily, and was crucified for us. This he did, with conviction, firmness of purpose, and refusal to compromise on God's will for him.

There was nothing manly about Rehoboam threatening to tyrannise the people who had been put under his care. That idea was the foolishness of the ungodly, who think that the great men of the world manifest their greatness by lording it over others. Of course, if you merely have a podcast or whatever, then you're not even doing any actual lording, you're just talking - which makes it all a bit pathetic. Yes, a father-figure (such as a king) must sometimes be firm, using his God-given authority to suppress evil and folly. But this has nothing to do with using it arbitrarily to commit evil and folly. There is nothing manly about force for the sake of force, or dominion for the sake of dominion. 

Ultimately, Rehoboam aped Pharaoh and other tyrants, aping Satan, who wanted authority so that he could exercise authority. Jesus, the true man, laid aside his rights and shed his blood, so that he could redeem the lost. That sort of man is worthy to rule, and that sort of man - only - shall have authority in the world which is to come. To be much more like a real man, have no compromise with Satan's idol of pseudo-manliness, and instead use your position to serve, by word and self-giving deed. Lead others into the way of giving your life away so that others can live.

There are no short-cuts in being human

This is an interesting thread (especially if you include the comments of others) on what happened in one lecturer's class when (she strongly suspects) her students began using AIs to summarise the study material that they were meant to read.

https://xcancel.com/Sally_Sharif1/status/2030403451663114603#m

There are no shortcuts from the back-and-forth of reading something with the desire to learn through interacting with it.

Unfortunately, in Western education for some time now, much of the process is often skewed by the idea that the important thing is to gain the qualification. The qualification was meant to measure whether the education had been gained; but as with other measures, is subject to Goodhart's Law, "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law . When people are focussing upon the piece of paper that says they're educated (or that the school they're running educates lots of people well, etc.), then actually becoming educated starts to slide, and slide, and slide. I wonder if it's even possible to hit a lower nadir than in the Covid years, when the UK government handed out grades and certificates which ultimately expressed "here's what we believe you could have got in an exam if we'd educated you".... and the merry system happily trundled on, undisturbed by the important realities that it was orginally set up to accomplish.

Current AI (based on Large Language Models), like many other things, is, as we experiment with it and discover its strengths and weaknesses, pointing us to the wonders of humanity, made in the image of God. Yes, perhaps you can get a machine (after much human study and ingenuity to make the machine) which can approximate and outwardly resemble the product of actual human thought. But that, in the things that matter, is generally unlikely to be of real use, and may cause real harm if I pretend otherwise. If an AI summarises a text for me, that could be useful if I wanted to check if I might have missed something from a mental summary that I had from having done the proper engagement and reflection through reading and thinking. But if I use it to replace the engagement, then I only get the mirage of learning, the self-delusion that I took part in learning..... and not the actual learning itself.

No doubt in some scenarios, a quick-and-cheerful summary of something straightforward has value, and the AI can do something useful there. (Note too, though, that such cases are likely to be the ones that humans were already doing well - you can probably easily Google for a human-generated summary, and the AI is likely good at the task because it ingested so many human summaries in its construction). But if it's being deployed to do something that is trying to imitate human thought, reflection, moral wisdom, creativity, and such things that are tied up with what it means to be a divine image bearer.... then it's probably being mis-deployed, and the results will be worse than if we had simply ignored it. Christian wisdom requires understanding the wider purpose and point of something within the Creator's overall plan and design.... not simply how to economise on the use of time to achieve higher efficiency, as modern Westerners understand efficiency. Modern Western culture is obsessed with superficial efficiency in order to increase economic output; the cost of this is paid elsewhere, and is significant.

"The Birds and the Bees, Babies and Me"

Here is an edifying reflection upon the experience of childlessness, solidly grounded in the perspective of the transitory, preparatory nature of this life, for those who are in Christ: https://www.christianitytoday.com/2026/03/karen-swallow-prior-infertility-childlessness-womanhood/. Natural human families, with all their potential for blessing, will come to an end; the Christian family will not. And, as pointed out, the church has a large opportunity to manifest its true nature in how the married, single, child-less and those with children can live together as the body of Christ, mutually helping and serving eachother.

On the theme of this mutual help and service, today I was with someone who had just visited a family with a severely handicapped child for the first time. She told us how seeing the child's situation had made her weep. It was a blessing to see her eyes being opened to the needs and opportunities, again, to show and be the difference that Jesus Christ has shown us and been for us, in the lives of others. The opportunity that Jesus Christ gives us to show who he is to the world is enormous - are we looking for it?