rfwhite

Head-coverings and Paul’s Standards of Transcultural Ministry

March 2, 2026 at 11:00 am (1 Corinthians, Church, Women, Worship)

posted by R. Fowler White

What was going on in the public worship of the church at Corinth (1 Cor 11:2-16)? Why had some wives and husbands chosen to change what they wore on their heads in worship? And why was Paul so concerned about their choices? What follows is a brief attempt to answer those questions and to anticipate some of their implications.

The problem: Influencers in the NT world were moving society away from long-accepted norms of honor, submission, modesty, and moderation, and a minority in the church at Corinth was moving with them. They had made dishonorable, immodest, and extravagant choices of headwear for worship, sending signals to society that the church was elitist, promiscuous, gender-confused, and even idolatrous. Those choices, however, exposed an even deeper issue. They expressed a careless indifference to the honor and submission owed to God (as the head of Christ and all creation too, 1 Cor 11:3, 12), to Christ (as the head of every Christian husband, 11:3; 3:23), and to husbands (as the head of their own wives, 11:3, 5, 8-9). It was, therefore, imperative that the wayward minority at Corinth admit that their attitude and choices were displeasing to God and contrary to the virtues of honor, submission, modesty, and moderation that ought to characterize His church.

The solution: Paul admonished the troublemakers at Corinth to follow his example (1 Cor 9:19-23; 10:32–11:1). They should, therefore, avoid any appearance in public worship that might put others’ spiritual well-being at risk. They should return to long-standing norms of honorable, modest, and circumspect appearance in worship that would commend Christ to their neighbors, regardless of their cultural background (9:20-22; 10:32). Only in this way would they live out the virtues that must characterize God’s church and thereby advance the Apostles’ gospel mission. Living their lives as Paul lived his, they could say with him, “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with [others] in its blessings” (9:23).

A note on church history: We’re sometimes told that up until the mid-20th century, there was compliance in all churches with Paul’s requirement of head-coverings for women in public worship. This claim can be questioned for at least two reasons.

First, the claim does not reckon adequately with the fact that, independent of Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians, women’s headwear had been a social convention for centuries, with noticeable differences across time and place. It’s not clear, then, how we can be sure whether it was Paul’s teaching, existing customs, or a combination of the two that influenced women to cover their heads.

Second, the claim disregards the fact that after the Apostles, though women may have done what Paul said, men did not do so. For example, portraits of Reformed church leaders (as suitable for purposes of comparison as statuary from the Greco-Roman period) show a common disregard among men toward Paul’s teaching that long hair was a disgrace to them (1 Cor 11:14). From evidence like this, historians will tell us to seek an answer to why Paul’s rule for women was binding but his rule for men was not. Did the churches defend what appears to have been their double standard and, if so, on what basis?

The reasons discussed above push us to reconsider two questions. First, what exactly should we expect obedience to Paul’s teaching to look like? Second, how should we interpret the churches’ practice of heeding Paul’s rule for women but ignoring his rule for men? An answer to the second question may help us answer the first. Let us grant that when women obeyed Paul and men did not, churches conscientiously believed that both choices were principled and right. If churches believed otherwise, we would expect them not only to endorse obedience by both men and women but also to enforce their obedience through church discipline. Proof from Scripture or church history is lacking, however, that churches ever endorsed both directives or ever enforced either directive through discipline.

The point worth considering is this: the available evidence indicates that it was not Paul’s rules for the church at Corinth that the churches regarded as binding on them; it was Paul’s example. How could this be the case? Because Paul’s rules for Corinth were well suited to Corinth’s culture, but they do not account for the liberty Paul had to “become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (9:22b). The standards that shaped Paul for a ministry that transcended all cultures were the virtues of honor, submission, modesty, and moderation. Grounded in the headships that God had established, these were the virtues that had to be expressed through the norms of public propriety in the cultures where God placed him. These virtues would be the standards that gave the churches the liberty to adapt to the norms of public propriety in every culture where God placed them to win others to Christ (1 Tim 2:8-10; 3:14-15; 1 Pet 3:3-5). As those called to follow Paul’s example, then, the standards and the liberty that were his applied to the churches as well. Those same standards and that same liberty are ours too.

3 Comments

Thinking Through Christian Nationalism: Points to Percolate On

February 4, 2026 at 10:10 pm (1 Peter, Church and State, Civil Issues)

posted by R. Fowler White

Civic life for Christians, particularly in a highly partisan political environment, was in ancient times and is now a high stakes drama. Seeking to live peaceful, quiet, godly, and dignified lives under earthly government means living as God’s servants, free from sin’s bondage but never free to do wrong (1 Pet 2:16).

The New Testament shows us that Christ and His Apostles taught that there is no authority higher than His in heaven or on earth. His authority transcends all others. Consequently, the loyalties of Christ’s disciples transcend, and may challenge and influence, the loyalties of non-Christians (see Acts 19 for a case in point). When people embrace the Christian gospel and its moral vision, there is political and even cultural change, not least in civic life. Christ and His Apostles certainly knew that human government is always administered by sinners. They knew what it was like to live under earthly rulers who were non-Christians, God-fearers, or anti-Christians but God-fearers. They even knew what it was like to live under atheistic tyrants and barbarians. Nevertheless, against that backdrop, Christ declared His own universal authority and issued His Great Commission to the Apostles and, through them, to His church. By establishing His church, Christ also established His holy nation. Of the church, the Apostle Peter declared, “you are … a holy nation … so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9). United to Christ by faith, then, God has already constituted Christ’s church as His holy nation, and it is to that nation that Christ has given His Commission.

Well aware of their larger cultural context, Christ and His Apostles instructed the church that it is God Himself who raises up and brings down earthly magistrates, from higher to lower, for His glory and for the public good. Peter commands the church to take their place under human government to commend to others the ultimate authority of Christ and, with that, their accountability to Him. In no way did this command affirm that human authorities get to rule absolutely or lawlessly. Quite the contrary. Human rulers are not God, despite the claims of ancient or modern emperors; nor are they outside of His control. As sinful creatures, they are capable of contradicting God. If rulers command citizens to sin, they are to be resisted (cf. Acts 5:29) or replaced by rulers who do not command citizens to sin. The Christian’s voluntary subjection to earthly rulers, then, is to abide by magistrates’ commands when, but only when they are lawful and not in conflict with God’s laws. Such law-keeping is prescribed to shut up those who falsely accused Christians of unpatriotic insubordination or worse (1 Pet 2:15).

To live such a life, the Apostle Peter laid out four basic obligations for Christians in 1 Pet 2:17. First, Christ’s holy nation is to fear God, living in reverent and affectionate awe of their Father and avoiding actions that would grieve or dishonor Him. Second, Christ’s church is to love their member siblings. Since it is only with fellow Christians that we may engage in ministries of worship, discipleship, and evangelism, it follows that Christians will have a special, higher degree of devotion to one another. Third, Christ’s church is to honor all people. Let others be disrespectful. Christ’s disciples will respect their fellow citizens, because they too are created in God’s image. Even those with whom Christians disagree are to be treated with civility. As the Prophet Jeremiah told the exiles from Israel (Jer 29:7), believers are to pray for the prosperity of the communities in which they congregate, making every effort to be law-abiding citizens to silence faultfinders and mudslingers. Fourth, Christ’s holy nation is to honor governing authorities mentioned above, from higher to lower. Christ’s disciples are to be civil to magistrates and to pray for them, because the well-being of both magistrates and Christians in this world is ordinarily connected. Christians are to understand that though obedience to God transcends obedience to earthly rulers, they have no license to dishonor those rulers. To the contrary, it is a Christian’s obligation to respect God’s ordinance of civil government. Summarizing Peter’s commands, Christ’s disciples, by their conduct as good citizens and as God’s holy nation within the nations, are to commend to their rulers and their fellow citizens the ultimate authority of Christ and their accountability to Him.

Insofar as Christian Nationalism is still developing and articulating their views, they are arguing for their understanding of American history and government and presenting the U.S. with a template for its official national identity and culture. Because the means of achieving Christian Nationalism’s ends are still being debated as part of an ongoing conversation about the proper template for the U.S. (or any other nation), their offer is likely to be best received guardedly. If possible, interaction ought not to be shut down prematurely because there is no settled consensus on a number of key questions. Let me rehearse a smattering of those questions.

For one thing, there is no settled consensus yet among Christian Nationalists on how the term “Christian” is to be defined. Granted the need for a transcendental anchor for belief and behavior, the anchor for a Christian nation needs to be identified. The historic Protestant churches have proclaimed their Anchor to be the living and true God as He has made Himself and His will known in Holy Scripture (excluding the Apocrypha), and, at that, as Scripture has been interpreted by the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and the confessions and catechisms of the Reformed churches. Will those creeds, confessions, and catechisms be too much or too little to function as the consensus that identifies the Anchor who defines a “Christian” nation? If not, what will do so?

Second, there is as yet no settled consensus among Christians on whether Scripture provides, or is even intended to provide, the basis for a template of official national identity and culture. So, as with any other proposal like this, questions have to be asked and answered. How will a Christian Nationalist agenda relate to the agenda that Christ set for His own holy nation, the church, in His Great Commission? What does God require of a nation that declares itself to be a Christian nation? Will it be understood that God has entered into covenant with a self-identified Christian nation, and that that nation has entered into covenant with God? Shifting gears a bit, is it the case in this world that any public square that is outside of a theocracy is unavoidably pluralistic, both religiously and morally? If so, how will a Christian nation, however Christian Nationalists define it, handle pluralism within its boundaries? Will a Christian nation adopt laws that give privileges to Christians and deny them to non-Christians? Why or why not? More narrowly, how will Christian Nationalists treat Christians who do not endorse Christian Nationalism? Will they be second-class citizens? That is, if Christian Nationalism is fully implemented, will all Americans have full religious liberty? If not, why not? Will the new powers conferred on a Christian Nationalist government ever be lawfully turned against Christians who do not hold to Christian Nationalism? Moving to one more point, in recent years, Christian Nationalists and other Christians have seen Christians increasingly marginalized socially and politically and persecuted by any means necessary, including force. Some in the Christian Nationalist orbit are beginning to argue that American Christians need to prepare to take up arms in order to preserve America’s identity as a Christian Nation. How will Christian Nationalism respond to this issue?

As I said, there is, as yet, no settled consensus among Christians, be they Christian Nationalists or not, on what the preferred cultural template for the U.S. (or other non-covenantal nations) should be. The conversation about Christian Nationalism should and will continue, and we will all need to stay tuned.

Leave a Comment

Christian Nationalism: A Summary in Examples and Traits

August 9, 2025 at 11:38 am (Church and State, Civil Issues)

posted by R. Fowler White

Though usage of the term Christian nationalism is relatively new in American public discourse, it is an ideology and movement that is both on the rise and not yet definitively or fully formed. Given that Christian nationalism is a still-developing phenomenon, it may be useful to survey the phenomenon as it has appeared in history in various times and degrees, both outside and inside the U.S. Several examples are cited below.

1. Ireland: From the late 19th century until the late 20th century when its government was made legally secular, the Roman Catholic Church was a defining and constitutional part of Irish national identity.

2. Korea: As leaders of Korea’s independence movement against Japanese occupation (1910–1945), Christians established a connection between Korean national identity and Christianity that in measure still exists today in South Korea.

3. South Vietnam: In the 1950s and early 1960s, South Vietnam’s president gave the Roman Catholic Church a privileged position while using force to control Buddhists and limit their freedom. The president’s position was a contributing factor to his eventual downfall.

4. Hungary: In 2010 the Hungarian Prime Minister’s party won two-thirds of the National Assembly seats. In 2011 that assembly passed a new constitution that included recognition of Christianity’s role in preserving its nationhood and a need for “spiritual and intellectual renewal.” During the Syrian refugee crisis, the Hungarian government opposed the resettlement of asylum seekers in Europe, based in part on religion. In December 2020 the National Assembly passed a constitutional amendment that restricted adoptions to heterosexual couples and mandated that children be raised with “values based on our Christian culture.”

5. The U.S. has a long history of Christian Nationalism phenomena in various expressions. For instance:

a) In 1791 the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Congress from “making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” By that amendment, Congress was prohibited from establishing a national church, such as the Church of England or the Church of Denmark. Interestingly, however, when the First Amendment was ratified, it did not forbid states from designating a denomination as their official church. In fact, nine of the thirteen states had formal ties with a Christian denomination. Two examples: Connecticut named the Congregational Church as its official church, a relationship that was not changed until the 1830s. Delaware had a constitutional provision requiring a Christian profession to hold public office.

b) In the 1930s through the 1950s, Christian Nationalism became prominent in a push by anti-New Deal business interests that wanted to link American capitalism to Christianity. In 1956, during the Cold War, Congress adopted the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto and added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. (The identity of “God” in these phrases was not defined, at least not beyond “Nature’s God” and the “Creator” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.)

c) From the 1960s to the present: The rise of televangelism in the U.S., especially among Pentecostal-Charismatics, saw a new era of Christian Nationalism phenomena.

i) In 1979 Jerry Falwell founded The Moral Majority to oppose certain cultural trends, especially the women’s movement, the gay rights movement, and legalized abortion. It also lobbied for prayer in public schools, increased defense spending, a strong anti-communist foreign policy, and continued U.S. support for the State of Israel. The Moral Majority led a new generation of Christian fundamentalists and the so-called Christian Right to go beyond opposing selected cultural trends into engaging the political arena. The organization, having quickly grown to several million members, was credited with playing an important role in Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. This election bonded Evangelicalism and American exceptionalism together, helping to cement the close relationship between Evangelicals and the Republican Party.

ii) In 1989 The Christian Coalition was founded by Pentecostal televangelist Pat Robertson. Directed by Ralph Reed, it effectively replaced The Moral Majority as it promoted political action by Christians. The development of The Christian Coalition was followed in 1996 by the founding of The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ (CRAC) by D. James Kennedy, a founding board member of The Moral Majority. The purpose of CRAC was to encourage Christians to become involved in politics, guided by Kennedy’s belief that Christians needed to focus not only on the Great Commission through the church, but on the Cultural Mandate in the public square. The Center’s focus was on issues such as abortion, pornography, homosexuality, evolution, and religious liberty. Though CRAC closed after Kennedy’s death in 2007, it was relaunched in 2010 with permission from but no affiliation with D. James Kennedy Ministries (formerly known as Coral Ridge Ministries).

iii) In the first quarter of the 21st century, Christian Nationalism in the U.S. has reached new levels. Since the 2016 presidential election, it has been closely associated in public discussion with Donald Trump. After the 2020 presidential election, many in Christian Nationalism came to Washington, DC to take part in “Jericho Marches” in December 2020 and in the January 6, 2021 events at U.S. Capitol. There, they engaged in prayer, praise, speaking in tongues, and blowing rams’ horns following Israel’s example of marching around Jericho in Joshua 6. The prominent place that Pentecostals and Charismatics have in Christian Nationalism is again to be noted.

iv) Since 2020, Christian Nationalism has increasingly been the target of criticism, and the Christian Nationalism (-ist) label itself has been adopted by its thought leaders and supporters. According to reputable national surveys, in 2024, three in ten Americans identified as Christian Nationalism adherents (10%) or sympathizers (20%). Meanwhile, 53% of Republicans identified as either Christian Nationalism adherents (20%) or sympathizers (33%), compared with about two in ten or fewer Independents (6% adherents and 16% sympathizers) and Democrats (5% adherents and 11% sympathizers).

In light of the preceding historical survey of what has been generally labeled as Christian Nationalism in the U.S. and beyond, it might be helpful to summarize the prevailing traits of the Christian Nationalism phenomenon as it continues to take shape in a more definitive form.

1. Christian Nationalism affirms the U.S. is a Christian nation and also that the government should adopt a specifically Christian cultural template as the official culture of the U.S. In general, this means that, in contrast to secularism, Christian Nationalism affirms that human societies require an anchor that transcends all things in them to hold them together. Therefore, the U.S. should affirm that the required transcendent anchor is the God of the Christian faith, with the Christian faith ordinarily being defined in keeping with historic Protestantism.

2. Christian Nationalism affirms that Christianity should have a privileged position in the public square. It does not reject the First Amendment, and it argues that “the wall of separation between church and state” did not come about until the 1947 SCOTUS case Everson v. Board of Education. That case defined the First Amendment in terms of a “wall of separation between church and state” that applied to every level of government, not just to the national (federal) level. The Amendment was thus interpreted as effectively separating church and all levels of government.

3. Christian Nationalism affirms that the U.S. has been and must remain a Christian nation. This position is not merely Christian Nationalism’s interpretation of the U.S. past, but is also its prescription for the U.S. future. Given its predominantly Anglo-Protestant past, Christian Nationalism urges that the U.S. must preserve that heritage to keep its identity and its freedom.

4 Comments

The CREC, Neither Catholic Nor Reformed, Just Muddled (Special Attention Given to Paedo-communion)

July 2, 2025 at 8:35 pm (Church, Communion, Sacraments, Westminster Standards)

posted by R. Fowler White

Ron DiGiacomo at Philosophical Theology has articulated some concerns well worth our pondering about the doctrine and practice of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). The opening two paragraphs are provocative:

If a renegade Roman Catholic communion held to the Westminster standards, Roman Catholicism would still not be a Reformed communion. That’s because what defines Roman Catholicism is a blend of her official doctrine and practices the magisterium permits. So it is with The Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches (CREC).

Although the CREC would like to identify with Reformed theology and claims to be shaped by that tradition, the communion is not Reformed in any sense of the word. Rather, the CREC is a hodgepodge of religious traditions and disciplines that even include elements of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Federal Vision. Its leaders are at best muddled.

To read the whole essay, follow the link below:

https://philosophical-theology.com/2025/05/31/the-crec-neither-catholic-nor-reformed-just-muddled-special-attention-given-to-paedo-communion/

Leave a Comment

Believers’ Children as Disciples: More Thoughts

June 28, 2025 at 12:15 pm (Baptism, children, Colossians, Discipleship, Ephesians, Matthew)

posted by R. Fowler White

In a Facebook post on 06-20-2025, Lane Keister, aka “greenbaggins,” wrote:

The word “disciple” is not equal in meaning to “Christian” or “believer” in at least several places in the New Testament. Judas Iscariot was a disciple, but not a Christian. In the Great Commission, we are commanded to make disciples. We cannot make people Christians. Therefore the word “disciple” does not mean “believer” or “Christian” there either. Instead, it means “learner.” How do we make people into disciples, according to the Great Commission? Baptism and teaching. This makes the Great Commission a rather strong argument for infant baptism. Infants are phenomenal learners, and they learn about trust and relationships. Baptize them, therefore, and teach them in age-appropriate ways.

Since I agree substantially with Lane, I’d like to add to his line of thinking. I do so because, as I read his comments, I realized that I had reached similar conclusions while considering Paul’s instructions to parents and children in Eph 6 and Col 3. I’d submit that it’s best to interpret the apostle’s instruction in those and similar texts as applying the Great Commission to professing parents and their children. Details follow.

First, leaving aside the baptism question for the moment, I’ll focus on the duty of Christian parents (obviously, fathers in particular) in Eph 6:4; Col 3:21. No doubt, in light of his commission from Christ, the Apostle counts parents in those texts as disciples of Jesus, and he elaborates on their duty as disciples to their children, saying “raise them in the training and instruction of the Lord.” If those parents wondered about the content of that training and instruction, the context of Paul’s words tells them that the content included (broadly) all that pleases the Lord and (specifically, at least) the fifth of the Lord’s Ten Commandments. Comparing Paul’s directive to Christ’s Great Commission, it’s more than credible to say that the Apostle expected parents to teach their children to obey all that Jesus commanded, covering His law of love (even in its particulars) and His gospel of forgiveness (doubtless in His specific calls for repentance and faith). From these considerations, I have warrant to conclude that if children are to be trained and taught to obey the commands of Jesus, believing parents would be following the Apostle’s lead and viewing their children as disciples of Jesus.

Second, as we might anticipate from the preceding discussion, the Apostle’s instruction to children is in harmony with his instruction to parents. Paul obliges children to learn and keep “the first commandment with [its] promise” of well-being and longevity on the earth. Once again, seeing the shared terms and concepts in Paul’s instruction and in Christ’s Commission, I’m constrained to infer that the Apostle is applying Christ’s Commission to believing parents and their children and, by doing so, treating both as Christ’s disciples.

Third and last, it is helpful to coordinate the observations above with the words of Jesus concerning the actions of parents who brought their children to Him. Jesus emphatically endorsed the actions of parents who brought their children to Him that they might submit them to His ministry of prayer and blessing. I find myself pushed to ask this: if Jesus endorsed such actions when He ministered on earth, what should deter me from believing that He does the same now as He ministers from heaven? I notice too that when Jesus received children under His ministry while on earth, He reasserted both the promise and the warning of God’s covenant. He told hearers that the kingdom would be granted to those who received it like a child, but that it would be withheld from those who did not so receive it. Today, as He receives children under His ministry while in heaven, He continues to promise the kingdom to all who receive it by faith and to warn those who turn away of the wrath to come.

In light with Lane’s thoughts, then, when I understand the apostles’ instruction to parents and children in the light of the Great Commission, it is clearer to me how Paul’s teaching applies Christ’s Great Commission and, more specifically, His teaching on discipleship. The children of believers are, then, disciples of the Lord Jesus. Yes, some of His disciples, whether parents or children, may turn away and be disavowed (Matt 7:21-23). Even so, they are subject to His ministry of discipleship, learning the obedience God requires, the judgment He imposes for disobedience, and the grace He provides in His Son. As Lane argued, children of professing parents are properly called disciples and are, if we were to keep going, even subjects of covenant baptism.

8 Comments

Acts 24, Jerusalem, and Rome: Some Musings

June 25, 2025 at 3:03 pm (Acts)

posted by R. Fowler White

While studying Acts 24, a couple of musings crossed my mind, musings that might bear fruit somewhere down the line.

One of those thoughts concerns the partnership of Jerusalem’s leaders with Rome’s leaders in their lawfare against the Apostle Paul. In briefer terms, it’s “Jerusalem and Rome vs. Christ’s Apostle” in Acts 24. First musing: does their cooperation not bear some striking resemblances to the warfare of the Harlot (= Jerusalem?) and Babylon (= imperial Rome?) against the Lamb and His church in the book of Revelation?

Another thought sprang up when reading Paul’s portrayal of himself in his defense in Acts 24:14-16. He identifies himself as a follower of the Way (14a). That candid admission is not contested by his accusers: it seems to be taken as a simple fact to which both prosecution and defendant stipulated. That self-description becomes weightier, however, when Paul elaborates on it in 24:14b-16. He accentuates the God whom he serves (14b), the Scriptures (canon)—the Law and … the Prophets—on which he bases his beliefs and practices (14c), and the hope he has in God for a resurrection (15). He urges that each of these is drawn from the covenant heritage he shares with his Jewish accusers (in particular, his Pharisee accusers). Clearly, Paul sees his life of Christian discipleship as one that is both continuous and discontinuous with the Jewish covenantal heritage that he shares with his accusers.

This second train of thought seems to fit neatly with a hypothesis that the Apostles initially received their commission from Christ as two-dimensional: 1) as bringing gospel blessing (reformation, cf. Heb 9:10) to the Abrahamic covenant community that had degenerated in Israel (cf. WCF 25.5), and 2) as bringing gospel blessing to the Gentile nations and, with that blessing, expanding the Abrahamic covenant community to all families of the earth. Hence, a second musing: might observations of this sort contribute to a conclusion that the Apostles saw their commission first as reformers among the degenerated covenant nation of Israel and then as disciple-makers among the degenerated Gentile nations? In any case, the Apostles’ commission can be credibly understood as one of reformation, making them ancestors of reformers to come.

Granted, the preceding observations may be pretty ‘old hat’ to students of NT history. Certainly, it is consistent with the to the Jew first and also to the Greek narrative in Acts and in Paul’s letters. It can also be seen, however, in the Gospels themselves, in Christ’s ministry as Malachi’s messianic Messenger of the Covenant among the synagogues of Israel, a ministry that persisted in Paul’s ministry among the synagogues of the Diaspora and then expanded to sites beyond the synagogues.

Leave a Comment

Prayer First (pt. 3 of 3)

April 23, 2025 at 1:00 pm (1Timothy, Church, Prayer)

posted by R. Fowler White

The challenges that confront the congregations of Christ’s church in this world include deceivers and persecutors, sometimes with the cooperation of civil authorities. Regardless of the challenger or the tactics, the goal is the same: shut the church up or shut it down. With this in mind, Paul instructs Timothy and the congregation in his care on what their priority must be in 1 Tim 2:1-2a and why it must be what he prescribes in 2:2b-7. So far in 1 Tim 2:1-6, we’ve seen three reasons why all-inclusive prayer ought to be the church’s priority: Christ’s all-inclusive saving work (2:5-6), God’s all-inclusive saving will (2:3-4) and the church’s well-being (2:2b). Paul concludes by presenting the fourth and final reason for his “Prayer First” command in 2:7.

All-inclusive prayer ought also to be the church’s first priority because of Christ’s all-inclusive commission. Paul says, For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (1 Tim 2:7). The dimensions of the church’s prayer are to be as comprehensive as the commission Christ gave to Paul and the other Apostles and, through them, to the church. Of Paul himself Christ said in Acts 9:15 that he was His chosen instrument to carry His name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel. Little wonder, then, that Paul circles back to his commission from Christ in 1 Tim 2:7 as a basis for the church’s priority: the scope of his commission was to dictate the scope of the church’s prayers.

Most of us will remember that Peter had a problem with the reach of his commission when the Lord told him—while praying no less (Acts 10:9)—to go and evangelize a Gentile, a Roman centurion, a man of authority. No fewer than three times God had to give Peter an object lesson for him to get His point that it was lawful for him, a Jew, to associate with and to visit a Gentile, particularly to bring him the good news. How many object lessons will we have to have before we get the point that in the Great Commission God is telling us, even when challenged and even in prayer, that it is lawful for us, as “the Israel of God” in Christ (Gal 6:16; 3:29), to associate with and to visit “Gentiles” to bring them the gospel?

Paul well knew that his own call served as an example of the priority that he was impressing on the church. What do I mean? I mean that we shouldn’t forget that before his conversion, Paul’s hatred for Christ and His church ran so deep that he openly and unashamedly made his reputation hunting down Christians (Acts 8:3). Little did he know that at the time the church had been praying for its persecutors, in these words: Lord, take note of their threats, and grant to Your servants to continue to speak Your word with all boldness (Acts 4:29). In time, Christ did take note of even the threats of Paul the Persecutor, showed mercy to him as a self-described foremost of sinners, blasphemer, persecutor, and violent aggressor, and made him an example of those who were to believe in Him for eternal life (1 Tim 1:13, 15-16). If Christ heard the prayers of His people and saved one notorious persecutor like Paul to be an example for others, He will do it again.

Lots of local churches and individual Christians confess that their prayer practice are not as they should be. Reading 1 Tim 2:1-7, however, we learn four reasons to get with it and to keep at it. Here are some suggestions. Look up the prayers of the Bible and pray through them, that is, use them to guide the content of your own prayers. Turn especially to the book of Psalms, which is really a combination of prayer-book and hymnbook. Or follow Matthew Henry’s counsel in his book A Method of Prayer or Martin Luther’s advice in his booklet A Simple Way to Pray. Pray through the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles’ Creed. Pause after each line or phrase to focus on how the content prompts you to adoration, to confession, to thanksgiving, and to supplication. We must do so, remembering that we, as Christ’s church, must continue to live in the wilderness of this world until He comes again. In that light, we realize that prayer is not just any practice or ministry: it is an intentional part of our armor and arsenal for spiritual warfare that we face. We’re to be a household, even a stronghold, of prayer, and the officers of our congregations need to take the lead here. Prayer, public and congregational or private and individual, is not just a duty; it is a privilege. More than that, it is a means of grace.

In 1 Tim 2:1-7 Paul gives us four reasons why all-inclusive prayer ought to be the church’s first priority. That “Prayer First policy and practice” is based on nothing less than Christ’s all-inclusive commission, Christ’s all-inclusive saving work, God’s all-inclusive saving will, and the church’s well-being. Knowing these things, it remains for us to do as the Apostle commanded: persevere in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving (Col 4:2). The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man—of any person who is right with God through faith alone in Christ alone—avails much (Jas 5:16b).

Leave a Comment

Prayer First (pt. 2 of 3)

April 21, 2025 at 11:00 am (1Timothy, Church, Prayer)

Posted by R. Fowler White

In this world, the stakes are high for all congregations of Christ’s church. Their challenges vary. False teachers, from inside or outside their number, would deceive. Persecutors would subject them to insult, intimidation, or assault, and would even do so in cahoots with corrupt civil authorities. The goal of such tactics is simple: shut the church up or shut it down, by any means necessary. So, in 1 Tim 2:1-7, Paul instructs Timothy and the congregation in his care on what their priority must be and why it must be what he prescribes. As we saw in the previous post, Paul has stated the church’s priority—Prayer First (2:1-2a)—and given the first of his four reasons for that priority in 2:2b: the church’s well-being. We turn now to the second and third reasons he gives in 2:3-6.

A second reason for the church’s “Prayer First policy and practice” is God’s all-inclusive saving will. Paul writes, This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (2:3-4). In other words, the Apostle’s command for all-inclusive Prayer First is matched with God’s all-inclusive saving will. Now we need to be clear about something here: Paul is not saying here that God’s saving will means that He is a universalist. No, throughout the history of salvation, He has always saved only those sinners who repent of their sins and believe His gospel. What Paul is saying here, then, is that in saving sinners, the God of the Bible shows none of the partiality or favoritism that we humans do in our dealings with each other. He is not partial when it comes to saving sinners. He saves folks from all families of the earth (Gen 12:3; Gal 3:7-9). He plays no favorites when it comes to redeeming sinners. He redeems males, females, slaves, free, great, small, Jew, non-Jew (Gal 3:28). The Apostle John describes much the same thing in Rev 7:9 when he beholds the saved and sees a great multitude, which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages. No family, no nation, no tribe, no language group, no people group, nor any other distinction we humans may make according to the flesh has an inside track on God’s saving will. Paul’s point is this: the scope of God’s saving will is all-inclusive, and the prayers of Christ’s church should be all-inclusive too.

An illustration may help our understanding. In Noah’s day, God our Savior demonstrated the pattern of His saving will. In Gen 7:1-3, God declares His intention to save and then does save a remnant—but only a remnant—of all kinds, of the human kind and the non-human kind. Specifically, God in grace saved a remnant of four human couples, seven pairs of every clean animal, and two pairs of every unclean animal. No kind, human or non-human, among God’s creatures was beyond His redemption.

How do you and I see God’s saving will: is it all-inclusive … or are we like Jonah, who was very displeased with the prospect that God’s saving will did not exclude those exceedingly wicked Ninevites even when they repented? Jonah even went so far as to pray to God these extraordinary words: O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live and have to see You save these exceedingly wicked but repentant evildoers (Jnh 4:1-3). We have our own evildoers to contend with today, don’t we? Would we rather die than see God’s saving will reach even to them if they repent? If that’s our attitude, we should remember how God disciplined Jonah.

So far, we’ve seen two reasons why all-inclusive prayer ought to be the church’s priority: God’s all-inclusive saving will and the church’s well-being. But Paul gives us a third reason: Christ’s all-inclusive saving work. Our text reads, For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (2:5-6). What’s Paul getting at here? The reach of our prayers should correspond to the reach of Christ’s saving work. Most likely, he’s reflecting on the diversity of all (1 Tim 2:6) the children of God (Heb 2:13), the brethren of Jesus (Heb 2:11-12), His people (Heb 2:17). Rephrase Paul’s point this way: is there one God for Jews and another God for Gentiles? Is there one mediator for males, another for females? Or is there one mediator for those from the Third World and another for those from the West? Hardly. The Bible teaches us that there is one God and one mediator for sinners of all sorts. The one true God is the God of those we count as great or small. He is the God of Jews, non-Jews, and half-Jews also. John agrees with Paul when he tells us in his Gospel about the prophecy that Jesus would die not for the nation of Israel only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad (John 11:51-52). We must be sure that our prayers are as inclusive as Christ’s saving work.

Paul has now given us three reasons why all-inclusive prayer must be the church’s priority in 1 Timothy 2: Christ’s all-inclusive saving work, (2:5-6), God’s all-inclusive saving will (2:3-4), and the church’s well-being (2:2b). There is one last reason that he gives us in 2:7. We’ll look at it in the last post of this three-part series.

3 Comments

Prayer First (pt. 1 of 3)

April 16, 2025 at 10:56 am (1Timothy, Church, Prayer)

Posted by R. Fowler White

It was a time of transition in the history of the church. The Apostles were passing off the scene, and in the Pastoral (or, if you will, Presbyterian) Epistles we have the last three letters written by the Apostle Paul. He writes to Timothy and Titus, two “young” (early 40s?) church leaders who needed to know how to build and maintain healthy (i.e., sound) congregations of Christ’s church, especially in the absence of the Apostles. The Apostle knew that the local churches would, in his absence, continue to live in an increasingly inhospitable environment, and he knew that Timothy and Titus would need to put in place and keep in place those ministry practices that would sustain those churches. After all, Paul saw Christ’s church at odds with enemies inside and outside its number, at odds with false teachers, at odds with persecutors, even persecutors in cahoots with hostile government authorities. In anticipation of the spiritual warfare to come, Paul knew that the local churches would need to shore up their armor and arsenal for the coming confrontations in this world. He also knew that prayer would not be just any practice, not just any ministry: it had to be part of their armor and arsenal in spiritual warfare. With the stakes so high for Christ’s church, Paul forthrightly declares what their priority must be and why it must be what he prescribes in 1 Tim 2:1-7.

If we wonder what a sound church must do first of all, here it is: First of all, then, I urge that supplications and prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in high positions (1 Tim 2:1-2a). Right from the get-go, Paul sets the church’s priority: engage with God in all sorts of prayers for all sorts of people, even government authorities. All sorts of prayers: supplications (petitions for our good); prayers (petitions for God’s glory); intercessions (for or against others); thanksgivings (for good things received and for evil things prevented). For all sorts of people: regardless of their standing or office in society; for governmental authorities and their subjects; for friends and foes.

But hold on. Why should we include civil authorities in our prayers? We should do so because it is God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, who raises them up and brings them down. He has ordained that they be under Him, over the people, for His own glory and the public good. None of them operate outside His influence and sovereignty. As Prov 21:1 says, the king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes. Furthermore, He has armed them with the power of the sword for the defense and encouragement of those who do good, and for the punishment of those who do evil (Rom 13:1-6; WCF 23.1). And especially for Christians who are civil authorities, it is lawful to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth (WCF 23.2).

So, to what practice should the church, especially as a marginalized or even persecuted minority, devote itself first of all? The ballot box? The petition drive? Each of these may have its proper place … but first place? Not so fast. How about “lawfare”? Well, we shouldn’t forget that Paul invoked his rights as a citizen when he appeared before Roman magistrates. But to what does the Apostle call us first of all? He would have us recognize that only such means as are pursued first with prayer accomplish much, because prayer alone is a means of grace. So, we’re to ask that civil magistrates might punish that which is evil and reward that which is good (presumably, as God defines both). We’re to pray with enemies in mind as well as friends, persecutors as well as supporters, rulers as well as fellow citizens. We’re to give thanks for good things received and for evil things prevented. As Christians, it is our duty and privilege—and it must be our priority—to pray for others regardless of their standing or office in society.

Having set prayer in its place of priority, Paul will now turn to tell us four reasons why prayer ought to the priority he prescribes. Here’s the first reason: the church’s well-being. Paul urges that all-inclusive prayer should be our priority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (1 Tim 2:2b). Paul’s point seems simple enough. We give priority to prayer that we Christians might lead our lives in favor with God and others. Peter too told his readers a similar thing when he wrote in 1 Peter 2:12, 15: Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable. … For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Also, consider what happened to the church on Pentecost and in the days thereafter. Remember Acts 2:46-47? Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people—notice there was favor with others. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved—there was also favor with God.

So, Christian, what kind of life do you wish to live? Is it your aim to lead a life in the favor of God and others? Then, says Paul, get your priorities straight. Amidst your other life-sustaining routines, give priority to prayer, all sorts of prayer for all sorts of people. Then, if God is pleased to grant it, we shall lead lives of well-being in favor with others as well as with God.

According to the Apostle’s command, the congregations of Christ’s church must devote themselves to prayer first of all. And the first reason for this priority is the church’s well-being. We’ll turn to additional reasons in the two posts to follow.

3 Comments

On the Biblical Accounts of God Speaking: Preliminary Thoughts

March 14, 2025 at 10:20 pm (Bible, Cessationism, Holy Spirit, Inspiration)

posted by R. Fowler White

In a recent Bible study, I stated, with Heb 1:1-2 in mind, that the history of God’s special revelation reached its predetermined end with the arrival of Christ. Objecting to my statement, a guy asked me how I respond to the biblical accounts of God speaking, for example, to Abraham, Moses, Samuel, John the Baptist (and audience), and Paul. To provide context for this inquiry, the questioner acknowledged that he was not one to rule out that God might have more to say. But, he went on, the Spirit does not need to speak now as He did in the past since it is clear that He gives us His assistance through a rightly formed conscience. He concluded by affirming that the apostle John closed the book on more Scripture with the book of Revelation, but he also affirmed that he always allows that God has the last word—audibly or otherwise.

Of course, as will shortly become clear, my response to this man’s remarks is not complete by any means, but perhaps it will set the framework for a fuller statement. Based on what the Reformed and Presbyterian churches have confessed and taught since the Reformation, my response to the question and comments above was as follows.

The biblical accounts we have of God speaking to various individuals are part of the history of His work in special revelation. As part of that history, there are at least two points to highlight.

One point is that those accounts show that, in Scripture, the content of God’s revelation was never information or directives that God gave just for one person or for that person’s circle. To be sure, God intends His revelation to have an intimate, personal impact on each individual believer. There is, however, no instance in Scripture where the nature and content of revelation is merely individual or private. Nowhere in Scripture does God reveal Himself or His will along two tracks, one public and one private. In fact, the notion of such private revelation inevitably introduces an authoritative source that competes with and diverts attention from God’s public revelation, particularly in the practical and pressing concerns of life. The scenario of a private track of revelation is exactly contrary to what Paul teaches Timothy about Scripture in 2 Tim 3:15-17: Scripture is enough to make one wise for salvation and equipped for every good work. If Scripture was to be enough for Timothy in the apostle’s absence, it should be enough for us. Thankfully, then, God is not the author of both public and private tracks of revelation.

A second point to highlight is that those accounts have a unity, unpacked step by step, that stems from their focus on the salvation revealed in Christ “in the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4; Eph 1:9-10; 3:11). In other words, they’re all connected to the conclusion of God’s revelation in Christ. As Heb 1:1-2 and other passages (e.g., Luke 24:25-27) indicate, Christ, as presented in the spoken and written words of His chosen apostles and prophets, delivered the final chapter of revelation. Once revelation reached its intended end in Christ, God “closed the book” on further revelation and, to repeat, deemed Scripture alone enough to make His church wise for salvation and equipped for every good work (see, e.g., 1 Tim 3:14-15; 2 Tim 3:16-17).

Taking those biblical accounts together, they tell us that, through all of history, God has never left His children without special revelation. Possessing what the Spirit says in Scripture, we have access to all that God deems necessary for His glory and for our salvation. If, then, we would hear God’s true voice now, we must turn to Scripture alone, because it is only there that the Spirit speaks His very words to us (Heb 3:7; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 28; 3:13, 22; Acts 1:16; 28:25).

As for the Spirit and conscience, there is no doubt that the Spirit assists us through a rightly formed conscience. Yes, indeed … and our consciences are rightly formed only when they are scripturally informed. To have a scripturally informed conscience, the Spirit renews (re-forms, transforms) our consciences and gives us light to understand and apply Scripture, leads us along the righteous paths laid out in Scripture, and convicts us of sin according to Scripture. Without the Spirit’s working in tandem with Scripture, sin leaves us ignorant and foolish, with corrupt, defiled, and even cauterized consciences that regard evil as good, wrong as right, and false as true.

There is certainly more for us to consider on these interrelated topics, but the points above might prove helpful as an orientation.

2 Comments

« Older entries