My defense of religion, and why the "Religion vs Jesus" dichotomy fails at @Christ_OverAll:

1) When Legalism Becomes the Measure of All Form

This framing is often motivated by dismantling ceremonial, traditional, and ritualistic aspects of the church, based on the assumption that such practices constitute legalism. The result is a constant suspicion of one's motives, where the institutional or external practices meant to help form faith are constantly being self-examined. As a result, Christianity becomes almost exclusively about "being saved", leaving the church's ordinary work of sanctification in the background, lest liturgical and ceremonial aspects lead to legalism.

But we don't treat other ceremonial practices this way. Consider a Christian wedding ceremony: we exchange rings, recite vows, have processionals, wear special attire, and follow established liturgy. We don't view these rituals with suspicion or call them legalism. We simply recognize them as meaningful, God-honoring traditions that give structure and significance to a sacred moment.

The same is true in the life of the church. Our Christian faith does not discard external obedience but rather places it where it belongs, ordered around Christ. 2) Scripture speaks positively of true religion:

The Bible itself does not distinguish between religion and Christ, but between true religion and false religion (James 1:26-27). Those critical of “religion” are right to criticize hypocrisy and self-righteousness. But they wrongly associate it with religion itself. A better alternative is to speak of religion as true religion vs false religion, or living religion vs dead religion. Christ rebuked the Pharisees not for being religious, but for their hypocrisy and external-only faith, devoid of genuine devotion and mercy. He rebuked them for their dead religion.

🧵 A response to @TGC and @jdgreear on politics and the misguided false dichotomy between "gospel witness" and political engagement:

1/ First, the article sets up a false choice: "preach the gospel OR engage politically." He treats prudential caution about the pulpit as if it were the only faithful Christian posture. But this neat division collapses under scrutiny at three levels: conceptual, moral, and strategic. 2/ The Conceptual Error:

Greear wants a strict hierarchy where "make disciples" is the primary verb and politics is merely a downstream participle—an optional side effect of real ministry. He's trying to create a pure "gospel nucleus" that floats above messy political realities.

But this misunderstands how public moral order actually works. Political identity, law, and custom aren't just consequences of discipleship, but are means by which peoples secure both earthly and heavenly goods. They create the conditions in which gospel ministry either flourishes or withers.

🧵Quick thread on why the "Religion vs Jesus" dichotomy is unhelpful and misleading.

1/8 This framing is often motivated by dismantling ceremonial, traditional, and ritualistic aspects of the church, based on the assumption that such practices constitute legalism. This misunderstands Christ's own actions, who fulfilled the law in the ceremonial practices found in the Torah, and then instituted baptism and the Lord's Supper as the sacraments of the church. He fulfilled the law and established true religion with her weekly, ceremonial practices. 2/8 Consider a Christian wedding ceremony: we exchange rings, recite vows, have processionals, wear special attire, and follow established liturgy. We don't view these rituals with suspicion or call them legalism. We simply recognize them as meaningful, God-honoring traditions that give structure and significance to a sacred moment.

🧵1/ Every 7 years or so, a new theological guru pops up to write a popular book to explain how Western Christians have gotten everything wrong for centuries. The masses cheer it on as some new divine revelation from someone who claims to have the "ancient way" that "transforms the way we think," but almost always ends up being just some novel progressive ideology couched in ancient spiritual language.

Whether it's Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis or even David Platt's Radical, the pattern is the same: stir discontent with historic Christianity, repackage trendy ideas as timeless truth, and sell it as a spiritual awakening.

Enter John Mark Comer: the new and improved Rob Platt.

A lot of guys more qualified than I have already engaged with his latest book, Practicing the Way. I'll try not to rehash what's been said. But here are some brief notes about this book that stood out to me.

A Thread: 2/ Comer acts as though he has uncovered a forgotten truth about following Jesus, harkening back to an "ancient way." Curiously, the ancient way Comer promotes sounds strikingly similar to modern, 21st-century progressive new-age liberalism. Who would have thought that the path trod by desert fathers just so happens to align perfectly with the tastes and sensibilities of affluent urbanites in the Pacific Northwest?

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek, sure, but don't miss the point. There is good reason to doubt that Comer is reading the Scriptures with an eye toward the cultural and historical context of the ancient Mediterranean world. Much of what he says is modern spiritual consumerism dressed as ancient practice. And his tendency to frame his approach as a rediscovery of true Christianity dismisses centuries of biblical and theological wisdom.

1/ 🧵Men need to be ambitions. It fuels them.

In the beginning, God placed Adam in the Garden to work it and keep it (Gen. 2:15). That means before the fall, before sin entered the world, man had a job. Work isn’t a curse. It’s a calling. Ambition is woven into creation itself. 2/ A man without ambition is like a garden without a gardener (overgrown, chaotic, and lifeless). Ambition is what gets a man up in the morning, ready to shape the world, provide for his people, and glorify God through his labor.

1/6 🧵This study shows that 45 years of data disproves the myth that husbands are the abuser.

Feminism claimed to protect women and children. But the breakdown of the family has left kids more vulnerable than ever.

The absence of a father makes kids easy targets for predators. 2/6 For decades, feminists have pushed the idea that patriarchy is inherently dangerous for women & children. They claimed fathers were the biggest threat in the home. But the data tells a different story. Removing fathers hasn’t protected kids. It has proactively harmed them.

🧵 THREAD: This book is a lousy appraisal of Protestantism. Trenham gets almost every major point of Protestantism wrong. In fact, if someone were to convert to Eastern Orthodox based on this book, they'd be doing so on false pretenses.

What's the issue with it? Glad you asked! 1) Sola Scriptura

First and more egregious error: Trenham misunderstands sola scriptura, conflating it with solo scriptura. The Reformers upheld Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith while valuing tradition (creeds, councils) as ministerial authorities under Scripture. They believed in Sola Scriptura within the context of the Rule of Faith.

In other words, Sola Scriptura acknowledges tradition but sees Scripture as the **only infallible** authority (as opposed to the **only** authority).

And guess what? This view aligns with many in early Church.

He literally does not know what he's talking about here.

🧵Mega Thread: In less than 24 hours, @AmReformer delivered one of the quickest comebacks in history. While I get why some fall for Reddit-tier atheist edge-lord "gotchas," I expect more discernment from Christians.

To clear up any confusion about why Lindsay’s hoax failed, I’ve compiled this thread of tweets explaining it: 1/13 2/13 The most clear description comes from @JimHansonDC (mentioned also in @Byzness thread). You'll see that the vast majority of Lindsay's article was re-written. And unless phrases like "as the development" and words like "therefore" have some sort of significant meaning, then he really failed to accomplish anything here.

https://x.com/JimHansonDC/status/1864071222780145732

When I say that @Acts29 is dying at best and compromising at worst, this video illustrates what I mean. A thread: acts29.com/walking-with-j… Notice that not once....literally, not once.....are the words "sin" or "repentance used as a means to reach the LGBT community. Why? Because if you listen to this video, they aren't sinners in need of repentance, but victims in need of their stories to be heard.