Christ in Home Alone?

Via Twitter/X, from Jeremy Wayne Tate: 

Annual reminder that Home Alone is a Christian movie.

Watch this scene (where Kevin enters the church) very carefully, where Kevin is drawn to the beauty and warmth of the church. As he walks inside to "O Holy Night", he hears the words "Fall on your knees, Oh hear the angel voices!" A sanctuary candle passes across the foreground, indicating that Christ is present inside the church. Kevin then has an encounter with a Christ figure: Old Man Marley. Kevin makes a confession to him, then shakes his hand and we see a bandage on Marley's hand. It's never explained why his hand is wounded, but earlier in the movie we saw that his hand was actually pierced ALL THE WAY THROUGH — like the nails driven through Christ's hands on the cross. At the end of the movie, Kevin cannot save himself from the burglars, and so Marley appears again to rescue him. Home Alone is a Christian movie.

--

Interesting thoughts that I've never considered, but it seems like either Chris Columbus (director) or John Hughes (writer) wanted to place a sort of gospel easter egg into the story. Being Christ-obsessed I get the impulse to want to find Christ in everything. But being a little OCD, I also want to be careful not to stretch too far. This construal of Home Alone seems un-forced because it's so robust. 

A little later in the twitter/X thread, a user named BeachComber replied: 

Interesting. Kevin has the only truly Christmas experience in the film, as for the rest of his extended family it's all consumerism and travel and the 'holiday season'. So Kevin's loneliness and abandonment brings him to a faith experience, which is the message of Christmas. 

--

My hope is that if the holiday season is a little lonely for you, you'll have a sense of Christ's drawing near to you to draw you near to him. That's what Christmas is about: Christ comes to us to bring us to him (1 Pet. 3:18). And you're included. 

John Owen on Christ in the Old Testament

I’m sharing a quote from John Owen’s awesome little book The Glory of Christ. This book has long been available as a Puritan Paperback (hereafter just "paperback") from Banner of Truth trust, but has more recently been included in Crossway’s new Complete John Owen Works. Personally—and probably to your surprise—I’m partial to smaller books, so I appreciate the paperback. 

The quote below is long, spanning an entire page of the paperback. Here Owen, arguably the greatest protestant theologian of the 17th century, shows us a mature understanding of Christ’s presence in the Old Testament. To me, reading Owen is like reading CS Lewis: Much of what I find is challenging to my assumptions and presuppositions. But as I process it and give it time, I find that I agree with it. Before I know it, I’m listing the book in which I found the challenging quote as a personal influence. I think the below quote, typical of Owen’s mature theology but atypical of (even early) modern theology’s shallowness, is a worthy example of my point. 

In expounding “The Glory of Christ Under the Old Testament,” Owen says: 

The glory of Christ was represented and made known under the Old Testament in his personal appearances to leaders of the church in their generations. In these appearances he was God only, but appeared in the assumed shape of a man, to signify what he would one day actually be. He did not create a human nature and unite it to himself for a while. Rather, by his divine power he appeared in the shape of a man. In this way, Christ appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua and to others. 

Further, because Christ was the divine person who dwelt in and with the church under the Old Testament, he constantly assumed human feelings and emotions, to intimate that a time would come when he would assume human nature. In fact, after the fall everything said of God in the Old Testament ultimately refers to the future incarnation of Christ. It would have been absurd to represent God as grieving, repenting, being angry and well-pleased and exhibiting all other human emotions, were it not that the divine person intended to take on him human nature in which such emotions dwell. 

The glory of Christ under the Old Testament was (also) represented in prophetic visions. So John tells us Isaiah’s vision of the glory of the Lord was a vision of the glory of Christ (Isa.6; John 12:41). ‘The train of his robe filled the temple’ (Isa.6:1). This symbolized the glorious grace which filled the temple of his body. This is the true tabernacle, which God pitched, and not man; it is the temple which was destroyed, and which he raised again in three days, in which dwelt the fullness of the Godhead (Col.2:9) This glory was revealed to Isaiah, and it filled him with fear and astonishment. But by the ministry of one of the glorious seraphim, his iniquity was taken away by a coal from the altar, which symbolized the sacrificial blood which cleanses from all sin. This is food indeed for the souls of believers.**

Note just a few things: First, to Owen many Old Testament theophanies (appearances of God) were in fact Christophanies (appearances of Christ). When God appeared in the shape of a man—think Jacob’s wrestling match God (Gen.32), Abraham’s sight of the three angels of the Lord (Gen.18), Moses’ sight of God in the burning bush (Ex.3) as well as his time speaking to God on the mountain (Ex.33-34), and Joshua’s conversation with the commander of the Lord’s army (Josh.5)—it was actually Christ showing himself in a form like he would one day appear. Thus the idea of an incarnation should not have seemed off-limits to the scribes of Jesus’ day, nor should it seem odd to the scribes of our day. 

Second, note that Owen subsumes the Old Testament’s teaching about God’s “emotions” under the prophetic scope of Christ’s eventual coming as a man. That is, the fact that God was “sorry” that he made man (Gen.6:7), or “regretted” making Saul king (1 Sam.15:10) doesn’t indicate that he experiences emotions the same way that man does. And truly he couldn’t, since he a) prophesies his wrathful response to sin (Deut.31:17) meaning that he is in utter control of his wrath, b) doesn’t change but remains the same (Mal.3:6), and therefore, c) is not like man in having regrets (1 Sam.15:29). Rather, these examples of God’s “emotions” were intended prophetically to point to Christ who would one day come as the radiance of God’s glory in human body, with emotions the same as man, yet without sin. Just see Jesus' exasperation with his generation (Matt.17:17), and his emotions over Jerusalem's unbelief (Lk.19:41). In these moments we see God the Son responding to the world's sin as the antitype of God's earlier prophetic "emotions" toward Old Testament sin. What an interesting explanation for God’s emotions! 

Finally, note that to Owen the heavenly glory which Isaiah peeked (Is.6)—which the Apostle John very clearly states was the glory of Christ himself (Jn.12:41)—was itself a type of God’s glorious gospel. Isaiah saw heavenly temple glory as a type of the fullness of God’s filling Christ in his coming to earth (Col.2:9). The touching of the coal to Isaiah’s mouth to atone for his sin was a type of Christ’s working to atone for our sins in fullness. The reason such a vision of glory must be thought of as an accommodation is that God dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim.6:16a), and no one has seen or can see God (Jn.1:18, cf. 1Tim.6:16b). So it must be that Isaiah’s sight of glory was an accommodation to his senses. Owen’s reading of it as a picture of the gospel is not only appropriate but unavoidable. 

As you can see, Owen read the Scriptures as a witness to the Incarnation of God the Son in the person of Jesus. Owen’s world was a Christ-centered world, like it was for the church fathers all those generations ago. Truly, the world is Christ-centered; it is only for us to labor to see it. But as we meditate on the types of things Owen says above, we find our blurry eyes beginning to see a little more clear. And indeed this gospel truth is food for the soul! 

--

**John Owen, The Glory of Christ: Abridged and Made Easy to Read by RJK Law (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 70-71.

A Dedication Post to John MacArthur, and a Life-Changing Book From His Pen

John Macarthur was the pastor of Grace Community Church in Southern California from February 1969 until November 2024. He went to be with the Lord in July 2025, nine months after preaching his final sermon. 55 years in the same pulpit is almost unheard of in late modern times—the only other example of whom I’m aware is Peter Masters, the pastor at Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle since 1970. As a preacher who has done a lot of moving over the years, I’ve only grown in my admiration for John MacArthur staying in the same place for as long as he did. He was committed to biblical exposition, and God used and blessed his ministry probably beyond anything he could have imagined when he first began. 

As a young pastor who had cut his teeth on the likes of Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll (by the way, could pastoral approaches be any more different?), I hadn’t really spent much time listening to John. But after a year or so of preparing and delivering regular Bible exposition, I began to be drawn to the faithfulness and steadfastness of John’s ministry. I’ve so appreciated his work over the years. The fact that he spent his first 42 years preaching through the entire New Testament is nothing to be sniffed at. 

I disagree with some positions that John held. His understandings both of the relationship of ethnic Israel to the church and of the end-times are not the same as mine. No big deal; he and the late RC Sproul were close friends, sharing pulpits and conference platforms regularly, while Sproul held decidedly divergent views from John. To be clear, I don’t agree with all of RC’s views either! (Neither do I agree with my own views all the time, constantly reconsidering, changing, etc.) 

Now for why I wanted to write this post: To praise God for John’s likely most well-known book: The Gospel According to Jesus (hereafter GATJ). John wrote GATJ after a sermon series on Matthew’s gospel proved transformative for Grace Church. He had been confronting and challenging the so-called Free-Grace Movement, arguing that while Christ saves by grace, the saved must follow and obey him. It took John some seven years to preach through Matthew, but the church had been transformed into a thriving ministry center by the end of it. The literary outcome was (by the final edition) a 24 chapter book explaining the gospel from Christ’s own teaching in the writings of the Evangelists. 

At the time that I read GATJ I had been struggling with reconciling what I perceived to be opposing messages when comparing Paul’s letters with the gospel accounts themselves. This supposed dichotomy “between Paul and Jesus” was nothing new, having been present in theology for 100 years or so prior, and continuing now. J. Gresham Machen, the great critic of theological liberalism, wrote The Origin of Paul’s Religion in 1921 because of the “Paul vs. Jesus,” debate. I had also read some cases made for a real dichotomy from the likes of current Christian thought leaders like Scot McKnight. In short, and probably at the risk of being reductive, proponents say that while Paul preaches salvation by grace through faith, Christ preaches obedience and works. There’s more to it, but if you can get your hands around that summary you can get an idea of what’s at stake in the debate. I found myself comforted reading Paul but struggling reading the gospels. I believed it all. But I had a sort of background anxiety about the issue. 

Into my own struggle came John’s GATJ. I found it at a used bookstore in Pittsburgh, and I started reading it at a Panera while Kate was at a work meeting. I was stunned at what I found: Jesus preaches the same salvation by grace that Paul did, explaining it in a way that we should expect the incarnate God-man to explain it. The difference in his explanation compared to Paul is easily understood when one considers perspective: Christ is the author of salvation, and Paul is a herald of it. If you dig in, you see that the gospel is the gospel is the gospel, whether from Jesus’ mouth or Paul’s or Peter’s or John’s or David’s or Isaiah’s, etc. There is no dichotomy, only the seemingly paradoxical marriage of depth and clarity. So, after reading GATJ, the gospels opened up to me in a way that has proved transformative.

At the risk of keeping you from reading GATJ yourself, what follows is a brief summary of every chapter under section headings. Please know, such a summary will never replace reading Gospel According to Jesus yourself; it is so helpful if one wants the gospels to come alive. Nevertheless, I hope that a quick survey of the chapters might stir you up to seek it further. 

(I Introduction: I’m skipping this section, which includes chapters one and two, in my summary)

II Jesus heralds his gospel

3 He calls for a new birth (Jn.3: To Nicodemus, “you must be born again”) 

4 He demands true worship (Jn.4: To the Woman, “Father must be worshiped in spirit and truth”) 

5 He receives sinners and refuses the righteous (Mt.8-9: Only the unwell/sinners can get  in on this) 

6 He opens blind eyes (Jn.9: Blind man didn’t “see the light”; Jesus opened his eyes) 

7 He challenges an eager seeker (Mt.19: Rich young man was proud and didn’t know it; Jesus wasn’t going to let him come amiss) 

8 He seeks and saves the lost (Lk.19: Zaccheus) 

9 He condemns a hardened heart (Judas—heart can harden though in Jesus’ presence) 

10 He offers a yoke of rest (Mt.11:28-30 Invites broadly, promising rest; but we only come if He gives it to us, 11:27)

III Jesus illustrates his gospel 

11 The Four Soils (Mt.13:3-9, 18-23: only one soil was ready to bear the desired fruit; most who hear the gospel won’t come and stay following Jesus) 

12 Wheat and Tares (Mt.13:24-30, 36-43: the ungodly can seem righteous and fool everyone. But God knows who is who) 

13 Treasure in the field (Mt.13:44 coming to faith means joyfully leave all for Christ) 

14 Laborers in the field (Mt.20:1-16: It’s all grace, no one earns more than the other. All who come to Christ want to labor for him because he’s good.) 

15 Lost and found: Lost sheep, coin, and son (Lk.15: God is active in seeking and finding; the lost must see themselves as lost in order to “come home”) 

16 Vine and branches (Jn.15:1-12 believers are united to Christ by faith; but some are broken off because they’re not fully plugged in, bearing fruit) 

IV Jesus explains his gospel 

17 Call to repentance (Mt.4:17, 21:28-32 Parable of two sons: God becomes preeminent in our lives; there are only two types of people, those who feign repentance and those are rebels who then repent) 

18 True faith (Mt.5, 18: True faith is lowliness (Mt.5:3-12 beatitudes) & child-like dependence, Mt.18:1-5) 

19 Promise of justification (Lk.18:9-14 parable: no delusions, the man begs for mercy) 

20 The way of salvation (Mt.7:13-23 Two ways, two crowds, & two destinations. Choose wisely) 

21 Certainty of judgment (Mt.7:21-27: Saying without doing=empty words; hearing without obeying=empty hearts) 

22 Cost of discipleship (Mt.10:34-49 “I’ve not come to bring peace…father and moth”: Unquestioning loyalty to Christ) 

23 Jesus is Lord (Jn.7:30: his arrest didn’t happen prematurely, because he’s Lord of all) 

V Jesus fulfills his gospel 

24 “It is finished” (Jn.19:30: we don’t need to add to his work, because it’s magnificent in itself; our work shows him in us.) 

If you would have told me in early 2017 that by late 2025 we would have lost Sproul, Packer, Keller, and Macarthur, I would have said, “No way—what can happen if we lose them all so close to each other?” But a work like GATJ stands as a testament that Jesus’ gospel continues on wherever there are faithful believers opening their Bibles, choosing “the good portion” (Lk.10:42), and inviting others to do the same. I’m so grateful for all of these men; or, put better, for the Lord’s work through them. His working through us explains why we can sometimes still be fools and yet be capable of doing great, life-giving things. None of these men were perfect men (though they are now), but God used them powerfully. If the Lord wasn’t in us, our lives would be only foolishness, right? Better is to plug into the Author of life (Ac.3:15) under his promise that he’ll use us to bring saving goodness into the world he created for his glory. 

Thanks Lord for John MacArthur, and for how you used his gospel labors to crystalize my utter confidence in Scripture. Raise up more gospel laborers, great Lord of the Harvest. 

Greetings from Rhode Island: After a Long Summer

It’s been almost six months since the last time I wrote a blog post. Much has changed in that span. Let me bullet point the most important: 

1. I left my ministry post in New Jersey. 

There were a lot of reasons, but the main two were these: 

a) The fit in NJ was never a really good one. I knew this early on. But when I had earlier gone back to seminary at a reformed school, I realized I was more of a baptist (not presbyterian) in my understanding of baptism and ecclesiology, so I assumed that I should be in that kind of church (a baptist one). I was a little ignorant, however, of the cultural norms and expectations that accompany (most) baptist settings. When I got to NJ, I began to learn early on how I don’t fit that type of church culture as well as I assumed I would. But I was able to last 7.5 years, and am grateful for the Lord’s kindness in sustaining us there—nothing in the Christian life is ever wasted. Much good came out of my time in NJ. I’m so thankful for the friendships and fellowship gained there. That said, the second main reason… 

b) The hurt I experienced at a lack of support from some prominent church members while under heavy attack from a once-trusted brother was so overwhelming that I couldn’t stick it out any longer. The vast majority of church members* were so loving, embracing, appreciative, etc. Then there are others, and I’ll leave it at that. I think (a) above influences this sub-point (b) to some degree: Few Christians ever intend to “bite and devour” (Gal.5:15); usually biting and devouring comes by over-comittment to tradition and under-commitment to the gospel.** Maybe that is what happened in NJ, but only the Lord knows the heart. In any event, it was time to leave.

2. It took time figuring out what was next for Kate, the kids, and I. 

After finishing my PhD last year and publishing my dissertation this year I applied to many theology teaching jobs. I was burnt out and over the ministry grind. So I thought, “I’ve been teaching part-time for years. Maybe it’s time to go full-time." Nothing opened up—the well couldn’t have been dryer for me. So, begrudgingly, I applied for church jobs again. I had one church on the Jersey Shore that took me really deep into the interview process (I preached there) before telling me that their fifteen-person search committee (!) didn’t pass me through to the congregation as a candidate. That crushing news came on my last Sunday at the church I pastored, so it was like two break-ups in the same day. Effectively, I became a pastor without a pulpit, a dad and husband without a job. 

So I kept applying, talking, interviewing, etc. Kate and I packed up the parsonage in storage and then took the kids down to Memphis and Florida for time with family. I interviewed deep with churches in South Carolina, Chicago, Rhode Island, and Brooklyn. While the time was scary, I also felt free. I went three months without a paycheck, the longest time in my adult life. I know this isn’t long relatively; but for me it was. But it was a time to truly trust God, with no contingencies. In hindsight the time passed quickly, though it didn’t seem quick then. 

3. We moved east, and I’m finally healing. 

I mentioned Rhode Island as one of the churches at which I interviewed. Darlington Congregational Church is a reformed congregation in Pawtucket, just north of Providence. To be clear, I considered DCC to be the third of three high probabilities, after churches in South Carolina and Chicago. But the process here was so clearly of the Lord, I couldn’t resist: 

a) My interview was fun and laid back while also gospel-serious; 

b) My Sunday preaching and meeting the church felt at home; and 

c) I got an almost 100% vote to be called. 

In God's kindness we have been made able to buy our own house (the church helping), and we’ve been here since late August. The Stines have become Rhode Islanders. My brief morning commute has me head east out of Rhode Island and into Massachusetts, then south back into Rhode Island. I’d never been to either state before I interviewed here. I’m amazed both at the Lord’s lovingkindness to us, and at his wisdom. 

My journey as a man, Christian, and pastor has been unusual. I was a Christian Churches/Churches of Christ kid who went to a Nazarene school for my undergrad before going back to the Christian churches for a youth and worship call. When early 20s depression led me to read Scripture as it is intended to be read—as God’s Word to me—I became convinced of the so-called reformed doctrines of grace, and I had to preach. Taking a pulpit in the Christian Churches showed me that I would eventually have to leave that family of churches I’d called “home” most of my life. So I went to a reformed seminary for further training, and eventually took the NJ job in a baptist church. But since I clearly didn’t fit there very well either (all the reasonings are for another blog), I kept on with training and school, finishing my PhD, seeing if the Lord would lead somewhere else, or have us stay in NJ. I never guessed I’d become the pastor of a congregational church…aren’t they infant baptizers, and liberal? Not Darlington CC. We’ll dedicate infants, sure, but we won’t baptize. And our theology is far from liberal: We’re a reformed congregation that wants the nations to see the grace of God in Christ, and how life-changing and life-giving it is. 

I can tentatively say, for the first time in a long time, that I’m happy to be in ministry. My recent dark summer had me rereading John Piper, CS Lewis, and Jonathan Edwards. Piper reminded me what ministry is, Lewis reminded me what the gospel is, and Edwards reminded me what the purpose of all this is, namely, that God would be glorified in sharing his love and goodness with us. I can honestly say, with cautious optimism, that I’m healing. But for Christ, even the wounds and affliction, which all the godly must endure, are worth it. 

Also I'm never moving again. 

--

*I've chosen to remove the name of the church from the original post.

**See Ray Ortlund, Sam Allberry, You're Not Crazy: Gospel Sanity for Weary Churches (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 16-19.

Pink, Tozer, and the God of the Current Day

I’ve recently been re-reading two shorter books that were invaluable to me in my early days in ministry. One is A.W. Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy, and the other is Arthur Pink’s The Attributes of God. These books are of comparable size and even more impressively comparable subject matter, both dealing with God’s attributes in short, what some might call “bite-sized” chapters. The difference in personality and temperament of the two men are on display in how they vary in dealing with the topic of God’s attributes. Nevertheless, these two studies are so helpful, clarifying, and God-exalting. 

Arthur Pink, Brit though he was, had a ministry that was mostly (though not entirely) confined to American soil throughout the first half of the 20th century. Because he was Augustinian/Calvinistic in a day when American churches were almost unflinchingly not, he was, as one biographer called him, “an unwanted preacher."* He eventually undertook a life of Christian writing, and died reclusive with only his wife by his side. But after he passed, his writing gained a more and more prominent following. You can read about him online easily. His postmortem following has spawned numerous biographical efforts.

His Attributes of God study of God’s supremacy contains a quotation that I feel is worth the price of the book. Let me embed it below: 

The “god” of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The “god” who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form “gods” out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a “god” out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A “god” whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt.** 

Note first the vivid imagery, comparing the likeness of the powerless, hands-off, neutral “god” of recent church literature and preaching to the likeness of a flickering candle with the sun. Regardless of Pink’s temperament and its probable incompatibility with the pastorate, one could not accuse him of not being good with words. The man could write; he could surely preach, too. 

Second, note his insight that the “god” of his day is more the god of sentimentality than the “consuming fire” (Heb.12:29) of holy scripture. Preachers and speakers want people crying, pitying God, and “coming down front” to save God from the embarrassment of his world’s unbelief in him. To quote Tozer, “Thousands of younger persons enter Christian service from no higher motive than to help deliver God from the embarrassing situation his love has gotten him into and his limited abilities seem unable to get him out of.” It’s absurd, says Tozer: “God needs no defenders.”^ The truth is that “our God is in the heavens. He does all that he pleases.” (Ps.115:3); and “no wisdom, no understanding, no counsel can avail against the Lord” (Prov.21:30). Once more from Tozer: “Were every man on earth to become an atheist, it could not effect God in any way. He is what he is in himself without regard to any other. To believe in him adds nothing to his perfections; to doubt him takes nothing away."^^ 

Finally, note the crescendo at the end of the quote, that he is no god at all “who’s will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, and whose purpose is checkmated.” If God could hold back Abimelech from sleeping with married Sara (Gen.20:6), could forcibly seize Lot to remove him from Sodom (Gen.19:16), could keep the nations (who hated Israel) from coveting their land (Ex.34:24), and can turn the king’s heart wherever he wants (Prov.21:1), it is patently absurd to assume that unbelief and sin in the world somehow demonstrates that God has limits to his power and influence. Did not the cross show us something else, displaying God’s sovereignty over evil, since Jesus was offered up to be murdered “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Ac.2:22-23)? God’s sovereign power and wisdom is even able to overcome evil through evil! Such a truth cannot be contrived, only revealed.

He would seem to be no god who’s plans could be thwarted by his creation. But thanks be to him, scripture has taught us to know better. Far from the idea that he works how his creation wills, creation works how he wills. And this should be an endless ground of comfort for those looking for solid ground on which to build their lives. “You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you” (Is.26:3). 

------

*Iain H. Murray, The Life of Arthur W. Pink, Revised and Enlarged (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2017 Reprint), 124-142.

** Arthur W. Pink, The Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 28-29.

^ A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life (San Fransisco: Harper, 1961), 34.

^^Ibid, 33.

Steven Lawson, Repentance, and Grace

Some of you are well aware of disgraced pastor/preacher Steven Lawson’s marital infidelity with a woman roughly 50 years his junior. Lawson, 73, had been a beloved reformational baptist preacher for many years, and a frequent conference staple, having published many books and running in the same circles as John Macarthur, John Piper, the late RC Sproul, etc. But evidence of infidelity began to emerge last year. As details began to come through, it became clear that the affair was with a woman who was working as his assistant, and in in her 20s. Lawson, having a wife, kids, and grandkids, resigned from ministries, professorships, board positions, etc. 

When the news came out, I cautioned my congregation against jumping too quickly to judgment, insisting that Jesus’ point in “Judge not” (Mt.7:1) was not “Don’t use your brains,” but “Don’t assume you know everything before you actually do.” In other words, "be careful filling in gaps with details that may or may not be true, just to make the story make sense." I believed that God would work on Lawson, that he’d find repentance, and that this was a sin by a true Christian who would come under conviction in time (if he hadn’t already). 

It now being six months since news of the affair broke, Lawson has released an apology statement, copied in full below. After it I’ll share some thoughts in response: 

"It is with a shattered heart that I write this letter. I have sinned grievously against the Lord, against my wife, my family, and against countless numbers of you by having a sinful relationship with a woman not my wife. I am deeply broken that I have betrayed and deceived my wife, devastated my children, brought shame to the name of Christ, reproach upon His church, and harm to many ministries.

You may wonder why I have been silent and largely invisible since the news of my sin became known. I have needed the time to search my own soul to determine that my repentance is real.

I alone am responsible for my sin. I have confessed my sin to the Lord, to my wife, and my family, and have repented of it. I have spent the past months searching my heart to discover the roots of my sin and mortifying them by the grace of God. I hate my sin, weep over my sin, and have turned from it.

My sin carries enormous consequences, and I will be living with those for the rest of my life. Over the years, many have looked to me for spiritual guidance, and I have failed you. I beg for your forgiveness.

I have been undergoing extensive counseling for the last five months to face the hard questions I need to address. I have dealt with sin issues that have been painfully exposed in my heart. I have submitted myself in weekly accountability to two pastors and to the elders of a local congregation, who have shepherded my soul. I am also under the oversight of an accountability team who monitor my progress and give me wise counsel in the decisions I have to make.

I am growing in grace, reading and absorbing the Word of God, putting it into practice, praying, and meeting with other believers. I am involved in the life of the church, attending and participating in prayer meetings, Sunday school, the worship service, and taking communion weekly. I am being fed the Word in the mid-week Bible study. Please pray for my spiritual growth into Christlikeness as I follow Him moment by moment during this recovery season. I am grateful for the unmerited grace of God in the gospel to extend His full forgiveness to me. Again, I ask for your forgiveness as well.

While I continue to do the hard work of soul-searching repentance, I do not intend to make further public comments for the foreseeable future.

Please pray for the Lord’s mercy and grace as I seek to make right the deeply wrong sins I have committed against my wife and family, and that in His time and way He will bring about redemption and restoration in our marriage, for His glory.

Steven Lawson”

First, I suggest that this is genuine. These are the words of someone who is grieved, sorry, and embarrassed by his grievous, sorry, and embarrassing sin. Explaining going six months in public silence because he wants to determine if his repentance is real is, to me, indicative of the self-consciousness that he could “repent” just to restore himself to his previously prominent position. But that is not what Lawson is trying to do. He took enough time—time in which he would be thought of by everyone as a fool or a wolf)—to find out if he is repenting out of “godly grief” (2 Cor. 7:10) or out of mere embarrassment. That is significant, and it comes through in the letter both explicitly and implicitly. Further, submitting to an accountability team is indicative of deference to others’ wisdom, and a sign of humility.

Second, I suggest we reconsider the notion that sexual sin is more prominent among Christians and especially clergy than the common individual. Just a quick internet search reveals several interesting facts (if these stats are accurate): 

-In 2024, a study showed that 21% of people in monogamous relationships admit to cheating, 23% being men and 19% being women.

-In 2014, the percentage of Ashley Madison users who identify as Christian fell somewhere between 22.7% and 25.1%, depending on their denominational affiliation.

-One study put the percentage of clergy involved in affairs at around 12%. Another one put it at 30%, which seems high, but not that much higher than the other numbers. 

My point is this: While it seems really difficult to pin down exact numbers, since infidelity is often not admitted to, the numbers aren't really that different between non-Christians and even clergy. So while even one clergy affair is too many, the idea that we have a pastoral epidemic seems dramatic. Instead, it seems to me that the problem is no different comparing ministers to the general public. Infidelity is a human problem, a human sin. Lawson sinned first as a human, and secondly as a pastor and preacher. It only seems more grievous because he was a pastor. 

Third, no man is your savior, except Jesus. If it hasn’t happened yet, rest assured that people you look up to who will fail you, sometimes devastatingly so. But their sin proves the same point that the gospel revealed thousands of years ago: God is true, though everyone were a liar (Rom.3:4). We have a tendency to platform men and women into almost God-like positions of immutability, then when they fail, we’re crushed. Let it drive you to hope in Christ. “Put not your trust in princes” (Psalm.146:3) applies to clergy as well, maybe especially so.

Finally, don’t judge. It’s culturally marxist thinking to assume that speech is a power grab, and not the legitimate expression of the heart (however imperfect we are at expressing what’s in our hearts). What I mean is this: It’s revealing of your subjection to cultural sensibilities if you just assume that Lawson is lying. What I read above are the words of a broken man whose “house” has fallen and great is the fall of it (Mt.7:27). In this position, Lawson knows he needs God’s grace for forgiveness, change, and personal restoration. Lawson will never be in vocational ministry again, but if he seeks God, he’ll find him: “You’ll find me if you seek me with all of your heart” (Jer.29:13). Perhaps we’d do well if, instead of assuming the worst motives, we’d “hope all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), and search our hearts lest we stumble in the same way others have.