As we let God’s peace wash over us during nature breaks, we can notice God’s presence more clearly, free from distractions.

Few theologians are as loved or loathed as John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), and few theologians’ reputations depend so little on what they actually believed. Historians, public commentators, social media users, and even country musicians like John Rich agree that, for good or ill, Darby should be regarded as the father of dispensational premillennialism, the most important vector through which Zionism has influenced the religious cultures and foreign policy of the United States. Darby’s admirers argue his influence was part of a great recovery of apostolic teaching. Darby’s critics, flamboyantly transcending the norms of historical analysis, argue his influence was made possible by his involvement in the occult, by his connections among the Masons, and by what some of the wilder conspiracy theorists might regard as being worst of all—the support of secret Jewish financiers. (After all, what’s a conspiracy theory going to do without the Rothschilds?) But what’s the truth about Darby? What responsibility does he bear for the spread of dispensationalism and Zionist politics? Unknown Yet Well Known Darby would be astonished by the attention he continues to receive. When Darby died in 1882, the inscription on his gravestone described him as “unknown and well known,” a nod to 2 Corinthians 6:9 that reflected both his importance among the religious movement that recognized him as a leader and the lack of attention paid to him by anyone else. But almost 150 years later, Darby’s name is well known far beyond the diminishing ranks of the movement, and it’s most often connected to convictions he didn’t share. The Darby of history isn’t terribly useful either to those who regard him as the fountainhead of a recovery of apostolic truth or to those who see him as ultimately responsible for theological decline in the church and foreign policy disasters in the Middle East. Instead, as American evangelicals have pragmatically searched for a “usable” past, Darby’s contribution has been entirely recast. This move is ironic in several respects, for among the pragmatists is a small band of Reformed evangelicals determined to blame Darby for theological claims that were commonplace in their own religious tradition for several centuries before his birth. Darby’s Call and Spiritual Awakening Darby was born in 1800 into a wealthy and well-connected family with links to Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Priestley, a plantation in the Caribbean, and country estates in England and Ireland. He was educated at Westminster School, London, and at Trinity College Dublin, where he graduated in 1819 with a gold medal in classics. Darby’s early career interests led him to study law, but he quickly moved toward ordination in the Church of Ireland. In the mid-1820s, Darby took up his first pastoral role in county Wicklow, where he worked among the Catholic rural poor, but he wasn’t yet an evangelical. What’s the truth about John Nelson Darby? What responsibility does he bear for the spread of dispensationalism and Zionist politics? In the late 1820s, Darby had a spiritual awakening after a riding accident; adopted robustly Calvinist views of anthropology and soteriology; and like many other young, restless, and Reformed Anglicans, quickly began to ask questions about ecclesiology and whether the Church of Ireland, as the established church in an Erastian settlement, should be defended by the British state. Darby’s thinking coalesced when he made connections with other young men (and a few young women) moving in similar directions. As these individuals networked across Dublin and Oxford and into the southwest counties of England, they began to establish congregations, the largest of which by the early 1830s was meeting in Plymouth. The “brethren” in that town gave the new movement its name. From the late 1830s, Darby itinerated in French-speaking Europe. Among tiny handfuls of believers who met in isolated farmhouses, and among well-educated young men pursuing theological studies in Geneva and Lausanne, he began to develop some of his key ideas about the church and the latter days. Darby’s Network and Leadership Returning to Plymouth in the early 1840s, Darby discovered that the wider Brethren movement had taken a turn for the worse. Serious christological errors were being taught and tolerated in its flagship congregation. Darby called on the Brethren to take coordinated disciplinary action, but only a minority were prepared to do so. Darby led these “exclusive Brethren” out of the wider movement into a network of connectional congregations that more decidedly looked to him for leadership. In the 1850s and ’60s, Darby had a free hand to develop his thinking without often needing to contest others’ views or activities. From the mid-1860s, he began to travel in North America, linking English Christians around the Great Lakes to French-speaking believers in the Midwest. He and others held together this loose network by means of publication. Brethren developed an extraordinary literary culture, ranging from evangelistic tracts that circulated in the hundreds of thousands to high-brow theological journals that, even in the early 1880s, published articles in Latin. Darby traveled incessantly, making six journeys across the Atlantic and leaving from California to visit Christians in Australia and New Zealand. By his late 70s, when he began to slow down and think for the first time about establishing his own home, he’d written around 19 million words, including a full Bible commentary; translated at least the New Testament into English, French, and German; and preached in English, Irish, French, German, Dutch, Italian, and Maori. Darby’s Theological Distinctives Along the way, Darby developed his distinctive theology. In his view of the godhead, he was a classical Trinitarian who spoke highly of the Athanasian Creed. In his view of soteriology, he was a high Calvinist who—in contrast to the Reformed confessions—didn’t believe in human free will. He admired the statement about election to salvation in the Thirty-nine Articles. Additionally, he came to argue that justification involved pardon for sin but not the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness. He defended this claim biblically, noting justification is provided by God’s righteousness, without reference to the “righteousness of Christ,” a term he argued never occurs in the New Testament. Darby defended this claim in terms of historical-theology precedent, suggesting the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness hadn’t been taught by Calvin, the Thirty-nine Articles, the English homilies, or even the Westminster Confession. In his view of the Spirit’s work, Darby argued Pentecost marked a sea change in the experience of God’s people, that it wasn’t a sudden efflorescence of temporary sign gifts but instead marked the beginning of an entirely new kind of spiritual experience that would’ve continued had the church remained faithful until the Lord’s return. Darby’s view of the Spirit’s work was reflected in his understanding of the church. The church was composed of all those united to Christ and represented the special sphere of the Spirit’s operation on earth. Christians should avoid the divisiveness of denomination loyalties and instead meet outside those structures in congregations led by the Spirit to offer worship to the Father and Son. Darby also consistently defended the baptism of believers’ children. Darby on Israel and the Church In his eschatological views, Darby moved from a historic to a pretribulation premillennial theology. He didn’t make this move under the influence of a prophecy made by Margaret MacDonald (a teenage follower of Edward Irving) as some conspiracy theorists claim, but having paid attention to arguments made by another Irish brother, Thomas Tweedy. He assumed the Jewish people would be restored to the promised land—just as he assumed the British empire would be disassembled and the United Kingdom would break apart so Ireland would gain its independence. But Darby didn’t believe redemptive history should be divided into seven dispensations. This had been a commonplace theological view from the late 17th century. Darby rejected it, arguing that God offered three dispensations to the Jews—prophet, priest, and king—and that these dispensations, provided only between the flood and Christ’s crucifixion, were concurrent rather than sequential. Darby’s language around the dispensations was sometimes loose, so he did occasionally refer to the present age using the “church dispensation” vocabulary common among 19th-century evangelicals. But when he wrote more exactly, it wasn’t Darby but his Reformed critics who suggested the church age was a dispensation. Darby Wasn’t Novel Darby’s claims were striking, but with hardly any exceptions, they weren’t novel. As some of his more perceptive Reformed critics noticed, almost all the ideas that distinguished the Brethren had been advanced in the 17th century. In terms of soteriology, a sizable number of Puritans, including members of the Westminster Assembly, had denied that justification involved the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness. In terms of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a large number of Puritans, including John Owen, had agreed Christians should meet together for Bible study and prayer (and Darby added the celebration of the Lord’s Supper) without clerical oversight, waiting on the Spirit’s leading. In terms of eschatology, the doctrine of the latter-day conversion of the Jews had been taught by the Geneva Bible (1560), which, despite John Rich’s recent claim, was the first Bible to be published with annotations. The restoration of the Jews to the promised land had been taught by many Puritans, including Owen, as well as by more recent postmillennialists, such as David Brown, and premillennialists, such as Charles Spurgeon and J. C. Ryle. Even Darby’s doctrine of a pretribulation rapture had its own history. Where Darby most obviously departed from early modern precedents was, ironically, in his denial that redemptive history passed through seven consecutive ages. In that sense, at least, Darby wasn’t recognizably a dispensationalist. The terms “dispensationalism” and “dispensationalist” were coined 30 years after his death to distinguish his views (which weren’t “dispensationalist”) from those of the Scofield Reference Bible (which were). Darby wouldn’t have regarded his views as “dispensationalist,” even if he’d known that word. He would’ve regarded them simply as biblical. Of course, this representation of Darby won’t be familiar or attractive to those evangelicals who search for a usable past. Modern dispensationalism has been shaped by its overwhelmingly American history, and it owes much more to Scofield than to Darby. If Reformed critics want to censure Darby’s views of salvation, they’ll need to reckon with the fact that the views he shared were defended at the Westminster Assembly. And advocates of the Reformed tradition can’t blame Darby for the Zionism that was widely defended by Calvinist theologians for two centuries before he was born. Concerns More Serious than Darby’s Reputation But in many discussions of Darby’s legacy, especially on social media, there’s something more serious at stake than the reputation of a misunderstood theologian. The tendency of American evangelicals to look for a usable past has lately grown more dangerous. A growing number of Reformed evangelicals now condemn Darby because they believe he’s responsible for Zionism’s popularity. Darby wouldn’t have regarded his views as ‘dispensationalist,’ even if he’d known that word. He would’ve regarded them simply as biblical. This claim is wrong on several counts, not least because Calvinist theologians were promoting the Jews’ restoration to the promised land for several centuries before Darby was born. More importantly, perhaps, Darby consistently advised Christians to have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. He even argued that Christians, as a heavenly people, ought never to vote. After all, Darby was opposed to democracy, believing the extension of the franchise was part of a constitutional revolution that marked the end of days and would destroy the state’s understanding of its obligations to God. But the fact that the claim against Darby is being made is significant. Over the last few years, a small but noisy group of Reformed evangelicals has abandoned its tradition’s long-standing concern for the Jewish people and support for a Jewish homeland to promote tropes historically regarded as antisemitic. Are Jewish people no longer to be “beloved for the sake of the fathers” (Rom. 11:28, NASB)? Maybe it’s time we stopped talking about evangelicals’ influence on American politics and instead raised questions about the influence of politics on American evangelicals.

If you’ve been in church leadership for any length of time, you know certain tensions come with the territory. Which local ministries do you partner with, and how? Should your small groups prioritize discipleship, or is outreach a greater need at this time? And if you grow, should you expand your building or plant another church? Church leaders often deal with a variety of conflicting goals and desires, both their own and those of others. Of course, this isn’t unique to domestic ministry. The task of global missions comes with its own set of tensions. Here are five that missionaries will likely encounter and that sending churches should be ready to help them navigate. 1. Urgency and Longevity Whenever people talk about missions, two words you’ll often hear are “need” and “urgency.” The world’s plight is great, and the time is short. As preachers like David Platt often remind us, unless more gospel workers go to the nations—and get there soon—more souls will enter eternity apart from Christ. But in missions, getting there is only half the battle; staying there is often more difficult. So as much as we need to encourage urgency, we must also prioritize longevity. In missions, getting there is only half the battle; staying there is often more difficult. Humanly speaking, the remaining unreached of the world are that way for two reasons: they’re hard to reach and they’re hard to remain among. To stay in a location long-term, missionaries often need strategies for obtaining residency and operating businesses. More importantly, they need to be prepared to suffer hardship for the long haul. This is particularly challenging for Westerners coming from a culture that prizes comfort. Remaining in a difficult place will be costly. This means churches should send those willing to go and willing to stay. 2. Partner-Driven and Sender-Driven With the precipitous decline of Christendom in the West and the ascendance of Christianity in the Global South, Western missionaries sense the need to partner well with local believers and churches around the world. This isn’t an entirely new trend. Missiologists have long encouraged such partnerships. But indigenous Christians are no longer simply partners; they’re now missions leaders. Thus, Western missionaries need to learn to work alongside—and sometimes under—other believers from the Majority World. This reality presents unique challenges. How do missionaries honor locals while also fulfilling their responsibilities to those who send and support them? What happens when the values and goals of a sending church or organization don’t align with those of the national church or partner? Who sets the agenda, and how is authority shared? To navigate these complex relationships, missionaries need humility and grace, as well as communication skills. They need help employing theological triage, knowing which hills to die on and deciding ahead of time on appropriate parameters for collaboration. In the end, though, the sending church should be able to expect the missionary to carry out the task for which he or she was sent. 3. People Group–Focus and Healthy Church–Focus Ever since Lausanne ’74, missionaries and missions agencies have prioritized work among unreached people groups (UPGs). The impulse for such efforts comes from the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) and our Lord’s command to make disciples of “all nations” (panta ta ethne). Following the lead of Ralph Winter, many understand the ethne to be discreet ethnolinguistic groups. When paired with a certain reading of Matthew 24:14, the assumption for many is that “finishing the task” of missions involves isolating, locating, and reaching each and every people group with the gospel. In recent years, questions have arisen about people group–focused missions. In response, some have advocated for prioritizing missions efforts to both peoples and places of need. Others have pivoted to target identifiable language groups, those without access to the gospel or a Bible in their language. On a more macro level, focus is shifting from the who to the what of missions. Instead of defining the missionary task based on the “lostness” of sociological groupings, those with a healthy church-focus are more concerned with maturity and faithfulness. In the end, ministries should seek to establish healthy churches everywhere, churches with strong biblical roots that produce widespread gospel fruit. 4. Indigenous Theology and Historical Theology Ever since William Carey, Western missionaries have recognized the challenge of overcoming cultural differences in their ministries. One way Carey’s team sought to do so was by developing local leaders who could reach their own peoples. Subsequent missiologists further encouraged indigeneity by promoting self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating churches. More recently, others have added the goal of “self-theologizing.” Contextualized theology—developed by indigenous leaders—is now seen as a crucial outcome of faithful missiology. However, this raises multiple questions. What happens if or when indigenous theologies run contrary to confessional standards? Do the ancient church’s creeds have anything to say to the faith of contemporary congregations? Is there such a thing as transcultural theology? While missionaries can and should aim to equip local leaders and entrust them with the task of theologizing, they cannot ignore the historical confessions and the saints’ communion. Those confessions model what it looks like to apply Scripture’s answers to our contextual questions. As the global church grows outward in space, it shouldn’t outgrow what we’ve learned over time. 5. Movementism and Incrementalism In recent decades, the remaining global need—and the urgency of the hour—has led many missionary strategists to develop methodologies that foster “movements.” The most common of these are church-planting movements (CPM) and disciple-making movements (DMM). The methodologies of each, despite their differences, essentially share the same aim: the rapid reproduction of believers. As the global church grows outward in space, it shouldn’t outgrow what we’ve learned over time. While seeing the gospel spread and disciples multiplied is certainly a biblical goal, one concern with movement methodologies is their attempt to reverse-engineer ministry results. As others have noted, the approach looks more like revivalism than revival. Movementism can also ignore the otherwise ordinary and incremental way disciples typically grow in the context of a local church. Disciple-making is a painstaking process that requires time and patience. Nevertheless, advocates of a more incremental approach must be careful they don’t become complacent with slow (or no) growth. While our methods need not be revivalistic, missionaries should pray for genuine revival and strive for real results in ministry. Navigating Tensions This list only scratches the surface of tensions in cross-cultural ministry. Missionaries will also need to think through a host of other issues, such as when or how to employ locals, the benefits and drawbacks of using various technologies, and even something as simple as deciding how much time to spend studying language versus engaging in direct ministry. Sending churches and pastors would do well to be aware of these tensions. As the missionaries they’ve sent face these and other questions, they’ll be served by church leaders back home who are conversant on the issues. Those leaders can then speak into various topics with insight, as those who’ve learned how to steward gifts and navigate conflicts in their own contexts.

The figurehead atop the Regime may have changed but ABC News persists nonetheless as the most servile of all Regime Media Outlets, albeit now at the service of Kamala Harris. And the content is as embarrassing as ever. Watch as Rachel Scott crams just about all the narratives into this minute and sixteen-second sample: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 7/29/24 6:32 PM RACHEL SCOTT: One full week into her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris surging in the polls, pulling in more than $200 million since entering the race. And tonight, Harris seizing on an issue she hopes will help define the choice in November -- abortion. Speaking out against Iowa's six-week abortion ban, set to go into effect today. Placing the blame squarely on Donald Trump, who appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe versus Wade. KAMALA HARRIS: This ban is going to take effect before many women even know they're pregnant. And what this means is that 1 in 3 women of reproductive age in America lives in a state with a Trump abortion ban. SCOTT: The Harris campaign also jumping on Trump's controversial comments to a Christian audience, where he suggested if they vote this time, they won't have to vote again. DONALD TRUMP: Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm a Christian, I love you. Get out. You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good. You're not going to have to vote. SCOTT: The Harris campaign calling this further proof "...democracy is under assault."  This virtual campaign ad could’ve been the whole report, and that would’ve been enough to satisfy Team Harris that ABC is on board and the apples are getting polished, chop chop. Mind you, this is after anchor David Muir’s introduction, which went through all the points that Rachel Scott was about to cover. If, as they say, “repetition is the mother of all learning”, then it is clear that ABC wants their viewers to learn the Democrat talking points of the day, rather than any substantive information on the day’s events. You have it all right there in this report. MOMENTUM! TWO HUNDRED MILLION! ABORTION! There’s the attempted smear of Donald Trump, implying he promised dictatorship to attendants of his recent speech at a Florida event, including a Harris campaign statement wrapping up the smear. No attempt to gain reaction or clarification from Team Trump. Just another “threat to Democracy™” smear two weeks removed from an assassination attempt. Has the temperature been lowered to everyone’s satisfaction? The report then makes sure to push the “weird” narrative, repeating the word FOUR times, and closed out with some vice presidential speculation.  Was this report embarrassing and disgustingly servile? Absolutely. For ABC, though, it was a return to business as usual. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Monday, July 29th, 2024: DAVID MUIR: Good evening and we begin tonight with the race for president, just 99 days until the election. Vice President Kamala Harris with momentum tonight, raising more than $200 million in donations just one week into her campaign. And the national polls between Harris and Donald Trump tightening tonight. So are some of the polls in the key battleground states. And tonight, Donald Trump under new scrutiny after saying to a group of supporters, "Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it will be fixed." Immediate questions about what he meant by that. And tonight, Vice President Kamala Harris taking aim at Iowa's new six-week abortion ban, blaming Donald Trump and his choices for the Supreme Court, who overturned Roe. ABC's Rachel Scott leading us off tonight. RACHEL SCOTT: One full week into her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris surging in the polls, pulling in more than $200 million since entering the race. And tonight, Harris seizing on an issue she hopes will help define the choice in November -- abortion. Speaking out against Iowa's six-week abortion ban, set to go into effect today. Placing the blame squarely on Donald Trump, who appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe versus Wade. KAMALA HARRIS: This ban is going to take effect before many women even know they're pregnant. And what this means is that 1 in 3 women of reproductive age in America lives in a state with a Trump abortion ban. SCOTT: The Harris campaign also jumping on Trump's controversial comments to a Christian audience, where he suggested if they vote this time, they won't have to vote again. DONALD TRUMP: Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm a Christian, I love you. Get out. You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good. You're not going to have to vote. SCOTT: The Harris campaign calling this further proof "...democracy is under assault." Trump, who was counting on a battle with President Biden, now trying to redefine Harris, even as voters warm to her. Tonight, the new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows in just one week, her favorability rating jumped eight points from 35% to 43%. TRUMP:  We have a new victim now, Kamala. We have a new victim. We have a brand new victim. And honestly, she's a radical left lunatic. SCOTT: Harris and her team now honing a new one-word message, calling Trump out as "weird." HARRIS: You may have noticed Donald Trump has been resorting to some wild lies about my record. And some of what he and his running mate are saying, it's just plain weird. SCOTT: Democrats seizing on the backlash triggered by Trump's running mate, Senator JD Vance and his 2021 comments about women who don't have children. JD VANCE: We are effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. SCOTT: Now, Vance playing cleanup. VANCE: Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I've got nothing against cats. SCOTT: But not backing down. VANCE: It's the fact that the Democratic Party has become explicitly anti-family in some of their policies. SCOTT: Democrats, like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, sensing an opening, and there's that word again. TIM WALZ: These guys are just weird. That's really -- they are. But we're not afraid of weird people. We -- we're a little bit creeped out, but we're not afraid. MUIR: So let's bring in Rachel Scott tonight from Washington. Rachel, Vice President Harris, we know, heading to Georgia tomorrow. The latest presidential polls show the race there tightening, as well, in this race- now that we're dealing with a race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. This as her campaign continues to vet possible running mates. Everyone is watching this very closely. We know just a short time ago here, one leading contender, Pennsylvania's popular Governor Josh Shapiro, was out campaigning for Vice President Harris, saying she's ready, and he brought up the debate. Let's listen. JOSH SHAPIRO: She's not only ready, she's damn ready. And you know who else knows she's ready? Donald Trump knows she's ready. And, you know -- you know how I know this? Because he's afraid to debate her now. Do you see that? MUIR: Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer right there by his side on that stage, also campaigning for the vice president. And Rachel, Vice President Harris expected to pick her running mate by August 7th. That's just a little more than a week from now.  SCOTT: Yes, David. Vice President Kamala Harris has to make this decision, and she has to make it quickly. We are told that the vetting process is now fully underway. Sources say that Harris is considering roughly a dozen Democrats for the job, but among the leading contenders is Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, as well Arizona Senator Mark Kelly. Someone who is not going for this position, Gretchen Whitmer. The governor of Michigan says she plans to finish out her term as governor in that state, David. MUIR: All right, Rachel Scott leading us off here tonight Rachel, thank you.  

Readers, Instead of sucking up to the political and corporate powers that dominate America, The Daily Caller is fighting for you — our readers. We humbly ask you to consider joining us in this fight.…

A huge step for neuroscience.

Here's where to look!

Meet Freedom, the rockin' Swedes hoping their new album will get them off couches and into nice hotels