There is one pastor in my town, and perhaps in yours, who is known to preach a bit on \u201chot topics.\u201d In recent years, his preaching addressed topics such as voting and the Christian conscience, whether or not we should say \u201cBlack Lives Matter,\u201d the dangers or benefits of CRT, and how love of neighbor relates to government mandates. His congregation loves that he preaches \u201cthe whole counsel of God,\u201d not shrinking back from bringing the Bible to bear on the issues of the day. His congregants, likewise, generally stay up to date on trending topics and public discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is another pastor (in your town, I hear, though perhaps also in mine) who over the same span of time preached faithfully through Leviticus, then Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. His sermons were exegetically sound. He exposited the text plainly. His applications had names and faces in mind\u2014people he could see from the pulpit. If you were listening to his sermons, they were both timeless (they didn\u2019t correspond to any Twitter trends) yet contextual for his congregation. His church loves that he preaches \u201cto the people in the room.\u201d Many of them, similarly, keep their nose to the grindstone and prefer not to get caught up in Facebook debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Who has the better approach?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If anyone were to suggest we should preach to our<\/em> people, not an amorphous crowd beyond them, it would be hard to protest. Likewise, any Christian who lives online to the neglect of in-person relationships has probably lost the plot. We should run with an eye to the great cloud of witnesses, but not to satisfy all the witnesses in the cloud. Our word-work, as a spiritual gift to the congregation, should aim for local presents more than online presence. Which is to say, pastors should preach to, and members should relate to, the people in the room<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But does this mean there is never an opportunity, or responsibility, to deal with people who are not <\/em>in the room? How should we strategize for \u201cword-to-word combat\u201d?[1]<\/sup><\/a> Good shepherds care for the sheep and whack the wolves<\/a>\u2014the latter is a means of the former. For Paul, many of these wolves were public figures speaking public falsehoods, so he fired public bullets. Is it the case that our people today are less <\/em>exposed to public arguments? Surely the age of podcasts and social media makes it more <\/em>necessary to reprove and rebuke publicly, not less. This is not only a question for church officers, of course. Where is the place for \u201cpublic debate\u201d in the life of any <\/em>Christian, when do we all have the responsibility to \u201cteach and admonish one another in all wisdom\u201d (Col. 3:16), and when has God designed the body to build itself up in love by our speaking truth to one another (Eph. 4:15\u201316)? Paul\u2019s example in 2 Corinthians 10 shows us a trajectory that can maintain balance: take thinkings captive among your people by publicly tearing down the lofty arguments from false teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I hear the phrase \u201ctake every thought captive,\u201d it is often treated as a psychological concept. Preachers describe this model of spiritual warfare: whether it\u2019s lust, or anxiety, or bad thoughts about identity, wage war against the Enemy by taking all your thoughts captive to Jesus. Make every thought that enters your mind conform to the gospel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While this may be a good practice and even a distant application, it is not exactly Paul\u2019s point in 2 Corinthians 10. Paul did not think of spiritual warfare here as primarily a private, psychological affair, but as a public, rhetorical destruction of Satan’s strongholds through gospel-centered argumentation. That means that taking thoughts captive is not a manifesto for meandering endlessly in a mental house of mirrors, seeking to catch and capture our own reflection. It is a model to follow for preaching and discipleship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No\u00e9ma <\/em>(thinking) is a key concept for Paul in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 2, he seeks the church\u2019s \u201cobedience in everything,\u201d urging them to restore the repentant brother. He commits his agreement with them, \u201cso that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs <\/em>(no\u00e9mata, <\/em>i.e. plural no\u00e9ma<\/em>) (2 Cor 2:11). The no\u00e9mata <\/em>of Satan are plans, purposes, strategies, which the Corinthians are quite aware of\u2014if they should step back and reflect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In chapter 3, Paul reflects on the fact the Israelites of Moses\u2019s day had their minds (no\u00e9mata<\/em>)hardened (2 Cor. 3:14). This is paralleled with their hardened hearts <\/em>(2 Cor. 3:15). The result is that they are unable to benefit spiritually from \u201cthe letter\u201d when they read Scripture (2 Cor. 3:6). They are not free in the Spirit, but captive under the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:14-17). This captivity hardens their minds; their thinking is inflexible and unreceptive to the reality of Christ. Likewise, the gospel is \u201cveiled to those who are perishing\u201d (2 Cor. 4:3). But now the culprit is revealed: it is \u201cthe god of this world\u201d who \u201chas blinded the minds <\/em>[no\u00e9mata<\/em>] of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ\u201d (2 Cor. 4:4). Now no\u00e9mata <\/em>is coupled with \u201cseeing,\u201d but the thing that is seen is the gospel<\/em>, a rational message that conveys the spiritual reality of the glory of Christ. The heart appears again here\u2014what is needed is for God to shine \u201cin [their] hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ\u201d (2 Cor. 4:6). This is the only way for the unbelievers to be rescued from the clutches of Satan, and it leads Paul to proclaim the gospel \u201cby the open statement of the truth\u201d (2 Cor. 4:2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, Satan may have the \u201cthoughts\u201d or \u201cminds\u201d of unbelievers <\/em>in his control, but can he ensnare those who belong to God? Paul at least considered the possibility<\/em>: in chapter 11 he fears that \u201cas the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts <\/em>(no\u00e9mata<\/em>) will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ\u201d (2 Cor. 11:3). How does this happen? It happens through someone coming and \u201cproclaiming another Jesus\u201d or offering a \u201cdifferent spirit\u201d or presenting a \u201cdifferent gospel\u201d (2 Cor. 11:4). Someone comes in and suggests a different way, a different hope, a different savior. They are persuaded. Their thinking is changed and they are \u201cled astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ\u201d (2 Cor. 11:3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the type of \u201cthought\u201d that Paul seeks to capture in chapter 10, where he defends the rhetoric of his letters. He is <\/em>engaging in \u201cspiritual warfare,\u201d but it is the spiritual warfare of an apostle combating Satan on the battlefield of ideas. Paul must capture the \u201cthinkings\u201d of the Corinthians, and he is willing to publicly skewer the arguments of false teachers in order to win. He is aiming to \u201cdestroy strongholds\u201d that have taken root in the community of believers (2 Cor. 10:4). What are these strongholds? They are not necessarily intrusive thoughts or psychological temptations (though they might lead <\/em>to that). They are instead \u201carguments\u201d and \u201clofty opinions\u201d that rebel against \u201cthe knowledge of God\u201d (2 Cor. 10:5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul skewers false teachers whose ideas have pierced the Corinthian community\u2014the key to his method is not<\/em> that they are \u201cin the room\u201d (Paul himself <\/em>is not in the room, but in a letter!). The key is that their teaching <\/em>is in the community<\/em>. The question for the preacher, then, is not \u201cis this public figure also a member of our community?\u201d but \u201cis their thinking<\/em>, their false worldview, their idolatrous narrative, their ungodly mindset, present in or affecting our community?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But be careful here. The key is not necessarily regularly posting on X (formerly Twitter), but rather knowing your flock and knowing your local community. You should not only be out \u201cahead\u201d of your people ideologically, but also \u201camong\u201d them ideologically. Wherever you get your news, wherever your public square is, let it raise flags in your awareness before planting flags in your sermons. Once you see the same flags resurface, follow the thread\u2014not down a Reddit rabbit hole, but into the flock. The thread may lead to nothing; or it may turn out a tripwire, leading to a landmine planted in the sheep-pen. If it turns out a timebomb, wield the Word and defuse it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only is the pulpit <\/em>a place for public debate, everywhere <\/em>is a place for public debate, in that Christians are accountable in every context to warn each other, teach each other, and admonish each other (Col. 3:16, Heb. 3:13). Let me give three suggestions for doing public<\/em> word-to-word combat, whether as a pastor or parishioner, on Sunday morning or elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of the listening to many podcasts there is no end. How can we decide where <\/em>we will look to decide what arguments we should combat? Paul gives an example: unlike his opponents, he will boast \u201conly with regard to the area of influence <\/em>God has assigned\u201d (2 Cor. 10:13). Your congregation\u2019s ideological sheep pen is less an impermeable wall and more a fence with many openings. But that permeability should focus <\/em>your attention, not disperse it. This is a model for all Christians to follow\u2014we are all <\/em>called to \u201cteach and admonish one another in all wisdom\u201d (Col. 3:16). We each have an area of influence, and we each have the responsibility to bring back a brother who is wandering (Jas. 5:19\u201320).<\/p>\n\n\n\n For those who are pastors, examine your sheep pen by exploring your flock. Ask what podcasts people are listening to, what books they\u2019re reading, what questions they\u2019re exploring. Investigate with genuine curiosity and interest\u2014this is just good pastoring, an effort to get to know your people better. You will see themes emerge and threads to follow\u2014maybe more often than you\u2019d expect, but maybe less. And return to that fundamental question when you preach: Who is in the room? <\/em>Even if we must skewer some intruders, it is for the people in the room; it is always <\/em>for the sake of this <\/em>flock, and any sheep the Father may be drawing into them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Where does Satan have a grasp on minds and hearts? What ideas, narratives, frameworks, and ideologies are hardening their thinkings and preventing them from seeing the glory of Christ? Look for lofty opinions\u2014opinions that elevate man and denigrate the gospel. Look for ideas that prevent or distract people from growing in the knowledge of God. Look for ideas that warp the way people think, whether by asserting patent falsehood, or by engaging in twisted reasoning. And look for ideas that result in disobedience to Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tear down the idolatrous arguments by gospel-biblical-refutation, so that people’s patterns of thinking and worldview (and even their spontaneous inner thoughts!) agree with the gospel and lead to obedient thinking and living unto Christ. As Justin Taylor says, \u201cwork to expose the poisonous root of godless ideology.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a> And\u2014just as Paul\u2019s letters are considered \u201cweighty and strong\u201d (2 Cor. 10:10)\u2014do not be afraid to draw clear lines. Expect some to be startled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are at least two approaches to tearing down strongholds. Some information is more \u201cout there\u201d\u2014it\u2019s part of public knowledge, or drawn from published works, or statistics from scientific studies. Let\u2019s call these towers<\/em>. Towers are tempting targets. But there\u2019s also the foundations<\/em> to consider\u2014the invisible assumptions, the unspoken values, the undergirding axioms which make the surface stuff cohere in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n1. David Mathis, Workers for Your Joy<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
Take Thinkings Captive<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Thoughts versus \u201cThinkings\u201d in 2 Corinthians<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Who is He Fighting with?<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Three Applications<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Define your \u201carea of influence\u201d<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Identify the Strongholds<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. Take Thinkings Captive to Christ<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Justin Taylor, \u201c\u2018Abortion Is about God\u2019: Piper\u2019s Passionate, Prophetic Pro-Life Preaching,\u201d in For the Fame of God\u2019s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, <\/em>ed. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor, 328-50 (Grand Rapids: Crossway, 2010).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
An Example<\/h2>\n\n\n\n