There is one pastor in my town, and perhaps in yours, who is known to preach a bit on “hot topics.” In recent years, his preaching addressed topics such as voting and the Christian conscience, whether or not we should say “Black Lives Matter,” the dangers or benefits of CRT, and how love of neighbor relates to government mandates. His congregation loves that he preaches “the whole counsel of God,” 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.
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—people he could see from the pulpit. If you were listening to his sermons, they were both timeless (they didn’t correspond to any Twitter trends) yet contextual for his congregation. His church loves that he preaches “to the people in the room.” Many of them, similarly, keep their nose to the grindstone and prefer not to get caught up in Facebook debates.
Who has the better approach?
If anyone were to suggest we should preach to our 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.
But does this mean there is never an opportunity, or responsibility, to deal with people who are not in the room? How should we strategize for “word-to-word combat”?[1] Good shepherds care for the sheep and whack the wolves—the 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 exposed to public arguments? Surely the age of podcasts and social media makes it more necessary to reprove and rebuke publicly, not less. This is not only a question for church officers, of course. Where is the place for “public debate” in the life of any Christian, when do we all have the responsibility to “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom” (Col. 3:16), and when has God designed the body to build itself up in love by our speaking truth to one another (Eph. 4:15–16)? Paul’s 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.
1. David Mathis, Workers for Your Joy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022).
Take Thinkings Captive
When I hear the phrase “take every thought captive,” it is often treated as a psychological concept. Preachers describe this model of spiritual warfare: whether it’s 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.
While this may be a good practice and even a distant application, it is not exactly Paul’s 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.
Thoughts versus “Thinkings” in 2 Corinthians
Noéma (thinking) is a key concept for Paul in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 2, he seeks the church’s “obedience in everything,” urging them to restore the repentant brother. He commits his agreement with them, “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs (noémata, i.e. plural noéma) (2 Cor 2:11). The noémata of Satan are plans, purposes, strategies, which the Corinthians are quite aware of—if they should step back and reflect.
In chapter 3, Paul reflects on the fact the Israelites of Moses’s day had their minds (noémata)hardened (2 Cor. 3:14). This is paralleled with their hardened hearts (2 Cor. 3:15). The result is that they are unable to benefit spiritually from “the letter” 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 “veiled to those who are perishing” (2 Cor. 4:3). But now the culprit is revealed: it is “the god of this world” who “has blinded the minds [noémata] of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4). Now noémata is coupled with “seeing,” but the thing that is seen is the gospel, a rational message that conveys the spiritual reality of the glory of Christ. The heart appears again here—what is needed is for God to shine “in [their] hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (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 “by the open statement of the truth” (2 Cor. 4:2).
Well, Satan may have the “thoughts” or “minds” of unbelievers in his control, but can he ensnare those who belong to God? Paul at least considered the possibility: in chapter 11 he fears that “as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts (noémata) will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). How does this happen? It happens through someone coming and “proclaiming another Jesus” or offering a “different spirit” or presenting a “different gospel” (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 “led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
This is the type of “thought” that Paul seeks to capture in chapter 10, where he defends the rhetoric of his letters. He is engaging in “spiritual warfare,” but it is the spiritual warfare of an apostle combating Satan on the battlefield of ideas. Paul must capture the “thinkings” of the Corinthians, and he is willing to publicly skewer the arguments of false teachers in order to win. He is aiming to “destroy strongholds” 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 to that). They are instead “arguments” and “lofty opinions” that rebel against “the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5).
Who is He Fighting with?
Paul skewers false teachers whose ideas have pierced the Corinthian community—the key to his method is not that they are “in the room” (Paul himself is not in the room, but in a letter!). The key is that their teaching is in the community. The question for the preacher, then, is not “is this public figure also a member of our community?” but “is their thinking, their false worldview, their idolatrous narrative, their ungodly mindset, present in or affecting our community?”
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 “ahead” of your people ideologically, but also “among” 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—not 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.
Three Applications
Not only is the pulpit a place for public debate, everywhere 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 word-to-word combat, whether as a pastor or parishioner, on Sunday morning or elsewhere.
1. Define your “area of influence”
Of the listening to many podcasts there is no end. How can we decide where we will look to decide what arguments we should combat? Paul gives an example: unlike his opponents, he will boast “only with regard to the area of influence God has assigned” (2 Cor. 10:13). Your congregation’s ideological sheep pen is less an impermeable wall and more a fence with many openings. But that permeability should focus your attention, not disperse it. This is a model for all Christians to follow—we are all called to “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom” (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. 5:19–20).
For those who are pastors, examine your sheep pen by exploring your flock. Ask what podcasts people are listening to, what books they’re reading, what questions they’re exploring. Investigate with genuine curiosity and interest—this is just good pastoring, an effort to get to know your people better. You will see themes emerge and threads to follow—maybe more often than you’d expect, but maybe less. And return to that fundamental question when you preach: Who is in the room? Even if we must skewer some intruders, it is for the people in the room; it is always for the sake of this flock, and any sheep the Father may be drawing into them.
2. Identify the Strongholds
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—opinions 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.
3. Take Thinkings Captive to Christ
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, “work to expose the poisonous root of godless ideology.”[2] And—just as Paul’s letters are considered “weighty and strong” (2 Cor. 10:10)—do not be afraid to draw clear lines. Expect some to be startled.
2. Justin Taylor, “‘Abortion Is about God’: Piper’s Passionate, Prophetic Pro-Life Preaching,” in For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, ed. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor, 328-50 (Grand Rapids: Crossway, 2010).
An Example
There are at least two approaches to tearing down strongholds. Some information is more “out there”—it’s part of public knowledge, or drawn from published works, or statistics from scientific studies. Let’s call these towers. Towers are tempting targets. But there’s also the foundations to consider—the invisible assumptions, the unspoken values, the undergirding axioms which make the surface stuff cohere in the first place.
You can take the towers, sure, but you can also dig out the foundations. I recently witnessed an imitable example of both in an interview with Michael Shellenberger about the early 2025 fires in Los Angeles. Shellenberger, an award-winning journalist who has written extensively on environmentalism, social issues, and free speech, is responding to the narrative that says, “This catastrophe was inevitable, and nothing could have been done to prevent it.” On the one hand, Shellenberger “takes the tower,” refuting the argument by addressing the issues of reservoir management, ignition mitigation, and maintenance of power lines. He refutes the claim with data.
But then he aims for the foundation. The claim is not only false—it is a product of “nihilistic discourse.” He traces the “nothing could be done” claim back to a nihilistic and Marxist worldview, which has “infected the citizenry” and the “the politicians” of Los Angeles. What is at the bottom of that worldview? “Resentment and envy.” This comes full circle for Shellenberger: the Marxist/nihilistic worldview that is driven by envy and pessimism is the very soil that gave birth to the idols of “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” and “Environmental, Social, and Governance,” and “climate apocalypse” which have enabled such a catastrophic failure from the leaders in California. The narrative that “nothing could have been done” is just as much a manifestation of a “nihilistic ideology” as the fires themselves are, and at the root of both is the issue of envy. In other words, at the root of both is an issue of idolatry.
Conclusion
Shellenberger provides an excellent case study of what I am suggesting for pastors and parishioners. A good soldier will be willing to take the tower—they will not be afraid to name deceivers or refute a lie at the “surface” level of facts. But they also will not be satisfied to stay at that level. They are not interested in being “on top” of the debate—they want to destroy the stronghold. And to do that we have to lay bare the ideological foundations of our opponents.
I am not suggesting we abandon expository preaching so we can respond more to the cultural moment. On the contrary, over the past half-decade of expositing John, 1 Peter, Titus, and Hebrews, I have been amazed at how consistently the next pericope in my preaching plan seems to directly address an issue I know is swirling around in my people’s heads and lives.
No, what I am calling for is a persistent, pastoral awareness of what’s in the sheep-pen. Let’s teach the flock how to use timeless truths as timely tools. Let’s exposit the text that’s next, with an understanding of what time is now. Let’s bring every thought—and every thinking—captive to Christ in both our pulpits and our pews.
