Justin Taylor, a prominent voice at The Gospel Coalition, recently sparked controversy with a blog excerpt that went viral on Reformed X. In it, he suggests that church elders should screen potential members by asking, “Do you believe the Jews are committing cultural genocide against straight white men and families?” Taylor argues that a prospective member’s response—whether a guffaw, an immediate denial, or hesitation—reveals their suitability for church membership. Hesitation, he claims, indicates “entertaining or holding” problematic beliefs that must be repented of, or else membership should be “slowed down” or denied.
This proposal is not only a theological overreach but also a stark example of two troubling trends in evangelicalism: the rise of “Hard Shepherding” and an uncritical commitment to established cultural narratives, particularly the post-war consensus. Worse, it demands Christians show undue deference to Talmudic Judaism, a false religion by evangelical standards, while ignoring its potential conflicts with Christian values. Taylor’s suggestion undermines the gospel, distorts biblical church governance, enforces thought control, and aligns with cultural pressures that threaten the church’s witness.
THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
Church membership is a corporate affirmation of an individual’s credible profession of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It reflects the congregation’s belief that a person’s testimony of salvation is genuine, uniting them to Christ’s body, the church (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Membership is not salvation itself but a recognition of it, grounded in the gospel’s simplicity: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Confessions of faith exist to ensure unity on essential doctrines, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the authority of Scripture, not to police opinions on cultural or political matters.
Scripture emphasizes that salvation requires no additional works beyond faith in Christ’s atoning work. Galatians 1:8-9 warns, “If anyone preaches another gospel… let him be accursed.” Church membership, therefore, is about affirming a shared faith, not enforcing conformity on non-essential issues. When a church denies membership, it effectively questions the authenticity of someone’s conversion, as membership signals the body’s trust in a person’s profession of faith. To condition membership on anything beyond this—such as a specific cultural or political stance—risks adding to the gospel, a dangerous precedent that undermines its sufficiency.
Taylor’s proposal does exactly this. By suggesting that hesitation over a question about Jewish influence on culture warrants scrutiny or exclusion, he implicitly adds a requirement to the gospel. Denying membership based on such hesitation signals doubt in a person’s faith, not because of their rejection of Christ but because of their failure to align with a culturally approved narrative. This is a profound betrayal of the gospel’s simplicity, which Taylor, as a long-time advocate of evangelical orthodoxy, has historically championed. His suggestion introduces a “work” beyond faith, contradicting the very message he has preached for years.
HARD SHEPHERDING: A GROWING THREAT IN REFORMED CIRCLES
Taylor’s proposal also exemplifies “Hard Shepherding,” a term used by David Morrill at Protestia to describe the growing trend in Reformed churches where elders exert excessive control over congregants’ lives, particularly on non-essential beliefs. This practice, rooted in authoritarian movements like the Shepherding Movement of the 1970s, demands conformity to leaders’ personal convictions rather than biblical mandates. Morrill argues that such control often manifests in elders policing thoughts and opinions, especially on cultural issues, under the guise of protecting the church’s purity.
Taylor’s call for elders to gatekeep membership based on a culturally charged question is a textbook example of Hard Shepherding. It assumes elders have the authority to judge hearts on matters outside the gospel or a church’s confession of faith, effectively weaponizing membership and access to the Lord’s Table against those who hold divergent views. This is particularly troubling given the biblical role of elders. Scripture calls elders to “shepherd the flock of God… not lording it over those in your charge” (1 Peter 5:2-3). Their task is to teach sound doctrine and protect the church from false teaching, not to enforce uniformity on social or cultural opinions.
This overreach is also at odds with traditional Protestant ecclesiology. In Baptist polity, church membership is a congregational decision, not the unilateral fiat of elders. Even in Presbyterian systems, which grant elders more authority, membership decisions are not based on executive decrees but on a shared discernment of a person’s faith. Taylor’s suggestion that elders should have “say-so” over membership based on a litmus test unrelated to the gospel or a church’s confession of faith is an abuse of authority. It elevates elders to a quasi-papal status, undermining the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9) and creating a hierarchy that Scripture does not endorse.
DEMANDING DEFERENCE TO A FALSE RELIGION
Perhaps the most startling aspect of Taylor’s proposal is its demand that Christians show instant loyalty to Talmudic Judaism, a religion evangelicals consider false by their own theological standards. Talmudic Judaism, distinct from the Mosaic faith of the Old Testament, emerged after the destruction of the Second Temple and is rooted in rabbinic traditions that reject Jesus as the Messiah. By evangelical standards, it is a false religion, as it denies the core claim of Christianity: that salvation comes only through Christ (John 14:6). Yet Taylor insists that even hesitation to defend this religion against criticism disqualifies someone from church membership. This is not only inconsistent but also absurd when viewed in light of broader religious pluralism.
Imagine if Taylor suggested that Christians must instantly denounce criticism of Islam, Buddhism, or Catholicism to join a church. The evangelical world would rightly recoil at such a demand. Why, then, does Talmudic Judaism receive preferential treatment? The inconsistency raises questions about cultural power dynamics. If a prominent evangelical like Taylor feels compelled to enforce such a standard, it lends credence to the very critique he seeks to suppress: that certain groups, including Jewish elites, wield disproportionate influence over societal and even ecclesiastical norms.
To illustrate, consider the absurdity of a Buddhist leader barring membership for those who hesitate to defend Christianity, or a Muslim cleric demanding unwavering support for Hinduism. Such scenarios are unthinkable, yet Taylor’s proposal mirrors this logic. By singling out Talmudic Judaism for special protection, he implicitly acknowledges its cultural weight, which only fuels the narrative of disproportionate influence. This double standard is not only illogical but also dangerous, as it prioritizes a false religion over the gospel itself.
TALMUDIC JUDAISM AND ITS TENSION WITH CHRISTIAN VALUES
To understand why some Christians might hesitate when asked about Jewish influence on culture, we must examine the relationship between Talmudic Judaism and Christian values in the West. As I argued at Insight to Incite in previous articles, Talmudic Judaism, as distinct from the Mosaic faith of Abraham or the Old Testament, promotes teachings and cultural trends that often clash with Christian ethics. While not all Jews adhere strictly to Talmudic principles, and many are secular, the influence of Talmudic thought in Western society is undeniable and merits scrutiny.
For example, certain Talmudic interpretations have been cited as permissive toward practices that Christians oppose, such as abortion and sexual immorality. The Babylonian Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, contains passages that some scholars interpret as lenient on abortion in certain cases, contrasting with the Christian view of life beginning at conception (Psalm 139:13-16). Similarly, Talmudic discussions of sexuality, while complex, have been used by some modern Jewish intellectuals to advocate for progressive views on homosexuality and gender, which conflict with traditional Christian teachings (Romans 1:26-27).
Beyond theology, Jewish voting patterns and cultural influence in the West amplify these tensions. Pew Research data shows that 86% of Jewish Americans voted Democrat in the 2020 U.S. election, aligning with policies that support abortion, same-sex marriage, and other progressive causes. Jewish representation in media, finance, and academia is also disproportionate relative to their population size (about 2% of the U.S. population). For instance, a 2014 study by the Anti-Defamation League noted that Jewish individuals hold significant leadership roles in Hollywood and major news outlets, shaping cultural narratives. While this does not imply a monolithic agenda, it’s reasonable for some to “notice” correlations between these trends and the erosion of traditional Christian values, such as family structures or sexual ethics.
The term “cultural genocide” may be hyperbolic, but it reflects a perception that certain cultural shifts—promoted by influential groups, including those shaped by Talmudic or secular Jewish thought—threaten the foundations of Christian society. For example, the normalization of pornography, which Christians view as destructive to families (Matthew 5:28), has been linked to media industries with significant Jewish representation. Whether this constitutes “genocide” depends on definitions, but the concern is not irrational. Christians are called to discern such patterns (1 Thessalonians 5:21), not dismiss them out of hand.
Taylor’s demand that Christians instantly reject such critiques ignores these realities. By framing hesitation as a moral failing, he stifles honest discussion about cultural dynamics, aligning with the post-war consensus that deems such observations taboo. This not only undermines Christian discernment but also reinforces the perception of Jewish influence, as it suggests that even evangelical leaders must protect this group from scrutiny at the cost of the gospel.
THE POST-WAR CONSENSUS AND CULTURAL CONFORMITY
Taylor’s proposal reflects a deeper capitulation to the post-war consensus, a framework that discourages questioning established narratives about power, influence, and victimhood. As explored elsewhere at Insight to Incite, this consensus, rooted in post-World War II sensitivities, polices discourse to avoid critiques of certain groups, particularly Jews, due to historical atrocities. While sensitivity to Jew Hate is understandable, the consensus often stifles legitimate discussion about cultural influence, labeling it as hateful or conspiratorial.
This dynamic is evident in Taylor’s litmus test. By demanding immediate denial of a provocative question, he enforces a cultural taboo rather than encouraging biblical discernment.
This commitment to the post-war consensus is particularly tragic given Taylor’s platform. As a respected voice, his influence shapes evangelical thought. Yet by policing opinions on a non-essential issue, he risks alienating Christians who see genuine tensions between Talmudic Judaism and Christian values. This not only undermines the church’s prophetic voice but also fuels the narrative of external control, as it appears that evangelical leaders are beholden to cultural pressures rather than Scripture.
The irony of Taylor’s proposal is profound. In the name of protecting the gospel from “hate” or Christian nationalism, he threatens the gospel itself. By adding cultural conformity to the requirements for church membership, he introduces a new legalism, where salvation’s evidence hinges on agreeing with elite-approved narratives. This contradicts the gospel’s simplicity, which he has long defended. Galatians 2:16 declares, “A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Taylor’s test risks adding a cultural “work” to this equation, undermining the very message he claims to uphold.
THE DANGER OF HARD SHEPHERDING
Morrill’s warnings about Hard Shepherding are particularly relevant here. By advocating for elders to control membership based on cultural opinions, Taylor empowers leaders to lord over consciences, a practice Scripture condemns (1 Peter 5:3). This approach risks creating a church culture where dissent is equated with unbelief, stifling the freedom of conscience that is central to Protestantism. Romans 14:4 asks, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?” Yet Taylor’s proposal invites elders to do just that, judging hearts based on a single, loaded question.
This also has practical implications. Denying membership often means barring someone from the Lord’s Table, a sacred act of fellowship (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). To exclude someone for hesitating over a cultural issue is to weaponize the sacraments, turning them into tools of control rather than grace. This is a far cry from the biblical model of church discipline, which addresses clear sin or false teaching, not speculative opinions.
A CALL TO RETURN TO THE GOSPEL
Taylor’s suggestion is a case study in how far evangelicalism has strayed from its biblical moorings. Church membership is about affirming faith in Christ, not passing a cultural purity test. Elders are shepherds, not thought police. Christians are called to discern truth, not parrot approved narratives. By conflating gospel fidelity with cultural conformity, Taylor threatens the very gospel he claims to defend. The church must reject this overreach, return to the simplicity of Christ’s saving work, and resist the temptation to bow to secular pressures, no matter how powerful the voices behind them.
The broader implications are sobering. If evangelical leaders like Taylor can be swayed to prioritize cultural narratives over the gospel, it raises questions about who truly shapes the church’s agenda. The influence required to enforce such a standard is itself evidence of the critique Taylor seeks to silence.
If you appreciate my work, please consider an $8 a month or $80 year subscription to access exclusive content (like the rest of this article and our entire archive).
If you don’t want a subscription, please consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking the ‘coffee link’ below. This is one of the things I do to provide for my small farm and big family, so I sure appreciate it.
Share this post