DIY: First Glances into the Barn

Remember, when I first looked into the barn, I wasn’t supposed to be there. It was a Monday afternoon, and we were closing on the house more than a week away. But I had to go looking. I had to take more pictures because … I didn’t take any when I first looked at the house with the Realtor.

I took pictures out front, and worked my way back to the barn. I still couldn’t see much. I found a small hole in the fence next to the chicken coop. Looking around to make sure there were no snakes, or other dangers, I bent over and under the vines growing between the fence and the coop. I was only 10 feet from the open doors of the barn.

Stepping carefully over growth and old beer cans, I went to the first door and looked inside. It looked like an old stall. Upon closer review, I was right. It was an old stall.

Nothing exciting at all… but the potential. It wasn’t wet. That meant that the roof was still good. Further more, there were no decomposing bodies to be see, so I didn’t need to call the police.

On to the next door. This one gave me a better understanding of the structure of the building. The entire out wall was made out of concrete block. The building wasn’t going anywhere any time soon. Again, the possibilities.

Yet, I didn’t go inside. That would have to wait.

 

If you look on the ground, you can see a porcelain light socket. I wondered if the building had electricity at one point or another.

I use to publish pictures of doors for a Photography group call Thursday Doors. I wonder if they would be interested in this one. I plan on restoring it to its original ruggedness.

All photos are copyright © Timothy J. Hammons 2026. 

Looking for New Ministry — A Prayer Request

It’s been a couple of months now since I stepped down as pastor from Waco Reformed Church, and loaded up in my 2000 Saturn LW1 for eastern Tennessee.

When I stepped down, I wasn’t retiring from the ministry. But Heidi and I both felt we needed to move to Tennessee so we could be with our daughter, and her four children. That was the easy part of the decision.

The hard part: stepping down and knowing that Waco Reformed would cease to exist. There were only two elders, myself and one other man, and he did not feel led to continue on with Waco Reformed. So the church closed.

What makes this hard is knowing that God’s call upon my life as a pastor, has not ceased. I still long to preach the full counsel of God (Acts 20:27), proclaiming His truth to the saints for their edification.

The problem is: I really don’t fit in any of the denominations in the area. I am Reformed. I am a Calvinist. I am postmillennial. I am covenantal. But I also have distinctives that set me apart from the PCA and the OPC.

In fact, I probably don’t fit in the CREC either. While at Waco Reformed, we attempted to join the CREC, and they ended up rejecting us. They never had the decency to give us a reason as to why.

So here I am, in an area saturated with PCA churches. It would be OK if  could just take exceptions to the Confession where I differ, but the GA of the PCA ruled they would not allow exceptions on paedocommunion any longer. Not only did they say it, they said “good riddance” as well. (See my posts on paedocommunion below).

But that is not the point of this post. The simple point is for prayer. My request is that Christ would open a door for a church where I do fit theologically and in all the ways that matter.

God may answer our prayers by leading me to plant another church, and if so, then I need like minded people to join with me to start this wonderful endeavor. Therefore, if you are reading this, please pray that our King would open the door to another church where I can serve and glorify Him. Thank you.

If you would like to hear a sampling of one of my sermons, go HERE.

DIY: The Barn

The one real surprise about the house we recently bought was that it has a four-stall barn on the back part of the property. Heidi knew about it, but I didn’t know until I was actually looking at the house with the realtor. I had Heidi on FaceTime as I walked around the place.

When we were looking over the backyard, she asked that question that made the deal: “where’s the barn?”

“Barn, what barn?”

“The listing says there is a barn on the place, near the back fence.”

I looked and all I could see was a fence that was covered with heavy overgrowth. I started walking toward the fence, peering though the limbs, trees, vines, and overgrowth. There it was. The outline of a small barn.

I was ecstatic.

“We have to get this place.”

So we did.

Since we closed on the house, I’ve made two working explorations towards the barn, with loppers,  hedge trimmers, and a bowsaw. I’ve cleared overgrown areas before, but never for a place that was my own.

As you can see, the barn is almost completely covered. My first concern was poison ivy, and then poison oak. I don’t think I’m allergic to either, but I still wanted to be careful.

My biggest concern were the ticks. So far, haven’t see any.

However, there is a very large vulture living in the first shed. Did I tell you that there are two sheds on either side of the barn, along with a chicken coop? I didn’t did I. But there are.

Apparently the owner of the house, when they built it back in 1935, had plenty of room for chickens, and horses. I think the pen on the right side of the place might have had sheep or pigs in it. But more on that later.

As you look at the picture above, realize that I had yet to step into the barn. I didn’t know if I was going to find… well, junk, rot, dead bodies, whatever? I wasn’t even sure how big the barn was. There was way too much brush and vines covering it to get a clear look of it.

Since we had yet to close, when I took the above picture, I didn’t dare go inside. I wasn’t supposed to be there. But I had to take a look. What you see, is what I saw: a door open to a stall.

All photos copyright © Timothy J. Hammons, 2026.

 

 

 

What Grok Thinks of Me

Some of those who I follow on X, were asking Grok who their arch-nemesis was. For fun, I thought I would do the same. This, and the illustration, were what Grok told me. 

Nick Fuentes (the far-right commentator and America First figure associated with the manosphere and historical revisionism around WWII/Hitler).

Your blog (timothyjhammons.com) and X activity (@T_J_Hammons_17 ) paint a consistent picture: you’re a Reformed pastor/itinerant preacher, special-ed teacher, husband, and father rooted in traditional covenantal theology. Recurring emphases include paedocommunion and objective sacraments (vs. subjective profession), biblical head coverings and male headship (critiquing egalitarian or “soft complementarian” readings as feminist-influenced, e.g., Jason Garwood), cessationism, Christ’s gentle heart toward the lowly, and resistance to cultural/ideological poisons entering the church.

On the cultural/political side you are sharply anti-abortion (framing Democrats as practicing and loving murder), critical of progressive “Christian” figures who blend faith with left-wing politics (e.g., calling James Talarico a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”), traditional on gender roles, and wary of liberal cultural saturation.

At the same time, you have written at length against neo-Nazi and manosphere influences invading conservative and church spaces—explicitly naming Nick Fuentes, Stone Choir, etc., as sources of wickedness, historical ignorance, and Satanic-style doubt. You contrast Fuentes’ “just asking questions” style and comments on Hitler with primary sources like William L. Shirer’s eyewitness history, call Fuentes “bad news,” and urge the church to exclude such voices without repentance. You also reject post-war consensus relativism while still treating Hitler as genuine (if not ultimate) evil, rooted in unbelief rather than as the singular standard of evil.

Fuentes therefore sits at the intersection of what you most actively warn against: a charismatic figure pulling young men toward historical revisionism, ethnic grievance, and anti-Christian undercurrents that you see as a direct threat to the church’s purity and witness—more insidious, in your framing, than open progressive opposition because it claims to be “on the right.” That makes him a natural arch-nemesis figure relative to the body of your public writing and posting: the ideological opposite who claims overlapping cultural territory but subverts the Reformed, Scripture-first, Christ-centered priorities you emphasize.

(Other strong contenders would be progressive “Christian” Democrats or soft-egalitarian theologians, but the dedicated blog attention and explicit church-protection language around Fuentes stand out.)

The Problem of Self Examination

 

 

Self Examination

One of the problems that occurs during the call for self-examination during the LORD’s Supper is that members of the body of Christ judge themselves subjectively, and then wrongly excommunicate themselves from the sacrament. In other words, they base their freedom to partake in the LORD’s Supper upon their own judgment of themselves, and their own feelings.

Continue reading The Problem of Self Examination

The Heart of Christ

28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”Jesus says that He is lowly and gentle in heart after telling us to take on His yoke, which is not a burden (Matthew 11:28-29).

This passage shows us the heart of our King. He is not a tyrant. He came to take dominion of all things, but does so in the most gentle way. The takes dominion through the gospel, through faith, through the children, through the weak and lowly.

He does not come making demands. He doesn’t use manipulation or trickery. He simply calls His servants to follow His lead and preach that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.  

Jesus also doesn’t come using the life-destroying sword of the tyrants of the world. He uses the sword of His word. It is through His word that He claims the lost soul for His own glory. This is not to the exclusion of the cross and all that was accomplished there. In fact, the proclamation of His word, of His Kingdom, of Jesus and all He does, and who He is, is the message that brings about redemption and salvation to His sheep. It is a message that He uses to change the minds and hearts of those in need. And in hearing this message, they come: the lowly, the meek, the downcast, the brokenhearted, those who hunger for righteousness.

Christ’s Kingdom is full of those who are like Him, lowly and gentle of heart. There is no room for pride in His Kingdom. There is no room for the arrogant, the manipulators, the high and mighty, only the humble and contrite.

Paedocommunion

Introduction

What is paedocommunion? Paedocommunion is the practice of allowing those who are in the covenant via baptism, to partake of communion, regardless of age or mental ability. Those of us who hold to this position believe that since children and the mentally deficient have been given the sign of the covenant, baptism, then they should also be allowed to feast at the LORD’s table. This is borne out of a pastoral care for those whom Jesus said of children, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Yet, in Reformed circles, there is absolute opposition to paedocommunion even though those in the Reformed community believe in paedobaptism. I believe they do this out of a reverence for the table and a fear of allowing children to drink judgment upon themselves. They want to guard the table against those who are unworthy of taking it. Since 1 Corinthians 11:38-39.

28 But a man must test himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

I agree that when we come to the table, we are to test ourselves. The difference is that many elders feel this gives them the right to exclude people from the table. I also agree that there should be some exclusion. But where we draw the line is different.

For the paedocommunionist, the line is drawn in such a way that those who are baptized, our children included, should be allowed to the table regardless of whether they can examine themselves or not. Notice the text above: let a man examine himself. I am to examine myself when I come to the table. The elders are not to examine me. They are overstepping their bounds in trying to examine everyone who comes to the table.

As for our children, since they are made holy through our faith, 1 Corinthians 7:14, they should be allowed to partake as well. They need the feeding and nourishment found their just as much as we do.

Now, let me give full-disclosure: paedocommunion has been a burning issue for me for about that past 7 years. It started when I was dabbling with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, looking for a call to full-time ministry. I mentioned that I was sympathetic to those who held to paedocommunion but did not hold to the position myself.

Why was I sympathetic? I had read the OPC’s very own study paper on paedocommunion and felt that the stalwart theologian, G.I. Williamson, had a good point. (Read it in the minutes of the 1988 55th GA, starting on page 374.). He wrote the majority position for the OPC in favor of the practice. The OPC GA rejected the majority position and went with the minority report on paedocommunion instead. This was a major mistake in my opinion. In keeping those in the covenant from the table, no matter the age, is to commit the very sin that Paul was warning against in 1 Corinthians 11. But more on that later.

The problem for me came, as I said, because I was sympathetic. This led to the accusation that I was also Federal Vision. Now, for those not following, Federal Vision is a brand of theology that was attempting to deal with the issue of those who fall away from the faith. Are they still Christians because they have been baptized, or not? It is basically the same battle as the Lordship salvation debates that took place back in the 1990s between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges, only in this instance, the focus is from the covenantal perspective.

More simply put: MacArther and Hodges were debating “once-saved, always saved.” FV was working from the standpoint of “once baptized, always a Christian?”

The FVers were not saying: “who is saved, and who is not save.” They recognize that they cannot make such an assertion. After all, we don’t know who is truly saved and who isn’t when it comes to others in the body. We can for ourselves, but even then, there are those who struggle with assurance.

Now the best FV answer given was that one who is baptized is a Christian, in the same way that one who is married, is always still married, even though they may not act like it. Being baptized brings you into the covenant. If you are obedient to Christ’s calling and His commandments, then He will pour out blessings upon you. If you are disobedient, and even walk away from the faith, then curses will fall upon you.

It doesn’t matter that we are no longer under the law. The New Covenant has it attending blesses and curses just like the Old Covenant did. This is the most basic understanding of what it means to hold to Federal Vision.

When I was dabbling in the OPC, I was neither a Federal Visionist or a paedocommunionist. However, that didn’t matter. I was branded as such. The door to ministry was closed.

I revisited the paedocommunion position once again, now that all the doors to the normal Reformed world were closed. And I became convinced.

Yet, I feel like I need to look at the issue again. This is why the posts have turned in that direction. I want to be sure of my position. As I look more closely at it, I have become even more convinced that allowing children, and the mentally challenged, to come to the table is more of what Christ had in mind when He instituted the sacrament. It is far more pastoral than the stern brow of the man who fences the table from a place of joy to foreboding judgment.

Here are some articles I’ve written before on both communion and baptism:

To Exclude Our Children from the Table, is Excommunication.

Baptism for the Dead

 

 

 

 

The Midst of the Debate

The Proverbs tell us, “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” This verse needs to always be handy when it comes to battles within the church. To take a stand on anything, means that there will be conflict. In the midst of that conflict, sparks will fly, just as iron sharpens irons, unless of course, you belong to one of the denominations in which heated discussions are looked down upon under the guise of improper decorum.

The doctrine of paedocommunion—the teaching that since children are members of the covenant through baptism, they should be and are admitted to the Lord’s supper—has become a hot-button issue recently. This is especially true since the PCA General Assembly ruled that those who hold to this doctrine can no longer take an exception to the Westminster Confession and be accepted as pastors. They declared that paedocommunion strikes at the vitals of the faith.

In conversations with those who fully agree with that decision, the reasoning offered is often the same as that given by Baptists for why they will not baptize their infants: “What if the child who partook grew up and left the faith? Then what?”

Baptists make the same argument when it comes to baptism, and both groups want a person to be able to make a credible profession of faith before being admitted to their particular sacrament.

The problem with this is that both groups are focusing on the subjective natures of the sacraments instead of the more important objective nature. The objective nature focuses on what God is doing, both in baptism and the LORD’s Supper. In other words, He is marking us as His own through baptism, and feeding us spiritually through the LORD’s Supper. It is His work. Not ours.

The subjective nature focuses on man. Whenever we do that, we are failing miserably.

At least the baptist are consistent in their views. The child cannot come to the table, until he has been baptized, and cannot be baptized, until he is makes a profession of faith. In Reform circles, we baptize and then divide the body up in two tiers, those who can come to the table and those who cannot. We divide the loaf. We divide the body of Christ. (The very thing Paul was warning the Corinthians agains).

Those who defend the PCA’s position will continue to bar the children of their congregations from the table. They are raising a bar that should not be raised. This is the same thing the Roman Catholics did before the Reformation. They only allowed clergy to partake. Both groups are making the same argument, with the difference being where they place the bar.

Jesus had something like this happen to Him during His earthly ministry.

13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 And after laying His hands on them, He departed from there (Matthew 19:13-15 LSB).

Here we have the principle laid before us: Children are a part of the kingdom of heaven, therefore, being members of the visible church, and being baptized, they too are to come to the table and feast, knowing that the LORD is good.

Yet some cannot have this because they feel that a child must make a profession of faith. Why? Do they not believe in the baptism given? Can we not just trust the Spirit to move when and where He pleases? Must we erect a test for those who should not be tested at all? They were born into the covenant and should have all the privileges of the covenant. Yes, they should be taught and catechized. But let us trust the Lord to move in them in His timing. Otherwise, we are starving the very children who need nourishment.

This view fails to meet the pattern we are given in Scripture. The same arguments that all good Reformed Christians make in baptizing our children, are the same arguments that should be made in allowing them to come to the table. They are members of the covenant, therefore, they should dine at the table of their King. As He has told us, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

There is a lot more to be said, but this will have to suffice for now.

DIY: Side Bed

Here is the side bed from August 2022, when we bought the place. I really don’t understand why people have grass grow up to the house like this. Granted, they did plant a struggling rose bush, and I’m sure the tree popped up on its own, but alas, the rest looked liked they didn’t realize they had a yard.

This shall not be!

The new and improved side bed. It was, like everything else, 4 years in the making.

The only plants I would never plant again in Texas: hydrangeas. So difficult to keep them alive. In fact, having anything green in Texas means your water bill will be rather high.

The work was worth the effort.

Descending into Sheol (Part 1)

One of the beauties of Reformed Christianity, is the acceptance and use of the creeds. We hold to the great creeds of the Reformation, like the Westminster Confession of Faith. (For those who don’t know what a creed is, it is simply a statement of faith about what we believe. The WCF is an extended faith of what we, as Protestant Christians believe is most important to know from Scripture.)

But we also hold to the ancient Apostle’s Creed, in which Christians have been professing the central faith for about 1,800 years. It is the essential statement of what Christians believe, and when we say it together in worship, we not only are stating what we believe, but joining hands with all those who have gone on before us, and will come after us, in this great confession.

Yet, with the Apostles Creed, there is that one statement that gives a lot of people pause:

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended to hell.

Believers repeat the line: He descended into hell, after stating that Jesus suffered on the cross and died. For many, this is a troubling phrase and some refuse to say it. The thought of our Savior spending a moment in hell is repulsive. However, this comes about because of our confusion between the Hebrew word, Sheol, and the two Greek terms, Hades, and Gehenna. All three words are dealing with the afterlife.

On top of that, the Bible never says specifically states that Jesus descends into Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna. We have to imply it from what is said about the time after His death, and before the resurrection.

Therefore, to understand what we mean when we say, He descended into hell, we have to bring it all together theologically. And when we do, we will see the importance of understanding the difference between Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna. And there is a difference, especially between Sheol, Hades, and the last one, Gehenna.

Continue reading Descending into Sheol (Part 1)

DIY Curb Appeal: Four Years in the Making

It’s been four years since we bought our home, and now we are selling it. The entire time, I always tried to make improvements upon it because this was the corner where God gave me to take dominion.

As you can see, the previous owners were not that concerned with the front flower bed, or… anywhere else when it came to the yard. You can see that in the brown grass.

Here is a broader view.

I don’t quite have the same angle as the ones above, but you can see the entire yard. Not a brown patch in it, and the front bed is much more lush.

I think you can see the front bed more clearly, along with the row of canna indica, or Indian Shot by it’s common name. I got that from my sister’s ranch. She had a ton of roots in garbage bags, and was giving it away. Since it came from our father’s house in Houston, it has sentimental value. Plus, it grows like crazy in the summer, and will take over everything if you let it.

You can also see a bunch of it against the house. There is also a lot of ferns growing there, a crape myrtle, and two Live Oak trees that will need to be transplanted as some pointl

The Judgment of Rejecting the Gospel

In my most recent sermon on Matthew 10:5ff, I came to the verse in which Jesus says the following:

15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

This is part of the instructions that Jesus is giving the 12 disciples before He sends them out to preach to the House of Israel. He has already indicated that they will encounter two types of people in their mission work: those who are worthy, and those who are unworthy.

The worthy will open their doors to the disciples, invite them in, and listen to their preaching about the Kingdom of Heaven.  The message will be a blessing to them.

But the other group will refuse to listen to the message. For those in cities and households who refuse to listen, the disciples are not to stay with them. They are to leave, and to shake the dust off their shoes as they leave. This indicates that their wickedness is so pervasive, that it even infects the dust around them. Therefore, the disciples are to make sure and not spread that dust elsewhere.

It is after Jesus tell them this, that He gives the warning quoted above. The sin of rejecting the gospel is far worse than the sin committed in Sodom and Gomorrah.

This is not to say the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is to be taken lightly. Sodom and Gomorrah stand as an open testimony to the world about the wickedness that was committed there. The men of those cities were at the height of depravity and abominations. You can’t get much worse.

But, according to Jesus, there is something that is worse than the heinous sins committed in Sodom and Gomorrah: it is the rejection of the gospel, of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of the King Himself. This sin is far worse than that of S&G, and will receive much greater judgment than those who actually died in those fires of brimstone.

Why is this?

To be given the message of the gospel, of Christ, of the risen Savior, is the greatest act of God’s mercy and grace a person can receive. In the gospel, we are seeing the richest aspect of God’s love, grace, and kindness toward humanity that exists. There is no greater demonstration of God’s love than this.

Therefore, to reject the greatest act of love in history, is to basically say to God: your gift is worthless and I want nothing to do with it. This sin is far worse than that of S&G. While the sin of S&G was against God’s image, and a personal assault upon His nature and character, the sin of rejecting the gospel is against God’s mercy and His Son. This makes it far worse than what those in S&G did. They were acting in ignorance of His grace and mercy. This does not excuse them, but it is worth noting.

The people who hear the gospel are being given a true blessing in hearing of God’s mercy and His Son. Therefore, the responsibility to believe is far greater. The rejection of the greater gift, ends in greater judgment.

You can hear the rest of the sermon HERE.

 

Asking for Sign Gifts Is to Doubt in God’s Goodness

In my most recent sermon, I was preaching through Matthew 10:7ff, in which Jesus is giving instructions to the 12 disciples before sending them out to the House of Israel.

At one point, He tells them to: 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.

One might ask: how come our preachers do not do this today? It’s a good question.

Matthew Henry answers the question by stating that the sign gifts were given to help authenticate the message being preached in order to lay the foundation of the Kingdom. Now that the canon of Scripture is closed, giving us all we need for faith and practice, there is no longer a need to lay the foundation again.

In fact, Henry says to ask for such signs, is an attempt to re-lay the foundation of the church that is already laid, and worse, tempting God.

We tempt God when we doubt in the provisions He has blessed us with. We are, in effect, saying that the preaching of God’s word is not sufficient when we ask for miracles, or even add to the worship, things not prescribed.

We need to trust in the means of grace that He has given to us: the preaching of His word, the sacraments, and prayer. These are the tools given by the Holy Spirit. Let us use them by faith to extend His Kingdom.

You can listen to the full sermon HERE.

The House of Israel

Why does Jesus send the disciples to the House of Israel and not the Samaritans and Gentiles? It seems like Jesus is playing favorites. However, when you look into Israel’s history, how they came about, and the reasons God chose them as His people, we see there is no room for boasting at all. They were raised up as God’s nation by His grace, and grace alone. The people of Israel have no reason to boast.

Hear the full sermon preached at Waco Reformed Church here.

Sermon Texts: Deuteronomy 7:1-11, Matthew 10:5-18