The Insidious Sin of Racism

In view of Martin Luther King Jr Day, I want to talk about the insidious sin of racism. By racism, I am referring to prejudice or hatred directed against a person on the basis of his race. By sin, I am referring to the affront against God that such hatred of human beings made in his image perpetrates. And by insidious, I am referring to how subtle and deceptive the sin of racism is.

Of course, there is a sense in which all sin is insidious. It is very easy to rationalize away convictions, to invent excuses for doing what we know is against the will of God. Even more pernicious is the tendency toward self-righteousness, the eager impulse to condemn others while ignoring our own glaring sins. The sin of racism is particularly prone to this sort of superficial sanctimony.

For instance, racism is not just a white problem. To be sure, it is indeed the case that many white people have hated or discriminated against others merely because their skin color was different. And since caucasians are the broad majority of people who have lived in the United States, it would be accurate to say that – in terms of sheer volume – many more white people have been guilty of racism than other races. Further, since white people have historically dominated the political and financial institutions of our nation, it is also true to say that whites have been far more guilty of manipulating the levers of power to impose racist policies.

But this is a different matter altogether from saying that racism itself is just a white problem. Human depravity is colorblind, and it is possible for anyone of any race to hate someone else for any number of superficial reasons, including skin color. A few years ago when I lived in Nashville, I was walking through the parking lot of the local Walmart to to head inside the store when I was met by three young black ladies on their way out of the store. I could tell that one of them was ticked off about something. As we passed each other, she looked directly at me, and then shouted out loud, “I hate white people!” I almost instinctively responded, “Hey, what did I ever do to you?!?” But I didn’t do anything – it was a pretty disorienting experience! I really regret now that I didn’t stop and try to share the gospel with her and her friends. My guess is that something happened in the store that made her angry, and that the person who made her angry was white. It may even be the case that someone treated her poorly simply because she was black. I don’t really know. All I do know is that – at least for that moment – she was gripped with hatred. Make no mistake – many more African-Americans have stories like this (and much worse) than I ever will. The point is that the sin of racism is not limited to race.

Indeed, as a white person, the form of racism that perplexes me the most is the racism that occurs among people of color that is directed toward people of color. There are “light-skinned” people of color who discriminate against “dark-skinned” people of color, for instance. This phenomenon – call shadism – most likely has its roots in the practice of chattel slavery, in which lighter-skinned African slaves were given the “house slave” tasks and those who were darker were made “field slaves.” It’s also the case that some people of color look down on others for not being “black enough.” This is so foreign to my experience as a white person, I would love to hear more from those of you who have experienced this particularly insidious form of racism.

But the point is that racism is a bigger issue than just a sin of white people. Let me stress – this is in no way an effort to mitigate or minimize the awful sin of racism among whites. If anything, the point I am making is that racism is a much bigger problem than we all like to admit.

Racism is not just a white problem, nor is it just a southern problem. It is inarguable that the American south has been the location of some of the worst instances of racism. The South’s history of slavery, segregation, and suppression of civil rights is well documented. But my contention is that because the South’s record is on such clear display, it is easy to reduce racism to a regional issue and to ignore just how systemic a sin it actually is. Let me illustrate what I mean.

Last year I read an op-ed in a southern newspaper about the contemporary use of symbols associated with the Confederacy, like the battle flag. Apparently a school in east Tennessee used the flag in connection with their cheers as “Rebels”.

The president of the student council – a white girl – was scheduled to testify in support of the flag, but first, we would hear from the president of the senior class – a black boy. As the young man described what it felt like to attend a school where he was surrounded by a flag flown by those who had beaten, sold, enslaved and torn black families asunder, the students in the audience were visibly moved.

I don’t question that young man’s sincerity in the least. But here is the problem – if the disqualifying criteria for a symbol is whether it was used “by those who had beaten, sold, enslaved and torn black families asunder,” then the flag of the United States would be disqualified as well. At the time of the War Between the States, slavery still existed in many states that remained in the Union and were represented by that flag, including Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. This remained the case throughout the entire war, since the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that seceded and specifically exempted the states (and portions of states) that remained in the Union. As Jim Webb has written:

The consequence of this reality was that in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give up theirs. (Born Fighting, p. 223).

It was not until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment after the war that slavery was abolished in all states. So just like the Confederate flag, the Union flag was flown “by those who had beaten, sold, enslaved and torn black families asunder.” But it is all too easy to treat the issue as a purely regional matter and ignore this simple fact of history.

Moving from the narrow issue of slavery to the broader issue of racism, the notion that we are dealing with a southern problem is truly absurd. Anyone with a working knowledge of the prevailing racial attitudes among people in the North during the war understands that theories of racial superiority were commonplace. Outright hostility was often directed against African-Americans, such as when the federal government attempted to enforce the draft in 1863. Riots broke out in New York, during which African Americans were target and murdered (the movie Gangs of New York is roughly based on this event).

The simple fact is that it is impossible to find a region of American that is innocent of the sin of racism.  Chicago politics has a notorious history of race-baiting tactics (a fascinating book on Chicago political history is Rogues, Rebels, and Rubber Stamps).  Indiana was the KKK’s biggest stronghold in the 1920s. Boston has the reputation of America’s most racist sports town (full disclosure: I say this as a fan of the Lakers during the 1980s who despised the Celtics!). Detroit was the scene of violent riots in the aftermath of racially-motivated police brutality in the 60s (portrayed recently in the movie Detroit). Similar riots happened in Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992. Portland has a long history of entrenched racism despite its reputation as a progressive city.

From the South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the West to the Northwest, the sin of racism has proven itself to be ubiquitous. And yet, I can’t help but notice that it is often the South that is singled out. I’ve heard people say things like, “We shouldn’t sing songs about the ‘good ole days’ in the South since so many black people were treated unjustly in the old South.” It is undeniable that African-Americans were treated horribly in the South. But show me any region of the country where black people have always been treated wonderfully. It doesn’t exist. And since that is the case, when the South gets singled out, it is hard for me not to conclude that racial prejudice has simply been traded in for regional prejudice. And that is why racism is so insidious.

And things are bound to get worse. As we become a more secular nation, we are losing the sense of the transcendent, and without that there is nothing to hold us together. Dr. King could storm the will of the American conscience because of the widely shared conviction that we are all God’s children. As that common ground erodes beneath our feet, all that will be left are the “jangling discords” of identity politics. The far Left and the far Right are each in their own way in the grip of this fixation on racial identity. And the partisans of both extremes share one central conviction – it is impossible for those of different races to understand each other, to empathize with one another, and thus to care for each other.

My only hope is the gospel. This is not a wishful fantasy. It is a hope rooted in the power of Christ to bring people together into a new identity, a new family, a new citizenship, a new race. A race in which the only color that counts is the red blood of his atoning death. And I’ve seen the reconciling power of the gospel firsthand – I’ve known former militant black nationalists and KKK klansmen who now worship together in the embrace of God’s grace. That is amazing! That is the gospel. Do Christians always get it right? Of course not – remember, racism is truly insidious. But through the gospel we have the one certain answer to all sin, and by it we can work toward this day:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:9-10)

MLK and the Role of Religion in Public Life

Monday is Martin Luther King, Jr Day. Many TV and radio programs traditionally mark the occasion by replaying King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. Here are links to read and watch it if you’ve never done so.

It is interesting to think about King’s speech in light of the growing secularism of America. I have many friends who are atheists and agnostics, and they are quick to argue that religion should have no place in public life in America. In their mind, religious beliefs should not be permitted to influence what the law says – separation of church and state forbids this. The late atheist provocateur, Christopher Hitchens, summed up this secularist creed in a debate against Tony Blair:

Relatively simply, the United States has uniquely a constitution that forbids the government to take sides in any religious matter, or to sponsor a church, or to adopt any form of faith itself.

Hitches was arguing for the exclusion of all religious beliefs from any public policy question.

Contrast this attitude with King’s speech. When Martin Luther King Jr argued for civil rights for black Americans, he did so on explicitly (though not exclusively) religious grounds.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

King was not arguing for the federal government to officially recognize a “state church.” He was not claiming that the Congress codify specific religious practices like adult baptism or congregational church polity. Those actions would indeed violate what the First Amendment is about.

But he was arguing that government policy should reflect the view of human rights that flows from belief in God as Father and all humans as his children. Separation of church and state is one thing, but separation of faith from the state is a different matter entirely. Those who purport that religious faith should have no bearing on public policy are Constitutionally naive and historically illiterate.

King’s rousing conclusion to his speech sounds just like something a Baptist minister (which he was) might say:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

It is undeniable that religious faith played an enormous role in the civil rights movement. By the way, it is also inarguable that religion played a role in the effort to oppose civil rights – religious faith in and of itself is not a good or bad thing. My point here is that I’ve never seen any secularist impugn the religious motives of those who advocated for civil rights, like MLK.

And the fact is that when you get right down to it, what really bothers most secularists is not whether religion plays a role in government, but which religion it will be. Last year during Senate confirmation hearings, two different senators, Bernie Sanders and Diane Feinstein, explicitly attacked nominees to federal positions because they were professed believers from conservative faiths. This is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, which expressly forbids a religious test for public office. That doesn’t matter to dogmatic secularists like Sanders and Feinstein.

Yet at the same time as these senators undermined nominees to public service because their religious beliefs may have an impact on their work, the Boston Globe wrote a glowing piece about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s faith.

But religious leaders who have known her since her first run for public office say her Christian faith is a constant, if quiet, presence in her life, that it is deep and authentic, and informs her work as a senator.

If you read the article, you will find that Warren is deeply convicted by Jesus’ teaching about taking care of the poor and needy, and that it motivates her commitment to social justice. I am sure Sanders and Feinstein (and my secularist friends) have no problem with THAT religious belief informing public policy. It’s only the religious beliefs that they dislike (like the sanctity of unborn life and traditional marriage) that should be barred from public life.

Human rights don’t just magically appear. They flow from the belief in something transcendent, something that lies beyond the natural order of race and ethnicity. Societies that deny this transcendence (the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China), have horrific human rights records precisely for this reason. I don’t think my secularist friends on the Left  understand the implications of their effort to scrub faith from public life.

And what is most alarming to me is the growing secularism of the Right. The alt-right movement is an example of what happens when so-called “conservatism” is cut loose from its moorings in the tradition of faith. And once the secularists on the Left and the Right realize how much they truly have in common in their abhorrence of faith-informed civic life, night will truly descend on our society.

People of good cheer, dedicated to civil society, have a lot of work to do to keep the dream alive to “transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”

Three Popular Misconceptions of God

On Sunday we began a new class at my congregation on the most important subject any person could study – God. Toward the end of class we discussed three very popular misconceptions of who God is. Here they are:

The Absent Landlord

Some of you may live in an apartment or a rental house that does not have a very responsive owner. He owns the property, but rarely checks on its condition, and if you reach out to ask for maintenance, he responds rarely – if at all. That’s the way many people look at God. They believe he created the universe, but having made the world, God basically takes a hands-off approach. There’s actually a technical term for this belief – deism, which was widely accepted in the 18th century.

On such a view, after the initial work of creation, God doesn’t really do very much. He certainly doesn’t respond to prayers. And according to this deistic outlook, we should only ascribe to divine intervention that which cannot be explained by science and the “laws of nature.” In this view, God is merely the “God of the gaps,” the gaps in our current scientific knowledge of the world.

But as that knowledge expands, the “gaps” get smaller, and so does the deistic picture of God. That’s why from a historical point of view deism was merely a milepost to atheism. It is a very short set of steps from “God is the landlord” to “God is the absent landlord” to “God is absent.”

The problem with this view of God is that it completely misses the point of what it means to say that God is the creator. According to Scripture, God is not simply the initiator of creation; he is also its sustainer. “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Every moment of the continued existence of the universe is radically dependent on God. “In him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). And what we call on our end the “laws of nature” are just descriptions of this ongoing work of God.

The deistic view of God gets God wrong from the very beginning. If you’ve ever made a wrong turn at the start of a long trip, you know that such a mistake leads you far from your destination. And deism’s wrong-headed concept of God as creator steers its adherents far from the true knowledge of God. And this fundamentally inadequate view of God is the basis of an even more insidious misconception…

The Doting Grandfather

I was raised by my mom and her parents. My granddad – “Pop” – was my buddy. One time when I was a child, I did something wrong, and Mom sent me to bed without supper (a form of punishment she obviously chose very rarely!). Not long after I was sent to the bedroom, I heard the door open and looked up to see Pop sneaking in with a plate of food!

This is how a lot of people conceive of God. He is like a grandpa who dotes on his grandchildren. The last thing he would ever do is discipline us for any mistakes we make. In his eyes, we can do no wrong!

This view of God is widespread. In  Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, two social scientists surveyed the religious beliefs of American teens. The authors coined a term to encapsulate what they found to be the predominant religious outlook – Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. Deism because it assumes that God isn’t really interested in how we live. Moralistic because it holds that people should try to be nice to each other. And therapeutic because it affirms that what God wants us for us to feel good about ourselves.

You may have never heard the phrase Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, but I bet you have heard someone say – in an effort to justify something they want to do that is flatly contradicted by Scripture – “but God wants me to be happy!” THAT is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The problem with this dogma is not that it declares that God wants us to be happy. The problem is how it defines happiness. Scripture promises us “joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (1 Peter 1:8) – but that joy is found through self-denying devotion to God, not through self-indulgent disregard for God.

This sort of joy is only possible if we have a a view of God that is compelling. But there is third inadequate view of God that undermines this gripping vision.

The Cosmic Superhero

Have you ever heard someone refer to God as “the man upstairs”? I have. And while this phrase is usually spoken out of recognition of the need for God’s help, it suggests a view of God that is far too much like us. This sort of anthropomorphic picture of God, in which he is depicted as a bigger/stronger/smarter version of human beings, turns God into a super-hero character like Thor or Spider-Man. Now, I happen to love Spider-Man. But there’s nothing about him that inspires me to life-long self-denial in order to be with him forever!

The God described in the Bible is not merely a powerful human being, or even an amazing angel. No, God is the ultimate ground of all created reality,  “who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6). His ways and thoughts are infinitely greater than ours, “as the heavens are higher than the earth” (Isaiah 55:9). God is beyond all comparison.

To whom then will you compare me,
    that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
    who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
    calling them all by name;
by the greatness of his might
    and because he is strong in power,
    not one is missing.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
    and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the LORD,
    and my right is disregarded by my God”?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
    the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
    his understanding is unsearchable. (Isaiah 40:25-28)

God is not Superman. Superman came from somewhere and can be contained by kryptonite. God did not come to be – he IS, and nothing can contain him. He is incomparable!

In his classic book The Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer wrote:

“I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.” (p. 2)

I believe Tozer was exactly right. The most urgent need of modern Christianity is a recovery of the true knowledge of God.

Who Caused Job’s Suffering?

Job’s Despair, by William Blake

This week we wrapped up a study of the Book of Job where I preach. Toward the end of the book there is a passage that presents a bracing view of God’s role in Job’s suffering:


Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold. (Job 42:11)

“All the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.”

Wait – I thought Job’s suffering was caused by the nebulous figure described in the opening chapters as The Accuser. Why does this text claim that it was the LORD who caused Job’s disasters?

This is not the only time in the book that responsibility for Job’s adversity is ascribed to God. In the second chapter, after Job’s initial set of catastrophic losses, the LORD asks The Accuser:

“Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” (Job 2:3)

Here, God says that he is the one who destroyed Job.

What are we to make of this language? After all, the straightforward reading of the text indicates that the immediate and direct cause of Job’s suffering was The Accuser. Notice the interplay that takes place in these exchanges between God and the evil one:

“But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord. (1:11-12)

And again-

“But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life.” (Job 2:5-6)

In each case, The Accuser challenges God to stretch his hand against Job, and the LORD replies by telling The Accuser that Job is in his hand – within certain parameters.

This interaction between God and The Accuser gives us a glimpse into the interplay between two profound truths in Scripture: the sovereignty of God and the freedom of creatures. On the one hand, God permits The Accuser to do harm to Job, even as he sets out clear boundaries that constrain what The Accuser can do. On the other hand, The Accuser has the freedom to do harm to Job, within the limits carefully defined by God.

So, who is responsible for Job’s suffering – God or The Accuser? The answer is…both, but in different senses. The Accuser is immediately and directly responsible for Job’s catastrophes, but God is ultimately and finally responsible since The Accuser could only do what he did by God’s permission.

This is true not only of The Accuser’s actions, but of all evil choices made by creatures. The Bible teaches that all of us live, move, and have our being in God (Acts 17:28). Every moment of every creature’s existence is dependent on God. But obviously, what we as his creatures actually do with this gift of existence is not always in keeping with God’s expressed preferences. Just as God permitted The Accuser to do evil, God also permits us to do evil as well.

Really, then, the questions raised about God, The Accuser, and Job are merely reflective of the deeper questions that believers have pondered since time immemorial – why did God make the sovereign decision to grant human beings (and angels) freedom,  even when we could do evil things with that freedom? Why does God permit us to rebel against him and do harm to others?

So far as I’m aware, Scripture never systematically answers this question in the way that we’d probably like, but I do think there are some basic points we can set forth that help us grapple with the question.

First, the decision to grant creatures the gift of freedom was God’s sovereign choice. No one made him do this. God freely chose to create human beings and angels with free will.

Second, the freedom that God has given to creatures is not absolute. God remains sovereign, and in that sovereignty maintains control over his creatures. Just as The Accuser could do only so much to Job and no more, all of God’s creatures remain “on the leash” of his permissive will.

Third, since we know that God is love (1 John 4:8) and that the greatest commands are to love God and man (Deuteronomy 6:4; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:34-40), we can surmise that an important reason – maybe the reason – God gave his creatures free will is so that they can love him and others. It is difficult to imagine any meaningful definition of “love” that does not involve freedom of the will, after all.

Fourth, because God is sovereign, even though he permits his creatures to make evil choices, he also has the power to make good things happen in the face of that evil. Job is one of the paramount examples of this in all of Scripture. Through Job’s suffering God brought Job to a clearer vision of God (and discredited the baseless slander of The Accuser in the process).

Fifth, since God is sovereign, he has the power to bring all evil and all suffering to an end. We get a glimpse of this at the end of the Book of Job, when the LORD restores Job’s health, prosperity, and family. We get an even grander vision of this at the end of the Bible, with its promise of a new creation.

God is willing to “take responsibility” for Job’s suffering, and for ours, for all of these reasons. It is not always easy to work out the dynamic give and take of divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom. But God doesn’t expect us to do that, anyway. What he does call us to do is to trust him, to look forward to the day he makes all things new, and to care for each other in the meantime.

In other words, God calls us to faith, hope, and love.


Putting Smarter “Resolve” into Your New Year’s Resolutions

SO, how are those New Year’s resolutions going? One study suggests that 92% of us will fail to keep the resolutions we made. And if you are hanging in there so far, don’t assume you will be in the 8% of successful “resolvers”. Check back at Valentine’s Day, because this study found that 80% of resolutions falter by the second week of February.

This is especially frustrating for Christians who set spiritually oriented resolutions, like a more consistent daily prayer habit or reading through the Bible in a year. It is bad enough to stumble in an effort to lose weight or stop binge-watching TV, but when you feel like you have failed drawing closer to God, that is deeply disheartening. And those who are demoralized find it even more difficult to be motivated.

If you are already disappointed in yourself because a resolution has come to a screeching halt, I have some advice for you. Actually, it’s not my advice – it is something I picked up from a great little book called Finish: Give Yourself the Gift of Done, by Jon Acuff. Acuff suggests that the root of such failures is the lie of perfectionism.

So for instance, let’s say you started a daily Bible reading plan, but Wednesday your kids were hit by a stomach bug, and you completely forgot to do the reading. What often happens is that this thought creeps in – “I’ve already blown it, so I might as well just forget doing a daily reading this year.” Real life has a way of interrupting our sincerely conceived resolutions, preventing us to flawlessly execute them each and every day.

The lie here is that merely because you weren’t able to carry out the resolution perfectly, you might as well quit (Acuff says that might as well is “one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language” – p. 11). But think about it – suppose you missed the entire first week of daily Bible reading, but the next week you picked up where you should have been and worked through the rest of the year. This would mean that at the end of the year you will have read 98% of the Bible. Would you be closer to your spiritual goals as a result of that? Of course!

This is why Acuff says that “the day after perfect” is crucial. How do you respond the day after your streak of reading or praying ends? Do you succumb to the lie of perfectionism, or do you resume reading or praying, knowing that an imperfect habit of spiritual renewal is far more valuable than no habit at all?

In the next few weeks I’ll share some more pointers from this book on how to finish what you start. But for now, take heart my faltering friends! The Christian life is a marathon, not a 100 yard dash, and any step forward is better than no step at all.

Thinking Through Faith and…What Interested You in 2017


As I wrap up the first year of the blog, I thought I would share the Top Ten most viewed posts. It always interests me what interests you, and this is quite a diverse list of posts. Thanks again for dropping by so often! Here’s wishing you every good blessing from God this coming year.


10. Giving Thanks for Cancer? As my wife battles cancer, I’ve often wrestled with the biblical admonition to “give thanks for everything.” Here is my best take on that admonition.

9. A Second Look at Mike Pence’s “Rule” In light of the numerous stories about sexual misconduct that emerged this year, Pence’s rule against socializing in private with women other than his wife looks pretty good.

8. Christ Is All, and In All Back in May I preached for a remarkable congregation in Chillicothe, OH, and I just had to share what I saw there.

7. How Do You Define “Marriage”? I argued for the organic definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman in contrast to the incoherent approach that defines marriage synthetically.

6. In Sickness and In Health Many of you commented at how moved you were by the simple act of kindness I witnessed between a husband and his ailing wife. I was, too!

5. “The Dangers of Sophistication” in Barbershop Music and Worship Music My primary hobby is singing barbershop-style music, so I thought I would discuss an issue that affects that world and also the world of hymnody. Music that is inaccessible to the average singer is not healthy for churches, or for barbershop.

4. The Degrading Plague of Pornography The great modern menace of purity.

3. Eulogy for the Obama Presidency I shared this link with CBS sports writer Seth Davis on Twitter, and he re-tweeted it to his followers, garnering lots of feedback.

2. Hugh Hefner, the Vegas Shooter, and the Meaning of “Judge Not” Jesus’ instruction to “judge not” is the most misunderstood command in the gospels. And really, everyone believes in judging immoral behavior – the only real issue is what constitutes immorality.

And, the most viewed post of 2017 was…

  1. Speaking Up for Tamar I was completely caught off guard by the reaction to this post. The fact that it was viewed so widely must mean that the problem of sexual abuse is FAR more common than I ever imagined. It was heartbreaking to read private message after private message from people whose lives have been forever changed by sexual abuse. Perhaps one good thing to come from the rash of stories about sexual misconduct is the willingness of victims to speak out, and the compassion of those around them to show support at such a vulnerable time in their life.




Thinking Through Faith and…Civil Society

As the year of 2017 comes to a close I am relinking some of the posts that matter most to me from the previous year. Yesterday I linked all of my posts about marriage. Today, I’m rounding up all of the posts that might be broadly categorized as having to do with civil society. What I mean by this term is the fundamental set of beliefs that enable us as Americans to forge a cohesive society in the midst of real differences. Several posts this year touched on various threats to this cohesion – the effort to undermine religious liberty, the growing emphasis on identity politics, the stain of racism – just to name a few. I’m not very optimistic about the future of civil society in America, but I am very hopeful about the opportunity this growing darkness presents Christians to show the world what God’s society – the church – really looks like.

A Message to Exiles – building off of Jeremiah’s instructions to the exiles of Judah in Jeremiah 29, I offer some applications for Christians living as “strangers and exiles” in the world.

The Intolerant Future of Post-Christian America – reflections on a Peter Beinart article in The Atlantic showing that the growing secularism of those on the Left and the Right does not bode well for the values on which civil society depends.

You Don’t Have to Agree With Your Neighbor to Love Him – in a civil society we can disagree with one another profoundly yet care for one another deeply.

Bernie Sanders Jumps the Shark – the troubling effort of Senator Sanders to impose a religious test on a public official.

“The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You” – Senator Diane Feinstein’s similar effort to impose a religious test on a judicial nominee.

Assimilate or Pay the Price – a brief defense of religious liberty. Sadly, there seem to be very few old-fashioned liberals (“I disagree with you but I’ll defend your rights”) left in our culture.

The Catastrophe of Identity Politics – this is my effort to explain why identity politics is an acid that destroys everything it touches. The bottom line is this: our commonly shared humanity allows us to understand those who are of a different race, ethnicity, or social status.

The Inevitable Self-Destruction of Identity Politics – focus on external identities inevitably leads to internal rivalries.

The Greatest Campaign Speech Ever – a look at Robert Kennedy’s famous speech the night of MLK’s murder, and what it teaches us about the ability to empathize across racial barriers.

Reflections on the Events of the Weekend – the Nazi/alt right movement’s protests in Charlottesville reveal that identity politics is not limited to the Left.


Thinking Through Faith and…Marriage

As 2017 draws to a close, I want to thank those of you who took time this year to read the blog. I started this primarily to force myself to be a more disciplined and consistent writer, but your feedback has been enormously helpful. As of today there have been over 36,000 views of the blog this year – exceeding my wildest dreams! By the way, if you haven’t do so, subscribe to the blog by entering your email in the box you see on the left so that you can get these posts delivered to your virtual mailbox.

Over the next couple of days I want to pull together links to the articles from the past year that mean the most to me personally. First up: various posts about marriage.

The “Mystery” of Marriage – a look at Paul’s understanding of marriage as a model of the eternal plan of redemption.

Love, Marriage, and Commitment – a survey of love songs over the years and what they tell us about the changing understanding of “love”.

The Degrading Plague of Pornography – one of the gravest threats to marriage in our culture.

Marriage, “From Here to Eternity” – placing marriage in the context of eternal realities.

Put on the New Self…In Marriage – applying the description of a transformed life in Ephesians 4 to marriage in particular.

“To Have and to Hold…Until Death Do We Part” – a tribute to two heroic examples of sacrificial love in marriage.

In Sickness and in Health – a personal story about love in the midst of illness.

A Second Look at Mike Pence’s “Rule” – those who believe marriage is a sacred covenant with God take special care to protect it.


Why the Abortion Issue Matters So Much to Many of Us

A fetus at 12 weeks (

Last week I made the following post on Facebook directed to my pro-life Christian friends in Alabama in connection with the special election for the U.S. Senate:


To my pro-life Christian friends in Alabama, I am heartsick for you today. Like many of you did, if I lived in AL I would have stayed home or written someone else in. Just remember, in politics you often have to lose battles to win wars. More significantly, remember that through the gospel you will help the cause of life more than you ever can through the ballot box. “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Based on many comments I had read from friends in Alabama, I sensed that many of them were truly heartbroken by that election – especially those who felt, as I did, that Roy Moore was morally disqualified from holding office. By voting for a write-in candidate (or by staying home), odds were that a pro-choice candidate would win the election, a prospect that was painful for those who treasure the cause of life. I grieved along with my friends who made this painful decision, and I wanted to encourage them.

Social media being what it is, many friends who were not addressed in the post (that is to say, who are not Christians/pro-life/heartbroken), felt compelled to jump in and comment. Since the point of the post was emotional rather than polemical, the last thing I wanted was a re-hash of all the issues of the campaign. Some pilloried the notion of “single-issue voters” who let a candidate’s views on abortion be the determining factor in an election. Others argued that candidates who do not support government aid like the CHIP program were not really pro-life. And so on.

In this post, I want to explain why the life issue means so much to so many of us – why it is such a determinative factor in how (or whether) we vote.

Let me begin with a historical analogy. Let’s suppose you lived in Illinois in 1858, during the Senate campaign that pitted Abraham Lincoln against Stephen A. Douglas. Undoubtedly there were many issues on the table in that campaign, like tariff policy. But the predominant issue was the expansion of slavery into new territories. And at the heart of that issue was what it means to be a person – a person with rights under the protection of the Constitution. Douglas argued that blacks were not persons. Lincoln argued that – as the Declaration declared – “all men are created equal,” and endowed with the inalienable rights of life and liberty.

If you lived at that time and place, who would you have supported? What if you actually agreed with Douglas on all the other issues but slavery – would you have supported him anyway? Or, would you have decided that while other issues are important, the issue of slavery – with its implications about human personhood – was of paramount importance?

Those of us who are pro-life do not see the issue as merely one of several issues. Just like the question of slavery, it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a person. How is personhood decided?  Is it based on extrinsic features (like color, or age, or “viability”)? Or is it based on intrinsic rights given by God to human beings, period?

It is certainly undeniable that at conception we are dealing with a human being. That is basic biology, as this educational video explains. As the narrator comments:

“Fertilization is the epic story of a single sperm facing incredible odds to unite with an egg and form a new human life. It is the story of all of us.”

The issue then is whether this human being has the rights of a person under the protection of the Constitution. In the Roe Vs. Wade decision, the Court decided that the right to life afforded to persons did not include fetuses until they were “viable,” until they could live on their own outside of the mother’s womb.

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.

The Court determined that viability is “usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” And so the Court ruled that states may prohibit abortions in the third trimester.

In other words, according to the Court there is no intrinsic right to personhood for a human being. This was a purely arbitrary decision, since the point of viability is – as the Court acknowledged – not a hard and fast matter for medical science. Indeed, since the early 1970s, medical technology has made it possible for babies born much earlier than the third trimeter to survive.

By grounding the Roe decision in an extrinsic feature like viability, the Court made the same mistake as did those who denied the rights of personhood to slaves on the basis of another extrinsic feature (race). Those of us who are pro-life believe that human beings as such are persons under the Constitution, and deserving of the right to life. And since that is the case, the abortion issue could hardly be just one issue among many – any more than the slavery issue could have been in 1858.

I recognize there are other issues in any campaign. Take the case of the CHIP program. Providing health care for poor children is a serious issue. But here’s the thing – there are genuine policy debates to be had as to how best to accomplish that objective. I’m not a doctrinaire conservative on such matters, and would be open to lots of ideas. But debating policy is one thing – debating personhood itself is a vastly different kind of issue. And on that issue, there isn’t a wide set of options. Either a fetus is a person or she isn’t.

In the case of the Alabama election, the choice was between a pro-life candidate who was morally compromised (in the view of many of us) and a pro-choice candidate. In fact, Doug Jones is radically pro-choice. Far beyond the Roe decision which defined personhood at viability, Jones expressed support in an interview with Chuck Todd for choice throughout the entire nine months of a pregnancy:

Todd: You wouldn’t be in favor of legislation that said “ban abortion after 20 weeks,” or something like that?

Jones: No, I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose. That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years, it’s the position I continue to have…But I want to make sure people understand that once a baby is born, I’m going to be there for that child, that’s where I become a right-to-lifer.”

In a later interview, Jones tried to walk back this extreme view and express support for some restrictions to late-term abortions:

“Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That’s what I support. I don’t see any changes in that. It is a personal decision.”

I personally find this as unconvincing as Roy Moore’s defenses of his conduct.

And thus the broken heart for my fellow pro-life friends in Alabama who were confronted with these candidates in light of the central human rights issue of our generation. And also the encouragement. The encouragement to remember that politics is a long game in which you sometimes lose battles (as Lincoln lost that Senate race) to win wars, and consolation of knowing that whatever happens politically, the loving spread of the gospel will always be the most pro-life thing we can ever do spiritually.

Reflection on the Reformation (Part 3) – The Issue of Justification

This is the third of three posts reflecting on the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. In these reflections I’ve benefited tremendously from a book called Was the Reformation a Mistake?. In this book, Catholic scholar Matthew Levering and Protestant scholar Kevin Vanhoozer exchange ideas on a full array of issues. I have picked three that separate Catholics and Protestants, with the desire to – as much as is possible – dispassionately analyze what I think each side gets right and wrong. In the first post I looked at the matter of authority, and in the second post I examined the subject of baptism. In this third post I want to look at the topic of justification. Continue reading