Category Archives: Jesus

The Chosen: the Pride Flag Controversy

Posted on by
6
Jonathan Roumie as Jesus in The Chosen

Sometimes I am so disappointed with Evangelical subculture. There are some great things there, and in my opinion, one of the best things to come out of those two, dismal COVID years was Dallas Jenkins’s series about Jesus called The Chosen.

Apparently like many people, I didn’t have high expectations for The Chosen. That has changed. There are many things Jenkins and company really get right. A big one is that the writing team consults with a group of advisers from various backgrounds, including a Messianic Jewish rabbi. The fruit of this is good. The Chosen series feels very Jewish, as it should. It has been a conviction of mine for years that one cannot understand Jesus deeply without understanding the Jewish context in which He lived His earthly life.

Another aspect to love is the concept of character development. Some are now viewing this as a red flag – the concocting of “unbiblical” back-stories to fill in the gaps of the sparse biblical narrative. But friends, this is called historical fiction – creating plausible narratives that are informed by a culturally recognizable context, including both actual and made up events.

But is this a good idea? Is this taking liberty with the sacred text? I would assert that the writers are not taking liberties with the text. When the show’s dialogue intersects with actual biblical passages, the writers take care to remain true to what is written in the scriptures, and a biblically literate viewer is always able to recognize those passages. Here is a screenshot of the intro from episode one:

Intro message from episode 1 of The Chosen

So why the back-stories? In my opinion, this is the genius of The Chosen. It is these fictitious back-stories that enable viewers to emotionally connect with the characters, so that when we do get to the scriptural words and actions of Jesus, they land on us in a more profound way.

The characters are unapologetically depicted as human and flawed, and we understand that something like what we’re seeing may very well have occurred that made the words and actions of Jesus more meaningful for them than we know. Think of the comfort and prestige of Nicodemas’s life and the tension that creates in him. Or Nathanael’s desire to glorify God, and his crisis of faith under the fig tree. Or Mary’s struggle with her past and with her self worth.

Every character is imagined with a unique story and personality. We can sympathize with them and their struggles. This is good storytelling.

To segue into the flag controversy, there is another aspect to love about The Chosen. We now know that Dallas and his wife have chosen to run their company in such a way that “there is no spiritual litmus test” for the people they employ. Furthermore they do not disallow personal expression within an employee’s personal space, nor do they attempt to monitor their employees’ social media accounts and personal lives. Consequently there is a diversity of opinions being expressed on and off the set. In Dallas’s words, “we discuss our differences in the context of relationship”… as a “family” To me that’s Spirit-informed thinking.

This diversity of viewpoints on the set showed up recently in a promo video for season four. An independent contractor had an American flag and a pride flag mounted on his camera, and the flags briefly appeared in the behind-the-scenes video. Fans were not pleased. Accusations have flown. Rumors have spread. Many have withdrawn support. Comparisons have been made to Target and Bud light. A boycott has been called for.

Director Dallas Jenkins responded with a 20 minute Youtube post, but the majority of people commenting are not satisfied. Within evangelicalism and conservatism there is currently a backlash to LGBTQ+ initiatives and not without good reason. Concerns run the gamut from the erasure of biological women, their opportunities, and their private spaces, to children being psychologically and even physically damaged by gender ideology. So a pride flag on a promo video for The Chosen is unacceptable for many fans, regardless of why it’s there.

So why was it there? Dallas claims they didn’t notice it. Perhaps because it’s something they see every day on set. But he stated clearly, “I don’t celebrate pride.” The Chosen did not “wave/promote the LGBTQ pride flag” as some claim. I appreciate his transparency regarding how he runs his business. I think letting us see the diversity behind the scenes is better than editing out the flag and projecting a false image of everyone on the set being a conservative evangelical. It’s also better than banning personal expression on the set and punishing non-compliance, as some are now advocating.

But what about the message that’s being sent in the promo video? It looks like The Chosen is advocating LGBTQ+ ideology! Well, you could certainly say that. You could also say that it looks like some of The Chosen employees support LGBTQ+ ideology. Which apparently is true. However, the message that’s being communicated through The Chosen is in the show itself, and Dallas Jenkins is in control of that. So far, I’m not seeing liberal theology or “progressive Christianity” being promoted. I’m seeing a biblically-based focus on the person of Jesus, and on His messiahship. And I’m hearing about a lot of good fruit.

I agree that the concerns around gender ideology are legit, but this is not about The Chosen leadership compromising their beliefs. It’s about their association. I think Jesus might have something to teach us about that, but it might not be what some Chosen fans are thinking. Critics charge, “but Jesus said, ‘go and sin no more.’” Note that the Pharisees said that too. What do you suppose the difference was? One difference I see is that Jesus “associated with the lowly.” He ate with “sinners and tax collectors.” He served and had significant associations with women, “unclean” people, Roman soldiers, prostitutes, Samaritan “half-breeds,” gentiles, the poor, and others with whom the Pharisees would not associate. He therefore had credibility with marginalized people.

Regarding LGBTQ people, the conservative Evangelical Church has generally done a poor job of treating them as valuable human beings created in God’s image. Our “pro-family” stance is not perceived as compassionate, and that is a problem. There are many gay people who do not subscribe to the activist LGBTQ agenda. There are people in, or formerly in, our churches who have unwanted same sex attractions, but don’t feel they can tell anyone. There are dysphoric young people who are vulnerable to the acceptance being held out by LGBTQ activists, while the pro- family majority doesn’t feel very welcoming.

There is an enormous amount cultural confusion around the issue of human sexuality now, spurred on by media’s repetition of progressive myths like, “sex is a spectrum,” and “gender is a social construct.” The church of Jesus should be a clarifying and compassionate voice in the culture, but often we repeat tropes and platitudes with an approach that is more political than spiritual. Instead of approaching our fellow travelers with friendship, compassion, understanding, science, and revelation, so many of us go barreling down the wide road of groupthink. The Chosen controversy is a case in point; the rushing-to-judgment, rumors, gossip, and factionalism contradict the way of Jesus.

In an entertainment industry that mostly runs the gamut from pointless to poisonous, Dallas Jenkins and company have brought something rich and redemptive to the world. I applaud them for that. I’ve had a couple of points of disagreement with some lines in the show. Disagreements are okay because Jenkins and company are making a good faith effort. You may disagree with my take here. I welcome that. But in the church of Jesus especially, we need to stop being so quick to divide.

The day may come when the actual message of The Chosen departs from the Scriptures and badly misrepresents the Jesus we know and love. For me, that day is not today. If and until that day comes, how astonishingly self-defeating it would be if this project were to grind to a halt because of the reactions of Christians. SMH.

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls
(Prov 11:30, NASB)

There is one who speaks rashly like the thrusts of a sword, But the tongue of the wise brings healing (Prov 12:18, NASB)

The heart of the wise makes his speech judicious and adds persuasiveness to his lips
(Prov 16:23, ESV)

“Do You See This Woman?” – A New Painting

Posted on by
Reply
Oil painting of Jesus, and woman washing His feet with her tears
Do You See This Woman?, oil on canvas, 24×36″

One of the things I love about the Jesus of the Bible is how He revolutionized the status of women. His every interaction with women had unexpectedly affirming aspects for the time in which He lived. Women seemed to feel free to approach Him. Female followers supported Him financially. Even non-Jewish women received blessing from Him. The resurrection of Jesus is arguably the capstone of His redemptive work. To me it is noteworthy that He first entrusted the news of this world-changing miracle to a small group of women, knowing their testimony would be doubted.

A friend recently commissioned me to do an oil painting based on a passage found in the 7th chapter of the gospel of Luke. This passage describes one of Jesus’s affirming interactions with a woman in the face of religious self-righteousness.

The passage tells of a Pharisee issuing an invitation to Jesus, asking Him to come and dine with him at his house. This event was likely expected to feature a religious discussion around a meal. The invited men would recline around the table, while the uninvited villagers would be allowed to listen to the discussion from the perimeter of the room. Upon entering, each honored guest would be greeted with a kiss and have his feet washed. When Jesus enters Simon’s house, these customary gestures are not offered to Him. He quietly receives this insult and reclines at table.

The woman in the story is waiting for Jesus at the perimeter, holding an alabaster vial of perfume. She surely would’ve noticed the insult and she more than makes up for it, pouring out her love upon Jesus. She courageously approaches Him from behind, weeping. She kneels down and wets His feet with her tears. Then, breaking taboo, she lets down her hair in public and begins wiping His feet with her hair. She humbly kisses His feet repeatedly and anoints them with the perfume. The fragrance reaches everyone in the room.

It is an incredibly moving display, and Simon inwardly judges both the woman and Jesus for it. Jesus then speaks, asking Simon a question that illuminates exactly what is happening. And then, in what is my favorite part of the story, the narrative says, “…Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman?…’” This is the moment depicted in my painting.

I love that it says, “turning toward the woman.” Surely up to this point she must have felt alone, embarrassed, outcast, and perhaps ashamed, to be doing these things in a Pharisee’s house as an uninvited guest. But now Jesus is facing her. Facing her, seeing her, He continues speaking to Simon:

…I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet,
but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
You gave me no kiss;
but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet.
You did not anoint my head with oil,
but she has anointed my feet with perfume.
For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven,
for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.

Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.”

Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?”

And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

The light in the painting helps to tell the story. The face of Jesus is suffused with light. The woman’s upturned face receives the Light, while Simon’s face remains in shadow.

Jesus's face - detail of painting, "Do You See This Woman?"

Some of the cultural insights here are inspired by one of my primary spiritual mentors, Jonathan Williams. You can order his book, “The Women Jesus Loved,” here.

Going Forward, One Word Should Be Part of Any Discussion on Sex and Gender

Posted on by
2

I won’t make you wait for it. The word is Transhumanism.

This is a revolution that no one is talking about. Where are the news media and where are the “experts” on this? We should be having a national discussion around whether we even want to be on board with the dubious idea of transhumanism, and, for those who do, how they should cautiously proceed. Instead we are barreling down the transhuman highway with the windshield painted fuchsia.

What is Transhumanism? (Abbreviated as H+)
Transhumanism is a philosophical movement opining that we can and should overcome the natural biological limitations of humanity by means of science and technology. Some transhumanists envision enhancing human longevity and cognitive abilities to the degree that humans become “posthuman” creatures.

H+ stems from an evolutionary worldview. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, if one believes in a mindlessly and accidentally evolved universe, that we should intelligently direct the course of our own evolution now that we have the means to do so.

Here’s an illustrative quote from one transhumanist:

We believe it is our basic human right to be able to upgrade ourselves, and to develop and leverage the fundamental technologies that enable the next phase of evolution. We believe the future of the human race will not only allow us to opt out of nature’s selective processes and choose our own evolutionary paths, but that our very survival as a species depends on it. These beliefs are the cornerstone of Transhumanism. (Amal DT Graffstra).

To clarify, H+ is not the use of science and technology to restore the body’s natural functions or to facilitate healing. That is the role of traditional medical science. Nor is H+ the use of technology to restore disfigurement, or even to enhance one’s physical attractiveness. That is the role plastic/cosmetic surgery. Rather H+ seeks to transcend our natural human limitations and engineer an improved humanity.

The issue here is not science vs anti-science. The issue at hand is around what should be the legitimate role of science and technology.

Transhumanism is already here
My guess is that most people don’t recognize the revolution for what it is because, if we’ve thought about it at all, we think of transhumanism as a futuristic, sci-fi fantasy. And it’s true that we aren’t yet capable of brain-machine interfaces, or mastering the aging process. But there is a sub-category of transhumanism that is not waiting for the future. That sub-category is called postgenderism.

Postgenderism seeks to use science and technology to create a world where human beings are free from the “harmful constraints” of the traditional binary concept of gender:

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies… Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction… Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice…
(Beyond the Gender Binary, Dvorsky and Hughes, 2008).

Notice that like H+, and as a sub-category of H+, postgenderism:
1) is a utopian endeavor,
2) seeks to override or transcend natural human limitations.
3) employs science and technology to carry out its aims

To be charitable, H+ and it offshoot, postgenderism, hope to improve the human condition and relieve human suffering, including “psychic suffering”. But the crucial question is, “Does it, can it, and will it deliver?” I think we have reason to be very concerned about the answer.

From the standpoint of a biblical worldview, the fundamental problems with the human condition are beyond that which science and technology can fix. It is indicative of human arrogance to assume we can improve upon our natural humanity through technological means.

Present day examples of H+/postgenderism
If it seems like a stretch to believe that H+/postgenderism is here, think about what is routinely happening today in the field of human sexuality.  I should state that I am not a medical professional of any stripe, but as a layman, three current examples with which we are all now familiar come to mind:

1) Abortion-on-demand – Consider this through the lens of postgenderism. Abortion-on-demand is now non-negotiable for modern feminism because, to the feminist mind, human biology renders men and women “unequal.” The possibility of abortion access erases the inequity that nature imposes upon women, thus making gender at least somewhat less relevant. In the feminist mind, without abortion, natural female biology is seen as a form of slavery; a social injustice; a limit on female autonomy. If planning and/or contraception fail, abortion allows women to overcome their biological limitations – thus abortion qualifies as a crude H+ half measure until the development of the artificial womb.

Note that elective abortion falls outside the parameters of healing medicine: pregnancy is not a disease. A developing embryo is not an invasive parasite. A fetus is not a tumor. Elective abortion exists in America for ideological reasons. For the immediate future, the cutting edge of the abortion industry seeks a “safe” abortive chemical solution, making abortion access less dependent on invasive surgical procedures and more widely available.

2) Hormone therapy and puberty blocking drugs – Researchers have learned some of the mechanics of how hormones work, and why males and females develop the way they do. We can now appropriate technology to artificially delay puberty, and to alter the body’s natural processes to create secondary sexual features like facial hair and breasts. Transgender individuals are appropriating this technology to bring their bodies into alignment with their psychical identity.

Whether or not this is a good idea is another conversation. My point here is that it is undeniable that such chemical therapy is now commonplace, and it falls squarely under the agendas of H+/postgenderism – it is the use of science and technology to transcend one’s natural physiology for conceptual reasons.

3) Sex reassignment surgery – Surgically altering healthy, functioning sex organs is an extreme procedure from which there is no going back, practically speaking. Doing so for ideological reasons is a clear example of H+/postgenderist practice.

In my non-expert opinion, I would concede that there are a number of developmental sexual abnormalities for which such therapy and surgeries would arguably constitute a legit medical fix. But for purposes of this discussion it is the H+/postgender vision of a society where gender is considered to be a fluid, non-binary, matter of choice for everyone, including children, that I’m concerned with.

Why does this matter for you?
Progressive ideologues are  imposing H+/postgenderism onto the culture under the guise of justice and equality. We are told that the changes around gender ideology are simply the next, inevitable stage of the civil rights movement. So compassionate people cannot disagree with what is happening. You want to be a compassionate person, don’t you? This is all about minimizing suffering.

Perhaps this all seems to have come from out of nowhere to you. Like an accidental explosion at the cotton candy factory, sending sticky wisps of rainbow-colored spun sugar down on us all. What I would like the reader to consider is that these societal changes have been inspired by “progressive” political ideology, and they have been in the making for decades. One can map the progress.

I am unequivocally on board with compassion, fairness, equality, and minimizing suffering, but the changes stemming from gender ideology are not some inevitable next stage in social progress based on scientifically informed reason. They are changes stemming from the opinions of ideologically driven activists. No one should feel pressure to get on board.

This is about authority
The point of this article is not so much to convince those with whom I disagree of the rightness of my position. My point is to amplify the logical consequences of two differing worldviews in the interest of enabling people to make informed choices.

This is ultimately about authority. Transhumanism and postgenderism stem from a specific set of beliefs about the universe. If one believes that we exist as a result of purposeless, accidental, evolutionary processes, then natural law and human biology carry little weight. They simply exist, for no authoritative reason. We are free to take control of the reigns and to direct our destiny as we see fit. On paper, at least, there is little to prevent us from creating our own reality.

But a lot of ideas sound good on paper. Car alarms and self-flushing toilets, for example. Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, human brokenness always gets in the way of utopia in this present age.

By contrast, followers of Jesus embrace a different set of beliefs about the universe. We believe that objective, divine authority actually exists; that it always has, and it always will. The gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus’s last statement to His disciples:

“All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me…”

That’s an extravagantly bold statement coming from a figure who is universally regarded as being a good teacher. Followers of Jesus are bound to believe it. Jesus and His disciples also made definitive statements about gender, marriage, family, the innate value of human life, and the unreliability of the human heart. These statements are simply not compatible with H+/postgenderism.

An “upgrade” for humanity is indeed coming, but according to Jesus and His disciples it will come from the Author of Life, not from our own H+ biohacking. In the meantime, in this age, it seems clear to me that we don’t have all the information, and that therefore, apart from revelation, we often don’t know what’s best for ourselves and for each other.

If you’re a liberal, you might object that your beliefs have nothing to do with an H+/postgenderist agenda. You might argue that you believe in an infinite spectrum of genders for reasons of fairness; that  “gender is what’s between your ears” is the more compassionate position; that you believe that “what matters is two loving parents, more so than a biological mom and dad” for reasons of inclusivity; that you support abortion-on-demand in support of “reproductive freedom” for women, and so on.

However, those reasons notwithstanding, one is still embracing T+/postgenderist thinking if one is favorable to the use of technology to transcend our natural human limitations. One is establishing oneself (or humanity) as the ultimate authority in defining and determining enlightenment, morality, and salvation. A line from The Humanist Manifesto ll comes to mind, published in 1973, the year of the Roe v Wade decision:

“No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

So how do we live together?
This is a fascinating time to be alive. The choices before us couldn’t be more consequential. The consequences of choosing wrongly couldn’t be more perilous, from the standpoint of both worldviews. And yet, it is essential that we all live together peaceably and respectfully. How can we do this, given this extreme disparity of belief?

I contend that as Americans, we can still unite around the practice of pluralism and freedom for all within the constraints of the US Constitution. That includes free speech, a free press, religious liberty, and respecting parents’ rights to raise their own children as they see fit. All sides must be on guard against totalitarian thinking. All sides must be on guard against magical thinking. Amongst those with whom we agree, it would make the world a better place if we would hold each other to a standard of honesty, compassion, and respect for the individual.

I welcome your thoughts in the comment section.

— Scott Freeman, July 2021

Easter in the Year of COVID-19

Posted on by
4
Holy Week Journey of Worship
Image adapted from Leon Bonnat’s “Christ Crucifixion, 1880.

The global COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the human family in strange ways. I believe it to be true that we all live for relationship and connection. Yet, ironically, in calling on our better natures to protect the vulnerable among us, for many the pandemic has resulted in us separating from those we love.

For practical purposes some of the most meaningful social gatherings of our lives are essentially, for now, illegal. Weddings, funerals, travel, and all of the other things we do in community – in schools and restaurants and arenas – are, for now, considered to be dangerous.

For those of us who follow Jesus, we are approaching what is ordinarily our most important communal celebration of the year – the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. I don’t think I’m the only one who has been wrestling with how to observe the holiday this year. But I can’t ar celebrate the resurrection of Jesus!

For the past 10 years during the Holy Week season I’ve put on an event called the Journey of Worship at my church. It was designed to be a self-guided, interactive, contemplative event. As such, I thought my little church would be able to offer this event to the community this year and still remain compliant with the current social distancing restrictions. But when the stay-at-home-order came out, we didn’t see a way to put on the event while remaining in compliance.

So instead, we have decided to create a video version.

It’s not the same as being there, but if you are looking for a way to deepen your connection with God this year, and to observe the Easter/Passover season, I hope you will set aside some time, put the video on full screen, pull out your Bible, and prayerfully still your heart in the presence of God.

Though full of art and music, this is not an entertainment video. Rather, it’s a study and a call to worship. It’s nearly 30 minutes long and is truly intended to be a journey of reflection. The video version takes you through seven narrated stations with ample scriptural references for those who may want to hit pause, read, and reflect.

The Journey of Worship will take you through the climactic events in the life of Jesus, and briefly explore how the Torah of Moses foreshadowed each profound act. Because gentile Christianity has historically cut itself off from its Jewish roots, it is perhaps not widely known that each salvific act of Jesus occurred on a different Jewish feast. Among the many things this signifies is that our Creator has been purposefully carrying out a plan that spans thousands of years.

It is a good and loving plan, and He intends to bring it to completion!

It would be presumptuous to believe that God has welcomed us into loving relationship with Himself had He not told us so. It would be arrogant to say that we can now understand mysteries that were hidden from those who lived under the Mosaic covenant. It would be presumptuous to think that we get to experience a spiritual birth and life and access to God that the ancients could only dream about. But since Jesus has told us these things are true, it would be faithless not to believe them.

During this strange year that is so full of disappointment and even sadness for so many, I hope you will find hope in connection with the Author of Life this season and throughout the rest of the year.

This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. — Jesus

Here is the link to the Journey of Worship video version:



(If the link does not work, type in the Youtube search bar: holy week journey of worship)

A happy Resurrection Day to you and your family!

— Scott

The Myth of White Evangelical Racism

Posted on by
6
Jesus was Jewish

There can be no such thing as an evangelical Christian who is intentionally racist. This is true in the same way that there are no Muslim pig farmers, or Mormon brewpubs. Or vegan cannibals. Or feminist sex traffickers. You get the idea.

These things are not merely unlikely – they negate the very definition of the concept.

I recently read an opinion piece by a professor, Anthea Butler, suggesting that liberals should stop puzzling over why evangelical voters are (supposedly) so pro-Trump despite Trump’s flagrantly unchristian behavior. Her answer to this puzzle is simple:

We’re racists.

Professor Butler has a history of making ridiculous and extreme claims, but nonetheless, NBC news saw fit to give her false assertion a hearing. It’s a serious accusation, so just in case anyone is inclined to believe her, I’d like to explain why her assertion can’t be true.

It must be the case that Butler, and others riding the racist-labeling bandwagon, simply don’t know what an evangelical follower of Jesus is. Hopefully the following will be helpful.

Well Understood, Not Secret, Not Mysterious
By definition, evangelicals, white or otherwise, are followers of Jesus who consider the Bible to be authoritative. Look up “evangelical” in a dictionary if you doubt this. At the risk of sounding snarky, this means that they seek to follow what Jesus and His apostles taught in the Bible. If they don’t, then they are not evangelicals. They are something else.

But does the Jesus of the Bible have anything to say about race and racial superiority?

Yes. Tons, actually.

It so happens that Jesus’s greatest commandment and His “great commission” utterly rule out intentional racism. In fact, the defining statements of Jesus and His apostles, and their descriptions of where human history is heading, simply do not allow followers of Jesus to be racists. A racist may attend church, but to the extent that he or she harbors beliefs of racial superiority, he or she is not following Jesus. He or she is following someone else.

The clearly stated aims of Jesus presuppose racial inclusivity and equality. Here are a few indisputable examples:

The Greatest Commandment:
“…Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 22:36-40).

The Great Commission:
“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:18-20).

Jesus’s Final Prayer for His Followers, Past and Present:
“I do not ask for these [1st c. disciples] only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me… I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:20-23).

Paul Affirming that Social & Biological Distinctions are Obliterated in Jesus:
“…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26-28).

Paul’s Statement of God’s Ultimate Plan for Human History:
“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:7-10).

John’s Revelation of the Future Age to Come:
“…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!’… For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 7:9-17).

For the evangelical follower of Jesus, unequivocal biblical statements like these must settle the issue.

Angel, Evangel, Evangelical, Evangelism
Notice the Great Commission verse about making disciples of all the nations. This undertaking of making voluntary disciples is called “evangelism.” The word “evangelist” literally means “bringer of good news,” (from eu- “good” + angelos “messenger”).

Notice how the word “evangelism” is part of the word “Evangelical”? That’s because Evangelicals are supposed to be evangelizing – spreading the good news of how Jesus has invited all of humankind to be restored to relational unity with God.

Furthermore, biblical evangelism is not about making brown people Western and white. Jesus specifically commanded that His followers spread His invitation to people of different ethnicities. Here’s a statement the resurrected Jesus made before His ascension:

“…and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Notice the progression: his disciples congregated in Jerusalem. The news then spread to the whole region of Jewish Judea. Then to the Samaritans, who were historically looked down upon as “half-Jewish.” Then to all the nations of the earth, including every “race.” There is simply no getting around the fact that God wants to include all people groups in His kingdom.

How Jesus Abolished the Notion of Racial/Ethnic Superiority
Perhaps the most stunning development among the first (Jewish) followers of Jesus is the fact that the (Jewish) apostles officially, as a matter of conscious policy, extended the invitation to salvation to non-Jews. This was a completely unexpected development coming from a group of Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah, and it was not without some controversy. You can read the whole debate in the book of Acts, chapter 15.

Clearly, everyone assumed that non-Jews who wished to become followers of the Jewish Messiah would have to first become Jewish, and follow the Torah of Moses. However, through a series of signs from God, and as a result of seeing the ancient Hebrew scriptures in light of the actions and words of Jesus, the apostles reached their revolutionary agreement: the gentile nations could enter into Jesus’s new covenant and kingdom, as uncircumcised gentiles!

This development was so unexpected that the apostles thereafter referred to it as a “mystery,” meaning that it was unforeseen, and not clearly explained previously in their Jewish Torah and prophetic writings. Here is one example of (Jewish) Paul speaking of this “mystery”:

“When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph 3:4-6).

Pretty clear.

The racially and ethnically inclusive nature of the message of Jesus is not optional. It is not a modern, liberal reading of the scriptures. It was there from the beginning. Any racism in the church of Jesus is a corruption of what Jesus taught. Even the Torah teaches that “all the families of the earth” descended from the same two parents (Gen 3:20; 9:18,19; 10:32). The gospel writer, Luke, affirms this in Acts 17:26.

Of course, one is free not to believe the Bible. My point here is not to prove that the Bible is true. My point is to prove that one cannot truthfully say that the Bible promotes racial superiority of any sort. In fact, the very concept of “race” is man-made, not biblical. There is no white supremacist version of evangelicalism.

History Cuts Both Ways
Historically, there certainly have been white church goers who have misused the Bible to justify slavery and racism. Those people have gone the way of the buffalo. Anthea Butler even acknowledges that the Southern Baptist denomination has repeatedly apologized for and repented of past evils. “But” she says, “statements are not enough.” Her proof that Baptists are insincere in their denunciations of past racial sins? They opened their 2019 Annual Convention with a gavel that was owned by the founder of their seminary, and who was also a slaveholder.

I would expect her to be more concerned with groups that were formerly openly racist, but that continue to exploit and decimate the black American population in the present. An example comes to mind:

For some reason white Darwinian “progressives” get a pass for misusing science to justify racism in much the same way that religious people misused the Bible to justify racism. During the early 1900s, there emerged a popular eugenics movement in America and Europe that was concerned with preserving (white) racial purity. It was a terrible and oppressive Orwellian episode of our history. Some 75,000 “unfit” Americans were forcibly sterilized in the name of racial hygiene and human betterment.

Margaret Sanger, founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, was on board with the eugenics movement. It’s difficult to prove whether or not Sanger was an overt racist, but in her autobiography she reports making a favorable impression at a speaking appearance to the wives of the KKK. She also welcomed Klansman and popular white supremacist author, Lothrop Stoddard, as a co-founder and board member of her American Birth Control League, (renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1942).

Lothrop Stoddard, Margaret Sanger's racist colleague
Stoddard’s most popular book. He also published eugenic articles in Sanger’s magazine, Birth Control Review. A content analysis reveals that the magazine’s overriding concern was not women’s autonomy, but societal improvement.

Today, PPFA enjoys a solid “progressive” reputation as it renounces Sanger’s racist/eugenicist statements, just as evangelical denominations have renounced past racial sins. The difference is that PPFA continues to disproportionately terminate black lives, today.

Black women buy abortions at a rate 5 times that of white women, according the Guttmacher Institute. The reasons are unclear. Regardless, the American black population is significantly smaller than it would otherwise be if not for Sanger and PPFA, America’s largest abortion seller. Bishop Larry Jackson claims, “If we [blacks] had not aborted our children, we would be 30%, not 13%, of the population”.

I can’t prove that widespread black abortion also disintegrates belief in the sanctity of black human life in the black psyche, but I can’t imagine how it would help.

Having said this, I don’t believe that pro-legal-abortion ”progressives” are intentionally racist. But I would arguably be far more justified in leveling that accusation against them than those claiming that evangelicals are racist. Maybe both “progressives” and conservatives should focus on cleaning up their own houses when looking for racists to call out.

None of us lives out our compassion perfectly. All of us – white, black, or brown – harbor prejudice that we must work to overcome. We’ll all be more successful if we work together to overcome it.