Randy Alcorn's Blog, page 82

Planned Parenthood Finally Admits Founder Margaret Sanger’s Racism, But Will They Change What They Do?

Thirty years ago I spent many hours in a Portland library reading and photocopying article after article in years of original issues of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review. I was shocked at the blatant racism I found there, and her chilling proposal of eugenics to eliminate the “human weeds” of what she called inferior (non-white) races.

I wrote about my findings in the first edition of my book ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, shared them in articles on our website and on my blog, and talked about this publicly, including in a college debate with two Planned Parenthood staffers. I brought it up again in the revision of ProLife Answers and my book Why ProLife?

At least a few people had written about her racism before I did. I didn’t know whether I could trust the quotes attributed to Sanger were authentic because they were so outlandish. But it turns out they were mostly accurate. And I found a great deal more in those original Planned Parenthood of America publications that were equally evil, and published them. But despite the proof from Sanger’s own words, I never heard a single prochoice advocate admit the truth about Sanger and why she launched Planned Parenthood in the first place. In fact, there was the usual eye-rolling, smirks, and accusations that “You anti-abortion nutjobs are just making this up.”

According to Marvin Olasky, Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” of the 1930s was “hailed for its work in spreading contraception among those whom eugenicists most deeply feared.” When it became evident that contraceptives were not sufficiently curtailing the black population and other target groups, the eugenicists turned to abortion as a solution to the spread of unwanted races and families.

In Margaret Sanger’s own words, to help the weaker and less privileged survive and to allow them to reproduce was to take a step backward in human evolution: “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

These “stocks” were the poor and uneducated, a large portion of whom were ethnic minorities. Sanger was more interested in “aiming to eliminate” these “stocks” (i.e. people) than in helping them.

Though I have read many Planned Parenthood materials, I had never until last week, July 2020, seen any that renounced or apologized for Sanger’s blatant eugenicism, her toxic bias against the poor and the mentally and physically handicapped, and her racism, all of which characterized Planned Parenthood’s philosophy from its inception. Hence my surprise when on July 21, The New York Times posted an article with the headline “Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics”:

“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” Karen Seltzer, the chair of the New York affiliate’s board, said in a statement.

The group is also talking to city leaders about replacing Ms. Sanger’s name on a street sign that has hung near its offices on Bleecker Street for more than two decades.

…Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the national organization, has defended Ms. Sanger in the past, citing her work with Black leaders in the 1930s and 1940s. As recently as 2016, the group issued a fact sheet saying that while it condemned some of her beliefs, she had mostly been well intentioned in trying to make birth control accessible for poor and immigrant communities.

The national organization said in the fact sheet that it disagreed with Ms. Sanger’s decision to speak to members of the Ku Klux Klan in 1926 as she tried to spread her message about birth control.

It also condemned her support for policies to sterilize people who had disabilities that could not be treated; for banning immigrants with disabilities; and for “placing so-called illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope fiends on farms and in open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.”

My question is, why the incredibly long wait to admit what was true all along? Surely they can’t claim ignorance. I suspect it’s because in the era of pulling down statues and taking names off signs, Planned Parenthood could no longer pull off the cover-up. Now they will have the apparent virtue of seeming humbly sorry for what they’ve done, but without actually having to change any of their strategies or practices. It’s a fact that abortion rates among minorities are dramatically higher than among whites. The Guttmacher Institute says that the abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in America is 10% among whites, 18.1% among Hispanics, and 27.1% among blacks.

So while it is good that Planned Parenthood has, to some extent, finally admitted what has been true for nearly one hundred years and which some of us had documented in detail thirty years ago, will they now stop targeting black neighborhoods with their inner-city clinics, or will they continue to do so in the name of “serving the African-American community”? In other words, will they keep fulfilling Margaret Sanger’s eugenic racism of eliminating undesirable minority children while publicly distancing themselves from it?

Benjamin Watson is absolutely correct: “Disavowing Margaret Sanger for her eugenic racist ideology is a hollow gesture when you continue to perpetuate her legacy with your practices.”

Listen to what he has to say:

. @ppfa,
Disavowing Margaret Sanger for her eugenic racist ideology is a hollow gesture when you continue to perpetuate her legacy with your practices. Instead, preserve life while simultaneously combatting the harmful racism you denounce. But first preserve life...

345,672 pic.twitter.com/jYAqvclT8B

— Benjamin Watson (@BenjaminSWatson) July 22, 2020

Planned Parenthood has targeted black and minority communities because of Margaret Sanger‘s racism, but they now will continue their presence there in the name of serving minorities, all the while affirming that black lives matter (and they do indeed)—with the tragic exception of the black lives who are too small to protect themselves from being torn to pieces.

May God continue to raise up people like Ben Watson to intervene for unborn children, including black and Hispanic children who it appears will remain in the crosshairs of Planned Parenthood. May we affirm that all black lives matter, and all lives of every race, which are all part of the single human race who share the ancestry of the first man and woman who lived in a garden of beauty, peace, and safety. And may all of us speak up for the unborn and their mothers of every ethnicity, all created in God’s image and precious in His sight, looking forward to a New Earth that will be Eden forever magnified with complete unity of the races centered around the Lamb of God and King of Kings:

After this I looked, and there was an enormous crowd—no one could count all the people! They were from every race, tribe, nation, and language, and they stood in front of the throne and of the Lamb, dressed in white robes and holding palm branches in their hands. They called out in a loud voice: “Salvation comes from our God, who sits on the throne, and from the Lamb!” (Revelation 7:9-10, GNT)

Meanwhile, may pro-lifers everywhere also speak up for racial equality and justice. If we advocate for the right of minority children to live, that same sense of God-inspired justice should compel us to stand up for all their rights as long as they live.

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
     for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
     defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31:8-9

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The Case for the Resurrection: Sean McDowell Interviews Lee Strobel

Sean McDowell, who teaches at Biola/Talbot, has a self-described passion for equipping the church, and in particular young people, to make the case for the Christian faith. I listened to Sean’s interview with Lee Strobel, talking about how he as an atheist journalist came to believe in Jesus, through studying whether the resurrection of Jesus ever happened.

I think it’s all great, but even if you don’t have time to watch it all, the first 11 minutes or so are terrific:

Lee’s books The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ are some of my favorite books on apologetics, as is Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Sean’s dad Josh McDowell.

And if you haven’t seen the movie The Case for Christ, which is the story of Lee Strobel’s conversion, by all means watch it. Even if you “hate Christian movies because they’re so cheesy,” :) I think you may like this one! Nanci and I enjoyed it.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

A Tribute and Letter to J. I. Packer, Now with His Lord Jesus

Last Friday, J. I. Packer, one of my favorite writers and favorite people, went to be with Jesus just five days short of his 94th birthday. I will always love that man. He had a huge impact on me, particularly through his books Knowing God and The Quest for Godliness. (Here’s a terrific biography from Justin Taylor, and a touching audio tribute to Packer from John Piper and Tony Reinke.)

Four and half years ago Ivan Mesa shared an interview with Packer, who was losing his sight due to macular degeneration. When asked about how the reality of Heaven affects him, he said, “In positive terms, the essence of eternity as I conceive it—as it lies before me as my destination—is quite simply the joy of being with the Lord.” Ivan’s final question to Packer was, “What would be your final words to the church?” He responded, “I think I can boil it down to four words: ‘Glorify Christ every way.’”

Eleven years ago I was asked to be on a panel on Heaven and Hell at a book conference. When I asked who else would be on the panel, they mentioned J. I. Packer, and my response was, “I will do it as long as I can sit next to Dr. Packer.” Little did I know that he would actually read something from my Heaven book, which, looking over his shoulder, I could see was worn and he had marked it up. Knowing Dr. Packer had written about the great Puritan Richard Baxter, I was amazed and touched that he said my book was for the current time what Richard Baxter’s The Saints Everlasting Rest was in the seventeenth century. This was typical of his kindness and graciousness that encouraged so many of us.

The following is a letter I sent to J.I. Packer four years ago after learning about his declining vision. Though it was written when he was still living, I affirm what I wrote all the more, knowing he is now with Jesus and has finished his race so well:

Dear Dr. Packer,

It was my pleasure to meet you some years ago at a booksellers convention, where our mutual friend Justin Taylor introduced us. Then several years later I sat next to you in Dallas, at a panel on Heaven and Hell. We were both there early, and my wife Nanci brought you a cup of coffee to go with your cookie, and she delights in remembering how much you appreciated it! :) We were there early, as were you, so we enjoyed a little chance to chat together.

During the panel that day I was very surprised that you pulled from your briefcase my book Heaven. You read a portion from it, and made a very kind comment about it. That meant a great deal to me because of the role you have played in my life as both a writer and a role model.

I learned of your vision issues, and wanted to reach out to you and say, “Thank you for serving King Jesus and touching my life so significantly.” I know your service is not done yet, but I wished to share some words of encouragement in terms of how you have influenced me, among countless others.

I cannot express to you how deeply our King used Knowing God to shape me when I was a young Christian. I read it when it came out in 1973, and I was just about to turn 19. Now I’m nearing 62, but I remember like it was yesterday the wonderful analogy between the traveler and the balconeer. While I realize the illustration was from John Mackay’s theology, your particular use of it in the context of your book spoke to my heart, and I have often contemplated it in my personal life and as I’ve written my books. By God’s grace, I have been a traveler, and I am deeply grateful.

I benefited greatly from Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and years later God spoke to me through Keep in Step with the Spirit. My love for the Puritans deepened when reading A Quest for Godliness.  I have profited too from your Shorter Writings and in speaking against the health and wealth gospel I have quoted from the unlikely named Hot Tub Religion. :)

Along the way, I caught your affection for Richard Baxter, which first led me to The Saints Everlasting Rest. I was very moved by A Grief Sanctified while writing my book If God Is Good, on the problem of evil and suffering.

In short, Dr. Packer, I am one of many you have mentored from a distance. My life first as a child of God, and then as a pastor and writer, has been profoundly affected by you. Thank you for being faithful to our Lord. I know you have lived and continue to live by God’s grace and empowerment. You are in my prayers now. Your heart and mind and life has been your greatest book. I have immensely enjoyed reading it.

In the final year of his life I spent a few hours with Bill Bright when he was no longer traveling, and was hooked to an oxygen tank. He was physically weak, but when we spoke of Heaven he was like a little boy, his face vibrant as he anticipated living forever with Jesus and God’s people. When a young man from Haiti walked into the room Bill told him about Jesus and the Gospel, and I had the privilege of joining in.

I’ll never forget Bill Bright saying to me, shortly before I left, “Randy, God is using me now more than ever before.” This was rather stunning considering the impact of Campus Crusade, the Jesus film and Crusade’s missionary efforts across the globe. Bill continued, “I can’t get up out of this chair, but through prayer I am bringing before Him the church and the world and his servants. What a privilege.”

Dr. Packer, may God bless you now as you draw near to Him and minister in prayer and other ways. If you could pray for me, I would be honored.

As it’s unlikely our paths will cross again in this life, I look forward to seeing you in a far better world, where joy will be the air we breathe. When we celebrate our King at banquets on God’s New Earth, I have already put in my request to sit next to you at one of them. (I know the One in charge of the seating arrangements!) There I will thank you face to face for all you have meant to me.

I leave you with Psalm 16:8--“I keep my eyes always on the LORD. With him at my right hand, I will not be shaken.”

With great affection, and in the grace of Jesus,

Randy Alcorn

Finally, here’s a wonderful 19-minute documentary on J.I. Packer, in which he shares his heart and wisdom:

Black Lives Do Matter, But the BLM Organization Opposes Christian Values: So What Should We Do?

Before you start, realize that this blog is far longer than normal, about the length of a book chapter. There’s a reason for that. It’s an in-depth treatment of a huge and controversial issue, and it’s resource-rich, with lots of links to videos and articles. But if I split it up, it will lose much continuity and balance and result in more misunderstanding. (Some is of course inevitable.)

If it helps, just pretend it’s a book chapter, or in two or three parts. Read at your own pace.  You may wish to go through it slowly and stop to ponder it, praying as you read and perhaps stopping on the way to look at a pertinent link.

Thirty years ago I read eighty books on African American history while researching my novel Dominion. I met with dozens of black brothers and sisters in Christ in different parts of our country and interviewed others over the phone. A new perspective opened up to me; my world became larger. I learned things I’d never known, and came to realize that while there had been much progress, the long-term effects of racism in America continued to hurt people deeply.

This wasn’t about white guilt. (God made me white, and I’m fine with that.) It wasn’t about self-loathing, nor was it about political correctness, which has never been important to me. It was simply coming to understand how other people in God’s family, precious people, specifically black people, had experienced life very differently than I had. What I learned came from listening to people who loved Jesus as much as I do.

Recently in blogs I’ve talked about racial issues. I’ve also emphasized that there are a large number of good cops that many of us, whether or not we realize it, owe our lives to. We should never stereotype cops as bad, though of course some are. Bad cops should be relieved of duty; good cops agree with this, including a number I’ve talked with recently. (We also have some bad pastors, ministry leaders, teachers, physicians, and government officials who likewise should be relieved of duty.) Sadly, though, bad cops, and sometimes good cops who are seen as bad, get far more attention than good ones. Many of us, probably most, at one time or another have desperately needed the help of cops. And when you need that kind of help, it won’t be Marxists, looters, arsonists, or criminals who show up at your door to protect you. (Of course, peaceful nonviolent protestors aren’t criminals, so let’s not stereotype them either.)

Over the years I’ve expressed my support of peaceful nonviolent protests, and engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience at abortion clinics to try to rescue unborn children from death and save their mothers from abortion’s horrific burden of guilt. Those actions had consequences including arrests, jail, lawsuits, and the loss of my job as a pastor (leading to the start of this ministry). We spoke up against injustice, and God in His grace saved a number of children’s lives. We didn’t grab or resist anyone, including the police who arrested us. Most of those cops were kind and professional, though a few were hostile and inflicted needless pain.

Various evangelicals opposed our prolife actions as “social gospel.” Some still do. Just today someone told me that racial issues distract God’s people from the gospel. Personally, I believe that for the gospel message to be best proclaimed and most credible, it should be voiced by those who build bridges of love and speak up for the rights of the unborn, children, women, and people of every race. It’s the atonement of Jesus that saves. But as Jesus said, it’s the love of His people for each other that testifies that this life-changing gospel is true:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

Of course, the gospel can thrive even where these values are not upheld, as in the first-century Roman empire, where Christians had no voice in the government. But where God has given churches and Christ-followers a voice to speak about injustices among His image-bearers, we should do so. (Of course, we won’t always agree on the times and places and methods.)

What I find most heart-breaking is the intense pain felt by black brothers and sisters in Christ whose life experiences are so different from those of us who are white. Love means trying to put ourselves in their shoes and seeking to dialogue and understand why their views differ from ours—and why if we were black we would probably think very differently than we do about racial prejudice and instinctively trusting police.

In this blog I’ll address some difficult issues that some will misunderstand or be offended by despite my efforts to speak accurately and carefully. I dread some of the reactions I anticipate because we live in a day where people routinely read small portions of what is said and make sweeping judgments without listening to the whole. (This is why we often respond to blistering comments by simply quoting what I actually said in a blog or book, as opposed to what people imagine I said.) There are many balancing statements in this blog, which partly accounts for its length. If you take one statement out of context without those other balancing statements you can misunderstand anything I’m saying. I hope you don’t.

I don’t presume everything I say will be right or well said. I can only say that I have sought to listen not just to people on all sides of these issues, but primarily to God’s voice from His Word and also to the leading of His Spirit.  

Black Lives Matter: The Slogan and the Organization

First, the slogan “Black lives matter” is not 50% or 90% right. It’s 100% right. (And it does not mean other lives don’t matter. More on that later.)

Second, there’s an organization called by the name “Black Lives Matter,” first attributed to one of its founders. Unfortunately, that organization’s values oppose those of countless blacks and many others in every ethnic group in America. It certainly stands against some core Christian values.

When I first looked at the Black Lives Matter website to see their beliefs, I was shocked. What follows are direct quotes from that website. I encourage you to read them, reminding yourself I am disagreeing with many of the beliefs of the organization, NOT with that 100% accurate statement “Black lives matter”:

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender [those who identify with the gender they were born as] privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered….

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

Remember, these are not accusations by outsiders—they are word-for-word declarations made directly by the group. I heard two of the three founders of Black Lives Matter openly declare that they are “trained Marxists.”  If you don’t know history, read up on Marxism and ask yourself how much good it has done and how much evil, and whether it has upheld human rights or horribly violated them. I traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990, bringing in Bibles and talking with many Christians about Marxism. Trust me, they hated it. 

In an article on the BLM website they also affirm their pro-abortion stance:

We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe, and able to thrive. 

So the BLM organization defends the right to kill unborn girls and boys who themselves, by the way, deserve but are incapable of demanding the freedom not to be cut to pieces in abortion. But where is the reproductive justice for the unborn, male and female, black and white and every other race? Don’t we all exist because our mothers chose to give us life? Wasn’t that a good, noble and loving choice? Since black lives matter, don’t the youngest black lives matter too? Or is it just older and larger lives who qualify? (Black babies have long been targeted for extinction by Planned Parenthood in greatly disproportionate numbers.)

The organization BLM is committed to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” According to the Oxford English dictionary, “A nuclear family is a family where father, mother and their children live in one household.” To most of us, that’s a good thing. Countless studies show that those growing up in nuclear families have tremendous advantages from healthy, emotionally supportive, educationally enriched, and economically stable upbringings. Yet Black Lives Matter says they are working against this.

Ironically, the breakdown of the nuclear family has already brought remarkable hurt to our country, and it has taken a particularly large toll on blacks. This five-minute video shares the statistics:

My point in citing it is to demonstrate that the organization Black Lives Matter is acting according to an erroneous ideology that is clearly not in the best interests of black people. In a time when men need to step up and lovingly lead and protect their families, BLM wants to build a society “free from…environments in which men are centered.” Abusive men should be prosecuted, but homes where dads benevolently lead are a huge part of the solution, not the problem. (Additionally, nuclear families can be healthy environments for developing children’s sexual identities in the midst of our current gender confusion.)

Sports commentator and former NFL all-pro defensive end Marcellus Wiley recently talked, with insight and passion, about the organization Black Lives Matter’s values that he opposes:

As I write this on July 20, 2020, the front page of the BLM website says in its argument to defund the police: “We know that police don’t keep us safe.” If it said, “Don’t always keep us safe,” that would sadly be true, though countless good cops of many ethnicities daily risk their lives to protect our citizens. Police don’t keep us safe? Watch this emotional 60-second video of a young man thanking the cop who saved his life.

Also listen to this enlightening two minutes from Jakhary Jackson, a black cop in Portland who served in crowd control during many nights of protests, and who was among officers injured by a fireworks explosion aimed at police.

With the BLM organization’s efforts to discredit and defund the police, one of my deepest concerns about the public disdain for all cops, including the good ones, is that many good younger cops are seriously looking into changing careers. (Several of my cop friends who are believers have told me this.) To put your knee on a man’s neck for nearly nine minutes when he is crying out sixteen times “I can’t breathe” is a truly terrible thing. To be hated and marginalized and put under fire when you have never committed such a crime and are genuinely risking your life daily to protect people is also a terrible thing. For your wife to shut down her social media for fear of her safety and her children’s just because her husband is a police offer, and a good one, is another terrible thing. (And yes, I have recently seen it happen.) We can’t afford to lose all those good cops who are looking into other vocations where they won’t be stereotyped, targeted, and hated.

But there’s a critical question here. When people hold signs saying “Black lives matter” are they actually affirming their belief in what the organization Black Lives Matter says? No doubt some are, but I think the great majority don’t have a clue what the website says. They are just thinking of what is to them the clear meaning of the words themselves: Black lives matter.

So, yes, we should feel free and in some cases even obligated to criticize the organization Black Lives Matter, as I just have. But I believe we need to be very careful at the same time to affirm emphatically the truth of the words themselves. Black lives really do matter. They matter in the sight of God. If you argue against those words, even if it’s not your intention because you’re thinking of the organization not the words, the message you send will be “Black lives don’t matter.”

Why Answering with “All Lives Matter” Isn’t Productive

Many use the phrase “All lives matter” in response to “Black lives matter,” likely believing by putting everyone’s life on equal footing they are making a balanced statement. But the result is usually division and distraction. “All lives matter” is of course absolutely true. But maybe I can make a few analogies to help explain why it’s an ill-advised response.

In 1920 American women were first given the right to vote. Yet after that they were still denied the right to hold many jobs and were often paid lower wages for doing the same work as men.

Back on March 3, 1913, over 5,000 women’s suffrage advocates marched on Washington, D.C. These were two of the many different signs they held:

Suppose that group would have held signs saying “Women’s lives matter,” which they certainly could have.

Now imagine men showing up to these rallies and holding signs saying “All lives matter.” Would the signs have been correct? Sure. Would it have been helpful to hold up those “All lives matter” signs? No. Why? Because men were already treated like they mattered. Women weren’t.

Likewise, if I held up a sign at a prolife rally saying “Unborn lives matter,” and someone countered with a sign saying “All lives matter,” how would I respond? Probably by saying, “True, but this isn’t about all lives; it’s specifically about the lives of unborn children who are being killed by abortion.”

“All lives matter” would be a great corrective response if the slogan were “Only black lives matter.” But that is not the slogan. There’s no logical implication that if black lives matter then white lives or any other lives don’t matter. You can focus on one true thing without calling into question another true thing.

“Black lives matter” is not an accusation; it’s an affirmation. Sure, some people who say it may believe all whites are racists or that all police are bad but that’s certainly not what the slogan says. The organization Black Lives Matter is saying a great deal more, much of it harmful. But I believe that most people using the expression do not mean “Only black lives matter.” They mean “Black lives also matter.” Can’t all Christians agree on this?

It’s not that black lives matter more than white or brown lives but that they matter as much. Historically, black people weren’t valued nearly as much as white people. Hence, “Black lives matter” is not a cultural given; it is in America, sadly, a rather recent assertion. That’s why using “All lives matter” as a counter-slogan is misguided and ineffective.

If a house is burning down and the homeowner says, “My house matters,” unless the whole neighborhood is burning down it would be pointless to say “All houses matter.” It would be true, but right now there’s a house that needs more help than the rest.

Would you go to an American Cancer Rally and hold up signs saying, “All diseases matter”? You’d be right, of course, but what message would you be sending to all the cancer patients and people whose loved ones died of cancer?

That’s why as true as it is and as good as it may sound, “All lives matter” spoken as an answer to “Black lives matter” is tone-deaf and counterproductive.

Don’t Read into “Black Lives Matter” to Make It Say More Than It Does

I recently talked on the phone with a Christian leader who said he could never agree with the slogan “Black lives matter” due to the organization of that name. I asked, if he agreed with the statement “Every child a wanted child.” He said, “Of course.” I said, “Did you know for many years that was Planned Parenthood’s slogan?” He didn’t. Would we argue that “Every child a wanted child” is something a Christian should never say just because it was a slogan of a group we oppose? Or can we say it because it’s true regardless of who else says it, and it would remain true even if it were the name of an organization? (That doesn’t mean you have to say “Black lives matter” as if they are magic words—you can still communicate the meaning of the expression in other ways.)

I hear people argue that they can’t agree with “black lives matter” because of other views they associate with the phrase. But surely we can wholeheartedly affirm that black lives matter equally, are equally precious,  equally made in God’s image. Why not say those things, and go ahead and disagree with the organization but make emphatically clear your message is not “black lives don’t matter”?

We can oppose Marxism and be pro-life and pro-family and pro-Jesus and still affirm that “Black lives matter.” This theologically conservative seminary professor does just that.

We can affirm “Black lives do matter” and still condemn violence, looting, and arson and distinguish them from peaceful nonviolent protests. We can lament the many minority businesses (and others), representing tens of thousands of hours of hard work, that have been burned and looted.

We can also say “Black lives really matter” without affirming that every perception of racism is accurate. Women who’ve been abused by men understandably sometimes read in misogyny when it’s not present. But the reason they do is because they have experienced real abuse. It would be just as foolish, and certainly unfair and unkind, to dismiss their history of experiences as it would be to assume they are accurate each and every time they perceive sexism.

Likewise, minorities may sometimes see racism when it isn’t present, but they see it precisely because they have sometimes or even often experienced true racism throughout their lives. (An older black friend who’s a kind and godly man recently said, “I’ve never in my life had a positive experience with the police.” That doesn’t mean all those police were racists, but it does tell the painful story of the cumulative effect of many life-long experiences as a godly black man living in a predominantly white culture where racism has often been all-too-real.)

We can also say “Black lives matter just as much as everyone else’s” and reject the implication that police are to blame for most of the senseless killing of young black men. Clearly they are not, since statistics show it’s mainly gangs and criminals doing the killing. 90% percent of black murder victims are killed by black assailants. (Similarly, 83% percent of white victims are killed by white assailants. Crime is local, and neighborhoods are usually occupied predominantly by people of one race or another.)

Obviously this doesn’t mean it wasn’t a terrible thing when a police officer killed George Floyd and fellow officers didn’t stop him. That’s especially egregious because police are sworn to protect lives and should take them only when absolutely necessary.

We should also affirm, and the organization Black Lives Matter has not done this well, that black lives matter despite who kills them. Protests are typically against people in power positions, including police. But if more public laments were organized on behalf of innocent children and devastated mothers and fathers and families where loved ones are killed in gang shootings and criminal acts, perhaps it would send the message that black lives matter equally, no matter who takes those lives.

What Alternatives to the Slogan Can Be Used?

If you don’t think you should say the words, then don’t. This isn’t about checking off a box and guilting people into saying “just the right words.” There are many other good words we can use and actions we can take.

Natasha Crain advises, “Don’t use hashtags until you understand where they originated, what they represent to the people who created them, and what they (likely) communicate to those around you.” Our ministry doesn’t use #BlackLivesMatter on social media. But we consistently make clear we wholeheartedly believe that black lives really do matter just as much as all other lives.

However, my suggestion is—maybe it’s more of a plea—even if you don’t use it yourself, please don’t negate, minimize, or argue against the expression “Black lives matter.” Choose whatever different words you prefer and take actions that make clear you are affirming the central truth behind the words, realizing that in the minds of most people the expression says only what it says. To the average person who knows nothing about what the organization’s website says, “Black lives matter” isn’t about Marxism, black supremacy, the nuclear family, all police being bad, disparaging the role of men, or encouraging the irrelevance of biological gender.

So it’s fine to opt not to use those words. It’s fine to point out that you oppose many of the beliefs of the organization that bears that name. But please—and I say this after seeing it happen in blogs and social media posts—do everything you can not to come across as disagreeing with the idea that black lives really matter/are equally important/are just as valuable. If you’re not careful, you will send the wrong message and instead of building bridges, you’ll burn them. If this happens you will, even if unintentionally, fail to serve the purposes Jesus prayed for His people in John 17: that we would be united, that divisions between us would be healed, and that seeing our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ of different backgrounds and races, people would believe the gospel message that the Father sent the Son to redeem us.

Here are some alternative possibilities that change only a word or two but help distinguish the message you hopefully believe in from the organization you don’t believe in:

“Black lives matter too”
“Black lives DO matter”
“Black lives truly matter”
“Black lives matter just as much”

Or, if you want to affirm the value of black lives using different words, do so.

Albert Mohler says, “Black lives do matter. We have to say that even more powerfully than #BlackLivesMatter does.”

Some Final Thoughts to Consider

1. I encourage you not to respond to the “Black lives matter” issue, or anything else, as a conservative or liberal, but simply as a follower of Jesus. Whether following Jesus makes us appear conservative or liberal should be irrelevant. It should be all about honoring Him. I don’t try to be a conservative or a liberal, though on certain issues I may appear to some as either. I don’t oppose abortion because I’m a conservative. I oppose it because it is the killing of children. I don’t stand up for racial equality and justice because I’m a liberal. I stand up for it because I believe Jesus does.

2. Those of us who are part of evangelical churches, as I am, are not widely known for our ability to listen well or think beyond the confines of our backgrounds and preferred sources of information. Many young people in our churches see this and feel alienated from us. They wonder why their churches are dismissive of certain issues, including racial justice and ongoing concern for the poor and aliens and refugees, which they see in Scripture and in Jesus. They perceive we are better at saying the words of the gospel than living out the life-altering implications of the gospel. Sometimes they are wrong, but sometimes they’re right.

3. Use all the current controversies to take seriously the words, “Everyone ought to examine themselves…” (1 Corinthians 11:28). In a time where our culture habitually speaks words carelessly and without weighing the relational damage we can do, may we be heed the words of God: “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19). May we pray with David, “Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalm 139:23-24).

4. Some people say, “The laws changed long ago, and discrimination hasn’t been a problem for years. Why can’t people just get over it?” They don’t understand the ongoing effects of centuries of racism, and that every day things happen which demonstrate many things haven’t changed after all. If you want a summarized but remarkably careful explanation, I highly recommend you invest 17 minutes listening to Phil Vischer address “Race in America.” It may turn the light on for you, perhaps for the first time:

5. Ask your black friends what comes to their mind when they hear the expression “Black lives matter.” If you don’t have black friends, reach out and start developing some friendships. If you know them reasonably well, ask their honest opinion about what they think when they hear “All lives matter” as a response to “Black lives matter.”

6. While never feeling guilty for the skin color God gave you, listen carefully to voices who express a pain you would understand if you’d been born and lived life in their skin. Pastor Mika Edmondson wrote something recently that I found heartbreaking. Rather than criticizing it because it falls outside of our own personal experiences, let it sink in as a tragic but deeply heartfelt perception shared by countless black Americans, including lovers of Jesus:

My wife has to beg me (a grown 37-year-old man) not to go out to Walmart at night, not because she’s afraid of the criminal element, but because she’s afraid of the police element. Because she knows that when the police see me, they aren’t going to see Mika Edmondson, pastor of New City Fellowship Presbyterian church. When they see me, they aren’t going to see Mika Edmondson, PhD in systematic theology. When they see me, all they’re going to see is a black man out late at night.

7. Read Benjamin Watson’s excellent book Under Our Skin. You may not agree with everything he says, but you’ll see the heart and life experience and insights of a brother in Jesus, and perhaps see through new eyes.

8. Finally, contemplate these Scriptures about Jesus, the gospel, and the healing of racial divisions, and ask God to help them come alive in your heart and life and relationships with others:

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28).

“For Christ himself is our peace, who has made the two groups [Jews and Gentiles, the ultimate racial division] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility” (Ephesians 2:14-16).

The Fruit of the Spirit Are Ingredients of Happiness

What’s our greatest source of joy? Paul pointed to the Holy Spirit: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23).

Commenting on chara, the Greek Word usually rendered “joy” in this passage, the United Bible Societies’ translation handbook advises, “In some languages joy is essentially equivalent to ‘causes people to be very happy.’ In order to indicate that this joy is not merely some passing experience, one may say ‘to be truly happy within their hearts.’ In some languages joy is expressed idiomatically as ‘to be warm within one’s heart,’ or ‘to dance within one’s heart.’”

Translating the fruit of the Spirit as adjectives rather than nouns, the Contemporary English Version reads, “God’s Spirit makes us loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled.”

If it seems that the translators are taking liberties by saying “happy” instead of “joyful,” note that the other eight adjectives perfectly correspond to the nouns used in the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. Chara is the only Greek word in this passage rendered differently by the CEV translators. Their goal was faithfulness to the original language. “Joy” is a good translation of chara, but so too is its synonym “happiness.”

Some suggest that the order of the ninefold fruit of the Spirit is significant and that love is named first because “the greatest . . . is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13). If this is true, then joy’s position as the second listed might imply it’s the second greatest.

Why does Paul emphasize joy and the other eight components of the Spirit’s fruit in the context of his attack on legalism in Galatians? Reading between the lines, we might surmise that joy was too rare among the Christians there, as it often is today.

Paul’s argument in Galatians suggests that self-righteous legalism chokes out the fruit of the Spirit, leading believers to become killjoys. Killjoys find pleasure in always being right and showing that others are wrong. Their false joy comes from thinking, I’m the smartest, purest, and most doctrinally, behaviorally, or politically correct person in the room. Unfortunately, no one wants to be in the room with them . . . including Jesus.

Joy, along with the fruit of the Spirit, stands in contrast to the works of the flesh (see Galatians 5:19-21). Only new life in Christ equips the believer to walk in the Spirit (see Galatians 5:16-18, 24-25).

The presence of chara on the list, whether it’s rendered as “joy” or “happiness,” raises the question, What really makes me happy or joyful? If the Father and the Son make the Spirit happy, then the joy that’s the fruit of the Spirit must be God centered and God originated.

It’s easy to recite the fruit of the Spirit as if it’s a list of virtues or a badge of honor. But all the qualities are ingredients of happiness. Not just joy, which is happiness, but the whole list.

The permanence of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling in our lives allows us to continually access a supernatural happiness. To be robbed of the ability to rejoice or of the source of joy, a believer would have to be robbed of our happy God’s indwelling.

Browse more resources on the topic of happiness, and see Randy’s related books, including Happiness and Does God Want Us to Be Happy?

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

We’re Accountable to God for Every Word

Today’s blog is the fifth and final in a series about the importance and impact of our words. The following verses tell us a sobering truth: we are accountable to God for every word we speak (or type).

Here’s what Scripture has to say:

But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken (Matthew 12:36).

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another (Romans 14:12).

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

What does this mean? It means no conversation, no social media comment, no text should be on autopilot. We need to ask for God’s guidance, wisdom, and empowerment so our words please Him and so we will not have to give account for careless words on the Day of Judgment.

Jon Bloom writes,

We Christians ought to be the most careful speakers in the world. We are to heed God’s words ourselves and communicate them to others with care, and we are to speak our words carefully since we will “give an account [to God] for every careless word [we] speak” (Matthew 12:36).

This whole talking business is a very serious business. It’s life-and-death serious: “death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). I would think that anything this serious would naturally be a focus of my regular prayer. But as I’ve examined my prayer habits as it relates to my talking habits, I’ve noticed that I tend to only pray about what I say when I’m aware that a lot is at stake in what I say. But Jesus says a lot is at stake when I’m not aware and speaking carelessly: “for by [my] words [I] will be justified, and by [my] words [I] will be condemned” (Matthew 12:37).

What does that mean — that we’ll be justified or condemned by our words? It means our words will witness for or against us when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). Because “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). What comes out of our mouths (or through our fingers when we type) reveals what fills our hearts. Our words reveal whether or not we truly have a “fear of the Lord” that “keep[s] [our] tongue from evil” (Psalm 34:11–13).

(Read the rest of his article How to Pray about What You Say.)

Finally (and this is in relation not only to this blog but to the previous four), recognizing our accountability to God, may we pray with the psalmist, “LORD, set up a guard for my mouth; keep watch at the door of my lips” (Psalm 141:3).

Photo by Fa Barboza on Unsplash

Being Black in a White Culture

In this excerpt from my novel Dominion, the main character Clarence reflects about life as a black man in America. I should mention up front that this dialogue uses the N word, for a specific purpose, which you’ll hopefully understand as you read. When people are actually talking in a novel, calling it “the N-word” doesn’t work, as it loses its force and repugnance and hence in the attempt to speak delicately it undercuts historical reality. (Ironically, Dominion has been banned from some Texas prisons; while racist material makes it in, an anti-racist novel such as Dominion doesn’t because it uses the N word as it was actually spoken not only by bigots or gang members, but in many black families.)

Clarence understood Jake’s world much better than Jake did his. When they crowded around their tiny black and white in the sixties, My Three Sons, Ozzie and Harriet, Donna Reed, and Leave It to Beaver allowed blacks to study the white world. All whites saw of the black world were the caricatures of Amos ’n Andy and Buckwheat and Stymie, and maybe Rochester on Jack Benny. This culture was a white man’s culture, and blacks couldn’t help but learn about white people, while whites could get by knowing almost nothing about blacks.

Just last week Clarence and Geneva had rented the movie Out of Africa. It struck both of them how Meryl Streep and Robert Redford were continuously surrounded by black Kenyans on the edges of the screen. The blacks were nothing but props, like the lions and wildebeests and trees. Clarence found himself thinking not about the white central characters, but the blacks in the supporting roles. Who were they? They were people, with families and inner lives and philosophies and theologies and joys and struggles, successes and failures. But they were portrayed as one-dimensional, like the natives surrounding Tarzan, who as one white man in the midst of a jungle full of blacks still managed to be the main character. Black Africans were no more than a backdrop for those at the center of the human drama—European and American whites.

Though he was less than ten in their heyday, Clarence remembered well the Clairol hair-coloring commercials, where they zoomed in for a close-up on a beautiful young white woman whose blonde hair rippled in the wind and captivated the viewer like a bleached version of a Greek goddess. Then a throaty voice affirmed, “Blondes have more fun.” There was no such thing as a blonde Negro. People like him were destined not to have fun.

Clarence hadn’t been around many whites in Mississippi, but he was aware that white people did have more fun for at least two reasons—the way they looked and the money they had. The only people in town with convertibles were white. The only blondes were white. The only rich people were white. Black men served the whites as hired laborers, black women as domestics, maids and cooks and house-cleaners and babysitters and such, getting up in the dark, catching two or three city buses to make it to the big houses in time to fix up breakfast. “Livin’ large,” that’s how they described the white lifestyle, and all of them wanted it. Who wouldn’t?

Clarence remembered Mama catching her buses to make it to the Haverstrom’s to care for little Billy, Joseph, and Karen. When Mrs. Haverstrom decided to throw out their old clothes, Mama retrieved them from the garbage. They were Clarence’s best clothes, white kid clothes, white kid jackets. It troubled him now that those clothes had meant so much to him.

He thought of how jealous he used to be of Billy, Joseph, and Karen when Mama showed him the picture of them with her, crowded up close to her as if she belonged to them. They had their own mother, yet all day they received the attention of his mother. Their gain was his loss. Did they ever ask to see a picture of him? He never met these kids. His mama crossed into their world every day. Not once did they cross into hers.

They probably thought she just disappeared at the end of her day, like an image in a Star Trek holodeck. When it was time again, she materialized from nowhere to serve them, a piece of scenery on the stage of their lives, a minor character in the drama of which they were stars, a drama in which coloreds, if they were lucky, only got bit parts as gardeners and maids.

Black people’s hair was a silent testimony to their destiny. People who had fun possessed hair that blew in the wind. Black people’s hair didn’t blow in the wind. Black people’s hair was steel wool. It couldn’t be slung or tossed back out of their eyes—unless they imitated white people’s hair, which dozens of hair care products encouraged them to do, thick greases to tame the nappiness as though it were a wild beast.

Maybe if they acted white and looked white and thought white, maybe then they could have fun. Maybe that’s what he was thinking when he went to the old burn barrel out back and dumped it out and sifted through the white ashes and spread them all over his body. Clarence remembered looking in a mirror and feeling shame when he saw his black skin peeking out from behind the white.

Funny how he could forget the name of someone he met ten minutes ago, but he could never forget the flowing blonde mane of the white Clairol woman and the look and feel of the white ashes on his skin and the picture of the Haverstrom kids with Mama. His mama, not theirs.

He remembered Aunt Greta, his mother’s sister, chastising him and his cousins for their mischief in the chicken coop. “Stop showin’ your color,” she’d said. Whenever they’d go out in public in a white area she’d say, “Don’t go actin’ like niggers, now.”

He remembered how it angered him that when he got a little rowdy it was a federal offense, but it was fine for the white kids to act like niggers.

Lots of white people had called him nigger back in Mississippi and Chicago days. But not nearly as many whites as blacks. Clarence now believed the clearest sign his people had bought into the lie of black inferiority was that they called each other “nigga.” How often would they say, “Get off your black rear end,” as if black was the most demeaning adjective they could think of?

In the black pride days of the early seventies, black skin took on an almost religious significance. His skin color became his primary reference point. He was ashamed of the ash, ashamed he’d tried to look white even for that half hour. And that was the story of black people’s lives, he thought. Ashamed because you’re not white, then ashamed because you wanted to be white, and then ashamed because white people think black people are stupid and incompetent and immoral, and then ashamed because now so many black people believe the same myth about themselves. The immoral myth perpetrated by white racists was like radiation poisoning passing itself from generation to generation. Among many blacks, the effects of racism had become self-perpetuating.

There were two Americas, the white one bright with promise and unlimited opportunity. And the black one, dark with hopelessness. Clarence had fought against the system, overcome it, succeeded as a black man in a white world. He refused to bend either to racism or to the accusations that he was sleeping with the enemy. Yet here he sat, still feeling the shame of the Haverstrom throwaways, the hair grease, the ashes, and being called “nigger” by whites and blacks alike.

When it came to being black in America, Clarence had long ago realized, shame came with the territory. So did anger. He wished he could explain all of this to Jake, he longed to explain it. But how could he? Where could he find the words? How could he risk the humiliation and rejection? Some things you can’t change. Jake was white. Could he ever understand a black man?

One voice within always said to him, “It’s so much better than the days of slavery, so much better than sharecropping and Jim Crow.” Laws had changed, opportunities had changed. Now a black person could be stopped only by the limits of his abilities and determination. That’s what he always told himself, and usually he believed it. But not today, not here, not now.

As he was often reminded at stoplights, on elevators, and in department stores, no matter what he had accomplished, no matter who he really was, to some whites and to some blacks—sometimes even to himself—he would always be just one more nigger.

Photo by Kate Kalvach on Unsplash

The Death of Whom?

Ten years ago I wrote a article on grammar and word usage in response to a letter I received from a reader. (No doubt you all remember it well! ????) This isn’t a rehash of that old article, but for those who love reading, as I do, I want to address, in a mostly lighthearted way, some current issues of language and wording.

Language is dynamic, not static. It’s always changing, and that’s why applying old rules to contemporary writing sometimes just doesn’t resonate. I’m thinking about this because the use of “whom” has come up several times recently in the editing of my blog posts and book manuscripts.

Basically, I go by how it sounds to me and how I think it will sound to others. Some of the old language and grammar rules are rarely followed anymore, and therefore, when they are followed they sometimes sound strange, like we’re going back in time to the way people used to talk but no longer do.

Those old rules were not actually rules (there’s no such thing in language; it’s not like chess or basketball). They are simply the common practice of a certain place and era, which to be taught in English classes means they are thought of as rules. But dominant usage changes while some are trying to hold fast to the old rules. The old rules are invalidated as language changes, and who knows when the old rule should be officially jettisoned since so few people are now abiding by it that those who do sound odd? 

It comes down to how it actually sounds to most readers. The use of whom usually (though not always) strikes me as obsolete and even pedantic. No offense to butlers, but I don’t want to sound like one. As one writer puts it, “Going around using ‘whom’ properly probably makes people assume you have an entire closet just for your polo ascots.”

Quite a few people, some conveying disgust and even outrage, have made much of the fact that Twitter has a feature called Who to follow that suggests those you might be interested in. Their contention is, of course, that the proper way to say it is “Whom to follow.” Apparently Twitter feels like I do, and they don’t want to sound like a butler either.

The same is true of many old rules, like “Never split an infinitive.” This would take Star Trek from us: “To boldly go where no one has gone before.” Other times these rules make it impossible to convey precisely what we mean. For example, “I wanted to finally break that habit” works, but moving finally forward or backward doesn’t.

Or there’s “Don’t end a sentence with a preposition,” which produces “For what are you waiting?” or “That’s something up with which I shall not put” or “That is the book about which I was telling you.”  So when I’m edited to unsplit an infinitive or not end a sentence in a preposition, I’ll go with the edit IF it sounds as natural as the alternative, but often I will go back to the original because I think it’s clearer and sounds less awkward. Just a few paragraphs ago when talking about Twitter I mentioned “a feature called Who to follow that suggests those you might be interested in.” Notice I did not say, as old grammar books would insist, “those in whom you might be interested.” I am not formal, and I don’t want what I write to sound formal.

Not wishing to sound formal is why I restored most of the contractions in one of my books when an editor removed every single one of them. “Don’t take Scripture out of context became “Do not take Scripture out of context” which sounds to me not like I’m giving good advice but instead a lecture in which I’m shaking my finger at readers. Imagine that multiplied hundreds of times with “will not” instead of “won’t” and “cannot” instead of can’t. The book sounded stilted and impersonal, exactly what I didn’t want. Trust me, removing all contractions from your writing makes you sound like the android Commander Data on Star Trek, who is one of my favorite characters, but not my model for speaking English like humans do.

The old rules, including those about who and whom, center on “What do old grammar books say?” and writing is now more about “What sounds good to today’s readers?” To me, whom usually sounds formal and even pretentious. The butler answers the phone as, “Whom shall I say is calling?” It should be who, by the way, but he thinks whom sounds classier and more dignified. It also sounds affected, even if it is technically correct!

What follows is on a writing website, and it reflects the general trend against using whom, because it’s increasingly rare to see it used in conversation and presentations and even in literature:

Practically speaking, there's no way to write using "whom" in every case prescribed by the eagerly repeated grammar rule without sounding formal and stuffy.  In general, newspapers don't; novels don't. You'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that produces writing using "who" and "whom" consistently according to the rule.

Listen to how it sounds: "Whom am I kidding?" "Whom are you going to call / Whom you gonna call?  Ghostbusters!" "A biography?  Whom is it about?" "Whom do you think will be elected? Whom will people vote for?" 

The bottom line from me is this: unless who sounds worse to me, I’ll usually stick with it. I’m not a fan of whom. I rarely use it when speaking or writing, as it just sounds archaic and stilted. I enjoyed much of Downton Abby, but it’s not my goal to talk that way.  I know others who think the same, and some who don’t, but you have to make the call that sounds right to your ear, and which you think will sound most natural to most of your readers.  

This doesn’t mean grammar isn’t important—it is. I believe only when you know the “rules” of grammar are you in the position to best know when to “violate” them in the interest of not drawing attention to the form of your writing and thereby distracting attention from its meaning.

So I’m not in favor of dumbing down the language and getting rid of constructive guidelines.  I just don’t like binding rules when language is dynamic and flowing. And I don’t like words, old or new, that draw attention to themselves and sound like the speaker is trying to impress, like an article that I read recently which said, “It behooves us to…” Really? Who speaks like that? And why? (If you are a butler, feel free to say “behooves.” I am not belittling your vocation!)

Here’s a good article on the trend of replacing whom with who. Here’s yet another good one about grammatical rules that are now out of style.

Finally, I love this article because it’s very funny:

Hallmark drives another nail in coffin of dying pronoun ‘whom’

In the world of Twitter and texting, "whom" is archaic, a grammatical anachronism. In other words: Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for "whom."

By James A. Fussell

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — To whom it may concern: We’re not all that concerned with the proper use of “who” and “whom” anymore.

Oh sure, it was important to Ernest Hemingway when he wrote “For Whom the Bell Tolls” more than 70 years ago. We still teach “whom” in high school and use it as a salutation in letters to unknown recipients. And we might drop an “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,” misquote of a John Donne poem into casual conversation.

But, you know, whom really cares, right?

Read the rest.

Photo by Laura Chouette on Unsplash

Our Words Are the Overflow of Our Hearts

Today’s blog is the fourth in a series of five with Scripture on the importance and impact of our words (see the previous posts). The following verses focus on what Scripture says is the source of our words: our hearts. In other words, it’s not as simple as saying “I didn’t mean it that way” when we say things that dishonor our Lord.

It’s true that Scripture is full of disheartening diagnoses, including that the heart is “desperately sick” (ESV). But the Great Physician must tell us this hard truth so we can say, “Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Psalm 51:10). The Physician also promises, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees” (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

So words that at first sting us deeply don’t mean we’re without hope, only that we cannot cure ourselves. But God has provided the cure: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). As you read what Scripture has to say, let’s remember that the Spirit lives in us and is at work transforming our hearts:

The Source of Our Words:

For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34).

But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man “unclean” (Matthew 15:18).

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart (Luke 6:45).

The Problem Is Our Hearts:

Every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood (Genesis 8:21).

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

The Solution Is a Heart Transplant:

Create in me a new heart, O God (Psalm 51:10).

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone. I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The Surgical Tool Is God's Word:

For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart (Hebrews 4:12-13).

Once Our Hearts Are Changed, Our Words Will Change:

A wise man’s heart guides his mouth (Proverbs 16:23).

Here are some related thoughts from Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth:

Hundreds of years ago Francis de Sales said this: “Our words are a faithful index of the state of our souls.” So, you want to know what’s in your heart? Jesus said, “Out of the abundance [or overflow] of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

So if I have a critical heart, what kinds of words are going to come out? Critical words. If I have a mean-spirited heart, what kinds of words are going to come out of my mouth? Mean words, unkind words.

If I have a proud heart, I’m going to speak arrogant words. If I have an unloving heart, I’m going to speak unkind words. A self-centered heart is going to speak selfish words. And when I speak angry words, what does that tell you about my heart? It means I’ve got an angry heart.

If I speak profane words, what does that tell you about my heart? It’s profane. Impatient words come out of an impatient heart. Complaining words come out of a discontented heart. A heart that is selfish is going to talk about what? Self.

I can remember my dad telling us as we were growing up that one of the important things in conversation is not to talk about yourself. He said, “People want to talk about themselves. So ask questions that draw them out.”

As you think about the people you know who have a lot of friends, people that others want to be around, one of the things you’ll notice is that they talk about others. They ask questions about others. They’re not always talking about themselves.

I’m thinking of one Christian leader I know; I saw him just recently, and I made the comment after I left him . . . I’ve talked with him a handful of times over the years, and I said about this man who is the head of a ministry, one of the things I so appreciate about this man is that whenever you see him, he’s not telling you how he’s doing or how his ministry is doing.

He’s asking how you’re doing. He’s asking about your background and your friends and your life. This is a man whose words reveal that he has an unselfish heart. As a result, he’s an encourager. You want to be around him because there’s blessing and an overflow that comes out of that heart.

So let me ask you this: What do your words reveal about your heart? 

…If you want your words to change, it’s not enough to focus on changing your speech. What we really need is a heart change.

(Listen to the rest of Nancy’s podcast “The Power of Words.”)

One final thought: if we want our words to have lasting value and impact, and if we want our hearts to continue to be transformed, they need to be touched and shaped by God’s words. That will happen only as we make ongoing daily choices to expose our minds and hearts to Scripture, to meet with Christ, and to let Him rub off on us.

“May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, LORD, my rock and my Redeemer” (Psalm 19:14, CSB).

Photo by Martin Jernberg on Unsplash

Steward Your Gift of Singleness

Note from Randy: Today’s blog is the second of a two-part series on singleness by my assistant, Chelsea Dudley. (See part one.) As I mentioned before, I have the deepest appreciation for her wisdom and Christ-centered insights. Thanks, Chelsea, for this helpful article.

Singleness is an incredible gift from our loving Father, and a gift is meant to be cherished. So what are we to do with this gift? How do we steward it well, to God’s glory?

Statistically, most of you who are single will at some point get married. But God doesn’t promise you will. He doesn’t. I’ve searched and searched Scripture for that promise, and it’s not there. Coming to terms with this truth was probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, but it drastically changed my outlook on my singleness and allowed me to focus on stewarding it as a gift.

God doesn’t promise that you will get married, but He does promise that you are loved unconditionally. He does promise to never leave you or forsake you. He promises that in Him there is fullness of joy. He promises that His plan for you is for your good and to prosper you and not harm you. He promises to draw near to you. He promises to forgive your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. And He promises to make you like Himself. Those are some pretty incredible promises.

That’s why I believe our calling in singleness is to show that Jesus is enough. It is to have undivided devotion to the Lord, and to make Jesus our priority and let Him make us whole.

And that’s exactly what the Apostle Paul shows us in 1 Corinthians.

Free from Anxiety and Fully Devoted

In chapter 7 Paul is addressing some difficult issues in the Corinthian church. In verses 6-9 he says,

Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am [single]. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of anther. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If you’re like me when I was single, you’re probably thinking, how can it possibly be better to be single than to be married? Singleness is the last thing I want! But as we hear Paul out, we’ll begin to see why he suggests this.

In verses 32-35, Paul speaks to single people and says,

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.  But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Paul doesn’t say he wishes others were single so they’ll be miserable and lonely for the rest of their lives. No. What does he say? He wants them to be single so they can be free from anxieties and have undivided devotion to the Lord.

Fewer anxieties and undivided devotion to Jesus? That’s something to desire.

Now, being single doesn’t mean you will be completely free from anxieties and troubles. We all have struggles. Each of us is a messy sinner doing life with other messy sinners. But one benefit of being single is that you only have to worry about yourself and the Lord.

When I got married, suddenly I didn’t make decisions on my own or spend money on my own. I didn’t come home to a quiet house where my introverted soul could rest. Now Michael and I are making decisions together, even if we disagree. My buying a cup of coffee or a cute new pillow for our couch affects him, not just me. I come home to a wonderful husband who may have had a hard day, or who may need words of affirmation from me, or may need to talk.

Don’t get me wrong—I love all of those things, but my interests are divided and my anxieties are multiplied. Now I am not only supposed to be devoted to the Lord, I am supposed to think of my husband before myself and serve and care for him. These are wonderful gifts, but life is just more complex as a married person.

That’s why Paul says that singleness is a gift that allows you to have undivided devotion to the Lord. So my question is, how are you stewarding this gift God has given you? If someone were to look at your life and inside your heart, would they see that Jesus is enough? Would they see that He is your number one priority?

Priscilla Shirer says, “Whatever your life entails right now—no matter how far removed it seems from what you expected—he has anointed you and divinely equipped you to not merely handle it but to thrive in it.” 

It’s not a mistake that you are single right now. It is a special and unique gift that the Lord has graciously given you, despite the challenges that come with it.

I want to briefly talk about two struggles that aren’t unique to singleness but are common, and in some ways intensified by it: loneliness and purity. When stewarding the gift of singleness, it’s important to give these struggles to the Lord and work through them with Him.

Loneliness

Loneliness is the number one thing that I struggled with as a single person, and most of my friends who are single struggle with it too. I deeply desired companionship and to know someone intimately. I remember one particular season where I struggled over whether or not to move. The thought of making one more big life decision on my own nearly pushed me over the edge. I just wanted to do life with someone.

Loneliness is hard, and we weren’t designed for it (Genesis 2:18). But guess what? Marriage isn’t the fix for loneliness. There are many married people who feel lonelier in their relationship than they did when they were single.

If you’re struggling with loneliness, don’t fantasize about marriage and falsely believe that once you’re married, you’ll never experience it. Instead, run to Jesus with your loneliness. He wants to fill the gaps in your heart. He is the only cure for loneliness.

He also wants to give you companionship. Proverbs 68:6 changed my life: “God sets the lonely in families.” Families can come in all shapes and forms. Maybe it’s a tight group of friends that you can live life with. Maybe it’s a roommate. Maybe it’s a family with little kids that you can be a surrogate aunt to. Maybe it’s people you do ministry with, pouring out your life together for Jesus. Maybe it’s your own biological family. For me, one particular family adopted me as their own. We did ministry together, and I would babysit their kids and have dinner at their house. They were my family when I was single and lived far away from my own family.

God doesn’t call us to be lonely. He wants to meet us in our loneliness, and He wants us to be a family with other people. When you’re single, that family may look differently than you expected, but those relationships can help fill the hole you weren’t meant to have.

If you’re struggling with loneliness, run to God with your heart and feelings, and look for the family He has brought into your life. (Here is a great 4-part sermon series on loneliness by Paul Matthies.)

Purity

As a single person, purity can be a struggle. Pornography, sex before marriage, and co-habitation are rampant, not just in our society but also in our churches. I want to tell you that God has a better plan for your life.

If you’re struggling with purity of any kind, please don’t feel ashamed and isolate yourself. Many of us have been there. Seek out the help that you need and come to God with those struggles because He stands with arms wide open, ready to pour out His grace on you. He wants so much more for you. (Pure Desire Ministries is a great ministry with help and resources.)

Pour Out Your Feelings to Him

God used one passage of Scripture to radically shape my single life and help me with the struggles I faced. It’s the story of Hannah found in 1 Samuel 1. Like many of us, Hannah struggled with unmet desires. She was married to Elkanah, who loved her dearly, but Hannah was barren. Elkanah’s second wife, Peninnah, had many children and teased Hannah about her barrenness.

Every year Elkanah took his family to worship the Lord in the tabernacle at Shiloh. One particular year Hannah deeply troubled because she desperately wanted children. She went to pray to the Lord at the temple alone. Scripture says she was “deeply distressed” and “in bitterness of soul she poured out here heart to the Lord.” Have you ever been there? Have you ever wanted something so badly that your heart aches? I sure have.

What I love about Hannah is that she took all these emotions to the Lord. She didn’t bury them or pretend she didn’t feel them. She laid them all at the feet of her loving God. Then it says she “went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad. They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord; then they went back to their house at Ramah” (1 Samuel 1:18-19).

Hannah laid those soul-crushing feelings at the feet of the Lord and then went about her day with her face no longer sad and worshiped the Lord. It’s not that she didn’t feel them anymore, but she had given them to the only One who could do anything about them. She chose to not dwell on what she didn’t have, but on the One she did have.

When we struggle with unmet desires, when life is different than we expected, when we struggle with loneliness or discontentment, we can take all of those things to the Lord who sees us and hears us. In bitterness of soul we too can pour out our hearts to the Lord. We have a Great High Priest who is able to empathize with us. In fact, He is able to empathize with us in this specific way because He too was single. And then we can lift our faces and worship the Lord.

This is how we avoid wasting the gift of singleness. This is how we steward it well.

This is how we show that Jesus is enough.

Photo by Fa Barboza on Unsplash