Justin Taylor's Blog, page 3

Do Humans Have Free Will? The Answer (Of Course) Is: It Depends!

If someone asks if we have free will, you should ask at least two questions first:

Who do you mean by “we”?What do you mean by “free will”?

Those aren’t just academic questions. Without clarifying definitions and distinctions, the discussion can’t get off the ground.

The reason we need to define “we” is that the answer changes along the lines of redemptive history, with humanity being in one of four stages:

createdfallenredeemedglorified

The reason we need to define “freedom” is that there are at least two very different ways to define the term:

True freedom would be “the ability to love and serve God unhindered by sin” (Robert Peterson, Election and Free Will , 131).Freedom of choice or spontaneity is “the ability of human beings to do as they wish” (Peterson, Election and Free Will, 126).

Using Peterson’s discussion, I put together the following chart:

True FreedomFreedom of ChoiceCreatedPossessedPossessedFallenLostRetainedRedeemedRegained a measureRetainedGlorifiedPerfectedRetained

 

This can also be mapped unto an older taxonomy using Latin nomenclature to describe differing relationships to moral ability:

Humans before the fallable to sin,
able not to sinposse peccare,
posse non peccareHumans after the fallnot able not to sinnon posse non peccareHumans after redemptionable not to sinposse non peccareHumans after glorificationnot able to sinnon posse peccare

 

So to answer the question, start by asking a couple of your own, then introduce these definitions and distinctions.

Three Harms that Come from Redefining Marriage

In their book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, Sherif Gergis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George defend the historic understanding of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

At its essence, they argue, marriage is a comprehensive union—

a union of will (by consent) and body (by sexual union);inherently ordered to procreation and thus the broad sharing of family life; andcalling for permanent and exclusive commitment, whatever the spouses’ preferences.

If the law defines marriage to include nonmarital relationships (such as same-sex partners), then many people will come to misunderstand marriage, which is not only a personal and social reality but also a moral reality—that is, “a human good with an objective structure, which it is inherently good for us to live out.”

Recognizing such relationships as a “marriage” would “obscure the shape, and so weaken the special norms, of an institution on which social order depends.”

They will not see it as essentially comprehensive, or thus (among other things) as ordered to procreation and family life—but as essentially an emotional union.

. . . they will therefore tend not to understand or respect the objective norms of permanence or sexual exclusivity that shape it.

Nor, in the end, will they see why the terms of marriage should not depend altogether on the will of the parties, be they two or ten in number, as the terms of friendships and contracts do.

In summary, to the extent that people misunderstand the true definition of marriage, to that extent:

It will be harder to see the point of marital norms.It will be harder to live by marital norms.It will be harder to urge others to live in accordance with these norms.

A Simple Way to Help One Million Christians in the Global South Get a Copy of Their Own Bible

An exciting opportunity from Crossway:The Treasure

Could you imagine what life would be like without your Bible? How would your faith be different? What impact would the lack of a Bible have on your life? What would you miss most about God’s Word?

In the West we have near-immediate access to the Bible. Most of us probably own multiple copies. If not, many of our churches stock Bibles to share with members and visitors on Sundays. And of course we have convenient access to free Bible websites and apps on our smartphones.

The Need

Direct access to the Bible for the nearly 70% of the world’s evangelical Christians living in the Global South, however, is unusual. . . . Biblical illiteracy, spiritual malnourishment, and the transmission of false teaching run rampant. Without direct access to the Bible, some pastors are forced to preach from an incomplete or incorrect understanding of Scripture. Without Bibles of their own, church members are unable to learn God’s Word for themselves or hold their leaders’ words up to the light of truth (Acts 17:11).

For churches and communities in the Global South to flourish spiritually, Christians need direct access to God’s Word.

The Opportunity

We invite you to partner with us in an effort to distribute 1 million ESV Bibles around the world. These Bibles will be freely provided to Christians in places of great need and strategically subsidized in other locations where the need is just as great but the current priority is building sustainable, long-term Bible distribution models. By partnering with churches, ministry networks, and other organizations in the Global South, our goal is to provide the Word of God to 1 million Christians who would otherwise not have access to their own Bibles.

Every $50 you give delivers ten copies of God’s Word into the hands of Christians in need and contributes to building sustainable Bible distribution channels for long-term impact. Would you prayerfully consider a gift to help distribute God’s Word to those with little or no access? Our overall goal for this initiative is to raise $5 million for the distribution of 1 million Bibles. In Phase 1, our aim is to raise $500,000 by December 31, 2022, funding the initial distribution of 100,000 Bibles.

God’s Word is life-giving and powerful. Through the Bible, Christians grow in their understanding of God and salvation and are equipped to share the Good News with others. Through the Bible, pastors and church leaders are strengthened to preach the gospel and shepherd Christ’s flock. Would you partner with us to give Christians in need the most valuable thing this world affords?

Here are some FAQs:

How much of my donation will go toward Bible distribution?

100% of your gift will be used for the specific purpose of funding the distribution of 1 million Bibles, with Crossway covering all administrative costs.

Your gift of $50 could provide 10 Bibles to a rural church where members are sharing copies. $100 could equip 20 pastors with study Bibles so they can faithfully understand and preach God’s Word. $1,000 or more could provide Bibles to an entire church network and help make it possible for a community to sustain its own Bible distribution in future years.

How will Crossway choose the recipients of these Bibles?

Crossway has a large number of close ministry partnerships around the world, and will deliver many of these Bibles into the hands of recipients through these trusted networks. We will focus on the areas we and our ministry partners identified as having the greatest immediate need.

What countries or parts of the world will receive Bibles through this initiative?

We anticipate distribution in dozens of English-speaking countries and territories, especially in Africa and Asia.

Will all Bibles be given away, or will any be sold?

The vast majority of these Bibles will be given away for free. However, in some communities, the most strategic way to meet the need for God’s Word is through assistance in building sustainable Bible distribution markets. Christians in these communities can afford to pay something for a Bible, and ministry partners on the ground are investing in the network infrastructure needed to sell and distribute Bibles at low, locally-appropriate prices for years to come.

In these communities, Crossway will provide Bibles at our manufacturing cost (no margin) and will use a portion of donated funds to underwrite shipping costs. This will enable our ministry partners in these regions to resell Bibles at affordable prices to those who desperately need a Bible, and to invest their proceeds toward distributing more Bibles.

Will Crossway profit from the sale of Bibles subsidized by this initiative?

Crossway will not profit from the sale of any Bibles subsidized by this initiative. We will sell Bibles at our manufacturing cost to ensure our partners can resell these Bibles at the most affordable prices possible.

Donate here.

Listen to Zambian Pastor Conrad Mbewe Narrate the ESV

Zambian pastor and author Conrad Mbewe is one of the new voices coming to ESV.org and the ESV Bible app in 2023.

You can listen below as he reads Psalm 67:

Current Voices

Kristyn Getty

David Cochran Heath

Forthcoming Voices

Ray Ortlund

Jackie Hill Perry

Robert Smith

Michael Reeves

Thomas Terry

Conrad Mbewe

How to Listen at ESV.org

To listen to the Bible at ESV.org, simply create a free account and navigate to a passage of Scripture. Click on the megaphone icon in the upper left corner of the screen and select “Change Voice.” From there, choose between the voice options, then press the play button to begin hearing the Scripture read in your selected voice.

How to Listen on the ESV Bible App

To listen on the ESV Bible app on iOs and Android, navigate to a passage of Scripture, click on the megaphone icon and then select a voice in the lower left-hand corner.

Christological and Trinitarian Principles and Rules for Exegesis

Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), by R. B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, is garnering significant praise. Fred Sanders calls it as “profound study,” a “master class,” and “triumph.” Scott Swain refers to it as a “profoundly learned, instructive, and helpful work” and believers that it is “a book of generational significance.”

Biblical reasoning, according to the late John Webster, is

the redeemed intellect’s

reflective apprehension of God’s gospel address

through the embassy of Scripture

enabled and corrected by God’s presence

and having fellowship with him as its end.

Jamieson and Wittmena’s biblical reasoning “rule-kit” involves a set of theological principles and their corresponding exegetical rules.

By principle they mean “a doctrinal commitment, a constituent element of the catholic Christian faith.”The corresponding rule “turns an aspect of that principle into an exegetical guideline and guardrail, ‘operationalizing’ a theological principle for exegetical purposes.”

Think of it this way:

the principle is the grammar of Scripture—the source of how various parts of Scripture speak about God and Christ.the rule is how Christians are to read Scripture with the grain of its own grammar—exhibiting guidelines that are intrinsic to Scripture itself.

The following chart lays out their seven principles and ten rules.

The first three rules are essential foundation and background; the last seven help readers to identify in Scripture the identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in ways that fit with the the first three.

Principle 1: Holy Scripture presupposes and fosters readers whose end is the vision of Christ’s glory, and therein eternal life. Biblical reasoning must be ordered to this same end.Principle 2: Everything Scripture says about God is part of God’s meticulous and wise pedagogy, by which God adapts the form of his wisdom to educate finite and fallen creatures so that we might see his glory. Biblical reasoning fits within this larger context of divine teaching.Principle 3: Scripture is the inspired, textual form of Christ’s teaching in which he is present to his people across time and space, leading us toward wisdom.Rule 1: The Analogy of Faith

To rightly respond to God’s pedagogical pressures in his Word, read Scripture as a unity, interpreting its parts in light of the whole and understanding the whole as a harmonious testimony to God and his works.

Rule 2: Pedagogical Pressure

To understand the theological grammar and syntax of Scripture, read Scripture in such a way that you learn how its various discourses both form and presuppose a larger theological vision.

Principle 4: God, who is the creator of all things ex nihilo, is holy, infinite, and unchangeable. Since God is qualitatively distinct from all things, he therefore differs from creatures differently than creatures differ from one another.Rule 3: God-Fittingness

Biblical discourse about God should be understood in a way appropriate to its object, so read Scripture’s depictions of God in a manner that fits the canonical portrait of God’s holy name and his creation of all things out of nothing.

Principle 5: The one true and living God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinct in their relations to one another and the same in substance, power, and glory.Rule 4: Common and Proper

Scripture speaks both of what is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and of what is proper to each person, reflecting the conceptual distinction between the divine nature and the divine persons. Biblical reasoning discerns this distinction, upholds it, and contemplates the Holy Trinity in its light. Therefore, read Scripture’s discourse about God in such a way that its twofold discourse—the common and the proper—is recognized and employed, rather than in a way that collapses the two ways into one. In this way, we learn to count persons rather than natures.

Rule 5: Inseparable Operations

The external works of the Trinity are indivisibly one, just as God is one. Whenever Scripture mentions only one or two divine persons, understand that all three are equally present and active, undertaking the same actions in ways that imply their relations to one another. In this way, learn to count persons rather than actions.

Rule 6: Appropriation

Scripture sometimes attributes to only one divine person a perfection, action, or name common to all three, because of some contextual fit or analogy between the common attribute and the divine person in question. Read such passages in a way that does not compromise the Trinity’s essential oneness and equality.

Principle 6: One and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, exists as one person in two natures, without confusion or change, without division or separation.Rule 7: The Unity of Christ

The eternal, divine Son is the sole subject of everything Jesus does and suffers. Christ is one person, one agent, one “who.” Therefore, in reading Scripture’s witness to Christ we must never divide Christ’s acts between two acting subjects, attributing some to the divine Son and others to the human Jesus as if there were two different people.

Rule 8: The Communication of Idioms

Since Christ is a single divine person who subsists in both a divine and a human nature, Scripture sometimes names him according to one nature and predicates of him what belongs to the other nature. Scripture ascribes divine prerogatives to the man Jesus, and human acts and sufferings to the divine Son. So read Scripture in a way that recognizes and reproduces this paradoxical grammar of christological predication.

Rule 9: Partitive Exegesis

Scripture speaks of Christ in a twofold manner: some things are said of him as divine, and other things are said of him as human. Biblical reasoning discerns that Scripture speaks of the one Christ in two registers in order to contemplate the whole Christ. Therefore read Scripture in such a way that you discern the different registers in which Scripture speaks of Christ, yet without dividing him.

Principle 7: Within their unity and equality, the three persons exist in relations of origin: the Son is eternally generated from the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.Rule 10: From Another

Scripture often attributes to the divine persons ordered relations and actions that do not compromise their unity and equality, but only signify that one person eternally exists from another: the Son from the Father, the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Read Scripture in a way that recognizes and upholds these ordered relations of origin.

 

R. B. Jamieson and Tyler R. Wittman, Biblical Reasoning: Christological and Trinitarian Rules for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, 2022), 239–41. Used by permission

You Want to Be Addicted to Distraction

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) once wrote:

I have often said that the sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.

Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans, Pascal’s Pensees Edited, Outlined, and Explained (Ignatius, 1993), writes:

We ought to have much more time, more leisure, than our ancestors did, because technology, which is the most obvious and radical difference between their lives and ours, is essentially a series of time-saving devices.

In ancient societies, if you were rich you had slaves to do the menial work so that you could be freed to enjoy your leisure time. Life was like a vacation for the rich because the poor slaves were their machines. . . .

[But] now that everyone has slave-substitutes (machines), why doesn’t everyone enjoy the leisurely, vacationy lifestyle of the ancient rich? Why have we killed time instead of saving it? . . .

We want to complexify our lives. We don’t have to, we want to. We wanted to be harried and hassled and busy. Unconsciously, we want the very things we complain about. For if we had leisure, we would look at ourselves and listen to our hearts and see the great gaping hold in our hearts and be terrified, because that hole is so big that nothing but God can fill it.

So we run around like conscientious little bugs, scared rabbits, dancing attendance on our machines, our slaves, and making them our masters. We think we want peace and silence and freedom and leisure, but deep down we know that this would be unendurable to us, like a dark and empty room without distractions where we would be forced to confront ourselves. . .

If you are typically modern, your life is like a mansion with a terrifying hole right in the middle of the living-room floor. So you paper over the hole with a very busy wallpaper pattern to distract yourself. You find a rhinoceros in the middle of your house. The rhinoceros is wretchedness and death. How in the world can you hide a rhinoceros? Easy: cover it with a million mice. Multiple diversions.

10 Affirmations and Denials on Men and Women in the Created Order, Marriage, and the Church

This statement out of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Manhood & Womanhood Affirmations and Denials (2001), is worthy of careful study and consideration:

Preamble

We live in an age with much confusion about what it means to be a man and a woman as God intended. The questions surrounding the nature of biblical manhood & womanhood, and how men and women ought to live in God’s world, are more pressing than ever.

We hope to approach this subject with humility and love. We are all broken people, and we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2). We acknowledge the pain and struggle that can surround these issues. Our hope is to articulate our beliefs in a way that does not condemn but rather invites people to joy in Jesus Christ.

The purpose of this document is to clearly affirm and deny what we, the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elders, believe and do not believe about the complementarity of men and women, specifically in regard to the created order, marriage, and the church. The scope of these affirmations and denials is intended to be broad in theological vision. We recognize that we cannot answer every specific question, nor can we apply these truths to every situation. Rather, we hope to provide a clear picture of what we believe and do not believe in order to lay the groundwork for applications in specific contexts.

Creation1. God’s Good Design

We affirm that God created mankind in his image as male and female with equal personhood and worth, and that he commissioned them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and to rule and subdue it together.

We also affirm that differences between men and women are part of God’s good design and plan (Genesis 1:26–28, 31).

We deny that male and female are indistinct from or interchangeable with one another, or that the differences are inconsequential (Genesis 1:26–27, 2:21–24; Matthew 19:4–5).

2. Sexual Difference

We affirm that when God created human beings, he established a male-female binary that is normatively displayed at the chromosomal level of human biology (Genesis 1:27, 2:18–25; Matthew 19:4; 1 Corinthians 11:8–12).

We deny that any so-called gender identity that contradicts the biological markers of male and female assigned by God can be legitimately chosen or changed based on personal preference, subjective feeling, or societal norm (Psalm 139:13–15).

We also deny that any human condition resulting from the Fall removes or cancels the image of God in any individual or puts anyone beyond God’s call to salvation and saving grace.

3. The Fall

We affirm that because of the Fall, sin has marred the sexual experience of humankind, resulting in various disorders (such as intersex conditions and gender dysphoria), which display the brokenness of creation (Genesis 3; Romans 8:20–23).

We deny that the presence of various disorders is evidence that God intended other modes of existence outside the male-female binary and that such disorders or dysphoria ever legitimize behaviors contrary to this divine intention (Genesis 1:26–28; Matthew 19:4–5).

3. Masculinity and Femininity

We affirm that men ought to display uniquely masculine ways of being and that women ought to display uniquely feminine ways of being in every sphere of life, which are fitting to God’s good design in creation, even if the expressions of masculinity and femininity may vary in limited ways from culture to culture (1 Corinthians 11:13–16, 16:13; 1 Timothy 2:8–13; 1 Peter 3:3).

We deny that these masculine and feminine ways of being can be reduced to mere social constructs, while also denying that they should include unhelpful cultural stereotypes that are not in step with the Bible.

Marriage, Family, and Singleness5. Definition and Purpose of Marriage

We affirm that God created and intended marriage to be the loving, lifelong union of a man and a woman, and that marriage is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.

We affirm that one of the purposes of marriage is procreation; nevertheless, a husband and wife may still glorify God even if they are unable to have children (Genesis 1:28, 2:24; Song of Solomon 2:7; Matthew 19:4–6; Luke 20:34–36).

We deny that any union between two men, two women, more than two people, or any other unbiblical arrangement constitutes a legitimate marriage.

6. Marriage Roles

We affirm that God, in his wisdom, appointed unique and complementary roles within marriage, according to creation, and as a type of the relationship between Christ and the church (Genesis 2:15, 18; Ephesians 5:22–33; 1 Peter 3:1–7).

We deny that the distinct, God-given roles of husbands and wives or of fathers and mothers are inconsequential, interchangeable, or indistinct from one another.

7. Husbands

We affirm that, as Christ is the head of the church, a husband is the head of his wife and should display sacrificial and loving headship in marriage, bearing a particular accountability before God in the leadership of the home (Ephesians 5:22–33, 1 Peter 3:7).

We deny that a husband’s headship is inherently oppressive to his wife.

We deny that either spouse should ever domineer, manipulate, neglect, or abuse the other spouse, and we deny that these behaviors should ever be overlooked or permitted when brought to the attention of church leaders.

8. Wives

We affirm that, as the church submits to Christ, a wife should submit to her husband and should display joyful respect and help in marriage (Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1–6).

We deny that a wife’s submission is a result of sin’s corruption of God’s design.

We also deny that either wives or husbands should follow their spouses into sin.

9. Singleness

We affirm that just as marriage is a gift from God, singleness is also a gift from God to be enjoyed as an excellent path for faithful and fruitful service in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:6–8, Matthew 19:10–12).

We deny that singleness should be given less respect or honor as a way of life in service to Christ.

We also deny that singleness should be used as an excuse for sinful behaviors.

10. The Telos of Marriage

We affirm that the ultimate point of marriage is to picture the relationship between Christ and the church, which will be consummated when the church, Christ’s bride, will be united to Jesus in glory, at which point marriage will cease to exist in its earthly form (Luke 20:34–36; Ephesians 5:31–32).

We deny that earthly marriage is the ultimate goal of the Christian or that one must pursue marriage to portray the gospel with one’s life.

The Church11. Unity in Christ and Calling

We affirm that men and women share equally in the manifold blessings of salvation through Jesus Christ and that he commissioned them to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18–20, Acts 2:17–21, Galatians 3:28).

We deny that men and women’s unity in Christ removes God-given distinctions between the sexes in the home, church, and society.

12. The Office of Elder

We affirm that the office of pastor/elder in Christ’s church is to be occupied by faithful men, whose work includes shepherding the flock, guarding faithful doctrine, and teaching God’s word in corporate worship gatherings and other contexts (1 Timothy 2:12, 3:1–7; Titus 1:6–9; 1 Peter 5:2–3).

We affirm that the New Testament teaching on male pastors/elders is rooted in the order of creation (1 Corinthians 11:8–9; 1 Timothy 2:13–14).

We also affirm that elders should seek the valuable perspectives and contributions of women in the church for the sake of the faithfulness and fruitfulness of both women and men (Romans 16:3; Philippians 4:2–3).

We deny that the prescription of male pastors/elders is intended for only one specific culture or time period and not universally binding.

13. Spiritual Gifts

We affirm that God has given men and women various spiritual gifts to glorify him, love and serve others, and build up the body of Christ.

We affirm the apostle Paul’s instruction that a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:12) and also that there are biblically appropriate contexts for women to teach (Acts 18:26; 1 Corinthians 11:4–5, 12:27–31; Colossians 3:16; Titus 2:3–5).

We affirm that the gifts and ministry of women are essential to the church.

We deny that women are less gifted than men, and we deny that giftedness is an entitlement to an office or certain responsibilities in the church.

10 Affirmations and Denials on Ethnic Harmony, Justice, and the Church

The following statement was released in 2021 by Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. As far as I can tell, it didn’t get much attention. But is worth careful reading and study as the church at large continues to contemplate and discuss these important and difficult issues.

The elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church recognize that the issue of ethnic harmony has become a source of some significant confusion and division.

We lament that many people have experienced the painful effects of ethnic partiality and injustice. We are all broken people, and we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2).

We seek to humbly put ourselves under the word of God. We pray that the word of Christ would dwell in us richly (Colossians 3:16) and that the love of Christ would control us completely (2 Corinthians 5:14).

We are eager to maintain the oneness of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3), and we have a fervent longing to love one another by speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

We believe that this cause of love and clarity requires both affirmations and denials.

We have tried to speak clearly and concisely about what we are for and what we are against.

We believe that in the absence of biblical clarity, ethnic harmony becomes a “wax nose” that we can shape and twist any way we like. It is possible to use the same terminology but utilize a different standard of reference. We simply cannot allow politics or secular culture to define our terms or determine our beliefs. Jesus puts his finger on ethnic harmony and says, “Mine.”

Therefore, the aim of these affirmations and denials is to rightly represent the voice of Jesus Christ. The One who designed ethnic diversity has unparalleled authority and has the final word on the whole issue. The lordship of Christ over the church means that his designs and his purposes should be brought to the forefront of the discussion rather than fading into the background while we mimic secular assumptions, arguments, and solutions. We must think deeply and biblically about how Christ aims to be made much of in ethnic harmony.

1. The Image of God

We affirm that God created every human in his image with equal worth in his sight (Genesis 1:26–27, 5:1–2, 9:6; James 3:9).

We deny that humans can treat other humans unjustly without offending their Creator. God does not show partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17), nor should we (Proverbs 18:5, 24:23, 28:21; James 2:1–13; cf. Jude 16). Therefore, ethnic partiality is sinful.

2. Race

We affirm that we all share one race—the human race. We share the same bloodline. We all have the same original parents, Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20, 5:1–2; Acts 17:26).

We deny that the modern category of race matches what the Bible says about humans. According to contemporary usage, race is primarily physical or biological—focusing, for example, on skin color, facial features, and hair texture.

The category of ethnicity matches more closely what the Bible says about humans. Ethnicity is primarily cultural—that is, it includes shared physical characteristics and ancestry but also includes characteristics such as culture, language, and geopolitics.

We acknowledge that it is important to understand the role that the term race has played in our nation’s history and throughout the world. The concept of race is part of a painful past; it is a social construct that has been used in the service of oppression with ongoing implications of superiority and inferiority.

We deny that Christians should uphold divisions along racial or ethnic lines. Racism is sinful because it dishonors God by exhibiting an explicit or implicit attitude, belief, or practice that values one race over other races.

3. People Groups

We affirm that God’s global plan to save sinners includes people from every ethnic group (Genesis 12:1–3; Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 10:9–43; Romans 1:5; Galatians 2:11–16; 3:8, 14, 16, 28–29; Colossians 3:11; Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 14:6)—both Jews and Gentiles (Genesis 12:1–3; Deuteronomy 7:6–8; Matthew 28:18–20; Galatians 3:8, 14, 16, 28–29; Colossians 3:11).

We deny that any one people group has more value in God’s sight than another. We exist to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.

4. Interethnic Marriage

We affirm that God approves of interethnic marriage (e.g., Numbers 12; Ruth 4:13–22). Opposing the concept of interethnic marriage manifests deep-rooted ethnic partiality.

We deny that God approves of interfaithmarriage—that is, marriage between a believer and an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1).

5. Our Neighbors

We affirm that we must love our neighbors across ethnic lines—even when such love is countercultural, costly, and inconvenient (Luke 10:25–37).

We deny that ethnic groups should perpetuate antagonistic us-versus-them relations.

6. Church Unity

We affirm that the church must maintain the unity (including ethnic harmony) that Christ powerfully created (Ephesians 2:11–3:6, 4:1–6; Colossians 3:11).

We affirm God’s calling on all Christians to love one another as Christ loved us by means of kindness, forgiveness, and humble self-sacrifice (Ephesians 4:32, Philippians 2:1–8; Colossians 3:12–15).

We deny that any self-defining characteristic is more significant than our identity in Christ.

7. Ethnic Diversity in the Church

We affirm that the church should prize and welcome the ethnic harmony that Jesus purchased with his blood because that glorifies God.

We deny that ethnic diversity should be an end in itself that we pursue at any cost.

We deny that diversity should be treasured above biblical fidelity and sound doctrine.

8. Justice

We affirm that the church must love and do justice, which entails treating all peoples from all ethnicities justly and encouraging its members to pursue justice in society. Justice is making righteous judgments according to the standard of God’s righteousness (1 Kings 3:28; Proverbs 29:4).

We recognize that individuals and groups with power have often exploited the vulnerable for their own gain (Exodus 1:5–14; James 5:1–6) and that sinners can create unjust systems (Esther 3:7–14, Psalm 94:20–21, Isaiah 10:1–2). We should examine suspected examples of systemic injustice on their own merits, seeking to destroy ungodly strongholds and taking every thought captive to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).

Although worldly systems of thought can make accurate observations, we reject all systems of thought that view relationships primarily through the lens of power—that is, those with more power are inherently oppressors, and those with less power are inherently oppressed (see Colossians 2:8).

We deny that only those with more power can be guilty of showing ethnic partiality. Any person of any ethnicity can be guilty of showing ethnic partiality (cf. Acts 6:1; James 2:1–13).

9. Political Engagement

We affirm that when pursuing justice in society, Christians should distinguish between clear biblical commands and issues that require wisdom.

For a clear biblical command, there is a straight line from a biblical or theological principle to a political position (e.g., the Bible forbids murder, so we oppose abortion).

For an issue that requires wisdom, there is a multistep process from a biblical or theological principle to a political position (e.g., immigration policy).

Fellow church members should agree on what the Bible clearly commands, and they should recognize Christian freedom on issues that require wisdom (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8).

We also affirm that believers should consistently hold their kingdom citizenship as primary over their citizenship in any nation on earth (Philippians 3:20; Ephesians 2:19; Hebrews 11:13–16).

We deny that we must completely agree on issues that require wisdom in order to be fellow church members. Such issues include tax policy, government spending priorities, accounting for ethnic disparities, presenting American history, specifying systemic injustices, and analyzing policing and America’s judicial system. Christians should respect fellow church members who have differently calibrated consciences on such political issues. Further, insisting that Christians agree on such issues misrepresents Christ to non-Christians. Consequently, we reject any attempt to fuse together one’s national/political identity with one’s Christian identity in a way that equates or conflates allegiance to country with allegiance to God.

10. The Mission of the Church

We affirm that the mission of the church is the Great Commission: “Make disciples of all nations” by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and by teaching them to observe everything that Jesus commands us (Matthew 28:19–20). God has commissioned local churches, acting corporately, to teach everything Jesus commanded and to equip saints for their various ministries (Ephesians 4:11–12). While Christians care about alleviating present earthly suffering, we care especially about alleviating eternal suffering by verbally proclaiming Jesus as Savior and Lord and calling all to repent and believe (Acts 14:27; Romans 10:14–17, 15:18; 1 Corinthians 15:1–2, 11; Colossians 1:28).

We deny that doing justice is equivalent to the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1–2). Good works are the fruit of regeneration and conversion (Titus 2:14, 3:14).

We also deny that the church’s corporate mission is identical to the mission God has given individual believers. God has not commissioned local churches, acting corporately, to advocate across the whole range of issues that comprise the work of government.

What Mother Teresa Told the Supreme Court: “Your Decision in Roe v. Wade Has Deformed a Great Nation”

In 1994, Mother Teresa submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court about abortion in America. (For context, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that allows late-term elective abortions for any reason.)

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation.

The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.

It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society.

It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.

It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.

Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

In their new book, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis comment:

Mother Teresa is correct: the individual’s right to life does not depend on our consent, but the brutality of abortion is possible today because enough citizens have agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to close their eyes to the truth about what abortion is. That truth is almost too painful to acknowledge, and many have learned to look away instead.

We talk about abortion with euphemisms such as “women’s rights,” “reproductive freedom,” “bodily autonomy,” and the “right to choose.”

But the right to choose what?

Rarely in our public debates do we argue about what abortion is. No one who supports abortion wants to talk about what really happens in every abortion procedure, because that reality is grisly and horrifying. It can persist only when we refuse to acknowledge this violence and the many ways that it damages our society and our solidarity with one another.

For a typical American who doesn’t spend much time thinking about abortion, consider what it would mean to admit that, for the past fifty years, our country has legally sanctioned the killing of more than sixty-five million human beings.

Think of the millions of women who have had abortions, many of whom did so based on misguided conceptions of freedom and autonomy, but many of whom did so because they felt pressured or abandoned. Large numbers of both sets of women have suffered physical harm and psychological trauma as a result, and yet they struggle to give voice to those harms in a culture that claims abortion is either no big deal or a cause for celebration.

Consider the relationships and marriages blighted by abortion, women used and abused by men, children who lost a sibling, grandparents who never got to meet a grandchild. No family has ever been better off because of abortion.

Think about the doctors who performed these abortions, who used their medical expertise to kill the vulnerable patient in the womb. It might be difficult to feel sympathy for them, but how can a person perform abortions and not be harmed by having committed such an evil? As Aristotle teaches, we become what we do. Those who kill become killers.

Think of the countless politicians and activists who have enabled and promoted abortion, pretending it is a simple, harmless medical procedure, akin to having a tooth pulled.

Think of those who have done nothing to stop this terror.

Think of those—ourselves included—who haven’t done enough.

These are the costs of admitting the truth about abortion, just a small part of why many prefer to turn away and pretend it isn’t true at all. But acknowledge it we must, because ignoring it will only make the problem worse. All of us are affected by the lethal logic of abortion. A society that endorses abortion devalues the life of every single member, as it allows mothers to destroy their children and sanctions violence against the most vulnerable members of the human community. Each of us enters life dependent on our families, particularly on our mothers, and though our level of dependence fluctuates throughout the course of our lives, we remain dependent on one another. A healthy society doesn’t deny or try to eliminate dependency; it helps people meet the needs of their neighbors and bear one another’s burdens.

You can find the Anderson/DeSanctis book here:

 

What Mother Theresa Told the Supreme Court: “Your Decision in Roe v. Wade Has Deformed a Great Nation”

In 1994, Mother Teresa submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court about abortion in America. (For context, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that allows late-term elective abortions for any reason.)

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation.

The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.

It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.

It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society.

It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.

It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.

Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

In their new book, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis comment:

Mother Teresa is correct: the individual’s right to life does not depend on our consent, but the brutality of abortion is possible today because enough citizens have agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to close their eyes to the truth about what abortion is. That truth is almost too painful to acknowledge, and many have learned to look away instead.

We talk about abortion with euphemisms such as “women’s rights,” “reproductive freedom,” “bodily autonomy,” and the “right to choose.”

But the right to choose what?

Rarely in our public debates do we argue about what abortion is. No one who supports abortion wants to talk about what really happens in every abortion procedure, because that reality is grisly and horrifying. It can persist only when we refuse to acknowledge this violence and the many ways that it damages our society and our solidarity with one another.

For a typical American who doesn’t spend much time thinking about abortion, consider what it would mean to admit that, for the past fifty years, our country has legally sanctioned the killing of more than sixty-five million human beings.

Think of the millions of women who have had abortions, many of whom did so based on misguided conceptions of freedom and autonomy, but many of whom did so because they felt pressured or abandoned. Large numbers of both sets of women have suffered physical harm and psychological trauma as a result, and yet they struggle to give voice to those harms in a culture that claims abortion is either no big deal or a cause for celebration.

Consider the relationships and marriages blighted by abortion, women used and abused by men, children who lost a sibling, grandparents who never got to meet a grandchild. No family has ever been better off because of abortion.

Think about the doctors who performed these abortions, who used their medical expertise to kill the vulnerable patient in the womb. It might be difficult to feel sympathy for them, but how can a person perform abortions and not be harmed by having committed such an evil? As Aristotle teaches, we become what we do. Those who kill become killers.

Think of the countless politicians and activists who have enabled and promoted abortion, pretending it is a simple, harmless medical procedure, akin to having a tooth pulled.

Think of those who have done nothing to stop this terror.

Think of those—ourselves included—who haven’t done enough.

These are the costs of admitting the truth about abortion, just a small part of why many prefer to turn away and pretend it isn’t true at all. But acknowledge it we must, because ignoring it will only make the problem worse. All of us are affected by the lethal logic of abortion. A society that endorses abortion devalues the life of every single member, as it allows mothers to destroy their children and sanctions violence against the most vulnerable members of the human community. Each of us enters life dependent on our families, particularly on our mothers, and though our level of dependence fluctuates throughout the course of our lives, we remain dependent on one another. A healthy society doesn’t deny or try to eliminate dependency; it helps people meet the needs of their neighbors and bear one another’s burdens.

You can find the Anderson/DeSanctis book here: