Tuesday, July 28, 2015


Dear Brothers in the various Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in America,
   Greetings to all of you in Jesus name!  I am writing as a response to the events at the General Assembly held this summer in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am writing in an attempt to provide some ideas as to how Presbyteries and Sessions might proceed in thinking about and responding to a call for repentance for the actions or non-actions of our founders , or ourselves, during the time preceding and during the Civil Rights Movement and our national historic break with a segregationist past.

   Now, I am aware that this letter may be unwelcome by some of you if you have already come to the opinion that there was no sin on our part, or the part of our founders, and think therefore that no corporate confession or repentance is necessary.  There may be no acceptance that the sins contained in what we know as racism are continuing or that we (as PCA members of the dominant white culture in America) may have some responsibility concerning their reality and continuance.  Obviously that conclusion has to be made first if there is to be any humble and open discussion of these matters.

    I know that some Presbyteries have already begun to discuss this, with the assumptional foundation that there has indeed been sin, either of commission or omission, in regard to loving African Americans in particular and other ethnicities, besides ourselves, in general.  Having been asked by several presbyteries about guidance in these matters I thought I would send out a general letter with some things to think and pray about that might help you as we prepare for next year’s General Assembly when these matters will again rise for discussion and action.  I write this as an individual Teaching Elder with some experience in these matters, but I speak for no agency or organization as I do so.

    I do write in the joyful optimism of the forgiveness of sins, the healing of the Body of Christ, and the anticipation of a reconciled community.  I am in no way suggesting a kind of “witch hunt” or a shunning of people who have not yet come to my conclusions.  I don’t believe racism is the “unforgiveable sin” except in the hard standard of the book of I John where hatred of our brothers means we cannot truly love God.  I am writing with an awareness of my own sinfulness in so many areas of my own life, and an appreciation of God’s wonderful patience with me and the patience of many Christians who have prayed and yearned for my own spiritual growth and maturity.  I yearn for it too.

     Please forgive me for my presumption in regard to giving you any unsolicited advice, as I know not all of us have reached the same conclusions in these matters, although many have.  I understand that if this letter offends you that you most likely won’t use any of my suggestions.  Obviously I am writing with the conviction that there certainly has been sin in America, and sin in our churches, and sin in our hearts as members of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This is neither about the sins of government, nor about society in general, but our sins as Christians and by our denominational forefathers, and the negative results of sin that we might still encourage by our silence or passivity.

1.      Were our denominational antecedents supportive of segregation, and resistant to the integration of minorities in our congregations?
2.     Was our particular congregation supportive or active in segregation, and resistant to the inclusion of minorities into the life of our congregations due to racial attitudes of superiority, or disdain for minorities?
3.     Did any of our congregations begin on purpose as a segregated congregation?
4.     Were any of our founders, as expressed in their actions and writings supportive of segregation or held racist views of minorities, and have we failed to confront them?
5.     Have any of our founders or present ministers used the Scripture in ways that distorted and misinterpret the Word of God due to a racial bias, to include such teachings as the curse on Canaan in Genesis 9, the using of ethnic and national segregation for purity purposes in the Old Testament as a prescriptive teaching for our own American experience, the teaching in 2 Corinthians 6 about not being unequally yoked together with unbelievers as a teaching against inter-racial marriage?  Have we failed to call them to a more correct use of exegesis and interpretation?
6.     Have we indulged those who were racist in our congregations and failed to confront them in not loving their neighbor as themselves, or not loving their brothers who also confess Christ?
7.     Have we told racist jokes from the pulpit or in company with other church leaders and members?
8.     Have we cast minorities as negative stereotypes in our sermons and teaching?
9.     Have we purposefully made choices about our evangelism and discipleship to avoid racial and ethnic minorities, or as an attempt to resist their entrance into our churches, schools, or agencies?
10.  Have we cared nothing about justice for minorities, or those who have been oppressed socially in this country, and stood by and said nothing about prejudice, attitudes of racial superiority, laws and policies that economically exploited and hurt ethnic groups purposefully and in return acted to our own racial and ethnic advantage?  Have we neglected the weightier matters of the Law?

1.     Schedule time to discuss, think, and pray about these matters in your meetings.
2.     Have someone preach from Scripture relevant to these matters.
3.     Invite experienced Teaching Elders who think, write, or teach about these matters to speak to your Presbytery, Session, or Congregation.
4.     Have open discussion times, or a Committee of the Whole, to discuss these matters.
5.     Welcome personal moments of testimony or confession, and cover those saints with prayer and assurance of love.
6.     Find and circulate a reading list about these subjects from a Biblical perspective, buy books and distribute them to your members to help them.
7.     Pursue ethnic minorities for discussion and input, ask for their advice.
8.     Don’t place the burden of plans for action on the backs of ethnic minorities by asking them what we are to do, but certainly ask for their wisdom and perspective on these things.  Remember, no one person can speak for a whole people group and it is not fair to ask them to do so.  Minority individuals may differ in their opinion concerning these issues or what actions we should take. 
9.     Come up with a Presbytery plan of action.  Is there a committee that should be established to help the whole presbytery think about issues of justice and inclusion on a regular basis?  Is there an overture that should be sent to General Assembly that would help the whole denomination think and deal with these things?  Is there a statement that should be made in your own local community or region to ethnic leaders or ethnic  and minority congregations and pastors?  Is there some kind of meeting that should be held with them to help bring reconciliation?
10.  What meaningful discussions can we have about mono-racial churches, both in the majority population and in minority populations?  When and why is that Biblical, healthy, and glorifying to God and when is it not?

1.     Include racial history and attitudes in your Presbytery exams.  If racism is a sign of ungodly character, then hold members accountable for it.  In examining for church history make sure candidates understand this part of our denomination’s history.
2.     If there are significant minority populations in the area of your presbytery is the presbytery proactive in seeking to plant churches in those areas?  What would it take to be successful in seeing PCA churches planted in minority communities?
3.     Is the Presbytery active in seeking to initiate Gospel ministry on any HBCU institutions in your boundary?
4.     What efforts have we made in insuring multi-racial involvement on any of our agency boards of committees?  How can we make sure racial minorities and their perspectives are included in these national ministries?
5.     Are we keeping an eye on racial inclusion and racial and ethnic enlargement on faculties, campus ministries, missionary teams and candidates, and staff?
6.     Are we encouraging all of our Teaching and Ruling elders to learn cross cultural skills in ministry?
7.     What kind of financial support do we need to provide for recruiting, educating, training, credentialing, and deploying minorities into PCA ministry?  What plans can we make to raise that money?

   May the Lord help all of us move toward peace, healing, and unity in the Body of Christ over these issues.  May the Lord give us all wonderful moments of love and reconciliation as we pursue these discussions.

The Peace of the Lord be with you, and His Church,

Randy Nabors,

Teaching Elder(HR), Tennessee Valley Presbytery

Monday, July 20, 2015


    Some authorities seem to be having a problem finding a motive for the killing of our marines and a sailor in Chattanooga this July.  There seems to be a hesitation to call it terrorism if the perpetrator cannot be proved to have some connection to a terrorist organization.  Since the killer was a Muslim the authorities are obviously looking into Islamic Jihadist movements.

   There is of course a problem in that thinking, and that is a failure to understand the motivating factor of religion within an individual to produce an act of terror.  This attack was against our entire nation, not simply against a location, not simply against individuals, as those who were attacked and killed were representatives of our nation’s armed forces.  I don't believe this was typical American work place violence, or done from a despairing sense of nihilism; any target will do for that.  This was too political a statement to be dismissed so easily.  Two military locations were targeted, although one location might have simply been to draw off the police so the killing could take place in another.

    It may be proved that the killer was in contact with some particular organization, or at least reading online encouragement for Jihad and the call to commit attacks against the U.S. by the end of Ramadan.   That is when it happened, but again whether that is what the attacker intended is still unknown.  Whether he was in contact with Jihadis, or simply inspired by propaganda, or motivated by things he heard and saw while visiting the Middle East, it is still possible something else was at work and that something may have simply been religious zeal.

    There is a political conundrum about blaming a religion for horrendous acts against our nation and culture, although those who have been our enemies have consistently and outspokenly explained their murderous and heinous acts as religiously motivated.  The obvious problem of simply blaming Islam for the terror is that not everyone who is a Muslim is a terrorist, for which we are grateful.  That would make things fairly simple, but overwhelmingly horrible, and the war would therefore have to be horrendous to put it down.

    Preachers know that one sermon can make the difference between someone who is a “backslider” or “prodigal” and one who now has a fresh passion and commitment to God.  Ramadan is a time of year when Muslims get in touch with their religion, they get back to the basics, they seek for a spiritual revival.  The Muslim killer not too long ago had a DUI, which is not a sign of being a good Muslim.  I am not sure what he did with his guilt about that, but I have a suspicion.  Christians are well aware of spiritual revival and renewal, when our faith is “radicalized” and we become more fervent.  This is something common to religious adherents.

   What is not common is murder, and this is exactly where Islam and Christianity part company.  This is one reason I am so grateful that the Bible is a book of progressive revelation, where the Old Testament unfolds into the New Testament.  When a Muslim becomes “radical” in their faith all the teachings of the Koran become motivating to them, even the ones that construe the killing of non-Muslims to be something their Allah would approve.   For Christians to become radical means we become more like Jesus, and thus more loving and more forgiving. 

    All religions have splinter groups that are not consistent with the fundamental principles of that religion.  All religions have “cults” and charismatic leaders who delude their followers into stupid and perverted twists on the original religion.  For Christianity to be “fundamental” means to love more, but that is not true for Islam.  Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t need a cult to make it dangerous, it has always been a militaristic and imperialistic religion, and it is a great blessing to the world for most of its adherents to be “moderate” about their religion.  It is a shame for so many Christians to be “moderate” about theirs.

    There have been seminars and conferences to bring about some understanding of what has radicalized Muslim young adults.  Opinions have been offered about poverty, displacement, alienation, and other emotional and social causes.  It seems like it is forbidden to simply say, “ah, how about religion?”  If it could simply be renewed fervency of Islamic practice that means it is fairly unpredictable, or very predictable, depending on how you look at it. 

    The secular West has a very hard time trying to figure this out.  We seem to have the expectancy that people will privatize their religious beliefs, be non-intrusive to others, and that religious adherents would subordinate their beliefs to a Western pluralism.  Secularists have few tools to understand Islam nor do they have the ideas to clearly speak to its dangers without sounding undemocratic.  The mass migration of Muslims to countries of the West without their willingness to assimilate either to Christianity, or to Western secular ideas (and this is not to include materialism or technology which Muslims can readily embrace) makes radicalized individuals, in our midst, far too possible.  For Christians being a martyr means to die for your faith, for a Muslim it means killing infidels while you die for your faith. 

   We are not speaking of crazy people here nor of deadbeats and losers.  We are talking about smart, educated, earnest young people who want to make a difference in life.  Unfortunately the religion they have become fervent about means that to make a difference might come through murder, beheading, suicide bombing, kidnapping of young women, and taking children into slavery.  Since the West has decided it doesn’t know what its values are, or which cultural values it should keep, it has opened the door to all kinds of difficulty in stemming what it will call “inexplicable” acts of violence. 

    There is another problem that is closer to home for Christians.  The question is how can we love Muslim people while understanding that the religion they hold might cause them to act in hate toward us, and might motivate them to kill us, and has motivated other Muslims to kill our brothers and sisters around the world?  How can we love Muslims who hold to a religion that might at any time motivate some of them to kill our military members, our own sons and daughters, in the name of their Allah?  This is hard, but it has always been hard for Christians to love those that hate them, and yet at the same time it has always been the command of Christ for us to do so.  In times like these we will need to believe that the grace of God is able to help us to do just that.

Thursday, July 9, 2015


   It seems to me that we have a conflict of compassionate perspectives when it comes to immigration.  Sometimes we hear stories of undocumented immigrants who are caught by the reality that though they live in the U.S., possibly came here legally but overstayed their visa, or were brought here by their parents but now because of the law may be sent back to a home they no longer acknowledge, nor do they wish to return.

  I have been asked by pastors what to do with someone their church has come to love and to whom they have shown mercy, but the only way they can survive is in a hidden economy, and surviving with the constant dread and anxiety of being caught and deported.  How can a local church help them, past consulting with lawyers, providing emergency food and transportation to church, maybe even housing?  What the person need's is a legal job, but that is one thing the church can’t provide without actively breaking the law.  However, no matter how desperate things seem to get the person will not willingly return to their country of origin.  They wait to find someone to marry, or for the law to change in the hopes that they can stay.   Most churches come to the end of what they can legally do and continue to assist in some frustrated manner as they wait to see, with the individual, how the story will play out.

   Whether individuals or churches become advocates for changes in the immigration law or not it is the immediate response to human need and the limitations of only being able to do so much that usually frustrates them.  Advocacy is the long fight while mercy is the near fight right in front of them.  On top of this are the moral and ethical dilemmas of seeing some wonderful people live in a shadow world where they choose to break laws to make a living, such as false or stolen identity, driving without a license, fake social security numbers, or living off of a cash economy and not paying taxes.

     While it is understandable for people to want a better life, I admit some Americans find it difficult to feel a lot of compassion for people who have lived a lie only because they want to make more money, or live  better materially, but face neither real poverty nor political or religious persecution back home.  Some of these folks knowingly took advantage of the visa program and stayed when they should have gone home, and now realize that if they do go home voluntarily they will have to wait years before they can ever ask to come back to a country they have come to love.

     Americans can be in favor of a generous immigration policy while wanting people to obey the laws we have created to make immigration somewhat of an orderly process.  No matter the many stories that seem to show America, and Americans, resistant to a flood of undocumented aliens the truth is that we allow many thousands of refugees to enter and live in our country every year, besides those who apply to legally emigrate from their own country through embassies.

    There is another perspective about compassion beside the immediate concern of a desperate individual or family and their fear of being sent back to their country of origin.  This is a larger concern about the incentive for migration that inadequate and inept policies, laws, and enforcement have created so that people foolishly risk their lives. Most of us have heard horrible stories of “coyotes” and smugglers exploiting people, of sometimes tragic endings to trips across the desert, or folks who die in shipping containers.  I don’t know if anything has matched what has been happening in the Mediterranean Sea, where thousands have drowned attempting to reach Europe.

   Another way of being compassionate is to make laws enforceable and sensible so that a tempting incentive doesn’t lead people to take unreasonable risk.  Migration has been a constant of human existence.  It is rare that migration doesn’t come without some kind of conquest, either in a militaristic or cultural sense.  If these migrations were actually invasions nations would fight to protect themselves.  They would see the coming of hundreds of thousands of “foreigners” as an attempt to supplant the indigenous folks, or to eradicate their cultural and religious traditions.  These modern migrations don’t have tyrants, conquerors, or generals behind them but they are culturally transformative even so.  Do nations have a right to protect themselves from that?

   Europe especially faces this question, and it is exacerbated by the migration of religious populations that do not want to assimilate into the majority culture.  Certainly when the Europeans came to North America they weren’t interested in assimilating into Native American culture, rather they wanted to convert the natives, or supplant them by killing them, depending on which group of Europeans one reads about.

    The struggle in the U.S.A. is not the supplanting of Ketchup by Salsa as the number one condiment, but the resistance of some immigrant groups to assimilate into our political and linguistic culture, and the despising of a broken immigration system.  The hype about immigrant crime, about exploitation of government aide and resources, and even about Democratic party use of the issue to gain votes isn’t statistically worth the amount of print or verbal debate used on it.  We have more than enough indigenous crime and abuse of the welfare system to reveal that immigrants mostly work hard, very hard, and take care of themselves compared to many of our born here citizens.  We won’t protect ourselves from bad people by building bigger fences, but by building a better and more just immigration system, and allowing people with an aspiring work ethic to help build the wealth of our nation.

    It is my expectation that nations will become more conservative in regard to receiving massive amounts of immigrants, legal or illegal, legitimate refugees or not.  They will stop adhering to the United Nations standards of providing safety for these migrants, and they will send them home or refuse to help them.  This will especially be true of those nations in the developing world that become “holder” type nations, near neighbors of places from which people are fleeing but which do not have their own resources or infrastructure to care for such large groups of people.  It is becoming all too commonplace for huge refugee camps to exist for too many years, condemning whole generations of children to grow up in them as a displaced people.  War and famine, but slow national and international adjustments to these realities as well, create horrible results.

   For us in America we have to figure out how we can remain true to our heritage as a nation of immigrants, even those forced here by slavery, and provide a sensible, just, and compassionate avenue for the huge amount of folks who want (at risk of exploitation, loss of their wealth, loss of life, and detention) to come and live here.  It is not compassionate to simply throw the doors open and think this will solve the problem, it will in actuality make it worse, and create a stampede which will inevitably trample those attempting to get here and create a fresh xenophobia.  Since our political hysteria has created a paralysis of using our American ingenuity and “can do” attitude we are now beset with a minority sub-culture of “illegals.”  This issue is so full of political demagoguery that any possible leadership on the issue gets sabotaged by the ideological extremists of either party.   Somebody in politics hear me, “stop using fear and give us some creative solutions!”

     No matter the political attractiveness of a self-righteous call for “no amnesty,” we have to figure out a way of clearing the table for a just system.  Clearing the table means an over-haul of how we identify every person who is here in the shadow world and bring them into the light, and make them legal in some form or fashion.  We must find a way to incentivize this path. In the case of real criminals they should be imprisoned enough so they won’t just come right back after a fast deportation.  If we do this in such a way as to make it clear enough, attractive enough, arduous enough, systematic enough, and inviolable enough from cheating or gaming the system, we can then reform how large the doorway is for new aspiring and legal immigrants.  That doorway is too small, and too confusing, and just invites cheating.  My call is for a renewal of American generosity, a reform of a broken system, and a strong and enforceable policy that cannot be easily circumvented.



Tuesday, June 30, 2015


    Though not surprised I am saddened, and ashamed, by the majority decision of our Supreme Court.  I am saddened and ashamed for several reasons.  One is that it seems to me to be “bad law.”  What I mean by that is that it is a reading into the Constitution and not a reading from it.  The Constitution is a problem document because at times what could be read “from” it was bad, i.e., the Dred Scott decision, and what has been read into it, i.e., Roe vs. Wade, has been bad.  The way to correct what was in it was to write a constitutional amendment, which we did, and now to correct what has been read into it we probably need a few more amendments. 

   I am aware that amendments are politically determined, and that is usually culturally determined, and that is another thing that saddens me.  The cultural revolution that came out of the turmoil of the Second World War, by the “Greatest Generation,” continues to put the nation into moral decline.  Springing from the unraveling of much of our traditional  American culture, and our traditional morality, came a huge sexual revolution.  Parts of that revolution were the sexual emancipation of women, the weariness of condemning premarital sex, the Playboy titillation of popular culture, no fault divorce, the welfare support of promiscuity, birth control, abortion on demand, the proliferation of legal pornography, the ending of sodomy laws, the support of gay rights, and now the legalization of homosexual marriage. 

   If you think about it that is quite a cultural ride in a very short time.  The constant reality of sex is not new, nor is sexual temptation, nor is same sex desire, only the onus we have historically, and now have not, put on these things.  Many of the reasons there was an onus on those behaviors had to do with some very concrete and valid concerns, let alone that of religious proscription.  Technology has given many the feeling that culture can now be changed because birth control is possible, abortion is safer (for the mother),  there are medicines for sexually transmitted diseases, and sophistication about relationships and gender roles should deliver us from masculine and paternalistic  possessiveness, i.e., violence.

    This of course is a delusion, and one fueled by the idea that “screwed up” sex doesn’t screw people up.  It is as if we as a nation have become sociopathic when it comes to sexual relationships; as if connection, disloyalty, abandonment, meaning, guilt, and shame can be dispensed with either by technology, identity movements, or court decisions.

    This essay is not about my views on the practice of homosexuality, same sex attraction, nor how we ought to treat those involved in homosexual lifestyles, and now what will pose as marriage.  It is rather about how this affects Christians in their understanding of political conflict.

    I am saddened by this decision because as some of the justices who wrote in the minority have predicted this sets the nation on the course for lots of conflict over the freedom of religion.  The worst fear I have is that this will inevitably lead to violence by and from some who think that since this was one of the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for it will be worth fighting and dying for it once again.  We will certainly see civil disobedience at various levels.  I am saddened that there is a naiveté that this decision will somehow change the opinions of religious conservatives over their religious values concerning homosexuality.  Religious liberals (and it should be pointed out once again that Christian Liberalism is a different religion than Christianity) have standards they refuse to change, but a commitment to Biblical absolutes is not one of them.  That is not true for Evangelical religious conservatives, who make up a fairly large segment of our population.

   I am saddened because the will of the people in many states has been overthrown by this court, and this will lead to cynicism about the political process, and probably more extreme partisanship in the playing of political games to frustrate the goals of the “other” party.  If there could be a straightforward way to impeach such judges for misreading and misusing the constitution that might be helpful.  Again that is a political decision based on the cultural commitments of the populace, so I doubt that will happen.

    I am saddened because religious conservatives are not united as to a working theology of how to deal with politics, government, or bad law.  There is a wide spectrum of opinion about these matters among Christians.  Religious people don’t always have a conscious awareness in themselves of the theology from which they are operating as to political events, and some are very conscious albeit mistaken in their understanding of Biblical imperatives and American historical reality.  I speak here specifically of those who have responded to this decision with a pietistic  love and Gospel rhetoric that seeks to be non-offensive to people who not only live an immoral lifestyle and have now made it legal, but made it legal in such a way as to force Christians to accept it and support it in various economic and social forms.

    It is popular to dismiss cultural Christianity and civic religion as a distraction from the true Gospel.  It is fairly common to hear criticisms of an attempt to get back to the “faith of our fathers” especially due to what was a sordid mixture of racism and cultural hegemony which justified and supported slavery and genocide of native populations.  There is distaste for the flavor and trappings of the “Moral Majority” movement and the integration of political conservatism with Christianity, as if gun rights and more money for defense expenditures was Biblical.  I admit that I pretty much agree with these criticisms of Christian cultural movements.

    However what I fear I am hearing and seeing is an abdication of civic responsibility by Evangelicals.  As if this nation was not formed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  There seems to be an acquiescence to cultural depravity and evil, and an apologetic that the best thing we can do is be a minority and have a witness of love no matter how unjust or immoral the laws might be.  This political surrender is as if to say if we have no voice or say in those laws and that is neither true nor safe for us.

   A vigorous and prophetic call for justice is not incompatible with the Gospel call.  The articulation of sin and judgment is not the same as being judgmental and self-righteous nor should be.  We are a nation where the people define morality and legislate it, as the recent court decision so aptly reveals.  Our cultural movements lead to political movements which lead to Presidents who pick the judges who reveal their commitments to the cultural movement which brought them to power.  Why are we walking away, and justifying to ourselves that it is okay for wickedness to own our country? 

   Our choice is not the Gospel or politics, not in this country, not yet.  We don’t have to be the church of the catacombs or the house church movement of China, no matter how romantic that sounds.  If you wish to discard all the righteous cultural impact the Church has made for goodness in society you can be blind if you choose to be, but why would you want to deny what the presence of salt and light has given to the world since the Roman Empire?  If we remain silent and accept defeat, and even wallow in an idea that we should be defeated because it is better for our witness, I don’t think we understand the Word of God or American democracy.   If you are cheering on evil because you think it will hurry up the rapture I don’t think you will find any encouragement from Scripture for that posture.
   We don’t have to be demagogues, we don’t have to take to the hills and be freedom fighters. We can and ought to be lovers of all people, self-confessing as to our own weaknesses, humble and willing to listen and discuss yet determined in our commitments to the absolutes of God. We should be determined to press for righteousness at all levels of government, in its application of laws and especially in their formulation.  We obviously will suffer some defeats, this doesn’t mean we are wrong in our convictions, nor even in our involvement in the legal and political process.  The other side has certainly believed in political organization and expenditure.

    There is a way to be loving, kind, and righteous in our relationships with both allies and enemies, especially enemies.  This is one place where some have failed in their ability to reconcile the issues of justice and morality with a Gospel witness.

    I am saddened, and I am ashamed, as other believers must have been when they heard the pronouncement of the Dred Scott decision.  What a long suffering they endured, and a war, to correct it.  God forbid it should come to that, but may God give us the tenacity to care for our nation and the souls who live in it as they did.

Monday, June 29, 2015


  "There are different kinds of gifts," the Scripture tells us in 1 Corinthians 12:4 "but the same Spirit.  There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.  There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men."  There are also different strategies, and there are different opportunities, and these too are worked by God.  

   For those of us who are concerned with justice, with the work of Gospel reconciliation, with the work of ending those evils visited upon us by Satan, by the fall of mankind, and by the sins we have brought on ourselves there is something we need to remember; God is still at work and He works in various kinds of ways.  In the context of sin, and through our various callings, gifts and contexts not all of us have to do the same work, nor can we, to help arrive at the "common good."

   God's sovereignty is all over 1 Corinthians 12 but if you study life closely you realize his sovereignty is equally all over the circumstances in which we live, and as we live to be faithful to Jesus and the militant progress of His Church.  It is in the context of darkness God is working out His light.  All of these things are working together for the good of those who love Him, all of these things are working out to accomplish His purposes.  Sometimes we lift up our head and catch a glimpse of it, and sometimes we seem to keep our heads down to keep them from getting knocked off because life seems to be in chaos.

    In a world ruled by the Prince of the Power of the Air, who now works in the sons of disobedience, it seems like chaos.  Every self-identifying person or group attempts to define themselves and the world in their image, and all these narratives seem in opposition if not to one another then certainly in opposition to God.  They all grab for power, some with guns and violence, some with an attempt to dominate culture.  It can make us feel small, and afraid, and on the verge of defeat.

   Then along come the Christians in Charleston and they forgive, and for a wonderful moment in our nation and world light chases shadows away.  With all our various gifts, or chances of doing something good in this world, we can as a common denominator remember that our identity as Christians is built on love  It is that identifier we are called upon to not only remember, but to reveal.

    This last year or so the struggle against racial injustice and oppression has had some startling events and moments.  They have not all been the same, and the reactions of those involved have not always been the same.  The killings by police officers of unarmed black men is different than the killing of black worshipers though both affect black people and ultimately affect all of us in America.The emotional response is different because the sin is different.   

   The oppression of black people in America takes many forms, as well as injustice in general.  If government officials use their power to hurt those they should be protecting by using it inconsistently, or preferentially, then that is injustice.  It is another kind of oppression when an individual takes it into their own hands to hate and then hurt someone based on their race or ethnicity.  I say this because some people don't seem to understand or feel the anger that is unleashed when "authority" oppresses versus the civilian bigot.

   Dead is dead, obviously, and grief follows after it.  Circumstances and context  help decide what the reaction will be.  If you bring death and oppression to Christians, while they are being Christian, the result might just look like Christ.  This is just as it should be, but it still seems like a miracle and beyond most of us to comprehend.

    Not every situation is the same, nor should be our response, and neither can be our involvement.  However, all of us ought to be doing something about injustice (and there are so many kinds); wherever we can, however we can, whenever we can according to our gifts and opportunities.  I don't think doing nothing is the Biblical option.  "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.  If you say, "but we knew nothing about this,"  does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?  Does not he who guards your life know it?  Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"  (Proverbs 24:11 & 12) NIV

Thursday, June 18, 2015


    We are a country flowing with blood, though we don’t like to see ourselves that way.  No one likes to look at themselves in a negative light; it is uncomfortable, it is depressing, it is disturbing.  Some of us find it not only acceptable but justifiable to kill others, to protect our rights, our homes, our lives, our honor, our way of life, our racial integrity, our power, our superiority, and even our desire not to be annoyed. We take a perverse kind of macho glory in how violent we can be.

     We have a collective history in being afraid of what others will take from us, sometimes feeling their freedom is an affront to ours, that in some way their demands for justice and an equal place are in fact a limitation on our expansion. Their progress must be a sign of our diminishment. Limitation feels like an attack, assigned guilt feels like pain, and it makes some of us mad.

   There is a glory in suffering, a frightful majesty we find in the oppressed, a moral credibility arising from a fight for survival against the odds.  Native Americans make fun of white people who want to be Indian.  Dream catchers hanging from our rear view mirrors, braids and feathers in our hair, turquoise belts, rings, a few words of greeting, smoking peyote.

   It is intriguing and a bit amazing that some white people feel oppressed when black people are too much on the news, as if Al Sharpton was going to take over the government.  “Now that would have been a fair and just expression of grief and anger over the killing if only Sharpton hadn’t come.“  Now that the event or issue is corrupted and made into a political or personal aggrandizement the deaths mean nothing, the killing means nothing, and the hatred means nothing evidently and simply because we don’t like Sharpton. Clown suits in a cemetery don't mean people ain't dying.

    Whether crazy or hateful, people feel justified in their killing.  They have the guns and so weak people become powerful., the impotent become important.  Executioners by personal commission, self-authorized executioners to somehow redress a racial imbalance they feel from media intoxication and the inhaling of a truncated and twisted select stream of misinformation. 

    Sometimes the attention paid to the slaughtered, the disenfranchised, the put out and left out with their cries for redress, their compressed solidarity, their cultural forming due to the crucible of injustice creates envy.  “Pay attention to me, don’t take from me, let my life be as authentic as yours, let me be you.” One of the effects of racism is a kind of mental sickness, an inability to see persons and oneself correctly.

    How wonderful to assuage guilt by side stepping it, by becoming the party with the more attractive narrative, by wanting to fight for justice by switching sides, by avoiding the harder task.  We cannot end guilt with denial, we cannot end shame with more of our hatred to add to its cause, we cannot create racial health by wallowing in racial illness through self-hatred or envy or more racism. 

    The harder task is to accept our collective responsibility, to live with the weight of what others like me, who have the power and privilege compared to what others enjoy, and learn to use it for everyone’s justice, and everyone’s good.  It is foolish to pretend I don’t have it even if I haven’t earned it, or don’t innately deserve it.  The greater task is to make a difference from who I am, and from whom I’m come, and to be grateful for that witness and that opportunity to finally do something good and to finally be on the right side of history. 

    The challenge is to share in the struggle from an honest place.  I don’t have to gain power or authenticity by stealing someone else’s story, or snuffing out their lives and silencing their voices because I don’t like the way I look in the story.  If you’re looking for forgiveness, find it in God.  If you’re looking to make sense of your life in this world you can only do it from a clear window, from the perspective of truth, in the way you see and in the way you are seen.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015


    This is a short piece on ANGER.  Recently Joan and I had an opportunity to do some counseling with a couple, and one of the issues that surfaced was the issue of “anger.”  Over the years I have certainly had to confront this issue in other couples, individuals, with my own marriage, and inside myself.

    Joan and I haven’t done a lot of counseling as a team, although I really respect her insights and ability to discern the truth and honestly call things for what they are.  I confess that I usually enjoy this more when she does this with, and for, other people than when she does it with, and to, me.  Lord have mercy!

   One of the people we were counseling said in a moment of insight, “I think anger is my safe  place” (italics mine.)  I almost jumped up and celebrated because I thought it was a great moment for that person to see and admit that.  Anger is a powerful emotion and it substitutes for many other things.  Sometimes it substitutes for power when you actually feel powerless to change your circumstances, sometimes it substitutes for grief when you really want to blame God but you are not sure who to blame and deep down know it won’t change the reality of death.  American grief often reveals itself in a court suit because somebody has to be blamed, and that is more of a sign of anger than of sadness.  Many of us don’t know how to emotionally deal with suffering, despair, fear, or loss.  We don’t how to lament, so, we get mad.

    Sometimes anger substitutes for a relationship when your hurt, pride, or fear won’t let you reconcile with someone you actually made vows to love.  Anger becomes the emotion you begin to recognize, know, and like so it seems to become your friend.  It is in reality a dragon-monster kind of puppy thing of a friend that people often nurse, and nurture, and come to need.  It is a lousy friend because it tends to lie to those who carry it, making them think the poison they drink will kill everyone else. (That idea is not original with me but I don’t know who said it first).  Anger grows up inside you, and then it seems to own you.

    Anger sometimes makes you feel in control, and the truth is sometimes it really does give you a sense of power in a manipulative sort of way.  People can be bullies in the use of their anger, when they figure out the people they want to control are terrified of that anger, or will give in to their will lest they fall prey to that anger.  Sometimes, especially in marriage, people get away with terrible bouts of anger because they have an illusion that the legal relationship will protect them from seeing it end.

     The image of a boxing match might be useful here.  People who constantly use anger in their relationships think there are ropes around the ring, assuming that their partner or family member will just bounce off those ropes and they will somehow get back into an upright balance.  There are no ropes, and if you pummel people enough you will lose them, you will knock them right out of the ring.  You might stay legally married but only to a closed, protective, and hardened person who no longer lets you in, and no longer feels they can afford vulnerability.

    Angry words and actions are like shooting an arrow at random, or throwing a rock over a hedge, once it leaves your hand you cannot control the consequences.  You can’t keep taking bites out of people without devouring them.  You can’t be angry as a habit in your relationships, or in the face of frustrations and disappointments, and think you are living by faith. If anger is your habit you are not trusting God! Anger at anything other than evil is usually a mistake, and it is your mistake, not that of the person with whom you happen to be angry.

    If you aren’t forgiving someone because you are still angry then you should be aware you have several potential problems.  One is that instead of their behavior being the issue, or their attitude, or their personality, or their tendencies, you and your anger will soon become the main issue.  If you aren’t forgiving someone because you enjoy being mad at them and this is your way of punishing them, then you are putting yourself in the place of God and giving Him no room to take vengeance on that person.  You keep getting in His way and he might just out and completely forgive them, and leave you totally frustrated, like He did to Jonah.

    If you aren’t willing to forgive someone, and keep holding onto your anger when you could have reconciled, what will you do when the Master calls you to account for what you owe?  Here is one suggestion; the next you time you get angry at someone and can’t let it go make this your prayer, “Lord, please treat me just like I am treating this person.”  If you think this is too harsh then I invite you to study the Scriptures for as I read it I sense that this is one area in which God doesn’t play games.