Search Results

How to Preserve Your Institution's Legacy Many people write to the ministry expressing concern or sadness about the progressive creep of their favorite Christian institution. After sitting through many, many calls with Christian leaders over the last three years, Monique and I have come to a very firm conclusion: the number one way that doctrinal drift happens is through indiscriminate hiring. Most ministries, churches, and schools will ask an applicant about their personal testimony at some point in their interview process. But the reality is, very few Christian organizations have a process in place to probe the details of an applicant’s theology. Now, you might wonder: Why does this matter? Because we live in an age when key biblical terms such as love, justice, marriage, the oppressed, and racism are being redefined––even by Christians. While we may be using the same vocabulary, it’s not uncommon to discover that Christians are using entirely different dictionaries. This means that extra steps will be needed to preserve the institution’s legacy over the long haul. These steps include publicly posting a mission statement that directly connects to the institution’s faith-based foundation, statement of faith, and position statements on “hot button” cultural issues such as marriage and sexuality. It also requires putting intentional processes into the interview process to ensure that new hires hold personal beliefs consistent with the ministry’s core values. At minimum, these ought to include having each employee, volunteer, and board member sign the institution’s statement of faith, position statements, and behavioral code of conduct. The reverse is also true: strategic hiring is also the number one way to turn around an institution after doctrinal drift has set in. In such situations, it’s not uncommon for us to ask a leadership team, “What are you willing to lose in order to get your ministry back on course?” Sometimes change comes by simply not renewing contracts. Sometimes it comes in the form of hiring a key senior-level manager who will abolish unbiblical policies and implement replacements. This kind of hire can often have a domino effect, causing progressive-leaning employees to opt out of continued employment. Occasionally, it may even require parting ways with someone in upper management. In our experience, however, a willingness to part ways with employees who aren’t in alignment with the ministry’s theology is the only path to save a ministry’s legacy. But only a few are willing to do this difficult work. In a previous article, I outlined some practical steps in the hiring process that we recommend all Christian institutions take to prevent drift. Since then, we’ve had several conversations that will help your team develop hiring processes that are more congruently aligned with your ministry’s statement of faith and mission, processes that will lay the groundwork to preserve your ministry’s legacy. Here are five podcasts to help your leadership think more biblically about hiring. Think of this as a free mini-training.

Monique and I have a lot of Zoom calls with leaders in all kinds of churches, ministries, and Christian schools. In these conversations, it is not uncommon for us to advise them on issues related to doctrinal drift. In fact, I wrote an article recently outlining three steps we recommend all Christian institutions take in order to prevent drift. We also offer services to help them implement these steps. Doctrinal drift happens primarily through indiscriminate hiring. (I discussed this issue on a podcast last year.) Weak policies can contribute to the issue, as well. The number-one way to stop doctrinal drift in its tracks is through courageous leadership. In short, leaders must be willing to part ways with employees with unsound doctrine. If an institution isn’t willing to do this, then drift is inevitable. The pattern of doctrinal drift is so predictable that we have developed four stages to determine where an institution is in terms of its spiritual health. Think of these stages as a tool to diagnose an institution’s spiritual cancer. Stage 1: Publicly affirm clear biblical positions. Stage 1 institutions generally have a robust statement of faith that they require all of their staff (or at least their top-tier managers) and board members to sign. They are also willing to publicly state their positions on current controversial issues in a clear and unambiguous way. This may sound something like: “We affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” "Life begins at conception." "Abortion ends an innocent life." "We affirm traditional marriage." "We believe in two sexes: male and female." "All humans are sinners." "Hell is real." "We don't support cultural Marxism or BLM." The CFBU website has multiple pages listing our positions in a transparent way because we want our donors to know where we stand and why. Keeping an institution in Stage 1 requires vigilance and intentional policies. And most importantly, it requires courageous leaders who are willing to fire people, including those at the highest levels of management, when needed. Stage 2: Practice silence about controversial issues in public. While a Stage 2 institution may still have a public statement of faith, it is silent about “controversial” or “political” issues. This usually means their statement of faith fails to include a clear position on issues like abortion, marriage, gender, or homosexuality. Instead, you might hear their leaders say things like: "Abortion is a very nuanced issue." "Talking about homosexuality in public might damage people." "We don't take political positions on issues like abortion." "We don't want to use politically charged language in public, such as saying the phrase pro-life." “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. We all affirm King Jesus.” (I covered this unhelpful approach to politics in a previous podcast.) If you work at a Stage 2 institution and begin to question the lack of clear position statements on these issues, you are likely to hear responses like the above. "We aren’t going to pick sides on this issue,” they may say “We just want to focus on our mission.” This kind of “Let’s keep the main thing the main thing” language is often code for, "We already have people in management who diverge from traditional biblical positions." And its adjacent axiom: "We aren't going to fire them." Many employees whose institutions are in Stage 2 don’t want to see how far their church or school has drifted doctrinally. But we have seen this pattern time and time and time again. Another common feature of Stage 2 institutions is that they are usually willing to take a strong stand in public against past sins, especially racism. You will hear their leaders say things like, "We condemn all forms of racism." But here's the problem: saying this takes almost no courage. Why? Because standing against racism isn't controversial. Nearly everyone already agrees that racism should be condemned! My operating theory about this phenomenon is that taking a strong stand against racism gives institutions the appearance that they are remaining biblically faithful. This, in turn, distracts donors and parents so they won't notice the institution’s silence on current issues of controversy. Institutions in Stage 2 can theoretically be turned around, but doing so requires very strong leadership at the presidential and board levels. Stopping Stage 2 drift generally involves firing multiple mid- and top-level managers, as well as implementing new hiring policies and a more robust statement of faith. Accomplishing this is very, very rare, simply because few leaders with this kind of vision actually exist. That brings us to Stage 3. Stage 3: Silently shift positions and hide it from constituents. If left uninterrupted, institutions will eventually transition into Stage 3. The typical scenario is that one or two key people get hired or promoted into upper management, and these people have ideological differences with those employees and donors who have Stage 1 thinking. These new managers have the power to change the institution's position on an issue and broaden its hiring to reflect those new values. They will then hire people who are pro-choice, who are sympathetic to socialism, who post pronouns in their bio, or who affirm Side-B homosexuality (or are, silently gay affirming). A diversity officer may be hired. New institutional policies may tell employees “not to discuss politics” with each other. But––and this is key––these shifts are not generally clearly communicated to donors or lower-level employees. And when they inquire about rumors, the leadership denies the shift. Many Christian institutions are in this stage––think Christian higher education, Sunday School curriculum distributors, and book publishing––but their donors and patrons don't know it yet. Institutions in Stage 3 are generally too far gone to be turned around. It’s usually best for the conservative-minded employees and supporters who remain to abandon the institution and start (or join) a competitor. Stage 4: Celebrate sin. It is only a matter of time until the institution eventually tells its employees and donors that “love for neighbor” means that they should celebrate the courage of people who affirm the opposite positions mentioned in Stage 1. This is where many mainstream church denominations are now. This might sound like: "Loving your neighbor means supporting their choice for abortion." “Love is love.” "We celebrate all genders." "God is queer." How to Start Noticing If you want to know what’s happening with the institution you send your hard-earned money to, here are two practical steps to take. First, stop merely listening to what its leaders are saying. Instead, start to notice what topics they are NOT talking about. Are there important issues in our cultural moment that they have never addressed publicly? For example, did they say anything publicly when Roe was overturned? Do they ever make clear statements against the radical trans agenda? Second, ask more direct questions. If you work at a Christian institution and notice that your leadership doesn't take a public stand on tough cultural issues, especially when they are directly relevant to your ministry, then start asking questions. What is stated on the website? What does the employee handbook say? How are potential employees screened for doctrinal fidelity? What is the ministry’s process to deal with employees who hold to ideas consistent with progressive Christianity? If you don’t feel like you can even ask these kinds of questions, that could be a major red flag. One clear sign that your once-healthy institution has drifted into Stage 2 is that you are given vague answers like, “We will look into this” or “That could never happen here” or “We have __________ (insert the name of a conservative scholar) on our staff.” These are the cowardly evasions that ministries will run on biblically minded donors and staff in order to keep the money flowing in. These ministries swim in the waters of generalities and dismiss questions that demand specificity. One of the saddest realities that Monique and I see in ministry is that courageous leaders with a robust knowledge of historic Christianity (not simply someone with a Christian testimony and “good leadership skills”) are in short supply. But being able to diagnose spiritual health is the only hope we have to preserve our legacy institutions, most of which are already well into Stage 2. Where do you send your money? To your local church? Your kid’s Christian school? A ministry? Now is the time to start pulling back the curtain on their spiritual health. You may be shocked by how far they’ve already drifted, and how many cowards are in top-level leadership. I don’t think it’s trivial that God lumps the “cowardly” in with the “murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars” (Rev. 21:8; see also Heb. 10:39). DIGGING DEEPER For more tips on hiring, check out my interview with Dr. Gary Miller, former Provost at Biola University.

3 Critical Steps to Keep Your Church, Ministry, or School Stay on Mission We recently did an all-day in-service workshop for the staff at a Christian school. As one of the exercises, we asked participants to consider the following scenario: You're on a hiring committee in search of a new English teacher for the high school. Rank the following criteria, in order of importance, that will shape your search. Race Education & achievements Prior work experience Gender Age References Biblical fidelity After they discussed this scenario in small groups for several minutes, we regathered as a large group to process their conclusions. Participants unanimously ranked doctrinal fidelity as the number-one criterion in their search for future staff. Given the rising tide of “progressive Christians” and Christians being influenced by sociological definitions of race and justice, it was encouraging to see the staff’s strong commitment to stand for historic Christianity. This led to our next question: What practical steps will your team take during the interview process to vet each candidate for doctrinal fidelity? Right off the bat, we got the usual answer: Ask the person to recount their Christian testimony. The school wanted to make sure that any potential staff had a strong relationship with the Lord. That’s great! “What else?” I asked. My concern was that a conversion story might not be enough. After all, many Christians have a conversion story—including those who have been influenced by various aspects of Critical Race Theory. My question was: How could this team ensure that new staff shared their vision for biblically faithful racial unity and justice? The truth is, that is the question I would like to ask every Christian school administrator, every Christian university provost, every HR director working at a Christian ministry, and the leaders appointed to every pastoral search committee. We can all think of wonderful Christian institutions––churches, schools, and ministries––that started out as Christian but have drifted away from historic Christianity over the years. How does doctrinal drift happen? And how can it be prevented? Maintaining fidelity to an institution’s founding vision and doctrinal roots requires strategic planning. Here are three steps that I recommend that every Christian school, university, ministry, and church take right now to ensure a biblically faithful legacy for future generations. Step 1: Ratify a position statement to summarize your institution’s approach to current issues. Most Christian entities have some kind of statement of faith. And that’s a good start. A robust summary of unifying key beliefs that lays a vital foundation for an institution’s spiritual culture. But very few churches, schools, or ministries have statements that address how the Christian worldview comes to bear on the big cultural questions of our day. Here are a few suggested topics to cover in such a statement: Position on biological evolution (a.k.a. “common descent”) and the age of the Earth Position about the dignity of human life, including the pre-born Definition of marriage Definition of sex, gender, and gender expression Discussion about how your institution will handle issues of sin, such as divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, porn addiction, and same-sex attraction Position on race, racism, and racial unity Position on Critical Theory (e.g., Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory, Queer Theory), including a summary of its incompatibility with the Christian worldview If the leadership at your church, school, or ministry has a position on these issues, it needs to be in writing. If it doesn’t yet have one, it needs to assemble a study committee and write one. These statements should be posted on the ministry's web site, and included in the employee handbook, as well as the student and parent handbooks (when appropriate). Here are a few thoughtful examples to help inspire your effort: Southern Evangelical Seminary Life Bible Fellowship, Upland, CA (scroll down and click on View Beliefs PDF) Two Rivers Church, Lenoir City, TN (scroll down to “Where We Stand”) Step 2: Add strategic steps to your application process. In my experience, it is not uncommon for new employees to go through the motions of signing a statement of faith without giving it the careful consideration it deserves. According to multiple recent studies, doctrinal literacy is low. One recent study says only 2% of Millennials actually have an integrated biblical worldview. A Barna study had similar results about Gen Z. (Listen to my friend, Natasha Crain's interview with George Barna where he explains how he goes about getting these numbers.) For these reasons, I advise Christian employers to assume that applicants probably don’t understand the doctrinal implications of their institution’s statement of faith and don’t know how to think about controversial cultural issues in light of the historic Christian worldview. In order to preserve doctrinal fidelity, then, it would be a good idea to add steps to the application and interview process. Here are four practical ideas to help inspire your efforts. 1. As part of the initial application process, include a question where applicants must state where they attend church and what level of service they have. And then vet that church for doctrinal fidelity. This will give you some idea of how the candidate is being discipled. 2. As part of the initial application process, ask applicants to write, in their own words, their understanding of each line of the ministry’s statement of faith. 3. For candidates applying for leadership positions, include a requirement to list biblical support for each line of the statement of faith. Obviously, steps two and three will take the applicant considerable time. But they will also help unqualified candidates to self-select out, as those candidates likely won’t want to bother with such laborious steps. Implementing these steps will also give the hiring team a snapshot of how deeply the candidate has thought through the finer points of the Christian worldview. 4. Add strategic interview or application questions that will bring the applicant’s beliefs about progressive themes to the surface. Here are five questions to consider: Can you tell us about books you have read recently? What do you find helpful (or not) about their content? How would you explain the gospel to a non-Christian? How would you explain what the Bible is to a non-Christian? Can you tell us about a time when you had to forgive a co-worker? Walk us through what the situation was, what happened, and how it was resolved. Do you know your Enneagram number? What are your thoughts about the Enneagram? If you are interviewing someone where issues related to culture and ethnicity could be a factor in the job itself, here are a couple more questions to consider. Describe what role, if any, you think social location (e.g., gender, ethnicity) plays in our ability to accurately interpret the Bible. What do you think of the idea that there is a "black approach" or a "white way" to interpreting the Bible? How do you view Critical Race Theory? Do you see it as a useful tool for Christians to engage in race conversations? The point here isn't to trap applicants. Asking clarifying questions in an interview is a legitimate part of data collection during a hiring process, just like checking references or doing a background check. It helps to surface what's already there and give some starting points for deeper probing. Applicants might be ignorant about certain issues. Or, really passionate. But even that is data. In my personal practice, I have found that asking these kinds of questions in interviews helps to set proper expectations with applicants. Step 3: Enact a process to verify that all board members, employees, and volunteers hold personal beliefs consistent with your institution’s statement of faith and position statement as a condition of employment or participation. Once you have adopted a position statement about critical cultural topics, it will be vital to create a strategy for introducing that to current employees. You will want to create a pathway for bringing board members, ministry leaders, employees, and volunteers into alignment with both the statement of faith and the position statement. This process could include a series of employee trainings where a theologically informed leader walks people through these statements and responds to questions. And no doubt there will likely be questions! As I stated above, many Christians, even if they have grown up in a church, lack an in-depth knowledge about the faith. So having an opportunity to help employees and volunteers ask questions is vital. Another part of avoiding doctrinal drift should include a periodic refresher training, possibly every two to five years. You might also consider a process for re-signing of the statement of faith and position statement because sometimes people change their views over time. So having a periodic check-in with them is essential, especially when someone comes up for a promotion or tenure. These steps will provide accountability as a condition of continuing employment. Engaging in this process rests on the assumption that there is a commitment among the highest levels of leadership (e.g., Board members, elder board, school superintendent) to part ways with employees and volunteers who don’t hold personal beliefs consistent with the institution’s statement of faith and positions. This might be hard at first, but it is often a vital step in order to deal with all employees according to the same standards. Doctrinal drift is natural. This is why doctrinal fidelity must be intentionally maintained. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES For more thoughts about how to maintain biblical fidelity in a Christian institution, check out this webinar that I did on my podcast. For more tips on hiring, check out my interview with Dr. Gary Miller, former Provost at Biola University. POSTED: 6/23/21; UPDATED: 7/25/23

Why I'm not promoting Tim Ballard and my review of the movie, Sound of Freedom Do you work in the anti-trafficking field and think I am way off about Ballard and O.U.R.? Send me an email with your receipts. I will amend this post as I continue to gather more information. I remember the first time I ever went on the internet. I was 27 years old. I was doing research for a lecture that I was developing during my first year of teaching as a professor. I was amazed by how easy it was to quickly access massive amounts of information. Instead of spending hours in the library or hundreds of dollars on books, I could quickly sift through data and develop my lesson. What I didn't realize at the time, however, is that I was able to sift through good information and bad information on the internet because I had done hundreds of hours of reading those expensive books. I had a standard for weighing claims. Now we live in the age of deep fakes and fake news. The bias of the mainstream media toward secular progressive ideology isn't helping. It's getting increasingly more difficult to figure out what's true. This reality became very clear to me in the last week or so. A couple weeks ago, my husband alerted me to a post on Twitter by actor Jim Caviezel saying that he was accepting interview requests to promote the upcoming film, Sound of Freedom. My husband suggested that I reach out to Mr. Caviezel with a request for our All The Things podcast. So I did. After all, human trafficking is a justice issue, one which fits our platform. As I was waiting to hear back, I made a post on Facebook asking an open-ended question about whether any of my followers knew anything about the film. (I have since deleted that post.) People who worked in human trafficking started contacting me. These are people who are in the day-to-day grind of tracking traffickers and helping victims. They shared similar concerns about Ballard (on whom the film is based). One informant send me this public post as a summary of SOME of the major frustrations that trafficking insiders seem to have about Ballard (language warning). While his take contains a lot of emotion, what got my attention about this post is that Scaramucci is someone who works professionally in capturing traffickers. Wouldn't he of all people want to get this message out? Yet, he isn't promoting the film. In fact, he has rather....strong negative feelings....about Ballard. Why? It made me wonder, Why don't I see a strong push among advocates in the anti-trafficking world actively promoting the film? For me, that was a yellow flag. I needed to at least take a pause to ask more questions. One informant sent me a bunch of tax information about Ballard's non-profit. You can read the 990s for yourself. His organization appears to be a fundraising machine, bringing in tens of millions a year. And they don't seem to spend it all. In and of itself, that's not an inherent problem. I do think it's a little odd that if you give a big donation (like $50k) then you can go on a "jump" with their team. (But maybe that's just me.) See #9 and #10 on the list below for a couple examples of how some of O.U.R.'s funds are used. A commenter on my social media posted a link to an article about Ballard. My first impression was that the website has discernment blog vibes. The article claimed that the film had gone far beyond artistic license. The site has multiple stories about Ballard, all focusing on the charge that many of Ballard's stories themselves are hoaxes. That seemed like a fairly serious claim. Back in 2020, VICE news had also raised questions about Ballard and his organization. Mostly related to his tactics and whether they were consistent with best practices. Personally, I consider VICE to be a secular progressive news outlet, with marginal accuracy. But the article does contain some interesting overlap with this first-person account, which seems credible. This made the VICE reports seem to have some level of corroborating value. Just this cursory research raised enough questions for me that I decided not to move forward with the interview. I realized at that point I didn't have the time or resources to investigate these claims in order to get to the bottom of things. Thankfully, I never heard back from Caviezel's people. He likely has bigger platforms to be on than mine. Looking back, maybe it was a blessing in disguise. Meanwhile, I started seeing Caviezel and Ballard making the rounds on conservative and Christian media, including CBN. I also started seeing my social media feed filled with calls to go see the film, almost like it was my Christian duty. I could see that I was pretty much standing alone in decision to not promote the film. This caused me to keep digging. Perhaps I could overcome the yellow flags. Here is what I've found. THE FACTS (AS I BEST UNDERSTAND THEM) The words "true story" and "real life super hero" have been a big part of the marketing campaign. This tweet by O.U.R. (the non-profit founded by Ballard) is typical of that narrative. According to the official synopsis of the film on the Angel Studios website, the film is described as being an "incredible true story." In fact, just yesterday on Allie Beth's show, Ballard claimed "these are all true stories." I do wonder if O.U.R. has had significant pushback on this characterization because about a week ago an article appeared on their web site that seems to want to offer some level of transparency around some of the film's claims. But I am not sure it succeeds. More about that in a minute. As if the truth wasn't hard enough to detect already, the film has now become entangled in another weird controversy. Last weekend, Rolling Stone published a high-profile article charging that the film is propagating a QAnon conspiracy theory. That energized the QAnon crowd, as well as more mainstream conservatives and Christians, charging that the film is revealing important truths that "the Left" doesn't want exposed. Oy! The set up has now been created that if you offer any sort of questions about the film or Ballard, then you are against speaking out on behalf of trafficking victims. Of course, that's ridiculous. Interestingly, Variety (not exactly a bastion of conservative values) did publish what seems to be a mostly fair review of the film. Here is a summary of the things that I believe to be true after a LOT of research: Human trafficking is a real problem. It deserves to be discussed. The kind of trafficking shown in the film represents ONE type of child sex trafficking. Monique and I have highlighted this issue in the past. (See the link at the bottom of this post.) Tim Ballard did work for the C.I.A. and the Department of Homeland Security and was tangentially involved in a high profile bust of a pedophile named Earl Buchanan (more about that below). Tim Ballard is a member of the LDS church. (I only mention this because he frequently ties the motivation of his work to his faith.) The film is being distributed by Angel Studios, which is co-founded by two members of the LDS church. The tagline of the film, "God's children are not for sale" is consistent with a key LDS doctrine that all humans are children of God. They could have just said, "Children are not for sale." I discuss the issues with this saying here. The sensational nature of the Hollywood-ized story has been a concern for some who work in anti-trafficking. They feel like it gives the wrong impression of the situation. Some people who work in anti-trafficking seem to find Ballard's tales to embellish the truth. Some people who work in anti-trafficking seem to find Ballard's rescue methods (specifically, throwing certain kinds of parties to entice p3d0s) outside of the industry's best practices and potentially even endangering children. O.U.R. provides grants to domestic law enforcement teams who specialize in trafficking, such as dogs, equipment and possibly mental health services for officers with PTSD. O.U.R. provides grants to some anti-trafficking non-profits, in order to help some survivors in other countries to help them heal and transition back into mainstream life. O.U.R. seems to include the efforts of law enforcement captures in their statistics for their work, when those captures involve dogs or equipment sponsored by O.U.R. This seems to be viewed by some in LE as a form of "stolen valor." The rescue scene in Sound of Freedom with the island party seems to be mostly based on real events. Ballard is very adept at story-telling and fund-raising. Ballard left O.U.R. shortly before the film's release. (See the updates at the bottom of this post.) THE RABBIT HOLE This brings us to the "rabbit hole" that normal people probably don't have time to go down, but is potentially the most important part of this discussion (if true). This favorable news report shows what appears to be original footage from two previous missions. It's easy to see how these scenarios were folded into the plot for the movie, Sound of Freedom. A reporter named Lynn Packer (who I think is a former LDS member) has been chronicling the hazy, and shifting, origins story behind Ballard's non-profit (O.U.R.) for a few years now. He has documented a few core stories that Ballard often re-tells in interviews (I've watched several) that seem a little "sus." For example, Ballard often mentions a girl named "Liliana," who he claims O.U.R. helped rescue. But there are a lot of questions about the truthfulness of "Liliana's" story. More commentary here. I don't know what to think about this. The "origins story" behind O.U.R. also seems problematic. Many of the details of the law enforcement and court records don't seem to match Ballard's re-telling. What's helpful about this particular case is that the records are public. Ballard recounted the pivotal origins story behind his work in this 2021 interview for Lewis Homes. Beginning around the 9:12-minute mark, Ballard makes the following claims: ICE received intel that there was an American man who was kidnapping children in Mexico and smuggling them over the border into the U.S. Ballard names this alleged kidnapper as "Earl Buchanan" from San Bernardino. Buchanan had a "compound" in San Bernardino where he was filming "$-- acts" with "kids" to share with others. Ballard claims he was "on the scene" and they "get the kid out," a 5-year old boy. At that point, Ballard recognized the boy as one he saw in a video. The kid runs and jumps in Ballard's arms and says, "I don't belong here." Ballard was "haunted" by the fact that the boy spoke "perfect English" This is because he had been with the kidnapper his whole life, since "he had been taken as an infant." The boy gave Ballard a necklace and told him to rescue his sister, who was kidnapped at the same time he was. Later, Ballard "raided" Buchanan's "compound" where they "found 11 other kids," (ages 6-12). When you look at the official law enforcement statements (which can be viewed and downloaded here), a different picture emerges. Yes, a boy was rescued during a border stop at the Mexican border. But he wasn't kidnapped and trafficked from Mexico. He is from San Bernardino. The boy wasn't taken as an infant. But he likely had known Buchanan his whole life. Earl Buchanan is a pedophile, but not a trafficker. Buchanan was a family friend of the boy and the boy's grandmother knew he was with Buchanan on a trip to Mexico. Border agents did find tapes in Buchanan's van at the border. The boy's sister wasn't trafficked. In fact, she was at home with the grandmother in San Bernardino at the time and corroborated the story to law enforcement. Ballard showed up to the situation 40 minutes after Buchanan was detained and took evidence into custody. There was no "raid" on Buchanan's compound where they found other children. Law enforcement did conduct a search warrant and found a room at his construction company wired with cameras and things kids like. These inconsistencies in Ballard's "origins story" seem quite odd, in my opinion. How could Ballard get so many pivotal details so wrong, when this supposedly was a major turning point in his life? Especially since this is allegedly the basis for the "true story" behind Sound of Freedom (the border stop scene). BASED ON A "TRUE STORY"? My main problem isn't that Hollywood took "artistic license" in making a film "based on a true story." At this point, I think the film should be considered as mostly fiction. My issue is that Ballard seems to, as one article put it, have a "tendency to self-mythologize and embellish his exploits." This includes deep inconsistencies about the organization's origins story itself. In other words, the "true story" on which the movie is somewhat, allegedly based, has what appear to be intractable problems. Does Ballard have a habit of stretching the truth in order to raise money? I hope not! Because it seems like O.U.R. does do some genuinely good things (see #9 and #10 above, for example). But I also think these stories deserve to be looked into, since they are used in a such a foundational way in the ministry's narrative. What am I to make of all this? I don't know. I honestly don't. And here is what makes the internet so frustrating. It's a wealth of information. Some of it might actually be true. But how do we determine that? It's not easy, especially when access to primary sources is limited. That's the thing about the internet, it forces you to care about more topics than probably necessary, simply because fragments of information are floating around. But here is what REALLY troubles me: Many Christians don't even seem open to having the conversation about whether Ballard's stories––the ones that he repeats in interview after interview––might not be completely true. Isn't this issue at least worth investigating? Many Christians seem willing to sacrifice a rigorous investigation of the truth for the sake of "raising awareness" about a worthy cause. This is a serious problem. Christians, of all people, ought to prize truth. There are plenty of credible, verifiable stories about trafficking out there to help raise visibility about this important issue. I can be against human trafficking and still not join the rush to promote Ballard. I think having a public conversation about human trafficking is valuable. I'm planning future content along these lines. After all my research, however, I am still in the same mind as I was back on June 28, when I posted this on my public Facebook page: So, while the film itself looks compelling and inspiring, and while I personally support the endeavor of quality filmmaking based on Judeo-Christian themes, and while I would like to highlight efforts to end all human trafficking, I won't be doing a discussion about the film on my podcast. In the meantime, if you want to support efforts against human trafficking, there are many options available. Choose wisely. I would recommend checking out Agape International Missions. They have been commended to me by other ministries as a leader in Christian anti-trafficking efforts. ******* UPDATE 7/14/23: In yet another odd twist, news outlets are now reporting that Ballard left O.U.R. shortly before the film's release. If true, why hasn't he mentioned this (what seems to be an important detail) while being on the massive press tour? A few nights ago, Jesse Watters introduced him on his show as the founder of the Spear Fund, a new organization that has not previously been mentioned. The only thing on the website for the Spear Fund is an active donation page. No description. So, no one really knows what they are donating to, but ok. As of 8 hours ago, conservative podcast, Tim Pool's audience, donated $50k to this new effort. Whatever it is. UPDATE 7/15/23: On a more personal note, researching all this has made me reflect more deeply on how important it is to tell an accurate origins story. The ministry I previously worked for had a very strong origins story. It is frequently used in fund-raising efforts. The same is true about the origins story for the Center for Biblical Unity (the ministry I helped to co-found). I can imagine that CFBU donors would feel duped if they found out that Monique never actually had PTSD, that she hadn't actually lived with our family for 5 years, or hadn't actually been an advocate for Critical Race Theory. Accurate storytelling is a matter of integrity. UPDATE 7/18/23: VICE is reporting a few more details about Ballard's departure from O.U.R. "An anonymous letter sent to employees of and donors to the anti-trafficking group Operation Underground Railroad asserts that founder Tim Ballard left the organization recently after an internal investigation into claims made against him by multiple employees—something which OUR does not dispute...The letter claims that an OUR employee who accompanied Ballard on an undercover operation abroad filed a complaint against him with OUR’s human resources department after the trip, and that a followup investigation culminated in his resignation." It seems like this report could be credible, since neither Ballard nor O.U.R. are disputing these claims and he's already set up a new entity to collect donations. UPDATE 7/20/23: A few days ago, my husband and I went to see the movie, Sound of Freedom. I discuss its cinematic and educational highs and lows in this honest review. UPDATE 7/22/23: The website for the Spear Fund is a little more developed now. Its description reads: "The SPEAR Fund represents an unprecedented endeavor: funding and collaborating with a coalition of experts, organizations, and concerned citizens from around the globe, working in unison to end human-trafficking in our time." Ballard is listed as the "Senior Advisor." It is described as a "totally new approach that invites all anti-trafficking organizations and concerned people of the world to come together and end human trafficking once and for all." Ballard is certainly a formidable fundraising machine and given that he was at some high profile event a couple nights ago with Trump, he likely needed to get set up quickly in order to be able to take donations. People are throwing wallets at him right now. UPDATE 9/28/23: I recorded a podcast version of this post and included more backstory and context. Available on YouTube and wherever you stream. your podcasts. UPDATE 10/6/23: Ballard's hero status is unravelling. Several victims have come forward with substantial and specific accusations of sexual harassment and grooming. I have documented that here. ******* DIGGING DEEPER Here is a previous podcast that Monique and I did back in 2020 on human trafficking. I am also working on developing some future content for All The Things on this theme. So be watching for those.

In November of 2017, I met Rachel Shockey, who is the current President of Women in Apologetics (WIA). At the time, WIA was a fairly new ministry, organized just a few months before. Rachel and I struck up what would become an important friendship. She invited me to attend the inaugural WIA conference at Biola University in January 2018. Many of the talks prompted me to reflect more deeply on my own journey in apologetics, as well as on the unique contributions that women can make to the larger enterprise of apologetics. I began seminary in the early ’90s. I believe that I was the only woman in my program (but I could be wrong about that). I do know that I was the only woman in many of my classes. I spent countless days wondering what I was even doing in the male-dominated world of theology. What possible career would this lead to? Thankfully, I had some male professors who kept encouraging me, even though I honestly didn’t know if being a “lady theologian” could ever be a thing. I’ve now worked professionally in the realm of theology and apologetics for almost 30 years. For most of that time, it has remained largely a male-dominated field. But that’s changing. It has been encouraging to see so many women, many of them younger than me, and from a variety of backgrounds, coming together to talk about how apologetics connects to their lives as women, wives, and mothers. It is also gratifying when I learned that I’ve played a small role in their journey, through my teaching and writing. Later in 2018, I joined the Board for WIA and spoke at a few of their events. A few of their presenters over the years have PhDs or hold academic positions at universities—but most do not. The highest degree many of them have is an MA in Apologetics (or similar). This means that most of them probably wouldn’t be considered qualified to hold positions in academia. However, I think that these women are still making a valuable contribution to the field of apologetics. Here are two critical results that I see emerging from this movement. Widening the Audience In my opinion, the most important thing these women are doing is helping to widen the audience for apologetics. Voices such as Natasha Crain, Elizabeth Urbanowicz (Foundation Worldview), and Alisa Childers are connecting traditional defenses for the faith to conversations that impact women. Women have a huge need for deeper, more substantive answers; for instance, moms need apologetics to aid in their discipleship of their children. (Dads benefit from these resources, too.) I think the work Monique and I are doing through the Center for Biblical Unity are part of this effort, too. Most parents don’t have time to take classes, read philosophy books, and then translate all that information into a conversation with a seven-year-old who is asking, “If God made everything, who made God?” or “Does God love my dark skin?” So women like us are doing some of that heavy lifting by writing conversation-based books and developing podcasts to fill this need. Inspiring the Next Generation I have had a long-standing concern about the lack of qualified women on the apologetics speaking circuit. Men dominated the field. While that is changing, I’ve still been curious about why most of the women who do speak at apologetics conferences don’t have PhDs. There are likely many reasons for this. Some don’t have an aspiration to teach in academia. Some women start graduate degrees but don’t finish because their education gets interrupted by child-rearing. (As a mom with grown kids, I generally counsel young mothers to focus primarily on their children; that season is short.) And as every aspiring professor knows, simply getting a degree is not enough to advance your career in academia. Engaging in scholarly publications and research are also necessary steps, and these generally happen in your late 20s to early 30s, which, for women, are also prime child-bearing years. Women generally have to choose one path or the other: motherhood or academia. That was the choice that I faced at that age, and it’s the main reason I will never have a PhD. (I don’t regret it.) Add to this the hard work of developing a national speaking presence on top of family and education commitments, and, for women who want to pursue greater involvement in apologetics and theology, the obstacles can be staggering. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the issue of “representation.” One stream of thought says that we must have women on stage at apologetics conferences in order to encourage other women to go into apologetics. While I can see the value of that thinking, I am skeptical that it’s as important as advocates say. I appreciate that the leaders of WIA have pioneered an approach to apologetics that wasn’t being met by existing conferences. I’m also grateful that women like Alisa Childers and Natasha Crain have grown large enough platforms that they are headlining a multi-city apologetics tour, speaking to thousands of women AND men! That’s the free market at work, and I’m here for it. As a whole (yes, there are exceptions), female apologists remain currently behind the men, educationally. Many of the female apologists are what I call education apologists—not research apologists. But I want to highlight a couple notable exceptions. One is Nancy Pearcey. Mrs. Pearcey is arguably the godmother of modern female apologists, but not simply because she’s a woman. Mrs. Pearcey is an influential Christian apologist because she has spent more than thirty years doing ground-breaking research and writing a shelf full of influential books. I would also say that my friend Alisa Childers is arguably one of the most important apologists of our decade––female or male. Although she doesn’t have a college degree, Alisa is a unique blend of both research apologist and education apologist. Why? Because she is writing and commenting about a topic that hardly anyone else is covering––and doing it better than those who are. Alisa has a platform at apologetics conferences, but that wasn’t given to her simply because she's a woman. Conferences hire her because she is a quality apologist, an exceptional communicator, and a researcher who is working on an important issue. If female apologists want increased visibility, then they need to look no further than the examples of Nancy Pearcey and Alisa Childers. While neither has a PhD, their work stands out from the crowd because they are doing important work and quality research. This is the path forward: work hard, do unique research, and get published. It’s my hope as more young women catch a vision for how they can be part of this conversation, they will focus their energy on asking the Lord what level of involvement they should have in public ministry (it's not for everyone), whether it’s appropriate to pursue doctoral studies in light of their family responsibilities, and where they can make their own unique contribution, even if that’s simply as a resource person for their homeschool co-op, or whatever path their apologetics journey takes. They can know that they're part of a growing tradition of women who value apologetics and see it as an important tool for educating Christians, strengthening their own faith, and advancing the gospel. Back in 2018, I wrote a blog post for my former employer about the rise of women apologists. My thinking has continued to develop since then, so I wanted to rework the post. I’m publishing the update on my own website. PODCAST VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE Also available wherever you stream your podcasts. Search for "theology mom."

One of the repeated statements about God’s character is that He takes up “the cause” of the poor. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. (Deut. 10:18–19; emphasis added) The prophet Isaiah pleads with God’s people to repent of their ways and take up “the cause” of the poor, to be like God Himself (Is. 1:16–17). By the time the prophet Jeremiah comes on to the scene, God is pronouncing His impending judgment against His people because of their continued failure to take up “the cause” of the poor (Jer. 5:28–29). What exactly is “the cause” that God’s people are neglecting when it comes to the poor, the fatherless, the widow, and the foreigner? Social justice–oriented Christians will often bring up scriptures like these as biblical support that Christians must engage in the advocacy of various causes, including open borders, “reproductive justice” (abortion), and “marriage equality” (gay marriage). THE FUN HOUSE–MIRROR VERSION OF JUSTICE When I hear Christian leaders speaking on justice or social justice, their argument usually goes something like this: Premise 1: God is a God who loves justice. After all, justice is all over the Bible. Premise 2: The prophets repeatedly condemn Israel because they overlooked the poor and the oppressed and neglected justice. Premise 3: The white evangelical church doesn’t advocate for the poor and the oppressed. This is because they don’t care about justice. Conclusion: The white evangelical church had better start caring about justice and advocating for the poor; otherwise, God is going to judge them. What happens next is usually a call for justice that matches the policies of leftist politicians. In order to be for the poor, you must also be against capitalism and for large-scale government welfare programs and the redistribution of wealth. And if you aren’t for these things, then, by definition, you aren’t for the cause of the poor. This distorted “fun house–mirror” version of taking up “the cause of the poor” is common these days. This is why God’s people must take the time to carefully define our terms. Otherwise, the conversation about justice can degenerate into confusion and emotional manipulation. LAYING THE CORRECT FOUNDATION This brings us to the question of, What is it, exactly, that ancient Israel was condemned for when they didn’t take up the cause of the poor? Once we have a firm understanding of that, we can then begin to consider the question of how Christians can properly take up “the cause” of the poor today. To answer these questions, we must begin by understanding humanity’s purpose. God created us to “have dominion over” the creation (Gen. 1:26). We were appointed to govern the earth on the Creator’s behalf. But in the Fall, something went dreadfully wrong (Gen. 3). Instead of ruling over creation, we impose our will by sinfully ruling over one another (Gen. 4:1–16). As God’s people exercise dominion over creation in a post-Fall world, part of that endeavor includes living according to His justice standards. The Mosaic Law provides case studies that can help to paint the picture of God’s standard of justice. Many of these principles are repeated in the New Covenant as timeless ethical principles. Both the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant agree: The primary motivation for an individual to act justly is love for God and neighbor. But how do we know how to love our neighbor? We look to the Law. That’s where God explains what love looks like. The apostle Paul summarizes the issue this way (Romans 13:8–10): Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. In a nutshell, love for God and neighbor looks like obeying the Ten Commandments. All of the other commandments are additional examples of these broad principles. Exodus 23 provides a great illustration of this, connecting the Ten Commandments to what it means to defend the cause of the poor (Exodus 23:1–5): Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit. If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it. Verses 1–2 are a restatement and expansion of the ninth commandment: Do not bear false witness. And here is where justice gets very practical. God’s standard of justice doesn’t allow for lying when giving an account of wrongdoing. God’s people should not lie to cover up a crime. Rather, God’s people ought to be known as truth-tellers. God’s people must not show favoritism to the rich or to the poor, especially in the law court. We don’t lie to protect the poor and we don’t lie simply to implicate the rich. Even if the whole world is screaming that someone is guilty, God’s people must not follow the crowd. We must live according to God’s justice standards and weigh the evidence as dispassionately as possible. In addition, if I see something that is threatening my enemy’s livelihood, I should act to try and help him. For example, a donkey or ox were key tools to be able to earn a living. If I saw my enemy's donkey wandering off or in danger of injury, if I am a righteous person, then I would demonstrate my allegiance to God by stopping to help my neighbor. Likewise, if I join the crowd in looting a business (which is stealing), I'm acting inconsistently with God's standard of justice--even if I consider the business owner to be “my oppressor.” We simply don't treat our enemies that way; we don't allow our enemies' livelihoods to go up in flames. Instead, we stop and help them. Verse 6 goes on to provide a critical piece that relates to our big question about taking up the cause of the poor: Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. God specifically delineates a key injustice that the poor are vulnerable to experiencing: To deny justice to the poor is to bring up false charges against them. It’s to lie about them. It’s to punish an innocent person. To knowingly do this will result in God’s judgment against us. We see this play out in Israel’s later history. In Psalm 82, God condemns the unjust judges of Israel with these words (Psalm 82:2–4): How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. God’s definition of what it means to “uphold the cause of the poor” (verse 3) is explained at the end of verse 2: to defend the unjust and to show partiality to the wicked. Such language directly connects us back to what we saw in Exodus 23. This leads to a very important question: What is it about the poor that makes them so vulnerable to being exploited? Proverbs 31:8–9 offers a helpful insight. The Proverbs 31 mother teaches her son how to obey God’s law in the real world: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. The solution to injustice is for God’s people to act righteously. Godly parents teach their children to speak up on behalf of the poor because they often cannot speak up for themselves. Maybe they can’t afford a good attorney. Maybe they don’t have the political connections to highlight corruption in the handling of their case. To live a righteous and just life is to speak up for those who don’t have the loudest voices of influence. It is to make sure the world doesn’t just run over them. The poor have rights that shouldn’t be disregarded. Why? Because a just society is one that treats the rich and the poor equally under the law. When we don’t treat the poor with equality under the law, that is when we exploit them. When we don’t allow the poor to have their fair day in court, when we don’t allow the evidence in their case to be fairly considered, that is when we oppress the poor. And that is what brings God’s judgment. LIVING JUSTLY The general principle of what it means to “take up the cause of the poor” is this: Make sure everyone is treated equally under the law––whether rich or poor. Here are a few practical examples of how God’s people can reflect His standard of justice without falling into the trap of adopting worldly social policies: If God’s people want to take up the cause of the poor, then they must advocate for verdicts that reflect the evidence. If you serve on a jury, then as a Christ follower, then you must dispassionately weigh the evidence. You must seek the truth and render a verdict that reflects that—even if it goes against the majority who are in the jury box with you or goes against cultural sensibilities. If you are a Christian who is also a judge, think about how you can work to ensure a fair trial for the poor coming through your courtroom. If you are a Christian and work as an attorney––either as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney––you should never try to persuade a witness to shade the truth in the direction of your case. If you have skills as an attorney, consider how to could put those skills to use for people who can’t afford your standard fees. What role could you play to make sure the poor have the same quality of representation as the rich? If you are a Christian working in the realm of criminal defense, think about how you can work to release people who have been wrongfully convicted? Can you get their evidence re-evaluated in light of new technology? God’s justice standard says that the truth of a matter must be established by using two or three witnesses. Thus, if there are instances where new technology can come forward as a “witness” for truth––such as DNA evidence, new video footage, or a credible new eyewitness––as a Christian working in the legal field, you have an obligation to make sure that those witnesses are considered, even if the defendant can’t afford my normal fees. That is what it means to take up the cause of the poor. If a law enforcement officer in your congregation has direct knowledge of corruption in their police precinct or in the District Attorney’s office, especially if it involves the poor not receiving equal treatment, then the local church needs to get behind that person in terms of finances if he or she needs to blow the whistle and lose their job. God’s standard of justice demands that we not just go along with the crowd in doing wrong. We must speak out. God is creating a new people from among the nations. He is calling men and women from all over the world, creating through them an invisible nation so that they will be a light to others. God wants His New Covenant people to take up the cause of the poor and the oppressed by treating them with fairness, ensuring they get their day in court and that their cases are fairly heard, and preventing perversions to justice such as bribes and false testimony. Even if the overall system is flawed, God’s people who are working inside it have a moral obligation to make sure that the poor are given a proper defense and are treated with dignity, fairness, and equality. In this way, we will show the world what it means to truly care for our neighbor. RECOMMENDED RESOURCE

In an age where British royalty married a mixed-race woman from Los Angeles, it’s hard to imagine that there are people who still believe that interracial marriage is a controversial idea. But then . . . you get people saying things like this, from a woman (Jean Cramer) who tried to run for city council in Michigan a couple years ago said that interracial couples are a problem. Her reason? Because…the Bible. More recently, Monique and I interacted with a young woman who wanted advice about her new boyfriend. She explained that he was an advocate for something called “kinism,” which is an ideology, popular among a small group of Protestants, that claims there is a biblical case against marrying outside one’s racial group.) While most of us might simply dismiss such sentiment as morally backward, I think few stop to ask the question of why we consider this ideology—and statements such as Jean Cramer’s—to be so repulsive. After all, although interracial marriage is legally allowed in the U.S., it hasn't always been that way. Why have opinions shifted so dramatically? Many would chalk this change up to "progress" or moral evolution. Or maybe a lot of us have simply changed our minds. But our modern acceptance of interracial marriage isn’t just a nice idea of progressivism. I believe there is much more to it, namely that the Christian worldview provides a strong theological foundation for interethnic and intercultural marriage. This foundation rests on three points. 1. There is an essential unity of humanity. One of the many unfortunate ideas coming out of the Enlightenment was the introduction of racial categories. Prior to Kant, the idea of dividing humanity according to physical features such as skin color was not a common practice. In fact, the Bible is simply not concerned to describe humans according to modern racial categories. It does mention ethnic differences (e.g., Sythians, barbarians), differences according to regional origin (e.g., the Samaritan woman, Ruth the Moabite, Simon of Cyrene), and cultural differences. But categorizing humans according to race is a foreign construct. To read the Bible through a racialized lens is anachronistic. The Bible teaches that all races are unified because all humans share two common ancestors, Adam and Eve. The historic Christian position is that every human being who has ever lived came from this first pair (see Gen. 1:26-27; 3:20). The apostle Paul reaffirmed the teaching of Moses when he preached the gospel to the Gentiles in Athens. He builds part of his case for the universal need for Jesus as a Savior on the Genesis creation account. From one man he [the Creator] made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. (Acts 17:26) Why does Paul mention the first human within the context of a gospel presentation? I think Paul may have been explaining how the Christian worldview directly confronts the ethnocentric sensibilities of the Athenians. In effect, he is telling these proud Greeks, "Those barbarians out there are part of your extended family. You are all part of one race, rooted in one great-great-great-grandfather. So if you’re going to believe in Jesus as your Savior, part of the deal is knowing that there is only one race, and that’s the human race." The Bible also teaches that all races are unified by the fact that all humans—and only humans—are created in the image of God. As beautiful as it is to appreciate a sunset or enjoy our pets, only one of God's creations has been made in His image: humans. This feature binds us together and is the source of dignity, value, and worth for all humans. This is the theological foundation for the idea of "human rights." 2. Christians form a new sub-group of humanity. Through the covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Hebrews became God’s special people. God called them to be a light to the Gentiles, a priestly people to show the nations how to love God and neighbor. Thus, the dominant way of categorizing humanity prior to the coming of the Messiah was as Jews and Gentiles. But even so, the Old Testament foreshadows God’s bigger plan: to eventually invite Gentiles to become part of His covenant people. But the Father’s plan is not fully revealed until Acts 10. No longer was the primary designation between humanity one of Jew and Gentile, but rather those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and those who do not. This is what Peter means when he sees the Holy Spirit fall on Cornelius (a Gentile) and his household, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). Because of the work of Jesus, a new identity now connects God’s people together through Christ. Whether Jew or Gentile, all humans are invited into believing in Jesus as their Messiah. This new identity “in Christ” is a supernatural identity, created in the spirit realm and expressed in the physical realm through the global and local church. Those who place their trust in Jesus and are filled with the Holy Spirit now form a new sub-group of humanity. Here are a few key Scriptures to support this idea: But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9) (emphasis added) In Christ, ethnic and social differences cease to be obstacles to deep, personal, intimate fellowship with members from different cultural or regional backgrounds. God is forming an entirely new nation of people who are united by critical unseen realities. "Here [in the body of Christ] there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Colossians 3:11) In other words, those things the world sees as significant physical, religious, ethnic, or traditional distinctions take a back seat to a greater reality: our spiritual connection through Jesus. In Ephesians 2:11–22, Paul makes a more extended comment about the end of cultural divides in the church. God is calling people from among the nations to become a living Temple, a spiritual family, and a representation of Him on the earth until He returns. When we get to the book of Revelation, we see a series of verses that describe God’s people as consisting of people from “every tribe and language and people and nation.” Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus’ blood “purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.” The racial and ethnic diversity of the new creation will be proof that the Great Commission has, in fact, been fulfilled. The gospel will have reached the ends of the earth (Matt. 28:19). Jesus is building a new humanity through His church. To make racial and ethnic distinctions a source of division in relationships is to oppose the truth of what God is creating in Christ. When we become Christians, ethnic and cultural distinctions ought to take a back seat to our identity in Christ. In other words, I shouldn’t think of myself as an American first, or a white person first, or a Dutch person first. I think of myself as a Christian first. And when I look at other Christians, I should see them first as brothers and sisters. 3. Christians ought to marry Christians. Now we can turn more specifically to the issue of marriage. A key stipulation for identifying a qualified candidate for marriage is that a Christian ought to only marry another Christian. A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39) Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14) That was Paul’s way of restating the Mosaic law against intermarriage with pagan nations. The issue in the Old Testament wasn’t ethnic intermingling. The issue was faith, and the person’s allegiance to the one true God. In light of these scriptures, I would argue that God’s primary concern about whom we marry is that the other person is a genuine and committed follower of Jesus. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't forbid marriage between members of different ethnic, cultural, or even socioeconomic groups. We are all equal at the foot of the cross in terms of our need for forgiveness of sin. Concluding Thoughts The biblical framework for thinking about spiritual differences among humanity would be better understood as those who are “in Christ” and those who are “in Adam.” Whereas, the biblical framework for thinking about physical differences would be better understood as ethnic, regional or cultural differences, not race. In my opinion, a Christian interethnic or intercultural family provides an earthly picture of the new creation where members of every “nation, tribe, and tongue” will worship the Lamb. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be challenges to interethnic or intercultural marriages. There might be practical considerations when it comes to language barriers or cultural distance between families. (Have you ever seen the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding?) We should also acknowledge that we live in a sinful world. In at least one instance, Scripture highlights some of the problems people face due to ethnic prejudices (e.g., Moses and his Cushite wife). Any Christian couple who chooses to engage in an intercultural or interethnic marriage may face certain challenges the couple will need to work through. But if they are willing to endure these challenges, they ought to be supported and cheered on by their friends and family. Let’s settle it in our minds, once and for all, that the controversy about interracial marriage is the result of sinful human culture. In God’s economy, there is beauty to be seen when people from diverse backgrounds display the reality that Jesus’ work on the cross is the great unifier of His people.

Originally published: 10/13/20 Updated: 9/6/22 In the fall of 2020, a student at Biola University forwarded an email newsletter to me for a rather unusual campus “affinity group” called Commune. Here is the description: The mission of Commune is to provide an authentic space for white students to learn and process how their whiteness informs their understanding of pursuing kingdom justice in society today. Now maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this sounds like a Christian-y way of saying that the group's focus is on helping white students understand their white privilege. This is an officially recognized student organization, supervised by paid staff. It’s listed on their “Affinity Groups” page. (UPDATE: As of 9/6/22, it's still listed on the Biola web site.) It's simply described on the Biola web site as a “Coed Group for White Students.” In the higher ed context, affinity groups are often an extension of the office of Diversity. They are usually formed to build community among members of non-dominant groups and to foster inclusion and awareness in the broader university life for those minority groups. This seems consistent with the other ethnicity based affinity groups listed on Biola's web page. Students of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds connect and fellowship with one another. But the immediate question in my head was: What in the world is an affinity group for white students? What Does Commune Do? Here are a few screencaps from their October 2020 newsletter to give you a flavor of their point of view. At the top, there was an announcement for an upcoming event –– a Zoom call entitled, “Examining Critical Race Theory (CRT) with Humility.” My student informant wasn't able to attend this particular meeting, but she did ask the leader for recommended resources. These were the ones sent to her by the leader who said that "multiple perspectives" were considered at the meeting. How Should Christians Think About Social Justice? (an interview with an anti-CRT faculty member from Biola, Dr. Thaddeus Williams) What Christians Get Wrong About Critical Race Theory (an article by a pro-CRT professor from Wheaton College, Dr. Nathan Cartagena) What is Critical Race Theory? (Time Magazine) The first link represents a perspective that challenges the CRT/secular social justice framework in light of the Christian worldview. The second link represents a Christian page that is fairly CRT/secular social justice affirming. The third link goes to a secular article. Now, this might give the appearance of balance if it weren't for the additional resources recommended in the digital newsletter. They encourage students to check out the PBS web page on Hispanic Heritage Month. Here is a link to the “New American Girls” webisodes that were also recommended. I watched a few of them. All of these were fairly affirming of the secular narrative. The third part of the newsletter encouraged students to watch a documentary. It is described in positive terms, like "moving and informative." Here is the full documentary. Make up your own mind about the pros and cons of this. Again, I want to emphasize: this is an official, Biola sanctioned group, supervised by paid staff. According to the Biola web site, Alisa Andre is the Director of Intercultural Education & Assessment. Her leadership over the “Commune” affinity group is listed on her official Biola web page: Alisa “works primarily with Biola employees in the development of their intercultural knowledge, attitudes, and skills by creating professional development opportunities such as Symphony. She also oversees the LEAD Scholars Program and leads Commune, an affinity group for white students. Her research interests include the intersection of spiritual formation, emerging adulthood and white identity.” Ms. Andre holds a Master of Arts in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. One of her "research interests" is "white identity." (9/6/22 UPDATE: Ms. Andre's page on the Biola web site appears to have been scrubbed. But here is a link to her public page on LinkedIn, which states she still works in the same role at Biola.) This makes me wonder whether, or to what degree, the values of Critical Race Theory, antiracism and social justice inform her worldview and the programs she runs/develops at Biola. A Peek Inside In November 2020, we asked a student to help us get a look inside the group by attending the Commune meeting. There were two paid staff members (one male and one female) and three White female undergrads in attendance on Zoom. Most of the hour was spent sharing about their favorite foods and going home to see their parents over the holidays. The students also discussed how their views were becoming more liberal than their parents. The staff members affirmed them in this. At the end of the meeting, the female leader invited one of the students to share a reading from the book, Prayers for a Privileged People. This reading acted as a closing "prayer" for the meeting. The description on amazon describes this book as "prayers on behalf of those who are people of privilege and entitlement the haves at an urgent moment in our society." The End of the Line Biola has historically been a strong stand for the historic Christian faith. But I have a lot of questions about why the University sponsors a club like this. The wording in this newsletter is concerning. There are some definite red flags here. This issue hit particularly close to home when my younger daughter received this text as her first communication from Biola last fall, shortly after her acceptance. My daughter is white. So what "affinity group" would Biola be inviting her to join? The Commune, naturally. Before she even arrived on campus, the University began messaging her about her race. That incident played a major role in our decision to delay college for a year while we researched other options. I think that many parents send their children to Christian universities like Biola because they have a reasonable assumption that their child will be learning about controversial and difficult ideas through the lens of a historic Christian framework. This assumption is often built by the school's public statements to this effect. So it's not without warrant. The issues at Biola are, in my opinion, a microcosm of most Christian colleges right now. The more I have looked into these cases, I have grown increasingly skeptical that the schools are taking adequate precautions to hire carefully or create policies that are consistent with historic Christianity. Are there still biblically faithful staff and faculty employed at schools like Biola? Definitely. I bless them and hope they will continue to pushback against heterodoxy in their local context. But when problematic issues continue to persist, long after they have been brought to the administration's attention, there is reason to believe that these issues are deeply embedded at the institution.

Going beyond starting a backpack program In the wake of the social unrest of 2020, many churches wrestled with how they might respond to injustice in a tangible way. We commend the desire of churches that feel called to “stand for justice.” Such efforts are often an extension of their love and concern for their neighbors. But many pastors who reach out to us are unsure about the tangible steps needed to move forward. Many of the ideas are narrow in scope, often focusing on actions such as launching backpack programs and starting food pantries. Those services can certainly have their place. However, I’d love to help churches to think beyond these standard “helps ministries” and consider the bigger picture of what’s happening in their communities before launching into something new. My hope is to empower churches to develop approaches that will bring lasting transformation through the power of the gospel. Here are five critical questions for leadership teams to consider in developing a strategy to engage in “community outreach.” 1. What is the leadership’s vision? The church’s leadership (for example, the elder team) must be clear about their overall ministry goal. Does the church want to focus on reaching the surrounding community with the gospel (meeting spiritual needs)? Or, does it want to focus on developing a social program (meeting physical needs)? Or both? Having clear answers to these questions will provide a solid foundation for everything else that follows. In my opinion, churches should first place a priority on gospel-focused outreach to meet the spiritual needs of the community. Jesus’ words cut right to the heart of the issue: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. (Matt. 16:24-27) That’s not to say that meeting physical needs isn’t important. Programs such as yearly backpack programs for foster-care children, trash cleanup at a local park, or food boxes during the holidays, can have their place. In fact, we see this principle both by example and command in Scripture: All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. (Acts 2:45-46) If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? (1 John 3:17) The focus of these Scriptures is that Christians were known for voluntarily caring for one another, including physical needs. (It would be a step too far, however, to say such scriptures ought to be used to warrant compulsive participation in government social programs.) While helping to meet the basic needs of brothers and sisters is good, church leadership must also be clear on this: humanitarian efforts should never be conflated with genuine gospel preaching. Nor should they be a substitute for biblically informed means to improve distressed communities. In the hierarchy of priorities, we must place a high value on robust gospel ministry and discipleship. A person’s greatest need is their spiritual need for the cross. That’s where the curse of sin is broken and new possibilities for the person become available. 2. Is the outreach program built on a robust biblical framework? This step might seem basic, but in our experience, it is often significantly neglected. One of the first questions we ask a church or ministry that we work with is this: What is the biblical warrant for this ministry? If the response is little more than an expression of “love for neighbor” or “helping widows and orphans,” then there is still significant biblical work to do. Here’s an example. Noticing our neighbor’s lack of basic needs could be the start of an outreach effort. But it’s also more than that. Programs designed to “help” others cannot merely be motivated by good intentions. For example, a biblical vision for “helping the poor” ought to include a long-term strategy of empowering ministry recipients to provide for their own families’ needs: For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Ex. 23:10-11) When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:9-10) God’s laws provided a pathway for basic provisions for the poor, but work was still required. Even though the poor man didn’t own the land, hadn’t tilled the ground, sown the seed, or hired the harvesters, he was still required to put in some effort. Why? Because work is part of the purpose of being a human (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:15) and laziness is a sin. This means that efforts to “help the poor” ought not be an invitation for able-bodied people to violate God’s design. Rather, the goal should include education about biblical principles of work and financial management, which leads to self sufficiency. Instead of merely handing out free food, it might be better to create a work-for-food program where recipients are expected to contribute labor to making the food pantry work, such as cleaning bathrooms, unloading freight, stacking boxes, etc. The program could also require food recipients to take job assistance classes and learn resume writing skills, or budgeting classes, with a potential end goal of weaning themselves off the program. All too often, churches mirror the culture’s values by creating dependency, rather than operating according to biblical principles and implementing a better vision for community change. 3. Have you assessed the actual needs of the community? One of the most common mistakes that we see is that a church will launch the kind of ministry its leadership is excited about instead of assessing the actual needs of the community. Sometimes it’s easy for a church to look around the neighborhood and see potential opportunities for outreach, but other times the opportunities are more elusive. The most visible issues aren’t the ones needing to be addressed. There may be issues lingering behind closed doors. Either way, it’s important to take time to assess what’s actually happening in our own backyard before developing a new program. This will require some data-gathering. A good place to start is the Census.gov web site. Type in your church’s zip code, and you will be immediately met with a snapshot of the two- to five-mile radius around your church. You can then begin to investigate what needs are in your area. Here are a couple more examples to help get you thinking. Your church may be thinking about starting a food pantry for single parents within your community. However, there are already 4 food pantries located within a 5 mile radius of your church. After doing more data collection, you find that many of the single parents are looking for opportunities to work, but they can’t afford childcare. You may consider gathering volunteers from the church community and starting a volunteer run day care or after school care program so that parents have the opportunity to work. This would help financially so then they may not actually need the services of the food pantries they frequent. Or, let’s say that your church is located in a very affluent area where the median income is $125K a year, and you notice that your area has a high rate of homes with computers and high-speed internet. That would make us wonder how many of those homes might be impacted by porn or cocaine addiction. Perhaps that is an issue where your church needs to focus. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that just because a church is located in a more affluent area that the surrounding community doesn’t have needs. Perhaps their needs are just more hidden inside nice homes. Rich people also need the gospel. A second step in data collection involves talking to the ministries that are already servicing in the area. It’s possible that your church doesn’t need to start something new. Could the leadership team partner with another local church or para-church ministry that is already reaching the unreached with the Gospel? It might be more efficient to shore up the efforts of a small ministry that’s already embedded in the community. 4. Do you have key leaders in place with the right skill set to oversee the outreach ministry? Sometimes a single person can have a big vision, but not the ability to execute it. Even if they have the ability, it’s not generally healthy for the whole project to ride on the shoulders of one person. This is why it is important for church leaders to develop a team with the right skills, experience, and spiritual gifts to oversee the development, launch, and ongoing execution of the new outreach effort. If these elements aren’t in place, it might be better to slow the development phase and wait for the Lord’s provision for staffing. For more tips about hiring, check out Krista’s interview with Dr. Gary Miller. One of the most common pitfalls in launching a new outreach ministry is the failure to plan for the long haul. It may take only money to get the effort going, but it will take commitment to sustain it. When churches do something for a year or two and then the project folds, the community loses out on the needed resources that are being supplied. They may also get a message that the effort was more about making the church people “feel good about helping others” than it was a commitment to stand with neighbors through hard times. As the church looks toward maintaining the long-term health of the new ministry, it will also be vital to think about how future leaders and volunteers will be inspired to catch the vision. The church leadership will need to clearly communicate the mission, vision, and values for the new venture, including a strong biblical warrant for the ministry. Understanding these pillars will help to increase the congregation’s buy-in, which is needed both for financial support and for raising up new volunteer staff. 5. Does the outreach program communicate with the unreached in their native language and cultural context? Best practices among missionaries have taught us that when doing cross-cultural ministry, the ideal is to have someone in leadership who is native to the community that is being serviced. So that is also something to keep in mind as part of the recruiting and staffing process. For example, if the church wants to develop a sports ministry as a way to engage the community and invite new people to the church, that effort would ideally be spearheaded by someone who has both a knowledge of sports and the spiritual gift of evangelism. Or let’s say the church is looking to launch a ministry to reach the LGBT people with the gospel. It would be good to consider recruiting a leader who is mature in the Lord, has the spiritual gift of evangelism, and has come out of that lifestyle. Being able to “speak the language”—whether it’s knowing sports or being from a particular lifestyle or ethnic background—can be an important factor in success, as is the ability to think creatively about how to use the ministry as a bridge to expose new people to the gospel. But that’s always the case. Even though the missionary best practices tell us that evangelism and discipleship is ideally led by cultural natives, God can still work. We would be remiss in not mentioning how God moved in situations where vast cultural and linguistic boundaries were crossed by people like William Carey in India, Hudson Taylor in China, David Wilkerson in New York City, and Elizabeth Elliot in the jungles of Ecuador. All God needs is our willingness. If He is in the effort, He will make a way. By keeping these principles in mind, churches, ministries, and schools will be well on their way to creating a Gospel-driven ministry that will serve their community.

Now that I've had a few days to process the Roe decision, I wanted to share a few, very brief, thoughts. 1. I never thought I'd ever live to see Roe overturned. Never. Ever. I was truly shocked. Governments rarely return rights. 2. I want to say thank you to every Christian who has stood for the dignity of the preborn, over the last 50 years. To every person who started a march or went to march, started an adoption agency, or adopted or fostered a child, started, supported or volunteered at a PRC, stood in front of an abortion mill, prayed, did sidewalk counseling, or got arrested, started or volunteered at a woman's crisis shelter, I thank you. You helped to build an amazing infrastructure of compassion and charity. You didn't wait for the government to tell you what to do. You simply read the Bible and figured out how to stand for life in your own unique way. 3. Shame on the Big Eva voices telling us, "Now the work begins to be pro-woman" or "Churches need to step up and help women in crisis." You sound like you are erasing the efforts of hundreds of thousands of Christians who have already been doing that for 50 years. True Christians will continue to do what we've already been doing. And we will continue to multiply those efforts with new and creative solutions, as the LORD leads and provides. 4. Given how many pastors interrupted their preaching schedule or posted a black square to raise awareness two years about about BLM, I wonder how many did the same to praise the Roe decision. 5. "Making abortion unthinkable" appears to be the new Big Eva code words for trying to guilt Christians into thinking that they must now advocate for XYZ social programs in order to TRULY be pro-life. Making big government a person's provider is not the way. 6. We need to have a discussion about how to balance compassion for moms and rescuing the preborn, with also being a prophetic voice against adultery and hookup culture. We must not be so overrun with preaching compassion that we forget to teach repentance. 7. Abortion affects a staggering number of men and women, even in our churches. If you are hurting due to unresolved abortion regret or trauma, contact your local pregnancy resource center (PRC). They have resources to help you. Forgiveness and healing are available. 8. Now is the time to equip yourself to put forward arguments to defend the life of the preborn as fully human, both biblically and scientifically. Here are some places to start, including Scott Klusendorf's ministry, Life Training Institute. Now is also the time to educate yourself scientifically about medical technologies that are connected to the pro-life conversation, including IVF, Plan B, and hormonal birth control. 9. It's really ok to celebrate when God's justice wins in the public square. Really. I'm with Kevin DeYoung on this. 10. May God have mercy on our country. May He delay judgment a bit longer so that more may come to repentance.

Two "Racial Reconciliation" Models Explained Recently, this tweet caught my attention. (Note: I have omitted the person’s identity.) My mind immediately flashed back to the summer of 2020. In the wake of the social unrest, white evangelicals were exhorted to “listen to their brothers and sisters of color.” There was a strong push to platform minorities, host lament services, and create “diversity committees.” Anyone who wanted to ask questions or slow down the process was labeled a “racist.” Monique and I strongly advised against this strategy two years ago. We still do. And the replies to this tweet are the perfect example of why. There were two distinct categories of responses. Example #1 Example #2 Both of these lists include Christians who are ethnic minorities. Many are Black. However, these lists are also symbolic of an important difference: many (not all) of the names represent vastly different approaches to conversations about race, including in their identification of the problems and the solutions. If we were to zoom the discussion about race in the church all the way out, two different frameworks would emerge. Many prominent Christian leaders are putting forth one or the other framework, or model. Model #1 says, “Addressing racial injustice is a goal and there can be no reconciliation without concrete expressions and actions to bring about justice for BIPOC,” while Model #2 says, “Christians are already reconciled through the work of Jesus on the cross, and we live from that reality.” Model #1 would be exemplified by such entities as Be The Bridge, Jude 3 Project, and Jemar Tisby. Model #2 is utilized by CFBU, Voddie Baucham, and Every Black Life Matters, among others. It’s also helpful to be aware that advocates of both models will often see one another as a stumbling block to progress in the discussion about race and racism. As I unfold the general features of the models, I think it will become more clear about why that is. To see some of the important ways that these models differ from one another, let’s look at nine critical questions. What is “race”? Model #1: Race is a social construct, but it is also an essential part of identity. This is because the narratives that reinforce racial essentialism exist everywhere in society and are expressed in beliefs, values, and stereotypes, and in institutional practices within banking, education, criminal justice, and healthcare. Model #2: All humans are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27-28) and are physical descendants of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:20; Acts 17:26). The Bible categorizes humans by being "in Adam" or "in Christ" (Rom. 5), not by melanin content or physical features. God is creating one new people from the nations (Eph. 2:11-22). The idea of race (arranging people according to melanin or ethnicity) is a social construct. What we call “race” is the result of physical micro-adaptations resulting from human migration. What is “racism”? Model #1: Individual racism is real, but also an insufficient explanation for how racism manifests itself due to power dynamics that are endemic in systems. For this reason, racism is defined as "prejudice plus power” and is the ordinary, everyday experience of most people of color. The result of pervasive racist policies and values, racism results in racial inequities. Christians who hold this view often point to Roman oppression against the Jews as an example of this kind of an ethnic-based power dynamic. Model #2: Racism is defined as a combination of (1) ethnic favoritism (advantaging or disadvantaging a person or group based on their skin color, physical features, regional accent, or cultural heritage) and (2) hatred in our hearts (1 John 3:15) toward a person or group of people based on their skin color, physical features, regional accent, or cultural heritage. Racism can be expressed through individual acts, or when groups of sinners collaborate to exploit others. What is the fundamental problem behind racial division? Model #1: Racism's root is America’s history with large-scale systems that have been created by white people to oppress people of color. The effects of these systems continue to marginalize and oppress BIPOC. Once systems of whiteness that perpetuate racism are eliminated and racial injustice addressed, then racism will be eradicated. Model #2: Racism is a sin that has been part of human history because of the fall of Adam. The root of racial division is an expression of humanity’s sinfulness through various acts of tribal (e.g., racial, ethnic, linguistic) discrimination. This kind of bias is present among every race and culture, not just within white cultures; It just looks different from place to place. Racism has played a major role in America's history and its development. It's good for all citizens to be aware of the depth of that. We should also recognize that various forms of racial and ethnic partiality have played a role in the development of other nations, as well. Being made aware of all the different ways this sin shows up helps Chritsians see that this kind of sin is a global issue, not simply an American one. Who can be “racist”? Model #1: Because institutional power belongs to white people, only white people can be racist. People of color can engage in prejudice, but they cannot, by definition, be classified as racist, because the power dynamic is deemed to be absent. Model #2: All people can participate in sinful acts—including racism—against one another, both individually and corporately. There are no sins that affect only certain groups of people based on melanin content (or any other physical feature) or previous historical prejudices. Who can be a victim of racism? Model #1: Because people of color lack institutional power, they alone can be victims of true racism. Model #2: All people, regardless of ethnic or cultural background, can be victims of race-based mistreatment. Institutional systems and structures can be set up to advantage—or disadvantage—any ethnic group. Such situations must be carefully investigated on a case-by-case basis using objective and biblical criteria. This video by Pastor Eric Mason offers a good example of a Christian using Model #1 as a framework for identifying the problems and solutions of race and racism. What is the foundation for racial unity? Model #1: Everyone must commit to doing the work of antiracism (actively fighting against policies that are deemed racist due to their inequitable results). Specific tasks for white people include lamenting past and present acts of racism, repenting of their whiteness, decolonizing Christianity, and supporting wealth redistribution and reparations. Model #2: As the gospel goes out to the ends of the earth (Matt. 28:19-20), people from every nation, tribe, and tongue will come to faith in Jesus’s death and resurrection (Rev. 7) and form one new people (Eph. 2:11-22). In Christ, all Christians become spiritual brothers and sisters. Unity between Christians from various racial and ethnic groups is an objective reality that already exists in the spirit realm, one that ought to be lived out in real relationships. How do I walk in racial unity with others? Model #1: Racial unity can only be achieved when white people understand their position and privilege within society. White people must divest themselves of whiteness by forfeiting their privilege and work to amplify (certain) voices of people of color and other marginalized groups. Model #2: Unity can only be maintained when Christians cultivate the fruits of the Spirit and resist the deeds of the flesh (Gal. 5), walk in humility (Eph. 4:2–3), share with those in need (2 Cor. 9:7), and engage in empathy (1 Cor. 12:26). Christians should work toward racelessness (where melanin is no longer a way of categorizing people), or at least de-emphasizing race and ethnicity so that our identity and unity in Christ are of chief importance. When an individual has a personal offense with a fellow Christian, they should go to that person in private and work mutually toward genuine repentance and generous forgiveness (Matt. 18). Is racism a thing of the past? Model #1: Racism is pervasive and always present. Racism is eliminated when white people allow their interests to converge with the interests of BIPOC people, since they are the ones that "hold the power.” Model #2: Race-based partiality is sin. As such, Christians must look to avoid two errors. We can't assume racism is only in the past but doesn't exist now. Nor can we assume that addressing systems will eradicate race-based partiality. As long as there are humans, there will be sin. There has been ethnic partiality throughout human history, and there will be ethnic partiality until Jesus returns and we move into the new creation. How do I stand against racial injustice? Model #1: We must address disparities and inequities wrought by historical injustices. This is the only way to stand against racial injustice, even if that means disrupting equal opportunity for all. Anyone not on board with these remedies is seen as supporting on-going racism. Model #2: Racism can happen, but it also must be investigated and verified. Not simply assumed. Christians need to use their voices, votes, and money to promote a biblical definition of justice, which means advocating for the fair and impartial treatment for people of all races. We recognize that some Christians would advocate some kind of hybrid model, mixing aspects of both models. But what we are outlining here is a brief breakdown of how the ideas generally align. These questions can help shape your own discussions with pastors and leaders, to see which model they are most aligned with. In our view, the critical question is not, Which BIPOC voices should I follow? That question assumes that all BIPOC people think the same way about the issues, and that’s simply not true. There is no such thing as “the black perspective”—just as there is no such thing as “the white perspective.” Perspectives aren’t rooted solely in melanin. Humans are way more complex than that. The leading question we ought to ask is, Which voices are discussing racial unity in a manner that is consistent with what the whole counsel of Scripture communicates about partiality and justice? And that is precisely the question that was often not asked back in 2020 when churches were recommending that their congregations read Ibram X. Kendi. Many pastors and other Christian leaders bought into the cultural belief that melanin brought special knowledge that was unavailable to people with less melanin. This error resulted in situations where melanin mattered more than biblical fidelity. The truth is, the call to “listen to BIPOC voices” isn’t actually about race. It’s about lifting the BIPOC advocates who promote the culturally accepted ideology concerning skin color. And that usually looks something like Model #1 being amplified while Model #2 tends to get muted. This became evident in the summer of 2020 when social media thought Monique was part of the BLM stream. Facebook was pushing the Center for Biblical Unity’s content out to 150,000 people a week. But once their algorithms realized she wasn’t saying the “right” things about race and racism—in other words, that we aligned with Model #2—they turned that spigot off. Yes, Facebook still sends us messages to “lift Black voices”—while simultaneously diminishing Monique’s voice. It’s not about being BIPOC, and it never was. It’s about ideology.

Answers to 3 Critical Questions Recently, I was on a Zoom call with a pastor in a mid-sized town in the Midwest. His town, and his church, are mostly White. He was inquiring about having Monique come speak at his church for a weekend conference on racial unity. As the conversation developed, it was clear that this pastor was struggling. He had a general sense that he was supposed to “do something” for his church related to the race issue. He was also concerned with whether it was even okay that his church was predominantly white. Did he need to do something to “fix” that? So he was reaching out to Monique to speak at a conference. This pastor isn’t unusual. We’ve noticed that many pastors are very willing to have a discussion about race. But they often don’t have a well-developed theology when it comes to thinking about racial and cultural issues within their local church context. We have found that when exploring these issues, addressing the following three questions helps to bring increased clarity. 1. Should all churches be multiethnic? Usually, when we ask pastors this question, their immediate answer is a quick and unqualified “yes.” Our theory is that this is because there has been strong social programming, especially in the last two years, that being a multiethnic church is the ideal. There is a widespread belief that every predominantly white church needs to transition into being a multiethnic church if it doesn't want to be racist. That’s a lot of pressure—especially if you are a pastor in, say, rural Wyoming, where the minority population is small. When we ask a pastor why he believes this, the Scriptural warrant usually provided is Revelation 7:9-10: After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” The pastor usually says something like, “Because there are representatives from ‘every nation, tribe, and language’ worshiping at the throne, every church should display the ideal of being multiethnic.” It seems to often go unnoticed that Revelation 7 isn’t actually describing a local church. Revelation 7 is describing the universal, global church worshiping together in the throne room of heaven. It’s a snapshot of the reality that is happening right now and has been happening from the beginning of the church. Jesus’ final instructions to His disciples was to preach the gospel and disciple the nations (Matt. 28:19-20). Since Pentecost, Christianity has been a multiethnic religion. Notice the variety of people groups represented by the diasporic Jews gathered in Jerusalem on that day: Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”... So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:5–11, 41) This instantaneous explosion of the gospel into multiple languages to multiple ethnicities, accompanied by the provision of a complex system of Roman roads during a time of relative peace (Pax Romana), helped to facilitate the spread of the good news in a rapid fashion. From both a global and historical perspective, the church is already multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual. Almost no matter where you go in the world, you will find authentic Christians. Now, there might be fewer of them in some areas. And there might be some areas that need more specific penetration with Bibles in their language. But in general, the gospel has gone out to the nations. Revelation 7 is the description of what is already a reality-—one that will only continue to grow. So if the global church is already multiethnic and has been so since Pentecost, what does that mean for the local church? That leads us to the second question. 2. Is there something defective about my church if it's majority is white? This is the (sometimes unspoken) question lingering in the back of many pastors’ minds. And it’s understandable. Again, there has been a lot of social conditioning, especially in the last two years, telling us that something is wrong if most of the people in the room are white. The pastor’s fear is that his church is quite possibly sinful. More specifically, he fears his church might be racist. And the truth is, it might be sinful. It might be racist. And it might not be. More data would be needed in order to answer that question. I don't think think there is any inherent problem with a monocultural church. After all, we wouldn't expect a Korean-speaking church to become multiethnic in order to prove it isn't racist. But I do think it's worth the effort for the elders to investigate why their church is mostly monocultural or monoethnic. Those reasons might be benign. Or, they might not be. A potentially helpful question for the elders to ask as they investigate the issue is this: Does our church generally reflect the demographics of the surrounding community (say, in the five-mile radius around the building)? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then there might not be a problem. If the answer to that question is “no,” then the church leaders might consider exploring why that’s the case. Is there an attitude of apathy in the leadership or the congregation toward reaching particular groups in the neighborhood with the gospel? Or is this situation the result of a previously undetected oversight? Either way, perhaps church leadership might need to think about developing a three- to five-year strategic plan for discipling the congregation into a biblical vision for reaching the community with the gospel, and they may need to develop some new strategies to take the gospel to those living in the vicinity of the church. But this must be done out of a conviction for bringing the gospel to a community, not just to reach “diversity goals.” Perhaps there are even existing ministries that are already reaching those people with the gospel, and the church could partner with them to help expand their reach. This brings us to the third question. 3. Should we intentionally recruit leaders who are racial minorities? It’s not uncommon for pastors to wonder whether they need to recruit or hire leaders who are minorities (usually black) as a means to fixing their “race problem” in their majority-white church. This question often flows out of a concern to correct the “power dynamics” of leadership. The discussion linked below explains this concern well. It’s not uncommon for pastors to ask us what steps they should take to transition to multiethnic leadership in order to “fix” this perceived problem. Again, this is because there is the fear (often unspoken) that the church is racist if the leadership is monoethnic. And this might be a good issue for church leadership to explore. But such exploration must put biblical standards for leadership first. When Paul commissions Titus to appoint elders, he provides very specific criteria: This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9) He gives similar instructions to Timothy for the church in Ephesus: The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7) These are the Lord’s prescriptions for appointing church leadership. Notice that these standards do not include recruiting elders based on melanin or on cultural or regional origin. What we do see in the book of Acts is that the leadership in the church in Antioch, which is Paul and Barnabas’ sending church, is organically multiethnic: Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3) This mixture of Greek-speaking Jews and Roman citizens displays that what was begun on Pentecost has now spread to Antioch. Multicultural and multiethnic leadership wasn’t the result of a calculated campaign to even out racial power dynamics. It was the natural outworking of the Holy Spirit. Leaders were identified based on their godly character, not their ethnic identity. For this reason, CFBU strongly cautions churches against recruiting elders and staff members simply to meet “diversity goals.” This is a worldly standard, one that would be an inappropriate form of ethnic partiality—or, to use a cultural term, a form of “tokenism.” However, we also see in the book of Acts a descriptive example of how recruiting leadership based on cultural, language, or ethnic considerations can be helpful: to reach a particular community: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6) This passage is often leveraged by voices who are sympathetic to reorganizing power structures in the local church and recruiting leadership based on ethnicity. I am skeptical that this passage is sufficient to supply that warrant, however. Let's notice three details of the text: 1) there was a community that needs to be served (Greek-speaking widows), 2) the current leadership (namely the Twelve apostles) were unable to serve these widows because they had different ministry commitments; and 3) there were necessary criteria for godly leadership. These deacons are chosen because they meet the following qualifications: they are 1) men, 2) of good reputation, 3) full of the Holy Spirit, and 4) wise. The text doesn't say these men were promoted into leadership positionsbecause of their ethnicity, or sharing in a common language and culture. Cultural and linguistic distance between the Twelve and the Greek-speaking widows was not the problem. That's not in the text! These days, however, there is a high emphasis placed on recruiting culturally native people to lead outreach efforts. And there can be wisdom in this approach at times. If a church sees a hole in their ability to bring the Gospel to a particular community near their church, then maybe it's time for the elders to develop a plan. But that plan would need to begin by locating a qualified man to help spearhead those efforts. Again, by qualified, I am referring to the biblical standards outlined above, and not to whether he is simply Christian man who is a doctor or business owner. The elders might also need to weigh the importance of recruiting someone who is embedded in a particular culture, speaks the language, and has appropriate spiritual gifts. Let’s say, for example, your majority-white church is located in a neighborhood that has transitioned to having Chinese as their primary or only language. The problem is, your church hasn’t been actively engaged in gospel outreach to that community. The fruit of that omission might result in a situation where your church hasn’t trained or ordained any godly Chinese-speaking men into leadership. If there is no such man available, the elders might need to ask: What do we need to do in order to disciple more Chinese men so that we have a pool to potentially recruit from for a future elder team? I recognize that this is a long-term strategy. But it is a biblical one. The main goal would be to recruit leaders who can lead gospel ministry and discipleship programs to the Chinese community. What the goal is not, is a superficial effort to change how the staff looks on the website to make the church “looks more diverse.” Transitioning to being a multiethnic church shouldn’t be a decision that’s made as a result of a church-growth fad. It should be done by qualified leaders, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. And such qualifications are based on spiritual maturity related to sound doctrine and lifestyle, not race or ethnicity. And while recruiting cultural insiders is considered best practice these days, and there can be wisdom in that at times, we must also keep in mind that God works through the people He calls. The worldly standard of cultural competency isn't a biblical criteria. We recognize that there are many challenges to being a pastor. Our hope is to provide a way to think about the issue of multiethnic churches that is founded on Scripture first, not the whims of cultural pressure. For some, this will be a relief. For others, it will open new challenges.