Douglas Wilson, Slavery, and Evangelical Opposition to Gay Lives (and the gospel)

[I wrote this a few years ago in response to some prominent Evangelical reactions to the Supreme Court’s legalization of marriage equality for gay people.]

A few days ago Pastor Kevin DeYoung wrote a blog post for the Gospel Coalition entitled “40 Questions for Those Now Waving Rainbow Flags.” DeYoung is a conservative Evangelical and the questions were meant to put Evangelicals who affirm marriage equality on the spot. Many progressives have written answers to DeYoung. Others, including Matthew Vines, penned their own 40 questions for those who opposed marriage equality (or “gay marriage”).

Pastor Douglas Wilson recently wrote a response that is sadly getting a lot of reposts from other conservatives. I say sadly because Wilson is a known apologist for slavery and the Confederacy. This is even reflected in a shocking statement in Wilson’s piece. There he writes that gay marriage is worse than slavery was. Yes, you heard that right: gay marriage is worse than slavery!

Let me break that down for you a little bit: on the one side, you have an institution that adducted men, women, and children from their homeland, tearing apart families. It packed them onto ships like sardines in unsanitary and inhumane conditions in which millions lost their lives in transit. When they got to this new and scary world, they were sold off like livestock. They were dehumanized and treated like beasts; worked like animals, raped at will, and traded off at their master’s leisure. Even when that did not happen, the threat of breaking up slave families was used as a stick to curb their natural desire for freedom.

Education was generally discouraged and although Wilson elsewhere praises Christian masters for saving the souls of these poor lost African slaves; what they were shown was generally not the gospel of Jesus Christ but rather the false gospel of white supremacy.

Instead of being taught their full freedom and equality as human beings before God, they were pointed to the passages that emphasized their need to submit and obey. Instead of being shown the love and identification with those most marginalized that Jesus called his followers to, they were taught hate and fear. Thankfully many Africans learned the true gospel of Jesus – which was really the fulfillment of their own vibrant spiritualties.

Immense wealth was built right off of their backs, and they were denied a share in the fruit of their labor. But that’s not all. For people to treat other human beings this way, a racist ideology of white European supremacy had to be established. This same ideology led white Americans to break treaties with, kill, and steal land from Native Americans. It also led them to enact discriminatory policies against Mexicans, Chinese, and other ethnic minorities.

Untold thousands of Africans lost their lives to the hardships of slavery. And that says nothing about the psychological toll. After this dominant privilege was challenged, it led to pushback in Jim Crow laws, segregation, and massive inequalities and injustices that continue on to a large extent to this day. That’s on the one side.

On the other, you have a group of normal people who have historically been bullied, murdered, raped, castrated, and castigated in the worst ways gain a little bit more social acceptance and legal rights. Now any two non-related consenting adults who love each other and are willing to commit to one another, for better or worse, are able to do so in marriage and have access to the marriage benefits that many previously lacked.

This in no way hinders those who were formerly able to marry from marrying who they want to; it just extends the same freedoms and privileges to others. This doesn’t (necessarily) hinder others from exercising their religious beliefs;* it just upholds the ability of millions of other religious people to exercise theirs as they see fit.

One of these two is all about love, inclusion, freedom, equality, commitment, humanity, and health. The other is about hate, bondage, inequality, separation, segregation, and dehumanization. Guess which one Douglas Wilson sees as worse?

It can only be by closing your eyes to the empirical evidence before you that anyone could say something so outlandish and hateful. It is only by deifying a human book and making it into an idol that one could so gleefully sacrifice their children’s lives and spirits to the false god of inerrancy.

But millions of us see through that. Millions of us know that although God’s call to us in Jesus involves sacrifice; it is not an arbitrary sacrifice that breaks our spirits for no discernable reason (what kind of God would do that?). It is sacrifice in the service of love: to extend neighbor love to foreigners, enemies, and those on the margins of society. Not just our friends and family (“even the sinners do that”).

This means confronting our prejudices. It means giving up our wealth, security, and privileges. It means risking our lives and others’ high opinion of us to defend the humanity and  rights of people who are viewed by others as dangerous or disgusting. Like Jesus did. It means giving to the poor and seeking justice for them.

It means announcing to them and others the good news of God’s in-breaking kingdom; of God’s call to repent of our selfishness and faithlessness and turn instead to our loving Abba-Father who is merciful and trustworthy; to warn others that continuing on the path of narcissism, selfishness, and retribution would lead to a living hell and separation from God; but that to grow in light and love would reconnect us to God and would give us a new family of brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers made up of every tribe and nation, of those who fear God and are following the path of Jesus.

There are other problems with Wilson’s piece. He constantly and disrespectfully refers to marriage equality as “gay mirage.” He assumes inerrancy throughout and in so doing, appears to be unaware of the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is a fallible human book (though one which could still contain a core message that God has progressively been revealing). Since it is clearly fallible, his wooden and flat use of it leads him to (in effect) make it into an idol. One on which he is willing to sacrifice gay people.

It leads him to contravene the entire spirit and thrust of Jesus’ mission. Jesus emphasized love, mercy, inclusion, reconciliation, and so on. His harsh words were for people who used laws and holiness codes to judge, exclude, or marginalize others. His use of the Torah tended to marginalize the violent parts and the holiness codes and instead emphasize love as the highest law and inward moral purity of desire and intention.

Incidentally, he said nothing (directly, contextually) about gay relationships.

* I’m setting to the side the thorny issue of whether religious believers should have the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people or other minorities in their public for-profit businesses. I tend to think they should not have that right. But for the sake of argument, assume that I am wrong. A contrary position on religious liberty is compatible with gay, lesbian, or bisexual people having the constitutional right to marry.


Trump and the Practical Apostasy of Evangelicalism


I am saddened and angered by a sense of betrayal. Betrayal on a number of fronts, but especially from conservative Evangelicals.

Before going on with some of the hard things I’m going to say here, let me qualify myself some. There are Evangelicals I love and respect. I know not all Evangelicals fall prey to the chronic problems in Evangelicalism I will be criticizing. Further, every camp has its own blind spots, including my own. Yet Evangelicalism at large is riddled with problems, and their support of President Trump has exposed many of them like nothing I have seen before.

My background is Evangelical, so I have a long and close connection to these people. I grew up under the influence of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, and Billy Graham. I know that world intimately. As a homeschooler and then Bible college graduate, my whole life and identity was once wrapped up in that subculture.

But for some time now and for a variety of reasons I have moved away from Evangelicalism. I came to disagree with a lot of its common stances: for example, its rejection of critical Biblical scholarship, suspicion of mainstream science, misrepresentation of history, opposition to LGBTQ rights and identities, complicity with racism, promotion of patriarchy, glorification of violence, unbridled capitalism, antipathy toward pluralism, denialism over climate change, anti-intellectualism, legalism, cultish acquiescence to authority figures, tendency to conflate the gospel with American civil religion, and so on.

But beyond disagreements with specific claims, I also came to oppose what I see as Evangelicalism’s pervasively wrongheaded spirit and priorities. As a rule, I find it anti-intellectual and narrow in loving; emphasizing dogma over evidence, power over love, exclusion over inclusion, security over justice, and entrepreneurship over authenticity.

I’ve had a lot of flashpoints of pain as Evangelicalism and I have gone more and more our separate ways. I remember when 19,000 Evangelicals would literally rather children starve then for World Vision to let married gay people work in their offices. I remember when a swath of Moody students and even a Moody professor attacked a black student group for speaking what should have been an obvious truth about racism in America. I remember these things and more.

But this election cycle and in particular the way white Evangelicals have largely supported Donald Trump has been the most painful unmasking to me of hypocrisy and moral corruption within Evangelicalism.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible is fallible (for example, see Sparks or Stark). This does not necessarily undercut it serving as an authority for Christians alongside others such as reason, experience, science, or the fresh leading of the Spirit. My study of both the Bible itself and religion more generally indicates to me that love is at the center of authentic spirituality.

Love is God’s primary attribute and, redeemed and empowered by His love, our primary duty is to love God and love others. This is the central message of Jesus and the Bible. The world religions disagree on many things, but most agree that the Highest Ultimate is primarily loving, good, or blissful and that we are to treat others as we would want to be treated. Such notions are backed up by the phenomenology of religious experience, miracles, and our ethical intuitions.

But because Evangelicals refuse to accept this, they make the Bible into an idol and act in ways that are profoundly unloving.

For example, because of a handful of texts that condemn homosexuality, they treat LGBTQ people in ways that can only be described as hateful.

They mock them and condemn them. They compare their most intimate relationships to pedophiles, sex with animals, pollution, rape, and murder. They isolate them, suspect them, and treat them with revulsion (even those who are trying to follow their rules). They claim natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or AIDS are God’s judgment for our “wicked” acceptance them.

Many Evangelicals insist that not only is their love wrong, but even their unchosen attractions and indeed their sexual or gender identities are as well. Contrary to science and experience, they insist they chose this and can change it. Some of them force their children to go through the torture of “conversion therapy.” Others literally try to cast out the “demon” of homosexuality. Some kick their children out of their homes to the streets, or speak from their bully pulpits about the necessity of doing so -“turning their children over to Satan,” as it were.

They buy into debunked theories about what causes gayness: a distant father or overbearing mother, for example. They offer quack “treatments” to “fix” it, such as exercises to find their supposedly suppressed “inner” masculinity or femininity. As indicated above, other “treatments” such as shock therapy are not so mild.

They do this in spite of crystal-clear evidence of how important relationships are to our well-being – how fundamentally we are wired for that – and how unaccepting environments drastically elevate LGBTQ persons’ susceptibility to depression and suicide. They do it in spite of evidence that these people largely do not choose these identities and  in most cases cannot choose to be otherwise (though they can choose to act in non-conformity with them). They simply refuse to listen to LGBTQ folk when they try to explain these things or share about their experiences.

In recent years, this hostility toward gay and trans people has become a hallmark of their identity and one of their top political priorities. This, apparently, is the line they are willing to die on. Not caring for strangers, widows, orphans, or the poor (even though the Bible has loads more to say about that.) Those things would be too costly and threatening. No, hatred toward gay and trans people is easier. That’s the name of the game.

They actively seek to bar gay and bisexual couples from being able to marry the person they love, with all the benefits that come with that. They seek to pass bills making it easier for LGBTQ folk to be fired or denied housing or medical care simply because they are gay, bisexual, or trans. Under the guise of religious freedom, they seek to pass bills that make it easier for businesses and colleges to discriminate against gay people. (I’ll admit some of the issues and specific cases related to this last point are more tricky and debatable than others.)

They seek to bar trans people from using the bathroom that marches their gender identity – which can endanger trans individuals and is a source of anxiety and shame. They spread statistically and scientifically misleading propaganda about LGBTQ people being sexual predators (or predators posing as such). They’ve done this for years.

Some on the fringes insist LGBTQ people ought to be castrated, imprisoned, or executed; something that was not so fringe until just recently (or even today in other countries like Uganda where Evangelicals have actively campaigned for such measures).

And to add insult to injury, they say they do all of these things because they love gay people. They’re just trying to save them from themselves. But as I’ve said, their only basis for saying this is their idolatry to a fallible human book.

Science and experience are unambiguous about what loving LGBTQ people as embodied creatures means. It means welcoming them, listening to them, celebrating them and their families, and standing up for their rights. Evangelical opposition to these things can only be called “love” if love is divorced from embodied flourishing – a sort of Gnosticism.

I have seen the Spirit working in powerful ways in my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans brothers and sisters. Many of them are quite evidently bearing the fruit of the Spirit. I can see the wholesomeness and goodness that comes from their partnerships and how they flourish in communities that treat them with respect.

Really this isn’t that difficult. And unlike other minority issues, granting LCBTQ rights doesn’t cost anything (outside of shedding an untenably ideology, which I realize can be painful). Evangelical hatred and willingness to sacrifice their LGBTQ sons and daughters to the idol of inerrancy is scandalous. It destroys lives and brings ill repute to the gospel.

And they voted for Trump precisely because of his promises to enact policies that would make life harder for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans individuals and families.

Based on idolatry to inerrancy, Evangelicals also often treat women in dehumanizing and unloving ways. In varying degrees, many of them accept the patriarchal norms of the Bible as God’s unalterable will.

I believe there is a minority thread within the Bible (particularly the New Testament) that is more egalitarian. Both men and women are said to be created in God’s image (Genesis  1:27). In places, women are celebrated as prophets, leaders, apostles, teachers, or deacons (Judges 4; 2 Kings 22:14; Romans 16:7; Acts 18:24; etc.). Jesus treated women with respect and let them learn and follow him alongside his male disciples (Luke 8:1-3; 10:38-42). This was radical for those times. Arguably Paul’s language of mutual submission and his command for husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5:21-31 Colossians 3:18-19) in his version of the household codes  was meant to gently subvert Greco-Roman patriarchal norms.

Even just the logic of the New Testament’s pervasive love ethic would seem to imply egalitarianism when combined with what we know about history, sociology, and what women tell us about themselves.

But despite this minority thread, the Bible is predominately patriarchal. It teaches in many places that women are worth less than men and are essentially “owned” and controlled by them (see Coogan).

For example, fathers could sell their daughters as slaves ( Exodus 21:7) and were the ones to arrange their marriages . A woman’s vow could be nullified by her father or husband (Numbers 30:3-16). In the ten commandments, women are listed among other possessions men are told to not covet (Exodus 20:17). If a raped woman was not yet “given” to another man, her father might choose to give her to her rapist as a wife, provided they never divorced (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Captive virgins could be forced to become wives (Numbers 31:15-18).

While the New Testament generally tries to soften and even arguably subvert this kind of patriarchal teaching, it doesn’t do away with it. It gives more explicit “proof texts” to Christians who take a hierarchical view of gender roles than ones who take an egalitarian one. Hierarchical views of women have been the norm throughout church history and they are the predominate ones today among conservative Christians.

For example, the authors of Ephesians and Colossians command wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18). The author of 2 Timothy prohibits women from teaching men and says they must learn from their husbands (2:11-13). He also implies that the reason for this is that women – like Eve – are more gullible; but that they will be saved if they maintain a traditional docile role epitomized by bearing children (2:14-15). The author of 1 Peter says that wives must submit to their husbands and consider them masters even if they are treating them “harshly” (1 Peter 3:1-6 cf 2:18-25)

Between this and Jesus’ prohibition on divorce, many abused women have been pressured to simply “grin and bear it.” Other texts that encourage reconciliation and forgiveness have been used to pressure victims of all stripes (women, children, etc.) to get back together with their abusers after a simple “I’m sorry.” Religious abusers manipulate this masterfully.

And since women are excluded from leadership, men have the inside track in credibility and in setting the agenda of what issues are on the front burner. It’s no coincidence, for example, that spousal abuse and marital rape were not taken seriously until the second wave feminist revolution of the 60s and 70s, with women gaining more representation for the issues that concerned them.

I could spend a lot of time detailing how much damage these kinds of teachings have done: to women I know, to policies and social norms, in other societies with analogous views (such as traditional Islamic ones). This patriarchal mindset that sees women as objects to be possessed and controlled plays into rape culture, a paternalistic view of women as less intelligent or more fragile, and it plays into male entitlement in men’s dealings with women. It is straight up evil. It is NOT God’s eternal, perfect will. But many of the Biblical authors seemed to think it was. We have to be honest about that.

In contrast, many of the women in my life are strong leaders and gifted co-workers. Relationships I’ve seen characterized by mutual respect and egalitarian decision making seem more healthy and loving.

In voting for Trump, many Evangelicals downplayed the harm his words and actions have caused women. They again indicated how little they value women and how opposed or indifferent they are to many policies which are important to women.

On these things Evangelicals are often wrong, but at least they are consistent. On so many other things, they are not even willing to follow the Bible. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they emphasize purity culture and blind obedience but neglect more important matters of justice, mercy, and love.

For example, the Bible says in multiple places that God’s people are to care for the “stranger” or “alien” in their midst (Deuteronomy 10:19; Psalm 146:9; Matthew 25:35; Hebrews 13:2; etc.). This isn’t just supposed to be a personal impulse; many texts indicate that it is a matter of (political) justice (Exodus 12:49;  23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34; 22:21; 23:9; 24:22; 25:35 Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 24:19-21; 26:12; Jeremiah 7:5-7; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:4, 7; 47:22-23 Malachi 3:5; Zechariah 7:10; etc.).

The actual sin of Sodom (not the made up one of “being gay”) was greed and inhospitality toward strangers and the poor (Genesis 19; Ezekiel 16:49-50; Isaiah 1:10-17; Matthew 10:14; Hebrews 13:2). And honestly, this is as simple as following the Bible’s pervasive love ethic.

Yet many Evangelicals support policies and a candidate who threatens the lives of refugees and immigrants and often treats foreigners as less than.

In the same vein, one of the Bible’s most dominate themes is care for widows, orphans, poor people, and the vulnerable. This is mentioned repeatedly in the Mosaic law (Exodus 22:21-24; 23:6; Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 15:13-15; 24:19-21; 26:12; etc.).

Failure to insure such justice is one of the prophets’ major indictments on Israel that led to her judgment (Psalm 10:14, 17-18; 146:1, 5-9; Proverbs 14:31; 19:17;  Isaiah 1:10-17; 3:14-25; 10:1-3; 58:3-7; Jeremiah 5:26-29; 7:5-7; 22:3, 13-19; Ezekiel 22:4, 7; 16:49-50; Amos 2:7; 5:10-15, 21-24; 6:1-7; Micah 2:2; Zechariah 7:10 Malachi 3:5; etc.).

Such care is central to Jesus’ gospel (Luke 1:52-53; 3:10-14; 4:18-19; 6:20-26, 33-36; 7:22-23; 10:25-37; 11:39-42; 12:16-34; 14:12-14; 16:19-31; 18:18-30; 19:8-9; Mark 12:28-31, 40; Matthew 6:1-4, 19-24; 10:7-8; 15:32; 18:21-35; 25:35-40; etc.).

And it was distinctively characteristic of the early church (John 13:29; Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37; 5:1-11; 6:1-7; Galatians 2:10; Romans 15:22-28;   1 Corinthians 11:20-22; 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Colossians 3:5; 1 Timothy 3:3; 6:8-10, 17-19; Hebrews 13:5; James 2:1-17 ; 5:1-5 1 John 2:15-17; 3:16-18; etc.).

Much like with foreigners, many of these texts imply that this care was not just charity, but was a matter of justice. This is implicit or explicit in most of the texts surveyed. But specific examples include the following: Farmers were commanded to leave the edges of their fields unharvested so the poor could eat (Deuteronomy 24:19-21). Usury was condemned so the rich could not prey on the vulnerable (Exodus 22:25; Deuteronomy 23:19-20; Leviticus 25:35-38). After seven years, debts were to be cancelled and slaves set free, and after fifty years land was to revert back to its original owner (Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15).

Yet, based on their misuse of a handful of texts (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15), many Evangelicals see a special concern for the vulnerable and extra economic measures to ensure their well-being as negotiable or even as harmful “enabling.” They tend to support typical Republican policies that subsidize big business and the rich, cut funding for social safety nets for the poor, oppose health care for everyone, and glorify unbridled capitalism. Knowingly or unknowingly, they support economic exploitation of people here in the US and in other countries. They seem unconcerned about increased income inequality. Though they claim to be pro-life, they often oppose measures to help the poor that actually mitigate the reasons poor women often feel compelled to have abortions.

And now they have voted for a man who literally brags about his greed. In voting for Trump, they are supporting our increased move toward oligarchy and unfettered exploitation of the poor and marginalized.

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). He told us to love our enemies and pray for them, forgive those who persecute us, and turn the other cheek  (Matthew 5:38-48; 6:14-15; 18:21-35; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:27-36; John 20:23; etc.). He condemned violence and retribution, instead calling us to leave vengeance in God’s hands. He demonstrated such radical enemy-love and forgiveness in his own example (Luke 22:49-51; 23:34) – an example the New Testament repeatedly call us to imitate (Philippians 2:4-11; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 1 Peter 2:21-25; 1 John 3:16; etc.).

Love saturates the New Testament’s moral vision. It is the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40), the “royal law” (James 2:8), the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14), and the most enduring virtue (1 Corinthians 13). The early church up until Constantine took this mandate of love and forgiveness seriously (Romans 12:9-21; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13; 1 Peter 3:9; etc. see Sider). The Bible’s ideal vision for God’s coming kingdom – a kingdom breaking into the world through Christ – is a pacific one, where swords are beaten into plow sheds (Isaiah 2:4).

While admittedly such values can never be fully transferred to a this-worldly government, it does seem that a preference for peace, magnanimity, fairness, and restraint with others (where possible) would be closer to the kingdom ideal. It seems like preventative and restorative measures would be more in keeping with this spirt then purely punitive ones (though obviously the latter are necessary sometimes).

But Evangelicals voted for a bully of a man who glories in brutality: wanting to bring back torture, “pound the hell” out of ISIS, kill innocent people, punch protesters and others he disagrees with, beef up our already bloated military even more, and exploit other countries under the threat of force. He is apparently unwilling to address systemic violence and racism in our law enforcement. In his view, more people need guns, not less. He and Evangelicals tend to favor the most harsh punishments, including bringing back the death penalty.

The Bible is clear that lying is wrong and truth is paramount (Leviticus 19:11; Colossians 3:9; etc.). Just logically, truth and trustworthiness are of bedrock importance in a leader.

But Evangelicals trusted and voted for one of the most dishonest persons to ever run for office. Their tendency to anti-intellectualism and  gullible faith apparently made them easy targets. As Valarie Tarico says, they have become a people of exploiters and exploited.

Relatedly, the Bible is clear that we should not gossip or slander others (Exodus 20:16; 23:1; Psalm 101:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Romans 1:29; James 4:11; etc.). Common norms of decency and honesty also suggest this.

And yet Evangelicals lapped up the GOP’s slander of Obama, Clinton, and others. To be clear, there are legitimate areas to critique these figures; genuine faults and mistakes. But so much of the angry fervor that was whipped up was baseless (e.g. Obama being a Muslim and not really American, Benghazi, democrats wanting to take your guns, the election being rigged, Jade Helm being a secret plot to take over Texas, etc.).

The Bible and particularly the New Testament exalt humility, servanthood, and sacrifice in a leader (Luke 14:7-14; 22:25-30; Philippians 2:1-11; etc.). But Evangelicals have voted for a man that epitomizes arrogant boastfulness and who is transparently egotistical and self-serving.

Jesus’ teaching about neighbor love ideally universalizes the sphere of people we are supposed to care for (Luke 10:25-37). The teachings of the other great religions and even humanist ethics  have also tended toward expanding the circle of concern. Even so-called “identity politics” aims to do so. For example, feminists at their best aren’t against men or wanting to have a leg up on them; they just want equal rights and an equitable standing to them.

In a globalized and interconnected world that faces challenges such as climate change that will depend on us coming together, things like equality and mutuality are more important than ever.

Yet, in the face of this Evangelicals voted for a man who seeks an “America first” approach. And specifically, a white America, a “Christian” America, a rich, male, and non-disabled America. To the degradation of everyone else. Conservative Evangelicals often seem to buy into a rugged individualism that is neither true to reality nor to spiritual (Trinitarian) values of interconnectedness and loving care for one another.

The Bible’s teachings on love, compassion, and human equality as well as common decency indicate that racism is wrong.

Yet, Evangelicals have a troubling history of either actively supporting racism or not taking it very seriously. Many European Christians appealed to the “doctrine of discovery” and a sense of “manifest destiny” to justify stealing native peoples’ lands and  enslaving or killing them. Evangelical Protestants campaigned to bring slavery to the colonies. Since the Bible has more “proof texts” to support slavery and nothing that directly condemns it, conservative “Bible believing” Christians were among the fiercest defenders of the institution. They saw abolitionism as a liberal assault on the authority of God’s Word.

After the modernist controversy that birthed the Fundamentalist movement, conservatives tended to be suspicious of social justice movements in general. White Evangelicals were among the most resistant to the civil rights movement and this resistance played an integral role in the rise of the Religious Right. Since then they have made greater strides towards racial equality. But for a number of reasons including still segregated churches, unacknowledged privilege, and antipathy to social science and social justice, they are often less than fully engaged allies for racial equity.

But many Evangelicals rewrite this history to lesson their guilt and not have to face America’s “original sin” of racism and white supremacy. They wax eloquent about our “glorious” Christian past. They pretend like they were reformers when they were most often the lethargic or the actual oppressors. The pretend like racism no longer infects us. Or they at least downplay the (structural) complexity of it or the misery it inflicts, from Standing Rock to Ferguson. And now they have voted for the candidate endorsed by the KKK who ran on a barely concealed platform of white nationalism.

They claim they care about religious freedom, but vote for a man that has vowed to strip the rights from people who don’t think like they do. In reality, many only care about their Christian privilege, and for some, a literal Christian theocracy.

They say they care about the Constitution but voted for a man who threatens freedom of religion, free speech and the press, an impartial judiciarate, due process, and who evinces totalitarian impulses.

They say the want to “Focus on the Family” and are the party of “family values.” But what they really mean is white heterosexual middle-class families. They certainly don’t care about gay families. They seek to undermine their rights and family structures at every turn. They don’t care about minority families. They seek to see immigrant families torn apart by deportations. They support the devastation that the “war on drugs” and mass incarceration has caused to black families. They seek to cut off social safety net support for poor families. Until recently, they were disdainful of divorced or single-parent families.

They say they are pro-life, but in terms of policy are often pro-guns, pro-war, pro death penalty, anti police reform or accountability, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, anti-minority, climate change deniers, anti-gay, against preventative community health measures, and so on.

They say when it suits them that “character counts,” but then elect a vulgar man who is a liar, an adulterer, a bully, a thief, a peeper and genital grabber, perhaps a rapist, a bigot, an arrogant and greedy person, an owner of strip clubs and casinos, a man who glories in power and celebrates violence.

Many people thought it ironic that when Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife posed next to Trump for a photo, a prominent framed picture can be seen next to them of Trump with a playboy model. The hypocritical contrast to past Evangelical posturings was palpable. The world took notice.

As Robert P Jones notes,

In 2011, consistent with the “values voter” brand and the traditional evangelical emphasis on the importance of personal character, only 30 percent of white evangelical Protestants agreed with this statement [that a political leader who committed an immoral act in his or her private life could nonetheless behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public life]. But with Trump at the top of the Republican ticket in 2016, 72 percent of white evangelicals said they believed a candidate could build a kind of moral dyke between his private and public life. In a head-spinning reversal, white evangelicals went from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office (emphasis mine).

Blogger Rachel Held Evans recently tweeted, “The culture that warned me against moral relativism is now the hardest to convince that character, truth, and compassion matter.” I agree.

At the root of so many of these problems is that too many Evangelicals hold to a theology that emphasizes power over love. I have written on that here.

While this post may seem harsh, I have elsewhere been more gentle in calling Evangelicals to live up to their own tradition’s high principles.

And whether through gentle exhortation or more searing prophetic critique, I will continue to stand up for the truth and call my Evangelical kin to repent of their practical apostasy from the way of Jesus.

White Privilege is Real


Image from Orenthial Scott, Pinterest


(This post was originally inspired by an incident of racism last year at my alma mater, the Moody Bible Institute. I survey that incident here MBIprivilege, An Overview. I share it because this message has wider applicability and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.)


White privilege and systemic racism are alive and well. We need more discussions on these and related matters not less. Why? Because the nature of the case is that to do nothing perpetuates a system of unfair privilege and inequality. To tell people to “not be divisive” for seeking to draw attention to such injustices is reprehensible.

I want to start by defining my terms. I think some disagreements over these things stem from misunderstanding and meaning different things. Then I want to sketch a little of the evidence that white privilege and systemic racism are real and that this is a huge problem we need to take seriously.

When people talk about “privilege” in this context, they simply mean the unearned benefits that come from being part of a particular social category. This isn’t always something one chooses, so this isn’t a matter of guilt, per se. It’s not something we have to feel bad for. But it is something we have to recognize and for which we have to take responsibility.

Love for our neighbors who are less privileged (relatively speaking) requires really listening to their sometimes very different experiences of the world. As others have pointed out, one of the hallmarks of privilege is not being aware of it. If our privileged status comes out of an ideology and system that is arbitrary and hateful; we have the responsibility to participate in overturning that. We may not have set up such an ideology or system; but, as initially counter-intuitive as it may sound, we can participate in it without being aware of it—without consciously hating anyone.

There are different types of privilege one can have and they interact and “intersect” with each other in different ways. There is white privilege, male privilege, class privilege, heterosexual privilege, and so on. Some of you said that as a white person you were not privileged and for others to assume you were was offensive. Well, you may not have been privileged in some other ways, but in the matter of your whiteness, you definitely are privileged relative to people of color.

Another clarification before moving on: privilege is a matter of probability. It doesn’t guarantee that you will always get benefits or that those who are less privileged in the matter in question will never get them. It means that you are more likely to be ahead or get ahead due to your privilege.

Let me use non-disabled privilege as an illustration of what I’ve said. I have a friend who is blind. I don’t think any of you would dispute that my ability to see is a privilege I have over my blind friend. I mean, sure there *might* be a few circumstances where his blindness benefits him more than my sight does me. But in general, in this world and this society, being able to see is a huge benefit.

I didn’t choose to be born with the ability to see. My bearing that privilege over my friend is not something I am “guilty” for or need to feel ashamed about. But if I am to love my friend I have to pay attention to his special circumstances. And honestly, there are a lot of issues he has to deal with that. I never would have thought about before. Because I’m privileged.

For example, if my cell-phone dies, so what. But for him, his ability to easily order a taxi and get help is in jeopardy. I never would have thought of that before I knew him.

What would happen if instead of paying attention to my friend’s special circumstances I pretended that he could see or that his blindness didn’t make him any different than me. We are all “the same.” Let’s just love each other. What if I shamed him for not being able to do some of the things I could?

In other words, what if I pretended that I wasn’t truly privileged and he was the same as me (as regards this specific issue)? That would be grossly unloving and unfair.

But in many (not all) ways this is analogous to being white as compared to being a person of color.

The first thing to say about race is that it is a social construct. It’s a bit arbitrary. For example, the Irish and Jews were not initially seen as “white.” They were seen as distinct, inferior races. Likewise, Brazil does not just have “white” and “black” categories; it has a more complicated racialized system.

This is where I think some people are misunderstanding our opposition to white privilege. We aren’t against white people. We are against a system that artificially categorizes “whiteness” as superior and which makes people prone to benefits based on being perceived in that category. If our history were different and black people had dominated and oppressed white people, we would just as readily oppose “black privilege.” It’s not about particular people or about particular “races,” it’s about an unfair system of inequality. We are trying to draw attention to the fact that we still live in such a system and society. To that I now turn.

I think we can all agree that slavery was a great evil. What we seem to forget is that for normal human beings (including many Christians) to participate in such a system; they had to come up with a racialized ideology to justify it. Early on in the colonies a racist ideology that saw “whiteness” as superior to color was established. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that our nation is one that is founded on white supremacy. I’m going to post some articles below that delve into this in more detail, but here are some highlights:

-In 1787 the Constitutional Convention reached an infamous compromise where African American slaves were defined as 3/5’s of a person. In total, American chattel slavery lasted for close to 250 years.

-The Naturalization Law of 1790 reserved citizenship for “whites” only.

-Over the years, Americans repeatedly broke treaties with Native Peoples, robbed them of their land, murdered them, and stole their children from them in an effort to make them more culturally “white” at brutal boarding schools.

-After the Treaty of Guadalupe ended the Mexican-American War, white settlers effectually stole land from the Mexicans already living in the newly acquired Southwest. Mexicans were susceptible to harassment, negative racialized stereotypes, hard labor with low pay, and violence.

-By law the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the entry of more Chinese immigrants. It remained in effect until 1943. The Chinese (and later Japanese) who were here were subject to violence, discrimination, and segregation. Someone mentioned Chinatowns above. There is a reason there are “Chinatowns;” and in the grand scale of things this did not benefit Chinese-Americans.

-Shortly after slavery ended, African Americans were effectually disenfranchised. Jim Crow era laws made it easy and common for blacks to be abused, killed, and robbed of their land and wealth.

-Things where no better in the North. There, racist views and competition for jobs and resources led to violence, discrimination, and forced segregation. Blacks were forced into terrible living conditions and low paying jobs. They were regularly taken advantage of by the only lenders and tenants who would cater to them. This happened legally and unashamedly into the late 1960s.

-Between 1882 and 1968 at least 4,700 “lynchings” where committed by white terrorists against African Americans. Such occasions were well attended and often involved torture such as skin and genitals being cut off or the victim being burned alive.

-African Americans where effectively denied access to the G.I. Bill and government loan assistance that was given to whites after World War II to assist them going to college and buying a house. Southern Democrats influenced Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to (for years) deny social security to most African Americans. These and other things directly contributed to a huge wealth gap between whites and blacks that continues to this day.

(For more on this history, see Ta-Nehisi Coates’ justly famous article “The Case for Reparations”

All of these things were explicitly said to be based on white superiority. They said it. They believed it. They taught it to their children in ways both subtle and not.

Ok, you say. But that’s all in the past. But it’s not.

Before documenting how these things are still with us, let me pause for a moment to note something very perplexing. How is it that people who have as robust a notion of sin and human depravity as we do think that a system of racism and white superiority that lasted at least 350 years somehow just ended overnight in the 1960s? All due respect, but that strikes me as hugely naïve and inconsistent.

I’m going to quote from a series of Nicolas Kristof articles linked together here: I highly encourage reading them. Please think about these statistics and why they might be the case:

“School administrators suspend black students at more than three times the rate of white students. Police arrest blacks at 3.7 times the rate of whites for marijuana possession, even though surveys find that both use marijuana at roughly similar rates.”

“One study in Seattle found that blacks made up 16 percent of observed drug dealers for the five most dangerous drugs and 64 percent of arrests for dealing those drugs.

…research suggests that blacks and whites violate traffic laws at similar rates, but blacks are far more likely to be stopped and arrested. The Sentencing Project, which pushes for fairer law enforcement, cites a New Jersey study that racial minorities account for 15 percent of drivers on the turnpike, but blacks account for 42 percent of stops.”

“Two scholars sent out nearly 5,000 résumés in response to help-wanted ads, randomly alternating between stereotypically white-sounding names and black-sounding names. They found that it took 50 percent more mailings to get a callback for a black name. A white name yielded as much benefit as eight years of experience, according to the study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.” than a black person.”

“Joshua Correll of the University of Colorado at Boulder has used an online shooter video game to try to measure these unconscious attitudes (you can play the game yourself). The player takes on the role of a police officer who is confronted with a series of images of white or black men variously holding guns or innocent objects such as wallets or cell phones. The aim is to shoot anyone with a gun while holstering your weapon in other cases.

Ordinary players (often university undergraduates) routinely shoot more quickly at black men than at white men, and are more likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black man than an unarmed white man.”

“The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)

“The black-white income gap is roughly 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967.”

“A black boy born today in the United States has a life expectancy five years shorter than that of a white boy.”

“One study found that African-American children on welfare heard only 29 percent as many words in their first few years as children of professional parents. Those kids never catch up, partly because they’re more likely to attend broken schools. Sure, some make bad choices, but they’ve often been on a trajectory toward failure from the time they were babies.”

“One black friend tells me that he freaked out when his white fiancée purchased an item in a store and promptly threw the receipt away. “What are you doing?” he protested to her. He is a highly successful and well-educated professional but would never dream of tossing a receipt for fear of being accused of shoplifting.”

“The United States Sentencing Commission concluded that black men get sentences one-fifth longer than white men for committing the same crimes. In Louisiana, a study found that a person is 97 percent more likely to be sentenced to death for murdering a white person

I want to say three things here before closing:

1) This isn’t only or primarily based on “poor values.” That’s a genuine issue that deserves to be addressed. But even middle-class intact black families have to deal with stereotyping, prejudice, and inequality. Think, for example, about some of the stats where blacks are disproportionately targeted more than whites who do the same thing.

2) So much of this results from being trapped in a cycle of poverty directly related to segregation, theft of wealth, bad schools (because funding is largely based on property taxes), industries that have gone elsewhere, and other systemic things.

3)  We can unconsciously act racist without intending to. I don’t think any of us are completely immune from negative stereotypes that permeate our society. If we pretend we “don’t see color” when we live in a society that tends to do so, we set ourselves up for deception. To the extent we fail to address the unfair systemic issues that stack the deck in our favor, we perpetuate them. If we pretend that things are equal when they’re really not, that is unloving and unfair to our less privileged brothers and sisters. In this and in other areas of privilege as well.

One last thing about privilege, one that scares me and which I think I see in this thread: privileged people tend to think their privilege is normal and that things are actually equal when they’re not. For example, in surveys from the 1920s, 80% percent of whites thought that things were basically fair between whites and blacks and that black people had the same opportunities. In the 1920s!

Or to use an example from male privilege, “research shows that as long as men overwhelmingly dominate the conversation, the participation of men and women is perceived to be roughly equal. But if women’s talk rises to as little as a quarter or a third of the total interaction, men tend to perceive the women as taking over” (Johnson, Alan G. Privilege, Power, and Difference. 104).

This means as more progress is made toward actual equality, privileged people feel intensely threatened. If we see an unfair status quo as just, actual justice is likely to seem very “unfair” to us.

MBIprivilege, An Overview


(This post summarizes an incident that happened at my alma mater about a year and a half ago. I share it here because that incident provides the context for today’s other post on white privilege – a post I originally wrote to address that situation, but which I believe has wider applicability.)


So, I want to share something that’s kind-of dominated my thoughts these past few days. A series of events has unmasked an enormous amount of ignorance and prejudice at my alma mater, Moody Bible Institute.

It started when a black student group called Embrace had their event poster vandalized. Someone intentionally cut out the word “privilege,” as can be clearly seen in the photo above. Other former students tell me that vandalism was a common occurrence with this group’s flyers over the years.

A rightly angered student posted a picture of the vandalism on a popular Moody Facebook forum saying that this was unacceptable. Shockingly, many students responding by complaining about the poster; saying it was racist against whites; that it made them feel “hurt,” and “bitter;” that all this “social justice warriors” talk tempted them toward tearing it down themselves (though they say they didn’t) and is what would be more likely to make them racist (thought they say they are not); that white privilege is not real.

Many students apparently felt that raising awareness about the very real and serious lingering problems of white privilege and racial inequality was “hurtful” toward white people and “divisive.” Many ridiculed a Biblical concern for social justice as “worldly” using disparaging language and scare quotes about “social justice mob[s],” “social justice warriors,” and “freedom fighters.” The standard academic language on privilege was mocked as “socialist,” Marxist,” and unworthy of consideration because it was from, “the syllabus of this world.” There was a Gnostic emphasis on an (apparently) purely spiritual gospel, saving souls, and talk about how this world was just going to burn anyway.

In an almost complete inversion of reality, many students felt that white people were the real ones who were discriminated against. There was talk about “reverse racism” in things like affirmative action. One student joked about how maybe Moody needed to start a “white” student support group. One student posted a Laurence Fishburne meme about how, “white people have feelings too.” Showing their ignorance of what the literature on white privilege means, many students felt that such talk implied that white people didn’t have their own struggles, pain, or deficits of privilege (in other areas).

There was attempts to minimize what happened and blame the victim. One student joked that maybe Embrace had ripped their own poster. In a separate post (that was later taken down) another student characterized what happened as a mere “scratch.” Other’s seemed to imply that the poster deserved to be defaced because it was “hurtful,” “divisive,” and “offensive.”

There was a sickening use of Christian language and “niceness” to try to deny significant injustices or the acceptability of addressing them. Language of how we are all “one in Christ” and equally “privileged” by our salvation was used in a color blind racist way as blinders to the stereotyping, discrimination, and inequality that continue to pervade us and our culture. Appeal to Christian unity was used to censure Embrace and their defenders for having the audacity to criticize this unjust status quo. (One alumnus aptly lampooned this tactic as a cheap rhetorical trick: e.g. “If everyone agreed with me, we’d be unified; so to point out where I’m wrong creates disunity.”)

Most indefensibly, one of Moody’s own professors attacked Embrace and more or less said they deserved the vandalism for posting such an “offensive” “stunt” poster. He accused them of “worldly pride” and said they ought to be “ashamed” of themselves. He not only showed a shocking ignorance of the realities of privilege and racism or the standard terminology used in academic circles in discussing that; he (and others) engaged in victim blaming – analogous to “slut shaming” a rape victim, as one of my friends observed – and an arguable abuse of his status as an authority figure on campus to try to shut down a conversation.

But that’s not all. He was later made an administrator on this supposedly student run Facebook group—something someone later tried to hide. An African American woman who was trying to share her experiences of racism had her comments blocked as too “offensive” by someone. (Those who run the student group say it wasn’t them.) She made it clear that they were not. No inflammatory language, just sharing her experiences.

A black woman is literally being “silenced” for sharing her experiences of racism after an black student group has their poster vandalized and white students make extremely offensive, misinformed statements at will—but white privilege doesn’t exist, ya’ll.

In discussing this with other alumni, a bunch of other racist occurrences were brought up. One woman who graduated in 1990 was denied an RA position by a top administrator for the explicitly given reason that she was in an inter-racial relationship! Others have said that opposition to inter-racial relationships was still quite common then. Another alumnus from the music department reported unscientific, racist stereotypes being forwarded about differences between black people’s music and vocal cords and those of white people. Another item that received much attention was a yearbook photo from 2002 that pictured a white Moody student as a sort-of white savior “giant” helping, and I quote, “black elves” (Cabrini Green kids).

But perhaps the most infuriating thing for me, apart from the Moody professor’s over the top words, was the sheer smug ignorance of most of the student comments. How is it that they live in inner city Chicago in a year that Ferguson, etc. has been in the news and they don’t think that being white brings them any hidden benefits or that being black or brown doesn’t come with unique challenges?

I and a number of other Moody students, staff, and alumni pushed back against this (ahem) privileged ignorance in the comments section. After the professor’s blatant attack, we took it to twitter and raised a firestorm there. The story got legs and the Chicago Tribune wrote a story about it ( There is talk of a USA Today article and at least three prominent Christian blogs posted about it as well (Revangelical, Jesus Creed, and Christianity Today’s Her.meneutics).

In the end, the professor gave an apology of sorts and Moody’s president, Dr. J. Paul Nyquist, issued a statement affirming that white privilege is real, that the student group’s event was a good idea, and that it was part of a larger Moody effort to address issues of race on campus.

I and others are happy about that. But many of us feel that there are deeper underlining issues concerning race, gender, and sexual orientation at Moody. Many of us feel that specific Moody policies and an oppressive atmosphere of ignorance, Eurocentrism, anti-intellectualism, and conservative siege-mentality will continue to contribute to a culture of oppression toward Moody’s minorities. I have many alumni friends with horror stories from such experiences there.

In the end, all we can do is lovingly but forcefully resist such attitudes and do what we can to foster true Christian love and justice. Keep praying that Moody will take the appropriate steps to further those things.