Why I Am an Incrementalist/Eliminationist and Not an Abolitionist

“Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked” (Ps 82:34).[1]

Since every human life is made in the image of God and human life begins at conception, we should desire and seek to overturn the 1973 SCOTUS decision and its offspring that made abortion on demand a right protected by law. In all instances in which I speak of the elimination of abortion, I retain the exception of saving the mother’s life, which is an extreme rarity. I mention it only for clarity. Continue reading →

In Advocacy of the Color-Blind Principle

The color-blind principle does not mean we do not see a person’s skin color or detect that others are different from us (also referred to as color-indifference). Our church has about ten different ethnicities at any given time, although the particular ethnicities have varied over the years. I assure you that everyone can tell whether we are talking to a Chinese, Indian, black, white, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Korean, or another ethnic person.

The color-blind principle means we see color, but it does not matter. Skin color tells us only a person’s skin color, but it does not, nor can it, nor should it, tell us who a person is, what kind of person an individual is, nor does it affect God’s love for them, which is what the color-blind principle calls us to as well, to see people as God does. It is to see people who are created in the image of God, loved by God, and for whom Christ died, who happen to have different colored skin (Gen 1:26-28; John 3:16). It emphasizes our shared humanity.

In contrast, critical race theory makes everything about race (known as race- consciousness), and we are to judge others based on their skin color. It deemphasizes our shared humanity. The color-blind principle is often used when speaking legally, and I agree it should be followed in legal and policy matters; however, as a Christian, it must also be on a personal level, with individual human beings interacting with other individual human beings; this belief has nothing to do with concepts like equity.

Additionally, believing in the color-blind principle does not mean we must follow it perfectly (although that should be our intent and goal) for it to be reflective of biblical truth and, therefore, the right thing to do. For example, we are to be holy (1 Pet 1:15), love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt 22:39), and only be speaking the truth in love (Eph 4: 15). But our failure to practice these perfectly makes them no less true, nor does our imperfection signify that we do not genuinely believe them and seek to live them perfectly. The same is true with the color-blind principle. Of course, not actually believing in any of these ideas coupled with not really trying to practice them is hypocrisy, which is not the same as a sinner failing and repenting.

Frederick Douglass, the 19th century’s greatest abolitionist and civil rights advocate, [had] an abiding faith in reason, in truth and justice [which] sustained an expectation that the color line . . . will cease to have any civil, political, or moral significance in America.[1]

Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, in Plessy v. Ferguson, wrote, Our constitution is color-blind . . . The law regards man as man, and takes no account . . . of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.[2]

Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech immortalized the color-blind principle saying, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.[3] King believed and said that is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.[4]

In his brief for the plaintiffs in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, Thurgood Marshall argued, distinctions . . . based upon race or color alone . . . [are] the epitome of that arbitrariness and capriciousness constitutionally impermissive under our system of government.[5]

Critical race theorists either ignore or actually disdain the color-blind principle. For example, in his best-selling book, How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi, says, “The language of colorblindness . . .is a mask to hide racism.”[6]

In her best-selling book, White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo speaks of the idea of color blindness as simplistic and something seized upon by the white public because the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that we don’t see race, and racism will end.[7] Her perspective is a blanket derogation toward the character and sincerity of white people, and, maybe even more startling, it seems exceptionally dismissive of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

According to Kendi, Manhattan Institute fellow Tamar Jacoby said in 1998, Like many whites who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, I had always thought the ultimate goal of better race relations was integration. The very word had a kind of magic to it but now few of us talk about it anymore. We are not pursuing Martin Luther King’s color-blind dream of a more or less race-neutral America.[8]

Kimberlé Crenshaw, who supported Derrick Bell and others in founding critical race theory, rejects emphasizing our universal humanity with statements like, I am a person who happens to be black. Instead, she divides by emphasizing the statement I am black as a resistance statement.[9]

Crenshaw’s first statement would reflect the color-blind principle, whereas the latter reflects the race-consciousness perspective. Color blindness has a goal for people to become individuals where race does not matter, and for the United States to be a country where race does not matter, where all races are treated equally before the law and between each other. It does not require the total elimination of every racist to be considered successful any more than to be a safe neighborhood requires the absolute elimination of every troublemaker and crime, which takes place only in heaven. There will always be criminals, troublemakers, immoralists, racists (according to true racism in which no race is exempt from having its own racists), and idiots on earth.

In contrast, the race-conscious perspective aims to make race matter preeminently in everything, and it seeks to make sure that races are not treated equally before the law and between each other. One race is given preference while another is punished. Color blindness has the potential of unifying all races as Americans. In contrast, race consciousness via critical race theory and intersectionality divides us into an endless array of groups who will forever be divided and embittered toward each other.

The race-conscious advocates focus their energies on the evilness of America, casting all blacks as victims of white oppressors, which virtually all (or all in some systems of thought by CR theorists) white people are. In contrast, the advocates of color blindness focus their energies on the progress of race relations already made and the grand opportunities and blessings of being an American. The color-blind focus is not a naive or blind loyalty to America, but rather color-blind advocates see huge societal problems to still be addressed. However, we do so by recognizing how far we have come, the progress made, and the confidence that we can continue to make progress of working toward more perfect union, as stated in the preamble of our Constitution.

Martin Luther King and previous civil rights advocates loved America and desired to be a part of the American dream, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, they fought for equal assimilation as citizens, human beings, under America’s law and full freedoms. In contrast, assimilation is seen as a racist problem by critical race theorists like Ibram Kendi.[10]

There is no denying that racism existed structurally before the 1964 civil rights act and supporting acts passed later and that racism exists today. But I do not believe systemic racism, which existed in the past, exists today. While I believe racism can still be an obstacle to overcome (similar to others who have non-race obstacles to overcome to participate in America’s dream), I do not believe it is the biggest obstacle for non-whites in America.

I do not believe virtually every disparity in society can be justifiably attributed to racism, as critical race theorists advocate. I think this is demonstrated every day by black and brown people who excel and succeed in America, and yes, quite often surpass their white counterparts. Many of the reasons black people fail in our day are the very same reasons so many white people fail in America today; they are human reasons, not racist reasons.

We choose what we focus on, the failures or the successes. This is not to say racism does not exist or is not a problem blacks have to face because racism does exist, and I suspect there will always be actual racists (not as defined by CRT). But it is to say, the structural racism that prohibited blacks from having opportunities by law no longer exists. The existing problems can be overcome in large measure in the same way others overcome different obstacles. But black people cannot justify blaming the past or blaming whites. I mean this in the same sense that whites cannot blame their upbringing or difficult history for what kind of person they become. The past carries influence, but it is not determinative of what kind of person we become. To look for blame is to overlook the decisive role of personal responsibility in determining what kind of person we become and our successes or failures in life.

For example, the black scholar Shelby Steele contends that racist oppression is no longer the primary problem blacks face. He says, It must be acknowledged that blacks are no longer oppressed in America.[11] Another black scholar, Thomas Sowell, says, The causal question is whether racism is either the cause or one of the major causes of poverty and other social problems among black Americans today. Many might consider the obvious answer to be yes. Yet some incontrovertible facts undermine that conclusion.[12]

Although I could give a virtually unlimited list of successful blacks, I offer two as examples. I draw from an interview with Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson in which they discuss the origins, impact, and response to critical race theory.[13]

Dr. Carson said, The thing that really determines who a person is, as Dr. MLK emphasized so strongly I suspect that he would be quite disappointed with critical race theory it’s the character that makes a person, not the color of their skin, He went on to say, Critical race theory turns that completely upside down and says that the color of their skin makes an enormous difference in terms of who you are and what you should think.[14]

Dr. Swain reflected on her own experiences of becoming an outspoken opponent of critical race theory. She recounted the difficulties of her own beginnings and how she became a conservative. She was one of twelve children raised in rural poverty who dropped out of school after the 8th grade, got married at 16, and had three children by age 21. At that point, Dr. Swain got her high school equivalency and went to college, where she earned the first of five degrees. As Dr. Swain moved into academia, first at Princeton University, then Vanderbilt University. She shared that she enjoyed her work. Everything changed, however, the moment she became a Christian. Dr. Swain shared that she became more conservative after that.[15]

Dr. Swain is firmly against critical race theory. She said, What I see taking place today with critical race theory, I believe it is the civil rights challenge of our time.[16] Like the previous quotes by Steele and Sowell, Dr. Swain asserted that systemic racism no longer exists because [I] watched it fail and observed its downfall through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Open Housing of 1968.[17]

She speaks as one who actually lived in genuine structural and systemic racism. She says, I was born into systemic racism. I watched it crumble.[18] Swain provides a very different perspective about the progress that has been made when compared to critical race theorists who blame everything on past and present systemic racism. Speaking about what followed the civil rights advances of the sixties, Swain said, What I saw develop and evolve [after that] was a system of opportunities for people like me, and I can tell you many of my mentors most were white.[19]

Dr. Carson speaks reminiscently of Martin Luther King and, I believe, congruent with Scripture and wisdom. He said, “Your race is not something you can control. Your character is something that you can control.” Carson further stated, “Why would you judge someone based on something they can’t control versus something they can control?”[20]

The choice between embracing the color-blind principle or the race-conscious perspective hinges on two considerations.

First, the color-blind principle is perfectly consistent with and reflective of Scripture beginning in creation (Gen 1:26,27). God is the creator of every human being, and there is actually one human race, even though there are superficial differences within groups within the human race. The color-blind principle seeks to guide us back to the unity we had in the mind, heart, and creation of God. It also reflects the unity believers will have in heaven.

Second, the race-conscious perspective is not consistent with or reflective of the Bible. It generally judges people based on their skin color, makes only one group susceptible to the sin of racism, and makes everything about our skin color rather than our character and shared humanity. The race-conscious principle embedded in critical race theory and intersectionality seeks to guide us into more and more groups leading to greater and greater disunity and inhumanity. It does not reflect the mind and heart of God about his creation, nor does it even have the potential to grow in being more reflective of heaven.

Leroy D. Clark, in his critique of Derrick Bell’s argument that racism is permanent and no real progress has been made, makes an argument in support of the civil rights movement, which of course, embodied the color-blind principle. He said, “The genius of that movement was its openness to involvement by as broad a spectrum of the black and white public as wished to make a contribution. Its message of mutually beneficial racial harmony changed public attitudes and the way institutions functioned.”[21] That message of mutually beneficial racial harmony is existent in the color-blind approach, but it is excluded in the race-conscious perspective.

Neither approach is perfect, and each course is doomed to imperfection because each is filled with sinful people. But that does not mean that one approach is not better than the other. I believe the better of the two is, without a doubt, the color-blind approach.

“And they sang a new song, saying, Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” (Rev 5:9,10).


[1] Peter C. Myers, The Case for Color-Blindness, The Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/FP-75.pdf, para 3, accessed 6/23/21.
[2] Peter C. Myers, The Case for Color-Blindness, The Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/FP-75.pdf, para 3, accessed 6/23/21.
[3] Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, August 28, 1963, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, para 20.
[4] Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, August 28, 1963, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, para 16.
[5] Mark Tushnet, ed., Thurgood Marshall: Speeches, Writings, Arguments (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 2001), 21 as quoted by Peter C. Myers, The Case for Color-Blindness, The Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/FP-75.pdf, para 3, accessed 6/23/21.
[6] Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), 10.
[7] Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility (Boston: Beacon, 2018), 41.
[8] Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), p 178-179. What Became of Integration, The Washington Post, June 28, 1998.
[9] Kimberlé Crenshaw says, We all can recognize the distinction between the claims I am Black and the claim I am a person who happens to be Black. . . . I am Black becomes not simply a statement of resistance, but also a positive discourse of self-identification. . . . I am a person who happens to be Black, on the other hand, achieves self-identification by straining for a certain universality (in effect, I am first a person’). Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color, 1297, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991), 1241,1299.
[10] Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York: One World, 2019), 30–31, 33, 83.
[11] Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007), 67.
[12] Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York: Basic, 2019), 116.
[13] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, accessed 6/21/21.
[14] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 4, accessed 6/21/21.
[15] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 5,6, accessed 6/21/21.
[16] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 10, accessed 6/21/21.
[17] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 12, accessed 6/21/21.
[18] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 13, accessed 6/21/21.
[19] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 13, accessed 6/21/21.
[20] Corinne Murdock, Dr. Carol Swain and Dr. Ben Carson Discuss the Origins, Impact, and Response to Critical Race Theory, Be The People News, June 11, 2021, https://bethepeoplenews.com/dr-carol-swain-and-dr-ben-carson-discuss-the-origins-impact-and-response-to-critical-race-theory/, para. 22, accessed 6/21/21.
[21] Leroy D. Clark A Critique of Professor Derrick A. Bell’s Thesis of the Permanence of Racism and His Strategy of Confrontation, 73 Denv. U. L. Rev. 23 (1995). “A Critique of Professor Derrick A. Bell’s Thesis of the Permanence of ” by Leroy D. Clark (du.edu) accessed 7/3/21.

Critical Race Theory, The Military, And Your Unredeemable Family

Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling book, White Fragility, is used in educational, corporate, and government sensitivity training to advance so-called social justice. White children in schools and white adults in government and businesses are told they are racists because they are white, and they must work at becoming less white. She tells white people to get over their white fragility (unwillingness to admit they are racists) and says, “I strive to be ‘less white.’ To be less white is to be less racially oppressive.”[1] To make it clearer that white people are inherently and, therefore, irredeemably white supremacists, DiAngelo says, “A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist.”[2] The racism of white people being inherent means it cannot be overcome. Continue reading →

Resolution on the Incompatibility of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality with The Baptist Faith and Message

Presidential candidate Mike Stone, along with fifty other original signers, will jointly present the following Resolution against the use of critical race theory and intersectionality (CRT/I) at the Southern Baptist Convention, June 13-16, Nashville, Tenn. This Resolution is to be presented in order to repudiate and lessen the damage done by the 2019 Resolution 9, which affirmed CRT/I as supplemental and helpful “analytical tools” to be used along with the Bible in dealing with the race issues of our day.

I am thankful to have been one of the original signatories of this Resolution, and I am grateful for Mike Stone’s biblical, clear, and courageous leadership.

Continue reading →

Dr. Albert Mohler and The Homosexual Compromise: Dangerously Accommodating the Homosexual Community, Part 5

This is the fifth and final article in this series. You may see the articles on Revoice here, Beth Moore here, Dr. Russell Moore here, and Dr. JD Greear here.

Dr. Albert Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Some of us who have agreed with and supported Dr. Mohler for many years now see an unsettling inconsistency in some of his positions. One is regarding Critical Race Theory (See my book A Corruption of Consequence, chapters 9 and 10), and the other relates to homosexuality. This article addresses what I believe is his dangerous accommodation to homosexuality. Let me first and clearly say that I believe Dr. Mohler emphatically regards homosexuality as a sin. I have seen this expressed in his writings, and I hear this when he speaks as well.

For example, The Nashville Statement, A Coalition for Biblical Sexuality, was drafted in August 2017 as a joint venture of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) during an ERLC national conference. Dr. Mohler was an initial signatory along with Denny Burk. Denny Burk commended the 2017 Nashville Statement on biblical sexuality as expressing a more faithful, biblical vision than that of Revoice. Among the Nashville Statement’s affirmations: The adoption of a homosexual or transgender self-conception is inconsistent with God’s purposes. “In October 2017, Southern’s trustees made The Nashville Statement one of the seminary’s confessional documents, which all professors are required to affirm.”[1]

My concerns and questions do not relate to whether Mohler believes homosexuality is a sin, but rather to his unnecessary and confusing language that many homosexuals see as accommodations, a sentiment with which I agree. His message at the 2014 ERLC conference “The Gospel, Homosexuality, and The Future of Marriage” demonstrates excessive hospitality to homosexuality.

Mohler said, “I have to say that on a couple of points, I got that wrong, and we have to go back and correct it, correct it by Scripture. Early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary to make clear the gospel to deny anything like sexual orientation . . . I repent of that. I believe a biblical theological understanding, a robust theological understanding, would point to us that human sexual affective profiles of who we are sexually is far more deeply rooted than just the will if that were so easy. But Genesis 3 explains that, helps us to understand that this complex of same-sex challenges coming to us is deeply rooted in the biblical story itself. Something that we need to take with far greater seriousness than we have taken in the past. Understanding that requires a far more robust gospel response than anything the church has come up with heretofore.”[2]

His repentance and disavowal of “anything like a sexual orientation” garnered such a backlash that he felt compelled to write an article explaining what he meant. On November 13, 2014, Dr. Mohler wrote an article entitled, Sexual Orientation and The Gospel of Jesus Christ, in which he said, “Subsequent to the conference, it became clear that the vast coverage of the conference in the national press raised some issues that need to be considered further. One of these issues is sexual orientation. As I explained in my address, I had previously denied the existence of sexual orientation. I, along with many other evangelicals, did so because we did not want to accept the sexual identity structure that so often goes with sexual orientation. I still reject that notion of sexual identity. But I repented of denying the existence of sexual orientation because denying it was deeply confusing to people struggling with same-sex attraction.”[3]

Following are some of my reasons for concern:

For the sake of clarity, notice what he repented of. At the conference, he repented of denying “anything like a sexual orientation”(italics added), whereas, in his article, he said he “denied the existence of sexual orientation.” The critical difference lies in the word “like,” which makes the actual thing he repented of to be “the existence of sexual orientation” or “anything like” it. To wit, it was more broadly stated than the article’s phrase indicates. If he provides more clarity on which one he meant, I will accept his word since they are both similarly problematic. For now, I will consider most heavily what he actually said in his repentance statement. He deemed that his retraction of a clearly stated six-word position of denying anything like a sexual orientation required a twenty-six-hundred-word article to explain how his reversal did not mean what it seems. That left me wondering what he meant.

Maybe the need for a twenty-six-hundred-word article to explain that what he meant is substantially different than what the homosexuals mean by the term orientation might suggest he has been too hospitable and accommodating to the homosexuals. I wonder if he is willing to repeat this article with his extensive qualification each time he uses the word orientation to avoid confusion and distinguish it from the way it is commonly understood by the homosexual promoters of the concept. Because the understanding of this concept by the homosexual community is the same as virtually all people who are aware of these discussions. For example, the same can be said of the word “gay.” To repent of saying being gay is sinful according to the Bible would mean that one repented for saying being homosexual is sinful according to the Bible; to argue otherwise breeds confusion, not clarity.

If Dr. Mohler is repentant about denying the concept of sexual orientation as understood by the homosexual community and virtually everyone else, then the clarifying article seems superfluous at best and misleading at worst. If, on the other hand, he did not mean sexual orientation as understood by the homosexual community, then why did he repent over his previous position? What was there to repent of if he meant something entirely different than what the homosexual community means?

Why is there even a need to adopt their term sexual orientation in any sense when the more biblical and unambiguous phrase seems to be that they suffer from an early onset of homosexual temptation? The Bible uses words such as sin and enslaved (John 8:34), but it does not endorse orientation as understood by homosexuals. It seems the twenty-six-hundred-word article would not have been needed if he had corrected his position as he said he needed to correct it by Scripture. Why even use the words sexual orientation, which is the battle cry of homosexuals, rather than the clear biblical terms related to the grotesqueness of homosexuality such as sin, abomination, detestable, unrighteousness, degrading passions, unnatural, indecent, and enslaved. They would not require a twenty-six-hundred-word clarifier to explain what he meant, which for me was unsuccessful. Maybe it was not because the Bible led to his decision to repent, but rather as he says, “But I repented of denying the existence of sexual orientation because denying it was deeply confusing to people struggling with same-sex attraction,”[4] (italics added).

To bolster his case for his adoption of orientation, he denigrates the idea of homosexuality being a will problem as he seems to have held before his repentance by saying it would point to us that human sexual affective profiles of who we are sexually is far more deeply rooted than just the will if that were so easy. Apparently, he believes orientation (a non-biblical word) makes the issue of homosexuality deeper-seated than if it were a will problem.

From a biblical perspective, this argument does not make sense because man cannot make a spiritually restorative decision or do spiritually good work without God’s grace since the entirety of man, including his will, is corrupted by the fall (Rom 3:10-18). While man still has libertarian free will, his range of options is less than before the fall. We all recognize that every person is sinful, practices sin, and some sins affect some people more severely than others. Some sins may even affect us from an early age. However, they are still biblically understood as early-onset sinful temptations of a particular sin rather than an orientation. The use of the biblical term, sin, caters to none of the homosexual agenda, nuances, and confusion.

It seems biblical Christianity’s total dependence upon the grace of God teaches us that making righteous choices to move from sin to holiness is not so easy because if it were, we would not need the grace of God to overcome the power of sin. Moreover, remember that orientation does not connote an inherent deficiency, sinfulness, or need for repentance, whereas the word sin most certainly does. Why choose such a culturally nondescript word of accommodation like orientation when the biblical words are much clearer? To wit, replacing same-sex attraction or orientation with the biblical concept of sin or early-onset sinful desire does not require an article of clarification, much less one over twenty-six-hundred-words. Moreover, the descriptive early-onset sinful desires lead directly to the gospel, whereas orientation leads to human justification, and, therefore, no need for the gospel.

Knowing that Dr. Mohler is a Calvinist makes his repentance seem indefensible and even more confusing. The Calvinist perspective believes in compatible moral freedom, where determinism and moral responsibility are compatible. And man is responsible for his decision if he freely chooses according to his greatest desire even though he cannot choose otherwise in the moral moment of decision (see my article comparing libertarian and compatible moral freedom)

How can anything become more entrenched than that which God has predetermined a person can only will? It cannot, even though the particular sins with which an individual struggles can most surely be different (1 Cor 6:9-11). Mohler, being a Calvinist and compatibilist, argues for the enslavement of the will, which requires a direct, sovereign, irresistible act of God to liberate, and, therefore, should not be considered something that would be as he says in his repentance, so easy. When he acknowledged being wrong about sexual orientation, he said, We have to correct it by Scripture, but he gave none.

He said in his article, I still reject that notion of sexual identity. But I repented of denying the existence of sexual orientation because denying it was deeply confusing to people struggling with same-sex attraction. Was the change based on Scripture’s clear support of orientation, or was it to stop the confusion? It seems it was to stop the confusion. Because it seems far better to explain the biblical concept of the will that is corrupted by the fall and under the stronghold of sin, so much so that freedom requires God’s grace to be set free from the enslavement of sin that eternally separates one from God’s grace. That message could be given more briefly and biblically than twenty-six-hundred-words (Rom 7:14; 8:13), as I just illustrated. My suggested alternative does not discount the reality of a spiritual battle between the flesh (fallen humanity) and spirit (Rom 7:14-15; Gal 5:16-26). It is to say God has given us the provision of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, and his transforming Word so that we can walk in victory over any sin (Rom 13:14; Eph 1:3; 5:18; Col 1:27).

Dr. Mohler contends that who we are sexually (sexual orientation) “is far more deeply rooted than just the will if that were so easy.” In his message, he says, “But Genesis 3 explains that, helps us to understand that this complex of same-sex challenges coming to us is deeply rooted in the biblical story itself.” This reference to Genesis is not further defined. Nor does he give Scripture, which may have been because of time constraints. But more troubling are these questions: Is not the corruption of the will something deeply rooted in the biblical story? Where is the scriptural reference allowing for the replacement of sin temptation with orientation? Does not the Scripture lay out from start to finish that sin enslaves, all struggle with sin, some struggle with a particular sin, one’s battle with a particular sin may be greater than another person’s battle with the same sin, and all of us were conceived in sin (Ps 51:5)?

Regarding these “same-sex challenges,” he says they are “deeply rooted in the biblical story itself.” I agree. Then he says this is something we need to take with far greater seriousness than we have taken in the past. Understanding that requires a far more robust gospel response than anything the church has come up with heretofore. I am baffled. When has the church not understood homosexuality to be deeply embedded in the biblical story, particularly in Genesis 3? We find it embedded in the fall and at various junctures throughout Scripture, always regarded as a sin and yet forgivable (John 3:16). When has the church not been serious about homosexuality? Is this supposed to refer to seeing it as a will problem? If so, I do not think that is not taking it seriously if the corruption of the will, as depicted in Scripture, is understood.

I contend the church has taken it seriously according to Scripture, at least, until the modern-day advancement and successes of the homosexual agenda gaining a foothold. In some places like conservative evangelicalism and the SBC, it has gained a throne. I suggest Dr. Mohler is contributing to this advancement by his acquiescence in adopting the battle cry of homosexuality and transgenderism. Why repent of a scripturally sound position to accommodate homosexual terminology? The biblically weak position of the homosexual agenda is no match for the theologically sound designation that uses language like sin, enslave, unrighteous, and unnatural.

Paul’s words are illuminating. He says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9-11).

First, the sins mentioned are of such seriousness that they keep those who practice them out of the Kingdom. Those whose identity is wrapped up in their sins are included in this list. Second, these particular sins plagued some of the Corinthians, but not all. Others were tormented by different sins not mentioned in Paul’s list, as seen by his words, “and such were some of you.” Third, verse 11 makes it clear that God’s grace and salvation can deliver completely, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” That some do not experience complete freedom is not because of the impotence of God’s grace and salvation, but rather man’s unwillingness to appropriate God’s grace and provision (Rom 6:19; Eph 6:10-18). If anyone desires to identify with, live like, or be known for homosexuality, that is sin (Rom 1:24-28).

When we choose to use culturally devised words or words sinners use to euphemize their sins and distance their practice from sin as depicted in Scripture, we have sacrificed a necessary component of speaking the truth in love. We have accommodated their sinful agenda and undermined the Scripture and the gospel. We have thickened their human shield against the sinfulness of their sin. Such is the case with Dr. Mohler’s compromise in this area, regardless of how vociferously he speaks against homosexuality elsewhere.


[1] http://www.bpnews.net/51341/lgbt-christians-conf-draws-sbts-erlc-responses accessed 7/28/18.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx4w6zcuNew&feature=youtu.be accessed 2/21/20.
[3] https://albertmohler.com/2014/11/13/sexual-orientation-and-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/ accessed 2-20-20.
[4] https://albertmohler.com/2014/11/13/sexual-orientation-and-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/ accessed 2-20-20

Dr. JD Greear and The Homosexual Compromise: Dangerously Accommodating the Homosexual Community, Part 4

This is the fourth article in this series. You may see the article on Revoice here, the article on Beth Moore here, and the article on Dr. Russell Moore here.

Dr. JD Greear serves as pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina, and as president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Greear promotes the use of transgender preferred pronouns.[1] He said, “When we apply Paul’s linguistic approach to the pronouns we use about transgender people, I believe we arrive at a posture of pronoun hospitality: a willingness to accommodate the pronouns of our transgender neighbors regardless of our own views about the Christian ethics of gender identity.”[2] He based this on Acts 17.

On January 19, 2019, he preached a sermon entitled How The Fall Affects Us. While he did speak about homosexuality in a manner that leaves him able to defend himself against charges of not believing homosexuality is sin, we can say he worked arduously, both directly and indirectly, at minimizing homosexuality’s sinfulness as depicted in Scripture. (See my blog, Subjective Transgenderism Contradicts Scripture.) Continue reading →

SBC Leaders, Revoice and The Homosexual Compromise: Dangerously Accommodating the Homosexual Community, Part 1

This is the first article in this series on The Homosexual Compromise.

Some of our leaders and well-known Bible teachers in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) display an excessive, and I believe, unbiblical willingness to accommodate the homosexual agenda. This unwise adjustment in their language and position furthers the quest of homosexuals, which is ultimately to be accepted into conservative Christianity. Their significant inroads into cultural normalcy and notable acceptance within Christianity have been gained by sheer tenacity, as they press toward their goals incrementally. I think some of our leaders are either wittingly or unwittingly facilitating the full acceptance of homosexuality. I do need to say, at the time I am writing this article, those I mention do in various places either emphatically proclaim homosexuality as a sin or maintain that sexual relations are only permissible in a heterosexual marriage.

Homosexuals journey to full acceptance by conservative Christianity can be seen in the work of Revoice. Revoice’s vision says, “Revoice exists because we want to see gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex-attracted people who adhere to historic, Christian teaching about marriage and sexual expression flourish in their local faith communities. We envision a unified Church where these individuals can be transparent with their faith communities about their orientation and experience; where local churches utilize and celebrate the unique opportunities that lifelong celibate people have to serve others; where Christian leaders boast about the faith of people who are living a sacrificial obedience for the sake of the Kingdom; and where all people regardless of their orientation or experience are welcomed into the lives of families so that all can experience the joys, benefits, and responsibilities of kinship.”[1]

I am grateful that Revoice’s website recognizes marriage is between a man and a woman for life, sex is only right between a husband and wife, and those who are not in such a relationship are to live celibate lives. Nevertheless, we cannot let those affirmations mask the dangers posed by Revoice. What is (among other things) particularly troubling and unacceptable is Revoice’s frequent use of sexual orientation to characterize the desire for same-sex relationships, and their constant emphasis on those with such desires (orientation) finding their identity in their sin and Christ.

For example, on Revoice’s website, under the section, Statement on Sexual Ethics and Christian Obedience, they say, “While discussions about terminology can be fruitful, we believe they can also cause unnecessary division within the family of God and needless pain for many non-straight Christians. Whether individuals choose gay or same-sex-attracted to describe their orientation and experience is a matter of wisdom and liberty and should not divide believers who otherwise share a commitment to historic Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality. (2 Tim. 2:14)”[2] But the reality is that their chosen descriptors have significant differences in meaning and connotation than the biblical terms. The evidence that they know this too is obvious in their choice of terms such as “gay” or “same-sex-attracted” and “orientation.” If they were not seeking to distance their desires and behaviors from Scripture, why not use biblical designations like homosexual, sin, enslavement, or early-onset sin rather than orientation?

In contrast to “gay” or “same-sex-attracted,” the biblical word homosexuality captures the constellation of sinful desires and actions. It immediately exposes the sinfulness of seeking to identify with one’s sexual sin rather than with the Savior alone. Any attempt to identify as a Christian as well as with one’s sin conflicts with Scripture.[3] It seems that terms such as “gay,” “same-sex-attracted,” and “sexual orientation” are so far from the message of Scripture (Gen 19:1-29; Lev 18:2-3; 18:24; 20:23; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10), that adopting such terms to replace biblical terms immediately raises the question, Why? I can think of no sound biblical reasons. Regarding what seems to be obvious, Nathaniel Sullivan warns, “Revoice is a movement to merge a gay identity with a Christian identity and to urge the church to accept and appreciate same-sex attracted or “gay” Christians and the contributions they can make as “gay Christians” to the body of Christ.”[4]

I accept the claims of each of the people in this series of articles regarding their belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality, transgenderism, or their stated biblical views of marriage. I am not disputing the truthfulness of their direct claims. I take them at their word as Christian brothers and sisters. I am, however, challenging the wisdom of their adoption of the positions and language homosexuals use to advance a homosexual agenda. Particularly since the biblical message speaks clearly about the sinfulness of homosexuality rather than masking it with terms like “gay,” “same-sex-attracted,” and “orientation.”

I also challenge the legitimacy and helpfulness to the cause of Christ when some give indirect answers to precise questions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality. I contend these leaders have made biblically unwarranted concessions to the homosexual community. These accommodations encourage homosexuals and facilitate their quest for full acceptance within evangelicalism generally and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in particular while also spiritually harming them by a lack of biblical clarity.

I will include the following people in these articles: Beth Moore, a well-known Bible teacher, Dr. Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC, Dr. J.D. Greear, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.


[1] Revoice 2020 conference under “About” https://revoice.us accessed 2-23-20; PCA Presbytery rejects Revoice Conference, https://www.christianpost.com/news/pca-presbytery-rejects-revoice-conference-not-safe-guide-gender-sex.html accessed 2-23-20.
[2] https://revoice.us/about/our-beliefs/statements-of-conviction/statement-on-sexual-ethics-and-christian-obedience/ accessed 3-20-20.
[3] See Article 10, 12, and 13 of the Nashville Statement, https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement, accessed 3-21-20.
[4] A Course Change that Always Will Lead to Disaster, Part 3, accessed2/20/20.

Resources for Christians Thinking through Social Justice Issues

These articles, messages, and links are provided to help Christians remain faithful to the Scripture in our actions, heart, and speech at a time when many evangelical leaders are abandoning clear biblical teaching. Or they are unjustifiably mixing biblical teaching with cultural Marxism, social justice, critical race theory, intersectionality, and terminology from Black Lives Matters (BLM), all of which are inferior to the biblical message and tacitly minimize the ungodly beliefs of BLM. In either case, the biblical perspective and the gospel is corrupted.

In their allegiances, they undermine Scripture by confusing such things as social justice with biblical justice, critical race theory’s definition of race and racism with Scripture’s teaching on race and racism, social justice’s evil privilege with biblical blessings, cultural Marxism’s white supremacy and guilt based on skin color and its ineffective repentance with God’s standard, which is that any sinful racial supremacy flows from the heart, but it can be forgiven and all guilt removed by repentance and faith.

Every attempt to speak about racism that does not pedestal “all are created in the image of God” (Gen 1:26-28) or adopts inferior cultural expressions undermines the clarity of the Christian message and the gospel. Continue reading →