In recent weeks the evangelical world has found itself reeling from cultural setbacks it once took for granted. The re-election of President Obama, state passage of “gay marriage” initiatives, the uninviting of Louie Gigglio to the Inauguration, and even last night’s Super Bowl have signaled to some that Christians and Christianity have lost their welcome place in the public square. For the first time, some evangelical conservatives feel like an oppressed minority in the country.

As I’ve watched the chatter mixed with laments and jeremiads, I couldn’t help but think of Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority,” founded in the late 70′s and defunct by the late 80′s. For nearly a decade, the Moral Majority exercised its political voice largely in southern states.

It seems to me that the very notion of a “moral majority” rested on two assumptions that some evangelicals no longer find tenable. First, it assumed the basic morality of most of the country. It assumed basic “Judeo-Christian principles” shaped and framed the moral reasoning of the average citizen, making your “average Joe” basically friendly to the aims and concerns of conservative Christians. Second, it assumed privilege. The very notion of “majority” suggests strength in numbers, a perch from which to rule for no other reason than outnumbering one’s opponents. The last couple months have upturned both of those long-standing assumptions and some evangelicals find themselves at a loss for how to handle it, claiming to be “persecuted,” “rejected,” and “shut out” from the public square. Many who don’t yet go so far as to claim persecution now, ring the ominous alarm of abuse being just around the corner.

It seems to me that if the evangelical church faces minority status in a country that no longer feels as welcoming, it will need to learn to become the moral minority. And to do that, coming from a position of significant privilege, she will actually have to learn from some folks who have long understood what it means to be moral and what it means to be minority in a country that denies your morality and even your right to freedom and existence. The Black Church. Evangelicals could well learn to be the moral minority from a much older moral minority. Here are a few things to pick up (some of which I had the privilege of discussing here):

1. Learn to suffer with dignity and grace. That’s not easy. But if the evangelical church is going to maintain a healthy dignity and resolve, it’ll need to endure suffering like a good soldier. It’ll need to learn how to bear reproach, shame, insult, ridicule, and even physical attack without cowing, lowering its head, or hating itself. Because of its privilege, white evangelical churches don’t know how to joyfully accept the plundering of its possessions and persons. If true persecution comes, it will need to learn this lesson in spades. There are two models: Jesus and the Black Church. Jesus’ model is perfect; the Black Church’s example is proximate, near at hand. One you read in the scripture, the other you can read in history texts or even access in conversation.

2. Learn to do theology from the underside. Privilege affords a person the ability to think about life and God from “above.” It allows a person to form conclusions in abstraction, detached from the grit and grime of suffering and need. But you can’t do that if you’re in a “persecuted minority” status. You have to ask, as Howard Thurman did two generations ago, “What does Jesus of Nazareth mean and have to say to the disinherited?” What truth and power is there in the gospel from the underside? How must we think about power and its use when we’re the disenfranchised rather than the brokers? In many respects that’s the great difference between theology done in Black and White circles. Most of African-American theology gets worked out in the crucible of suffering and under-privilege. That’s why it’s starting points and conclusions can be so different to those arrived at from the “top.” That’s why it can look heretical to those with power and privilege. The view comes from the bottom, and that’s a very different reality. I suspect that if the white evangelical church ever does become a truly persecuted minority in the country, the scope and content of its theological commitments will change significantly to include questions of power, privilege, access, and justice. It would be good to glean from the experiences and theologies of persons that already have in hand over three hundred years of thinking about such things.

3. Learn how to fight for your oppressors, not just against them. One genius of African-American theology and the Black Church has been its insistence on the full dignity, humanity, brotherhood, and rights of both the Black community and the White community. The best of Black Church history sees the future of Blacks and Whites inseparably connected. The best thinkers about the nature of humanity have identified the ways in which racism, for example, dehumanizes both the oppressed and the oppressor. The best activists have, therefore, sought not only freedom for the oppressed but also freedom for the oppressor. The “enemy” becomes the beneficiary of the oppressed’s love. This is the genius of a Martin L. King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. The moral minority rose up against an immoral majority without sticks and guns but with love and justice for all. In positions of privilege, we don’t easily adopt such attitudes and positions. We easily engage our “opponents” with a zero-sum, winner-loser mentality. So, for example, “homosexuals” are meant to be “stopped” rather than loved and included. We focus on the heinousness of the sin rather than helping the sinner be as free as we claim to be. The problem with that winner-takes-all approach is that those chickens will come home to roost when we find ourselves in the minority. If we’re truly moral then we seek justice for everyone, including those who line up against us on this or that political issue. In a true “moral minority” any “superiority” will be demonstrated in concrete action on behalf of everyone’s equality.

4. Learn to hope in God. When you’re the majority community wielding power in society, you don’t have to hope in God in quite the same way as you do when you’re the minority and oppressed community. There’s a sense in which it becomes easy to trust in chariots, horses, and armies rather than the name of the Lord our God. But true persecution strips you of every support but God. Persecution brings you to your knees, but that’s where you find power. That’s one part of the legacy of the Black Church. When life was at its worst, it was a praying church. Despite injustice, persecution and the threat of death on every hand, African-American Christians put their hope in a God they were sure would bend the arc of history toward justice and deliverance. That hope was not pie-in-the-sky escapism. It was the noose-is-tightening realism. It was the kind of hope the apostle Paul found when he felt the sentence of death written in his heart and despaired of life, the kind of hope that comes to its senses and realizes it cannot rely on itself but must rely on the God who raises people from the dead (2 Cor. 1). It’s a hope kept safe beyond the vicissitudes of this life.

I suspect that much of the lamentation I hear in the evangelical world may be the dying cries of long-standing privilege. I also suspect that the death of such privilege will result in a purer grasp of faith and dependence upon God. Much less will be taken for granted and more genuine thought given to living out the faith from the “bottom.” Perhaps we’ll see, as one person put it, that a lot of what we’ve called “thinking” has merely been the rearranging of our prejudices. Then we’ll find that persecution, if it comes, has been for the purging and purifying of God’s people. A purging and purifying that’s very much needed.

Print Friendly

Comments:


37 thoughts on “Learning to Be the Moral Minority from a Moral Minority”

  1. Stephen Naglak says:

    Thanks for posting this, I always appreciate your insight. I’m curious, could you recommend some ways/books to learn more about the Black Church experience your’re talking about?

    I don’t know if this applies to the church at all, but I recently bought a copy of “the Souls of Black Folk” by W.E.B. Du Bois.

    Would you recommend this book?

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Stephen,

      I think you’ll enjoy The Souls of Black Folks and find some things in it quite challenging. Anyone wishing to have a good library of books by, for, or about African Americans needs this one on their shelf.

      As for other titles, the challenge is to limit ourselves to just one or two. But I’ll throw out a couple that might be good starters:

      For a historical primer using original source material, consider purchasing Milton Sernett’s African-American Religious History: A Documentary Witness. A great way to wade into the longer history and get a quick introduction to many people who helped shape that history.

      For a look at the church and the Civil Rights struggle more narrowly, you might try Juan Williams and Julian Bonds, Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965 or perhaps Taylor Branch’s series on America during the King years.

      Lots of good stuff out there. Perhaps others would offer some recommendations?

      T-

  2. Bob Kellemen says:

    Excellent insights…so neeed. We needed these insights also in the 70s when we thought we were a “moral majority.” Thank you for these wise lessons from the Black Church.

  3. mike says:

    Good stuff that we NEED to hear

  4. Very good advice, thank you for this.

  5. Jono says:

    Thabiti, thanks for that, really helpful.

    I just have a question re point 3. Anyone feel free to help answer. I get that pushing for homosexuals to be ‘stopped’ isn’t a helpful approach. But how does one best go about facing the issue of gay marriage with love and justice, when supporters of gay marriage view it as an issue of love and justice (and human rights)?

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Jono,

      Great question. I’m thinking out loud here.

      First, remember that defenders of segregation thought of segregation in moral terms. They proclaimed that it wasn’t “right” or “natural” to not include Blacks in mixed society and feared that doing so would be the destruction of society. One could say the segregationist thought of their social arrangement as “just” if for no other reason than the fact that Blacks were “inferior” and “backwards.” So, your question has important parallels to the history I’m suggesting we learn from.

      But how to upturn an entrenched injustice that sees itself as morally superior? Respond with a superior lifestyle and morality. Live in such a way that they’d be ashamed to speak against us (Titus 2:7-8). Thus far, that shoe of a strategy has been on the other foot of pro-homosexual rights. They’ve shamed the Christian by pointing out the foolish and harmful remarks some of us have made, by raising the profile of mistreatment in the society, and by pointing to inequities in the law. They’ve presented themselves as the moral minority, the group whose civil rights are violated. It’s no accident they’ve worked very hard to present their case as akin to the fight of African Americans for civil rights. It doesn’t matter that they claim to have justice on their side. The claim itself won’t be enough. We’ll need to meet that claim with unimpeachable lives and show the legitimate places of overreaching.

      That will require that we not treat people like “issues,” but like people. And it’ll require forgetting about getting our way at every turn. In fact, it’ll look like championing some rights that are legitimate rights. And that will give the moral minority credibility on so many other fronts.

      Just my two cents.
      T-

      1. Zack Skrip says:

        Pastor Anyabwile,

        Thank you for this post. It does seem that the storm is coming, and so this has given me much to think about.

        In regards to your response to Jono, would you agree that our response of a superior lifestyle and morality will only have a “winning” effect on those whom we come into personal contact? I mean, Fred Phelps doesn’t speak for me, but he sure gets a lot more air time than I do. The opposite also appears to be true. The violent gay-rights rioters don’t get the air-time that Mr. Phelps does either. It seems that if I’m working (or we’re working) to get a national-level response for our superior lifestyle and morals, well, we may be waiting a long, long time.

        But obviously this is to be our response, it’s Scripture. So maybe when we live this way we do so with the intent of exhibiting Christ to those we come into contact with and have relationships with and not grow frustrated at (a lack of) national coverage.

        Am I getting your response right?

        Thanks again for your time.

        Zack

        1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

          Hi Zack,

          Thanks for joining the conversation! Great follow up question. I think I’d say that living a strong moral lifestyle is only the apologetic half of the equation. The other half, it seems to me, is advancing the cause in the courts and legislatures. In another post I argued, in part, that the evangelical emphasis on public opinion and winning the culture has been disproportionate to the use of court and legislative strategy by gay rights groups (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/01/21/minority-experience/). They’ve worried less about public sentiment and more about instituting their views in law. Smart. And pretty consistent with Civil Rights history, to go back to the analogy in the post.

          So, there needs to be continued legislative and courtroom efforts. But it’s going to take a different posture–less the defensive stance of an in-power privileged group, and more the advocacy stance of a disenfranchised group.

          Does that make sense? I’m just thinking out loud with you here.

          T-

  6. Terry Steiden says:

    The elemental flaw in your posit is that the black church was not oppressed because it was the church, but because it was BLACK. The struggle for equality was not to overcome religious prejudice, but racial prejudice.

    The equations you use in your arguments: homosexual marriage equality= racial equality and racial prejudice=religious prejudice are not MORAL equivalents, which causes your arguments to fall apart.

    Furthermore, your assertion that a “moral majority” assumes privilege is simply gratuitous. It assumes only that a majority of people believe that moral behavior is good for society. It doesn’t even assume most people are moral, much less that they are privileged.

    This present persecution of the church is nothing compared to the rest of history and Christ has always preserved his church – not by capitulating to societal mores like homosexual marriage or federally funded abortions on demand nor will it be overcome by marches, freedom riders or sit-ins.

    Your classic “black theology” drives you to cite “privilege”, “superiority” and “persecution” as your pet sins, when the churches failings are much more. The fact that you would even invoke “African American Theology” as a legitimate gospel should be enough to warn most folks away from your analysis of the church in culture.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Terry,

      Welcome to the discussion.

      First, it should be clear to any regular reader of this blog or my books that I’m not a proponent of “classic ‘black theology’.” It’s also not clear that you understand “classic ‘black theology’.” If you did you’d know that their critique extends far beyond privilege, superiority, and persecution.

      Second, it’s not clear you read the post well at all. I don’t equate homosexual marriage equality with racial equality or racial prejudice with religious prejudice as moral equivalents. I simply liken the minority status of African American Christians with the now perceived minority status of evangelical Christians. Whether one wants to admit it or not, the change from being the majority group to the minority group entails the loss of privilege. The point of the post is that to the extent evangelicals view themselves as a persecuted minority they should look to the history of other persecuted minorities for wisdom. That, it seems to me, would be the better part of wisdom.

      Thanks again for commenting.
      T-

  7. JohnM says:

    “It seems to me that the very notion of a “moral majority” rested on two assumptions that some evangelicals no longer find tenable.”

    Untenable assumptions – exactly. Personally, as an evangelical Christian I’ve never felt I was part of any majority. I’m not sure why anyone ever did. It must be a classic case of “…but everybody I know…” Those folks need to get out more often :)

  8. Ian says:

    Pastor Anyabwile,

    I’ve profited greatly from much of what you have written and preached and your post tonight is such timely advice, I do have a question about a portion of what you had to say

    ” That’s why it’s starting points and conclusions can be so different to those arrived at from the “top.” That’s why it can look heretical to those with power and privilege. The view comes from the bottom, and that’s a very different reality.

    I know it wasn’t the point of your post to get into “heresy” but it leaves me wondering. I don’t know that much about the history of African American theology, to my detriment, but could you give an instance in which a view held by blacks was deemed heretical by whites when it shouldn’t have been. Regardless of life circumstances, our conclusions about the Bible should be very much in line with each other, especially on things of first importance.

    this just doesn’t make sense to me, an example, or somewhere I could learn more about this tension would be great.

    Thank you for taking the time you do to respond to these comments. It is illustrative of your patience and care for the flock. God bless.
    -Ian

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Ian,

      Thank you for your question, brother.

      I’m using “heretical” loosely there. What I have in mind are positions like the “brotherhood of man,” or rejection of the “curse of Ham” myth, or even certain forms of evangelical liberalism/social gospel that do not deny the biblical gospel but do call for an address of systemic injustices. From the positions of power, at certain points of history, these views have been regarded as at least heterodox and treated with a toxicity akin to heretical.

      Now, to be fair, some of the positions wearing these labels needed to be rejected. There are forms of the so-called social gospel that do distort the biblical gospel. My point is simply that most in positions of power have had the ability/privilege to wipe away all such positions on the basis of the label alone, and could do so without fear of reprisal. Majority/power positions could dismiss critiques by simply calling them “liberal” and never really engaging substantive and accurate critiques.

      Or, to use another example. The powerful and the oppressed have had very different understandings of the role of the state. Not just in the U.S., but historically in many countries at many different times. The disenfranchised generally call for larger state intervention as a legitimate form of self-protection. The powerful generally call for a limited state role or the use of the state to suppress opponents. Each reasons from the Bible, but they view things differently depending on their social location.

      If you want to read one short example of the tension, consider MLK’s Why We Can’t Wait or even “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Those would be classic examples of the tension, I think. Also, consider reading Mark Noll’s excellent little book, The Civil War As a Theological Crisis. Much to glean there about the differing theological positions depending on social location.

      Thank you for taking the time to extend the conversation with good questions and exchanges. Grateful for your care for the body of Christ.

      Grace and peace,
      T-

  9. Kenton says:

    While I would agree that evangelicalism is becoming a minority moral position, it seems to me that much of the evangelical perception of this “sudden” loss of privilege is still premised on false notions of American belief and their own “right” to privilege.

    Christendom has enjoyed a “privileged” position since the conversion of Constantine. And while Protestants, particularly Anabaptists, were persecuted by fellow members of Christendom, they still had the benefit of living in a homogeneously Christian society. What happened in America is that a generally morally conservative society persisted that agreed with Christianity’s stance on certain taboos, such as divorce and adultery and homosexuality, creating a society in which a “Christian culture” once again developed, but without genuine conversion (for most of the country). When that society inevitably changed/reverted (as it had already begun to do in Europe), American Christendom reacted. But as we see today, that reaction has done little. If anything, it has backfired on Christendom.

    I think we have to understand how the rise of “Christian society” cast a fog over the persistent sinfulness of human behavior. As we all should know, moral religion and law can only do so much to check human sinfulness. At its best it creates moral harmony; at its worst it creates self-righteousness, false piety, and an illusion of external morality. But the fog has been removed. Christian society was never promised by Jesus, and was never going to last, not when it was governed by empire, and not now when we try to preserve it through democracy. This may sound harsh to those who view America’s democratic experiment as bound up in righteous religious freedom, but that was never what American democracy was about.

    But it seems as though the evangelical feeling of persecution is rooted very much in a sense that American Christendom has been wronged, that secular culture has somehow robbed it of its society. We need to get past this. The present age belongs to Satan and has always followed him. We belong to God, who is going to judge this world, yes, even our own beloved country. We look for new heavens and a new earth, because we belong to the age to come.

    In any event, I hope this will free us to read and understand the New Testament through its proper, moral minority lens. Because what is absent from this is that the early church was the moral and ethnic minority of the moral/ethnic minority. Christians were shunned by both Jews and Romans. Jews despised Greeks. Greeks despised Jews. So Christians did not belong either to the majority or to the minority. How did they respond?

    We can look to the Black church and to Jesus, but we can also look to the early church and better understand what Paul means when he says, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all”, or Peter when he says, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”: not from the position of a moral majority, but that of the moral minority.

  10. Kenton says:

    I love point 4 btw, though I do think much of it has to do with a rather naive view of the permanence of “Christian society.” Democracy is not the experiment: Christendom is. And it’s an experiment that is as transient as the institutions upon which it was built.

  11. David Junker says:

    I thought this was an excellent article. We must learn from our Black brothers. I myself am white in an Asian nation, a Christian minority in a Buddhist nation…. Brother Anyabwile seemed to imply that the majority of Western theology came from a place of privilege. I question that. Reformed theology, which we all hold dear, came from a position under persecution also. Luther’s, Knox’s, Puritan etc. It is not that our theology is of a different kind. The foundations are the same- the doctrines of grace. But we must add to them, learning also from our black brothers. But not only our black brothers. The persecuted church is world-wide. So we must also ask our other brothers throughout the world what they are learning from the scriptures in the context of their suffering.

  12. Terry Steiden says:

    My point is that you can call it African American Theology , Black Liberation Theology or nothing at all, but when you constitute your theology with things other than scripture, you are corrupting it.

    Words have meaning.

    “…a country that denies your morality and even your right to freedom and existence.”

    “There are two models (of persecution): Jesus and the Black Church.”

    “I suspect that if the white evangelical church ever does become a truly persecuted minority in the country, the scope and content of its theological commitments will change significantly”

    I’m no theology scholar, but If these statements do not reflect what is commonly called “Black Liberation Theology”, you must be right – I don’t have a clue. But what I DO know is that when you form your theology outside scripture which you plainly state is the case; ie: “In many respects that’s the great difference between theology done in Black and White circles.” then you are offering a distorted theology in conflict with the aims of this organization and with the intent of scripture in general, in my opinion.

    The fact is that a black President of the United States of America is presiding over, encouraging and codifying this turnabout in moral, biblical values in our country. His race has afforded him no moral superiority. Is he doing this because he’s black? No, he’s doing it because he’s immoral at worst, amoral at best.

    You are promoting a gospel that Christ never preached. There is no black theology and white theology, there is only biblical theology and extra biblical and I can’t find yours in scripture.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Terry,

      Yes, “words have meaning.” That’s why you shouldn’t confuse “Black theology,” which is a particular field of academic theology, with “African American theology,” which is used generally to talk about theology done in an African American context. And that’s no more/less (in)appropriate than talking about Calvin’s Geneva or the “Dutch Reformed” or any other theological tradition that arises in a given moment in history among a given people.

      And for the record, both Black theology and African American theology make their claim to biblical sources. Neither field/group is monolithic. Moreover, there’s no theology that’s “constituted” with Scripture only. Everybody imports words, ideas, and categories from non-biblical sources. Think “Trinity” or “hypostatic union” or even “canon” and “Bible.” And everyone does their theology from a social location, even when they’re endeavoring to be faithful to the Scripture. For example, why are we concerned about homosexuality and gay marriage and Calvin wasn’t? Well, marriage and human sexuality are under assault today in a way that Calvin probably couldn’t imagine. We’re dealing with the Bible, but we’re asking questions of our day and cultural location. Everyone does that on some level.

      It does seem to me that you’re “no theology scholar.” The comments that seem to trouble you could be made by a great number of people from a great number of theological positions and even from differing ethnic backgrounds. As much has already been said in the comments thread here. It seems you’re loading the terms and sentences with your own biases against what you think is “Black theology” or “African American theology.” But if you’ve misunderstood those labels, you’re likely also misunderstanding those sentences or what I mean by them.

      And, of course, let’s blame President Obama. He is blameworthy for his policies on abortion and gay marriage, for example. But he has nothing to do with whether or not White evangelical churches can learn from their Black church brethren. Nothing at all.

      Finally, I would thank you if you could please show me where I’m “promoting a gospel that Christ never preached.” The statements you quote have nothing to do with distorting the gospel. That’s a hefty charge, friend. You should be sure you have evidence to support it.

      Thanks for commenting.
      T-

    2. SHM says:

      Forgive the intrusion. I am an expert on none of these things. But, these words are spoken with passion and intention. I feel compelled to speak. To say there is no difference between “Black theology” and “White theology” is to discount the reality of history—i.e. what actually happened. Yes, there is one theology-Biblical theology. But, Biblical theology, as interpreted by White leaders, justified slavery and oppression for hundreds of years. Fact. Biblical theology, as interpreted by White leaders, justified the eradication of native populations. Fact. Biblical theology, as interpreted by White leaders (like the Quakers), justified the Underground Railroad and a higher social consciousness. Fact. Biblical theology, as interpreted by Black leaders (like MLK), justified non-violent resistance. Fact. Biblical theology, as interpreted by Black leaders (like Nat Turner), justified liberation by any means necessary, including murder. As the laws of nature suggest, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This post is no exception… :-) It’s very good. Without this passion and intention, where would the church be? My interpretation of the pastor’s comments are simply that Biblical theology, when viewed by the lens of race (or sexual orientation, etc.), creates distortions which are real and harmful. Brotherhood and love is the foremost consideration for true Biblical theology. And as Bible theologians, I thank you both for sharing that love with all of us with the passion and intensity that honors God’s calling on all of our lives.

  13. Malacca says:

    Honestly, this is the type of article that strains credibility of Christians. If you want to make an argument for oppression, try looking at other countries where you actually pay for being one – i.e. going to prison, getting investigated, getting killed. I’m sorry, grow up, the lot of you.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Malacca,

      Thank you for commenting. Actually, I completely agree with you. There’s nothing in the country that’s happening that we can call “persecution” by any historical, biblical or contemporary standards. That’s why I the article repeatedly says “some evangelicals feel” this way and “if any persecution comes.” And why I end the article by saying that the “cries” of persecution are actually the echo of privilege, not any strong persecution as such.

      Perhaps I was too subtle in tone??? Not something I’m accused of often :-). Or perhaps you’ll hear it differently if you re-read it with these things in mind???

      In either case, thank you for contributing. Grace to you,
      T-

  14. Terry says:

    I really appreciated your thoughts on this issue, Pastor Anyabwile. I had a minor question from your first paragraph: How did the Super Bowl signal that Christians have lost their place of welcome in our society? Were people speaking out against Christians?

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hey brother,

      Thanks for the question, and welcome to the conversation. There I’m referring to the constant complaints about the immorality of the half-time show and the commercials as an indication of the country’s near demise and insensitivity to Christians. No one was actually speaking out against Christians that I’m aware of. But some Christians seem to see anti-Christian sentiment and persecution in everything from super bowl entertainment to things that do rank as prejudice like uninviting Giglio.

      I hope that helps.
      T-

      1. Terry says:

        Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding, Pastor Anyabwile. I listen to sports radio shows while I’m working, and thought I had missed something.

  15. Flyaway says:

    Haven’t made it through the blog or comments yet but I will. Here is my input:

    Do you have any ideas that would convince the social justice Christians that the middle class was better off with Reagan as President? Here is a blog by a social justice missionary:

    http://blogs.covchurch.org/jhpeterson/?p=959

  16. Flyaway says:

    Finally made it through the blog and the comments. My take on what we learn from the blog is that we Christians need to be humble. I have no problem being humble and friendly toward my homosexual neighbors who are not Christians, but I do have a problem with being humble toward people like Tony Campolo, and others who are the “Social Justice” Christians. I pray that I will not lash out at those who support gay marriage and abortion and say they trust in Jesus. I resolve to pray for them and let the Lord deal with them. Others may be able to argue with them and convince them of their error.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Thabiti Anyabwile


Thabiti Anyabwile is assistant pastor for church planting at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and a Council member with The Gospel Coalition. You can follow him on Twitter.

Thabiti Anyabwile's Books