I am not dispassionate about abortion. I hold to a very conservative view of Scripture and the sovereignty of God and thus firmly declare the sanctity of life. I see debates over abortion—such as when one might call a baby a person—as a reprehensible attempt to justify sin and therefore as being non-starters.

Joshua Sharp encouraged us recently to discuss abortion responsibly, and I affirm the need to speak responsibly. I also agree with him that abortion is not an abstract issue, though I would go further and name abortion a clear evil.

One of the reasons I name abortion a clear evil is because of the overwhelming number of abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. With tens of millions of abortions—that we know of—it is unlikely that any family in the United States is unaffected in some way.

The evil that is abortion only begins with the killing of innocent life. Another facet of this evil is the cultural reversal that occurred when our nation declared abortion a right to defend and honor. When culture lies to women, telling them the decision to abort a child is good and honorable, we call evil good.

A pastoral response to abortion

Our culture and our legal system do not use certain terms in talking about abortion, terms like evil. When I counsel men and women in my office who have aborted a child, I also do not use certain terms.

Mostly, I listen to the heartache and anguish that grips them and chokes any contentment or joy in life. What I do say is that God loves them. His grace is greater than their need. I invite them to relinquish control and surrender to God’s loving embrace.

Evil overcomes all of us in some regard at some point. Even with a world screaming that abortion is good, I’ve observed the Holy Spirit be very effective at piercing the noise and finding the soft places of the heart. Conviction by the Holy Spirit brings us to our knees and repentance.

When on our knees, we don’t need reminders that we chose our actions—we know that all too well. Here, on our knees, the love of God and his forgiveness meet us.

Words used to debate abortion

I want to respond to one of Sharp’s key points, that abortion is a “distinctly gendered issue” involving “bodily autonomy.” I believe if we are going to discuss abortion responsibly, we need to know the implications of these phrases and how they fall short.

I disagree that abortion is “distinctly gendered.” True, only women have abortions, but just as a newborn child impacts a whole family, so does the killing of one.

By claiming abortion is “distinctly gendered,” men can be told to get out of the way or to keep their mouths shut because it doesn’t involve them. But the men who’ve come to me overcome by telling a spouse or lover to have an abortion show me that men also are deeply affected.

Appealing to bodily autonomy as a way to declare abortion a women-only issue—or to justify a choice for abortion—subverts the understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ.

As Christ followers, we are not autonomous. Scripture tells me that I—as a Christian—belong to Jesus and that all of us—Christian or not—belong to God.

We are not our own masters. Though we do have a will, the call of the gospel is to surrender our wills to God.

With something as significant as abortion, something that affects women and men, something that may even affect every family in the United States, I don’t think men need to remove themselves from the discussion. This issue impacts everyone, and all Christians must engage in this discourse.

Pastors especially must not cede a voice in the crowd. This issue, for me, is not about sexism but is about holiness. We must preach the demand of Jesus for his people to be holy and righteous and to love his laws and precepts. We must love Jesus more than we love ourselves, or we will never follow him.

A personal story about abortion

In addition to my view of the Bible, I bring personal experience to the matter of abortion.

Sharp, like others, says, “I believe abortion is the killing of an unborn child and should be illegal in most circumstances—the major exception being when the life of the mother is in danger” (emphasis mine).

That caveat seems to suggest there is a situation in which wrong actually can be right. Using more forceful language: Evil is now good. I take particular offense to this caveat used to make evil “preferable.”

My wife was pregnant when diagnosed with cancer. The very certain word was that carrying the baby full term meant death for both mother and baby. According to Mr. Sharp, here is a “major exception” to the abortion-is-wrong stance.

We quickly sought a course to ensure a safe delivery for our child, at the expense of what was “best” for my wife. A strong course of steroids boosted my son’s lungs and overall development. This was wonderful for my son but terrible for my wife. As my son grew and thrived on the steroids, so did my wife’s tumor.

When my son developed enough to live outside his mother, the doctor induced delivery and my son was born 9 weeks premature. Today, he is a very strong, smart and capable young man. He is a delight for our family and many others.

Only days after delivery, my wife was a cancer patient in another hospital. Numerous treatments and surgeries gave her nearly a year to nurture and love our new son.

The weeks of delay and the strong course of steroids undeniably affected the probability of her survival. My wife understood this. She also had an unshakable faith. Jesus did not consider his life worth saving; so, how could she? She willingly jeopardized her life so someone else might live.

I can make the argument that my son has life because his mother loved Jesus more than she loved herself. My wife’s sacrifice was able to save just one; the sacrifice of Jesus, however, has the power to save the whole world.

Here is the last entry in my wife’s journal: “Test yourselves to know Christ is in you … do nothing against the truth … do no evil … we are complete in Christ Jesus. No matter what, I am with our beloved Savior and King.”

A hard saying for a hard action

I long to engage culture with the truth and love of Jesus in such a way that people repent and confess Jesus as Lord. Only then can Jesus heal the hurting.

Why is abortion a difficult and traumatic decision? Why are churches filled with grief and guilt-stricken women—and men—still reeling from an act that might have occurred decades ago? Because they have come to identify what they have done or are contemplating doing as a profound wrong, what I’ve called evil. That is a very hard saying. I don’t deny it.

They need love. They need forgiveness. Only God can give them that. We must speak love and do love, but this does not require that we stop speaking hard truths.

To speak responsibly about abortion means to preach the hard truths about the evil of abortion and love unconditionally those suffering because of abortion, both men and women.

There are certain discussions and decisions a follower of Christ should not need to debate.  For me, abortion fits that category. Will I kill an unborn child? No!

Mathew St. John is pastor of First Baptist Church in Anson, Texas.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (RNS)—In my youth, few things excited me more than running down to the end of our driveway in suburban Chicago and seeing not one, but three blue bundles spread across the blacktop. In each plastic bag contained a treasure of knowledge, new vistas of information about the world: the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Daily Herald.

I was one of those kids, the nerdy ones who read the news and the sports section every day and the comics on Sundays. This was before the internet, before Twitter gave us breaking news every second and before a thousand email newsletters flooded our inboxes.

Our family didn’t have a TV, so we got newspapers and devoured them. And we listened to the radio: WGN, WLS, WBBM.

I’ve always had a deep appreciation for the work of media institutions and those hard-working journalists who deliver the news to ordinary people around the world.

But my appreciation for the media doesn’t just stem from being a news nerd, but from something deeper. As a Christian, I believe in the pursuit of truth (Philippians 4:8). The telling of stories didn’t start when the first ink-stained pages rolled off of a printing press, but when God himself inspired 40 different authors to tell his story. The Bible tells the gritty yet beautiful narrative of humanity’s creation, fall and God’s glorious redemption in Christ.

Faithful Christians never will give today’s headlines the same weight we do our Bibles, but we should appreciate the way a free press contributes to a healthy civil society.

Unfortunately, in recent years, trust between the media and its consumers has deteriorated.

A variety of factors led to this moment. The fragmented media environment allows us to choose our information based on our personal biases and shut out news that cuts against our tribal instincts. Our public officials have made a sport of condemning reporting that makes them look bad, catechizing their most fervent supporters to believe only the good news about them.

And many in the media have contributed to the lack of faith in the institutions they represent, seemingly cheerleading for certain outcomes or underreporting stories that may contradict a personal worldview.

Restoring faith in our media institutions is a shared responsibility. Christians should not only see the value of a free press but should support robust reporting, even journalism that reveals the misdeeds and sins in our own communities. Transparency doesn’t hurt the advance of the gospel. After all, the death and resurrection of Christ lay bare the gritty reality of every human heart.

In other words, a newspaper article cannot reveal anything about us that God doesn’t already know.

Meanwhile, the media could learn from some of the criticism of consumers. Too often, in our day, it seems that an undercurrent of bias exists against Christian ideals, even in subtle ways in which stories are reported or given the weight of breaking news or national importance. Too often journalists, especially on social media, seem to cheerlead rather than report.

This tendency not only hardens opinions against the media, but it also makes it harder to defend the good work of courageous journalists who risk their lives to report news from around the globe.

All of us should understand that a free press is a sacred trust. At its best, robust journalism is a bulwark against corruption in high places, a check against the abuse of power and a vehicle to report on the good and the beautiful in a broken world.

The news may be delivered in ways vastly different from those of my childhood, but the media’s purpose in a flourishing society is no less important.

Daniel Darling is vice president of communications for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He is the author, most recently, of “The Dignity Revolution.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The original article was posted to the Texas Baptist Life blog on Nov. 21, 2018.

As followers of Christ, we should not bear false witness in our speech. Therefore, it is important to understand some basics about the immigration system. Over the last several weeks, we have been bombarded with news stories about “diseased” migrants, “invading hordes,” “terrorists” and “drug dealers.” These news reports have sensationalized this issue to stoke fear on this side of the border.

Why do migrants travel in caravans?

Migrant caravan refers to a large group of migrants. The word has been in the news in recent weeks because a new caravan of about 5,000 migrants set out from the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Oct. 12. They are traveling mostly on foot toward the U.S. southern border. Some have arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, where they plan to wait for an opportunity to present themselves at a port of entry to claim asylum.

While this is not the first migrant caravan to set out from Central America, it may be the largest. Last spring, a group of 1,500 migrants set out from Central America, but by the time they reached the United States, the group was less than a third of its original size.

Traveling as a caravan provides some safety from traffickers and gangs. For the women, traveling with the group may reduce the likelihood of physical or sexual violence.

Why are migrants traveling so far?

According to reports from Immigration and Enforcement, most of those headed to the southern border are coming from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Some migrants are fleeing in search of better economic opportunities. Others are fleeing political instability, violence and conscription into gang activities.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras consistently rank among the most violent countries in the world. Due to corruption, there is little protection from extortion, and 95 percent of crimes reported go unprosecuted in some areas. MS-13 and MS-18 are the region’s largest gangs. Both were formed in Los Angeles, but their presence grew in Central America in the mid-1990s after large-scale deportations from the United States.

The number of asylum seekers coming from Northern Triangle countries has exploded in the last ten years. According to Time Magazine, the number of asylum seekers apprehended by border agents has skyrocketed to about 97,000—a 2,000 percent increase from 2008.

The decision to migrate is personal and complicated. Some will decide to stay in their home countries or seek asylum in Mexico, but most are facing circumstances in their home countries most Americans cannot imagine.

What happens when migrants reach the border?

First, it’s important to distinguish those seeking asylum from traffickers and those migrating for purely economic reasons without proper documents. Seeking asylum is a legal form of immigration. Those migrating for purely economic reasons are not eligible for asylum and once apprehended can be deported for crossing our border illegally.

Asylum is sought by a person inside the United States who is seeking to avoid returning to their home country based on their need for protection from persecution in their country of origin based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.

There are two ways to claim asylum—affirmatively or defensively. To claim asylum affirmatively, the applicant must have entered the United States on a valid visa. A defensive claim of asylum is made once a migrant is in immigration court while in deportation proceedings or when presenting themselves at a port of entry without a valid visa.

Most of those arriving from Central America are making defensive applications for asylum and are detained. They must explain to an immigration officer how they have a credible fear of persecution based on the criteria listed above. The immigration officer then determines whether there is a significant possibility they will be eligible for asylum.

Those who do not pass the “credible fear” test are scheduled for deportation proceedings. Those who pass the “credible fear” test may be detained or released while waiting to go before an immigration judge who makes the final determination on the validity of an asylum claim. In 2017, almost 62 percent of asylum cases were denied.

Current policy means most are detained until they can see a judge, but applicants can be released if there is a lack of available detention space. For example, there are currently no detention facilities that can hold fathers and their young children and only three in the country for mothers with young children.

It can take six months to several years for a migrant’s case to be heard by an immigration judge. Once asylum has been granted, asylees can work legally in the United States and can apply for permanent residency after they have resided in the United States for one year.

The current global refugee crisis

We currently are living through a global refugee crisis. According to the Office of the U.N. Commissioner on Refugees, 68.5 million people have been forcibly displaced as they flee war, gang violence or other life-threatening circumstances. This is the largest number of displaced people at any time in modern history. Many countries are grappling with the same issues as the United States, the Northern Triangle being just one global hotspot around the world.

There are no easy answers, and certainly, the United States cannot take every refugee and asylee who would seek to come here, but there are some possible policy solutions—to be discussed in a second article—that enhance border security and improve the asylum process for migrants.

Kathryn Freeman is the director of public policy for the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission.

Immigration—a hot topic today—is at the origin of our faith and is breathing new life into Christianity in the United States.

In Genesis 12:1, we read of God calling Abram to “go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” From that time on, the people of God moved from one place to another, often under duress. Not even Jesus was exempt from immigration nor were his parents exempt from seeking refuge (Matthew 2:13-23).

Given the biblical record, Christians ought to care a great deal about immigration and refugees, and according to a Lifeway Research poll, pastors do care. Eighty-six percent of Protestant pastors in 2016 agreed that “Christians have a responsibility to care sacrificially for refugees and foreigners.” However, only 8 percent of their churches were involved in refugee ministry locally, 19 percent internationally.

Despite what pastors reported, an older study shows only 9 percent of Protestants say religion is the biggest influence on their views of immigration.

Worse still, Matthew Soerens of World Relief states, “Just 12 percent of evangelical Christians say their views on the arrival of refugees and other immigrants are primarily informed by the Bible.”

One might ask, “If the Bible is not a Christian’s primary influence in thinking about immigration, then what is?”

Before answering this question, it might be helpful to define immigrant and refugee.

Immigrants and refugees: Who are they?

According to Webster’s Dictionary, an immigrant is “a person [who] comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence.” Immigrants are not tourists or visitors; they are people seeking permanent residence.

Ironically, it’s the permanence that may cause some people concern. It’s ironic because every person living in North, Central or South America is an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants—even if some are more recent immigrants than others. Permanency is what all our ancestors sought.

A refugee is “someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence [and] has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.”

Definitions only go so far, however, because our thinking about immigrants and refugees—who the Bible often calls foreigners or strangers—rarely is determined by definitions.

Economics forms some thoughts on immigrants & refugees

Some are concerned immigrants and refugees will take their jobs. The following statistics about the economic impacts of immigration are taken from a presentation from the Evangelical Immigration Table.

• Forty percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded or cofounded by an immigrant or their child.
• Twenty years after arrival, the average refugee adult has contributed approximately $21,000 more in taxes than they have received in governmental assistance and services at all levels.
• Almost all economists believe that the net economic impact of immigration on the United States is positive, including 96 percent of economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal who believe the net economic impact of illegal immigration is positive.
• While undocumented immigrants cannot receive federal means-tested public benefits, they can and do pay taxes: In Texas, contributing $1.6 billion in state and local taxes in 2010; Federally, contributing billions of dollars annually—from which they cannot benefit—to Social Security.
• Immigrants make up about 14 percent of the overall U.S. population but are 95 percent of victims of labor trafficking and 17 percent of sex trafficking victims in the nation, according to analysis of the U.S. Dept. of Justice Prosecution Data by the Faith Alliance Against Slavery and Trafficking.

Fear forms some thoughts on immigrants & refugees

Many believe immigrants and refugees are more violent and prone to crime than U.S. citizens. The following statistics, also taken from Soerens’ presentation, put immigrant and refugee crime into perspective.

• “Refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions program already are subjected to the most thorough vetting of any category of visitor or immigrant to the U.S.”
• “Since the Refugee Act of 1980, no Americans have lost their lives in a terrorist attack perpetrated by a refugee,” according to a report by the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank. Furthermore, “the odds of the average American being killed by a refugee-turned-terrorist are 1 in 3.6 billion.”
• “Immigrants are incarcerated at lower rates than U.S. citizens: 1.53 percent for native-born U.S. citizens, 0.47 percent for lawfully present immigrants, and 0.85 percent for unlawfully present immigrants,” according to another report by the Cato Institute. The incarceration rate for unlawfully present immigrants includes their being charged with improper entry.
• “While the unlawfully present population tripled from 1990 to 2013, violent crime rates fell by 48 percent nationally,” according to analysis of FBI data by the American Immigration Council.

Ministry & mission opportunity among immigrants & refugees

Perhaps immigrants and refugees are not who we think they are or even who we are told they are.

Many immigrants and refugees coming to the United States are already Christians, and among those who are not Christians, there is a receptivity to the gospel of Jesus Christ. A 2015 Pew Research Center report says that as the number of self-described Christians in the United States declined between 2007 and 2014, the percentage of evangelical immigrants increased.

Timothy Tennett, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, said, “The Chinese, the Korean, the Latino [in the U.S.]—these groups are the most likely to either be Christians or become Christians. … Eighty-six percent of the immigrant population in North America are likely to either be Christians or to become Christians. … The immigrant population actually represents the greatest hope for Christian renewal in North America.”

For this great hope to become reality requires people to get to know immigrants and refugees. Unfortunately, the majority of people from a non-Christian faith tradition say they do not personally know a Christian. Conversely, very few evangelical Christians have personal relationships with people of another faith in the U.S.

Though only 12 percent of evangelical Christians in the United States form their thoughts about immigration around what the Bible says, the vast majority believe the Bible tells Christians to “go and make disciples of all people, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything [the Son has] commanded” (Matthew 28:19-20).

This same Bible tells us all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27); that God loves the foreigner living among us and that we are to love that foreigner, too (Deuteronomy 10:17-19); and that we should not oppress the foreigner or the poor because we were once foreigners and poor (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:33-34, Zechariah 7:9-10, Jeremiah 22:3, Malachi 3:5).

This same Bible tells us of a tradition begun when Israel settled in the Promised Land, a tradition commanded by God, who told the Israelites to set aside their first fruits and to give that tenth to “the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:1-12).

This same Bible tells us to submit to earthly authority (Romans 13:1) and to show hospitality, sharing with the Lord’s people who are in need (Romans 12:13). Followers of Christ are expected to do both.

This same Bible tells us we may be entertaining angels when we show hospitality to strangers (Hebrews 13:2).

Even more, this same Bible records Jesus’ warning and encouragement to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, and invite the stranger in because in doing this for “these brothers and sisters” of his, we do it for him.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard and a former pastor. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com or on Twitter at @EricBlackBSP.

(RNS)—Grown children who were adopted into their families sometimes talk to me about the difficulties that come along with sorting through their identity questions. One of these Christians said to me not long ago, “You just can’t imagine what it is like to sit across a table from people who are a mystery to you, to think to yourself, ‘I am nothing like you! How did I end up in this family?’”

“I actually do know what that’s like,” I told her. “It’s called Thanksgiving dinner.”

As much as we idealize family, our idealism tends to fade when we deal with the very real frictions that can happen between members of a family with different personalities and different perspectives. Some of this is just navigating what conversations to bring up and which to avoid. Some of it is more serious: family members who are hostile to your faith, for instance. Or maybe you are someone who thought you were an empty nester, now dealing with a son or daughter back in their old bedroom, maybe with a spouse or a partner or some chil­dren now in tow.

That’s difficult enough with one’s family of origin, where at least one has had the training ground of a lifetime to know, as they say, “where the bodies are buried.” When one adds to that the mix of in-laws, often with their own very confusing dynamics, unspoken feuds and peace treaties, and complicated back stories, this can become even more fraught. How do we then carry the cross when tensions inevitably come?

First, the gospel calls us to peace. Yes, Jesus tells us that he brings a sword of division, and that this sometimes splits up families (Matthew 10:34-37). But there’s a difference between gospel division and carnal division (1 Corinthians 1:10-17). The Spirit brings about peace (Galatians 5:22), and the sons of God are called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9) so we should “strive for peace with everyone” (Hebrews 12:14).

The divisiveness that happens within extended families is often about conflicting spiritual worldviews, but it’s not always the unbelieving family member persecuting a Christian, but rather a Christian who decides to go ahead and sort the wheat from the weeds at the fam­ily table, rather than, as Jesus told us, waiting for Judgment Day (Matthew 13:29-30).

Yes, the gospel exposes sin, but not for the purpose of condemnation (John 3:17). The gospel strategically exposes sin in order to point to Christ. Antagonizing unbelieving family members because they think or feel like unbelievers is not the way of the cross.

Moreover, the Scripture calls us to honor. We are to fear God, to obey the king and to honor (notice this) everyone (1 Peter 2:17). If cousin Hattie Jo does tequila shots in her car outside the family gathering just to take the edge off of her cocaine, well, she still bears the imprint of the God you adore. You cannot do the will of God by opposing the will of God.

That is, you cannot evangelize, for exam­ple, your unbelieving father and mother by disrespecting them. God tells us to honor those to whom honor is due. That means showing, everywhere possible, respect and gratitude.

This calls also for humility. Many of our tensions within extended families are caused in part by treating our differences over Jesus the same way we treat our differences over foreign policy in the Middle East, or the chances of our favorite sports team to make the playoffs this year, or who deserves the most gratitude for preparing the family meal.

As Christians, we cannot be like the professional polarizers in our culture around us, who value having the last word. Jesus never sought to prove he was right. Not once—and he was accused of everything from being a drunk to being a demoniac. He rejected Satan’s temptation to force a visible vindication—by throw­ing himself from the temple pinnacle and being theatrically rescued by God—waiting instead for God to vindicate him at the empty tomb.

This calls then also for maturity. If we are following the way of the cross, we will follow the path Jesus took: from temptation to suf­fering to crucifixion and then ultimately to glory.

Often we think of those tests as big, monumental things, but they rarely are. God might bring you to maturity in Christ by your fighting lions before the emperor or standing with a John 3:16 sign before tanks in the streets of Beijing. More likely, though, this testing will be in those seem­ingly little places of temptation—like whether you will bear patiently with the belching brother-in-law at the end of the table who wants to talk about how the Cubans killed President Kennedy or about how he can make you rich by joining his multilevel marketing business selling herbal laxatives.

One of the questions we must ask ourselves is whether the tension we feel should be attributed to our own imma­turity, and sometimes the answer is yes.

In any case, though, see the tensions around you as more than something you would undo if only you were part of a different family. They will always be here.

Remember also that the cross points us to a Day of Judgment when we will give an account for every idle (that means seemingly tiny, insignificant or unmemorable) thought, word or deed. We will see then that the Spirit has led us to carry our crosses into every possible arena in which to live out the gospel, including Aunt Flossie’s dining room table.

Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. This article was adapted from Moore’s recently released book, “The Storm-Tossed Family: How the Cross Reshapes the Home.”

(RNS)—The American church has a problem with racism.

The issue is not new.

It includes support in the past for appalling acts such as lynching and racial terrorism and ongoing, inexcusable apathy. Although much has changed, the path toward deep diversity, authentic inclusion and radical repair remains long. Much of my time is spent telling Christians about the past and present concerning racism in the nation and the congregation.

Christians engaged in anti-racism work risk becoming bitter toward the church. In my speaking and travels, people often ask me, “How do you talk about racism without becoming bitter?”

Or they ask a similar question from a different angle: “How do you maintain hope in the midst of so much evil?”

There’s no easy answer.

At times, I’ve been tempted to give up on church people in frustration. Especially white evangelicals.

The involvement of white evangelicals in the 2018 midterm elections

The 2018 midterm elections, for instance, revealed that yet again, white evangelicals chose to support a brand of politics that is inimical to people of color. In spite of the fear-mongering and overtly racist appeals of some candidates, 75 percent of white evangelicals voted for Republicans in the midterms.

Two years into his administration, white evangelicals remain the only religious group in which a majority view Trump favorably. More than 70 percent of self-identified white evangelical or born-again Christians have a favorable view of the president. Seventy-five percent of black Protestants have an unfavorable view.

It appears to me, as a person of color, that white evangelicals have little regard for my voice or those of people like me. Attempting to voice the concerns of black Christians among white churchgoers and receiving so much opposition makes it difficult sometimes for me to read the Bible and go to church.

I am still healing from wounds I’ve accrued over years of writing, speaking and teaching about racism and injustice. But no matter how discouraging the racial conditions in the church become, bitterness is not a healthy option.

To be clear, voting for Republicans is not the issue. The issue is Christians saying they support racial reconciliation on the one hand while simultaneously supporting politicians—in this case, Republicans—who traffic in racism and xenophobia on the other.

At moments like this, I think of Fannie Lou Hamer.

Fannie Lou Hamer as a model for moving forward

Born in 1917 in rural Mississippi, Hamer was the last of 20 children immersed in a life of poverty as a sharecropper. In her 40s, she got involved in the civil rights movement after she heard young activists give a presentation about voting rights.

She then dedicated her life to fighting for equal rights for black people and more humane treatment of the poor.

One night in 1963, Hamer and some fellow civil rights activists, all of whom were black, were taken into custody on spurious charges by white police officers. The law enforcement officials took them to a jail and proceeded to beat each one, including Hamer. The harrowing experience left her with permanent health problems and emotional wounds such as depression. But that didn’t stop her from loving people, even her enemies.

“I feel sorry for anybody that could let hate wrap them up,” she said. “Ain’t no such thing as I can hate anybody and hope to see God’s face.”

When I think of saints like Fannie Lou Hamer and how they endured far more than I ever have in the fight for racial equality, I cannot engage in the self-indulgence of bitterness.

I have to keep striding toward freedom because I am part of a legacy of freedom fighters who have struggled under far more adverse conditions and yet maintained hope in God and the church.

Another way I find hope is through community. Through my work, I’ve met true allies across the color line. These women and men are quick to listen and slow to speak, which makes them more informed and more effective collaborators for change.

I have also been deeply enriched by friendships with people of color. Black Christians, who often make up a minority whether in church or school or the workplace, need regular contact with others who share similar experiences and backgrounds. We need a group where we can vent, laugh and recharge—folks around whom we don’t have to explain our existence. We need relationships with people who “get it.”

Finally, I try to keep the racial situation in the church in perspective by distinguishing between the universal church and particular people and congregations. I have often felt betrayed by specific Christians and churches. Individual Christians have berated me to my face—telling me how I get race wrong. Churches and denominations have rescinded speaking invitations, and many, many others have been bold in asserting that race is a social or a political issue, but not a gospel one.

In the face of such barbs, I have grown cautious.

I do my best to carefully choose speaking engagements and writing platforms that will let me communicate my views freely while not exposing me to malicious criticism. Unfortunately, many predominantly white Christian outlets and organizations prove extremely hostile to any anti-racist messages. But those particular places do not represent the church as a whole.

Christ is building his church. And as the Gospel of Matthew tells us, the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The church is a beautiful bulwark against bitterness. It is a church that spans across time, nations, races and ethnicities. It is an undefeated community. It is this church, imperfect though it is, that persuades me to persist. It is Christ’s church, universal and precious, that Christians who hate racism should fight to improve.

While the bigotry of individual Christians and institutions may bend us toward bitterness, the beauty of Christ’s bride hearkens us back to hope.

Jemar Tisby, author of The Color of Compromise, is president of The Witness: A Black Christian Collective, where he writes about race, religion and culture.

(RNS)—Ten years ago, SNAP was the butt of the most outrageous criticism in its three decades of work on behalf of clergy sex abuse survivors.

SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, was founded with a focus on Catholic clergy abuse. But as we expanded our efforts to other faiths, the worst name-calling came not from any Catholic official but from a Baptist official. Paige Patterson, a former Southern Baptist Convention president who, at the time, was head of a prominent Baptist seminary, labeled SNAP as “evil-doers” and said we were “just as reprehensible as sex criminals.”

It may seem odd to note the anniversary of such an odious aspersion, but at a time when survivor advocates have much to cheer about, it’s important that we not lose sight of how much work remains to be done in changing institutions and attitudes to make kids safer.

Too many survivors still face hostility when they attempt to confront religious leaders about clergy child molesters. The U.S. Justice Department has now launched an investigation into the sexual abuse of children and the cover-up of those crimes in the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania. And because the Justice Department put every diocese in the country on notice that they should preserve all documents relating to sexual abuse allegations, there appears the possibility of a broader investigation into Catholic abuses and cover-ups.

This federal intervention is a significant and long overdue development. SNAP first asked for such a probe in 2003. So, you can be sure we are applauding.

But what about other faith groups?

The Catholic Church is not the only place where clergy sexual abuse occurs

For example, how can we uncover the scope of the clergy abuse scandal in the country’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention? With a claimed membership of more than 15 million, it’s a faith group in which a lot of kids are at risk.

For years, the uncovering of the Catholic clergy abuse scandal has been fueled in significant part by the Catholic Church’s own documents. But Southern Baptist officials have long disclaimed any denominational obligation for record-keeping on clergy perpetrators, and so the relatively inexpensive investigatory tool of subpoenaing documents would likely be far less productive.

As evangelical sex abuse expert Jimmy Hinton so succinctly explained: “We’re passing people around just as much as the Catholics do—we just don’t keep record of it.”

SNAP had been advocating for exactly that—a Baptist system of record-keeping and information sharing—when Patterson made that repugnant remark. We had delivered a letter to top Southern Baptist officials, urging them to create an independent review board to receive and assess reports about clergy sex abuse, to keep records on those reports and to inform congregations about credibly accused clergy.

It was a common-sense request aimed at protecting kids from church-hopping clergy predators. Yet Southern Baptist officials refused, offering up a glossy brochure of nice-sounding words instead. It appeared the Baptist officials had gleaned from the Catholic scandal not a lesson about the need to better protect kids but rather a lesson about the need to avoid record-keeping so as to better protect the institution.

Catholics and Baptists are hardly alone in their institutional failures. Thomas Doyle, the courageous priest who first warned Catholic officials of their looming scandal, told the terrible truth back in 2007 when he cautioned that “clergy sex abuse is a scourge that knows no bounds of theology, denomination or institutional structure.”

The number of children known to have been abused in the Catholic Church alone is staggering. For example, when a grand jury reported on its investigation of just six dioceses in Pennsylvania, it counted more than 1,000 victims and concluded there were likely many more.

If the victims in all the dioceses across the country could be counted, there would certainly be many thousands more. And if the victims in non-Catholic faith groups could be counted, the numbers would rise into at least the tens of thousands.

Indeed, based on insurance company data, some experts have posited that more children are likely being abused in Protestant churches than in Catholic churches, and as with Catholics, leaders’ responses have too often been abysmal. Time and again, we see revelations of church and denominational officials who chose child-endangering do-nothing responses and who allowed accused perpetrators to move on to new congregations rather than reporting them to the police.

A call for a full-scale inquiry into all faith groups

What’s needed is a full-scale national inquiry akin to the one that was done in Australia—an inquiry that focuses on all faith groups and that not only subpoenas documents but also hears extensive testimony.

In a five-year study that experts describe as the “gold standard” of such investigations, Australia’s Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse assessed crimes against children in more than 4,000 institutions, including all religious organizations. It examined not only more than 1.2 million documents but also heard from 8,000 survivors in private sessions and from 1,200 witnesses in public hearings. Then, based on the common institutional patterns it uncovered, the Royal Commission made recommendations for how to make religious institutions safer for children, including recommendations for improved record-keeping and information sharing.

The pervasiveness of the problem and the high stakes of children’s well-being compel the need for such a comprehensive inquiry in this country also. Americans deserve no less. If we want our children to be safer, we cannot afford the comfortable delusion that this is an isolated problem of a single diocese, a single state, a single faith group or a single institution.

Christa Brown is the author of “This Little Light: Beyond a Baptist Preacher Predator and His Gang” serves on the board of advisors for the Child-Friendly Faith Project. David Clohessy is the former longtime director of SNAP and currently serves as SNAP’s volunteer director for St. Louis.

“Now, there are issues of justice and exploitation within the porn industry, no question, but it doesn’t mean consumption of pornography should be shamed. There is ethically sourced porn. There are people who say it’s sexual immorality, but if you take Liberals and Conservatives who show outrage and made a Venn diagram of those who consume pornography, you’d see a huge overlap.”

Nadia Bolz-Weber said the preceding in a recent interview with Out In Jersey, an LGBTQ publication. Her newest book, Shameless: A Sexual Reformation, is due out in Jan. 2019.

Bolz-Weber, former pastor of House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver, is no stranger to controversy. An ordained Lutheran, she is a popular figure in what is called “progressive Christianity.” Her writings and sermons regularly challenge traditional Christian beliefs and values.

Is ethically sourced porn a possibility?

To be fair to Bolz-Weber, she acknowledges the porn industry is rife with exploitation, drug use and other harmful practices. Her concept of “ethically sourced porn”—so far as I can tell—would involve such things as consent and honest business practices.

I would grant it is at least theoretically possible to make porn in which no one is manipulated or physically hurt. Consenting adults have the right to engage privately in all sorts of sex acts, so what’s wrong with also consenting to have someone record it and distribute the recording?

Quite a bit, actually.

Regardless of your confessional stance or personal views on sexual morality, there is some evidence showing a connection between pornography consumption and serious harm to sexual health.

The biblical view of sexuality

There are deeper problems with Bolz-Weber’s perspective, however. For a self-identified Christian, she is remarkably flippant and dismissive toward Scripture, at one point declaring the Bible isn’t clear about anything.

The paradigm for human sexuality is found near the very beginning of the Bible. Genesis 2:24 states, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Both Jesus and Paul explicitly use this text to ground their views on sexuality and marriage (Matthew 19:5, 1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31).

According to the Bible, God designed sexuality to be expressed only in the context of a committed, covenant relationship between a husband and wife. Sexuality is meant to be mutual, personal and loving (1 Corinthians 7:3-5, Ephesians 5:21-33).

Pornography cannot provide that. A digital screen or a magazine page cannot give you love, mutuality or relationship. And even consuming porn with your spouse violates the exclusive, private bond the two of you are meant to share.

The biblical view of lust

The Bible also is filled with warnings against lust (Proverbs 6:25, Ezekiel 23, Matthew 5:28, Romans 1:27, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, James 1:14-15, etc.). It is important to note that “lust” in the Bible does not refer always to something sexual. At its most basic, lust is simply a strong desire. Yet the Bible frequently uses the word “lust” in connection with sexual sin.

Jesus’ words about lust in the Sermon on the Mount are perhaps the most pointed and well-known: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Jesus is not condemning the natural attraction between men and women. There is nothing wrong with appreciating the beauty with which God has created another person.

Appreciation crosses the line into lust when you turn another person into an object for your own gratification. Lust is selfish and impersonal. Lust is sexually fantasizing about another, using him or her to fulfill your own desires while bypassing relationship, commitment and love.

The relationship between lust and porn

A person does not look at porn to appreciate the beauty of God’s design for human sexuality. A person views porn specifically to pursue sexual satisfaction through the objectification of other people. The screen and the page allow the viewer to bypass relationship, commitment, sacrifice and love. The people in the picture or video are no longer people; they are objects to be used and disposed of at will.

Consuming pornography, then, is inherently lustful, and those who make pornography do so specifically to feed others’ lusts.

I have tried to remain gender-neutral in my discussion thus far, but I need to point out that porn objectifies women far more than it does men. In a culture that already treats women like trash, pornography further encourages viewing women as objects rather than real people.

Pornography is a poison

Personally, I find the concept of “ethically sourced porn” about as absurd as “ethically sourced cyanide.” Pornography is corrosive to relationships, individual sexual health and spiritual vitality.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20: “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body.”

Although it is not obvious in English translations, Paul subtly shifts between the singular and the plural forms of “you” and “your” in these verses. He is talking about individual people sinning against their own bodies, yet he connects this to the collective body of the church as a “temple of the Holy Spirit.”

Sexual sin—including pornography consumption—is destructive both to our own bodies and to the body of Christ, the church. If you drink that poison, you will take others down with you.

Sorry, Nadia Bolz-Weber, but any attempt to legitimize porn flies in the face of biblical teaching and threatens the health of the church. There is nothing “ethical” about pornography.

The only virtue we can associate with porn is God’s grace in curing those of us who have been poisoned by it. Praise be to the Lord, who loves us and washes us from sin by his abundant mercy.

Joshua Sharp is a Master of Divinity student and graduate assistant in the Office of Ministry Connections at Truett Seminary in Waco, Texas.

I have a confession. Back in the summer of 1974, I bought Queen’s eponymous debut album—only because the cover was simple and unique, not because I’d already heard about this fledgling, quasi-androgynous band. I dropped the album onto my turntable after setting it to spin at 33-1/3 rpm. With the volume cranked to the max, I hoped to discover something bold and new. And the 12-inch vinyl LP certainly delivered.

The first track, “Keep Yourself Alive,” was nothing short of mesmerizing. Then came “Liar” on the flip side, and I was transported instantly to another, seemingly faraway world. Nobody came close to sounding like this. With lyrics from “Liar” imploring, “I have sinned, dear father, father, I have sinned,” and another song entitled “Jesus,” I couldn’t help but react, “Whoa, where’d these guys come from?” England, of course. No surprise there.

In March 1975, I experienced their show live at Southern Methodist University’s McFarlin Auditorium, scooting right up to the edge of the stage to take pictures. Nobody stopped me in those days before mosh pits. The only thing I remember Freddie saying—rather pretentiously—was, “This IS Dallas, isn’t it?”

After the concert, even the word “extraordinary” wasn’t forceful enough to describe what I’d seen and heard. Flamboyance, glam and decibels aside, somehow I knew intuitively they’d go far because of their sheer musical distinctiveness—and they did. As Mercury once said, “I won’t be a rock star. I will be a legend.”

Chalk up my early fascination with Queen, if you wish, to being an immature Christian of barely three years.

Christians in a Queen culture

With America’s current cultural climate—characterized by “To be is to be entertained”—it’s obvious every Christian must now draw a line somewhere, often an indistinct boundary between being in the world but not of it (John 17:14-19). Christians often draw the lines poles apart when it comes to the entertainment industry, whether music, film or even sports. Our cultural activities are expressed in thoroughly human ways.

Some, like philosopher Arthur Holmes, argue our cultural ways are to be regarded honorably as sacred pursuits, and not merely secular. Realistically, however, music, film and other arts are reduced too easily to deviations from all things holy. In other words, perversion rears its ugly head, and not just sexually, though this seems to dominate. Culturally, there’s a difference between being human and being sinfully human.

Just as Queen pushed the envelope culturally via their music, so too most Christians—I’m convinced—push things as far as their conscience will allow—and too often beyond their conscience. This is a tacit but well-known secret. We toy with, trifle with, dally with our entertainment choices, maybe wondering whether the Lord cares about such choices or takes notice of our wrong-headed motives when crossing the line. We don’t talk about these dalliances much with our friends, but we can be assured, God knows.

So, will we be judged regarding where each of us draws the line? Yes, I believe so. Each Christian must decide for themselves where to set limits on their entertainment, which we do anyway—consciously or unconsciously.

A former colleague of mine listens only to Christian music. A former student—now pastor—listens only to secular music. One student went ballistic because Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code was once on my reading list, whereas another refused to watch a PG movie from the 1970s and left my class until the film was over.

Each Christian must decide for her- or himself what entertainment to consume, but checks and balances must be established.

What to do: immerse, isolate or something in between? Resolve the tension well.

Christians in an entertainment culture

Christians must choose carefully who they love, what they love, how they love. Is God loved most—really and truly? Though perhaps cliché, questions of the heart like these may make us uncomfortable, especially if conviction should arise.

What if we didn’t binge-watch our favorite shows on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu or wherever? What if we didn’t spend inordinate amounts of time watching football? What if we disavowed making our presence known on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and elsewhere? What if we didn’t glut our depleted souls with all kinds of music—as some do—turning this beautifully created gift it into a god of sorts?

What if the time expended, money spent and efforts employed to create over-the-top comfort for ourselves were directed more toward prayer, Bible study, church work and fellowshipping face-to-face as followers of Christ? What if we reconfigured our lives to draw our cultural lines elsewhere—closer to the holy? Wouldn’t the church universal be in much better shape, more in tune with sharing the gospel with those whose lives ultimately may be destroyed by cultural evildoing?

This isn’t to say Christians can’t find a proper role for entertainment. They can, but it isn’t easy. If our lives are monopolized by cultural pursuits adverse to the gospel—over time drawing us away from what pleases God—we should ask ourselves the same questions a searching Freddie Mercury did: “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”

Hal Ostrander is online professor of religion and philosophy at Wayland Baptist University.

(RNS)—Eugene Peterson died yesterday. I wasn’t surprised at his death—RNS reported last week that he had entered hospice care—but I was surprised by my reaction to it.

I found myself grieving, and it was hard to concentrate on my work yesterday as I mourned this loss of a wise teacher. Peterson, probably more than any other writer, has taught me how to read the Bible—and still teaches me again because I keep making it more complex than it needs to be at the exact same time that I reduce it to something overly simplistic and undemanding. I tend to treat it as a rulebook, or a recipe book, while Peterson shows it to be nothing less than “the message”—the word of God.

So, I pulled his books off the shelf and spent some time last night revisiting passages I’ve marked through the years as meaningful. Here are seven favorites.

Rest in peace, Pastor Peterson, and thank you for your witness.

Resurrection starts with grace

“Nothing and no one is a mere object, a thing that we can ignore or dispose of as we like. This is resurrection country. Resurrection is not something we add on to everything we are already accustomed to; it makes alive what has been ‘dead through … trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1). It is understandable that we still will carry old cemetery habits and assumptions into this resurrection country. We have, after all, been living with them a long time (if you can call it living). And so we require a patient, long-suffering reorientation in the resurrection conditions that prevail in this country, living into the ‘full stature of Christ’ (4:13), our resurrection pioneer and companion. Paul begins our resurrection with the word ‘grace.’ It’s a word that he uses a lot.” — Practice Resurrection, 89-90

There are no shortcuts to prayer

“What I want to insist on is that prayer is not something to be added on to the Christian life (or any life for that matter). It is the language in which that life is lived out, nurtured, developed, revealed, informed: the language in which it believes, loves, explores, seeks and finds. There are no shortcuts and detours. Prayer is the cradle language among those who are ‘born anew’ and then the intimate, familiar, developing language of growing up to follow the way of Jesus.

“But because in our secularized society prayer is often associated with what people of ‘spiritual’ interests pursue or with formal acts conducted by professional leaders, it is necessary from time to time to call attention to the fact that prayer is the street language that we use with Jesus, who walks the streets with us. We can’t put off prayer until we ‘get good at it.’ It is the only language available to us as we bring our unique and particular selves, ‘just as we are without one plea,’ into the daily, hourly speaking and listening to God who comes ‘just as he is’ in Jesus.” — The Jesus Way, 264-265

We need the Sabbath

“Sabbath: Uncluttered time and space to distance ourselves from the frenzy of our own activities so we can see what God has been and is doing. If we do not regularly quit work for one day a week we take ourselves far too seriously. The moral sweat pouring off our brows blinds us to the primal action of God in and around us.

“Sabbath-keeping: Quitting the internal noise so we hear the still small voice of our Lord. Removing the distractions of pride so we discern the presence of Christ ‘… in ten thousand places, / Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his / To the Father through the features of men’s faces.’” — Working the Angles, 72-73

If you’ve ever had the Bible used as a weapon against you …

“Reading the Bible, if we do not do it rightly, can get us into a lot of trouble. The Christian community is as concerned with how we read the Bible as that we read it. It is not sufficient to place a Bible in a person’s hands with the command, ‘Read it.’

“That is quite as foolish as putting a set of car keys in an adolescent’s hands, giving him a Honda, and saying, ‘Drive it.’ And just as dangerous. The danger is that in having our hands on a piece of technology, we will use it ignorantly, endangering our lives and the lives of those around us; or that, intoxicated with the power that the technology gives us, we will use it ruthlessly and violently. …

“And so, as we hand out Bibles and urge people to read them, it is imperative that we also say, caveat lector, let the reader beware.” — Eat This Book, 81-82

Less is more

“We do not progress in the Christian life by becoming more competent, more knowledgeable, more virtuous or more energetic. We do not advance in the Christian life by acquiring expertise. Each day, and many times a day, we return to Square One: God Said. … We adore and we listen.” — Subversive Spirituality, 30

A totally different take on Revelation

“Pastor John of Patmos showed me the way. He wrote what he saw. His Revelation is the result. … What I have come to see and to recognize is that if I had to put in a single sentence what I have learned from John regarding the way he wrote what he saw, it is this: godtalk—depersonalized, nonrelational, unlistening language—kills. In the land of the living, it is blasphemous, whether spoken from pulpits or across the breakfast table.

” … And here is something that never ceases to astonish me. Pastor John of Patmos knew his Bible inside and out. The Revelation has 404 verses. In those 404 verses, there are 518 references to earlier scripture. But there is not a single quote; all the references are allusions. Here was a pastor and writer who was absolutely immersed in scripture and submitted himself to it. He did not merely repeat, regurgitate, proof-text. As he wrote, the scriptures were re-created in him. He assimilated scripture. Lived scripture. And then he wrote what he had lived.” — The Pastor, 243-244

Christian maturity for the long haul

“The Christian life is not a straight run on a track laid out by a vision statement formulated by a committee. Life meanders much of the time. Unspiritual interruptions, unanticipated people, uncongenial events cannot be pushed aside in our determination to reach the goal unimpeded, undistracted. “Goal-setting,” in the context and on the terms intended by a leadership-obsessed and management-programmed business mentality that infiltrates the church far too frequently, is bad spirituality. Too much gets left out. Too many people get brushed aside.

“Maturity cannot be hurried, programmed, or tinkered with. There are no steroids available for growing up in Christ more quickly. Impatient shortcuts land us in the dead ends of immaturity.” — Practice Resurrection, 133

(RNS)—In his timeless book, Jesus and the Disinherited, black minister and theologian Howard Thurman wrote, “There is one overmastering problem that the socially and politically disinherited always face: Under what terms is survival possible?”

This was not an abstract question for Thurman.

During the Great Depression, he observed already impoverished black people further crushed by the nation’s worst economic crisis. He saw the political gamesmanship that made the New Deal into a “raw deal” for black citizens.

During World War II, he noticed the black women and men who supported America’s war efforts found their service rewarded with racism and discrimination when the war was done.

His experience during the Depression and the war fueled his writing, especially his 1935 essay, “Good News for the Underprivileged,” which he later turned into a book published in 1949.

Old issues continue to divide people

The issues black people and other marginalized groups face today are not all that different from when Howard was writing.

Women still do not get equal pay for equal work. Black unemployment has decreased but still remains about twice that of whites. And Americans who are rich and guilty fare better in the criminal justice system than those who are poor and innocent.

Where is the good news in this situation?

Of course, Jesus is good news for the disinherited. But we also might ask, “Can Christians practice politics in a way that is also good news for the disinherited?”

After all, politics have played a role in creating the rampant inequality in our nation. And politics will have to play a role in addressing this issue.

But followers of Jesus have very different views on politics these days and often find themselves at odds with one another.

Old issues continue to divide Christian people

White evangelicals, for example, remain among President Trump’s most loyal supporters. Among white evangelicals who voted in the 2016 presidential election, 81 percent pulled the lever for Trump.

By contrast, more than six in 10 evangelicals of other races and ethnicities preferred Clinton leading up to the election. And a recent study by Lifeway Research of Protestant pastors found that just 4 percent of African-American pastors approve of the president’s job performance so far, while more than half, 54 percent, of white pastors approve.

What could possibly bridge this political divide?

I would suggest starting by putting ourselves in the shoes of those Thurman describes as the “disinherited.”

“The masses of [people] live with their backs constantly against the wall. They are the poor, the disinherited, the dispossessed,” Thurman wrote.

In his view, the people with the fewest material resources, the fewest rights and the most obstacles in society constituted the disinherited class.

More affluent and enfranchised Christians ought to intentionally seek ways to develop deep relationships and authentic interactions with the disinherited.

How does this happen?

Firsthand experience can bridge the divide

For me, it came through teaching in public schools.

My rural school in the Deep South was more than 95percent black, and 85 percent qualified for free or reduced lunch, a federal measure of student poverty. I came face to face with the problems caused by underfunded and segregated school systems. The surrounding community had almost double the national rate of families living at or below the poverty line. This meant the parents, siblings and extended family of my students frequently faced unemployment, poor health care and higher rates of incarceration.

Firsthand experience with disinherited people changed my perspective on politics.

No longer was it about red or blue but about right and wrong. It wasn’t about keeping power but deploying that power for justice. In our current political morass, we constantly need to remind ourselves that Christians, and their politics, should bring relief and

flourishing to those whom the world counts as the least.

Focusing on disinherited people can bridge the divide

Maintaining a focus on the disinherited might give Christians a common starting point to discuss political issues.

If the topic is criminal justice reform, then the conversation can’t be just about punishing the guilty. We also have to talk about honoring the image of God even among the accused and incarcerated. If the subject is health care, then the focus can’t be simply on the amount of taxes we pay. We have to find ways for the poorest people to obtain the best possible service. If the matter is immigration, then discussions can’t focus solely on protecting our borders. We have to think about ensuring safety for both our nation and those who seek to enter it.

This does not mean all our policy solutions will match. A view of politics from the standpoint of the least powerful will still lead people to different political stances.

But perhaps if more Christians kept the disinherited and their well-being central in discussions of political power, we could have more fruitful dialogue across partisan divides.

Thurman summed up our obligations to one another in the theme of neighborliness.

“Every man is potentially every other man’s neighbor,” he said. “Neighborliness is nonspatial; it is qualitative.”

As a guiding principle of Christian participation in politics, love of neighbor puts us all in service to one another.

Jemar Tisby, author of The Color of Compromise, is president of The Witness: A Black Christian Collective, where he writes about race, religion and culture.

KELLER (RNS) — I am a Baptist minister, church planter and an evangelical Christian.

And I am worried about religious freedom for billions of people around the world.

In nations from Afghanistan to Vietnam, religious people are being threatened, jailed, banned or otherwise restricted from practicing their religion, according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Perhaps nowhere in the world is this seen more than in China.

No faith group faces more persecution than Uighur Muslims

Recently, tens of thousands of Uighur Muslims have been put in re-education camps. They’ve seen their places of worship and their way of life being destroyed by a government that sees them as a threat. “We’re a people destroyed,” one Uighur man told The Guardian recently.

The Xinjiang province, where many Uighurs live, is being turned into a “police state,” USCIRF said earlier this year.

“By installing Communist Party cadres in Uighur homes and detaining countless innocent Uighurs in extrajudicial ‘re-education camps,’ the Chinese government has created a culture of fear, suspicion, and mistrust throughout Xinjiang,” USCIRF Chairman Daniel Mark said.

Some of my evangelical friends see this news and are unconcerned. Instead, they ask: “What about Christians in China? Aren’t they being persecuted?”

Yes, Christians in China suffer and have suffered religious persecution for decades in China and other nations. But so have other religious traditions.

In China, right now, no faith group is facing more persecution than the Uighur Muslims.

For a Christian, an evangelical, and especially a Baptist — this is unacceptable.

Religious freedom must be for all people

Religious freedom isn’t just for your own faith. It’s for people of all faiths or it isn’t religious freedom at all. In our globalized, connected world, where all religions are now in all places, religious freedom has never been more critical.

I remember being at a church event once and praying for unreached people groups and the Uighur Muslims of western China were mentioned. I had never heard of them before. I didn’t know that there were Muslims in China. I only knew about the Christians there.

It may sound like a conflict of interest to pray that people come to know Jesus and yet also want them to have the freedom to practice a different faith. But it isn’t.

It is instead a rejection of my faith not to support the religious freedom of a person of another faith even if I believe Jesus is the only way.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of religious freedom just for me and mine. That is dangerous and not just for other people of other faiths but for my tribe of Christians as well.

The Puritans came to America for religious freedom, to escape persecution and freely practice their religion. Sadly, they wanted to be free to practice “their” religion. Anyone else they persecuted.

It took one of their own, Roger Williams, to push that issue. Ultimately, he left the Puritans and became a Baptist who espoused religious freedom for all. In early America that included Jews — which is why Rhode Island — the colony founded by Williams — is home to the nation’s oldest synagogue.

Why Christians should support religious freedom for others

Let me give you three reasons why religious freedom for Muslims, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Yazidis, and the thousands of religions around the world should matter to my fellow Christians.

First, Williams spoke of religious freedom as freedom of conscience. Freedom of religion means choosing what you believe without coercion.

This is why religious freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment. No faith should be enforced by law or sword. I want people to believe in Jesus not because they don’t know there are other ways of seeing God, but because they see Jesus as fundamentally different from anything else. I don’t want them to believe — or say they believe — because someone forced them to.

Second is reciprocity. I can’t be willing to expect to receive from others what I myself am not willing to give to them.  I am part of a group of pastors and imams in Pakistan and the U.S. that work together and watch out for each other.

Some of my fellow Christians disagree with the work I do. They look at some Muslim-majority nations — where the rights of Christians are restricted — and say that the U.S. should restrict the rights of Muslims in this country as payback.  But religious freedom is a conviction, a doctrine, a truth that I practice regardless of what others do because it is a right — not a bargaining chip.

Third is a concern for Christians in other parts of the world. When Christians work in a coalition side by side with other religions for everyone’s religious freedom, it radically speeds up religious freedom and reduces persecution. My interest in promoting and fighting for religious freedom for Muslims and other religious groups makes it easier for me to ask for Christians to be protected.

‘I pray for the Uighurs’

For now, I will pray for the Uighurs. And for all those who are not free to practice what they believe.

This week I head to Uzbekistan with an imam and other members of a delegation to talk about religious freedom. That nation is beginning its journey towards more expansive religious freedom. Leaders there will present their plan, sign documents, and begin executing their plan to promote religious freedom — in a country currently on USCIRF’s list of countries of particular concern.

Their leaders are all on board and taking their first steps. Their efforts may not be perfect but they really are trying. I pray they succeed.

I pray for the Uighurs that their persecution will soon end and they will be free to practice their religion without restriction. I pray for my fellow Christians facing persecution in China and around the world. And I pray for all people of other faiths who are denied the right to worship as they choose.

Religious freedom for all religions in all places is coming to the whole world. It’s just a matter of time.

Bob Roberts is pastor of NorthWood Church in Keller, Texas.