Race and Justice in Our Time

The ongoing debates over race relations always seems to generate a great more heat than light. It seems like we keep going over the same topics over and over again, the same memes get shared, the same voices are trotted out to demonstrate this point or that point.

It’s hard to know where to turn for helpful resources that are going to enrich understanding, remain faithful to biblical truth, and yet push us along toward a deeper desire for goodness. There is simply so much frustration because we keep having the same conversation after each public event that even the most careful handling of this issue is liable to offend some.

Feel free to scroll to the bottom if you’ve heard all this before. There are some resources that I’ve found helpful and appropriate to this time.

But I am encouraged. Despite the sinful excesses of the rioters, it feels like there is a different tone to the conversation this time. There are more people who are seeing—sometimes for the first time—that equality under the law does not always result in equal treatment under the law. We are also seeing people ask questions about how they have perpetuated injustice by simply not seeming to care enough to speak up when confronted with it.

Our action has to be more than a token meme here or there. It has to go beyond a week’s interest when it’s the topic about which the news is blaring. It has to be a steady emphasis on making things better in real and tangible ways.

And that is really the key. It’s not Tweeting or pumping out Facebook content that matters. It’s taking careful action to diminish the negative reality of ongoing racial discrimination. For some people, the first step is admitting that racism is still real and active in our communities. Our duty is to pursue justice in our lives as we live for Christ.

Justice as a Duty for the Godly

Micah 6:8 is a helpful verse as we think about our duty to live justly:

“He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?”

Our God is a God of justice. It is the nature of God to be holy, righteous, and just. The Trinity is all those things and love at the same time. In this verse, which is known to many, Micah is simply summarizing what the Pentateuch already reveals: We are called to be a people who promote justice because we are called to be a people who look like the God of the universe. The pursuit of justice in the world around us is not a convenient add on to the faith, it’s the heart of what obedience looks like.

In Micah 6:8, “He has told you, O man, what is good,” refers to the testimony of God’s character that was already available to Micah and his audience. This line is pointing back to the Law and telling Israel--and also Christians as inheritors of the Hebrew Bible—that to live faithfully, we need to look at God’s character, which is partially revealed through the Law. And the Law is a call to live as agents of justice in the spheres that we have influence.

To be godly is to live justly. That is the refrain of the Law. Obedience to the law does not justify, but it does promote justice as we live out imperfectly the character of God.

Make no mistake, the Law reflects God’s character and obedience is due because of God’s character. To list a few examples, that refrain accompanies the Law in Leviticus 11:44, 11:45, 18:2, 18:4, 18:5, 18:6, 18:21; Numbers 3:41, 3:45, 10:10, 15:41. There are many more examples. Some of these laws relate to proper relationship with God through ceremonial sacrifices. Many of the laws relate to proper relationship to other humans by honoring parents, leaving gleanings for the poor, and not causing the blind to stumble. They all relate to living justly according to the character of God.

Justice, therefore, is not an extracurricular activity of Christianity, it is at the core of the Christian faith. When Jesus is asked which is the great commandment in the law in Matthew 22:34–40, he states:

 “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (vv. 37-40)

Love God. Love neighbor. The first is greater, but the second is like it. To love you neighbor is, in a very real sense, to demonstrate your love for God. To love your neighbor is to love the image of God in your neighbor. To love your neighbor is to do justice toward your neighbor.

The Golden Rule and Justice

The so-called Golden Rule is a helpful but often misunderstood aspect of living justly. And, again, it is an instruction from God, in the words of Jesus himself, that points us back to the Old Testament for much of its content. Jesus says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:12)

Unfortunately, when I hear this passage cited it is often in the context of a call to leave others alone or simply not to intentionally make someone else’s life harder. When kids are being mean to each other we are tempted to say, “Do unto others.” By which we mean that they should stop being a pest and leave their sister be.

Non-interference with others is certainly part of the meaning of the Golden Rule, but it’s the easy half. The harder half is to actually do to others what we wish someone would do for us. There is an active call to go out of our way to do things that make someone’s life better. “Do unto others” has become such a cliché that we sometimes miss what is a really hard call to obedience, grounded in the Old Testament, which reveals God’s character. So we’re back to Micah sharing God’s word with us that we are to do justice and love kindness. This is an active pursuit of justice on another’s behalf rather than simply an avoidance of injustice as an abstinence of sin.

This is a whole-Bible issue and an all-of-faith-in-God issue, not a side issue that we should see as a secondary concern. Real justice, as God defines it, can never replace the gospel because it is a form of gospel proclamation to accompany our words. But the key here is that justice must be as God defines it.

But What is Justice?

The content of justice never changes and any claim about what is justice must be evaluated according to Scripture. This means that some things that masquerade as justice in our time are not truly just. In fact, simply because there is a statute on the books does not mean that the law is just. The nature of justice is oriented in the character of God, not in the context of our time.

But justice is worked out in the context of our time. So our task is “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” in the time that we have been given. We may choose to explore questions of justice in the future or the past. That may help us understand our time better, but we must always be clear that our call is to live justly in our time and to resist the injustices of our time.

The nature of justice does not change, but our context does shape what issues are significant for our time. Because context is always changing, some will accuse those pursuing justice of innovation. We will not find an exact parallel to our social questions. Racial disparities in mass incarceration, excessive force by rogue police are issues peculiar to our day. Racial bias may not have been a primary concern in more ethnically homogeneous settings.

In our age racial reconciliation and the pursuit of racial justice—the healing of decades of injustice—should be a priority in our personal lives and our communities.

What Does Justice Look Like Now?

The world is so rife with sin that it is impossible for us to bring about the kingdom of God through human effort. The good news is that God never commands us to do that. He’s going to do the heavy lifting, but he does, as we’ve seen, ask us to love our neighbor by pursuing godly character according to his word.

So, we’re called to be fair in our business dealings with others and to work for a more just marketplace. As Proverbs 20:10 notes, “Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Justice is fair dealing, but it also means working toward reforms in the economy that due to their very structure disadvantage particular groups. In some cases, this could be by working to reform excessive licensure requirements for certain professions. For example, many states require more than a thousand hours of training to cut someone’s hair. There may certainly be some health and safety training needed, but the excessive burden puts up a barrier to the poor for a reliable career path.

This example is painless because most of us aren’t barbers worried about excessive competition, so changing those statutes doesn’t negatively impact us. But it could make a big difference to someone on the bottom of the economic ladder in our society.

The key is to begin to notice that there is a problem. Then to pursue justice through righteous means.

Race and Justice

It is the noticing part that often comes the hardest in questions of race.

Many people who are not in the majority consistently fail to notice the pervasive bias against minorities. Some people have invested a great deal of time in the past few weeks presenting the narrative that there is no pervasive bias against minorities. I once believed that myself.

But then I began to look around and see things that I had never seen before. They were always there, but I’d never noticed. Here are a few examples:

To a person, every African American I have asked about it has had an excessively negative interaction with a police officer at some point. One sedate-looking African American with a PhD with salt and pepper hair had an officer draw his gun on him before he even got to the door of his truck. There was no apparent reason.

Multiple upper-middle class African Americans have told me about being asked by police why they were running when they were in an affluent neighborhood (even their own), as if heart disease might not be enough of a reason. The real implication was that they weren’t where they were supposed to be.

None of these were fatal, and most of them were simply escalated interest, as with the question while jogging. But the simple fact is that this is an alien experience to most whites, but a common (not to say universal) one for African Americans. Most of these experiences do not show up in statistics on policing, because either the result was a traffic ticket or an awkward discussion. But the experiences are real.

There is a greater general suspicion toward people of color in retail establishments. We might expect a heightened level of concern with kids in trench coats with big pockets wandering through the music store. But when someone goes in dressed like a soccer mom with dark skin, there is little reason to suspect them of shoplifting any more than a woman with a lighter complexion. And yet, the anecdotal evidence, which will never show up as a “fact that doesn’t care about feelings” on someone’s report, builds with every person that I’ve talked to.

It’s easy to miss the real problem because people can pull out stats that lethal force has been used more often on a numerical basis and roughly equally on a percentage basis on whites than on blacks. Let’s accept that statistic as true, but also accept that some of the most important facts aren’t measured in the available data. The regular indignities of heightened surveillance don’t show up in anyone’s data. We all become data-driven when it suits our purposes and supports our narrative. But the reality, as we argue when the reported data runs against our viewpoint, is that statistics don’t tell the whole story.

The first step in working toward justice is recognizing there is injustice. In the case of race in the United States, that means stepping into someone else’s shoes, taking their concerns seriously, and listening when they explain the problem. That isn’t humiliation or subjugation, it’s just common courtesy. In the past few weeks I’ve seen some exaggeration, but a lot more honest, sorrowful explanation. It isn’t all a hoax and we should be able to see that.

Conclusion

There is a whole lot of work to do beyond recognizing there is a problem. I’m not the expert on the issue and each of us should have a different response depending on where we live, what our responsibilities are, and what opportunities we have. Our duty is to work out justice in our situation right here and right now without trying to figure out how it should have been done or could be better facilitated by another group over there.

I’m going to include several videos below that were produced by people I know well and trust.

---

This discuss is between my former pastor, Anthony Rhone and my former colleague Heath Thomas, and it is on the topic of justice. In particular justice in our context of a racialized United States.

My former pastor, Anthony Rhone, preached on the important question of who is our neighbor directly in response to the protests and riots after George Floyd’s murder. He is an excellent, biblical preacher and this is a good example of his preaching on an important topic.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted a helpful panel discussion for pastors on shepherding a church through a racially tense time. I found this conversation gracious and practical.

Another important conversation at my alma mater about the ethics of racial injustice.

The Madness of Crowds - A Review

I was on a major university campus recently and was struck first by the affluence that surrounded me. Beyond the significant tuition payments and nice dorm buildings, there were very few “beater” cars on display. Most of the vehicles looked fairly new—something radically different than the way college kids used to drive. The university is huge, so it is really a city within a city, and both of those cities are affluent. There was a rarefied air of wealth and sophistication.

More significantly there were posters, fliers, and bumper stickers that declared opposition to “colonization,” support of various identities, and a host of other positions that reside somewhere on the left-wing of global politics.

To be clear, racism remains a significant issue in our world and must be combated. There are still misogynists and cads who use their power to abuse and undermine women. There are bullies that pick on anyone who doesn’t fit in with certain norms and attempt to demonize them.

At the same time, there are significant points where the movements that are calling for “justice” along different lines of gender, race, and identity seem to make their arguments on indefensible and sometimes self-contradictory grounds. Though they profess to be concerned about others wielding power,they seem to be altogether too prepared to swing their own billy clubs, often figuratively and sometimes literally, in the name of their preferred positions. This extra-judicial enforcement of their ideas and positions seems to undermine the nature of justice as it has been understood in most civilizations of which we have record.

Douglas Murray’s book, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity, takes a closer look at the various neo-Marxist movements to examine their foundations and abuses. Murray stands on what would be described the “conservative” side of many of these debates, since he indicates a belief in truth that should be pursued apart from one’s self-interest. At the same time, Murray is himself an openly gay atheist. This means that he certainly does not agree with many social conservatives on issues like the redefinition of marriage, the morality of same-sex erotic relationships, and the existence of God. This makes his critique of the various identity movements intriguing and, perhaps, more powerful.

Summary

As a gay man, Murray begins with a critique of the portion of that portion of the left’s culture war. While he is openly in support of recent inventions like the Obergefell decision that arbitrarily redefined marriage, he is careful to note that within the last decade, there were multiple gay-rights organizations, including the Stonewall organization, that opposed gay marriage. A big portion of his argument here is that, although he thinks the changes are largely good, it might be more reasonable to expect people who hold to millennia-old positions on sexual morality to take a while to come around to an affirmation of a newly invented concept.

In the second content chapter, Murray examines the current presentation of the feminist movement. His point in this chapter is that the movement is largely contradictory and puts everyone in a nearly impossible situation. There are obvious statistically significant differences between men and women in general, but to note those things publicly is, for some, a high crime. Attempts to undermine bias have created processes that necessarily bias organizations and culture in ways that tend to cut the feed from under those they are intended to help. In addition, the identity-oriented science arguments of feminism (e.g., there are no fundamental differences between men and women based on genetics) come into direct opposition with the theories favored by many in the various gay movements (e.g., there are fundamental differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals based on genetics), which creates issues. The issue becomes more epistemological than political at some point.

The third content chapter wrestles with the racial justice movement, which in its best aspects has led to awareness of systemic wrongs and worked to correct them. On the other hand, the same movement has also sought to make race (one of) the most important aspects of a human’s essence and thus made it more possible for systemic bias to continue or grow. In some cases, the result has been a new systemic bias against a different set of minorities, as has been evidenced by Harvard’s discrimination against Asians in admissions. This also puts people in weird spots, so that whites have to self-deprecate to speak against racism or be perceived as colonizers. The struggle in many cases seems to be more about power than truth.

The final content chapter discusses the transgender movement. Murray expresses sympathy with individuals who legitimately struggle with a sense of discomfort with their bodies and believe they would be more satisfied presenting as the opposite sex. At the same time, he notes that the movement for trans-rights has short-circuited the processes that might guard someone from making irreversible, life-altering decisions without considering that there might be another possible cause or solution. He discusses multiple examples where people who express minimal discomfort with their sex are quickly stepped down the road toward chemical and surgical transition, without a thorough vetting. Again, there are epistemological questions about the nature of truth and whether even asking questions (“Is your feeling true and lasting?”) is perceived as harmful.

Between each of these chapters is an interlude that explores some of the underlying causes and further consequences of this rapid epistemological shift. Murray discusses the Marxist foundations of the movement, which serves to continually enhance human discomfort by undermining power structures. He notes the impact of tech, with rapid communication, the inability to have a private conversation, and the work of Google’s search manipulations to present an alternate reality. Finally, he includes a section on one of the worst aspects of these movements, which is that there is no place or possibility of forgiveness. Statements that were uncontroversial a decade ago can now be used to destroy people who are deemed undesirable. Context matters little, as long as the right things are opposed violently and openly.

Analysis and Conclusion

Murray’s book is helpful in many ways. He points to the unsustainability of much of what passes for the social justice movement. The quest for destruction of power necessarily creates an oppressive power that will likely be as bad or worse a master.

The danger of Murray’s book is that his examples of gross abuses of various identity movements to pursue hatred and destruction of the innocent may lead some to believe that we need only resist those movements. That is most likely to occur among those who don’t actually read the book, or do so only cursorily. Murray takes concerns for the persecution of gay and trans individuals seriously, but notes that the movements that claim to support them are destroying the possibility of their being accepted or the society that will be able to accept them. In attempting to shift the Overton window, these groups may rip the house off its foundations, leaving us all cold and miserable in the winter storms.

The value of this book is that it looks beyond the gross abuses of violence and power by the various identity movements to interrogate the intellectual basis and question the logical conclusions. The result is an exposé that is illuminating, even if readers do not agree with all of Murray’s conclusions. There are a few points where Murray seems to drift a bit into outrage porn, but on the whole, he takes a fairly balanced view and calmly makes his arguments. This book, of course, is likely to be panned as violent oppression by many within the various justice movements simply because it questions some of the foundations and outcomes of their movement. However, it would benefit many on the left and the right to read the book and consider their own positions.

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity

By Murray, Douglas

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

The Human Swarm - A Review

As Western Civilization seems to be fraying rapidly, the nature and origins of human societies seems significant. Why do societies arise? Why do they hold together? What makes them fall apart? These are big questions whose answers help explain human history and the world around us.

Mark Moffett explores these giant-sized questions in his recent book, The Human Swarm: How Our Societies Arise, Thrive, and Fall.

According to his biography, Moffett is something of a misfit. He dropped out of high school but managed to get a PhD from Harvard. His degree was in biology, but he has done more journalism than anything else. He was a student of E. O. Wilson, who is an intriguing figure himself, and likely has a million stories to share.

The book is long and expansive in scope. As such, it has more of a theme than a thesis. Moffett doesn’t grind away at a particular point as he does show the general direction that his research has pointed. This may sound like a criticism, but it is a strength in this case, because to force analogies of insects and animals onto humanity tends to result in critical failures. And yet, Moffett makes the case that we can learn something from the way societies form among non-human creatures. He does not rely on zoological observations alone, though, but also draws on research from anthropology of various human societies at various levels of organization and structure.

There are nine sections in this large volume. Section I begins by discussing how individual creatures are recognized as part of a group (e.g., enemy vs. friend). Section II explores anonymous societies, noting some significant similarities between ants and humans in our ability to socialize with those whom we don’t know as individuals. The third section dives into anthropology, looking at hunter-gatherer societies in human history. Section IV continues in anthropology (with zoological analogies) by considering how cultural markers can tie anonymous individuals together.

In the fifth section, Moffett digs into the human psyche, specifically evaluating how types, family relations, and other associations can aid creatures in existing in societies. Section VI evaluates whether conflict is a given, ultimately concluding that it is likely inevitable at some level. The seventh section traces the rise and fall of various societies, making an implicit argument that decline is inevitable and not entirely bad. More significantly, this section shows how societies morph over time. In Section VIII Moffett outlines how tribes turn into nations and, eventually, fracture. Then, finally, in Section IX, Moffett asks hard questions about ethnic and racial differences, whether societies are even necessary, noting that societies will always be a collection of people with differences.

The conclusion Moffett offers is that societies are generally good things, but they are also notably temporary things. Understanding their nature and proclivity toward fracture can be helpful as we wrestle the fracturing of our own society.

The Human Swarm is an engaging book. Well-written and copiously research. I am an expert in none of the disciplines that Moffett is drawing from, so I cannot critique whether he gets the nuances of various theories from a diverse range of fields correct. However, based on a review of the extensive end-notes in this volume, Moffett appears to have done his research faithfully and well. Not only does this work reflect copious research, but he thoughtfully engages with contrary theories, admitting disagreement where appropriate, in his notes. This is a book that bears the marks of being well-thought through, despite being an expansive volume that is wrestling with an interdisciplinary question.

A strength of this volume is that it avoids the naturalistic fallacy. There are times, especially when reading the distilled versions of scientific research, that firm conclusions are drawn in error. A scientist publishes research on aggression in Chimpanzees and either a popular interpreter or, sometimes, the scientist herself will draw straight-line conclusions to human behavior. Moffett recognizes the danger of this fallacy and avoids it. There are analogies between human societies and those of animals, they can provide some clues as to how societies form and creatures behave, but we cannot derive firm ethical conclusions from them.

Another significant strength of The Human Swarm is that Moffett does not romanticize any stage of human existence. The hunter-gatherer is recognized as a human with joy and suffering, interacting with the world as it was and in a particular context. There is neither the myth of a noble savage nor of the hapless primitive. We can learn about human behaviors by considering similarities and differences in typical behaviors in varied contexts.

One of the more helpful aspects of this volume is that it helps put contemporary politics in perspective. There are those who view America’s rise or fall (as categorized by the other party getting control) as dependent upon the next election. Though Moffett doesn’t talk about American politics at all, the framing of the constitution and disintegration of human societies within millennia helps put our current battles in perspective. The United States has been an imperfect union, better on balance than many other nations, but its rise or fall will not determine the final course of human events. In the meanwhile, Moffett provides some ideas about what makes societies cohere, which can help thinkers understand how cooperation and neighborliness can be cultivated.

This is one of those books that warrants being read, simply because of how well it is put together. There will be no reader who does not find points of agreement and disagreement with Moffett, but the final product is thoughtful and thought-provoking. For example, Moffett recognizes the goodness of a plurality of human cultures, but he also identifies the problem when immigrants within a larger society refuse to meaningfully integrate. On the other hand, he also notes that attempts to integrate excessively also have negative societal impacts. There is a tension that is necessary whenever societies mingle that cannot be resolved by the extreme proposals of either political pole.

There are careful considerations of how humans form their identities woven through this book. Contemporary scholars writing about human interactions would do well to read The Human Swarm alongside other, more theological, reflections.

Perhaps the factor that will most likely reduce the use of this volume is the sheer length. This is a comprehensive book, reaching back into basic animal behavior to finally arrive at signs and contributors to human society. It takes some patience to get to the end. This is an engaging book, overall, but there are points that a careful reader can easily lose sight of the final destination.

The Human Swarm: How Our Societies Arise, Thrive, and Fall

By Mark W. Moffett

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Rethinking Incarceration - A Review

Mass incarceration is a significant problem in the United States. The sheer number of people who are currently in the custody of the various levels of government is staggering. According to one advocacy group, approximately 2.3 million Americans were in some form of corrective custody in 2017. This is a dramatic burden to the population through expended tax revenue, but has an even greater cost for the families of those behind bars, for the communities decimated by this phenomenon, and the individuals who will be permanently marked with the status of ex-con or felon.

The problem of mass incarceration is complicated by unequal racial outcomes, which indicate that approximately 1 in 3 ethnic minorities will pass through the judicial system and spend time in some form of corrective custody. This inequity helps continue the perpetuation of negative images of minorities and accelerates what amounts to a downward spiral in some communities. A large number of minorities are imprisoned; therefore, they are perceived to be dangerous, then they are watched more closely and given fewer breaks, which leads to a larger number of incarcerations. This has negative effects of the general population’s perception of minorities and the perception of the judicial system and police force by minorities. Add in some cases of real corruption and legitimate hostility on both sides and you have something like the stand off we find ourselves in now with people arguing about the importance of black lives versus blue lives.

With that background, the recent volume by Dominique Dubois Gilliard, Rethinking Incarceration: Advocating for Justice that Restores, is timely and takes on a very important topic. The book consists of two parts.

Part one lays out various aspects that contribute to the problem of mass incarceration, with chapters on the war on drugs, a history of racial bias in law enforcement, an overzealous enforcement of law, issues with mental health and immigration, and the so-called school-to-prison pipeline. This portion of the volume is largely sociological and helpful in highlighting important elements of a significant source of injustice in our nation.

Part two is a theological argument intended to move readers of the volume to a doctrinal foundation that Gilliard believes will undermine mass incarceration. In this section, Gilliard offers chapters on Quaker involvement in American prisons, prison chaplaincy, penal substitutionary atonement, restorative justice, and a concluding plea for activism in dismantling mass incarceration. This section of the volume is less helpful and less well done.

There are two apparent theses in this book. First, that mass incarceration is a problem with underlying systemic injustices in the American legal system. Gilliard handles that element of the book well. He researched that section well and puts together a solid argument that has potential to convince a skeptical reader.

The second thesis of the book is that the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is the cause of the problem of mass incarceration. Unfortunately, Gilliard’s attempt at supporting this thesis is, at best, poor. By any fair measure, the theological argumentation of this section of the book is anemic and riddled with fundamental methodological errors, many of which should have been corrected prior to this book’s publication. These errors and the nature of Gilliard’s plea for rejecting the substitutionary atonement significantly diminish the value of this volume, in some cases making it more likely to cement bias against judicial reform among some conservative Christians than convince anyone of the issue’s importance.

Rethinking Incarceration is a useful book in that it raises awareness of a significant issue of systemic injustice. The work Gilliard does in highlighting the racial aspects of the history of mass incarceration is helpful. Unfortunately, by introducing a second thesis and calling for a rejection of a common, orthodox theory of the atonement and by doing so very poorly, Gilliard undermines the good work he does in the beginning of the book. My hope is that a better book from a more careful author will follow this book and lead to a continuing and more theologically robust discussion of this vital topic.

Rethinking Incarceration: Advocating for Justice That Restores

By Dominique DuBois Gilliard

Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Dream with Me - A Review

John Perkins is a hero of the faith. I have little doubt that within a few decades he will be featured in biographies written for children as an example of someone who did a great work for the glory of God.

His is far from a household name in many circles, unfortunately. In fact, it has only been in recent years that I’ve encountered his story which typically isn’t flashy, but exudes the powerful, life-changing reality of the gospel.

For those new to John Perkins’ story, he is an African American man from Mississippi. If that doesn’t tell you enough, know that his brother was killed by police officers decades ago, he himself was severely beaten while in police custody, and his son suffered mightily as one of the forerunners of the school integration efforts in the ‘60s.

This is a man who has every reason to be bitter, angry, and to despise whites. He’s been given reason upon reason to reject the offers of reconciliation and partnership from the ethnic groups who were responsible for so much of his pain.

He has not reacted that way, though. Perkins came to Christ as the result of his son’s invitation to attend Sunday School. Hearing the gospel turned his heart away from the natural bitterness of his experience and led to the changed heart who has influenced many for Christ. It also set in motion the work Perkins has done in making society more just.

His recent book, Dream with Me: Race, Love, and the Struggle We Must Win, is an autobiography. At 86 years old, Perkins offers this book as a self-conscious reflection on how God has worked in and through him for decades. The volume has fourteen chapters, which move in roughly chronological fashion. The chapters are thematic, telling pieces of Perkins’ story, along with a great deal of thoughtful reflection along the way.

Like most autobiographies, the best parts of this book are not the histories that he recounts, but his explanation of his perspective. Listening to an aging man explain why he did some things and not others, and what he would have done differently is pure gold. This is distilled, bottled wisdom for those who are fortunate and diligent enough to read it.

One of the most powerful aspects of this book is Perkins’ reflection on some of the sources of the vicious discrimination African Americans faced prior to and during the civil rights movement, when public displays of racism were tolerated and encouraged. Perkins notes that some of the worst racial violence came from poor whites in the South—people who were in much the same economic straits that many blacks were in during that time. However, those poor whites had something that the blacks didn’t—white skin.

Instead of commiserating and cooperating with people in similar economic straits, some poor whites cashed in on the only asset they possessed—the cultural cache of being white—using it to gain positions of relative power, like prison guard, deputy sheriff, etc. They also took opportunities to reinforce their “superiority” over people of color, living out the idea that pushing someone else down could lift them up. The reality, of course, is that such actions simply made everything worse for everyone.

Perkins is able to reflect on this condition retrospectively with grace. He’s a better man than I am, I’m sure. Instead of being angry about how poorly he was treated and how much pain many whites caused his family and friends, Perkins demonstrates a gospel-fueled love.

That’s a big piece of Perkins’ life message and the message of this book. Love, the sort of love that comes from the regeneration of hearts by the love of Christ and the power of the gospel, has the power to change things. It’s easy to forget that. Or, perhaps it’s hard to believe that when crowds are shouting at you, death threats are coming, and you simply want the equal justice the law requires. In Dream with Me, Perkins gives an example of what it looks like.

I’m not always a fan of autobiographies, but this is a book that deserves to be read. It will serve as an encouragement and lodestar for many engaged in the slow moving process of gospel reconciliation.

Dream with Me: Race, Love, and the Struggle We Must Win

$12.08

By John M. Perkins

Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Enduring Truth - A Review

Aaron Lavender of Carver Baptist Bible College, Institute, and Theological Seminary has recently released a book with B&H Academic that, I believe, provides a much needed word for all Christians of all times. His book is directed toward the particular context of improving the theological quality of African American preaching, but most of the examples and lessons are applicable to any ethnic context.

Summary and Analysis

Enduring Truth: Restoring Sound Theology and Relevance to African American Preaching contains four content chapters bookended by an introduction and conclusion. Lavender begins by addressing the problems he sees with biblical preaching in African American pulpits. He notes that many African American churches have suffered due to the segregation of theological training and social segregation over the previous generations. As a result of many theologically conservative colleges and seminaries excluding or restricting access by African Americans, Lavender argues some bad theological tendencies have developed. He describes a significant mishandling of the Word of God that is widespread and has lead to the propagation of Black Liberation theology and the Prosperity Gospel instead of sound, biblical teaching. In other cases, showmanship and style have replaced substance in African American pulpits. This amounts to a crisis in African American churches.

In Chapter Two, Lavender moves to discuss the goal. Having stated the crisis, he unveils a vision for exegetical preaching, including its importance and its methodology. This chapter is concise and worthy of reading by prospective preachers of any ethnicity. In particular, Lavender tackles the issue of single versus multiple meanings as it pertains to exegesis of Scripture. Progressive evangelicals regularly assault conservatives for believing there is one primary meaning intended by the God-inspired authors of Scripture. Lavender defends the singular intended meaning, but also clearly notes that a given text may have diverse implications and applications in varying context. Lavender handles this issue and other similarly complex issues clearly, carefully, and concisely, which help to make this a good introductory volume.

Lavender builds a brief theology of preaching in the third chapter. Here he moves the reader to understand that preaching is more than simply regurgitating the results of Bible study, but it is a performative act in which the clear content of Scripture is presented clearly as a message of good news to a particular audience. However, Lavender cautions against preaching turning into a performance: “[The preacher] has not been called to entertain or mesmerize his listeners.” Instead, he should seek to reprove, rebuke and exhort. Scripture is to be the center of the preaching, because it is the message of Scripture not the charisma of the messenger that is intended to reshape the lives of the listening congregation. In this chapter, Lavender also considers some elements of preaching that are unique to an African American context. He evaluates both the strengths and pitfalls of “whooping” (“when the preacher’s words begin taking on a musical quality”) and “participatory proclamation” where the congregation is vocal in response to the preacher’s message. The purpose of this chapter is to frame a vision for expository preaching within the particular contours of the African American context.

Chapter Four closes the body of this brief volume by discussing the ever important search for relevance in preaching. In this chapter the author skims the surface of postmodernism, providing a critique that should keep the biblically informed from delving into the allure of epistemology murkiness. Lavender also discusses the importance and dangers of contextualization, which functions as further buttressing against a full-throated Black Liberation theology. Lavender urges his readers to contextual well, but cautiously. Seeking to apply the Scriptures to the lives of the hearers without diminishing the central message and authority of the Word itself is a challenge that every faithful preacher must navigate carefully. Lavender provides sound advice for his audience. This chapter concludes with a question an answer section, with a variety of seasoned African American preachers explaining their approach to the craft of preaching.

Conclusion

At under 100 pages of text, this is the sort of resource that could be useful in mentoring prospective young preachers in any context, but particularly within an African American context.

One of the clear messages that I received from this volume as a white evangelical Christian is that within the African American context, Aaron Lavender has the same concerns about biblical fidelity and faithfulness to the message of Scripture that I have had in a predominately white context. As we continue to work toward racial reconciliation, this makes it clear that conservative Christians of various ethnicities should be able to work together in the common cause of redemption of biblical preaching, even when styles and techniques differ.

Finally, this is an important book that should be read across ethnic lines. Within the African American context, it will provide a focused critique and corrective to possible errors. Within the majority evangelical context, it has the potential to provide an introductory understanding to some of the distinctive aspects of African American preaching (like “whooping” and congregational response), which can seem distracting initially, but which have a historical and theological foundation within that tradition. If you are a white evangelical seeking to be a bridge builder to theologically aligned African Americans in your community, this book will help you understand their context better.

Enduring Truth: Restoring Sound Theology and Relevance to African American Preaching

$21.23

By Aaron E. Lavender

Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Worth Reading - 10/8

Here are some of the more significant posts and podcasts that I've come across this week.

1. A history and overview of the Gregorian Calendar from Vox. Likely not the most important thing you'll read this week, but one of the more interesting. We are due for something a little lighter and more interesting right now, I think.

The fundamental problem that anyone making a calendar has to grapple with is the fact that it takes just a shade more than 365 days for Earth to make a full trip around the sun. More precisely, it takes 365.24219 days. . . .

This dilemma was grasped early on by astronomers in Alexandria, Egypt, who helped Julius Caesar devise a new calendar in 46 BC. Until that point, the Roman calendar was a messy hodgepodge, with months based on the cycles of the moon and extra days tacked on in February every now and again based on the whims of politicians. Caesar wanted a steadier, more reliable way to mark the dates.

But the new Julian calendar that resulted was still flawed. It had a leap day every four years, which turned out to be an overcorrection. The average year now had 365.25 days in it — just a shade more than 365.24219.

By the 1570s, those slight differences had added up. The calendar was now out of sync with the solar year by about 10 days.

2. This is not new, but it has been making the rounds of late. It is a satirical academic article poking fun at the textual critical methods often used to denigrate the validity of Scripture. This time, however, it's being applied to the works of A.A. Milne. A worthwhile article for a chortle, and it exposes some of the tomfoolery that goes on in higher critical circles.

Since on the earthly level the chief focus of attention in the corpus is the hero Pooh, on the mythological plane great importance must be attached to the deity whom he worships. Pooh is of course a devotee of the goddess Honey. The stated time of her service he observes with unfailing regularity – as we learn from H 5.82 it is 11am (a traditional time for divine service). He speaks of this hour as the time when 'I generally get home. Because I have One or Two things to Do.' Naturally he speaks indirectly of his faith when addressing an unbeliever (Rabbit), but the capitalization makes plain that the things to be done are the performance of sacred acts. Pooh is no ordinary lay worshipper of Honey, but obviously a priest dedicated to her service; his so-called 'house', liberally furnished with 14 or 15 cult-objects (pots) (H 3.35), which he speaks of as 'comforting' to him (H 3.36) – which is the very function of religion – is undoubtedly a sanctuary, a 'house' or temple, of Honey.

Honey is a fertility goddess (cf. the use in the common language of 'honey' as a synonym for 'love', and the frequent use of terms for sweetness as endearments). She is referred to in the old gnomic saying, 'What is sweeter than Honey, what is stronger than a lion?' (originally, 'What is stronger than a Tigger?'). She is frequently alluded to in the Pooh corpus by reverential periphrases such as befit a deity of her statue, e.g. 'a little something' (W 8.116; H 4.56), 'a little smackerel of something' (H 1.2). I should like here to make the suggestion that we have in the figure of Honey a clue to the enigmatic inscription to be found in one of the primitive illustrations (W 1.18) Bath Mat. This is surely the Hebrew bath me'at 'Daughter of a Little', a well-known Semitic idiom for A Little Something.

3. A few weeks ago, mega-church pastor Andy Stanley leaped into his latest controversy by declaring that the Bible is an impediment to evangelism. Since he likes seeing people saved, he tries to avoid referencing the bible in his "sermons" on Sunday. His defenders argue that his methods work and he stills says the right things. His less rabid attackers have continue to push on the problems of stripping the Bible from the congregation. Jared Wilson picks up some of the more significant problems in this post.

If I may speak to another issue I believe central to the more recent debate about the sufficiency and reliability of the Bible in worship gatherings and in evangelism and apologetic conversations with unbelievers: I think if we trace back some of these applicational missteps to the core philosophy driving them, we find in the attractional church a few misunderstandings. The whole enterprise has begun with a wrong idea of what — biblically speaking — the worship gathering is, and even what the church is.

In some of these churches where it is difficult to find the Scriptures preached clearly and faithfully as if it is reliable and authoritative and transformative as the very word of God, we find that things have effectively been turned upside down. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul uses the word “outsider” to describe unbelievers who are present in the worship gathering. He is making the case for our worship services to be intelligible, hospitable, and mindful of the unbelievers present, but his very use of the word “outsider” tells us that the Lord’s Day worship gathering is not meant to be primarily focused on the unbelieving visitor but on the believing saints gathered to exalt their king. In the attractional church paradigm, this biblical understanding of the worship gathering is turned upside down—and consequently mission and evangelism are actually inverted, because Christ’s command to the church to “Go and tell” has been replaced by “Come and see.”

Many of these churches—philosophically—operate more like parachurches. And the result is this: it is the sheep, the very lambs of God, who basically become the outsiders.

4. The Winning Slowly podcast did a good job covering the nature and problem with civil forfeiture. It isn't the highest injustice on many people's list, but it does have a significant negative impact on people. It's worth listening to this brief discussion to get an idea of what the concept is and how you can help.

5. A University of Toronto professor refuses to use the neutral "they" for individuals who label themselves transgender. This has, obviously, caused a great deal of hoopla and accusation of bigotry. His argument is careful. He is not a prude, nor even opposed to the sexual revolution. It's worth reading the argument to see how he responds. The last paragraph, which I quote here, has significant explanatory power for contemporary politics and may present a view of the future.

It's not the role of society to make people feel included. That's not the role of society. The role of society is to maintain a modicum of peace between people. It's not the role of society to make people feel comfortable. I think society is changing in many ways. I can tell you one thing that I'm very terrified of, and you can think about this. I think that the continual careless pushing of people by left wing radicals is dangerously waking up the right wing. So you can consider this a prophecy from me if you want. Inside the collective is a beast and the beast uses its fists. If you wake up the beast then violence emerges. I'm afraid that this continual pushing by radical left wingers is going to wake up the beast.

6. This is even more significant in light of the latest damning evidence about Trump's character. A young conservative explaining why he feels betrayed by the conservatives that have backed Trump in this election.

Many claim a vote for Trump out of desperation, and I can understand a desperate vote. A conservative should only vote for Donald Trump like a fox gnawing off a leg stuck in a trap. But publicly urging support for a candidate, even “given our choices,” is another matter. Conservatism has always wanted to win elections. It has been willing to compromise on candidates and platforms. But behind conservatism lay real principles, advocated not simply because they were popular or would win at the ballot box, but because they remain good and true. We should not promote a candidate who is the opposite of those principles in the hope that we are actually furthering them.

Others claim that Trump might advance the causes conservatives care about. Perhaps, but when conservatives I’ve trusted endorse Trump, it brings to mind Jack Sparrow's words from Pirates of the Caribbean: “Me, I’m dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it’s the honest ones you have to watch out for. You never can predict if they're going to do something incredibly stupid.” We can trust that Trump will continue to be dishonest. He is not worth pledging the honor of our movement.

It also brings to mind Doug Kmiec, the Pepperdine Law School professor who traveled the country making a Catholic case for Barack Obama. My friends and I thought that secular progressives were not going to take their cues from Catholic thought. Clearly, we were right. For his services, Doug Kmiec was made ambassador to Malta, but President Obama has never relied on Catholic leaders for advice as President Bush did. Before long, the Department of Health and Human Services started issuing mandates, forcing Catholic universities and religious orders to fight for their rights in court.

7. Even given the tense and especially rancorous election season, Trevin Wax provides a good word on how Christians should handle this election season. Give lots of space and grace.

“Christians, of all people, should remember that politics is not ultimate. There are more important things in life, truths that unite us across party lines into one body of Christ. Most of the issues we debate at the dinner table must fade away at the Table of our Lord.

So should we resort to publicly shaming people who decide to vote for one of these candidates? Twist the arms of those who, out of conscience, withhold their vote? Pounce on people when something happens you think makes them regret the decision they’ve made?

When we blast people who have come to a different ethical conclusion about the best way forward this election cycle, we give the impression that this year’s choice is ultimate. We look just like people on the Right and Left who live and breathe politics because they don’t see anything higher.

This won’t do. I have too many friends and family members and fellow church members on all sides of Election 2016 to let their choice in the voting booth affect my affection for them.”

8. Trillia Newbell wrote a very good post for the ERLC about the problem of apathy when it comes to issues of race.

“My point is there are plenty of stories about race today that should cause each of us to pause and ask hard questions.

Part of my friend’s struggle to care seems to me to be apathy. It’s simply easier to coast through life not worrying about others who aren’t immediately associated with you. It takes effort to know those not like us, to study history and ask hard questions. This apathy could be masked by the thought, “Haven’t we all moved past racism now?” But the stories above prove otherwise. We get used to “our own” and can soon fall into the temptation to be partial.

James, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke strongly about the temptation to be partial toward others, reminding us that it’s ultimately about the second of the great commandments—to love your neighbor as yourself. He wrote: “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:1, 8-9 ESV).”

9. Bruce Ashford raises some important points about religious liberty (note the absence of scare quotes) and why we really need a world where we can believe differently and live those beliefs out. This is too important an issue to allow the progressivist antagonists to silence conservatives of good will.

“Religious liberty is a first freedom because it stands at the center of what it means to be human. As a Constitutional freedom, it declares each person has value and dignity, each person is free to hold his or her own convictions about ultimate reality, and each person is guaranteed the liberty to align his or her life with those convictions. And just as importantly, each of us is free to do so openly, without fear.

When religious freedom is threatened, every other freedom is threatened as well. Religion alone can check the government’s perpetual intrusion on the liberties of individuals, groups, and mediating institutions. For that very reason, however, certain governmental and non-governmental actors in our nation wish to restrict religious liberty. Confining religion to the realm of privately held beliefs and semi-public houses of worship, would allow government to function in all manner of capacities beyond its Constitutional mandate. This is the very outcome being sought by certain progressive organizations and political actors.”

Speaking of Ethnicity

Race relations in the United States is becoming a third rail topic. Better to discuss politics and religion than to suggest there might be ongoing patterns of systemic racism in some circles.

If social media is any indication, some groups seem to think that by even discussing racial differences, others are fomenting and accentuating racism.

In extreme cases this is true. However, in most cases, the people discussing racial issues are dealing with the real difference between the minority and majority experience in the United States.

The Myth of Color Blindness

One of the arguments against discussing race is the argument that society should be “color blind.” The term means that we should not consider the color of people’s skin when making evaluations of people and their work.

Image Credit: Old Couple, used by CC license, http://ow.ly/oA8T303zFnk

I believe that most people engaged in discussions of race relations see “color blindness” as a desirable outcome in the long term. In Martin Luther King, Jr.’s iconic “I Have a Dream” speech, part of his dream is that people will not be judged by the color of their skin. Someday a future generation may reach that point.

Despite the desire to have a world in which skin color does not matter, that world does not exist now. We have a world in which ethnicity and skin color still do matter much more than they should.

At this point, there are some who will swoop down onto my argument like a vulture to point out certain statistics. What I’m speaking of here is more than just statistics—whether the statistics support certain percentages of killings by ethnicity or disparate academic outcomes.

I’m speaking of the observed reality that my middle-class, professional, African-American friends have on average been pulled over many more times than I have for no more apparent cause. I’m speaking of the reality of my own observations of minority males of color being treated differently than me by authorities even while we were both in uniform. I’m speaking of the internal impulse in my own mind to make snap judgments about people based on their appearance.

I like statistics (in fact they are a fun part of my job), but they don't always tell the whole story. Sometimes they tell a different story than reality.

To claim that skin color does not influence societal evaluations is foolish. It’s like a person ignoring an infection in a limb.

Our Wounded Reality

Imagine if you get a cut in your finger while working a dirty job. You ignore the pain and keep working. You tell your hand that it is OK and that it is just like your other uninjured hand. Both hands are equally valuable to you, therefore it should stop hurting. Meanwhile it gets infected. However, you don’t clean the wound or treat it. You tell your hand that the cut was inflicted a couple of days ago and that it hasn’t been cut recently, so it should stop aching. Slowly the infection may heal, if conditions are right. Or, quite possibly, ignoring the legitimate needs of your hand could cause the infection to spread and perhaps even blood poisoning to set in.

At best, the neglected hand heals itself but may scar significantly or take longer to fully heal due to the lack of medical care. At worst, the blood poisoning spreads and kills the individual with the injured hand. In both cases consequences could have been avoided by taking timely, appropriate action.

Few people would ignore an injured hand. Instead, most people react to a cut by getting first aid, keeping it clean, and treating the injured hand differently for a time. The common sense understanding is that the wounded hand may have different needs for a time.

There is wisdom in recognizing there is a difference between the hands and taking care of the wound.

Our contemporary reality of race relations is something like this analogy.[1]

The Reality of Injury

To provide just one example, African-Americans were economically and socially harmed by American society by being enslaved and later by unjust laws that were in place in the middle of the last century. There are enough evidences of ongoing negative racial bias that we need to accept that such bias continues to exist in some cases. (See: the alt-right movement)

There has been legitimate injury done that will necessarily take time to heal. It may also take focused attention to promote healing, which includes at least being free to talk about racial differences without being accused of fomenting division.

Until healing occurs, we need to recognize that there are differences in society between the experiences of people of different ethnicities. Stereotypes built on generations of observed behavior, depictions in entertainment media, and self-selected identities all impact the experience of people in the United States. It takes time to change these deeply seated societal ideas, but the first step is to recognize they exist. Someday we may be able to be “color blind,” but we aren’t there yet. In many cases we really aren’t that close.

Moving Toward Change

We should long for the day when ethnicity is a point of interesting difference, like discussing where people grew up and what their favorite home-cooked food is. However, the experience of racial minorities in the United States is often significantly different than that of the majority. If you want to know what sorts of differences exist, talk to a few minorities. Their experiences will be unique, but some common patterns will tend to emerge if the sample size is large enough.

Unless we address the injustice of some of those differences, the healing process will not progress very quickly. Unless people are free to explain what is wrong without being accused of hate and division, we can never have meaningful conversations.

We can certainly have meaningful discussions about the best ways to deal with our differences. There is no simple solution for undoing the intentional harm inflicted in and by previous generations. There is no single, easy method of eliminating the often obscure, but deeply seated biases of contemporary perceptions.

However, until people are allowed to have open, charitable conversations about the existence of differences because of ethnicity, society will be unable to move to the next phase of healing.

[1] The analogy obviously breaks down at some point. I am not inferring that racial minorities are somehow infected limbs that should be removed from society. Quite the reverse. I am hopeful that this analogy will illustrate the interconnectedness of society and the value in promoting social healing for overall health. Just as one does not blame the hand for being wounded, we should not blame minorities for past ills inflicted by society.

Under Our Skin - Benjamin Watson Discusses Race in America

When Benjamin Watson, a Tight End in the NFL, wrote a Facebook post in the aftermath of the Ferguson, MO decision, some hailed it as a “race-baiting” others saw it as an attempt by at least one person to try to make sense of the racial tension in our world.

The thing is, whether we all like to admit it or not, race is still an issue in the United States. For the most part we’ve gotten over the biggest obstacles to living with one another: Jim Crow has been repealed, discrimination based on ethnicity is forbidden, and society doesn’t generally tolerate overt racists.

However, that doesn’t mean that the issue is settled. It isn’t. And the reason that we need to talk about it is so that we can identify and begin to root out subtler forms of bias against other races.

Benjamin Watson’s book, which was co-authored by Ken Petersen, tries to bring gracious light on the issue from the perspective of one African-American. This is a book that will make you think, even if you don’t agree with all of the details. That is, it will make you think as long as you take the time to read it and try to see what Watson is really communicating.

Summary

The book includes an introduction and eleven chapters. The topics of ten of the chapters come directly from the bullets in Watson’s original, viral Facebook post.

Watson begins with anger, but he recognizes what it is and moves beyond anger to establish a gracious tone. He invites the reader in to his perspective on the status of race relations in general and the Ferguson decision in particular. This chapter shows that our starting point can shape how we view the justice of the ending point. Instead of arguing with his readers, he tries to show why he arrives at his perspective.

That’s really the point of the book. It makes the reader aware that there is another perspective and that it is rational. In the end, the reader chooses to believe it or not, but a fair reader should walk away with a better understanding of Watson’s view of race in the United States. Although he certainly doesn’t speak for all African-Americans, his perspective is authentic and winsome. It can’t hurt much to think about things from his point of view.

In much the same way, the remaining ten chapters examine emotions that Watson experienced in response to the Ferguson decision. Introspection, embarrassment, frustration, fearful confusion, and sympathetic sadness are among them. Add to these things feeling offended and hopeless, but at the same time encouraged and empowered. Watson walks through how all these emotions were a part of his response. He does this without giving into any of them or becoming so rational that he discounts the power of the emotions.

Reaction

This isn’t a book on theology with a linear argument that I can critique. Even if it was, that isn’t the point of the book. The point of the book is to get the discussion about race going. It is intended to get one side to see that there is more to the conversation than facts and figures; simply showing that overt racism has been banned is not the end of the story. It is intended to show the other side how to begin a discussion without so much anger that your words can’t be heard.

I think that Watson succeeds in providing a gracious beginning point for conversation.

Watson’s book helps me, a white man, to better understand what it’s like to see things from his perspective. He puts into gracious terms some of the bits and pieces of testimony I’ve heard from friends that are part of racial minorities. I can’t have ever experienced these things, but I can certainly appreciate his perspective better now because he presents his case so carefully.

It is shameful that for many people on the political right simply talking about race has become a divisive political issue. Of course, often that idea is intentionally promoted, as some try to use racial division to paint the other side into a corner. But the issue is too important to allow it to driven by politics.

When we are talking about race, we are talking about people made in the image of God. We are talking about how we treat one another and whether justice is being done. Those are gospel issues, not merely political issues. This is a conversation that we can’t afford to skip out on. This deserves a deep discussion and consideration of where we are as a society, not merely a cursory head nod to equality.

I am thankful for Watson’s book and that he took the time to write it. He’s making enough playing football that he didn’t have to take the time, and yet he did. I’m thankful for the way he engaged the question so that I could benefit from his perspective.

In the end, I’m hopeful that reading this book has helped me see things a bit more clearly and gives me the ability to have a bit more empathy. I’m hopeful that others will read the book and have a similar experience.

Under Our Skin: Getting Real about Race--and Getting Free from the Fears and Frustrations that Divide Us

$15.89

By Benjamin Watson

Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume in exchange for an honest review.

Here is a video Watson did with The Gospel Coalition on this topic: