All Truth Is God’s Truth: A White Paper on Integrational Christianity

 I write a daily devotional, mostly for myself and a group of Christian leaders from various church backgrounds and missions. I am moving through Proverbs, chapter by chapter, selecting those thoughts that God especially points out to me for me. Today, I came to Proverbs 22 noting that there is a normal division between verses 1 – 16 and 17 – 29. “Have I not written thirty sayings for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge, teaching you to be honest and to speak the truth, so that you bring back truthful reports to those you serve?” (Prov. 22:20, 21)  The “thirty sayings” according to most commentators are closely related to the Teaching of Amenemope, an Egyptian source of wisdom.¹ This does not devalue the inspiration of the Word of God or the following thirty proverbs cited, but rather reveals God is not merely Lord of Israel but also the God of all nations in all time. God can use truth found in non-Christian contexts for his honor and glory and for the instruction of his people.

 

Many Christians fail to properly and thoroughly integrate God’s Word with truth found in their professions or work. They look at their profession, mostly in the scientific realms, as separate and distinct from biblical revelation and its authority over their work. They value God’s Word as only moral authority for proper Christian behavior, but not applicable to their science or their professional work. The Society of Christian Scholars is a worldwide group of dedicated Christians in the various professions of the world, especially academic professions.² They see an integrational Christianity where God’s created order and truths are fused and integrated with biblical truth and revelation. They see all truth as God’s truth, not separate truths for a divided life between faith and science or academia. Organizations such as CMDA (Christian Medical and Dental Association) has chapters all over the country with doctors and medical personnel seeking to wed Christianity with their medical professions.³

 

When we say “all truth is God’s truth,” we do not mean that there is a neutral category of “truth” out there to be discovered and then brought under the authority of Scriptural revelation. What we mean is that any and all truth, no matter where it is found or uncovered or discovered, has already been revealed by the Creator God as part of his glorious creation. New “discoveries” are merely the unpacking or unveiling to our eyes and minds what God has already given to us in his created order. This is called by presuppositional Christian apologists “analogical” truth telling, where the Creator has given all truth to be used and discovered by us, his creatures.

 

We have this kind of “unveiling” even in the history of redemption. The Apostle Paul says it this way — “Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past.” And “No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7) This “mystery” is not like a spy novel mystery or an unexplained phenomenon, but rather God’s progressive revelation of the gospel through the ages. Paul was the one who “discovered,” or rather “uncovered,” this mystery of progressive redemption by divine revelation. Even in our day, we “see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (1 Cor. 13:12) What is “hidden” to us due to our sinful insights and human frailty will be made known at the Last Day, when Jesus comes again and reveals everything fully to us. 

 

The fact that God can use Egyptian wisdom writings as part of the Scriptural record should both astound and humble us. Our work is God’s work. We are to do everything to the “glory of God,” 1 Corinthians 10:31 declares. This means so much more than merely doing a “good job,” or making a “useful discovery” or giving a medical treatment that heals a disease. It is not merely that we are to be morally upright in doing these things, but the things themselves should reflect and point people to the “weightiness” of God in this world.⁴Until and unless we as Christian doctors and scientists and IT people and garbage collectors see and integrate God’s truth into what we say and do and think and discover, we are not glorifying God. We are treating the faith as a separate and almost “hidden” part of our lives and our thoughts. That, according to Rousas Rushdoony, a former conservative Presbyterian Christian writer, is “intellectual schizophrenia,” not biblical integration.⁵

 

I am watching a rerun of the TV series JAG (Judge Advocate General Corps). One episode is about the court martial of a Gulf war commander, an outspoken Christian man, claiming that this war was a war against Satan inspired Islam.⁶ He had made public comments to this effect in a sermon he gave in a Baptist church in Alexandria, VA as well as in chapel after 9/11. He was found innocent of the charges against him, but the prosecuting attorney and judge cited administrative misconduct on his part and that “religion” has no place in the military, especially by commanders to their units. And the prosecutor took his comments on Islam on and noted that JIHAD or “holy war” as practiced by Islamic extremists has no part in “regular” Islamic teaching and practice. The problem with this caricature of Islam is that the Koran does indeed contain “holy war” practices against Christians and non-Islamic combatants. This has been amply proved by a Brethren in Christ Ph.D. on the subject.⁷

 

The question of how biblical truth and faith can influence supposedly neutral subjects has been written on extensively, though not acknowledged by academics in the various fields. Rusdoony and his followers have provided biblically based writing on various subjects, like economics.⁸ I have written a paper on biblically based mathematics, citing the underlying philosophy of number theory and arithmetical processes as foreign to the Scriptures and the revelation of God’s order in the universe.⁹ 1 + 1 does indeed equal 2, not because of some assumed philosophy of science approach, but because God ordered it so. We can therefore trust our mathematics, for the most part, as accurately reflecting God’s universe and God’s standards of counting.

 

Does our work or profession indicate the calling and blessing and wisdom of God upon it? Many Christians would say so, but then deny that truth in the laboratory or hospital or computer room. The result of evolutionary based science, separated from God’s revelation, is to make a division of truth that has never existed. When we read the Psalms about created actions, like storms and hail and snow and vapors and so forth, this is not merely poetry and thus to be taken not literally. God in his profound wisdom and providence and involvement in this world creates and orders and determines the weather and its blessings or destructive power. Gravity works because God ordained and uses it to make things fall down and not up. He is the grand “why” of universal truth. Absenting ourselves from this revealed fact makes us agnostics rather than God-glorifying Christians.

 

November 15, 2021

 

Notes

1.   This the generally agreed upon position by Derek Kidner in the Tyndale Commentary Series and by Roland Murphy in the Word Biblical Commentary Series on Proverbs. (Donald J. Wiseman, General Ed., Proverbs, Vol 17, Tyndale Commentary Series, Tyndale Press & InterVarsity Press, 1964. Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs, Vol. 22 of the Word Biblical Commentary Series, Thomas Nelson, 1998)

2.   Society of Christian Scholars. The Society of Christian Scholars equips Christian academics to have a missional and redemptive influence for Christ among their students, colleagues, institutions, and academic disciplines. https://scshub.net/. This is a membership driven organization open to all Christian academics globally.

3.   CMDA. This organization helps Christian healthcare students and professionals practice with ethical standards and share their faith as a part of patient treatment. https://cmda.org/# The author is a mentor and friend of Dr. Tom Grosh, the Northeast Director of CMDA.

4.   The term for “glory” or “glorious” indicates the “weightiness” or gravity of God. In the Old Testament, ‘Glory’ generally represents Heb. kāḇôḏ, with the root idea of ‘heaviness’ and so of ‘weight’ or ‘worthiness’. It is used of men to describe their wealth, splendour or reputation (though in the last sense kāḇôḏ is often rendered ‘honour’). The glory of Israel was not her armies but Yahweh (Je. 2:11). The word could also mean the self or soul (Gn. 49:6).

The most important concept is that of the glory of Yahweh. This denotes the revelation of God’s being, nature and presence to mankind.

5.   Rousas John Rushdoony (April 25, 1916 – February 8, 2001) was an American Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian. He was ordained into the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). He is credited as being the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement.  His followers and critics have argued that his thought exerts considerable influence on the evangelical Christian right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism

6.   JAG was a nationally rated TV series from 1995–2005, with ten seasons. This episode was from Season Nine, “Fighting Words,” aired on 30 April 2004.

7.   Dr. Jay Smith. Smith believes that although Western actions in the Islamic world can instigate Muslim discontent, it is the Islamic scriptures that encourage the violence. He also rues the fact that moderate Muslims are not able to challenge the radicals using scripture because he believes the radicals have the scriptural authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Smith_(Christian_apologist)

8.   Dr. Gary North. He is known for his advocacy of biblical or "radically libertarian" economics and also as a theorist of dominionism and theonomy. He supports the establishment and enforcement of Bible-based religious law, a view which has put him in conflict with other libertarians.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_(economist).

9.   H. Carl Shank, “Why Does 1 + 1 = 2?” in Arguing for God: A Monograph on Logic and the Christian Faith, Lulu Press, 2018.

Sermons in the Modern Church

I have been corresponding with my son lately about sermons and how they should be preached in the modern church. My son is a pastor of a smaller typical evangelical church. I have been a pastor for over forty years, now semi-retired. This issue of the sermon came up as to how to preach to modern ears. We ended up agreeing for the most part, but disagreeing about style and sermon content. A bit of background is in order.

I have been trained in expositional preaching and teaching from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, with a 1973 M.Div and a 1979 Th.M in systematic theology along with post seminary course work at Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Massachusetts. My son has been trained at Bethel Seminary as well as mentored by leadership trainers from a large, mega-church in the area. We approach this area of the Sunday sermon differently. I have always maintained a thoroughly exegetical approach to the message, with taking a text of Scripture and going through it intentionally and carefully, noting the context, words, language issues and so forth. My son uses a broader sweep for a message and has been attracted to story-telling and other means for sermon delivery. We both agree that sermons must be biblically based, but the delivery is up for grabs because of the different audiences that hear sermons today, especially young adults and unchurched people.

I would maintain that the minister's job is to communicate God's Word contained in the Scriptures. To say that church people have "enough information," and all they need to do is to "act upon the years of sermons they have already had" is beside the point, I believe. God's Word is always fresh, always convicting, always modern and always relevant because it is God's inspired declaration that we are seeking to get across to people. People deserve to know what the text of Scripture says and means, without assuming that personal or group Bible studies will fill that gap. In fact, most Bible study periods are people sharing their own, sometimes misguided, insights to Bible passages and stories. This sharing of one's ignorance is no substitute for trained and careful declaration of Scripture. And the internet is even less helpful giving a variety of ideas and "takes" on modern topics and claiming biblical proofs for them.

I believe that congregations need to be able to go home after a sermon or teaching and able to open their Bibles to the message given and understand the passages referenced and tell their children and others the meaning and application. It has been claimed that people hear "differently" today than beforehand and learn better by story-telling and group interaction. Perhaps. But the issue in preaching a sermon is the declaration of the written Word of God to a person's mind and heart and conscience. Citing different learning styles and people not hearing the message because of their sinful desires does not diminish the job of the biblical preacher or teacher. He or she is to declare faithfully and fully the text of Scripture, not their own considered "relevant" ideas and topics and try to find biblical passages to line up with those ideas.

Moderns will claim that this often considered "outdated" method of preaching or teaching does not reach a modern audience. I would rather contend that moderns, especially younger moderns, are biblically illiterate and need the careful and faithful rendering of the text of Scripture and then apply it to their situations and needs. No one is saying that application is unimportant, but it must be application that is not merely timely and relevant, but true to the text of Scripture. 

I have heard and preached hundreds of sermons to thousands of people in my career. My most gratifying comment to a message has been, "Thank you for helping me understand and live out this passage of the Bible." That is what we are called to do. That is our task in sermon delivery under God.

1984 Again!

 People thought that George Orwell's 1984 book was fictitious and could never come true in a democracy. It was about the State taking over the minds of its citizens with what it called "doublethink." Orwell defined "doublethink" this way — "To know and to not know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them. to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy is impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy. To forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed and then promptly to forget it again, and, above all, to apply the same process to the process itself." It was a chilling proposal of what could happen in a democracy look-alike controlled by the Party.

I would maintain that we are moving toward doublethink in our construct of society today. And I am certainly not the only one who maintains this construct. In a lecture at the conservative Hillsdale College, Christopher Rufo, director of Battlefront, noted that "critical race theory" is fast becoming America's new institutional orthodoxy. (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/critical-race-theory-fight/) While many Americans have possibly heard about such a theory, it is much more than just another way to look at race and equality in America. It is a Marxist-style political theory asserted by the radical left inserted into the discussion of racial equality that engages, I believe, in doublethink. Rufo sys that "Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. . . . To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression."

"Equity" in such a theory is simply reformulated Marxism, according to Rufo. But we are increasingly to understand "equity" as "equality" under law, a rethinking of the Constitution. And when someone tries to argue against "equity" they are simply arguing against our Constitutional guarantees. Rufo again says, "An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority."

Lest we think this is a tempest in a teapot, Rufo goes on to say giving examples — "When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down."

So, here we go with doublethink —The 14th and 15th Amendments and Civil Rights Acts of 1954 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 = mere non-discrimination; camouflage for white supremacy and oppression. Rejection of these Constitutional laws = true equity and antiracism. "White male culture" = white supremacy and white privilege, even mass killings. The solution is to renounce white privilege and write letters of apology to people of color. White teachers are guilty of "spirit murder" against black children.

Rufo says "Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” and instructors in this critical race theory when confronted with disagreement "should adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.” This is Orwell's doublethink in action today.

Modern media will dispute such findings as overreach and conservative fodder not worth challenging. The Party (radical Leftists) wants to control our minds, our language, our institutions, our children and our way of life. It is hard, however, to negate the facts and examples Rufo gives. He suggests conquering this "take over" with employing moral language built on moral principles, a grass roots rejection of critical race theory in all of its tentacles, and courage to stand and speak out against Orwellian doublethink. 

Will you take a stand?

Newport, New England & Religious Toleration: Observations

In the midst of a pandemic, and working from home, I have had the opportunity to read through Lively Experiment LLC and Rockwell Stensrud’s well-written 560 page account of Newport, Rhode Island in their Newport: A Lively Experiment, 1639 – 1969. Stensrud has done his history homework well and has covered the culture and history of this seaside town in great detail and with astute fairness. My wife and I had the enjoyment of visiting the town in 2019, with my special interest in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. We drove the streets and the seashore road dotted with the palatial homes of the rich and famous. This peeked my interest in Newport’s history and contributions.

 

What struck me, as a Christian theologian and church history buff, are the many references in Stensrud’s book to the religious history and characters of Newport. Most people know that Rhode Island, or “Rogues Island,” as it was called by other New England settlements of the period, was founded by Roger Williams, an exile from the Puritan colony of Massachusetts. He founded Providence and established the first Baptist church in the town. Stensrud’s description of the Puritans as seeking religious freedom in the new world “along the lines of John Calvin’s austere teachings. ‘They wanted to reduce Christianity to its most primitive form of four bare walls and the literal words of the Bible’” (17) is key to much of his comments on New England Puritanism — cold, harsh, stiff, solemn and cruel. He says, “The road to Newport began in Boston and Salem. The very harshness of their uncompromising elites forced those of a more liberal spiritual–and mercantile–persuasion to seek destinies free of the theocratic handcuffs of the Bay Colony.” (18)

 

The author maintains that the Puritans were opposed to liberty of conscience, as for instance, citing the hanging of the Quaker Mary Dyer in Boston in 1660 as well as the Salem witch trials of the 1690s. (19) Stensrud claims that Williams “forged America’s first real attempt at secular government. The separation of church and state, and tolerance for conflicting religious beliefs, were the hallmarks of the community from the beginning, in 1636.” (21) Added to the religious strain of the times was the fervent teaching of the “spiritist,” Anne Hutchinson, who taught the “notion of ‘free justification by grace alone,’ of an ecstatic and overpowering intimacy with the divine.” This threatened the Puritan concept of living by the moral law of God (21-22). One of her sponsors, William Coddington, first governor of Newport, bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians through the efforts of Roger Williams. Joined later by the Hutchinson band and others, the town of Newport became an English colony, ruled not by biblical law but the laws of England until the American Revolution. Dr. John Clarke, also strongly influenced by Hutchinson, founded the second Baptist church in Newport in 1644, calling for a “rebaptism of all adults because people could only find true grace of their own free wills.” (41) Calling this “Anabaptism,” however, would be going too far technically and historically.

 

Coddington, a royalist at heart, hungry for power and domination was less a champion of freedom of religion and much more a power-hungry leader who wanted to have his own way in Newport and surrounding areas. Later he would soften his overbearing lust for control and meekly submit to other forces around him. Dr. John Clarke, whom many see as the real hero of freedom, was the vision behind the town’s 1663 Charter, “the first enduring republican government in the new world, based on an individual’s right to choose his or her own faith freely without temporal control or punishment.” (57-58) Some say this Charter would influence the later American Bill of Rights. This Charter framed not merely the rights but the ongoing religious climate and boundaries of the town of Newport until the 1880s. Professor Sydney Ahlstrom noted that this Charter made religious liberty in this commonwealth not simply a degree of toleration but “a cardinal principle of its corporate existence and to maintain the separation of church and state on these grounds.” (69)

 

With this infusion of religious liberty, English Quakers first arrived in Newport in 1657, becoming prominent citizens. As long as they obeyed the laws of England, they could freely associate and proselytize. The sad story of the Quaker Mary Dyer put to death in Boston on June 1, 1660, is hard for modern eyes to read. What is little told is that she was warned several times not to return to Puritan Boston or she would face severe penalties. She refused to listen and paid the price for her efforts by a death sentence. Some say this was her brave stand for religious freedom and tolerance. Others might say she was duly warned and given opportunities to change her beliefs or vacate Boston. Jewish immigrants also arrived in Newport with the famous Touro Synagogue completed in 1772. They formed their own clubs and freely associated with people from other religious persuasions. Roman Catholics had a much harder time being accepted, but they finally were welcomed as part of Newport society.

 

Here we must stop and make an observation. Much of American Protestantism owes its theological foundations to the Puritans. While we shudder at the church/state complications and severity of early Puritan law, to discount them as hated monsters out to kill anyone who disagreed with their biblical stance is far too general and judgmental. Many modern writers have taken up the cry against Puritanism and catapulted it to a cry against any form of biblically defined Christianity. The Puritans generally followed the Westminster Confession and Catechisms in their definitions and descriptions of biblical theology. They most certainly did believe in justification by free grace, but they also saw a place for the law of God ruling the moral habits of society. 

 

The religious freedom and toleration that Newporters enjoyed and expected also produced Unitarianism under William Ellery Channing, a Newport native, who preached a faith based on “the inherent goodness of mankind, not a theology that stressed human depravity. In short, Channing humanized Protestantism.” (311) “By 1810, the long-held authority of Boston and other New England Congregational churches was beginning to be challenged by a growing number of pastors who believed he hellfire and brimstone Calvinist orthodoxy was basically corrupt because there was no room in the theology to recognize mankind’s innate optimism or potential for good works. A revolution was in the wings.” (312) Channing is looked upon as the champion of the new America with his staunch antislavery and antiwar philosophy and a proponent of public education. “The characteristic New England mixture of individual self-culture and social reform owed much to Channing’s precept and example.” (313) 

 

Indeed. Newport has always been a haven for the elite rich and famous. She has had her dark days, to be sure, but her proud spirit of innovation and freedom of religion has framed her existence. Unitarianism begets Universalism and Universalism forgets and ignores and disputes any biblical authority, including Jesus’ own words about his being the “only way, truth and life to the Father” (John 14:6). Any way to God is valid and to be sought after by man’s essential goodness, it is believed and proffered. It does not matter how we even define “God.” Newport’s culture and religious openness have taken universal hold on the America of the twenty-first century. We can now have it all — endless enjoyment, promised riches, freedom from any religious or theological restraints. It is the New England playground, maybe even vaunted hope, of America.

Black Lives Matter & Rewriting History

 2020 has been a year of the roller coaster of events — the Donald Trump saga, the pandemic, George Floyd shooting and marches and the Black Lives Matter movement. A new President has offered to heal the nation and provide racial equity and justice. 

However, we have torn down statues, defaced Civil War Confederacy sites, toppled Christopher Columbus statues, renamed streets and institutions, and have tried to rewrite history, claiming that Columbus had slaves, Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and in fact, most of the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had slaves. For that, we are told they should be punished, and history should be rewritten to tell America how awful and terrible they really were. Roger Williams, the religious founder of Rhode Island owned slaves, yet christened what is today the town Providence and the liberties that few northeastern states then enjoyed. Confederate generals, like Stonewall Jackson, a true Christian believer, it is said should be castigated and thrown in the trash pile of history. Instead of learning from history, and all its mistakes and errors and missteps, we now trash history and rewrite history to sooth and satisfy guilty consciences and political correctness advocates.

Larry Arnn, president of conservative Hillsdale College in his article, Orwell's 1984 and Today (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/orwells-1984-today/) notes that, like in Orwell's 1984, we have "Thought Police" roaming the halls of our newspapers and institutions of higher learning and even the halls of Congress itself to spy out "wrong" thinking and incorrect history and to put into our minds, and especially our children's minds, the "right" history. We want to forcefully change the past. We have discarded the law of contradiction that says we cannot change the past and that contradictory slogans, like those in Orwell's 1984, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," repeal what is and what was. Arnn writes — "American schoolchildren today learn two things about Thomas Jefferson: That he wrote the Declaration of Independence and that he was a slaveholder. This is a stunted and dishonest teaching about Jefferson." He goes on to note that what they do not learn is that Jefferson wanted the Northwest Territory to be eternally free of slavery. That he truly believed when he wrote that all men are created equal. 

Yes, America forced out native Indians as we moved west and displaced native peoples for our own use and land grabs. Yes, Christian men and women owned slaves in the South. Yes, in World War Two, American Japanese peoples were sent to internment camps. Yes, Jim Crow laws abounded in many places in this country after the Civil War. This was all a travesty of human rights and just treatment for all peoples. To rewrite history, however, that it happened because people were evil, despotic thugs and that we should disown and separate ourselves from their writings and essays and speeches neglect fair and just reporting of all the facts about these men and women.

I am not an historian. I am a theologian and have written and spoken on historical theology. The present Black Lives Matter push reminds me of history trying to erase Who Jesus Christ really is and was. A number have tried to rewrite the New Testament of the Bible, trying to prove that Jesus was either not fully human or not fully God. They have fiddled with the text of the Bible, seeking to eliminate what Jesus said and did. All of these efforts have wilted in the clear record of religious and theological history. Jesus is and was fully man and fully God. To try to remake Jesus that is "acceptable" to modern ears has miserably failed, even with university secular professors constantly seeking to teach our young people differently about Jesus and Christianity. You either accept the Jesus of history or discard Him in favor of a fantasy Christ that soothes our sensibilities.

The Bible recognizes and deals with slavery. And the way it deals with slavery rankles many "Thought Police" today. What about slaves in the Apostle Paul's writings?  “Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” (Titus 2:9, 10; 1 Timothy 6:1, 2) The obvious question that comes up in these contexts is, Why doesn’t Paul just outrightly denounce and condemn slavery? There are actually several reasons for such neglect.

First, to denounce slavery might mean promotion of a slave revolt, while saying nothing would mean supporting the staus-quo. It would also mean or indicate that it would be permissible for Christian slaves to disobey their masters. This was evidently one of the problems in the Ephesian church (Ephesians 6:5–9). Slavery in Paul’s day was not limited to racial inequality, but people became slaves due to being prisoners of war, condemned criminals, debtors, kidnapping, or those sold into slavery by their parents. Slavery was a complicated social ill of the times and not easily resolved socially or politically, let alone theologically and practically. Moreover, Paul’s main concern in these letters is the cause of the gospel  “. . . so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.” (1 Timothy 6:1b)

While all people under Christ are free in Christ --“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) -- one’s freedom in Christ cannot be used as a cloak for treating, in this case, one’s masters disrespectfully. Freedom in Christ does not permit disregarding one’s station in life, disobedience to lawful orders, or treating nonChristian authorities with disdain (cf. Mark 10:43–45; 1 Corinthians 9:19; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 6:5–9; Colossians 3:22–25). A more powerful and penetrating way to change and challenge inequality is to work from the grace of God from within outward. As Christian slaves gave their masters obedience and respect, and Christian masters gave fairness and kindness to their slaves, the institution could be changed from inside out. Real change begins in the heart and soul of a person, slave or free. 

So, how would we rewrite this history except by deleting it from the Apostolic records? The Bible is not a political tool or a platform for any and every kind of movement declaring what we consider as unacceptable social norms. It is a record and declaration of the Gospel of Christ and the freedom, real inner freedom, it brings to those who bow before and under the rule of the Savior. While it has been, and continues to be, sadly and unfortunately used for political gain and movements, that is not it's intention.

The equality in Christ would become, in time, the force behind the abolition of the slave trade in the British empire under Wilberforce and the recognition of women as equal voters under Susan Anthony and others. The issues are vastly much more complicated than what the Black Lives Matter movement could ever imagine. Arnn writes, "The astounding thing, after all, is not that some of our Founders were slave-holders. There was a lot of slavery back then, as there has been for all of recorded time. The astounding thing--the miracle, even, one might say--is that these slave-holders founded a republic based on principles designed to abnegate slavery."