Christian nationalism? Many think it mere patriotism.

Christian nationalism has evolved in the last 20 years into a fight, mostly from the left, where the term is now a pejorative in the fight against a kind of Christian imperialism.

On the far left, the 1619 Project controversially claims a racial root to America’s origins.

On the far right, several try to force-feed a false Christian foundation to the United States.

From the left and right, hundreds of nonprofits fight for the victims of persecution from the opposing side. No year passes without several going to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a Christian Baptist conservative, most of my circle rally around “God, family and country” themes. We believe God blessed America and have no problem with “In God We Trust” as a national motto. Most of the religions of the world, if not all, do not find our motto offensive.

Yet Christianity is far from unified, evangelicals lead Texas politics with a Baptist hegemony, liberals challenge evangelical morals, and too often both use cut-throat tactics.

David Barton’s pseudo history

Pseudo-historian David Barton and his nonprofit WallBuilders blast an irony as he fights against Jefferson’s “wall of separation”—a wall builder jackhammering the wall of separation.

Barton’s opus Original Intent skips rocks over a river he never fishes well as he connives to make the Founders look like 21st-century evangelicals in 1776 from pebbles of religious devotion. No one was an evangelical in 1776 like the Christian nationalists connive.

Washington owned the largest whiskey distillery and did not kneel in his Episcopal services. His language on God was almost totally third-person distant.

Jefferson cut up the New Testament.

Benjamin Franklin—no one knows if he held any religion dear.

No one thought the Potomac was a new Jordon River, but a few did refer to it as the new Tiber, with many more references to Rome than to Jerusalem in 1776.

The Founders were the first to break away from Earth’s history and encode an unprecedented infant “freedom” in 1789 that’s still growing.

Dominionism

Barton’s more vehement predecessor, R.J. Rushdoony, was the first Dominionist who tried to reform the entire U.S. legal system. Rushdoony and Gary North’s Chalcedon Foundation forwarded a Calvinist theology that would establish a theocratic empire.

Akin to Barton and Rushdoony is the Seven Mountain Mandate sponsored by preacher Rafael Cruz, father of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (whom I like), and evangelist Lance Wallnau officed in Keller, oddly just a half hour from Barton in Aledo.

The Seven Mountain Mandate gathered momentum from evangelists Loren Cunningham, Bill Bright and philosopher Francis Schaeffer, who asked Christians to conquer the seven mountains of family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. Translated: They would turn the United States into a Christian empire—avoiding the word “empire.”

Christian nationalism has morphed in subterfuge, avoiding the Seven Mountain Mandate language, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has force-fed Christianity into every crevice he can.

Though I love a lot of President Trump’s work, especially on the border, tapping Patrick to lead a commission on religious freedom is bad news. Patrick has no expertise nor any true interest in religious freedom, except to further dominate Texas evangelicals.

The root of this force-feeding is the false belief the United States was founded as a Christian nation—hence, “Christian nationalism.”

Dumbing down the Founders

Few tenured Christian university professors defend a Christian founding. Those few who do founder under the heavy weight of a horde of real historians, like conservative Prof. John J. Dilulio’s Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-Based Future and Dartmouth Prof. Randall Balmer’s Solemn Reverence: The Separation of Church and State in American Life” with their clear thinking.

The Barton-Patrick Dominionists dance around that omission like it was an oversight, or worse, conniving that the Founders just “assumed” the new country Christian. At worst, their deadly dance leads to jihad or to the Protestant or Catholic persecutions of old.

In 1797, just a few years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified and two years before Washington died at Mount Vernon, Congress unanimously approved the Treaty with Tripoli, stating that the United States “is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Unanimously.

The Founders were much smarter than Barton, Patrick and Trump’s advisers, who must dumb down the Founders to keep their dancing jig going.

Both the 1619 Project and Barton-like Dominionists make stupid the Founders’ masterpieces.

We tire in recalling the U.S. Constitution leaves out God.

The Founders’ genius

The Founders were just two generations removed from the Puritans, who violently persecuted Baptists. Founders knew well why Roger Williams founded Rhode Island in 1638.

As integral to our First Amendment, Jefferson adapted from William’s famous treatise on persecution his “wall of separation between church and state” to the persecuted Danbury Baptists in 1802.

Of all in history, our Founders knew how to establish a Christian nation, and our Declaration of Independence is proof of that—an acid rebuke, a bold in-your-face defiant treatise on independence from the imperial Christian British kingdom. The Founders did not want a Christian kingdom.

Our genius Founders left God out on purpose after accessing the best of the historical, philosophical and legal storehouses for their Declaration and Constitution. The four greatest storehouses were the ancient Roman republic, Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment and Freemasonry principles of freedom and free agency embodied in the inalienable human rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness on one’s own terms.

Christianity does not want government help, only freedom and protection from persecution. No good church wants anyone to feel coerced by law or any faith purchased with favor.

The authenticity of faith is best facilitated in a secure freedom.

Michael Maness retired after 20 years as a Texas prison chaplain and is the author of many articles and books, including How We Saved Texas Prison Chaplaincy 2011, Character Counts: Freemasonry Is a National Treasure and a Source of Our Founders’ Constitutional Original Intent and When Texas Prison Scams Religion, the latter documenting one of the greatest government religious entanglements in Texas history. This article is adapted from the original published first in the Beaumont Enterprise. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

“Can you explain how your work contributes to evangelism?”

This is a question I often hear when I share about our work supporting international religious freedom. It reveals an assumption—that advocacy and evangelism are separate disciplines, and that the latter is the calling of the church. This is far from accurate.

I believe defending religious freedom is part of the mission of God.

Throughout Scripture and church history, the growth of the church often has been accompanied by persecution. When ministries bear fruit, they frequently attract opposition. Churches are shuttered, pastors arrested and believers harassed—all for faithfully living out the gospel.

The response to persecution is part of ministry, too. To sustain the fruit of evangelism, church leaders often are called to push back against discrimination and injustice. Advocacy becomes a form of stewardship—protecting what God is growing.

How 21Wilberforce works

When 21Wilberforce receives a call or a WhatsApp message from a pastor whose church was closed, or who was visited by the police, or who is at risk of an unjust criminal prosecution, we answer by helping the pastor plan how to respond.

We pray, plan and carry out a response together as partners. We ask Christian leaders of persecuted churches, “How is God calling you to respond to this persecution, and how can we come alongside you?”

This partnership is obedience to the prayer of Jesus in John 17:20–23 that the church may be one in love and truth.

The response to persecution takes many forms. It can include:

• Peacebuilding and strengthening interfaith relations.
• Documenting rights violations.
• Public testimony and awareness-raising.
• Engaging with the offending government.
• Legal counseling and court cases.
• Reporting the situation to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
• International advocacy and diplomacy.

21Wilberforce collaborates with indigenous Christian leaders in the discernment process and helps them navigate the diverse range of approaches and tools for addressing persecution.

Effectiveness of local efforts

Often the most effective responses are led locally by national Christian alliances and denominations, pastors, lawyers, humanitarian workers and Christian advocates who know their context intimately.

At times, international advocacy in places like Washington, D.C., or Geneva is needed. But it always must align with the discernment of local church leaders.

In fact, we sometimes decide not to initiate a public campaign, because indigenous leaders believe attention from the West could escalate societal hostility and would play into a false narrative that Christianity is the West’s religion.

Enduring hardship

Not every pastor or church leader is called to public advocacy. Many quietly endure hardship while remaining deeply faithful to the work of ministry.

Christians in some countries today are living out a story like the one in Acts 8: “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. … Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.”

We must pray for wisdom and humility as we support these leaders who navigate challenges we in the West never may understand fully.

My challenge to you

To my fellow Christians, especially those in the United States and other wealthy nations, I urge you: Move beyond mission silos. Don’t separate evangelism from pursuing justice and religious freedom. Instead, ask church leaders on the frontlines how God is calling them to respond—and how you might walk with them in unity, courage and purpose.

Wissam al-Saliby is president of 21Wilberforce, a Christian organization advocating for religious freedom and human rights. This article first appeared on the 21Wilberforce website and is republished by permission.

Today, we give thanks for the life of Walter Brueggemann—one of the most sacred and salty voices the church ever has known. His death today marks the end of a remarkable earthly journey, but his words, his courage and his prophetic witness will live on far beyond his years.

For me, The Prophetic Imagination was the beginning. It was the first of his works I encountered, handed to me by faithful professors at Baylor University in the early 1990s. To this day, it well may be the most transformational book I ever have read.

Growing up, the churches that raised me had given me a sincere, but deeply misguided, understanding of the prophets. I had been taught—over and over again—that prophets were future-tellers, predictors of what was to come. That was the box I kept them in until Brueggemann came along and broke it wide open.

He revealed something far more powerful: the prophets were not fortune-tellers but truth-tellers. They were men and women given the gift of double vision—the ability to see the world as it really is, in all its injustice and sorrow, and at the same time to see the world as it should be under the reign of God. They called God’s people to feel again, to hope again, and to act with courage and imagination for the sake of justice and mercy.

Fierce conviction, poetic tenderness

Walter Brueggemann had a sacred mind and a salty tongue. He wrote with the fierce conviction of one who had seen too much to settle for a tame gospel, and with a poet’s tenderness for the hurting world. His work never was distant or theoretical. It always was rooted in the gritty realities of life and the unrelenting hope of God’s kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven.

His teaching reshaped the way I read Scripture, the way I preach, the way I live. It redefined the ministry I have been called to and the justice work we have had the privilege to join. The people I’ve met, the community we’ve built, and the pursuit of God’s restoration in the world are all, in some measure, the fruit of seeds he planted.

For all of this, I forever am indebted—to Walter Brueggemann, to the professors who pointed me toward his work, and to the Spirit who continues to use his sacred, salty voice to call the church to imagine and enact the world as God intends it.

Thanks be to God for Walter Brueggemann. May his memory be a blessing. May his voice continue to stir us. And may he rest in the deep, abiding peace of the One he loved and served so well.

Chris Seay is the lead pastor of Ecclesia Houston. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Southern Baptists will practice their religious freedom June 8-11 by gathering in downtown Dallas for their annual meeting. They will visit exhibits and friends, hear reports and sermons, celebrate mission and ministry, and conduct business. Adopting resolutions will be part of that business. At least one of the proposed resolutions contains a puzzle for religious freedom.

Eight resolutions have been proposed for consideration during the 2025 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. One celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Cooperative Program. Another celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Baptist Faith and Message, with special honor for the 2000 version. And one is the annual expression of appreciation to the host city.

Then there are the headline-grabbing resolutions: condemnation of sports betting; a lengthy resolution to ban pornography; an even lengthier resolution on gender, marriage and family; a resolution to abolish abortion; and advocacy for international religious freedom.

It’s part of that last resolution that makes me say, “Wait a minute.”

Resolution on religious freedom

The proposed language of “On Advocating for International Religious Freedom” contends, according to Scripture, “there is one mediator between God and man, and that mediator is not the civil government but Christ Jesus.”

No argument there, but a hearty, “Amen.”

The resolution then quotes Article XVII of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.”

There is no argument with God alone being Lord of the conscience. This is just a basic and historic Baptist principle.

There isn’t much debate anymore among Southern Baptists about what is “contrary” to God’s word, but there is significant disagreement across Baptists in general. Women pastors is but one example.

While most of the rest of the resolution wouldn’t raise much of an eyebrow with most Baptists, it’s the first “Resolved” that makes me say, “Wait a minute.”

The religious freedom puzzle

The first “Resolved” of the international religious freedom resolution should be read in its full context—placed after proposed resolutions on social and moral issues: sports betting; pornography; gender, marriage and family; and abortion.

I suppose there is some religious group that incorporates sports betting into their religious practice, though I can’t see how. I do know the other three resolutions intersect with religious positions that differ from Southern Baptists.

One ought to read the proposed resolutions that precede the one on religious freedom understanding there are religious groups who differ with Southern Baptists about what constitutes pornography, how to understand gender, what constitutes marriage, what is the appropriate structure of the family, and the use of abortion.

The issue here is not how the various religious groups disagree on these matters but that the various religious groups’ positions are religious positions.

With that understanding in mind, then read that first “Resolved:”

“RESOLVED, That the messengers … affirm that God has endowed every human being with the freedom of conscience and with the corresponding freedom to practice their religious convictions without undue interference from civil power (Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article XVII)” (emphasis added).

Likewise, the second “Resolved:” “RESOLVED, We affirm that religious freedom is a human right given by God for all humanity to steward, and aids our work in fulfilling the Great Commission” (emphasis added).

The puzzle turns on the qualifier “undue” underlined above. We know what constitutes “civil power,” but what constitutes “undue interference” from civil power? This is an important question, because plenty can argue that Southern Baptists imploring the civil power to legislate certain social and moral issues in certain ways could result in “undue interference.”

Freedom for conflicting religions

Resolutions listed before the religious freedom resolution urge state and federal legislators to ban pornography in all media, call for laws allowing same-sex marriage to be overturned, and urge state and federal legislators to ban chemical abortion drugs.

Clearly, these resolutions seek to represent Southern Baptist religious views on these issues and to have Southern Baptist religious views encoded into state and federal law. But doing so may contradict Southern Baptists’ stated advocacy for religious freedom … unless Southern Baptists do not believe their legislative influence could result in “undue interference” with religious freedom.

So many beg to differ. So many see codified Southern Baptist moral positions as undue interference in their religious practices.

They don’t see how Southern Baptists can have it both ways—laws prohibiting such things as same-sex marriage while also upholding the God-endowed “freedom [for all] to practice their religious convictions without undue interference from the civil power.”

This points the debate directly at who religious freedom is for. The resolution in question states, “Advocating for religious liberty is a hallmark of Southern Baptist belief and practice and applies equally to all peoples, in all places, at all times.”

Given the resolution’s own language, adoption of all the proposed resolutions as currently worded presents a religious conflict. And if the aims of the social and moral resolutions are codified in state and federal law, the religious conflict will be realized.

Southern Baptists owe it to themselves and their neighbors to think through this puzzle.

Unqualified religious freedom

Religious freedom doesn’t mean anything goes, but to maintain religious freedom does mean some things will have to be allowed to go. What should those things be? We each have our ideas.

I do believe there need to be certain legal constraints on social and moral matters. Determining what those constraints should be in a diverse society is difficult … if we intend to keep a diverse society, and I hope we do.

Don’t understand me here to be advocating for pornography, abortion and any particular view of gender, sexuality and marriage. I’ve already stated my position on the latter.

My point here is if Baptists—Southern or otherwise—are going to advocate for religious freedom, then we must advocate for religious freedom, not qualified religious freedom, not religious freedom for those who think, believe, practice and worship just like us.

If we advocate for religious freedom only for those like us, there will come a day when those unlike us will impose “religious freedom” only for those like them. Southern Baptists, of all people, shouldn’t show them how to do that.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Questions of gender and identity are front and center these days. For many Christians, it’s a time of cultural tension. Rather than responding with silence or self-righteousness, what if the church led with compassion?

For those who are transgender or born intersex, the church too often has offered judgment instead of understanding. Yet, the gospel calls us to walk with those who are hurting, offering truth without abandoning love.

I invite the church to consider how we can support those navigating gender and embodiment with biblical conviction and Christlike compassion.

Understanding the terms

According to Mark Yarhouse, a Christian psychologist, transgender is an “umbrella term for the many ways in which people might experience and/or present and express (or live out) their gender identities differently from people whose sense of gender identity is congruent with their biological sex.”¹

Transgender refers to individuals whose gender identity does not align with their biological sex.

Intersex describes people born with physical sex characteristics—chromosomes, gonads or genitalia—that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. This includes more than one hundred medical conditions where a person is born with one or more atypical features in their sexual anatomy.²

Intersex traits, according to a review in the American Journal of Human Biology, are estimated to occur in about 1.7 percent of the population, roughly as common as red hair.³

These aren’t hypothetical debates. They are lived experiences.

People ask hard questions: “Who am I?” “What’s wrong with me?” “Where do I belong?”

Sadly, too many hear only rejection. But what if the church responded not with blame, but with empathy rooted in biblical understanding?

Creation: The gift of embodied life

Scripture begins with God’s good design. Genesis 1:27 declares, “So God created man in his own image … male and female he created them.”

Our sexed embodiment—male or female—is not incidental. As Preston Sprinkle writes in Embodied: “Our sex is not arbitrary. It’s part of how we reflect God’s image in the world.”⁴

However, we cannot understand fully this design without considering what comes next.

Fall: The distortion of the good

Romans 8 tells us creation was “subjected to futility” and now “groans” for redemption (vv. 20, 22).

The Fall fractured not just relationships and morality, but our bodies and identities. This brokenness can manifest as chromosomal differences, hormonal imbalances or deep psychological distress, which some experience as gender dysphoria.

Yarhouse proposes three lenses to understand gender dysphoria. The integrity lens emphasizes the male/female moral order. The disability lens views dysphoria as a result of the Fall. The diversity lens stresses identity and community.⁵

The disability lens may be the most pastorally useful. It allows us to say, “This isn’t how it should be”—without condemning the person suffering.

Andrew Bunt expresses a similar sentiment when he says: “In terms of theological explanation, those born intersex [or trans] are no different to those born blind or with a limb which is missing or not fully formed. These things are all biological experiences of the brokenness of creation.”⁶

We need to remember we live in a fallen world where even our bodies, including our brains, are not the way they’re supposed to be. In other words, feeling out of sync with one’s body is not always rebellion, as some might believe. It’s often a cry for help in a broken world.

This brokenness includes intersex conditions and struggles with gender dysphoria. These are not sins but signs of a fallen creation.

And while the Bible doesn’t use the term “intersex,” Jesus acknowledges those who were “born eunuchs” (Matthew 19:12)—a category many scholars believe includes what we now would call intersex individuals. Jesus doesn’t exclude them. He recognizes them and gives them dignity.

Sandra Glahn points out, “We need to stop saying every human is clearly either one or the other, male or female, because Jesus is the Truth, and to say so is not to tell the truth.”⁷ It’s a potent reminder to all of us that not every body tells a straightforward story—but each is deeply known and loved by God.

Redemption: Hope for the whole self

In Jesus, God took on a human body. The incarnation affirms the goodness of the body, even one marked by weakness and suffering. Those living with dysphoria or intersex conditions can find comfort in a Savior who understands bodily pain.

Yet, redemption in Christ does not mean every confusion is resolved in this life. Colossians 3:3 says, “Your life is hidden with Christ in God.”

Our primary identity is not in our gender, our struggles or even our clarity, but in belonging to Christ. As followers of Christ, we are called to live in that tension, not to resolve every question, but to follow Jesus in the midst of it.

Restoration: The hope of the resurrection

Our ultimate hope is not found in transitioning or in perfect self-understanding. It is in resurrection. Philippians 3:21 promises Jesus “will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.”

One day, our embodied experience will reflect fully who we are in Christ, without distortion, without shame.

To those who live with these complexities, hear this: Your story is not unwanted. Your body is not a theological problem to be solved, but a life to be embraced in light of Christ’s redemption.

A new approach for the church

The church must move beyond suspicion and silence. We must hold conviction and compassion together. Here’s how:

• Affirm complexity. Not every experience fits neatly into binary boxes. Let people tell their story.

• Hold truth and tenderness. Uphold God’s design for male and female, but acknowledge the pain the Fall brings to some people’s experience of that design.

• Center identity in Christ. Neither biology nor feelings alone define us. Christ does.

• Create safe places for struggle. People wrestling with identity need community, not condemnation.

The church must be a place that holds out hope, not just rules. A people who witness to Christ by how we carry one another’s pain, not by how quickly we solve it.

As Sprinkle notes: “Christ followers shouldn’t mock the swelling number of people identifying as trans [or intersex]. If that number keeps rising, then so should the number of trans [or intersex] people gathering in our homes and around our tables.”⁸

A word to the intersex and transgender community

To those reading this who are transgender or intersex: I’m sorry for the ways the church has failed you. Your story matters. You are not an afterthought to God.

Psalm 139 declares you are fearfully and wonderfully made. That doesn’t mean your journey is easy or not affected by sin’s distortion of God’s good creation. But it does mean God knows every part of you, even those that confuse or ache, and still calls you beloved.

And one day, your body—your whole self—will be everything God intended it to be, radiant and restored. Until then, your identity is not in the categories you fit into or don’t fit into, but in the Savior who calls you by name.

Taylor Standridge is a Christian podcaster and producer who loves to help people understand who God is and how to live faithfully according to his goodness, grace and generosity. His writing has been featured in Peer Magazine, Christ and Pop Culture, RELEVANT Magazine and NextStep Disciple. He holds a Master of Biblical and Theological Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

*******

Footnotes

1. Mark Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 20-21.
2. Glahn, Sandra. 2016. “What Is Intersex and What Does the Bible Say about It?” Bible.org Blogs. 2016. https://blogs.bible.org/what-is-intersex-and-what-does-the-bible-say-about-it/.
3. Anne Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes, Revisited,” The Sciences 40, no. 4 (2000): 18–23.
4. Sprinkle, Preston, Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church & What the Bible Has to Say. (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2021), 184.
5. Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria, 122.
6. Andrew Bunt, “The Binary and Intersex,” Think Theology, February 15, 2019,  https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the_binary_and_intersex.
7. Glahn, “What Is Intersex and What Does the Bible Say about It?”
8. Sprinkle, Embodied, 223.

I met her when I first became pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Weimar. She was only 3 years old when her big sister Haley, her mom Cathy and her stepdad Marc joined the church.

With blonde pigtails and a pretty dress, she danced around the church when she wasn’t mimicking everything her big sister Haley did. She was somewhat quiet at first, but her mom’s wonderful outgoing personality one day would be shared by her.

Perhaps the first words I ever heard her speak came in a song. The church started with eight people. Her grandmother Hurma was one of the church’s first and most devoted members. Hurma truly served as the righteous matriarch of the family—always serving others, always drawing people to the Lord starting with her own family first. And Ms. Hurma continues to bless me to this day.

The church first met in a living room of a house they rented. Again, with eight people, the little four-room house had plenty of room. The church quickly outgrew that space, and we moved into the caterer’s event hall adjacent to the house. The landlord owned both, so the move was easy. It was in this caterer’s event hall where I remember first hearing Hanna.

Hanna’s solo

The hall had one big room with a kitchen. The way we set up the worship area, all the chairs faced the pulpit. At the back, behind the chairs was the restroom.

In the middle of my sermon, and it wasn’t that long of a sermon, little Hanna needed to go to the restroom, or she needed a break from the message—not sure which. Anyway, she slipped into the restroom quietly while all eyes were on me, ears on the text from God’s word.

Suddenly, we began to hear the singing of a little girl. Everyone looked around, but no girl seen was saying a word, much less singing. Yet, the voice of a little girl singing was clearly heard. Were angels in our midst? I hoped so, but they weren’t the ones singing.

The singing continued. By this time, no one was listening to the preacher or my preaching. Everyone was looking around, smiling, chuckling nervously, trying to figure out where the singing was coming from.

Finally, Cathy, Hanna’s mom got up from her chair. She walked back to the restroom at the back of the room. It was then we knew.

Hanna, the quiet girl, thinking no one was around or listening, was serenading the whole church with her sweet little voice.

Everyone began to laugh. Hanna walked out from the restroom, completely silent, oblivious to the fact all had heard her first live concert—not from a shower, but from the toilet.

Hanna then and now

Hanna was around 4 or 5 then. Now she is in her late 20s. She is engaged to be married to a kind, handsome young man named Trevor.

A few months back, they got serious about the Lord. They received him fully as their savior and have not stopped there. They now are serving the Lord faithfully.

They study and pray together daily. They have started a family Bible study with their siblings and relatives. They are active in their new church home near New Braunfels. But they want to do more. They want to tell their coworkers about the Lord Jesus.

So, what did they do? They bought these little figurines of Jesus. They use them to witness to others. They sometimes ask people, as they present the figurine, “Would you like a little Jesus today?”

Or, if they see someone sad or hurting, they hand them one of the figurines and say, “I thought you might need a little Jesus today.”

They do not stop there. Depending on the person’s response, Hanna or Trevor tell them about what the living Lord Jesus has done in their lives, and they ask them if they would like to invite the real Jesus into their hearts too.

The response has been overwhelming as the Lord has been faithful to lead them to those empty, lost and hurting.

Hanna’s name means “gracious.” She is gracious to others, for she has received the grace God gives. Her life and Trevor’s are heading in the right direction.

Would you like a little Jesus in your life too? Ask him in. He can hear your gentle call like we heard 3-year-old Hanna’s song years ago.

Johnny Teague is the senior pastor of Church at the Cross in West Houston and the author of several books, including his newest The Lost Diary of Mary Magdalene. His website is johnnyteague.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I’m sitting outside one of our local public high schools. Three sections of the drumline are practicing separately—snares, quads and tenors. Marimbas are off in the distance.

Now, a bass section has joined in.

Despite the varying sounds, it’s the incessant snare rhythm I can’t get away from. That’s the whole point of the snare … drum, that is.

There is another kind of drumming I hear in the lead-up to the 2025 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Dallas—the steady beat of the sexual abuse controversy ringing over the SBC.

Southern Baptists might like the news reports and the op-eds about sexual abuse in the SBC to stop. But they’re not going to.

Not until sexual abuse by Southern Baptist ministers and other leaders stops. Not until abusive Southern Baptist ministers aren’t able to just move to the next place. Not until the last lawsuits have ended. Not until justice is enacted and the broken are restored.

In other words, not for a while. Sexual abuse has gone on far too long in far too many places. Far too many have perpetrated it, and far too many survivors carry the wounds. And too many Southern Baptist leaders have been unwilling to take responsibility.

It’s time for a new drumbeat.

Acknowledge the good and bad

Thankfully, sexual abuse isn’t rampant in Southern Baptist churches. This needs to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Thankfully, many Southern Baptist leaders and laypeople take sexual abuse very seriously and have worked to safeguard the people in their churches and ministries. This also needs to be acknowledged and appreciated.

We can celebrate the good without minimizing the bad. Correction: Without minimizing the evil. Sexual abuse is evil. Gaslighting the abused is evil. Covering up the abuse is evil. Disbelieving the abused perpetuates the evil. All of this has happened. Like the drumming of a torturous headache.

It’s time for a new drumbeat.

One way to get there is to consider autonomy and cooperation differently.

Autonomy

Autonomy of the local church is one of Southern Baptists’ highest values. It’s one of the principles that sets Southern Baptists—and Baptists in general—apart from many other Christian faith traditions.

Bill Pinson and Doris Tinker define autonomy quite well: “Autonomy means that each Baptist church, among other things, selects its pastoral leadership, determines its worship form, decides financial matters and directs other church-related affairs without outside control or supervision.”

Furthermore, “Baptist denominational organizations such as associations of churches and state and national conventions have no authority over a Baptist church. For any one of these organizations to attempt to exercise control over an individual church is to violate a basic Baptist conviction about polity.”

And one of my favorite lines—highly contested today by those who deny separation of church and state: “Being autonomous, a Baptist church recognizes no governmental control over faith and religious practice.”

Baptists regard autonomy as sacrosanct.

But, for autonomous Baptist churches to form cooperative associations and conventions, they must give up at least a little autonomy. Inasmuch as they share resources—especially money—and trusteeship over various institutions, their autonomy cannot absolve them of shared responsibility for these shared efforts.

And yet, when liability comes knocking, autonomy is one of the first defenses thrown up against shared responsibility.

Cooperation

Cooperation is another prime value for Southern Baptists—and Baptists generally—but only if it’s voluntary cooperation.

Autonomous local Baptist churches voluntarily cooperate by joining their resources in local or regional associations and/or statewide or national conventions to further evangelism and missions. It’s one of the best parts of being Baptist.

At the beginning of such cooperation, Southern Baptists cheered the ability to do more together, and rightfully so. Southern Baptists really have done more—a lot more—missions, evangelism and ministry by joining forces. There is much to celebrate there.

But it may not have occurred to them at the beginning that Southern Baptists at some point may need to cooperate—join their forces—differently, that they may need to turn their cooperation to rooting out evil in their midst, evil such as sexual abuse.

Southern Baptists have done some important work in turning their cooperation toward rooting out the evil of sexual abuse in their midst, even though so much of that effort has been fought at seemingly every turn by some in leadership, by procedure, by cost concerns and otherwise.

It brings to mind the cacophony of separate sections of the drumline simultaneously practicing different rhythms—and their inability to drown out the snares.

A new drumbeat

Southern Baptists will come together in downtown Dallas June 8-11 to celebrate cooperation, to debate local autonomy—especially if the so-called Law Amendment seeking to bar women as pastors of any kind reappears this year—and to conduct business to a pronounced parliamentary drumbeat.

And over it all, I hear the snares. Driving. Driving. Tat ratta-ta-tat-tat / Tat ratta-ta-tat-tat.

I know Southern Baptists would like to hear a new drumbeat. And they can. It’s in the calls to bring their best resources—yes, even their money—to bringing justice to sexual abuse in their midst.

Doing so—moderating their autonomy enough to bring their cooperation to bear on facilitating justice for the sexually abused among them—may be the most important mission and evangelism work Southern Baptists can do right now—their best theology in action.

That would be music to many ears.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

RE: Editorial: Why did the Baptist Standard publish that?

As a long ago graduate of the H.H. Herbert School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma, and a well-informed subscriber to the Baptist Standard, I applaud your definition of responsible journalism.

Simple, clear and to the point, you explain the essence and importance of separating news from opinion. This position taken by a long revered and respected periodical helps separate the Baptist Standard from other popular news outlets that, sadly, no longer defend a commitment to responsible journalism.

Jess Wade
Fairview, Texas

Daily, we weigh values and prioritize actions. Our Christian faith, the call of God on our lives, guides us. It is not a spectator sport.

Recently, I have toggled back and forth at the Texas Legislature and can see what values are resting on the scales held by state decision-makers. Legislators seriously consider dozens of bills. It is mind-boggling and, like a mirror, reflective of our state.

Bills considered by legislators

Within a few hours, they considered the following.

HB 126

House Bill 126 would have allowed state universities to contract with youngsters as young as 8th grade for their commitment to play sports at said university. The contract—with parental consent—is for money, direct payments, to be made to them once they are enrolled in the university.

People asked: It may be good for sports programs, but is it good for kids?

Supporters say: Texas needs to keep up with other states who recruit this way.

The motion was withdrawn May 25.

SB 646

Senate Bill 646 proposes expansion to a long-standing loan repayment program to help with critical work shortages, adding school counselors and school psychologists to loan repayment in Texas.

This became controversial because, as I have heard, some describe many school counselors as “bad actors who are socially transitioning students, [and] we shouldn’t support them (the profession) with loan repayment.” During floor debate, Rep. Nate Schatzline noted the Texas GOP platform is firmly against loan repayment.

People asked: Is this a fair criticism and punishment of the school counseling profession?

Supporters say: The need is urgent. Counselor ratios are 1 to 395 students.

SB 646 passed the second reading in the Texas House May 27 and awaits third reading.

SB 1261

Senate Bill 1261, a comprehensive water projects bill, was challenged with an amendment by East Texas leaders to remove a major reservoir from the plans. The lake would use imminent domain to take 70,000 acres of private land from East Texans and provide water to the metroplex.

People asked: Should one area of the state sacrifice for another and give up generations of farms?

Supporters say: Texans need water. East Texas has land.

SB 1261 was sent to Gov. Abbott on May 22.

Everyday faith

Mostly, I can coast along and never really confront thorny questions and issues of major consequence until I see it on display firsthand. It is not a bad exercise for Christian thinkers.

I am reminded of the Book of Esther, and Esther’s dilemma to ask a king for a risky favor.

Will Willimon in his sermon “Unspectacular Faith” has this reflection on her struggle: “What Esther did was not particularly spectacular, but that’s good, because most of us are not spectacular. Fortunately, most of the good that God needs doing in this world is not spectacular.”

“Now, someday,” Willimon continued, “there may be somebody here who is required to die for the faith that you profess, but not likely. More likely, you will be given the opportunity, or the dilemma, of summoning up the courage to speak out … at some elegant dinner party or maybe at some business meeting … to put up a good word to the boss in behalf of somebody who doesn’t have the voice to speak. Not large. Not grand. Not spectacular. But good.”

Weighing our part

As Christians, we live in a world that, on the whole, neither worships nor obeys our God. In such a climate, we are tempted to let ourselves off the hook too easily, to say: “I’m no martyr. I’m just one person. What can I do?”

Each Gospel account shows Jesus, when instructing the disciples, drawing them into the importance of their words and actions. In little ordinary ways, the kingdom of God is being defeated or advanced through us.

We are weighing values and seeking solutions. Are they reflections of our discipleship? Our words are important—even words to elected officials, work colleagues and opponents of our opinions, who also are weighing values and seeking solutions.

It’s a challenge to weigh in, but in God’s hands, big things happen as a result of our small investments.

Suzii Paynter March is a leader in Christian ethics, having served as director of Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission and other organizations. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

The late Tim Keller was arguably the most influential evangelical pastor of his day.

He founded Redeemer Church in New York City, started the City to City church planting network (which is now starting churches in global cities around the world), created The Gospel Coalition, and wrote multiple bestselling books relating faith to life.

He wrote a church manual called Center Church that deeply influenced the way I think about ministry in a city as diverse and complex as Houston.

And he also popularized—in certain evangelical circles—a way of thinking about church/political engagement called The Third Way.

To be clear, plenty of other theological tribes employed Third Way thinking prior to Keller. Keller was simply the popularizer among evangelicals with a particular theological bent.

Further: I am not referring here to the attempt to synthesize center-right and center-left ideas into policy. I’m speaking about a specifically theological stance.

The Third Way, for our purposes here, means the church approaching the government and politics without adhering exclusively to the right or the left and instead preserving a unique way for approaching issues in government.

This different approach is neither right nor left but a Third Way—an attempt to embody the kingdom values Jesus taught.

‘Only possible faithful path’

I believe the Third Way—or Kingdom Way—is the only possible faithful path for pastors and church leaders in the public square.

My reasoning is simple: If I always side with the right or always side with the left on issues, then I lose my credibility.

As a pastor, my job isn’t to speak primarily about politics, but when politics and theology intersect, I want to be able honestly and faithfully to take folks to the text and help form a scriptural response to whatever the issue at hand may be.

If I hold fast to Third Way thinking, I can avoid having my policies formed primarily by pundits, but can instead have it formed (hopefully) by Jesus.

An example of Third Way thinking

Since the Republican Party is currently in power, and since most of the folks in my theological tribe tend to be conservative, let’s talk about that particular perspective for a moment. I myself registered as a Republican when I was 18 years old.

That being said, my first calling is that of a Christian pastor, which means I have an obligation to stand up for the rights of the poor and those who do not have a voice.

The Republicans in my state have refused to fully fund the public schools (despite having a constitutional obligation to do so) since 2019 while helping (predominantly) wealthy families by allowing a stipend to fund private school education.

This policy decision disproportionately affects the poorest kids in my city and state. As a result, I’ve spoken out on it. This is my Christian duty.

I feel the same about Afghan Christians being forced to self-deport back to a country where they will be tortured, raped and killed. Or about a federal budget proposal that provides tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens while cutting Medicaid. Or about our government not pressuring Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

You get the point.

Why I take these stances

These are not stances I take because I have decided to become a dyed-in-the-wool leftist Democrat. These are stances I take because I am a Christian. I’m commanded to care for and speak up for the poor, so I do.

To be clear, there are plenty of things I also criticize on the left based on my understanding of what the New Testament teaches. For example: Refusal to place any sort of boundaries around abortion access, ignoring recent European studies on the long-term effects of gender-based medical procedures for minors, and more.

That’s what Third Way thinking requires—the ability to speak to issues on both sides. If the church is to be the “conscience of the state” as Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, then we must not feel the pressure always to defend the right nor the left. We instead simply must speak the Christian position.

Avoid being a ‘partisan prop’

As our national politics and attitude has shifted rightward since 2016, there are a growing group of pastors who argue Christians must be completely sold out for Republicans.

Echoing arguments from evangelicalism of the Jerry Falwell days of the 1980s and 1990s, they say this is a battle between good and evil, right and wrong. The only way to be faithful, they argue, is to lean hard to the right—accusations of partisanship be damned.

On one hand, they have a point: There are plenty of issues of right and wrong, good and evil. We absolutely should confront those.

But what happens when the very politicians they—or we—stumped for during election season start doing things themselves that are unethical or downright evil?

As you might imagine, most of those who have been the most vocal go silent on that front. That’s the problem with becoming a partisan pastor. If I cannot speak prophetically to my own party—to the politicians I voted for or preferred—then I have lost the mantle of pastor and have become simply a partisan prop.

‘Not neutral in the least’

The Third Way doesn’t prevent us from voting or supporting a candidate. Far from it. All Americans should participate in the public square.

But the Third Way does demand that those of us who call ourselves Christians—particularly those of us who call ourselves pastors—tell the truth, even when it will be unpopular—even when it may cost us political favor.

I must not fear losing access. I must speak simply what I believe Jesus teaches in the New Testament in a way that brings it to bear on the public square. That’s Third Way thinking.

Some have accused proponents of Third Way thinking of attempting to be neutral. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Third Way thinking is not neutral in the least. It is doggedly faithful to Jesus. It is an attempt to uphold the way of Jesus in the public square—whether or not that way “wins.” In fact, I would argue the Third Way frees us to be morevocal, as we do not feel beholden to any particular politician or party.

The Third Way is not neutral, but it is an equal opportunity offender. It will show the shortcomings of both American political parties or the politics of wherever you may be.

For my part, I’d rather be independent, anyway. Hitching my wagon to the politically independent way of Jesus is way more freeing than anything the traditional political realm ever could provide.

Not neutral. But independent. In Jesus’ kingdom way.

Steve Bezner, after years as a pastor, is associate professor of pastoral ministry and theology at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. He is the author of Your Jesus Is Too American: Calling the Church to Reclaim Kingdom Values over the American Dream and publishes on Substack, where this article first appeared and is adapted and republished by permission. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I don’t live in Texas, but I’m a frequent reader of the Baptist Standard. I appreciate the efforts the Standard has made to cover a broad range of faith-oriented news beyond the scope of Texas, the Baptist orbit and even its own orthodox beliefs and affirmations.

I value the Standard because I find many of the other readily available Baptist-based options to be unevenly handed, tilted clearly in a direction that blends news and opinion in just about every posting.

In one popular outlet, almost anything reported on related to a more conservative or evangelical context generally is treated with derision. In another outlet on the other side of the Baptist aisle, you rarely will find any reporting that isn’t positive toward its constituency.

It is for this reason the Baptist community in North America needs the Standard to maintain its current practice and posture, and those who are skeptical of the Standard need to consider whether we, as conservatives, may have eaten the medicine of liberals by opting unflinchingly into a hermeneutic of suspicion.

Influence of postmodern thought

I cut my teeth in ministry among college students and young adults in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During that time, much attention was given to the rise of postmodern thought.

Largely advanced by liberals in academic circles, a hermeneutic of suspicion was introduced as a lever to undermine commonly held assumptions, accepted truths and beliefs that had stood the test of centuries.

Several decades later, I can see the medicine progressives largely introduced into our cultural reality has driven many Christian leaders away—sometimes far away—from the core of the Christian faith they had once held. In some ways, that was predictable, though nonetheless painful.

I’ve known far too many leaders I used to count as those walking the same orthodox path as me who have chosen another route.

Equal-opportunity influence

On the other hand, something surprising has come of the medicine of liberals that I did not expect or foresee. Now, conservatives often have taken the medicine of liberals and have eaten the hermeneutic of suspicion, often without any recognition they are playing into the very postmodern foil they likely would denigrate elsewhere.

It is now more common that our first assumption about any statement, article, sermon or other communication is that it is latent with a hint of something more deeply revealing—and disturbing—than what is there at face value. I get it, I really do.

I have witnessed many people make the progressive turn, and often it does show up in small snippets and bite-sized illustrations that reveal the direction they are heading.

For instance, I recall a very popular Baptist preacher some years ago lifting up panentheism in a sermon illustration as a way of thinking about God and the world. Now, they never explicitly endorsed panentheism, but the way they discussed the topic positively would have left many to believe such a view might be feasible within orthodox Christianity, if not preferable.

At the time, I didn’t think much of it, but over several years now I have come to see such an illustration was part of a larger pattern advocating for a more progressive Christian understanding. Like breadcrumbs for a mouse, they dropped those hints selectively along the way, so as not to be too obvious to those following them.

In defense of Baptist Standard

However, as a regular reader, I don’t believe the Baptist Standard has any such larger pattern and that those of us who fall within the more conservative side of the Christian house ought to give the team at the Standard the benefit of the doubt in a world where doubt is the default.

Let’s encourage them to report on news as news and to share opinion as opinion, just as they receive our opinions and publish some of them.

Chris Backert serves as senior director of the Ascent Movement attempting to advance a joyful, winsome orthodox witness to whole-life salvation through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Last week, we republished an article that elicited quick responses from Baptist Standard readers wanting to know why we republished it.

From the beginning of my tenure as executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard, I have told our readers we are accountable directly to them—to you. If a reader has a concern, question, comment or complaint, communicate it directly to me. I am the responsible party.

Likewise, if we fail to maintain our core commitments to the redeeming and reconciling work of Jesus Christ, historic Baptist principles, and responsible journalism, communicate our failure directly to me. I am the responsible party.

I am grateful whenever readers do just that.

The most recent questions raised—the second questioner doing so on Facebook—merit my response here.

The article and the questions

At 1:58 p.m. on Wed., May 14, we republished a news article from Religion News Service titled “Forced out at Myers Park, Boswell starts new church.”

At 2:07 p.m. the same day, I received an email from a Texas Baptist pastor asking if the Baptist General Convention of Texas is affiliated with either of the churches referenced in the article and for an explanation of why a story about “LGBTQ affirming churches” is in the Baptist Standard, when the BGCT does not affiliate with such churches.

I’m not sharing the pastor’s name or location because it was a private communication with me.

I thanked the pastor for his question and stated, “I’m certain the BGCT is not affiliated with the churches connected to Boswell.”

“In answer to what I think is your broader question,” I continued, “The Baptist Standard, as an independent partner of the BGCT, is not limited to publishing news only about BGCT-affiliated churches and institutions. Our intent here was not to affirm a church but to report on what is happening among some Baptists, similar to the article “Former Southern Baptist Josh Buice quits G3 Conference” we published on [May 12].”

Over the weekend, a second Texas Baptist pastor commented on our Facebook post containing the same RNS story on Boswell. Since his comment is public, I will provide his name and his full comment.

“Why is the Baptist Standard sharing this with no critique or comment?” Dustin Slaton, pastor of First Baptist Church in Round Rock, asked in his Facebook comment.

“The article originated from RNS, and is clearly in support of this pro-LGBTQ+ church. With no additional comment from The Standard, it seems like they are sharing this in support of the article’s content and conclusions. I certainly hope not. Maybe some clarity could be added before the article?” Slaton commented.

Why we republished

We republished the article in question as a report on what is happening among Baptists, not to affirm the two churches, the pastor or their position on LGBTQ+.

We did not offer critique or comment anywhere on the republished article, because our view of responsible journalism is that news and opinion need to be published in separate articles. This is a point about which publishers and readers need to talk with each other.

Do we have the same definition of “responsible journalism?” I’m not sure we do, and I don’t mean that as a criticism of readers. I think it’s a result of the most prominent media outlets of our time blending news and opinion. Do readers want us to follow the example of those media outlets, or do they want us to keep news and opinion separated? This is an honest question.

What labeling makes the difference between news and opinion most clear to the reader? You’d think I would know the answer to that question, but based on periodic reader comments, it’s clear I don’t.

Where we stand

In direct response to Slaton’s concern that the Baptist Standard may be “in support of the article’s contents and conclusions,” I have a two-part response.

First, what specific contents and conclusions are being referenced? Here again, this gets to the question about responsible journalism and whether a news story should reach conclusions. As Baptist Standard Publishing understands it, news is supposed to lay out the facts and report on people’s perceptions of those facts. Conclusions are the purview of opinion articles.

Second, I take it Slaton is referring to Ben Boswell’s, Myers Park Baptist Church’s and Collective Liberation Church’s affirmation of LGBTQ+ inclusion and wondering if Baptist Standard Publishing also wishes to promote LGBTQ+ inclusion.

I and Baptist Standard Publishing hold that the Bible allows for and blesses sex only within marriage and that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. My thorough study of this issue in 2014 and 2015 did not change my view.

I and Baptist Standard Publishing also hold that people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or otherwise are created in the image of God; are human beings worthy of love, dignity, respect and honor; and are equal to everyone else in our need for grace, forgiveness, salvation, repentance and sanctification. How all of this works out in detail is beyond the scope of this article.

My opinion

As for my comment on or critique of the story: The story is evidence that being LGBTQ+-inclusive is no safeguard against congregational division and decline. In fact, many Texas Baptists contend such inclusion is a primary source of congregational division and decline. During 2015 and the few years following, this certainly was the case in many churches I observed.

Whatever theological and social positions a church and its leadership hold, unity and growth are not givens outside the presence, indwelling, filling, guidance of and submission to the Holy Spirit. Let us be people who submit to the will of God the Father, to the lordship of Jesus Christ and to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

My thanks

I appreciate Dustin Slaton. I appreciate his seriousness about Jesus, the Bible, the church, evangelism, missions and the BGCT. And I appreciate him holding me and the Baptist Standard accountable.

Thank you, also, to the pastor who contacted me by email. I take you to be equally serious about Jesus, the Bible, the church, evangelism, missions and the BGCT.

We are not perfect, we’re not going to be perfect, and we’re not going to pretend to be perfect.

We are accountable, and we will continue to be accountable to you, our readers, and to our commitment to the redeeming and reconciling work of Jesus Christ, historic Baptist principles, and responsible journalism.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com.