A Woman’s Cruciform Love

Tonight on Facebook, I read an update on a friend’s life that left me sobbing. I won’t share the details, but it echoed the stories of several women I know. Fighting for faith as they persevere in trial, just to be abandoned in the middle of it by the one they thought was in it with them. For several friends, the abandonment has been by their spouse, a most bitter betrayal when you are already fighting to endure in suffering. But some have been abandoned by siblings, parents, churches, or friends. The friend tonight wasn’t bitter, but she was grieving deeply. And that, friends, is the difference in worldly love and cruciform love.

Cruciform love. Love in the shape of the cross. My online news and social media feeds don’t much understand cruciform love. Sometimes I don’t think too many Christians do either. Who doesn’t get bitter when their spouse emotionally divests from their relationship in the middle of the terminal illness of a child? Who doesn’t get bitter when the friend or family member you thought was on mission with you decides they just don’t care anymore? So when I stumble across cruciform love in the middle of betrayal or abandonment (and what other kind of love could possibly endure such a thing?), I take note of it.

Cruciform love feels the sting of betrayal. Cruciform love doesn’t deny the existence of pain but faces it head on and walks through (or limps through) it anyway.

Luke 22:42 “Father, if You are willing, take this cup away from Me—nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done.”

Hebrews 12:2 … who for the joy that lay before Him endured the cross and despised the shame …

Jesus faced his suffering head on and felt its pain deeply. Love in His image hurts, which is why most of us avoid it like the plague.

There is overwhelming sadness and betrayal in this world. There is overwhelming sadness and betrayal in my little Facebook feed as well. The temptation again and again is to harden ourselves to it. We don’t just get angry at sin, we get angry at sinners. When our love is thrown back in our faces, we batten down the hatches and take down the sails. We will endure, but not vulnerably. We ride out the storm by locking ourselves in. This seems the way of survival. But it is not cruciform love. Cruciform love doesn’t protect itself. It loses its life. Praise God though that Jesus affirms such loss as the path to finding true life (Matthew 16:25).

Cruciform love is the gospel lived out. It is the essence of imaging out our God to a lost and broken world.

Luke 6 32 If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 If you do what is good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do what is good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is gracious to the ungrateful and evil. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

In this post, why do I emphasize the cruciform love of believing women? I have watched men live out cruciform love as well, but they are not the ones that share with me the private stories of pain in their lives the way many women do. Also, there is a particular vulnerability in our gender related to our creation in the image of God as ezer. The term reflects both God’s strength and His care, His protection and His compassion. And caring leaves us vulnerable. It left God vulnerable too, hanging on a cross exposed to a jeering crowd. And instead of anger or bitterness at the betrayal of the crowd that had cheered Him as Messiah just a few days before, He prayed in the midst of their jeering cries, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” This love at His most vulnerable, exposed moment is cruciform love.

I want to give a shout out to the women I see living out such love, but I note they are not much for shout outs. They love this way because they are convinced they ARE LOVED this way. And what other response could they possibly offer?

I John 4:11 Dear friends, if God loved us in this way, we also must love one another.

I John 4:19 We love because He first loved us.

Instead of a shout out of affirmation, I will offer simply an encouragement. Sister in Christ, though the world despises cruciform love and projects weakness onto those who believe in it, know that it is the gospel playing out in your life. The pain of your circumstances tempts you to harden yourself, except that you know Jesus loved you vulnerably even when it hurt Him deeply. And so you stay engaged as you can, loving those who can not return it. Bless you, sister, for you encourage me in Christ.

Is the Bible Good for Women?

is good cover final finalWaterbrook/Multnomah is offering a sneak peek at Is the Bible Good for Women?  Seeking Clarity and Confidence through a Jesus-centered Understanding of Scripture.  If you know or love someone wrestling with this question, please share.


“Is the Bible good for women? Many people (both women and men) would emphatically say no. To them, the Bible promotes a patriarchy that has historically crushed women and given men license to suppress and abuse them. After all, how could a book that talks about forcing a raped woman to marry her rapist or tells wives to ‘submit’ to their husbands be good for women? Without flinching at the difficulty of certain parts of the Bible, and while at the same time upholding divine inspiration of the Scripture, Wendy Alsup weaves together answers that are not only consistently Christ-centered but are also true to the heart of the Lord who loves women. As a woman who highly values both women and God’s Word, Alsup gives us answers to some of the most difficult questions about gender in the Bible. Because her answers are deeply compassionate and true to Scripture, this book will be good for you. I highly recommend it!”

Elyse M. Fitzpatrick, author of Home: How Heaven and the New Earth Satisfy Our Deepest Longings


“Is the Bible good for women? Some hear the question and scoff: ‘Of course not! It’s antiquated, dangerous, misogynistic.’ Some hear the question and grieve: ‘Of course it is! It’s God’s Word, and it frees women to be who God means for them to be.’ What Wendy Alsup understands and articulates is that even something as good as the Bible can be put to poor use in the hands of sinful people. Thus she approaches the question with care and insight to provide an answer that is thoroughly biblical and so very satisfying.”

Tim Challies, blogger and author of Visual Theology





On the Women’s March

Last week’s march on Washington and many other cities drew widespread national attention. Many were for it, and how dare you criticize it. Others were against it, and how dare you entertain the idea of going to it. I am usually pretty good at resisting such binaries. The intense irony of the binary was summed up well with Hannah Anderson’s tweet:

We will get back to the specifics raised in her tweet at the end of this post.

I didn’t go to the march, mostly because I didn’t have one close by that I could go to. If I had, I would have held up a pro-all-of-life poster of some nature. I was deeply disturbed that the organizers didn’t let pro-life feminists into the march. But then I realized, Christian pro-all-of-life women and men needed to show up anyway. And many did. That is exactly the kind of action in relationship with need that Jesus taught.

Matthew 5

13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt should lose its taste, how can it be made salty? It’s no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled on by men.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, but rather on a lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

How much wisdom Jesus communicated through the choice of salt and light as the analogy for a Christian’s need of involvement in the world. Salt in its container on the counter of the kitchen, looking at the food across the way but never touching it, does not do anything worthy of its name. Salt that is in contact with meat but has lost its distinctive influence is not doing anything worthy of its name either. Salt is for flavoring. Salt is for preserving. And salt is meaningless if it is not in contact with the thing that needs flavor or preserving.

How can we be salt and light through something like a women’s march? What value is there in applying ourselves directly to the meat in question?

1) By affirming the concerns that we hold in common with other women at such a march, we can show how many of them flow from a Judeo-Christian understanding of ethics.

We are concerned by Trump’s language of sexual assault because God created women in His image, and He was the first to proclaim a legal penalty for sexual assault. We are concerned by Trump’s lifelong pattern of insulting women on their looks because God taught us that while man looks on the outward, God looks on the heart (I Samuel 16:7). We are concerned by Trump’s ability to discard his wives because God first instilled in us the need for faithful covenant in relationship. We are concerned by Trump’s mockery of the disabled and inflammatory statements concerning immigrants because God was the first to teach us to value and care for the poor and marginalized in society.

2) By affirming the concerns Christians share with a secular women’s movement, we can show the natural out-working of those same concerns applied to life before birth.

My next sentence may be the most important you will ever read on defeating abortion. We can not show the worth of lives before birth without showing the worth of life after birth. The perceived dichotomy between the two has become the great stumbling block for the pro-life movement, often championed by those who are also willing to defund social services that are a lifeline for the women considering abortion who might choose to give birth to their child. As we affirm the dignity of all human life after birth (the disabled, the immigrant, the poor, the marginalized) and advocate for a safety net for vulnerable children and single mothers who bring them into the world, we remove social stumbling blocks that cause many to consider abortion an option. We bolster a pro-life position when we do not separate it from an all-life position. We bolster a pro-life position when we put off language that dehumanizes the poor and marginalized that would consider abortion.

In conclusion, Hannah’s tweet reflects an irony for many conservative believers who resonated with parts of the women’s march initiatives. I particularly resonated with their first principle: Ending Violence. “Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of all forms of violence against our bodies.” Though Trump is not the first president with multiple allegations of sexual violence against him, he has definitely been the first to glory publicly in his misogyny, boasting to Billy Bush about 2nd degree sexual assault (sexual contact without consent for which he later apologized). But his multiple appearances on Howard Stern have best reflected his attitude towards women, and for those he’s only reveled, never apologized. Is it appropriate to call Trump a sexual predator? Well, his bragging of grabbing women without consent certainly fits that label. “A sexual predator is a person seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual contact with another person in a metaphorically “predatory” or abusive manner.”  His inclusion of strip clubs in his casinos and glorification of porn culture fit such a label as well.

It is ironic that a man who glories in the male appetite for sex without consequences (for the man at least), which is the very culture that puts women in a place in which they feel they need abortion, is the same man celebrated for hopefully ending abortion. If you don’t address the need for abortion and male participation in a hook up culture that wants sex without responsibility, you will always have abortion. You may have it illegally. You may have it in back alleys. But you will always have abortion.

So I was willing to march, because though the march organizers want both abortion and a change to the culture of predatory sex that Trump has come to represent, I believe there is a better way. When believers address and rebuke the culture of predatory sex Trump represents, we are salt and light aiding in ending abortion. I am encouraged to see more and more orthodox believers putting off the binary between pro-choice and pro-birth and advocating for flourishing life both before and after birth. In doing so, we reinforce that flourishing life was God’s idea first and that we can go to the Bible for wisdom for life, and health, and peace. Truly, through Abraham’s Seed and the Word that reveals Him, all nations shall be blessed.


**Waterbrook/Multnomah is offering a BOGO promotion for preorders of Is the Bible Good for Women? Seeking Clarity and Confidence through a Jesus-centered Understanding of Scripture, which releases in March.  Though I started this project 3 years ago, it seems more relevant and needed than ever.**







Why Paula White is a Heretic

On Thursday night, NBC Nightly News showed a tweet by Dr. Russell Moore, leader of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, calling the leading religious figure in Donald Trump’s life, Paula White, a heretic. The NBC reporter asked White, “Do you think it is because you are a woman?” “No,” I loudly replied. “It’s because she’s a heretic!” But, of course, no one could hear me in my living room.

Interestingly, the same day, I listened to a free lecture from Reformed Theological Seminary from their History of Christianity I class . I’ve been working through this class on their free app, and Thursday’s lecture was on the Council of Nicaea which produced the Nicene Creed. For many of us, the word heretic is simply a pejorative term. But among the church fathers in the history of Christianity, it had a specific meaning, that someone was teaching a belief in the name of Christ that didn’t match orthodox Christian faith.

But here we have another word, orthodox. What does it mean?

Orthodoxy (from Greek ὀρθοδοξία, orthodoxia – “right opinion”) is adherence to correct or accepted creeds, especially in religion. In the Christian sense the term means “conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

It’s been interesting to study the history of Christianity and the development of the creeds by the early church fathers to combat heresies. The primary ones were around the nature of the Trinity and particularly around the nature of Christ. The more you study it, the more you get how concerning the debate last year over Eternal Subordination of the Son was in terms of the orthodox Christian faith. As a result of this class and that debate, I’ve been using a more discriminating eye as I evaluate what books I do and don’t recommend. For a time, I used some books by conservative men and women whom I now recognize as being fuzzy on the Trinity in a way that would have concerned the church fathers. Because these authors were conservative on gender, I mistakenly assumed they held closely to conservative orthodox faith. But I have found that is often not the case.

I have also met more women equally burdened as I for discipling women in the faith of our fathers, understanding how Scripture led early church fathers to affirm old creeds and how those should still constrain us for today.  These women believe that an orthodox understanding of the Trinity and nature of Christ are essential doctrines for Christian women, and their writing and teaching affirm these doctrines.

Which leads me back to Paula White. There are a lot of folks who hold to an orthodox understanding of the faith with whom I disagree on secondary issues. I am presbyterian. I have attended baptist churches in the past, but I also tend to disagree with them about church polity. I have attended methodist churches, but I disagree with them around Arminian doctrine. But while these are big issues, historically, they have been secondary to divisions over the very nature of God. And Paula White operates in a theological system that denies the basic tenets of the nature of God and the Trinity from an orthodox Christian view.

One example is her affirmation of the statement  that “Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God … He is the first fruit.” She is either denying the deity of Jesus or elevating believers to deity. She goes on later to say in a CNN interview that she affirms the Nicene Creed. But saying you do doesn’t actually mean that you do. I wonder if she even understands the Arian heresy the Council of Nicaea was called to address?

Some might have a problem with Paula White because of her marriages or because she pastors as a woman. But grievously, not that many understand the problem with her understanding of Christ. But you should. And if you are interested in knowing more theology and history of orthodox Christianity so you recognize among either conservatives or liberals what is not actually the historic Christian faith, I highly recommend the RTS app and the History of Christianity I class by Dr. Donald Fortson. I listen while driving on errands and can usually finish a lecture a day doing so. And, sisters reading this, we need to know orthodox doctrine!

Post-Trump Reflections 4: Inauguration of the King

Part 1: Dueling Moralities

Part 2: Care of the Poor in Scripture

Part 3: Turning to Assyria for Help

In the last post, we looked at God’s warning to King Ahaz not to put his trust in one god-less leader to ward off another. God promised a sign in Isaiah 7:14, a sign Ahaz said that he didn’t want but one that God sent anyway.

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.

By the time this sign emerges on the scene, Ahaz is long dead and the nation of Israel has become a small, powerless remnant. We meet Simeon and Anna in Luke 2, some of the few who remain devout in belief that God would fulfill His promise.

And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, 28 then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,

“Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace,
According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 A Light of revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”

This baby was God’s salvation, the Light of revelation to even Gentile nations, and the glory of God’s people, the dispersed remnant of faithful believers. Jesus was later received into Jerusalem as king and then crucified by the same fickle crowd. But He rose again from the dead, defeating not just the oppressive rulers of the day but the very weapon that gave them power, the threat of death. Rulers would still oppress, but their greatest tool of manipulation, the fear of death, was defused. For true believers, death has lost its sting, the grave no longer threatening annihilation. We serve the One who has defeated the greatest threat of all.

Before Jesus returned to heaven, He gave us a new version of the same commission God gave at the Garden before death entered the world. Go into all the world. Overcome the chaos with the message of God’s kingdom. This remains our commission, though we feel a disaffected remnant in a “Christian” nation that chose a god-less leader to save them from terrorism abroad and closer to home.

We remain constrained by God’s commission. Go. Serve. Protect. Teach. Disciple.

We remain constrained by God’s instructions. Pray for our leaders. Pay our taxes. Pursue justice. Stand firm in our faith.

We do all of this under King Jesus, whose reign is now established. Other dictators have lost all of their weapons. They cannot threaten us with death, for God has overcome it, and death has lost its sting. They cannot threaten us with harm, financial or otherwise, because our God is sovereign, and we can trust His protection.

John 1
5 That light shines in the darkness,
yet the darkness can not overcome it.

Even in the middle of the fallout in Isaiah from Ahaz’s disastrous alliance with Assyria, the faithful remnant had hope.

Isaiah 26:12
Lord, you establish peace for us;
all that we have accomplished you have done for us.

Isaiah repeatedly refers to this remnant, for whom God makes level paths in the middle of a treacherous landscape. God instructs in Isaiah 26:20 …

Go, my people, enter your rooms
and shut the doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until his wrath has passed by.

Go, enter your rooms and close your doors behind you. It is God’s job to bring peace, not your own, and we know that He will do it, for He cannot deny Himself.

This may be something of which you need to be occasionally reminded. But for me, it is the lifeblood for surviving not just day by day but hour by hour. As the inauguration of a leader who mercilessly mocks God’s image-bearers approaches, this must be my meditation for I am similarly tempted as Ahaz to put my trust in yet another. But the Light has come, and darkness will not overcome it. God has established peace for us, dear brother or sister in Christ. And any good that we accomplish, He is actually the one who did it for us. Hunker down for a bit as God rouses Himself to judge those who turn to idols while calling His children to lean into Him more and more. The true Name of God is secure. His glory will shine, and His word will be accomplished, not some adulterated version perverted by American nationalism but the good news of His care for those who cannot bring about their own salvation.

Luke 4: 16-20

He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Post-Trump Reflections 3: Turning to Assyria for Help

Part 1 – Dueling Moralities

Part 2 – Care of the Poor in Scripture

When we read the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, we get a sense of both the personal nature of sin and the corporate nature of sin. Modern Christians, particularly conservatives who speak out and rally against abortion, understand corporate sin in at least that realm. Though most individual Americans have never had an abortion and few individual lawmakers have ever performed one, conservatives still understand there to be a corporate culpability for the killing of children soon to be viable outside of the womb by the lawmakers that allowed it and the voters who supported it.

The book of Isaiah gives us a depressing look into widespread, national sin that results in widespread, national judgement. It makes the case against corporate sin particularly around two areas: oppression and injustice against the poor explored in the last post (see Is. 1:17) and the idolatry of turning toward a god-less leader to protect from another god-less leader.

I spent the last part of 2016 reading through Isaiah. I understood parts but had questions about others. I noted the strong judgement of God, but I didn’t fully understand exactly what God was judging. But last month, my pastor preached sermons from Isaiah 7-9 during Advent and recommended a commentary on Isaiah by Motyer. That commentary is long and involved, but Motyer’s (and my pastor’s) discussion of the history of the northern and southern kingdoms through Isaiah was super helpful for understanding the specifics of the idolatry which dismantled what was left of Israel at the time.

Here is a historical summary. After the three first kings of Israel—Saul, David, and Solomon—the nation of Israel split. The ten northern tribes, also known as Ephraim or Jacob, were consistently wicked. The two southern tribes formed Judah. They were mostly righteous and still worshiped Yahweh. The Davidic king, King Ahaz, still reigned in the southern tribes at the start of the book of Isaiah.

The big enemy of all of the tribes of Israel was Assyria. The smaller enemy was Syria. The unrighteous northern tribes made an an alliance with Syria to fight Assyria. The southern tribes, Judah, rightly did not enter into this alliance. But Israel and Assyria threatened to invade Judah and set up their own king in place of Ahaz. As a result of this, Judah wanted to align with Assyria. They wanted to align with the worst enemy of all to ward off their other enemies.

Isaiah 7 begins God’s message to King Ahaz of the southern tribes of Judah. After describing the situation at hand, God told Isaiah to say to King Ahaz, “Calm down and be quiet. Don’t be afraid or cowardly because of these two smoldering stubs of firebrands” who plot harm against you. Then God says in v. 7-9:

This is what the Lord God says:

It will not happen; it will not occur.

If you do not stand firm in your faith,
then you will not stand at all.

God tells Ahaz to calm down, be quiet, and hold firm. He did not need to make an unrighteous alliance out of fear, for God would see that none of their enemies’ threats came to pass. But in the next verses, we see that Ahaz’s mind was already made up. God graciously offered Ahaz a sign that God would keep them safe as He promised, but Ahaz replied, “I will not ask. I will not test the Lord.” This is not a super spiritual response by Ahaz but one of a hardened heart. He is terrified, and he has made up his mind of how he will respond to the enemies at his door. There is no point in God offering him a sign, because he isn’t going to obey God either way.

The Lord promised to give them a sign anyway, the great comfort of Isaiah 7:14 – Emmanuel. But by the time this sign is fully recognized, the two kingdoms of Israel will be dismantled. “The king of Assyria is coming,” God says in v. 17. The one Ahaz embraced against God’s warning to save them instead became their executioner.

All this comes to pass as God said, and no part of the nation of Israel is in power again. When the virgin does conceive and has the Son we call Emmanuel, Israel is under Roman occupation, a marginalized people group who remained defeated after Ahaz sold his soul in terror to align with one who would only make it worse.

It takes no effort to see the relevance of the history of Israel in Isaiah to the choices made by enough evangelical Christians to sway the election in Trump’s favor. Two things affect whether we see the book of Isaiah as relevant instruction on how those of us grafted into the Vine should think about modern politics. The first of course is doctrinal persuasions. For those from a dispensational background, the history of Israel is informative but not definitive. We can learn from it, but we should not feel any obligation to be constrained by it. But for those with reformed convictions from Scripture, we fundamentally believe that we ARE Israel, grafted into the Vine as Paul describes in Romans 9-11. And God’s strong words to the king of Judah not to align with a godless oppressor to protect from another godless oppressor are of great importance.

The second thing that affects how we receive these instructions is the same thing that affected King Ahaz. It is simply the hardness of our hearts. Some Christians just can’t hear that voting for Trump as a reaction against both Hilary and ISIS was a rejection of God. And, the difference here is that they don’t attempt to logically defend themselves from Scripture or if they do, they only appeal to the godless nature of the alternatives. Their fear of the alternative is so great that they can not admit they chose against the commands of God.

Psalm 20:7  Some trust in chariots, and others in horses,
but we trust in the name of Yahweh our God.

Of course, at each election cycle, we are choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” I was willing to vote for both Romney and McMullin, neither who claim orthodox Christian faith. The difference is the pains that the God of the Bible seeks to warn us against exactly what evangelicals did in choosing Trump. God specifically warns us against both oppressors and fools. And often, these two characteristics coincide.

God gives us much wisdom on recognizing a fool …

Proverbs 10:18  The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.

Proverbs 10:23  As shameful conduct is pleasure for a fool, so wisdom is for a man of understanding.

Proverbs 12:16  A fool’s displeasure is known at once, but whoever ignores an insult is sensible.

Proverbs 12:23  A shrewd person conceals knowledge, but a foolish heart publicizes stupidity.

Proverbs 14:9  Fools mock at making restitution, but there is goodwill among the upright.

Proverbs 14:16  A wise man is cautious and turns from evil, but a fool is easily angered and is careless.

Proverbs 18:2  A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions.

… and warns us clearly on the results of associating with known fools.

Proverbs 13:20  The one who walks with the wise will become wise, but a companion of fools will suffer harm.

Proverbs 14:7  Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech.

Proverbs 17:12  Better for a man to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his foolishness.

But, though the warnings from Scripture are grim, in the final post of this series we will reflect on the fulfillment of the promise God gave in the midst of the hardness of King Ahaz’s heart. The rest of Isaiah contrasts the utter destruction Ahaz’s hardness against God’s warning brought upon the people of God with the coming hope of restoration through the Promised One. We too who are struggling after this election season (whichever way we voted) can find much hope in the promises of God in Isaiah, as we who see the problems with Trump face the same temptations to guard ourselves from his evil through unholy alliances that have undone the people of God time and again.


  • This episode of the Pass the Mic podcast with Andy Crouch is relevant to this discussion.  I highly recommend it.

Post-Trump Reflections Part 2: Care of the Poor in Scripture

In the first post of this series, I looked at the dueling moral cultures of the conservative South and the more liberal Pacific Northwest, based on observations during the significant time I lived in both. I’ve noted from living in two starkly different cultures how easy it is for Christians to assume their preferred culture more closely aligns with Scripture. Instead, there is power in getting out of our comfort zone in order to understand our own personal blindspots. I have experienced culturally accepted immorality in both cultures, but I’ve seen God’s common grace in each as well.

Today, I want to look specifically at social justices issues, particularly the care of the poor and marginalized, that I have seen divergent cultural attitudes between the South and Pacific Northwest.

After the election, I posted what I called 30 Days of Social Justice on the Practical Theology for Women Facebook page. I did it so I could sit for a while simply in God’s Word, meditating on what He thought about the poor and marginalized, the disabled and immigrant. An interesting thing came from my efforts to find 30 different quotes from Scripture or respected Bible teachers on the subject. First, though I was generally familiar with the laws from Deuteronomy and Leviticus on the care of the poor, I was struck by their clarity and specificity. Second, I found an essay entitled The Duty of Charity to the Poor by Jonathan Edwards, famed reformed puritan who wrote Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

I don’t always agree with the old guys. Jonathan Edwards had his own cultural blindspots around slavery, so there are certainly things to challenge on his understanding of the image-bearing dignity of all humanity. Yet, it is noteworthy that this puritan that you could never accuse of being a cheap-grace softy saw a Biblical case for government involvement in the care of the poor. His writing on the subject has solidified my conviction. Sadly, sometimes I need an old guy to convince me that what I’m reading in Scripture says what it seems to say, but I also believe this is a function of the historical church that modern Christians often overlook. There is much new thinking of the last 40 years in some hallways of Christianity whose disastrous results could have been avoided by respecting the old guys.

Concerning the Christian duty toward the poor, let’s first look at the most specific Scripture passages which come from the Old Testament Law, Deuteronomy 15. Here is a summary:

v. 1-3 Every 7 years, you must cancel all the debts of your neighbor or brother.

v. 4-5 If you obey these laws carefully, the Lord is certain to bless you and there will no longer be any poor among you.

v. 7-8 You must not be hardhearted or tightfisted against any of your neighbors or brothers who have a need.

Note particularly the wording of verses 9-11.

9 Be careful that there isn’t this wicked thought in your heart, ‘The seventh year, the year of canceling debts, is near,’ and you are stingy toward your poor brother and give him nothing. He will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty. 10 Give to him, and don’t have a stingy heart when you give, and because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you do. 11 For there will never cease to be poor people in the land; that is why I am commanding you, ‘You must willingly open your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land.’

Here is Jonathan Edward’s conclusion from this passage.

It is not merely a commendable thing for a man to be kind and bountiful to the poor, but our bounden duty, as much a duty as it is to pray, or to attend public worship, or anything else whatever.

Then from Leviticus 25

5 “If your brother becomes destitute and cannot sustain himself among you, you are to support him as a foreigner or temporary resident, so that he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not profit or take interest from him, but fear your God and let your brother live among you. 37 You are not to lend him your silver with interest or sell him your food for profit. 38 I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

The wording here causes us to seek out God’s instructions on the treatment of foreigners, which can be summed up with Leviticus 19:33-34.

 “When a foreigner lives with you in your land, you must not oppress him. You must regard the foreigner who lives with you as the native-born among you. You are to love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt; I am Yahweh your God.”

I grew up in a religious affiliation that did not value the Old Testament Law, and when I point out such requirements in the Law, I still hear from some a simple dismissal of it since we are no longer under the Law. However, that understanding misses how Jesus talks of the Law. Remember that He didn’t come to “abolish the Law but to fulfill it.” In particular, He fulfilled it’s requirement of punishment, which is why there is now “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). The Law was our tutor on both the character of God and all the ways we fall short of it. Note how both Leviticus 19 and 25 use the phrase, “I am Yahweh your God.” These passages are about the character of God and how we as His image-bearers are supposed to live among each other.

Thankfully, the New Testament continues these instructions so that we are protected from the temptation to write them off with the fulfillment of the Law.

Luke 6:35 Do good and lend, hoping for nothing in return, for then you are like your Father in heaven who causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust.

2 Cor. 9:5-7 Give, not begrudgingly or because you are forced, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Mt 23:23 You have forgotten the weightier matters of the Law like justice, mercy, and faith.

Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.

That last instruction from Paul in Galatians is key to understanding the elemental way God speaks throughout Scripture of the duty of charity to the poor.  Most Christians agree that the Bible teaches the care of the poor, widow, and immigrant. I submit that it is not just the poor, widow, and immigrant Christian, otherwise the parable of the Good Samaritan has no meaning. But though most agree on the general need for Christian charity, our divergent opinion by culture is around the question of the government’s involvement.

Most Christians agree that the government’s roll is to generally restrain sin against others. But what constraints on sin should government regulate? We don’t legislate general morality, and I don’t believe government’s role is to restrain my personal sin. But when my sin affects others, government is right to step in and protect. Generally, we accept government restraint of those that harm others without consent. We prosecute murder, not suicide and rape, not adultery.

Consider Romans 13.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For government is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience. 6 And for this reason you pay taxes, since the authorities are God’s public servants, continually attending to these tasks. 7 Pay your obligations to everyone: taxes to those you owe taxes, tolls to those you owe tolls, respect to those you owe respect, and honor to those you owe honor.

To bring this full circle, a lack of charity, as the Bible presents it, is a sin against the poor, and it has victims. That’s really the sobering thing that Jonathan Edward’s essay helped me to see. This is why God speaks through the Bible of hearing the “cry of the poor” …

Prov. 21:13 The one who shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will himself also call out and not be answered.

And defending the rights of the destitute.

Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do what is good.
Seek justice.
Correct the oppressor.
Defend the rights of the fatherless.
Plead the widow’s cause.

The Bible challenges the popular American view that my money is my own, and I have absolute rights over it. Charity to the poor was not an over-and-above-the-call-of-duty kind of moral act. It was a baseline moral requirement in God’s society, similar to commands against fornication or murder, and it is linked to theft.

Isaiah 10:1-3 Woe to those enacting crooked statutes
and writing oppressive laws
to keep the poor from getting a fair trial
and to deprive the afflicted among my people of justice,
so that widows can be their spoil
and they can plunder the fatherless.
What will you do on the day of punishment
when devastation comes from far away?

This led Jonathan Edwards to conclude

It is fit that the law should make provision for those that have no estates of their own. It is not fit that persons who are reduced to that extremity should be left to so precarious a source of supply as a voluntary charity. They are in extreme necessity of relief, and therefore it is fit that there should be something sure for them to depend on. But a voluntary charity in this corrupt world is an uncertain thing. Therefore the wisdom of the legislature did not think fit to leave those who are so reduced upon such a precarious foundation for subsistence. But I suppose not that it was ever the design of the law to make such provision for all that are in want, as to leave no room for Christian charity.”

The Bible also challenges us when we ask, “Who deserves such charity or justice?” Who is an image bearer of God? Who gets to be a recipient of mercy? When I ask this question, I am reflecting a lack of understanding of mercy and justice as Jesus presented it in the gospels. Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan reflects the summary of Old Testament law on justice and mercy – treat others the way you want to be treated. Love your neighbor as yourself. Well, then, who is my neighbor? It is even the unconscious guy on the side of the road, overlooked by his own, with whom you do not share nationality or religion. Treat THAT person the way you want to be treated. Love THAT neighbor as yourself. And in so doing, you have fulfilled all the Law and the Prophets.

Beyond these basics, there are a great many things to debate concerning government care of the poor, particularly the best way to curb government’s notorious bureaucracy and inefficiency. And based on your views of dispensationalism and end times, you may remain unconvinced that the Old Testament Law has any bearing on the NT church. In my experience, that theological/doctrinal difference strongly influences how believers react to arguments for government care of the poor in Scripture. Whatever negative reaction you have to this post, I simply encourage you to consider the Scripture I’ve referenced and, if all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for training us in righteousness, consider what that might mean for your views of both your and your government’s duty of charity to the poor.