We don’t need to guess what God really believes about sexuality, abortion, and critical race theory. The Bible is clear about these things. It isn’t nuanced, so we shouldn’t be either. 

One of the biggest criticisms I receive over my blog and social media posts is also one of the biggest compliments I receive.
Some people say I am not nuanced. But considering its meaning, that isn’t a criticism, it’s a compliment.
Actually, I think nuance is one of the biggest problems with evangelicals today.
I don’t want to be nuanced.
Nuance is one of the reasons why many professing Christians get abortions. 20% of American women who get an abortion go to church at least once a week. Meaning, 200,000 babies are murdered every year in America by people who regularly go to church.
Nuance is also one of the reasons why many Christians have embraced critical race theory. Nuance is one of the reasons why many evangelical leaders and pastors have become ineffective in rescuing people from critical race theory and deconstruction.
This is because many evangelicals believe it’s divisive to speak clearly on controversial issues.
The Oxford Dictionary defines “nuance” as “a very slight difference in meaning, sound, color, or someone’s feelings that is not usually very obvious.”
“Nuance” is originally a Middle French word to describe making something more cloudy, shady, or subtle. Meaning, as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says—“nuance” is making something “so subtle you might miss it.”
So when some evangelicals say we should be more nuanced on controversial issues like abortion and critical race theory—they’re (intentionally or unintentionally) suggesting our words on abortion and critical race theory should be “so subtle others might miss it.”
Naturally, that explains why many Christians are confused about critical race theory. Nuance is also apparently why some evangelicals claim the Bible “whispers on sexual sin”.
But God doesn’t whisper on controversial issues. God isn’t nuanced. He isn’t vague.
Read More

Over the last few years, following a strategy that proved effective for advancing pro-life protections, states like Texas have been laying creative groundwork to hold adults accountable for experimenting on young people struggling with gender identity. Having these laws in place is incredibly important, given the astronomical rise in the number of young people identifying as transgender and how quickly transgender ideology went from being unthinkable to unquestionable in so many aspects of society.  

In Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, President Joe Biden told young people with gender dysphoria that he will “always have (their) back.” Though he didn’t specify what exactly that means, presumably it had something to do with extending Title IX protections to include allowing men full access to women’s facilities and sports; extending mandatory insurance coverage for “gender reassignment” surgeries; and restricting any counseling, treatments, or public advocacy that does anything less than fully affirm one’s gender dysphoria.  
Immediately following the President’s late-speech shoutout was a call to pass the Equality Act, something that remains (at least for now) dead in the Senate. The Equality Act would be a kind of legislative nuclear option, rendering the approximately 250 so-called “anti-LGBTQ” bills under consideration across America pointless, and leading to serious restrictions on religious liberty, especially for religious schools.  
Over the last few years, following a strategy that proved effective for advancing pro-life protections, states like Texas have been laying creative groundwork to hold adults accountable for experimenting on young people struggling with gender identity. Having these laws in place is incredibly important, given the astronomical rise in the number of young people identifying as transgender and how quickly transgender ideology went from being unthinkable to unquestionable in so many aspects of society.  
For instance, the field of so-called gender-affirming “medicine” is the only example of medical treatment that attempts to alter the body to accord with the mind, as opposed to helping the mind align with biological reality. That was a $316 million industry in 2018. By 2026, it is projected to be a $1.5 billion industry.  
Children, in particular, are the subjects of these social experiments, which are only one example of how reality is being reimagined along the lines of sexual autonomy. 
Read More

Policies that exclude faith-based schools from private-school-choice programs are not just unconstitutional; they are unwise. Carson v. Makin is a victory not just for religious liberty but for educational pluralism. And the decision comes at a time when we need educational pluralism more than ever.

A quarter-century ago, as a young attorney, I participated in the first litigation challenging the exclusion of faith-based schools from Maine’s tuition-assistance program for students in rural school districts. On Tuesday, in Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court agreed with me, holding in a 6–3 vote that the program unconstitutionally discriminates against faith-based schools. (I cried. Twenty-five years is a long time.)
In some ways, Carson is unremarkable. The case reiterates, for the third time in recent years, that the Constitution prohibits the government from refusing to permit religious organizations, including religious schools, to participate in programs providing public benefits—including school-choice programs. Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion hammered the point home with perfect clarity: “The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion” which “violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”
Critics of the decision, including the dissenting justices, responded with dark warnings about Carson ushering in a theocracy. Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained bitterly that the “Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” Justice Stephen Breyer predicted that the decision would increase “the potential for religious strife.” Such statements are hyperbolic at best. As a matter of constitutional law, the opinion breaks little new ground, merely reiterating what the Court has said repeatedly: the Constitution demands government neutrality toward religious believers and institutions. Full stop.
That Carson was not groundbreaking does not mean that it is not a landmark decision. On the contrary, the ruling represents the culmination of a battle for the equal treatment of faith-based schools that stretches back to the first half of the nineteenth century, when Catholic bishops began to demand public funds for Catholic schools on equality grounds, since public schools at the time were functionally Protestant and hostile to Catholic children. Those demands largely fell on deaf ears, and later, courts—including the Supreme Court—took a hard line against aid to children attending faith-based schools, invalidating on Establishment Clause grounds even programs providing modest financial benefits.
Read More
Related Posts: