The Ugly Sin of Racism

We are living in scary times. As a kid growing up in rural Maine, I never encountered even so much as a conversation about racism. When I went to college at Syracuse, my eyes were opened to the issue of race and racism. I learned so much about what black Americans, specifically, went through on a daily basis. I learned how our history of slavery and Jim Crow impacted them decades later. My first year roommate was (still is, obviously) Jewish, and that was my first friendship with someone who was Jewish. I learned a lot about his heritage and experience.

Over my 26 years in campus ministry, I have worked hard at developing relationships with students, staff, coaches, and faculty from other ethnic backgrounds, and even other nations. I have a long way to go in this area. I will never truly know what it’s like to be a minority in the United States, unless I live another 40 years, when whites are projected to be in the minority. But even then, institutions that have been built by white majority culture will be in place, so I will never really understand what my minority friends have had to deal with.

But I am learning. Every conversation. Every individual. Every relationship. Our staff conferences with Cru in 2015 and 2017 have focused on issues relating to race. I cannot lie – it’s been hard stuff to hear. It’s been super challenging. It’s been offensive sometimes, yes that too. And I don’t always agree with what everyone has been saying about race and racism. But I am working, just like I have since my freshman year in college, to move towards greater understanding and commitment to standing with my minority brothers and sisters.

I am a Christian. I have a worldview. And like any worldview, it impacts my views on all sorts of things. Including race and racism. I view racism as an evil that plagues the human condition, and I’ll explain why in a moment. Let me first talk about an alternative worldview. Look at things from an evolutionary perspective.

Evolution holds that organisms struggle for survival and reproduction. There’s an individual level of struggle, where individual members of a species compete for resources and for mating/reproductive opportunities. Over time, those more fit for survival will pass their genes on to the next generation. This struggle is a gruesome reality, not reflective of moral good or bad – it just IS. “Nature red in tooth and claw”, wrote Tennyson.

This struggle goes beyond the individual, however. Most honeybees are drones, infertile and unable to pass their genes on to the next generation. Yet they exist and participate in the colony’s struggle for survival. Their willingness, as it were, to work and live and die to allow other honeybees to pass on their genes is known as kin selection. An individual is more likely to favor members of their close kin than members outside that kin. We see this all the time in all sorts of species. A group of meerkats will stick together and oppose another, different, group of meerkats, even though they are of the same species. They do this because their own group is their kin – not just their brothers and sisters, but cousins and second cousins, etc. So even within the same species, you will see what we might call in-groups and out-groups, as those closer to their own kin are favored over those outside their kin.

This phenomenon is, of course, seen in our species as well. You may argue with your little brother, but when someone outside the family picks on him, you will stick up for him and protect him, because he’s family. It goes beyond that as well. You will favor your cousins, generally speaking, over strangers. You will favor your countrymen over people from other nations. When you are in a foreign land, and you hear someone speaking your language, you will gravitate towards him. In the Christian world, it is said that the most segregated hour of the week is on Sunday morning, because people tend to worship and fellowship with people LIKE them, more than people NOT like them. That’s why we see racially and culturally-oriented congregations. There are in-groups and out-groups, and they can be based on genetic relationship, affinity, or, yes, even race.

Generally we see racism activated when it confers a particular advantage to the in-group, or if the in-group senses (fairly or not) a threat from the out-group. Some white Americans are just fine with Hispanics staying in, say, Latin America, but they display their racism when they perceive that “too many” Hispanics will immigrate to the United States, threatening their majority status. In the case of American slavery, the advantage the in-group of whites gained is obvious – free labor from members of the out-group (black slaves).

In the case of the Jim Crow era, whites felt threatened by blacks pursuing equal rights. Thus the in-group (which, of course, had the political power) created institutions and laws conferring special favoritism upon themselves, and conferred disadvantages towards the out-group (blacks).

The long story short is this: evolution has an explanation for why racism exists. It is a natural extension of kin selection, which is a real thing. It’s kind of hard-wired into us from our evolutionary history, and so it’s not at all surprising that we tend to favor people more like us than people more unlike us. Human history is littered with this reality.

In fact, from a purely evolutionary perspective, racism is neither surprising nor…morally wrong. As I mentioned earlier, evolution does not speak to moral right or wrong. It simply speaks to what IS. If we are simply the product of evolution, it is understandable that we would have racist tendencies built into our nature.

Now, that being said, I reject this narrative. It makes sense insofar as evolution is concerned. But there is much more going on than this. I say that as a Christian who believes that morality is something real, that there are things that are Right and things that are Wrong, and they are not based in our evolutionary biology or psychology.

Racism is one of those Wrong things, despite whatever what an evolutionary perspective might suggest. It is Wrong because right and wrong are not rooted in evolution, but in God and in the very moral nature of God. Not only does God have a moral nature, but it is a GOOD moral nature.

The Psalmist wrote in Psalm 119:68, speaking to God, “You are good and do good.” Jesus said in Mark 10:18, “No one is good except God alone.”

God’s goodness is reflected in creation. As God created the world, He continually noted that “He saw that it was good.”

Humans made by God reflect God’s goodness. We are made in His image, which means, among other things, that we are moral beings, capable of moral reasoning. Capable of subjecting our instincts and biological drives to a greater moral law.

Genesis 1:26-27 tells us, “26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Another aspect of being made in God’s image is that we possess infinite worth. In Matthew 13:44-46, Jesus tells two short parables, each conveying the same meaning. In the first parable a man is in a field and he stumbles upon a treasure that he knows is worth more than the field itself, so he purchases the field and the treasure along with it, and thus he ends up with something of even greater value than the price he paid. In the second parable, a man finds a pearl worth more than anything he’s ever owned, and he sells everything he has to get the money to buy the pearl. We often look at these parables as us needing to be willing to give up everything in order to have Jesus, who is of surpassing value. And it’s true.

But think of it from God’s perspective. He gave His only Son, while we were sinners in rebellion against Him, so that we might live with Him. He valued us so much that He sacrificed His Son Jesus so that we could have eternal life with Him.

That is just an astounding truth. From God’s perspective, WE are the pearl of great price, even as He is the same to us from our perspective.

We possess infinite value because of the imago dei – the image of God – inside each of us. Each one of us. None of us possessing more of the imago dei, and none of us possessing less. All of us made in God’s image, and infinitely valued and loved by God.

This fact alone should be an end to racism, at least among Christians who accept that we are made in His image. Why in the world should we look down on another person due to their skin color if that person is also made in God’s image and is infinitely loved and valued by God? What right do I have to denigrate someone on that basis?

But alas, this imago dei has been stained by the reality of sin. Humans are made in God’s image, but we are also self-centered and corrupt. Sin manifests itself in so many different ways. None of us are exempt. Romans 3:23 says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells the story of two men who go up to the temple to pray, and the end result surprises his listeners. “9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.””

You see, Jesus here is reminding us that none of us has the right to stand before God and compare ourselves favorably against another. We each must recognize our own sin and understand that none of us is “better” than anyone else. We all are sinful and in desperate need of a savior. We all stand before God facing the awful consequences of our sin, in need of repentance and salvation. The idea that we can stand before God and feel morally superior to another person is laughable, really. And in this parable, the Pharisee might actually have a “good” reason for doing so! He’s actually talking about real sin this other man committed. In the case of racism, we think we are superior to another person simply on the basis of skin color! How absurd!

When a person repents of sin and places his or her trust in Christ, they become a new creation. Still stained with sin, but forgiven and set free from sin’s bondage. Individually, we are no longer bound by sin. But something else happens as well, something collective. We become part of the same family. That means that, no matter what your age, your culture, your gender, your socio-economic status, or your race, everyone who is a Christian is a member of the same family.

Paul put it this way, in Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The barriers that normally divide people go away in Christ. The differences are still there, but they are no longer things that divide. There is unity amidst our differences. In the world, the differences are things that divide; not so in Christ.

Paul explained how this works in the case of Jews and Gentiles in Ephesians 2:14-16 – “14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.” In other words, there was a racial and cultural division between Jews and Gentiles that kept them at odds. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, what made it so shocking to Jewish ears was that the hero of the story was a wicked Samaritan, not a pious Jew. The outright hatred between racial groups was real.

In God’s redemptive plan of history, what is His end game? It is the entire unity of all ethnicities and races under the Lordship of Christ. Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS….” In Acts 1:8 He tells His disciples that they will be His witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. In Matthew 24:14, we read, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” In other words, the mission of the Church is to work towards the fulfillment of this objective – that men and women from every single nation (an ethnic group, not a political state) would come to know Christ. This Great Commission to the Church immediately stamps people of every single race and ethnic group as infinitely valuable and infinitely loved by God. It is hard to hate someone of a different race if you take seriously the idea that that person is loved by God and that my task is to help bring that person to Christ and the brotherhood of believers.

We see this played out in the Revelation given to John, in chapter 7, verses 9-12 – “9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen.””

The vision, which shows us what God’s grand plan is, is for people of every single tribe, tongue, and nation standing before the throne of God, united in worship and fellowship. Every single tribe, tongue, and nation. None left out. If a Christian thinks that a person from another ethnic group or race is less than he is, well, he’s got another thing coming, because someone from that ethnic group or race will be standing next to him in the throne room of God, worshipping the Lord side-by-side.

If God sees people from every culture, every tribe, every language, every ethnicity, like this, who are we to say that one race is superior to another? Who are we to favor one race over another? Who are we to treat people with contempt, simply because they are different culturally or racially? What arrogance! What pride! What grotesque sin!

If we see the world through Darwinian lenses, racism is explained and justified. If we see the world through Christian lenses, racism is one of the ugliest sins of all, because it devalues humans, and it does so for absolutely no good reason.

There is one more, and no less important, reason why Christians need to outright reject racism. Jesus, in Matthew 22:37-40 answered the question posed by a lawyer about which was the greatest commandment. He said, “37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment.39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” Loving your neighbor ranks as one of the highest and greatest things we can do. But who is our neighbor? Jesus explained THAT in the parable of the Good Samaritan, to which I have already referred. The Samaritans and Jews hated each other with what can really only be called racism. Jesus told the story in a way that the Samaritan was the hero, and the story was a great example of what it means to love your neighbor. Your neighbor is anyone who has need, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

But Jesus took it a step further as well.

In Matthew 5:43-47 Jesus said, “43“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?”

It is one thing to love those who love you. That's easy. It's another thing altogether to love someone who does NOT love you. That's really hard, but that's what He calls us to. He does not simply call us to tolerate one another. But rather, to LOVE one another. And not to love just anyone. To love...our enemies. This is a shocking statement. To the neo-nazi, it means loving blacks and Jews like you love whites. To the black, it means loving the neo-nazi who wants you gone. This is what Jesus calls us to. How can we hate people at the same time we're loving them as Christ loves them? It's not possible.

Sadly, there are no human solutions for racism. Education may help, but education does not fix the human heart. Laws may help keep racism in check, but laws, as Paul says so clearly so often in the New Testament, cannot make one’s heart righteous. Racism is a problem of the heart. It infects the human soul like a disease. Laws and education may help deal with some of the symptoms, and it’s not like we shouldn’t pursue those sorts of things, because of course we’d rather not let the symptoms get worse. But racism, like any other sin, can only be cured by a heart transplant. It can only be cured by the grace and forgiveness and life changing work of Jesus Christ.

As individual Christians, we should be asking God to work in our hearts in this area. We should seek to understand. Ask God to show us where we fall short, and pray for Him to change us. As the collective body of Christ, we should be asking God how we can better represent the heavenly vision John saw in Revelation 7. We need God’s help. We all do. This doesn’t mean that everything that’s called racism IS racism. Sometimes what is believed to be racism is just another form of human sin – selfishness, stupidity, a person being a jerk. But before we think it’s not, we need to listen and seek to learn why a person may have perceived an action as racist. There may be more to the situation than what we can see on the surface. And in all ways, we need to bring grace and truth to the situation.

May God have mercy on us and lead us in the path of righteousness, and may His children be an example to the world on how to love one another as He loves us.

Why government exists and what it's supposed to do

In this post here, we looked at the Biblical role of government.  To recap, from Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13, we understand that:

(1) God has instituted human government to govern the affairs of men in accordance with His principles.
(2) The primary task of human government is to protect innocent human life.
(3) Government is responsible for promoting and honoring what is good, and discouraging and punishing what is evil.

Now, it must be said that obviously not everyone subscribes to a Biblical view of government.  So two things I want to say about that.  First, these principles are not meant simply for a theocracy.  That is, in Genesis 9:6 there was no established, organized religion; people were simply to govern themselves according to a basic premise - that protecting innocent human life was of paramount importance.  And in Romans 13, Paul was not talking about a "Christian" government.  In fact, he was living under the reign of Nero, one of the most despicable pagan rulers ever to walk the face of the earth.  So even a totally pagan (or atheistic) government was designed to protect innocent human life, promote what is good, and restrict evil.  If you stop and think about it, that's exactly what government should be doing, regardless of the kind of government, regardless of the time in human history, or even the culture.

Why do we need government in the first place?  Imagine a world where there is no sin.  Everyone does what is good and right.  In such a world, is there any need to govern our affairs?  No, not really.  Because in such a world, we would have people looking out for one another, being generous and gracious, taking care of people who need help, etc.  We'd see no selfishness.  We'd see no greed.  We'd see no envy or jealousy or crime.  In such a world, we wouldn't need to have government.

Government exists, precisely because we live in a fallen world.  We live in a world filled with greed and sin and wickedness and evil and crime and selfishness.  Because these things permeate the human heart, we need to set up rules - complete with mechanisms for enforcing those rules - to manage the interactions of people.  Without laws, and enforcement of those laws (which is what government IS), people's sin would run rampant, and we would have total anarchy and chaos.

Government exists because sin exists.  Government exists because left to our own devices, people will harm others in the pursuit of self-interest.  Government, therefore, exists to promote what is good, and to prevent (or reduce) what is evil.

This isn't just the Biblical perspective; it's the view of our founding fathers.  Consider the words of Thomas Paine, who was not a Christian.  In his pamphlet "Common Sense", he writes,


"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue."
He further states,

"Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right."
Paine offers the same conclusion that the Bible does - that human government, which is not the same thing as human society (and please let us never confuse the two), exists because of the moral defect found in the human heart.  Government is not needed if this defect does not exist.  But because it DOES exist, government is necessary.

Paine further describes the problems with a bad government, one that does not do what it is supposed to do.  When a fellow citizen does you harm, you have a redress - the government.  In the United States, we have law enforcement and courts to deal with such harm.  But what happens when the GOVERNMENT harms you?  What redress is there for that?  Paine argues that there is none.  The only thing we can do is to be rid of such government.  Peaceably if possible; by revolution if necessary.

Thomas Jefferson echoed Paine's thinking in the Declaration of Independence.  Again, Jefferson was no Christian.  In fact, in many ways he thought Christianity to be so repugnant that in his own version of the Bible he cut out sections that he found distasteful.

But here's what he wrote,


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

We see once again the clear train of thought - Government is instituted by God to secure the fundamental rights of man, given by God Himself.  And if government fails in this basic task, the people have the right - and even the obligation - to be rid of it, and to institute new government.  Not for trifling matters, as Jefferson understood that all government really is is a collection of flawed individuals tasked with securing these rights, and they are just as likely as anyone to fail.  But when major sufferings of the people are brought about at the hand of the government, then the people need to take action.

In the United States, we can change government with our vote.  We can elect out politicians who are not acting in accordance with these basic principles, and we can elect in politicians who will.  In Jefferson's day, they were dealing with a monarchy, and no vote can oust a king or queen.  So revolution, after many attempts at peaceful redress had failed, was the last remaining option.  

People who do not accept a Biblical worldview, or the parallel reasoning of the founding fathers, may think government is designed to do something different.  That government is supposed to provide for our needs.  To give us money when times are tight, to provide for free education, to help me from being too offended, to make sure that everyone is treated the exact same.  Neither the Bible nor the founding fathers believed that was the purpose of government.  Its task is not easy, but it is simple.  And you will notice that in the United States' Constitution, they designed our federal government to be very limited in scope and responsibility, with lots of checks and balances because, again, they understood the sinfulness of man.  They wanted checks, balances, and an emphasis on state and local government, because those governments were closer to where the action is, and could be more easily held accountable by the people themselves.  

As Christians, as we consider this election, we need to ask ourselves the right questions.  When I cast my vote, am I casting my vote for the person most likely to protect innocent human life?  Am I casting my vote for a person who will seek to reform government so that it is doing its most fundamental tasks well, and not trying to do things it's not designed to do?  Am I casting my vote for a person who will honor and promote what is good, and who will try to limit and discourage what is evil?  

This is not a theocracy.  This is government doing its job as it was designed to do.  Christians would do well to keep these things in mind as we head to the ballot box this November, and not be swayed by the demands on government made by our contemporary society, which more and more sees the government as their provider.

Kingdoms Colliding

We are in the midst of one of the most remarkable campaigns in American history,  and people on both sides of the political spectrum are feeling as strongly about their candidate – and the other  candidate – as I’ve ever  observed. Christians are posting their views on social media and, frankly, it's a frenzy. 

I'm not interested in the political frenzy. 

I'm interested in the bigger questions.  Questions like: 

- What does the Bible have to say about the intersection of Christianity and society? 
- What does God say to Christians about our relationship to the world around us? 
- How does scripture inform believers as to our place and actions in our communities? 
- What should Christians really expect from civil government? 

Christians should be, in my view, more concerned with these questions than with any particular candidate. So I have spent a lot of time in the Word seeking answers to these questions,  in the hopes that it will make me a better Christian and a better neighbor and a better citizen. As I share what I've learned, I hope that  it may be useful for you as well. 

Scattered throughout the Bible is the message that there are two kingdoms here at the same time: the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of God. We see this expressed in many places.  Consider: 

Colossians 1:13-14 – “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,  in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” 

Ephesians 2:1-3 – “ And you were dead in the trespasses and sins  in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” 

John 3:1-8 talks about the need to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God.  We are born once and enter this kingdom, but when we are born again we enter the kingdom of God. 

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 – “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.  In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 

So we see that the kingdom in which we live is this physical world. It stands in contrast to the kingdom of God,  which is a spiritual kingdom. One can live in this kingdom on earth and never see the kingdom of God. 

This isn't to say that God isn't sovereign over this world too. He is.  But He allows other powers to have rule here too. When the Bible speaks of the “god of this world” in 2 Corinthians 4, it is not talking about God Himself. But this lesser “god” (who isn't even a "god"; it's the enemy), despite having significant power, is still subject to the sovereignty of God. 

Nonetheless, it must be stressed that the Bible distinguishes between the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, and that the governance of this world is different than the governance of the kingdom of heaven. In the perfect realm of heaven, we will not be subject to sin or the schemes of the enemy.  Those are reserved for this kingdom. We will not see sinful actions or speech as we worship God in eternity,  but we do see it here and now in this world. 

Despite the differences between these two kingdoms, it is interesting to note that there is an intersection between the two kingdoms.  This intersection is created by three institutions God has put in place in this world: human government, the church, and the family.  In each of these we see how God brings the kingdom of God into contact with the kingdom of this world. 

Human Government 
God created this institution so that men may govern themselves,  but in accordance with His values and principles. 

The Church 
God’s people living in a coordinated effort to bring grace and truth and the love of Christ into this world. 

The Family 
Marriage represents the relishing between God and His people. The family is the foundational building block of society. 

God's kingdom is brought into this kingdom through these three institutions.  When they are messed up, chaos reigns in the world.  Evil seems to win.  When they are functioning properly, this kingdom, despite the enemy’s efforts, reflects God’s kingdom more and more. 

As we think about the relationship between Christianity and society,  if will be helpful to view it through these lenses: government, the church, the family, and of course, the individual as well. 

In my next post, we will begin talking about these points of intersection between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world, beginning with government.

A Biblical View of Government

It's been a while since I've blogged.  Quick shout out to my cousin Jimmy for encouraging me to get back at it.  Thanks Jimmy!

It's 2016.  Election year.  Looks like it's going to be Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.  I am not going to get into this particular election, but every so often - and now is one of those times - I get thinking about what the Bible has to say about government.  As a Christian, the Bible is supposed to inform my view of...everything, really.  There are issues it speaks to directly, and on issues it doesn't directly address, it usually offers principles that can be applied.  In the case of government, no the Bible doesn't tell us what the minimum wage should be (or if there should even be one), or whether we should have peace agreements with certain countries, or what our trade policies should be.  But it does give us a foundational understanding of what the purpose of government is.  As a Christian, it's imperative that I look to Scripture for perspective.

It's important to note that even though the form of government today is different than it was in Israel or Rome back when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the purpose of government remains.

We need to start in Romans chapter 12, verses 9-21.  We read:

"9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.  13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Paul here is talking about what should characterize a Christian.  As we get to the end of the chapter, he's talking about the notion of how we should respond to people who mistreat us.  What should we do when people do harm to us?  A typical response is to get them back for what they've done, but Paul has a completely different perspective.  Do not repay anyone evil for evil.  And later on, he says that we should overcome evil with good.

Ok, so that's the charge to the individual Christian.  When we've been wronged, we need to not seek revenge, but instead do good.  But there's the question of what should happen to the person who wronged us?  Should they get away with it?  No, says Paul.  It is God's job to avenge.  Ok, fair enough.  But how is that vengeance to happen?

To answer that, continue the train of thought to chapter 13, verses 1-7:

"1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

This may seem like a new thought, and here's where the chapter breaks are unhelpful.  This is actually a continuation of the previous discussion.  Remember, God says He will avenge us when we've done wrong, and now Paul explains what that looks like.

First, he says we need to be subject to governing authorities.  It doesn't say be subject to them only if we agree with them, or only if they come in a form we like.  And the reason why, is because governing authorities are established by God.  Now this is important, because the obvious next question is:  Even Hitler?

Yes.  Even Hitler.  That may sound controversial and bring up all kinds of other questions, and no, I don't know the answer to those questions.  But just remember that Paul was no stranger to evil despots.  Paul wrote this to Christians in Rome around 64-65 AD.  At that time, they were going through horrible persecution under the evil Roman emperor Nero.  Nero was one of the most wicked men to ever rule over a nation.  If he had the technological means that Hitler had, he certainly would have committed atrocities on the same scale.  He had Christians killed for sport in the arena, for crying out loud.  So Paul wrote this during the terrible, horrible, nightmarish reign of Nero.  With Nero in mind, Paul said that God establishes governing authorities.  Therefore, to disregard them is to disregard God.

Here's the thing:  human government is designed to be an agent of God to administer justice in the world.  If we do right, we have nothing to fear from government - at least from government that is doing its job properly, acting as righteous agents of God's justice.  But if we do wrong, we should fear, because, as Paul says, government is God's agent of wrath on the wrongdoer.  

So to take it from the beginning, when we are wronged, we are not to seek personal revenge, but rather keep loving people.  And we are to let God get vengeance and administer justice, but the way He does it is through human government, the agency He establishes to honor good and punish evil.  So government is designed to promote righteousness and justice, and to punish evil and injustice.  

It is interesting to look even further back in Scripture to see the origin of government.  In the creation story, God always interacts directly with man, until after the flood of Noah.  In Genesis 9:6, God is explaining that man will need to govern himself, and He says in 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God has God made man."

Notice that the prime directive of human government is to protect innocent human life.  Not guilty human life, however.  This passage serves as the ground for both the pro-life position on abortion, and the death penalty for capital criminals as well.  For anyone who suggests that those positions are contradictory, I would suggest that quite clearly they are not.  There always has been a distinction between taking an innocent life, and death being a just penalty for murderers.

As the Bible describes it, human government has the role of serving as God's instrument of justice, with the prime directive being the protection of innocent human life.  

When I think about how government should be structured, I first think about the purpose for which government exists, at least from a Christian perspective.  And then I look at where the candidates stand with respect to this purpose.  Which candidate, first and foremost, is a strong pro-life candidate?  Which one seeks to protect innocent human life?  And then, which one seeks to honor and lift up what is good and right and just?  And which one discourages what is bad and wrong and unjust?  

Sometimes it's not so clear.  Other times, it's pretty plain to see.  But those principles serve as the foundation for my understanding of what government is supposed to be about.  How that is done, and the format it takes, the Bible doesn't really say, and it's there that we leave it up to things like our founding documents like the Constitution.  

This year, when I'm faced with a choice, this is the first thought that will come to mind before casting my vote.

Helping The Next Generation Become Biblical

Working with students on a large secular campus, I often get into discussions about the Bible - what is it, and why it matters to us. What's interesting is that depending on what generation you come from may seriously impact what you think the Bible is.

The Barna Group is well-known for its research into areas related to Christianity, and not long ago they published their findings on the issue of generational views about the Bible. For their research purposes, here is how they label the generations:

• Mosaics: current 18-25 year olds
• Busters: current 26-44 year olds
• Boomers: current 45-63 year olds
• Elders: current 64+ year olds

Here are some interesting points the research shows:

• While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).

• Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.

• Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.

• Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.

• While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off – the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.

David Kinnaman, who directed the analysis of the research, explained that the “central theme of young people’s approach to the Bible is skepticism. They question the Bible’s history as well as its relevance to their lives, leading many young people to reject the Bible as containing everything one needs to live a meaningful life." 

So young adults view the Bible with skepticism, ranging on everything from its origins to its veracity to its applicability.

However, there is a bright side.  One finding of the Barna Group was this:  "Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders. "

Now, how does that last piece square with the fact that young adults do not read the Bible nearly as much as other generations?  How can they read it less but express the most interest in gaining greater Bible knowledge?  I don't really know for sure, but one thing I think it tells me is that they are willing to learn (eager, even), but don't find the value in doing a lot of personal Bible reading and study.

This means that our opportunity as teachers is greater than it has been in a long time.  We have an open window to play a significant role in their lives as guides and coaches to help them discover the amazing truths found in Scripture.  

Here's what the Barna Group said in conclusion:  "The president of the Barna Group pointed out that since many young people want to learn about the Bible it should be an opportunity for Christian leaders.  Perhaps young people want to participate more in the process of learning, not simply attend Bible lectures or be trained in classrooms. Mosaics and Busters have come to expect experiences that appear unscripted and interactive, that allow them to be open and honest with their questions, that are technologically stimulating, that are done alongside peers and within trusted relationships, and that give them the chance to be creative and visual. Their expectations may or may not be entirely healthy, but without considering these issues, the Bible will continue to lose hold on the next generation."

Personally, I find this to be exciting.  I have experienced a greater openness to the Bible from students over the last few years.  I think it's an opportunity for churches to engage young people in creative ways.  Clearly there is a need to address important issues regarding the origin and trustworthiness and applicability of the Bible.  I think that the Church needs to do a better job helping young people walk through these issues and not simply present a collection of pat answers that represent all the things that are driving young people away from the Church in the first place.

What is Faith? - Reasons to Believe

"Blind faith, no matter how passionately expressed, will not suffice. Science for its part will test relentlessly every assumption about the human condition." - E.O. Wilson

"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry." - Richard Dawkins

"Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that." - Terry Eagleton



Faith is a word that used to carry a great deal of significance and honor. To have faith was to have trust in something or someone, and it was a noble quality to have. In many circles today, however, faith is a pejorative term. Faith is seen as a weakness, something that exists only because of ignorance. If we lack knowledge, faith is what makes up for that lack of knowledge.

Imagine a spectrum, with knowledge and faith on opposite ends. The more knowledge we have, the less faith we need. Conversely, the more we lack knowledge, the more faith we need to have.

This is the contemporary picture of faith - as our knowledge gaps fill in, faith recedes. So powerful is this image that many Christians have bought into it as well. This is tragic, as it completely goes against the Biblical idea of faith.

Consider the case of Thomas - dubbed mockingly as "Doubting Thomas". Here is the story, taken from John 20:24-29:

John 20:24-29 - "Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas was one of the twelve disciples, and he walked with Jesus for three and a half years. He experienced Jesus' miracles. He saw Him heal the lame, give sight to the blind, cast out demons, saw Jesus calm the storm and feed the 5,000. He heard Jesus teach about the kingdom of God and declare that if Jesus was killed, that He would rise again in in three days. He was there for all of that.

And then came the arrest and trial of Jesus, followed by the horrible crucifixion. For any follower of Jesus at that time, it had to be just awful, horrific. They all had to be seriously questioning whether Jesus really was who they thought He was. After all, what kind of Messiah gets captured and crucified?

But then came the reports. First from the women. Jesus had risen from the dead! And those reports were followed by the testimony of Peter and some others. The tomb really was empty, they said.

But in the midst of all this, what does Thomas say?

Thomas says something here that I think many of us have said at one time or another. Picture this scenario. You get a phone call from a friend who tells you that they had the most amazing thing just happen to them. And as they tell the story, it gets more and more fantastic. Maybe they've met a celebrity or won a new car as a prize or whatever. But as the story goes on, it begins to sound like just an incredible thing. And when they're done, you're thinking to yourself, sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I'll believe it when I see it. It's a phrase we use all the time, and it's not new. Thomas said the same thing when he was told about Jesus rising from the dead. He said, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Unless I can see the marks of his death - the holes in his hands and side, and I'm able to actually touch Jesus, then I will never believe this crazy story you guys are telling me.

At this point, we need to ask a question: Did Thomas lack faith? I think the easy answer is, yes, he did. He did not believe (Jesus said, "do not disbelieve"), and he said he wouldn't believe unless he had credible evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

But let's see what faith really is though.

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Let's look at some of these words to unpack this a little bit.

The word "faith" is the Greek word pistis. It is used proper some 227 times in the New Testament. It means, "a conviction of the truth of something; belief with the predominant idea of trust." So pistis is a trust in the truth of the thing in which one has faith.

The word "assurance" is the Greek word hupostasis, and it means, "a foundational quality; a firm and resolute confidence."

The word "conviction" is the Greek word elegchos, and it means, "proved; that by which a thing is proved or tested."

Now here the thing in which we have this resolute confidence is something we cannot see. Faith is the resolute confidence in something that cannot be observed directly, but which nonetheless believable because it has been tested and found to be worthy of our trust.

In the New Testament, there are many stories of people coming up to Jesus and He lauds them for their faith. Why? They maybe have not seen Jesus do any miracles themselves, but they have heard many stories from their friends, and they come to the point where they trust in who Jesus is and what He is capable of. So Jesus says, "Your faith has made you well."

As Christians, we understand faith this way. We cannot observe God directly, but we see the effects of His work in the world and in our lives. And so we trust in Him, we have faith that He is real and that He desires for us to know Him.

Many in the world today see faith as something to ridicule, that faith means believing in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Biblical understanding of faith is just the opposite - it is trusting, having confidence, in that for which we have good reason to believe.

For Thomas, his faith was dependent on perhaps a little more evidence than it was for Peter. Peter seemed ready to believe much more quickly than Thomas did. It wasn't just that Thomas didn't have faith. Remember, faith is confidence in that for which we have good reason to believe. But what a "good reason" is for one person might not be "good reason" for another person.

We look at the stars and the vastness of space and the grandeur and immensity of it all, and maybe for you and me that is enough of a good reason for us to believe that God is real. But for someone else, the vastness of space and the grandeur and the immensity of it all simply tells them that we are small and insignificant specks in the universe, and for them, the required amount of evidence for them to believe is greater than it might be for you and me. Before we speak too critically of such people that need more evidence, let's look at how Jesus responded to Thomas.

Jesus said to him, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

So yes, Thomas didn't believe. But it wasn't that Thomas lacked the capacity to have faith; nor did he lack the willingness to believe. He just didn't have a good enough reason to believe.

Now was Jesus critical of Thomas here? No. If Jesus wanted to criticize Thomas for his unbelief, he might have phrased it very differently. He wasn't afraid to say to His disciples, "Get behind me Satan!" or "Oh you of little faith!" He doesn't say any of that here. He shows Thomas His hands and side, and invites Thomas to touch them. In other words, He gives Thomas exactly what Thomas needs to believe. And Thomas responds with, "My Lord and my God!"

God loves us, and He wants us to have faith in Him. He realizes that what each of us needs is different from person to person. And He is willing to give us each what we need to believe. And then at THAT point it becomes a question of whether or not we're going to believe. It becomes a matter of willingness and desire.

Now, the end of this scene is interesting. Jesus then says to the disciples, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

So this is not a negative statement about Thomas. If He was down on Thomas, again, He would have said something critical, and He might not have given Thomas what he needed. So he affirmed Thomas' need for more evidence by actually showing him more evidence. But here He goes beyond that. It's one thing, Thomas, that you believe because you've seen Me. It's one thing that you need that much evidence, but the reality is that most people will not get the chance to see My hands and My side, and those people who believe without that degree of evidence will be blessed for their faith.

You and I will not see or touch Jesus' wounds. We cannot believe on the basis of that kind of physical evidence. We have to believe apart from that kind of evidence.

So what are some reasons why we might believe in Jesus? I'll offer three.

First, we believe due to the general trustworthiness and reliability of the Bible. Here is a little article on that subject: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html.

Second, we believe due to our own personal experiences. Maybe you've seen answers to specific prayers. Maybe you've seen God provide for you in miraculous ways. Maybe you've seen God heal you from a physical or emotional ailment.

Third, we believe due to the testimony of others. When people we know well and trust tell us stories of God's faithfulness and protection and provision and answered prayer, we have good reason to believe them. Those stories encourage us in our faith.

Here's the long story short: faith is not believing because we have no reason. Faith is believing precisely because we have good reason. And everyone, every day, exercises faith. Getting on an airplane, sitting in a chair, driving in a car - we do all these things because we think we have good reason for doing so. Trusting in Jesus is a faith that is well-grounded in history; we have good reasons for it. Faith in Him is good and honorable and right.

The Problem With Bible References

I had a very interesting discussion this past week with some of my students when we were driving home from our mission trip to Atlanta.  We were listening to a pastor deliver a message and he referred to a few Bible passages using chapter and verse ("Please note what the Bible says in Ephesians 3:15...")  As I listened, I thought it would be a good opportunity to share some thoughts, which I am now happy to put in written form.

Bible references - the chapter and verse numbers - are both good and bad.  They are good because they serve the purpose of making references easy.  If I'm quoting from Isaiah, and I don't have a chapter and verse to point people to, it makes such referencing very unwieldy.  Without references, it's almost impossible to find a particular sentence in a book as large as Isaiah.  So from that standpoint, chapters and verses are very helpful in so many ways.

But there are significant problems with the references.  First, they are not divinely inspired.  They are late additions to our texts.  As such, they often fall in strange places.  A good little article on this can be found here:  http://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html

This blog (http://dedicatedlion.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-divided-bible-into-chapters.html) offers these insights:

"New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson advised, “The first step in interpretation is to ignore the modern chapters and verses” (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 101; cited in Daniel Fuller, The Unity of the Bible, p. 102). Some of the chapter breaks are in fact very poorly placed. Take, for example, the very first one in the Bible, where Genesis begins its second chapter. Genesis 2:1 is continuing the story of Genesis 1, summarizing it by saying “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them,” and telling what God did on the seventh day. It would be nice to have day 7 in the same chapter with days 1-6, especially since it only takes three more verses to round off the sequence of thought. Furthermore, Genesis 1 consistently calls the creator Elohim, and this name (the ordinary Hebrew word for god, just as deus is the Latin word, gott is the German, and dios is the Spanish) continues to be used for three more verses. Where should the chapter break be? The second chapter of Genesis should start at 2:4, where the formula “these are the generations” (an important structural marker through the remainder of the book) occurs, where the 7-day sequence is done with, where the narrator flashes back to the creation of humanity, and where the word Elohim is set aside and God begins to be referred to as the LORD God. Notice that criticizing the chapter break is not criticizing the word of God; it is pointing out a lapse in judgment on the part of Stephen Langton (who established the first chapter-verse system in the 13th century), whose work was very recent– not even a thousand years ago!– compared to the antiquity of Genesis."

The problem is that these chapter breaks can seriously influence our reading of Scripture.  They can lead us to believe that new thoughts are being offered, when in reality they are simply continuations of previous thoughts.  Or vice-versa.  As Robertson said above, ignore them when doing serious study.

Second, and more problematic, the chapter and verse numbers give us freedom to pull verses out in isolation.  I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard people say, "Here's a great scripture...." and then give a single verse.  Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but a singular sentence pulled out of its context is not a "scripture".  It is a sentence in the midst of a larger context that exists in a particular book in a canon of scripture, to be more precise.  This passage isolation can be very dangerous to our understanding of the text.  Let me use a simple example.

The most well-known verse in the Bible is John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."  Now, that verse, taken in isolation, appears to be saying something particular about the nature of God's love.  We read that and we think that the "so" is quantitative.  Jesus here seems to be saying that God loves the world so much that He gave His Son for us.  And, while that seems to be consistent with the thrust of Scripture (His love is indeed vast!), that is NOT what is being said here.  

If you look at the context, you'll see that Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee.  Jesus is teaching him what it means to be born again, and He references a story in the Old Testament (of course, they wouldn't have called it that back then), from Numbers 21 (see? a reference can be helpful!).  It is the story of Israel's rebellion (they complained against God), God's judgment (poisonous snakes came and bit them), their repentance (they acknowledged their sin and asked Moses to intercede for them), and God's gracious provision for their salvation (Moses made a bronze serpent, attached it to a pole, and if anyone looked upon it in faith, they were saved).  

After referencing that story, Jesus then said, "For God so loved the world...."  The "so" here is not "so much"; rather, it is "in the same manner".  The "so" is a comparative statement, not a quantitative one.  

When we read Bible verses in isolation, we usually miss the point.  We usually misread the text.  When Paul wrote Romans, he wrote a long letter to the church in Rome.  He did not write a series of individual verses.  The letter flows together as a cohesive case, and pulling individual verses out in isolation from the rest of the passage is just asking for interpretive trouble.  

It is difficult to read the Scriptures apart from chapters and verses.  We are so used to them, and they are so helpful to point us to specific places in the Bible.  But they carry with them significant dangers.  It is important that we are aware of these dangers as we seek to understand what the authors are trying to communicate.