Race is not righteousness — Jesus died for our sin, not our skin



For as often as the phrase “Christ is King” trends on social media, it seems like a growing number of self-professing Christians have forgotten that it was sin — not skin — that kept Jesus on the cross.

Millions of Americans gathered this past Easter Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Apart from that ultimate sign of self-sacrifice, we would still be in bondage to sin and face the penalty for indulging it — spiritual death and eternal separation from God. That’s because, according to the Bible, we are all born in sin and remain spiritually dead unless we turn from our sin and place our hope and trust in Christ.

No argument reveals a smaller mind than the impulse to link sin to skin for ideological gain.

Messages circulating on X often sound wildly different, but many follow the same script. On any given day, you’ll find someone — often claiming to be Christian — warning that a specific group poses a unique threat to the American way of life.

Some wrap their claims in the pseudo-academic language of “race realism” and genetic determinism. Others frame it as cultural criticism. But the message stays the same: Those people over there are the real problem.

Years ago, I noticed this pattern in how some black progressives invoked slavery and Jim Crow to argue that “whiteness” itself is an inherently evil force driving racism.

Today, a growing number of white conservatives fire back with crime statistics, claiming black Americans are inherently violent.

Meanwhile, a rainbow coalition of agitators — including Hispanics and Asians — spends its time urging followers to “notice” Jewish control of everything from pornography to U.S. foreign policy.

Different faces, same poison.

Ethnic and political tribalism has convinced many Americans that moral decay is always someone else’s fault. It’s not our problem. It’s their problem.

They chase any story or video that reinforces their worldview and dismiss anything that challenges it. A white police officer involved in a fatal shooting of a black man becomes proof that policing itself is systemically racist. A black teenager who commits a crime becomes a symbol of supposed racial dysfunction — not an individual but a statistic.

Many in this mindset obsess over IQ scores and genetic theories. But no argument reveals a smaller mind than the impulse to link sin to skin for ideological gain.

Christ’s death on the cross should convict every one of us to examine our own hearts. The moment you start measuring your worth by someone else’s failure, you’re already losing the moral battle. Comparative righteousness is a foolish and dangerous game.

The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18 illustrates the danger of self-righteousness. Pharisees prided themselves on strict adherence to the law, so it’s no surprise that the one in Jesus’ story thanked God for his supposed moral superiority. He fasted, tithed, and avoided obvious sins. He was especially grateful not to be like the tax collector — a judgment that, on the surface, seemed justified.

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!”

Jesus shocked the crowd with the conclusion: It was the tax collector — not the outwardly religious Pharisee — who went home justified. He drove the point home with a final line that still cuts: “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The world would look very different — better, even — if more people, especially Christians, followed the example of the tax collector instead of the Pharisee.

Every person, family, and community carries its own burdens. Certain sins may show up more often in some groups than others, but that only looks like moral deficiency when we stop measuring ourselves against God and start judging others as the standard.

That’s why I advocate an “inside-out” approach to social commentary. I focus first on the issues that are common, pressing, and personal. Telling hard truths is difficult enough. It’s even harder when the messenger comes off as an outsider taking shots rather than someone who cares enough to speak from within.

Conservatives have every right to criticize America’s cultural collapse — but they should think twice before using China’s Xi Jinping to deliver the message. And if even Vivek Ramaswamy can’t offer light criticism without backlash, maybe it’s not just the left that has a problem hearing the truth.

The inside-out approach beats the alternative. It forces us to confront our own flaws instead of obsessing over everyone else’s. The outside-in method puts the sins of others under a microscope, while hiding the mirror that would show our own.

That’s why I don’t understand black pastors in neighborhoods torn apart by gang violence who spend their sermons denouncing “white supremacy” or DEI. Those things may be worth discussing — but they’re not why kids are dying in their streets.

Likewise, a white pastor in Wyoming would do much more good addressing his state’s sky-high suicide rate — often involving firearms — than speculating on how rap music and absent fathers are ruining black teenagers in Chicago.

Nothing’s wrong with offering honest insights about what plagues other communities. Tribalism shouldn’t stop us from grieving or rejoicing with people who don’t look like us. But the problem comes when we frame both vice and virtue in ethnic terms.

The apostle Paul didn’t tailor his warnings about idolatry, greed, lust, or murder based on ethnicity. His message was universal because the human condition is universal.

That’s why Christians must always remember: Jesus died for our sin, not our skin.

Jesus is alive: What happened after the resurrection changed history



So, the tomb is empty. Just as he said he would, Jesus rose from the dead in victory. What happened in the days that followed? The ascension wasn’t immediately after the day of resurrection. Forty days stood between the resurrection and the ascension. And those days mattered for the disciples and for many others.

In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul gives us a list of bodily appearances: “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:4-7).

There were bodily appearances of Jesus to his disciples on the day of his resurrection. Generally speaking, these appearances countered the fear in the disciples. He said, “Peace be with you” (John 20:19). The appearances also confirmed his bodily risen state, for he showed them his hands and side (20:20). And his appearances involved instruction for the days to come (20:21-23).

What a unique and precious period of their earthly lives to have such encounters with the risen Christ during that 40-day period.

Some of the instruction Jesus gave during the 40 days was about the Old Testament. He taught his disciples how to interpret this prior revelation in light of what he had accomplished. “Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem’” (Luke 24:45-48).

In one of the most profound and memorable post-resurrection scenes, Jesus was in Galilee with his disciples and gave them the Great Commission. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

More than one of his bodily appearances involved having food with his disciples. In Luke 24:41, Jesus asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?” And he ate some broiled fish in front of them (24:42-43). Eating this fish showed that he was truly present in the flesh. “For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have,” he said (24:39). John 21 reports another scene with fish, this time beside the Sea of Galilee. Hauling in a miraculous catch of fish, the disciples ate with Christ, who said to them, “Come and have breakfast” (John 21:12). He gave bread and fish to them (21:13).

During the episode with the fish by the shore, Jesus restored Simon Peter with three questions — “Do you love me?” — because Peter had denied him three times (John 21:15-17). Peter indeed proclaimed his love for Christ, who then told him, “Feed my sheep” (21:17).

The Gospel accounts do not give us a record of what happened every day between the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus. We only know a small selection of appearances and events and teachings and meals. In Acts 1 we read a summary of what those days involved: “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).

Ponder the powerful effect that these proofs and teachings would have had on the disciples. What a unique and precious period of their earthly lives to have such encounters with the risen Christ during that 40-day period. He shared meals with them, built up their faith with instruction and fellowship, and commissioned them to take the good news far and wide.

Jesus’s final words to them, while he was physically with them, are found in Acts 1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

This essay was originally published at Dr. Mitchell Chase's Substack, Biblical Theology.

Good Friday Reminds Us Death Isn’t Normal

As you gaze upon the cross of Christ today, take heart that the death we were never designed to experience has been ultimately defeated.

What in the Dickens? Think twice before seeing this new Jesus movie



If you want to make a movie about Jesus, the Bible is a great place to start — and end.

So it was an odd choice for Mofac Studios, a South Korean production company, to use Charles Dickens’ work “The Life of Our Lord” as the basis for its new animated children’s movie, “The King of Kings.”

Emotional moment aborted, unless you count the emotion of annoyance, which I experienced in abundance.

Dickens appears to have had a great deal of respect for Jesus because “The Life of Our Lord” is a work he wrote for his children to understand Jesus’ life. He never intended for the book to be shared outside his own family.

Nevertheless, this is the route the filmmakers decided to take with this retelling of scenes from Jesus’ life — through the eyes of Charles Dickens. Or rather, through the eyes of one of his young sons, Walter. And this route ends up being a confusing journey, especially for the audience of children the film targets.

An ode to gentle parenting

I first must address the movie's opening scene, which is jarringly not Dickensian, but seems to have been conceived by a gentle-parenting influencer.

Here is how it unfolds: Charles Dickens is giving a dramatic reading of his work “A Christmas Carol” at a packed theater. Backstage, his wife and three young children (he actually had 10 kids, but who’s counting?) are noisily wreaking havoc as son Walter and his pet cat playact scenes from "King Arthur," who is Walter’s hero.

The mayhem interrupts father’s performance so much that he has to ask the audience to wait while he goes behind the curtain. Walter is portrayed as a cherubic-looking but straight-up disrespectful and petulant brat. Somehow, Dad not appreciating his child wrecking his performance makes him the bad guy, as mom pleads for his understanding (um, why wasn’t she keeping them quiet, for heaven’s sake?). Even the cat is shown to be ticked at dad.

This whole interaction takes too long, considering that hundreds of people who paid to attend are just waiting on the other side of the curtain. I thought maybe the filmmakers forgot they left them out there. Eventually Walter pouts and says he’s going home. His parents are dismayed at this. Go figure.

I’m always a little uncomfortable with depictions for children that normalize or even elevate selfish, bratty behavior. So in a movie theater full of children, I was uncomfortable with this opening — and it was not the only discomfort I was about to experience.

The odd filmmaking choices just keep coming

That scene sets the stage for the rest of the film, in which (back at home that night) Charles Dickens narrates his entire manuscript for “The Life of Our Lord” to Walter by way of proving to him that there is a king even more impressive than "King Arthur."

Many familiar Bible scenes come to life as the tale unfolds, and I expected a kind of "Princess Bride" experience, where the action would return to the narrator telling the story to a child. Instead, the child and the narrator (Walter, his dad, and the cat) are transported into Bible scenes.

Sitting in the movie theater full of children, I couldn’t help but think how confusing these Bible stories would seem when the Dickens family is suddenly a part of each one — not only witnessing action but also interacting with it.

One of the most egregious examples is when Walter and his cat are following Jesus into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Walter loses his cat, which his dad finds (also in the scene), but then Jesus is holding the cat while looking lovingly at Walter. Weirdly, Jesus then turns into Walter’s dad again. Good grief.

The kid also follows Jesus to the cross, attempting to take him a container of water, but he trips and the container rolls toward Jesus, who looks at it while he’s collapsed under the cross, exhausted. This mixture of sacred and silly is hard to stomach.

My personal opposite-of-favorite, however, was the scene where Peter hears the cock crow at dawn and sinks to his knees, realizing the weight of what he has done. The animation in that scene is beautiful, and I felt tears coming — that scripture always gets me — but then the kid and his cat walk into the scene to comfort Peter.

Emotional moment aborted — unless you count the emotion of annoyance, which I experienced in abundance.

But how did they do with the Bible stories?

Other than a couple of figures (with a cat) from the 1800s repeatedly showing up in first-century Israel, the Bible stories are mostly accurate. Mostly.

For example, though it is commonly believed, the film perpetuates the myth of “no room at the inn."

Jesus’ words are subtly changed a few times, and not for the better. When at age 12 his parents find him in the temple, the Bible says he told them, “Did you not know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But in the movie, he tells them he feels like he needs to be there.

That’s not the only time Jesus seems to be using present-day language. When he tells the people who want to stone the adulterous woman that they can do so if they’ve never sinned and they start backing away, he seems to taunt them with a “that’s what I thought” comment.

There is also language that doesn’t seem to acknowledge that Jesus was always God, including a remark about how he was able to do something because “his faith was so strong,” as if he was just a man with extraordinary faith — instead of God himself.

How the film looks

Some of the big panoramic scene shots are beautiful, cinematic, and richly detailed. However, the animation is hit-and-miss because many of the Bible characters look cartoonishly grotesque — and not just the bad guys. Peter and John are pretty ugly; Jesus, though, is much better looking.

I appreciated that in deference to its target audience, the filmmakers managed to depict the cruelty to Jesus with considerable discretion.

For instance, his flogging is shown, but he is not shown receiving it. The crucifixion is hard to watch, although not gory. But the crucifixion should be hard to watch.

How it all ends

Strangely, the resurrection gets short shrift here. The empty tomb is shown and the fact that Jesus is alive is made very clear, but it’s almost glossed over.

Back at home, Walter is so excited about his new favorite king that he wakes up his brother and sister in the middle of the night to tell them the story. Then the credits roll with an awful song by Kristin Chenoweth that includes lyrics about how if you just believe, anything can happen.

Not the “just believe” message again! This wasn’t a "Grinch" movie, for heaven’s sake. Ugh.

After the credits, there’s a “special message” in which a group of kids who’ve seen the movie talk about how great it is and how you can pay for more kids to see it by using a QR code.

Should I have used that QR code?

No. I wouldn’t recommend this as a good use of money or time for your kids.

However, if your kids are at least later-elementary age and already conversant with the Bible’s depiction of Jesus, and you are willing to take them out after the movie to talk about it with the goal of building up their discernment skills, then "The King of Kings" is a great parenting opportunity.

Editor's note: "The King of Kings" and distributor Angel Studios are sponsors of BlazeTV. The independent views of the author do not necessarily represent the views of Blaze Media.

Deconstructing the MLK myth



Americans widely celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. as a civil rights icon, but does his full legacy receive the scrutiny it deserves? While his activism for racial equality earns recognition, his theological views reveal a concerning departure from biblical orthodoxy. From denying Christ’s divinity to promoting the social gospel, King’s beliefs raise significant questions for Christians today.

Every January, Americans honor Martin Luther King Jr.’s life and legacy. Schools, streets, and monuments bear his name as enduring symbols of progress and justice. His iconic “I Have a Dream” speech continues to inspire people worldwide, and his leadership in the civil rights movement remains transformative. However, beneath the public adulation lies a more complex story — one that complicates the perception of King as a paragon of Christian orthodoxy.

King’s embrace of a gospel stripped of Christ’s divinity and resurrection ultimately undermines the eternal hope of salvation, leaving a legacy that Christians cannot fully endorse.

As a pastor, theologian, and leader, King’s words carried immense weight, shaping not only the civil rights movement but also America’s moral and spiritual landscape. However, his writings and sermons reveal notable theological departures that deserve closer scrutiny.

How should Christians reconcile King’s transformative contributions to social justice with his deviations from foundational biblical doctrine? To fully understand his legacy, we must move beyond the public mythology and examine his beliefs through a biblical lens.

Born Michael King Jr. on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia, he later became Martin Luther King Jr. after his father renamed himself and his son to honor the 16th-century reformer Martin Luther. This name change reflected a connection to Christian tradition and reform. However, King’s theological journey would eventually diverge from these roots.

As the son of a prominent Baptist pastor, King grew up immersed in church life. He attended Morehouse College, where exposure to liberal theological ideas began shaping his intellectual and spiritual development. This influence deepened at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University, where he embraced theological views that strayed from traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Rejecting core Christian doctrines

King’s writings during his academic years reflect a clear rejection of essential Christian doctrines, including Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection. These departures place him outside the bounds of biblical orthodoxy. In his paper on the “Humanity and Divinity of Jesus,” King wrote:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that Christ … is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental … so that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.

King’s denial of Christ’s divinity naturally extended to other foundational doctrines, including the resurrection.

This doctrine (the resurrection), upon which the Easter faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view, this doctrine raises many questions. In fact, the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.

King also dismissed the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, and the existence of a literal hell. Such theological positions directly conflict with core Christian beliefs, as underscored by the apostle Paul.

Now, if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:12-14)

By rejecting these doctrines, King’s theological framework departs significantly from the faith he publicly represented, challenging the integrity of his spiritual leadership.

The ‘social gospel’ and its implications

Walter Rauschenbusch’s social gospel profoundly influenced King’s theology, emphasizing transformation of society over personal salvation. This reinterpretation of Christianity shifted the focus from the redemptive message of Christ’s death and resurrection to economic redistribution and social justice. King’s calls for a “warless world” and “a better distribution of wealth” clearly reflect this influence.

In a letter to Coretta Scott King, he wrote:

Let us continue to hope, work, and pray that in the future we will live to see a warless world, a better distribution of wealth, and a brotherhood that transcends race or color. This is the gospel that I will preach to the world.

While noble in its aspirations, this focus on temporal solutions often overshadowed the eternal hope found in Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). By sidelining the gospel’s redemptive message, King’s theology contributed to a broader shift in American Christianity, where social justice increasingly took precedence over gospel-centered ministry.

The theological and ideological tension between King and traditional Christianity became evident in his relationship with the National Baptist Convention, the largest black Baptist denomination in the United States. Under Dr. Joseph H. Jackson’s leadership, the NBC placed institutional engagement over confrontational tactics like sit-ins and mass demonstrations. This approach clashed with King’s activism, culminating in a dramatic split during the NBC’s 1961 convention.

The division resulted in the formation of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, which aligned with King’s civil disobedience and social justice emphasis. However, this split also marked a theological departure, as the PNBC put activism above the gospel’s eternal message.

Truth matters

King’s legacy offers valuable lessons, but it also serves as a dire warning. His fight for racial equality transformed America, but his theological deviations reveal the dangers of placing social activism over biblical truth. King’s embrace of a gospel stripped of Christ’s divinity and resurrection ultimately undermines the eternal hope of salvation, leaving a legacy that Christians cannot fully endorse.

Theological integrity matters. When leaders compromise core biblical doctrines for societal transformation, they abandon the unshakable foundation of the gospel. King’s life serves as a powerful reminder that no matter how noble the cause, the truth of God’s word must remain uncompromised.

Many of the compromises King introduced have shaped today’s landscape, where private businesses are often pressured to bow to perceived injustices, further entangling the gospel with cultural activism. As Christians, we are called to evaluate every leader and movement against Scripture, refusing to trade eternal truth for temporal gains. Social transformation without the gospel is not only incomplete but ultimately hollow.

Bette Midler weaponizes Easter to push gun control agenda



Hollywood actress Bette Midler weaponized the holy holiday of Easter to push a gun control narrative.

The Hollywood actress and singer went off on gun violence in a recent tweet.

On Easter Sunday, Midler ranted on Twitter, "On this most Holy Day in the Christian calendar, remember the slaughter of your own innocents in school shootings across America, and let this #Easter mark a #resurrection, for them and for your commitment to change. It’s your turn."

She added a hashtag promoting the Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Moms Demand Action.

One Twitter user responded by saying, "The left is so unhinged. Let this Easter remind you that Jesus came to defeat evil like her. To bring about the awareness of a Good Father. But those who sow evil will be dealt with one day."

Someone wrote, "Guns don’t kill people. Crazy, evil people kill people. Many lives could be saved if we trained good citizens to use guns safely to protect our children. Your “change” would disarm America and make it even less safe."

Another social media user added, "I am praying for you and anyone who shares in your perspective."

Another person labeled Midler as "repulsive" for weaponizing Easter to push an anti-gun agenda.

Midler has been a strong opponent of the Second Amendment and guns.

In January, Midler ranted that there were 36 mass shootings in the United States.

The anti-gun leftist celebrity railed against the Second Amendment in May 2022, and encouraged liberals to "come armed" to a protest against the National Rifle Association in Houston, Texas. The comment was made on the heels of the mass shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

In May 2022, Midler blamed the NRA for the death of children instead of accusing Planned Parenthood for killing unborn kids.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gripping Faith-Based Film ‘On A Wing And A Prayer’ Flies High With Wide Appeal

Premiering globally on Prime Video this Friday, true-story thriller starring Dennis Quaid and Heather Graham depicts harrowing mid-air drama.

14 Beautiful Items To Put In Your Easter Baskets That Aren’t Candy

Here are some items I've found to fill Easter baskets with higher-quality treats and more gift-quality items to observe Easter as a high feast.