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.

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.

Silence isn’t peace — it’s just surrender in slow motion



Blaze Media recently published my opinion piece “Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script.” In the days that followed, readers left thoughtful and reasonable comments.

But when the Christian Post republished the same article, the comment section there sparked a firestorm.

If God the Father had been willing to 'agree to disagree' with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place.

If you don’t have time to read the article or browse the responses, here’s the short version:

The piece centers on a conversation I had with my friend Jeffrey, who strongly dislikes President Trump. Over the four years of the Biden administration, Jeffrey never once criticized Biden or his team — no matter how egregious their actions. Yet, barely two months into Trump’s return to office, Jeffrey was already taking shots at him. And he did so during what had been, until that moment, a relatively uneventful phone call.

To be clear, I didn’t bring up the topic of the president. I knew it was a sensitive subject for Jeffrey. But during a conversation about a recent movie, he found a way to insert his objection to Trump’s deportation policy, calling those deported “asylum seekers.” He also declared that Trump was “bad for democracy.”

I pushed back gently, noting that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. Jeffrey agreed.

When I pointed out that an open border has led to sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and violent criminals infiltrating small towns, he said he didn’t support any of that. But then he quickly ended the conversation with, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

Trump broke the truce

I found that well-worn phrase — “agree to disagree” — strange in this context. It suggests any disagreement, no matter how serious, can be casually brushed aside. Sure, my wife prefers chocolate ice cream, and I prefer vanilla. On that — and countless other minor things — we can “agree to disagree.” But when the stakes are higher? When lives are at risk — even the future of the nation? People should articulate and defend their positions.

After my “agree to disagree” article appeared in the Christian Post, commenters there came after me. Apparently, I wasn’t being a good Christian because I stirred the pot by bringing up Donald Trump — “the great divider,” as some called him. Never mind that I didn’t bring up his name. My friend did. But I wasn’t about to let his cheap shots go unchallenged.

In the original piece, I asked whether my friend — a faithful Christian — also sees his allegiance to the Democratic Party as an “agree to disagree” matter. Can a Christian’s loyalty to any political party cloud his judgment on what’s clearly right or wrong?

Jeffrey said he opposes sex changes for kids and drag queen story hours. But when it comes to deportation, he sees Trump’s second-term policies as domineering and out of bounds.

Disagreeing isn’t a sin

On critical issues — like the devastating effects of open borders — silence is complicity. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned, “Silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak.” When others looked the other way — or “agreed to disagree” — during the Nazi rise in 1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer stood firm. He was one of the few pastors who refused to be silent.

Today, the American left censors, cancels, and silences anyone who disagrees. Leftists expect us to “agree to disagree” but only if we’re the ones doing the agreeing — and the disagreeing. That demand for submission is part of why the country now finds itself in such dangerous and unstable times.

In my earlier article, one line struck a nerve:

It’s hard to imagine these days that the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ can be mentioned in the same sentence.

That line sparked outrage. One commenter at the Christian Post wrote: “Nothing ends discussions — or even friendships — faster than questioning someone’s salvation over their political party.”

But here’s the problem: That’s not what I said. That commenter assumed I questioned my friend’s salvation. I didn’t. Within the context of the article, it’s clear I questioned his wisdom — something entirely different.

Jesus didn’t flinch

A few years ago, it was trendy to wear wristbands with the initials “WWJD?” — short for “What Would Jesus Do?”

But I always thought the better question was “WDJD?” — “What Did Jesus Do?”

Without knowing the Gospels, we risk projecting our own preferences onto Christ. We imagine He would act just like us in any given situation. But if we read scripture and study His words, we begin to understand how He actually responded — and how we should, too.

Nowhere in the four Gospels does Jesus “agree to disagree.” He never split the difference. He never wavered. He always led from a position of authority.

Take His encounter in the Temple. Jesus didn’t debate the moneychangers. He didn’t issue a polite warning. He flipped their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). He didn’t scold them and promise to check in again next Sabbath for a follow-up heart-to-heart.

Jesus didn’t agree to disagree. He made it unmistakably clear: God’s house would not be defiled.

Oswald Chambers, in his classic devotional “My Utmost for His Highest,” ends the March 24 entry with this piercing line: “You may often see Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it.”

He cites Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

That doesn’t sound like someone looking to “agree to disagree.”

Debate or dodge

One commenter tried to compare disagreement to a hung jury — where jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict. But that analogy falls apart under scrutiny. Hung juries don’t arise from casual disagreement or an early vote. They happen only after jurors rigorously examine the evidence, debate the facts, and dig into every detail.

A jury doesn’t begin deliberations by taking a straw poll and calling it quits. It doesn’t return to the judge after a 7-5 split and declare, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

A fair trial demands serious discussion — so should any conversation where truth and justice are at stake.

If God the Father had been willing to “agree to disagree” with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place. We could have gone on living however we pleased — hurting others, being hurt, and suffering the consequences. Jesus might have shown up just to stand on the sidelines, shaking His head as we destroyed ourselves.

Consider the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the law required her to be stoned. He could have done what Pontius Pilate would do later — wash His hands of the situation. He could have said, “The law is the law,” and let the crowd do as it pleased. Agree to disagree, right?

But Jesus didn’t do that. Instead, He delivered a mic-drop moment that spared her life. Then, He told her, “Go and sin no more.”

Compare that to what happened when Jesus stood before Pilate. Pilate, faced with the mob, knew Jesus was innocent. But instead of standing up to the crowd, he caved. He agreed to disagree — and sent Christ to the cross.

When it comes to sin and judgment, “agree to disagree” is just cowardice dressed up as compromise. Jesus never did that.

You posted, didn’t you?

Some readers of my original article accused me of sounding self-righteous for taking a firm stance with Jeffrey. But I don’t believe we should compromise — or “agree to disagree” — on matters of real consequence. That’s why I laid out the facts clearly, whether Jeffrey knew them or not.

There’s more to be said, but let me end with this:

A surprising number of commenters on the Christian Post insisted that we should always “agree to disagree,” even on major issues. But every one of those comments proved my point. Not a single person “agreed to disagree” with me. Instead, they made sure their dissenting views were heard — some twisting my words, others going straight for personal attacks.

If they truly believed in “agreeing to disagree,” they wouldn’t have commented at all.

So who’s right about the value of “agree to disagree”?

Well, it appears it's debatable, after all.

5 Classic Musical Works To Accompany Your Final Lenten Preparations For Easter

Here are five penitential songs from generations past that capture the emotion of these sacred days.

Emotional blackmail: How empathy became a tool of control



The sin of empathy.

When you write a book with that title, you need to be prepared to explain it. And sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

A friend recently sent me an image from the Mexico side of the southern border. It shows the word “Empathy” graffitied on the border wall. Presumably, the person responsible views the border wall as an affront to the modern virtue of empathy. In doing so, the person communicates the fundamental argument of my book.

For years, empathy has been pitched as sympathy 2.0. It’s compassion — but upgraded. In a famous viral YouTube video, Brené Brown describes the way that sympathy is cold and judgmental, standing aloof from suffering. Empathy, on the other hand, is a sacred space that fuels connection by staying out of judgment.

But pay attention to the fine print. What sounds like a simple call for human decency and kindness actually masks emotional blackmail. For, as the artist in Mexico said so clearly, empathy means no borders, no walls, no boundaries.

This was the warning issued in the early 2000s by Edwin Friedman, a rabbi and family systems counselor.

"Our focus on empathy is one of the major factors that has everybody stuck," Friedman said. "The concept of empathy has wound up encouraging everyone to lose their own boundaries, so it works against the very self-regulation that is necessary for it to be employed objectively."

In other words, empathy frequently becomes untethered from what is true and good, and it becomes a power tool in the hands of the sensitive. It elevates a person’s immediate feelings over healthy boundaries and thereby becomes a means of emotional manipulation.

Anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of a guilt trip knows how easily we can be steered by our empathy and compassion. In fact, if we’re honest, we’ve likely put those we love on a guilt trip ourselves. It’s easy to throw a pity party or to adopt a martyr complex to influence and steer those we love.

And of course, emotional blackmail is not new. I’m sure that Adam and Eve (and Cain and Abel) engaged in their share of emotional manipulation. One hundred years ago, G.K. Chesterton asserted that the modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. They “have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth, and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity, and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”

Forty years later, C.S. Lewis warned that “Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful,” describing this noble virtue as a man-eating weed when it is transplanted from the rocky crags of justice to the swamp of humanitarianism.

In a world that demands all empathy and no borders, choose a better way.

But modern society has institutionalized this ancient human impulse, buttressing it with ideologies like critical theory and intersectionality.

The result? The Victimhood Olympics that we witnessed over the last decade, in which various “oppressed” groups competed to see who was the most oppressed.

In a society flooded by untethered empathy, victimhood confers invulnerability. Victims (real or imagined) cannot be questioned or challenged but must be affirmed, validated, and permitted to set the agenda for everyone else. What’s more, they are absolved from all responsibility for their actions, and they can count on the members of society to excuse all manner of behavior out of misguided compassion.

Of course, the man-eating weed of untethered empathy is very willing to selectively adopt the tenets of justice when it wants.

For example, the Biden administration facilitated the invasion of our country, abusing programs like Temporary Protected Status and expanding programs for asylum-seekers to flood the country with millions of migrants. And now, as the Trump administration seeks to undo this invasion, all of a sudden it’s vital that every illegal migrant receive an individual trial. Thus we see not only a corruption of compassion, but a corruption of justice and a bureaucratic and judicial tyranny that usurps the role of the nation’s duly elected officials.

This is the challenge for us as individuals and as a society: How can we actually be compassionate without giving in to the empathetic manipulation that dishonors God, destroys lives, and smothers justice? Because it is amazing how much cruelty can be done in the name of empathy. You can murder the unborn. You can castrate and mutilate children. You can facilitate an invasion. All in the name of empathy.

Resist any of these efforts and you will be called heartless, cruel, and ungodly, as Sunny Hostin did on "The View."

But true compassion, the kind that Christ calls us to, is not steered by false accusations and labels. True compassion weeps with those who weep while seeking their ultimate good. Because it is tethered to truth, goodness, and reality, it refuses to lie to appease the manipulators who would steer us by our kindness. It always reserves the right not to blaspheme.

So in a world that demands all empathy and no borders, choose a better way. Good fences make good neighbors. Firm boundaries enable true compassion.

Why You Should Use This Lent To Think More About Hell

As much as Jesus unconditionally loves us, He is also a preacher of hell.

Self-Government Requires Governing Ourselves

Brad Littlejohn’s smart and provocative book, 'Called to Freedom,' examines the tension between Christian teaching and the secular ideal of political freedom.

Street preacher says Subway worker refused to serve him over his T-shirt condemning homosexuality with biblical reference



A street preacher said a Subway worker in Wisconsin recently refused to serve him over his T-shirt displaying a phrase condemning homosexuality as a sin.

Rich Penkoski told the Christian Post he was wearing a T-shirt displaying the phrase "Homo sex is sin: Romans 1" when an interaction took place — which was recorded on video — in the Waunakee restaurant. Penkoski was traveling with other pastors after preaching outside the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, the Post added. Waunakee is about an hour and 20 minutes west of Milwaukee.

'If the shoe were on the other foot, if somebody walked in and said, 'Oh, I'm gay' or whatever, and I said, 'Nope, I'm not serving you,' this would be all over the place, and I'd be fired, or I'd be getting sued.'

David Grisham, apparently also one of the street preachers, posted a Facebook message Tuesday with multiple photos saying, "This person working at Subway in Waunakee Village Mall refused to serve us because of our Christian T-shirts. Christophobic bigotry should not be tolerated. Please give Subway corporate a call." It isn't clear on what date the interaction occurred.

One of the photos Grisham posted shows four men outside a Subway wearing T-shirts displaying phrases such as, "Abortion is murder," "Homo sex is sin: Romans 1," and "Planned Parenthood murders children and rapes their mothers."

Grisham posted video of the interaction in the Subway, writing in the caption, "Subway Karen refuses to serve street preachers because of Christian T-shirts in Waukanee [sic] Wisconsin." The following is how the exchange went down:

"Are you refusing to service customers? She's refusing to serve us," one man says in the clip. "She just said she's refusing to serve us."

"What are you talking about?" another man asks.

"This girl right here said she's refusing to serve us," the first man replies.

"So we have to go somewhere else?" a third man wonders.

"I want her to say it again," the first man says.

"I am refusing you service," the Subway worker behind the counter replies.

As for her reasons for the refusal, she soon says it's a "personal matter."

The first man asks if it's "because of my T-shirt?"

She replies, "Yes."

"OK, [I'm] sure Subway Corporate will love to hear that," the first man replies.

The Christian Post reported that the Subway employee speaking in the video was referring to Penkoski's "Homo sex is sin: Romans 1" T-shirt.

"If the shoe were on the other foot, if somebody walked in and said, 'Oh, I'm gay' or whatever, and I said, 'Nope, I'm not serving you,' this would be all over the place, and I'd be fired, or I'd be getting sued," Penkoski told the Post.

Penkoski added to the Post, "But these LGBT people are so emboldened that they think just because they're either gay or gay allies, they can say and do whatever they want. So if they really want equality, then they should be OK with me suing them the same way they sue us."

Penkoski said he has spoken with his attorney about possible legal action against Subway for a civil rights violation, the Post added.

Grisham noted in a Facebook comment that his group "did NOT purposely try to antagonize anyone. We just went in for a sandwich. A local pastor was buying us dinner, and we had only been inside for less than a minute and hadn’t said a word to anyone. She just saw our shirts and blurted out profanity and said she wouldn’t serve us. REASONABLE people are reasonable when it comes to differences of opinion and are professional enough to just serve someone without letting their emotions go into elementary schoolyard mode and whine publicly."

Grisham noted in another comment that "if we had been homosexuals with rainbow shirts, and they refused us service, there would be riots in the streets."

But plenty of commenters on Grisham's Facebook posts about the incident pushed back hard. To wit:

  • "Learn the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism," one commenter shot back. "[You] all are simply bigots, and that’s why she refused you service."
  • "I wouldn’t serve you, either," another commenter said. "You wear disgusting shirts like that to get a reaction out of people. Good job. You got your reaction."
  • "Subway will not take your side, nor will any reasonably minded person," another commenter declared before adding, "You are not a Christian in any way shape or form."
  • "Having these kinds of shirts on and calling them 'religious T-shirts' is a CRAZZYYY reach," another commenter wrote. "Speaks volumes to the values of your religious priorities, I guess. You're always welcome to have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequence. To everyone saying you should sue based on 'religious discrimination' has (1) never seen the shirts you guys were actually wearing or (2) is grossly misinformed as to how the legal system actually works. The prosecutors would laugh it out the courthouse in an hour."

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 sided with Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he refused to make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. But last October, the Colorado Supreme Court said it would take up a lawsuit from transgender plaintiff Autumn Scardina against Phillips after he refused to make a cake to celebrate Scardina's gender transition.

The Christian Post said Subway's corporate office did not respond to its request for comment by time of publication.

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

'I agree with me': Ben Shapiro's viral comedic response to Democrat who confronts him about his religious beliefs



Ben Shapiro shut down Rep. Eric Swalwell on Wednesday after the California Democrat tried — but failed — to weaponize Shapiro's personal religious beliefs.

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the controversial Global Alliance for Responsible Media, Swalwell chose to question Shapiro about a topic unrelated to the hearing: Project 2025, the forward-looking plan for America created by the Heritage Foundation.

'Yes, I'm a religious Jew. That's true. You've found me out.'

After, ironically, Swalwell admitted he agreed with much of the project's proposals — for example, less government bureaucracy, more government efficiency, less government waste — the California Democrat tried to question Shapiro about immigration. And when Shapiro knocked those questions out of the park, Swalwell turned to abortion and same-sex marriage.

But that's when the hearing took a bizarre turn.

Shapiro attended the hearing as a representative of the Daily Wire, which had been unfairly targeted by GARM. But Swalwell chose to question Shapiro about his religious beliefs, instead.

"Do you support that part? ... Banning same-sex marriage?" Swalwell asked, referring to Project 2025.

"I am in favor of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and I'm perfectly fine with anyone having any sort of voluntary sexual arrangement they seek," Shapiro responded. "That's a different thing from whether the government should attach benefits to that personal relationship."

That answer, however, was not sufficient for Swalwell, who responded by more precisely probing Shapiro's religious beliefs.

"But you think it's a sin to have same-sex marriage?" the Democrat followed up.

"I mean, I'm confused. Are you asking me as a religious Jew what I think about biblically?" Shapiro responded.

"I'm just asking: Is it a sin to be gay?" Swalwell asked again.

"From a religious Jewish perspective, orientation is not a sin, but activity is, that's also the same perspective of most major religions so far as I'm aware," Shapiro pointed out.

For the next minute, Swalwell asked Shapiro two questions on different topics. But, oddly, he later returned to the question of same-sex marriage, claiming to have found "receipts" of Shapiro's previous comments condemning homosexuality. Swalwell proceeded to read one such quote.

"Yes, I'm a religious Jew. That's true. You've found me out," Shapiro fired back. "I agree with me. Yes, that's true."

The response drew laughter from the crowd gathered in the hearing room.

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

Dallas megachurch pastor suddenly steps down after admitting to undisclosed, years-old 'sin': 'I fell short'



Tony Evans, a Dallas megachurch pastor and best-selling author, is stepping away from his ministry leadership role.

On Sunday, the Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship senior pastor announced that he is stepping down because he "fell short" of the biblical standards required of him as a pastor a "number of years ago."

"The foundation of our ministry has always been our commitment to the Word of God as the absolute supreme standard of truth to which we are to conform our lives," Evans said in a statement. "When we fall short of that standard due to sin, we are required to repent and restore our relationship with God.

"A number of years ago, I fell short of that standard. I am, therefore, required to apply the same biblical standard of repentance and restoration to myself that I have applied to others," he added. "In light of this, I am stepping away from my pastoral duties and am submitting to a healing and restoration process established by the elders. This will afford me a needed time of spiritual recovery and healing."

Evans did not provide any details about the "sin" he committed, nor did he say when the incident occurred. He said he did not break any laws.

It's not clear what prompted Evans to accept accountability at this time if the undisclosed sin occurred years ago.

While Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship is non-denominational, most Christian churches derive their requirements for the position of "elder" or "pastor" from important biblical passages like 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.

Those letters limit the role of elder and pastor to mature Christians who are above reproach, do not engage in sexual immorality or adultery, are sober-minded and not drunkards, disciplined, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach and lead others, not violent, gentle, not arrogant or quick-tempered, not quarrelsome, not lovers of money, faithful managers of their own households, lovers of good, and Christians who are highly regarded by outsiders.

Evans has served as pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship since he founded the church in 1976. The church now boasts more than 10,000 members.

His ministry has reached millions more people through his syndicated radio program "The Alternative with Tony Evans," his books, and his Bible commentary.

Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship's leaders said they will provide more information to the church about interim pastoral leadership in the coming weeks.

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