NO MORAL FOG

There are moral questions that require careful theological reasoning—and there are moral questions that do not.

The abortion debate, however strongly one may feel, involves layers of philosophical, biological, legal, and pastoral complexity. When precisely does personhood begin? How should Christians think about tragic medical situations? How do we apply biblical principles to a modern medical practice not directly addressed in Scripture?

Faithful believers, seeking to honor the sanctity of life, have wrestled through these questions using theology, science, and moral reasoning. Even among those who are firmly “pro-life,” there are difficult edge cases, heartbreaking scenarios, and prudential disagreements about law and policy. That complexity does not make the issue unimportant. It simply means it involves inferential work.

Racism does not.

There is no moral fog when it comes to partiality, ethnic superiority, or treating one image-bearer as less than another. The Word of God speaks with stunning clarity. From Genesis declaring that all humanity bears the image of God, to the prophets condemning oppression, to James forbidding favoritism in the assembly, to Paul rebuking Peter for ethnic separation, the biblical witness is direct and repeated. There are no footnotes. No philosophical gymnastics. No “hard cases.” Hatred rooted in race is sin. Partiality is sin. Dehumanizing another people group is sin.

And yet, strangely, some call preaching against racism “political,” while preaching against abortion is considered simply “biblical.”

Why?

If anything, the Bible addresses injustice and partiality more explicitly and more frequently than it addresses abortion as a defined practice. The pro-life case is built theologically from principles about the value of unborn life—good and serious principles—but it is constructed through synthesis. The condemnation of partiality requires no synthesis. It is already spelled out.

This does not minimize abortion. It acknowledges that it is a morally serious question requiring careful reasoning. But racism requires no careful balancing act. There are no morally defensible versions of it. No tragic exceptions. No scenarios where ethnic contempt becomes righteous.

The gospel itself removes all hierarchy at the foot of the cross. Christ has broken down the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14). In Him there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28). The church is commanded to show no partiality (James 2:1). That is not social theory. That is apostolic instruction.

So when someone says preaching about racism is “political,” the problem may not be clarity in Scripture. It may be comfort. It may be racism.

Some moral issues require careful theological construction. Others are simply matters of obedience.

There may be difficult aspects of the abortion question. There are no difficult aspects of the racism question.

One demands discernment.

The other demands repentance.

BDD