The Real Demand of Being Salt and Light: A Response to Larry Taunton

            In a world of polarizing rhetoric and deepening political divides, the path for Christian political involvement has become ever murkier.  One way out of the fog is to label one side as the bastion of evil and the other the guardian of righteousness.  This approach was taken by Larry Taunton in a recent article, “The Salt has Lost its Savor:  the Woke Church and the Undoing of America” where he questions the positions of Tim Keller and John Piper.[1]  Keller told his audience that one could not mandate another Christian must vote Republican or Democrat without a biblical command to that effect.[2]  While Taunton thought that was a reasonable approach in bygone eras, he was incredulous about its application in the most recent election and asked:  “But in 2020, a year when Democrats represent all that is unholy?”[3]

            Why might the Democrats “represent all that is unholy”?  He explains that he “…can think of several biblical commands that made the choice for any Bible-believing Christian absolutely clear in this election.  I mean, would Jesus endorse a radical pro-abortion and pro-infanticide policy; every sordid sexual agenda, even the sexualization of small children; a complete disregard for the rule of law; and open hostility toward His followers?  I don’t think so.”[4] 

            The allure of Taunton’s rhetoric is palpable.  Who wants to be on the side of unequivocal evil?  Who wants to fail in being salt and light?  No serious Christian I know would answer yes. 

            But is the current political landscape carved up so neatly between good and evil?  I only wish it were.  As a Reformed Christian, a camp within which Taunton also identifies, I affirm the often unpopular doctrine of total depravity which says that all human capacities have been corrupted by sin and that all humans are touched by it in some way (Rom. 3:9-20).  This does not mean all are equally evil or act on it to the same extent, but it does mean that none of us (except for Jesus) can claim to be a representation of pure goodness.  If none of us can claim to be purely good individually then it would seem nigh impossible for our political associations, which are collections of vast amounts of individuals, to be any different.  The line between good and evil cannot be so easily drawn between Democrats and Republicans.

            Solzhenitsyn once put it this way:  “Gradually, it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either–but right through every human heart–and through all human hearts” (Gulag Archipelago).  Solzhenitsyn summarizes my point well, but I think he touches on why we might find Taunton’s option an attractive one.  If we can think ourselves on the side of righteousness simply by voting a particular way, then I don’t have to face the evil within.  Indeed, part of what concerns me in Taunton’s article is that it leaves us with a false sense of goodness and does not build Spirit-led discernment about the truth in our hearts, a truth that Scripture affirms.

            What is more, Taunton’s article sabotages the very thing he wants to inculcate.  He wants Christians to be “salt and light.”  He wants us to “push back at a culture that, in the words of Isaiah 5:20, ‘call[s] evil good and good evil….’”  Yes, that is precisely what we should be doing!  The things he lists as problematic in the Democratic platform are things we should speak against.  However, being salt and light is not just about delivering a prophetic word to Democrats; it is also making sure the Republicans do not get a pass and that God’s Word sifts them just as fully.

            The problem with Taunton’s totalizing approach to the issue is not that he is too hard but rather too soft and therefore not enough “salt and light.”  If he is worried about the “election-rigging” of the Democrats what about the former president’s repeated, court unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud?  While we have the fortune of reflecting on these things in light of January 6th, which Taunton did not have when he wrote the article, such repeated claims and their widespread acceptance within the Christian community before the publication of the article led to “Jesus Saves” flags waving as the Capitol was being breached.  Is that effective salt and light?  Would Jesus be breaking into the Capitol when his preferred candidate didn’t win (John 18:36)?[5]  What about separating families at the border?  This is not to legitimate their illegal entry and thereby support open borders, but to ask how we go about dealing with illegal entries by families.  Would the God who created family applaud?  What about the former administration’s restrictions of refugees and asylees under the guise of national safety that leaves then languishing in refugee camps?  How does this square with the biblical commands to care for the foreigner (Exod. 22:21) and when will we admit that the rhetoric from the conservative side of the aisle seems to be influencing the attitudes of Christians negatively toward those to whom they are called to be salt and light, especially Muslims?[6]  The former administration has done a fine job of bringing the vaccines into production at a record pace through Operation Warp Speed.  However, instead of unifying the country around conquering the virus, it proceeded to politicize mitigation efforts like masks, social distancing, and lockdowns.  If we are concerned about the deaths due to the intentional taking of unborn life, should we not also be concerned about the preventable virus deaths that have occurred through negligence and the preference of personal freedom over love of neighbor?  I could go on.

            The point is this, living in a world where evil runs through every heart and every party is a much more complicated and time-consuming way to live.  I see why people would want to seize on Taunton’s rhetoric as a way forward.  You can.  It’s easy, but you will just lose some of your savor.  Then the evils and moral ills of the party and platform you lionize uncritically will be the millstone around which you’ll drown any hope of fully being salt and light.  This is not to say that one party will not represent the kingdom more than another on particular issues, nor is it to retreat into moral relativism as if all views are morally equal.  It is to say that truth and goodness require a prophetic voice that speaks to all and doesn’t turn a blind eye on any, especially to those most ideologically similar to you.  The sooner we learn that the more we’ll actually be salt and light. 

[1] I concentrate here on the short form of the article because this is how it has been passed around in my circles (  The longer form is more robust, but it is this short form that has influenced people close to me and to which I now respond. In addition, this short form was also one he consented to publish as it is.




[5] I understand that some will object to this point.  One side has obviously succeeded in a great deception about the election; that much is for sure.  From where I sit, only one candidate warned about fraud before the election ever began.  It is this same candidate who then claimed fraud after the election loss and initiated dozens of court cases that never went beyond the judges, even those who had been appointed by him.  Many of those cases were not even really about fraud.  Trump also proved unable to overturn Georgia’s electoral votes, even after multiple recounts, a signature audit, and pressuring attempts to overturn it.  Then, we have the fact that people like Barr and others defected from Trump as he continued to press the fraud issue.  For the sake of intellectual humility, I admit I could be wrong and that there are credible facts I don’t yet have before me to influence a different decision, but these are the factors that lead me to my current conclusion. 


Why the church needs to change its approach on gay marriage

To be quite clear up front, I do not believe in homosexuality, regardless whether its participants are getting married or not.  There are plenty of places in the Bible that condemn these actions.  In Romans 1 alone, it is called unnatural, shameful, and we are told that it is the result of depraved minds.  I am not concerned about being in line with public opinion, only in being in line with what God has clearly taught us.

With that in mind, I believe that the church has completely blown its approach on the issue of homosexuality.  We have the Bible on our side and we should NEVER abandon God’s Word for public opinion or even fear of persecution.  But the question is, why are we holding fast to God’s Word?

The prophets were instructed to draw a line in the sand of what God said.  People were either for God or against Him.  I believe that there are still prophets in the church today.  Not men and women who predict the future but who draw the line in the sand and state that God’s commands are not to be trifled with.  But not everyone has the gift of prophecy and I question the idea of whether the church is to do the work of the prophets.

The church has an obligation to declare the Word of the Lord but that is far more than just standing against the tides of popular culture.  Jesus didn’t give us instructions of “Go into all the world and tell them everything that they are doing wrong so they’ll stop.”  Our standing orders are to make disciples.  Making disciples does mean that we instruct people to repent of their sins but that comes through a process.

I believe that we have inadvertently created a mindset to the outside world that they first have to get their lives right because they can come to God.  Because the church talks so much about sin, we forget who we’re preaching to.  People outside of the doors of the church need to hear the gospel about the forgiveness of sins.  Those inside of the church need to know about the garbage in their lives that needs to be dumped.

But we’ve gotten it backwards.  How many times in the gospels do we see Jesus preaching against sin?  Jesus encountered plenty of sinners and He was never wishy washy in calling sin for what it was.  But Jesus always had the big picture in mind.  Rather than just fix the sin, He aimed to fix the whole person.  When Jesus called for repentance, it wasn’t for one particular sin but rather a general call for salvation.

The church only needs to look at its previous efforts to see how well it does to preach against sin rather than focus on saving souls.  Issues such as prohibition and divorce certainly haven’t gone the way of the church’s teachings.  It appears as though the issue of gay marriage is also headed that way as well.  I believe that the church needs to be more concerned about preaching salvation and changing lives in that way rather than continually preach to non-Christians about what the Bible says.  Non-Christians have no reason to respect what the Bible says but we continue to preach sin rather than salvation.

The issue with speaking in tongues

My purpose in writing this is not to prove or disprove the gift of speaking in tongues as an active gift in the church today.  I will admit from the beginning that I do not believe that the gift is what the early church saw it to be and by most definitions nonexistent.

I will not write to dissuade those who say they speak in tongues because despite my own personal belief, I can offer no solid Biblical evidence to prove that the gift has ceased.

The point I desire to make with this article is that many of the churches that practice speaking in tongues do so in an unbiblical manner.  If the gift of tongues is truly active in the church today, there are many churches that are in direct violation of what the Bible says concerning tongues.  I feel that this is a matter that is more important to address than whether or not tongues is truly an active gift today.  This is not a criticism of all charismatic churches but a warning that there are ones that clearly violate what scripture says concerning it.

First off, one does not have to speak in tongues in order to prove they are saved.  Yes there are instances in the New Testament where people, even in large groups, speak in tongues upon their conversion.  Speaking in tongues, however, is a gift like any of the other nineteen mentioned in the New Testament.  (Most are in I Cor, others are in Romans).

In I Cor 12:29-31, Paul addresses the issue of tongues and other gifts.  “Are all apostles?  Are all prophets?  Are all teachers?  Do all work miracles?  Do all have gifts of healing?  Do all speak in tongues?  Do all interpret?  But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

The expected answer to Paul’s questions are that not all are apostles or teachers.  Likewise, not all speak in tongues.  Earlier in chapter 12, Paul speaks of one body with many parts.  Each part is not the same, but the body would have no use for two noses if it is in need of ears.  The church is the body, and each gift makes up a part of the body.  It would be ridiculous for a pastor to expect his entire congregation to be made up of teachers.  Likewise, if everyone was a teacher there would be no one to teach.  In the same way, not everyone in the entire congregation should be expected to speak in tongues.

The Corinthian church had apparently put too much emphasis on the speaking of tongues as a gift because Paul berates them in chapter 14.  Verse 6 says, “Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?”  He continues in verse 9, “Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?  You will just be speaking into the air.”

In verses 13-18 Paul stresses the need for others to understand what is being said.  “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.  For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.  So what shall I do?  I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.  If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to you thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?  You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.”

In verse 22, Paul explains that tongues are a sign.  Understand that this is the main point of contention as to why many believe that tongues are no longer valid – they say that we no longer need signs.  If tongues continue to be a sign though, Paul’s words are still valid.  Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever and not the believer.

Verse 23, “So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of you mind?”  While unbelieving observers will not understand what is said, more importantly, they won’t know what is going on and it will likely scare them.

All of that was regarding the church’s misplaced emphasis on tongues.  Paul continues on with how speaking on tongues is to be used in worship.  Allowing for the fact that there may be people who are genuinely gifted by speaking in tongues, I will say that the church has not used the gift properly in worship.

Paul is explicit in the way the gift is to be used and when and when not to use it in worship.  I will first jump to the end of the chapter where in verses 39-40 Paul says, “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking tongues.  But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”

If the gift of tongues is active today, no church should forbid it.  However, it must be done in the proper way.  Going back to verse 27, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at the most three – should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.  If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.”

First of importance, speaking in tongues should be done one at a time.  There should not be a mass of people speaking at the same time.  There should not be such confusion.

Also of importance, and this is where I fault most churches that promote speaking in tongues, there must be an interpreter.  If there is no interpreter, the speaker remains silent and speaks only to God and himself.  If there is no one to interpret, the speaker does nothing but edify himself, as Paul mentions earlier in 14:4.  There should never be a showcasing of gifts or holding one gift above another.  A teacher would not teach just to hear him or herself talk if there were no students.  A missionary would not go into a church where everyone is saved so everyone can pat him on the back.  Likewise, a person with the gift of tongues is not to speak unless there is an interpreter.  It is useless in worship otherwise.

This still allows for someone to speak in tongues when they are in prayer at home, or singing, or whatever else.  I have heard of such stories, and even though I have no basis to evaluate them, they don’t violate what Paul has written concerning tongues.

Going back to the concept of the church as a body, a body has every part that it needs otherwise it is considered handicapped.  The church likewise should have every gift it needs.  There shouldn’t be many churches who truly have people gifted in tongues that don’t have an interpreter.  God will provide an interpreter if there is someone speaking in tongues at your church.  Otherwise, it would be a church that is missing a part.

In conclusion, the Bible offers no clear proof that tongues have ceased.  Many feel strongly one way or another about the issue, as do I.  More importantly however, if tongues are still active in the church today, it is often practiced in a manner that is contrary to what the Bible says about it.  You can read all about it and not just take my word on it.  As a matter of fact, I suggest that.  I do suggest that you take God’s word on it and where things are clearly spelled out, that the churches obey it.

Christian views on cloning

It has been a few years since I was a physics major and even then I didn’t learn too much but I’m going to try to explain the church’s difficulty with the issue of cloning.  It is obviously a hot issue right now and I hope that I can explain things in terms everyone can understand.  I will in no way claim to be an expert on the issue, but after some research I feel that I have a good handle on the issue and can discuss it.  Because of my need for research on the matter, I’ve included web addresses of some sites I referenced at the end of this article.

The Bible, unfortunately, has nothing to directly say about cloning; that should be easy to figure out as it obviously wasn’t possible even 50 years ago.  There is no Bible verses that even allude to it, saying, “You shall not make an exact likeness of yourself,” or “Creating children is only something God do.”  What can be taken from the Bible on the issue revolves around the sanctity of life and mostly ends up becoming the same argument that is used against abortion.

The church’s typical stance on cloning is mostly the same as it is for abortion – against it.  While this is probably the proper stance (and one taken by a lot of secular scientists who think human cloning to be irresponsible) I fear that most church members do not understand the issues at hand and simply say they are against cloning because their church or their pastor is against it.  Hopefully I can clear the muddy waters to enable everyone to understand the position and be able to have their own conclusions on it without just accepting what someone else says.

First off, when we talk about cloning even the word creates problems.  Science fiction gone awry immediately comes to mind when cloning is mentioned.  From a scientific aspect, cloning is still a vague word however, because there are three types of cloning.

1)    Embryonic cloning – this has actually existed since the late 70’s.  It is a scientific process of duplicating the normal process that results in a woman having twins of triplets.  (That’s fraternal twins – from one egg, then it splits.)  This process has been used on humans but to a limited extent.

2)    Adult DNA cloning – this is what the real uproar has been about lately.  It is what “Dolly” the sheep was created using.  It is also what scientists are trying to use to clone a human.  I’ll explain the process in a moment.

3)    Therapeutic cloning – this involves the same process as creating an adult clone except after 14 days the “pre-embryo” is killed allowing scientists to harvest stem cells.  Stem cells can then be encouraged to grow into a kidney, liver, or some other organ.

To create a clone an egg is taken from a woman.  This is then stripped of its DNA.  (Egg cells, like sperm cells only have half the chromosomes of any other cell.  This could be important to the debate, so I thought I’d mentioned it as there’s a difference between fertilizing and egg and cloning a cell.)  The empty egg is given DNA from a person – this could be a complete set of chromosomes from the mother or from any other person.  An electrical shock is given to the cell and in a small percent of tries, the cell starts dividing like a fertilized egg would.

In adult cloning, the egg is placed back into the mother where it divides and grows like any normal fertilized egg would.  In therapeutic cloning, the egg is placed in a petri dish and allowed to divide for 14 days.  Still in a “pre-embryo” stage stem cells are removed from it, resulting in its death.  Stem cells can then be encouraged to grow into a specific type of cell, ultimately resulting in what could be a perfect genetic match of a kidney or liver for someone who is in need of one.

That is the science behind cloning.  Even if all of that sounds rather simple the process rarely works as it is supposed.  When it does work, it gives way to an assortment of ethical problems.

To top of page

Biblical issues with cloning

The biggest issue at hand is when does the cell or group of cells become a human being?  The position taken by most who are against cloning is that life begins at conception, hence the issue becomes the same as that of abortion.  In therapeutic cloning, a 14 day old baby would be killed.  Posing a problem for those who take the view that life begins at conception is the fact that there is no actual conception of an egg.

It could be argued that because there is no fertilization of an egg, a baby is not created but rather a cell.  If this is the case, killing this “pre-embryo” would be no different from me having a mole removed – it would be a lump of cells.  A quote from says, “To say that a cloned ball of cells no bigger than a pinprick cannot be created to allow a grown person to live is cruelly dogmatic.”  (The article later says that to uselessly kill a bunch of these is reproachable as well, so if nothing else, the editorial was advocating some limitations.)  If a ball of cells is all this amounts to at 14 days it would be foolish to prohibit its use to create a better life for suffering people.  While the cell contains the genetic material to become a life, it is not created naturally and therefore not a life at that point.  (It at some point does later because in adult cloning, it becomes a baby – unless someone wishes to argue that the baby is not alive because it was not conceived.)  This is the argument of those for cloning.

However, it can be argued that one single cell, no matter how it was created, will grow into a baby if given nine months.  This could be a very good indication that it is human life, even at the point of being a single cell.  In which case, life would not only begin at conception but at the point when a cell that has the potential to become a baby exists.

Some more food for thought: There is a high rate of death for zygotes (time from when a fertilized egg exists till it attaches to the uterine wall around week two).  Around 60% of zygotes die in the fallopian tubes, while more die before attaching to the uterine wall.  This high mortality rate occurs before the 14 days at which the stem cells are harvested.

What does the Bible say about any of this?  The typical belief, as I stated, is that life begins at conception.  We can’t however prove or disprove the notion.  The Bible says that God knit us together in our mother’s womb.  God also knew us before we were born.  God is obviously involved in the process of creating life.  That is why this is such an issue.  If God didn’t care about a fetus before birth, it wouldn’t be much of an issue.  But since abortion kills a child that God has been knitting together and God has known, it’s a much different.  It still does nothing to say at what point a life is formed.  It occurs at some point in the womb obviously and before birth.

This is where I go out on a limb from my conservative brothers and sisters.  Please don’t cast your stones until you hear me out at least.  I am unsure if a zygote becomes a “life” until it reaches the womb (the first two weeks are spent traveling down the fallopian tubes.)  At the start of two weeks however, organs start being developed and brain activity is discernible at six.  The problem becomes that if a human life is created, along with a soul, then heaven is full of people who never lived two weeks past conception.  (This is of course assuming that children under a certain age go to heaven.)  I could be very wrong, but when I reach heaven, I don’t expect to see a bunch of people who never lived two weeks past conception.  At two weeks when organs are formed and an embryo takes on human characteristics, I believe that to end its life is to take the life of another human.  Note: Abortions occur after two weeks and therefore I am still against them.

Does this mean I would approve of cloning?  No, because this isn’t the end of the issue.  There are more moral complications even if life is not created until after the time when stem cells are harvested.

First off, I am not certain and will never have any way of knowing if I am right.  I would in no way bet my life or anyone else’s that I’m right on this issue.  The Bible does not say and there is no way of knowing.  Therefore, I can’t advocate killing “pre-embryos” even for the chance of extending another person’s life.  I stand for the middle of the road on the issue, saying it is better to be safe then to kill thousands of lives.

To top of page

More moral issues with cloning

The issue doesn’t end here.  If we can ignore the issue of whether a life is being taken, it only gets more complicated.  Cloning is in the very early stages of development.  In attempts to clone animals, scientists have had a very small amount of success.  Certainly they have succeeded in doing it, but as simple as the process sounds (if you call the process I explained earlier simple) it simply doesn’t work most of the time.

To clone “Dolly” the sheep, it took 276 tries.  Even now, scientists are unsure of their success.  The sheep has developed arthritis and some fear that it may be due to premature aging.  We can’t be sure because so far, this is our best subject to observe.  If scientists clone a human and their body acts like it is middle aged when the child is only a teenager and dies of “old age” at 30, it would be an atrocity.

Moreover, in the successful attempts at cloning, many animals have come out deformed or having serious birth defects.  Scientists have no idea why because their parents have no such problems.  It is feared that to clone a human the same birth defects may be just as common.

DNA, as much as we have discovered about it, is still a big mystery.  Researchers are discovering new things about it all the time.  To be experimenting with it when we have no idea what the consequences are would be incredibly foolish.  When the atom bomb was being tested in its early days, many people were subjected to radiation because the scientists did not understand all the principles.  It would be horrible to create babies with unknown problems that they’d have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Therapeutic cloning holds many of the same problems.  Scientists know what they want to do and they think they know how to do it.  However, they can’t get it to work.  Problems keep occurring that they don’t have explanations for at the time.  Once they are successful, what do they do then?  When a new drug comes out, it is tested for years on animals before it is used in humans.  But once we have a human liver, do we just throw it in the person it was grown for?  Once again, we have no idea what the ramifications are.

Even if we ignore the arguments of pro-life groups, cloning is not without its critics.  While many in the scientific community herald the potential discoveries as earth shattering, just as many are asking for sensibility on the issue.  While everyone is for finding a cure for paralysis or cancer, the risks involved in cloning may be too great.

Cloning is illegal in many countries.  Some have banned human cloning, allowing therapeutic cloning, while others have banned therapeutic cloning.  However, cloning will never be illegal everywhere and those who wish to practice it badly enough will simply go to another country where it is legal.

Some websites I visited seemed to blame pro-life groups for having cloning banned in many countries, saying that in countries where the pro-life movement isn’t as strong, it hasn’t been banned.  Certainly, the pro-life movement is against cloning and has stood against it, but they cannot be the sole cause for its banning.  If pro-life groups held enough political sway to ban cloning on their own, they would also be able to ban abortion.  Obviously, there is enough of the scientific community who feel that cloning is too dangerous and wish to have it curbed.

I don’t know where this debate will go.  As I write this, there have been claims that a cloned human baby have been born.  This report comes from a radical group and many are skeptical of the claim.  However, there is at least one credible doctor who is said to be near a breakthrough.  It may be only a matter of time before a cloned baby is born.  This does not remove any ethical questions concerning the process of cloning however.

If therapeutic cloning becomes successful and discovers the treatment for many diseases, there will still be those who ask, “At what cost has this come, thousands of unborn?”  While the methods are yet to be successful, those against it hold the high ground.  If the practice is ever successful, the debate will explode to unbelievable proportions.  It will become more volatile than the issue of abortion and more heated.

For now, however, it is in its “pre-embryo” stage and has not grown into what it may fully be.  Only time will tell if it is snuffed out or grown into a powerful and respected field of science.

Sites researched: