Search this blog

Recently I had the privilege of writing the foreword to a new book authored by my friends Adam Barr and Ron Citlau. The book is entitled Compassion Without Compromise: How the Gospel Frees Us to Love Our Gay Friends Without Losing the Truth (Bethany House, 2014). It’s a very good book. You should think about getting a copy. My foreword is below.


Hardly a day goes by when we don’t hear something about homosexuality. It’s all over the news and all over social media. It’s the subject of countless conversations, arguments, diatribes, rants, punditry, and commentary. You can’t help but wonder: Is there really anything left to say?

Actually, there is a lot that still needs to be said. This issue is not about to fade into the background, and many of the hardest personal and pastoral questions are just beginning to surface. That’s why I am delighted with this new book.

Adam and Ron are excellent pastors, good thinkers, and great friends. I’ve known Adam since we went to college together and I sat there jealously as he, with his long, flowing locks, played guitar and crooned in the worship team, much to the admiration of many young women. Since then we’ve become close friends, colleagues in ministry, and, in many  ways, brothers in arms.

My friendship with Ron is not as long, but just as rich. I will never forget Ron’s stirring, courageous testimony at our denomination’s General Synod back in 2012. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the gospel more poignantly and powerfully presented at such a gathering. I’m grateful for Ron’s winsome, yet bold, approach to this difficult topic of sexuality. I have learned much from him.

As much as I appreciate Adam and Ron personally, that’s not the reason to read this book. A much better reason is that they have teamed up to write an engaging, accessible, sensitive, uncompromising, wise, and biblical book about the most controversial issue of our day. There are other books on homosexuality–and many of them should be read alongside this one. But what makes this volume unique is the personal touch–especially Ron’s story of having had gay feelings for most of his life–and the pastoral approach to the difficult questions none of us can avoid:

  • Should I attend my friend’s gay “wedding”?
  • Should we invite our homosexual son’s partner to our home for the holidays?
  • How should I respond if my young child thinks he’s gay?

There are dozens of questions like this in the book, each one answered with biblical insights and with good sense. I can’t imagine any Christian not being helped by this book. Adam and Ron are clear about the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual activity. They are informed on the latest scholarship. They are discerning when it comes to real-life application. And they are, above all, hopeful. Hopeful in the power of the gospel to save, to forgive, to restore, and to transform. If you are looking for a resource that will help you think about the issue of homosexuality with unflinching truth and with sincere grace, this is a great place to start.

View Comments


36 thoughts on “Compassion Without Compromise”

  1. Nathan says:

    - Should I attend my friend’s gay “wedding”?
    – Should we invite our homosexual son’s partner to our home for the holidays?

    If you have to read a book to answer those questions then you haven’t read the Bible.

  2. Curt Day says:

    Homosexuality is the most controversial issue of our day? Perhaps for some Christian writers and ministers it is. But there are far more pressing problems whose solutions call for drastic change. These problems are larger in scale because they deal with how groups, such as societies, nations, and economic systems, will find moral solutions to problems like economic disparity and classism, war, and environmental destruction. These issues deal with survival for more and more people.

    That is not to say that homosexuality is not an important issue, it is on several fronts. For some Christians who struggle with homosexual desires, they must battle temptation. For other Christians who, because they don’t want people in society to regard homosexuality as normal, are working to stigmatize and marginalize gays in society, they are falling prey to the siren call of Christian paternalism. And still for other Christians, they must be willing to take a stand and say homosexuality is sin despite the social repercussions.

    But to say homosexuality is today’s most controversial issue shows a strong myopia in a person who lives in a small world after all. And that is the problem with an American Conservative Christianity that has accommodated too much with Western individualism..

  3. Ron says:

    Very well written Pastor Kevin. You know you’ve got quite a gift of writing yourself. I bet you’d be a terrific author ;-)

  4. Martin says:

    Nathan cites provocative questions … and seems to know the answer.

    “Should I attend my friend’s gay “wedding”?
    Should we invite our homosexual son’s partner to our home for the holidays?
    If you have to read a book to answer those questions then you haven’t read the Bible.”

    So what are the answers, Nathan? … as if there is only one correct answer for each question … people can find plausible reasons to answer the questions ‘no’ OR ‘yes’

  5. anaquaduck says:

    I am a bit puzzled by Curts charachterisation of American Conservative Christianity that has accommodated too much with Western individualism (which is probably true)….but wouldnt this rather be the case with homosexuality & economics.

    I think Kevin may be coming from a spiritual perspective while Curt is coming from a political one. If KD is myopic then CD seems utopian. I agree that the rich seem to be getting richer & the poor poorer but that has been the case for quite a while yet homosexuality as an issue has become very outspoken & volatile at present in “history” politically & spiritually.

    The morals of the church are always going to conflict with ungodly morals (if you could call it that) The only solution seems to be secularisation which seems to favour an atheistic society which leans on evolutionary godless concepts.

  6. Curt Day says:

    Nothing utopian in my note. There is nothing utopian about recognizing economic disparity and classism, war and empire, and environmental destruction. What would be utopian would be to say that we could go beyond just improving what we are doing to creating a perfect world. And we should note that there is a self-serving utopia implied when calling for improvements on the way we do things is called utopian.

    You might think that I am coming solely from a political perspective and that is understandable. But listen to Tim Keller talk about corporate evil and the responsibilities individual members of any corporate body have for what their group does. Keller talks about the differing degrees of culpability German citizens had for what the Nazis did. And lest one thinks that a society has to first be as bad as the nazis to address corporate evil, he uses this concept to talk about racism in America.

    Yes, the homosexual issue and our culture’s growing acceptance of it does involve some sin. But what Keller says about corporate evil is true, then we are also responsible to varying degrees for the list of problems I listed because of the concept of corporate evil and our accountability for that evil existing.

    So certainly you can say that part of what I saying involves politics, but it also involves our pietism because we have never existed as just individuals. And thus we should, along, with homosexuality, be addressing problems with corporate sin. Otherwise, we will prove what the political Left says about us. That the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.

  7. Paul Reed says:

    “Should I attend my friend’s gay “wedding”?”
    “Should we invite our homosexual son’s partner to our home for the holidays?”

    If you need the latest book to answer those questions like that, you’ve got far bigger fish to fry than the issue of homosexuality.

  8. anaquaduck says:

    I see what your saying yet the homosexual debate is open & out there. Corporate corruption can be hidden & disguised. But by not speaking up about homosexuality then makes us culpbable (according to Keller then). But as you say other issues exist that are crippling society/nations/environment.

    The love of money for an individual, a company or nation is always standing on shaky ground but this doesnt stop it being a national past time [1 Tim 6:10] for those who have really ‘made it’ & being rich is not necessarily a sin. The tax or very little or extremeley little tax amounts payed by big money companies is shameful, Israel fell into this deception also & God sent the prophets to rebuke them & His judgement to rebuke them. yes we can build our golden calves & mix our religion with worldliness.

    Rules are softened for big companies that make it easy to shirk responsability yet a huge weight of the law can come hammering down on an individual that may blast their life to smitherines, its a cruel world after all & there is only one way out of the mud & mire that clings to our flesh as its stench fills our nostrils.

    I take your point & appreciate it…I hope individuals, corporations & governments also take God’s point regarding the human predicament since the fall of this small, small world & a mighty mighty God whom shall call us to account.

  9. Paul Reed says:


    Let me take a shot at it.
    “Should I attend my friend’s gay “wedding”? — No
    “Should we invite our homosexual son’s partner to our home for the holidays?” — No

    That wasn’t too hard, was it? Another part of this book that is problematic is the implication that you can have it both ways: That is, you can tell the truth about what the Bible says on homosexuals, and still be seen as loving. That’s not going to happen. In a debate with our opponents over homosexuality, the second you make any statement that falls short of normalizing homosexuality, you will be seen as hateful, bigoted, and stupid. I’d much rather an author have written a book telling people that they can’t have it both ways, but then again, it’s plainly stated in the Bible, so what would another book do?

  10. Curt Day says:

    Normalizing homosexuality in which context? If we push for society not to see homosexuality as normal, are we not stigmatizing and marginalizing them? And if so, isn’t that at least unloving?

  11. Nathan says:

    If my answer wasn’t clear to those questions, it is a resounding YES. Even if you consider homosexuality to be a sin, show me where in the Bible it says to isolate yourself from sinners. Did Jesus sequester Himself away from the tax collectors? No. This book is preaching to the choir. Read it if you want to be reassured that treating gay people like lepers is somehow biblical.

  12. anaquaduck says:

    So Curt your happy to stigmatise Kevin & his alleged Miopicness, challenge him (in a loving way) but not challenge homosexuality because it should be considered normal when Scripture is clear it is not to be considered normal or something to model at all.

    And would you not also marginalise the money seekers & war mongers & freedom fighters ? Where is the love for them, ? One minute i think I get where your coming from, then I dont.

  13. Curt Day says:

    Isn’t there a difference between stigmatizing and criticizing?

    See, what I have criticized Kevin about here is that he focuses too much on the homosexual issue while saying nothing about corporate evil. By doing that, he reinforcing some of the valid criticism which the Left has of the Church

    In addition, what’s normal is relative to one’s context. Yes, the Scriptures say that homosexuality is against God’s design. I agree with that. But, should society treat homosexuals as outliers, as those who aren’t normal according to a nonScriptural definition of normal? If society is run where Christians have privilege in determining cultural values, the answer would most likely be ‘Yes.’ But what about a society that is based on religious liberty?

    I’ve seen the first hand effects of the marginalization of gays in society. And what it does is it sometimes makes them unable to objectively read the Scriptures.

    BTW, rather than marginalize money-seekers, as my brothers and sisters in the occupy movement have tried to do, I believe we should seek for them to join the rest of us. And then let society see their response.

  14. anaquaduck says:

    And now we have homosexual rights or human rights, & some humans rights that are more equal than other rites.

    Yes, what about religious liberty…


  15. Curt Day says:

    Is it one groups rights vs another? Unless we want to explain parts of Jim Crow that way, the context destroys that argument. And you can thank capitalism for wrecking that argument.

  16. Curt Day says:

    Not sure why you left the link, we were talking about Kevin, not Justin. And as important as it is to talk about racism, the real challenge for Conservative Christians is to talk about economic disparity and classism, war and empire, and environmental destruction. Why? Because Conservatives tend to defend parts of each of these and yet so much destruction results from them. But I have objection to adding racism to my list.

  17. Curt Day says:

    Just a correction on my last note. It should read “I have no objection to adding racism to my list.” Sorry about the left out word.

  18. anaquaduck says:


    Just food for thought mainly. Kevin, Justin, Conservatives, The Left, Jim Crow (in part) Homosexuality, Racism & that kind of stuff. It can all come together in part or all fall apart together, which is probably what we will have & more so until Christ comes again. Rumours of wars, wars, the love of many grown cold (cold wars on each & every street) Last days & birth pains & all those forewarned things.

    In many respects it is a catch 22, we are told to warn people of the consequences of rejecting God in Christ, then politically we are too set aside a place for that which sets itself up against God in the name of freedom or equality. So if homosexuality is to be tolerated, so then can be stealing, robbing, adultery, coveting, lying, etc…to be fair & equal & all that so those people wont be stygmatised either. One for all & all for one.

    I dont know if you are a minister or a blogger. Kevin is both & he appears to have a level head. Being a minister in a large congregation I figure he along with a leadership/eldership team would be far from myopic when it comes to personal struggles & addressing issues.

    I hear you regarding injustice, it is not an easy call but you are lumping conservatives into one big basket & denying the day to day stuff that they do regarding finances & environmental decisions they make in order to bring honour to God & His world.

    Governments tied up in bureaucracy, blame, legality & chasing taxes & votes seem to me to be where the problem is at, along with false & empty promises. The church works within this muddy landscape, like Jesus mixing with society calling people to faith & holiness.

    That’s the best I can explain my position at present.

  19. Curt Day says:

    Putting them in one big basket depends if they deserve it. And here we should note the difference between general statements and absolute statements. And I am speaking from the Conservatives, I use to be a political Conservative, I am exposed to.

    But let’s look at something you just wrote. You wrote:

    So if homosexuality is to be tolerated, so then can be stealing, robbing, adultery, coveting, lying, etc…to be fair & equal & all that so those people wont be stygmatised either. One for all & all for one.

    Now whether we should tolerate those sins depends on where we are tolerating them. Should we make laws coveting? And what about criminalizing homosexuality in the light of I Cor 5? And if we get to determine what commandments are legislated, then how is it that those of different faiths and no religious faith are our equals in society?

    Kevin’s not alone in overfocusing on the homosexual issue. But what does it say when he focuses so much on it and calls it the “most controversial issue” today when economic disparity and classism is sentencing people to poverty, war and empire kill some and destroy the homes and freedoms of others, and environmental destruction severely dims the future for our descendants? You see, in all of the issues I’ve cited, there is a winner with the preservation of the current status quo: the business class. And yet which Conservative preachers are challenging the Business class to repent?

    What we theologically Conservative Christians need to be aware of is the accusation of the Left that the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. We need to be aware of that accusation and prove it wrong if we want to evangelize outside of the narrows confines of those who are politically conservative. So preaching against homosexuality while leaving those other issues untouched serves whom?

  20. Martin says:

    @ Nathan and Paul

    My niece married a woman this summer. We asked ourselves which would we regret more in 5, 10, 15 years – not going or going? We decided that we would regret not going as the years rolled on. We love our niece and she knows our love for God and the ministries we have at our church. Her mother (my sister and a devout Christian) also struggled deeply with the same question. She and her husband attended, as well.

    Will we invite them to our house – absolutely.

    Many will struggle with the same dilemma. There is no one answer to the question.

  21. anaquaduck says:


    I was coming from a philosophical Christian worldview I would say.

    Yes, it is no good for the congregation or the minister to put all their sermons in one basket. Scripture does not do this & living in a western culture has its own various temptations & challenges. One that I recall is the keg one & I did a bit of a skim on the previous posts & was reminded of the modesty one among others, both good posts

    One thing I can do is pray that God would minister to & direct His church, keeping us on a straight path in the midst of all the attractions & distractions. Some of those accusations can hurt I know but God does not judge us or see us in the same light as the skeptics. Ultimateley the critics will point to failings more likeley as an excuse, but the teachings themselves they seem to recognise as good, which says something in itself & may be reflected in Kevins post “Who do you say that I am”. Scripture urges us all to look to Jesus & not be fooled by the noisy crowd.

    In the end KD is a man who fails & falls like the rest of us. I appreciate many of his post (not the technical theological ones though, those ones make the first or second turn then I am into the wall & out of the race but thats OK, life in the not so technical lane is good for me & my limits) With all the counter claims its good for me to be reminded of what is what, particularly because of the media & its repetative stories that are pro gay rights etc.

    I appreciate the challenge that youve presented.

  22. Corinthian says:

    Should you go to a gay wedding? Would you go to the wedding of two people who were adulterous in their coming together?
    Would you invite your son’s girlfriend to dinner if he was being adulterous in his relationship with her? (ie, he has a wife that is not her)
    After all, he is just following his heart, he can’t control his lusts. See, if you take homosexuality and replace it with any other sexual sin, the answers are easier. Why is homosexuality a separate lust than other lusts? I had a relative who’s spouse was physically abusive to him, she was not welcome in our home.
    Would you go to a polygamous marriage of Mormon friends? etc… If going to a polygamous marriage is wrong because it celebrates something not of God’s plan, why would a “gay marriage” be any different?

  23. Corinthian says:

    And Curt, I get your point about other issues, but they are not destroying denominations and churches, they are not causing pastors to leave the ministry, and no one is being sued for not catering a corporate function. This book is targeted on purpose and narrow in scope on purpose. I could name 100 issues you did not mention that need to be addressed as well, but they can have their own books.

  24. Nathan says:


    Why limit it to just sexual sins? Would you attend a wedding if they were serving pork? Or how about a wedding were the bride was allowed to talk and not wear a head covering? What about a wedding where the groom had shaved his sideburns. Or if we are talking New Testament, would you invite your friend who had a drinking problem over to your house? Would you invite your son or daughter that had placed ANYTHING above God at any point in their life?

  25. Corinthian says:

    So Nathan, are you saying you would go to a polygamous wedding? Or one formed out of Adultery?
    There is a difference between going to a wedding of sinners (which we all are) and one that is celebrating sin. Because sexuality is a God defined and God given component of marriage, it is more relevant. If you really can’t see the difference, then I am not really going to take up the discussion. Look up the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. What you are throwing in is OT ceremonial law and customs, not foundational moral law.
    BTW, I have alcoholics and former alcoholics over regularly, I just don’t serve alcohol.
    To answer your last question, even though the absurdity is obvious, there are times when we are commanded as Christians to not associate with particularly brothers and sisters who are living perpetually sinful lifestyles unrepentantly. There have been times that family have been unwelcome because of their abusiveness, or because of their substance abuse. If my son wanted to bring his girlfriend over and she was married to someone else, yep, I would say “no”.
    Eph 5 is clear that we are not to have fellowship with sinfulness, Maybe this will help… 1 Cor. 5: 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” So we are to judge those in the church if they are living this way. God judges those outside the church. His judgement is the same though. If, as Ephesians 5 says, gay marriage is not Godly, ie- it is a deed of darkness, then we should not have anything to do with it no matter who it is.

  26. Nathan says:


    I understand the difference between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law (at least the historical arguments for and against it). However, the rules about how a women should behave in church are in the new testament. Explain to me how your 1 Cor. 5:11 verse still applies but 1 Cor 14:34 does not? “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”

    About this Paul explicitly says “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”. Paul calls woman keeping silent in church a commandment of the Lord. Not ‘Here is a custom for you for a time’, but a ‘commandment of the Lord’. How is that not the prevailing rule of the day? A women speaking her vows in church would be speaking. Any modern marriage then explicitly breaks a commandment of the Lord.

  27. Brad Fenton says:

    I think that as time goes by, homosexuals will be fully accepted in the Evangelical community. Isn’t that what happened with divorced people?

  28. Corinthian says:

    I appreciate the dialogue, but you really are not addressing questions with answers, just more questions. As for 1 Cor, I believe that the command was for women to not speak in the sense of preaching because they did not have that authority. Obviously in other passages the prophesied, so they must have been allowed some speech. But you are just going to throw up one after another because I believe you are trolling. So, would you go to a polygamous wedding? One born out of adultery? Why can’t you answer those. How about a 40 year old and a 14 year old? Cousins? Father and daughter? According to the line of arguement you are outlining, none of those prohibitions should matter anymore. I have to ask if you believe in scripture at all, and if not, you really are just trolling here. So, would you go to any of those above mentioned “celebrations of Holy Matrimony”? Would you be a best man in one? Would you officiate, assuming you were ordained?

  29. Curt Day says:

    But are these other issues more insidious than the same-sex marriage issue because, inside the Church, they show uncontested compromise with God’s Word? Outside the Church they unnecessarily hurt our ability to evangelize outside of a politically conservative demographic because they destroy our credibility.

  30. Curt Day says:

    BTW, some of the split over the same-sex marriage issue was unnecessary. It was caused by some of us Conservative Christians, not being content with correctly banning same-sex marriage in the Church, trying to force Christian values on society by banning same-sex marriage in society because we wanted to maintain a marginalization of gays in society.

  31. Corinthian says:

    Hey Curt, I agree that the church at large has fumbled its way through some of this, but I also think the chuch has been challenged in a way on these issues that it has not been on others. For example, in Winston Salem, a Methodist church is being sued for not marrying a gay couple. This is not the first and will not be the last. I believe that soon, pastors who do not perform gay marriages, will lose heir legal ordination status and their ability to perform any marriages. This isn’t about freedom for the homosexual community, it is about forced acceptance. But we are off topic for this post.

    As for appealing only to one demographic, the purpose of the gospel is not to appeal to us, but to tell us what is true, to convict us, and to offer us a way out of sin, not a way to persist in sin.
    I vote against gay marriage as I vote on all issues, with a morality that I best believe reflects scriptural truths. So i am pro life because God is the author of life, I vote for local politicians based on their vision for the community and whether there will in the balance, be more good or bad. Why would anyone vote against their values when given the choice?

  32. Curt Day says:

    But if the purpose of the Gospel is not to appeal to us, then why is some of our preaching crafted so that it appeals to a certain demographic?

    I agree that the Scriptures forbid homosexuality, but that isn’t the issue in society. The issue in society is what is the NT view of society and should that be able to accommodate sins like homosexuality? For if society must reflect the Christian values that are to govern my life, what’s a nonChristian to do? In addition, where could religious liberty exist?

  33. Nathan says:

    Corinthian – FYI I responded to you but my comments are ‘awaiting moderation’. Maybe because I included links. Trying without the links:

    I’m honestly not trolling. This is an issue that I’ve thought long and hard about and continue to think a lot about. I think it is helpful to challenge our assumptions on some of these issues, even if we end up where we originally started.

    As for a 40 year old and a 14 year old, no, I would not go to that because that marriage is illegal. Same for cousins, polygamy, etc. “One born out of adultery” is hard. Not sure what that looks like. Is it that the couple came together for through an affair and are now marrying? If so, then yes I would go.

    Notice in my original comment that I said I would attend the wedding and I would invite gay friends into my home. I wasn’t arguing for blanket approval – I believe that is best left up to the individual’s family and situation. However, I can guarantee that isolating our gay friends and family members is the most hurtful and harmful thing that we can do as Christians. 1 in 4 homeless children are LGBT, many from conservative Christian families.

    Simply ask yourself this. Where did Jesus refuse to go in order to share the Gospel? When did Jesus ever shy away from a certain type of person because he thought that their uncleanliness would make him unclean?

    Finally, on my point about the different interpretations of 1 Corinthians, please just understand this. Your assumption that the verse about women not being able to speak in church is probably correct, but if you look at the black and white text it does not say that. It’s convenient though, that as the times have changed and our culture has become more equal for women, and at the same time we learn more about first century culture, that verses like that are no longer taken as black and white.

    I know it seems like I’m trolling here and playing games. As a straight, white, man I have the luxury of hypothetically looking at verses like this, wondering about what they mean, and then retreating back to the comfort of church tradition that have always supported interpretations of verses like this that support me. Too often we use literal interpretations to judge others and flexible interpretations to judge ourselves and those like us.

    There are people who love Jesus, love the Bible, and are in committed, loving relationships that can make a strong case for both Biblical inerrancy and Gay Marriage.

  34. Corinthian says:

    Nathan, I appreciate your response. I am surprised though that legality, not morality, determine whether or not you would participate in a ceremony that obstensibly blesses a relationship under the authority of God. If I understand correctly, you would go to an incestuous wedding if it were legal, or a polygamous one if it were, like it is in many countries. For me, gay wedding is not even a logical term and I cannot imagine condoning it.
    I understand that Jesus went with the prostitues and tax collectors to dinner, BUT, I believe he used those opportunities to speak the truth in love. So to use that parallel, then in going to a gay wedding, you would need to be clear that you believe it is sinful to the groom and groom, and, as required by Paul, make sure that the excercise of you freedom does not cause weaker believers to stumble.
    Perhaps this is a meat offered to idols kind of issue, so conscience does guide us. I think that it is so loaded though, that the possibility for harm is great.
    As for the adulterous marriage, I cannot conceive of that either. The bible prohibits remarriage by the adulterer. of course, the church doesn’t teach this much any more in the name of mercy, but we don’t get to show mercy where God does not. I believe this is the case with gay marriage.
    Sorry for accusing you of trolling, that just happens a lot on this issue when people don’t answer questions.
    For the record, I am also straight, married, and a pastor. I have several gay members in my church and we preach openly what scripture says, but hey feel loved enough to stick around.

  35. Meredith says:

    The Church needs this book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina. He is chairman of the board of The Gospel Coalition, assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte), and a PhD candidate at the University of Leicester. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have seven children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books