Search this blog

I suspected that when the conversation regarding Black and Tan turned to specific citations of racial insensitivity (which I obligated myself to make in the conclusion of the first post), things might actually get more difficult. Such allegations create fever. Understandably so. When these things are alleged we naturally feel that more ground is at risk, and often it is. And there’s the heightened temptation to either attack with the allegations or to be defensive in hearing them. The flesh may be involved in the anger of the accuser or the pride of the accused. Precisely at these times we need the most patient effort and the grittiest stick-to-it-ness. We’ll either fold or double down.

But if we’re in it for genuine reconciliation and understanding, we find ourselves called upon to attack the citadel once again, even if it means filling the breach with our dead. Wilson rightly says that the discussion is “harder than it looks,” a fact I’m praying all the onlookers will keep in mind as they watch us talk and offer their opinions. Surely we’re all closest to falling when we’re most self-confident and self-assured (1 Cor. 10:12).

But risks taken to achieve understanding, reconciliation, and peace are worth it even if they’re “deadly” to us. I waivered for some time about whether to post a response to Wilson’s “Harder Than It Looks,” a reply to my charges of racial insensitivity. Three drafts later, two things have led me to this post: (1) offers of apology require response and (2) the duties of love.

Wilson is absolutely correct when he writes:

“Real racial reconciliation is not a game, and so if we want it, we have to stop playing games. We have to be willing to have conversations in which everybody says what they actually think, and where we all stay at the table after we have said it. That’s what love actually looks like.” (emphasis added)

It’s so easy to smash mouths, step on toes, and give people the remaining piece of our minds then peacock strut our way from the table, congratulating ourselves all the way to our camp, where our friends await to join us in our self-congratulatory and self-righteous retelling of events. “You sure told ‘em!” sounds so good to the flesh.

But we’re after reconciliation, which implies genuine confession, genuine repentance and genuine forgiveness.

Now, to be completely honest, the last year has included a measure of the Lord’s chastening when it comes to my tendency to easily abandon relationships that prove difficult, especially distant relationships that don’t require regular accountability and love. I’ve been guilty of a passive approach to friendship and the last year has brought opportunities to relinquish that approach. While part of me wanted to move to the final summary post, another part, that part that knows the tendency of my flesh to not requite love, insisted that I “stay at the table” as Wilson put it. So here I am rushing into the breach crying, “God for Harry, England, and Saint George!”

I want, however, to limit myself to only what I think needs saying. And I must confess to some difficulty here because there’s so much I really want to say. I don’t think we’re to say everything we could say, for not everything that’s permissible is convenient. I trust that if we can remain focused on the needful we might have a conversation that, while it feels more intense on the one hand, will yield more fruit on the other. I’m praying to that end for us all.

In that spirit, let me offer three observations about Wilson’s comments in “Harder than It Looks” that, if addressed, would move us even farther down the road of reconciliation.

First, the apology follows prefacing comments that appear evasive and to shift blame.

Second, the apology follows defensive explanations where he essentially denies each instance of insensitivity.

Third, the apology gets caveated with references to those he thinks are “taking flops” over the very same comments I find offensive.

While I accept Wilson’s personal apology to me, these three problematic aspects of his post leave me wondering what he means when he refers to his “affront.”

Now, I’m very eager to avoid the appearance of a couple things. I’m not trying to say Wilson was insincere. I don’t know that. I’m not alleging that. Also, I’m not trying to hold Wilson hostage with some super-high and capricious standard for apologies. I realize that even writing these things can make me look like that perpetually-hurt, emotionally-manipulative person who is never satisfied. As best I know my own heart, that’s not what’s happening here. So, I’m neither questioning Wilson’s heart nor letting my own run renegade.

What am I trying to do then? I guess I’m trying to get to a couple things:

  1. Some clear sense as to whether Wilson thinks the comments I cited, his circumstantial explanations notwithstanding, were in any way insensitive along racial lines.
  2. If so, whether Wilson joyfully owns complete responsibility for those comments.
  3. If so, whether Wilson thinks repentance might include a more complete and specific apology along with written retraction of the insensitive things he believes he has written. (Bear in mind, I’m not asking him to retract an argument he thinks is true, but to retract and restate the way things have been said—much the same way he argues the way slavery was ended was wrong, not that its ending was wrong).

If it’s “yes” to all three, then I think we’ve come a long, long way and would only encourage Wilson to make a full apology and retract offensive statements without qualification and defense. It would be honoring to Christ to: address everyone involved; avoid “if,” “but” and “maybe”; admit specifically; acknowledge the hurt; accept the consequences; alter behavior; and ask for forgiveness (to borrow from Peacemaker Ministries).

If it’s “no” to one or more, then I’d like to know what I could do to help him see my perspective more fully. What have I not done that might give him a sense of things from within my shoes, and by extension the shoes of others who react similarly to his writing in Black and Tan?

In the final analysis, I’m not engaging all of this to either score intellectual points in arguments or to see a man cry mea culpa. My purpose is redemptive. It seems clear to me that a brother in the Lord, a brother with considerable gifts, finds himself embattled on every side and perhaps needs a way out. That way out and the way to greater usefulness for his Lord and mine involves repentance, confession, and forgiveness.

After re-reading all of our exchanges, I still believe we have a ways to go in the way of confession and repentance. Were Wilson to offer such, then I stand ready to make four promises (again, to borrow from Peacemaker Ministries):

  • I will not dwell on this incident;
  • I will not bring this incident up and use it against you;
  • I will not talk to others about this incident; and
  • I will not allow this incident to stand between us or hinder our personal relationship.

That, I believe, would be the heart of forgiveness and reconciliation. That’s what love looks like; love keeps no record of wrongs. But the wrongs have to be genuinely confessed and repented of.

With faith, hope and love, I’m staying at the table and hoping we don’t have to close the breach with our dead.

View Comments


20 thoughts on “Once More Into the Breach: Pushing Toward Reconciliation”

  1. Justin says:


    If it happens, as appears in this case, that there is an impass between two Godly men, one who believes a wrong has been committed and the other does not, what impartial body has the authority to pass judgement on the issue? It seems to me that, truly God forbid, an agreement cannot be reached, do we continue to fight and bicker with each other? Avoid each other? Refuse to speak with each other? Decide individually which person is right and refuse, at that point, to have anything to do with the other? Who’s authority as an individual Christian, yours or Wilson’s, should I submit to? Someone is wrong in this situation, and someone is right. Should we all just make up our own minds who that is and act accordingly or is there a higher authority that we could look to? And if one were to agree with Wilson on this matter, how would you treat them?

    I want to thank you again for your charity and grace. God bless and keep you.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Justin,

      Thank you for your thoughtful question.

      First, let me say that while I think you raise good ultimate questions I don’t think we’re there yet. If our aim is understanding and reconciliation, we have to be prepared to bear with one another in love and work through things patiently, even slowly as things require. That’s partly why I wrote this post, though I hadn’t planned to, and why I ask “what more can I do” if we’re not yet seeing eye-to-eye.

      But having said that, I have no authority to speak of. If I haven’t made my case biblically, then the issue is moot. But if I have, then it seems biblical responses ought to be forthcoming. In other words, the Bible is the authority we need to submit to. Now, we can disagree about what the Bible teaches and requires, but that is the right kind of disagreement to have. That’s why I don’t mind Tim harping on about the Bible and particular verses :-) (Tim, I hope you know I’m ribbing you)

      Since Wilson and I do not belong to the same church or denomination, there really aren’t any other courts of appeal. Our respective elders could entreat, admonish, even correct us. But apart from the scripture, I can’t think of any other authority that binds us to one another, to behave in a certain way, and to reach resolution. I’m open to the thoughts of others on your fine question.

      Grace and peace,

    2. Tim says:

      Haha I love to harp brother :)

  2. Heather says:

    Pastor Thabiti,

    I want to thank you for the time and energy you have spent on this discussion these past weeks. I know you are the first to take Douglas Wilson up on his standing requests for a conversation and I hope this or other similar conversations will continue offstage now that these posts are wrapping up

    I’m wondering if in your call for repentance and confession from Douglas Wilson for specific wrongs, you also see the need for and would be willing to call for repentance from any pastors/commenters for their treatment of Douglas Wilson? Passionate disagreement is not a sin but if we’re in the business of requesting repentance for making offensive statements, in my opinion Pastor Wilson has been wronged throughout this discussion, be it on twitter or in your comments section. In fact, the urgency of this discussion (about an old book) was created by some quick-draw cyber fervor that led to him being called all kinds of things, people calling for complete disassociation from him, wanting him to step down from the ministry, etc. You have now charged him with insensitivity (the sin of rudeness/lack of charity) and now he stands accused of not apologizing for that well enough. But if you truly want to be a peacemaker (as I believe you do), then others publicly aligned with you on this issue should be addressed and called to repentance as well. He is your brother and fellow co-laborer for the kingdom. Do you think that he has been publicly slandered in any of this, or is he fair game?

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Heather,

      Thank you for joining the conversation and for advancing it by widening the concern for charity beyond Doug and me. I’m grateful for your sense of justice.

      I have accepted Wilson’s apology in this post. In offering one he has moved a step toward me in all of this. I’m grateful for that step.

      I’m not saying his apology is not “good enough.” Rather, I am saying that if we’re after genuine reconciliation we’ll all have to do more than make general statements of apology and forgiveness. We’ll have to bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance and we’ll have to keep the promises of forgiveness. The specificity adds depth to our peace and reconciliation. That’s the spirit in which I offer this post in response to Wilson’s comments and apology–deeper peace, not just detante or cease fire.

      At several points along the way, other persons have been named in Wilson’s post. I think that’s created the perception that all those named are “publicly aligned,” to use your words. But, honestly, I’ve not spoken publicly or privately with any of the other persons about Wilson, Black and Tan, or any of this. In other words, there is no “public alignment” beyond the fact that we all independently find many comments in Black and Tan lacking in accuracy, kindness and racial sensitivity. I’m not aware of any slander of Wilson from these other persons, though my being unaware does not make it non-existent.

      Others have charged Wilson with “racism,” a charge I do not make based on his writings. I think such persons should supply their definition and evidence or retract their statements. I don’t know that I could be expected to police those persons any more than Wilson could be expected to police everyone in the church world that might be regarded as racially insensitive. I’m doing what I think I can do, and that is to engage Mr. Wilson in a way that I hope communicates respect, avoids slander, focuses on the issues, and points toward redemptive ends. And I’m praying the Lord blesses all our efforts to that end.

      I hope that helps. The Lord bless you and keep you.

  3. Paul says:

    Pastor Thabiti,

    I would just like to voice my appreciation to you and as well to Pastor Wilson in several things.

    First, that you each have taken the pains to make sure that you are representing the arguments of the other accurately. At the very least those of us who have been observing and considering each of your arguments should learn a great deal in that aspect.

    Second, how careful we must be in reaching conclusions and convictions. Ideas, as Pastor Wilson points out in many other articles, have consequences.

    Third, I’m especially thankful for your post here as it brings back to focus something that I think some of the commentors have missed up till now. That ultimately this is not just about proving one person wrong and justifying another in disagreements such as these, but that repentance and fellowship restored between our brothers and sisters in Christ.

    I have been blessed, encouraged and at times convicted through both you and Pastor Wilson’s posts and I pray that God will do something remarkable through this.

  4. Dear Pastor Anyabwile,

    I’m a little uncomfortable with what seems to me to be an excessively subjective approach to this. If I were Wilson, believing the things he believed, I would probably interpret the claim of being offended and the charge that I’m “insensitive” to the inability of some people to deal with the facts.

    When I gave the lecture to Professor Fogel’s class on his findings on slavery, an African-American young lady, sitting in the back row, began shaking her head in disbelief, as if to say “no, no, no” as I presented Fogel’s findings about the living conditions of slaves. I offended the young lady, at least up until that point. But I didn’t apologize to her because I thought she was just emotionally reacting to data that ran contrary to the narrative about slavery she had been taught. These are the same findings that Wilson uses, along with very questionable anecdotal accounts, to make his historical case. So he is probably thinking that you are like that young lady, just reacting to the data.

    My objection to Wilson is precisely that he is wrong. If he had written “Southern Slavery: As it was” as an essay for Fogel’s class, I probably would have failed him. His statements are insensitive because they are untrue.

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi John,

      I don’t know what you mean by an “excessively subjective approach.” I’ve placed several specific passages on the table as examples of the kinds of things (there are many more) that make Wilson’s rhetoric in Black and Tan insensitive. I see that some people are having difficulty with my using “insensitive,” but it’s simply a synonym for unkind, uncharitable, not compassionate, all of which may be pointed to in biblical texts. I’m pretty confident we all understand that insensitive words are real. If nothing else, we prove they’re real when we say I am being insensitive with this or that comment or by charging Wilson with insensitivity. The easiest way to really resolve this issue is to focus on the comments at hand and determine whether they meet any definition of insensitivity. I’ll let the readers use their own subjective sense.

      I don’t think shifting the ground solely to whether something is factually accurate or not is sufficient. We can say true things in unloving ways. But the Bible calls us to speak the truth in love, to let our speech be seasoned with grace. To communicate in a sanctified manner, we need both things–truth and love. I’d rather a man be wrong in the facts and charitable than to be factually accurate and unloving. The former may be corrected with a little evidence; the latter actually tarnishes the truth we should love.


      1. Hi Thabiti,

        Thank you for a thoughtful response. I appreciate the engagement.

        I agree with you that to communicate in a sanctified way we need both truth and love. I guess that it’s just a matter of a difference in strategy. You think it’s best to engage the lack of love; I think it’s best to engage the lack of truth. (I think we agree that his expressed opinions lack both.) From what little bit I’ve read of him (having read some of his blogs in response, some of “Southern Slavery: As It Was” but not “Black and Tan”) I’m not convinced that Wilson intended to be unkind or that his rhetoric was unusually severe. You’ve probably read much more and are probably in a better position to say. Currently, I think that if I believed the same things Wilson believes to be facts, I’d be commenting in the same way. (But maybe I’d be insensitive too.) I’m also not convinced that Wilson is easily correctable with the facts of history. I believe he’s been repeatedly (over years, by various sources) presented with facts that he’s refused to accept. When, on his blog, I presented him with the full story of Fogel’s findings that he has cherry picked, he dismissed me as another of those many other critics he’s previously dismissed. But facts are facts whereas the charge of being “insensitive” (even when true) can be ignored; even John Piper lately commented that some (like Pastor Loritts, need to be less easy offended — I think an inappropriate comment but understandable.) So I’d prefer to take a more objective approach, showing that Wilson’s failure to accept the truth is a demonstration of the problem, rather than a perceived lack of sensitivity.

        However, it maybe that you are called to do exactly what you are doing (and you are doing it well) and that others can take up the historical case.

  5. Nicolas Rivera says:

    Hi Pastor Thabiti,

    I have very much benefited from the things both you and Pastor Doug have said during this lengthy discussion, and thus I thank you both.

    Have you seen the latest reply from Pastor Doug? I can’t help but strongly agree with his point about your own apology. I don’t think you needed to apologize about your Treyvon Martin comment, and Pastor Doug explains exactly why. Did your comment came across a bit annoying? Yes, and not just because I am Hispanic like Zimmerman. I give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt with regards to racism until proven guilty, especially after information came out showing how the news outlets doctored the 911 call. But that doesn’t mean you sinned against me if you were simply expressing what you thought was the truth. Hence where you are coming from is extremely important to me in determining insensitivity, whereas it doesn’t seem to factor in your way of thinking at all (or very little). Several commenters have made this same point — that the intention and context of the person doing the offending should be primary in this discussion.

    It seems to me that given your apology, and Pastor Doug’s forceful argument that you needed not apologize the way you did, that now you are likely going to have to prove that your apology was indeed required by Scripture. For if you cannot do that, why then claim that Scripture requires Wilson to apologize on the same grounds?

    I couldn’t help but smile when Pastor Doug mentioned that it is very likely you offended other people by your apology. My wife’s cousin changed her Facebook picture to that of Treyvon’s, and she agrees with your assessment of Zimmerman. I wonder what would she say were she to read your apology?

    God bless,

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Nicholas,

      Thanks for joining the conversation, friend. No, at this point I have not read Wilson’s latest post. I’ll do so as soon as I finish this response because I don’t think my response depends upon his argument (which I’m sure will be compelling and insightful in some regard–they always are).

      Intention cannot be primary, if by primary you mean it should absolve the speaker of all he says. Intent matters. It’s just not all that matters. The other person’s feelings, thoughts, and perceptions matter, too. Now, if the explanation of the intent removes the offense, that’s a win! That’s great! But even then the words still matter and may need to be retracted.

      You asked for biblical texts and introduced an anecdote using your wife. Let me respond with/to both.

      As far as biblical texts, I would cite a number:

      Psalm 19:14–“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer.” Notice: The psalmist wants both his words and his heart to be right before God. He doesn’t excuse his words by appealing to his heart. And when Wilson or anyone who has offended another attempts that, it’s really a kind of special pleading. When he wants us to believe he’s not a racist, he appeals to the words he’s written for proof. When he wants us to believe he’s not insensitive or shouldn’t apologize, he appeals to his intent. It’s inconsistent.

      Our aim should be that of Proverbs 8:8–“All the words of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.” This should be our desire and if we find something “twisted and crooked” in our words, we should seek to straighten them.

      Eccl. 10:12–“The words of a wise man’s mouth win him favor, but the lips of a fool consume him.”

      Titus 2:7-8–“Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.” Coming as they do from the pastoral epistles, I should think these words have particular application for Wilson and myself. Has the book passed this test?

      Gee… all of James 3.

      Matthew 12:36-37–“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Here’s a good reason to have the conversations we’re having: to make ourselves ready and more confident in Christ on that day.

      I’m sure there are many other such passages that demonstrate that my apology was necessary and so is Wilson’s.

      But here’s the thing. We’re using the scripture like Pharisees when we’re looking for minimums. Even if the scripture didn’t require me to offer an apology, isn’t it still merciful and good and right to go beyond the letter of the scripture in order to also live out the spirit of the scripture? The commands to kindness are minimums, floors, not pinnacles and rooftops. Bear in mind that we’re people who worship a Savior who sacrificed himself for nothing He had done for a people who rejected Him and considered Him afflicted! His life and sacrifice are always to inform our own lives and sacrifices.

      Now, I’m not Jesus (obviously, right?!). But my apology was no sacrifice. It was owed. My words confused some and hurt others. My words cost those folks, and, in my opinion, my words regarding Martin were not necessary to my points. They were the kind of careless words Jesus speaks of in Matt. 12:36. I have to give an account for that–especially as a minister of the gospel (James 3:1; Titus 2:7-8). It’s not befitting a minister to avoid accountability for his words by referring to intent or insisting that the words were true and the manner doesn’t matter. We all know that the scripture calls us to speak the truth in love. And love bears all things–it even bears giving apologies that some may think unnecessary, but if offered sincerely may minister to the hurting.

      Now, you spoke of your wife’s sister and persons like her who may take an offense to my offering an apology. It is certainly true that we can’t please everybody in this world of fallen and competing preferences. But you know what? We don’t have to please everybody–only the Lord. The question is, Was my apology pleasing to the Lord? Did I honor him by honoring a reader? I believe I did. And if I were being manipulated by the readers who complained, the Lord will settle that in the end. Why not rather be wronged and trust the Lord as you go beyond the letter of the scripture to offer an apology? Especially when the apology is for how you say something rather than what you said. The point I was making stood without my comments about Martin. What I want is for people to hear the point, which I suspect your sister-in-law might agree with. If I lost her because I apologized for how I made the point, then, again, we are bound to displease someone. It’s the world we live in.


      1. Nicolas Rivera says:

        Pastor Thabiti,

        Thank you for your interaction and thoughtful response. I will definitely have to think more about this.

        I don’t want to give the impression I totally agree with either of you. In the general argument of slavery and the South, I haven’t made up my mind.

        But there is something you mentioned that I must comment on. You mentioned the Pharisees were looking for minimums. Oftentimes that was true. It is also true that sometimes it was just the opposite — they imposed on others extra-biblical rules in an effort to make a “hedge” so that people would not break the commandments of God. Sometimes they did go above and beyond the Law, but in their zeal they ended up imposing on others what God did not command, and entered into the realm of legalism. I am not saying you are doing that, all I am saying is that is also something we have to be careful to not do.

        I do not object to you going beyond the letter of Scripture for your own apology. The question is, are you biblically justified in laying down a standard, which you yourself seem to concede is going beyond the letter, upon others?

        I’ll finish this comment with another personal story that I hope will bring to light some of my concerns, and then I’ll give you the last word.

        I was a member of a church where some leaders brought accusations against an elder. The accusations were not about some gross sin, or some heresy, things which everyone would have agreed upon, but about other secondary matters, some of which seemed to me depended on the eye of the beholder. The elder did acknowledge some fault, but that didn’t go far enough for those who brought the complaint. After several years the issue became public with quite a bang. For all practical purposes the leaders ended up putting each other in church discipline, and the church was split asunder. I am convinced that it would have been much better, and more loving, had they disagreed with each other publicly and even sharply, but nevertheless would have also agreed to disagree and separated from each other in peace (Acts 15:39).

        In a comment section it was mentioned that if both of you were in the same church, this would be a matter of church discipline.

        Pastor Doug did apologize to you personally in one of his posts, but you are saying that’s not good enough. What if Pastor Doug does not give a convincing enough apology, no matter how hard you ask? What are you going to do? How are you planning to end this conversation between both of you?

        In my opinion, both of you should be careful you don’t end up sacrificing love in the name of love.

        In Christ,

        1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

          Hi Nicholas,

          Thank you for your comment. I want to quickly remind everyone that my post is not about giving a “convincing enough apology.” I accepted Wilson’s apology. I haven’t asked him to give a better apology in order for me to accept it. I’ve asked him to press on with me toward a deeper reconciliation be getting more specific. As I understand it, that’s part of what he has in mind when he closes “Harder Than It Looks” with an exhortation to lovingly say what we think needs to be said and stay at the table after doing so. That’s what I’m doing.


        2. Tim says:

          Happy Easter Thabiti,
          My heart resonates with so much of what you said. Who is adequate for the Bible’s standard for communication? We all stumble in many ways! My issue is that I want to be a minimalist when I confront. I want to be absolutely sure that it is necessarily sinful, and I want to be very generous when I receive confrontation. When I confront, I want to give my brother’s words the most gracious interpretation possible. I want to be his defense attorney. The thing about graciousness, rudeness, arrogance, and harshness is that they are things of degree. We can all communicate clearer and more graciously. We can all grow. Where does one draw the line? What is the standard? I don’t want to be the one to draw the line. But, I always want to be more gracious and never want to give needs offense in my own communication. But sometimes I do on accident, and after some reflection realize that the offense I gave was due to some hidden hatred or arrogance that showed up in a moment of thoughtlessness. If after prayer I discover this, I repent.

  6. Barlow says:

    Pastor, thank you so much for staying at the table. This conversation is like a bottle of water in a hot desert. For so long I have really wanted to hear a discussion like this between clear-thinking men with smarts and courage and maturity. I think this is why rascals like Wilson exist. Can you think of anyone else you’d be able to have this conversation with? God has put the right two men together and again, I’m so grateful to be able to listen in and feel edified in an area where so often I just hear generalities.

  7. Freida says:

    Can 2 Christians having differing viewpoints be loving but still hold to their viewpoints? Or must he give up his way of thinking because the other party does not accept another viewpoint?

    When it’s a matter of perspective, should another demand that there is only one right perspective?

    1. Thabiti Anyabwile says:

      Hi Freida,

      Welcome to the discussion and thank you for your questions.

      I would say, “yes,” two Christians can have differing viewpoints on matters like the ones Wilson and I are discussing and still coexist. Please don’t misunderstand this post. I’m not insisting that Wilson change his arguments or viewpoints in Black and Tan (though that would be an improvement from my perspective :-)). I’m insisting that his tone prevents the very unity and loving fellowship you seem to value and want to see maintained. I’m not insisting he change what he says, but arguing he should change how he says it. As he put it, I think it causes a lot of “collateral damage.”

      I hope that helps.

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


Thabiti Anyabwile photo

Thabiti Anyabwile

Thabiti Anyabwile is a pastor for Anacostia River Church in southeast Washington, DC and a council member of The Gospel Coalition.

Thabiti Anyabwile's Books