How To Keep Your Job Without Losing Your Soul: A Survival Guide For Diversity Training

,

You’ve been at your job for almost a year. You enjoy your work. You’re planting roots. Soon you’ll qualify for a pay raise and new benefits. Things are looking up. Except, at today’s business meeting, the boss announced a mandatory diversity training[i] for all employees. He made it sound harmless, perfunctory, just a hoop to jump through. No one asked questions. Everyone just nodded. Since you’re new here, you held your questions. You don’t want to cause a stir. Still, something smells fishy. Maybe you’ve heard stories about DEI, SEL, CRT, or Unconscious Bias training.[ii] Maybe you’ve been through this before, and you know what’s coming. But whatever is bothering you, there’s a decision to make. What will you do about this diversity training?

You’ve got options. But before picking one, you should know what you’re up against.

Background Check
On the surface, “diversity training” seems like a great idea. We all agree that racism, sexism, phobia, and bullying are all bad. But everyone has their biases. So with a little coaching maybe we can get along better, become more productive, solve problems, and have a healthier workplace. Not to mention, we might avoid a harassment suit or messy discrimination case down the road.

Diversity training can be incorporated into “leadership training,” “career advancement,” or “onboarding programs.” But the big takeaway is that the workplace (school, or church) needs to get ready for more diversity, and all the challenging opportunity that presents.

Advocates like the US Chamber of Commerce claim diversity training is a “business imperative,” so companies can provide “opportunities for everyone . . .  help[ing] lift communities and strengthen the health, prosperity, and competitiveness of our nation and our society.”[iii] In the past these programs were called “sensitivity training” reflecting a growing awareness of sexism and harassment in the workplace. But today they’re more often about racial and LGBTQ diversity, with a progressive political spin. Some critics have spoken out about the multi-billion dollar diversity training industry, claiming it’s a trojan-virus, packaged in slick and appealing buzzwords, but filled with corruption, extortion, and radical agendas.[iv] More gracious critics argue diversity training just doesn’t work, as anthropologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev explain:

“[D]iversity training is likely the most expensive, and least effective, diversity program around. But [corporate, church, and school representatives] persist, worried about the optics of getting rid of training, concerned about litigation, unwilling to take more difficult but consequential steps or [they’re] simply in the thrall of glossy training materials and their purveyors. That colleges and universities in the United States persist in offering training to faculty and students, and even mandate it (29% of all schools require faculty to undergo training), is particularly surprising given that the research on the poor performance of training comes out of academia.” [v]

Compliance Warning
The average employee won’t know all that, or know the latent problems with diversity training, or detect progressive political influence. Most employees won’t raise objections as long as it doesn’t cost them anything. The common practice is “go along, to get along.” In other words, compliance is commonplace.

Christians often behave the same way, thinking they’re being meek and mild just like Jesus. After all, Paul says, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:8). We Christians should be peacemakers. While that’s not exactly compliance, it can look the same.

Even if you eventually decide to partake in the training, there is no option, for mature Christians to be lazy, passive, and compliant. Whether it’s a diversity seminar, critical race training, struggle sessions, LGBTQ sensitivity school, or whatever it is, you’ll be offered a veritable buffet of ideas, and they might even try to force-feed it to you. So, if you’re in the habit of ingesting whatever authorities feed you, then you’re likely to swallow something toxic. Passive compliance isn’t a responsible option.

Is It Really Mandatory?
Fortunately, “mandatory training” isn’t always mandatory. If it’s just suggested, then you don’t have to go. Or it’s mandatory only if you’re at the office. Then you can dodge it by missing work on those days.

Even if the training is optional, however, you may still decide to attend, especially if you want to learn what they’re saying and how to respond to it. It probably won’t be 100% wrong but not 100% right either. You would need discernment, tact, and will-power. And most importantly, make sure to “live not by lies.”[vi] Measure your words. Guard your actions. Sign only what you agree with. Speak only truth. If you’re required to sign a position statement then politely decline unless you agree with it. Your Christian testimony is more valuable than any paper or screen they put in front of you. “Above all else,” Scripture warns, “guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” (Prov. 4:23; NIV)

Now, let’s suppose you can’t be “out of the office” on those days but you don’t want to attend. Further, let’s suppose this training will likely conflict with Christianity or your conscience. If a diversity seminar promotes divisiveness rather than diversity, or it stirs up more racism than reconciliation, then you may have valid grounds for a religious exemption. If you’re on good terms with your manager, or higher up, you could request that. They might write an “exception clause” for you. If this diversity training is meant to reduce the risk of discrimination lawsuits, then they might grant a religious exemption, not as a favor but for fear of a discrimination suit.

Your human resources department can probably help you to know your rights here. If not them, then call a lawyer friend, or in extreme cases, call Alliance Defending Freedom (www.ADFlegal.org), the American Center for Law and Justice (www.aclj.org), or the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (https://www.thefire.org/).

It Is Mandatory. What Now?
Avoidance, of course, isn’t always an option. Legally speaking, the company has a general right to decide what kind of expectations and values they want among their employees. And there are many creative ways they can obey the law while pressuring you to conform. At this point, your options are more limited. Two extremes are: Quit or Lawyer up.

Quitting your job will work, for avoiding training. But, besides losing the job, you may lose health insurance, friends, advancement opportunities, and ministry influence in the company. Plus, you can be replaced with someone more compliant, surrendering that territory to the same forces you were protesting. Christians need to count the cost. Following Jesus takes a toll. Maybe not your job, but it might cost some convenience, embarrassment, a pay cut, a reprimand, or suspension. “If anyone would come after me,” Jesus said, “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24; ESV). Historically, the normal Christian life invites adversity from a world that cares little for Christ (John 1:10-11).

Another extreme option is to “lawyer up.” Christians should be forgiving and not litigious with other Christians (1 Cor 6:7). But that’s a general principle, and between church-members. In a corporate setting, there can be righteous lawsuits. Christians have a general duty beyond their own interests to seek justice for other people (Micah 6:8). And if your company is teaching people to “be less white,”[vii] or that “black people can’t be racist,”[viii] or “white people are sub-human demons”[ix] – as some diversity trainers have said – then legal action might be how a righteous defense rises to the level of egregious offense. But be warned. This option is expensive. And you might not have a case. The diversity training industry is big, with lots of lawyers, lots of money, and even a couple supreme court precedents on their side (Regents v. Bakke, 1978; and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The upcoming Supreme Court case, Students v Harvard College, could roll back some of that. In the meantime, this legal landscape is dicey.

The moderate option is to attend the training. Rarely would mere attendance be sinful. If you have some discernment, take good notes, and act polite, you might be able to make it through the seminar without any trouble and even learn something. If you’re required to attend, and the seminar is somehow immoral, then the moral burden rests heavier on your supervisors than on you.

Four Strategies For Mandatory Diversity Training

If you’re in this boat, and your best option is to attend the seminar, then you still have the choice of how to carry yourself during the training. What will your attitude and strategy be? James Lindsay proposes four ways to conduct yourself here.[x]

  1. Gray Rock: This is passive resistance, the safest option for most people. Present yourself as a boring gray rock, unengaged, uncommunicative, calm, offering only short answers, and limiting exposure. On social media this is called ghosting. As long as you don’t have to say or do something against your conscience, this strategy should work.
  1. Spying/Whistle-blowing – a riskier option is to play along, engaging and cooperating as if you’re compliant but you’re really spying. You’re recording and gathering notes preparing to “blow the whistle.” Spying poses moral dilemmas as you may be acting against your conscience, or saying things that you don’t believe. That’s spiritually dangerous territory. Plus, whenever people do find out you’re the whistle-blower you’ll likely lose your job, or worse. This isn’t a great option unless the diversity training is very egregious, and you really know what you’re doing.
  1. Outright resistance – another risky option is to openly resist. You could refuse to attend, or write a letter to the board, or stage a walk-out, or host a press conference, or things like that. Again, the risk of getting fired is high. Done right, however, it can be very effective, especially if most of the company is involved. Know that the bigger the protest, the harder it will be to pull off, and as tensions escalate you risk looking like the bad guy.
  1. Trolling – This is an accelerationist strategy, where the “troll” gives false information – like jokes, sarcasm, or memes – to illicit responses that derail the event. Quick witted class clowns have been doing this at school for ages. Some people have just the personality, and skill set to pull this off. But it’s an advanced strategy. It can require you to know the material better than the trainer does, so you can exploit holes in their argument and gaps in their evidence. You risk coming off as adolescent, insincere, and rude. For Christians, this isn’t generally a safe strategy, especially if it turns into mocking people or picking fights. Expect to lose your job with this strategy too.

The 5th Strategy: Christian Wisdom

Building on Lindsay’s four strategies, we can add a fifth option. Scripture exhorts Christians to live at peace with everyone as far as we’re able, treating people with the respect and love they deserve as “image bearers” (Gen 1:26-28; Mark 12:31; Rom 12:8). While we won’t agree with evil or lies, we can listen graciously, affirm the good, speaking only when it’s helpful and only what’s true.[xi] Even if the diversity seminar is flooded with bad ideas, Christians can hold fast to the truth so the torrent of confusion doesn’t sweep us away.

At times, Christians may need the Gray Rock strategy (#1). And we should take good notes preparing to blow-the-whistle if it comes that (#2). If the training requires agreeing with lies, foolishness, or evil, then you’ll have to decline – in open resistance (#3). You may even need to point out bad logic, with an innocent question or joke (#4). You can be merciless towards bad ideas, just make sure to be merciful toward, never mocking them. The important thing here is to be a good example of Christ and exercise wisdom throughout. As you watch or listen to a mixture of good and bad ideas, you can chew what they feed you, swallow the good and spit out the bad, so to speak.[xii]

You might not have any great options available. But if you measure your words, guard your heart, and keep the faith, you can stand your ground. May God bless your effort!

REFERENCES:

[i] Besides diversity training, most of this article could apply to other training types that threaten freedom of religion/conscience.

[ii] DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. SEL: Social Emotional learning. CRT: Critical Race Theory.  Each of these acronyms is loaded with political and cultural connotations and should not be taken at face value.

[iii] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” [Main page] USChamber.com, accessed 2 April 2023 at: https://www.uschamber.com/diversity

[iv] https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-1-equity/, https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-2-diversity/, and https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-3-inclusion/

[v] Frank Dobbin, and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia,” 10, no. 2 (2018), 48 at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf

[vi] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Live Not By Lies,” [Essay] (12 Feb 1974). See also, Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (NY: Sentinel, 2020).

[vii] https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/coca-cola-diversity-training-urged-workers-to-be-less-white/

[viii] https://www.foxnews.com/media/woke-department-defense-equity-chief-writes-anti-white-posts-exhausted-white-folx

[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2tQathSxpg

[x] https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/fighting-dei-training/

[xi] For example, Neil Shenvi, “DEI Done Right: Disentangling Christian Community From Critical Theory,” ShenviApologetics.com (San Dimas, CA: Life Pacific University, 7 April 2022) at: https://shenviapologetics.com/dei-done-right-disentangling-christian-community-from-critical-theory/

[xii] See, Hillary Ferrer, Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2019), 47-62.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Dr. John D. Ferrer (MDiv, Southern Evangelical Seminary; ThM & PhD Southwestern Baptist Seminary) is a teaching fellow with the Equal Rights Institute and ministers full-time with Crossexamined.org.

 

 

/by

Atheists’ Faith in Science is Misplaced

,

Most atheists I have encountered demonstrate an amazing “faith” in the power of science. They will often accuse believers of wishful thinking – or outright foolishness – when believers conclude that an intelligent being is the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence of design that surrounds us. They do this because they have come to believe that only through “science” can anything be known, and that science will someday answer all of life’s mysteries. That is what’s called “scientism.” There is no need for a God, they assure themselves, because “science” has not provided for one.

Is Science the Only Way to Know?

The flaw in this thinking is the assumption that science is the only way one can know something. This is flawed on many levels. Science, broadly speaking, is a method of examining and assessing the physical world around us, using instrumentation and methodology to achieve repeatable results so as to confirm or negate a hypothesis. It is, therefore, an endless process of knowledge acquisition, but only in the physical realm. We employ it because we are first convinced that reality is fixed, and that repeatability is possible. But that is a philosophical belief, not something that science has itself proven.[1] If we didn’t already “know” this there would be no point in attempting to conduct experiments in the first place.

Can Science Handle Moral Values?

Moreover, science does not attempt to provide knowledge as to good and evil, for it is simply incapable of doing so. After all, Nazi scientists were making use of science, but we would hardly accept that what they were doing was good. Indeed, we would not look to the scientific method at all for answers to such questions.

Can Science Address Anything Besides Physical Nature?

Finally, since science is limited to the physical realm, it cannot be used to assess the transcendent. What existed before “time” began can no more be measured by science than can the morality of a decision to use science to achieve a particular end.

What Other Options Do we have?

There are other ways to obtain knowledge besides experimental science, especially in areas where testing and repeatability are not possible. We do this all the time in the study of history, or when we make use of abductive reasoning to arrive at the best explanation from the available evidence. One example often used in courtrooms involves rain: clothing gets wet when we walk in the rain, and we rightly infer that it is raining outside when someone walks into a building wearing a raincoat that is dripping wet. We use abductive reasoning intuitively and we take as a given that our sense of reasoning operates correctly to allow us to reach valid conclusions. This is so even though we cannot use reason (or science) to prove the validity of reason. Simply put, if I try to use reason to prove that reason is valid, I have to presuppose the validity of the very thing – reason – that I am trying to prove. No, reason is a starting point, a given that we must all utilize if we are to discuss – to think – at all.

Christians are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the universe. Quite the contrary: modern science is unlocking more and more of the secrets of the universe and finding that it is incredibly fined tuned to support the existence of life. Mathematical formulae can model what is occurring in nature with remarkable precision, amounting to a “language” scientists use to understand reality. Medical science has peered into the complexity of life, and the billions of lines of a computer-like code – found in DNA – that directs the building of proteins and ultimately structures that allow the vast variety of life we see on Earth. Whenever we see signs of something that is designed and operating according to a finely tuned set of instructions, we quite properly infer that there is an intelligence behind it. For something as massive and breathtaking as this universe, populated as it is with intelligent life, that something must itself be immensely intelligent and immensely powerful. Science certainly addresses this physical domain; it seeks to answer the question how things occur? And science performs a valuable function. But science as a tool for discovering processes cannot explain what first set in motion the forces that it is examining; what the designer sought to accomplish with the laws of nature; and what the ultimate meaning and purpose of life really is. Science addresses the “how” of whatever already exists, but not the “why.”

If Nature were a Note

Consider: imagine a scientist examining the mail he receives every day. Over time, he learns everything there is to know about the type of paper that is used, how the paper was formed, the type of ink, its place of manufacture and its ingredients. Imagine further that he determines how the letters are grouped to form words. Seeking knowledge of this type is laudable. But if the scientist concludes that since he knows all there is to know about ink and letters and envelopes, that there is no need for a letter-sender, then he has done something worse than making a blind leap of faith – he has closed his mind to the obvious reality of what he is examining. Indeed, the only way the scientist can learn the point of it all, the meaning of the message, is to read what was written, for in it is embedded information, something that simply cannot arise through random or blind processes.

As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection are sufficient for us to know him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of what physicists describe as the creation event not by myth or wishful thinking but by a combination of abductive reasoning – a creator is the best explanation – and specific revelation – he is the God described in the Bible.

In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.

References: 

[1] Editors Note: The fixity, repeatability, and knowability of nature are preconditions for science. One can’t do science without them. That is, one must assume such a framework before one can use the scientific method to discover facts about the natural world. Since these sorts of things have to be assumed beforehand they are, properly speaking, the domain of philosophy, namely philosophy of science.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

Evidence for the Book of Esther

,

My family recently took the opportunity to attend a live theater production of The Book of Esther in Branson, Missouri. The Sight and Sound Theater production was riveting, and I was not prepared for how wonderful the set, the performers, and even the livestock (yes, livestock) brought the story of Esther to life.

One of the other reasons I loved the show was that I happened to have recently read a wonderful historical summary of the evidence that exists to give good reasons to believe this is more than a fairy tale. In his book, The Authenticity of the Book of Esther, the late British historian Dr. Bill Cooper brings out the evidence, including extra-Biblical writings, archaeology, and even Nazi executions that bring the story to life in a different but very compelling way.[i]

The Book of Esther

As you may recall, the story is set in Persia and features the exiled Israelites Mordecai and his niece, Esther, as the primary characters. The Persian King Ahasuerus (likely Xerxes I, son of Darius) has his queen killed for disobeying him and seeks a new bride. He eventually finds his new queen in Esther and marries her. Mordecai defeats a plot to murder the king. However, the king’s second in command and villain of the story, Haman, seeks to destroy all the Israelites in the nation. He tricks the king into signing a mass death warrant for the exiled people of God in the land. Through the fasting and prayers of her people, Esther convinces the king not only to hang Hamon on the gallows he created for Mordecai but also to allow the Israelites to defend themselves in what was supposed to be a slaughter. Mordecai was elevated to Hamon’s status, and the Israelites have celebrated the Feast of Purim in remembrance of these events for hundreds of years. But did it happen, or is this historical fiction, as some scholars claim?

Mordecai

One would assume that an individual who attained such a high rank as Mordecai (second in rank to the king, no less) would show up somewhere in archaeology or other ancient writings. As it turns out, the writings of Greek historian Ctasias,[ii] two Persian archival writings, and clay tablets from Babylon all mention an individual whose name is understood to be Mordecai in translation. Ctasias indicated in his writings that he obtained the records that included the transliteration of Mordecai’s name from the royal Persian parchments. The writings Ctasias cited in about 400 B.C. are even cited in the Book of Esther, 10:2 by name in verse where the author indicates that all the exploits of Mordecai were written in the “Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia.”[iii]

 The problem with Ctasias’s writing is that it is fragmented with age and incomplete. The Chronicles themselves have been lost to time altogether. Luckily, Persia also utilized clay tablets to document much of the governmental affairs. In 1933, archaeologists studying the ruined palaces of Kings Darius, Xerxes, and other Persian kings located tens of thousands of clay tablets from the time Esther would have occurred. Most of the tablets remain untranslated, but several mention a Marduku who is listed as a financial administrator of the government. In the Persepolis Treasury Archive, this Marduku is listed 13 times on a variety of financial transactions with his status being of more import in the latter mentions than in the first.

Palace Attendants

In Esther 1:10, seven eunuchs who served the king are mentioned by name. One of those men is Carkas. Carkas’s name also appears in the archives of the Persepolis Treasury Tablets. This would be interesting enough, but also mentioned in the tablets are Mehuman, Bigthan, and Hatach, which are also listed by the author of Esther.

Seven Princes of Persia

Also listed in the treasury tablets that have been translated (so far) are a number of the “wise men who knew the times” listed in Esther 1:13-14. The names of these “seven princes of Persia” located so far on tablets include Carshena, Shethar, Meres, and Memucan. These were four of the seven men who, according to the author of Esther, “saw the king’s face and sat first in the kingdom.”

Haman’s Father and Sons

While Haman’s name has not yet been located in the records translated to date, it is notable that both his father’s name, as well as the names of his two sons are listed. The name provided by the author of Esther in chapter three for Haman’s father is Hammedatha. That name is listed in the tablets as performing royal duties. His sons’ names, Aridatha and Aridai (Esther 9:8-9.9) were also found in the treasury tablets in what is seen as descriptions of serving in an official government role.

The Palace of Susa

The Palace of Susa is the location of the story of Esther. It was destroyed by fire in 435 B.C. Archaeologists, however, have examined the ruins and located an inscription from King Darius (Xerxes’ father) that describes the construction of the palace. The description of materials includes the use of lapis luzi (precious blue stone), turquoise, and carnelian (precious red stone), as well as marble columns. In the King James Version of Esther 1:6, the author describes the palace; “Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble.”[iv] While the tablets call the pillars rock, archaeologists studying the palace have identified the pillars as being made of marble.

The specific names of individuals serving the king and the extremely accurate description of the palace are remarkable evidence that the writer described true events. The Palace of Susa was destroyed within a generation of the events that are recorded in Esther. This would reasonably lead one to conclude that the information in Esther was written down very near the events themselves and by someone who truly had intimate knowledge of the palace and officials of the king.

Dr. Cooper’s book goes on to describe in much more detail how the Book of Esther can be trusted as historically accurate. It also summarizes some of the grammatical and numerical mysteries that surround the book and connects it with the Nazi trials at Nuremberg. I encourage you to more deeply explore this amazing story of God’s providence.

References:

[i] William R. Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Esther [Kindle ed.] (self-published), 2013.

[ii] Also known as Ctesius, Persicus, or Cnidus

[iii] English Standard Bible (2001), Retrieved from BibleGateway

[iv] King James Bible (1611), retrieved from BibleGateway

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What I Discovered Digging in Jerusalem by Eli Shukron (with Frank Turek) (DVD) (Mp4 Download)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3vYlMgy

/by

The Suffering Christian

We live in a troubled world, plagued by sin which leads to pain and suffering. This state of the world is nothing new, it has gone on since the fall of man. The entirety of humankind from Adam to us have dealt with a variety of suffering as a result of this fall. However, though we do not live in a more sinful time, for every age has overflowed with sinfulness, we seem to be facing a different struggle. Our society is fighting a battle of the mind, and losing.

We Just Can’t Even

We live in a world where many cannot seem to bear the slightest sorrow. This makes it all the more difficult to persevere through the most difficult situations anyone of us could face; such as the loss of a loved one, a severe medical diagnosis, the loss of a job, and other heavy burdens. This mental and emotional crisis has been the result of one of the Church’s failings — teaching how to properly handle suffering. This has spread outside of the church and into our society. To put it plainly, we have lost the ability to suffer well. In recent years, our minds have been flooded with messages telling us that we all need therapy, we need to talk about all of our emotions, we need to constantly think about and share whatever trauma we have over and over again

Where can we actually find help?

The problem is that this doesn’t seem to be helping. We are more depressed and more anxious than ever. But how should we deal with suffering? Where can we find comfort and help in our suffering? Our Lord has provided us three supports to comfort and strengthen us in this life: prayer, scripture, and the Church.

Prayer: The best guide to prayer that we have are the Psalms. If you need examples of prayers read through Psalms, and you will find a prayer for nearly every situation of life. But if you don’t know what to pray, or you can’t summon the strength to, remember Romans 8:26 “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”

The Spirit Himself will pray for us and understands our groanings when we don’t know what to say. In prayer we lift up our lives, the blessings and the sufferings to God, for only God our savior has the strength to carry us through.

Scripture: Studying the Bible, like prayer, is an essential part of the Christian life, especially in times of pain and suffering. The Bible is filled with a multitude of books such as Lamentations and Psalms to help us. I encourage you to read through the Gospels and through the sufferings that Jesus experienced. Scripture reminds us that Christ is with us in our sufferings. He understands and has experienced sufferings greater, and similar to our own.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul lets us know that our affliction is ultimately making us stronger and preparing us for eternity in 2 Corinthians 4:17 saying, “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison . . .”

The Church: Another major tool that God has given us, is the Church, the body of believers. We are not alone in our sufferings. If you are not a part of a local Bible-believing church, join one, and if you have a church, reach out to them. You don’t have to share with everyone all the gory details about the circumstances you might be facing, but you need the support of your brothers and sisters in Christ. The responsibility is not yours alone — God has commanded the Body of Christ [fellow Christians] to stand with you and share your sufferings. Paul writes, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

We are all one Church. We must be unified. So, if you know another believer is struggling with loss or pain, reach out and help them. This is how we are to love one another.

How Should We Respond to Suffering?

These support structures will help you persevere when you are in the midst of affliction, but there is more that is needed for you to thrive in your suffering. On top of the practical help that we’ve been given, we must also have the proper attitude and emotional response to life’s hardships. To discover how we should respond, we must look at scripture. The most well-known example of suffering in the Bible is Job. In his story, God allowed Satan to take all of Job’s earthly possessions and to kill Job’s children. When this happened, Job’s first response was to worship the Lord and bless His name.

“Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.’ 22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (Job 1:20-22).

This by no means is an easy thing to do, but the Bible sets this up as the correct response to suffering. Our first act should be to worship and glorify the Lord. Our comfort should be in God. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians,

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (2 Cor 1:3-5)

Our Lord wants to comfort us. He is with us in our affliction. Cling to Christ and allow Him to carry your burdens; let Him bear the brunt of your suffering. If you are still in doubt of how to respond to suffering study the Bible, it is filled with examples of God’s servants and how their lives were filled with affliction, yet they sought God and found their comfort in Him.

 

Recommended Resources On This Topic

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

 

Thomas Moller began studying astrophysics at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, specifically in Cosmology. Through the study of the universe and the laws that guide it, a passion understanding the Creator and Fine-Tuner of the universe provided the catalyst for Thomas diving deeply into theology. He then left the study of astrophysics to go pursue a theology degree. Through his studies at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary, Thomas began to focus Christian Ethics. Through the lens of Christian Ethics Thomas tackles political, cultural, and literature topics. Though he no longer studies astrophysics at an academic institution, he still has a love for science and scientific arguments for God.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4b2tq8O

 

 

/by

Show Us A Sign: The Cross And The Death Of Blind Faith

Each Easter season, approximately 400,000 churches across the U.S. gather to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus: one story portraying the faith of over two billion people globally. But have we grown ignorant of a driving factor behind the eternally preordained plan? Might we have entirely missed what Jesus cited as making His public execution necessary? The cross has come to manifest the forgiveness of sins, and rightfully so. Notwithstanding, in the time preceding His trial, Jesus made it exceedingly clear the plan was multifaceted . . . and He had skeptics in mind.

Just One Problem

Modern recollections of resurrection Sunday tend to focus solely upon substitutionary atonement. Christians gather to reflect on this distinctive of their faith. The New Testament tells us Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:6-8).

What good does this do, however, for those who reject the historicity of the New Testament accounts? How can a believer pique the interest of a skeptic with a story of the miraculous when the individual has spent his/her entire life saturated in a culture of naturalism and anti-religiosity? Far too often, well-intentioned believers hope to present the story of the cross in just the right way, at just the right time, with just the right fervor as to convince someone to commit their life to Jesus. There’s just one problem. No matter how beautiful the story, how ardent the presentation, and how well-meaning the speaker, simply explaining the meaning of a story typically won’t communicate that it actually happened. [1]

Was there a real man named Jesus who was the son of a middle eastern carpenter? Is there evidence of His trial under Roman prefect Pontius Pilate circa 30 C.E.? Why shouldn’t these accounts be dismissed alongside hundreds of other religious origin stories that Christians are so quick to label fiction? These are the questions seekers need answered. The effective evangelist must not forego the foundation of historical facts before delivering the story’s ramifications. Examine the words of Jesus leading up to the crucifixion. What were the intentions of the plan He devised from eternity past? He assuredly had to die to bear our sins, but was this His mission’s sole effort? Might there be an angle to the story that we have turned a blind eye to for far too long?

Have We Overlooked Something here?

The public ministry of Jesus is thought to have been between 2-3 years in length. The first year included events that set the foundation for the ministry such as Jesus’s baptism, the calling of the disciples, and the Sermon on the Mount. From that point forward He was adamant about foretelling how His earthly ministry would conclude. Both Matthew and Luke record an occasion in which Jesus heals a man who was both blind and mute (Mt 12:22-42; Lk 11:14-32). Crowds of suspicious onlookers began to gather. Despite bearing witness to this healing, some began requesting additional miracles. How would you respond? Is Jesus obligated to show them another sign just minutes after putting the supernatural on display? He replies with a warning, but a bargain deal, nonetheless. He says,

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt 12:39-44; )[2].

He will not perform miracles for mere amusement. The greatest miracle of all, however, has just been foretold. Matthew 16:4 records another encounter of the same sort. Immediately after feeding the 4,000, the cynics demand another sign. Jesus does not waver in His response. If they are genuinely seeking the truth, the coming sign of Jonah will suffice.

Later, Jesus gives His disciples yet another sobering forewarning. All three of the synoptic gospel writers see fit to include this prognosis (Mt 16:21, Mk 8:31, Lk 9:22). Jesus clearly states that He must suffer under the elders, priests, and scribes and ultimately be killed, but He doesn’t stop there. He specifies that on the third day He will be raised back to life. A good rule of thumb in biblical interpretation is to pay special attention to repetition. Repetition is emphasis. Jesus has twice referenced the sign of Jonah, therefore communicating His resurrection to come. And now we are given a third instance in which He plainly explains He will be killed and raised on the third day. To the modern Christian’s surprise, these passages are not accompanied by lengthy discourses on substitutionary atonement. Commentary on the forgiveness of sins can be found across the New Testament, but they tend not to be directly partnered with these predictions of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is as if these soon to be fulfilled prophecies have a message of their own . . .

Next, Matthew and Mark describe another form of this prediction. This time, while passing through Galilee, Jesus simply says, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise” (Mt 17:22-23; Mk 9:31). Surely, by now He has sufficiently made the point, right?

Later, while traveling up to Jerusalem, each of the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) corroborates yet another iteration of that prophecy. Jesus says, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Mt 20:18-19, Mk 10:33-34, Lk 18:31-33).

We have yet to mention John’s contribution. John 2:19-22 records Him saying, “‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” Subsequently, John 10:17-18 tells us Jesus has the authority to lay down His life and take it up again, and His Father has given Him charge to do just that.

What’s the Point?

We have seen seven distinct instances of Jesus predicting His own death and resurrection, and there are more passages, not listed here, that do the same. Many of these examples are brief and lack any lengthy theological reflection. What does all this achieve? Why dedicate so much time to constant reiterations of the same foresight? Only one explanation seems fitting: Jesus had skeptics in mind.

Only one explanation seems fitting: Jesus had skeptics in mind.

Some religions (Hinduism, some Eastern beliefs, etc.) present their teachings in mythic stories that aren’t intended to be treated as historical realities. They aren’t supposed to be literal history, but allegories and symbols for deeper truths. These faiths may have their perks, but they are categorically different from beliefs rooted in history – convictions which must answer to the evidence. Other faiths (Islam, Mormonism) proclaim that their preferred holy book itself is the only evidence necessary to validate its claims. Founders of these religions did not claim to personally perform any public miracles to substantiate their claims. Rather, their respective holy books are the best they have to offer when it comes to validating a supernatural origin. For example, the 29th chapter of the Quran responds to an objection from Jews and Christians who doubt its divine inspiration. It says:

“And they say, ‘Why is it that no signs (miracles) have been sent down to him (Muhammad) from his Lord?’ Say, ‘Signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner.’ Is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book that is being recited to them? Surely in it there is mercy and advice for a people who believe.” (Surah 29:50-51, Translated by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Quran.com)

Faiths such as this demand submission solely based on the testimony of the writing itself. There is no tangible demonstration of the supernatural. This is where the cross rises above the rest. The skeptic-turned-believer, Paul, confidently proclaims:

“if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain . . . And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins . . . If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:13-19).

The Bible begs to be tested. Paul is begging people to test the claims of Christianity. He employs the same logic Jesus did as He repeatedly publicized the prediction of His death and resurrection. This was not simply retroactively ascribing significance to an otherwise unlikely event. This was just the opposite. Jesus had already demonstrated supernatural abilities over nature, sickness, and demons. The only further proof He could offer was to demonstrate His power over death itself.

Brave the Questions 

We owe it to ourselves to accept the challenge the Bible offers. One of two outcomes are to follow. If proven false, we can do away with the bore of manmade religion and traditions of old. If it’s true, however, life is injected with a new purpose – it’s all real. Whichever the outcome, we can rest assured that we were brave enough to pursue the evidence wherever it leads. The God of the Bible does not seek blind faith. He wants commitment to the truth. Christians should immerse themselves in the mission God has set before them while skeptics should eagerly invite the challenge the New Testament offers. If true, the stakes could not be higher. The cross was never intended to appeal to wishful thinkers. It was purposed with skeptics in mind.

References:

[1] Caravaggio, “Reproduction of the Incredulity of St. Thomas” [oil on canvas] (1601), currently held at Potsdam, Germany. Public domain. Accessed 3 April 2024 at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas_(Caravaggio)#/media/File:Der_ungl%C3%A4ubige_Thomas_-_Michelangelo_Merisi,_named_Caravaggio.jpg

[2] All verse references are to the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted.

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)   

Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

 

Shane Geisler is the Senior Digital Content Manager for CrossExamined.org. He holds three degrees from Liberty University which include a Bachelor’s degree in Global Studies, a Master of  Arts in Theological Studies, and a Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics. He is a native of Germantown, Maryland and spent four years on the Liberty University NCAA Division 1 soccer team. He and his wife, Elise, reside in Nashville, Tennessee. Shane seeks to combine evidential apologetics and global missions to make the best evidence of the gospel accessible around the world.

/by

Critical Thinking: The Secret Weapon of Confident Christians

As Christians, developing critical thinking skills and maintaining an informed understanding of our faith is crucial. The world is full of misinformation and uncertainty, making it difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood. It is not enough for Christians to blindly adhere to whatever traditions or practices they have inherited from the past. They should critically evaluate and discern the relevance and validity of these traditions in their present context.

With so many different worldviews competing for our attention, staying engaged and equipped with our beliefs is essential. Without the intellectual stamina to navigate these opposing views, we risk becoming uninformed and ill-prepared to face the challenges of contemporary society.

The Age of Competing Ideas

In a recent interview with John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center, I asked him why so many Christians lack the ability to think critically. His initial response was that many Christians lack the proper training in biblical doctrine and have not been catechized in the basic categories of reality. John added,

“We live in a world where we are bombarded with a lot of information, most of which is not objective or neutral. This makes it difficult to determine what to believe and whom to trust. Therefore, this era is better called ‘The Age of Competing Ideas,’ which leads to ‘The Age of Competing Authority.’”

I have seen firsthand how a lack of critical thinking about one’s faith can leave a Christian susceptible to false teachings or worldly philosophies. Paul warned in Colossians 2:8, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ” (NLT).

We are exhorted by the apostle Paul to “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Christianity is not about unquestioningly accepting things without using reasoning and intellect. Instead, it is about having faith while also engaging your mind.

Not Just Belief, but Informed Belief

Therefore, we must recognize the role of informed beliefs in Christianity and draw on the biblical foundations of critical thinking to equip ourselves with the knowledge necessary to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Critical thinking is a systematic skill that involves analyzing and assessing a particular belief, idea, argument, or issue in an unbiased manner. After thoroughly examining the subject matter, the individual arrives at a conclusion that makes the most sense of and aligns with reality. In Christianity, possessing a biblical worldview means approaching life matters with an understanding of the Word of God and proper discernment that aligns with biblical doctrine.

I like what David Dockery says about the quality of Christians possessing a robust worldview in his book What Does It Mean to Be a Thoughtful Christian?. Dockery writes,

“A Christian worldview is not escapism but an energizing motivation for godly and faithful thinking and living in the here-and-now. In the midst of life’s challenges and struggles, a Christian worldview provides confidence and hope for the future while helping to stabilize life, serving as an anchor to link us to God’s faithfulness and steadfastness.”

Three Critical Thinking Skills

Applying these three foundational tips in your daily life is an excellent start for developing the art and skill of critical thinking.

  1. Know and pursue truth wisely: Truth is an objective reality that corresponds with, rather than contradicts, the actual state of things. By analyzing, observing, and submitting to objective truth, you will become more aware of the facts that support your Christian beliefs. Proverbs 4:7 advises, “The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.” Solomon emphasizes the importance of pursuing wisdom as you acquire knowledge and understanding to overcome life’s challenges as a Christian.
  2. Stay grounded in God’s Word: Sadly, less than 20% of self-proclaimed Christians read the Bible daily. Of those who do, the majority only read one verse a day. Reading portions of the Bible daily will enhance your knowledge of Scripture, provide moral fortitude, give insight into wise decision-making, and help you resist temptations.
  3. Embrace questions and objections: Christians should be the last to shy away from people who object to or challenge their faith. Peter directly speaks to this when he affirms, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Don’t be afraid when someone asks you tough questions about your beliefs. Be prepared to explain why you believe in what you do. If you don’t know the answer to a question, make an effort to research and understand the material. Studying and understanding the material thoroughly will enable you to communicate effectively with others. Lastly, remember always to be respectful towards others, even if their beliefs differ from yours.

 

I hope you have been challenged to continue developing your critical thinking skills. This will not only keep you informed and prevent you from being deceived, but it will also increase your passion for God’s truth and enable you to become a great defender of the Christian faith. We need more defenders of the faith, and I believe you have the potential to become one!

Recommended Resources On This Topic

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4) 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org. 

Originally posted at: Critical Thinking: The Secret Weapon of Confident Christians — Stand Strong Ministries

 

/by

Post-Christianity… What’s That?

,

There has been a new term floating around the Evangelisphere (if that’s a word, if it’s not, let’s coin it) in the last few years: “post-Christian.”

FreeThinking Ministries[i] recently changed some verbiage on the website to indicate that the mission of the ministry is to equip the church to engage with the post-Christian culture.

Some might say, “you (FTM) minister to all sorts of people all over the globe. You ought to relate to culture in general” not just the post-Christian parts of culture. Yes, this concern covers both pre- and post-Christian cultures and everything in between. But acknowledging that we live and operate within a largely post-Christian culture is still important if we are to equip the church in the West, and in America more particularly, with relevant strategies for preaching the gospel and discipling believers within it.

Coopting Christian Values

There are many reasons this new dynamic is important, but chief among them is that post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes. This penchant is markedly different from a pre-Christian culture which might have hints of Christian ethics within their culture but without explanation.

“Post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes.” – Josh Klein

Guideposts to the Gospel

In a pre-Christian culture these features can be used as guideposts to the gospel. As former missionary Don Richardson points out in his book Eternity in Their Hearts:

“It was the gospel of Jesus Christ which made the difference for Celts, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. And that is exactly what it will take for Asmat headhunter-cannibals (indigenous group in New Guinea)! All someone has to do is go to live among the Asmat and communicate the gospel as effectively as someone once communicated it to the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and other tribes of Northern Europe!”[ii]

The communication of the gospel to pre-Christian nations is much simpler compared to the work of maintaining the gospel in a Christianized nation. It is simpler, but simple doesn’t mean easy. As someone that has multiple friends in the mission field of pre-Christian cultures I can certainly attest to the fact that it is extremely difficult. It can, however, be much simpler to introduce the gospel and connect the dots in their cultural context than it is to attempt to reestablish orthodoxy in cultures that have moved beyond Christianity.

What is a post-Christian culture?

A post-Christian culture is one that has been reached by the gospel, Christianized (to a large extent) and then sought to leave its Christian roots behind.

All the cultures Richardson mentioned in the above quote have followed this pattern. At one point, these cultures were pagan non-Christian nations only to have the gospel of Jesus Christ rock them and change them for hundreds of years. Then, after Christianity, in large part, brought peace and prosperity they chose to move beyond it and, often, back to their pagan roots, only with a twist.  The paganism became more syncretistic or New-Age than it was in 600AD but the reversion back to it is palpable. Sound familiar?

The United States has been on this path for quite some time and so too, a reversion to certain forms of paganism. The hallmarks of post-Christian society are coming to fruition before our eyes and the Church in the west must learn how to respond.

Often, as Don Richardson argues, in non-Christian cultures one can find cultural hooks on which to contextualize the gospel in a way that makes sense and draws people in. In these cultures, there is a clarity on what C.S. Lewis called the Natural Law that even those who had never heard of God or Jesus would recognize.[iii] Even if some of the “Natural Laws” within the culture were twisted by sin, the reasoning behind these cultural expectations were based on objective morality, integrity, and honor.

For instance, in another book called Peace Child, Richardson outlines the way he was able to communicate the gospel with a head-hunting tribe in New Guinea called the Sawi.[iv] The Sawi had a rule of natural law called a “Peace Child” between warring tribes and it was this concept that opened their hearts to the gospel after previously believing that Judas was the hero of the gospel story.

How Post-Christian Culture Differs

The story in a post-Christian culture is very different. The stories of the Bible have been popularized, modernized, colloquialized, and made into idioms. We see this assimilation in all sorts of discourse. When one sports team takes on another that is heavily favored the pundits will often use the phrase, “it’s a real David and Goliath match-up.” Decidedly Christian and biblical principles are popularized and culturized as well, such as the golden rule, which is taken from Matthew 7:12 whether people realize it or not, or “with great power comes great responsibility” which is borrowed and changed from Luke 12:48 and popularized by the Spiderman comic franchise. And that is only to name a select few.

Unbiblical phrases have been mixed with the spiritual cultural ethos as well. Sayings like, “God only helps those who help themselves,” or “don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.”

It is not so much that people in this culture are ignorant about Jesus but that they think they knows Jesus too well already. Jesus as a figure is often popular within the post-Christian culture[v] but ultimately, upon further examination, it is not the same Jesus we find in the Bible.[vi] The exclusivity of Christ is an issue.

Christianity’s Role in a Post-Christian Culture?

A post-Christian culture is aware of the claims of Christianity but finds them only utilitarian. Often, the question becomes not are these claims literally true but rather, are they efficacious?  As one pastor, who led a breakout session recently on evangelism in a post-Christian culture that I attended, said:

“It is not that unbelievers in our post-Christian culture want to know if Christianity is true. It is that they want to know if it works. We need to show them that it works.”

– Bob Thune, Within Reach Conference, 19 January 2023.

His diagnosis is correct, but his prescription lacks the call to gospel exclusivity. A lot of different things “work” for a lot of different people. Buddhists would adamantly insist that the spirituality of Buddhism works for them. This same sentiment seems to be share among at least 60% of self-professed Christians who indicate that Jesus is not the only way to God.[vii]

Even in the atheistic sphere this utilitarian philosophy of religion, and Christianity in particular, seems to be making headway. One such view is espoused by Bret Weinstein, a former college professor and avowed atheist. Weinstein argues that metaphorical truths are necessary to order the world even if they are not literally true.

Not True, but Useful

He goes on to indicate that while something may be literally false its usefulness as a heuristic for ordering the world around us should not be discarded. In a conversation with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, Weinstein puts it this way:

“If it were true that religious heuristics actually increase wellbeing by allowing people to, on average, operate in the world in a way that increases wellbeing, what would you say about them then?”[viii]

This is utilitarianism. So long as the theological position works for me (or society) it ought to be followed. Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen prey to this line of thinking. They see Bret Weinstein’s refusal to discard religion as a sort of intellectual victory.

If religious belief is simply a useful heuristic for ordering the world it removes the power of the gospel and offers a gospel of its own making. Anything then, can be the gospel, so long as it works for you or for a society. I find Sam Harris’s retort worth considering in this exchange:

“But [belief in God] wouldn’t make sense for the right reason. Useful fictions have to be retired at some point. Useful truths stay true . . . You can have a completely rational conversation, in terms of human psychology, sociology, and what you want society to look like – about moral truths like the corrosive nature of pornography . . . You don’t have to invoke mythology to do that.”[ix]

As much as I hate to admit it Harris is mostly right here.  His position is more tenable to the human pursuit of truth than Weinstein’s. While it might sit better with religious pluralists, secularists, and even some Christians to hear that religious thought is still useful to order society insofar as we have no better option, it is less than helpful. Harris is correct, it is either true that God exists, or it is not true, and any opining for metaphorical truths to be embraced to have our cake and eat it too simply makes belief utilitarian rather than necessary.

It is not enough that a certain belief system works, and the Church must not fall into the trap of trying to prove that it does. Because the gospel only promises things yet to be seen and grasped, it does not prove that life will be ultimately understandable or easy. Buddhism might work inasmuch as one uses it to accomplish inner peace (whatever that means), or structure to the world. Whether it is truly useful or not, however, rests on its being objectively true.

Competing Gospels

In a post-Christian culture, we are struck, not with opposing religious truth claims, but with opposing gospels that promise to bring about hope, satisfaction, and peace. These competing gospels can often invoke the name of Jesus. In fact, progressive Christianity has made its hay on becoming a heuristic style gospel and should serve as a warning to believers embracing Weinstein’s thoughts.

In a post-Christian culture, words like truth, love, hope, and affirmation have all been personalized and redefined to suit our utilitarian mindset. Progressive Christianity, for instance, does not so much ask what is true but offers that whatever feels most loving is true. This is something new to the Western church, and it is a competing gospel that is nefarious because of its ability to morph from person to person under the guise of usefulness.

A post-Christian culture seeks to use aspects of Christianity without maintaining the foundation of it. This idea is not new. In the 18th  century German philosopher Immanuel Kant sought to square the circle of unbelief and the usefulness of Christianity as a moral framework for society.[x] Removing Christ from the center of morality places the individual as the arbiter of it. Kant reasoned that we only know Jesus as moral exemplar because we already have fashioned the highest ideal of what a moral man ought to look like, thus, we judged Christ before he was incarnate.

But this is, of course, exactly backwards to the Christian tradition.  Christ is not simply a moral exemplar because we could not imagine a higher moral standard. He is the moral exemplar because He sets the highest moral standard in Himself as He reveals Himself in the scriptures. Objective moral values are discovered not invented.

Revising Christ

A post-Christian culture sheds the skin of orthodoxy, in a sense, and embraces the subjective nature of the moral good. That is to say that Christ is edited by the moral arbiters of the day. Did Jesus ever really say that homosexuality was a sin or that he was divine? A post-Christian culture can construct a morality borrowing from Christianity, secularism, and other religions and superimpose it on itself. We see a rise in moral language, even invoking the name of Christ, at the same time as the normalization of historically immoral behaviors such as polyamory, pornography, and earth worship. It is this propensity of the culture to which I am referring when I say that evangelism and ministry in a post-Christian culture is more complex than within a non-Christian culture.

Often, the language barrier is an issue. When we speak of justice, love, truth, and fulfillment we are speaking cross-culturally, but because of the Christian past, ideas about Jesus have been erroneously imposed on these new definitions. To make headway we must first establish coherent agreement at the most basic levels, but this is made difficult because the culture, allegedly has progressed beyond the need for foundational truths. The truth of the gospel is inverted to focus mainly on self-actualization and feelings of being an authentic self. This inversion might not challenge missionaries and pastors in pre-Christian settings, but it’s a primary concern for those doing ministry within a post-Christian context.

Post-Christianity says, “we tried that already and now we are beyond it.” The challenge for the church is to expose this lie for what it is. How does one move beyond objective reality and truth? Incidentally, “moving beyond it” is more like reverting back to pagan roots. The worship of nature, self, sex, and hedonistic tendencies. These are not new developments, but they are experienced and promulgated anew in a post-Christian context, often maintaining the language of Christianity to bolster the regressive worship.

This shift is recent in the United States. As recent as 10 years ago political candidates from both parties affirmed the classical definition of marriage, the morality of certain sexual standards, and, even if pro-choice, the recognition that abortion was a tragedy and ought to be safe, legal, and rare.[xi]

What are we to do?

Once the culture flipped though, these supposedly self-evident truths were suddenly up for grabs. People that spent their lives arguing for reason and science to be the basis of morality in society suddenly found themselves arguing for forced vaccination[xii] and for transgenderism.[xiii] When you remove the foundation, everything becomes shaky. Then reintroducing that abandoned foundation seems antiquated. So, what are we to do?

The funny thing about a post-Christian culture is that it relies on the insular or adaptive nature of the Church. The post-Christian culture is more than happy to entertain Christians so long as they isolate themselves into their own groups and, all too often, Christians comply. This self-isolation has happened in Europe and England and it’s happening right now in Canada and the United States. As a pastor friend once said to me, “the Christian life is to be personal, but it is not private.”

On the other hand, the church might try to remain relevant by compromising historic truths for cultural cachet. We sacrifice the relevance of the gospel for the relevance of our popularity.

Neither strategy is tenable for discipling the nation. There is another option, but it is not comfortable. Engage with the post-Christian culture without compromise but with understanding (1 Chron. 12:32). There is an opportunity in a post-Christian culture if one is courageous enough to recognize it. But it comes with risk. Risk of denigration or loss of respect. At least for a time. The truth will set us free (John 8:31-32). God will not be mocked and his Church will remain victorious (Matt. 16:18).

 

 

Footnotes:

[i] The author, Josh Klein is a staff writer and speaker with Free-Thinking Ministries

[ii] Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts: Revised, Regal Books, Ventura, CA, 1984, pp. 118–119.

[iii] Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, UK: Geoffrey Bles, 1952; digitally republished as public domain, Canada: Samizdat, 2014), 13-22, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/vc/pdfs/MereChristianity_CSL.pdf

[iv] Don Richardson, Peace Child (Norwood, MA: Regal, 1985).

[v] https://www.barna.com/research/openness-to-jesus/

[vi] https://www.christianpost.com/news/60-of-young-adults-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation.html

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Originally in Jordan Peterson v. Sam Harris debate, moderated by Bret Weinstein. Vancouver BC, Canada: Pangburn Philosophy, 23 June 2018), 01:15:36-01:16:14, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1oaSt60b0om, quoted in  https://epiphanyaweek.com/2019/10/20/theism-atheism-and-antitheism-sam-harris-is-wrong-part-3/.

[ix] Ibid., 01:59:03-02:00:11.

[x] https://philarchive.org/archive/PALCKJ

[xi] https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/03/toward-making-abortion-rare-shifting-battleground-over-means-end

[xii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMaHKykfdcQ

[xiii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBl9qwVDvIY

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children. 

Originally posted at: Post-Christianity… What’s That? | Free Thinking Ministries

/by

Why Do You Call Yourself a Christian?

Have you ever heard the tale of the elderly woman who wanted to restore an old painting and… well, didn’t?

Meet Potato Jesus. The woman’s intentions were noble. I certainly respect her heart. But that doesn’t change the fact that she is not an artist and did not restore Martinez’s work. Just because she intended to do something and thought she was able, that didn’t turn her into an artist. Desire and good intentions aren’t enough.

[1]

Nowadays, anyone can set up a page and identify as whatever they want. But taking a name for ourselves doesn’t make us that thing. We still have to be it or become it.

Two Ways to Identify

We can identify ourselves in two ways: “I’m x, and by that, I mean this,” and “I’m x, and I think this word accurately fits or describes x.” Too often, people identify as something because they think that’s how they are supposed to identify, and then they try to describe it. I think a better way would be to figure out who and what we are, then figure out what best names or describes that. This will prevent us from accidentally using words that don’t really fit.

I’m a human. I am a member of the human species, so human is an accurate word to describe me. But I’m also a hobbit. I’m kind of short, round, a little hairy, and I love food and books. I’m also part Scottish but don’t identify as Scottish: I am not a Scotsman. I have some lineage through some ancestor, but I’m not from Scotland, I don’t speak Scottish or Gaelic (or any other dialect/language from there), I don’t wear kilts, I’ve never been there, neither of my parents have ever been there (I think?). So, it would be true to say I have a Scottish history, but not that I am Scottish. Calling me Scottish would give more incorrect information about me than correct information.

Let’s move from regular descriptions to something more controversial: religion.

Religious Identity

The word “Muslim” means “submission” or “submission to God.” I don’t, however, follow Muhammad or Allah of the Qur’an. So even though the definition, “submission to God,” is technically a fitting description of me, “Muslim” would not be a good description of me, nor do I feel it would be respectful to Muslims for me to use that term.

But Christian is a good description of me. Why? What’s different? That requires a little history:

The word Christian comes from the Greek word christos, or maschiach in Hebrew, meaning the “Messiah” or “the anointed one.” The Messiah refers to the character foretold by the prophecies given by Israelite poets and prophets found in the Jewish Tanakh, or Old Testament. As a Christian, I believe Jesus fulfilled those prophecies and is the Anointed One, the Jewish Messiah. That’s why I call myself a Christian, a follower of Jesus the Christ who fulfilled those prophecies.

That’s why I believe using the word Christian to describe me is appropriate.

Why do you identify as a Christian?

If you identify as a Christian, why? What about your beliefs or life makes you think, “Christian is a good description of what I believe and do”? Let’s take a few example answers to see why this is important:

  • I read my Bible. As a Christian, I’m glad you do! But I already read Harry Potter, and that doesn’t make me a wizard. While some things would be so much easier with a little accio, that’s not quite how this works.
  • I go to church on Sundays. Okay, but what about that is different from a social club? Is there any other difference in your life? If we took out that one hour and just looked at the rest of your life, would “Christian” still describe you?
  • I raised my hand and prayed a prayer. A marathon is 26.2 miles long, named in honor of a messenger’s run after the battle of Marathon. To qualify as having run a marathon, someone has to do two things: 1) stay within the race course and 2) finish the race. Are you still running?

Let’s try some harder questions:

  • I believe in Jesus’ teachings about love. Okay, but so do Muslims. And so do some Hindus; Gandhi is famously quoted with, “I like your Jesus but not your Christians.” Even many atheists like Jesus’s teachings about love.
  • I welcome everyone just like Jesus. So do Buddhists. So do telemarketers.
  • I give to the poor. So do Muslims. And so do atheists.

What about those (and so many similar answers) is best, or accurately, described by the word Christian? Any?

Let’s try something different: I trust Jesus with my life. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

So, if those answers won’t work, what will? Let’s see what the earliest historical records about Jesus talked about:

  • Jesus’ identity: which Jesus are you following? The Jewish Messiah as prophesied by the God of the Old Testament? Or just a good man who said some nice things?
  • Jesus’ activity: the first Christian creed recorded specifies not Jesus’ charity but His crucifixion. We don’t identify as followers of Bill Gates or Gandhi for giving to the poor; what did Jesus do that merits His name?
  • Jesus’ exclusivity: Jesus very clearly taught one path, one way to the Father; either you’re on that path, or you aren’t on the path of Jesus.

So, Why do you identify as a Christian?

Editor’s Note: If you have read this far, and now you’re not sure what it means to be a Christian or if you’re a Christian, then there’s no time like the present to make it right. You can trust in the Biblical Jesus to forgive you, to save you, and lead you. “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). You can also go here to find out more: “A Simple Explanation of How to Be Saved”. Trusting your life in Jesus’s hands is like a gateway into a whole new world, complete with a new outlook on life, a new way to live, and a new hope for the future. Please make sure, today, that you are right with God

Footnotes: 

[1] Image Source: ABCNews

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a Christian apologist, David Wolcott has contributed research to Mama Bear Apologetics, Alisa Childers, Natasha Crain, Crossexamined, and more. Focusing on primary-source research of Progressive Christianity and understanding the Bible in the original cultural contexts, he is on a four-year plan to learn how to read eight languages, including biblical Hebrew and koine Greek. David is an avid reader of all kinds of books, and is passionate about helping Christians learn to apply the wisdom shared through many excellent books via his Academy at thedavidwolcott.com.

 

/by

Here Comes the He Gets Us Campaign Again: Why Its Portrayal of Jesus is Still a Problem

,

Last year, I wrote an article called “7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign,” in which I critically responded to the $100 million advertising campaign featuring a website, billboards in major cities, a book, and ads that have been viewed more than 300 million times. Perhaps most visibly, the campaign’s ads were featured in last year’s Super Bowl. When thousands of people went searching for more information on it, my article came up, and it went viral—actually pulling down my site at one point! Clearly, a lot of people are interested in knowing more about the nature of these ads.

Fast forward to 2024. Super Bowl Sunday was on February 11. And He Gets Us once again ran ads generating widespread curiosity. Given the reach of the campaign and high interest level, I wanted to do an updated evaluation of what He Gets Us is doing today. To that end, I’m going to answer four questions:

  1. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?
  2. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the rightJesus?
  3. Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?
  4. Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?

There are three things that will inform my answers. First is my professional background in marketing (I have an MBA in marketing and am a former adjunct marketing professor). Since this is a campaign aimed at “marketing” Jesus, that background is particularly relevant. Second is my evaluation of the publicly available He Gets Us content (the website and YouVersion reading plans). I have not read the He Gets Us book, so that isn’t part of what I’m responding to. Third is a recent interview campaign consultant Ed Stetzer did with Biola professors Scott Rae and Sean McDowell on Biola’s “Think Biblically” podcast (Stetzer is the Dean of Biola’s Talbot School of Theology). While Stetzer says he is not a spokesman for the campaign, he has been closely involved, so his comments are helpful for an insider view of the goals and strategies.

1. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?

Stetzer says that the people who eventually started the campaign had become concerned “that the perception of Christianity had suffered and people weren’t necessarily considering who Jesus was. And they would like for people to consider who he was, who he is.” They then brought in market researchers who found that skeptics were open to considering who Jesus was (I’d love to know more about that, but no further information was noted). Stetzer emphasized repeatedly in the interview that the very narrow goal of the campaign is to reach those skeptics. Ultimately, He Gets Us wants to build a bridge from people seeing the ads to learning more by going to the website and ultimately signing up for a Bible reading plan and/or asking to be connected to a church.

So, in short, the goal is very specifically to get skeptics interested in Jesus. That’s a very worthy goal, especially if you have millions of dollars to do it with. My first question is, does the campaign successfully meet that objective?

While I don’t know the statistics on how many people have visited the He Gets Us website as a result of the ads, Stetzer says over 600,000 people have signed up for the reading plans and “hundreds of thousands” have been referred to churches. So, as a surface-level answer to the question, it certainly seems reasonable to say that yes, the campaign has generated interest. If the goal was to get people to one of those two action points—signing up for the Bible reading plan and/or asking for a church referral—then marketers have achieved at least some success. (Whether the numbers justify the money spent is a different question that I’m not evaluating here.)

2. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?

From a marketing perspective, there is a predictable funnel that people go through before taking action (e.g., making a purchase). It starts with becoming awareof something, which then sometimes converts to interest, which then sometimes converts to desire for action, which then sometimes converts to action. Marketers know that if you want people to take action—to get to the bottom of the funnel—you have to first take them through those stages, and those stages have to be tailored toward the action you want.

In this case, if you are marketing in order to generate interest in Jesus, you want to be sure you’re generating interest in the right Jesus (a correct portrayal) if you want that to lead to the action you desire. This is where I believe the campaign fails in a serious way.

As I said in last year’s article, the Jesus of this campaign is nothing more than an inspiring human who relates to our problems and cares a whole lot about a culturally palatable version of social justice (the exception to this is in parts of the reading plan, which I’ll address in the next point). This has not changed since I last wrote. My points then remain true now: The fact that Jesus “gets us,” stripped from the context of His identity, is meaningless; Jesus is presented as an example, not a Savior; The campaign reinforces the problematic idea that Jesus’s followers have Jesus all wrong; And the campaign reinforces what culture wants to believe about Jesus while leaving out what culture doesn’t want to believe. I won’t expand on these points here since you can read my prior article for that analysis.

But I do want to say more this time about who the campaign is clearly targeting. Stetzer mentioned that it’s “skeptics,” but a close evaluation (or even not so close evaluation) of the campaign makes it clear it’s not all skeptics they have in mind. This is crucial to understand. It’s a very specific segment of skeptics—it’s progressives who primarily view the world through a lens of social justice (and specifically the critical theory model of social justice, which places everyone in oppressor/oppressed buckets).

5 Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity

If you’ve never immersed yourself in the world of this viewpoint, you might not recognize how laden the content is with language and framing designed to appeal very specifically to this group. If they were targeting just any skeptic, you wouldn’t see such a specific framing of Jesus in progressive terminology; there are plenty of skeptics who aren’t beholden to progressive social justice thinking.

For example, they use hashtags with words that have a specific connotation to a progressive audience, even if the campaign isn’t necessarily using them in the same way (on the home page, you see #inclusive #activist #struggle #refugee #justice #outrage #bias #judgment). They also frame their content in terms that are commonly used in progressive social critiques. For example, the words “religious leaders” or “religious people” are often used with a negative connotation, which serves to reinforce the notion that it’s bad to be “religious.” That was never Jesus’s claim (see my podcast with Alisa Childers). There are recurring references to concepts like lived experience, power dynamics, oppression, racial conflict, toxic systems, corruption, and political conflict—all progressive focal points. That’s not to say that none of these things are actually problems, but rather that it’s clear they’re focusing on progressives given their obvious focus on progressive concerns.

So why is this a concern? I have no concern at all with choosing progressives as your target audience. But I have a lot of concern with the nature of the campaign given this target and what they are likely to take from it. Here are three key reasons why.

First, the campaign will likely lead many progressives to conclude that they (still) like Jesus and (still) hate Christians. To be honest, I’m not very convinced that we even have a problem with Jesus’s reputation in culture. People tend to like Jesus because they don’t understand all that He taught. As far as the average person is concerned, Jesus was a loving guy who hated “the system” and can serve as a good moral example—and that’s exactly how the He Gets Us website portrays Him. People, however, tend to have disdain for Christians when we present the fullness of what the Bible teaches, particularly on moral subjects. So, if a progressive sees this content and never gets to a Bible reading plan or church connection, they’ve taken away that Jesus was the great guy they thought He was and that all those Christians today who talk about things they don’t like are still the problem.

Second, the campaign will solidify the idea in progressives’s minds that their social justice lens of the world is the lens through which Jesus sees it, too. It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that their language—representing a whole underlying worldview structure built on critical theory—is correct. Those who don’t get to the desired Bible or church action points will simply come away thinking that Jesus was a social justice warrior just like they are (with all that implies to them).

It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that [Progressive Christianity] is correct.

Is that really a big problem? Yes, yes it is. It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family. If this campaign even inadvertently suggests through a social justice veneer that this is the lens through which Jesus would have seen the world, that is a disastrous consequence.

It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family

Third, the campaign can easily be construed to affirm theologically progressive Christianity. In my last two points, I was speaking specifically of progressives who don’t identify as Christians. There are, however, many who hold to the same social justice ideology and do identify as Christians. They are typically focused on a human Jesus who merely cares about a social gospel, and they reject the authority of the Bible. These Christians would heartily affirm everything on the He Gets Us site. Given that the site portrays a fully human Jesus and at the same time claims to be presented by “Christians,” there’s no reason to think someone wouldn’t come away thinking they can be a Christian and not believe all the “baggage” about things like the Bible being God’s Word.

It’s worth noting this statement on the site: “He Gets Us is a diverse group of Jesus followers with a wide variety of faith journeys and lived experiences. Our work represents the input from Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God.” All of this looks good so far. But they continue saying, “as well as many others who, though not Christians, share a deep admiration for the man that Jesus was, and we are deeply inspired and curious to explore his story.” It’s pretty clear theologically progressive Christians, who deny the deity of Christ, have been part of the team.

So, my answer to the question, “Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?” is a resounding no. It’s not just an incomplete picture of Jesus. It’s an inaccurate one. And because it will just confirm what the target audience already thinks, many if not most will jump out of the marketing funnel before they get to the desire to learn more. If you don’t challenge people’s thinking, what would they need to learn more about?

3. Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?

While I clearly have significant concerns about the people who imbibe ideas about Jesus and Christians from the He Gets Us web and TV content alone—never getting to the Bible or a church from this campaign—what about those who do actually get to the Bible reading plans? Are they designed well to take people to the next level of understanding—to an accurate one?

There are 7 plans on YouVersion, ranging from 4 to 9 days of content. I read all 43 days of the plans. If you’re interested in the details, I’ve documented below. If not, you can jump to the bottom line after I list the plans.

Plan 1: “He Gets Us” (7 days)
This plan continues the model of using progressive language and framing. The devotionals make comments like these:

  • “[Jesus’s enemies] feared him because he challenged the norm.” In progressive contexts, norms are typically seen as bad and need to be overturned.
  • “The way Jesus called out the toxic religious and political systems turned history upside down.” In progressive contexts, religion—especially Christianity—is toxic, as are political systems, so this makes Jesus appear to favor that view.
  • “[Jesus] made friends with people just as they are and let himself be known just as he was, too. Authentic. Trust-worthy. The kind of friend we all long for.” It’s true that Jesus made friends with people as they are, but most progressives are likely to read this as, “Jesus accepts you for whoever you want to be, so be your authentic self.” That’s not what it says, but if you have cultural awareness of the claims and debates today, it’s fairly obvious that’s something progressives would take from it without realizing the distinction between being friends with someone and approving of their identity/behavior.
  • “The Samaritan stopped and cared for the Jew, at his own expense just like he would a neighbor—unlike the racist, religious men who stepped over the beat-up guy on their way to worship, of all things.” Again, this plays into the progressive hatred for the “religious”; yes, the men were religious, but that wasn’t the problem. Jesus never scolded people for being too religious; He scolded them for being self-righteous and hypocritical.
  • “Yes, it’s true. The one who stood bravely against the strongest, most corrupt system of the day, was on his face in fear.” And yet again, this plays into the progressive view of systems being inherently corrupt.

In short, plan 1 is more of the same from the ad/web campaign and, far from redeeming the nature of that content, simply doubles down on the equivocation and misunderstandings.

Plan 2: “Diving Deeper” (7 days)
I thought that, given the title, this is where we would get deeper into a theologically accurate portrayal and reading of Jesus, but that’s not what I found. This one had fewer problematic statements than plan 1, but the content overall gets no closer to teaching people about the true Jesus (while continuing with occasional progressive framing along the way, such as casting Jesus’s infant trip to Egypt as a “refugee” situation).

On day 1, it says, “The best way to discover his actual purpose, regardless of the centuries between us, is to look at his life. Sure, plenty of books have been written about what he taught, but let’s look at his private side, the side you see when you walk with someone side by side down a new road.” The subsequent days go on to have subjects like “He grieves with us,” “He understands us,” “He’s vulnerable like us,” “He loves us,” “He faced hardship like us,” and “He is for us.” Do the actions leading to these statements really reveal Jesus’s “actual purpose” as indicated on day 1? Jesus’s purpose was to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). But to understand that would require an understanding of the nature of God, the nature of man, the divine nature of Jesus, and the problem of sin—none of which He Gets Us had addressed by this point. Instead, they offer people yet again more confirmation that Jesus simply gets us.

Plan 3: “Questions Jesus Asked” (7 days)
This plan seems disconnected from the other plans, rather than being on some kind of trajectory like “digging even deeper.” It features a set of questions Jesus asked people, with answers showing His character (no, still not his divine nature). There’s again a dig at “religious leaders” saying, “The cancel campaign began in Jerusalem where the jealous, paranoid religious leaders set a plot in motion to kill Jesus and they wouldn’t quit until he hung dead on a cross.”

Notably, this is the first plan where the verses themselves start referring to Jesus as something more than a human (John 6:66-69). It’s also the first time the devotional content casually references Jesus doing something supernatural (day 5 talks about Him walking on water). There is, however, zero explanatory transition from human Jesus to Jesus as God here. Someone who didn’t know that the Bible teaches Jesus is God could be forgiven for scratching their heads at how this human was now walking on water!

Despite this strange jump, I thought they were going to bring home the good news when they said, “But Jesus offers love, not because we measure up, but because of who he is. On that day, She chose to believe Jesus was who he said he was.” And, somewhat inexplicably, they don’t go on to say who Jesus said He was. Not only that, but they don’t get to it until the plan after the next one.

Plan 4: “Who Did Jesus Love?” (9 days)
Plans 4 and 5 are so different from everything else in the He Gets Us campaign that it seems like they hired a committed Christian to insert this content to make the well-meaning funders (who want people to know about the true Jesus) happy. I realize that sounds cynical, but it’s a jarring difference.

In plan 4, we read verses where Jesus is proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease—a clearly supernatural Jesus. Day 2 says, “The person we despise, he loved. And not for anything they did to deserve it but because of who he was,” and that comes with verses about salvation and how the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost. We read that Mary knew Jesus’s birth was far from “natural.” We see a doubting Thomas who wanted to personally experience the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. And we read the gospel in John 3:16.

So, if people see an ad, go to the site, sign up for a Bible reading plan and make it to plan 4, they will find a supernatural Savior. (Granted, you could theoretically start with plan 4, but I’m guessing most people start with plan 1.)

Plan 5: “Who Did Jesus Say He Was?” (9 days)
This is the plan that really brings home what they should have been bringing home all along. Day 1 says, “Not only does he get us. He wants us to get him.” Yes! At long last, they make this connection. They go on to teach the full Jesus in this plan. Again, it’s so different in nature and even in language, that it really feels like they brought in someone to insert the “theological” content after the progressive Christians on staff developed everything else. Day 7 in particular brings the whole message home, laying out the Gospel and exclusivity of Jesus, and encourages people to pray.

Plan 6: “Jesus & Joy” (4 days)
This is a short plan focused on the subject of joy. There’s little here of interest other than another passing criticism of religious leaders (“Religious guys seemed to love following Jesus around town. Could you imagine being the popular guy in a town that stirred up the kind of noise that very religious people hated? That was Jesus”).

Plan 7: “What Jesus Gave Up” (6 days)
This one focuses on how Jesus was “after a different way of living.” Unfortunately, the plan reverts to a primarily human Jesus. For example, it lists four ways Jesus spent His life on earth and changed history: Jesus taught another way, He served, He forgave (the description of this only includes his human forgiveness of others, not His divine forgiveness), and He loved. It leaves out the most important reason why He changed history—He was God incarnate. On the final day, titled, “He Gave Up Vengeance,” it says, “The reality of what was happening was not lost on him. And nothing about it surprised him. Jesus was determined to accomplish what he came to do. And he did.” That’s the end, with no explanation about what He accomplished. (To be clear, they explained that in plan 5, but the plans seem to be written independently of one another, so a reader wouldn’t necessarily have been through plan 5 to know what they’re talking about.)

So, the bottom line is that the plans range from problematic (more social justice framing) to some basic Bible content (e.g., on joy) to some actual theological meat on what was left out of everything else on who Jesus is (plans 4 and 5). If someone actually makes it to plans 4 and 5, they’ll hear the gospel.

4. Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?

When people become interested in learning more about Jesus, they’re directed to a “Connect” page. One of my most significant concerns with the campaign last year was that there was no clear theological vetting of churches to which people were being sent. I do not see any updates or information on the current site as to the criteria they’re using to select church prospects.

[Editor’s Note] On the “Connect Locally” page, people are invited to join a local Alpha Course Small Group where they can discuss their questions in a church-based small-group setting.

As I explain in Faithfully Different, 65% of Americans identify as Christian while only about 6% have a worldview consistent with what the Bible teaches, and a dismal percent of pastors have a biblical worldview. If you have no theological criteria for where you’re sending people, you’re actually more likely than not—based on statistics—to be sending them to a church whose teachings don’t line up with those of the Bible. In other words, you’re sending unsuspecting truth seekers to places where they won’t hear truth.

Perhaps they have tightened up their criteria but aren’t explicitly saying that on the site. I’ll be happy to update my comments here if someone from the campaign wants to reach out and contact me.

Closing Thoughts

In conclusion, I want to say I’m sure there is good that will come from the campaign. I hope there is much good that comes from it. And I know God can make good come from anything He chooses. But those aren’t reasons to not critique something and offer discernment. I find it highly discouraging that when there is so much money being poured into a campaign, it’s being used to further the perception that Jesus is the same Jesus people already believe in rather than the one they need to believe in. Promoting a social justice Jesus can actually make talking about the real Jesus more difficult, because He Gets Us has placed one more data point in people’s minds that it’s His followers who talk about all that “unpopular stuff” who don’t get it. They’ll come away knowing Jesus gets them, but they won’t get Him.

Let’s hope a lot of people get to Bible reading plans 4 and 5.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: https://natashacrain.com/here-comes-the-he-gets-us-campaign-again-why-its-portrayal-of-jesus-is-still-a-problem/

/by

The Need for Cognitive Closure in Dealing with Doubts

Over the years in my work as a public apologist, I have spoken with many dozens of ex-Christians who have renounced their faith and become atheists, as well as numerous individuals who still consider themselves believers but nonetheless are struggling seriously with intellectual doubts concerning the veracity of the Christian faith. In addition, I have watched literally hundreds of YouTube videos wherein a testimony is given of one’s journey out of the Christian faith towards atheism. Through listening to countless people in this situation, I have come to realize how difficult it is for believers to express to members of their church or Christian community that they are struggling with doubts (presumably because to express that one struggles with doubt carries a negative stigma in many churches today).

Struggling with Doubt?

God has therefore placed a burden on my heart for Christians who wrestle with doubts, and I have for several years offered a free service for Christians who wrestle with intellectual doubts. There is a form on my website people can fill out and I endeavor to set up a meeting (normally online) with them to discuss their doubts in confidence.

One of the things I try to do when counseling someone who is walking through doubt is to help them to develop a protocol for managing doubt in an intellectually responsible way and to make them aware of intellectual pitfalls that can ensnare the unwary. In this and future articles, I want to unpack some of those common pitfalls.

Needing Closure?

There is a phenomenon in psychology, which can be an impediment to sound critical thinking. That is, the need for cognitive closure. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Closure or need for closure (NFC) (used interchangeably with need for cognitive closure (NFCC)) are social psychological terms that describe an individual’s desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity. The term “need” denotes a motivated tendency to seek out information.

Different people have varying levels of tolerance for mystery and ambiguity. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure are more prone to walk away from the Christian faith than individuals with a lower need. For some people, in order to be content within one’s worldview, satisfactory answers must exist to all possible questions and objections that might be raised against it.

It is important, however, that we do not become too fixated on the objections to Christianity that we miss the forest for the trees, losing sight of the avalanche of positive confirmatory evidence that cumulatively demonstrates that Christianity is true. Because we have such robust reasons to think Christianity is true, we can justifiably say,

“I don’t know why God permits so much suffering in the world. But I have enough reasons to believe in the God of the Bible and that He is good that I am willing to trust that there is some morally sufficient explanation for why there is so much suffering, even if I do not yet know what that explanation is.”

Does the problem of evil, by itself, discredit Christianity? 

Indeed, the argument from evil, especially natural evil, has been wielded as a cumulative counter-case that competes with the case offered in confirmation of Christianity. An important point to bear in mind when dealing with this subject, however, is that successive pieces of evidence are dependent rather than independent. To see this, suppose that we were to make a long list of specific cases of human and animal suffering for which we do not see any obvious purpose. Let us call them E1, E2, …, En. If we were to take one of them (say, E1) and ask how it affects the probabilities of theism (T) and atheism (~T), then we might say P(E1|~T)/P(E1|T) = k, where k >>1. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that k = 100. That is to say, the probability of E1 is 100 times greater given the falsehood of theism than given its being true. In order to make the cumulative case, we need to bring in additional pieces of evidence. But do they have the same epistemic force as the first one did? This is not at all clear. After all, if God were to have, however unexpectedly, some morally sufficient reason for permitting E1, then it is quite reasonable to expect that God might well have a similar reason for permitting E2, and so forth. The pieces of evidence are all fundamentally similar, all being instances of the suffering of conscious beings. But if God has a morally sufficient reason for one, that same justification may well also explain a host of other similar cases. Now contrast this to the cumulative case for the truth of theism and indeed Christianity. Not only is it extensive, but it is also varied in kind. It is therefore much more difficult to conceive of there being a single alternative explanation for a widely varied evidence that would all be expected if the hypothesis in question were true. It is for this reason that I submit that counter-evidence such as the problem of evil be considered not in isolation but within the broader context of the overall evidence taken as a whole.

What about Evidence Doesn’t Seem to Fit?

Scientific theories often have evidence both supporting and conflicting with it. But anomalous data should not automatically overhaul a well-supported theory, even if a satisfactory explanation of the anomalous data has not yet been proposed. Likewise, I would argue, the strength and varied nature of the positive evidence for Christianity should cause us to expect that explanations of the anomalous data, for which we do not yet have a satisfactory account within the framework of the Christian worldview, in fact exists — even though we do not yet know what that explanation is.

The English rhetorician, logician, economist, academic, and theologian Richard Whately (1787-1863) put it this way:

“Similar to this case is that which may be called the Fallacy of objections; i.e. showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it. This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least. 

 

That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.” [i]

Indeed, there is no shame for a Christian in having unanswered questions. The question is not “are there questions about Christianity for which there are no satisfactory answers?” Rather, the question is, “are there more numerous and more substantive objections to believing the gospel or to disbelieving the gospel?” Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions. Rejecting Christianity because there are unanswered questions in favor of an alternative worldview that raises even more numerous and more substantive unanswered questions does not resolve the problem.

Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions.

That’s a Good Question!

I recently received an email from someone who was struggling with doubt over the question of why God creates people whom He knows for sure will choose to reject Him and will therefore end up estranged from God’s favorable presence in the hereafter. This is a very good question, and I do not believe anyone really knows the answer since we lack complete information about the relationship between divine sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, and human free will, etc. If Christianity is true, however, we would not be expected to have answers to most questions like this. So, the fact that we do not, in fact, have answers to such questions does not, I would argue, really count as a serious blow against Christianity.

Note that saying we wouldn’t be expected to have answers is quite different from saying that the questions are unanswerable. That is why many Christians get drawn into a speculative response (i.e. “perhaps it is because…”). There is nothing wrong with such responses per se. But precisely because we do not know, we should not get too invested in such speculations. Nor should we treat their failure as signifying something grave.

“Help My Kid is Deconstructing!” [CE Podcast]

Difficult questions about God’s sovereignty and salvation program must always be accompanied by a consideration of the plausibility that there is some answer to those questions that has not been disclosed to us, is beyond our finite ability to comprehend, or simply has not occurred to us. In other words, is it a problem that overhauls the vast confirmatory evidence for Christianity and thereby warrants rejection of the Christian faith, or is it a question with which we can live contentedly in the absence of an answer? An unanswered question is not the same thing as an epistemic warrant for rejection of Christianity.

The atheist so frequently assumes the high ground when it comes to epistemic humility. When pressed on where the Universe or life came from the atheist typically responds “I don’t know.” They are content with not knowing. Why, then, should the same luxury not be extended to the Christian when it comes to why God has done things this or that way? We need to be willing to accept an element of mystery when it comes to divine action. Unlike God, we do not have the box top, as it were, of the jig saw, which reveals how all of the pieces are meant to fit together.

Therefore, we just ought to trust God that he knows what He is doing. As the Proverb states, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

 

Footnotes:

[i] Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Is God Ignoring Me? (DVD), and (mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? The Hiddenness of God: Why Isn’t God More Obvious? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3, and Mp4 Download

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally published at: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-need-for-cognitive-closure-in-dealing-with-doubts/

/by